HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA1806SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
FERC LICENSE APPLICATION
PROJECT NO . 7114-000
As accepted by FERC , July. 27, 1983
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
r
BEFORE THE
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
APPLICATION FOR LICENSE FOR MAJOR PROJECT
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
Prepared by:
•
VOLUME 8-
EXHIBIT E
Chapters 7, 8, & 9
FEBRUARY 1983
ARLIS
Alaska Resources
Libmry & Information SeiVIces
~Jw.-~~ Ala~u
L.....--__ ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY __ ___,j
-
-
~
!
.,...
! ' • l
J -----
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
VOLU~1E 8
EXHIBIT E CHAPTER 7
RECREATIONAL RESOURCES
-
-
-
-
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
VOLUtvlE 8
EXHIBIT E CHAPTER 7
RECREATIONAL RESOURCES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 -IIHRODUCTION o o. o ... 00 .. o. o o .. o .. o .. o .. o .. 00 o o .... o 00 o o .. o E-7-1
101 -Purpose 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0. 0 0 .. 0 0 0 0. 0 0 ..... 0 0 .. 0. 0 0 ....... E-7-1
1.2-Relationships to Other Reports .. 00.00. 0 .. 0 ....... •o E-7-1
1o3-Study Approach and Methodology ••ooo••····o····•o•o 0 E-7-1
1.3.1-Approach .. 0 0 .. 0 ........ 0 ........... •o .... 0. E-7-1
1.302 -Methodology 0 0 ..................... 0 0 0 .. 0 .. 0 E-7-3
1o4-Project Description and Interpretation o•o••••o•o•o. E-7-4
104.1-Construction oooooo•••o••ooooo•o••o••· 000 ... E-7-4
1.402 -Operational Characteristics of the Project 0 E-7-5
1.5 -Implications of Project Design and Operation
on Recreational Planning o••ooooo• ... ooo••oooooo••oo E-7-7
2 -DESCRIPTON OF EXISTING AND FUTURE RECREATION
WITHOUT THE SUSITNA PROJECT oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo E-7-9
2.1-Statewide Setting ••ooo•o••ooo••••ooo•••o•o•o•••oo .. E-7-9
2.1.1-Background oooooooooo•o•o••oooo••·· oooo•o••· E-7-9
2o1o2-Regional Setting ····•oo• oooooo•••••oo•••ooo E-7-10
2o1o3-Existing Facilities ooo••ooooo oo••oooooooooo E-7~11
20104-Existing Regional Recreational Use ooooo .. oo E-7-12
201.5-Recreational Trends oooooooooooooooo oooooooo E-7-13
2.106-Future Facilities oooooooooooooooooooo oooooo E-7-15
202 -Susitna River Basin ............................ 00 .. E-7-16
2o2o1-Background ooo •o••••o•••o•o••·o· •o••••oo•~·· E-7-16
2.2.2-Existing Facilities and Activities •o••···o• E-7-16
2.2.3-Future Activities and Facilities OOOOOOooooO E-7-22
3-PROJECT IMPACTS ON EXISTING RECREATION ........... ··o····· E-7-25
3o1-Direct Impacts of Project Features •o··o·······•o••. E-7-25
3.1.1-Watana Development oo .. o .. o. -~••o··o····oooo E-7-25
3o1o2-Devil Canyon Development .. ····o··· •oo••••o• E-7-29
3o1.3-Watana Access Road ···o••o········o••ooooooo E-7-30
3 ol. 4 -Devil Canyon Access Road 00 0 .. 0 .. 0 ....... o .. E-7 -32
3.105-Gold Creek-Devil Canyon Railroad •o••··· .. o. E-7-33
3.1.6-Project Area Transmission Line Corridors o•• E-7-34
3.107 -Intertie and Stub Transmission Line
Corridors o .. 0 .. 0 .. 0 .. 0· ... 0 ........ 0 .... o .. 0 E-7-34
302 -Indirect Impacts -Project-Induced Recreational
Demand 0 .. 0 0 .. 0 ..... 0 ... 0 ..... 0 .. 0 ..... 0 .. 0 ....... 0 . E-7 -35
302.1-Background ..... o .. o .. o ... o .. ···o·o·····o··· E-7-35
3o2.2 -Assumptions o .. o .. o .. o ..... o ................ E-7-37
3.203-Estimated Recreational Demand ... o ........ o. E-7-39
TABLE OF CONTENTS
4 -FACTORS INFLUENCING THE RECREATION PLAN ...................
4.1-Management Objectives ............................. .
4.1.1-Alaska Power Authority .................... .
4.1.2-Alaska Division of Parks .................. .
4.1.3-Alaska Department of Fish and Game ........ .
4.1.4-U.S. Bureau of Land Management ............ .
4.1.5 -Cook Inlet Region, Inc. (CIRI) and
Village Corporations ..................... ..
4.1. 6 -Matanuska-Sus itna Borough ................. .
4.1.7-Alaska Department of Transporation ........ .
4.2-Facilities Design Standards ....................... .
4.3 -Financial Obligation and Responsbility of the
A 1 ask a Power Authority ............................ .
5 -RECREATION PLAN ......................................... .
5.1-Recreation Concept ................................ .
5 . 1 . 1 -Th e Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.1.2 -Public Input .............................. .
5.2-Recreation Opportunity-Inventory .................. .
5. 2 .1 -~lethodo 1 ogy ............................... .
5.2.2 -Invetory .................................. .
5.3 -Recreation Opportunity Evaluation ................. .
5. 3. 1 -Natura 1 V a 1 ue ............................. .
5.3.2 -Inherent Durabi 1 ity ....................... .
5. 3. 3 -Visual Quality ............................ .
5.3.4-Carrying Capacity ......................... .
5.4 -The Recreation Plan .............................. ..
5.4.1-Phase One: Watana Construction Phase ..... .
5.4.2-Phase Two: Watana Implementation ......... .
5.4.3-Phase Three: Devil Canyon Construction ... .
5.4.4-Phase Four: Devil Canyon Operation ....... .
5.4.5 -Phase Five: To Be Developed Only
If Demand Requires ........................ .
5.4.6 -Recreation Plan for Construction
Camps and Permanent Towsite ............... .
5.4.7-Site-Specific Design ...................... .
5.4.8 -Design Standards .......................... .
5.4.9-Recreation Plan Mitigation Measures ....... .
5.5-Alternative Receration Plans ...................... .
5.5.1-Additional Facilities and Development ..... .
5.5.2-No Recreation Facility Demand ............. .
5.5.3-Other Access Route Alternative ............ .
5.5.4 -Future Additions ......................... ..
Page
E-7-49
E-7-49
E-7-49
E-7-51
E-7-53
E-7-53
E-7-55
E-7-56
E-7-57
E-7-57
E-7-57
E-7-59
E-7-59
E-7-59
E-7-61
E-7-62
E-7-62
E-7-62
E-7-65
E-7-65
E-7-66
E-7-67
E-7-67
E-7-68
E-7-69
E-7-76
E-7-84
E-7-86
E-7-90
E-7-96
E-7-101
E-7-101
E-7-101
E-7-102
E-7-102
E-7-103
E-7-103
E-7-104
-
-
-
"""''
-i
. ..,
-I
-
-!
!
-· I
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
6 -PLAN IMPLEMENTION ........................................ E-7-105
6.1 -Phasing ............................................ E-7-105
6.1.1-Phase One: Watana Construction Phase ...... E-7-105
6.1.2-Phase Two: Watana Implementation Phase .... E-7-106
6.1.3-Phase Three: Devil Canyon ................. E-7-106
6.1.4-Phase Four: Devil Canyon Implement Phase .. E-7-106
6.1.~ -Phase Five: Postconstruction Monitoring
Phase ...................................... E-7-106
6.1.6 -Elements of the Recreation Plan According
to Their Phase of Development .............. E-7-107
6.2-Monitoring and Future Additions .................... E-7-109
6.2.1 -Proposed Monitoring Phase .................. E-7-110
7 -COSTS FOR CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF
THE PROPOSED FACILITIES ........•......................... E-7-113
7.1 -General ............................................ E-7-113
7.2 "'Construction ....................................... E-7-113
7.3-Operations and Maintenance ......................... E-7-113
8 -AGENCY COORDINATION ...................................... E-7-115
8.1-Agencies and Persons Consulted ..................... E-7-115
8.2 -Agency Comments .................................... E-7-115
REFERENCES
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS
Appendix E7A -Further Data on Regional Recreationftl
Facilities
Appendix E7B -Attractive Features -Inventory Data Forms
Appendix E7C -Supporting Data for Susitna Drainage
Fishing Activity
GLOSSARY
i
iii
iv
-
-
-
-
-
....
-
LIST OF TABLES
Table E.7.1 -Average Monthly Flows, Pre-and Post-Project
Table E.7.2 -Statewide Inventory of Recreation Facilities
Table E.7.3 -Statewide Inventory of Recreation
Facilities by Region
Table E.7.4 -Percentage of Adult Population Participation
in Inland Outdoor Recreation
Table E.7.5 -Summary of Visitor Count for Alaska State Parks
Table E.7.6 -Existing Trails in the Study Area
Table E.7.7 -Regional Population-Existing and Future
Table E.7.8 -Average Regional Recreation Participation
Table E.7.9 -Distances to Centroid of Recreation Area
Table E.7.10 -Estimated Total Annual Recreation Days
for Residents of Selected Locations to
Watana and All Other Locations Equidistant
from Their Origins
Table E.7.11 -Total Estimated Regional Recreation User Days
Table E.7.12-Assumed Project Recreation Capture Rates
Table E.7.13 -Estimated Recreation Demand
Table E.7.14 -Annual Visitor Days-Denali National Park
Table E.7.15-Major Recreation Facilities For Construction
Camps, Villages, and Permanent Townsite As
Presently Programmed
Table E.7.16 -Proposed Recreation Plan for Construction
Camps, Villages and Permanent Townsite
Table E.7.17 -Estimated Capital Costs of the Susitna
Hydroelectric Project Recreation Phases
Table E.7.18 -Estimated Cost of Recreation Plan
Project Features
i
LIST OF TABLES (Cont 1 d)
Table E.7.19-Additional Facilities and Equipment to
Be Purchased for Operation and Maintenance
As a Part of The Susitna Hydroelectric
Project Recreation Plan
Table E.7.20-Additional Staff Required and Annual Staff
Expenses Required to Operate and Maintain
the Susitna Hydroelectric Project Recreation
Facilities
ii
-
PAGE
-
-
-
-
-
....
-
-
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure E. 7.1 -Study Methodology
Figure E. 7. 2 -Proposed Project Features
Figure E.7.3 -Existing and Proposed Regional Recreation Facilities
Figure E.7.4 -Existing Recreation
Figure E. 7. 5 -Recreation Opportunities
Figure E. 7. 6 -Recreation Plan -Access
Figure E. 7. 7 -Recreation Areas: E -Brushkana Camp
F -Portal Sign
Figure E.7.8 -Recreation Areas: 0-Watana Dcmsite
N -Fog Lakes
Figure E. 7. 9 -Recreation Areas: I -Tsusena Butte
H -Tsusena Creek
Figure E.7.10-Recreation Areas: L -Deadman and Big Lakes
M-Southern Chulitna rvbuntains
Figure £.7.11-Recreation Areas: J-Clarence Lake
K -Watana Lake
Figure E.7.12-Recreation Area: G -Mid-Chulitna Mountains/
Deadman rvbuntain
Figure E.7.13-Recreation Area: S-Devil Canyon Dcmsite
Figure E. 7.14 -Recreation Area: R -Mennaid Lake
Figure E.7.15-Recreation Area: Q-Devil•s Creek
figure E. 7.16 -Recreation Area: P -Stephan Lake
Figure E.7.17 -.Recreation Area: T-Soule Creek
iii
-
-
-
-
-
LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS
Existing Site Conditions at Recreation Opportunity Areas
Photograph E. 7.1 -l'vliddle Fork Chulitna River
Photograph E. 7. 2 -Butte Creek
Photograph E. 7.3 -ToM'! Site
Photograph E. 7. 4 -Br us kana Camp -E
Photograph E. 7. 5 -Tsusena Creek - H
Photograph E. 7. 6 -Tsusena Creek - H
Photograph E. 7. 7 -Mid Chulitna f.buntains - G
Photograph E. 7.8 -Mid Chulitna f.buntains-G
Photograph E. 7.9 -Mid Chulitna M:luntains-G
Photograph E. 7.10 -Tsusena Butte - I
Photograph E. 7.11 -Deadman Lake/ Big Lake - L
Photograph E. 7.12 -Deadman Lake - L
Photograph E. 7.13 -Big Lake - L
Photograph E. 7. 14 -Clarence Lake - J
Photograph E. 7.15 -Kosina Creek -J-K
Photograph E. 7.16 -Watana Lake - K
Photograph E. 7.17 -Fog Lakes -N
Photograph E. 7. 18 -Fog Lakes -N
Photograph E. 7.19 -Stephan Lake - P
Photograph E. 7.20 -Devil Creek -Q
Photograph E.7.21-Devil Creek/Devil Creek Falls-Q
Photograph E.7.22-Devil Creek/Devil Creek Falls-Q
Photograph E. 7. 23 -Devil Creek
Photograph E. 7. 24 -Mennaid Lake - R
Photograph E. 7. 25 -Mermaid Lake - R
Photograph E. 7. 26 -Devil Canyon Dam site -S
Photograph E. 7. 27 -Soule Creek - T
Ph o tog r a ph E. 7. 2 8 -So u 1 e Cr ee k - T
Photograph E. 7.29 -Southern Chulitna rvbuntains - M
Photograph E. 7. 30 -Southern Chulitna rvbuntains - M
iv
-
-
r
'
1 -INTRODUCTION
1.1 -Purpose
The purpose of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project Recreation Plan is to
provide organized recreational development for project waters and adja-
cent lands and to control public access within the project area. This
plan is intended to be compatible with the existing environment and
consistent with the planned construction and operation of the hydro-
electric project. The plan has been designed to meet four primary
objectives:
-To focus the public access on project lands and waters while protect-
ing the scenic, pub 1 i c recreation a 1, c ultura 1, and other en vi ron-
mental values of the project area;
-To estimate and provide for the recreation user potential for the
project area;
-To accommodate project-induced recreation demand; and
-To offset recreational resources lost by construction of the proposed
project.
1.2 -Relationships to Other Reports
This recreation plan is based, in part, upon the project description
presented in Exhibit A, project operations described in Exhibit B, and
the proposed construction schedule described in Exhibit C. While the
recreation plan constitutes a mitigation, it also becomes part of the
project features, and as such has impacts in itself. This plan has
therefore been coordinated with other sections of Exhibit E, primarily
Chapter 3, Fish, Wildlife, and Botanical Resources; Chapter 4, Historic
and Archeological Resources; Chapter 5, Socioeconomic Impacts; and
Chapter 9, Land Use, so that they may assess the -impacts.
1.3 -Study Approach and Methodology
1.3.1 -Approach
The planning approach is guid~d by the following factors;
-Phasing of facility ahd access;
-Operational characteristics of the project;
Management objectives of the interested agencies and Native
corporations;
Recreation use patterns and demand;
E-7-1
1.3-Study Approach and Methodology
-Intrinsic landscape resource opportunities and constraints;
-Facilities' design standards;
-Financial obligations and responsibilities of the Alaska Power
Authority; and
-Federal Energy Regulatory Commission regulations.
The approach is divided into six steps, as follows:
-Analyze and describe operational characteristics, construction
phasing, management objectives, and facilities' design stan-
dards related to the Susitna Hydroelectric Project;
-Determine locations and levels of existing recreation and fore-
cast impacts of the project on existing recreation;
-Estimate existing and future recreation use patterns and
demand;
-Evaluate the intrinsic physical recreation opportunities and
constraints of the land;
-Develop the recreation use plan, develop conceptual designs of
proposed sites, determine development levels and estimated user
levels; and
-Describe mechanisms for plan implementation, construction and
maintenance (see Figure E.7.1).
Section 1.4 describes the proposed Sustina Hydroelectric Project.
Section 2 describes the existing recreation within the project's
statewide and regional settings. Included are descriptions of
facilities, activities, and the relationship of the project to
existing recreation use patterns. Section 3 describes the
impacts of the Watana and Devil Canyon project features, access
routes, and the transmission lines on recreation and the proj-
ect's future demand for area recreation with and without the
Susitna project.
Section 4 describes the factors i nfl uenc i ng the recreation use
plan. These factors include Power Authority, agency, and Native
corporation management objectives, design standards, and Alaska
Power Authority's financial obligations and responsibilities.
Section 5 is the recreation use plan and includes an evaluation
of the study area's intrinsic recreation potential, a recreation
opportunity evaluation, proposed development levels, and recrea-
tion sites. This plan constitutes mitigations for impacts
E-7-2
~I
-
~.
-
-
-
-
-
r-.
-
-
-
-
-
1.3-Study Approach and Methodology
identified in Section 3. Section 6 describes the Recreation Use
Plan implementation, phasing, monitoring, and future additions.
Section 7 describes the costs associated with construction opera-
tions and maintenance of proposed facilities.
Every effort has been made to utilize the results of past studies
and agency plans both of the Susitna Project itself and those of
a more general nature. Particular emphasis has been given to the
Susitna Hydroelectric Project Subtask 7.08 Report, (TES 1982b).
Use was made both of that published report ~nd the field data and
background files utilized in its preparation. Additional results
of a survey conducted as part of that effort have also been util-
ized in the formulation of this Recreation Plan.
1.3.2 -Methodology
Figure E.7.1 illustrates the study methodology employed in devel-
opment of the recreation plan for the Susitna Hydroelectric
Project.
Step 1 determined study objectives and developed a detailed work
plan. This activity included review of all relevant agency docu-
ments and interviews with key agency personnel identified by the
Power Authority. Objectives of each agency were determined as
they relate to this ~recreation plan and included in Section 4 of
this document. When combined with FERC Order 184, they consti-
tute the objectives of this study as found in Section 1.1 of this
report.
Step 2 included the parallel activities of an inventory of exist-
ing recreation facilities and plans and an estimate of future
recreation demand with and without the project. An existing
methodology for estimating future recreation demand was used as a
basis for a project-related recreation demand methodology. In
addition, four other approache·s were utilized as a general check
of results.
Step 3 consisted of an onsite inventory of existing recreation
potential. This activity involved study of existing relevant
project documents and previous studies, and extensive onsite
investigations. Step 4 evaluated recreation opportunity based on
information from Step 2 and defined the qualitative and quantita-
tive aspects of site recreation potentials.
Step 5 is a further refinement of the opportunity evaluation and
constitutes recommended recreation plans and alternatives for the
project.
E-7-3
1.4 -Project Description and Interpretation
Step 6 developed an implementation plan, including plan phasing,
demand monitoring, and estimated costs.
A detailed discussion of specific methodology employed is found
in the introduction to individual report sections.
1.4 -Project Description and Interpretation
In order to develop a recreation plan related to hydroelectric develop-
ment, it is first necessary to understand the project and its operation
as it relates to recreation. The Susitna Hydroelectric Project is com-
prised of two major dams with storage reservoirs, penstocks and under-
ground powerhouse, transmission 1 ines, a rail road, and roads for con-
struction and operation; two temporary single-status construction
camps; two temporary married-status construction camps; a permanent
village; and a landing strip. The project transmission lines connect
to the Anchorage-Fairbanks Intertie, a separate project planned for
construction beginning late 1982 and scheduled for operation in Septem-
ber 1984. The Intertie is not considered in this recreation plan.
1.4.1 -Construction
(a) Watana Dam and Reservoir
The Watana schedule anticipates issue of the FERC license by
December 31, 1984 (see Exhibit C), and is predicated on
having four units on 1 ine by the end of 1993 and an addi-
tional two units by July 1994 in order to meet forecasted
load demand. Construction of an approximately 41.6-mile
(61.7-km) access road commencing at l~ile 110 of the Denali
Highway and an airstrip near the site are planned to begin
in January 1985 (see Figure E.7.2). Labor, equipment, and
materials will be mobilized beginning in 1985. A temporary
construction camp (single-status) ultimately housing 3480
workers and a construction village ultimately housing 350
families (1120 population) will be developed. Construction
labor for the 885-foot (2170-m) high, 4100-foot (1250-m)
crest length embankment dam and the 1020-MW powerhouse will
peak in 1990 with about 3500 workers.
Construction of the two 33.6-mile (56-km) long 345-kV trans-
mission lines will begin in 1989 and extend through 1992.
They will be constructed primarily in the winter months.
Impoundment of the reservoir, being 38,000 (14,200 ha) acres
and 54 river miles (90 river krn) long and with a gross stor-
age capacity of 9,470,000 acre-feet, will begin in June 1991
and be completed in late 1993. As development nears comple-
tion, a permanent town near the construction camps intended
to house a permanent work force of 125 plus dependents will
E-7-4
-
.mli
'
-
-
-
-
-
~I
-
-
-
-
1.4-Project Description and Interpretation
(b)
be constructed, and the original camps will be relocated to
the Devil Canyon site.
Devil Canyon Dam and Reservoir
Devil Canyon construction is planned to begin as Watana
approaches completion. Between early 1992 and mid-1994, a
37-mile (62-km) access road will be developed between Watana
and Devil Canyon, including construction of a high-level
bridge across Devil Canyon (see Figure E.7.2). A railroad
will be constructed from Gold Creek to Devil Canyon. The
Alaska Power Authority will defer decision on the public use
of the access route from the Denali Highway until that time.
However, for the purpose of this recreation plan it has been
assumed that this road, no longer being heavily used for
construction, will be opened to public access. Most con-
struction materials will be brought to Devil Canyon on a new
12.2-mile (20-km) railroad from Gold Creek. A single-status
camp for 1780 workers and a married-status village for 170
workers (550 people) will be constructed, utilizing struc-
tures brought from Watana to the extent possible. One of
the 345-kV Watana transmission 1 i nes wi 11 be tapped for con-
struction power. Construction work force for the 645-foot
(197-m) high, 1650-foot (500-m) crest length thin arch con-
crete dam and the 600-MW powerhouse will peak at about 1800
workers in 1999 and extend to 2002. Two additional 8.8-mile
(14.7-km) long, 345-kV transmission lines will be built to
connect with the Intertie. An additional parallel 345-kV
will be added to the Intertie itself. Impoundment of the
reservoir will be 7800 acres {3080 ha) and 32 river miles
(53 km) long and with a gross storage capacity of 1,090,000
acre-feet, will occur over a two-month period in 2001. The
project will then be on line in 2002. The construction camp
and village will be removed, and both Watana and Devil
Canyon will be operated by the same personnel resident at
the Watana townsite. It is assumed that the road connecting
Watana and Devil Canyon will be opened to the public and the
railroad, no longer needed for continuous project use, will
potentially be available for public use.
1.4.2 -Operational Characteristics of the Project
(a) Watana Dam and Reservoir
The Watana dam and power plant are intended to provide base-
load power supply supplementing existing ahd planned thermal
and hydroelectric sources for the Railbelt beginning in
1993. Present plans also call for operation of Watana as
essentially a baseloaded plant from 1993 to 2002, at whish
E-7-5
1.4 -Project Description and Interpretation
time it will be used as a daily peaking plant for load-
following during the high-demand winter months. Watana res-
ervoir will have a typical width of 1 mile (1.6 km), w.iden-
ing at Watana Creek to a maximum of 5 miles (8 km). Crest
elevation of the dam will be 2210 feet {670 m), and water
surface elevation during maximum probable flood conditions
will be 2202 feet (658 m). Normal maximum operating eleva-
tions will be 2185 feet in September with a low of 2080 feet
(630 m) in April or May. During breakup and through the
most imporant recreation months of June, July, and August
water levels will be increasing, reaching a peak in early
September. Live storage area will be 3,740,000 acre-feet,
and drawdown flats may range from a few hundred feet in
canyon areas to several square miles in flatter areas such
as Watana Creek (see Figure E.7.4).
As indicated in Table E.7.1, the Susitna River exhibits
typical flow characteristics of arctic rivers. The table
shows existing (pre-project) flows at three locations: Gold
Creek, about 16 miles (27 km) below Devil Canyon;' Sunshine,
approximately 49 miles (82 km) farther downstream, and
Susitna, another 53 miles (89 km) downstream. At Gold
Creek, flows approach 6000 cubic feet per second (cfs) in
October, the start of the water year. This rapidly de-
creases in November, December, January, February and March
as the river freezes for the winter. At breakup, flows are
over 13,000 cfs in May and peak in June. Average monthly
flows gradually decrease in July (24,000 cfs), August
(22,000 cfs), and September (13,000 cfs). The effect of the
Watana project as currently planned will be both to moderate
these wide fluctuations and also to redistribute flows,
raising them in the winter, to provide energy in these high
energy demand months. Flows wi 11 fluctuate from about 7 700
cfs in April to 37,000 cfs in August, contrasted with 1100
cfs in March to a 90,000 cfs peak flood flow in June under
natural conditions. Flows will increase over natural condi-
tions in seven months (October through April), and will de-
crease in the remaining months. In the important recreation
months of June through August, fiows will be decreased from
current flows. At Sunshine and Susitna, the same general
patterns pertain, although the effects are proportionately
much less as additional water sources join the river. The
entire upper basin of the Susitna contributes less than 20
percent of the total Susitna discharge into the Cook Inlet.
(b) Devil Canyon Dam and Reservoir
The Devil Canyon dam and power plant is intended to provide
basel oad power supply. It wi 11 also operate as a
E-7-6
-
-
-'
-
-
-
-i
r-
'
-
!"""
I
1.5 -Implications of Project Design and Operation
re-regulating dam for peaking flows from Watana, modulating
downstream flows.
Devil Canyon Reservoir will have a surface area of 7800
acres (3080 ha), with a length of 32 miles (53 km), con-
tained in a narrow canyon generally 0.25 to 0.5-mile (0.4 to
0.8-km) wide. It will extend nearly to the toe of \~atana
Dam at maximum elevation. Crest elevation of the dam will
be 1472 feet (445 m), and water surface elevation during
maximum probable flood conditions will be 1466 feet (443 m).
Normal maximum operating elevation will be 1455 feet (439 m)
most of the year with a low of 1405 feet (424 m) in
September during dry years (see Figure E.7.5). Unlike
Watana, which will be operated with a September-October high
and an April-May low, Devil Canyon will remain at its normal
elevation from October through July. It will be drawdown in
August and early September, be at a minimum e 1 evat ion of
about 1405 feet (424 m) in September, and refill in October.
Table E.7.1 also compares pre-and post-project flows show-
ing combined Watana and Devil Canyon operations at the three
downstream locations. Flows tend to decrease slightly in
October, May, June, July, and August compared with the
Watana-only operation, and increase slightly in the remain-
; ng months.
1.5 -Implications of Project Design and
Operation on Recreation Planning
The physical character of the ieservoirs themselves and the operational
characteristics of the projects have important implications for estab-
lishment of the recreation plan concept:
The f ast-fl owing river and the tumultuous river canyon experience
which attracts a very small number of.kayaker~ and other river run-
ners wi 11 be changed to a 1 ake experience between Vee Canyon and
Devil Canyon;
-Both lakes will be cold and silty. Watana in particular will be
large enough that wind and chop conditions could constitute potential
hazards for small boat recreationists;
-The large drawdowns, particularly at Watana, will create mudflats
which will be unattractive, difficult to cross, and sources of blow-
ing dust and dirt. However, water levels will be relatively high
during the summer recreation months;
-Where canyon sides are steep, unstable banks will be a greater pro-
blem than drawdown. Large bank s·lumps, landslides, and scale,; will
be unattractive and potentially dangerous. In either instance,
E-7-7
\
\
J
I ~
(
\
1.5 -Implications of Project Design and Operation
development of boating or shoreline facilities will be extremely dif-
ficult, hazardous, and unattractive;
-Other lakes and streams in the project area already constitute recre-
ation resources which are far superior to the proposed reservoirs.
Road access will greatly increase their use potential, particularly
to sports fishermen;
-The image of the area will continue to be one of a distant location
remote from population centers since the road position causes the
dams to be over 5 hours away from both Fairbanks and Anchorage, and
hunters and fishermen will continue to reach .the site by airplane;
-While there is some opportunity for cross-country ski development,
climate, distance and sunlight-shortened days will limit the area to
predominantly summer recreation; and
-The 11 dead-end 11 nature of the access road will discourage casual
., drive-through tourism and sightseeing. Tourists wlll, however, be
j attracted to both dams and powerhouse facilities. Therefore, plan-
ning should include considerations for public observation of opera-
tions and interpretive information.
E-7-8
-
-
-
-!
-
-
-
-
-
-
.-,,
-
-I
-'
-
2 -DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING AND FUTURE RECREATION
(WITHOUT THE SUSITNA PROJECT)
2.1 -Statewide Setting
2.1.1 -Background
Recreational environments and the people who recreate in Alaska
are quite different in many ways from those in the lower 48
states. TherefOre, in order to understand the recreation issues
of the Su.s~droelectric Project, it is first necessary to
know th~t=~~:s}~\ing the state wit. h regard to recreation and to
know th~ attitudes ff Alaska residents and tourists.
The ope~~ Alaska contain some of the n10st prist·ine and
spectacular scenery and the most sensitive wild lands in the
nation. Having the smallest and youngest population living ·i(l
the largest land area of any state, Alaska once seemed an endless
frontier. Less than a decade ago Alaskans enjoyed virtually un-
limited potential for outdoor recreational opportunities. How-
ever, as rapid land status changes take place, a reduction of the
available public recreation land and opportunities is imminent.
The 1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act will transfer 44
million acres of public resource lands to private ownership with-
in the next few years. While the conveyance is still in pro-
gress, many selected lands include established recreation areas.
In addition, the state legislature has directed the Alaska
Department of Natural Resources (ADNR) to make state lands avail-
able to the public for settlement or agriculture. This ongoing
process removes over 20,000 acres (8000 ha) a year from public
ownership.
The federal government has set aside another 100 mill ion acres
(40 million ha) through the Alaska National Interest Lands Con-
servation Act (ANILCA), adding 43.6 million acres (17.5 million
ha) to the National Parks System and 53.7 million acres (21.5
million ha) to the National Wildlife Refuge System. Two million
acres (800,000 ha) we~e placed in Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
conservation and recreation areas. Fifty-six million acres (22.4
mill ion ha) of the National Park Refuges and National Forest .land
were given wilderness protection. These lands represent many
beautiful and sensitive areas of Alaska and expand the area of
protected status lands available for outdoor recreation. How-
ever, for the most part, these 1 ands are remote and not easily
accessible by either out-of-state visitors or residents.
Alaska State Parks, a division of the ADNR formed in 1971, cur-
rently controls 3 million acres (1.2 million ha) of state land
and water. AONR•s policies and programs reflect the recent land
status changes. In 1979, ADNR began the Public Interest Land
E-7-9
2.1 -Statewide Setting
Identification Project to evaluate surface use values of state
lands. This ongoing project identifies the best areas for wild-
life habitat, agriculture, recreation, forestry, and settlement
and locates the best sites for future state parks and recreation
areas. A statewide inventory of public recreation facilities
done in 1977 shows that approximately 157 million acres (62.8
million ha) of Alaska•s 367.7 million acres {147 million ha) are
now classified as public recreation. This inventory is presented
in Table E.7.2.
2.1.2 -Regional Setting
The Susitna hydroelectric study area lies within the south-
central region of Alaska. Recreational planning for this devel-
opment must fit within the framework of existing and future
regional recreation. Therefore, it is important to understand
the regional recreational patterns and trends as well as the
state Division of Parks plans.
This region extends from the hydrographic divide of the Alaska
Range on the north to the Matanuska-Susitna Borough boundary on
the west, Kodiak Island on the south and the Alaska/Canada border
on the east. It abounds with ocean shorelines, freshwater lakes,
free-flowing river systems, massive mountains, large quantities
of wildlife, and glaciers the size of states.
The diversity of 1 andscapes and resources here offer a wide
variety pf outdoor recreational opportunities, mak1ng it an
attractive recreational environment. Figure E.7.3 shows the
existing and proposed regional recreational facilities.
More than half of Alaska•s population lives in south-central
Alaska. Anchorage, the largest city, had a 1980 civilian popula-
tion of 174,400. The region•s economy is based on support
services, commercial fishing, mining, forestry, petroleum, tour-
ism, and other private business. Economic trends are primarily
toward natural, resource-related development. Tourism, although
rated second in importance for the state•s economy, is the fore-
most industry supporting the Mat-Su Borough economy.
South-central Alaska contains the most highly developed trans-
portation system in the state. It is interconnected by paved
highways and gravel secondary roads providing good access to much
of the area. An extensive airport system ranging from the inter-
national level to gravel strips and water bodies permit plane
access into much of the remaining land. The Alaska Railroad and
ferry systems also service large portions of the region. All of
these transportation systems combine with the population concen-
trations to make the south-central region•s recreational
E-7-1 0
""'' '
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2.1-Statewide Setting
opportunities the most easily accessible and heavily used in
Alaska. See Table E. 7.4 for an inventory of statewide recrea-
tional facility distribution by regions.
2.1.3 -Existing Facilities
The Alaska State Parks System includes 82 park units, 53 of these
are in the south-central region of the state. Table E.7.3 des-
cribes the distribution of facilities. throughout the state by
region and illustrates this development conc~ntration. Outdoor
recreational developments in the south-central region are pri-
marily located to serve the two major population centers of Fair-
banks and Anchorage and the Railbelt area connecting them.
The region's largest and most popular attraction, for both out-
of-state tourists and state residents, is the Denali National
Park and Preserve. It is located about 220 miles (367 km) north
of Anchorage and 125 miles (208 km) south of Fairbanks on the
Parks Highway. It offers visitors views of Mt. McKinley and
other major peaks as well as abundant wildlife. The park
attracted over 250,000 recreational visitors in 1981. Facilities
and services include several lodges, visitor centers, campgrounds
as well as trai 1 s, gas and bus service. The adjacent Denali
State Park, also entered by the Parks Highway, abuts the Susitna
study area. It contains over 324,000 acres 129,600 ha) and
offers 37 miles (62 km) of scenic driving, a major roadside camp-
ground, trails, picnic grounds, and canoeing and fishing areas.
A total of 519,000 visitors used or passed through the park along
the Parks Highway in 1981.
Seventy miles (117 km) from Anchorage, Nancy Lake State Park has
23,000 acres ( 9200 ha) and 130 1 akes and ponds. It is heavily
used by Anchorage residents for water-related recreation as well
as hiking and camping (100 units). Chugach State Park, 10 miles
(16 km) to the east of Anchorage, provides extensive hiking and
cross-country skiing opportunities. The park covers 494,000
acres (197,600 ha) and offers major campgrounds (91 units), hik-
ing, hunting, boating, and fishing. Lake Lousie, northeast of
Anchorage and reached from the Glenn Highway, is a popular fish-
ing, boating, and hunting area. The lake is a destination point
for boaters and provides access into the upper Susitna and Tyone
rivers. Boaters also fJoat down, the Susitna River from the
Denali Highway bridge and up the Tyone River into Lake Louise.
North of the Susitna project, the BLM maintains the 4.4 million
acre (1.76 million ha) Denali Planning Block. This area encom-
passes much of the Denali Highway a~d includes several archeolog-
ical sites of national significance. BLM maintains several small
campgrounds and picnic areas along the highway, boat launches, a
E-7 -11
2.1 -Statewide Setting
canoe trail on the Susitna River, and two campgrounds at Tangle
Lakes. The major campgrounds are located at Brushkana Creek and
Clearwater Creek.'
The Susitna Flats State Game Refuge to the north of Anchorage and
the Chugach National Forest to the east also absorbs a large por-
tion of recreation demand for the southern portions of the south-
central region. A great many recreationists from Anchorage use
the world-famous Kenai Peninsula parks, over 100 mi1es (160 km)
south of the city. These areas offer the widest range of Alaskan
recreation. Features include superior fishing, big game h'unting,
scenic driving, and skiing as well as lake and saltwater recrea-
tion.
Numerous private facilities in the region provide additional for-
mal and informal recreational opportunities. These include re-
mote lodges, cabins, restaurants, airstrips and flying services,
guide services, white-water rafting, and other boat tr·ips.
The town of Ta 1 keetna, located on the confluence of the Sus itna
and Talkeetna rivers, serves as the operations center for Mt.
McKinley mountaineering expeditions. People from all over the
world come to this old mining town to fly out to the mountain
base and other recreational points. In addition to mountain
climbing, other recreational activities which serve as
Talkeetna•s economic base include hunting, fishing, guiding,
tours, and sightseeing.
A listing of other existing and proposed relevant regional rec-
reational opportunities is included in' Appendix 7.A.
2.1.4-Existing Regional Recreation Use
Outdoor recreation is a way of life in Alaska. According to a
recent survey (Clark and Johnson 1981) which is used by recrea-
tion planners in Alaska to assess demand, the wide variety of
recreation opportunities available is a major reason that people
move to and stay in Alaska. Only self-reliance is considered
more important, and proximity to the wilderness was the third
most important reason Alaskans gave. The percentage of Alaska • s ·
population that participates in outdoor recreational activities
is among the highest in the nation. According to that recent
statewide recreation survey, 59 percent of the respondents in the
south-central region reported that they enjoy driving .for pleas-
ure. Over half of the respondents walk or run for pleasure and a
full 42 percent go freshwater fishing. Table E.7.4 ranks the
percentage of participation in various inland activities within
the region. South-central residents rank their favorite recrea-
tion as fishing, tent camping, hunting, trail-related activities,
E-7-12
-
-
-
-
-
-
~~
-
r
-
2.1 -Statewide Setting
baseball and bicycling in that order (ADNR 1981a). In contrast,
tourists in the area have indicated driving for pleasure as their
favorite activity followed by camping, hiking, and sport fishing
(Alaska Division of Tourism 1981).
Table E.7.5 outlines the total visitor count summary for Alaska
State Parks from 1978 to 1980. The Mat-Su and Copper Basin Park
districts constitute the Susitna River Ba~in as it was analyzed
for those data.
Over 389,000 visitors came to Alaska for pleasure trips in 1977.
This represents a 13 to 15 percent annual growth rate since 1964.
Recreational growth rates are difficult to predict with confi-
dence, since they rely on many variables, including world eco-
nomic conditions. However, the State Division of Tourism proj-
ects that in the year 1985 up to 1,000,000 tourists will visit
Alaska. The reasons tourists give for being interested in Alaska
were studied in a poll by GMA Research Corporation in 1980
(Alaska Division of Tourism 1981).
Main Reasons for Interest in Alaska
-Scenery, mountains, forest, outdoors
-Unique, different from other places
-People, Native cultures, Eskimos
-Unspoiled wilderness
-Other responses including: curiosity,
adventure, vastness, wildlife, fishing,
and hunting
Percent
40
25
10
10
15
In terms of numbers of visitors, the most important areas ·in
Alaska for out-of-state tourists are the Gulf of Alaska,
Anchorage, and the Denali National Park which is within 80 miles
(133 km) .of the future Susitna damsites.
2.1. 5 -Recreation Trends /' -~
{
South-central Alaska is reportedly experiencing, overcrowdin_gjin
some ex_isti ng recreationa_l areas near Anchorag~ due _to r~~nt
popul at1on growth. Assum1ng that the present rec'f-a.at1on~" par-
ticipation rate remains constant, the region will eontinue to
experience a significant annual increase in demand equal to the
rise in population. However, recreation participation in the
United States and Alaska may increase faster than the population\
if current trends continue. Alaskans have increasing amounts of
leisa~ tinie and flexible working schedules which enable them to
stevote f"crn-g_e,r periods of time to recreation. This may result in
~ger ltr:_tps at greater distances from the urban centers. In
recreift"ional areas which receive up to 50 percent of their users
E-7-13
2.1-Statewide Setting
from the cities of Anchorage and Fairbanks, intensity of use in-
creased three-fold in the late 1970s and the recreational season
has lengthened by several weeks (ADNR 1982a).
According to the South-central Regional Plan, sports fishing
license sales increased 40 percent from 1975 to 1980. Increased
use of accessible streams has caused overcrowding in popular
fishing areas throughout the region and in particular those
streams nearest the urban centers. Interest in boating is also
rising. Sales of motorized boating equipment has increased sig-
nificantly in the late 1970s. The Knik Kanoers and Kayakers Club
of Anchorage has reported rapid growth in recent years. There is
evidence, as well, of a rapid increase in winter recreation, as
surveys of winter recreation equipment sales over the last seven
years show (Clark and Johnson 1981).
A statewide 1981 public survey (Clark and Johnson 1981) polled
i /SOuth-central residents to determine the recreational needs and
1\[priorities of the region. Twenty-five percent of the residents
\
\responded that they would mos.t 1 ike to do more fishing, 12 per-
\
cent more tent camping, 7 percent said hunting, and 8 ·percent
said motorboating. They said bad weather, lack of free time,
!!closed seasons, overcrowding, and high transportation costs are
~~~~.~he most common reasons that prevented them from increasing their
~.activities. When asked what priorities the State Parks Depart-~ ment should have for future development, residents advised the
department to acquire more campgrounds and hiking trails, and to
develop recreation trails, backpacking campsites and boat trails.
However, they would prefe~ to rna i nta in existing wi 1 derness
areas, not expand these/~
Also in the 1981 surve~, 61 perc~ of the south-central resi-
dents are reported to '\ike more ~creational opportunities at
weekend travel distances, and 62 p rcent would 1 ike more com-
munity recreational develo ~nt. Wh n asked how many hours they
would travel for weekend recrea ion, 17 percent said over 4
hours, 11 percent said over 5 hours, and a full 20 percent were
willing to go over 6 hours from home for a weekend trip. This is
generally believed to be supported by existing travel patterns
and is an important concern for recreation planning at Susitna,
si nee the site is 'over 5 hours from both Anch.prage and
Fairbanks.
The identified needs and desires of south-central residents will
be included in programming recreation for the Susitna project.
The features that Alaskan residents most desired in out-of-town
recreational areas include (ADNR 1981):
E-7-14
\\
\ \
'\J\l/
~\~
-
-
~.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2.1-Statewide Setting
Feature
-Fishing areas
-Water access
Developed camping and picnic sites
-Undisturbed natural areas
-Hunting areas
-ORV trails
2.1.6-Future Facilities
%of Population in
Favor of Features
95
91
91
88
87
7
In 1982 the State Parks Division published an aggressive plan to
expand recreational opportunities within the south-central
region. This plan reflects the role the State Parks Department
has in providing outdoor regional recreation, and attempts to
respond to all of the existing unsatisfied demands and projected
needs of the region (see Figure E.7.3 and Appendix 7.A for future
regional facilities.)
State Parks development priorities include several recreation
sites that will affect the Susitna Hydroelectric Project Recrea-
tion Plan. They are included in Appendix 7.A and comprise the
following:
-~-
Denali State Park, to the west of the Susit~oject, has been
studied as the site of the Tokositna Resort which would offer
first-class hotel facilities, cultural attractions, commercial
developnents, indoor recreation, alpine skiing and other winter
sports as well as the traditional outdoor recreation already
offered in the park. While this project is no longer under
active consideration due to uncertain feasibility, preliminary
studies estimated a potential for over 2 million visitor nights
and 300,000 day visitors by 1985. This year-round resort would
have become the premier recreation destination in Alaska. Should
this potential project be developed, it would accommodate signif-
icant portions of projected recreational demand within the state
for both residents and tourists.
In other areas of the Denali State Park, additional picnic areas,
campgrounds, boating facilities, and trails are being developed.
Along the eastern portions of the park, trailheads have been
designated in conjunction with rail road stops; these trails would
connect into the westernmost portion of the Susitna study area.
The Lake Louise Recreational Area southeast of the Susitna study
area is a popular boating and fishing area. Current expansion
plans will add 300 acres (120 ha) to the existing 50 (20 ha) and
include several campgrounds, boating facilities and canoe portage
E-7-15
2.2-Susitna River Basin
trails. This development is a high priority item, since the lake
area and existing improvements are experiencing heavy use. The
adjoining Susitna Lake and Tyone rivers have been identified as
boating recreation areas for possible campground development at a
later time. This area is linked to the Susitna River via the
Tyone River, and boaters currently travel between the areas.
The State Parks Division has identified the Talkeetna Ri~er as a
possible State Recreation River. These lands have been selected
by the Cook Inlet Region, Inc. (CIRI) Village Corporations for
conveyance. The proposed recreation area would extend from the
river mouth at Talkeetna up to the confluence of Talkeetna and
Prairie Creek. It is possible that new legislative designation
will not need to take place, but that means to protect the river
will be sought under existing legislation.
Several other proposed new parks and park expansions given a high
priority by ADNR are listed in Appendix 7.B, Future Regional-
Recreation Opportunities.
2.2 -Susitna River Basin
2.2.1 -Background
During the past decade, the middle Susitna River basin has been
studied and evaluated by numerous state and federal agencies. It
has not met the criteria required for inclusion in any of the
following recreation and conservation programs:
National Park -Preserve System;
-National or Historic Landmark Status;
-Wilderness Preservation System;
-National Trail System;
-National Forest System; and
-State Park System.
The area has not been studied for inclusion in the National and
Scenic River System. No further studies are known to be under
consideration. Since no federal withdrawals were made, both the
state and Native corporations have selected lands in anticipation
of development and use.
2.2.2-Existing Facilities and Activities
The middle Susitna River basin encompasses over 39,000 square
miles (101,400 sq km). For the purposes of the recreation plan,
the area to be studied is generally defined by Parks Highway on
the west, Denali Highway to the north, Susitna River to the east
and a line approximately 20 miles (33 km} from the Susitna River
on the south.
E-7-16
-
-
!P!I\i
-i
-
-
-I
-
,....
i
2.2 -Susitna River Basin
This portion of the middle Susitna River basin has yet to be
developed as a significant recreational resource. Presently, the
level of use is restricted by several major limitations. The
area is immense and isolated, access is difficult, and potential
users live great distances away. Small planes are the most com-
mon form of recreational access and use the few gravel airstrips
which exist in the area. Floatplanes also land on the larger
1 akes and rivers. Auto access consists of a few a 11-terrai n
vehicular (ATV) tra-ils and rough roads into the settled areas.
Boat access is possible to a limited extent, since various types
of water craft float and motor along the Susitna above Vee Canyon
and below Devil Canyon. Boats also use the Tyone River for
access into the area.
As a result of these limitations, people who do not live nearby
utilize the area only on weekends or on other overnight visits.
Past development within the area has been closely tied to the
needs of the small local population for food, income, subsis-
tence, and recreation. Existing facilities are very dispersed,
and act1vity occurs at a low level of intensity (see Figure
E.7.4 for existing recreation patterns.)
(a) Facilities
No public recreational facilities presently exist within the
study area except for the roadside facilities on the Denali
and Parks highways.
Along the Denali Highway, BLM maintains several small road-
side campgrounds and picnic areas. A boat launch, canoe
trails, and two campgrounds were also built at Tangle Lakes.
The most important of these facilities relevant to the
Susitna Hydroelectric Project recreation plan is the 33-site
campground at Brushkana Creek and the boat launch located at
the highway bridge over the Susitna River.
Existing private recreational developments within the study
area include clusters of small seasonal cabins and commer-
cial lodges. There are approximately 110 structures within
the study area. Chapter 9, Land Use, includes a comprehen-
sive table of all structures within the area and lists their
use, mode of access, ·location, and condition. The major
concentrations of residences, cabins, and other structures
are near Portage Creek, High Lake, Gold Creek, Chunilna
Creek, Stephan Lake, Clarence Lake, and Big Lake. Most are
used in association with hunting, fishing, and other recrea-
tion activities. Some of these locations are accessible by
ATV trails, but most are located near dirt airstrips and
large water bodies for access by plane. Those structures
E-7-17
2.2-Susitna River Basin
being utilized for recreational activities are located in
Figures E.7.6, E.7.7, and E.7.8.
Portage Creek is a mining area with some summer cabins; it
contains 19 cabins and several other structures. Other
developments at Chunilna and Gold creeks are primarily min-
ing establishments. There are 10 small cabins along the
Susitna River banks which are currently used by transient
recreationists. The three commercial lodges in the area are
located at High, Tsusena, and Stephan Lakes.
Stephan Lake Lodge, located south of the Susitna River, is
the largest of the three commerical lodges. It includes 10
main structures and seven additional outlying cabins, and
receives the greatest number of visitors annually. Serving
a predominantly European clientele, it offers a variety of
outdoor recreation activities in a wilderness setting in-
cluding hunting, fishing, and float trips down the Talkeetna
and upper Susitna rivers and.Prairie Creek.
High Lake Lodge is t~e second largest lodge complex with 11
structures (see Chapter 9, Land Use -Existing Structures).
It is located northeast of the proposed Devil Canyon damsite
at High Lake. Historically, this lodge has provided guests
with services that are similar to Stephan Lake Lodge for
hunting and fishing activities in a wilderness area. The
lodge is currently being utilized by Susitna project per-
sonnel doing field research. Several small outlying cabins
located along Portage Creek and the Susitna River are util-
ized by visitors to High Lake Lodge while on hunting and
fishing trips.
Tsusena Lake Lodge is located north of the proposed Watana
damsite and Tsusena Butte and adjacent to· Tsusena Lake.
This lodge, with three structures, is used primarily by the
lodge owners and members of their families and friends. The
majority of use occurs during the summer and fal J months
with little or no use during the winter months.
The existing trail systems were built for access by prospec-
tors, hunters, trappers, and fishermen (see Table E. 7.6 and
Figure E.7.4 for a listing of major trail locations, condi-
tion, and use.) At present, these trails and rough roads
accommodate horses, tracked vehicles, rolligons, dogsleds,
and hikers. They connect a few scattered recreational
developments and mining settlements and the camps used for
researching the area's hydroelectric potential. Trails
radiate from these scattered structures out to airstrips,
lakes, and adjacent fishing streams.
E-7-18
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-r
--
-
-
r
i
r
I
2.2 -Susitna River Basin
BLM is currently developing regulations for the management
of the public trails located on lands which the Native cor-
porations have selected. A total of six easements have been
identified within the study area (see Exhibit E, Chapter 9).
These include an access trail 50 feet (15 m) wide from the
Chulitna wayside on the Alaska Railroad to public lands
immediately east of Portage Creek; a state site easement and
trail easements on Stephan Lake; and an access trail running
east from Gold Creek.
( i ) Trail Information
The following trail information was reported in the
unpublished Area Notes (ADNR Division of Research and
Development 1980) prepared as part of the Upper
Susitna Basin Recreation Atlas.
The Snodgrass Lake Trail begins at the Dena 1 i Highway
near the Susitna bridge and proceeds south to the
lake. The trail reportedly receives use during the
summer, autunn and winter months. Recreational
activities include: moose, brown bear, and caribou
hunting; fishing; camping; off-road vehicular use;
picnicking; wildlife observation; berry picking;
snownobil·ing; overnight camping; and cross-country
skiing.
The Portage Creek Trai 1 follows a sled road from
Chulitna to Portage Creek. Hikers access the trail
at the Alaska Railroad stop near Chulitna. The trail
is used in the autumn, summer, and winter months and
is popular with hunters of moose, caribou, brown bear
and black bear, as well as hikers, campers, fisher-
men, photographers, and berry pickers. Portage Creek
also receives a light level of fishing effort. Most
of this trail traverses CIRI-selected lands.
The Butte Lake Area is used during summer, winter,
and autumn months. There is a CAT trail, also iden-
tified by Terrestrial Environmental Specialists (TES)
in its Susitna Land Use Report, that connects the
Denali Highway and Butte Lake. This trail is used by
skiers, snowmobilers, hikers, fishermen, berry
pickers, and campers. There is some fishing effort
for grayling and lake trout on Butte Lake. The Butte
Lake area is a duck, geese, and swan birding area.
The Brushkana Campground at Mile 105, Denali Highway,
is reportedly one of the few known habitat areas for
the Smith's Longspur.
E-7-19
2.2-Susitna River Basin
A trail runs from the town of Denali downstream along
the east bank of the Susitna River. At the conflu-
ence of the Susitna and Maclaren rivers, the trail
continues east up to the Maclaren River and then
turns south. This trail connects to other trails
leading to Lake Louise or Crosswind Lake and ulti-
mately to the Glenn Highway. It is used by off-road
vehicle drivers; sno\rwffiobi 1 ers; hunters of caribou,
moose and brown bear; fishermen; and possibly dog
sledders. Bird watching is also popular along the
Denali Highway between the Susitna Lodge and Swamp-
buggy Lake.
(b) Activities
Aside from the isolated lodges, cabins and trails which con-
stitute a commitment to a particular site, the predominant
recreational pattern is dispersed and non-site-specific.
Activities include the consumptive recreations such as hunt-
ing, fishing, food gathering, and rock hounding. River-
related activities include various types of power and non-
powered boating and rafting. Other dispersed activities
currently practiced in the area are camping, hiking, cross-
country skiing, and photography.
(i) Sports and Trophy Hunting
This is a traditional acti~ty in the middle Susitna
Bas·i n. The three commercial 1 odges in the area serve
as bases for hunting groups that fly in for guided
trophy hunts. The lodges typically handle 15-20
guests at a time and jointly total 120 guests per
season (TES 1982a). In add it ion, many hunters fly
into the 1 arger 1 akes and utilize the sma 11 1 akesi de
cabins for hunting trips. Hunters also use ATV
vehicles and horses to gain access to more remote
areas. The most popular big game include Dall sheep,
moose, caribou, black bears, and brown bears. Alaska
Department of Fish and Game data indicate that the
recreation study area had about 600 hunter-days for
moose, caribou and sheep in 1981.
(ii) Fishing
This is an activity which frequently occurs here in
association with other activities such as hunting,
boating, and camping. Local residents have long
enjoyed high quality fishing in area lakes, streams
and rivers. They commonly fly into the 1 arger 1 akes
E-7-20
-
....
-
-
-I
I"""
r
i
2.2-Susitna River Basin
( i i i )
( i v)
for all-day or weekend trips. Lake fishing is con-
centrated at Fog, Clarence, Butte, Watana, Tsusena,
Deadman, Big, and High Lakes; while stream fishing
occurs mostly along the creeks accessible by land
such as Portage Creek.
Salmon migrate the Susitna up to Portage Creek just
bel ow Devil Canyon. Both guided and individual fish-
ing trips are popular here. Considerable salmon
fishing also occurs in Stephan Lake and Prairie Creek
as boaters travel downstream on the Talkeetna River
from Prairie Creek. Other popular salmon fishing
spots include 1 ower Portage a/nd Chuni 1 na creeks and
Indian River. Lack of road· access is an important
limiting factor on fishing, and little stream fishing
occurs in the adjacent lands. There are many popular
salmon fishing areas farther downstream on the
Susitna River and its tributaries.
Food Gathering
Very little site-specific data are currently avail-
able on food-gathering patterns within the study
area. Some berry-picking areas are known near
Chulitna to the east of the study area and several
more are along the Denali Highway.
Boating
Summer boating occurs on many of the larger lakes as
recreationists fly in. Riverboat and guide services
are offered from Talkeetna and from the various
lodges downstream from Devil Canyon. The Susitna
River is considered navigable up to the mouth of
Portage Creek by a variety of craft i ncl udi ng rafts,
canoes, airboats and riverboats.
The Susitna River is used for fishing and access to
hunting. Boating activity takes place south of the
study area near boat launches at Willow Creek, Kash-
witna Landing, Sunshine Bridge, and Talkeetna. The
upper Susi tna above the proposed reservoirs is calm
and pro vi des good_ boating and canoeing. Boaters
reportedly float the river from the boat launch on
the Denali Highway down to the Tyone River, some then
·motor up to Lake Louise at the Tyone' s source. Other
boaters continue down the Susitna to the gaging sta-
tion above Vee Canyon where they pull out and portage
to Clarence Lake for fishing. The upper Ta 1 keetna
E-7-21
2.2-Susitna River Basin
River in the southern portion of the study area,
rated Class IV, offers some of the finest rafting ~nd
white-water kayaki ng in Alaska. Talkeetna River is
not easily accessible by land; airplanes usually land
at· Stephan Lake. It is reported that four to five
parties per year, consisting of three to six persons,
are air-lifted into Stephan Lake. They float Prairie
Creek to the Talkeetna River and down to the town of
Talkeetna where they enter the Susitna River or pull
out. The trip usually takes 2 to 3 days (Knik Kanoe
and Kayg,~ __ ,.Cluh~ ~-p~~s.ooa} communication, Mary Kay
Kess-i-on~. -·---~-----..... ------/.-r· IJ ---~
./"'
,/Two to three parties of a few individuals vent
/ down through the rapids of Devil Canyon each yea
/ This wild stretch of river, which roars through 11
/ miles (18 km) of a narrow vertical canyon, is des-i cribed by veteran kayakers as the Mt. Everest of
/ kayaking. It is generally considered by kayakers to
{ be a Class VI rapids on the international white-water
seal e. Class VI has been defined as "1 i fe-
threatening to skilled boats.men with good equipment."
The first successful running of the rapids occurred
\., in 1978. Fewer than 40 kayakers from various parts
/ ',·,,_of the world have attempted it since that time, and
~east five people have died trying.
"' (v) Cross-~y Skiing
~.-, ~---_.,-
Cross-country skiing takes places in the area, par-
ticularly near Denali Highway. Occasional tour pack-
ages have been offered by the local private lodges.
Snowshoeing has also become a purely recreational
sport here. A limited amount of recreational trap-
ping takes place on the south side of the Susitna
River near Stephan and Fog 1 akes as well as on the
north side near Tsusena Creek and Clarence and High
lakes. In the winter, dogsleds and snowmobiles
travel through the area. They most commonly use the
frozen river as trail. Their activities are report-
edly centered around Trapper Creek and Talkeetna to
the south.
2.2.3-Future Activities and Facilities
Should the Susitna Hydroelectric Project not be developed, the
major obstacles which have limited past recreational activities
wi 11 cant inue to do so in the future, although Native
E-7-22
-
-
-I
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.....
2.2-Susitna River Basin
corporations may seek to develop their lands for recreational
uses. Unless vehicular access is developed in the study area,
no major shift in the existing low-level recreational patterns is
anticipat~
,~ "'·---.. ,,_ ' ' ' ···•·""'""'" ······· ...• ~-""'
arties which w1'}c.k.!:~~future recreational activities(and ,i\_
opment in the study area include the Alaska state gove'r·n:::::_,
'{!lent, U.S. BLM, several Native corporations, and various private-::-, .. ,
l'andholders. . · \ "'·-------. _ ....... -... ·······•"''""'"''"'"''' -~-.~ .... _ // Jl
The pol icTes-or--· 9 the 1 and parcels tney
control, along with reased pressures for recreational
opportunities from Alaska residents, will largely determine
future land use patterns. The exact nature of specific activi-
ties and developments is difficult to predict since land owner-
ship decisions are in abeyance and are not likely to be resolved
for several years.
(a) The Native Corporations
The Native corporations have selected much of the land adja-
cent to the Susitna River and along Portage Creek and
Talkeetna River. The corporations have not identified any
specific plans for development if the hydroelectric develop-
ment does not occur; however, development possibilities
which have been discussed include mineral extraction and
recreation-home 1 and development. Access appears to be the
prime determinant for development decisions. At present,
two small, improved vehicular trails provide access to both
the northern and southern sides of the river.
The Matanuska-Susitna-Beluga Cooperative Planning Studies
have analyzed the demand for recreation-home lots within
their planning area, which includes the Susitna study area.
They have projected a demand for 29,000 acres (11,600 ha) of
new lots by the year 1990 assuming a population growth of
65,000 people. This is an exceptionally high demand level
relative to resident population figures and reflects the
region•s popularity for recreation-homesites with Alaskans
from other areas. The lands selected by Native corporations
near the Susitna River meet all of the aesthetic criteria
for prime lots according_to the study (ADNR May 1982). How-
ever, without improved road access and considering the
land•s building limitations, the property was given a rating
of moderate capability, and sales are unlikely to be signif-
icant. Native corporations have also expressed a preference
for land leasing rather than sale.
E-7-23
2.2-Susitna River Basin
(b) BLM Policies
BLM policies for the Denali Planning Block, shown in Figure
E.7.5, reflect their goal of increasing recreational use.
Their plans include road improvements to the Denali Highway
and additional roadside improvements such as new camp-
grounds, picnic areas, and pull-outs. BLM is projecting an
increase of the average annual daily traffic (ADT) along the
highway to 130 in the year 2000; the existing ADT is 50
cars. Formal designation of BLM land for additional ATV use
appears to be no longer under consideration, however.
BLM 1 ands have recently been opened to mi nera 1 exploration
and mining entry which will attract additional people to the
area, and if significant deposits are discovered, this will
greatly affect future recreational patterns.
The private lodge owners in the area have not indicated any
plans for expansion. The existing levels of use are small
and are not expected to change substantially.
E-7-24
.....
-
~
!
....
"""'1
I
i
""'-"\
!
I
....
.....
-
-
3 -PROJECT IMPACTS ON EXISTING RECREATION
I
Impacts that the Susitna Hydroelectric Project will have on the exist-
ing recreational patterns' are of two types: indirect or direct
effects. Indirect impacts are those related to changes in recreation
user demand levels. These include the impacts of construction worker
recreation and the influx of recreationists as a result of the new road
openings. Direct effects are defined as those which relate to physical
changes in the natural resources which constitute recreation settings.
Impacts to these settings might either increase or decrease the desir-
ability and probability of existing recreational types and activity
levels. They may also make possible new types of activity. Section
3.1 deals with direct impacts and discusses each major project develop-
ment separately. Construction and operational impacts are also di st in-
guished in each case.
3.1 -Direct Impacts of Project Features
Within the areai to be disrupted, existing recreation consists primar-
ily of dispersed and low-level activities such as hunting, fishing, and
hiking. These patterns will be somewhat impacted by increased activi-
ty, environmental disruption, and restricted or increased access. How-
ever, because of their inhe~ent mobility and nonsite specificity, these
activities, for the most part, can be absorbed in surrounding land-
scapes.
In most cases, the important issues are the potential impacts upon rec-
reational resources rather than on specific existing activities. The
major components of recreational settings consist of fish, wildlife,
and botanical habitats and the aesthetic character of the landscape.
Detailed discussions of the impacts on these resources can be found in
Chapter 3, Fish, Wildlife and Botanical Resources, and Chapter 8, Aes-
thetic Resources of Exhibit E. References will be made to these thap-
ters as needed.
3.1.1-Watana Development
(a) Construction
Construction of the Watana dam and related features involves
construction of two cofferdams and diversion of the river.
It includes clearing of forest land, dredging of the river,
excavation of borrow sites for damfill material, blasting
for the underground powerhouse and other features, as we 11
,...... as other heavy construction activities at the dams it e. An
access road and temporary transmission line will be con-
structed from the Denali Highway and construction camps
built near the damsite. (The access road is discussed in
Section 3.3.) The 38,000-acre (15,200-ha) reservoir area
will be cleared of trees prior to inundation. It is antici-
pated to require three years to fill the entire impoundment
r area.
E-7-25
3.1-Direct Impacts of Project Features
The primary impacts of initial construction activities ex-
tend beyond these relatively small areas being physically
disturbed. A significant change in image will affect a
large area as the prevailing wilderness character changes to
intense activity and heavy construction. This is an un-
avoidable impact of development and can only be partially
mitigated by careful management of the remaining lands.
(i) Land-Based Recreation
Land-based recreational activities and resources with-
in areas that Watana construction will affect have
a 1 ready been somewhat modified by the presence of
project researchers who currently 1 ive and work in the
vicinity. Although their low-level recreational
activities have not caused any known adverse impacts,
that area is no longer perceived as a wilderness
setting.
It is anticipated that during construction all work
areas associated with Watana Dam will be closed to the
recreational public. Thus, any existing activities
will be eliminated for the duration of construction.
These recreational activities consist of hunting and
fishing in the area and can be absorbed by other pub-
lic lands for the duration of work. However, if con-
struction practices cause permanent degradation to the
recreational environment or fish and wildlife habi-
tats, these activities could be lost permanently.
This is already anticipated in the areas north of the
damsite where a small. concentration of black bears has
been identified.
The 38,000-acre (15,200-ha) reservoir will eliminate
10 small riverfront cabins which are used seasonally
by hunters, fishermen, and other recreationists who
arrive by boat or plane. The impoundment wi 11 also
inundate a large area of prime habitat for such wild-
life as wolverines, moose, and black bear, and pos-
sibly disrupt migration of the Nelchina caribou herd.
While no direct correlations can be drawn between
these losses and a-reduction of hunter days, it can be
expected that, in general, fewer hunters, particularly
trophy hunters of black bear, will be attracted to the
area or they will be less successful. Specific
impacts and mitigations for this loss are di~cussed in
Exhibit E, Chapter 3, Fish, Wildlife, and Botanical
Resources.
E-7-26
-
-·
-
-I
-
,...,
I
-
-
-
-
3.1-Direct Impacts of Project Features
( i i ) Water-Based Recreation
Fishing impacts will occur as a result of the effects
of riverine construction (see Chapter 3)~ The Tsusena
Creek mouth and Susitna River channels will be
affected by gravel removal during construction. Down-
stream recreational fishing may also be negatively
affected during the three-year filling period in which
summer flows will be reduced. Twelve sloughs utilized
for spawning and/or rearing will potentially be im-
pacted, and the fishing experience may be diminished
by the lower water levels. Existing fishing activity
upstream from the Watana Dam will also be altered.
The inundation of the 1 ower reaches of clear-water
tributaries will eliminate existing fishing spots for
this area of the river.
The existing level of boating activity both downriver
from Devil Canyon to Talkeetna and upriver from l4atana
will be largely unaffected by Watana construction
until vegetation clearing, gravel removal, and burning
begins. When filling of the Watana reservoir begins
water levels downstream will decrease during summer
recreation months. Depending on the precipitation and
natural water level during filling, the reach of the
Susitna 1 to 3 miles (1.6 to 5 km) bel ow Sherman
[about 6 to 9 miles (10 to 0.15 km) below Gold Creek]
may be difficult to navigate. Boaters who currently
venture up the river to Devil Canyon and Portage Creek
may find this difficult to do.
(b) Operations
( i ) Land-Based Recreation
After construction, the land areas associated with the
Watana dam will either be rehabilitated or utilized
for operations facilities and a permanent townsite.
Rehabilitated areas may return to use as recreational
areas. The operations areas may be permanently un-
available for public recreation as it currently
exists. A visitor center is proposed for the damsite.
The presence of workers and their fami 1 i es will also
continue to impact the recreational resources. There
are recreational facilities proposed ·in the village
for these people.
Once operation of the Watana Dam facilities begin and
the recreational public gains access to the area via
E-7-27
3.1 -Direct Impacts of Project Features
the Watana access road, sightseers wi 11 be attracted
to the damsite. The higher user levels will affect
the existing recreational patterns of hunting and
fishing by increasing the hunting and fishing pressure
on the wildlife, fisheries, and botanical environment
(see Chapter 3).
(ii) Water-Based Recreation
Potential fishing impacts after construction will also
be dependent on water quality and quantity. As flows
stabilize and as silt is trapped in the reservoir, it
J i s anticipated that the Susitna downstream from the
dam will clear and become more fishable than existing
levels, particularly for coho and chinook salmon.
Downstream from Watana Dam, boating may continue to be
affected by reduced. water flows after construction.
Water levels will be lower at Gold Creek during June,
July, and August. Sunshine and Susitna farther down
the river will be much less affected.
However, kayaking on the Devil Canyon Rapids may con-
tinue and will be less hazardous. Operational impacts
of the dam and reservoir on existing boating recrea-
tion are related to the quantity, schedule, quality,
and temperature of water retained in and released from
the reservoir.
The reservoir drawdown wi 11 reach its low point in
May, and the lake will fill from June through August,
peaking in early September.
The lake shorelines exposed during low water will have
1 arge mudflats and steep banks of tree stumps and
slumping soils. This situation will severely limit
the development of the reservoir as a major recrea-
tional opportunity. A lack of fish population, silty
waters, and cold water temperatures in the reservoir
reinforce this limitation. Safety will also be a
concern for future boaters. The 1 ake• s great 1 ength
and breadth may lead to treacherous conditions during
periods of high wind.
The recreationists that currently float this stretch
of river will find in future a 54-m\le (90-km) long
lake in place of a rapidly flowing river. With a loss
of current, boaters wi 11 need manual or mechanical
propulsion to navigate the new lake. New activities
E-7-28
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3.1 -Direct Impacts of Project Features
such as floatplanes and large motorized boats will
increase as recreationists take advantage of the rec-
reational setting created by the lake. Access through
Vee Canyon from upriver will be easier when the rapids
are flooded. The lake experience will be quite dif-
ferent in character from existing conditions (see
Chapter 8, Aesthetic Resources) and can be expected to
attract a di'fferent type of recreational user.
3.1.2-Devil Canyon Development
(a) Construction
Construction of the thin, concrete arch Devil Canyon Dam and
related features includes a high-level bridge across the
canyon, cofferdams, diversion of the river, land clearing,
blasting, and a major concrete mix plant at the damsite. In
addition, a railroad spur will be constructed from Gold
Creek; a 37-mile (3120-ha) road built between Watana and
Devil Canyon; and construction camps built near the dam-
site.
The 7800-acre (3120-ha) reservoir, unlike Watana, will be
relatively narrow, and largely confined within the canyon
walls, particularly in the downstream reaches, and will re-
quire 1 ess clearing of · · acts re-
sulting from its .... --furiW'iTrrn:! the 1 oss of 11 m1 18
km) of C river rapids. This is an irreplaceable los
~ F carce worldwide recreation resource. Expert ka.Yf kers
/ ~.r~e come from around the world to attempt this trip. Al-
/ though the actual number of kayakers are few ( 2-3 parties
,,,.,/ per year), it does not diminish the significance of the
" loss. An additional 32 m"iles (53 km) of river canyon
stre~m from Devil Canyon will also be lost.
~ --With theGe~tioR sf telilporary impacts on water quality
during the cofferdam construction, no water quality-related
recreational impacts are foreseen. Filling will take about
two months and, depending on season and rainfall, wi 11 not
appreciably affect fiow rates. No further impacts are anti-
cipated on downstream fishing and boating activity.
The primary impacts of Devil Canyon construction on adjacent
land-based recreation will be the conversion of a virtual
wilderness to a construction area and residence for 3600
people. The land, which will become the primary areas of
construction-related activity and storage, currently sup-
ports numerous game animals. The noise and dust of con-
struction and the disruption caused by heavy equipment
E-7-29
3.1 -Direct Impacts of Project Features
operations, along with the presence of large numbers of
construction workers, will disturb wildlife habitats and
recreation environment.
It is anticipated that all hunting from project facilities
wi 11 be prohibited (see Chapter 3). Fishing activity wi 11
be managed by the state Department of Fish and Game. For
purposes of enforcement, it is likely that all recreational
access by project personnel will have to be managed during
construction.
(b) Operations
Operation of Devil Canyon will cause only minor changes in
flows from Watana operation flows below the dam, and it is
not expected to further affect river recreation. ·
The Devil Canyon reservoir will have the same limitations
that affect the recreational opportunities of Watana reser-
voir, although smaller drawdowns and steeper sides will
result in less severe mudflats. The proposed operating
schedule wi 11 lower the reservoir up to 50 feet mid August
to September each year. This shoreline will also be visually
unattractive.
After construction, the temporary village and camp will be
closed and resident operators will be located at Watana
Village, thus eliminating the ingoing impacts of a large
resident group of people.
3.1.3 -Watana Access Road
(a) Construction
Access improvements to be made for the Watana dam phase
include 21.3 miles (35.5 km) of upgrading to the existing
Denali Highway and 41.6 miles (69 km) of new road from the
Denali Highway to the damsite. Other related developments
include a small temporary construction camp near Brushkana
Creek and several borrow sites along the new road.
Dur·ing construction, approximately 90 large construction
vehicle trips per day are anticipated on the new road and an
additional 600 to 800 trips are anticipated from commuting
construction workers (see Chapter 5).
The entire route from Parks Highway along Denali Highway to
Watana Dam will be open year round, allow-ing access along
E-7-30
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I"""
'
-
r
-
3.1-Direct Impacts of Project Features
the' Dena 1 i Highway segment which is currently c 1 osed each
winter by snow. The new road will provide vehicular access
into a large area previously open only to off-road vehicles
and hikers.
These road improvements and acces_s into new areas wi 11
impact the existing recreational patterns and recreational
resources in several ways. First, winter snowplowing along
the Denali Highway will cause an increase in winter recrea-
tionists using the area for cross-country skiing, snowmobil-
ing, dogsledding, and other winter sports. The Denali road
improvements may also make that area more attractive to rec-
reationists during the summer months, and the increased
traffic {700 to 800 ADTs during peak years) of commuters,
truck drivers', and new local residents will introduce other
potential users to the recreational opportunities adjacent
to the highway. Increased recreational activity can be
expected to follow existing recreational patterns and would
take the form of increased roadside camping in old gravel
pits along the road, as well as hunting, fishing, and hiking
trips.
The new Watana access road passes through an area which
presently has a very low level of recreational activity.
Construction activities will not, therefore, directly affect
any major recreation, since the hunting, fishing or hiking
which might have occurred would eas·i ly be absorbed by the
surrounding area. A more important concern is the alignment
chosen for the new road. The final road 1 ocation should
avoid specific areas which are known to be sensitive envi-
ronments and which would experience undesirable pressure
from recreat ioni sts if made too easily accessible. These
·areas are discussed in more detail in Chapter 3 of.
Ex hi bit E.
The alignment should also avQid disrupting areas which are
known to be popular recreation settings and those which are
identified in this plan as important potential recreation
settings.· For example, Tsusena, Butte, Deadman, and Big
lakes include several existing recreational structures.
The present proposed alignment has been adjusted through
consultation so that no known recreational settings will be
negatively impacted by the access road.
(b) Operations
The Watana access road will not be open to the public during
construction. When work is completed at Watana in 1993, a
E-7-31
3.1 -Direct Impacts of Project Features
decision will then be made regarding public access. It is
assumed that the road will be officially opened for public
use in 1993.
Once the Watana road has been constr1;cted and workers and
truck drivers begin traveling back and forth, the road will
attract recreationists and off-duty construction workers and
families. Unless a control point and physical barrier are
placed at the Denali/Watana road junction to limit access or
other controls provided to deal with this attraction, rec-
reational activities such as roadside camping, hunting, and
fishing along Denali Highway will spring up prior to the
official 1993 opening.
These activities are not inconsistent with existing recrea-,
tional patterns. The most significant potential impact
would occur if overuse of popular areas resulted in degrada-
tion of the recreational resources such as fishing streams,
wildlife and their habitats.
3.1. 4 -Devi 1 Canyon Access Road
(a) Construction
This 37-mile (60-km) road connecting the Devil Canyon dam-
site to the Watana damsite will be built in 1992. Its use
during dam construction will be primarily to transport
equipment and personnel from the Watana town to the Devil
Canyon construction site. The road traverses more difficult
terrain than the Watana access road and, as a result, re-
quires careful design guidelines to control potentially
significant impacts caused by large cut and fill sections.
The selected road corridor w·ill affect the private recrea-
tion lodge at High Lake. Passing within a mile of the
development, the new access may change the character of the
facility from a remote fly-in retreat to an auto-oriented
facility. Construction will also have a significant impact
on local game which is a prime visitor attraction for the
1 odge. No other recreational activit 1 es presently occur in
this area.
Several borrow sites will be required to construct this road
section. Impacts that these excavations and the road path
itself will have on the existing recreational resources are
primarily visual; thus, specific mitigations are discussed
in Chapter 8, Aesthetics.
(b) Operations
After dam construction is complete in 2002, the Devil Canyon
E-7-32
-
-
-
-
-
-
!AI\!
' I
I
-
-
-
r
I
3.1 -Direct Impact of Project Features
road will be opened to the public. Operations personnel
will also travel to the Devil Canyon dam from the permanent
townsite at Watana. Devil 'canyon dam is expected to be more
of a tourist attraction than Watana because of its striking
design and impressive setting, and the road will function as
an important recreational facility in that regard. Impacts
of the public in this road corridor are similar to those in
the Watana road, i.e., increased use of previously remote
hunting, fishing, and wilderness areas.
3.1.5-Gold Creek-Devil Canyon Railroad
{a) Construction
Construction of a railroad spur to the Devil Canyon damsite
will have little effect on existing recreational patterns.
The areas which it will cross are largely unused. As with
the case of road construction, care must be taken not to
~ degrade the recreational setting.
-
r
f'-
1
r
I
Along the chosen alignment, particular attention must be
paid to the segment which traverses the steep banks of the
Susitna River in order not to degrade the river experience.
Other segments which traverse difficult natural landscapes
require site-specific considerations to achieve or maximize
fitness.
The major sources of impact include cut-and-fi 11 operations,
vegetation clearing, borrow excavations, and stream cros-
sings.
(b). Operations
After construction at the Devil damsite is completed, the
rail spur will no longer serve project functions. At this
time, it may become available for public use and will more
significantly impact existing recreation.
The existing rail line to the west is currently used by rec-
reationists to gain access to Denali State Park and sur-
rounding lands in order to camp, hike, fish, hunt, etc.
If access similar to the existing whistle stops were to be
provided, a significant number of recreationists could be
expected to utilize it. An added attraction of rail access
is that it reaches the Devil Canyon damsite in 2 hours less
time than would be required by car. The types of activities
anticipated are similar to existing recreational patterns,
with the possible exception of railside camping.
E-7-33
3.1 -Direct Impacts to Project Features
3.1.6 -Project Area-Transmission Line
The east-west connection from the two powerhouses to the intertie
will be constructed alongside the Devil Canyon access road. Con-
struction and future maintenance access will not be continuous
along the line. Short trails will connect to Devil Canyon road.
The presence of 100-foot (30-m) tall towers and cleared corridors
will also reduce the area•s appeal to recreationists as a wilder-
ness area. The impacts of the transmission corridors on existing
recreation patterns are primarily visual.
3.1.7 -Intertie and Stubs -Transmisston Line
Intertie construction is scheduled to begin in 1983. These lines
and the future stubs from Healy to Fairbanks and from Willow to
Anchorage are not anticipated to affect existing recreational
patterns during construction or operation. Cleared transmission
corridors are commonly used by hunters and hikers, and to the
extent that these activities take place, recreation will be posi-
tively impacted. Future studies are planned by the Power Author-
ity to refine a recreation plan for these corridors.
(a) Recreational Plan Studies
The content of these studies will include:
-Description of existing and future recreation;
-Project impacts on existing recreation;
Recreation p 1 an, ·inc 1 udi ng recreation apport unity i nven-
tory and recreation opportunity evaluation; and
-Plan implementation.
(b) Specific Recreational Resources
Specific recreational resources have been identified adja-
cent to and within these corridors and include:
-Healy to Fairbanks Stub Corridor
Denali National Park
. Proposed Parks Highway Scenic Highway Area
-Healy to Willow Intertie Corridor
Denali State Park
Alaska Railroad
Small recreational trails
E-7-34
-
-
.,
,
-
-I
-
.....
r
,....
!
3.2-Indirect Impacts
-Willow to Anchorage Stub Corridor
• Nancy Lake State Recreation Area
• Susitna Flats State Game Refuge
• Iditarod Dogsled Trail
• Several other recreation trails.
3.2 -Indirect Impacts--Project-Induced Recreational Demand
3.2.1-Background
Estimation of demand for recreation related to the Susitna Hydro-
electric Project involves a number of complex and unusual circum-
stances due to project location, characteristics of the project,
and construction schedule. Added complexities result from a his-
torically unpredictable regional growth pattern and lack of con-
sistent and verifiable data concerning regional recreational pro-
jections. Some of these circumstances include the following.
(a) Alaskan Recreational Environment
(b)
As discussed in Section 2 of this chapter, recreation in
Alaska has unique characteristics due to the size of the
state, the sparse population, the lack of roads, and long
distances between facilities. The untouched wilderness con-
ditions and abundance of wildlife have attracted new state
residents who enjoy the primitive recreational experience.
Recreational patterns and uses do not follow those common at
many hydroelectric projects in the lower 48 states. Usual
recreational standards are not, for the most part, appli-
cable in Alaska.
Lack of Recreational History
Alaska became a state in 1959. The State' Department of
Parks was formed in 1971. There consequently is not the
long history and background of user data, public prefer-
ences, demand data and so on which is usually availale to
recreational planners. While important useful data are
being generated by state agencies, the backlog of experience
helpful to confidently make long-range predictions does not
yet exist.
(c) Uncertainty of Population Growth
Population growth has two components--natural growth (sur-
plus of births over deaths) and immigration. In Alaska, a
major component of growth is immigration. Growth has been
dependent in the past on external causes, such as the dis-
covery and price of oil and the world economy, and is large-
ly unpredictable by standard demographic methods.
E-7-35
3.2 -Indirect Impacts
(d) Population Mobility
Alaska•s population is among the youngest in the nation and
unusually mobile. As energy, mineral development, and con-
struction projects beg·i n and end, and as the large propor-
tion of military and governmental personnel change assign-
ments, the population composition changes. Public opinion
and preference surveys can become quickly outdated as new
immigrants replace former residents. These changes may not,
however, appear in total population counts, because the num-
bers may not reflect change in cornposition. Likewise, whole
cycles can occur and be 11 missed 11 by the decennial census.
(e) Climate
Winters in the project area are long and severe. The Denali
Highway, the only road penetrating the area, is not main-
tained in winter. Smaller trails require special off-road
vehicles for travel year round. Land·ing strips and lakes
used for airplane access are also hazardous during the
winter season. In addition, the s hart winter daylight·
period decreases available time for outdoor work, recrea-
tion, and travel.
(f) Setting
The Susitna project area, compared with many other places in
the United States, appears to be an outstanding recreation
resource. However, in comparison with other resources in
Alaska (with some important exceptions such as Devil Canyon
Rapids), it is not unique.
(g) Changing Land Ownership
Major portions of Alaska have historically been owned by the
federal and, more recently, the state government. Large
portions of land are currently in the process of being dis-
tributed to private Native corporations (see also Section
4.1). While many of the exact impacts of these actions are
as yet unknown, it appears that the historical patterns of
open recreational access to most lands within the state are
changing in some instances.
{h) International Travel
Recent years have seen wide fluctuations in international
travel patterns as the dollar, mark, yen and other cur-
rencies have changed in value. As a remote and somewhat
exotic tourist destination, tourist recreational levels in
E-7-36
-
-
-
-
-
-I
r-
1
-
-
3.2-Indirect Impacts
Alaska may vary greatly according to unpredictable outside
influences.
3.2.2 -Assumptions
The proposed recreation plan is designed as mitigation for rec-
reational opportunities lost or negatively impacted due to proj-
ect developments. The plan utilizes the recreational opportun-
ities gained due to project development and provides for demand
i~duced by the development.
In projecting demand, a number,_5.?L-sjmp.l~Hy.i.n.g, .assumptions have
been---made ·whi·ch·"··ubvi·a:ee··--rh-e .. effects of the uncertainties in
Alaska's recreational future. In addition to these assumptions,
the recreation plan is phased and a monitoring program is pro-
posed which will allow periodic adjustments to be made in the
plan as assumptions and recreational conditions change.
The following paragraphs include assumptions of these demand
jections.
-The population projections presented in Exhibit E, Chapter 5,
are valid for Anchorage, Fairbanks-North Star Borough, and the
Railbelt. Population project.ions for the Matanuska-Susitna
Borough, as developed by the Borough ih October 1982 and in-
cluded by inference in the Railbelt projections, will continue
to be valid.
The project will be developed according to the general designs,
operating characteristics, and schedule presented in Exhibit E,
Chapters 1 and 2. Specifically, the current drav-Kiown schedules
for Watana and Devil Canyon will pertain. The access roads
from the Denali. Highway to Watana and from Watana to Devil
Canyon will be developed as ~urrently planned. A railroad spur
will be built from Gold Creek to Devil Canyon and will be
opened to the public upon construction completion. An access
road will not be connected from Devil Canyon to Hurricane.
-The Power Authority will evaluate the decision to open the
access road from Watana to the Denali Highway at the time
Watana construction is completed. For the purposes of this
recreational demand projection and plan, it is assumed that the
road will be opened to full public access in 1993. If it is
determined in the future that the road should not be opened
then, demand for recreation will be less than projected.
Specific elements of the recreation plan will then be deferred
as appropriate through the monitoring/implementation program.
-The dams will have an inherent "curiosity" value which will
attract one-time visitors. Watana, in particular, is not
E-7-37
3.2 -Indirect Impacts
regarded as a major sustained attraction for repeat visitors.
Devil Canyon Dam, the high-level canyon bridge, and the rail-
road spur have more inherent attraction as potential recrea-
tion.
Both reservoirs wi 11 be characterized by slumping side wa 11 s,
scales, and landscapes on steep banks. Watana, in particular,
will have large mudflats in many locations when drawn down.
Neither reservoir will be an attractive recreational resource
for sport fishing or boating. Watana, in particular, and Devil
Canyon, to a lesser extent, will not be attractive resources to
kayakers, canoers, rafters, and other small boat recreationists
due to wind, chop, and temperature conditions.
-The Denali Highway will be upgraded and new facilities will be
installed as currently proposed by the Alaska Department of
Transportation. The road will be kept open in the winter from
the intersection with the Watana access road (approximately at
Milepost 110) to the Parks Highway at Cantwell.
-The Alaska Department of Parks, the U.S. Bureau of Land Manage-
ment, the U.S. Forest Service, the Municipality of Anchorage,
Fairbanks, and other appropriate governmental units will con-
tinue to pursue their plans for increased recreational facil-
ities elsewhere to serve increased demand. Many of the facil-
ities documented in Section 2 will be closer to population
centers than the Susitna project and will accommodate a portion
of future demand by city dwellers.
-The Native corporations will pursue a course of paced develop-
ment of their lands, including selected mineral development,
recreation home development, and commercial recreational devel-
opment. These uses are assumed to be complementary to this
recreation plan and are not anticipated to cause conflicts.
-The Alaska Department of Fish and Game will adopt regulations
appropriate to protect those resources within the project area
and appropriate to the general levels of projected demand.
Existing private 1 odges wi 11 continue to operate in a manner
and scale similar to 1980 operations. While some changes un-
doubtedly will take place, they will not be of a scale to in-
fluence demand projections significantly.
-The Alaska Railroad will continue to operate as a passenger
recreational facility, with daily whistle-stop service in the
summer season and weekend whistle-stop service off-season.
-While there will continue to be an international clientele for
select facilities, the project will primarily be an in-state
E-7-38
-
-
-!
r
-I
I
I
r
-
-I
r
-
-
3.2-Indirect Impacts
recreational attraction and will not be a major national or
international tourist attraction such as Denali National Park.
-Because of climate, winter darkness, and distance from popula-
tion centers, the project will be primarily a summer (mid-June
to mid-September) recreational resource.
3.2.3 -Estimated Recreational Demand
Available recreational studies were surveyed and evaluated for
applicability to the Susitna Hydroelectric Project. A wide
variety of noncomparable and to some extent disparate data were
found. A series of per capita participation projections devel-
oped in the Susitna River Basin Cooperative Study -Talkeetna
Subarea {U.S. Soil Conservation Service 1978) were chosen as the
most appropriate methodology and assumptions for this recreation
plan. That methodology and major portions of the base data/./'\
employed in that projection are used and referred to as the "per\.6;
capita participation method." The projections have been modified
for purposes of this recreation plan by updated population data
and projections. Allocations of regional recreational demand
derived from these projections are assigned to the Susitna Hydro-
electric Project recreation area through a series of assumptions
and judgmental evaluations. The results of this estimation are
then compared with four estimates, prepared by other methods, and
identified for the purposes of this report as:
-Willingness to drive comparison;
-Denali National Park comparison;
-Denali Highway travel comparison; and
-Opinion survey compa ri son •
(a)· Per Capita Participation Method
This method was developed by the U.S. Soil Conservation
Service (SCS) and applied to the 13 million-acre (5.2
million-ha) Talkeetna Subarea in 1978 as part of a series of
Susitna River Basin cooperative studies which were joint
efforts with the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, the
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and other cooperating
agencies. The method utilizes empirical participation rates
for eight major outdoor recreational activities and applies
them to existing population figures.
The demand projection presented in this report uses the gen-
eral methodology and recreational data developed by SCS.
The actual calculations presented herein, however, were per-
formed by the Susitna Recreation Plan Study-Team specific-
ally for this study. The planning year 2000 was chosen for
E-7-39
3.2 -Indirect Impacts
convenience and comparab·i 1 ity as the future demand project
time. Assumed percentage increases in annual participation
days are utilized, as well as year 2000 population projec-
tions. The following formula was utilized to estimate 1980
recreational demand:
TOTAL 1980 POPULATION X AVERAGE ANNUAL PARTICIPATION DAYS
TOTAL DEMAND IN USER DAYS
To estimate 2000 recreational demand:
TOTAL 2000 POPULATION X AVERAGE ANNUAL PARTICIPATION DAYS X
ASSUMED PERCENTAGE INCREASE IN PARTICIPATION = TOTAL DAMAND
IN USER DAYS
This procedure is followed for each of eight separate acti-
vities. Populations used are shown in Table E.7.7. Recrea-
tional participation is shown in Table E.7.8.
Both participation days and assumed increases are taken di-
rectly from the 1970 Alaska Outdoor Recreation Plan. While
more recent participation and preference data were published
in the 1976 and 1981 Alaska Outdoor Recreation plans, aver-
age annual participation days. per capita were not provided
in those reports. While newer data, if available, would
have been preferable, it is assumed that the projected in-
creases in participation published in the 1970 plan are suf-
ficiently representative for the purpose at hand. Compari-
sons of the activity participafitian r·a···t·····es w. h.ich appea··· r in all three plans support this assum ion. ----·-----..
(. . .... ~---~.,
1 . ---· '\~
J The SCS (1978) uti_lizes thel\.travel ~ st'lif~~od, Which is
I based on the prem1se that other 1ngs be1n'g__ eq~al, per
, capita use of recreational sites will decrease'---t's travel t time and cost increases. This appears to be generally true
l according to empi rica 1 data in A 1 ask a. The data base
\. employed distributes the sum total of trips within given
hourly driving times. For the Susitna Hydroelectric
Project, driving times, distances, and percentage of trips
are shown in Table E.7.9. The total demand previously cal-
culated is multiplied by these percentages for each trip
origin. Note that for this study (un1ike the River Basin
Study which uses actual mileage distances in the Willow sub-
basin) Mat-Su Borough figures are used to represent popul a-
t ion between Anchorage and Fairbanks, and an assumed cen-
troid of Mat-Su population was chosen for calculation pur-
poses. While the potential market area for project recrea-
tional demand undoubtedly exceeds these areas, it is antici-
pated that population growth rates and demand percentages
are sufficient to adequately represent maximum demand.
E-7-40
-I
-j
~
I
-
-
-
·~
I
-
r
-I
I
-
3.2 -Indirect Impacts
The centroid of the project recreational area is assumed to
be 10 miles (16 km) north of the Watana damsite, determined
by observation. Table E.7.10 gives estimations of total
recreational demand (in user days) for all recreational
sites within 250 miles (415 km) (or 5-6 hour:s) of Anchorage
and 200 miles (330 km) (or 4-5 hours) of Fairbanks for the
population of Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Matanuska-Su sitna
Borough. It is important to note that these demands are for
all sites within the given time-distance, not specifically
for the Susitna hydro site. For instance, other sites with-
in a 5-to 6-hour drive from Anchorage could include those
south on the Kenai Peninsula or east in the Wrangell Moun-
tains. Time-distance factors are based on empirical evi-
dence as developed by the SCS, whereby the number of trips
in each hourly travel band is estimated as a proportion of
the whole. These estimates were calculated separately for
each type of recreational activity using the population
given in Table E.7.7, the factors in Table E.7.10, and the
distances i~ T~ E.7.9.
Table E.7.1Vsummarizes these demands. In order to apply
total demands to the Su si tna Hydroelectric Project recrea-
tion plan area, a number of additional assumptions were
made.
The project recreation plan area was generally defined as
the area extending from the Parks Highway on the west, the
Denali Highway-Nenana River on the north, the Susitna River
on the east, and about 20 miles (33 km) south of the Susitna
River on the south. This area was determined by the areas
directly affected by development, known recreat i anal re-
sources of the area, and the recreational opportunity set-
tings determined by the study team in the field. It also
takes into consideration Alaska Department of Fish and Game
management subunits. Since these units relate to big game
management areas and not human recreation areas, the area
studied ·does not correspond exactly to those boundaries.
Correlations will be made for management purposes during
Phase II design.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (1981) hunting statistics
for moose, caribQu and Dall sheep were reviewed. These data
indicated that in 1981, fewer than 700 hunter days were
spent in the management within the study area. Only data
for the hunting year 1981 were available for review. There-
fore, in order to be conse'rvative, it was assumed that the
existing condition is 800 hunter days. Table E.7.12 and
Table E.7.13 show assumed existing (1980, for simplicity)
use of the area in numbers of recreation days and in per-
centages of the total days given in Table E.7.11.
E-7-41
3.2 -Indirect Impacts
It was assumed, based on observation and personal conversa-
tions with informed 1 ocal sources, that there are currently
100 waterfowl hunting days in the area. This activity is
generally limited to the lakes along the east side of the
Parks Highway, an area only peripherally connected with the
project area in terms of recreation-setting identity.
Assumptions of current sport fishing were made from inter-
pretations of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game State-
wide Harvest Study (1981 data). This report lists angler
days for 1977 through 1981. Data include the number of
anglers resident in the upper Copper/Susitna River area who
fish in all locations. This number is decreasing from 1885
in 1977 to 1195 in 1981. Charts of the number of angler
days fished in the West Cook In 1 et/West Su sitna drainage and
the East Susitna drainage show that these figures have gen-
erally decreased over the 1 ast four years. The 1 evel of
fishing in this area as a percentage of statewide fishing
has also decreased by 2. 5 percent in the 1 ast three years
(see Appendix 7.C).
While these data do not directly correspond to the project
area, in combination with personal conversations with knowl-
edgeable local sources the project team estimated 1500
angler days/year to be in the area. Fishing activity is
assumed to be quite low in the areas because it is inacces-
sible by auto and has no salmon runs except on the Susitna
River below Portage Creek and on Prairie Creek.
Number of user days was assumed to be 4000 at the only
developed campsite in the area. The BLM camp at Brushkana
Creek on the Denali Highway has 33 campsites and is report-
edly at capacity during hunting seasons. The assumed cur-
rent numbers represent a capacity use, with three persons
per campsite, during a month-long hunting season. Two addi-
tional months of capacity use, with two persons per camp-
site, were calculated for the weekends of the other two
summer recreation months.
It is assumed that there is essentially no hiking or pic-
nicking occurring in the 'area that is not associated with
other activities such as hunting, fishing or camping. Hik-
ing trails are not rigorously designed for specific capaci-
ties at the primitive level of design anticipated, and pic-
nicking in this remote area is most frequently associated
with camping; therefore, this simplifying assumption is
appropriate.
E-7-42
-
-
-I
-I
1
I
-
-,
-
-
-
-I
-
-
3.2-Indirect Impacts
Cross-country skiing is known to exist in the Chulitna Moun-
tains south of Cantwell, and 100 user days have been assumed
for the study area.
As in:,lcated i Table E.7.13, it is calculated that approxi-
matelY\,6700 ecreation days per year occur in the area
today. order to project the future user days for the
area if the Susitna Hydroelectric Project is not built, 1980
to 2000 population growth rates (Table E.7.7) and increased
participation rates (Table E.7.8) are applied to the 1980
usage. That is, usage in the year 2000 will increase as
will population and propensity to recreate, given no other
actions such as construction of access roads into the area.
This simplification does not take into consideration the
changing attraction values of other recreational opportun-
ities in the'state. As other recreation areas are developed
projected demand will be redistributed. It is assumed that
this will cause a decrease of demand at Susitna and there-
fore reinforce a conservative estimation.
In the case of the future camping estimate at developed
campgrounds, a different procedure was followed. While
demand as calculated above shows an increase to 9700 user
days, it is typical for campground supply to lag behind
demand for the unaccommodated increment to go to undeveloped
sites. The BLM Denali Block Management Plan (BLM 1980)
calls for three 3-unit pull -offs in the a rea, and it is
understood that an expansion of the Brushkana Campground is
under consideration. Therefore, a doubling of developed
campground space has been assumed for the year 2000.
In summary, without the hydroelectric project, about 12,500
recreation days could occur in 2000. This is almost a 90
percent increase over 1980 figures.
In order to estimate the year 2000 recreational demand,
assuming the Susitna Hydroelectric Project is built, the
baseline (without project) recreational growth rates shown
in Table E.7.12 were examined and compared with project
impacts as described in Section 2. In addition, the team's
knowledge of the project area derived from a careful recrea-
tional opportunities' assessment and study of regional al-
ternative opportunities.
For big game hunting, increased road access will lead to rt'!
increased activity. The 1981 Geowonderlgnd • ...data base indi-
cates that most hunters currently fly into the area. Be-
cause the game resource is limited and regulated, a maximum
increase of 0.2 percent is assumed. Today's capture rate is
E-7-43
3.2 -Indirect Impacts
0. 3 percent of total demand. The year 2000 is assumed to
have a capture rate of 0.5 percent of total demand (see
Tables E.7.12 and E.7.13.).
No waterfowl hunting increase over baseline figures is anti-
cipated as no propos~d project features w·i 11 affect the
attractiveness or accessibility of the waterfowl hunting
lakes.
Presently, freshwater fishing is very limited due to lack of
automobile access. Most existing fishing sites are used
principally by fly-in fishermen. It is assumed that this
demand, like hunting, will increase 0.2 percent, attacting
approximately double the number of fishermen as in the base
case and triple the current use.
Developed campground demand is a function of both the demand
for other resources (e.g., hunting and fishing) and the
opportunities available to meet theoretical demand. Because
of the wilderness nature of the area and the stated objec-
tive of protecting the natu~al resources, demand is expected
to be directed toward small, primitive campgrounds. Demand
is anticipated to be limited to an additional 4000 to 6000
visitor days per year.
After the Susitna project is completed, part of the river
resource for canoeing and kayaking, and in particular the
important Devil Canyon Rapids, will be eliminated. User
days are estimated to decrease to half their 1980 levels.
Demand for hiking and picnicking is anticipated to be equal
to that for camping.
Demand for cross-country skiing is assumed to increase about
50 percent over the base case due to increased accessibility
and interest in the area.
A total of about 43,500 to 50,200 visitor days per year are
projected for post-project conditions in the year 2000. The
recreation plan has been developed to accommodate this
growth, phased to the Watana and Devi1 Canyon portions of
the project. Other recreational uses, such as driving and
sightseeing, are assumed to be included in this estimate.
This appears to be a reasonable assumption because recrea-
tional demand often takes 10 or more years to build up after
facilities ar~ developed and the curiosity value of the
project is assumed to wane over time.
E-7-44
-
-
-
.-.I
-I
I
-
-,
-
r
i
r"'
!
r
,....
I
!"""'
I
i
[
-
-
-
-
3.2 -Indirect Impacts
(b) Willingness to Drive Comparison
(c)
Clark and Johnson (1981) ·indicate that 20 percent of the
population is willing to drive five hours to a waekend rec-
reational area, and an additional 11 percent will drive six
or more hours. Applying these data to the projected year
2000 population (0.31 x 450,570), it can be estimated that
approximately 140,000 persons from the Railbelt, Anchorage,
and Fairbanks could be attracted to a site the distance of
the study area in a single year. Assuming a capture rate of
33 percent, approximately 46,000 persons could be attracted
to the Susitna. This estimate is in reasonable accord with
that developed by the participation method.
Denali National Park Comparison
The entrance to Denali National Park is about 80 highway
miles (130 km) from the Watana site. With Mt. McKinley,
North America's largest mountain, the Park is a world-
renowned recreational attraction. In 1981, the area
attracted 256,500 recreational visitors and has shown gen-
erally a high rate of increase since the Parks Highway was
opened ·in 1971 (see Table E.7.14). While the National Park
Service has not projected visitation to the year 2000, the
Denali State Park Visitor Facility Market Analysis and Eco-
nomic Feasibility Study (Economics Research Associates,
1980) projects total recreational visitors to Alaska to
increase from about 550,000 in 1982 to 1,100,000 in 2000
(high range). If Denali National Park increases at the same
rate as the state as a whole, visitation in the year 2000
would be approximately 513,000.
The recreational attraction of the Susitna project has a
very different character and appeal than Denali National
Park and offers only a small portion of the attractions.
Today, the area appears to draw about 2. 5 percent of the
number of vfsitors drawn to the national park •. If, after
project development it were to draw, for example, 10 percent
of the visitation of the national park, that would be 51,000
in the year 2000. This calculation is also similar to~-··
estimated in the per capita participation method. ~
(d) Denali Highway Travel Comparison
Because the primary access to the Susitna recreation area
will be via the Denali Highway, comparisons can be made up
to existing and future recreational traffic volumes along
the highway. Results from a recreational study for the
Denali Highway area (Johnson 1976) indicate that 90 percent
E-7-45
3.2 -Indirect Impacts
of the highway travelers were recreationists and that aver-
age vehicle occupancy was 3.2 persons. The Environmental
Assessment for the Denali Highway (Alaska Department of
Transportation 1981) reports existing average daily traffic
(ADT) on the midsections of the highway as 50 vehicle trips
per day. The study projects this to rise to 130 by the year
2000. 130 trips/day x 3.2 persons/vehicle x 365 days/year x
0.90 recreation = 135,656 recreation trips per year.
Assuming the Susitna area captures 33 percent of these trips
(as in Comparison [b]), a total recreational demand of
45,100 trips could be anticipated. This method also has
results similar to the other projections.
(e) Recreation Participation Survey Method
The University of Alaska and TES, Inc., conducted recreation
participation surveys as a part of their early studies. The
surveys were intended to determine the existing level of use
within the study area (TES 1982a). The survey was mailed to
a random sample of 3116 Railbelt residents. Six-hundred and
three of these were returned resulting in a response rate of
23 percent. Of those who responded, 148 individuals or 25
percent stated that they currently use the study area for
recreational purposes. By simple extrapolation, 25 percent
of the 1980 Railbelt population which is 284,166 places the
number at 65,973 persons who could presently recreate in the
area. If, however, nonresponse to the questionnaire was
assumed to be a no-use response, as few as 14,339 persons·
were considered to recreate there by the authors of that
study.
Based on detailed knowledge of activities in the study area,
it seems highly unlikely that this many people recreate in
the study area (see Table E. 7 .13). It appears that the
responses were skewed by "yes" rep 1 i es from persons who do
recreate there and who responded in higher overall propor-
tion than their proportion in the population. Additional
error may have been introduced through the survey illustra-
tions which include portions of the Parks and Denali high-
ways in the study area. However, even taking the average
value of these two figures (40,156), and projecting it at
the growth rate of 55 percent (the rate of population
growth), 62,200 would recreate in the area by the year
2000.
The estimates of future use generated in that study are
based on questions regarding anticipated future use of the
project. They are not considered reliable due to changes in
E-7-46
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-3.2 -Indirect Impacts
the project features since the survey was conducted. The
generally unreliable nature of asking people how they would
like to recreate rather than how they actually recreate also
contributed to this unreliability.
(f) Conclusion
Using the method (the per capita participation) project
~"""' demand for recreation is estimated to be 43,520 -50,220
user days/year. In comparison, other estimates are:
-
.-
Comparison
Comparison
Comparison
Comparison
(b) :
(c) :
(d) :
(e) :
46,000
51,000
45,100
62,200
Based on the assumptions set forth in this section and
the variable predictability of recreational estimates for
the Susi tna Hydroelectric Project, project demand will be
considered to be:
43,000 -50,000 r~creation user days/year at the completion
of the project in 2002.
These are proportioned as shown in Table E.7.13 and
summarized as follows:
Activity
Big Game Hunting
Waterfowl Hunting
Freshwater Fishing
Developed Camping
CanoeingjKayaking
H"iking
Pi cni ck i ng
Cross-country Skiing
E-7-47
Annual Visitor Days
2,200 -2,400
170
4,800 -5,200
12,000 -14,000
100
12,000 -14,000
12,000 -14,000
350
-
-
~
I
~
I
-
-
-
!'-
r
!
-
-
-
4 -FACTORS INFLUENCING THE RECREATION PLAN
The approach utilized in this study recognizes six major factors that
influence the ultimate design of the recreation plan. They are:
-Construction access and phasing;
-Operational characteristics of the project;
-Recreational use patterns and demand;
Management objectives of the interested agencies and Native
corporations;
-Facilities• design standards; and
-Financial obligation and responsibility of the Power Authority.
These factors were analyzed then uti 1 i zed to set parameters for the
plan determination process. The first two factors above were described
in Section 1.4. The third factor was discussed in Section 3.2. The
remaining three factors are discussed below.
4.1-Management Objectives
In addition to the Alaska Power Authority, various federal and state
agencies and several Native corporations established under provisions
of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) have interests in
this plan.
4.1.1 -Alaska Power Authority
At this time no specific official statement of recreation policy
has been developed by the Authority. The following policy state-
ment regarding fish and wildlife aspects of the project was
issued by the Power Authority in January 1982.
11 A mandate of the Alaska Power Authority charter
is to develop supplies of electrical energy to·
meet the present and future needs of the State
of Alaska. Alaska Power Authority also recog-
nizes the value of our natural resources and
accepts _the responsibility of ensuring that the
development of any new projects is as compatible
as possible with the fish and wildlife resources
of the state and that the overall effects of any
such projects will be beneficial to the state as
a whole.
E-7-49
4.1 -Management Objectives
-If development of the hydroelectric potential
of the Susitna River proceeds, it is the Power
Authority 1 s goal, and its intent to achieve no
net loss in fish and wildlife productivity;
-In achieving no net loss, mitigation measures
that avoid or minimize impacts on existing habi-
tat, all else being equal, are preferred over
other types of measures;
The base line for assessing post-project impacts
and the effectiveness of mitigation measures or
enhancement opportunities, is the existing con-
dition;
-The Power Authority will work cooperatively with
any responsible entity to explore ways the
Susitna Project can complement the fish or wild-
1 ife enhancement plans of these entities;
-The feasibility report will present previously.
identified enhancement plans for the Upper
Susitna River Basin and assess the Susitna
Project 1 S impact on the ability to realize
those plans; and
-The feasibility report will present, as the pro-
posed plan of development, a project configura-
tion that maximizes power benefits. Concur-
rently, all reasonable mitigation measures, in-
cluding the maintenance of sufficient river
flows to avoid appreciable impact, will ~be iden-
tified, and their effectiveness and costs will
be estimated.11
To the extent that fish and wildlife resources constitute a part
of the recreational experience, the general intent of this policy
can apply to recreation also.
In addition, the following recreation-specific objectives have
been identified by the study team:
-The plan should attempt to meet the demands of project-induced
recreation with facilities appropriate to the Alaska wilderness
setting;
-The plan should respond to the identified site opportunities
and constraints;
E-7-50
-
-
-I
-
-
-
-
-
~·
-
-
-
-
-
I"""
' I
r
-
4.1-Management Objectives
-The plan should make use of roads, materials and facilities
developed during construction or already existing. This will
require coordination with the construction plan and schedule.
Such construction roads and facilities should, wherever pos-
sible, be designed to conform with final recreational require-
ments;
-The plan shall be compatible with acceptable public safety and
environmental health requirements;
Recreation should be designed and operated in such a manner so
not to create unreasonable demands on construction operation,
resources for the project, or other public services;
-Various combinations of ownership and management by the state
or by Native corporations may be appropriate for particular
elements of the plan;
-Irreversible losses will be identified and reasonable mitiga-
tion and/or compensation will be provided whenever possible;
-An area-wide systems approach should be taken in programming
recreational activities and facilities which complements exist-
ing regional facilities and provides a balance of recreational
oppo rt unity.
4.1.2 -Alaska Division of Parks
The following statewide goals are stated in the Division•s Alaska
Outdoor Recreation Plan (1981):
-Provide for and enhance Alaska•s outdoor recrea-
tion land base to meet the needs of present and
future generations of Alaskans and visitors to
the state;
-Establish state and 1 ocal recreation programs
and respond to a diversity of outdoor recrea-
tional needs as expressed through an assessment
process and based on full public participation;
-Integrate outdoor recreational values and diver-
sity of recreational opportunities and programs
into coordinated interagency programs, community
programs, and private sector developments;
-Promote and balance the development of outdoor
recreational opportunities in proximity to or
within urban and rural communities;
E-7-51
4.1 -Management Objectives
-Recognize and provide for the needs of special
populations;
Strengthen the capabilities of public agencies
to establish, operate and maintain outdoor rec-
reation programs through technical and financial
assistance programs;
Support the development and expansion of tourism
in Alaska and its role in outdoor recreation;
-Preserve, maintain, or enhance Alaska 1 s scenic
resources, environmental quality, natural areas
and cultural and historic identity; and
-Foster the growth and development of a strong,
central role of the state in meeting outdoor
recreational needs through a system of park and
recreational units and historic and recreational
trails and waterways.
In addition, discussions with the Division of Parks staff have
suggested preferences for the following recreation character-
istics specific to the Susitna project:
-Selected sites should be intrinsically suitable and the best
sites available for recreation, not merely areas available by
virtue of project development;
The Susitna project recreation plan should become an integral,
logical extension of an overall state recreational network;
Construction and operations costs will require contributions by
the Power Authority; and
The Division welcomes participation in the prov1s1on of recrea-
tional opportunities in the state by private entities such as
the Native corporations.
The Alaska State Parks System South-central Region Plan (ADNR,
Division of Parks 1982a) identifies one proposed acquisition
which caul d influence the Susitna project recreation plan: The
Talkeetna State Recreation River. This proposal would entail
legislative designation of _the river corridor, preparation of a
river management plan, and subsequent development in conformance
with that plan. The Talkeetna River is presently reached via
portage from the Susitna River to Stephan Lake and Prairie Creek
by river recreationists originating on the Susitna, Tyone or Lake
Louise areas or by flights directly to Lake Stephan. Current
division thought is that the objectives of this plan may be met
E-7-52
-
-
-
-
-
-,
~
I
-
-
-
-I
4.1 -Management Ojectives
without actual legislative designation. Portions of this area
have also been selected for conveyance to the CIRI Village
Corporations, including Stephan Lake, Prairie Creek, and the
upper reaches of the Talkeetna River.
4.1.3-Alaska Department of Fish and Game
As a part of the Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Review Group, the
Alaska Department of Fish and Game participated in the develop-
ment of the "Susitna Hydroelectric Project Fish and Wildlife
Mitigation Policy" published by the Alaska Power Authority. This
policy states that it is the basic intent of the Power Authority
"to mitigate the negative impacts of the Susitna project on the
fish and wildlife resources."
While the Department of Fish and Game has not issued a specific
formal statement of objectives regarding project-related recrea-
tion, discussions involving the recreation team and Department
staff have suggested the following objectives:
-Protect from over-fishing the trophy-class grayling population
in Deadman Creek;
-Protect from highway traffic dangers the Nelchina caribou herd;
-Maintain important fishing resources downstream from Devil
Canyon;
-Protect back country from unregulated access along construction
of other project-related roads; and
-Regulate hunting and fishing activities of the construction
force.
4.1.4-U.S. Bureau of Land Management
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is manager of substantial
federal land holdings generally north of the Susitna River and
along the Denali Highway. Statements of BLM objectives are found
in the agency•s BLM Land Use Plan for South-central Alaska: A
Summary (1980). This plan acknowledges development of the
Susitna project and the access corridor from the Denali Highway
which can serve to: "facilitate public access to the back
country." Specific policy statements which can relate to devel-
opment of the recreation plan for the Susitna Hydroelectric
Project include:
-Develop a water trail on the Maclaren River downstream from the
Oenal i Highway crossing to the Susitna River and up the Tyone
River to Lake Louise;
E-7-53
4.1 -Management Objectives
-Rehabilitate the Br~shkana Campground on the Denali Highway;
Develop a series of 11 three-unit wayside camping areas 11 along
the Denali Highway. Seven are indicated, including three
between Cantwell and the Susitna River;
-Develop interpretive signs, etc. along the Denali Highway to
explain natural history and archeology;
-Protect the shelter cabins built along the Cantwell-Valdez
Creek Trail by the Alaska Road Commission during the 1920s.
(Three are identified near the juncture of the project access
road and the Denali Highway);
-Protect caribou migration routes from adverse effects of human
activity;
-Create protective buffer strips around 1 akes and water bodies
used by waterfowl;
-Protect from fire the portions of the caribou range that have a
strong lichen component;
-Protect Dall sheep winter range and 1 arnbing areas from all
activities not consistent with maintaining the population;
-Identify and protect salmon spawning areas; and
-Allow saddle and pack horse grazing in the Brushkana Creek-
Denali Highway and the Susitna River-Oenal i Highway areas upon
lease appliCation and determination of carrying capacity, in
order to benefit local guides.
Two off-road vehicle (ORV) study areas are designated ·in the
project vicinity comprising most of the BLM lands between the
Susitna River and the Oenal i Highway. These areas are presently
open to ORV use, as are all BLM lands in the area, except Tangle
Lakes. The clear-water drainage has been closed by the State
Fish and Game Commission to mechanized hunting. In addition,
recent federal action has opened major portions of the Denali
Block to mineral exploration and mining entry, which could be in
conflict with recreation and wildlife objectives. The Denali
Highway is currently under study for possible designation as a
scenic highway. Mining access has been withdrawn within one mile
of the highway for this reason. If the highway receives seen ic
designation, it is likely that the temporary project electric
transmission line as well as any borrow pits would have to be
located out of sight of highway traffic.
E-7-54
-
-
-I
!!""'
i
4.1-Management Objectives
4.1.5-Cook Inlet Region Inc. and Village Corporations
Land ownership patterns in Alaska are unique and will have signi-
ficant impacts on the recreation p 1 an. Prior to statehood in
1959, most lands in the project area were owned by the federal
government and managed by BLM. With statehood, Alaska was
allowed to select lands from federal holdings for patenting to'
the state. When ANCSA was passed in 1971, this process of land
transfer to the State was incomplete. Within the Susitna project
vicinity, some lands had been selected by the state and patented
to the state; other lands, while selected by the state, were not
yet patented to the state. Under terms of ANCSA, further action
on these lands has been suspended in favor of Native lands selec-
tion. These lands are identified as state selection suspended on
project land status maps.
ANCSA provides land and money as compensation for the aboriginal
land rights of Alaska Natives and established corporations re-
sponsible for managing these assets for the benefit of Native
shareholders. CIRI is one of the 13 regional corporations estab-
lished by the Act and has received portions of both its monetary
and land entitlements under conditions of the Act. Portions of
these entitlements are in turn to be reconveyed to village cor-
porations that are currently in the process of selecting 1 ands
from the region•s master selection. Villages also have their own
entitlements not related to CIRI selections. Major portions of
the Susitna project area have been selected by CIRI. Portions of
that area will be reconveyed to C IR I village corporations. When
the process of reconveyance and patenting is complete, the vil-
lage corporations will own surface estate to significant portions
of the lands; CIRI will own subsurface estate to those lands and
also surface and subsurface estate to the lands in their master
selection _which the villages did not select for themselves.
These lands will be private ownership, not public. Twenty years
from the date of conveyance, they will be subject to property tax
assessments.
Discussions with the village corporations and CIRI have led to
the following understanding of their objectives:
-CIRI will defer to the village corporations regarding the
development of recreational facilities;
Project land ownership of the reservoirs should be confirmed to
the high-water line, giving the Native corporations maximum
flexibility for later private development;
Native corporations must find and develop economic uses of
their lands, including recreational uses, to meet future tax
liabilities;
E-7-55
4.1 -Management Objectives
-Native corporations want to actively participate in the recrea-
tional planning, decision-making, and management process;
-They do not necessarily want to lose land ownership in order to
provide public recreation;
-Public use must be carefully managed to avoid over-use and en-
vironmental degradation;
-Trespass must be regulated;
-The state must assume liability responsiblity for any project-
related recreational use of Native lands; and
-The Native corporations would benefit from provision of tech-
nical recreational planning assistance subsidized by the Power
Authority.
The Native corporations have expressed wi 11 ingness to participate
in a cooperative recreational planning process to assure provis-
ion of recreational opportunities while meeting Native objec-
tives. Possibilities under discussion include but are not
limited to:
-Ownership of recreation areas by the Native corporations and
lease to the state;
-Ownership and management of recreation areas by the Native cor-
porations;
-Ownership by the Natives and joint management by them and the
state under Sec. 907, Alaska Land Bank, of PL 96-487, the
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act;
-Purchase of lands by the state, but facility management by the
Natives under a preferred concessionaire or similar agreement;
and
-Lease by the state of 1 ands for project construction camp
facilities and reuse by the Natives for recreational use.
4.1.6-Matanuska-Susitna Borough
The project area is located ·in the Talkeetna Mountains Special
Use District of Matanuska-Susitna Borough. As such, any develop-
ment is subject to a permit from the borough.
The Matanuska-Susitna Borough Coastal Management Program (WCC
1982) includes the Susitna River up to Devil Canyon where the
E-7-56
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4.3-Financial Obligations and Responsibility
River south of the study area. The Devil Canyon damsite is des-
ignated as a 11 potential 11 Area Meriting Special Attention (AMSA)
in that document. Under Alaska statute, should the area be des-
; gnated an AMSA, a proposed management scheme would have to be
developed by the borough and appropriate state agencies.
In 1982, the borough also published a draft Trails System report
designed to identify trails that ought to be preserved or estab-
lished in the borough. None are identified in the immediate
vicinity of the project area. The borough does not manage any
recreation areas, but rather participated in joint planning with
the State Department of Natural Resources. In some instances,
they have provided lands and monies to the state for park devel-
opment.
4.1.7 -Alaska Department of Transportation
The Alaska Department of Transportation (DOT) utilizes the
Arneri can Association of State Highway Officials (AAS.HO) Geometric
Design Guide for Local Roads and Streets (1970) as design stan-
dards for rural roads such as the project roads. Average Daily
Traffic (ADT) design year is 20 years from the present.
The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities is
currently proposing the upgrade the Dena 1 i Highway between the
Richardson and the George Parks highways. A need for improve-
ments has been identified on the basis of a traveler survey,
numerous interviews, and predicted future traffic. Upgrading 134
miles of roadway will correct roadway structure deterioration and
substandard elements and will accommodate recreational use demand
along the highway according to the Denali Highway Environmental
Assessment (1981). Proposed project activities include minor
road realignment and widening, paving and pavement repair, bridge
and culvert replacement, and turnout and stream access improve-
ments. No relocation was considered necessary in the Denali
Highway Location Study Report (1981).
4.2-Facilities• Design Standards
State of Alaska, Division of St~te Parks design standards will be used
for the proposed recreational facilities. This is intended'to minimize
operational, managerial, and maintenance costs of the facilities for
state park management.
4.3-Financial Obligations and Responsibility
of the Alaska Power Authority
Alaska Power Authority, as a state agency, has stated that it will pro-
vide for the public interest and implement an appropriate recreation·
E-7-57
4.3-Financial Obligations and Responsibility
lan. The ultimate responsibility and obligation for development,
.~ per at ion and maintenance of the recreat i anal facilities relative to
he project rests with the Power Authority. Financial commitment is
related to numerous tradeoffs to be made by the Authority in terms of
satisfying, with limited resources, the needs of many concerned user
groups. The Alaska Department of Natural Resources expects the Power
Authority to be responsible for meeting initial and future project-
related recreational needs for the duration of the project license.
The extent and nature of the responsibility will necessarily be depen-
dent upon the conditions of the FERC 1 i cense. In the event that the
recreational needs 1-Jithin the project area should change or other
specific needs not outlined in this Exhibit are identified, periodic
reviews, as outlined in Section 6.2, will provide an opportunity to
make adjustments to the plan. The responsibility for project fi nanc-
ing, development, and operation will be negotiated betwen the parties
concerned at the time the adjustments are needed and are subject to
FERC approval.
E-7-58
""""I
'
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-I
·-
-
r
-
-
5 -RECREATION PLAN
5.1 -Recreation Concept
5.1.1-The Concept
The intent of this recreation plan is to satisfy the recreational
demands created by hydroelectric development and to accommodate
public use of the project areas. The plan offers compensation
for recreational opportunities lost as a result of development.
It does not attempt to duplicate exactly or replace these oppor-
tunities. The plan is also intended to fit with·in the framework
of regional recreational opportunities and to provide additional
options. It accommodates these diverse recreational concerns in
a manner which fits the inherent opportunities and constraints of
the study area landscape and protects its scenic, cultural, and
environmental qualities.
The Susitna study area is rich in special large-and small-scale
landscape settings and features, and has great potential for a
wide variety of recreational uses. The area includes wooded
stream valleys and gorges, tundra and muskeg landscapes, and
mountainous glaciated terrain filled with lakes, bogs, water-
falls, glacial, and many other special features. These land-
scapes are comprised of a wide variety of plant communities and
wildlife inhabitants.
The recreation concept was de vel oped after a careful evaluation
of the recreational opportunities and constraints within the
study area, regional recreational concerns, and estimated
demands. It utilizes information gained from earlier public par-
ticipation programs.
The concept provides for a challenging variety of activities and
experiences within a developmental range of natural wilderness to
semiprimitive recreational facilities. Road access has been
limited. Other options such as airplane, boat, train, and foot
access a~e available to a variety of recreation areas. Off-road
vehicular use will continue in existing BLM areas.
(a) ·Major Considerations of the Recreation Concept
( i ) Regional Approach
lhe Susitna project is exceptional in its large scale
and suggests a regional approach to the recreation
plan. The study area is extended beyond the immedi-
ate perimeter of the reservoir sites in order to
thoroughly examine all adjacent landscapes and
satisfy demonstrated recreational need.
E-7-59
5.1-Recreation Concept
{ii) Fluctuating Reservoir Water Levels
The greatly fluctuating water level of the reservoirs
p reel udes the use of the reservoir edge and any
buffer zone from recreational use.
{iii) Hiking Trails
In response to the projected recreational needs of
the state, since the number one recreational priority
is hiking trails, a principal objective of this rec-
reation plan will be to help meet this priority in
appropriate portions of the project area.
(iv) Educational Values
To take advantage of the great recreational value of
understanding the Alaskan environment, a variety of
opportunities will be created to participate in and
view the landscape in a range of scales. This
variety will also represent and accommodate a variety
of users.
(v) Public Interest in Hydroelectric Facilities
To accommodate the great interest of the public to
observe and understand the hydroelectric facilities
themselves, that development focuses activity on a
core of recreational facilities and diverts· the
greatest number of users away from sensitive opera-
tions or environmental areas. Hydroelectric facil-
ities which have appeal as a recreational resource
have been incorporated into this concept.
(vi) Recreational Needs of Temporary Construction
Workers and Permanent Village Residents
The concept also considers the complex recreational
needs uf the temporary construction camp workers and
ultimately the residents' permanent village. At
these locations the concept is intended to provide a
variety of highly developed recreational facilities,
both indoor and outdoor, which will satisfy demands
without overtaxing the area's limited primitive rec-
reational capacity.
The recreation concept was formulated to take advantage of these
opportunities and the best natural features of the Susitna Basin
rather than restricting the evaluation to specific project
E-7-60
-
-
~
I
~
I
l!li!llj
I
I
-
-
-
5.1 -Recreation Concept
facilities. In fact, after analysis, the highest quality recrea-
tional opportunities were found to be in the diverse landscapes
adjacent to the reservoir sites and not at the reservoirs them-
selves. Because of this fact, there are not many recreational
facilities within the buffer zone which could potentially be
impacted by changes in the dynamic edges of the reservoirs.
5.1.2-Public. Input
During earlier studies of recreational needs for the Susitna
project, the University of Alaska dist~d a Concept Plan Sur-
vey to the public in order to solici 13·trb~m · · to the rec-
reational planning process. The uestionnaires rtaining to
public preferences for activities a development, as
well as their perceptions of recreational potential in the proj-
ect area, were mailed to potential users in Anchorage, Fairbanks,
and other areas of the Railbelt. An abbreviated form was also
used at public workshops to gain additional information regarding
public interests and desires regarding recreational development.
The survey and its results were published in The Recreation Plan
for the Susitna Hydroelectric Project {University of Alaska
1982). Early concept plans . incorporated into these question-
na·ires do not reflect later engineering and schedule planning
decisions and project modifications; however, those survey por-
tions which identify public recreation opportunity spectrum pref-
erences continue to be valid. These identified preferences serve
as the framework of the proposed recreation plan.
A total of 2145 surveys were distributed. Recipients were given
a choice of five alternative approaches to development and asked
to rank the five in order of value. The choices were:
Approach A -Minimally developed and managed wilderness with no
access;
Approach B -Managed wilderness with limited access;
Approach C-Watana Dam development;
Approach D-Devil Canyon reservoir development; and
Approach E -Highly developed and managed throughout.
Results of the 549 responses were separately analyzed by region
(Anchorage, Fairbanks, and other areas of the rai 1 belt) and by
residence classification (urban, rural, remote rural, and other)
but no significant statistical differences were found. Approach
B was found to have the highest overall value to the respondents.
Therefore, the recreation concept is based on minimal and
E-7-61
5.1 -Recreation Concept
primitive development having only limited access within a managed
wilderness area. Further analysis of the attached comments indi-
cated that facilities should be developed and managed on an
as-needed basis, starting with minimal services and expanding
only as demand warrants. This preference has been reflected in
the proposed phased implementation program.
5.2 -Recreation Opportunity-Inventory
5.2.1 -Methodology
The procedure for the inventory of the land base and the analysis
of the intrinsic recreation potential of the sites was as
follows:
-Reviewed all planimetric information, USGS quadrangles, pre-
vious inventories and aerial photographs.
-Located the occurrence of all attractive features as understood
from above, and including local knowledge and previous work,
e.g., the recreation plan published (TES 1982d).
-Field checked all sited located in the previous step p1us new
potential sites, using the inventory shown in Appendix 7.B.
Defined the quality and extent of the various 1 andscape fea-
tures.
-Mapped all features and settings depicting the distribution and
location of the recreational resources. Included are indica-
tions of special or significant views and vistas (see Figure
E.7.5. Recreational opportunities, hunting, fishing, and col-
lecting sites are not specifically located or symbolized. The
opportunity exists to experience the wildlife in many ways as
they naturally inhabit the entire landscape.
5.2.2-Inventory
The aim of site inventory is to inventory the land base of those
landscapes which support the most diverse range of possibilities.
It includes three steps to define recreational resources inherent
to the site:
-Attractiveness {physica1 description);
-Recreation preference type; and
-Accessibility. ·
(a) Attractiveness
Attractiveness is a measure of a landscape•s unique or
special settings and features. These can be both cultural
E-7-62
~
i
-
....
-
....
-
-
-
r
-!
5.2 -Recreation Opportunity -Inventory
and natural. However, they are almost exclusively natural
within this study area. The 1 andscape was inventoried for
features (their frequency and significance) which bear on
the potential for recreation. The natural features and
their typi ca 1 characteristics which were determined to be
important in the study area are as follows:
-Mountaintops: rocky, craggy, often snow-capped, usually
above timperline, glaciated or glacier forms most unique
and impressive;
-Tundra landscapes: tundra landscapes, both wet and dry,
with close-up beauty and photographic resources;
-Lakes: naturally occurring, degree of enclosure, habitat,·
formation, glaciated lakes and beaver ponds most unique;
-Rivers: glaciated, ruggedness and enclosure, quality
expressive of Alaska, size, edges;
-Streams: character, clarity, size, edge;
-Water features: waterfalls, cascades, beaver ponds, snow-
fields, ice;
-Hunting habitats: locations of big game animals and
birds;
Fishing habitats: location of fish species;
-Botanical interest sites: unusual plants, or systems;
and
Special aesthetic features: unique exploratory vistas,
features and settings.
(b) Recreation Preference Type
·A principal objective of the recreation plan is to provide a
variety of recreational activities within .a spectrum of rec-
reation "preference types" (USDA Recreation Opportunity In-
ventory and Evaluation 1974). The preference types relate
to the character and quality of the existing land base. The
recreational activities also ~elate in terms of their appro-
priateness to a particular setting. Patterned after the
USFS Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) approach, the
four recreation preference types used in this report are:
E-7-63
5.2 -Recreation Opportunity -Inventory
(i) Pristine
A natural, unmodified environment, a source of intel-
lectual or physical challenge; seeking solitude; aes-
thetic stimulation. The landscape setting should be
remote, devoid of people, with a stimulating natural
environment and difficult to access.
(ii) ·Primitive
A natural environment, a source of enjoyment of set-
tings which provide fish or game species, rocks,
edible plants, etc. The landscape setting should be
natural, removed from human influences.
(iii) Semiprimitive
Lightly developed locations, natural surroundings, a
source of relaxation. The appropriate physical set-
tings are natural-semiprimitive sites,· with rela-
tively easy access.
(iv) Developed
\~an-made developed sites, with easy access. The
appropriate settings are deve 1 opments which embody
many people and site-specific interests.
Recreation opportunity activities have been identified in
relationship to the above reference types as follows:
Pristine: Mountaineering, kayak-canoeing, backpacking, hik-
ing, snow-shoeing, ski touring,. nature study, and photo-
graphy;
Primitive: Backpacking, hiking, photography, nature study,
big game hunting, fishing, rock hounding, berry picking, and
plant gathering;
Semiprimitive: Car camping, pleasure driving, boating,
lodges, snowmobiling, hiking/wa1king, and picnicking; and
Developed: Sports, snowmobiling, tours, picnicking, and
pleasure driving.
Another major consideration is accessibility. The study
area is very remote and must be considered as such in evalu-
ating demand. A related consideration is the competition
for the recreational user within the same framework for
E-7-64
-
~
i.
-
-
-
-
-
r
-
.....
r
i
-
-
5.3-Recreation Opportunity -Evaluation
"remoteness" from such places as Denali National Park, the
Wrangell Mountains, the Chugach Mountains, the Alaska Range,
and the Kenai Peninsula.
(c) Accessibility
Accessibility refers to the kind of roads, four-wheel-drive
trails, foot trails, etc., which are in or surround the
study area. Access to the landscape occurs in four modes:
foot, auto-ORV, boat, and plane. After the Susitna project
is constructed, the damsite access roads will allow access
to new areas by the auto-related recreati ani st which were
before inaccessible except by less convenient modes. Appro-
priate access to the various settings is important in main-
taining the setting preferences, e.g., pristine activity
preferences need to be difficult to access. This relation-
ship is determined during the onsite field review.
5.3-Recreation Opportunity Evaluation
The major considerations for the evaluation of the recreation resources
are:
-Natural value;
-Inherent durability;
Visual quality;
-Carrying capacity; and
-Present 1 and status.
5.3.1-Natural Value
Natural value is a measure of the inventoried landscape features
and settings bas.ed upon the frequency of occurrence and overall
quality.
Natural value also defines the physical characteristic's rela-
tionship to the regional and local scales. The sites were evalu-
ated on an onsite basis in a three-level rating:
-High: value local or state resources, symbolic of Alaska land-
scapes or carrying unique recreation potential--0.8 recreation
opportunity quality factor (a factor defining the potential for
attracting recreation users to a particular site);
-Medium: moderately uncommon, expressive of local characteris-
tic landscapes, exposure to abundant recreational resources--
0.5 recreation opportunity quality factor; and
-Low: commonly occurring landscapes with few features with rec-
reation potential--0.2 recreation opportunity quality factor.
E-7-65
5.3 -Recreation Opportunity -Evaluation
5.3.2 -Inherent Durability
Durability is a general measure of the physical ability of a site
to absorb the impact of recreational development. The evaluation
is based upon known physical data and field observation of each
recreational resource site. There are four aspects to determin-
ing durability for each site as described in the following
matrix:
Visual quality is a measure of the scenic qual1ty and importance
of the site.· The relative availability of significant landscape
features and settings contained in each potential recreation site
can be measured by:
-Uniqueness based upon frequency and scale;
-Levels of quality of the resource; and
Imageability (reinforcing the Alaska landscape image) and
visual quality of each setting.
Unique settings and features are important to describe in terms
of their quality and imageabil ity, and are related as indicated
in the following matrix:
Few extraordinary
features with
high apparency
Unique
Alaskan
Landscapes
High
E-7-66
Rare or
Unusual
. Landscapes
High
Common or
Extensive
Landscapes
fledium
-
-
-
~
'
-
-
!"""'
I
I
-
5.3 -Recreation Opportunity -Evaluation
Unique
Alaskan
Landscapes
Rare or
Unusual
Landscapes
Common or
Extensive
Landscapes
Several special
features and
settings
High Medium Low
Encroachment
and created
landscapes
Medium Medium Low
5.3.4 -Carrying Capacity
Carrying capacity is the inherent capability of a landscape to
support recreation use. The primary purpose is to achieve fit-
ness between the number of people using a site and the preferred
recreation type (experience). The goal is not to reduce the ex-
periential potential of site through over-use or participation.
The United States Forest Service approach (U.S. Department of·
Agriculture 1974) has been used in a modified version to define
the carrying capacity of each.
(a) Visitation Estimates
This method utilized two visitation estimates for each rec-
reation site: (1) yearly visitation capacity; and (2)
yearly visitation potential. Visitation capacity is an
estimate of how many visitors can annually experience and
use a particular recreational setting, based upon the desig-
nated recreation preference type. This estimate is des-
cribed by the following formula: ·
~peak ~apacity][days in][% ?f.yeaj[visitor.dayj* est1mate year ut1l1zed convers1on =
· · factor
recreation site acres
visita-
tion
capacity
Visitation potential estimates the probable actual use of
the same recreational setting. This estimate is described
by the following formula:
visitation
capacity
recreation opportunity *
quality factor visitation potential
Recreation opportunity quality factor is based upon the
natural value of the recreation site.
*Constant (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1974).
E-7-67
5.4 -The Recreation Plan
{b) Peak Capacity Estimates
Integral to these two formulas is the peak capacity esti-
mates {PCE) of visitor use. The major criteria for these
estimates are: (1) acreage of recreation settings; {2)
encounter space (that area in acres of physical and visual
potential for encounter); and {3) miles of trails and
roads. Groups at one time (GAOT) is the unit for describing
visitor groups (4 persons). For each recreation preference
type various formulas were used to generate the estimated
PCE as follows:
[ recreation l [ % acres l**
Pristine: setting acre~ encounter spacd = PCE
(250 acres/visitor group)
r recreation l[ % acres l**
Primitive: ~etting acre~ encounter spacd = PCE
(100 acres/visitor group)
Semiprimitive: {GAOT/mi trail )(mi trail) + (GAOT/mi 4WD
road){mi 4WD road) + {GAOT/mi 2WD road){mi
2WD road) = PCE
Developed: (GAOT/mi 2WD road){mi 2WD road) + (GAOT/mi MTR)
{mi MTR) + (GAOT of existing recreation
facilities) = PCE
These estimated capacities can be compared to the estimated
recreation demand to verify satisfaction of estimated rec-
reation needs.
5.4 -The Recreation Plan
The Susitna Hydroelectric Project recreation plan includes the follow-
ing sites and proposed facilities. Figure E.7.6 indicates extensive
facilities such as long trails. and locates site-specific recreational
facilities. All sites are shown with a key 1 etter and phase number
relating to text and maps. There are eleven additional maps which
depict important features of the individual recreation sites (Figures
E.7.7-E.7.17).
**Encounter space along trails is 0.5 miles wide.
E-7-68
-
-
-
-
~
'
,-
-
-
-
-I
-
r
5.4-The Recreation Plan
Phase One -Watana Construction Phase
Key Letter Name
E
D
B
A
c
F
Brushkana Campground
Tyone Confluence with Susitna
Butte Creek/Susitna River
Middle Fork-Chulitna River
Watan a Townsite
Portal Entry
Phase Two -Watana Implementation Phase
0
u
H
I
L
J
K
Watana Damsite
Watana Townsite
Tsusena Creek
Tsusena Butte
Deadman/Big Lake
Clarence Lake
Watana Lake
Phase Three -D~vil Canyon Construction
G Mid-Chulitna/Deadman Mountain
Phase Four -Devil Canyon Operation
0 s
R
De vi 1 Creek
Devil Canyon Damsite
Mermaid-Lake
Phase Five-To Be Developed Only If Demand Requires
T
M
N
p
w
Soule Creek
Southern Chulitna Mountains
Fog Lakes
Stephan Lakes
Rehabilitation Sites
5.4.1-Phase One: Watana Construction Phase
(a) Brushkana Camp (E)
(i) Physical Characteristics
An existing developed campground with 33 campsites,
including picnic, fire, and toilet facilities on the
Denali Highway, Road Mile 105. Although surrounded
..... by wonderful views of the Alaska Range and its
E-7-69
5.4 -The Recreation Plan
glaciers, the campground is set in a nondescript
brushy environment along Brushkana Creek (see Photo-
graph E.7.4).
(ii) Recreation Preference Type
Developed; man-made environment with easy access, in
a seminatural state.
(iii) Recreation Opportunity Summary
-Car camping;
-Picnicking;
-Fishing;
-Big game hunting;
-Photography; and
-Berry picking.
(iv) Recreation Opportunity Evaluation Summary
Natural Value: Low
Inherent Du rabi1 ity:
Visual Quality:
abiotic:
vegetation:
wildlife:
encroachment:
Low, a commonly
brushy gravelly
Brushkana Creek
the campground,
expansive views
Alaska Range.
Carrying Capacity: Developed
Visitation Capacity: 3200
Visitation Potential: 1600
Medium
Medium
Durable
Durable
occurring
environment.
tumbles past
and there are
of the
Present Land Status: Bureau of Land Management
(v) Proposed Recreation Facilities (see Figure E.7.7)
Twenty-five new campsites, simi1ar to the existing
development, with tables, fire, and toilet facilites,
and 1/4-mile (0.4 km) circulation road for proposed
site.
E-7-70
-
-
-
1
I
-
-
-
-
"""" i
-
-
-
5.4 -The Recreation Plan
(vi) Accessibility
The Denali Highway, approximately at Road Mile 100,
is immediately adjacent and intersects the Parks
Highway approximately 30 miles (50 km) to the west.
(b) Tyone River (D)
Physical Characteristics
The site is located at the confluence of the Tyone
and Susitna rivers at River Mile 246 where the
Susitna River becomes a fixed-channel river just
beyond the eastern 1 imits of the Watana reservoir
site within a rolling open landscape of the Gu1kana
uplands.
Recreation Preference Type
Primitive: a natural environment with enjoyable
settings, which offer game species; has difficult
access.
Recreation Opportunity Summary
Boating;
Kayaking-canoeing;
Camping;
Big game hunting; and
Fishing.
(iv) Recreation Opportunity Evaluation Summary
Natural Value:
Inherent Durability:
V i s u a 1 Qua 1 it y :
E-7-71
Medium
Abiotic:
Vegetation:
Wildlife:
Encroachment:
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Fragile
Moderate; this is an extensive
river channel environment,
dotted with lakes and rolling
hills. Panoramic views are
possible toward the Clearwater
Mountains, but primarily
restricted within the river
basin foreground.
5.4-The Recreation Plan
Carrying Capacity: Primitive
Visitation Capacity: 160
Visitation Potential: 128
Present Land Status: State of Alaska, Department of
Natural Resources
(v) Proposed Recreation Facilities (see Figure E.7.6)
One shelter
(vi) Accessibility
Boat, put into Susitna River from Denali Highway and
the Tyone River/Lake Susitna/Lake Louise route from
the Glenn Highway.
(c) Butte Creek/Susitna River (B)
(i) Physical Characteristics
This is a broad valley in which Butte Creek meanders
from the tundra uplands and the headwaters of Watana
Creek to its confluence with the Susitna River. A
wide and boggy valley fitted with tiny ponds, lakes,
and wetlands is in contrast to the rocky Talkeetna
Mounta·i ns immediately to the south. In the area of
the confluence with the Sus itna River, downstream
from the Denali River crossing, the river is broad,
braided and shallow (see Photograph E.7.2}.
(ii) Recreation Preference Type
Butte· creek:
Butte Lake:
Pristine; a natural unmodified en-
vironment with aesthetic stimulation.
Primitive; a semiprimitive experi-
ence, with a natural setting.
Susitna River: Semiprimitive; highly developed
natural surroundings, with relatively
easy access.
(iii) Recreation Opportunity Summary
-Butte Creek:
Wildlife observation;
E-7-72
....
-
-
-I
-
-I
....
-
r'"'
I
i
-
5.4-The Recreation Plan
• Botanical interest sites;
• Fishing;
• Big game hunting; and
• Photography.
-Butte Lake:
• Fishing; and
• Big game hunting.
-Sus i tna River:
• Fishing;
• Photography;
• Boating;
• Ski touring; and
• Snowshoei rig.
(iv) Recreation Opportunity Evaluation Summary
Natural Value: Medium
Inherent Durability: Abiotic: Fragile
Fragile
Moderate
Fragile
Visual Quality:
Carrying Capacity:
Vegetation:
Wi 1 dl ife:
Encroachment:
r-t:lderate, cohesive, a very wet
valley bottom, typical of
Alaska lowlands in this region;
set among moderately sloped
mountains, Butte Creek is a
pristine environment.
Butte Lake receives ATV pres-
sure and extensive fishing.
There are several cabins on the
1 ake. The Denali Highway
crosses the Susitna River, with
many inhabitants living nearby.
semi-primitive
Visitation Capacity: 720
Visitation Potential: 360
Present Land Status: Bureau of Land Management
E-7-73
5.4-The Recreation Plan
(v) Proposed Recreation Facilities (see Figure E.7.6)
Butte Creek:
Butte Lake:
Susitna River:
(vi) Accessibility
Butte Creek:
Butte Lake:
Susitna River:
No additional recreational
developments.
No additional recreational
developments; consider removing
ATV access to this area.
Boat ramp development at Denali
Highway bridge across the
Susitna, including storage for
6 vehicle-trailers.
None except via cross-country
on foot from Deadman Lake or by
boat on river
ATVs and airplanes currently
access the lake.
The Denali Highway and boats.
(d) Middle Fork Chulitna River (A)
(i) Physical Characteristics
Extending from the town of Summit through the Summit
Lake chain, this corridor runs 27 miles (45 km) east
into the Chulitna Mountains. It follows along the
Middle Fork of the Chulitna River, the upper reach of
the Jack River, and the headwaters of Tsusena Creek.
The corridor includes the lakes of Caribou Pass and
begins in a broad river valley, eventually leading
into a narrower V-shaped valley where intersections
of other drainages form a visually complex moun-
tainous and glaciated 1 andscape. At the southern
boundary ( El 3900), it crosses a pass and 1 eads to
Tsusena Creek (Site F). The background views of the
Alaska Range are dramatic from the Middle Fork
Chulitna drainage basin (see Photograph E.7.1).
(ii) Recreation Preference Type
Pristine: a natural unmodified environment which
offers solitude, aesthetic stimulation, and a source
of intellectual or physical challenge.
E-7-74
-
-
-
-
-
-!
-
-
-i
-
5.4 -The Recreation Plan
( i i i )
( i v)
Recreation Opportunity Summary
-Hi ki ng;
-Backpacking;
-Camping;
-Collection sites;
-Botanical interest sites;
-Wildlife observation;
-Ski touring (Broad Valley only);
-Snowshoeing;
-Big game hunting;
Fishing; and
-Meets state priority for trail develoJlllent.
Recreation Opportunity Evaluation Summary
Natural Value: High
Inherent Durability: Abiotic: Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Fragi 1 e
Visual Quality:
Carrying Capacity:
Vegetation:
Wildlife:
Encroachment:
High; much of the corridor con-
sists of lake environments.
Opportunities for panoramic
views of the Alaska Range exist
throughout the corridor. There
are many areas of foreground
interest and waterforms which
offer a high level of visual
interest and landscape unity.
Pristine
Visitation Capacity: 4645
Visitation Potential: 3857
Present Land Status: Bureau of Land Management and
Ahtna Village Corporation sel-
ection. ·
(v) ProRosed Recreation Facilities (see Figure E.7.6)
~ Two overnight shelters along trail;
Primitive trail development 25 miles (41 km); and
Trailhead and parking for 6 cars.
E-7-75
5.4 -The Recreation Plan
(v:i) Accessibility
Railroad stop at Summit;
-Parks Highway;
-Foot trails proposed in Tsusena Creek, Site H; and
-Cross-country access to Jack Creek and Soule Creek
drainages.
(e) Watana Townsite (C)
See Section 5.4.6.
(f) Portal Sign (F)
At the entry of the Watana access road on the Denali Highway
is the site for an explanatory project sign and visitor in-
formation service. Parking pull-off for 2-3 cars is neces-
sary.
5.4.2 -Phase Two -Watana Implementation
(a) Watana Damsite {0)
(i) Physical Characteristics
( i i )
(; i i )
( i v)
Located above the Watana damsite on the south side of
the Susitna River (River Mile 184) within the Fog
Lakes recreation setting (Recreation Area N), this
site has views both up and down the Susitna River and
toward the Chulitna Mountains.
Recreation Preference Types
Developed; a man-made environment with easy access.
Recreation Opportunity Summary
Viewpoint;
Visitor information;
Photography;
Pi cni cki ng; and
Walking.
Recreation Opportunity Evaluation Summary
Natural Value: Moderate
Inherent Durability: Abiotic: Low
Vegetation: Low
Wildlife: fvbderate
Encroachment: Low
E-7-76
-
-
-
-
-
·~
.1!11!!1\
-'
-
-
5.4-The Recreation Plan
Visual Quality:
Carrying Capacity:
Moderate; high potential exists
here for exploratory viewing of
the Watana dams ite. In addi-
tion, views northward as well
as along th~ river provide
excellent contextual settings
for the dam.
Developed
Present Land Status: Private (CIRI Village Section)·
within designated Pryell Boun-
dary
(v) Proposed Recreation Facilities (see Figure E.7.8)
Access road, 0.15 mile (0.25 km);
Parking, 20 cars;
Exhibit building;
-Souvenir shop;
-Museum;
-Restrooms; and
-Food service.
Indigenous plants on botanical trail;
Four picnic sites; and
Boat ramp to reservoir,·possibly at emergency spill-
way.
Note: Powerhouse tour headquarters to be 1 ocated on
north side of dam at operations headquarters.
(vi) Accessibility
Access road across Watana Dam.
(b) Watana Townsite Phase II (U)
See Section 5.4.6
(c) Tsusena Creek (H)
(i) Physical Characteristics
Adjoining the Middle Fork of the Chulitna River rec-
reation setting and descending from the headwaters of
Tsusena Creek, the va 11 ey runs southward toward the
Tsusena Lakes which are almost 250 acres (100 ha) in
size. Many unusual and interesting rock formations,
waterfalls, and glacial deposits are evidence of its
E-7-77
5.4-The Recreation Plan
gl aci a 1 hi story. The va 11 ey floor is covered with
wetlands, ponds, and brush, with an overstory of
mixed woods, and scattered stands of spruce (see
Photographs E.7.5 and E.7.6).
(ii) Recreation Preference Type
Pristine; a natural unmodified environment, a source
of physical and intellectual challenge, solitude, and
aesthetic stimulation.
(iii) Recreation Opportunity Summary
-Hiking;
-Backpacking;
-Botanical interest sites;
-Rock hounding;
-Wildlife observation;
-Photography;
-Snowshoeing;
-Ski touring;
-Mountaineering;
-Fishing; and
-Meets state priority of trail development.
(iv) Recreation Opportunity Evaluation Summary
Natural Value: High
Inherent Durability: Abiotic: Fragile
Fragile
Fragile
Fragile
Visual Quality:
Carrying Capacity:
Vegetation:
Wildlife:
Encroachment:
High, with a great natural
diversity of mountainous ridge-
lines, waterfalls, rock forma-
tions, and streamside and wet-
land environments; the area has
unique foreground and middle-
ground views in every d i rec-
ti on. The potential for wild-
life observation occurs every-
where in this diverse natural
environment.
Pristin-e
Visitation Capacity: 2657
E-7-78
-
-
-
5.4 -The Recreation Plan
Potential Capacity: 2206
Present Land Status: Bureau of Land Management
(v) Proposed Recreation Facilities (see Figure E.7.9)
Two shelters; and
20 miles (33 km) of primitive trail development.
(vi) Accessibility
-Foot trail from the proposed Middle Fork of the
Chulitna River (Recreation Site A);
-Airplane at Tsusena Lakes; and
-Foot trai 1 from the Watana access road within the
Tsusena Butte recreation setting, (Recreation Site
I).
(d) Tsusena Butte (I)
( i )
( i i )
( i i i )
Physical Characteristics
The southern extent of the Tsusena Valley divides
around Tsusena Butte, which is a prominant solitary
mountain. The Tsusena Lakes 1 i e between the butte
and the foot hi 11 s of the Chulitna Mountains and are
over a mile in length. The Tsusena Valley ends here
and becomes part of the upland terrace above the
Susitna River where Deadman Creek meanders through
alpine tundra (see Photograph E.7.10).
Recreation Preference Type
Primitive area with lightly developed facilities and
natural surroundings, which has easy access.
Recreation Opportunity Summary
Hiking;
-Backpacking;
-Photography;
-Wildlife observation;
-Ski touring;
-Snowshoeing; and
-Fishing.
E-7-79
5.4-The Recreation Plan
(iv) Recreation Opportunity Evaluation Summary
Natural Value: High
Inherent Durability: Abiotic: Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Visual Quality:
Carrying Capacity:
Vegetation:
Wi 1 dl i f e:
Encroachment:
High; this area has background
views south to the Talkeetna
Mountains and north into the
Tsusena Creek Basin (Recreation
Area H)~ as well as foreground
views of well-defined Tsusena
Lakes. The sportsman's lodge
at the lake adds a cultural
feature in this otherwise pris-
tine environment.
P ri mit i ve
Visitation Capacity: 1274
Visitation Potential: 1019
Present Land Status: Bureau of Land Management
(v) Proposed Recreation Facilities (see Figure E.7.9)
Primitive trail development~ 4 miles (7 km);
Trailhead~ with 10 parking spaces; and
Two to four undesignated campsites.
(vi) Accessibility
Auto~ via the Watana access road (Mile 36).
(e) Deadman Lake/Big Lake (L)
(i) Physical Characteristics
Two lakes of approximately 1800 acres (720 ha) lie at
the southern base of Deadman Mountain among a complex
set of rolling~ rocky hills. Above the surrounding
Watana and Butte Creek drainages, Deadman Creek mean-
ders through the lake basin on its way to its conflu-
ence with the Susitna River (see Photographs E.7.11
and E.7.12).
E-7-80
-
-
·-
-
-
·-
-
-
-
5.4 -The Recreation Plan
(ii) Recreation Preference Type
( i i i )
( i v)
Pristine; a natural, stimulating, unmodified environ-
ment, offering solitude and possessing great aes-
thetic appeal.
Recreation Opportunity Summary
-.Hiking;
-Backpacking;
-Photography;
-Wildlife observation; and
-Fishing.
Recreation Opportunity Evaluation Summary
Natural Value: High
Inherent Durability: Abiotic: Durable
Moderate
Fragile
Fragile
Visual Quality:
Carrying Capacity:
Vegetation:
Wildlife:
Encroachment:
High; with pano"ramic views
across the Susitna Basin to the
Talkeetna Mountains, the fore-
ground lakeside settings are
subtly complex rock, tundras,
and are brushy in character
with spectacular fall color
variety.
Pristine
Visitation Capacity: 1292
Visitation Potential: 1034
Present Land Status: Bureau of Land Management,
State Selection Suspended
Lands.
(v) Proposed Recreation Facilities (see Figure E.7.10)
Primitive trail development, 4 miles (7 km);
Four undesignated campsites; and
Trailhead, with 6-space automobile parallel parking.
E-7-81
5.4-The Recreation Plan
(vi) Accessibility
Airplane at Big Lake.
access road (Mile 28).
Foot trail to the Watana
(f) Clarence Lake (J)
(i) Physical Characteristics
This popular fly-in fishing lake is set in a rolling
upland terrace above the Susitna River. The lake's
outflow, Gilbert Creek, flows westward to its conflu-
ence with Kosina Creek, which tumbles northward to
the Susitna River Valley. Alpine tundra covers the
large undulating terrace, with mixed woodlands occur-
ring only at Kosina Creek (see Photograph E.7.14).
(ii) Recreation Preference Type
Primitive; a natural or semiprirnitive environment for
the enjoyment of game species and removed from human
influences that is difficult to reach.
(iii) Recreation Opportunity Summary
-Hiking;
-Backpacking;
-Photography;
-Wildlife observation;
-Fi s hi n g ; and
-Big game hunting.
(iv) Recreation Opportunity Evaluation Summary
Natural Va 1 ue: Low
Inherent Durability: Abiotic: Low
Medi urn
Medium
Medium
Vi sua 1 Quality;
E-7-82
Vegetation:
Wildlife:
Encroachment:
Medium; the site has many
opportunities for views of the
surrounding mountains in all
directions. The primary views
and experiences relate to the
streamside, where small can-
yons, woodlands, and streams
create a pleasant and inter-
esting micro-environment.
-
-
-
,-
-
-
-
5.4 -The Recreation Plan
Carrying Capacity: Primitive
Visitation Capacity: 3243
Visitation Potential: 648
Present Land Status: State-suspended lands.
(v) Proposed Recreation Facilities (see Figure E.7.11)
Primitive trail development, 9 miles (15 km);
One footbridge; and
Four to six undesignated campsites.
(vi) Accessibility
Airplane on Clarence Lake; and
Primitive trail from Watana reservoir, 2 or 3 miles
(3-5 miles) south of River Mile 207 (boat-only
access).
(g) Watana Lake (K)
(i) Physical Chara·cteristics
Mt. Watana and Watana Lake are set at the northern
extent of the Talkeetna Mountains, rising above the
Susitna River Valley. Alpine tundra covers a gently
undulating uplands which extends to the Talkeetna
Mountains (see Photograph E.7.16).
(ii) Recreation Preference Types
( i i i )
( i v)
Primitive; a natural or semiprimitive environment,
enjoyment of game species, and difficult to access.
Recreation Opportunity Summary
-Hiking;
-Backpacking;
-Photography;
-Wildlife observation;
-Fishing; and
-Big game hunting.
Recreation Opportunity Evaluation Summary
Natural Value: Low
E-7-83
5.4 -The Recreation Plan
Inherent _Durability: Abiotic: Low
Medi urn
Medi U1l
Medi urn
Visual Quality:
Carrying Capacity:
Vegetation:
Wi 1 dl ife:
Encroachment:
Moderate; the extensive broad-
ness of the upland terrace plus
the lack of foreground variety
reduces the potential for
interest, even considering the
pristine nature of the setting.
Cultural interest exists
because of the sportsman 1 S
cabins on the lake edge.
Primitive
Visitation Capacity: 1045
Visitation Potential: 209
Present Land Status: State-suspended lands.
(v) Proposed Recreation-Facilities (see Figure E.7.11)
Primitive trail development, 3 miles (5 km); and
Three undesignated campsites.
(vi) Accessibility
Airplane on Watana Lake; and
Hiking trail from Kosina Creek (boat-only access)
5.4.3-Phase Three -Devil Canyon Construction
(a) Mid-Chulitna Mountains, Deadman Mountain (G)
(i) Physical Characteri sties
A complex environment of spectacular sawtooth ridges
and high, wet tundra landscapes. The western half of
the setting is a unique combination of multicolored
mountaintops, snow, glaciers, and tundra. The head-
waters of Deadman Creek originate here, twisting
through a broad, flat tundra muskeg, then abruptly
descending toward the east at Deadman Mountain (see
Photographs E.7.7, E.7.8 and E.7.9).
E-7-84
.....
....
-,
-
-
-
-
-
-
5.4 -The Recreation Plan
(ii) Recreation Preference Type
Pristine; a natural unmodified environment, this area
is a source of intellectual and physical challenge,
solitude, and a highly aesthetic experience.
(iii) Recreation Opportunity Summary
-Hiking;
-Backpacking;
-Photography;
-Wildlife observation;
-Botanical interest sites.
-Meets state priority for trail development.
(iv) Recreation Opportunity Evaluation Summary
Natural Value: High
Inherent Durability: Abiotic: Moderate
Fragile
~derate
Frag i1 e
Visual Quality:
Carrying Capacity:
Vegetation:
Wi 1 dl ife:
Encroachment:
High; this area has spectacular
panoramic views north to the
Alaska Range and views into the
highly complex, colorful and
interesting Chulitna Mountains
only a few miles away. The
high, wet tundra offers fall
color and interesting fore-
ground wetlands and waterforms.
Unique possibilities exist to
experience a wide variety and
scale of interesting land-
scapes.
Prisitine
Visitation Capacity: 2743
Vi si tati on Potentia 1 : 2195
Present Land Status: Bureau of Land Management
(v) Proposed Recreation Facilities (see Figure E.7.12)
Two vista auto pull-off areas, seven autos;
One trailhead with three-car parallel parking;
E-7-85
,
5.4-The Recreation Plan
Primitive trail development, 7 miles (12 km); and
Two to four undesignated campsites.
(vi) Accessibility
Auto, via the Watana access road. Mountaineer route
to Tsusena Creek drainage, Recreation Area H.
5.4.4-Phase Four-Devil Canyon Operation
(a) Devil Creek (Q)
{i) Physical Characteristics
Set in an upland tundra landscape of great complexity,
Devil Creek cascades down into the Susitna River gorge
at River Mi 1 e 161. Within a very narrow enclosed
series of canyons and tight valleys, the creek twists
through a brushy and partially wooded valley. Devil
Falls roars through a narrow slot in the cliffs and
joins another small tributary which also has a spec-
tacular waterfall in the same small gorge. This set-
ting is highly scenic and a major resource of the
study area (see Photographs E.7.20, E.7.21, and
E.7.22).
(ii) Recreation Preference Types
Pristine; a natural unmodified environment for seek-
ing solitude with great aesthetic stimulation.
(iii) Recreation Opportunity Summary
-Hiking;
-Nature observation; and
-Photography.
(iv) Recreation Opportunity Evaluation Summary
Natural Value: High
Inherent Durability: Abiotic: Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Fragile
Visual Quality:
E-7-86
Vegetation:
Wildlife:
Encroachment:
High; this is a dynamic en-
closed small-scale environment
with great experiential poten-
tial. Unusually spectacular
-
-
-
r
-
-
,_
I
5.4-The Recreation Plan
(v)
(vi)
Carrying Capacity:
series of falls and roaring
streams provide an exciting and
unique recreation resource.
Pristine
Visitation Capacity: 1257
Visitation Potential: 1006
Present Land Status: State suspended lands, CIRI
Village Selection Lands
Proposed Recreation Facilities (see Figure E.7.15)
Primitive trail development, 9 miles (15 km).
Accessibility
Gravel road, the Devil Canyon access road.
(b) Devil Canyon Damsite (S)
( i)
( i i )
Physical Characteristics
Above the Devil Canyon dam, perched high above the
Susitna River at River Mile 152, are open forested
uplands. Expansive views exist to the west and
north, but of particular note is the very deep canyon
below (see Photograph E.7.26).
Recreation Preference Type
Developed, a man-made site with easy access, within a
natural setting.
(iii) Recreation Opportunity Summary
Visitor information service;
-Walking;
-Picnicking;
-Nature observation;
-Photography;
Ski touring; and
-Snowshoeing.
(iv) Recreation Opportunity Evaluation Summary
Natural Value: High
E-7-87
5.4 -The Recreation Plan
Inherent Durability: Abiotic: Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Fragile
Visual Quality:
Carrying Capacity:
Vegetation:
Wildlife:
Encroachment:
High; the site is located above
the deep gorge of the Susitna
River and reveals an awesome
scale of the natural forces
be 1 ow • Pan or ami c v i ew s a 1 so
exist toward the west and the
lower Susitna valley.
Developed
Present Land Status: Private (CIRI Village Selec-
tion) within designated Project
Boundary.
(v) Proposed Recreation Facilities (see Figure E.7.13)
One shelter;
-Exhibit building;
-Food service;
-Souvenirs shop; and
-Restrooms.
Eight picnic sites;
15 parking sites; and
Boat access and ramp downriver from dam via project
construction road
Note: The auto-oriented campground at Mermaid Lake (Site
, R), about 4 road miles {7 km) northeast, is the des-
tination campground associated with Devil Canyon
Visitors• Center.
(vi) Access·ibil ity
Devil Canyon access road.
(c) Mermaid Lake (R)
(i) Physical Characteristics
This is an undulating upland tundra landscape dotted
with many medium-to-large lakes set in shallow wet
basins. The physiography has great diversity in its
topographic character. The Chulitna Mountains rise
to the north of these uplands, and Devi 1 Canyon of
E-7-88
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
5.4-The Recreation Plan
the Susitna River forms the souther edge (see Photo-
graphs E.7.24 and E.7.25).
(ii) Recreation Preference Type
( i i i )
( i v)
Semiprimitive; a semiprimitive location in a natural
surrounding, with relatively easy access.
Recreation Opportunity Summary
-Car camping;
-Snowshoeing;
-Ski touring;
-Nature observation;
-Wildlife observation;
-Fishing; and
-Big game hunting.
Recreation Opportunity Evaluation Summary
Natural Value: High
Inherent Durability:
Visual Quality:
Abiotic:
Veg et at i on:
Wildlife:
Encroachment:
Moderate
Fragile
Moderate
Moderate
High, a scenic visual environ-
ment, this area has great fore-
ground appeal, and vistas to-
ward the colorful Chulitna
Mountains. Tremendous fall
color potential in this
setting.
Carrying Capacity: Semiprimitive
Visitation Capacity: 3329
Visitation Potential: 2663
Present Land Status: Bureau of Land Management,
state selection suspended lands
(v) Proposed Recreation Facilities (see Figure E.7.14)
Eight campsites, tables, tent pads, parking;
Small-scale road, 0.25 mile (0.4 km);
Two toilet facilities; and
One shelter.
E-7-89
5.4-The Recreation Plan
(vi) Accessibility
Airplane; Mermaid Lake, and High Lake, auto;
Devil Canyon access road, Mile 29.
5.4.5-Phase Five -To Be Delivered Only If Demand Requires
(a) Soule Creek (T)
(i) Physical Characteristics
The site extends westward from the Watana access road
within the Brushkana drainage. The proposed trail
hugs the north side of the drainage, affording vistas
of the Alaska Range to the east. To the west the
narrow enclosed Soule Creek valley ends in a complex
array of mountaintops and ridges. Often snow-covered
and comprised of multicolored rock with a large hid-
den lake basin of 5 mi1es (8 km) containing a long
(2-mile [3-km]) linear lake, this valley is a strik-
ingly complex, natural environment (see Photographs
E.7.27 and E.7.28).
(ii) Recreation Preference Type
Pristine; a natural stimulating environment offering
solitude and possessing great aesthetic appeal.
(iii) Recreation Opportunity Summary
-Hiking;
-Backpacking;
-Wildlife viewing;
-Primitive camping;
-Photography;
-Fishing;
-Big game hunting; and
-Meet state priority of trail development.
(iv) Recreation Opportunity Evaluation Summary
Natural Value: High
Inherent Durability: Abiotic: Moderate
Moderate
Fragile
Fragile
V i s u a l Qual i t y :
E-7-90
Vegetation:
Wildlife:
Encroachment:
High; this. is a symbolic moun-
tainous landscape, offering
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
r
5.4-The Recreation Plan
Carrying Capacity:
exploratory vistas of the
Alaska Range. A high degree of
natural diversity of 1 andfonns,
rock and snow 1 andscapes, and
waterforms exists here.
Pristine
Visitation Capacity: 2361
Visitation Potential: 1888
Present Land Status: Bureau of Land Management
(v) Proposed-Recreation Facilities (see Figure E.7.17)
Primitive trail development, 8 miles (13 km);
Five to six capacity undesignated campsites at the
northern edge of the lake; and
Five-car parallel park trailhead.
(vi) Accessibility
Proposed Watana access road; and
Existing airplane access upon lake.
(b) Southern Chulitna Mountains (M)
(i) Physical Characteristics
( i i )
( i i i )
Set within the southwestern foothills of the Chulitna
Mountains this small valley is surrounded by a rugged
skyline. The valley is covered by an alpine tundra
with a rocky base which is very wet in places. A
small lake created by an old moraine 1 ies at the
lower end of the valley, opening to views toward the
Susitna Basin below (see photographs E.7.29 and
E.7.30).
Recreation Preference Type
Pristine; a natural unmodified environment, a source
of intellectual or physical challenge, solitude, and
aesthetic stimulation.
Recreation Opportunity Summary
-Backpacking;
-Hiking;
E-7-91
5.4 -The Recreation Plan
-Nature observation;
-Snowshoeing; and
-Ski touring.
(iv) Recreation Opportunity Evaluation Summary
Natural Value: High
Inherent Durability: Abiotic: Fragile
Fragile
Moderate
Fragile
Visual Quality:
Carrying Capacity:
Vegetation:
Wildlife:
Encroachment:
High; this small-scale mountain
valley has jutting mountaihous
edges surrounding a tundra-
covered valley floor. A
pristine hidden lake is the
foreground setting to distant
panoramic views of the Susitna
Basin and beyond to the
Talkeetna Range.
Pristine
Visitation Capacity: 456
Visitation Potential: 365
Present Land Status: Bureau of Land Management
(v) Proposed Recreation Facilities (see Figure E.7.10)
Primitive trail development, 3 miles (5 km);
Three undesignated campsites; and
Trailhead with three parallel auto parking spaces.
(vi) Acccessibility
The Watana dam access road.
(c) Fog Lakes (N)
(i) Physical Characteristics
This cluster of long, linear lakes paralleling each
other, each over one and one-half mi 1 es 1 ong, are
wJthin a partially wooded upland above the Susitna
River. The Talkeetna Mountains form a dissected,
E-7-92
-
-
"""I
"""1
I
-
-
....
-
-l
5.4-The Recreation Plan
glaciated complex landscape to the south.
originates here and cascades through its
yons to the Susitna River at River Mile
Photograph E.7.17).
Fog Creek
sma 11 can-
177. (See
(ii) Recreation Preference Type
Primitive, the area is semiprimitive, lightly devel-
oped, with natural surroundings and relatively easy
access.
(iii) Recreation Opportunity Summary
-Hiking;
-Car camping;
-Nature observation;
-Wildlife observation;
-Photography; and
-Fishing.
(iv) Recreation Opportunity Evaluation Summary
Natural Value: Moderate
Inherent Durability: Abiotic: Moderate
Frag i1 e
Moderate
Moderate
Visual Quality:
Vegetation:
Wildlife:
Encroachment:
Moderate; these are very vis-
ually interesting large lakes
with background views toward
the Chulitna and Talkeetna
Mountains. Fog Creek possesses
a wonderful small-scale series
of cascades, cliffs, and small
enclosures providing an inter-
esting and pleasurable environ-
ment.
Carrying Capacity: Primitive
Visitation Capacity: 7144
Visitation Potential: 3572
Present Land Status: Private land
E-7-93
5.4 -The Recreation Plan
(v) Proposed Recreation Facilities (see Figure E.7.8)
Fifteen campground units, pi~nic tables, fire pits,
and tent pads;
Three toilet facilities; and
Primitive trail development, 15 miles {25 km).
(vi) Accessibility
Airplane to Fog Lakes; and
Road access across Watana Dam.
(d) Stephan Lake ( P)
(i) Physical Characteristics
Stephan Lake is a 3.5-mile-long {6-km) lake set ·in a
wooded valley in the uplands south of the Susitna
River. The area contains Prairie Creek which winds
its way south to the Talkeetna River. The Talkeetna
Mountains form the southern boundary to the valley
setting and evidence the glaciated history of the
area (see Photograph E.7.19).
(ii) Recreation Preference Types
Primitive; a semiprimitive environment of settings
which provides a variety of game species, in a
natural setting which is difficult to access.
(iii) Recreation Opportunity Summary
-Hiking;
-Backpacking;
-Kayaking-canoeing;
-Wildlife observation;
-Photography;
-Fishing; and
-Big game hunting.
(iv) Recreation Opportunity Evaluation Summary
Natural Value: Moderate
Inherent Durability: Abiotic:
Vegetation:
Wildlife:
Encroachment:
E-7-94
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Moderate
-!
-
Rim
i
~
I
-
-
-
r-
i
-I
' -
F""
-
....
r-'
I
l
-
-
-
5.4 -The Recreation Plan
(e)
( v)
(vi)
Visual Quality:
Carrying Capacity:
Moderate; the area has a rela-
tively common forested upland
and 1 ake character. Many
opportunities exist for viewing
the Talk~etna Mountains in the
distance.
P ri mit i ve
Visitation Capacity: 1956
Visitation Potential: 978
Present Land Status: Private land.
Proposed Recreation Facilities (see Figure E.7.16)
Primitive trail development, 5 miles (8 km); and
Five campsites.
Accessibility
-Airplane, on Stephan Lake; and
-By foot trail from the Susitna River
Rehabilitation Sites and Project
Construction, Created Opportunities (W)
In addition to those recreational opportunities which are
intrinsic to the natural environment, there are other areas
under consideration such as borrow sites, construction and
maintenance roads, and transmission corridors. These ele-
ments which are created to serve temporary purposes or as a
by-product of construct ion commonly attract recreat i oni sts
who find them convenient for campsites, hiking trails, off-
road tracks, and other activities. Additional recreational
improvements and activities could be developed in such loca-
tions if unforeseen recreational demand occurs.
All such elements planned for Susitna should be designed in
Phase II so that the option is available either to incorpo-
rate them into the recreation plan or to restrict public
access after construction to protect sensitive areas.
These areas should be considered for development upon the
completion of the 4-phased, site-specific facility program.
These recreation opportunities would be part of Phase Five
in the recreation plan, to be developed only as need
requires.
E-7-95
5.4-The Recreation Plan
It is of utmost importance in these cases to rehab i1 it ate
the disturbed environment (see Chapter 8, Aesthetics) and to
allow a recovery period prior to future recreation devel-
Opllent. It is necessary to recreate the physi og raphi c
character and indigenous plant communities as closely as
possible and create new recreation opportunities, e.g.,
fisheries of native species, plant materials for gathering,
etc.
5.4.6 -Recreation Plan for Construction
Camps and Permanent Townsite
(a) Background
Because of its remote location, sequential development of
construction camps at both the Watana and Devil Canyon
sites has been planned. Each will be occupied for approxi-
mately 8 years by at 1 east a part of the work force. The
peak number of workers will be there for 1 ess than the
entire construction period, and average work force will
approximate half of the peaks. Therefore, facilities can
generally be programmed to provide fewer opportunities both
in range and extent than those in permanent communities.
Prospective workers will understand that the project entails
hardship circumstances and will not expect all the amenities
of urban 1 ife. Experience has shown that there will be a
turnover of work force through attrition. This means that,
while a particular job may last the life of the project, it
will not necessarily be filled by the same person for the
entire period.
Operation of the camps and the length of work days and work
weeks will influence both the proportion of the work force
who chose to 1 ive in camp compared to those who chose to
live elsewhere {if that option is given) and the amounts and
types of recreation required. In addition, climatic consid-
eration will require seasonal adjustments. The largest work
force will be active from April through October, and a mini-
mum work force of 30 percent of that year•s peak will con-
tinue through December and January. The work pattern is
planned to be four weeks.on and one week off. There will be
two 10-hour shifts per day, seven days per week.
While some Watana workers may choose to live in Cantwell or
elsewhere, it is assumed that the majority will 1 ive at the
camp and commute to their families• places of residence only
periodically.
E-7-96
-
-
-
-
-I
I
I
-
-
-
-
i
-
-
5.4-The Recreation Plan
This recreation plan is intended to meet the needs of con-
struction workers in residence at the construction camps; it
is not intended to address the recreational needs of workers
while not at the site.
(b) Planned Project Facilities
Table E.7.16 indicates recreation facilities proposed in the
Susitna Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Report (Acres
1982d) •
A single-status worker camp with a peak capacity of 3600
workers and a family-status village designed for a peak
capacity of 350 families (1120 people) are planned. The
village is currently plan ned to be located about 1. 5 miles
(2.5 km) north of the damsite, and the construction camp
another 1.5 miles (2.5 km) northeast. An airfield will also
be developed. After construction, the villages will be re-
moved and relocated at Devil Canyon and a permanent townsite
for 125 operators and their fami 1 i es wi 11 be developed ad-
joining the construction village. Current plans call for no
preconstruction of the permanent town facilities, necessi-
tating a duplication of facilities in the temporary village
and town site. The Devil Canyon project is planned to be
constructed from a temporary single-status construction
camp, and temporary family-status construction village
located about 3 and 4 miles (5 and 7 km), respectively, from
Devil Canyon. The camp is planned for a peak of 1780
workers and the village for 170 workers and their families,
totaling 550 persons. No permanent residential facilities
are planned for Devil Canyon.
The temporary camps and villages are designed to be largely
self-contained and in fenced areas, with highly regulated
environments. It is anticipated that hunting by project
personnel will be prohibited and that fishing will be regu-
lated. Recreation programs sponsored by the camp management
will occur largely within these compounds.
The Feasibility Report programs major recreation facilities
for each of the four temporary camps. Table E. 7.15 shows
the major facilities as anticipated in March 1982. Actual
recreation facilities.at the permanent town will be planned
in detail during subsequent project design phases.
(c) Recreation Programming for Workers and Residents
Quality of life objectives are very difficult to achieve at
construction camps. The type, number, and quality of
E-7-97
5.4-The Recreation Ylan
recreation facilities and nonstructural opportunities
available will be important factors in determining that
quality of 1 ife, and could impact productivity, turnover,
and ability of the project to attract quality construction
workers. It will also affect the n~.mber of workers who
choose to 1 ive and recreate out of the camp. Other things
being equal, total environmental impacts can be reduced by
concentrating the work force in camps rather than 1 iving
elsewhere. Other important non recreation components which
will affect quality of life are design considerations such
as ability to achieve privacy, which experience has shown to
be as important as recreational opportunities. Color and
the use of interior pl antscapes are also important. Other
considerati.ons which are managerial in nature includes food
quality, management styles, special event planning and
holiday celebrations (see also Chapter 5, Socioeconomic
Impacts).
Ancil1ary construction camp facilities are typically pro-
grammed for less than peak work force because of the peak's
relatively short duration. In terms of Susitna recreation,
this concept is reinforced by the fact that annual peaks
will occur in the summer months when outdoor nonstructural
recreation will increase the range of recreational opportun-
ities. While the peak work force at Watana will reach 3480
in June and July 1990, the average annual work force will
more closely approximate 1600 total workers. Only in the
five years between 1987 and 1992 will the work force exceed
this average, and then only during half of the year. Facil-
ities will be completed by the 1990 peak; therefore, 1987-
1989 wil 1 incur the heaviest use. Devil Canyon construction
activity will peak in 1998-2000, and facilities will have
maximum use in 1997. The permanent Watana townsite wll be
planned for 125 famflies, or 400 total population.
Assuming that the proportion of family and single-status
workers remains constant, recreation in the Watana camps
will be programmed as follows:
Single-Status Camp: 1600 workers
Family Village: 160 workers (500 total population)
For Devil Canyon, comparable working forecasts are:
Single-Status Camp: 1100 workers
Family Village: 110 workers (350 total population)
E-7-98
-
-
-
-
-
-i
~
I
I
-
5.4 -The Recreation Plan
Private recreational standards vary widely and are affected
by location, climate, user profiles, and other factors.
Representative standards intended, however, to be applied to
larger, permanent communities are:
Facility
Softball
Tennis
Basketball
Pool
Center
Golf Course
Population
Standard
1 per 1000
1 per 2000
1 per 500 ·
1 per 20,000
1 per 25,000
1 per 25,000
Source: National Recreation & Park Open
Space Standards (1971)
Other standards use 1 per 3000 population for softball
fields. Most planners would not use as high as 1 per 500
persons for basketball courts. Outdoor courts will be
1 imited by c 1 imate. Similarly, other standards use 1 per
50,000 persons for a golf course. Other standards determine
athletic field needs in terms of acres per 1000 population,
typically 1.5 acres per 1000 for field sports (adults and
older children) and 1.0 per 5000 population for tennis, out-
door basketball and other sports (DeChiara & Koppelman
1978).
These types of standard planning criteria are not directly
applicable to programming for these facilities. Some of the
other factors which have influenced the recreation plan are
the:
-Extreme remoteness of the site;
-Long duration of construction period;
-Extreme harshness of climate from October through April;
-Short daylight hours in winter months and long daylight
hours in summer months;
-Long (10-hour) w~rk days;
-Pattern of four weeks on, one week off;
-Necessity to protect fish and wildlife from overuse; and
-Homogenous user profile.
Current construction plans call for five essentially sepa-
rate colllTlunities which will require duplication of facili-
ties and increase infrastructure and recreation costs. This
recreation plan is designed to provide essentially equiva-
lent facilities for single-and family-status workers. If
E-7-99
/'
5.4 -The Recreation Plan
family-status workers are not allowed, as is. more typical
with civilian projects in Alaska, significant savings can be
achieved. In addition, if permanent townsite facilities are
pre-built for the Watana village, some duplication can be
eliminated.
(d) Proposed Recreation Plan for Workers and Residents
The recreation plan as presented is designed for the peak
year for Watana, 1990-1991, and Devil Canyon, 1998-2000, and
w"ill be developed incrementally in the prior years, as
needed. The plan is detailed in Table E.7.16.
Recommended facilities take into consideration those pre-
sented in the March 1982 Feasibility Report, recent compar-
able experience in construction camp programming, and refer-
ence to recognized sources (DeChiara and Koppelman 1975 and
1978, DeChiara and Callender 1973, Mountain West Research
Inc. 1976, Myhra 1980).
Many of these proposed recreation uses can be accommodated
in multipurpose space. For instance, the gymnasium can be a
multipurpose space suitable for jogging, basketball, volley-
ball, tennis, badminton, etc. Such areas are not necessar-
ily a separate building but are developed by clustering res-
idential modules with flooring and roofing spanning the
intervening space. The swimming pool can serve as the camp-
fire protection reservoir and as an important image-
generating and social gathering place. The 11 Clubhouse 11 may
be a separate structure or may be divided into smaller
social groupings throughout the camp.
Exterior uses likewise do not require separate space dedi-
cated to a particular activity but can utilize single fields
for multipurpose sports. Utilization of recreational
directors is an important component both in maximizing the
·multiuse potential of the facilities and in contributing to
the quality of life for the residents.
It is also recognized that some of the nonstructural activi-
ties recommended in this plan carry liability risks for the
Power Authority. Careful consideration will have to be
given to the tradeoffs involved between quality of life and
potential risks. Potential activities such as fishing will
have to be carefully coordinated with the Alaska Department
of Fish and Game to protect the resource. Other issues,
such as storage of fish ca1.1ght by camp residents, have
important Health Department implications. It is anticipated
that no storage of fish will be permitted, nor will angler
fish be cooked in camp kitchens.
E-7-100
-
-
-
r
5.4 -The Recreation Plan
Further recreation planning for the camps, villages, and
townsite will be required as the Power Authority progresses
with policy decisions regarding details of the construction
program and as actual facility design is undertaken.
5.4.7-Site-Specific Design
The exceptionally large scale of the Susitna Recreation Area and
regional approach to planning make detailed design of recrea-
tional elements inappropri~te in Exhibit E.
Site-specific designs will occur during Phase Two engineering
designs at which time site-specific data and site locations will
be accurately described and designed.
These investigations of recreation sites will be closely coordi-
nated with concurrent archeological site investigations. . If
potential conflicts are discovered between significant archeolog-
ical sites and proposed recreational improvements, they will be
resolved through careful siting and modifications as required.
5.4.8 -Design Standards
The intent of this plan is to use the Alaska Division of Parks
design standard, since this division will be the major managing
agency for the proposed recreation sites. Because of the in-
tended primitive nature of most of the recreation sites, an
onsite design construction process is most appropriate and is
commonly used by the Parks Department. For example, the proposed
trails will meet the Division of Parks "Priorities Trails" stan-
dard which is an 18-inch to 24-inch (45-60 em) tread surfaced in
the parent material, with half logs in wetlands. They will be
brushed out to 48 inches (1.2 meters) where necessary. They will
be hand constructed and follow existing topography. Trails are
intended to be as pr·imitive as possible to enhance the natural
experience (see Appendix 7.C for typical or similar facility
design standards for the Susitna project).
5.4.9 -Recreation Plan Mitigation Measures
There were several considerations that were made during the rec-
reation planning process to ameliorate the impacts of the pro-
posed recreations sites. These concerns guided final selection
of those sites.
Avoidance of sensitive critical natural habitats and cultural or
archeologic sites was a major consideration in the determination
of the recreation plan. Each potential site was examined by an
interdisciplinary group to define the suitability of potential
E-7-101
5.5-Alternative Recreation Plans
recreation sites. Where critical habitats, environments, or cul-
tural resources were in existence, those sites were eliminated or
avoided.
Some critical sites were impossible to ignore because of their
inherent attractiveness and accessibility as a result of the
project design. The approach in these cases was to direct rec-
reation use to the most durable locations within the recreation
zone being impacted. Critical fisheries or spawning grounds were
not made accessible by the recreation plan. Critical minimal
habitats (eagle nests, animal dens, etc.) were avoided, as well
as all major, identified archeologic sites.
Environmental situations including wetlands, steep slopes, and
poor soils as observed in the field inventory, were also
avoided.
The intent of the recreation plan concept is to enhance and be an
integral part of the existing landscaped character. Proposed
recreational facilities will be primitive in their design char-
acter and level of development in order to reflect this concern
for fitness.
Fish and game monitoring management will be necessary to ensure
appropriate fishing and hunting use of these resources. These
systems already exist within the study area and will have to be
expanded.
5.5 -Alternative Recreation Plans
In developing the Susitna Hydroelectric Project recreation Plan, a full
range of alternatives was considered, including alternative levels of
development, locations, and numbers of facilities. Also, the "no rec-
reation facility" alternative was considered.
Because recreational demand is low (Section 5), there is great fitness
between the carrying capacity of the recreation sites and recreational
demand. Therefore the "additional development" alternative was re-
jected because of not satisfying project objectives of accommodating
user demand, and appropriate levels of recreational development.
5.5.1 -Additional Facilities and Development
In addition to the proposed recreation plan, the alternative of
additional recreational development was considered. This
occurred in two ways: (1) additional new sites, and (2) more
intense development on the proposed sites.
From the inventory, several sites were considered which had
limited potential for recreation but were not chosen because of
E-7-102
...,
I
-
-
....
-
-,
r-
!
r
,....
-
5.5-Alternative Recreation Plans
inherent 1 imiting factors. These factors included physical char-
acteristics, accessibility, and recreation potential.
Each proposed recreation site was evaluated for additional facil-
ities. This was considered on an onsite basis for each site.
5.5.2-No Recreation Facility
Based on the physical character and operational characteristics
of the project, it was determined that the reservoirs themselves
do not constitute resources for recreation. The silty water,
wide mudflats, slumping sidebanks, and potential choppiness are
expected to discourage their use by the recreating public. Fur-
thermore, potential safety hazards for small boaters suggest that
public po1 icy not encourage use of project waters for recrea-
tion.·
However, if this "no development" alternative were chosen, pro-
ject objectives of mitigating recreation losses would not be met,
nor would induced recreational demand caused by improved access
be accommodated. Not only will project roads increase access,
but the reservoirs will become transportation routes for hunters.
Th1 s alternative was therefore rejected and ·other recreational
resources, not reservoir based, were considered for development
of the plan.
5.5.3-Other Access Route Alternative
Many access route alternatives have been considered by project
designers for access to the Watana and Devil Canyon dams ites.
The proposed recreation plan and subsequent phasing have been
determined considering accessibility as a major determinant. The
difference between the proposed recreation plan and another
access plan would be in the phasing order of the various recrea-
tion sites for development and in the substation of some sites
along that access for some of those along the current access.
For instance, if the access to the Dena1i Highway were not bui1t,
the sites along it would not be recommended for development. If
the north (east-west) access route were developed, sites along it
(e.g., Mermaid Lake) would be moved from Phase Four to Phase Two
for f1y-in or hike-in use. If the southern access route were
chosen, all sites along or near the reservoirs would be developed
on1y for fly-in or hike-in access unti1 Phase Four, when the
railroad would convert to recreational use.
As part of the Phase Five monitoring, new sites might be located
if demand warrants.
E-7-103
5.5-Alternative Recreation Plans
5.5.4-Future Additions
Because of uncertainties in both recreational demand and other
factors such as ultimate land ownership, flexibility has been
built into the recreation plan; this is more completely discussed
in Section 6, Plan Implementation. Future additions may be sel-
ected from the Phase Five projects which were not se 1 ected for
inclusion in the recreation plan but which may be considered in
reserve for future additions, should demand be generated or
should sites in Phases One through Four not be available due to
land ownership or other reasons.
E-7-104
-
-
-i
~
I
"""'I
,....
I
-
-
r-
1
-c'
-i
I"""
I
6 -PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
6.1 -Phasing
Phasing of the proposed recreation plan is dependent upon a nlJllber of
factors, including:
-The schedule on which Watana and Dev n Canyon projects are actually
implemented, including dates on which reservoirs are filled and dates
on which project access roads are opened to the public;
-Agreement among the Power Authority and the various parties (Native
corporations, BLM, state Division of Parks) on the schedule of pro-
vision of those recreation areas which are not dependent on access
roads utilized in project construction;
-Agreement among the various parties on a recreation schedule. This
schedule is expected to meet and possibly exceed FERC requirements
for provision within three years, due to the extent of the project
area, the extensive nature of recreational activity in Alaska, and
the extremely 1 ong .and phased construction period;
Satisfactory and timely agreement among the agencies and private
landowners regarding possible recreational features on private
1 ands;
-Demand for recreation, which is difficult to predict with confidence
over the 1 ong project implementation period and in a state where pop-
ulation growth, and hence the demand for recreation, is subject to
major unpredictable variations in immigration rates. Availability of
other regional recreational resources will affect demand in unpre-
dictable ways as massive land status changes occur;
-Schedule of selection and transfer of land title to the state' of
Alaska and the Native corporations, which will determine actual own-
ership at the time of implementation of project recreation features,
and whether a sufficient period {20 years) has passed to enable the
Native corporations to sell the land; and
-Potential information developed in the recreation-use monitoring pro-
gram described in Section 6. 2 bel ow.
Implementation of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project recreation plan is
divided into five phases:
6.1.1 -Phase One: Watana Construction Phase
This phase consists of recreational features intended to mitigate
the impacts of recreational opportunities lost because of con-
struction activities and associated land cldsures, to provide rec-
reational opportunities for project construction workers; and to
E-7-105
6.1-Phasing
provide the general public with some early-on recreational bene-·
fits derived from the public investment in Watana. Phase One
projects are generally planned to be developed simultaneously with
the start of project construction.
6.1.2-Phase Two: Watana Implementation Phase
Phase Two consists of recreational features intend~~ mitigate
the impacts of recreation lost due to the operation of Watana, to
provide for the recreational use potential of the project; to
accommodate project-induced recreational demand; to allow public
access to project lands and waters, and to protect the environ-
mental values of the project area. Phase Two projects ar~ in-
tended to be developed within three years of the operational date
of the Watana project or when necessary agreements are reached
with private landowners for those projects on private land.
6.1.3-Phase Three: Devil Canyon Construction Phase
Phase Three consists of projects intended to mitigate the impacts
of recreational opportunities lost due to Devil Canyon construc-
tion activities and to provide recreational opportunities for con-
struction workers. Phase Three projects are generally planned to
be developed simultaneously with the start of access construction
to Devil Canyon or when necessary agreements are reached with pri-
vate landowners for those projects on private land. In addition,
they will be designed to adjust to postproject recreational demand
at Watana.
6.1.4 -Phase Four: Devil Canyon Implementation Phase
Phase Four consists of recreational features intended to mitigate
the impacts of recreation lost because of the operation of Devil
Canyon; to provide for the recreational use potential of the proj-
ect, to accommodate project-induced recreation demands; to allow
public access to protect lands and waters, and to protect the en-
vironmental values of the project area. Phase Four projects are
intended to be developed within three years of the operational
date of the Devil Canyon project or when necessary agreements are
reached with private landowners for those projects on private
1 and.
6.1.5 -Phase Five: Post-Construction Monitoring Phase
Phase Five consists of monitoring recreational use. Monitoring
will begin when the first project recreational facilities are
available in order to determine actual recreational use of the
project features and to trigger adjustments in the recreation plan
as required. The triggering mechanicsm is designed to initiate
E-7-106
-
..... ,
J -
-
r
r
-
r
'
rf""'
i
r
-
6.1 -Phasing
any necessary adjustments in the Phase Two, Three, and Four plans
and at 10-year intervals thereafter throughout the 1 ife of the
project license.
6.1.6 -Elements of the Recreation Plan According
to Their Phases of Development
(a) Phase One (Sites E, 0, B, C, A, F)
E Brushkana Camp 25 campsites west of existing
camp water supply; and 3
vault toilets.
D Tyone River Confluence 1 shelter
with Su sitna
B Butte Creek/Susitna 1 boat launch at Susitna
c
A
F
River Bridge.
Watana Townsite·
Middle Fork
Chulitna River
Porta 1 sign
Temporary camp and town
f ac i 1 it i e s •
2 overnight shelters;
25 (41 km) miles primitive
trail ; and Trail head and
parking
Explanatory entry sign; and
2-3 car pull out
{b) Phase Two (Sites 0, U, H, I, L, J, K)
0
u
H
I
Watana Damsite
Visitor Center
Watana Townsite
(Phase Two)
Tsusena Creek
Ts usena Butte
E-7-107
Parking, 20 spaces; Visitor
exhibit building; Food
service; Souvenir shop;
Museum; Restrooms; Powerhouse
tour facility; Indigenous
botanical trail; and Boat
launch.
2 miles (3 km) of primitive
trail; to Tsusena Falls; and
Trailhead an parking.
2 shelters; 40 miles {70 km)
of primitive trail; and
Trailhead and parking.
4 miles (7 km) of primitive
trail; 1 trai"lhead; and
3-4 capacity primitive camp
6.1 -Phasing
L Big Lake/Deadman Lake
J Clarence Lake
K Watana Lake
(c) Phase Three (Site G)
G Mid-Chulitna Mountains
Deadman Mountain
(d) Phase Four (Sites Q, S, R)
Q
s
R
Devil Creek Drainage
Devil Canyon Damsite
Visitor Center
Devi 1 Canyon/
Mermaid Lake
1 trailhead; 5-6 capacity
primitive campsite; and
4 miles (7 km) of primitive
t ra i 1.
9 miles (15 km) of primitive
trail; 4-6 capacity primitive
campsite; and 1 footbridge
3 miles (5 km) of primitive
trail; and 2-3 capacity prim-
itive campsite.
2 vista pull-offs; 1 trail-
head; 7 miles (12 km) of
primitive trail; and 2-4
primitive designation
camps.
7 miles (12 km) of trail
Shelter; Visitor center;
Dam exhibit; Food service;
Souvenir shop; Restrooms; and
Boat 1 a u n c h •
8-10 campsites, tent pads;
Shelter; and Restrooms.
(e) Phase Five -To be developed only if demand requires.
(Sites T, M, N, P, W)
T
M
N
Soule Creek
Southern Chulitna
Mountains
Fog Lakes
E-7-108
8 miles (13 km) of primitive
trai 1; and 5-6 capacity prim-
itive campsite.
3 miles (5 km) of primitive
trai 1; 5-6 capacity primi-
tive campsite; and Trailhead
and parking.
15 miles (25 km) of primitive
trail; and 15 units camp-
ground.
-
-
-
-
r I
i
6.2 -Monitoring and Future Additions
p Stephan Lake
w Rehabilitation Sites
6.2-Monitoring and Future Additions
5 miles (8 km) of primitive
trail; 5-7 campsites, semi-
primitive (fire pits, tent
pads); and Dock.
As appropriate.
The recreation plan consists of five phases and all the components
identified therein. However, discussions with FERC and other relevant
agencies recognize the peculiar difficulties associated with this
project, including:
-Limited confidence levels in long-range recreation projections;
-Long period of project construction;
-Changing land ownership; and
' -Geographic extent of project area, and the extensive nature of Alaska
recreation.
Therefore, Phase One of the recreation plan would be initiated at the
time of starting construction. Phases Two, Three, and Four may be V
modified based on Phase Five monitoring. In general, the Alaska Power
Authority's commitment beyond Phase One is to acquire and develop the
facilities listed in Phases Two, Three, and Four or their equivalent as
agreed to by the relevant agencies and landowners as spelled out in the
FERC 1 icense. Modifications to the plan may be according to the pro-
visions of Phase Five-Postconstruction Monitoring Phase, as detailed
be}ow. This proposed monitoring phase is written with the assumption
that the Alaska Division of Parks will operate and maintain, witt1 the
financial support of the Alaska Power Authority, recreation elements
located on state lands and, through cooperative agreement, on BLM
lands. However, should the parties deem it desirable, separate agree-
ments could be drafted with the BLM and "BLM" be substituted for
"Division" accordingly. For project elements located on lands belong-
ing to the Native corporations, a variety of ownership and management
options may be available, and it is anticipated that similar agreements
will be drafted. Construction of proposed facilities on these private
lands is tied to acquisition· of necessary agreements with the Native
corporations. If, after a reasonable amount nf time, the Power Author-
ity and the Native corporations are not able to reach agreement on a
particular element of the recreation plan, the Power Authority, in
cooperation with the Oivison of Parks, will endeavor to find a site or
sites suitable for the proposed recreation development on public land·
within the study area which are appropriate to the particular recrea-
tion opportunity matrix classification.
E-7-109
6.2 -Monitoring and Future Additions
6.2.1-Proposed Monitoring Phase
The Division of Parks, with support of the Power Authority, will
be responsible for maintaining facility use records and surveying
use of Phase One recreation projects according to standards con-
sistent with Division practice and sufficient to determine their
level of use. At the time Watana reaches operation (or 10 years
after the completion of ~onstruction of Phase 1 recreation facil-
ities, whichever is earlier), the Division and the Power Author-
ity will jointly meet to evaluate recreation use patterns and to
plan schedules and levels of subsequent development, accordingly.
The Phase Two (Watana Implementation) plan will be evaluated at
this time and will be verified or modified as required consistent
with the recreation opportunity preference OS classification
appropriate for each proposed element. Construction of the Phase
Two recreation developments will be completed within three years
of the joint determination of need by the parties. Need will be
determined both by use levels of existing facilities and antici-
pated demand generated by the completion of the Watana project.
The Phase Three (Devil Canyon Construction) recreation plan will
be similarly evaluated when construction of the Devil Canyon
project begins. The elements recommended in this plan will then
be verified or modified as required, based on experience at
Watana and anticipated demand, consistent with the appropriate
recreation opportunity preference classification of each project
element. Phase Three will be constructed within three years of
the joint determination of need by the parties.
When Devil Canyon begins operation (or 10 years after the comple-
tion of construction of Phase Three, whichever is earlier), the
Division and the Power Authority will jointly meet to evaluate
the Phase Four plan (Devil Canyon Operation), and similarly
verify or modify it as required.
At the 10-year anniversary of completion of construction of each
phase throughout the license period of the project, the Division
and the Power AuthorHy will jointly agree upon a plan for a
major rehabilitation and/or construction relevant to the phase's
initial projects. It is anticipated that the Division of Parks
and the Power Authority will enter into an agreement whereby the
Division agrees to perform the survey, evaluation, design, con-
struction, operation, and maintenance of said recreation facil-
ities on public lands with the costs to be borne by the Power
Authority. It is also anticipated that agreements of similar
intent will be entered into with the BLM and the Native corpora-
tions as appropriate.
It is intended that the Power Authority will commit to the costs
of the facilities specified in this recreation plan. Should any
E-7-110
""'1
I
-
-
-
-'
-
-
-
-
-
-
r
r
6.2 -Monitoring and Future Additions
phase be modified by joint agreement of the Power Authority and
Division under the terms of this proposed monitoring plan, bud-
geted monies may be transferred from proposed element to element
and from phase to phase. This is done with the provision that
total development costs in any one phase do not increase over
those in the original plan for that phase and that the total
development cost for Phases One, Two, Three, and Four does not
exceed the currently anticipated total cost, as measure·d in con-
stant 1982 dollars.
E-7-111
-
-
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-!
7 -COSTS FOR CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE PROPOSED FACILITIES
7.1 -General
The cost estimates associated with the proposed recreation facil ites
and use are based upon 1982 prices for 1 abor and materials and the
assumption that the Alaska Div i son of Parks wi 11 administer the con-
struction, operations, and maintenance of the project areas. No land
costs are included in this exhibit. ·Additionally, all financial
·responsibilities will be borne by the Alaska Power Authority. Costs of
recreation facilities recommended for inclusion in the construction
camps, construction villagE;!S, and permanent town are not included in
this exhibit. No costs are included for Phase Five projects, as they
will become a part of the recreation plan on y if monitoring determines
that will be necessary.
7.2 -Construction
A summary of estimated capital costs or each phase of the recreation
plan is presented in Table E.7.17.' Breakdowns for these costs by
project features are shown in Table E. 7.18. The costs have been pre-
pared based on State Division of Parks data and discussions with Alaska
contractors.
7.3-Operations and Maintenance
It is intended that project recreation fac~lities will be operated and
maintained by the State Division of Parks and/or the U.S. Bureau of
Land Management, as appropriate. Table E.7.19 estimates additional
equipment necessary to operate the proposed facilities. Table E.7.20
summarizes estimated average annual costs for supplies, equipment, and
personnel to operate the facilities. The State Division of Parks
recommends that no user fees be assessed.
E-7-113
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-·
!"""'
I
-
r
r
i:
.-
r
-
8 -AGENCY COORDINATION
8.1-Agencies and Persons Consulted
The attached list documents public agency, Native corporation, and
University of Alaska consultations in the course of preparing this
Recreation Plan. Written records of these conversations are available
at offices of the Alaska Power Authority.
8.2 -Agency Comments
In response to the Draft Exhibit E provided to the agencies on November
15, 1982 review comments were received from the following agencies:
Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR)
-Alaska Department of Fish and Game
-United States Department of Interior, National Park Service
-United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service
The National Park Service and ADNR have expressed the concern that the
recreation plan presented in Section 6 does not include sufficient
facilities south of the Susitna River in the Fog Lakes and Stephan Lake
areas. Although only 1 imited recreational development has been pro-
posed in the areas as part of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project Recrea-
tion Plan~ recreational development in these areas could be expanded
either by the Power Authority reaching suitable agreement's with the
Native Corporations or by the Native Corporation as a private venture.
The ADNR expressed the desire to also provide recreational opportun-
ities downstream from Devil Canyon. Sites in this downstream area will
be assessed in the continuing project refinement studies.
The USFWS and ADF&G have expressed concern with the increased access
the Susitna Project will provide to important fish and wildlife re-
sources. The development of the recreation plan has, to the extent
possible, taken this concern into consideration when siting the pro-
posed recreational facilities. An effort has been made to avoid par-
ticularly sensitive fish, wildlife habitat areas while maintaining
maximum plan flexibility so that future recreational development can be
directed away from the,se areas as they are identified through continued
study. However, it should be noted that the resource management agen-
cies will have an important role in reducing project impacts through
regulation of hunting and fishing pressures placed on the resources.
Responses to the specific comments raised by these four agencies are
contained in Chapter 11.
E-7-115
AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED
Federal
A~encies Person Date Communication Subject .....
FERC Mark Robison 9/29/82 Phone Land Status
Phasing
Implementation
Demand
FERC Frank Karl\Oski 9/30/82 & Phone Land Status Ill"'\
10/30/82 Phasing
Implementation
Fish & Wildlife
Demand """!
Access Routes
Alternatives
FERC John Haimes 9/29/82 Phone Impacts
USBLM John Rego 10/15/82 Meeting Review Proposed -Recreation Plan j
USBLM Dave Dapkus 9/17/82 Meeting Recreation Data
USBLM Mike Wrabetz 9/17/82 Meeting Visual Study
Bob Ward Denali Highway
USF&WS Date Patterson 9/21/82 Meeting Rec o Demand -USFS
Chugach Natl o Forest Jim Tellerico 9/22/82 Phone Reco Data
USNPS Larry Wright 9/15/82 Meeting Reco Data
Demand
USNPS
Denali Natlo Park Bob Gerhardt 10/20/82 Phone User Data
State
Agencies
F&G Tom Trent 10/16/82 Meeting Fisheries Data
Reco Impacts
Borrow Areas ~
F&G Nancy Tankersley 9/21/82
10/22/82
Meeting Big Game Data
F&G Mike Mills 9/21/82 Meeting Fisheries Data
Carolyn Crouch .....
F&G Karl Schneider 10/22/82 Meeting Big Game Data
Stephen Burgess Mitigation
DNR Sandy Rabinowitch 9/14/82 Phone State Reco Planning
Divo Parks 9/15/82 Meeting State Policy
Maintenance -Demand
10/28/82 Meeting Plan Review
Cost Estimate
DNR Kyle Cherry 10/28/82 Meeting Cost Estimate
Div o Parks Maintenance
DNR Jack Wiles 9/15/82 Meeting Reco Data
Div o Parks Peste Martin 10/20/82 Meeting Demand
Transportation
l!!ll!!i Uses
State Planning &
Policy
Public Partie ipation
Land Ownership
Plan Review -
DNR Chris Beck 10/19/82 Meeting Demand
R&D Randy Cowal Existing Facilities
& Use ~
I
DNR Dave Stephans 9/22/82 Phone Exist. Fac o & Use
DNR Bill Beatty 10/4/82 Meeting Scenic Resources
DDT Mike Tooley 9/14/82 Meeting Standards
Construction ~ Techniques
DOT Bill Humphrey 9/24/82 Phone Traffic Demand
DDT Roger Maggard 9/24/82 Phone Traffic Demand
Construct ion
Techniques -DOT Andy Zahare 9/24/82 Phone Design Standards
E-7-116 -
-
-
Local
Agencies
Mat-Su Borough
Planning Dept.
Native
Corporations
CIRI
Tyonek Village
Corp.
Tyonek Village
Corp.
AHTNA Development
Corp. lx Knik Village
Corp.
University
of Alaska
MuselJll
Ag. Expt. Station
AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED (Cont'd)
Person
Claudio Arenas
Roland Shanks
Carl Ehelebe
Agnes Brown
N. Roy Goodman
E. J. Dixon ·
Alan Jubesv ille
Jo Feyl
Date
9/21/82
10/18/82
9/15/82
10/14/82
9/22/82
9/28/82
10/14/82
9/28/82
10/14/82
9/22/82
9/28/82
10/14/82
9/20/82
9/9/82
9/24/82
E-7-117
Communication
Meeting
Phone
Meeting
Meeting
Phone
Meeting
Meeting
Meeting
Meeting
Phone
Meeting
Meeting
Meeting
Phone
Phone
Subject
Population Projections
Borough Concerns
Rec. Demand
Borough Parks Planning
Trails
Coastal Pl an
Native Concerns
Recreation Preferences
Leg isl at ion
Land Acquisition
Rec. Plan Review
Rec. Planning
Native Preferences
Land Acquisition
Plan Review
Aesthetic Concerns
Native Input
Project Boundaries
Land Ownership
Rec. Mgmt. Issues
Aesthetic Concerns
Plan Review
Native Input
Project Boundaries
Land Ownership
Aesthetic· Concerns
Plan Review
Historic lx
Archeological
Resources
Rec. Plan
Rec. Plan
Data Sources
-'
-
-
-
REFERENCES
Acres American Incorporated. March 1982a. Susitna Hydroelectric
Project, Transmission Line Selection Route. Final Draft. Pre-
pared for the Alaska Power Authority.
March 1982b. Susitna Hydroelectric Project, Trans-
mission Line Corridor Screening Closeout Report, Task 8 Transmis-
sion Final Report. Prepared for the Alaska Power Authority.
August 1982c. Susitna Hydroelectric Project, Access
Plan Recommendation Report. Prepared for the Alaska Power
Authority.
March 1982d. Susitna Hydroelectric Project, Feasi-
bility Report. Volumes 1-7, Final Draft. Prepared for the Alaska
Power Authority.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game. March 1982. Susitna Hydroelectric
Project, Big Game Studies. Volumes I-VIII. Phase I, Final
Report. Prepared for the Alaska Power Authority.
Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks. 1972.
Alaska Recreation Trail Plan.
February 1980. Chugach State Park Master Plan.
1970. Alaska Outdoor Recreation Plan.
1981a. Alaska Outdoor Recreation Plan.
January 1981b. Estimated Facility Costs.
Unpublished.
July 1981c. Catalogue of the Alaska State Park
System.
February 1982a. Alaska State Park System: South-
central Region Plan.
June 1982b. Alaska State Park System: Statewide
Framework.
and USDI National Park Service. July 1980. Environ------:--.,.--=--mental Investigation and Site Analysis, Tokositna Study Area,
Denali State Park.
Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Research and Devel-
opment. 1980. Recreation Use Patterns and Recreation Area Notes.
Unpublished appendices to Susitna River ~asin Land Use/Recreatlon
Atlas.
1980. Susitna River Basin Land Use/Recreation Atlas.
1981. Scenic Resources Along the Parks Highway.
October 1981. Statewide Natural Resources Plan,
FY 81.
Undated. Statewide Natural resources Plan FY 81,
Appendix I.
Undated. Statewide Natural Resources Plan FY 81,
Appendix II, Alloca~ion Units.
May 1982. Matanuska-Susitna Beluga Cooperative
Planning Program-Land Use Issues and Preliminary Resource
Inventory. Volume l.
Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. 1981.
Denali Highway Environmental Assissment.
1981. Denali Highway Location Study Report,
RS-0750( I).
Alaska Division of Tourism. June 1981. Alaska Travel Directory.
Alaska Geographic. 1980. A Photographic Geography of Alaska.
Volume 7, No.2.
Alaska Magazine. September 1981. The Alaska Almanac 1982 Edition.
Alaska Power Authority. Revised Apri 1 1982. Susitna Hydroelectric
Project, Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Policy.
American Association of State Highway Officials. 1971. Geometr.ic
Design Guide for Local Roads and Streets. Washington, D.C.
Braund, Stephen R. and Associates. MarcA 1982. Susitna Hydroelectric
Project, Subtask 7.05, Socioeconomic Analysis, Sociocultural
Report. Final Draft. Prepared for Acres American Incorporated.
Carter, M. 1982. Floating Alaskan Rivers Aladdin Publishing.
Childers Associates. July 1, 1982. Roadside Recreational Facilities
Study, Richardson Highway, M 82.6-185.5. Prepared for the Alaska
Department of Natural Resour~es, Division of Parks.
Clark, Roger N. and Darryll R. Johnson. August 1981. Selected
Findings from the Alaska Public Survey-A Summary of Responses
from Southeast and South Central Alaska, Joint Report of U.S.D.A.
Forest Service and University of Washington, College of Forest
Resources.
-
-
-
-
-i'
-I
-
-
-
Cook Inlet Region, Inc. 1981 Annual Report.
Dechiara, Joseph and John Callender. 1973. Time-Saver Standards for
Building Types~ McGraw-Hill, Inc. New York.
--~..,....,...____,=---and Lee Koppel man. 1975. Urban Planning and Design
Criteria. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company. New York.
1978. Site Planning Standards. McGraw-Hill, Inc.
New York.
Economic Research Associates. June 1, 1980. Summary -Denali State
Park Visitor Facility Market Analysis and Economic Feasibility
Study. Prepared for the Alaska Department of Natural Resources.
Johnson, L. 1976. Off-Road Vehicle Use and Its Impact on Soils and
Vegetation on Bureau of Land Management Land Along the Denali
Highway, Alaska: A Report on the 1975 Outdoor Recreation Survey.
University of Alaska, Agricultural Experimental Station.
Fairbanks, Alaska.
Joint Federal State Land Use Planning Commission for Alaska. January
1979. Outdoor Recreation in Alaska.
Jones, Sally W. and Associates, Sno-Engineering,
Sports International, Inc. February 1981.
Facilities, Preliminary Projections for Use
Prepared for the Municipality of Anchorage.
Inc., and Trigon
1981 Winter Recreation
and Conceptual Design.
Jones and Jones. March 14, 1975. Upper Susitna River -An Inventory
and Evaluation of the Environmental, Aesthetic and Recreational
Resources. Prepared for D.O.A., Alaska District, Corps of
Engineers.
Jubenville, Alan. ,June 1980. Procedures Manual~ Recreation Planning
for the Susitna Hydroelectric Project, Subtask 7.08/10.06.
Knik Kanoe and Kayak Club. Personal Communication. Mary Kay Hession.
Matanuska-Susitna Borough. 1982. Trails System. Discussion Draft.
Mills, Michael J. 1981. Statewide Harvest Study-1980 Data. Alaska
Department of Fish and Game.
1982. Statewide Harvest Study-1981 Data. Alaska
Department of Fish and Game.
Mountain West Research, Inc. 1976. Construction Worker Profile:
Final Report. Prepared for the Old West Regional Commission.
Myhra, David.
Projects.
1980. Energy Plant Sites: Community Planning for Large
Conway Publications. Alanta.
Nash, Roderick. 1981.
History of Alaska.
Tourism, Park and the Wilderness Idea in the
Alaska in Perspective. Volume IV, 1.
R & M Consultants, Inc. March 1982. Susitna Hydroelectric Project,
Processed Climatic Data. Volume 1-6. Prepared for Acres Jlmerican
Incorporated.
Rand McNally, Inc. Undated. Rand McNally Alaska Road Map.
Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, Inc. April 1982a. Susitna
Hydroelectric Project, Land Use Analysis, Navigational Use.
Prepared for Acres American Incorporated.
April 1982b. Susitna Hydroelectric Project, Subtask
7.07 Land Use Analysis, Phase I Report. Prepared for Acres
American, Incorporated.
May 1982c. Phase I. Environmental Studies Report
Subtask 7.08, Recreation Planning, Analysis of Participation
Survey Results. Prepare for Acres American Incorporated.
and University of Alaska. May 1982d. Phase I,
=E-nv-,~.r-o_n_m-en~t~a~l~St'udies Final Report Subtask 7.08, Recreation Planning.
Fairbanks. Prepared for Acres American Incorporated.
The Alaska Environmental Group. Undated. Summary Development Guide
for the Lake Louise Study Area.
Trihey, E. Woody. May 31, 1981. Susitna Hydroelectric Project,
Instream Flow Assessment, Issue Identification and Baseline Data
Analysis, 1981 Study Plan. Prepared for Acres American
Incorporated.
U.S. Bureau of Land Management. September 22, 1980. BLM Land Use Plan
for South-Central Alaska - A Summary.
• Undated. Federal Land Opening for Mineral leasing
---a-n'd~M;;-,~.n-e_r_a·l Entry, Denali Planning Block.
U.S. Department of Agrtculture, Forest Service. Undated. Planning
Considerations for Winter Sports Resort Development.
---~--~---' Northern Region. June 1974. Recreation Opportunity
Inventory and Evaluation.
December 1979. The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum:
A Framework for Planning Management and Research. GTR PNW-98.
• June 1982. Summary Draft Environmental Impact
---...,...,.---,--~-Statement, Chugach National Forest Plan.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
U.S. Department of The Interior, Heritage Conservation and Recreation
Service. Undated. A Proposal for Protection .of Eleven Alaskan
Rivers.
u.s. Geological Survey. 1977. Alaska Accomplishments During 1977.
Circular 772-B.
1978. Alaska Accomplishments During 1978. Circular
804-B.
U.S. Government, 96th Congress. December 2, 1980. P.L. 96-487, Alaska
National Interest Lands Conservation Act. 94 Stat. 2371.
U.S. Soil Conservation Service, John O'Neill. November 1978. Susitna
River Basin Cooperative Study -Talkeetna Subarea. Unpublished.
University of Alaska Agricultural Experiment Station. June 24, 1981.
Exhibit E, Report on Recreation Resources, Subtask 7.08. Undated
draft. Prepared for Acres American Incorporated.
April 1982. The Recreation Plan for the Proposed
Susitna Hydroelectric Project.
Woodward-Clyde Consultants. September 1982. Matanuska-Susitna Borough
Coastal Management Program. Public hearing draft.
] J
TABLE E.7.1: AVERAGE MONTHLY FLOWS -PRE & POST PROJECT (cfs)
Gold Creek Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar ~ May Jun Jul ~ Sept
-Pre Project 5, 771 2, 577 . 1, 807 1,474 1, 249 1, 124 1, 362 13, 240 27, 81 5 24,445 22, 228 13, 321
-Post Project
Watana 8,014 9,186 10,693 9, 709 a, 951 8,324 7, 740 10,405 11 , 420 9, 185 13, 378 9,940
-Post Pr oj ect
Watana &
Devil Canyon 7,765 9,631 11, 271 1 o, 597 1 o, 191 9,286 8,100 8,706 9,883 a, 387 12, 634 1 o, 510
Sunshine
-Pre Project 13,966 6,028 4,267 3,565 2,999 2, 681 3,226 27,949 64,089 64,641 57,215 32,499
-Post Project
Watana 16,209 12,637 13, 153 11, 798 1 0, 701 9, 881 9,604 25, 114 47,694 49, 381 48,365 29,018
-Post Project
Watana & Devil
Canyon 15,960 13,082 13, 731 12,687 11,941 10,843 9, 964 23,415 46,157 48,584 47,620 29,689
Susitna
-Pre Project 31 ,426 13, 501 a, 518 8,030 7, 149 6,409 7, 231 61,646 124, 614 134,550 113,935 67, 530
-Post Project
Watana 33,670 20,109 17,404 16, 264 14,851 13, 608 13, 61 0 58, 911 108,219 119, 289 105,086 64,049
-Post Project
Watana & Devil
Canyon 33,420 20,555 17, 981 17,153 16,090 14, 570 13, 970 57, 112 106,682 118,492 104, 341 64, 71 9
Source: Exhibit E, Chapter 2 of Susitna FERC license application.
TABLE E.7.2: STATEWIDE RECREATION INVENTORY-BY LAND OWNERSHIP
Federal M1Titarv State Local School Sites
Acreage 153 million N/A 4. 7 million 7,883 2,000
Facilities II PAOT lfo PAOT lfo PAOT lfo PAOT II PAOT
Camping l..hits 1270 6299 229 824 1218 4384 477 1717 --
Remote Cabins 221 1135 30 180 2 8 3 6 --
Picnic Tables 270 1368 34 161 1747 8735 323 1583 - -
Picnic Shelters 22 220 1 10 32 320 - ---
Clan Beaches ----28 miles --- -
Boat Launches 34 34 4 4 26 26 12 12 --
Boat Moorages --25 25 --4378 4378 - -
Canoe Trails( mi) 332 1932 --47 280 26 160 --
Horse Trails( mi) 214 1070 49 240 8 40 ----
Walk/Run Trails( mi) 973 9730 --443 4430 23 230 --
Bicycle Trails(mi) --1 1D --76 760 --
ATV/ORV Trails(mi) 535 2130 70 280 142 670 14 1D4 - -
X-C SKi Trails( mi) 101 1010 132 132D 256 2510 80 BOO --
Dog-Mushing Trails( mi) ----750 3000 ----
Ski Lifts/Tows 6 -15 ---4 ---
Golf Courses --1 ---4Loc/ ---
(P vt)
Tennis Courts - -
23 -- -
59 -40 -
Basketball Courts --14 ---20 -223 -
Volle~all Courts --11 ---9 -72 -
Swimming Pools --2 -10 -7 -11 -
Softball/Baseball Fields --41 - --75 -69 -
Soccer/Football Fields --14 ---12 -2D -
Track & Field - -
4 ---5 -13 -
Target Shooting Ranges --4 -3 -1 -4 -
Ice Skating Rinks --12 ---2D -81 -
Source: Alaska Outdoor Recreation Plan, 1981
J J .J ] J
-
-
TABLE E .7 .3: STATEWIDE INVENTORY OF EXISTING RECREATION FACILITIES BY REGION
Southv.est
Region: Southcentral Southeast Interior Northwest Total
Facilities:
Camping ltlits 232B 351 484 31 3194
Remote Cabins 70 149 33 252
f"" Picnic Tables 1185 3.32 767 20 2304
Picnic Shelters 16 30 9 55
Boat Launches 79 38 44 1 162
Boat ~or ages 1723 2759 1 4483
Canoe Trails( mi) 339 34 22 395
Horse Trails(mi) 271 271
Walk/Run Trails(mi) 944 409 84 2 1439
Bicycle Trails(mi) 76 1 77
ATV/ORV Trails(mi) 702 59 761
F"' X-C Ski Trails(mi) 523 2 44 569
Dog-mushing Trails( m i) 450 300 750
Ski Lifts/Tows 11 7 7 25
Gal f Courses 5 5
Jennis Courts 89 20 13 122 r Basketball Courts 183 35 38 256
Volleyball Courts 62 19 11 92
Swimming Pools 13 2 15 30
SoftbaLl/Baseball Field;~ 134 27 20 4 185
Soccer/Football Fields 32 8 6 46
Track & Field 14 4 2 2 22
Target Shooting Ranges 9 2 1 12
Ice Skating Rinks 106 2 5 113
Playgrounds 215 20 11 246 r-·
Source: Alaska Outdoor Recreation Plan 1981
.-
TABLE E. 7.4: PERCENTAGE IF ADULT POPULATION PARTICIPATION
IN INLAND OUTDOOR RECREATION
Activities
Driving for Pleasure
Walking/ Runn irg for Pleasure
Fishing (freshwater)
Attending Sports Events
Tent Camping
1-btor Boating
Cross Country Skining
RV Camping
Hi king w/P ac k
Baseball/Softball
Flying for Pleasure
Ka ya king/ Canoeing
Sledding/Tobogganing
Winter ORV 's
Alpine Skiing
Outdoor Tennis
Swimming, Freshwater
SlJTlmer ORV/1-btorcycles
other
Football/Soccer
Swimming, Freshwater
Outdoor Basketball
Horseback Riding
Sailing (freshwater)
Water Skiing (freshwater)
Golfing
Outdoor Hockey
Hang Gliding
South-central Region
Percentage of Participation
59%
53~ti
42%
37%
31%
30%
26%
24%
22%
19%
19%
17%
1nti
17%
17%
17%
17%
14%
11%
7%
16%
790
7%
5%
S~ti
4%
2%
m~
Source: Alaska Outdoor Recreation Plan 1981
and Selected Findings from the Alaska Public Survey, 1981
-
-I
-
-
-
-
l -~
TABLE E.7,5: ALASKA STATE PARK SYSTEM VISITOR COUNT SUMMARY
1978* 1979* 1980*
Park District Resident Non-Resident Resident Non-Resident. Resident Non-Resident
Mat-Su
Copper Basin
Chugach
Kenai
Interior
Southeast
Total
Combined Total
343,532 69, 513
85' 364 59,071
490,823 76,869
116, 197 29, 118
39,510 1 8, 312
367,256 630,883
1,442,682 883,766
2, 326,448
372,212 61' 958
167,014 82' 682
1 ,456, 556 234,671
418,986 84,470
197,300
126 ,841 59,729
2, 738,909 523,510
3,262,429
Note: *1978 and 1979 field data is basa:l upon non-standardiza:l format.
*1980 field data is based upon a computer stratified sampling system
with incidental counts.
1980 data does not include the months of October through December.
Source: Alaska Outdoor Recreation Plan 1981
580,829 94,523
66' 61 5 32' 148
516,976 108,507
61 5, 542 146,132
41,866 19,702
. 119 ,026 89,747
1' 940,854 490,760
2,431,614
Trai I Type
Cat, ORV
2 Cat, ORV
3 Cat
4 Packhorse, Old
Sled Road
5 ATV
Trai I Type
6 Snodgrass Lake
Trai I
7 Portage Creek
Trai I
8 Susitna River
Trai I
9 Talkeetna Trai Is
10 Stephan Lake
Trai I
11 Big Lake Trai I
12 Butte Creek Trai I
TABLE E.7.6: EXISTING TRAILS IN THE STUDY AREA
Beginning
Gold Creek
Gold Creek
Alaska Rai I road
mile 232
Chun i Ina
Dena I i Highway
Beginning
Dena II Highway
Chun i Ina
near Cantwe I I
Middle
Ridge top west
of VABM Clear
Portage Creek
Butte Lake
Middle
End
Dev I I Canyon
Confluence of
John & Chun I Ina
Creeks
Chun I Ina Creek
Mermaid Lake
Tsusena Lake
End
Snodgrass l,ake
Portage Creek
to Maclaren
River
Random throughout the southern area of the study area
Susitna River
Denali Highway
Butte Lake
Dena I I Highway
Susitna Bridge
Byers Lake
Near
near the
Stephan Lake
Big Deadman
Lakes
Butte Creek
drainage
same (100pl
Years Used
1950s -present
1961 -present
1957 -present
1920s -present
1950s -present
Use
foot, snowmob I I e
skis
sled road
foot use
dry, snowmob I I es
and foot
Unknown
Best Portaging
Biking & off road
vehicles
Off road vehicles
& hiking
hiking 13 Byers Lake Trai I
14 Little Coal Creek Parks Highway Curry Ridge hiking
15 Curry Ridge Trail Park Highway at Little Parks Highway at hiking
Coal Creek Troublesome *to be built in 1983
Creek CrossIng
Note: Existing trails are shown in Figure E.7.4
Sources: T.E.s. Susitna Hydroelectric Project and Subtask 7.07 Land Use Analysis July 1980
DNR Division of Research and Development area notes-Upper Susitna Basin
Recreation Atlas
ADNR Division of Research and Development Susltna River Basin Land Use/
Recreation Atlas, 1980.
Alaska State Parks Danali State Park Brochure
1!0"1!1
-
-I
-
-
-
.,
-
'
-
-i
i'
-
-
r-
1
I
r
I
-I
-
TABLE E.7.7: REGIONAL POPULATION -EXISTING AND FUTURE
1980 2000 _%_
Anchorage 174,431 252,940 + 45%
Fairbanks/Northstar! 53,983 119,130 +121%
Mat-Su Borough2 17,938 78,500 +338%
Total 246,352 450, 570 + 55%
NOTE: Population projections include Susltna Hydroelectric Project but do not
include new capital move to Willow or Knik Arm Crossing.
Sources:
2
1980: 1980 Census
2000: Frank Orth & Assoc., 4/82
1980:
2000:
1980 Census
Borough Planning Department, 10/21/82
TABLE E.7.8: AVERAGE REGIONAL RECREATION PARTICIPATION
Big Game Waterfowl Freshwater Developed CanoeIng/ X -country
Hunting Hunting Fishing Camping Kayaking Hiking Picnicking Ski lng
Average Annual Per Capita
Participation Days, 1980 2.9 0.9 7.7 3.0 0.7 3.0 11.7 0.6
Assumed Percentage Increase
in Annual Per Capital
Participation Days 1980-2000 8% 8% 6% 57% 20% 27% 12% 40%
Source: 1970 Alaska Outdoor Recreation, Alaska Department of Natural Resources, 1970
J J J l __ ]
~
,....
TABLE E.7.9: DISTANCES TO CENTROID OF RECREATION AREA
% of Demand Type at
Tri~ Origin Miles 1 Hrs. @ 45 m~h Hourly_ Interval Hourly_ lnterval 3
Anchorage 250 5.5 5-6 35%
FaIrbanks 200 4.5 4-5 30%
Mat-Su 3-42 . 30%
NOTE: Centroid of project recreation assumed to be 10 miles north of Watana Dam on access road
(40 miles from Cantwel I via Denali Highway and Access Road>.
Sources:
2
3
Rand McNally & Co. AI aska map, undated
Centroid of Recreation Population in Borough assumed to be at this distance
Susitna River Basin Cooperative Study_, Talkeetna Subarea u.s. Soil Conservation Service, John 0 1 Nei I I, 1978
TABLE E.7.10: ESTIMATED TOTAL ANNUAL RECREATION DAYS FOR RESIDENTS OF SELECTED LOCATIONS,
TO WATANA AND ALL OTHER LOCATIONS EQUIDISTANT FROM THEIR ORIGIN
Big Game Waterfowl Freshwater Developed Canoeing/
Hunting Hunting Fishing Cameing Ka~aklnQ Hiking Picnicking
Anchorage Residents 1980 126,000 39,000 336,000 131,000 31,000 131,000 510,000
Anchorage Residents 2000 157,000 61,000 516,000 298,000 53,000 241,000 829,000
Fairbanks/North Star
Residents 1980 47,000 15,000 125,000 49,000 11,000 49,000 189,000
Fairbanks/North Star
Residents 2000 112,000 35,000 292,000 169,000 30,000 75,000 257,000
Matanuska-Susitna
Residents 1980 41,000 5,000 41,000 16,000 4,000 16,000 63,000
Matanuska-Susitna
Residents 2000 196,000 23,000 192,000 111,000 20,000 90,000 309,000
NOTE: Rounded to nearest 1,000.
Source: EDAW calculations based on Susitna River Cooperative Study methodology.
Susitna River Basin Cooeerative Stud~ -Talkeetna Subarea
u.s. Soi I Conservation Service, John 0 1 Nei I I, Nov. 1978
__ ) _) .J
X -country
Skiing
26,000
53,000
10,000
30,000
3,000
20,000
l 1
TABLE E.7.11: TOTAL ESTIMATED REGIONAL RECREATION USER DAYS, BY ACTIVITY
1980 AND 2000
Estimated Total Regional
Recreation User Days -1980
Estimated Total Regional
Recreation User Days -2000
NOTE: Rounded to nearest 1,000
Big Game
Hunting
214,000
465,000
Waterfowl
Hunting
120,000
119,000
Freshwater
Fishing
502,000
1, 000,000
Developed
Camping
196,000
578,000
Source: EDAW calculations based on Susitna River Cooperative Study Methodology.
John 0 1 Nei I I, Nov. 1978.
Canoeing/
Kayaking
46,000
103,000
-~·
Hiking
196,000
406,000
Picnicking
762,000
1, 395,000
X-<:ountry
Skiing
39,000
103,000
) 1
J
•
TABLE E.7.12: ASSUMED PROJECT RECREATION CAPTURE RATES
Big Game Waterfowl Freshwater Developed Canoeing/ X-Country
Hunting Hunting Fishing Camping Kayak I ng Hiking Picnicking Skiing
Assumed Capture
Rates of the
Project Re1reatlon
Area, 1980 o.3% a. 1% 0.3% 2% 0.4% 0.3%
Assumed Capture
Rates of the Project
Recreation Area,
2000, Without Susitna
Hydroel~ctrlc
Project 0.3% o. 1% 0.3% 1.4%3 0.4% 0.2%
Estimated Capture
Rate of the Project
Recreation Area,
2000, with Susitna
Hydroelectric Project
Proposed Recreation
Plan, User Days ~0.5% ~0.1% +0.5% ~2.3% ~0.1% ~3% ~1% ~0.3%
NOTES: 1. For big game hunting, derived from Alaska Fish & Game Geowonderland Data tor 1981. For fishing, assumed from Alaska Fish &
Game Statewide Harvest Study, 1981 data. Others assumed based on personal _interviews.
J
2. Derived by applying assumed percentage Increase In annual per capita participation days and year 2000 projected regional
population to 1980 use.
3. Assumed doubling of 1980 capacity only. Capture rates as calculated in Note 2 would be 1.7%.
.I --· I ·-__ ] ~· J J ~J J J -J
l l 1 1 l -~
TABLE E. 7.13: ESTIMATED RECREATION DEMAND
Big Game Waterfowl Freshwater Developed Canoeing/ X -country
Hunting Hunting Fishing Came i ng Kayaking Hiking Picnicking Skiing Total
Assumed 1980 Use of
the Project Recrea-
t I on 1 Area, User
Days 800 100 1, 500 4,000 200 100 6,700
Estimated 2000 Use
of the Project
Recreation Area
Without Susitna
Hydroelectric P2o-
ject, User Days 1, .300 170 2,500 8,0003 370 220 12,540
Estimated 2000 Use
of the Project
Recreation Area With
Susitna Hydroelectric
Project Proposed
Recreatlo~ Plan, 2,20Q-4,800-12,000-
100 5 12,000-12,000-
3506 User Days 2,400 170 5,200 14,000 14, ooo6 14,0006 43,520
NOTES: 1. Project Recreation Area Is the area enclosed by the Parks Highway, Nenana River, the Susltna River to the east, and about
20 ml las south of the Susltna River.
2. Derived by applying assumed percentage Increases in annual per capita participation days and projected regional population
Increase to 1980 use •
.3. Assumed doubl lng of 1980 capacity only. Demand as calculated In Note 2 would be 9,700.
4. EDAW estimate.
5. Decreases due to impacts on resource.
6. Same as developed camping.
l
TABLE E.7.14: ANNUAL RECREATION VISITOR DAYS-DENALI NATIONAL PARK
Year
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
Recreation
Days
44,528
88,615
137,418
161,427
160,600
1571612
170,031
222,993
251,105
216,361
256,493
% Increase
Since 1971
99%
209%
263%
261%
254%
282%
401%
464%
386%
476%
Source: u.s. National Park Service, Robert Gerhardt, personal
communication, 10/20/82
-
-I
....
-
)
Watana
• Single Status Camp
3 1 600 Workers
• VI I lage & Townsite
1,120 Temp. Pop.
350 Temp. Familie5
. 125 Perm. Families
Devil Can~on
• Single Status Camp
1, 780 Workers
• Vi II age
550 Temp. Pop.
170 Workers
<tam I I I es)
---1
TABLE E.7.15: MAJOR RECREATION FACILITIES FOR CONSTRUCTION CAMPS,
VILLAGES, AND PERMANENT TOWNSITE
I NTER I C R F AC I L I T I E;S EXTERIOR FACILITIES
Rae Hall Clubhouse Gym Swim Pool Baseba II I Softba II l Footba II
25,000 4,000
20,500 400 40,000 11, 500
45,500 4,400
8,000 0 10,000 10,000 Not Specified
Not SpE clfied
20,500 3,200 40,000 12,5000
8,000 0 10,000 10,000 Not Spec i f i ed
Sour-ce: Susltna Hydroelectric Pr-oject Feaslbi I ity Repor-t, Vol .• 3, Mar-ch 1982.
I Hocke'
TABLE E.7.16: PROPOSED RECREATION PLAN FOR CONSTRUCTION CAMPS, VILLAGES, AND PERMANENT TOWNSITE
Recommended Recreation
Plan for Construction
Camps, Vii lages, and
Permanent Townsite
Interior Uses
• Gymnasium
Basketball/Volleyball
Track
Weight/Exercise Room
Tennis
Swimming Pool
Sauna/Steam Room/Jacuzzi
Shower/Locker Rooms
• Recreation Hal I
Movie/Multi-purpose Space
Lounge/Video Tape Viewing
Game Room-Darts/Video
Games/Cards
Hobby Room/Workshop
Community Greenhouse
Rest Rooms
Darkroom
Auto Workshop
(If private cars al lowedl
• Clubhouse
Library/Reading Room
Snack Bar/Vending Machines
Bow I i ng A I I ey
Convenience/Sundry Store
Post Office
Bank
Rest Rooms
Watana Single
Status Camp
3,480 Workers
Peak 1990-91
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
J
Watana Family
Status Vi II age
350 Famlll es
1,120 Population
Peak 1990-91
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Watana Permanent
Townsite
125 Famll ies
400 Population
Post 1992
@ school
@ school
@ school
@ school
@ school
@ school
@ school
@ school
X
X
X
X
X
Dev i I Canyon
Single Status Camp
1, 780 Workers
Peak 1997
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Dev I I Canyon
Fam I I y Status
Village
170 Famll ies
550 Population
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
.J
l l l 1 --1
TABLE E.7.16 <Cont 1 d)
Watana Fam i I y Watana Permanent Dev i I Canyon
Recommended Recreation Watana Single Status Vi I I age Townsite Dev i I Canyon Family Status
Plan for Construction Status Camp 350 Families 125 Families Single Status Camp Village
Camps, VII lages, and 3,480 Workers 1,120 Population 400 Population 1, 780 Workers 170 Families
Permanent Townsite Peak 1990-91 Peak 1990-91 Post 1992 Peak 1997 550 Population
Exterior Uses
• Baseba II X X @ school X X
Softba II X X @ school X X
Footbal 1/Soccer/Lacrosse X X @ school X X
Basketba I I /Yo I I eyba I I X X @ school X X
Tennis X X @ school X X
Picnic/Barbecue Area X X
Playground/Tot lot X @ school X
AI lotment Garden X X X X
Community Park X
Ice Hockey Rink On football field On football field
Handball/Squash X X X X X
Non-Structural Activities
Ice Skatlng/Hpckey @ Lakes @ Lakes @ Lakes
Ice Boating @ Lakes @ Lakes @ Lakes
Hiking/Jogging Trails X X X X X
Regulated Fishing X X X X X
Cross Crountry Ski Trails X X X X X
Canoe/Kayak/Sailboat Areas X X X X X
Rock Hounding X X X X X
Gold Panning X X X X X
Snowshoeing X X X X X
Sledding X X X X X
Source: EDAW, Inc.
TABLE [.7.17: ESTIMATED CAPITAL COSTS FOR THE SUSITNA HYDROELECTRI~
PROJECT RECREATION PHASES
Phase One
Phase Two
Phase Three
Phase Four
Total Facilities
Capital Costs
1982 Dollars
565,836
1,136,354
188,759
B91 ,251
$2,651,547*
*These estimates are based upon January 1, 1982 cost figures.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TABLE E.7.18 (Cont'd) -
1982 1982 Fac.1hty Phase
Recreation Settin~ F acilites Unit Cost Total Cost Total Total -PHASE TWO (Cont'd)
J Clarence Lake 9 miles trail $ 7,238 $ 65, 142 $
sign age 300 300 65,442 -$825,991
K Watana Lake 3 miles trail 7,238 21' 714
footbridge 15,052 15,052 36,766 ·-862.757
PHASE THREE
G Mid-Chulitna 10 parking 1, 810 18,100
Mountains 7 miles trail 7,238 7,238
trailhead 762 762 69,528
69,528
PHASE FOUR
Q Devil Creek 5 auto parking 1 '81 0 9,050
bench 320 320
signage 300 300 75 1574
75,574 -s Devil Canyon 1 shelter 17,920 17,920
Center 5000 sq ft building 120 sq ft 600,000
8 picnic sites 2,027 16,216
1. single vault !llflll.
latrine 9,157 9,157
15 parking 1' 810 27,150
.5 mile trail 7,238 3, 619
sign age 1 ,DOD 1 ,ODD -3 benches 320 960
1 boat launch NA 676 1022
751,596
R Mermaid Lake .25m/14 ft 344,960/mi 86,240 -8 campsites 9,047 72,376
1 shelter 17' 920 19,920
2 single vault
latrines 9,157 18,314
water well 19,040 19,040 -bulletin board 439 439
5 garbage cans 140 700
signage 200 200 215,229
966,826
TOTAL Construction Cost Phase 1-4, 1982$ $2 1651 1547
Notes: · Assumes no land acquisition costs for unappropriated state or federal lands.
Land acquisition costs for private land not included.
,_.
r
~·
-
TABLE E. 7.19: ADDITIONAL FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT TO BE PURCHASED FOR
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE AS PART OF THE SUSITNA HYDRO-
ELECTRIC PROJECT RECREATION PLAN -1982 $
Facilities & Total Cost
Phase Equipment Unit Cost 1982 $
ONE pickup $ 11,000 $ 11 '000
tools 500 500
supplies 4,000 4 1000
$ 15,500
TWO 2 pickups 11,000 22,000
tools 1 '000 1 ,ODD
supplies 4,000 4,000
management center*
( 1500 sq ft)
shop and storage*
(3500 sq ft)
$ 27,000
THREE no additional 0
FOUR pickup 11,000 11 '000
supplies 15,000 4 1000
$ 15 1000
TOTAL (PHASES 1-4) $ 57 1500
* to be provided by APA in project buildings
TABLE E.7.20: ADDITIONAL STAFF REQUIRED AND ANNUAL STAFF EXPENSES TO
OPERATE AND MAINTAIN SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
RECREATION FACILITIES
Phase
ONE
TWO
THREE
FOUR
Job Class
1 park technician, 6 mos.
uniform allowance
+ 25% administration costs
2 park technicians, 6 mos.
1 ranger, 12 mos.
uniform allowance
+ 25% administration costs
no additional staff
ranger, 12 mos.
park technician, 6 mos.
+ 25% administration costs
Annual Cost
1982 $
10,500
300
2,700
$ 1 J, 500
21,000
28,800
900
$ 58,800
14,700
$ 73,500/year
$ 28,800
10,500
39,300
9,800
$ 49,100
TOTAL ANNUAL STAFF COST DURING EACH PHASE:
Phase
One
Two
Three
Four
1982 $
$ 13,500
87 ,ooo
87,000
136,100
-
~I
-
-
-
1
STUDY I
OBJECTIVES
-MANAGEMENT --......
OBJECTIVES
-AGENCY
OBJECTIVES
-RECREATION
GOALS
EXISTING z
RECREATION
-LOCATION 1-------
-ACCESS
-TYPE
-USE
RECREATION 2 r---+
USER NEEDS r+
-DEMAND NUMBERS
-USER PROFILE
INTRINSIC
RECREATION
POTENTIAL
-QUALITY
RECREATION
OPPORTUNITY
EVALUATION
-QUALITY OF SITES
-DURABILITY
-VARIETY
-NEED AND DEMAND
-SITE CAPACITY
-MANAGEMENT
OBJECTIVES
-OPERATIONAL
CHARACTERISTICS
3
-ATTRACTIONS
-ACCESS
-FEATURES
(SITE INVENTORY}
4
----+
STUDY METHODOLOGY
1
DESIGNATE
RECREATION
SITES
-PRIORITY
-CONTENT a USE
-OBJECTIVES
-DEMAND
-SITE DETAILS
-CAPACITY
(THE PLAN}
ALTERNATIVE
RECREATION
PLANS
5
l ]
PHASING
1--_.., IMPLEMENTATION
COSTS
'
MONITORING
6
FIGURE E.7.1
11 .14W.
T.ITN.
PROPOSED PROJECT FEATURES SCALE 0~~~4iliiiiiiiiiiiiiii~8 MILES
LEGEND :
~RAILROAD EXTENSION
----PROPOSED ACCESS
ROAD
---PROPOSED TRANSMISSION
LINE
----INTERTIE
r\~~11MPOUNDMENT AREA
T.US.
T.I!N.
T.llN.
T.IIN.
T.ION .
T.tN.
T.IN.
T.TN .
FIGURE E. 7 .2
-
-
-I
I
-
SYMBOL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
IDENTIFICATION OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS
SHOWN ON REGIONAL RECREATION MAP (FIGURE E.7.3)
SITE DEVELOPMENT
SUSITNA RECREATION STUDY AREA
NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATIONAL AREAS, FORESTS, WILDLIFE
REFUGES, MONUMENTS, PRESERVES, AND CONSERVATION AREAS
Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge
White Mts. National Recreatio·n Area
Steese National Conservation Areas
Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve
Denali National Park
Denali National Monument and Preserve
Lake Clark National Park and Preserve
Katmai National Park and Preserve
Kenai National Wildlife Refuge
Kenai Fjords National Park
Chugach National Forest
Wrangell -St. Elias National Park and Preserve
NATIONAL ~iLD AND SCENIC RIVERS
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT RECREATION AREAS
DENALI PLANNING BLOCK
* BRUSHKANA RIVER CAMPGROUND
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
STATE RECREATION AREAS, RECREATION SITES, HISTORIC PARKS
PROPOSED
&
EXISTING
Tokositna Resort (Proposed}
Denali State Park ( Existing)
Willow Creek SRA (Existing)
Natcher Pass SRA (Proposed)
Independence Mine SHP (Existing)
Nancy Lake SRA (Existing)
Kelper-Bradley SRA (Existing)
Moose Creek SRS (Existing)
Matanuslea Glacier SRS (Existing)
Susitna Lake -Tyone River SRA (Proposed)
O!!l!i
SYMBOL SITE DEVELOPMENT
11 Lake Louise SRA (Existing) -12 Little Nelchina SRS (Existing)
13 Worthington Glacier SRS (Existing)
14 Chugach State Park (Existing) ~ 15 Izaak -Walton SRS (Existing) ..
16 Bings Landing SRS (Existing)
17 Ninunqa SHP (Existing)
18 Morgans Landing SRA/Funny River SRS (Existing) ~.
19 Lower Kenai River SRS (Existing)
20 Slikuk SRS (Existing)
21 Cohoe Beach SRS (proposed) -22 Ninilchik SRA (Existing)
23 Deep Creek SRA (Existing)
24 Anchor River SRA (Existing)
25 Homer Spit (Proposed)
26 Kachemak Bay State Park (Existing)
27 Caines Head SRA (Existing)
------STATE RECREATION RIVERS
28 Tul ac ul utna -29 Lake Creek
30 Alexander Creek
31 Little Susitna
32 Kroto Creek -33 Talkeetna
34 Nelchina -Tazl ina
~ ... PRIVATE RECREATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
1 North Face Lodge ""'l'l 2 McKinley Village Motel
3 Grizzly Bear Camper Park
4 Carlo Creek Lodge
5 Gracious House Cabins -6 Adventures Unlimited
7 Summit Lake Lodge
8 Tsusena Creek Lodge -9 Stephan Lake Lodge
10 High Lake Lodge
11 Chulitna River Lodge
12 Mt. McKinley View Lodge -13 Montana Creek Lodge
-
~I
-
-
SOUTH CENTRAL REG ION
0
SCALE
EXISTING AND PROPOSED REGIONAL
RECREATION MAP
L.~
20 40 MILES
FIGURE E.7.3
RECREATION ACTIVITIES:
fJ HIKING g CROSS COUNTRY SKIING " DOG SLEDDING
~
II BOATING ~ ROCK HUNTING ·~ BERRY PICKING -~ CAMPING m SNOW MACHINING ~ TAKE -OUT POINT
!"""
II HUNTING ~ . SNOWSHOEING ~ PUT-IN POINT
= FISHING ~ MOUNTAlNEERING m PHOTOGRAPHY
!"'"' a FLYING II OFF-ROAD DRIVING rl SHELTER
t3 BIRD WATCHING =.; HORSEBACK RIDING
WILDLIFE CONCENTRATIONS:
OMOOSE 0 SHEEP 0 BROWN BEAR
OCARIBOU 0 WATER FOWL ~ BLACK BEAR
-LANDSCAPE FEATURES:
--··-WATERWAYS ••••••• PORTAGE TRAIL
!"""' I II I I RAILROADS • TOWNS
EXISTING ROADS • STRUCTURES
PROPOSED ROADS ,. BUILDING CLUSTERS ----TRAILS * HIGH POINTS
-·-SUSITNA WATERSHED BOUNDARY --c MINOR VIEWS -PROPOSED TRANSMISSION LINES .. MAJOR VIEWS ---·-···· LIMITS OF RECREATION STUDY 11111111111 SIGNIFICANT LANDSCAPE SETTINGS
'--~~-PARK BOUNDARIES
NOTE: SEE TABLE E.7.8 FOR SPECIFIC
TRAIL DATA. -
RECREATION LEGEND
I
l
l
l
R.I4W.
EXISTING RECREATION
T.I7S.
T.IBS.
\]
T.9N .
T.8N.
0 4 8 SCALE~~~--~ MILES
FIGURE E.7.4
T.33N.
T.32 N.
T.31N .
T. 30N.
T.29N.
J
T.2BN.
T.27N.
J R.4W. R.IW.
RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES
111 .4£.
T.IIN.
T.ION .
T.9N.
T.BN .
T.7N .
R .IOW.
0~~~4iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii~8 MILES SCALEr:
FIGURE E .7 .5
,'!'""
~
,, .. ,
-:
-,,
'i
r
r
r
!
I
-
RECREATION ACTIVITIES:
u HIKING g CROSS COUNTRY SKIING a! DOG SLEDDING
!I BOATING ~ ROCK HUNTING ~ BERRY PICKING
~ CAMPING ~ SNOW MACHINING ~ TAKE-OUT POINT
1m HUNTING ~ SNOWSHOEING ~ PUT-IN POINT
= FISHING ~ MOUNTAINEERING Cl PHOTOGRAPHY
~ FLYING II OFF-ROAD DRIVING II SHELTER
~ BIRD WATCHING r:; HORSEBACK RIDING
WILDLIFE:
OMOOSE 0 SHEEP 0 BROWN BEAR
0 CARIBOU 0 WATER FOWL
/.01--~ g BLACK BEAR
PROJECT FEATURES:
-···-WATERWAYS 119 CAMPGROUNDS
IIIII I Ill RAILROADS
II II IIIII TRAIL HEADS EXISTING ROADS
PROPOSED ROADS ~ VIEWPOINTS ---TRAILS ---PROPOSED TRANSMISSION LINES ·--RECREATION ZONES
LEGEND FOR
RECREATION AREA PLANS
J
J
J
® ''"
T.I8S.
T.I9S.
T. 205.
T. 21 S.
T.22S.
T.33N.
T.32 N.
T.31 N.
T. 30N.
T.29 N.
T.28 N.
T.27N.
R.4 E.
T.IIN.
T.ION.
\j
T.9N .
T.IIN.
T.TN .
R.4W. R.3W. R.IOW.
0 4 8 MILES SCALE~~~--
RECREATION PLAN -ACCESS FIGURE E 7.6
J
LOCATION MAP
E-BRUSH KANA CAMP
25 CAMPSITES
3 SINGLE VAULT LATRINES
I BULLETIN BOARD
8 TRASH CANS
I WATER WELL
F-PORTAL ENTRY
I ENTRY SIGN
'
___ _..,.
0 2 MILES
SCALE ~~~~~iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii~ ' RECREATION AREA: E-BRUSHKANA CAMP
F-PORTAL ENTRY
2400
2'1005
FIGURE E .7 .7
l
J
LOCATION MAP
0-WATANA DAMSITE AND VISITOR CENTER
20 UNITS PARKING
.15 MILE ROAD
3000 SQ. FT. BUILDING
2 SINGLE VAULT LATRINES
I INTERPRETIVE TRAIL
4 PICNIC SITES
I BULLETIN BOARD
I BOAT LAUNCH
N -FOG LAKES
15 MILES TRAIL
I SINGLE VAULT LATRINE
15 CAR PARKING
TRAILHEAD
SIGNAGE
15 CAMPGROUND UNITS
(
)
____ _, /
FOG LAKES
FOG LAKES
FIGURE E.7.8
I
J
LOCATION MAP
1-TSUSENA BUTTE
4 MILES TRAIL TRAILHEAD
8 PARKING
2-4 UN DESIGNATED CAMPSITES
0 . 2 MILES SCALE~~~~iiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiil--
~
RECREATION AREAS I-TSUSENA BUTTE
H-TSUSENA CREEK FIGURE E .7.9
l
l
l
l
J
J
J
J
J
J
LOCATION MAP
L-DEADMAN AND BIG LAKE
I TRAILHEAD
6 AUTO PARKING
4MILES TRAIL
4 UN DESIGNATED CAMPSITES
M-SOUTHERN CHULITNA MOUNTAINS
I TRAILHEAD
3 AUTO PARKING
3 MILES TRAIL
3 UNDESIGNATED CAMPSITES
0 2MILES
SCALE ~~~~~~~~~iiiiiil
MID-CHULITNA~ ~\) ~~~~\ MOUNTAINS, ~ ""' \'-
DEADMAN ~
MOUNTAINS
TRAIL, FIG. E.7.20 ~ . (:p ~ A'O 0<:> <:I\ \TRAILHEAD
.,_'<! ~ ~ <::~ AND
" ~ 2S VIEWPOINT
"
RECREATION AREA: L-DEADMAN AND BIG LAKES
M-SOUTHERN CHULITNA MOUNTAINS
,-....
'o
FIGURE E.7.10
l
LOCATION MAP
J-CLARENCE LAKE
9 MILES TRAIL
SIGNAGE
K-WATANA LAKE
2 MILES TRAIL
FOOTBRIDGE
3 UNDESIGNATED CAMPSITES
0~~~~~---~2 MILES SCALE c:
RECREATION AREA : J-CLARENCE LAKE
. K-WATANA LAKE FIGURE E .7 .11
J
LOCATION MAP
G-MID-CHULITNA MOUNTAINS, DEADMAN MOUNTAIN
10 PARKING
15 MILES TRAIL
TRAILHEAD
RECREATION AREA: G-MID-CHULITNA MOUNTAINS
DEADMAN MOUNTAIN FIGURE E 7 .12
l
l
l
l
J
J
J
0
LOCATION MAP
S-DEVIL CANYON DAMSITE
I SHELTER
5,000 SQ . FT. BUILDING
8 PICNIC SITES
I SINGLE VAULT LATRINE
15 PARKING
0 .5 MILE TRAIL
SIGNAGE
3 BENCHES
I BOAT LAUNCH
0 2 MILES
SCALE ~~~~~iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii .. ~
RECREATION AREA: S-DEVIL CANYON DAMSITE
FIGURE E.7.13
J
LOCATION MAP
R-MERMAID LAKE
8 CAMPSITES
I SHELTER
2 SINGLE VAULT LATRINES
WATER WELL
BULLETIN BOARD
5 GARBAGE CANS
SIGNAGE
0 2 MILES
SCALE ~~~~~----
RECREATION AREA : R-MERMAID LAKE
FIGURE E .7 .14
J
LOCATION MAP
Q-DEVIL CREEK
TRAILHEAD
5 AUTO PARKING
BENCH
SIGNAGE
9 MILES TRAIL
0 Ill ~~~~§iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii~2 MILES SCALE c:
CJ
~~·._
;.
RECREATION 'AREA: Q-DEVIL CREEK
FIGURE E. 7.15
I
l
1
j
J
J
J
J
J
LOCATION MAP
P-STEPHAN LAKE
5 CAMPSITES
CANOE BOATRAMP
5 MILES TRAIL
SIGNAGE
0 2 MILES
SCALE ~~~~iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii~
RECREATION AREA: P-STEPHAN LAKE
----~-,/
f 0 PORTAGE AND
l ( HIKING TRAIL
r ~~41~
~
FIGURE E.7.16
l
l
l
..J
J
LOCATION MAP
T-SOULE CREEK
8 MILES TRAIL
TRAILHEAD
5 AUTO PARKING
5-6 UN DESIGNATED CAMPSITES
0
SCALE ~~~~1iiiiiiiiiiii--~
RECREATION AREA: T-SOULE CREEK
FIGURE E . 7 .17
-
-
-
APPENDIX E7A
Further Data on Regional Recreational Facilities
-
("""'·
'
rr1
'-J
):>
I ......
1 1 1
APPENDIX 7.A: FURTHER DATA ON REGIONAL RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
Existing Site Development
(a)
Location
Susitna Area Recreation Developments
High Lake Lodge and Airstrip 5 kilometers (3 miles)
N.E. of Devi I Canyon
damsite at High Lake
Stephan Lake Lodge and 16 km ( 1 0 m i I es l S • W.
Airstrip of Watana damsite at
Stephan Lake
Tsusena Lake 16 km ( 1 0 m I I es) N • W.
Lodge and Airstrip of Watana damsite at
Tsusena Lake
Dena I I Highway Recreation Development
Dena I i Planning Block
Brushkana River Campground Dena I i Highway. Mile 105
Clearwater Creek Dena I i Highway. Mile 55.9
Camping Area
Tangle Lakes Campgrounds Dena I i Highway. Mile21.5
and Boat Launch
Upper Tangle Lakes ·Dena I i Highway, Mile21.7
Campground and Boat Launch
Adventures Unlimited Dena II Highway. Mile 100
Lodge & Cafe
Gracious House Cabins, ·Dena I i Highway. Mile 82
Cafe, Guide Services
Parks Highway Recreation Areas
Mt. McKinley View Lodge Parks Highway, Mi Ia 325.8
McKinley KOA Parks Highway, Mile 248
Dena I i Nationa I Park Parks Highway. Mile 237.7
and Preserve
Managing Agency
Private
Private
Private
Bureau of Land Management
Bureau of Land Management
Bureau of Land Management
Bureau of Land Management
Bureau of Land Managemeant
PrIvate (b)
Private
Private
Private
Nationa I Park Service
Area Accommodations
45 hectares 8 units or 15
(111 acres) people
17 hectares 24 units or 45
(42 acres) people
20 hectares 8 units or 15
(49 acres) people
1,821.125 hectares
(4,500.000 acres)
19 hectares 33 campsItes
(4 7 acres)
8 hectares No development
(20 acres>
16 hectares 1 3 campsItes
(47 acres)
10 hectares 7 campsites
(25 acres)
Unknown Unknown
Unknown Unknown
Unknown Unknown
Unknown 70 campsites
2.306. 790 hect. 228 campsites
( 5. 7 m. acres)
J
APPENDIX 7.A: FURTHER DATA ON REGIONAL RECREATIONAL FACILITIES <Cont 1 d)
(a)
Existing Site Development Location Managing Agency Area Accommodations
Parks Highway Recreation Areas (Cont 1 d)
A Rl ley Creek Campground
B Morino Campground
c Savage River Campground
D Sanctuary River Campground
E Tekl ani ka Rl ver
F Igloo Creek Campground
G Wonder Lake Campground
McKinley Vi I lage Motel, Parks Highway, Mile 231.1 Private Unknown Unknown
Restaurant
North Face Lodge Mt. McKinley Park Road Private Unknown 15 campsites
Grizzly Bear Camper Park Parks Highway, Mile 231.1 Private Unknown Unknown
Campground, Raft Trips
fTl
"'-J -Carlo Creek Lodge Parks Highway, Mile 223.9 Private Unknown Unknown )::>
I
N East Fork Rest /\rea Parks Highway, Mile 185.7 Alaska Division of Parks Unknown Unknown
Dena I I State Park Parks Highway, Mile 132 Alaska Division of Parks 170,427 hectares Unknown
to 169 (421, 120 acres)
Tokositna Resort Parks Highway, West of Alaska Division of Parks ' 170,095 hectares Unknown
Mi I e 135 (43,240 acres)
Byers Lake Rest Area Parks Highway; Mile 147.2 Alaska Divi~ion of Parks Unknown Unknown
Byers Lake Ways ide Parks Highway, Mile 147 Alaska Division of Parks Unknown 61 campsites
15 picnic sites
Chulitna River Lodge & Cafe Parks Highway, Mile 156.2 Private Unknown Unknown
Cabins, Fly-in Fishing,
Glacier Trips, Raft Trips
Mt. McKinley View Lodge Pcirks Highway, Mile 134.5 Private Unknown Unknown
Montana Creek Lodge Parks Highway, Mile 96.5 Private Unknown Unknown
Campground, Cabins
Wi I low Creek Recreation Area Parks Highway, Mile 71.2 Alaska Division of Parks 97 hectares Unknown
<240 acres>
Willow Creek Wayside Parks Highway, Mi I e 71.2 Alaska Division of Parks 36 hectares 17 campsites
(90 acres)
.. _] J J J
--J J --J
APPEND I X 7 .A: FURTHER DATA ON REGIONAL RECREATIONAL FACILITIES (Cont 1 d)
(a)
Existing Site Develoement Location Managing Agency Area Accommodations
Parks Highway Recreation Areas (Cont 1 d >
Nancy Lake Recreation Area Parks Highway, Mile 67.2 Alaska Division of Parks 9,181 hectares 136 campsites
(22,685 acres>
Nancy Lake Wayside Parks Highway, Mile 66~6 Alaska Division of Parks 14 hectares 30 campsItes
(35 acres) 30 picnic sites
South Rolly Lake Campground Parks Highway, Mi I e 67 ALaska Division of Parks Unknown 106 campsites
20 picnic sites
Houston Campground Parks Highway, Mile 57.3 Community of Houston 32 hectares 42 campsites
(80 acres>
Big Lake, South and Parks Highway, Mi I e 52.3 Alaska Division of Parks 14 hectares 28 campsites
East Waysides (35 acres> 8 picnic sites
Finger Lake Wayside Parks HIghway, North of Alaska Division of Parks 19 hectares 14 campsites
IT1 Restaurant Was II I a (47 acres)
'-1
);:. Rocky Lake Wayside Parks Highway, Mile52.3 Alaska Division of Parks 19 hectares I 0 campsites I w (48 acres)
Recreation Areas Along the Glenn Highway
Lake Louise Recreation Area Glenn Highway, Mile 157 Alaska Division of Parks 35 hectares Unknown
(90 acres)
Lake Louise Wayside Glenn Highway, West of Alaska Division of Parks 20 hectares 6 campsites
Glennallen (50 acres)
Tolsona Creek Wayside Glenn Highway, Mile 172.5 Alaska Division of Parks 24 3 hectares 5 campsites
(600 acres)
Little Nelchina Wayside Glenn Highway, Mile 137.4 Alaska Division of Parks 9 hectares 6 campsites
(22 acres>
Matanuska Glacier Wayside Glenn Highway, Mile 101 Alaska Division of Parks 94 hectares 6 campsites
(231 acres)
Long Lake Recreation Area Glenn Highway, Mi I e 85 Alaska Division of Parks 194 hectares Unknown
(480 acres)
Long Lake Wayside Glenn Highway, East of Alaska Division of Parks 151 hectares 8 campsites
Palmer (372 acres)
APPENDIX 7.A: FURTHER DATA ON REGIONAL RECREATIONAL FACILITIES (Cont'd)
(a)
Existing Site Development Location Managing Agency Area Accommodations
Recreation Areas Along the Glenn Highway (Cont'd)
Bonnie Lake Recreation Area Glenn Highway, Mile82.5 Alaska Division of Parks 52 hectares Unknown
<129 acres)
Bonnie Lake Wayside Glenn Highway, Northeast Alaska Division of Parks 13 hectares 8 campsites
of Palmer (31 acres)
King Mountain Wayside Glenn Highway, Mile76.1 Alaska Division of Parks 8 hectares 22 campsItes
(20 acres) 2 picnic sites
Moose Creek Wayside Glenn Highway, Mile 54.7 Alaska Division of Parks 16 hectares 8 campsites
(40 acres)
Mirror Lake Wayside Glenn Highway, Mile23.5 Alaska Division of Parks 36 hectares 30 campsItes
(90 acres)
rr1 Peters Creek Wayside Glenn Highway, Mile21.5 Alaska Division of Parks 21 hectares 32 campsItes ........
):> (52 acres)
I
"""'
Richardson Highway Recreation Areas
Black Rapids Picnic Area Richardson Highway, Alaska Department of Unknown Unknown
Mi I e 225.4 Transportation
Summit Lake Lodge-Motel, Richardson Highway, Private Unknown Unknown
Restaurant, Airstrip, Mile 195
Guide Service
Paxson Lake Wayside Richardson Highway, Bureau of Land Management 1. 6 hectares 4 campsites
Mile179.4 (4 acres)
Paxson Lake Campground Richardson Highway, Bureau of Land Management 16 hectares 20 campsItes
and Boat Cavern Mi I e 175 (40 acres)
Dry Creek Recreation Area Richardson Highway, Alaska Division of Parks 1 51 hectares Unknown
Mile 117.5 (372 acres)
Dry Creek Wayside Richardson Highway, Alaska Division of Parks 52 hectares 58 campsites
Northeast of Glenna! len ( 128 acres) 4 picnic sites
Sourdough Creek Richardson Highway, Alaska Division of Parks 65 hectares 20 campsites
Campground Mile 147.4 (160 acres)
-J -l ___ j J
·. ~-· _) __ j
rn
".J > I
Ul
1 1
APPENDIX 7.A: FURTHER DATA ON REGIONAL RECREATIONAL FACILITIES (Cont'dl
Existing Site Development
<a>
Location
Other Existing Recreation in the Region
Chugach State Park East of Anchorage
Knik Wayside Approx. 64 km (40 miles)
North ot Anchorage
Talkeetna Riverside Talkeetna
Boat Launch
Independence Mine Hatcher Pass Road
Historic Area
Managing Agency Area
Alaska Division of Parks 200,327 hectares
(495,000 acres)
· Unknown 16 hectares
(40 acres)
u.s. Coast Guard o.a hectares
(2 acres)
Alaska Division of Parks 11 0 hectares
(271 acres)
-1 ~ J
Accommodations
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Undeveloped
J
APPENDIX 7.A: FURTHER DATA ON REGIONAL RECREATIONAL FACILITIES (Cont 1 d)
Site Location or
Existing Site Development
Dena I i State Park
Tokositna Resort
Lake LouIse
Susltna Lake and Tyone River
Talkeetna River
Moose Creek State
Recreation Site (existing)
Matanuslea Glacier State
Recreation Site (existing)
Kepler-Bradley State
Recreation Area (existing)
Independence Mine State
Historic Park (existing)
Hatcher Pass State
Recreation Area (proposed)
Nance Lake State Recreation
Area (existing)
Willow Creek State
Recreation Area (existing and
proposed)
Ld itarod Trai I (existing)
(a)
Location
Parks Highway
Off the Parks Highway
Off the Glenn Highway
Off the Glenn Highway
Off the Parks Highway
Glenn Highway
Glenn Highway near Palmer
Glenn Highway
Wi I low Creek Road
Hatcher Pass Road
Parks Highway
Parks Highway
Alaska Range west of
Anchorage
-_I J
Managing Agency
Alaska Division of Parks
Alaska Division of Parks
Alaska Division of Parks
Alaska Division of Parks
Alaska Division of Parks
Alaska Division of Parks
Alaska Division of Parks
Alaska Division of Parks
Alaska Division of Parks
Alaska Division of Parks
Alaska Division of Parks
Alaska Division of Parks
Alaska Division of Parks
__ )
Proposed Action
Implemented Site Plan
Expend trail system further
studies
Implemented Site Plan
Expend trai I system further
studies
Expand 350 acres, Implement
master plan
Designate river corridor and
develop plan
Designate river corridor and
develop plan
Implemented site _plan
Implemented site plan
Acquire 330 acres and develop
Develop existing 271 acres,
acquire and develop additional
area
Acquire land and develop
Acqulra additional 150 acres,
and tral I 12 o.w. expand devel-
opment particularly winter
recreation opportunities
Upgrade existing site
Acquire property and implement
plans
J _ _j
l ... j .. 1
APPENDIX 7.A: FURTHER DATA ON REGIONAL RECREATIONAL FACILITIES (Cont'd)
Site Location or
Existing Site Development
Lake Creek State Recreation
River (proposed)
Alexander Creek State
Recreation River (proposed)
Talachulutna
Lake Creek State Recreation
River (proposed)
Kroto Creek State Recreation
River (proposed)
Worthington Glacier State
Recreation Site (existing)
Little Neldrina State
Recreation Site (existing)
Neldrlna Tazlina State
Recreation River
<a>
Location
Near Cook Inlet
A tributary to the lower
Susitna River
A tributary to the lower
Susitna River
A tributary to the lower
Susitna River
A tributary to the lower
Susitna River
Richardson Highway
Glenn Highway
Glenn Highway
Managing Agency
Alaska Division of Parks
Alaska Division of Parks
Alaska Division of Parks
Alaska Division of Parks
Alaska Division of Parks
Alaska Division of Parks
Alaska Division of Parks
Alaska Division of Parks
(a) Locations of site developments taken from the 1980 Milepost.
Proposed Action
Designate river corridor and
develop plan
Designate river corridor and
prepare management plan.
Designate river corridor and
prepare management plan
Designate river corridor and
prepare management plan
Designate river corridor and
prepare management plan
Acquire additional 480 acres
adjoining glacier terminals
develop funded projects
Acquire 620 acres plan and
implement
Designate river corridor,
prepare river plan
(b) This list Is not anal I Inclusive list of privately-run tacit lties, but only a representation
of most types of recreational opportunities offered by the private sector.
Sources: Alaska State Park System, South-central Region Plan, February 1982
Susltna Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Report, Volume 2 Environmental Report,
Section 7 Recreational Resources.
·-] 1
-'
-
APPENDIX E7B
Attractive Features -Inventory Data Forms
.J
ATTRACTIVE FEATURES -INVENTORY DATA FORM
RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SETTING
SIGNIFICANCE RATINGS H M
Mountain Peaks X
Glaciers
Geological Interest Sites X
Gorges/Cliffs/Bluffs X
Talus Slope/Rock Environment X
Cirques
Rock/Mineral CollectionS ~ ,s X
Big Game Hunting Habitats X
Fishing Habitats
rn Wildlife Observation Areas X
-....,J Lakes o::l . I Waterfalls/White Water X I-'
Rivers/Streams X
Bogs
Vegetation Patterns
Botanical Interest Sites
Dams/Reservoirs
Campgrounds
Boating Facilities
Resorts/Lodges
Trails/Trail Head
Access
Float Plane Facilities
Visitor Information Service
Historical/Archeological Sites
Winter Sports
APPENDIX 7.8
Soule Creek Drainage
L NOTATIONS
Spectacular views
Glacial features -valleys, etc._
Caribou, bear and Dall sheep
Soule Cr. and its lake source
Long linear lake -source of Soule Cr.
Soule Cr. -nearby Brushkana Cr. -Jack R.
Tundra with some mixed forest
Proposed walk-in camp at Soule Cr. Lake
Canoeing on 1 ake
Trail from North Access Road along Soule Cr. to
-1
Jack R. and Caribou Pass to Cantwell or Tsu~ena Cr.
Trail heads north and south along access road and from
Cantwell
Potential at Soule Cr. Lake
Ice fishing and x-country skiing
ATTRACTIVE FEATURES -INVENTORY DATA FORM
RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SETTING
SIGNIFICANCE RATINGS
t~ounta in Peaks
Glaciers·
Geological Interest Sites
Gorges/Cliffs/Bluffs
Talus Slope/Rock Environment
Cirques
Rock/Mineral Collection Sites
Big Game Hunting Habitats
Fishing Habitats
Wildlife Observation Areas
Lakes
Waterfalls/White Water
Rivers/Streams
Bogs
Vegetation Patterns
Botan~cal Interest Sites
Dams/Reservoirs
Campgrounds
Boating Facilities
Re sorts/Lodges
Trails/Trail Head
Access**
Float Plane Facilities
Visitor Information Service
Historical/Archeological Sites
Winter Sports
H
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
L
**Caribou Pass is an existing route for people
traveling through this area.
J ~·· ) ~l ., J ")
APPENDIX 7.8 (Cant • d)
Jack River Drainage to Cantwell
NOTATIONS
Spectacular mountains
Glacial features -carved valleys
Moose, caribou, bear and Dall sheep
Jack R. and tributaries and lakes
Potential
Several large lakes
Tundra -mostly and some mixed forest
Potential
Recommend primitive camping only
May be possible to kayak down river from confluence
with Soule Cr.
Proposed trail along Soule Cr. ,and through Caribou Pass
to Cantwell or to Tsusena Cr.
Trail head from 2 points along the North/South Ac-
cess Road at Cantwell
X-country skiing for experienced people
I J
fTl
-....,J
co
I w
ATTRACTIVE FEATURES -INVENTORY DATA FORM
RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SETTING
SIGNIFICANCE RATINGS
Mountain Peaks
Glaciers
Geological Interest Sites
Gorges/Cliffs/Bluffs
Talus Slope/Rock Environment
Cirques
Rock/Mineral Collection Sites
Big Game Hunting Habitats
Fishing Habitats
Wildlife Observation Areas
Lakes
Waterfalls/White Water
Rivers/Streams
· Bogs
Vegetation Patterns
Botanical Interest Sites
Dams/Reservoirs
Campgrounds
Boating Facilities
Resorts/Lodges
Trails/Trail Head
Access
Float Plane Facilities
Visitor Information Service
Historical/Archeological Sites
Winter Sports
**There are existing non-defined
routes through Tsusena Cr. drainage
· and into or from Caribou Pass and
to or from Cantwell
H
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
M
X
X
X
X
X
X
L
X
**
1
APPENDIX 7.B (Cant 1 d)
Tsusena Creek Drainage
NOTATIONS
Elevations range from 2600' to 5800'
Glacier in mountains North of Tsusena Cr.
Valley-floor is approximately 1 mile wide
Moose and bear -Dall sheep in mountains
Grayling and trout
Potential
East side of Tsusena Butte
Some white water
Tsusena Cr. and tributaries
Along water course
··~·~
Tundra-on mountain slopes and mixed forest on valley
floor
Diverse vegetation types
Drains into Susitna below Watana Dam site
Non-developed -primitive
Proposed trail through valley and continuing along
Jack R. and Caribou Pass
North Access Road near Tsusena Butte
At lake side of Tsusena Butte and from Cantwell and the
North-North Access Road near Brushkana Cr.
At an additional trail head site*
X-country skiing, ice fishing and snowmobiling
*Proposed trail follows Soule Cr.
to Caribou Pass.
)
ATTRACTIVE FEATURES -INVENTORY DATA FORM
RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SETTING
SIGNIFICANCE RATINGS
Mountain Peaks
Glaciers
Geological Interest Sites
Gorges/Cliffs/Bluffs
Talus Slope/Rock Environment
Cirques
Rock/Mineral Collection Sites
Big Game Hunting Habitats
Fishing Habitats
Wildlife Observation Areas
Lakes
Waterfalls/White Water
Rivers/Streams
Bogs
Vegetation Patterns
Botanical Interest Sites
Dams/Reservoirs
Campgrounds
Boating Facilities
Resorts/Lodges
Trails/Trail Head
Access
Float Plane Facilities
Visitor Information Service
Historical/Archeological Sites
Winter Sports
J ) J
H M
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
L
X
X
AP,PENDIX 7.8 (Cant' d)
Mountain Area West of Proposed North/South Access Route
Midway/West of Deadman Mountain
NOTATIONS
Excellent mountain views
Caribou, Dall sheep and bear
Lakes with outlets
Only one of any significant size -good number
ones -scenic
Nearby Brushkana Cr.
Nearby Brushkana Cr. and tributaries
Valley floors
Tundra
Proposed walk-in camp at larger lake
From North Access Road to lake and overlooks*
Trail head at about midway North Access Road
X-country skiing
of srna 11
*Overlook areas/points should be attempted only by those
with good hiking skills -knowledge of terrain in this area
or similar. Potentially dangerous.
J
--} <l
ATTRACTIVE FEATURES -INVENTORY DATA FORM
RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SETTING
SIGNIFICANCE RATINGS
Mountain Peaks
Glaciers
Geological Interest Sites
Gorges/Cliffs/Bluffs
Talus Slope/Rock Environment
Cirques
Rock/Mineral Collection Sites
Big Game Hunting Habitats
Fishing Habitats
Wildlife Observation Areas
Lakes
Waterfalls/White Water
Rivers/Streams
Bogs
Vegetation Patterns
Botanical Interest Sites
Dams/Reservoirs
Campgrounds
Boating Facilities
Resorts/Lodges
Trails/Trail Head
Access
Float Plane Facilities
Visitor Information Service
Historical/Archeological Sites
Winter Sports
H
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
M
X
X
X
X
L
X
l , __ )
APPENDIX 7.B (Cant • d)
Mountain Area Immediately North of Tsusena Butte and
West of the Proposed North Access Road
NOTATIONS
Very high scenic quality
Caribou and Dall sheep
Larger lakes with outlets
Potential
Northeast of Tsusena Lake toward Deadman Lake
Tundra and willow
Proposed walk-in camp at lake
Potential for lake boat launch
*Proposed trail west from North Access Road
North Access Road trail head or by float plane
Potential if not existing
Ice fishing and x-country skiing
*Potentially dangerous hiking to overlook points. Good
skills (hiking) and knowledge of similar terrain tra-
versing are recommended.
APPENDIX 7.B (Cant' d)
ATTRACTIVE FEATURES -INVENTORY DATA FORM
RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SETTING Tsusena Butte Area
SIGNIFICANCE RATINGS H M L NOTATIONS
Mountain Peaks X View to mountains
Glaciers X
Geological Interest Sites X
Gorges/Cliffs/Bluffs X Tsusena Butte -landmark
Talus Slope/Rock Environment X
Cirques
Rock/Mineral Collection Sites
Big Game Hunting Habitats X Bear and moose -Tsusena Cr.
. Fishing Habitats X Grayling and lake trout
Wildlife Observation Areas X
Lakes X East stde of Tsu~ena Butte
Waterfalls/White 14ater X
rrl Rivers/Streams X Tsusena Cr. -...,J
to
I Bogs X Near lakes
CJ) Vegetation Patterns X Mixed forest -Tsusena Cr.
Botanical Interest Sites X Potential Tundra
Oams/Reservoi rs
Campgrounds Proposed campground at lake
Boating Facilities Existing boat launch
Resorts/Lodges X Hunting/fishing cabin
Trails/Trail Head Proposed trail to lake and along creek
Access North Access Road -float plane
Float Plane Facilities X Fly-in float plane -existing
Visitor Information Service
Historical/Archeological Sites
Winter Sports Ice fishing
~~ . I ) J .. J . ·• J ) J
.. l l
.ATTRACTIVE FEATURES -INVENTORY DATA FORt1
RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SETTING
SIGNIFICANCE RATINGS
Mountain Peaks
Glaciers
Geological Interest Sites
Gorges/Cliffs/Bluffs
Talus Slope/Rock Environment
Cirques
Rock/Mineral Collection Sites
Big Game Hunting Habitats
Fishing Habitats
Wildlife Observation Areas
Lakes
Waterfalls/White Water
Rivers/Streams
Hogs
Vegetation Patterns ·
Botanical Interest Sites
Dams/Reservoirs
Campgrounds
Boating Facilities
Resorts/Lodges
Trails/Trail Head
Access
Float Plane Facilities
Visitor Information Service
Historical/Archeological Sites
Winter Sports
H
X
X
X
M
X
X
X
X
X
X
L
X
X
X
X
X
APPENDIX 7.8
Big Lake and Deadman Lake Area
NOTATIONS
Views to mountains
Better known for fishing -caribou
Grayling and lake trout
1 ~·· .. ~. l
Potential -big game, waterfowl and raptors -eagles
Big Lake -largest in study area
Deadman Cr.
Near lakes and streams
Tundra -marshland
Potential
Big Lake -proposed
Walk-in canoe
Trail from North Access Road
Good access -North Access Road
Possible to land on both lakes
Ice fishing and x-country skiing
]
m
"-J
a:!
I co
ATTRACTIVE FEATURES -INVENTORY DATA FORM
RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SETTING
SIGNIFICANCE RATINGS
Mountain Peaks
Glaciers
Geological Interest Sites
Gorges/Cliffs/Bluffs
Talus Slope/Rock Environment
Cirques
Rock/Mineral Collection Sites
Big Game Hunting Habitats
Fishing Habitats
Wildlife Observation Areas
Lakes
Waterfalls/White Water
Rivers/Streams ·
Bogs
Vegetation Patterns
Botanical Interest Sites
Dams/Reservoirs
Campgrounds
Boating Facilities
Resorts/Lodges
Trails/Trail Head
Access
Float Plane Facilities
Historical/Archeological Sites
Winter Sports
.I
H
J
M
X
X
X
X
X
X
L
X
X
X
X
X
APPENDIX 7.B (Co nt' d)
Butte Creek Drainage
NOTATIONS
Immediate area is not spectacular ~ views are fair to good
Broad, flat valley primarily
Moose, bear and caribou
Grayling -lake trout at Butte Lake
Butte Lake -large number of small lakes -Snodgrass Lake
Insignificant
Tributaries/Butte Cr. -close to Watana Cr.
Most of the drainage is in a flat, poorfy drained area -
large percentage of bogs
Mixed forest and tundra (upland slopes)
Recommend primitiv~
Butte Lake
X Existing sport lodges at Butte Lake·
** Potential for trail from Big Lake to Susitna River bridge
on Denali Highway
North Access Road or Susitna River bridge on Denali Highway
Big Lake -Deadman Lake or Visitor Information Service
X-country skiing, snowmobiling
**Comparatively, area is not very scenic-linear land-
scape with few areas of significant interest. Might
best be developed for hunting access.
... ) J J .J
rn
-....!
O;J
I
\.0
l -l J l ] ] -.~ l
ATTRACTIVE FEATURES -INVENTORY DATA FORM
RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SETTING
SIGNIFICANCE RATINGS
Mountain Peaks
Glaciers
Geological Interest Sites
Gorges/Cliffs/Bluffs
Talus Slope/Rock Environment
Cirques
Rock/Mineral Collection Sites
Big Game Hunting Habitats
Fishing Habitats .
Wildlife Observation Areas
Lakes
Waterfalls/White Water
Rivers/Streams
Bogs
Vegetation Patterns
Botanical Interest Sites
Dams/Reservoirs
Campgrounds
Boating Facilities
Resorts/Lodges
Trails/Trail Head
Access
Float Plane Facilities
Visitor Information Service
Historical/Archeological Sites
Winter Sports
H
X
M
X
X
X
L
X
X
X
X
_._ .. .. ) l ") ~-----· l -~~ -l J
APPENDIX 7.8 (Cant 1 d)
Clarence Lake Area
NOTATIONS
Distance views to mountains
Caribou
Lake trout at lake and grayling
Clarence Lake -long and linear
Gilbert Cr. & nearby Kosina Cr.
Most of the area is very wet
Primarily tundra and willow
Tundra
South of proposed Watana Res.
Existing launch at lake
Existing sport lodge
None recommended
Float plane -one could walk in along Clarence Lake
drainage outlet to Susitna-Watana Reservoir; however,
it is very wet
Existing at lake
J -)
J
ATTRACTIVE FEATURES -INVENTORY DATA FORM
RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SETTING
SIGNIFICANCE RATINGS
Mountain Peaks
Glaciers
Geological Interest Sites
Gorges/Cliffs/Bluffs
Talus Slope/Rock Environment
Cirques
Rock/Mineral Collection Sites
Big Game Hunting Habitats
Fishing Habitats
Wildlife Observation Areas
Lakes
Waterfalls/White water
Rivers/Streams
Bogs
Vegetation Patterns
Botanical Interest Sites
Dams/Reservoirs
Campgrounds
Boating Facilities
Resorts/Lodges
Trails/Trail Head
Access
Float Plane Facilities
Visitor Information Service
Historical/Archeological Sites
14inter Sports
. J J
H
X
X
X
M
X
X
X
X
L
X
X
X
X
APPENDIX 7.8 (Cont•d)
Watana Lake Area
NOTATIONS
Mt. Watana 6255 1
Moose, bear and caribou
Watana Lake and its outlet -lake trout, etc.
Potential -spotted waterfowl and eagles
Watana
Nearby Susitna R., Kosina and Tsisi creeks
Tundra and willow-small amount of mixed forest -marsh
South of proposed Watana Reservoir
Existing boat launch at lake
Existing sport lodge
Potential for trail around south side of Mt. Watana to
link with proposed trail through mountains to Fog Lakes
Float plane or trail from Fog Lakes
Existing at lake
.J .. J _] .. J ]
... J _]
ATTRACTIVE FEATURES -INVENTORY DATA FORM
RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SETTING
SIGNIFICANCE RATINGS H M
Mountain Peaks X
Glaciers X
Geological Interest Sites X
Gorges/Cliffs/Bluffs X
Talus Slope/Rock Environment X
Cirques X
Rock/Mineral Collection Sites X
Big Game Hunting Habitats X
Fishing Habitats X
Wildlife Observation Areas X
Lakes X
Waterfalls/White water X
rr1 Rivers/Streams X -....!
O:l
I Bogs ...... ...... Vegetation Patterns
Botanical Interest Sites
Dams/Reservoirs
Campgro'unds
Boating Facilities
Resorts/Lodges
Tra i 1 s/Tra il Head
Access
Float Plane Facilities
Visitor Infonnation Service
Historical/Archeological Sites
Winter Sports
L
J J J ~ l ) l -l
APPENDIX 7.B (Co nt' d)
immediatel south and east of
NOTATIONS
Spectacular peaks -rugged mtns.
Permanent snow
Glacier-formed valleys, etc.
A number of crystal-clear cirque lakes
Caribou, bear and Dall sheep
Sma 11 wa terf a 11 s
X Lower valley areas
Tundra
Tundra
Views to proposed reservoir sites
Primitive -recommended
None
None
Proposed loop trail from Fog Lak~s -also from Watana Lake
Float plane to Fog Lakes or from proposed trail head at
Watana Dam
If not existing -recommended
l
ATTRACTIVE FEATURES -INVENTORY DATA FORM
RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SETTING
SIGNIFICANCE RATINGS
Mountain Peaks
Glaciers
Geological Interest Sites
Gorges/Cliffs/Bluffs
Talus Slope/Rock Environment
Cirques
Rock/Mineral Collection Sites
Big Game Hunting Habitats
Fishing Habitats
Wildlife Observation Areas
lakes·
Waterfalls/White water
Rivers/Streams
Bogs
Vegetation Patterns
Botanical Interest Sites ·
Dams/Reservoirs
Campgrounds
Boating Facilities
Resorts/Lodges
Trails/Trail Head
Access
Float Plane Facilities
Visitor Information Service
Historical/Archeological Sites
Winter Sports
)
H
X
X
X
X
M
X
X
X
X
X
L
X
APPENDIX 7.B (Cant • d)
Fog Lakes Area
NOTATIONS
Excellent views to mountains
Moose, bear and caribou
Fog Lakes -lake trout, etc.
Fog Creek
Area is very wet
Moderately dense mixed forest-willows and tundra
Diverse vegetation types
South of proposed Watana Dam & Reservoir
Primitive
Proposed trail head at Watana Dam
Float plane -see above -also proposed trail from
Stephan Lake and Devil Canyon Reservoir
~) .... J ) J
IT1
-.....J
cc
I ....... w
'l ·---1
ATTRACTIVE FEATURES -INVENTORY DATA FORM
RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SETTING
SIGNIFICANCE RATINGS
Mountain Peaks
Glaciers
Geological Interest Sites
Gorges/Cliffs/Bluffs
Talus Slope/Rock Environment
Cirques
Rock/Mineral Collection Sites
Big Game Hunting Habitats
Fishing Habitats
Wildlife Observation Areas
Lakes
Waterfalls/White water
Riv~rs/Streams
Bogs
Vegetation Patterns
Botani ca 1 Interest Sites
Dams/Reservoirs
Campgrounds
Boating Facilities
Resorts/Lodges
Trails/Trail Head
Access
Float Plane Facilities
Visitor Information Service
Historical/Archeological Sites
Winter Sports
H
X
X
X
X
M
X
·x
X
X
X
X
X
L
X
-]
APPENDIX 7.B (Cont 1 d)
Stephan Lake Area
NOTATIONS
Views
Moose, bear and caribou
Fog Lakes and Prairie Cr. -salmon, lake trout, etc.
Second largest in study area
Prairie Cr.** ·
Prairie Cr. and lake outlets
Low areas
Mixed forest
South of proposed Devil Canyon Reservoir
Recommended primitive
Existing boat la~nch
Existing high use sport lodge
Proposed tra i 1-through area to or from Devi 1 Canyon Dam
and Fog Lakes
Float plane -trail head at Devil Canyon Dam, trail access
from Devil Canyon Reservoir northeast of lake and from
trail head at Watana Dam
Existing**
**According to Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources Susitna
Basin Land use/Rec. Atlas, there is an existing float
plane-use lake southwest of Stephan Lake. Prairie Cr.
is also identified as a canoeing/rafting resource.
l
ATTRACTIVE FEATURES -INVENTORY DATA FORM
RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SETTING
SIGNIFICANCE RATINGS
Mountain Peaks
Glaciers
Geological Interest Sites
Gorges/Cliffs/Bluffs
Talus Slope/Rock Environment
Cirques
Rock/Mineral Collection Sites
Big Game Hunting Habitats
Fishing Habitats
Wildlife Observation Areas
Lakes
Waterfa 11 s
White water
Rivers/Streams
Bogs
Vegetation Patterns
Botanical Interest Sites
Dams/Reservoirs
Campgrounds
Boating Facilities
Resorts/Lodges
Trails/Trail Head
Access
Float Plane Facilities
Visitor Information Service
Historical/Archeological Sites
Winter Sports
I ... J .... I
H M
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
J
L
X
X
APPENDIX 7.B (Cant• d)
J
Devil Canyon Damsite to Watana Dam Site along South Side
of Susitna River
NOTATIONS
Good views primarily to mountains to the north
Susitna River valley -Devil Canyon
Moose, bear and caribou
Tributaries of Susitna, Stephan and and Fog Lakes
Large number -Stephan Lake and Fog Lakes are the most
significant
Tributaries to Susitna River
Tributaries to Susitna River
Tributaries to Susitna River
Dense mixed forest -tundra on uplands
Potential
Views to both proposed dams and reservoirs
Proposed walk-in camp directly south of Devil Creek at
lakes
Existing abandoned structure at campsite lake
Along the south side of reservoir staying up high above
the reservoir a proposed trail from Devil Canyon Dam to
Stephan Lake to Fog Lakes and to Watana Dam
Trailhead at both damsites or float plane to a number of
lakes in the area
Potential
Both damsites
Ice fishing and x-country skiing
J J
l J --l -· .. l l
ATTRACTIVE FEATURES -INVENTORY DATA FORM
RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SETTING
SIGNIFICANCE RATINGS
Mountain Peaks
Glaciers
Geological Interest Sites
Gorges/Cliffs/Bluffs
Talus Slope/Rock Environment
Cirques
Rock/Mineral Collection Sites
Big Game Hunting Habitats
Fishing Habitats
Wildlife Observation Areas
Lakes
Waterfalls/white water
Rivers/Streams
Bogs
Vegetation Patterns
Botanical Interest Sites
Dams/Reservoirs
Campgrounds
Boating Facilities
Resorts/Lodges
Trails/Trail Head
Access
Float Plane Facilities
Visitor Information Service
Historical/Archeological Sites
Winter Sports
H
X
X
X
X
M
X
X
X
X
X
X
L
X
X
X
J
APPENDIX 7.8 (Cant • d)
Lakes Area Northeast of Devil Canyon Dam
NOTATIONS
Views to mountains
Moose, caribou and bear
Lakes
Potential
High scenic quality -large to small
Close to Devil Canyon and Portage Cr.
Primarily tundra and willow-some mixed forest
Tundra and other alpine species
Just north of Devil Canyon Dam and Reservoir
Proposed campground near East-West Access Road
Walk-in canoe use at lakes
Close to High Lakes Lodge
Proposed 1 oop trail through 1 akes
East-West Access Road near Devil Canyon Dam
Ice fishing and x-country skiing
ATTRACTIVE FEATURES -INVENTORY DATA FORM
RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SETTING
SIGNIFICANCE RATINGS
Mountain Peaks
Glaciers
Geological Interest Sites
Gorges/Cliffs/Bluffs
Talus Slope/Rock Environment
Cirques
Rock/f~ineral Collection Sites
Big Game Hunting Habitats
Fishing Habitats
Wildlife Observation Areas
Lakes
Waterfalls/white water
Rivers/Streams
Bogs
Vegetation Patterns
Botanical Interest Sites
Dams/Reservoirs
Campgrounds
Boating Facilities
Resorts/Lodges
Trails/Trail Head
Access ·
Float Plane Facilities
Visitor Information Service
Historical/Archeological Sites
Winter Sports
H M
X
X
X
X
L
X
X
X
X
X
APPENDIX 7.8 (Cant' d) ·
Devil Creek Drainage
NOTATIONS
Vertical canyon in areas
Salmon, grayling below falls
Most spectacular falls in area
Devil Cr.
Proposed overlook trail from High Lakes
Devil Canyon Dam Road
J J j J .J
'1 1 ...• ... -1 l ) ) ] ... l ., ) '1 1 ) }
APPENDIX 7.8 (Cont•d)
ATTRACTIVE. FEATURES -INVENTORY DATA FORM
RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SETTING Portage Creek Drainage
SIGNIFICANCE RATINGS H M L NOTATIONS
Mountain Peaks
Glaciers
Geological Interest Sites X
Gorges/Cliffs/Bluffs Steep, narrow river canyon
Talus Slope/Rock Environment
Cirques
Rock/Mineral Collection Sites X Potential
Big Game Hunting Habitats X
Fishing Habitats X Salmon, trout and grayling
Wildlife Observation Areas X
Lakes
Waterfalls/white water X X Fast -white water
Rivers/Streams X Very scenic
rr1 Bogs -....1
o::J
I Vegetation Patterns X Mixed forest -spruce and aspen ...... Botanical Interest Sites X -....1
Dams/Reservoirs
Campgrounds
Boating Facilities Proposed. put-in kayak
Resorts/Lodges
-Trails/Trailhead Trail down to Portage Cr.
Access Devil Canyon Dam Road East and West
Float Plane Facilities
Visitor Information Service
Historical/Archeological Sites
Winter Sports
-I
I~
-I
-
APPENDIX E7C
Supporting Data for Susitna Drainage Fishing Activity
-
!"""
I"""'
,....
I
-'
r
'""'
-
APPENDIX 7.C
NUMBER OF ANGLERS WHO SPORT FISHED IN ALASKA BY
AREA OF RESIDENCE, 1977 -1981
Number of Anglers
1977 1978 1979
Alaska
Southeast 20,387 211799 20,740
Upper Copper-
Susitna River 1,885 1,377 1,255
Prince William Sound 2,802 2,788 2,675
Kenai Peninsula 14,690 13,939 15,429
West Cook Inlet-Lower/
Susitna Drainage 85,062 85,844 86,210
Kodiak 2,955 3,182 3,418
Bristol Bay 933 11 113 1,260
Arctic-Yukon-Kuskow 22,261 25,866 29,624
Total 150,975 155,908 160,611
Other Than Alaska
Other United States 38,717 41,604 46,622
Foreign 11,366 8,673 6,076
Total 50,083 50,277 53,698
TOTAL 201,058 206,185 213,309
Source: 1981 Statewide Harvest Study Volume 23
Federal Aid In Fish Restoration and Anadromous
Fish Studies, CSW-1, Michael J. Mi lis,
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
1980 1981
24,534 26,923
1,302 11195
3,018 3,064
13,514 15,229
89,370 94,707
3,160 4,265
1,666 1,667
30,163 32,822
166,727 179,872
51,473 62,923
6,213 6,434
57,686 69,357
224,413 249,229
)
1977
AREA FISHED NtJ.1BER PERCENT
South-central
Glenna lien 51,485 4.3
Prince WI II lam Sound 48,369 4.0
Knlk Arm Drainage 81,949 6.8
Anchorage 55,060 4.6
*East Susltna Drainage 56,651 4.7
*West Cook Inlet-
West Susitna Drainage 32,842 2.7
Kenai Peninsula 422,954 35.3
Kodiak 41,563 3.5
Alaska Total 1,198,486 100.0
Susitna Drainage Total 89,493 7.4
Source: 1981 StatewIde Harvest Study, Volume 23
APPENDIX 7.C
NUMBER OF ANGLER DAYS FISHED IN ALASKA AND
PERCENTAGE BY REGION AND AREA, 1977 -1981
ANGLER-DAYS
1978 1979
NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT
44,566 3.5 57,266 4.2
35,046 2.7 46,594 3.4
75,540 5.9 78,411 5.7
31,147 2.4 65,425 4.8
86,010 6.7 78,222 5.7
38,771 3.0 52,747 3.9
521,498 40.6 525,327 39.2
44,502 3.5 59,045 4.3
1,285,863 100.0 1 ,364, 729 100.0
124,781 9.7 130,969 9.6
Federal Aid In Fish Restoration and Anadromous Fish Studies, SW-1,
Michael J. Ml lis, Alaska Department of Fish & Game
) ) J J
1980 1981
NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT
50,518 3.4 53,499 3.8
46,468 3.1 42,734 3.0
102, 530 6.9 105,052 7.4
79,665 5.4 67,618 4.8
91,304 6.1 59,854 4.2
49,924 3.4 40,658 2.9
530,493 35.6 519,662 36.6
64,907 4.4 66,439 4.7
1, 488,962 100.0 1,420,172 100.0
141,228 9.5 100,512 7.1
J __ j J
,_
i
I
r
-
r
I
i
-
GLOSSARY
Accessibility-refers to the kind of. roads, four-wheel-drive trails,
foot trails, etc., which are in or surround the study area.
Appropriate access to the various settings is important in main-
taining the setting preferences, e.g., pristine activity prefer-
ences need to be difficult to access. This relationship is deter-
mined during the onsite field review.
Attractiveness-is a measure of a landscape•s unique or special set-
tings and features. These can be both cultural and natural. The
landscape was inventoried for features, their frequency and sig-
nificance, which bear on the potential for recreation.
Carrying Capacity-is the inherent capability of a landscape to sup-
port recreation use. The primary purpose is to achieve fitness
between the number of people using a site and the preferred rec-
reation type (experience). The goal is not to reduce the experi-
ential potential of site through over-use or participation.
Encounter space-is that cover in acres within which an encounter
with another individual can be anticipated. It not only includes
physical contact (passing on a trail) but visual proximity as
we 11 ) •
Inherent Durability -is a general measure of the physical ability of
a site to absorb the impact of recreation development. The evalu-
ation is based upon known physical data and field observation of
each recreation resource site.
Natural Rarity -is a measure of the inventoried landscape features
and settings based upon the frequency of occurrence and overall
quality. Natural rarity also defines the physical characteris-
tic•s relationship to the regional and local scales.
Recreatio"' Opportunity Quality Factor-is based upon the natural
rarity of a proposed recreation setting. It is used to determine
the probability of capturing recreation users by simply saying the
higher the rating for natural rarity the greater the potential for
attracting recreation users.
Recreation Preference Type - a principal objective ,of the recreation
plan is to provide a variety of recreation activities within a
spectrum of recreation ~preference types~. The preference types
relate to the character and ~ual ity of the existing land base.
The recreation activities also relate in terms of their appro-
priateness to a p~rticul ar setting. The four recreation prefer-
ence 'types are: pristine, primitive, semiprimitive, and
deve 1 o.ped.
GLOSSARY (Cont•d)
Rehabilitation Site-in addition to those recreation opportunities
which are intrinsic to the natural environment, there are other
areas under consideration such as borrow areas, construction and
maintenance roads, ~nd transmission corridors. These elements
which are created to serve temporary purposes or as a by-product
of construction commonly attract recreationists who find them con-
venient for campsites; hiking trails, offroad tracks, and other
activities. AddHional recreation improvements and activities
could be developed in such locations if unforeseen recreation
demand occurs.
Visitor Day Conversion Factor-a factor in determining the visita-
tion capacity of a recreation setting which defines average use
days by recreation preference type activities.
Visitation Estimates-this method utilized two visitation estimates
for each recreation site: (1) yearly visitation capacity; and (2).
yearly visitation potential. Visitation capacity is an estimate
of how many visitors can annually experience and use a particular
recreation setting, based upon the designated recreation prefer-
ence type.
Visual Quality -is a measure of the scenic quality and importance of
the site. The relative availability of significant landscape features
and settings contained in each potential recreation site can be meas-
ured by; rarity, levels of quality, manageability (reinforcing the
Alaska landscapes image, and visual quality.
-I
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
VOLU~lE 8
EXHIBiT E CHAPTER 8
AESTHETIC RESOURCES
-
-
-
....
~.
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
VOLUME 8
EXHIBIT E CHAPTER 8
AESTHETIC RESOURCES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
1 -INTRODUCTION ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• E-8-1
1.1 -Purpose ..............................•............ E-8-1
1.2 -Relationship to Other Reports ••••••••••••••••••••• E-8-1
1.3 -Environmental Setting ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• E-8-1
1.3.1 -Regional Setting ••••••••••••••••••••••••• E-8-1
1.3.2 -Susitna River Basin •••••••••••••••.••••••• E-8-2
1.3.3 -Summary •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• E-8-3
2 -METHODOLOGY •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• E-8-5
2.1 -Procedure ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• E-8-5
2.1.1 -Step 1-Study Objectives •••.•••••••••.•• E-8-5
2.1.2 -Step 2-Project Facilities and Features • E-8-5
2.1.3 -Step 3-Landscape Character Types ••••••• E-8-5
2.1.4 -Step 4-Views ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• E-8-5
2.1.5 -Step 5-Aesthetic Value Rating •••••••••• E-8-5
2.1.6 -Step 6-Absorption Capability ••••••••••• E-8-5
2.1.7 -Step 7-Composite Rating ···········~···· E-8-6
2.1.8 -Step 8-Facilities' Rating ••••••.••••••• E-8-6
2.1.9 -Step 9-Mitigation Measures ••••••••••••• E-8-6
3 -STUDY OBJECTIVES-(STEP 1) •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• E-8-7
4 -PROJECT FACILITIES AND FEATURES (STEP 2) •••••••••••••.••• E-8-9
4.1 -Watana Project Area ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• E-8-9
4. 2 -Dev i 1 Canyon Project Area ••••••••••••••••••••••••• E-8-9
4. 3 -Watana Access Road •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• E-8-9
4.4 -Devil Canyon Access Road •••••••••••••••••••••••••• E-8-9
4.5 Transmission Line Stubs ••.•••••••••••••••••••••••• E-8-10
4.6 -Intertie •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• E-8-10
4.7 -Recreation Facilities and Features •••••••••••••••• E-8-10
5 -EXISTING LANDSCAPE •.••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• E-8-11
5.1 -Landscape Character Types (Step 3) •••••••••••••••• E-8-ll
5. 2 -Exception a 1 Natura 1 Features •••••••••••••••••••••• E-8-30
5.2.1 -Devil Canyon Rapids •••••••••••••••••••••• E-8-30
5.2.2 -Devil Creek Falls •••••••••••••••••••••••• E-8-30
5.2.3 -Stephan Lake ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• E-8-30
5.2.4 -Tsusena Creek Falls •••••••••••••••••••••• E-8-30
5.2.5 -Tsusena Butte Lake •••••••••••••••.••••••• E-8-30
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
5.2.6 -Deadman Creek Falls •••••••••••••••••••••• E-8-30
5.2.7 -Fog Lakes •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• E-8-31
5.2.8 -Big and Deadman Lakes •••••••••••••••••••• E-8-31
5.2.9 -Caribou Pass ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• E-8-31
5.2.10-Vee Canyon ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• E-8-31
6 -VIEWS (STEP 4) ............................................ E-8-33
7-AESTHETIC VALUE RATING AND ABSORPTION CAPABILITY RATING ••• E-8-35
7.1 -Aesthetic Value Rating (Step 5) ••••••••••••••••••• E-8-35
7.1.1 -Distinctiveness •••••••••••••••••••••••••• E-8-35-
7.1.2 ~Uniqueness ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• E-8-35
7.1.3 -Harmony and Balance ••••.••••••••••••••.•• E-8-35
7.2 -Absorption Capability (Step 6) •••••••••••••••••••• E-8-35
7.3 -Composite Ratings (Step 7) •••••••••••••••••••••••• E-8-41
8 -AESTHETIC IMPACT RATING {STEP 8) ••••••••••••••••••••••••• E-8-43
8.1 -Mitigation Planning for Incompatible Aesthetic
Impacts ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• E-8-43
9 -MITIGATION {STEP 9) •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• E-8-47
9.1 -Proposed Mitigation Measures ••••••••.••••••••••••• E-8-47
9. 1.1 -Addition a 1 Study • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • E-8-4 7
9.1.2 -Best Development Practices ; ...••••••••••• E-8-49
9.1.3 -Creative Engineering Design .••••••••••••• E-8-50
9.1.4 -Use of Form, Line, Color, or Textures •••• E-8-51
9.1.5 -Mitigation Costs ••••••••••••••••••••••••• E-8-51
10-AESTHETIC IMPACT EVALUATION OF THE INTERTIE •••••••••••.•• E-8-61
10.1 -Background •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• E-8-61
10.2-Project Description ............................... E-8-61
10.3-Landscape Character Types •••••••••••••••.••••••••• E-8-61
10.3.1-Susitna River Lowlands ••••••••••••••••••• E-8-62
10.3.2 -Talkeetna Mountains •••••••••••••••••••••• E-8-63
10.3.3-Lowlands Portion ••••••••••••••••••••••••• E-8-63
10.3.4-Uplands Portion •.•••••••••••••••••••••••• E-8-64
10.3.5-Chulitna River ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• E-8-64
10.3.6-Broad Pass ....•..•.•...•..•..•......•..•• E-8-64
10.3.7-Alaska Range ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• E-8-65
10.3.8-Nenana Uplands ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• E-8-65
10.3.9-Yanert River Valley •••••••••••••••••••••• E-8-65
10.4-Description of the Preferred Route ········~······· E-8-66
10.5-Alternatives ••••••.••••••••••.•••••••••••••.•••••• E-8-66
10.6-~npacts •••.•.•.•••.••••.•••••••••••••••••••••••••• E-8-67
10.6.1-Susitna River Lowlands ••••••••••••••••••• E-8-67
10.6.2-Talkeetna Mountains •••••••••••••••••••••• E-8-67
10.6.3-Alaska Range ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• E-8-67
-
-·
-
-
~.
-
r-
'
.....
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
10.6.4-Chulitna River ....... ~ .................... E-8-67
10.6.5-Broad Pass ................................ E-8-67
10.6.6-Yanert River Valley ....................... E-8-68
10.6.7-Nenana Uplands ............................ E-8-68
11-AGENCY COORDINATION ..................................... E-8-69
11.1-Agencies and Persons Consulted ................... E-8-69
11.2 -Agency Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-8-70
REFERENCES
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS
Appendix EBA-Proposed Facilities Design Analysis
Appendix EBB-Site Photos with Simulations of Project Facilities
Appendix EBC-Photos of Proposed Project Facilities Sites
Appendix EBD -Examples of Existing Aesthetic Impacts
Appendix EBE -Examples of Reservoir Edge Conditions Similar to
Those Anticipated at Watana & Devil Canyon Dam
Appendix EBF -Project Features Impacts and Charts
Appendix EBG -Illustrations of Possible Mitigation Measures
i i
LIST OF FIGURES
Number
Figure E. 8.1 -Regional Map
Figure E.8.2 -Methodology Diagram -Figure E.8.3 -Proposed Project Features
Figure E.8.4 -Transmission Phasing Diagram
Figure E.8.5 -Landscape Character Types -Susitna Basin
Figure E.8.6 -Landscape Character Types -Northern Stub .....
Figure E.8. 7 -Landscape Character Types -Southern Stub
Figure E.8.8 -Significant Views
-
·-
-
f"""
!
-
LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS
Number
E.8.1 -Mid-Susitna River Valley
E. 8. 2 -Devil Canyon
E.8.3 -Susitna River
E.8.4 -River Canyon
E.8.5 -Susitna Wet Upland Tundra Basin
E.8.6 -Portage Lowlands
E.8.7 -Chulitna Moist Tundra Uplands
E.8.8 -Chulitna Mountains
E.8.9 -Wet Upland Tundra
E.8.10 Talkeetna Uplands
E.8.11 -Talkeetna Mountains
E.8.12 Susitna Upland Terrace
E.8.13-Susitna Uplands
E.8.14 -Anchorage, Alaska
E.8.15-Susitna River Lowlands
E.8.16 -Nenana Uplands
E.8.17-Nenana River Lowlands
E.8.18 -Tanana Ridge
E.8.19 -Devil Canyon Rapids
E.8.20 -Devil Canyon Rapids
E.8.21-Devil Creek Falls
E.8.22 -Devil Creek Falls
E.8.23 -Stephan Lake
E.8.24-Tsusena Creek Falls
i i
_,
LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS
-Number
E.8.25 -Tsusena Butte Lake """'
E.8.26 -Deadman Creek Falls
E.8.27 -Fog Lakes
E.8.28 -Big/Deadman Lakes -E.8.29 -Big/Deadman Lakes
E.8.30 -Caribou Pass
E.8.31 -Vee Canyon
E.8.32 -Vee Canyon -
-
-
iii
I
'~
-
1 -INTRODUCTION
1.1 -Purpose
The purpose of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project Report on Aesthetic
Resources is to describe the aesthetic resources of the proposed pro-
ject area and the project design. The report outlines the expected
impacts of project development on those resources and describes steps
to be taken during project construction and operation to prevent or
minimize degradation to the visual environment. Steps are also given
for methods to enhance the aesthetic and related resources of project
lands and waters.
1.2 -Relationships to Other Reports
This report is based, in part, upon the Project Description presented
in Exhibit A and Project Operations described in Chapter 2 of Exhibit
E. Important inputs to this plan can also be found in Exhibit E,
Chapter 3, Fish, Wildlife, and Botanical Resources; Chapter 4, Historic
and Archeological Resources; and Chapter 7, Recreation Resources.
1.3 -Environmental Setting
1.3.1-Regional Setting
The Susitna Hydroelectric Project area is primarily within the
state of Alaska's South-central Region, but also extends at least
100 miles (160 km) north into what is known as the Interior Region
(see Figure E.8.1).
The South-central Region is geographically bounded by the Alaska
Range to the north and west, the Wrangell Mountains to the east,
and the Chugach Mountains and Gulf of Alaska to the south. Char-
acterized by rugged mountainous terrain, plateaus and broad river
valleys. The region is home to 55 percent of the state's popula-
tion (Alaska Magazine, September 1981). Anchorage, with nearly
half of Alaska's population and only 100 air miles (160 km) south
of the project area, is located near the northeast end of Cook
Inlet in the South-central Region.
Mount McKinley, the state's single most significant geographical
feature, is located on the region's northwest border. Spruce hem-
lock and spruce-hardwood forests, wetlands, moist and wet tundra,
as well as plateau uplands and a number of active glacier-bedded
mountain valleys are other significant natural environments
present here. This diversity of landscapes is also complemented
by a wide variety of wildlife and fisheries.
The Interior Region is bordered by the Brooks Range to the north,
the Bering Sea coast to the west, the Canadian border to the east,
and the Alaska Range to the south. It is generally characterized
as a broad open landscape of large braided and meandering rivers
E-8-1
1.3 -Environmental Setting
and streams. River valleys are primarily vegetated with spruce-
hardwood forests giving way to treeless tundra and brush-covered
highlands and large wetland areas. The Yukon River, which bisects
the Interior Region, is its single most significant natural fea-
ture. Again, as in the south-central region, the wildlife and
fisheries are as diverse as the landscape environments (Alaska
Geographic 1980).
Fairbanks, 100 air miles (160 km) north of the project area, is
Alaska's second largest urban center with approximately 30,000
residents. Due to a harsh winter climate and general inaccessi-
bility other than by air, the Interior Region is still predomi-
nately a wilderness area.
1.3.2 -Susitna River Basin
The Middle Susitna River Basin, which surrounds the proposed
hydroelectric site, is located entirely in the South-central
Region. The 39,000 square mile (101,400 square km) area is
bordered by the Alaska Range to the north, the Chulitna and
Talkeetna Mountains to the west and south, and the northern
Talkeetna plateau and Gulkana uplands to the east.
Although the basin is not considered to be unusually scenic in
comparison to other natural resources in Alaska, the aesthetic
resources are valued because of the basin's location between the
two population centers of Anchorage and Fairbanks.
The basin has distinct and diverse combinations of landforms,
waterforms, vegetation and wi 1 dl ife species. The deep V-shaped
canyon of the Susitna River and tributaries, the Talkeetna Moun-
tains, and the upland plateau to the east are the dominant topo-
graphic forms. Elevations in the basin range from approximately
700 feet to over 6000 feet (212 m to over 1820 m). Distinctive
landforms include panoramic tundra highlands, active and post
glacial valleys, and numerous lakes of both simple and complex
forms. The most well known features in the basin are the verti-
cal-walled Devil and Vee Canyons on the Susitna River. Devil
Canyon contains some of North America's roughest whitewater.
Seasonal changes in the basin, as throughout much of Alaska, are
very dramatic. Lush green summers are replaced by the red, orange
and golden colors of the tundra and hardwood species during a
short autumn. Snow, ice and below-zero temperatures create a
harsh, threatening but scenic winter landscape. Late April and
May bring ice breakups on the rivers and the once snow-and
i cecqvered ground begins to come back to 1 ife. The 1 andscape
turns green again as the cycle repeats.
E-8-2
-
~1
~'
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.3 -Environmental Setting
Other than the Susitna River itself, the silt-laden Maclaren and
Oshetna rivers; the clear Tyone River; and Portage, Devil, Fog,
Tsusena, Watana, Kosina, Jay, and Butte creeks are the major
drainages in the Middle Susitna Basin. Scen"ic waterfalls occur on
several of the creeks near their incised canyon confluences with
the Susitna River, and the most notable falls occur on Devil
Creek.
Spruce and mixed spruce-deciduous forests cover the bottom and
slopes of river and tributary valleys below an elevation of 2500
feet (757 m) west of the Oshetna River/Susitna River confluence.
Tundra and muskeg replace the mixed forests to the east and on the
highlands. Mountai~ slopes are bare or lightly covered with vege-
tation.
Wildlife species in the Middle Susitna Basin include Dall sheep,
moose, caribou, and grizzly and black bears. Avian species
include bald and golden eagles, trumpeter swans, and numerous mig-
ratory waterfowl. Fisheries of the study area include all five
Alaskan salmon species, grayling, burbot, rainbow, and lake trout.
Because of the extremely turbulent waters of Devil Canyon, salmon
are generally only found in the Susitna River below the canyon.
Existing access into the middle basin area is generally limited to
hiking, float planes, all-terrain vehicles (ATV), and watercraft.
Denali Highway passes through the northern portion of the basin
linking the George Parks Highway to the west with the Richardson
Highway to the east. Several short road/trails traverse the tun-
dra to mining claims and fishing/hunting lodges. Primary human
use of the basin includes recreational hunting and fishing.
Several small mining operations are also found in the basin.
1.3.3 -Summary
The Middle Susitna Basin is an essentially uninhabited and diverse
environment which has regionally important aesthetic values. Any
major development here has the potential to create significant
aesthetic impacts within the basin as well as to both the South-
central and Interior Regions.
E-8-3
-
~1.
-
-
2 -METHODOLOGY
2.1 -Procedure
Figure E.8. 2 i 11 ustrates the methodo 1 ogy fall owed to produce this
report. Aesthetic resources were assessed according to the follow·ing
outline:
2.1.1 -Step 1 -Study Objectives
-Establish study objectives through consultation with key
agencies and project designers;
-Prepare a detailed work program and study outline;
-Review past Susitna Hydroelectric Project reports and other
related visual studies;
Perform air and ground reconnaissance of the project area and
proposed facility/feature sites; and
Identify specific concerns of agencies and special interest
groups.
2.1.2 -Step 2 -Project Facilities and Features
-!dent i fy and ana 1 yze the siting and design of proposed project
features.
2.1.3-Step 3-Landscape Character Types
-Identify and describe existing landscape character types within
the study area according to their 1 and and water forms, and
vegetation.
2.1.4-Step 4-Views
-Identify the major viewpoints within the study area.
2.1.5 -Step 5-Aesthetic Value Rating
-Assign Aesthetics Value Ratings to each landscape character type
based on the criteria of distinctiveness, uniqueness and har-
mony/balance.
2.1.6 -Step 6-Absorption Capability
-Rate the absorption capability of landscape character types
according to their ability to absorb visual modification. with-
out the changes causing disharmony or degradation.
E-8-5
2.1 -Procedure
2.1.7 -Step 7 -Composite Rating
-Determine the composite ratings of each landscape character type
based on a synthesis of Steps 5 and 6.
2.1.8-Step 8 -Facilities• Rating
-Analyze the relationship of proposed facilities to the existing
landscape character types and determine potential impacts.
Using the composite ratings in Step 7, proposed facilities are
determined to be in one of the following categories:
• Compatible;
• Compatible with mitigation;
• Incompatible no mitigation possible; and
• Incompatible mitigation is possible.
2.1.9 -Step 9-Mitigation Measures
-Develop mitigation measures which wi11 avoid or reduce adverse
aesthetic impacts and provide or enhance the positive aesthetic
impacts of the project on the landscape.
E-8-6
-
-
-
-
-
-
......
3 -STUDY OBJECTIVES (STEP 1)
The major objectives for this report are to:
-Identify the inherent quality of the aesthetic resources of the
existing landscapes which will be directly or indirectly impacted by
the Susitna Hydroelectric development; ,
Protect the quality of the existing landscape by minimizing negative
impacts caused by human activity and development;
-Maximize opportunities to appreciate the existing and new areas of
high aesthetic quality; and
-Maximize the positive relationships between the proposed facilities
and the existing landscape.
E-8-7
-
-
-
-I
·-
-
-
-
4 -PROJECT FACILITIES AND FEATURES (STEP 2)
The Susitna Hydroelectric Project has a number of faci 1 ities and fea-
tures which will potentially have aesthetic impacts upon the existing
landscape. General locations of these facilities are shown in Figure
E.8.3. Appendix 8.A provides the proposed layout and analysis of these
facilities. Appendices 8.B and B.C include photo~ of facility sites.
Appendix 8.8 includes character sketches of major facilities. The
facilities and features are as follows:
4.1 -Watana Project Area
-Earthfi 11 dam and two temporary cofferdams;
-Reservoir;
Main and emergency spillways;
-Borrow site (material for dams);
-Access roads;
-Switchyard at damsite;
-Temporary airstrip;
-Construction camp (single status);
-Construction village (married status):
-Permanent town;
-Two 345-kV transmission lines (Watana Dam to Intertie);
-Switchyard at Intertie; and
138-kV transmission line (power for construction of Watana).
4.2-Devil Canyon Project Area
-Concrete arch dam, saddle dam and two temporary cofferdams;
-Reservoir;
-Main and emergency spillways;
-Borrow sites (material for saddle and cofferdams);
-Access roads;
-Switchyard at damsite;
Construction camp (single status);
-Construction village (married status);
-Two 345-kV transmission lines (Devil Canyon to Intertie); and
-Railroad. (Gold Creek to Devil Canyon).
4.3 -Watana Access Road
-Gravel road from Denali Highway to Watana Dam; and
-Borrow sites (material for road construction).
4.4 -Devil Canyon Access Road
-Gravel road;
-High level bridge (below Devil Canyon damsite); and
-Borrow sites (material for road construction)~
E-8-9
4-Project Facilities and Features (Step 2)
4.5 -Transmission Line Stubs
-Two 345-kV transmission lines from Healy to Fairbanks (north stub);
and
-Three 345-kV transmission lines from Willow to Anchorage (south stub
(see Figures E.8.6 and E.8.7).
4.6 -Intertie
Initially there will be one 345-kV transmission line operated at 138 kV
from Willow to Healy. For successional stages, see Figure E • .8.4. It
should be noted that the Intertie between Willow and Healy is not a
part of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project, and its examination here
will be cursory in nature.
4.7-Recreation Facilities and Features
-Dam visitor centers;
-Road pulloffs and parking;
-Semi-developed campgrounds;
-Primitive camping;
-Trailheads;
-Developed and primitive trails; and
-Warming shelters.
E-8-10
-
-
-
"""
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
r-
5.2 -Exceptional Natura] Features
5.2.7 -Fog Lakes
Fog Lakes consists of a series of large linear lakes on the south
side of the Susitna River. They occur in a gently rolling to flat
1 andscape covered with wetlands, mixed forest and open tundra
vegetation (see Photograph £.8.27).
5.2.8 -Big and Deadman Lakes
These 1 akes are picturesquely set between three 1 arge tundra-
covered buttes. There are many outstanding views out from the
site into the Susitna Basin (see Photograph £.8.28 and £.8.29).
5.2.9 -Caribou Pass
Two long lakes surrounded by glaciated mountains are located in a
narrow valley. Wetlands and tundra cover the valley floor where
the middle fork of the Chulitna River has its headwaters (see
Photograph £.8.30).
5.2.10-Vee Canyon
Vee Canyon is a narrow vertical rock-worn canyon which encloses
the Susitna River for over a mile (1.6 km) east of the Watana dam-
site. This canyon will remain after the inundation of Watana
reservoir (see Photograph £.8.31 and £.8.32).
E-8-31
-
.-
-
-
-
-
6 -VIEWS (STEP 4)
Evaluation of existing landscape character types and their inherent
aesthetic quality is independent of the issue of visibility. Quality
does not depend on vi si bi 1 ity. However, the evaluation of aesthetic
impacts is directly related to the potential for viewing any particular
sit e.
Views are described as distant or panoramic, and near or foreground
views. Panoramic views or vistas are important for perceiving and
experiencing the overall landscape context. Explanatory vistas are
those where the observer has the opportunity to view large scale land-
mark or landscape settings symbolic of Alaskan environments. An
example would be the opportunity to view the Alaska range. Foreground
views are those within the immediate vicinity of the observer.
The level of impacts is determined by analyzing the relationship
between a proposed facility and the existing landscape. The two impor-
tant aspects of this evaluation are the observer position and the dura-
tion of the view.
Observer position is the location of specific places or settings where
an individual can "view" the landscape. Within the study area, this
opportunity occurs principally along the access roads; however, other
observer postions are included, based upon the proposed development
including recreation sites, known existing use areas (e.g. High Lake
Lodge), and the damsites themselves.
These observer positions were evaluated on an on-site basis regarding
the relative existence of specific landscape character types, opportun-
ities for extended views or vistas into the surrounding environments
(e.g., the Alaska Range), and major views of project facilities. These
are mapped in Figure E.8.8.
Within the study area, potential observer positions include aerial
views from small plane traffic and ground views from vehicular traffic
on project roads, random foot traffic throughout the area, boat traffic
on the Susitna River, and users of the various recreation and hydro-
electric facilities.
The duration of views is also an important consideration. This is a
measure of the extent of time one has to view a particular 1 andscape
setting. Ths longer the time frame for viewing, the more significant
the measurement of the observer position becomes.
These elements were considered during the evaluation of aesthetic
impacts and are reflected in the charts of Appendix B.F.
E-8-33
-
-
-
-
,.. ...
7 -AESTHETIC VALUE RATING AND
ABSORPTION CAPABILITY RATING
7.1 -Aesthetic Value Rating (Step 5)
Each landscape character type (Step 3} was evaluated for its relative
aesthetic value on a high, medium and low basis. Aesthetic value is
defined as a relative measure of the visual landscape based upon the
following characteristics.
7.1.1 -Distinctiveness
A measure of the visual impression of an area; i.e., a landscape
where 1 and forms, waterforms, rocks, vegetative or soi 1 patterns
are of outstanding and memorable aesthetic quality.
7.1.2 -Uniqueness
A measure of the relative scarcity or commonality of the land-
scape. Due to Alaska 1 s vast and numerous high-quality landscapes,
uniqueness will have two levels of meaning for the purpose of this
report:
-Landscapes and natural features may or may not be rare on a
statewide scale; and
-Landscapes and natural features may or may not be rare on pro-
ject area scale.
7.1.3-Harmony and Balance
A measure of the degree to which all elements of the landscape
form a unified composition. This includes the integration level
of man-made elements in a natural setting.
These characteristics were evaluated by on-site examination of
each 1 andscape character type. This on-site approach also con-
sidered the visibility and potential for views (Step 4} in genera-
ting aesthetic value ratings.
7.2 -Absorption Capability (Step 6)
Each landscape character type was evaluated for its absorption capabil-
ity, which is the relative ability of a landscape to absorb physical
change. Each character type was rated on a high, medium and low basis
based upon the following characteristics: aesthetic value (Step 5),
topographic enclosure, vegetation cover, ground plane color and visi-
bility. Each landscape character type was evaluated with an on-site
examination of the aforementioned characteristics as related to poten-
tial project facilities. The following chart presents the ratings for
the aesthetic value rating (Step 5), and the absorption capability
(Step 6).
E-8-35
AESTHETIC VALUE
ABSORPTION
AND
CAPABILITY RATINGS STEPS 5,6
LANDSCAPE
CHARACTER
TYPE
MID SUSITNA RIVER
VALLEY
DEVIL CANYON
SUSITNA RIVER
RIVER CANYON
SUSlTNA UPLAND WET
TUNDRA BASIN
AESTHETIC
VALUE
Moderate
High
High
Moderate
ABSORPTION
CAPABILITY
Medwm
Low
Medium
Low
Medium
E-8-36
COMMENTS
• Common Alaskan landscape--nothing
which makes it particularly dis-
tinctiVe.
Existing man-made elements (i.e.,
railroad parallel to river, railroad
bridge, cabins and railroad related
structures) have not had significant
negative aesthetic impacts •
• Distinctive Alaskan natural resource
feature.
Dramatic but unstable environment
because of steep slopes •
• Man-made elements must be sensitive
to the existing landscapes. A highly
aesthetic and recreational resource •
• Distinctive and impressive deep
valley--large-scale •
• Good variety of landform, vegetation
and water edges.
Variety of scenic large-to _small-
scale features.
• Able to absorb some man-made impacts
on semiforested, less steep areas.
Small-scale impacts.
Distinctive river canyon.
• Steep slopes make the area sensitive
to development •
• Due to the lack of substantial w~,
forest cover, the overall open
character of the canyon requires
highly compatible design solutions.
Impressive scale but landscape
character is common In Alaska.
• Distant scenic views to mountains
along with a variety of land, water
and vegetative edges 1n foreground
gives the area moderate to high
aesthetic value. r·--
Flat and open character of land Will
not easily absorb man-made elements/
impacts. However, existing roads
and small structures are not dis-
tractive.
-
-
-
AESTHETIC VALUE AND
ABSORPTION CAPABILITY RATINGS STEPS 5,6
LANDSCAPE
CHARACTER
TYPE
PORTAGE LOWLANDS
CHULITNA MOIST TUNDRA
UPLANDS
CHULITNA MOUNTAINS
WET UPLAND TUNDRA
TALKEETNA UPLANDS
AESTHETIC
VALUE
High
High
High
Moderate
Moderate
ABSORPTION
CAPABILITY
Low
Moderate
Low
Low
Low
E-8-37
COMMENTS
• Distinctive deep and winding tribu-
tary river canyon to the Susitna
River. Variety of vegetation types
and river bottom terrain •
• Steep erodible slopes would be sen-
sitive to any development •
• High aesthetic quality due to diver-
sity of landforms, water and vegeta-
tion patterns •
• The landform diversity and variety
of forest edges and densities will
allow for some visual integration
and absorption of man-made elements •
• Highly distinctive area, rich in
significant natural attractive
features •
• Complex glaciated landforms of all
scales •
• Man-made elements and impacts will
be very visible on this predomi-
nantly treeless and steep sloped
landscape •
• Basically a wilderness area.
• There is a variety of water farms and
their distinct edges with land and
vegetation, along with highly scenic
vjews •
• Although the area is basically open,
the rolling terrain would not be
significantly impacted by man-made
elements if they were properly sited
and sensitively designed. Elements
must be subordinate to the land-
scape.
The overall aesthetic value of this
area is good due primarily to
variety of landforms, but is not as
scenic (middle and foreground views)
in comparison to many of the other
character types.
The bisecting forested river valleys
create a distinct and interesting
pattern.
AESTHETIC VALUE AND
ABSORPTION CAPABILITY RATINGS
LANDSCAPE
CHARACTER
TYPE
TALKEETNA UPLANDS
(contd)
TALKEETNA MOUNTAINS
SUSl TNA UPLAND
TERRACE
SUSITNA UPLANDS
AESTHETIC
VALUE
Moderate
High
Moderate
Moderate
ABSORPTION
CAPABILITY
Low
Low
Low
Low
E-8-38
COMMENTS
Man-made features would be vis1ble
In most areas due to the flat to
rolling open terrain.
Sensitive siting is mandatory with
the landscape dominating the
character of development if any.
Highly distinctive mountain range
with a complex variety of land and
water forms, and patterns •
• As with the Chulitna Mountains, this
area can be considered a wilderness . .
area.
Medium-to large-scale man-made
features will be highly visible in
this treeless steep sloped mountain
environment •
• Recreation trails here and 1n the
Chulitna Mountains should not be
aesthetically disruptive •
• This setting of large lakes, dense
forest and scenic views to the moun-
tains IS basically of moderate
aesthetic value •
• Distinctive to the basin but not to r~c.
Alaska •
• Clearing of trees for most any type
of development would be highly
visible in this densely forested
area.
Any major man-made impact (medium-
to large-scale) must be carefully
considered to emphasize site fit-
ness .
• This landscape character is common
in Alaska with the exception of Its
large number of distinctive streams
and rivers. The open landscape is
significantly enhanced by the scenic
views of adjacent and distant
character types •
• other than recreational trails--if
properly sited--most all other man-
made features would be highly
visible.
-
AESTHETIC
ABSORPTION
VALUE. AND
CAPABILITY RATINGS STEPS 5,6
LANDSCAPE
CHARACTER
TYPE
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA
SUSITNA RIVER
NENANA UPLANDS
NENANA RIVER
LOWLANDS
TANANA RIDGE
AESTHET1C
VALUE
Low
Low
Moderate
Low
Moderate
ABSORPTtON
CAPAB1LITY
High
High
Medium
High
Low
E-8-39
COMMENTS
• Although the city is in a high
quality aesthetic setting, the
visual image of the city itself is
not high in aesthetic value •
• With the exception of the Chugach
foothills, the large-scale urban
environment should be able to absorb
new man-made features. However,
proper design, siting and alignment
of features will be essential to
lessen any-potential aesthetic
impact.
• The landscape is continuous and broad
in scale with few significant land-
scape features.
• Flat terrain and diverse vegetation
patterns should be able to effec-
tively absorb most man-made features.
Aesthetic Impacts will not be signi-
ficant •
• Landscape has good variety of land-
forms and vegetation patterns and a
large distinctive river •
• Aesthetic value is not high In com-
parison to many other Alaskan
character types.
This rich diversity and patterns of
natural elements and generally open
landscape will be able to absorb
limited man-made features with sensi-
tive planning and design.
• Th1s landscape has complex pat terns
of vegetation and water features but
no topographic relief or signifi-
cantly unique and attractive features
to give it a higher aesthetic value.
• Man-made features should be visually
absorbed by this flat expansive land-
scape with a variety of vegetative
patterns •
• Distinctive landscape relative to the
general geographic area. The
forested hills are at the edge of a
large flatlands and visually signifi-
cant.
.
AESTHETIC VALUE AND
ABSORPTION CAPABILITY RATINGS STEPS 5,6
LANDSCAPE AESTHETIC ABSORPTtON COMMENTS
CHARACTER VALUE CAPABILITY
TYPE
TANANA RIDGE Moderate Moderate . Again, this character has local high
(contd) aesthetic value but not significant
in comparison to other Alaskan land-
scapes.
• The dense forest cover and steep I slopes do not provide a condition
allowing for visual absorption of
medium-to large-scale man-made I development. Sensitive siting will
be essential to lessen aesthetic
impacts •
E-8-40
r
-
-
-
7.3 -Composite Ratings (Step 7)
The aesthetic value rating and the absorption capab·ility for each land-
scape character type combine to create a composite rating. The range
of relationships .can be stated as follows: the most durable and most
easily altered character types are those with a high absorption capa-
bility combined with a low aesthetic value rating, and the most fragile
and difficult to alter character types are those with a low absorption
capability and a high aesthetic value rating. This relationship is
expressed in the following chart: ·
AESTHETIC VALUE
HIGH MEDIUM LOW ~ >-0
I-...J
...J ut iii 4 ~ <r -I-u 1--o w<r z :Ca..
0 t;):;E
I-2 w-a.. <r 0:: ~. 0
(f) m
<r I
(!)
3 I
HIGH AESTHETIC LOW IMPACT
These composite ratings were grouped into the three categories indi-
cated in the shaded areas and defined as follows:
Composite
Rating
II
Description
Landscape has high aesthetic
value with moderate to little
ability to absorb man-made
features. For example, the
Devil Canyon character type,
Photograph E.8.2.
Landscape has moderate to high
ability to absorb man-made
features. For example, the
Talkeetna Uplands character
type, Photograph E.8.10.
E-8-41
Design
Criteria
Facility design
solutions should be
similar in character
and equal in bold-
ness with the land-
scape in order to be
compatible.
Facility designs
should be in harmony
with the surrounding
landscapes.
7.3-Composite Ratings
Composite
Rating Description
Landscape has low to moderate
aesthetic value with high
ability to absorb man-made
features. For example, the
Susitna River Lowlands,
Photograph E.8.15.
Design
Criteria
New elements may
add to the aesthetic
quality beyond
existing conditions
by introducing -
visual interest and/
or complementing the
landscape.
This chart summarizes the inherent quality of the landscape for aesthe-
tic impact analysis (Step 8) and mitigation measures to reduce adverse
aesthetic impacts (Step 9).
E-8-42
,:"""""
-
-
-
8 -AESTHETIC IMPACT RATING (STEP 8)
Aesthetic impacts are a result of introducing various project struc-
tures or manmade landscape elements such as transmission right-of-way
paths into an existing .environment which is subsequently seen by
people. Aesthetic impacts also result from the loss or inundation of
existing landscapes and their "replacement" with altered or new land-
scapes which have different aesthetic qualities.
Aesthetic impact ratings describe the relationship of the proposed
facilities and the inherent qualities of the landscape character types.
Aesthetic impacts are determined by comparison of the project features
to the aesthetic impact ratings (composite ratings, Step 7) for each
landscape character type. There are two categories of potential visual
impact when project facilities are developed, (1) compatible aesthetic
impacts are those that are in harmony with the existing landscape char-
acter, and (2) incompatible aesthetic impacts which are obtrusive in
the existing landscape character.
Compatible aesthetic impact ratings are evaluated on the basis of two
criteria, (1) the facility is subordinant to the landscape character
type and compatible in the character of the facilities design solu-
tions, and (2) the rroposed facility design solution is high in aesthe-
tic value on its own merits, and compatible with the existing landscape
character type.
Incompatible aesthetic impact ratings are evaluated on the basis of
negative contrast or visual discord between the proposed facility and
the existing landscape character. Aesthetic impact ratings are des-
cribed for each IJ"Oject feature in Appendix 8.F.
8.1 -Mitigation Planning of Incompatible Aesthetic Impacts
Except for a few project features, it is possible to reduce the aesthe-
tic impact of features by employing appropriate mitigation planning.
Each proposed feature was initially rated as currently sited and
designed. If the aesthetic rating was compatible, no mitigation is
necessary. If the aesthetic impact rating is incompatible and mitiga-
tion is possible, the project feature•s adjusted rating is shown taking
into consideration the mitigation measure applied which may change the
aesthetic impact rating to compatible in some cases. In other .cases,
aesthetic impacts may continue to be incompatible but lessen the sever-
; ty of the impact.
If mitigation can be accomplished through redesign, the feature is
assigned a new rating in the last column of the chart in Appendix 8.F.
E-8-43
8.1 -Mitigation Planning of Incompatible Aesthetic Impacts
The type of mitigation suggested is indicated on the charts with
letters; for example, a Ca rating would indicate that a project featiJre
could be made compatible with proper employment of type (a) mitiga-
tion.
One or more of the following four generic types of mitigation can be
employed to achieve the proposed level of mitigation:
-Additional study required to consider alternative solutions, sites or
corridor alignments with less impact on scenic quality;
-The use of best development practices to minimize construction-
related effects on the landscape and to guide post-construction
cleanup and rehabilitation of disturbed areas;
The use of creative engineering design to assure that project fea-
tures are well designed and are in themselves positive visual fea-
tures; and
-The use of form, line, color or textures appropriate to the landscape
character type.
The following example chart illustrates this process:
E-8-44
PROJECT FEATURES IMPACTS STEPS 7,8
PROJECT FEATURE
WATANA PROJECT AREA 1 - 9
~ 1 WATANA DAM
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
FEATURE DESCRIPTION
Earth-fill dam.
885 ft (270 m) high.
4100-ft (1250 m) crest length •
• Rough textured rock surface similiar color tones as surround1ng exposed rock •
• Will be one of the highest dams in the world.
FEATURE IMPACTS
Massive scale and sloping dam face in harmony with existing land forms in the river valley.
• Rock color is consistant with exposed rock but not with soft texture and color of existing vegetation
patterns •
• Hor1zontal form is consistent with the dominant hor1zontal character of reservoir •
• Construction activity will denude much of the surrounding land and disturb the soil.
WITHIN LANDSCAPE
CHARACTER TYPE ...
Susitna River
DEFINITIONS
LANDSCAPE
COMPOSITE
RATING
8 (A/M)
AESTHETIC IMPACT RATING
Feature as Proposed W/ Mitigation
Compatible
a. Additional study required to consider alternative solutions, sites or corridor alignments with less
impact on scenic quality.
b. The use of best development practices to minimize construction-related effects on the landscape and
to guide post-construction cleanup and rehabilitation of disturbed areas.
c. The use of creative engineering design to assure that project features are well designed and are in
themselves positive visual features.
d. The use of form, line, color or textures appropriate to the landscape character type.
E-8-45
-
I""'
I
I
9 -MITIGATION (STEP 9)
Mitigation measures have been designed to protect the quality of the
existing landscape by prevention or repair of negative impacts caused
by human activity an~ development.
The measures are also intended to enhance the existing environment in
the following ways:
-Improve opportunities to appreciate the areas of high aesthetic
quality;
-Improve the aesthetic quality of proposed facilities; and
-Maximize the positive relationships of the proposed facilities to the
existing landscape.
9.1 -Mitigation Measures
The four major categories of mitigation identified in Section 7.1,
Mitigation Planning, include:
-Additional studies;
-Best development practices;
-Creative engineering design; and
-Use of form, line, color and texture.
The fo ll owing techniques described in these categories respond to
general conditions which may occur throughout the development. Speci-
fic impacts of individual project facilities are identified in the mit-
igation measure charts located at the end of this section.
A summary of impacts for the Watana site, Devil Canyon site, access
roads and transmission lines also follows.
9.1.1 -Additional Study
During the Phase II detailed design process, an interdisciplinary
design . team wi 11 be assembled to resolve the aesthetic ·impacts
identified in Exhibit E. These aesthetic impacts will be further
ameliorated through site specific design analysis and development.
Aesthetic impacts to the design solutions include:
(a) Siting Studies
Siting of facilities can be used to reduce visual intrusion
into the existing 1 andscape and minimize requirements for
grading and other disruptions. By utilizing local conditions
such as topographic changes and vegetation, the inherent
absorption capabilities of landscapes can be maximized.
E-8-47
9.1 -Mitigation Measures
The need for mitigation measures·in the facility designs also
will be reduced by avoiding particularly sensitive locations
such as wetlands, discontinuous permafrost zones and other
areas which would require extensive modification.
Siting can be used to maximize the potential for enhancing
the aesthetic experience. Examples of this include: facility
locations to take advantage of spectacular view opportunities
and siting facilities such that they enhance or compliment
their setting.
Other specific examples of mitigation through siting
include:
Facility siting can be used to m1n1m1ze requirements for
clearing or removal of vegetation. Structures should be
consolidated as much as possible to disturb the minimum
necessary area of ground surface;
-Facility will be sited to avoid thaw-susceptible areas
(discontinuous permafrost zones) capable of slumping or
thermal erosion;
-Solid waste disposal sites will be located in stable, well-
drained locations. Siting will utilize existing excava-
tions such as depleted upland borrow pits. Intermittent
drainages, ice-rich so"ils, or other erosion-susceptible
features will be avoided;
Transmission line additions should be located adjacent to
established transmission corridors. Where transmission
lines have a common destination, they should follow a
common route; and
-Transmission corridors should follow the forest edge as
much as possible (i.e., the transition zone between forest
and shrub or forest and tundra) versus cutting through
dense woodlands. Lines should avoid crossing wetlands.
(b) Alternative Solutions
In some instances the facility chosen to serve a specific
project function may not be the design solution which least
impacts the aesthetic resources. This will be considered
only in cases where present solutions would be difficult to
mitigate even with modifications.
E-8-48
-
-
-
9.1 -Mitigation Measures
9.1.2 -Best Development Practices
Construction and rehabilitation, as well as operation policies,
are often as important in mitigating facility impacts as is the
facilities actual design. Throughout the Susitna project, general
development policies which mitigate or prevent impacts will
include:
(a) Construction Techniques
Construction equipment and vehicles will be confined to
gravel roads and pads or designated construction zones.
All off-road or all-terrain vehicles use will be prohibited
on the site by individuals.
Temporary facilities such as roads, construction zones and
storage yards will be located to minimize the impacts and
therefore the rehabilitation needed.
Borrow sites will be excavated according to a site priority
program developed by the design phase contractor. Those
sites which will cause least impacts will be exploited first
with the identified sensitive areas utilized last and only if
all other sources are exhausted. Material sites will be
plan ned and mined in such a way as to fac i 1 it ate restora-
tion.
Abandoned access roads, camp pads, and airstrips will be used
wherever feasible as material sources for operations, in lieu
of expanding existng sites or initiating new ones.
Where riprap is required, material produced during excavation
of the powerhouse, galleries, and tunnels will be used if
feasible.
Where they are not adjacent to an existing road, transmission
corridors should be constructed to avoid unnecessary clearing
of vegetation. In tundra location where clearing is not
required for access, minimum ground disturbance vehicles
such as Roligon or flat-tread Nodwell-type vehicles should be
used. Transmission corridor development should avoid creat-
ing an alternative access route for all-terrain vehicles.
All debris generated by construction activities will be
removed after completion.
Excavation spoil will be disposed of in the future impound-
ment area of the dam under construction. Where haul dis-
tances prohibit this, spoil disposal sites will be placed in
stable, well-drained upland locations.
E-8-49
9.1 -Mitigation Measures
Limits of construction activity and storage will be defined
during the design phase so that vegetation clearing and soil
disruption can be minimized. Where removal of vegetation is
required, organic overburden should be segregated and stock-
piled for use in subsequent rehabilitation.
(b) Rehabilitation Techniques
Disturbed rock cuts will be roughly blasted to forms similar
to existing natural conditions. Construction areas not
required for pr.oject operation will be 11 put to bed 11 as soon
as they are no 1 onger required (during the same season, if
possible). Restoration should include scarification and fer-
tilization. Non-operational roads will be structurally
altered to restore normal drainage patterns.
Organic overburden, slash, and debris stockpiled during
clearing will be distributed over the excavated areas prior
to fertilization. This includes borrow sites which ha<Ve
ponded. Once operational material sites are depleted or no
1 onger required, they should be rehabi 1 itated by the end of
the next growing season following last use.
Equipment, structures, and materials should be removed from a
site prior to rehabilitation. The site should be graded to
contours which are consistent with surrounding terrain and
allow complete drainage with minimal erosion potential.
Where it can be demonstrated that erosion is not likely to be
a problem, restoration should emphasize fertilization and
scarification, and minimize seeding, to encourage the inva-
sion of native plants from the surrounding parent population.
Where seeding is employed, native grasses appropriate to the
climate and geography of the project area should be used.
(c) Operation Policies
On project lands, off-road and all-terrain vehicles will be
restricted to designated maintenance trails.
Concurrent with other educational programs for Susitna
workers and resident_s, an organized effort will be made to
increase the awareness to the aesthetic environment, i.e.,
refuse disposal, vandalism and indiscriminate use of fragile
environments.
9.1.3 -Creative Engineering Design
Many of the project facilities are not inherently incompatible
with the 1 andscape character type in which they have been sited
E-8-50
-
-I
9.1 -Mitigation Measures
and represent an opportunity to enhance the existing 1 andscape
character. In the cases where this opportunity is identified,
careful design study during the design phase will maximize the
aesthetic value potential. The Devil Canyon dam is an excellent
example of creative engineering solution resulting in a positive
impact. Other design related mitigations include the following:
-Road profile elevations will be minimized and side slopes made
sufficiently gentle to blend into existing contours; and
-To minimize excavation disruption, facility design will minimize
gravel requirements by avoidance of wet areas or permafrost
zones, structure consolidation, and balanced cut and fill.
9.1.4-Use of Form, Line, Color, or Textures
Some aesthetic impacts caused by project facilities can be greatly
reduced by modifying its appearance to blend into the surrounding
landscape. This can be accomplished by repeating predominant
existing conditions such as:
-The colors of soil vegetation or sky;
-Forms of topography such as massive low hills or angular rock
cliffs;
-Line: This includes elements such as the vertical orientation
of spruce forests or the horizontal character of a lake; and
-Texture: Existing rough and dull surfaces should be approxi-
mated and shiny materials prone to glare avoided.
9.1.5-Mitigation Costs
The aesthetic mitigation plan is designed to reduce or eliminate
adverse impacts due to development. The emphasis of the mitiga-
tion measures is to: (1) avoid critical environments including on-
going site refinements throughout the design phase: (2) use best
development practices and site sensitive engineering; and (3)
rehabilitation.
Avoidance of difficult or impossible site conditions will generate
considerable cost savings in both site construction and opera-
tions. Many situations of this kind have been addressed in
Exhibit E throughout the evolution of the various project plans.
As part of ongoing supplemental and future planning throughout the
design engineering phase, additional study for aesthetic mitiga-
tion will include siting studies, avoidance of difficult site
specific physical conditions and visual compatibility with the
existing landscape setting.
E-8-51
9.1 -Mitigation Measures
No additional project costs are identified on the basis of avoid-
ance of difficult site conditions as part of the ongoing engineer-
ing planning and design work.
Future cost savings for aesthetic mitigation measures include best
development practices for site design engineering and construc-
tion. Creative engineering design, progressive construction tech-
niques, and future operation policies are prescribed as aesthetic
mitigation measures. These measures will not add to the cost of
engineering or construction practices and have the potential to
reduce the actual cost of construction and development.
Rehabilitation techniques are an integral part of the construction
process and are essential to the visual and aesthetic quality of
the project. The proposed mitigation measures for rehabilitation
are a normal part of good engineering practice and should not
cause additional project cost. For pertinent related mitigation
measures, refer to Chapter 3 of Exhibit E.
These mitigation measures will also have a positive aesthetic
result.
E-8-52
~1
.....
AESTHETIC RESOURCES
PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES STEP9
PROJECT FEATURE
WATANA PROJECT AREA
WATANA DAM
MAIN SPILLWAY
EMERGENCY SPILLWAY
WATANA RESERVOIR
POWERHOUSE ACCESS ROAD
MITIGATION MEASURES
• The scale of Watana Dam will be impressive, its size and form are
Incompatible with the existing highly rated character type •
• However, it is compatible with the new horizontal characteristics of
the reservoir. No mitigation necessary •
• As with the dam, the scale is large and it will cause significant
aesthetic impacts in relation to the character ty'pe.
• While no mitigation measures will render it com pat ib le as engineered,
Phase II study may result in alternate solutions which are compatible
or have less adverse impacts on the landscape •
• Tunnel (underground spillway) versus open channel solution would be
compatible if feasible and properly designed •
• Terrace steep side slope cuts to approximate characteristic slope
gradients and surface textures.
• The scale and form of this feature as engineered will not be compatible
in the given character types and no mitigation will make it
compatible •
• To lessen the visual impact, study should be conducted to determine. if
it is possible and feasible to deposit spoil material over the rock
floor of the spillway and revegetate with tundra species •
• Terrace steep side slope cuts to soften form and approximate
characteristic slope gradients •
• A tunneled spillway would be compatible If feasible and properly
designed.
Consider a curving channel form to reduce the VIsual impacts at the
point at which the road crosses the spillway •
• Revegetate the fuse plug dam with tundra species.
• ImpressiVe sca1e, but expected large scale erosion and extensive
drawdown make the reservoir incompatible in all character type in the
impoundment area. No mitigation is possible to reach compatibility
or lessen adverse visual impacts.
• No mitigation is possible for the construction of a road of this nature
down the steep slopes of the river valley •
• An elevator structure (alternative solution) down to the powerhouse
with connecting tunnel would eliminate need for surface access road
and its impacts. Consider accessing both powerhouse and tailrace
tunnel by same or multiple elevators •
• Consider road tunnel rather than surface road (alternative solution) •
E-8-53
AESTHETIC RESOURCES
PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES STEP9
PROJECT FEATURE
SWITCHYARD
BORROW SITES
TAILRACE TUNNEL
ACCESS ROAD
TEMPORARY AIRSTRIP
MITIGATION MEASURES
• Because of the size, form and complexity of switchyard electrical
equipment and associated structures, there are no mitigation measures
possible to make the feature compatible in the character type.
Creative engineering design of the facility, along with the use of
colors and/or overall forms appropriate to the character type, will
help the features to be more aesthetically pleasing independent of
the surroundings •
• Chain-link fence, if used, should be black or brown clad chain.
Forms should be very simple, textures should not be smooth, and colors
medium tone browns or black (nonreflective)-.--
An extensive area of the Susitna River (north side) below the Watana
Dam site is proposed for potential material extraction. Sigmficant
large scale incompatible changes are probable. Careful planning,
design and construction can lessen impacts. (Filling of Devil Canyon
reservoir Will also flood these areas.)
• Engineered design of borrow sites in and along the river which
positively respond to the form, line and texture of the existing area
will help lessen the adverse visual appearance.
• Further study by an interdisciplinary team may result in alternate s1te
selections and/or extraction techniques which will be compatible with
the character type(s) •
• The large proposed borrow site on the north high terrace area north of
the damsite will not be compatible because of the straight edge/form
indicated In proposed plans •
• Irregular edges and abrupt rock forms would make the form compatible to
the landscape. This edge is especially important because it will
become a part of the reservoir edge when the area is inundated •
• The rock quarry located between Watana Dam and Fog Lakes will have
significant visual impact. Forest clearings should be linear with
irregular edges to approximate existing openings. Clearings should
not be symmetrical In form •
• See mitigation measures for Powerhouse Access Road.
If surface road (rather than elevator or tunnel) is required, ccrnsider
accessing both powerhouse and tailrace tunnel with the use of one
road.
Proper siting and careful construction practices to contain clearing
and grading will help minimize adverse impacts to the landscape.
E-8-54
-. AESTHETIC RESOURCES
PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES STEP9
PROJECT FEATURE
PERMANENT TOWN
TWO 345-kV TRANSMISSION
LINES (WATANA TO GOLD
CREEK SWITCHYARD)
MITIGATION MEASURES
• The proposed townsite and layout will be incompatible with the given
character type. No mitigation possible to make it compatible •
• An interdisciplinary team should be ut1lized to best site, arrange and
design the to\\11 layout and individual features. This approach will
help create a town which is aesthetically attract1ve to viewers and
residents.
• Further study by an interdisciplinary team should result in the
selection of a townsite which will be more compatible with the
landscape. Harmony and balance between the character type and town
is possible with proper design and siting. Posit1ve visual interest
could result.
Although the proposed route was selected for its high ability to cause
minimal adverse aesthetic and env1ronmental impacts, the large scale
of the feature in relation with the highly aesthetic landscapes
through which it passes results primarily in an 1ncompatible situa-
tion. Mitigation measures are possible in many conditions to assure
minimal aesthetic impacts, and in some cases make compat1ble
relationships •
• The selection of CO~TEN-surfaced towers will reduce their visibility in
the landscape •
• Right-of-ways through forested areas should be feathered to reduce
tunneled or channeled visual effect •
• Complete clearing of vegetation in right-of-way is unnecessary. Trees
should be topped to a 30-ft (9-m) radius of the conductors and
·maximum line sag •
• Where possible, alignments should follow the edge of major forest/open
boundaries to minimize clearing and maximize screening potential.
• Ridge tops and other high points are to be avoided because of their
high visibility •
• Alignment through valley centers should be avoided as these areas would
become major focal points as would ridge tops •
• utilizing helicopter construction methods in inaccessible and environ-
mentally sensitive areas will help reduce adverse aesthetic impacts •
• Winter construction using rolligon vehicles in open tundra areas will
eliminate the potential visual impacts caused by the construction of
access roads/trails during other seasons.
• Use of existing roads near alignment sections will eliminate the need
for new construction area access. Short roads/trails to tower
construction areas should be aligned and designed to cause minimal
damage to the landscape •
• The crossing of Devil Canyon area with transmission lines is viewed as
incompatible with no mitigation measures to make it compatible.
However, creative engineering design and proper siting of towers will
lessen adverse impacts. The max1mum allowable span across the river,
with towers at the top of the canyon, should be used to keep the
lines high above the river and eliminate clearing of canyon wall
vegetation.
• Educate project workers and especially equipment operators in
construction methods wh1ch result in minimal environmental impacts
which directly relate to aesthetic impacts. Identify environmentally
sensitive areas. Use visual a1ds to stimulate interest •
• River, stream, canyon and road .crossings should be made at 90-degree
angles.
E-8-55
AESTHETIC RESOURCES
PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES S.TEF-·9
PROJECT FEATURE MITIGATION MEASURES
~--------------~~----------------------------------------='·== DEVIL CANYON PROJECT AREA
CONCRETE ARCH DAM
SADDLE DAM
MAIN SPILLWAY
EMERGENCY SPILLWAY
DEVlL CANYON RESERVOIR
POWERHOUSE TUNNEL
ACCESS ROAD
SWITCHYARD
TWO 345-kV TRANSMISSION
LINES (DEVIL CANYON TO
GOLD CREEK SWITCHYARD)
• The scale, form, material, siting and design of this dam combine to
produce a positive aesthetic Impact. No mitigation is necessary •
• Because of large scale, form and high visibility, this feature wlll be
incompatible with no mitigation to render it compatible •
• Further study may result in creative engineering design.
Minimal disturbance of forest and the creation of irregular forest
edges will help overall visual impact •
• See mitigation measures for Watana Dam/Main Spillway.
See mitigation measures for Watana Dam/Emergency Spillway.
• Creative design and blasting of the pilot channel to approximate
typical canyon characteristics would help reduce negative aesthetic
impacts •
• Although the drawdown level of 50 ft (15m) is considerably less than
Watana, the aesthetic Impact is still significant and incompatible
with no mitigation possible. Like Watana, large-scale landslides and
other erosion features are expected. The maximum drawdown at Devil
Canyon will occur during August and September which is the highest
visitation and viewing period •
• See mitigation measures for Watana Dam/Powerhouse Road.
See mitigation measures for Watana Dam/Switchyard.
• Clearing of trees should be kept to a minimum for maximum screening
potential.
Screening or barrier type fences or walls should be painted or natur-
ally dark in color. Dark browns or greens would be best in forest
areas.
See mitigation measures for Watana to G:Jld Creek Transmission Lines.
E-8-56
rc-,
,.-.;--,
-
....
-
r
-
-
AESTHETIC RESOURCES
PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES STEP9
PROJECT FEATURE
SWITCHYARD AT GOLD
CREEK INTERTlE
RAILROAD SPUR FROM GOLD
CREEK TO DEVIL CANYON
WATANA ACCESS ROAD
BORROW SITES FOR
WATANA ACCESS ROAD
MITIGATION MEASURES
• The variety of forest patterns in th1s character type allows this
feature to be reasonably compatible.
• See mitigation measures for Devil Canyon/Switchyard.
• With proper alignment, creative engineering and design, and appropriate
mitigation, the railroad could be compatible in this landscape.
• Minimal clearing of forest and irregular forest edge feathering will
help reduce visual impacts and maximize screening potential •
• Trestle construction (heavy and dark timbers) should be considered
where the alignment is along the steep s1dewalls of the river and
through wetland areas rather than cut and fill. These trestle ·struc-
tures will be aesthetically attractive and will result in far less
environmental impacts than cut and fill sections •
• Railhead facilities should be designed to require as little space as
possible to keep area impact to a minimum. Forest clearing should be
kept to a minimum and edges irregularly feathered. Forms and colors
of building and related facilit1es should be important design cri-
teria. Colors should blend well into the forested and tundra land-
scape.
• With an interdisc1plinary alignment planning and design approach, it is
possible to construct a road compatible with the landscapes through
lltlich it passes •
• A maximum design speed of 40 mph (70 kmh) w1ll result in a road which
better fits the topography and requires less cut and fill work.
These measures will lessen visual as well as environmental impacts •
• Wooden trestle type bridges rather than concrete bridges would be more
aesthetically attractive.
• In areas where the road must traverse up steep slopes, a concrete-
cantilevered road structure set on pilings would reduce or eliminate
extensive cut and fill slopes. This would not only result in signif-
icantly less aesthetic impacts but also reduce environmental
impacts.
• Clearing in forested areas should be kept to a minimum. Irregular
feathering of edges should be done to approximate existing natural
edges •
• Road dust control should be developed. Water application is recom-
mended.
• With sertsitive s1ting, extraction and rehabilitation methods, borrow
sites are capable of being compatible in most character types •
• Extraction of material in existing rock dominated uplands would be
appropriate as long as access to these areas does not require exten-
sive roads/trails. Consider winter extract1on from these areas •
• Contouring the borrow sites to approximate surround1ng slope gradients
and avoiding man-made, unnatural appearing edges and/or forms during
the extraction process will assure minimal negative visual impacts •
• Organic topsoil should be distr1buted over extraction sites and then
scan fied and fer till. zed. The sHe should then be left alone for
invasion of natural tundra· species •
• Where poss1ble, borrow s1tes should be f1lled to natural grades with
spoil material. Again, organic topso1l should be distributed and the
prev1ous procedure followed.
E-8-57
AESTHETIC RESOURCES
PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES STEPS
PROJECT FEATURE MITIGATION MEASURES
t--------~1---------------------,,~ F'-'
DEVIL CANYON ACCESS ROAD
BORROW SITES FOR DEVIL
CANYON ACCESS ROAD
HIGH-LEVEL BRIDGE/
DEVIL CANYON
ANCHORAGE TO WILLOW
TRANSMISSION STUB LINE
HEALY TO FAIRBANKS
TRANSMISSiON STUB LINE
• See mit1gat1on measures for Watana Access Road •
• See mitigation measures for Borrow S1tes/Watana Access Road
• The proposed bridge des1gn is not equal in strength to its nat ural
setting nor does 1t creat1vely respond to the strong s1te character.
Forms and shape are in conflict with natural lines of the canyon.
Symmetrical tower design and slop1ng road deck are in conflict w1th
each other •
• L1ke Devil Canyon Dam, a creatively
have a pos1tive aesthetic impact.
bridge designed to respond to its
memorable feature.
designed bridge structure could
For instance, a concrete arch
setting could be a compatible and
Because of the character types, relatively low aesthetic quality and
the1r medlum/high abillties to absorb visual impacts, these transmis-
sion lines can be compatible with some mitigation •
• Underground routing of the transmission line is recommended for the
last 3 - 4 miles (5 - 7 km) oF the Anchorage end of the stub. The
proposed route here passes through and adjacent to a proposed city
park •
• The transmission line should parallel the existing line right-of-way
adjacent to the Glen Highway and through the Elmendorf Air Force Base
to avoid the creation of new and unnecessary patterns and impacts.
• Further study of the transmission line near the town of Willow and
Willow Creek area. A state park is proposed in the area near and
adjacent to Willow Creek and its confluence with the Susitna River •
• See applicable mitigation measures for Watana and Devil Canyon Trans-
mission Lines •
• This transmission route needs further study, with particular emphasls
placed on determining whether or not the new lines could parallel the
right-of-way of the existing line from Healy to Fairbanks. Signifi-
cant visual impacts would be eliminated iF a parallel route were
possible •
• See mitigation measures for Watana and Devil Canyon Transmission
lines.
E-8-58
AESTHETIC RESOURCES
PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES STEP9
PROJECT FEATURE -
RECREATION FACILITIES
-AND FEA HIRES
/ ..
-
....
-
.....
....
WATANA DAM VISITOR CENTER
DEVIL CANYON DAM
VIS IT OR CENTER
SHELTERS
SEMIDEVELOPED CAMPGROUND
PRIMITIVE CAMPING
DEVELOPED TRAILS
PRIMITIVE TRAILS
TRAILHEADS
SCENIC VISTA/ROAD
PULLOFFS
MITIGATION MEASURES
• Appropriate siting, layout and design .of such a facility would assure
compatibility. An interdisciplinary te an should be utilized •
• Form, material and color are other important design criteria.
• See mitigation measures for Watana Dam Visitor Center.
• Appropriate siting and design of such a structure would lead to an
aesthetically attractive and compatible feature •
• State park shelters should be analyzed for potential use •
• Campgrounds of this nature can easily be compatible if appropr.iate
siting, material, form and color are utilized as prime planning and
design criteria •
• Forms, textures and colors should blend well into the existing
landscape •
• No mitigation is needed if good management practices and area
regulations are developed.
• Sensitive siting and construction methods of proposed trails will
eliminate most or all potential aesthetic and environmental impacts •
• No mitigation is required if appropriate management practices and area
regulations are developed.
• Sensitive siting, design, and appropriate use of materials, colors, and
textures will assure aesthet'ic compatibility •
• Sensitive construction methods will help minimize potential aesthetic
and environmental impacts •
• Clearing of vegetation should be kept to a minimum. Vegetation edges
should be kept as natural as possible.
• See mitigation measures for trailheads.
1:-8-59
-
-
-
-
-
10 -AESTHETIC IMPACT EVALUATION OF THE INTERTIE
10.1 -Background
The Anchorage-Fairbanks Intert i e is intended to connect the electric
utility systems serving Anchorage and Fairbanks. It is a distinct and
separate project from the Susitna Hydroelectric Project and has been
studied in a separate visual impact assessment report prepared by
Commonwealth Associates, Inc. (1982).
Since this new facility will carry power generated by the Susitna Pro-
ject over a system expanded to serve the project as shown in Figure
E.8.4, it is briefly discussed herein.
10.2 -Project Description
The Intertie will extend from Willow and Healy, where it will ulti-
mately connect with Susitna Hydroelectric Project features referred to
as 11 Stubs ... Figure E.8.4 illustrates the Intertie as it is planned to
be constructed in 1983; along with subsequent additions for the Susitna
Project, including the stubs and dam interconnections. The Intertie·
will be a 170-mile (280-km) long facility constructed basically of
guyed steel 11 X11 poles.· Angle structures will be three separate verti-
cal pole structures with single-pole hillside structures. All towers
will be made of self-rusting (Corten type) steel and conductors will be
nonspecular. All facilities and structures will be identical to those
described in the visual analysis of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project
transmission lines in previous sections of this report. At initial
construction, the intertie line will be energized at 138 kV.
When the Watana Project comes on line in 1993, a second parallel line
will be added to the Intertie, the 11 Stubs 11 will be constructed, the
lines will be energized to 345 kV, and a switchyard built near Gold
Creek to connect with Watana power. In 2002, when Devil Canyon comes
on line, a third parallel line will be built on the Gold Creek to
Willow portion of the line, and the Willow to Anchorage stub will also
have a third line.
This discussion will briefly cover the Willow-to-Healy route as
analyzed by Commonwealth for 1983 construction, and will comment on the
1993 and 2002 additions to the Willow-to-Healy route.
10.3 -Landscape Character Types
Commonwealth i dent ifi ed six 1 andscape character types based on the
Alaska Department of Natural' Resources 1981 study, Scenic Resources
Along the Parks Highway. They are:
-Susitna River Lowlands: Cook Inlet to the southern entrance of
Denali State Park;
-Curry Ridge: Denali State Park to Curry Ridge;
E-8-61
10.3 -Landscape Character Types
-Chulitna River: Curry Ridge to East Chulitna River;
-Broad Pass: East Chulitna River to Denali Highway;
Alaska Range: Denali Highway to first Nenana River crossing of Parks
Highway at southern boundary of Denali National Park; and
-Nenana Gorge: Nenana River crossing to Healy.
However, for the purpose of this analysis the following types have been
delineated:
-Susitna River Lowlands;
-Talkeetna Mountains;
Chulitna River;
-Broad Pass;
-Alaska Range;
-Yanert River Valley; and
-Nenana Uplands.
Therefore, these were the units analyzed for the purposes of this
report.
These 1 andscape unit types and the approximate point of i ncl i nation
(PI) of the transmission line are as follows.
10.3.1 -Susitna River Lowlands
(Willow Substation to PI 14 at the crossing of the Talkeetna
River.)
Extending south from near the town of Talkeetna to its mouth on
Cook Inlet, the broad and heavily braided Susitna River flows
through a topographically flat, sometimes rolling landscape.
Muskeg bogs and hundreds of relatively small lakes and ponds are
scattered over the land.
Sparse black spruce bogs are found on the poorly drained areas
while moderate to dense spruce-deciduous forests exist in areas
with higher relief.
Paralleling the Susitna from near the towns of Willow and north to
Ta 1 keetna, the Parks Highway is the shortest and most frequently
used access route between Anchorage and Fairbanks. A number of
small communities and recreation sites occur along or near the
road. In addition, the Alaska Railroad also parallels the Susitna
River and Parks Highway here.
E-8-62
....
-
10.3 -Landscape Character Types
Many of the larger and more scenic lake areas are popular summer
and permanent home sites for hundreds of south-central Alaskans.
Some are accessed-by road while others are only reached by float-
plane.
Spacially open areas offer views to the Talkeetna and Chuga~h
Mountains, and the Alaska Range. Mount McKinley is to the north
and the flat topped Mount Susitna is nearby to the southwest.
10.3.2 -Talkeetna Mountains
(PI 14 to PI 41 above the crossing of the Susitna River.)
While the Department of Natural Resources study classifies this
area as the Talkeetna Mountains, for the purposes of this trans-
mission line study that designation has been subdivided into three
subtypes:
-Talkeetna Mountains to the south and west of the transmission
corridor;
-Talkeetna Lowlands; and
-Talkeetna Uplands.
The proposed alignment passes through these latter two character
types which are described below.
10.3.3 -Lowlands Portion
After steeply rising several thousand feet from the Susitna River
valley, the landscape in the lower Talkeetnas becomes a rolling
terraced plateau. The average elevation is around 3000 feet {900
meters) with a few knobs rising above 4000 feet (1200 meters).
The dominant tundra environment here is very wet and contains
hundreds of small lakes and muskeg bogs. Spruce trees are scat-
tered throughout the area, but usually are found at lower eleva-
tions within the drainages. Gold, Cheechako, Chulitna and Disap-
pointment Creeks are among the more scenic drainages.
The flat and rolling character of these uplands affords panoramic
views to the Alaska Range, Chulitna and Talkeetna Mountains.
Views of the surrounding river valleys from high points and ter-
race edges are also very good •
Access into the area is predominantly by floatplane, snowmobile,
and use of a few existing mining and/or settlement trails.
E-8-63
10.3 -Landscape Character Types
10.3.4 -Uplands Portion
Approaching its confluence with the Susitna River, the braided
Talkeetna River and western tributaries pass through a terraced
and hilly landscape. This area is mostly covered with a dense
spruce-deciduous forest. Muskeg bogs are common but not as expan-
sive as in the Susitna Lowlands.
There are a number of 1 akes in the area used both for recreation
and home or cabin sites. Approximately 4 miles (7 km) long, the
narrow Larson Lake is the largest of these.
The dense forest cover restricts vision, but scenic views of the
Alaska Range, the Talkeetna and Susitna Rivers, and the immediate
Talkeetna Mountains proper, are possible from occasional elevated
spots and widened river channels. ·
Access into the area is primarily by foot, floatplane, boat and a
limited number of jeep, all-terrain vehicle, or horse trails.
10.3.5-Chulitna River
(PI 41 to PI 48 on the Chulitna River.)
Dividing the Alaska Range and Chulitna Mountains, this flat-to-
rolling river valley is predominantly an open tundra-covered land-
scape. Sparse-to-moderately-dense spruce-deciduous forested areas
occur along the meandering Chulitna River and its tributaries.
The dominant Alaska Range rises gently from the valley in compari-
son to the steep rise of the Chulitna Mountains. Hurricane Creek
and Gulch form a dramatic descent from the Chulitnas. Spectacular
mountain, glacier and valley views are offered in open areas and
vantage points.
The Alaska Rail road and George Parks Highway parallel the river
along the upper slopes and terraces on the Chulitna Mountain side.
Several small road-and railroad-related communities and a few
designated recreational sites occur here ·in the valley. Portions
of the Parks Highway between Chulitna Pass and Broad Pass have
been recommended for scenic highway designation by the Alaska
Department of Natural Resources.
10.3.6 -Broad Pass
(PI 48 to PI 65 north of the Nenana River.)
Over 10 miles (16 km) wide near the town of Broad Pass and narrow-
ing to 4 miles (7 km) wide near Cantwell, this area known as Broad
E-8-64
-
-
10.3 -Landscape Character Types
Pass separates the Alaska Range and the northwest Chulitna Moun-
tains. This open, flat-to-rolling landscape is very scenic with
its long and linear lakes, variety of tundra and spruce cover
patterns, and mountain views.
The Parks Highway goes through the northern side of the pass near
the Denali Natural Monument boundary. The Alaska Department of
Natural Resources recommended in their 1981 Scenic Resources along
the Parks Highway report that the road between Broad Pass {town)
and Windy be considered for scenic designation. The Alaska Rail-
road passes through the Summit Lake area and parallels the highway.
Cantwell is the west junction of the Denali Highway with the Parks
Highway.
10.3.7 -Alaska Range
(PI 65 to midway between PI 70 and PI 71 on the southern edge of
the Yanert River Valley, and PI 74 to PI 83 near Moody Creek
southeast of Healy.)
Featuring North America's highest mountain, the U-shaped Alaska
Range extends nearly 600 miles (1000 km) from an area west of the
Cook Inlet to the Alaska-Canada border. This well-known mountain
range with its hundreds of glaciers is the dividing feature of the
interior and south-central region of Alaska. Elevations range
from approximately 2000 feet (600 meters) in adjacent valley to
over 20,000 feet (6000 meters) at Mount McKinley.
10.3.8 -Nenana Uplands
(PI 83 to PI 85 Healy Substation Site.)
Extending north from the Nenana River Gorge to the flat Nenana Low-
lands, the river becomes progressively more braided as it flows
through a rolling and terraced valley. Sparse spruce-deciduous
stands are found near the river bottom while moderately dense
forests cover much of the upper terraces. Rock outcrops are common
along the edges of the rising terraces.
Views are directed to the east where the terraces rise up to the
higher-relief Alaska Range foothills. While the Parks Highway and
Alaska Railroad do not significantly degrade the visual quality of
the landscape, existing transmission lines do present a negative
aesthetic impact.
10.3.9 -Yanert River Valley
(PI 71 to PI 74.)
E-8-65
10.6 -Impacts
A 35-mil e swath through the Alaska Range east from the Nenana
River, the Yanert River Valley ranges from 2 miles (3 km) in width
at the Yanert Glacier to over 5 miles (8 km) at the confluence with
the Nenana. The Yanert River is heavily braided for most of its
length before turning into a broad fixed channel river for the last
5 miles (8 km). The valley is tundra dominated with scattered
stands of spruce adjacent to the river bottom. The Alaska Range
rises steeply from the valley near the glacier. Gently sloping
terraces up to the mountains become progressively longer as the
valley opens into the adjoining Nenana River Valley.
10.4 -Description of the Preferred Route
The preferred transmission line route extends 170.1 miles (280 km) from
the proposed Willow substation site to the proposed Healy substation and
can be generally described as follows.
Willow Substation is proposed to be located near Willow Creek about
1.5 miles (2.5 km) east of the Parks Highway. Then the alignment
follows the Matanuska Electric Association right-of-way approximately 19
miles (32 km) north. It continues in the Susitna Lowlands until
Chuni 1 na Creek, northeast of Talkeetna, where it proceeds east and up
into the Talkeetna Mountains before dropping back to the Susitna River
near Gold Creek. The alignment then proceeds due northeast of Chulitna
Butte and joins the Chulitna River Valley. It generally parallels the
river valley, Parks Highway, Alaska Railroad corridor, through Broad
Pass, and north up the Nenana River Valley to the Yanert Fork. The line
then jogs east of Sugar Loaf Mountain, northwest down Moody Creek, and
continues in a northwesterly direction into Healy.
10.5 -Alternatives
Many minor route a~justments and subalternatives were considered by
Commonwealth. Three major alternatives were considered:
An alignment paralleling the Parks Highway from south of Sunshine to
Chulitna Pass;
-An alignment west of the highway from Broad Pass to the first Nenana
River crossing of the highway; and
-An alignment along the Nenana Gorge rather than east of Sugar Loaf
Mountain.
In addition, alternative pole configurations were considered and
rejected.
E-8-66
,~,
-
-
-
-'
-
-
10.6 -Impacts
10.6 -Impacts
A cursory examination of visual impacts based on aerial and limited
ground inspection of the preferred and alternative alignments, stu~y of
USGS topographic maps, and analysis of the ·Commonwealth report,
follows.
10.6.1 -Susitna River Lowlands
The line will generally be distant enough from the Parks Highway
and screened by vegetation in this low landscape unit type that it
will be largely unseen by most viewers on the ground.
10.6.2 -Talkeetna Mountains
The line will be highly visible as it crosses the Talkeetna River,
an important recreat i anal resource. Particularly when the Inter-
tie is expanded to two and then three lines, visual impacts will
be significant at this point. The route over the mountains north
of the river will not be· generally visible until it again nears
the Susitna River, when it will be in full view from Curry Ridge
in Denali State Park.
10.6.3 -Alaska Range
The line(s) will be highly visible along the Indian River, at two
crossings of the Alaska Railroad, and from portions of the planned
remote parcel land disposal areas between Gold Creek and Hurri-
cane. Further north, between Cantwell and the Yanert Fork, the
lines will pass close to the Parks Highway in areas rated by
Department of Natura 1 Resources (DNR) as having 1 ow-to-moderate
absorption capability.
North of the Yanert Fork, the route east of Sugar Loaf Mountain
was selected to eliminate visual impacts in the highly scenic
Nenana Gorge area.
10.6.4 -Chulitna River
From about Honolulu Creek to the east fork of the Chulitna, The
Department of l~atural Resources has rated this portion of the
Parks Highway one of moderately high scenic resources and
moderate-ta-l ow absorption capabi 1 ity. Whi 1 e predominant views
are to the west, the transmission line will be visible to the
east.
10.6.5 -Broad Pass
DNR recommends that this area be officially designated a scenic
highway. Because of the landscape's low-to-moderate absorption
E-8-67
10.6 -Impacts
capability, they recommend no development within 1 mile (1.6 km)
of the Parks Highway. The alignment ranges from a few hundred
feet (approximately 80 meters) to approximately 2 miles (3 km)
from the highway as it passes through this unit. Visual impacts
will be high. The crossing of the Denali Highway, currently under
study by the Bureau of Land Management for scenic highway designa-
tion, will also be in full view.
10.6.6 -Yanert River Valley
Crossing this valley, the alignment is approximately 2 miles (3
km) east of the highway and will not have major impacts.
10.6.7-Nenana Uplands
The location of the Healy substation near the Alaska Railroad and
Nenana Railroad will be highly visible and have negative visual
impacts.
E-8-68
'~
11 -AGENCY COORDINATION
11.1 -Agencies and Persons Consulted
The fol1owing list documents Public Agency Native Corporation, and
University of Alaska Consultations in the course of preparing this
report on aesthetic resources. Written records of these conversations
are available at offices of the Alaska Power Authority.
Federal Agencies Person Date Communication
FERC Mark Robinson 9/29/82 Phone
f"ERC Frank Karwoski 9/30/82 Phone
10/13/82
u.s. BLM John Rego 10/15/82 Meeting
u.s. BLM Mike Wrabetz 9/1/82 Meeting
Bob Ward
u.s. F&WS Dave Patterson 9/21/82 Meeting
u.s. NPS Larry Wright 9/15/82 Meet1 ng
E-8-69
11.1 -Agencies and Persons Consulted
Others Person Date Communication
MAT-SU Borough Cl audio Arenas 9/21/82 Meeting
Planning Dept. 10/18/82 Phone
CIRI Roland Shanks 9/15/82 Meeting
10/14/82 Meeting
Tyonek Carl Ehelebe 9/22/82 Phone
Village Corp. 9/28/82 Meeting
10/14/82 Meeting
Tyonek Agnes Brown 9/28/82 Meeting
Village Corp. 10/14/82 Meeting
AHTNA Development N. Roy Goodman 9/22/82 Phone
Corp. & KNIK 9/28/82 Meeting
Vi 11 age Corp. 10/14/82 Meeting
University of
Alaska Museum E. J. Dixon 9/20/82 Meeting
Un i v e r s i t y of
Alaska-AG Alan Jubenville 9/9/82 Phone
Experiment Station Jo Feyl 9/24/82 Phone
11.2 -Agency Comments
In response to the Draft Exhibit E provided to the agencies by the
Al.aska Power Authority on November 15, 1982, review comments were re-
ceived from the Alaska Department of Natural Resources and the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service. Comments were not received from any
other agencies regarding the Aesthetic Resources Chapter of Exhibit E.
The concerns raised by these two agencies include:
-Incorporation of mitigation measures in project design;
-Use of avoidance as a mitigation measure; and
-Access road location and design criteria.
In response to these concerns, the mitigation section has been expanded
and strengthened to include additional mitigation measures in the pro-
ject design during the detailed design phase. In addition, the Alaska
Power Authority through an interdisciplinary task force will be reass-
essing the transmission and access road alignments before final design
of these two features is undertaken.
Responses to the specific comments raised by these two agencies are
included in Chapter 11.
E-8-70
(70"-,
,_,-,
-
~.
-
REFERENCES
Acres American Incorporated. March 1982.
ject, Transmission Line Selection Route.
Power Authority.
Susitna Hydroelectric Pro-
Prepared for the Alaska
March 1982 a. Susitna Hydroelectric Project, Trans-
mission Line Corridor Screening Closeout Report, Task 8 Transmission
Final Report. Prepared for the Alaska Power Authority.
August 1982. Susitna Hydroelectric Project, Access
Plan Recommendation· Report.
Authority.
Prepared for the Alaska Power
March 1982 b. Susitna Hydroelectric Project, Feasi-
bility Report Volumes 1-7. Prepared for the Alaska Power Authority.
Alaska Department of Natural Resources. Division of Research and
Development. 1981. Scenic Resources along the Parks Highway.
Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. 1981.
Denali Highway Environmental Assessment.
RS-0750 (I).
1981 a. Denali Highway Location Study Report,
Alaska Geographic. 1980. A Photographic Geography of Alaska. Volume
7 , No. 2, 1980.
Alaska Magazine. September 1981. The Alaska Almanac. 1982 Edition.
Alyeska Pipeline Service Company. August 1975. Visual Impact
Engineering, Visual As~essment Principles, Procedures, and Applica-
tion. V.I.E. Technical Notes 00.1.
American Association of State Highway Officials. 1971. Geometric
Design Guide for Local Roads and Streets, Washington, D.C.
Carter, M. 1982. Floating Alaskan Rivers. Aladdin Publishing.
Childers Associates. July 1982. Roadside Recreational Facilities
Study, Richardson Highway, M 82.6-185.5. Prepared for the Alaska
Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks.
Colorado Department of Highways. 1978. I-70 in a Mountain Environ-
ment, Vail Pass, Colorado.
Commonwealth Associates, Inc. January 1982.
Transmission Intertie Route Selection Report.
Power Authority, January 1982.
Anchorage-Fairbanks-
Prepared for Alaska
March 1982. Environmental Assessment Report,
Anchorage-Fairbanks Transmission Intertie. Prepared for the Alaska
Power Authority.
Jones and Jones. March 14, 1975. Upper Susitna River -An Inventory
and Evaluation of the Environmental. Aesthetic and Recreational
Resources. Prepared for D. 0. A., Alaska District, Corps of
Engineers.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. June 1968. Hells
Canyon--Enterprise Powerline Construction Report.
1973, 1975-1977. National Forest Landscape Manage-
ment, Volume 1 and Volume 2.
December 1979. The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum:
A Framework for Planning, Management, and Research. GTR PNW-98.
, Northern Region. June 1974. Recreation Opportunity
--71-n-ve_n_t~o-r_y __ a-n'd~Evaluation.
, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. -.,.----;---...,.----:-...,..,. September 1979. Our National Landscape.
U.s. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. June
1980. Gravel Removal Guidelines Manual for Arctic and Subarctic
Floodplains. FWS/OBS-80/09.
U. S. Department of the Interior, Heritage Conservation and Recreation
Service. Undated. A Proposal for Protection of Eleven Alaskan
Rivers.
l j
REGIONAL MAP
\ . .
\
<(•<(
~·o ~,~ _.1<(
<((.)
] 1 1
LOCATION MAP
LEGEND•
___ PRIMARY PAVED UNDIVIDED
HIGHWAY
-···-RIVERS
........ RANGES
4 DAMSITES
SCALE~OJIOIL[t
FIGURE E.B.I
....
'
-
-
-
-
STEP I
ESTABLISH
STUDY OBJECTIVES
I
STEP 2 STEP 3 + STEP 4 ~
PROPOSED HYDRO IDENTIFY LANDSCAPE DESCRIBE VIEWER
FACILITIES CHARACTER TYPES SENSITIVITY
-DAMS a RESERVOIRS -LANDFORM -VIEWS
-CONSTRUCTION CAMPS -WATERFORM -TYPES OF VIEW
-ROADS -VEGETATION -DURATION OF VIEWS
-BORROW SITES -OBSERVER POSITION
-TRANSMISSION LINE
l I
STEP 5 STEP 6
ASSIGN AESTHETIC VALUE RATING ASSIGN ABSORPTION CAPABILITY
TO EACH CHARACTER TYPE RATING TO EACH CHARACTER
BASED ON: TYPE BASED ON:
I. -DISTINCTIVENESS -SITE RELATIONSHIPS
2.-UNIQUENESS -AESTHETIC VALUES
3.-HARMONY a BALANCE -HUMAN EXPERIENCE
STEP 7
DETERMINE
COMPOSITE RATINGS
STEP 8 I
{
ANALYZE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PROPOSED HYDRO FACILITIES
AND THE INHERENT QUALITY OF THE LANDSCAPE (USING
COMPOSITE RATINGS)
-COMPATIBLE
-DESIGN SOLUTIONS EQUAL IN STRENGTH AND COMPATIBLE
IN CHARACTER TO EXISTING LANDSCAPE
-COMPATIBLE WITH MITIGATION
-CAN CREATE HARMONY AND BALANCE WITH PROPER MITIGATION
-INCOMPATIBLE
-NEGATIVE CONTRAST
-DISCORD
-INCOMPATIBLE WITH MITIGATION
-NEGATIVE CONTRAST
-NEGATIVE IMPACTS LESSENED
I
STEP 9
DEVELOP APPROPRIATE MITIGATION STEP 10
MEASURES TO REDUCE ADVERSE
AESTHETIC IMPACTS PREPARE REPORT ON
AESTHETIC RESOURCES
-SITING AND ALIGNMENT ADJUSTMENTS (CHAPTER 8)
-DESIGN ADJUSTMENTS
-SCREENING
-VEGETATION RECOVERY TECHNIQUES
AESTHETIC IMPACT .ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
FIGURE E.B.2
J
J T.ITN.
PROPOSED PROJECT FEATURES SCALE 0~~~4iliiiiiiiiiiiiii~8 MILES
LEGEND:
~RAILROAD EXTENSION
----PROPOSED ACCESS
ROAD
---PROPOSED TRANSMISS
LINE
----INTERTIE
F\~liMP OUNDMENT AREA
T.iN.
T.IN.
T.TN .
FIGURE E.8 .3
.....
-I
-
-
....
....
-
......
-
·-
1-138 KV
WILLOW
INTERTIE
1984
HEALY
GOLD CREEK
WILLOW
DEVIL CANYON DAM
2002
HEALY
GOLD CREEK
WILLOW
FAIRBANKS
2-3~ KV
.DAM
WATANA DAM
I ADDITIONAL 345 KV
ANCHORAGE
FAIRBANKS
WATANA DAM
ANCHORAGE
WATANA DAM
1993
TRANSMISSION PHASING DIAGRAM
FIGURE E.8.4
j
j
j
T.33N.
T.31N .
t30N.
T.29N.
T.28 N.
T.27N.
R.4W.
LANDSCAPE CHARACTER TYPES
\j
R.IOW.
T.l<tN .
T.I2N.
T.IIN.
T.ION.
T.9N.
T.IN.
T.7N .
11 EXCEPTIONAL NATURAL
FEATURES
I. DEVIL CANYON RAPIDS
2. DEVIL CREEK FALLS
3. STEPHAN LAKE
4. TSUSENA CREEK FALLS
5. TSUSENA BUTTE I LAKE
6 . DEADMAN CREEK FALLS
7 FOG LAKES
8. BIG I DEADMAN LAKES
9. CARIBOU PASS
10. VEE CANYON
0 4. 8 MILES
SCALE ~~'!"'iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii~
FIGURE E.8.5
-
-
.....
-
.....
'
-
,....
I
-
?z ... I®
LANDSCAPE CHARACTER
TYPES NORTHERN STUB
FIGURE E.8.6
-I
-
-I
-
-
-I
-
SUSITNA RIVER
LOWLANDS
COOl(
\
REO
SHIRr
LAKE
I
I
j-INTERTIE
I
I
PROPOSED TRANSMISSION
LINE STUB-WILLOW TO
ANCHORAGE
\
\ \ \
\ \' \ \
\
\~ \ \.
\......
........
INLET
w
0 10 MILES
SCALE ~~~~iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
LANDSCAPE CHARACTER TYPES SOUTHERN STUB
FIGURE E .8. 7
J
J
LEGEND:
~ PANORAMIC VIEWS
11111( IMPORTANT FOREGROUND VIEWS SIGNIFICANT VIEWS
0 -~~4~-liijj8 MILES SCALE 1::
FIGURE E .8.8
-
-
-
APPENDIX E8A
Proposed Fac-ilities Design Analysis
-
-
-
-
N 3,212,000
N 3.214.CX>O
N 3 .216 ()()()
N 3 .218.CX>O
N 3 220.CX>O
IM PRESSIVE
N 3,222,poo
N 3, 224,CX>O
N 3.226.000
TO WATANA --
N 3,230,000
_,_N _,3,~23:=:2,'-"'000=---'
• • ... ... ...
~
CONSTRUCTION V I LLAGE SITES OCCURED
I N WETLANDS AREA
~·~
~ __.-1600
11100
DEVIL CANYON GENERAL LAYOUT SITE FACILITIES
SCALE 0~~~4~~~~ MILES
(liNCH • 4 MILES)
---=s;,
.... 7b
~C--~
4-S46 KV TRANSMISSION
LIN£1 TO GOLD CR£1EK
LEGEND
ACCESS ROAD (PERMANENT)
----ACCESS ROAD (TEMPORARY)
··················· CONSTRUCTION ROAD
-·-·-·-· PERMANENT SITE ROAD
------UTILIDOR ------RAILROAD
0 1000 2000 FEET
( I IN CH • 1000 FEET)
NOTE : ENGINEER DRAW I NGS HAVE FLOW LEFT
TO RIGHT AND THUS NORTH ARROW
POINTS DOWN . .
FIGURE B.A.I
N 3.228.000
AREA D-BORROW AREA
CONSTRUCTION CAMP, WITH
EDGE OF D ;<CAVATION
WATANA SITE LAYOUT
LOCATION MAP SCALE
(I INCH • 4MILES)
AGGREGATE
j-:;..P'!::::::=I 2-34!! KV
0
SCALE
TIWISMISSIOH LINES
TO OOLD CREEK
1000 2000 FEET
( I INCH • 1000 FEET)
FIGURE 8. A. 2
·E XI STING LAKE
J
J
J E744,000 ET4!1,()()('
I
I
L.~
E746,000 ET47,000
I
-r/ ..........
THE TOWNSITE IS SITUATED ON AN EXTENSIVE
WETLAND AREA WHICH IS INHABITED BY LARGE
CONCENTRATIONS OF MOSQUITOES AND BEARS.
THERE ARE NO SIGNIFICANT VIEWS OUTWARD
FROM THE SITE . THE GRID LAYOUT LIMITS THE
AMOUNT OF OPEN SPACE, PRIVACY AND INDIVIDUALITY. ______ .-
CE NTRALIZED PUBLIC FACILITIES WILL MINIMIZE
EXCESS IV E INTERNAL AUTO CIRCULATION.
~
E748,000 E749,000
WATANA VILLAGE AND TOWN SITE
LEGEND
c::::J PERMANENT NON -RESIDENTIAL BLDQ.
N3,236,000 ~ PERMANENT ROAD
iliiiD PERMANENT MULTIFAMILY DWELLINGS
72 UNITS FURNISHED BY YEAR 1992
16 UNITS . 2001
[§] PERMANENT SINGLE FA.MILY DWELLINGS
2 1 I,JNITS FURNISHED BY YEAR 1992
6 UNITS . 2001
0 PERMANENT HOSPITAL
EEl TEMPORARY HOUSING/UTILITIES
FURNISHED BY OWNER
16EA.-4 BEDROOMS UNITS 2B'x50'
16 EA.-2 24'. 50'
16EA.-3
72 EA.-2 14'x 60'
3!1,000 200 EA. -3 ~~X 60 1
E3:::3 TEMPORARY LOTS/ UTILITIES FURNISHED
BY OWNER
240 EA.-LOT SPACES
D PARKING AREAS
CD MANAGERs OFFICES
® GENERATING STATION
® FIRE STATION
0 GAS STATION
® SCHOOL
® SWIMM ING POOL
0 GYMNASIUM
@ STORE
® RECREATION CENTER
@) SEWAGE COLLECTION PUMP STATION
34,000 @ WATER PUMP STATION
@ UTILIDOR
@ SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
@ WATER TREATMENT PLANT
@) FUEL STORAGE TANK (50, 000 9 )
0 200 4fO FEET
SCALE ~~ llllllllllllllllllll!i§~iiiiiiii~-( I INCH • 200 FEET)
FIGURE 8 .A.3
i
"'
2100 -
J
J
(
I
I
SUBSTANTIAL ROAD
CUTS AND FILLS
J I f
DEVIL CANYON SITE LAYOUT
SCALE 0 ~ ~~4i,oOO~iiiiiiii;i800 FEET
(liNCH • 400 FEET)
FIGURE 8 . A.4
J
50 ' DRAWDOWN WILL BE EXPOSED
DURING AUGUST AND SEPTEMBER
§
i
"'
g
~
"' I
THE EMERGENCY SPILLWAY WILL HAVE CUTS
OVER 100' HIGH AND WILL DOMINATE THE
EXISTING LANDSCAPE
)
DEVIL CANYON GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
/
1600
0 200 400 FEET
SCALE ( I INCH • 200 FEET)
FIGURE 8.A.5
... ... ... ...
!:
!
i=
~ ... ....
!II
... ... ... ...
!:
z
0 ;::
~ ... .... ...
J
2400
2:500
2200
2100 ~
2000
I~
-KHOO
2300
2250
2200
2150
\ '-c.MMLI -·
0
THE SPILLWAY WILL HAVE HIGH VISIBILITY FROM
THE ACCESS ROAD. ITS STRONG LINEAR FORM,
LENGTH AND STEEP CUTS GREATLY ALTER THE
EX ISTING LANDSCAPE
f ROAD BRIDGE /FUSE PLU&
--~ r-~-~---r-··-··-..
""'''"" """ .,..., IUIII'AU IIIORTH I BAliK)
I
Mll.lm ...,.MZ:c=IOU\n i -J
10+00
I .-011161NAL GROUND UFACE , _____________________ _
··--··----·-··-
2150
A-A
-·.-:..:::: ··--==:.:.: .. ~-
/
C~L .../
--
PLAN
SCALE A
.. -~--~ ··---. .. .. .., ..
TOP Of' !lOCK (lOUTH lANK) _/ v
TOP Of' 1WCK IIIOR'TH BANK! _/
20+00 STATIONING IN FEET
PROFILE
SCALE A
310 '
SECTION 8-8 FUSE PL,U6
SCALE I
USH£0 STONE
··-..
-
..
-----,.._
··-··
... ,:00
ORIGINAL GROUND SURFACE (SOUTH ~K)"""""'
ORIGINAL GROUND SUR~E (NORTH BANK)~~
-.. --.. --r==---~---~ .. .. .. -..
THE CHANNEL GRADING LEAVES LARGE AREAS OF
UNVEGETATED LANDSCAPE
CHANNEL
2150r--------------------------------f----------------------------.
SECTION C-C
SCAI..E a
0
·SCALE C
0
SCALE 8
.0
SCALE A
10
50
200
20 FEET
( liNCH • 10 FEET)
100 FEET
(liNCH • 50 FEET)
400 FEET
(I INCH • 200 FEET)
~~~~~~~ ~MA~=L~·~4~------~~~--------------------------------------------~ -ro 3/4 7
CONSOLIIUITION QIIOUTING
~~.0~------------------------~ ~----------------------~A~S~~:~~R~E~D-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------'
VIEWS FROM ACCESS BRIDGE INCLUDE RIPRAP,
FUSE PLUG AND EXTENSIVE GRADING OF THE
EMERGENCY SPILLWAY
S[CTK* THROUeH FUSE PLU~
!ICALE C
WATANA EMERGENCY SPILLWAY FIGURE 8 .A .6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-I
APPENDIX EBB
Site Photos with Simulations of Project Facilities
-
-
APPENDIX E8C
Photos of Proposed Project Facilities Sites
-
......
i
-
r
-
-
-
-
APPENDIX E8D
Examples of Existing Aesthetic Impacts
-
-
-
-
....
-
-
-
-i
APPENDIX ESE
Examples of Reservoir Edge Conditions Similar to
Those Anticipated at Watana & Devil Canyon Dam
-
-
r
I
-
-
:-
i
-
APPENDIX E8F
Project Features Impacts and Charts
PROJECT FEATURES IMPACTS STEPS '7,8
PROJECT FEATURE
WATANA PROJECT AREA 1 - 9
1 WATANA DAM
FEATURE DESCRIPTION -
Earth-fill dam.
885 ft (270 m) high.
4100-ft (1250 m) crest length. . Rough textured rock surface simHiar colo"t tones as surrounding exposed rock • . Will be one of the highest dams in the world •
-
FEATURE IMPACTS . Massive scale and sloping dam face in harmony with existing land forms in the river valley • . Rock color is consistant with exposed rock but not with soft texture and color of existing vegetation
patterns •
• Horizontal form is consistent with the dominant horizontal character of reservoir.
Construction activity will denude much of the surrounding land and disturb the soil •
. -
-WITHIN LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPE AESTHETIC IMPACT RATING
CHARACTER TYPE ... COMPOSITE Feature as Proposed WI Mitigation
RATING
Susitna River 8 (A/M) Compatible
.....
DEFINITIONS
a. Additional study required to consider alternative solutions, sites or corridor alignments with, less
impact on scenic quality.
b. The use of best development practices to minimize construction-related effects on the landscape and
to guide post-construction cleanup and rehabilitation of disturbed areas.
c. The use of creative engineering design to assure that project features are well designed and are in
themselves positive visual features. -d. The use of form, line, color or textures appropriate to the landscape character type.
PROJECT FEATURES IMPACTS STEPS 7,8
PROJECT FEATURE
2 WATANA RESERVOIR
FEATURE DESCRIPTION
. Approximately 54 miles (90 km) in length and over 5 m1les (8 km) wide at the confluence of Watana
Creek. . Surface area of 38,000 acres (15,200 ha) • . Maximum depth at normal operating level of 680 ft (205 m) •
Normal maximum operating elevation is 2185 ft (660 m) and a
drawdol'o!l of 120 ft (35m).
low of 2065 ft (625 m) 1n April or May --
. All timber will be cleared in the reservoir area and will probably be burned • . Drawdown will create extensive mud flat areas up to over 1 mi (1.6 km) in width at maximum drawdown •
Extensive slumping, scaling and landsliding is expected along steep side slopes, possibly extend1ng
hundreds of feet up sidewalls, when reservoir is filled. Will continue until angle of repose is
reached.
In winter, ice shelves will form along the shoreline. . The impoundment will inundate small to significant portions of 7 major tributaries, 2 waterfalls, and
a large amount of Vee Canyon.
FEATURE IMPACTS
. The reservoir will replace
valley landform.
the highly rated existing landscape character by covering much of the
. As a result of extensive erosion and regular exposure of large mud flats during annual drawdown, the
visual quality of this new reservoir landscape will be low. . Additional impacts 1nclude the loss of 4 outstanding natural features:
Falls, Deadman Creek Falls and Watana Creek Falls.
Vee Canyon, Tsusena Creek
WITHIN LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPE AESTHETIC IMPACT RATING
CHARACTER TYPE ... COMPOSITE Feature as Proposed WI Mitigation
RATING
Susitna River 8 (A/M) Incompatible
River Canyon 9 (A/L) Incompatible
,--
DEFINITIONS
a. Additional study required to consider alternative solutions, sites or corridor alignments with less
impact on scenic quality.
b. The use of best development practices to minimize construction-related effects on the landscape and
to guide post-construction cleanup and rehabilitation of disturbed areas.
c. The use of creative engineering design to assure that project features are well designed and are in themselves positive visual features.
d. The use of form, line, color or textures appropriate to the landscape character type.
PROJECT FEATURES IMPACTS STEPS 7.,8
PROJECT FEATURE
3 WATANA MAIN SPILLWAY
FEATURE DESCRIPTION
. Concrete sloping channel 2000 ft (600 m) long and 100 ft (30 m) wide varies • . 30 ft (9 m) deep •
As engineered w1ll require rock cuts up to and over 100 ft (30 m) deep on river valley slope. Cut
side slopes are 4 ft ( 1 • 2 m) vertical to 1 ft (0.3 m) horizontal.
-
-
FEATURE IMPACTS
. Long straight concrete chute will be visible by Watana workers and visitors as they cross the access road bridge. -Extensive rock cuts and grading is inconsistent with the natural landforms and vegetated slopes.
-WITHIN LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPE AESTHETIC IMPACT RATING
CHARACTER TYPE ... COMPOSITE Feature as Proposed WI Mitigation
RATING
.·
Susitna River 8 (A/M) Incompatible Compatible
(a, c)
DEFINITIONS
.a • Additional study required to consider alternative solutions, sites or corridor alignments with less impact on scenic quality.
....
b. The use of best development practices to minimize construction-related effects
to guide post-construction cleanup and rehabilitation of disturbed areas.
on the landscape and -c. The use of creative engineering design to assure that project features are well designed and are in themselves positive visual features.
d. The use of form, line, color or textures apprppriate to the landscape character type.
PROJECT FEATURES IMPACTS STEPS 1,8
PROJECT FEATURE
4 WATANA EMERGENCY SPILLWAY
FEATURE DESCRIPTION
• Rock cut channel, over 5000 ft (1515 m) long, 200 ft (60 m) w1de and 30 to 50 ft (9 to 15 m) deep •
• Concrete spillway. . As engineered will require cuts up to and over 100ft (30m) deep on the river's upper north terrace •
The entire length will require cuts of this magnitude. Cut side slopes are 4 Ft ( 1. 2 m) vertical to
1 ft (0.3 m) horlzontal.
FEATURE IMPACTS
. This spillway is also h1ghly visible as the result of a bridge crossing (see Watana Main Spillway) • . The fuse plug dam Wlll partially block views down the Rock Channel, however the extend cutting will be
quite apparent.
WITHIN LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPE AESTHETlC IMPACT RATING
CHARACTER TYPE ... COM PO SITE Feature as Proposed W l Mitigation
RATING
Susitna River B (A/M) Incompatible -Incompatible
(c,d)
Compatible
(a)
Wet Upland Tundra 7 (B/L) lncompat ib le Incompatible
(c,d)
Compatible
(a)
DEFINITIONS
.a. Additional study required to consider alternative solutions, sites or corridor alignments with less
impact on scenic quality.
b. The use of best development practices to minimize construction-related effects on the landscape and
to guide post-construction cleanup and rehabilitation of disturbed areas.
c. The use of creative engineering design to assure that project features are well designed and are in
themselves positive visual features.
d. The use of form, line, color or textures appropriate to the landscape character type.
-I
-
-
.....
-
-'
-
PROJECT FEATURES IMPACTS STEPS 7,8
PROJECT FEATURE
5 WATANA POWERHOUSE ACCESS ROAD AND TAILRACE TUNNEL ACCESS ROAD
FEATURE DESCRIPTION
Powerhouse Road
• Gravel road of +24 ft (7.3 m) w1de and over 1.5 miles (2.5 km) long. Several hairpin turns as it
traverses down 400ft (120m) in elevation on the river's south slope before it continues down and
across the dam face. . Significant cuts will be required to place the road on these steep slopes •
Ta1lrace Tunnel Road
. Gravel road of +24ft (7.3 m) in width and over 1 mile (1.6 km) 1n length •
• lraverses down the south r1ver slope some 500 ft (150 m) in elevation. Several hairpin turns.
Significant cuts will be required to bu1ld the road on these steep slopes.
.FEATURE IMPACTS
. lhe primary impact of these roads will be the extensive vegetation clearing and rock cutting requir·ed
for construction on such a steep bank. This will leave large scars which are highly visible from
the dam site.
WITHIN LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPE AESTHETIC IMPACT RATING
CHARACTER TYPE ... COMPOSITE Feature as Proposed WI M itigatlon
RATING
Susitna River 8 (A/M) Incompatible Compatible
(a)
DEFINITIONS
.a. Additional study required to consider alternative solutions, sites or corridor alignments with less
impact on scenic quality.
b. The use of best development practices to minimize construction-related effects on the landscape and
to guide post-construction cleanup and rehabilitation of disturbed areas.
c. The use of creative engineering design to assure that project features are well designed and are in
themselves positive visual features.
d. The use of form, line, color or textures appropriate to the landscape character type.
PROJECT FEATURES IMPACTS
PROJECT FEATURE
6 WATANA SWITCHYARD
FEATURE DESCRIPTION
• Will occupy an area of approximately 650 ft (199 m) by 750 ft (227 m) above the dam on the north
terrace.
Miscellaneous electrical equipment -aluminum tone.
Area will be paved with gravel and fenced •
• Origin point of two 345-kV transmission lines.
FEATURE IMPACTS
Co1or and shapes of electrical equipment will stand out in this setting where there is little
vegetation screening.
STEPS 7,8
• The selected siting locates this switchyard along the view axis of the access road and causes it to be
silhouetted against the skyline of certain points.
WITHIN LANDSCAPE
CHARACTER TYPE ...
Wet Upland Tundra
DEFINITIONS
LANDSCAPE
COMPOSITE
RATING
7 (B/L)
AESTHETIC IMPACT RATING
Feature as Proposed W/ Mitigation
Incompatible Incompatible
(c,d)
a. Additional study required to consider alternative solutions, sites or corridor alignments with less
impact on scenic quality.
b. The use of best development practices to minimize construction-related effects on the landscape and
to guide post-ponstruction cleanup and rehabilitation of disturbed areas.
c. The use of creative engineering design to assure that project features are well designed and are in
themselves positive visual features.
d. The use of form, line, color or textures appropriate to the landscape character type.
-
PROJECT FEATURES IMPACTS STEPS 7,8
PROJECT FEATURE
7 WATANA DAM BORROW SlfES
FEATURE DESCRIPTION
• Material for Watana Dam. . Extracted by draglines in the river; blasted in other areas •
• Existing islands and several miles of the low north river terrace below the damsite are designated as
borrow sites.
• A borrow site of approximately 640 acres (256 ha) is located on the high north terrace adjacent to
Deadman Creek.
'
FEATURE IMPACTS
. Riverine bofl'ow sites will be located at the mouth of fsusena Creek and will be in full view of the
dam area. Exposed rock and rigid angular forms will be out of character with the soft flowing forms
of the river valley.
• Borrow sites designated upstream of the dam may affect the shoreline by creating rigid angular shores •
• Borrow limits shown, leave no buffer between excavation activities and the construction camp • .....
-WITHIN LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPE AESTHETIC IMPACT RATING
CHARACTER TYPE ... COMPOSITE Feature as Proposed WI Mitigation
RATING
Susitna River B (A/M) Incompatible Incompatible
(c)
Compatible
(a)
Wet Upland Tundra 7 (B/L) Incompatible Compatible
(d)
Susitna Upland Terrace 7 (B/L) Incompatible Incompatible
-
DEFINITIONS
a. Additional study required to consider alternative solutions, sites or corridor alignments with less
impact on scenic quality.
b. The use of best development practices to minimize construction-related effects on the landscape and
to guide post-construction cleanup and rehabilitation of disturbed areas.
c. The use of creative engineering design to assure that project features are well designed and are in
themselves positive visual features.
d. The use of form, line, color or textures appropriate to the landscape character type.
PROJECT FEATURES
PROJECT FEATURE
8 WATANA PERMANENT TOWN
FEATURE DESCRIPTION
Town Center -approximately 20 buildings.
Road -perimeter •
IMPACTS
• Surrounds a small lake approximately 35 acres (14 ha) in s1ze •
• Supports 400 people of which 125 will operate both dams and facilities.
Dwelling Units (125) .
• Hospital.
Water and·Sewage Treatment Plants.
FEATURE IMPACTS
• Town siting is inconsistant with existing physical environment •
STEPS 7,8
• Extensive human activity in the wetland setting wlll cause senous degradation to the aesthetic
character of the town resulting in less than optional living environment •.
• Permanent dwellers will have to access village through the old construction townsite which will
continue to be a blighted area even after removal of structures and site facilities.
WITHIN LANDSCAPE
CHARACTER TYPE ...
Wet Upland Tundra
DEFINITIONS
LANDSCAPE
COMPOSITE
RATING
7 (B/L)
AESTHETIC IMPACT RATING
Feature as Proposed W/ Mitigation
Incompatible Incompatible
(c,d)
Compatible
(a)
a. Additional study required to consider alternative solutions, sites or corridor alignments with less
impact on scenic quality.
b. The use of best development practices to minimize construction-related effects on the landscape and
to guide post-construction cleanup and rehabilitation of disturbed areas.
c. The use of creative engineering design to assure that. project features are well designed and are in
themselves positive visual features.
d. The use of form, line, color or textures appropriate to the landscape character type.
PROJECT FEATURES IMPACTS STEPS 7,8
PROJECT FEATURE
9 WATANA TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION CAMP & VILLAGE
.
FEATURE DESCRIPTION
Camp Village
.-., . Covers an area of approximately 150 acres (60 ha). . Covers an area of approximately 150 acres (60 ha).
I
• Over 100 structures . Multi-family and single family status •
+ dormatories • Supports 1120 people for approximately a yr
+ recreation facilities . Variety of structures including
+ hospital + dwelling units
+ service buildings ' + school
+ administration build1ngs, etc. + service
• Ball fields (3). + recreation center . Sewage treatment plant and landfill. + gymnasium
• Will support 34aO people for approximately a yr. + managing offices . Roads + general store, etc • . fenced • Roads
• Fenced
I~
-
FEATURE IMPACTS
. These facilities will be removed after construction is complete, therefore the physical design is not
a long term issue, but rehabilitation must occur. . Impacts will result from facility removal, the visual scar created by invegetated mud and ponds
created by soil compaction. . This scarring is most significant on the village site because permanent town residents will travel
through the site and will live adjacent to it•
WITHIN LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPE AESTHETIC IMPACT RATING
CHARACTER TYPE ... COMPOSITE Feature as Proposed WI Mitigation
RATING
Wet Uplana lundra 7 tB/L) Incompatible Incompatible
(a,b,c,d)
DEFINITIONS
a. Additional study required to consider alternative
impact on scenic quality.
solutions, sites or corridor alignments with less
b. The use of best development practices to minimize construction-related effects on the landscape and
to guide post-construction cleanup and rehabilitation of disturbed areas.
c. The use of creative engineering design to assure that project features are well designed and are in
themselves positive visual features.
d. The use of form, line, color or textures appropriate to the landscape character type. -''
PROJECT FEATURES IMPACTS STEPS 7,8
PRO,.IECT FEATURE
DEVIL CANYON PROJECT AREA (1-9)
1 DEVIL CANYON CONCRETE ARCH DAM
FEATURE DESCRIPTION
. Arch dam will be double curved with a maximum height of 645 ft (195m), spans approximately 1300 ft
( 394 m) across lower Devil Canyon.
FEATURE IMPACTS
• Dramatic concrete form and massive
natural setting of Devil Canyon •
scale will create a positive contrast to the equally dramatic
• Arch down design embraces rock outcrops and canyon enclosure. . The river channel will be dry for approximately 0.66 miles ( 1.1 km) below the damsite which includes
the present Devil Canyon rapids •
• Surrounding construction areas will create large areas of disturbed land.
WITHIN LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPE AESTHETIC IMPACT RATING
CHARACTER TYPE •.. COMPOSITE Feature as Proposed WI Mitigation ·
RATING
Devil Canyon 9 (A/L) Compatible Compatible
DEFINITIONS
a. Additional study required to consider alternative solutions, sites or corridor alignments with less
impact on scenic quality.
b. The use of best development practices to minimize construction-related effects on the landscape and
to guide post-construction cleanup and rehabilitation of disturbed areas.
c. The use of creative engineering design to assure that project features are well designed and are in
themselves positive visual features.,
d. The use of form, line, color or textures appropriate to the landscape character type.
-
-
~-
,....
I
-
PROJECT FEATURES IMPACTS STEPS 7,8
PROJECT FEATURE
z DEVIL CANYON SADDLE DAM
(Adjacent to Arch Dam)
·FEATURE DESCRIPTION
• Earth-fill. . Saddle dam is an extension of the arch dam • Same crest elevation and approximately 1000 ft (300m)
long. Rough (consistent) textured rock surface.
FEATURE IMPACTS
. Massive scale and form of saddle dam will dominate the small scale plateau landscape.
• Its rough texture and earth tones will be a stark contrast to the surrounding vegetated land and small
ponds.
WITHIN LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPE AESTHETIC IMPACT RATING
CHARACTER TYPE ... COMPOSITE Feature as Proposed WI Mitigation
RATING
Devil Canyon 9 (A/L) Incompatible In'compat ible
(b,c)
DEFINITIONS
a. Additional study required to consider alternative solutions, sites or corridor alignments with less
impact on scenic quality.
b. The use of best development practices to minimize construction-related effects on the landscape and
to guide post-construction cleanup and rehabilitation of disturbed areas.
c. The use of creative engineering design to assure that project features are well designed and are in
themselves positive visual features.
d. The use of form, line, color or textures appropriate to the landscape character type.
PROJECT FEATURES IMPACTS STEPS 7,8
PROJECT FEATURE
3 DEVIL CANYON RESERVOIR
FEATURE DESCRIPTION
• Approximately 32 miles (53 km)
dam.
long (backs up almost to Watana Dam) and its broadest point is near the
. The reservoir will inundate most oF the World Class whitewater through the canyon.
Surface area of 7800 acres (3120 ha). . Maximum depth at normal operating level of 550 ft (167 m) •
Normal maximum operating elevation of 1455 ft (440 m) for most of the year. Low of 1405 ft (425 m) in
August or September [drawdown of 50 ft (15m)].
• All timber in the reservoir impoundment area will be cleared and probably
Exposed areas due to drawdown will coincide with heaviest visitor season.
burned •
. The impoundment will inundate a few major tributary canyons • Devil Creek Falls will not be covered.
FEATURE IMPACTS
Aesthetic impacts are similiar to Watana reservoir •
• The new lake will replace a highly dramatic river canyon. . Regular drawdown will occur exposing mud slopes and sheer rock walls •
The outstanding natural features of Devil Canyon and Devil Canyon Rapids will be lost.
WITHIN LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPE AESTHETIC IMPACT RATING
CHARACTER TYPE ... COMPOSITE Feature as Proposed W/ Mitigation
RATING
Devil Canyon 9 (A/L) Incompatible
Susitna River 8 (A/H) Incompatible
DEFINITIONS
a. Additional study required to consider alternative
impact on scenic quality.
solutions, sites or corridor alignments with less
b. The use of best development practices to minimize construction-related effects on the landscape and
to guide post-construction cleanup and rehabilitation of disturbed areas.
c. The use of creative engineering design to assure that project features are well designed and are in
themselves positive visual features.
d. The use of form, line, color or textures appropriate to the landscape character type.
-
....
-
PROJECT FEATURES IMPACTS STEPS 7,8
PROJECT FEATURE
4 DEVIL CANYON MAIN SPILLWAY
FEATURE DESCRIPTION
• Steeply sloping concrete channel over 1000 ft {300 m) long with a tapered width no less than 7S ft
(22. 7 m). Channel depth of approximately 25 ft ( 7 .5. m) •
• As engineered, will require cuts up to and over 100 ft (30 m) deep on the north river slope. Cut side
slopes are 4ft (1.2 m) vertical to 1 ft (0.3 m) horizontal.
FEATURE IMPACTS
The spillway and associated rock cuts will dominate the n.orth bank of the damsite. ExceedJ.ngly steep
terrain is visually exposed to the proposed visitor center on the south side of the canyon.
WITHIN LANDSCAPE
CHARACTER TYPE ...
Devil Canyon
DEFINITIONS
LANDSCAPE
COMPOSITE
RATING
9 (A/L)
AESTHETIC IMPACT RATING
Feature as Proposed W/ Mitigation
Incompatible Compatible
{a,c)
a. Additional study required to consider alternative solutions, sites or corridor alignments with less
impact on scenic quality.
b. The use of best development practices to minimize construction-related effects on the landscape and
to guide post-construction cleanup and rehabilitation of disturbed areas.
c. The use of creative engineering design to assure that project features are well designed and are in
themselves positive visual features.
d. The use of form, line, color or textures appropriate to the landscape character type.
PROJECT FEATURES IMPACTS STEPS 7,8
PROJECT FEATURE
5 DEVIL CANYON EMERGENCY SPILLWAY
FEATURE DESCRIPTION
• Sloping rock cut channel over 1400 ft (424 m) long with an extending pilot channel -concrete -
approximately 800 ft (242m) in length. Main channel width is approximately 250ft (75 m). Pilot
channel is approximately 50 ft (15m) wide •
• As engineered will require cuts up to 100 ft (30 m) deep on the river's high south terrace. . Cut side slopes vary from 1.4 ft (0.4 m) vertical to 1 ft (0.3 m) horizontal and 10 ft (3m) vertical
to 1 ft (0.3 m) horizontal. . Pilot channel terminates in a ravine which empties into the river.
• Concrete spillway -fuse plug.
FEATURE IMPACTS
Massive Rock Chute overwhelms the small scale of its natural setting and dominates the landscape
setting south side of the dam.
WITHIN LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPE AESTHETIC IMPACT RATING
CHARACTER TYPE ... COMPOSITE Feature as Proposed WI M itigotlon
RATING
Devil Canyon 9 (A/L) Incompatible Incompatible
(c)
Compatible
(a)
DEFINiTIONS
a. Additional study required to consider alternative solutions, sites or corridor alignments with less
impact on scenic quality.
b. The use of best development practices to minimize construction-related effects on the landscape and
to guide post-construction cleanup and rehabilitation of disturbed areas.
c. The use of creative engineering design to assure that project features are well designed and are in
themsel~es positive visual feat~res.
d. The use of form, line, color or textures ap_propr iate to the landscape character type.
PROJECT FEATURES
PROJECT FEATURE
6 DEVIL CANYON POWERHOUSE TUNNEL
ACCESS ROAD
FEATUR~ DESCRIPTION
IMPACTS STEPS 7,8
• Gravel road +24 ft (7.J m) in width and over 2.5 miles (4 km) long from the switchyard to tunnel
entrance. -
• Makes J hairpin turns as it traverses down the north slope some-BOD ft (242 m) in elevation •
• Significant cuts will be required to build the road on these steep slopes.
FEATURE IMPACTS
• Extensive cutting will leave large scar on the canyon wall in full view of access road users •
• This landscape character type has very little ability to absorb this feature without substantial
design alteration.
WITHIN LANDSCAPE
CHARACTER TYPE •..
Devil Canyon
DEFINITIONS
LANDSCAPE
COMPOSITE
RATING
9 (A/L)
AESTHETIC IMPACT RATING
Feature as Proposed W/ Mitigation
Incompatible Incompatible
(c)
Compatible
(a)
a. Additional study required to consider alternative solutions, sites or corridor alignments with less
impact on scenic quality.
b. The use of best development practices to minimize construction-related effects on the landscape and
to guide post-construction cleanup and rehabilitation of disturbed areas.
c. The use of creative engineering design to assure that project features are well designed and are in
themselves positive visual features.
d. The use of form, line, color or textures aP.propriate to the landscape character type.
PROJECT FEATURES IMPACTS STEPS ""8
PROJECT FEATURE
7 DEVIL CANYON SWITCHYARD
FEATURE DESCRIPTION
• Occupies a space of approximately BOO ft (242m) by 1000 ft (~00 m) on the north terrace above the
dam.
Miscellaneous electrical equipment •
• Area will be gravelled and fenced •
• Origin point of 2 additional 345-kV lines, which will join the 2 lines from Watana after crossing the
canyon below the dam.
FEATURE IMPACTS
• Switchyard siting is in the principal view axis of the access road approach to the damsite.
• Aluminum tone and angular forms of equipment is a sharp contrast to the existing landscape character
type which has little ability to absorb the facility.
WITHIN LANDSCAPE
CHARACTER TYPE ...
Devil Canyon
DEFINITIONS
LANDSCAPE
COMPOSITE
RATING
9 (A/L)
AESTHETIC IMPACT RATING
Feature as Proposed W/ Mitigation
Incompatible Incompatible
(c,d)
a. Additional study required to consider alternative solutions, sites or corridor alignments with less
impact on scenic quality.
b. The use of best development practices to minimize construction-related effects on, the landscape and
to guide post-construction cleanup and rehabilitation of disturbed areas.
c. The use of creative engineering design to assure that project features are well designed and are in
themselves positive visual features.
d. The use of form, line, color or textures appropriate to the landscape character type.
-
-
-
-!
-
PROJECT FEATURES IMPACTS STEPS 7,8
PROJECT FEATURE
8 DEVIL CANYON TWO 545-kV TRANSMISSION LINES -
Adjacent to and' parallel to the two 345-kV lines from the Watana phase
FEATURE DESCRIPTION
See Watana Project Area description of transmission
Increases right-of-way width to 500 ft ( 15[) m).
lines.
-
FEATURE IMPACTS
• Transmission lines in the dam area will be quite apparent f'rom prima·ry use areas. . Both lines and towers will be silhouetted against the sky·line •
• Cleared corridors through densely wooded areas will be highly visible from the· a<ir.
WITHIN LANDSCAPE. LANDSCAPE AESTHETIC IMPACT RATING
CHARACTER TYPE ... COMPOSITE Feature as Proposed WI Mitigation
RA1"1NG
Chulitna Moist Tundra Uplands 8 (A/M) Incompatible Compatible
(b,d)
Talkeetna Uplands 7 (B/L) Compatible Compatible
(b,d)
Mid Susitna River Valley 5 (B/M) Compatible Compatible
(b,d)
DEFINITIONS
a. Additional. study required to. consider alternative solutions, sites or corridor
impact on. scenic quaLity•
alignments with less
b. The use of best development practices to minimize construction-related effects on the landscape and
to guide post-construction cleanup and rehabilitation of disturbed areas.
c. The use of creative engineering design to assure that project features are well designed and are in
themselves positive visual features.
d. The use of form, line, color or textures appropriate to the landscape character type.
PROJECT FEATURES IMPACTS STEPS 7,8
PROJECT FEATURE
9 DEVIL CANYON TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION VILLAGE & CAMP
FEATURE DESCRIPTION
Village Camp
• Covers an area of approximately 100 acres (40 ha). . Covers an area of approximately 100 acres (40 ha) • . Multi-Family and single Family status. . Approximately 75 structures including
• Supports 550 people For approximately 10 years. + dormitories . Structures include + hospital
+ 320 housing units + warehouse
+ school + recreation hall and Facilities
+ gymnasium + water treatment plant and reservoir.
+ recreation center • Roads and covered walkways •
+ store, etc. • Supports 1,780 workers For approximately 10 yr. • Roads . Sewage treatment plant •
Fenced • Fenced . Landfill
FEATURE IMPACTS
• Both temporary sites are located on a Flat wetlands terrace which are surrounded by mixed Forests • . Intense human activity and vehicle movement will cause these wetlands to deteriorate •
WITHIN LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPE AESTHETIC IMPACT RATING
CHARACTER TYPE ... COMPOSITE Feature as Proposed WI M itigotion
RATING
Hid Susitna River Valley 5 (B/M) Incompatible Incompatible
(a,b,c,d)
DEFINITIONS
a. Additional study required to consider alternative solutions, sites or corridor alignments with less impact on scenic quality.
b. The use of best development practices to minimize construction-related effects on the landscape and
to guide post-construction cleanup and rehabilitation of disturbed areas.
c. The use of creative engineering design to assure that project features are well designed and are in themselves positive visual Features.
d. The use of form, line, color or te~tures appropriate to the landscape character type.
PROJECT FEATURES IMPACTS STEPS 7,8
PROJECT FEATURE '
10 SWITCHYARD AT GOLD CREEK INTERTIE -
FEATURE DESCRIPTION -
Termination point for the Watana phase transmission lines and also the 2 additional lines from Devil
Canyon at a later date. . Miscellaneous electrical equipment. -• Located approximately 75ft (22.7 m) above the Susitna River on the south bank terrace north of Gold
Creek.
-
.
~
'
FEATURE IMPACTS -• Facility site is well situated in LCT to minimize intrusion.
• NO major views of this facility are anticipated. . Surrounding heavy forest blends well with form and texture of equipment and will screen the facility.
WITHIN LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPE AESTHETIC IMPACT RATING
CHARACTER TYPE ... COMPOSITE Feature as Proposed WI Mitigation ·
RATING
Mid Susitna River Valley 5 (8/M) Compatible Compatible
(c,d)
DEFINITIONS
a. Additional study required to consider alternative solutions, sites or corridor alignments with less
impact on scenic quality.
b. The use of best development practices to minimize construction-related effects on the landscape and
to guide post-construction cleanup and rehabilitation of disturbed areas.
c. The use of creative engineering design to assure that project features are well designed and are in
themselves positive visual feat urea.
d. The use of form, line, color or textures appropriate to the landscape character type.
PRO·JECT FEATURES IMPACTS STEPS 7,8
PROJECT FEATURE
11 RAILROAD SPUR FROM GOLD CREEK TO DEVIL CANYON
FEATURE DESCRIPTION
Approximately 14 miles (23 km) in length. . Minimum disturbed section width of 31 ft (9.3 m) • . Primary purpose of operation is haul1ng materials
Dam.
and equipment for the construction of Devil Canyon
. Railhead facility at Gold Creek and Devil Canyon construction camp • Requires a space of approximately
600 ft (180m) by 3000 ft (900 m). lnc ludes:
-engine turnaround
-fuel storage
-loading docks
-workshop, stores and management office. . Will require extensive cut and fill to construct railroad bed at 2 percent maximum slope.
FEATURE IMPACTS . Railroad alignment impacts views from the Susitna River •
Large cut and fills will contrast natural forest color and texture as the rolling landforms on river
terraces. . Railroad bed will create disruption of wildlife habitats •
WITHIN LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPE AESTHETIC IMPACT RATING
CHARACTER TYPE ... COMPOSITE Feature as Proposed WI M itigatlon
RATING
Mid Susitna River Valley 5 (B/M) Incompatible Compatible
(b,d)
DEFINITIONS
a. Additional study required to consider alternative solutions, sites or corridor alignments with less
impact on scenic quality.
b. The use of best development practices to minimize construction-related effects on the landscape and
to guide post-construction cleanup and rehabilitation of disturbed areas.
c. The use of creative engineering design to assure that project features are well
themselves positive visual features.
designed and are in
d. The use of form, line, color or textures appropriate to the landscape character type.
....
-
-
-
r
....
.....
PROJECT FEATURES IMPACTS STEPS 7,8
PROJECT FEATURE
WATANA ACCESS ROAD -DENALI HIGHWAY TO WATANA DAM
FEATURE DESCRIPTION
• Gravel road of approximately 40 miles (67 km) in length.
24 ft (7.3 m) w1de, 44 ft (13.3 m) minimum disturbed section •
• Significant cut and fill will be required to construct road on the variety of landscape and terrain
conditions
+ wet bog areas
+ permafrost
+ steep slopes
+ creek and ravine crossings
• Will serve as an access road for construction of Watana Dam and will not be open to the public until
dam completion (1993).
• Long-term use of road will be for recreationists and project operators •
• Several recreational developments will have small parking areas for 3-5 cars.
FEATURE IMPACTS
Road section and alignment criteria for assigned design speed generates large cut and fill sections •
• Revegetation will be d1fficult on steep proposed slope gradients for drainage ditches. These steep
slopes also will have erosion problems which reduce the aesthetic site value. The design speed is
too fast for a scenic designation for a road.
WITHIN LANDSCAPE
CHARACTER TYPE.~.
Wet Upland Tundra
Chulitna Mountains
DEFINITIONS
LANDSCAPE
COMPOSITE
RATING
7 (B/L)
9 (A/L)
AESTHETIC IMPACT RATING
Feature as Proposed W/ Mitigation
·.·.
Incompatible
Incompatible
Compatible
(a,b,c,d)
Compatible
(a,b,c,d)
a. Additional study required to consider alternative solutions, sites or corridor alignments with less
impact on scenic quality.
b. The use of best development practices to minimize construction-related effects on the landscape and
to guide post-construction cleanup and rehabilitation of disturbed areas •
c. The use of creative !!ngineering design to assure that project features are well designed and are in
themselves positive visual features.
d. The use of form, line, color or textures appropriate to the landscape character type •
PROJECT FEATURES IMPACTS STEPS 7,8
PROJECT FEATURE
BORROW SITES -Material for Construction of Watana Access Road
FEATURE DESCRIPTION
• Rock/gravel extraction areas for road material. · . Large pits in selected locations adjacent to the proposed road •
• Upland sources of rock material may also be chosen. May require temporary roads for extract ion.
FEATURE IMPACTS
Large pits near roads will be visually disruptive and are often located in primary view corridors.
Access roads to upland or distant sites will also impact views. Borrow sites alongside roads will
parallel the road alignment and be more compatible to existing landforms once natural revegetation
occurs.
WITHIN LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPE AESTHETIC IMPACT RATING
CHARACTER TYPE ... COMPOSITE Feature as Proposed W/ Mitigation
RATING
Wet Upland Tundra 7 (B/L) lncompat ible Compatible
(a,b,d)
Chulitna Mountains 9 (A/L) Incompatible Compatible
(a,b,d)
DEFINITIONS
a. Additional study required to consider alternative solutions, sites or corridor alignments with less
impact on scenic quality.
b. The use of best development practices to minimize construction-related effects on the landscape and
to guide post-construction cleanup and rehabilitation of disturbed areas.
c. The use of creative engineering design to assure that project features are well designed and are in
themselves positive visual features.
d. The use of form, line, color or textures appropriate to the landscape character type.
-
.....
I
I
.....
I
I
-
....
PROJECT FEATURES IMPACTS STEPS 7,8
PROJECT FEATURE
WATANA TO DEVIL CANYON ACCESS ROAD
FEATURE DESCRIPTION
• Constructed after the completion of Watana Dam (1993) •
• Gravel road of approximately 34 miles (56 km) in length •
• 24 ft (7.3 m) wide-44ft (13.3 m) minimum disturbed section •
• Significant cut and fill will be required to construct road on the variety of landscape and terrain
conditions.
+ wet bag areas
+ permafrost
+ steep slopes
+ significant river and ravine crossings •
• Will have several small recreational small parking areas for 3-5 cars.
FEATURE IMPACTS
• Major impacts result from cut and fill lotlrk required for road construction in steep areas •
• Height of road profile has been minimized to reduce visual instrusion.
• Roadside borrow trenches are designed to be revegetated and will be graded to fit character of
existing landforms. Alignment and road section design criteria for assigned design speed creates
awkward relationship to the existing landscape.
WITHIN LANDSCAPE
CHARACTER TYPE ...
Wet Upland Tundra
Chulitna Moist Tundra Upland
Devil Canyon
DEFINITIONS
LANDSCAPE
COMPOSITE
RATING
7 (B/L)
8 (A/M)
9 (A/L)
AESTHETIC IMPACT RATING
Feature as Proposed W/ Mitigation
Incompatible
Incompatible
Incompatible
Compatible
(a,b,c,d)
Compatible
(a,b,c,d)
Incompatible
(a,b,c,d)
a. Additional study required to consider alternative solutions, sites or corridor alignments with less
impact on scenic quality.
b. The use of best development practices to minimize construction-related effects on the landscape and
to guide post-construction cleanup and rehabilitation of disturbed areas.
c. The use of creative engineering design to assure that project features are well designed and are in
themselves positive visual features.
d. The use of form, line, color or textures ~ppropriate to the landscape character type •
PROJECT FEATURES IMPACTS STEPS 7,8
PROJECT FEATURE
BORROW SITES -Material for Construction of Watana to Devil Canyon Access Road
FEATURE DESCRIPTION
Rock/gravel extraction areas for road material.
Large pits in selected locations adjacent to the proposed road.
Upland sources of rock material may also be chosen. May require temporary roads for extraction.
FEATURE IMPACTS
Potential impacts include views from road to the borrow sites, which in some cases will be filled with
water and in others will appear as a unvegetated scar. . Borrow pit sites are located in landscapes which have little ability to absorb these intrusions as
presently planned.
WITHIN LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPE AESTHETIC IMPACT RATING
CHARACTER TYPE ... COMPOSITE Feature as Proposed W/ Mitigation
RATING
Wet Upland Tundra 7 (B/L) Incompatible Compatible
(a,b,c,d)
Chulitna Moist Tundra Upland 8 (A/M) Incompatible Compatible
(a,b,c,d)
Devil Canyon 9 (A/L) Incompatible lncompat ible
(a,b,c,d)
DEFINITIONS
a. Additional study required to consider alternative solutions, sites or corridor alignments with less
impact on scenic quality.
b. The use of best development practices to minimize construction-related effects on the landscape and
to guide post-construction cleanup and rehabilitation of disturbed areas.
c. The use of creative engineering design to assure that project features are well designed and are in
themselves positive visual features.
d. The use of form, line, color or textures ~ppropriate to the landscape character type.
r
-I
-
.....
-
.....
PROJECT FEATURES IMPACTS STEPS 7,8
PRO,JECT FEATURE
HIGH LEVEL BRIDGE OVER DEVIL CANYON BELOW DAM
FEATURE DESCRIPTION
• Steel suspension bridge approximately 2600 ft (785 m) in length and 600 ft (180m) above the river
bottom •
• The bridge, as engineered, is not horizontal. The south end is nearly 100 ft (JO m) higher in
elevation than the north end.
• Primary purpose is to .aid in construction of Devil Canyon dam.
• Shallow curved suspension.
FEATURE IMPACTS
Bridge does not offer significant views of Devil Canyon Dam •
• Form of structure does not take advantage of the dramatic Devil Canyon environment •
• Bridg~ approaches may require extensive grading and disrupt1on.
WITHIN LANDSCAPE
CHARACTER TYPE ...
LANDSCAPE
COMPOSITE
RATING
AESTHETIC IMPACT RATING
Devil Canyon 9 (A/L)
DEFINITIONS
Feature as Proposed WI Mitigation
Incompatible Compatible
(c)
a. Additional study required to consider alternative solutions, sites or corridor alignments with less
impact on scenic quality.
b. The use of best development practices to minimize construction-related effects on the landscape and
to guide post-construction cleanup and rehabilitation of disturbed areas.
c. The use of creative engineering design to assure that project features are well designed and are in
themselves positive visual features.
!""'" d. The use of form, line, color or textures r;~ppropriate to the landscape character type.
PROJECT FEATURES IMPACTS STEPS 7,8
PROJECT FEATURE
ANCHORAGE TO WILLOW TRANSMISSION STUB LINE
FEATURE DESCRIPTION
. Two 345-kV transmission lines after completion oF Watana Dam. An additional 345-kV line will be
constructed with the completion of Devil Canyon Dam •
• 63 miles (105 km) in length. . See feature description of transmission lines for Watana Project Area for detail •
.
FEATURE IMPACTS
. Seldom in view of any roadways, these lines are quite distant From major ground actiVJ.ty.
• Major impacts will be from the air as travellers view the long cleared corridors.
WITHIN LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPE AESTHETIC IMPACT RATING
CHARACTER TYPE ... COMPOSITE Feature as Proposed WI M itigotion
RATING
Anchorage, Alaska 1 (C/H) Compatible Compatible
(a,b,d)
Susitna River Lowlands 1 (C/H) Compatible Compatible
(a,b,d)
DEFINITIONS
a. Additional study required to consider
impact on scenic quality.
alternative solutions, sites or corridor alignments with less
b. The use of best development practices to minimize construction-related effects on the landscape and
to guide post-construction cleanup and rehabilitation of disturbed areas.
c. The use of creative engineering design to assure that project features are well
themselves positive visual features.
designed and are in
d. The use of form, line, color or textures appropriate to the landscape character type.
-
-I
i
-
-
PROJECT FEATURES IMPACTS STEPS 7,8
PROJECT FEATURE
TWO 345-kV TRANSMISSION LINES
FEATURE DESCRIPTION
. Towers are ~uyed steel pole "x" structures (CORTEN)
+ 100 ft 30m) high to structure top, 95 ft (25.7 m) to cross beam and 45 ft (13.6 m) at the base
+ 3 single circuit conductors per transmission line for a total of 6 nonspecular conductors. . Right-of-way width of 300 ft (90 m) vegetation will be cut to 6 in (15 em) in height areas between
will be trimmed to 10 in (25 em) high •
• Additional towers include:
+ single steel pole angle structure, also 100 ft (30 m) high. Generally one pole per conductor.
+ single steel pole structure for slopes 30 percent or more. Three conductors per pole •
• 3,0 percent slope structures are typically 116.5 ft (35.3 m) high •
• Typical distance between towers is 1300 ft (394m) with 115 ft (34,9 m) between adjacent towers. . Foundations for all structures, except hill side single poles, will consist of steel piling or rock
anchored concrete pedestals, base width is 45 ft (13.6 m) •
• Single pole structure will have a foundation pedestal anchored to rock or a concrete cylinder
approximately 6ft (1.9 m) in diameter and 25ft (7.5 m) deep in other soils •
• Rough construction and maintenance trails will run along the R.O.W. at various points •
• Right-of-way clearing.
Towers and conductors have been signed to minimize glare impacts.
FEATURE IMPACTS
WITHIN LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPE AESTHETIC IMPACT RATING
CHARACTER TYPE ... COMPOSITE Feature as Proposed WI Mitigation
RATING
Mid Susitna River Valley 5 (8/M) Compatible Compatible
(b,d)
Devil Canyon 9 (A/L) Incompatible Incompatible
(b,c)
Susitna River 9 (A/M) Incompatible Incompatible
(b)
Chulitna Moist Tundra Upland 9 (A/M) Incompatible Compatible
(b,d)
Talkeetna Uplands 7 (8/L) Compatible Compatible
(b,d,)
"
DEFINITIONS
a. Additional study required to consider alternative solutions, sites or carr idor alignments with less
impact on scenic quality.
b. The use of best development practices to minimize construction-related effects on the landscape and
to guide post-construction cleanup and rehabilitation of disturbed areas.
c. The use of creative engineering design to assure that project features are well
themselves positive visual features.
designed and are in
d. The use of form, line, color or textures appropriate to the landscape character type.
PROJECT FEATURES IMPACTS STEPS 7,8
PROJECT FEATURE
HEALY TO FAIRBANKS TRANSMISSION STUB LINE
FEATURE DESCRIPTION
. Two 345-kV transmission lines
98 miles (163m) in length.
after completion of Watana Dam.
. See feature description of transmission lines for Watana Project Area for detail.
FEATURE IMPACTS
Transmission lines will be quite apparent through the Nenana Uplands. . Transmission lines will not be seen from the major travel route 1n Nenana Lowlands, except at
crossings and when paralleling the road near Healy. . Transmission lines will be apparent through the forested Tenana Ridge landscape •
WITHIN LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPE AESTHETIC IMPACT RATING
CHARACTER TYPE ... COMPOSITE Feature as Proposed W/ Mitigation
RATING
Nenana Uplands 5 (8/M) lncompat ible Incompatible
(b,d)
Compatible
Nenana River Lowlands 1
(a,b,d)
(C/H) Compatible Compatible
(a,b,d)
Tanana Ridge 7 (B/L) Incompatible lncompat ible
(b' d)
Compatible
(a,b,d)
DEFINITIONS
a. Additional study required to consider alternative solutions, sites or corridor alignments with less
impact on scenic quality.
b. The use of best development practices to minimize construction-related effects on the landscape and
to guide post-construction cleanup and rehabilitation of disturbed areas.
c. The use of creative engineering design to assure that project features are well
themselves positive visual features.
designed and are in
d. The use of form, line, color or textures appropriate to the landscape character type.
-
-
-
-
-
,.-..
PROJECT FEATURES IMPACTS
PROJECT FEATURE
1 RECREATION FACILITIES AND FEATURES
WATANA DAM.VISITOR CENTER
FEATURE DESCRIPTION
• Exhibit building with food service, souven1r shop, museum, restrooms and tour facility.
Indigenous botanical garden •
• Parking for 20 cars. .
• Located above the dam on the south side of the river.
FEATURE IMPACTS
All proposed facilities are to be part of the design character of the damsite.
STEPS 7,8
WITHIN LANDSCAPE
CHARACTER TYPE. •.
LANDSCAPE
COMPOSITE
RATING
AESTHETIC IMPACT RATING
Susitna River 8 (A/M)
DEFINITIONS
Feature as Proposed W/ Mitigation
Compatible Compatible
(a,c,d)
a. Additional study required to consider alternative solutions, sites or corridor alignments with less
impact on scenic quality.
b. The use of best development practices to minimize construction-related effects on the landscape and
to guide post-construction cleanup and rehabilitation of disturbed areas.
c. The use of creative engineering design to assure that project features are well designed and are in
themselves positive visual features.
d. The use of form, line, color or textures. appropriate to the landscape character type.
PROJECT FEATURES IMPACTS STEPS 7,8
PROJECT FEATURE
2 DEVIL CANYON DAM VISITOR CENTER
FEATURE DESCRIPTION
. Located above the dam on the south s1de of the river • . See Watana visitor center description above. No botanical garden •
FEATURE IMPACTS
All proposed facilities are to be designed as part of the design character of the damsite and the
existing landscape character.
WITHIN LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPE AESTHETIC IMPACT RATING
CHARACTER TYPE ... COMPOSITE Feature as Proposed WI Mitigation
RATING
Chulitna Moist Tundra Uplands 8 (A/M) Compatible Compatible
(a,c,d)
DEFINITIONS
. a. Additional study required to consider alternative solutions, sites or corridor alignments with less
impact on scenic quality.
b. The use of best development practices to minimize construction-related effects on the landscape and
to guide post~onstruction cleanup and rehabilitation of disturbed areas.
c. The use of creative engineering design to assure that project features sre well designed and are in
themselves positive visual features.
d. The use of form, line, color or textures appropriate to the landscape character type.
-PROJECT FEATURES IMPACTS STEPS 7,8
PRO"IECT FEATURE -3 SHELlERS
-FEATURE DESCRIPTION
. Rustic log cabin type structures of 200 to 300 square ft (18 square m to 27 square m) in size. . Used as a warming shelter and place to get in from the weather.
-
FEATURE IMPACTS -• Shelters are located in landscapes which are capable of absorbing this use.
• Specific sites will be chosen for minimal disruption.
-
WITHIN LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPE AESTHETIC IMPACT RATING
CHARACTER TYPE ... COMPOSITE Feature as Propos.ed WI Mitigation ·
RATING
Chulitna Moist Tundra Uplands 8 (A/M) Compatible Compatible
(Mermaid Lake) (c,d)
Chulitna Mountains (Tsusena 9 (A/L) Compatible Compatible
C~eek-Caribou Pass) (c,d)
Susitna Upland Wet Tundra Basin 7 (8/L) Compatible Compatible
,(Tyone River confluence (c,d)
W/Susitna)
DEFINITIONS
a. Additional. study required to consider alternative solutions, sites or corridor alignments with less
impact on scenic quality.
-b. The use of best development practices to minimize construction-related effects on the landscape and
to guide post-construction cleanup and rehabilitation of disturbed areas.
' ' c. The use of creative engineering design to assure that project features are well designed and are in
themselves positive visual features. -d. The use of form, line, color or textures appropriate to the landscape character type.
PROJECT FEATURES IMPACTS STEPS 7,8
PROJECT FEATURE
4 SEMI-DEVELOPED CAMPGROUND
FEATURE DESCRIPTION
• Walk-in designated campground area with hardened tent pad and fire pit for each unit •
• Rest rooms (pit toilet).
FEATURE IMPACTS
Landscape settings contain sufficient topography and vegetation to absorb development with little
aesthetic impact.
WITHIN LANDSCAPE
CHARACTER TYPE ...
Susitna Upland Terrace
(Fog Lakes and Stephen Lake)
Chulitna Moist Tundra
Uplands (Mermaid Lake)
DEFINITIONS
LANDSCAPE
COMPOSITE
RATING
7 (B/L)
8 (A/M)
AESTHETIC IMPACT RATING
Feature as Proposed W/ Mitigation
Compatible
Compatible
a. Additional study required to consider alternative solutions, sites or corridor alignments with less
impact on scenic quality.
b. The use of best development practices to minimize construction-related effects on the landscape and
to guide post-construction cleanup and rehabilitation of disturbed areas.
c. The use of creative engineering design to assure that project Features are well designed and are in
themselves positive visual Features. ·
d. The use of form, line, color or textures appropriate to the landscape character type.
-
PROJECT FEATURES IMPACTS STEPS 7,8
PROJECT FEATURE
5 PRIMlllVE CAMPING
FEATURE DESCRIPTION
• General area designated but no development.
-
-
FEATURE IMPACTS -No impacts anticipated.
1 • Overuse might cause vegetation and soil degradation in popular areas.
!""" WITHIN LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPE AESTHETIC IMPACT RATING
CHARACTER TYPE ... COMPOSITE Feature as Proposed WI Mitigation
RATING
r-Chulitna Mountains 9 (A/L) Compatible
Wet Upland Tundra 7 (B/L) Compatible
~ ~usitna Uplands 7 (8/L) Compatible
!""" ~------------------------~-----------------L------------------------~-------------------;
DEFINITIONS
~""" a. Additional study required to consider alternative solutions, sites or corridor alignments with less
impact on scenic quality.
-b. The use of best development practices to minimize construction-related effects on the landscape and
to guide post-construction cleanup and rehabilitation of disturbed areas.
c. The use of creative engineering design to assure that project features are well designed and are in
themselves positive visual features •
. ~L-__ d_. __ T_h_e_u_s_e_o_f __ fu_r_m_, __ ll-·n_e_,_c_o_l_or __ o_r_t~e-x_tu_r_e_s_~ __ p~r-op_r_i_at_e __ t_o_t_h_e __ la_n_d_sc_a_p_e_c_h_a_r_ac_t_e_r_t_y_p_e_. ________________ ~
PROJECT FEATURES IMPACTS
PROJECT FEATURE
6 DEVELOPED TRAILS
FEATURE DESCRIPTION
. Cleared and hardened (compacted) trail 2 to 3 ft (0.6 m to 0.9 m) wide. Portions of established game
trails may be utilized.
• Trail destination and mileage markers •
• Explanatory signage-landscape-environment-views.
!"7-
FEATURE IMPACTS
. Trails will follow natural landforms and avoid areas where vegetation and soil degradation would
result from human activity. . Visual intrusion will be minimized • . Jl.b impacts are anticipated •
WITHIN LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPE AESTHETIC IMPACT RATING ~:
CHARACTER TYPE ... COMPOSITE Feature as Proposed WI Mitigation
RATING
Chulitna Mountains 9 (A/L) Compatible
Wet Upland Tundra 7 (B/L) Compatible
Chulitna Moist Tundra Upland 8 (A/H) Compatible
Devil Canyon 9 (A/L) Compatible
Susitna Upland Terrace 7 (B/L) Compatible
Susitna Uplands 7 (B/L) Compatible
DEFINITIONS
a. Additional study required to consider alternative
impact on scenic quality.
solutions, sites or corridor alignments with less
b. The use of best development practices to minimize construction-related effects on the landscape and
to guide post-construction cleanup and rehabilitation of disturbed areas.
c. The use of creative engineering design to assure that project features are well
themselves positive visual features.
designed and are in
d. The use of form, line, color or textures appropriate to the landscape character type.
,.... PROJECT FEATURES IMPACTS STEPS 7,8
PROJECT FEATURE
,_. 7 PRIMITIVE TRAILS
-
-
-
-
-
-
,....
-I
-
-:
,-.
FEATURE DESCRIPTION
• Suggested trail corridors. No physical trail development.
FEATURE IMPACTS
• No impacts are anticipated from normal use.
, Potential negative impacts would result with overuse causing degradation of vegetation and soils.
WITHIN LANDSCAPE
CHARACTER TYPE ...
Chulitna Mountains
Talkeetna Mount~Lns
LANDSCAPE
COMPOSITE
RATING
9 (A/L)
9 (A/L)
AESTHETIC IMPACT RATING
Feature as Proposed W/ Mitigation
Compatible
Compatible
DEFINITIONS
a.
b.
c.
d.
Addi-tional study required to consider alternative solutions, sites or corridor alignments with less
impact ~n scenic quality.
The use of best development practices to minimize construction-related effects on the landscape and
to guide post-construction cleanup and ·rehabilitation of disturoed areas.
The use of creative engineering design to assure that project features are well designed and ara in
themselves positive visual features.
The use of form, line, color or textures appropriate to the landscape character type.
PROJECT FEATURES IMPACTS STEPS 7,8
PROJECT FEATURE
8 TRAILHEADS
(Located along Access Roads, Reservoir Landings and at Lakes)
FEATWRE DESCRIPTION
Road pulloffs with parking for 3-5 cars. Same gravel surface as road.
Trail destination and mileage markers. . Reservoir trailheads will be anchored boat tie-ups •
FEATURE IMPACTS
Increases the scale of the access roads and potentially larger cuts and fills in these areas.
WITHIN LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPE AESTHETIC IMPACT RATING
CHARACTER TYPE ... COMPOSITE Feature as Proposed WI Mitigation
RATING
Wet Upland Tundra 7 (B/L) Compatible
Chulitna Mountains 9 (A/L) Compatible
Chulitna Moist Tundra Uplands 8 (A/M) Compatible
Devil Canyon 9 (A/L) Compatible
Susitna River 8 (A/M) Compatible
Susitna Uplands 7 (B/L) Compatible
DEFINITIONS
a. Additional study required to consider alternative solutions, sites or corridor alignments with less
impact on scenic quality.
b. The use of best development practices to minimize construction-related effects on the landscape and
to guide post-construction cleanup and rehabilitation of disturbed areas.
c. The use of creative engineering design to assure that project features are well designed and are in
themselves positive visual features.
'
d. The use of form, line, color or textures appropriate to the landscape character type.
PROJECT FEATURES IMPACTS STEPS 7,8
PROJECT FEATURE
9 SCENIC VISTA/ROAD PULLOFFS
FEATURE DESCRIPTION
0 Parking for 3-5 cars adjacent to road. Same gravel surface as road.
• Explanatory signage of landscape-environment-views •
-
FEATURE IMPACTS
Increases the scale of the access roads with potentially larger cuts and fills in these areas.
WITHIN LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPE AESTHETIC IMPACT RATING
CHARACTER TYPE ... COMPOSITE Feature as Proposed WI Mitigation
RATING
Wet Upland Tundra 7 (8/L) Compatible
Chulitna Mountains 9 (A/L) Compatible
Chulitna Moist Tundra Uplandf B (A/M) Compatible
OEFINlTIONS
a. Additional study required to consider alternative solutions, sites or corridor alignments with less
impact on scenic quality.
b. The use of best development practices to minimize construction-related effects on the landscape and
]~ to guide post-construction cleanup and rehabilitation of disturbed areas.
c. The use of creative engineering design to assure that project features are well designed and are in
themselves positive visual features.
d. The use of form, line, color or textures appropriate to the landscape character type.
-
-
-
-
APPENDIX E8G
Illustrations of Possible Mitigation Measures
-
-
-
!"'""
-
r
-
-'
-
MINIMIZE SITE DISRUPTION FOR ROAD AND TOWER CONSTRUCTION
95' 105' 95'
55'
1 1 1 1 3:
0 3: a::
0 a:: LL
0 LL
0
IJJ
(!)
0
IJJ
55' I 40' .... 401
VEGETATION TO TEN FEET HIGH TO REMAIN
EXCEPT AT MAINTENANCE ACCESS
CREATE IRREGULAR NATURALISTIC EDGE TO MAJOR
VEGETATION TYPES
TRANSMISSION Ll N ES
LIMIT OF CLEARING il
CREATE IRREGULAR NATURALISTIC EDGE TO MAJOR VEGETATION TYPES
TYPICAL TRANSMISSION LINE CORRIDOR
PLAN AND SECTION
EDGE OF ROW
-
-
-
-
-
-
REVEGETATE WITH INDIGENOUS PLANT SPECIES
BY SCARIFICATION AND NATURAL SEEDING
(REFER TO CHAPTER 3 )
REDUCE SLOPE GRADIENT THROUGH DITCH
SECTIONS TO BLEND INTO EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY
TYPICAL ROAD SECTION
-
-I
-
-
-
PROPOSED RAILROAD SECTION
TO AVOID NEGATIVE VISUAL IMPACTS, CUTTING OF
STEEP RIVER SIDE SLOPES SHOULD BE AVOIDED
(MAXIMUM CONDITION).
----------------~-~-------------
RAILROAD BEDS CONSTRUCTED WITH SUCH A FILL
SECTION OVER WETLAND AREAS WILL RESTRICT
NATURAL WATER FLOW RESULTING IN POTENTIAL
BIOTIC AND AQUATIC IMPACTS.
MITIGATION
TRESTLE STRUCTURES WOULD MINIMIZE SLOPE
DISTURBANCE AND BE AN ATTRACTIVE FEATURE.
TRESTLE STRUCTURES OVER WETLAND AREAS
WILL ALLOW NATURAL DRAINAGE AND LESSEN
ENVIRONMENTAL AND AESTHETIC IMPACTS.
-
.-
'
-
-
-
-
-
-
-'
PROPOSED EMERGENCY
SPfLLWAY (BOTH DAMS)
~-----
AS PROPOSED, THE EMERGENCY SPILLWAYS FOR
BOTH DAMS WILL RESULT IN SIGNIFICANT VISUAL
IMPACTS.
PROPOSED MAIN
SPILLWAY (BOTH DAMS)
STEEP CUT SIDE SLOPES DEVOID OF VEGETATION
WILL BE VISUALLY UNATTRACTIVE.
MITIGATION
TERRACED SIDE SLOPES WOULD LESSEN ADVERSE
VISUAL IMPACTS AND BE MORE IN CHARACTER
WITH THE EXISTING LANDSCAPE.
MITIGATION
TERRACED SIDE SLOPES WITt+ SOIL POCKETS FOR
INVASION OF NATIVE PLANT SPECIES WI-LL LESSEN
ADVERSE VISUAL IMPACTS.
r
-
r
.....
-I
GLOSSARY
Absorption Capability-A measure of the natural sensitivity of a
landscape to alteration. Factors such as the potential for human
experience, compatible site relationships, and aesthetic values
are commonly considered.
Aesthetic Value-A measure of the relative overall importance of
the visual landscape, including such components as distinctive-
ness, uniqueness, harmony and balance.
Compatible -A relationship between the existing landscape and man-
made features in which the proposed elements are designed in fit-
ness with the character of the existing landscape.
Distinctiveness -A measure of the visual impression of an area; a
landscape where landforms, waterforms, rocks, vegetative or soil
patterns are of outstanding and memorable visual quality.
Harmony and Balance -A measure of the degree to which all elements
of the landscape form a unified composition. This includes the
level of integration of man-made elements in a natural setting.
Landscape Character Type (LCT) -Landscape Character Types are a
description and classification of coherent units of the landscape
which are used as a frame of reference to classify the physical
features of an area. They are, for the most part, based on
physiographic units, and represent land areas with common distin-
guishing visual characteristics such as landform, geologic forma-
tion, waterform and vegetation pattern.
Observer Position -The location or point from where an individual
views the landscape.
View Duration -The length of time an individual views the land-
scape from a particular position.
Rarity-A measure of the relative scarcity or commonality of the
landscape. Due to Alaska•s vast and numerous high-quality land-
scapes, rarity will have two levels of meaning for the purpose of
this report.
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
VOLU~IE 8
EXHIBIT E
LAND USE
CHAPTER 9
-I
-
-
-
-
-
11""'
I
!
f"""'
!"""
-
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
VOLUME 8
EXHIBIT E CHAPTER 9
LAND USE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
1-INTRODUCTION ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• E-9-1
1.1 -Purpose and Approach ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• E-9-1
1.1.1 -Objectives ·~···············~················· E-9-1
1.1.2-General Discussion of Land Use Evaluation
Procedures ••••••• ~ ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• E-9~2
' 1.2 -Summary of Current Land Status Issues
in the Project Area •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• E-9-3
1.3-Summary of Land Use in the Project Area •••••••••••••• E-9-4
1.3.1 -Historical Land Use •••••••••••••••••••••••••• E-9-4
1.3.2-Existing Land Use •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• E-9-5
1.4 -Summary of Land Use Management Planning
in the Project Area •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• E-9-5
1. 5 -Summary of Major Anticipated Land Use Changes •••••••• E-9-6
1. 5.1 -Land Status ...........••....•................ E-9-6
1.5.2 -Land Use Activity •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• E-9-6
1. 5. 3 -Land Use Development ••••••••••••••••••••••••• E-9-6
2-DESCRIPTION ON EXISTING LAND USE ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• E-9-9
2.1 -Description of Existing Land Status
in the Project Area •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• E-9-9
2.2 -Description of Existing Land Use
in the Project Area ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
2.2.1 -Description of Land Use Evaluation Procedures
2.2.2 -Existing Land Use Activity •••••••••••••••••••
2.2.3-Existing Land Use Development ••••••••••••••••
2.2.4-Special Lands ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
2.3 -Description of Existing Land Use Management
Plans for the Project Area •••••••••••••••••••••••••••
3 -DESCRIPTION OF LAND USE CHANGES ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
3.1 -Dams and Impoundment Areas .•••••••••••••••••••••••••••
3.1.1-Proposed Facilities ••••••••••••••••••••••••••
3.1.2 -Induced Land Use Changes •••••••••••••••••••••
3.2 -
3.3 -
3.1.3-Mitigation •••o••••oo••••o••··················
Construction Camps and Villages o •••••• o ••••••• o •• o •••
3.2.1-Proposed Facilities ···••o••••···········•o••o
3.2.2-Induced Land Use Changes •o••o••····•••ooooo•o
3.2o3-Mitigation ••o•o•••·······••o••···············
Recreation •••••••••..•...•••••••••••••.•••.•••••••.••
3.3.1-Proposed Facilities o••o•••••••••oo••·········
3.3.2-Induced Land Use Changes •••••o•••••••••o••o•o
3.3.3-Mitigation •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
E-9-13
E-9-13
E-9-16
E-9-18
E-9-21
E-9-27
E-9-31
E-9-31
E-9-31
E-9-32
E-9-33
E-9-33
E-9-33
E-9-34
E-9-36
E-9-37
E-9-37
E-9-38
E-9-39
TABLE OF CONTENTS
3. 4 -Access ............................................. E-9-40
3.4.1-Proposed Facilities ........................ E-9-40
3.4.2-Induced Land Use Changes ................... E-9-42
3.4.3 -Mitigation ................................. E-9-46
3.5 -Transmission ....................................... E-9-46
3.5.1-Proposed Facilities ........................ E-9-46
3.5.2-Induced Land Use Changes ................... E-9-49
3.5.3 -Mitigation ................................. E-9-51
3.6-Changes in Land Use Without the Project ............ E-9-52
4-DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES IN LAND STATUS AND MANAGEMENT ..... E-9-53
4.1-Land Status Changes Resulting from the Project ..... E-9-53
4.2-Land Status Changes Without the Project ............ E-9-54
4.3 -Land management Changes Resulting from the Project . E-9-54
4.4-Land management Changes Without the Project ........ E-9-56
5-AGENCY CONSULTATION AND MITIGATION PLANS ................. E-9-57
6-AUTHORITIES CONTACTED .................................... E-9-59
REFERENCES
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES i i
,-
-
-i
r
!
-
-
LIST OF TABLES
E.9.1-Parcels By La,nd Status/Ownership Category
E.9.2 -Summary of Land Status/Ownership in
Project Area
E.9.3-Use Information for Existing Structures
in the Middle Susitna River Basin
E.9.4-Major Trails in the Middle Susitna
River Basin
E.9.5 -Existing Structures in the Susitna
Hydroelectric Impoundment Vicinity
r
-
-
-
LIST OF FIGURES
Table Title
E. 9.1 -Susitna Hydroelectric Project Area
E.9.2 -Procedures for Alaska Land Acquisition
E.9.3 -Land Status of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project Area
E.9.4 -Land Status of the Anchorage -Willow Transmission Line
E.9.5 -Land Status of the Healy -Fairbanks Transmission Line-South
E.9.6 -Land Status of the Healy -Fairbanks Transmission Line -North
E.9.7 -Study Areas for Land Use Jlnalysis
E.9.8 -Land Use Aggregations Sustina Hydroelectric Impoundment Area
E.9.9 -Existing Structures Sustina Hydroelectric Impoundment Area
E.9.10 -Anchorage -Willow Transmission Line Land Use Developnent
(1 of 3
E.9.10-Anchorage-Willow Transmission Line Land Use Development
(2 of 3)
E.9.10-Anchorage-Willow Transmission Line Land Use Developnent
(3 of 3)
E.9.11-Healy-Fairbanks Transmission Line Land Use Development-
Sou t h ( 1 of. 3 )
E.9.11 -Healy -Fairbanks Transmission Line Land Use Development -
South (2 of 3)
E.9.11-Healy-Fairbanks Transmisston Line Land Use Development-
South (3 of 3)
E.9.12-Healy-Fairbanks Transmission Line Land Use Developnent-
North (1 of 3)
E.9.12 -Healy -Fairbanks Transmission Line Land Use Developnent -
North (2 of 3)
£.9.12-Healy -Fairbanks Transmission Line Land Use Development-
North ( 3 of 3)
i i
LIST OF FIGURES
E.9.13-Flood Plain Information, Talkeetna, Alaska
E.9.14-BLM Denali Planning Block
E.9.15-Biophysical Coastal Boundary Matanuska -Susitna Borough
Coastal Management Program
E.9.16 -Susitna Hydroelectric Project Facilities
E.9.17 -Watana General Layout Site Facilities
E. 9.18 Devil Canyon General Layout Site Fac il iti es
i ; i
r···-
-
-
-
9 -LAND USE
1 INTRODUCTION
The direct and indirect effects of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project on
1 and use are analyzed and changes in use that would occur with and
without the project are addressed in this chapter. The analysis con-
sidered project components, including the dams, reservoirs, the access
transportation system, transmission, and construction camps and vil-
lages. The potential effects of the project are assessed in relation
to three major land use factors: land use development, dispersed use
and activity, and land ownership/stewardship. To avoid redundancy,
certain 1 and use aspects have been addressed in other chapters of
Exh·ibit E. These are: Recreation in Chapter 7, Aesthetics in Chapter
8, Wetlands in Chapter 3, Navigation in Chapter 2, and Socioeconomics
in Chapter 5.
Since the 1940s, the Susitna River has been considered for hydropower
development and several preliminary plans for such development have
been prepared (see Figure E.9.1). Proposals prior to 1980, which in-
cluded one to four reservoirs, did not proceed beyond the pre-feas i-
bility analysis stage. The present project is located in the Middle
Susitna Basin and focuses on a two-dam development: one at Devil
Canyon and one near Tsusena Creek (Watana damsite). These.two struc-
tures would create elongated reservoirs 0.5 to 1 mile (0.8 to 1.6 km)
wide, except for a portion of the Watana reservoir, which would be 5
miles (8 km) wide.
Land use activity and development within the project area has been
minimal. Historical land use activity has been hunting, fishing and
trapping. Land use development has been related mainly to hunting and
fishing activities.
Summaries resulting from land use analysis have been presented pre-
viously in Alaska Power Authority, Susitna Hydroelectric Project, Envi-
ronmental Studies Subtask 7.07: Land Use Analysis, Phase I Report,
April 1982.
1.1 -Purpose and Approach
1.1.1 -Objectives
The land use analysis includes an evaluation of the changes ·in
land use likely to be caused by the project and provides the
basis for summarizing the overall land use impacts of the proj-
ect. The analysis was designed to pro vi de baseline data and an
impact assessment to:
E-9-1
1.1 -Purpose and Approach
-Describe past, present, and future land use;
-!dent i fy potentia 1 changes in 1 and use resulting from the
development of the project; ·
Describe past, present, and potential future land status;
-Identify potential changes in land status resulting from the
project development;
-Evaluate the project's impacts on land use and land status;
and
-Identify mitigative measures to minimize impacts.
The scope of work is temporally limited from 1940 to present and
geographically by study area boundaries established during the
first year of the analysis {Chapter 1 of Exhibit E).
The land use analysis descr·ibes and evaluates land development,
dispersed use activities and land management. It does not gener-
ate data concerning the use of the land by various animal
species, nor does it include other detailed descriptions of the
physical environment. Information on these subjects is provided
in Chapters 3 and 6 of Exhibit E.
1.1.2-General Discussion of Land Use Evaluation Procedures
Present land use development in the Susitna Project area is
subtle and widely dispersed. Aerial photographs and topographic
maps were used to locate cultural features such as trails, struc-
tures, and other indications of past and present land use. An
oral history technique was employed to aid in identifying present
dispersed land use activities. Present patterns of human land
use within the project area and the forces that created different
types of use were evaluated. Aerial and ground surveys verified
many of the present land use patterns discernible from the oral
history interviews.
The land use analysis is divided into two parts: historic and
existing land use, and future land use. Land use during these
periods is described by summarizing acquisistion and settlement,
land management, and the use or alteration of specific resources.
Three categories were considered when analyzing land use change:
1) dispersed and isolated non-site-specific activity; 2) land use
inherently associated with site-specific activity; and 3) re-
source management.
E-9-2
, .. -,
~,
-
-
-
·-
-
1". 2 -Summary of Current Land Stat us Issues in the Project Area
Dispersed and isolated non-site-specific activity includes
patterns of activity that are generally non-contiguous and do not
involve a commitment of resources at any particular site. These
include consumptive, recreational, or subsistence activity such
as hunting and fishing; and dispersed activity such as camping,
hiking, and photography.
Land use inherently associated with site-specific activity in-
cludes that involving some form of long-term development or other
commitment of resources. These include residences, commercial
properties (primarily recreational), mining, agriculture, and
trans port at ion.
Resource management involves consideration of present and pro-
posed land management plans developed by agencies with existing
or pending jurisdiction. Examples are fish and wildlife manage-
ment, dispersed recreation management, and off-road ve~icle man-
agement prepared by federal, state, or local agencies, or Native
corporations. Native claims, land values, and status of land
ownership were also considered during land use analysis.
1.2 -Summary of Current Land Status Issues in the Project Area
The 1 and status in the project area is complex. Most of the 1 and in
the Susitna drainage area is owned by the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM). There are two state land disposal areas west of the project,
and small, private parcels, and Native-conveyed land in the project
area. The Alaska Statehood Act of 1958 and the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act of 1971 (ANCSA) withdrew the land in the project vici-
nity from development and acquisition. The Statehood Act authorized
the state to select 100 million acres (40 million ha) of federal land
in Alaska. These land selections triggered Alaska Native protests over
the land selections. The resolution of the dispute over possessory
rights of the Alaska Natives was the enactm~nt of ANCSA (Price 1982).
Under ANCSA, the Alaska Natives received over 40 mill ion acres (16
mill ion ha) of land and approximately $1 bill ion. Furthermore, the
Alaska Native villages were required to incorporate under state ·law.
Most of the lands in the dam and impoundment vicinity have been
withdrawn for Native and state selection (Arnold 1978).
The Cook In 1 et Region, Inc. ( CIR I) and associated village corporations
have selected lands along the river. Some lands along the river have
been conveyed from the BLM to CIRI, and are subject to Section 24 of
the Federal Power Act.
The state also selected land along the Susitna River. State selection
has been suspended until the Native corporations complete their selec-
tion. Upon conveyance of Native selections, the state will assume the
remaining selected lands for its selection allotment.
E-9-3
1.3 -Summary of Land Use in the Project Area
1. 3.1 -Historical Land Use
The magnitude, isolation, and location of the Susitna project
area in a subarctic environment result in extremely low-density
land use. Historical artifacts are of great significance for the
overall characterization of activities within a certain time
period and geographic location. Their existence indicates
explicit human activity and provides a clear description of the
basic activity carried on by man in that area.
Historical artifacts which were identified to describe past
activities included manmade objects used in the project area be-
tween 1940 and 1980. Information relating general location and
use to each existing artifact was reported by oral history inter-
viewees directly associated with the project area, current-day
users of the project area, and researchers working at speci fie
project area locations. All reported artifacts were located and
verified in the field and were used to identify previous land use
in the project area. Historical artifacts found within the proj-
ect area were 1) structures, which include cabins, cabin founda-
tions, food caches, lean-to's, storage sheds, buildings, lodges,
and tent platforms; 2) roads, trails, airstrips; and 3) other
objects, such as abandoned vehicles, bridges, etc.
Structures are associated with activities such as hunting, fish-
; ng, trapping, food or equipment storage, research, recreation
(such as skiing, swimming, and photography), and mining. Basic
categories covering the frequency in which the existing struc-
tures were used consist of: 1) no use; 2) past seasonal use; 3)
past and present seasonal use; 4) past year-round use; 5) past
and present year-round use; and 6) no use information.
Most of the historical artifacts are associated with some means
of access. Unpaved roads and trails were used for access to and
from certain points in the project area. Horses, as well as
vehicles such as tracked vehicles, four-wheel drive vehicles,
rolligons, and dog sleds were used for freighting, for transpor-
tation within the area, and for access to the project area. Air-
strips on gravel bars or flat ground were commonly located in the
proximity of other historical artifacts such as cabins, trails,
or lodges. Trails emanate from existing structures and connect
with airstrips, lakes (on which ski or floatplanes landed), fish-
ing streams, or another structure.
A review of the historical artifacts reveals that they were
sparsely distributed throughout the project area and used on a
seasonal basis. The majority of the artifacts were used for
hunting, fishing, trapping, boating, mining, or other general
recreation purposes, such as cross-country skiing or photography.
E-9-4 r---.,
-
-
-
-
1.4-Summary of Land Use Management Planning in the Project Area
The artifacts were most densely located near the aggregations of
lakes that are accessible by air.
Details of historical land use in the project area are presented
in the Alaska Power Authority, Susitna Hydroelectric Project,
Environmental Studies, Subtask 7.07, Land Use Analysis, Phase I
Report, April 1982.
1.3.2 -Existing Land Use
Existing land use activity and development has evolved from the
utilization of the resource base as a source of income, food,
shelter, and recreation. As in the past, access continues to
determine the types and levels of land use in the Middle Susitna
River Basin. Trails represent environmental modifications and
reflect general use patterns.
(a)
(b)
Land Use Activity
Existing use patterns have been identified for hunting,
fishing, trapping, mining, recreation, and hydroelectric
research. Access is by means of road, trails, waterways or
air. The most intensive activity is .concentrated along the
Denali Highway and at established lodges and cabins.
Land Use Development
Developments typically include small clusters of cabins.
There are approximately 109 structures within 18 miles
(30 km) of the Susitna River between Gold Creek and the
Tyone River, including four lodges involving 21 structures.
Concentrations of residences, cabins, or other structures
are near Otter Lake, Portage Creek, High Lake, Gold Creel,
Chuni l na Creek, Stephan Lake, Clarence Lake, and Big Lake.
Some sections of the transmission corridor, particularly
near the Alaska Railroad and Parks Highway, include land
developments; other sections have virtually no developed
land use. ·
The greatest concentrations of development are in the
Stephan Lake area (13 cabins, one lodge, outbuildings, and
airstrip) and the Portage Creek m·ining area (19 cabins and
related buildings). Chunilna Creek and Gold Creek alsu have
some mining development. Three commercial lodge operations
are located at High, Tsusena, and Stephan lakes.
1.4-Summary of Land Use Management Planning in the Project Area
There has been little land management, and there are no definitive com-
prehensive land use plans in effect for the project a rea. The state
E-9-5
1.5-Summary of Major Anticipated Land Use Changes
and Mat-Su Borough have initiated preliminary resource studies that
serve as the basis for policy development.
1.5 -Summary of Major Anticipated Land Use Changes
The construction of a two-dam hydroelectric project, access transporta-
tion system, transmission facilities, construction camps and villages,
recreation facilities, and other components is a major development,
especially in a wilderness area. It will create developed areas,
increase access and activity patterns, effect transfer of land owner-
ship, and redirect land management.
1.5.1 -Land Status
The proposed project will be located in areas involving signifi-
cant amounts of Native and state selected lands. Implementation
of the project will require purchasing or obtaining rights-of-way
to project lands. Increased land management will be required to
respond to increased use.
1.5.2 -Land Use Activity
The project will result in significant increases in activity pat-
terns in the middle Susitna Basin involving hunting, fishing,
camping, boating, and dispersed recreation. Persons who current-
ly use the Middle Susitna Basin will have to adjust to the in-
creased use or move to other areas.
1.5.3-Land Use Development
The project will result in removal of ten structures in the
impoundment areas. Construction and emplacement of facilities
will involve conversion of land to project use.
Significant impacts involve the loss of Devil Canyon and Deadman
Falls, and considerable surface disturbanc;e resulting from con-
struction activities. The remote character of many areas will
diminish with the installation of large-scale, man-made facili-
ties. The access road will pass within 1.5 miles (2.5 km) of a
remote wilderness lodge on the shores of High Lake.
Some negative impacts can be reduced through careful placement of
project facilities and the rehabilitation of disturbed surface
areas. Policies to control the extent and location of use can be
instituted to m1n1m1Ze and confine negative impacts resulting
from increased access.
Assessment of project construction and operation impacts
involves comparison of the potential direct and induced changes
in land use with the land use patterns likely to evolve in the
E-9-6
,.-,
-
-
-I
I
1.5 -Summary of Major Anticipated Land Use Changes
absence of any project. Making a definitive forecast of future
1 and use for the project area is affected by many factors,
including:
-Subtle and dispersed land use patterns;
-Little active land management; there are no comprehensive man-
agement plans that would indicate future use;
-Unresolved questions of land ownership and tenure: federal and
state agencies and Native groups are presently involved in a
process of selection and transfer of lands; and
-Minimal land use activity due to the remoteness of the area.
E-9-7
-
-
-
-
2 -DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING LAND USE
2.1 -Description of Existing Land Status in the Project Area
The procedures for land acquisition in Alaska are complex, as illus-
trated in Figure E.9.2.
Table E.9.1 displays various land holdings in the vicinity of the
proposed project impoundment area, and Table E.9.2 summarizes those
hol d·i ngs by status/ownership category.
Figure E.9.3 illustrates the land status in the impoundment area.
Figure E.9.4 illustrates the land status in the vicinity of the
Anchorage-Willow transmission line. Figures E.9.5 and E.9.6 illustrate
the land status of the Healy-Fairbanks transmission line vicinity.
The following definitions of land classifications pertain to the lands
within the vicinity of the Susitna project.
Federal: Lands under jurisdiction of the BLM, the Alaska Railroad, or
the U.S. Department of Army or Air Force.
Native Allotments: Native individuals were allowed by the Native
Allotment Act of 1906 to file for allotments of up to 160 acres on
unoccupied federal land.
State Selected: The state receives land from the federal government in
a three-step process. The state first applies to the BLM for land that
becomes classified as state selected.
State Selection Tentatively Approved or State T.A.: State selected
land approved by the federal government for transference to the state.
State Selection Patented: Federal lands conveyed to the state.
Once patented, the state of Alaska will classify land in one of the
following classifications to identify its resource value.
Agricultural
Commerical
Forest
Grazing
Greenbelt
Industria 1
Material
Mineral
Private Recreation
Public Recreation
Reserved Use
Residential
Resource Assessment
Resource Management
Uti 1 ity
Watershed
Wildlife Habitat
Unclassified
Land may be reclassified or declassified if a new land use plan, or an
amendment to the original land use ~an, determines that such action is
appropriate.
E-9-9
2.1 -Description of Existing Land Status in the Project Area
The following classifications have been made in the vicinity of the
project, including the transmission lines.
-Private Recreation Land: Land classified as private recreation
because its rural 1 ocati on, physical features, or adjacent develop-
ment is suitable for private, low-density recreational development.
No land may be classified private recreation until present and poten-
tial public recreation needs in the area have been considered. Pri-
vate recreation land is available for mineral leasing, sale, lease,
or disposal, including remote parcel disposal.
-Agricultural Land: Land classified as agricultural because its loca-
tion, physical features, and climate may be suitable for agric~tural
use. Agricultural land is available for mineral leasing, disposal of
materials and timber, and for sale or lease of agricultural rights to
private individuals for agricultural use. Each agricultural parcel
has a 5 acre homesite available for patent.
-Material Land: Land classified as material land is most appropriate-
ly used for the extraction of materials such as sand, gravel or
stone, and where the removal of the material would prevent other use.
Material land may be used for purposes other than the extraction of
materials if such uses are compatible with the primary use. The area
must be restored to a condition compatible with adjacent uses once
material removal is complete. Material land is not available for
disposal.
-Resource Management Land: Land classified resource management is an
area identified as containing surface or subsurface resources (i.e.,
minerals, timber) that are especially suited to multiple-use manage-
ment. Resource management land is not available for disposal.
-Utility Land: Land classified utility does not lend itself to clas-
sifi~ation under other categories because of small or irregular tract
size or because its proposed use is not covered under other cate-
gories. Utility land is available for lease and disposal.
-Unclassified Land: Unclassified land is available for mineral leas-
ing, the acquisition of rights to locatable m·inerals, the limited
disposal of material and timber, the lease of small scale right-of-
ways, and municipal selection.
Borough or Municipality Approved or Patented: If state patented land
is vacant, unappropriated, or unreserved for a particular use, a
borough or a municipality can select the land until it fulfills its
entitlement through a process similar to that used by the state in
selecting federal lands. Borough or municipal selections can be made
from utility or unclassified land. State classification is inapplic-
able upon conveyance.
E-9-10
('CC"--
-' '
-
-
"""' '
r
-
2.1 -Description .of Existing Land Status in the Project Area
State Selection Suspended: Due to the conditions in land status in
south-central Alaska, some state selections in the project vicinity
were suspended until lands selected by Natives have been conveyed under
the provision of ANCSA. The Cook Inlet Land Exchange, Public Law
94-204, has an extensive Terms and Conditions document which allows the
state to acquire previously selected land after the conveyance of
corporation selected lands to CIRI.
Regional Corporation Selection: Lands selected by the regional corpor-
ations under provisions of ANCSA are selected similarly to those by the
state.
Region Corporation Selection Patented: Federal lands conveyed to the
corporation. Interim conveyance is allocated to the corporation if the
selected lands have not been surveyed.
Village Selection: Federal lands selected by Alaskan Natives, under
provisions of the ANCSA. The lands have traditionally been used for
their commercial resource value and subsistence hunting and fishing.
Most village corporations select land near villages or along rivers.
The village receives the surface rights and the regional corporation
receives the subsurface rights.
Village Selection Patented: Village selection conveyed to the village
corporation by the BLM. Interim conveyance is allocated to the corpor-
ation if the selected lands have not been surveyed.
Village corporations in the Cook Inlet Region receive village-selected
land by reconveyance from the regiona,l corporation, not the BLM. The
procedure for conveyance and reconveyance in the Cook Inlet Region is
exceptional to ANCSA. Normal proce.dures are that the region and vil-
1 age corporations select preferred 1 and and the BLM conveys 1 and di r-
ectly to the corporation.
By 1971, land in the Cook Inlet region had been patented to such an
extent that the Native corporations could not select their allocation
of usable lands within a BLM requirement of contiguity. The BLM clas-
sifies these 1 ands the Talkeetna Mountain Deficiency Lands.
Public law 94-456 allows the CIRI corporations to select land in a
checkerboard pattern. The BLM will convey a contiguous land selection
to CIRI and CIRI will reconvey the alloted lands selected by the vil-
lages.
The BLM had owned all the land in the project area except for some
small private parcels. Mining claims for placer mining presently occur
primarily on federal and state 1 and near Ester. Three 1 ow to medi urn
density mining areas are in the project impoundment vicinity. Private
parcels occur near Healy at the south end of the corridor, and in the
vicinity of Ferry, Nenana, and along Ester Creek in a mining district
at the north end of the Healy-Fairbanks transmission route.
E-9-11
2.1 -Description of Existing Land Status in the Project Area
State selection suspended land exists above and below the Native selec-
tion along the Susitna River.
The Devil Canyon and a portion of the Watana impoundment areas 1 ie
within the boundaries of CIRI selected land. Portage Creek, Stephan
and Fog Lakes are also within CIRI selection. Other Native regional
corporation selections include land in the Cantwell vicinity selected
by Ahtna, Inc., and Doyon, Ltd. selected land in the Healy-Fairbanks
transmission 1 ine route.
The BLM has i nteriml y conveyed to CIR I some sections adjacent to the
Susitna River. Part of these lands, however, have been filed as valu-
able lands to the United States for water-power sites. Therefore, the
sections of 1 and within the project impoundment area that have been
conveyed to C IR I are subject to the reservations of Section 24 of the
Federal Power Act. The land is open for entry and selection as a power
site and will not be destroyed for use as a power site by the owne.r.
No claim to compensation shall accrue from the occupation of the land
by the owners. Payment of damages to land use improvements wi 11 be
made to the owner in the case the site is selected for water-power de-
velopment. Controversy exists about the interpretation of the rights
of the landowner and of the water-power license under Section 24 of the
Federal Power Act.
The Watana-Devil Canyon access road traverses the state 1 ands and
Native selected land. The Denali Highway-Watana access road tra-
verses across BLM land. The Denali Highway from Cantwell to the access
road intersection traverses across state selection patented or tenta-
tively approved land, and Native village and regional selected land.
The Indian River Subdivision and Remote Parcel are private recreational
land west of the project impoundment area north of the Susitna River.
The Indian River Subdivision (T33N, R2W, Seward Meridian) lies near
mile 168 of the Parks Highway, northwest of Chulitna Butte. The dispo-
sal area has been subdivided into roads and 139 lots averaging 5 acres
(2 ha) per lot. The Indian River Remote Parcel, 1 ocated northeast of
the confluence of the Susitna and Indian Rivers, is south of the Indian
River Subdivision. This remote parcel (T31-32N, R2W S.M.) is located
east of, and adjacent to, Denali State Park. The Indian River Remote
Parcel will be divided into 75 parcels.
The Willow -Anchorage transmission corridor extends across Fort
Richardson Military Reserve for 18 miles (29 km), then across the muni-
cipality of Anchorage patented and selected lands, and Matanuska -
Susitna Borough property located approximately 10 miles (16 km) north
of Anchorage and east of Kni k Arm. The Sus itna Flats State Game Refuge
is resource management land within the Anchorage-Willow transmission
route. The predominant resources identified are public recreation and
wildlife habitat. Approximately 5 miles (8 km) of the line will tra-
verse across the Point MacKenzie agricultural sale property. There-
mainder of the transmission line route extends across state land
E-9-12
-
-!
I"""
I
-
·'1"-
1
-
,...
i
r
-
,....
I
2.2 -Description of Existing Land Use in the Project Area
until the vicinity of Willow. At Willow the study area encompasses
Holstein Heights Subdivision, state private recreation land in Section
20, Township 15 North, Range 4 west of the Seward Meridan {see Figure
E.9.10). Private land is interspersed with Mat-Su Borough selected
land. The selection of the proposed route avoided private lands to
minimize the impact of the line to residents {see Figure E.9.4).
The Healy-Fairbanks transmission corridor traverses the U.S. Air Force
Clear M.E.W.S. Military Reserve land for approximately 10 miles (16 km)
in the vicinity of Anderson. The ltne extends across state selected
land, much of which has been patented or tentatively approved. The
transmission route between Healy and Fairbanks will pass the Keystone
Extension (Section 10, T1S, R2W, FM), Alder View (Section 21, T1S, R3W,
FM), Healy Small Tracts {Section 12, T1S, R8W, FM), and Northridge Sub-
divisions (Section 17, TlS, R2W, FM) on the west side of the Parks
Highway. The proposed line will parallel an existing transmission line
when traversing these private recreation disposal areas. Numerous
material land sites are located within the Healy-Fairbanks transmission
line route. The Healy-to-Fairbanks transmission route extends across
Fairbanks North Star Borough selected 1 and at the north end of the
corridor (see Figure E.9.5 and E.9.6). A number of proposed land dis-
posal areas exist along the transmission corridor. The exact location,
future status, and potential for impact of these areas is being dis-
cussed with the Alaska Department of Natural Resources.
Existing values for land required for project use have not been es-
tablished by any federal, state or Native agency. State 1 and disposals
have been acquired privately by 1 ottery. The right-of-way for the
Alaska Power Authority's Willow-Healy transmission intertie line has
been appraised. Land value of the proposed transmission routes may be
similar where adjacent to that route and higher as the proposed routes
encroach upon the increased land use development and management of
Anchorage and Fairbanks.
2.2-Description of Existing Land Use in the Project Area
2.2.1 -Description of Land Use Evaluation Procedures
Specific procedures and steps involved in the land use analysis
are discussed below.
(a) Study Areas
Based upon preliminary project descriptions, three study
areas (Zones 1, 2, and 3) were defined fo~ existing land use
analysis (Figure E.9.7). These zones were designated
according to geographic and land use relationships with the
proposed project and extend in varying widths from the -
Susitna River between the mouth of the Tyone River and Gold
Creek.
E-9-13
2.2 -Description of Existing Land Use in the Project Area
Zone 1 includes those structures and land uses that would be
affected by inundation. Zone 2, extending about 6 miles
(1 0 km) from Zone 1, is based upon the location of lakes
which characterize aggregations of land use. Zone 3, ex-
tending approximately 12 miles (20 km) beyond Zone 2, is
distinguished by fewer aggregations of land use; existing
structures and land use are sparse. In addition to an
assessment of the effects of the dams and impoundments and
closely related facilities, the land use analysis also in-
volved evaluating the impacts of the transmission line
routes. To investigate these concerns the transmission
corridors between Anchorage and Willow and between Healy and
Fairbanks were analyzed.
(b) Literature Review
A general 1 iterature search was initially conducted to
determine what 1 and use and resource management might be
expected in the project area. The search included a review
of available public and private agency planning documents,
historic accounts of the area, and any specific historical
documents. As they became available, additional private and
public agency documents were acquired and researched.
(c) Aerial Photography and Map Reconnaissance
Aerial photographs and topographic maps were used to locate
certain cultural features such as trails, habitations, and
other indications of past and present land use. Old maps
frorn historical texts and early geological surveys were
reviewed for foot and sled trails and for mining sites.
Maps available at the University of Alaska library and
museum and from the U.S. Geological Survey were reviewed
for indications of past land use. Agency maps and aerial
photos were examined to obtain information concerning all-
terrain vehicle (ATV) access, tractor trails, roads, landing
strips, and guide camp locations.
(d) Interviews
Two types of interviewing were used. Oral history inter-
viewing was undertaken_ to reconstruct a land and resource
use history of the Middle Susitna Basin. This history
focuses primarily on the area surrounding the Susitna River
between Gold Creek and the Denali Highway, where the pro-
posed project would be located. Consideration of adjacent
areas was necessary, however, to put the history of the pro-
ject area into perspective. The interviews were nondi-
rected, in that, whi 1 e there was specific format and data
needs, the interview was conducted so as to appear informal
E-9-14
r--c--,
,.....
I
'
....
I
-!
-
-
-
2.2 -Description of Existing Land Use in the Project Area
to the respondent. The interview process and a list of
interviewees are available in Subtask 7.07 of Alaska Power
Authority, Susitna Hydroelectric Project, Environmental
Studies, Phase I Report, 1982.
A second type of interviewing was designed to seek informa-
tion from land management agencies concerning present land
use, current management direction, and alternative future
management strategies, depending upon whether or not the
Susitna Hydroelectric Project is built. Management agencies
contacted and the questions asked of agency personnel are
available in Subtask 7.07 referenced above. Additional
contacts with agencies have been made during the course of
the study to provide for exchange of information and data.
(e) Field Reconnaissance
(f)
Field surveys permitted existing land use data to be certi-
fied and refined by locating, mapping, inspecting, and
photographing the historical artifacts reported during the
interviews. Field surveys were approached from a dual per-
spective: by aerial surveys and by ground verification sur-
veys. Field surveys in proposed development locations were
employed to locate important natural features and to esti-
mate potential impacts on the area•s resources.
Aerial surveys accounted for the macroscopic verification
(geographic location) of the reported historical artifacts
and use information. Once located, these artifacts were
recorded, mapped, and photographed. Information from aerial
surveys was also used as a basis for establishing priorities
for ground truthi ng. These priorities were based on sites
of historic inter~st and sites for which limited information
was avai 1 able.
Compilation of Land Use Inventory
Land use data were summarized both chronologically and geo-
graphically. Since land use was analyzed within a temporal
as well as a geographic context, time cut-offs and zone
boundaries were established for analysis and expression of
data. The data were summarized by decade and then analyzed
according to a combined geographic time period interaction
to detect any major data gaps.
Information concerning existing land uses, dispersed use
activity, land status and owrership patterns, and management
activity was summarized.
E-9-15
2.2 -Description of Existing Land Use in the Project Area
(g) Access Road and Transmission Line Analyses
Land use was a consideration in the evaluation of alterna-
tive routes for the access road and selection of the recom-
mended corridor and route for transmission 1 ines. Tech-
niques specific to these project components were employed
both in the selection process and in the impact assessment
for the proposed routes.
(h) Project Impact Assessment
Various project facilities were assessed to identify changes
in basel·ine land use likely to occur as a result of the
project. Impacts were determined by making qualitative and
quantitative estimates of the potential changes in the base-
line 1 and use.
(i) Mitigation
Mitigative measures that would minimize project impacts were
identified. In some cases, project impacts have been re-
duced through selection of destgn options having less impact
than others. Where this was not possible, mitigative pro-
posals have been identified for consideration in subsequent
planning and design refinement.
2.2.2 -Existing Land Use Activity
Figure E.9.8 identifies the location of land use aggregations for
recreation, mining, and residential activities, and quantifies
the intensity of use.
Low intensity areas contain one dwelling or less per acre.
Medium intensity designates a concentration of two to four dwell-
ings per acre. High intensity areas support five or more dwell-
ings per acre (ADNR 1980).
(a) Zone 1
Little activity in the way of trapping and m1n1ng currently
takes place in Zone 1, especially compared to those pursuits
in Zone 2 and Zone 3. Although hunting is also less common
in this zone than in either of the other two, some hunting
does occur, especially from tent camps.
E-9-16
~~
-
-
2.2 -Description of Existing Land Use in the Project Area
(b)
River-related activities include river boating and floating.
·Boating within the. project area has been linked with
research, fishing, and recreation. Raft float trips are
taken from the Denali Highway on the Susitna or Tyone Rivers
down to above either Vee or Devil Canyons.
Another Zone 1 activity involves hydroelectric research.
Following preliminary studies, the Bureau of Reclamation
proposed in 1952 that the Susitna be considered for poten-
tial hydroelectric development. Since then, there have been
many feasibility, design, and environmental studies of the
proposed inundation zone and adjacent areas. These studies
combined most likely have contributed more total man-days of
use in the area in the past twenty years than all other
uses.
Zone 2 and Zone 3
Zone 2 is the area extending about 6 miles (10 km) from Zone
1. Thus, Zone 2 encompasses the area downstream from Devil
Canyon, including the river. Some significant activity
occurs along the river in this region. Salmon fishing
represents an important activity in this part of Zone 2
since salmon are found to migrate up the Susitna as far:-as
Devil Canyon. Individual and riverboat operations out of
Talkeetna travel up the Susitna River, offering services
that include day trips to Devil Canyon; drops at camps for
hunting, fishing, and photography; and canoe hauls to many
tributaries. Some canoeing and rafting takes place from
just bel ow Devil Canyon to Talkeetna. Some canoe enthu-
siasts portage between the 1 akes in the Stephan Lake vic i-
nity and canoe to Talkeetna via Prairie Creek and the
Talkeetna River.
(i) Hunting
Lodges typically handle 15 to 25 guests at a time and
about 140 guests per season. The increasing popular-
ity of sport hunting in the 1960s caused an increase
in the number of small cabins on many of the lakes in
the project area. Both guided and non-guided hunting
occur within the project area, particularly near
Stephan, Fog, Clarence, Watana, Deadman, Tsusena, and
Big Lakes, in addition to many of the area's smaller
lakes. Both lodges and cabins provide the field
bases for many hunters.
E-9-17
2.2-Description of Existing Land Use in the Project Area
(ii) Fishing
Fishing in the project area occurs either as a sep-
arate pursuit or in close association with other
activities, such as hunting and trapping. Fish pre-
sent in the area 1 s lakes and streams include burbot,
grayling, rainbow trout, Dolly Varden, lake trout,
and whitefish. Considerable fishing for lake trout,
grayling, and salmon occurs in the Stephan Lake -
Prairie Creek drainage. Salmon fishing occurs in
lower Portage and Chunilna Creeks and Indian River.
Fishing in Fog, Clarence, Watana, Tsusena, Deadman,
Big, and High Lakes appears to be associated with
other activities, such as hunting, summer cabin use,
and mining. There is little stream fishing elsewhere
in the project area.
(iii) Trapping
Present trapping in the project area occurs mostly on
the south side of the Susitna River near Stephan and
Fog Lakes. Some trapping also occurs near Tsusena
Creek and Clarence and High Lakes. Traps are set
sporadically by aerial trappers in the easternmost
portions of the Susitna valley.
(iv) Mining
Mineral exploration and m1n1ng have been limited in
the immediate project area. Mining in the Upper and
Middle Susitna River Basin has been low in claims
density and characterized by intermittent activity
since the 1930s. Placer mines working alluvial
deposits for minerals are found in sites throughout
Mat-Su Borough. Active mining has been more concen-
trated in Gold, Chunilna, and Portage Creeks than in
areas of the Upper Susitna Basin. Other active
claims are around Stephan and Fog Lakes, Jay Creek,
and the Watana Hills east of Jay Creek.
Coal is the major mineral resource in Mat-Su Borough.
Extensive coal deposits occur in the Beluga area. No
coal mining activity occurs in the project area.
2.2.3-Existing Land Use Development
In both the past and present, the sparsely distributed develop-
ments throughout the project area have been used predominantly on
a seasonal basis. The majority of the land use development or
E-9-18
-
I"""
I
-c
I
-
-
-
2.2-Description of Existing Land Use in the Project Area
artifacts has been utilized for hunting, fishing, trapping, boat-
ing, mining, and other general recreation purposes, such as
cross-country skiing or photography. Existing structures in the
project area are shown in Figure E.9.9, and Table E.9.5. Land
use development of the Anchorage-Willow and Healy-Fairbanks
transmission lines is illustrated in Figures E.9.10, E.9.11, and
E.9.12 ..
(a) Zone 1
(b)
Types of developments located in Zone 1, the inundation zone
plus 200 feet (61 m), include structures, trails, and air-
strips.
Ten isolated structures are located in Zone 1 on the shores
of the river or on its steep banks. Of these structures,
only three are maintained and then only used on a seasonal
basis. Two others, though not actively maintained, appear
to be used sporadically by transient hunters, fishermen, or
boaters. The remainder are not currently usable.
Zone 2
The greatest number of existing land use development and
historical artifacts are located in Zone 2, which is a much
smaller area than Zone 3. Types of development found in
Zone 2 include structures, trails, roads, airstrips, and
mines. General types of use associated with these artifacts
consist of hunting, trapping, fishing, boating, mining,
recreation, and research.
Although the primary distribution of use throughout the pro-
ject area is low density, the aggregations of existing de-
velopment are particularly noteworthy. The nuclei of these
aggregations are the small lakes and lake systems located
throughout Zone 2 that provide access by air. The aggrega-
tions of development consist of cabins and related struc-
tures, lodges, roads, trails, and airstrips.
(c) Zone 3
Fourteen of the 25 existing structures in Zone 3 are cur-
rently used during some portion of the year. Aggregations
of use occur in the areas of Chunilna and Prairie Creeks
south of the project area.
Structures, use types, and access are categorized by land
use zones and are summarized in Table E.9.3. The maJor
trails into the project area represent substantial environ-
mental modifications and reflect general use patterns; they
are presented in Table E.9.4 •.
E-9-19
2.2-Description of Existing Land Use in the Project Area
Land use east of Talkeetna and Chase is dominated by the
land disposals along the Talkeetna River. Parcels within
the Talkeetna Agricultural Disposal are available for
agricultural use. A few homesteads exist around Larson
Lake, east of Talkeetna. The Larson Lake residents could
develop the lake for residential recreation. There are five
landing strips in the Talkeetna area; two within the village
of Talkeetna which are registered public landing strips.
Residential and commercial land development occurs west of
Curry Ridge and along Petersville Road near Trapper Creek.
There is some scattered residential land use along the Parks
Highway and Chulitna River within Denali State Park. The
areas of principal concentration are where residents desire
to keep the land in a natural, pristine condition. Within
the Curry area is Byers Lake State Campground, which con-
tains hiking trans to Curry Ridge and Troublesome Creek.
Land use development east of Curry Ridge along the Alaska
Rail road includes the Indian River Land Disposal and the
Indian River Remote Parcel. Both are recreation oriented.
The disposal is surveyed into 5-acre (2-ha) lots having
utility easements. Only a limited amount of residents
remain the year round. The disposal is within the Talkeetna
Mountains Special Use District, which requires the residents
to get a permit before constructing a dwelling. The Remote
Parcel will have a specific number of residents able to
obtain lots ranging between 5 and 40 acres ( 2 and 16 ha).
Homesteads occur along the Alaska Railroad at Chulitna, Gold
Creek, and the Susitna and Indian Rivers. There are two
private landing strips at Gold Creek, one at Curry and
Chulitna.
Land use development between the Middle Fork and East Fork
of the Chulitna River and along the Chulitna River is
limited to a few residences on the Parks Highway.
Residential and commercial land use development has become
established at Cantwell, Summit and Broad Pass. Land use
development such as the Cantwell Community Center is ex-
pected to continue along the Denali Highway. The Golden
North Airport is situated east of Cantwell along the Denali
Highway and is a registered public airport. There are two
other landing strips in the Summit area. Also present are
the Parks Highway, the Alaska railroad, and the eastern
boundary of Denali National Park and Preserve.
E-9-20
-
-
-
-
-
2.2 -Description of Existing Land Use in the Project Area
Residential and commercial land use developments exist along
the Nenana River and the Parks Highway near the Denali
National Park and Preserve and prior to entering the Nenana
Gorge. The Alaska Railroad and the Parks Highway wind
through the gorge. There is residential and commercial land
use around the Healy Generating Station. Other developed
land use near the northern transmission corridor is low den-
sity residential with travel-oriented commercial develop-
ments located along the Parks Highway. Two private landing
strips are located in Healy.
2.2.4 -Special Lands
(a) Wetlands
Proposed land use development is contingent on wetland and
floodland locations. Potential wetlands cover large por-
tions of the Middle Susitna River Basin, including riparian
zones along the mai nstem Susitna, sloughs, and tributary
streams, and numerous lakes and ponds on upland plateaus.
In addition, extensive areas of wet sedge-grass tundra are
classified as wetlands by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
for purposes of Section 404 permitting. Wetland areas of
particular importance in the project area include Brushkana
Creek, Upper Deadman Creek, the area between Deadman and
Tsusena Creeks, the Fog Lakes area, the Stephan Lake area,
Swimming Bear Lake, and Jack Long Creek.
All wetlands within the proposed impact area were classified
according to Cowardin et al. (1979) into appropriate wetland
classes (Acres/TES 1981)-. Maps delineating wetland types
constructed by using the vegetation/habitat maps can be
found in Chapter 3 of Exhibit E. This was done with little
consideration of soil moisture conditions since this infor-
mation was unavailable.
Vegetation and wetland classes found in the proposed Susitna
project areas are as follows:
Mapping Unit
(Viereck & Dyrness 1980)
Lakes , ponds
Rivers, streams
E-9-21
FWS Wetland Class
(Cowardin et al; 1979)
Lacustrine unconsolidated
bottom, aquatic bed, un-
consolidated shore
Riverine Upper Perennial
rock bottom, unconsoli-
dated bottom, rocky
shore, unconsolidated
shore
2.2-Description of Existing Land Use in the Project Area
Wet sedge -grass Palustrine or Lacustrine
emergent
Low shrub Palustrine scrub-shrub
Birch shrub Palustrine scrub-shrub
Will ow shrub Palustrine scrub-shrub
Open black spruce Pa 1 ustri ne forested
Woodland black spruce Palustrine forested
Open white spruce Palustrine forested
Closed white spruce Palustrine forested
Open balsam poplar Palustrine forested
Closed balsam poplar Palustrine forested
Wet sedge-grass types dominate half of the tundra. Tundra
vegetation/habitat types are generally located above the
limit of forests. Approximately 24 percent of the Middle
Basin is covered with tundra. The tundra types are charac-
teristic of high elevations less than 3200 feet (970 m) and
their distribution is associated with the mountains of the
Alaska Range and the Talkeetna Mbuntains. Only in the vici-
nity of Devil Canyon and Jay Creek are there substantial
acreages of tundra in close proximity to the impact areas.
Shrubland is the largest overall group of vegetation/habitat
types occurring in the Middle Basin, covering almost 40 per-
cent of the total area, 30 percent of that by shrub birch
and wi 11 ow. These types are found at intermediate and 1 ow
elevations throughout the basin, primarily on the broad flat
areas.
Coni fer forests (spruce) cover approximately 19 percent of
the Middle and Upper basins. They occupy a wide range of
sites, from the floodplains to the mountains, but seldom
above the 3200-foot (970-m) elevation. Conifer forests are
25 percent more extensive in the impact areas than in the
Middle Basin. This is because the impact areas are
restricted to lower elevations where conifer forests are
1 ocated.
E-9-22
r::·-,
('--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2.2 -Description of Existing Land Use in the Project Area
Balsam poplar is restricted in distribution to less than 2.5
percent of the Middle Basin. This vegetation/habitat type
is found below the 2300-foot (697-m) elevation and in the
f1 oodpl a in. Open and closed balsam poplar stands are the
predominant vegetation types found on the floodplain down-
stream to Talkeetna.
The Susitna Hydroelectric Project will require approval from
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers prior to construction.
This approval is in the form of permits required by Section
10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act. The purpose of the permit system is to
assure that projects will not interfere with navigation and
will not unnecessarily pollute waters and wetlands. Land
ownership has no bearing on the need for a permit.
Federal regulations define wetlands as areas that, under
normal circumstances, would support vegetation typically
adapted to saturated soils. Approximately one-third of
Alaska is wetlands. All wet tundra, and various amounts of
other tundra types, are considered wetlands.
Where soil is saturated with water, p hotosynt hes is occurs
rapidly. Such areas are highly productive biologically and
rich in nutrients that support microscopic plants and ani-
mals whi-ch are food sources of higher life forms. Wetlands
support a greater diversity of wildlife species per unit
area than most other habitat types in Alaska. Riparian wet-
lands provide winter browse for moose and can be a critical
survival factor for this species during severe winters.
Wetlands are also important because they help to maintain
water quality throughout regional watersheds.
Detailed wetland mapping of much of the state wil 1 eventual-
ly be completed by the National Wetlands Inventory, con-
ducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Aerial photo-
graphs, soil maps, topography charts, and field reconnais-
sance are presently employed to determine wetland locations
(USCOE 1980).
A more specific description and maps of the vegetative/habi-
tat types and wetlands are found in Chapter 3 of Exhibit E
of the Alaska Power Authority 1 s Susitna Hydroelectric Pro-
ject application FERC license.
The Cowardin system of wetland mapping has been adopted by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and is acceptable to the
U.S. Corps of Engineers for permit applications. Lakes,
ponds, rivers, and streams were not specifically classified.
E-9-23
2.2-Description of Existing land Use in the Project Area
There is a considerable amount of potential wetlands within
the project area. The estimates of total palustrine wetland
areas were liberal since the wetlands were highly integrated
with non-wetlands and supporting hydro soil data and peri-
odic ambient water conditions were not available. Portions
of these areas may thus be eliminated by further considera-
tions of soil and water conditions.
(i) Dams and Impoundments
With·in the approximate boundaries of Zone 1, there
are potential wetlands of various types, includ·ing
riverine. The Watana dam, spillway, and impoundment
will cover 26,967 (10,787 ha) acres of potential wet-
land types. The Watana camp, village, and airstrip
will be on 371 acres (149 ha) of wetlands. The Devil
Canyon dam, spillway, and impoundment facilities will
cover 4117 acres (1647 ha) of wetland types. The
Devil Canyon construction camp and village is not
mapped but appears to occupy potential wetland areas.
(ii) Access
Potential wetlands dominate the access corridor from
the Denali Highway south to Watana and then east to
Devil Creek. Sixty-one percent of the total access
road is Palustrine scrub-shrub wetland type broken
only by occasional creek crossings. These potential
wetlands are located for 16 miles (26 km) extending
south of Denali Highway and for 30 miles (50 km)
south of Deadman Lake (see Figures in Chapter 3 of
Ex hi bit E).
Twelve percent of the corridor is 50 percent Palus-
trine scrub-shrub wetland. This location is west of
Devil Creek where Palustrine scrub-shrub wetland pre-
dominates. Radiating from this point 4 miles (7 km)
east and west along the corridor the Palustrine
scrub-shrub wetland wanes to 50 percent.
Four percent of the corridor, an area north of Dead-
man Lake, is 50 percent Palustrine scrub-shrub and 50
percent Palustrine emergent wetland types. As the
corridor extends north from Deadman Lake, it becomes
50 percent Palustrine emergent wetland type only.
Seven percent of the corridor is Palustrine emer-
gent.
E-9-24
-
-
-
-
-
-
2.2 -Description of Existing Land Use in the Project Area
(b)
( i i i )
The corridor south of the Susitna River, predominant-
ly the railroad corridor, is within 2 miles (3 km) of
the river. Isolated areas of Palustrine forested
wetland types occur in this section of the corridor.
It is 16 percent of the total corridor length.
Transmission
Wet sedge grass and potential wet spruce areas within
the Anchorage-Willow and He~lty-Fairbanks trans-
mission corridors are illustrated in Chapter 3 of
Ex hi bit E.
Dams to Intertie
The central corridor is not separate from that of
the dam and impoundment impact area which extends
10 miles (16 km) in all directions from the Middle
Susitna River. Palustrine forested is the only
wetland type in the central corridor and exists in
slopes and benches.
-Anchorage-Willow
The Anchorage-Willow corridor passes through
relatively flat terrain and is approximately 24
percent Palustrine or Lacustrine emergent meadows.
-Healy-Fairbanks
The southern portion of the Healy-Fairbanks corri-
dor has Palustrine forested wetland along the
ridges with Palustrine scrub-shrub and Palustrine
or Lacustrine emergent wetlands occupying the flat-
ter areas. The central corridor segment is covered
by a complex mosaic of wet Palustrine forested and
Palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands. The gradiation
and patches of wetland types made it necessary to
map this area as "complex." Forested types of wet-
lands accounted for 78 percent of this corridor.
Fl oodl and s
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration does not
have an office of Coastal Zone Management in AI aska. The
U.S. Corps of Engineers, Floodplain Management, conducts
hydraulic analysis of floodlands to determine floodplains
for the Federal Insurance Program of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA). Floodplains of interest to the
E-9-25
2.2-Description of Existing Land Use in the Project Area
Federal Insurance Program are defined as "the lowland and
relatively flat areas adjoining inland and coastal waters,
including at a minimum, that area subject to a one percent
or greater chance of flooding in a given year" (E.O.
11988). Special area management plans are prepared for FEMA
in areas of potential land use develorxnent where floodplains
·have not been delineated. No such management plans have
been prepared in the Middle Susitna Basin due to the remote-
ness of the area.
A preliminary final Flood Insurance Study, Mat-Su Borough,
has been completed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for
the Federal Emergency Management Agency. No reference has
been given to the Susitna River. Detailed study ·included
the Little Susitna River, and Disception and Willow Creeks.
An approximate study has been made on the Matanuska and Kn·ik
Rivers and in the Bodenburg Butte Area.
U.S. Corps of Engineers has mapped the 100-year flood eleva-
t ion on the Nenana River at the Community of Nenana and at
Chulitna on Pass Creek, a tributary of the Chulitna River.
The 100-year floodplain of the Talkeetna, Susitna and
Chulitna River has been mapped within the corporate 1 imits
of Talkeetna. The U.S. Geological Survey has tabulated
streamflow and suspended sediment data for the Susitna River
at Gold Creek since 1949. The Gold Creek peak discharge of
record is 90,700 cfs.
Talkeetna is subject to flooding from the Talkeetna,
Chulitna and Susitna Rivers. The floodplain of the
Talkeetna River at Talkeetna is wide and developed only on
the south side at the mouth of the river. Open spaces in
the flood plain are extensive and may come under pressure
for future development. The properties in Talkeetna are
primarily residential and commercial.
The Floodplain Information Report, Talkeetna, Alaska, {U.S.
Corps of Engineers 1972) is a basis for the adoption of land
use controls to guide floodplain development and prevent
intensified loss and damage. Peak discharge for the Inter-
mediate Regional Flood, or the 100-year flood, at Talkeetna
is 268,000 cfs. Peak discharge for the Standard Project
Flood is 315,000 cfs.
Figure E.9.13 illustrates the 100-year floodplain on the
Susitna River at Talkeetna. The 100-year floodplain between
Talkeetna and Devil Canyon based on the 100-year flood
discharge at Gold Creek is shown in Chapter 2 of Exhibit E
on Figures E.2.12 through E.2.20. The calculated 100-year
flood discharge at Gold Creek is 118,000 cfs.
E-9-26
r--.-,
-
.......
-
-
2.3-Description of Existing Land Use Management Plans
(c)
Susitna Hydroelectric Project -Regional Flood Studies
(R&M 1981) provide fiood peak information for assessing pre-
project flood conditions in the Susitna River reaches loca-
ted downstream and upstream from the damsites. Susitna
Hydroelectric Project River Morpho 1 ogy (R&M 1982) discusses
the existing flow, sediment and river regimes from Devil
Canyon to the mouth of the Susitna River.
Prime Lands
The U.S. Soil Conservation Service has determined that there
are no prime or unique farmlands, rangelands, or forests
within the Middle Susitna Basin.
2.3 -Description of Existing Land Use.
Management Plans for the Project Area
The BLM, the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Mat-Su Borough,
and CIRI and associated village corporations have various management
concerns in the project area.
Federal lands to the north of the project area are managed by the BLM
(BLM 1982). These lands are included in the Denali Planning Block
(Figure E.9.14). A Decision Record-dated July 1982, authorized the
Dena 1 i/Ti ekel Amendment to the South-centra 1 Management Framework Plan
to be a Finding Of No Significant Impact (FONSI). The attachment of
A Decision Record authorizes the draft report to be final. The plann-
ing blocks address oil and gas, mineral entry, wildlife and scenic
values, and settlement/disposal.
Management in the Denali Unit and in those areas not yet conveyed to
the Natives or the s~ate is essentially passive. Very few management
activities are taking place. BLM 1 s objective is to protect the natural
environment of the area, with particular attention to caribou calving
areas and river recreation routes. Fire control is also a current
management consideration. BLM has a cooperative fire control agreement
with the state of Alaska that covers the project area ..
A Denali Scenic Highway Feasibility Study draft report will be avail-
able for public review in March 1983. The BLM is the lead agency for
the study. Other study participants include the National Park Service,
Federal Highway Administration, ADNR, Alaska Department of Transporta-
tion and Public Facilities, ADF&G, Ahtna, Inc., village corporations,
and Mat-Su Borough.
The Alaska Land Use Council consists of federal and state agency repre-
sentatives to oversee jo·int management plans as designated by ~he
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. The Alaska Land Use
Council will give its recommendation about the scenic highway proposal
E-9-27
2.3 -Description of Existing Land Use Management Plans
to the Secretary of the Interior, the President of the United States,
and Congress in September, 1983.
Finally, BLM is also developing a wildlife habitat management plan in
cooperation with ADF&G for the Alphabet Hills between the Tyone and
Maclaren Rivers (T11-12N, R2-9W, Copper River Meridian). This plan
will involve moose habitat manipulation. As yet, however, only study
plots for this project have been mapped out.
In the project area, the state had, until recently, done only a re-
source assessment for those lands it is proposing to select. In 1982,
a planning background report was completed with the cooperation of the
Mat-Su Borough, Kenai Peninsula Borough, ADF&G, and the Alaska Depart-
ment of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADNR 1982). Currently,
ADNR's Division of Research and Development is undertaking a comprehen-
sive assessment of the resource base in general. The Susitna Area Plan
for state land is being developed in cooperation with Mat-Su Borough.
A Susitna Area Planning Team is comprised of state resource agencies
including all divisions of ADNR, ADF&G, Alaska Department of Transpor-
tation and Public Facilities, and Mat-Su Borough. The Susitna Area
Planning Team is designated to plan appropriate land use of state and
borough lands within Mat-Su Borough. The state has requested coordina-
tion between the Susitna Hydroelectric Project and the regional land
use plan, specifically in the two following areas:
-The planning team can review and comment on information regarding
regional, indirect impacts of the plan (i.e., population growth
changes in resource demand, etc.); and
-The plan can be used as a tool to guide use of public lands to
mitigate or control secondary impacts of the proposed project.
The state's primary management goals for state classified land on pro-
ject effected land is to:
Pro vi de for private recreation a 1 use of ru ra 1 areas by a 11 owing p ri-
vate recreational development to occur in an orderly fashion;
-Preserve agricultural land for either present or future use;
-Allow for the sufficient and orderly extraction of materials and to
assure restoration compatible with adjacent uses; and
-Allow variable management plans to be specified upon resource identi-
fication.
The Draft Land Use Plan for Public Lands in the Willow Sub-basin (ADNR
1981) identifies future agricultural 1 and sales in the vicinity of
Willow and programs for protecting wildlife habitat and sportmen's
access. No additional agricultural disposals have been identified for
the project area or within the transmission line routes.
E-9-28
-
-
2.3 -Description of Existing Land Use Management Plans
Mat-Su Borough is involved in three separate management efforts which
affect the project area. These are the Mat-Su Borough Comprehensive
Plan (1978), the Talkeetna Mountains Special Use District, and the
Mat-Su Borough Coastal Management Program. The current Mat-Su Borough
Comprehensive Plan (1978) contains very 1 ittle discussion of the
Susitna area lands. The borough has already selected more than its
entitlement and is concentrating its selection in the Lower Susitna
Basin near existing highways. Thus, it is unlikely that the borough
will select any lands in the project area.
The borough, by ordinance, has created the Talkeetna Mountains Special
Use District, through which the borough can exercise planning and per-
mitting authority over all lands within the district•s boundaries; this
special use district includes the project area. The Indian River Sub-
division and Remote Parcel are also within the special use district.
The Mat-Su Borough plan will allow recreation cabins at these sites but
not permanent re?idences.
The ord_inance provides for multiple resource use of the district and
takes into account unique scenic values. Thus, 1 ands within the
special use district are subject to permit requirements for specified
developments (roads, subdivisions, etc.).
The borough is updating its comprehensive plan, and additional studies
are currently being performed (Dowl Engineers 1982). The project area
is considered a mixed-use zone which would permit hydroelectric devel-
opment. Management objectives for the project area will probably not
be refined until the current hydroelectric studies are complete.
Through a cooperative arrangement with the' Office of Coastal Zone
Management (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce) and the Alaska Coastal Management Program
(Division of Community Planning, Alaska Department of Community and
Regional Affairs), IVIat-Su Borough is preparing a Coastal Management
Program. Preliminary studies were completed in May 1981; originally
the Susitna River through Devil Canyon was designated to be within the
biophysical boundaries of the program (Figure E.9.15). At present the
dam is not included within the program.
CIRI received conveyance of selected Native lands to hold in trust
until these lands are conveyed to the appropriate villages (Chickaloon-
Moose Creek, Tyonek, and Knik). Currently, no land management activi-
ties are being carried out. When tne villages obtain their lands, the
different vi 11 age ownersh·i ps will create a checkerboard pattern. Imme-
diate land problems and land reconveyance to villages are being handled
by the Village Deficiency Management Association, a group made up of
representatives from each of the concerned villages. Because of the
checkerboard pattern of ownership described above, . any management of
Native lands may be undertaken by this association.
E-9-29
-
-
-
-
-
-
3 DESCRIPTION OF LAND USE CHANGES RESULTING FROM THE PROJECT
Brief descriptions of the major facilities are presented below; details
may be found in Exhibit A of the FERC license application for the
Susitna Hydroelectric Project.
Construction and operation of the dams and related facilities will
cause impacts on area resources. The deve 1 opment of the two-dam
facility, the establishment of the camps and villages and their
associated commercial and recreational development, the increased
public access into the Susitna Basin, and the improved public
recreation potential in the region will escalate the land value in the
project area. The increase of adjacent commercial, recreational and
residential development will appreciate the value of land belonging to
owners along the Parks and Denali Highways. The land value along the
transmission line easement will remain unchanged by the existence of
the line; however, the resale potential may be limited if adjacent
lands of similar value are available for sale.
Before determining the extent of the land use changes, land use priori-
ties were assessed in terms of land use activity and development verses
conservation and preservation of specific ecosystems. In few cases,
these resource values are identified in agency management programs that
apply to the area. Section 2.3 described the existing land use manage-
ment plans; Section 4 discusses the changes in land use management
plans resulting from the project.
Project facilities will create immediate, direct impacts on the land-
scape. Some of these impacts will be temporary, such as the construc-
tion camps and construction activity. Other aspects of the project
will create permanent and often subtle changes in the type, nature, and
intensity of development and activitiy. Chief among these aspects is
the provision for automobile access to an area currently remote.
3.1 -Dams and Impoundment Areas
3.1.1-Proposed Facilities
Figure E.9.16 illustrates the location of the proposed facilities
in the impoundment area.
(a) Watana
The Watana Dam will be a 885-foot (270-m) high, gravel-
fill structure, with a crest length of 4100 feet (1250 m).
The dam will be located at Susitna River mile 184, approxi-
mately 2 miles (3 km) upstream from the mouth of Tsusena
Creek. It will impound approximately 54 miles (80 km) of
river to the 2185-foot (666-m) elevation and inundate about
38,000 acres (16,000 ha). A general layout of site facili-
ties is shown on Figure E.9.17.
E-9-31
3.1 -Dams and Impoundment Areas
(b) Devil Canyon
Devil Canyon Dam will be a 645-foot (197-m), concrete thin-
arch dam and a rock-filled saddle dam constructed at river
mile 152 in Devil Canyon. Its crest length will be 2475
feet (754 m). The dam will impound miles (42 km) of river
to the 1455-foot (444-m) elevation. Approximately 7800
acres (3157 ha) of land will be inundated. A general layout
of site facilities is shown on Figure E.9.18.
3.1.2 -Induced Land Use Changes
(a) Land Use nevelopment
The emplacement of the Watana dam and impoundment will inun-
d at e s i x s t r u c t u re s • Th e s e s t r u c t u r e s a r e n urn be red 9 0 , 91 ,
92, 111, 112, and 120 on. Figure E.9.9. One structure is ac-
tively maintained as indicated in Table E.9.5. Number 90 is
a lean-to for hunting and fishing purposes.
The emplacement of Devil Canyon nam and impoundment wi 11
inundate three structures (2, 6, and 107), as illustrated in
Figure E.9.9. As indicated on Table E.9.5, only Number 2, a
boat cabin, is currently maintained for boating and hunt-
ing.
(b) Land Use Activity
Hunting activity will increase and current patterns will
change as a result of impoundments. The reservoirs and
access to them will facilitate floatplane landing and boat
travel, and thus permit easier penetration by big game hun-
ters into rarely visited areas. An increase in moose and
caribou hunting will occur immediately adjacent to the pro-
posed impoundments. Hunting for moose or caribou will
increase only to the maximum allowed by the permit system.
Game will be reduced by the effects of increased hunting and
by the resource emigration caused from increased human popu-
1 at ion. Big game hunting guides wi 11 be affected by reduced
hunting activity and therefore reduced income. Guides may
need to find a different occupation or move elsewhere.
There is potential for increased fishing for resident spe-
cies in tributaries feeding into the impoundments. A 1 imi-
ted reservoir fishery may also develop. Salmon fishing in
Portage Creek could increase due to the accessibility
created for the Devil Canyon facility. Regulations can be
requested to manage this fishery area.
E-9-32
-
-
-
-
3.2 -Construction Camps and Villages
Fur resources will be eliminated in Zone 1 by the impound-
ments. Ac.cess to the reservoirs will cause disruption of
present trapping patterns within Zones 2 and 3.
3.1.3 -Mitigation
The land management plans developed with the cooperation of jur-
isdictional agencies will .include control of land use activities
and will be implemented upon operation of the facilities. The
land use plans will direct land use activities for the reduction
of the impact on the game, fish, and furbearers resulting from
increased land use activity.
3.2-Construction Camps and Villages
3.2.1-Proposed Facilities
One construction camp (single worker housing), village (family
housing), and associated facilities will be located at each dam-
site. within the immediate project area; see Figure E.9.16 for
their location. Construction of Watana Dam is proposed to begin
in 1985, at least nine years later, construction at Devil Canyon
will begin. Plans are to bui 1 d a canst ruction camp and village
at Watana for use until the dam construction phases down. The
camp components will then be relocated to the Devil Canyon dam-
site to the greatest degree practical. A permanent town wi.ll be
constructed at Watana to provide housing and cmrununity facilities
for workers who will operate the dams following construction. No
permanent village is planned for the Devil Canyon site.
The proposed camp and vi 11 age at Watana wi 11 be constructed
northeast of the damsite between Deadman and Tsusena Creeks
(Figure E.9.17). Approximately 1 mile (2 km) w·ill separate the
construction camp from the village. Work on the village will
begin about one year after construction of the camp has begun.
Structures at the camp will be of factory-built, modular design
to facilitate their relocation to Devil Canyon.
Facilities and services to be provided at the construction camp
include housing modules ( dormitor1 es) for about 3000 workers,
camp offices, food services, warehousing, fire and security pro-
tection, banking and postal services, hospital care, recreation,
communications, and power generation. Facilities at the village
will include family housing (to accommodate about 1000 people), a
gymnasium, recreation center, shopping center (food supermarket,
department and specialty stores), generating station, and struc-
tures for at her support activities.
Camp and village utilities will include a potable water supply
system, sewage system, power supply and distribution system,
E-9-33
3.2 -Construction Camps and Villages
communications, fuel storage, and a solid waste disposal system.
The water supply is expected to serve an estimated peak popula-
tion of 4030 {3070 in the camp and 960 in the village) including
workers, families, and visitors. The water source will be from
Tsusena Creek and ground water wells. The treatment plant, also
of modular design, will fulfill Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) requirements.
Permanent facilities required for project operation at Watana
include a small community of approximately 130 staff members and
their families. The town is planned at the site of the construc-
tion village.
The facilities at the Devil Canyon construction camp and village
will be similar to those at Watana, though fewer workers will be
accommodated. Up to 1900 people will be housed during the peak
construction period at Devil Canyon. The camp will be situated
south of Portage Creek and west of Devil Canyon on the south side
of the Susitna River. The village will be temporary, unlike the
one at Watana, and will be west of the camp (Figure E.9.18).
Additional details on the construction camps and villages may be
found in Exhibit A and in Chapter 5 of Exhibit E.
3.2.2-Induced Land Use Changes
(a) Watana
(i) Land Use Development
The construction camp and village will result in the
dedication of 370 acres (150 ha) to community use
during the construction phase. After construction
has been completed and the camp and temporary village
removed, the permanent town at Watana will occupy 90
acres (36 ha). Additional land will be required for
connecting roads, an airstrip, and other facilities
related to dam construction.
Facilities and services constructed for the Watana
camp an d v il 1 a g e w il 1 be a v a i 1 a b 1 e for u s e by t h e
residents of the permanent village. Once liviny
facilities are constructed during the Watana con-
struction phase, no further impacts are anticipated
during Watana operation and Devil Canyon construction
phases, or during the operation phase of both dams.
All ope rat ions maintenance personnel and their
families will l iv~ onsite at the Watana permanent
village.
E-9-34
-
-
-
-
·-
-
3.2 -Construction Camps and Vill~ges
( i i )
Water supply and sewage treatment wi 11 be maintained
on site for use by the permanent vi 11 age. Landfi 11 s
will be provided for the disposal of solid waste.
Police protection, fire protection equipment, and
volunteer fire personnel will be available for onsite
residents. Health care will be administered from a
20-bed hospital; hwoever~ major illness and accident
victims may need to be transported to other Mat-Su
Borough facilities. A school building will be pro-
vided for the 300 school children anticipated. Edu-
cation administration will be operated by the Mat-.Su
Borough.
The permanent village of Watana will be established
on 1 and presently selected by the state only. Lands
in proximity have been selected by and conveyed to
CIRI. CIRI will study any potential for development
on project and adjacent 1 ands. All the Native cor-
porations have shown interest in offering profit
oriented services to the vi 11 age. Other 1 and deve 1-
opments compatible with the project and with the cor-
poration incentives are being investigated, such as
various recreation plans. Land use development
established by the Native corporation will be identi-
fied individually as the need arises.
Land Use Activity
Among the project 1 S effects upon activity patterns
are those impacts related to access. The chief
effect of the Watana camp will be the activity asso-
ciated with the ten-year construction period. The
extent of impact on general patterns of activity in
the Middle Susitna Basin will depend on the actual
operating policies established for the camp· during
the construction period. Dispersed recreational
activity by construction workers could increase sig-
nificantly in the absence of such policies. Con-
versely, if there are extensive policies limiting
dispersed recreation and other activities outside of
camp, the effects dn the basin will be minimized.
{b) Devil Canyon
( i ) Land Use Development
Approximately 85 acres {34 ha) of presently undevel-
oped land will be converted to community uses for the
E-9-35
II
3.2-Construction Camps and Villages
construction period. Additional areas will be re-
quired for connecting roads and related facilities.
After construction is complete in 2002, all camp and
village facilities will be removed.
(ii) Land Use Activity
The chief effects of the De vi 1 Canyon camp wi 11 be
the associated construction activity during the con-
struction period from 1994 to 2002. Controlled acti-
vities outside of camp will determine the extent the
construction workers will impact the activity pat-
tern. Change in the activity pattern is expected to
be less than that for Watana because of the smaller
work force required for Devil Canyon.
3.2.3-Mitigation
Proposed development focuses recreational activities on core
recreational facilities and indirectly diverts the users away
from sensitive environmental areas outside the project area.
Impacts from human use can be reduced if trails outside the pro-
posed camps are established and if specific areas are designed
for leisure activity. Land use activities could be confined to
project construction areas to discourage increased hunting, fish-
ing and trapping in the project area. '
Posting and enforcing construction camp rules will help make pro-
ject personnel aware of adverse environmental impacts. Other
mitigation measures to reduce increased land use development of
the camp and village and to increase construction worker produc-
tivity may include restricting the use of private vehicles and
providing transportation services. Transportation services could
include air, bus, or van services, park and ride lots, travel
schedules and/or travel allowances. Travel services may also
influence construction worker travel schedules which would alle-
viate pressure on land use development and activity.
Impacts from facilities associated with housing, such as sewage
treatment lagoons and landfills, can be reduced if they are loca-
ted away from existing or proposed developments.
E-9-36
-
-
-
3.3 -Recreation
3.3 -Recreation
3.3.1 -Proposed Facilities
Presently, there are no publicly developed recreational facil i-
ties within the vicinity of the project except for road related
facilities on the Denali and Parks Highways. Three privately-
owned lodges exist at Stephan, High and Tsusena Lakes. Recrea-
tional facilities to be provided in the project area as part of
the overall hydroelectric development plan will reflect both the
recreational potential which exists in the area and public input
from the recreation surveys conducted as part of the recreation
study.
The recreation plan will be implemented in five phases as
described below:
(1) Watana Construction Phase
(2) Watana Implementation Phase
(3) Devil Canyon Construction Phase
(4) Devil Canyon Implementation Phase
(5) Post-construction Monitoring Phase
The construction phases will consist of projects intended to
mitigate the impacts of recreation opportunities lost due to
construction, and to provide recreation opportunities to con-
struction workers. Recreation facilities planned in each phase
will be developed when the respective ~roject construction
begins. ·
The implementation phases consist of recreation features intended
to mitigate the impacts of recreation lost due to project opera-
tion, to provide for the recreation use potential, to accommodate
project-induced recreation demand, to allow public access and to
protect environmental values. The implementation phase of
recreation projects will be developed within three years of the
operation date of the respective projects.
The fifth phase consists of a recreation use monitoring program
to begin when the first project recreation facilities are de-
veloped. Monitoring is necessary to determine actual recreation
use of the project features and to trigger adjustments in the
recreation plan if required. Recreation projects planned in
Phase Five will be implemented when necessary agreements are made
between the agencies and when demand requires the facilities.
CIRI Native corporations have shown int~rest in participating in
recreation development to the extent of negotiating a recreation
scheme for the benefit of the Native corporation shareholders.
E-9-37
3.3-Recreation
Recreation projects in Phase One consist of an expansion of an
existing campground on the Denali Highway, a shelter at the Tyone
and Susitna River confluence, a boat launch and vehicle-trailer
storage at the Denali Highway bridge over the Susitna River, a
trailhead and parking at Summit, and a 25-mile (40-km) primitive
trail along the Middle Fork of the Chulitna River to the head-
waters of Tsusena Creek, with two overnight shelters. Other
phase projects include new campgrounds, shelters along proposed
trails, temporary camp and townsite facilities, and a visitor
center at Watana and Devil Canyon. (See Chapter 7 of Exhibit E).
3.3.2 -Induced Land Use Changes
When the access road is open to the public, it is anticipated
that, in addition to the attraction created by the new dam and
reservoir, recreation enthusiasts will be attracted to the newly
opened land. The wide variety of available recreation opportuni-
ties is a major reason people move to and stay in Alaska. The
percentage of Alaska's population that participates in outdoor
recreation activities is among the highest in the nation.
Alaskans have increasing amounts of leisure time and with flex-
ible working schedules are able to devote longer periods of time
to recreation. This may result in longer trips at greater dis-
tances from the urban centers. Alaska is reportedly experiencing
some over-crowding in existing recreation areas near Anchorage
and Fairbanks due to recent population growth. Recreational
opportunities at weekend travel distances are increasingly popu-
1 a r.
The primary land use impacts of initial construction activities
extend beyond the relatively small physical areas being dis-
turbed. An immense change in image will affect a large part of
the river basin as the prevailing ambience of an untouched,
inaccessible wilderness changes to one of intense activity.
Impacts which physically change the natural resources have posi-
tive and negative effects on the preference of and use probablity
of existing recreation activity types and levels. Indirect im-
pacts are those related to changes in user demand levels. These
include the impacts of construction worker recreation and the
influx of recreationists as a result of new road openings.
(a) Land Use Development
The recreation concept is based on minimal and primitive
development having only 1 imited access within a managed
wilderness area, as was determined preferable by the public.
Facilities should be developed and managed on an as-needed
basis, starting with minimal services and expanding only
when demand warrants it.
E-9-38
-
-
-
r-
i
-'
r
I
3.3 -Recreation
The highest quality recreation opportunities are in the
diverse landscapes adjacent to the reservoir sites, not at
the reservoirs themselves. The complex recreation needs of
the temporary construction camp workers and the permanent
village were considered. The recreation plan will provide a
variety of highly developed .indoor and outdoor recreation
faci 1 it i es, which wi11 satisfy demands without taxing the
areas limited recreation capacity.
(b) Land Use Activity
A total of 50,000 visitor days per year are projected for
post-project conditions in the year 2000. The recreation
plan was developed to accommodate growth phased to Watana
and Devi1 Canyon portions of the project. The proposed
recreation facilities will provide for a challenging variety
of activities and experiences within a development range
from natural wilderness to semi-primitive recreat~on facili-
ties. ·
Rail service may become available for public use at the com-
pletion of the Devil Canyon damsite construction. Rail ser-
vice will provide access with the project area within four
hours from Anchorage, instead of the seven hours required to
travel the road access. This will constitute a positive
impact on recreational use with minimal effects caused by
increased areas.
3.3.3 -Mitigation
The recreation plan proposed for the Susitna Hydroelectric Pro-
ject will provide organized recreational development for project
waters and adjacent lands. The recreation plan is designed to
allow public access that protects the scenic, public recrea-
tional, cultural and environmental values of the area. It esti-
mates and provides for recreation user potential, accommodates
project-induced recreation demand, and offsets recreational
resources lost. The plan is intended to fit within the framework
of the regional recreation plans and to provide additional oppor-
tunities. The ·impacts of construction and operation activities
extend beyond the physical areas being disturbed and can be par-
tially mitigated by careful management of the remaining lands for.
public recreation and appreciation.
Road ~nd ORV access has been limited. Other access options such
as boating, hiking and skiing have been provided in certain
areas. Recreational development focuses activities on core
recreational facilities and diverts the greatest number of users
away from sensitive operations or environmental areas.
E-9-39
3. 4 -Access
Details concerning recreation facilities are described in Exhibit
E, Chapter 7, Recreational Resources.
3.4 -Access
3.4.1-Proposed Facilities
The access plan is shown on Figure E. 9.16. Transport of mater-
ials and supplies to the Watana damsite will commence in part at
the existing Alaska Railroad at Cantwell. A road will extend 2
miles (3.2 km) east from a proposed rail marshalling yard and
storage facility, and will follow an existing route to the junc-
tion of the George Parks and Denali Highways. Transport will
proceed 21.3 miles (34 km) eastward on the Denali Highway.
The road will be paved in the community of Cantwell from the 40-
acre (16-ha) marshalling yard to 4 miles (6.5 km) east of the
George Parks and Denali Highway intersection. This will elimi-
n at e d u s t a n d f 1 y i n g s t one s i n t h e r e s i d e n t i a l d i s t r i ct. Sp e e d
restrictions should be imposed by the state along this segment
for safety measures.
A new access road will extend south from the Denali Highway at
milepost 21.3. The road will be constructed for 41.6 miles
(67 km) across Brushkana and Deadman Creeks, extend south on the
west side of Deadman Mountain across a tributary of Deadman Creek
at milepost 28, and then parallel along Deadman Creek to the
Watana dams ite. The road will cross Deadman Creek via a bridge
to ensure adequate drainage and fish passage.
The crown of the Denali Highway-Watana road will only be 2 to 3
feet (0.6 to 0.9 m) above the original ground level. Borrow ex-
cavation will be confined to a 50-to 70-foot (15 to 27 meter)
trench on each side of the roadway. The side slopes of the
trench will be smooth and revegetated. Several pull-outs will be
constructed along the access road to permit viewing of natural
areas and some of the project facilities.
Access to the Devil Canyon development will consist primarily of
a 12.2-mile (20-km) extension of the existing Alaska Railroad at
Gold Creek to a marshalling yard and storage facility adjacent to
the Devil Canyon camp area. Materials and supplies will be dis-
tributed using a system of site roads.
The railroad will climb gently and steadily for 12.2 miles
(20 km) from Gold Creek to the marshalling yard near the Devil
Canyon camp, except for a 2-mil e (3-km) section where the route
traverses steep terrain alongside the Susitna River. Several
streams will be crossed requiring the construction of large
culverts; however, no bridges will be needed.
E-9-40
, r'~>
-
-
-·
-
-
-
3.4 -Access
The railroad extension will be designed not to exceed a maximum
grade of 2.5 percent nor a maximum curvature of 10 degrees.
These parameters are consistent with those presently being used
by the Alaska Railroad. Required right-of-way width will gene-
rally be 200 feet (60 m) for the gentle-to-moderate side slopes
of the road and railroad. The few areas of major sidehill cutt-
ing and deep excavation will require additional width.
The Devil Canyon and Watana damsite will be connected by a 37-
mile (60-km) road to provide access to construction and operation
and maintenance personnel stationed at Watana. From the marshal-
ling yard at Devil Canyon the connecting road will be built to a
high level suspension bridge approximately 1 mile (1.6 km) down-
stream from the damsite. The bridge deck will extend over the
Susitna River at an elevation of 1420 (430 (430 m), and the
bridge length will be 1790 feet (540 m) with a main span of 1250
feet (380m). The design of a high suspension bridge will reduce
traffic congestion by maintaining travel speed at 40 mph (65 kmh)
and reduced travel distance. Travel across a low bridge would
require increased time due to reduced speed and travel across 8
miles (13 km) of switchback road.
The Watana-Oevil Canyon route extends northeast from the high
suspension bridge, across Devil Creek and past Swimming Bear
Lake, then southeast through a wide pass at an elevation of 3500
feet (1060 meters). The road continues east across Tsusena
Creek to the Denali Highway-Watana road. The moderate slopes
will allow roadbed construction without deep cuts, balanced with
the required fill amounts to minimize borrow excavation.
Assessment of projected traffic volumes and loadings during con-
struction resulted in the se1ection of the following design para-
meters for the access roads.
Surfacing
Width of Running Surface
Shoulder Width
Maximum Grade
Maximum Curvature
Unpaved
24 feet
5 feet
6 percent
5 degrees
The 21.3 miles (33.5 km) of the Denali Highway will be upgraded
to these design standards. Required realignment should be poss-
ible within the existing easement.
Grades and curvatures consistent with current highway design
standards for a 55 mph {90 krnh) design speed were chosen for the
efficient and economical movement of supplies. Since extensive
grades and curvatures could result at some locations, the design
speed will be reduced in certain areas to 40 mph {65 km) to allow
E-9-41
3.4 -Access
steeper grades and shorter turn radii. Flex·ibility of design
speed allows the road to follow the topographical contour more
closely.
3.4.2-Induced Land Use Changes
The access route will be built for construction and operation of
the dam facilities. Many of the effects will be related to long-
term consequences after construction is complete. The road will
provide access to Native conveyed land in the section north of
each damsite and, when constructed, over the dam at Watana and
across the Susitna River via suspension bridge at Devil Canyon.
Increased access into this existing remote area is the major land
use impact of the project.
As discussed in the previous subsection, the existing land use is
predominantly individual recreational use and commercial recrea-
tion devel opnent. Access will introduce an influx of people and
will instigate activity within the basin that will affect popula-
tion concentrations, isolated residences, peripheral commercial
establishments and transportation systems, resource utilization,
the level of recreation activity, and the overall character of
the a rea. These effects could influence changes in 1 and value
and will initiate comprehensive land use management.
Access extending from the Denali Highway will cause effects in
the Cantwell area. Land use changes at Cantwell are further dis-
cussed in Subsection 3.4.2 (a). Road access will cause both the
disruption of present land use and the inducement of future land
use. Provision of access into the Susitna Basin is a more signi-
ficant impact than is the physical road. The provisions of easy,
inexpensive road access into the area will cause alterations to
the Susitna Basin 1 s character. The remote wilderness, presently
accessible only by air, ORV, foot or water will become an area of
hydroelectric development intensely used by project related per-
sonnel, people interested in observing the hydroelectric facili-
ties and the variety of Alaskan environments offered in the
Middle Susitna Basin, and by residents as far away as Anchorage
and Fairbanks for recreational purposes.
Rail access to Devil Canyon originating at Gold Creek will allow
the transportation of materials, equipment, and labor through
Gold Creek. There will be a significant impact on Gold Creek and
on Hurricane and Talkeetna, the last railroad junctures with
highway access to the north and south of Gold Creek, respective-
ly. The use of the railroad to ship materials to Devil Canyon
Dam will cause less of an impact to other communities along the
Parks Highway.
E-9-42
-
3.4 -Access
Goods or people could travel by rail to the Devil Canyon site.
This will reduce the extent of impact on community land use along
the Parks Highway. Access by road from the Denali Highway to
Watana would increase off-road vehicle use in areas where it is
now 1 ow. This introduction could aggravate alterations to the
terrain.
The proposed access would likely cause less of an effect to resi-
dents along the Parks Highway since direct access from the Parks
Highway is precluded. The road from the Denali Highway would
permit car travel by the public into the interior of the basin.
The Fairbanks population is considerably smaller than that of
Anchorage; therefore, potential human use of the basin via a new
road would be reduced with access extending from the Denali High-
way due to the increased distance from Anchorage. In addition,
virtually no development exists along the Denali route, so dis-
ruptions to existing land use would be minimal.
The Denali access road will provide access to GIRl and village
corporation lands for possible resource development. This is
considered a positive step by the corporations. Recreation, min-
ing, and timber harvesting have been ~uggested as possible acti-
vities.
(Ci1) land Use Development
r Improved access, :increased use, and markets for commercial
' services will macke the land in th.e project vicinity more
attractive to prospective .commercial and residential buyers.
Commercial and residential dey,elopment may increase, escala-
ting the land value.
A total of approximately 374 project-induced households are
expected to settle in the Mat-Su Burough between 1983 and
1990, the height of construction at Watana. This in-migra-
tion is not expected to cause dislocations in the borough's
-housing market. The majority of p roject-re 1 ated housing
demand will ·be concentrated on the northern part of the
borough. Low vacancy rates, are expected in Trapper Creek
and Talkeetna,, since add:'itfonal housing will' be built only
to satisJy demand •. It is; expected that housing for pnoject-
related households at Cantwell will be available due to
entrepreneurial activity. Mc:rs:t of tffR privately-owned 1 and
in Cantwell is owned by Atttirra~, Inc... IJBv.ero.Jlment for housing
wtll be subject to Ahtna:'s~ apl+ratisa1l of the ecunomic feasi-
bility of the developmerrt;J. Under a moderate impact see-
~""" nario, it is projected' that housing will b-ee available for
less than half of the· 115 project-related household demand
bet.ween 1984 and 1·9t;HJ~
E-9-43
3.4 -Access
The access roads between the Oenal i Highway, Watana, and
Devil Canyon, and the railhead at Cantwell, will not direct-
ly create significant impacts on land use development. Jobs
w"ill be created for their construction and operation. The
indirect influence the access road will have on the-1 ocal
communities will be more significant as labor and materials
pass within their vicinity (TES et al. 1981).
The termination of the rail system at Cantwell, the closest
community to the damsites via road, will create a signifi-
cant change to Cantwell. The size of population influx into
Cantwell will be heavily influenced by the development of
housing in the community by private individuals and by miti-
gating measures that can be implemented. Support sector
employment will develop as personnel arrive that are direct-
ly employed toward the construction or operation of the pro-
posed fac i 1 it i es. As the community population increases,
individual developers will need to increase maintenance to
continue current levels of road service, and additional
roads may need to be built to serve additional subdivisions.
Increased pol ice protection, emergency health care, educa-
tional capabilities, and business activity will require
developnent and construction proportional to the increased
population.
The population may increase by over 200 percent of the 1 evel
expected without the project at Cantwell and over 100 per-
cent at Trapper Creek. Talkeetna will experience a I0-50
percent increase in population. Construction and land use
development will increase proportionally. Palmer, Wasilla
and Houston will experience less than 2.5 percent increase
in population, housing and schools, but a 2.5-10 percent in-
crease will be experienced in the development of service
sector employment, business activity and transportation
facilities.
The extent of ·1 and use development wi 11 be determined by
regional communities. Cantwell, Palmer, Wasilla and Houston
are generally in favor of the changes discussed above.
These communities want more economic development, parti-
cularly jobs. Residents of Trapper Creek and Talkeetna have
indicated that rapid, uncontrolled change is not desired.
Residents who would like to have controlled economic devel-
opment want to consider potential changes to their community
as a result of the project before committing to a growth
plan. Some communities are already governed by land use
stipulations. For example, the Indian River Subdivision is
restricted to recreational use by the Talkeetna Mountain
Special Use District regulations.
E-9-44
3. 4 -Access
(b)
The railroad will traverse through Gold Creek to a rai 1 head
at Devil Canyon. This rail spur will significantly impact
population and the development of support sector employment,
business activity, housing and transportation in Gold Creek
and, to a lesser extent, Talkeetna.
The extent of land use development in surrounding communi-
ties will depend on the transportation program employed;
this could include combinations of airplane, bus, personal
vehicle with associated park and ride lots, travel
schedules, and/or travel allowances.
Land Use Activity
The population increase of Mat-Su Borough as a result of
project construction will be cumulatively (on-and offsite
residents) 4700 in 1990. When the access road is opened to
the pub1ic, recreation enthusiasts will enter the project
area for the wide variety of available outdoor recreational
opportunities at weekend travel distances. Post-construc-
tion recreation visitor days per year are projected to be
50,000 in the year 2000. The volume of this recreation
increase will change the existing land use activity patterns
significantly.
Hunting will increase to the maximum allowed by the permit
system for moose, caribou, and bear along the access corri-
dor. The increased number of hunters will disrupt existing
hunters and force them to adjust to reduced resources or to
relocate into other remote areas. Locations accessible to
hunters wi 11 be greater if ORV use is substantial.
Fishing wi11 increase with potential effects on reduced
resour,ces and on people who currently fish in the area.
Improved access to the mining aggr'egat ions along Portage
Creek and Go1d Creek may improve the economic feasibility of
mineral exploration and mining.
The Watana-Devil Canyon access road will disrupt current use
patterns at High Lake Lodge. Disruption might also occur to
fly-in fishing and hunting around the lakes near Devil
Canyon. Some trapping territories recently estab 1 i shed
around the High Lake area would also be altered. In addi-
tion to increased hunting and fishing, this area will also
receive increased recreational use for hiking, backpacking,
sightseeing, and other activities.
E-9-45
3. 4 -Access
Topographical conditions occurring along the Watana-Devil
Canyon access road may induce ORV use, degrading the
roadl ess experience of current users. The primary users
affected will include fishermen, trappers, miners, and
travelers using the existing sled road in the project area.
Disturbed users will also include lodge and cabin visitors.
All of the access route segments wi 11 affect the dispersed
recreation currently enjoyed by hunters, winter enthusiasts,
and back country hikers.
3.4.3 -Mitigation
To reduce impacts from the proposed access route, several manag-
ement techniques can be designed. The access route should not
cross unstable soils or wetlands to the greatest degree practi-
cal. Disturbed sites could be restored to a stable condition.
Staging areas and parking lots used during construction could be
planned and designed to be used for future scenic and recreation
pullouts for the public. A fire protection and prevention plan
could be formulated to decrease the fire hazard associated with
increased access.
Land use activity will be confined to within project construction
areas until the facilities are built. This will reduce the im-
pact of land use activity until the implementation of the land
use management plans takes place.
If the use of off-road vehicles (ORV) originating from the access
route becomes a disturbance, measures wi 11 need to be taken to
inhibit this activity. Such measures would include a buffer
strip designated for non-motorized use adjacent to the access
route, natural conditions employed as subtle but absolute deter-
rents to ORV use, designated and planned ORV trails in locations
that wi 11 neither conflict with other 1 and use nor damage the
env.ironment, and, if necessary, ORV restriction between the pro-
posed damsites. Spur roads to private holdings and mining claims
will be designed, located, and constructed similarly.
Recreational use extending from the access route will be directed
to sites designed to support such use. The proposed recreational
facilities will accommodate recreational demand and replace
opportunities lost.
3.5-Transmission
3.5.1 -Proposed Facilities
Maps of the transmission route are included in Exhibit G. The
central transmission route is illustrated in Figure E.9.16. The
E-9-46
-
r
-'
3.5-Transmission
land use aggregations and existing structures for the project
impoundment area are illustrated in Figures E.9.8 and E.9.9,
respectively.
Figures E.9.4 and E.9.10 illustrate land tenure and land use
development of the Anchorage-Willow transmission line. Figures
E.9.5, E.9.6, E.9.11, and E.9.12 illustrate land tenure and land
development for the Healy-Fairbanks transmission line. The
corridor width studied was 3 to 6 miles (5 to 10 km), included
both sides of the river, so therefore, was 14 miles (23 km) wide
in some central corridor segments. The transmission route analy-
sis involved mapping within the corridor, the land use develop-
ment and activity, and land tenure.
The process of environmentally screening the original 22 corri-
dors involved comparison of study area options based on the
following eight constraints categories: length, topography/
soils, land use, aesthetics, cultural resources, vegetation,
fish, and wildlife. Following review of the environmental and
engineering analyses, one transmission corridor was selected for
each of the three study areas. Constraints within that corridor
were then examined and a 0.5-mile (0.8-km) route within the cor-
ridor was selected.
From Watana to Devil Canyon, two single-circuit lines will be
constructed in a 300-foot (90-m) wide right-of-way specified
within the proposed 0.5-mile (0.8-km) wide corridor. Four
single-circuit 345-kV lines will extend from Devil Canyon to the
intertie near Gold Creek. A 510-foot (155-m) wide right-of-way
will be selected for the proposed Devil Canyon-Gold Creek corri-
dor. Watana to Gold Creek was considered the central study
area.
The location of the Watana-Gold Creek transmission line is gene-
rally from the Watana dam across and adjacent to the north side
of the Watana-Devil Canyon access road. It will cross the Gold
Creek -De vi 1 Canyon rail road twice. Specifically, the central
transmission lines extend from the Watana Substation, located in
the Southwest Quarter of Section 28, Township 32 North, Range 5
East of Seward Meridian. The right-of-way will extend northwest
for 2.2 miles (3.7 km), west by northwest for 7.4 miles (12 km),
northwest for 6.5 miles (10.9 km), and then southwest for 12.5
miles (20 km). At this location, two lines from the Devil Canyon
Substation located 0. 7 miles (1.1 km) east in the Northwest
Quarter of Section 32, Township 32 North, Range 1 East of Seward
Meridian, parallel the Watana-Gold Creek lines. Four lines
extend southwest from this junction for 2.2 miles (3.7km) then
west by northwest for 5.3 miles (9 km). The Devil Canyon Switch-
ing Station is located in the Northwest Quarter of Section 1,
Township 32 North, Range 2 West of the Seward Meridian.
E-9-47
3. 5 -Transmission
Three lines will extend from Gold Creek to Anchorage. The right-
of-way will be 400 feet (120m) wide and will include the Alaska
Power Authority's intertie to Willow. Between Anchorage and
Willow the southern transmission study area parallels Chugach
Electric Associations existing transmission line east of Knik
Arm.
From Gold Creek two lines will extend north including the Alaska
Power Authority's intertie to Healy (Commonwealth Associates,
Inc. 1982). The right-of-way will be 300 feet (90 m) including
the intertie's right-of-way. The corridor of the northern study
area to Fairbanks parallels Golden Valley Electric Association's
(GVEA) transmission line for many miles.
Most of the towers will be X-shaped structures approximately 100
feet ( 30 m) tall. Two cab 1 e guys will extend from the crossbar
of each tangent structure to a centerline anchor on each side of
the structure.
Each line will have 105 feet (31m) between the centerlines and
95 feet (29 m) of right-of-way on either side. The vegetation in
an 80-foot (24-m) strip below each transmission line will not
extend above 2 feet (0.6 m). The 25-foot (7.6-m) strip between
transmission lines will have vegetation growth 10 feet (3m)
tall, cut in an irregular fashion to break up the visual
linearity of the corridor. Traverse strips 30 feet wide (9 m) of
1 ow vegetation, will extend between the transmission structures
of each line. '
Tree clearing along the outside edges of the right-of-way will be
feathered. At approximately 40 feet (12 m) from tile centerline
the tree height will be 10 feet (3m). Tree heigllt will increase
as the distance from the centerline increases at a 30° angle from
ground level. Trees along the outside edge of the right-of-way
will be acceptable to approximately 45 (13.6 m) feet tall on
level terrain. Trees growing outside of the right-of-way that
could encroach on minimum conductor clearance when falling will
be flagged and felled by hand tools or hand held power tools.
Double circuit construction may be required in areas such as the
Municipality of Anchorage to allow a narrower right-of-way.
Doub 1 e circuit structures will be similar in design to the single
circuit structures, only 50 feet (15m) taller.
Tile transmission routes have been located to avoid recreation
areas, residential areas, and special interest land. For
example, the Anchorage-Willow transmission line avoided the Nancy
Lake State Recreation Area, and the Susitna Flats State Game
Refuge is only marginally traversed. The Healy-Fairbanks route
E-9-48
-
!""""
' l
r
-
3.5-Transmission
deviates from Golden Valley Electric Association's (GVEA)
transmission route and parallels the Alaska Railroad for 7 miles
(11 km) in an effort to avoid multiple cross1ngs of the Parks
Highway. Private land holdings and communities such as Willow
were major considerations in route· selection.
The proximity of the transmission 1 i ne to the access road will
provide ground access to the line in all weather conditions. A
trail will extend from the access road to each transmission
structure. · A minimum standard access trail will extend the
entire length of the transmission route suitable only to all-
terrain vehicle use. These trails will not be maintained during
winter but cleared only as necessary, unlike the Watana-Devil
Canyon access road.
3.5.2 -Induced Land Use Changes
Const1·uction activities cause both short-and long-term impacts
on resources. The creation of new access will add significantly
to the potential for disturbance caused by the transmission line.
Efforts were made to parallel existing utility corridors and to
utilize existing access wherever appropriate.
Maintenance activities during the operational phase of the lines
can also cause adverse impacts as a result of right-of-way
clearing. Impacts will vary depending upon the timing and method
of right-of-way maintenance and can be minimized through careful
prescription of maintenance techniques.
(a) Land Use Development
The Anchorage-Will ow route crosses or para 11 el s numerous
trails, including the Iditarod Trail, seismic survey lines,
tractor and pioneering ORV trails, and several recreational
trails near Willow (ADNR 1980), as illustrated in Figure
E.9.10.
Residential use occurs in Willow, Red Shirt Lake, and on
many of the small lakes east of the Anchorage-Willow route.
Scattered cab'ins in the vicinity ofWillow are close to the
Alaska Railroad and Parks Highway. Red Shirt Lake has
approximately 25 cabins along its shores. Seven other lakes
have several cabins along their shores, and a few cabins are
widely scattered elsewhere. The proposed route wi 11 not
directly affect these existing structures, although the
lines and towers may be visible in areas west of Long Lake,
Red Shirt Lake, and smaller lakes where topography is not
sufficient to screen them from view.
E-9-49
3. 5 -Transmission
The Anchorage-Will ow 1 i ne route traverses 5. 3 miles ( 8. 9 km)
across the Point MacKenzie Agricultural Sale located north
by northwest of Point MacKenzie {see Figure E. 9.10). Land
within a transmission right-of-way can still be cultivated,
but the towers would displace small areas of existing and
potential farmland and disrupt normal patterns of
cultivation and future agricultural development.
The corridor and portions of the western boundary of the
Anchorage-Willow route include the northeast corner of the
Susitna Flats State Game Refuge. All land use development
in a game refuge must be determined to be compatible with
the purposes for W1 ich the refuge was created.
On the east side of Knik Arm inlet the line route passes
through the Fort Richardson Military Reservation parallel to
the existing Chugach Electric Association, Inc.•s Point
MacKenzie-University Substation line.
The Healy-Fairbanks line route parallels Golden Valley
Electric Association•s (GVEA) existing line for 12 miles
(20 km), then parallels the Alaska Railroad for 7 miles
{11 km). The line continues north on the east side of the
Parks Highway and railroad to avoid multiple crossings of
the highway. The GVEA existing transmission line extends
from an existing substation at Healy to an existing substa-
tion at Ester. The Healy-Fairbanks line route parallels the
GVEA 1 ine intermittently for 15 miles (25 km) before enter-
ing the Ester substation.
There are several moderate concentrations of land use devel-
opments along or adjacent to the proposed route between
Healy and Fairb.;mks. Significant among these is the devel-
opment at Healy, Nenana, and Ester. In Healy and Ester,
existing land use and the proposed transmission route will
be juxtaposed. Other residential areas passed by the pro-
posed line include communities adjacent to the Parks Highway
or the Alaska Railroad. These include Lignite, Ferry, and
Brown. Few cabins exist in the vicinity of the Healy-
Fairbanks transmission route.
Numerous trails, light-duty roads, and a sled road are in
the vicinity of the Healy-Fairbanks transmission route as
we 11 as the Parks Highway and the Alaska Ra i 1 road (ADNR
1982). Many landing strips or airports are in the vicinity
as well as the U.S. Air Force Clear M.E.w.s. Military
Reserve. These include one at Healy, two at Lignite, one at
Rex, and an airport at Nenana and Fairbanks.
E-9-50
_,
I
-.
l
.....
-
-I
-
-
-i
3.5-Transmission
{b)
As illustrated in
development exists
transmission line
(5km).
Land Use Activity
Figure E. 9.11~ some agricultural 1 and
north of Healy through \'Alich the proposed
wi 11 trav-erse approximately 3 miles
The rw-oposed route between Will ow and Knik Arm northeast of
Point MacKenzie wi 11 traverse an area that receives dis-
persed but increasing use. Boating occurs along the Susitna
and Little Susitna Rivers, Willow Creek, and on numerous
small lakes. Potential conflicts between the rw-oposed lines
and private lands and boating use may occur wherever the
lines and towers will be visible. Floatplane flight
patterns may be affected where the 1 i nes pass near 1 akes
used for landing and taking off.
Trails that receive substantial ORV use are located near
Willow, Red Shirt Lake, and Knik Arm. The proposed route
will not affect the physical use of trails, although visual
conflicts may occur where the lines pass the trails.
Extensive mining occurs along the Healy-Fairbanks transmis-
sion route concentrated at Ester and to its west.
3.~3-Mitigation
Efforts were made to select transmission line routes that would
minimize negative impact. Proper alignment of the transmission
line right-of-way wit~in the route could reduce the line 1 S obtru-
siveness. Techniques employed to reduce the impact of the trans-
mission line include following the Chugach and GVEA existing
transmission corridors and initiating their structure design,
spacing, and conductor material. Other techniques used to min-
imize disturbance include right-of-way clearing designed to be
unobtrusive by breaking up the linearity and feathering the tree
height, locating the right-of-way away from private and special
·interest land, and by maintaining the access roads only when
necessary in winter.
The impact of the transmission line routes from Gold Creek to
Healy and Willow will be minimal because the route will be within
the same corridor as the Alaska Power Authority 1 S Healy-Willow
intertie transmission line. The construction of the Power
Authority 1 s Wi 11 ow-Hea 1 y i ntert i e will be camp lete upon commence-
ment of the rw-oposed Susitna transmission construction. The im-
pact of the proposed transmission lines will be reduced because
they win parallel and be adjacent to the approved intertie
right-of-way.
E-9-51
3.6 -Changes in Land Use Without the Project
Agencies, Native corporations, and the private sector have been heavily
involved in the selection and transfer of land ownership under the
Alaska Statehood Act and the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. Land
selection is complete. Without the development of the Susitna Hydro-
electric Project the urgency to determine the ownership of the land in
the project area will be lessened. The conveyance of land will con-
tinue in the project area; however, other areas of proposed development
will have higher priorities for the state and Native corporations.
The project area has not been exploited in the past because of limited
economic feasibility. Discussions with land owners/managers and consi-
deration of present market conditions indicate that, without the pro-
ject, little change is likely to occur in existing land use patterns.
Even if the state of Alaska or the Cook Inlet Region, Inc. and village
corporations sell remote parcels surrounding the accessible lakes, it
is unlikely that there will be any significant change unless access
into the area is improved. Native land owners have expressed inten-
tions to exploit the mineral potential of lands south of the project
area; however, no specific plans have been identified due to 1 imited
access.
E-9-52
-
-
-
-
-
4 -DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES IN LAND STATUS AND MANAGEMENT
4.1 -Land Status Changes Resulting from the Project
The land required for the dams, the Devil Canyon reservoir, and a por-
tion of the Watana reservoir has been selected by the Natives. The
proposed locations for the Devil Canyon camp and village, as shown in
Figure E.9.16, have been selected by CIRI as illustrated in Figure
E.9.3, and could be transferred to CIRI and associated Native village
groups. The proposed locations for the Watana camp and village are on
state selected land. The transmission line routes are primarily on
state land. Sections of the northern transmission corridor crosses
land that has been designated for village selection within Doyon, Ltd.
boundaries. Sections of the southern corridor are owned by CIRI.
Transfer of title for state selected 1 and will not be affected by the
project. A means of land acquisition will have to be established for
the access road an.d transmission line corridor, either through purchase
or by obtaining a right-of-way, before the initiation of construction.
A decision by the state to proceed with the Susitna project would en-
tail transfer of ownership of substantial land areas to the state. The
process for such transfer has not yet been established but could entail
purchase and/or an exchange of other state selected lands with Native
corporations.
The exchange of fee simple land between the state and a regional Native
corporation will involve each agency's determination of parcels suit-
able for exchange. Market value and appraisals are made for each par-
cel and are compared for exchange. A comprehensive status check is
performed to determine if the land is subject to regulations. A land
use report and land classification may be required and public hearings
will be held.
ADNR and the Native corporations have expressed interest in identifying
the project related land use requirements and alternatives in a manner
that will prevent irreversible impacts to land management. In order to
prevent this issue from being a potential delay in project progress,
recommendation has been made to convene in a multiagency, multidisci-
plinary effort. Carefully determined decisions could result in a
multipurpose project which could facilitate and enhance other uses of
the surrounding la.nd. Future management problems for landowners and
land managers could be minimized.
E-9-53
4.3-land Management Changes Resulting from the Project
4.2 -Land Status Changes Without the Susitna Hydroelectric Project
With the exception of a few scattered parcels, most lands in the pro-
ject area are presently under federal title, withdrawn from acquisition
or development pending conveyance of Native and state selections
authorized by ANCSA and the Statehood Act, respectively. Significant
changes in the land selection are not anticipated in the project area
whether the project proceeds or not. Land exchanges are oeing consi-
dered between Ahtna, Inc. and CIRI. CIRI and the village corporations
have not completely determined which method CIRI will reconvey land to
the village corporations.
4.3 -Land Management Changes Resulting from the Project
Based on available information and agency interviews, it has been
determined that little comprehensive management exists at present.
Agencies establishing management plans have been influenced by the
feasibility analysis of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project. Not all the
management plans described below were instigated by the Susitna Hydro-
electric Project; however, as feasibility of the Susitna Project became
probable, comprehensive plans have been adjusted accordingly.
The Bureau of Land Management ( BLM) has no proposals for management
planning in the study area, other than the existing Denali/Tiekel
P 1 ann i n g B 1 ock s.
A draft Denali Scenic Highway Fe as i bil ity Study and recommendations
regarding the proposal will be released in March 1983. The Susitna
Hydroelectric Project access road was considered in the analysis of the
scenic highway feasibility report. The project proposal, construction,
and 1 and use are not expected to impact the scenic highway proposal.
Public hearings for the Scenic Highway Study will be held in March
1983. The Alaska Land Use Council will make its recommendation follow-
ing the receipt of public comments and after reviewing the compatibil-
ity of the Scenic Highway proposal and other plans. The compatibility
of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project and the Oenal i Scenic Highway wi 11
be determined at that time.
The ADNR is preparing a land use report that describes and categorizes
potential land use in the south-central region of Alaska which will be
completed by approximately May 1983. A land use plan will be completed
by the ADNR in 1986. The ADNR recommends close coordination between
the development of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project and the Susitna
Area Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
The ADF&G has developed species-specific objectives for the region, but
it has no land management authority. Other agencies have preliminarily
addressed 1 and management concerns. The generation of hydroe 1 ect ric
E-9-54
-
-[
F"'
I
-
~
'
r
-
....
4.3 -Land Management Changes Resulting from the Project
power will become the predominant land use in the area, and the pres-
ence of the project will be an importance factor when agencies eventu-
ally develop comprehensive land management plans.
The Mat-Su Borough has prepared a planning background report. The
Mat-Su Borough will complete a draft comprehensive land use plan in
January 1983.
The Fairbanks North Star Borough is preparing a borough-wide, compre-
hensive plan. The first section will describe the potential land use
and will give a general comprehensive plan; it will be available in
July 1983. By 1985 specific land use plans, policies, and regulations
for subdivisions and zoning will be available.
Increased access will allow land use activity to become more intense,
especially by individual users. Therefore, the provision of access
will result in a need for increased management and use controls in the
Middle Susitna Basin. After titles or legal rights-of-way are obtained
for construction and operation of facilities, public access could
result in increased use levels of private lands; fishing and general
use of the project area are probable. These activities may require
increased fish and wi 1 dl i fe management and/or may result in surface-
disturbing activities.
Specific controls may be required to protect resource value within the
project boundaries. Land use control waul d derive from management
plans designed by the land owners/managers. These plans should be
coordinated with adjacent land owners/managers to be compatible with
adjacent land management. Controls could include establishing acquisi-
tion limits for hunting and fishing, permitting a limited public entry,
ORV management, and other land use management.
If the Alaska Power Author tty 1 eases project-required 1 and from the
Native corporations, the Native land owne-rs will dictate the land use
policy by virtue of a permit system subject to federal or state law.
The Native land owners will implement the land use control authorized
to them by the U.S. Congress via ANCSA in 1971. Such control could
include restrictions to trespass, use of ORVs, rockhounding, and access
to recreational trails that cross their land. Permits to hunt, fish
and use Native land will be the tools to regulate the restrictions.
Finalizing specific management plans and mitigation measures for trans-
mission line right-of-way, access, recreational use, and residential
accommodations w"ill proceed during Phase II of the Susitna Hydroelec-
tric Project. The Alaska Power Authority will work closely with the
aforementioned development of land use plans •
E-9-55
4.4 -Land Management Changes Without the Project
Land management in the project area is tenuous because of the emphasis
on the determination of land ownersh·ip and the uncertain outcomes of
the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act and the Susitna
Hydroelectric Project (USOTA 1977). The BLM Denali Planning Block will
dictate the policy for lands within its boundaries and may influence
management decisions on BLM land in the vicinity.
Ahtna, Inc. and its village corporations will establish land value and
the economics of recreational, mining and residential land use upon the
BLM's conveyance of land. CIRI and its village corporations will do so
after the procedure for CIRI's reconveyance of land to the villages has
been determined and implemented.
The ADNR and t~at-Su Borough have recently increased their effort to
establish management plans in the project area as a result of project
feasibility studies. Land management plans completed for the project
area will not change should the hydroelectric project not be construc-
ted. The implementation of those plans will proceed at a slower rate.
The establishment or completion of new plans may be postponed. The
efforts of personnel of the Sus itna Area Planning Team may be redi-
rected to areas of greater activity such as south and west Mat-Su
Borough where development will establish along the highways and rail-
road as a result of growth in Anchorage and south-central Alaska.
E-9-56
-
r
r
-
-
5 -AGENCY CONSULTATION AND MITIGATION PLANS
Agency consultation is described specifically in Section 6, Authorities
Contacted. Comments received from the Alaska Department of Fish and
Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlffe Service included comments on miti-
gation measures. The following general response is toward those
comments, and is more specifically addressed in the Chapter 9 text.
Specific agency comments and responses are itemized in Chapter 11.
Measures to mitigate the land use impact will be determined along with
juristictional agencies such as the Alaska Department of Natural
Resources, Matanuska-Susitna Borough, Fairbanks North. Start Borough,
The Municipality of Anchoragee, and the regional Native Corporations
when these agencies have determined the preferred techniques to imple-
ment increased land use management.
Chapter 9 has described the limited historical land use of the project
impoundment area and the progress of land management plans. Land
management has only become a concern in Alaska in the last twenty
years. Agencies have recently been selecting land to acquire and will
develop management plans upon the completion of land acquisition. The
agencies have anticipated the approval of the Susitna Hydroelectric
Project and have increased emphasis on land management ·in the project
area.. Once the scope of the project and the potential impacts to the
resources are identified, the agencies can coordinate management plans
to minimize the p reject impact, manage the land use effectively, and
facilitate and enhance other use in adjacent areas.
Specific mitigation measures addressed in Chapter 9 include designing
housing facilities that m1n1m1ze environmental impact; directing
personnel away from environmentally sensitive areas via proposed
recreational facilities; providing recreational opportunities that off-
set recreational resources lost with a recreation plan compatible with
the regional recreational framework; inhibiting ORV activity if it
becomes a disturbance; aligning the transmission line according to the
terrain and the existing and potential land use; and designing and
managing the transmission line right-of-way to reduce visual, biologi-
cal, and human impact.
Restrictive access has historically limited public use of the project
area. Unlimited access into the area could bring about excessive
public use and associated socioeconomic and biological distress. The
recreation plan will accommodate recreational demand and replace
recreational opportunities lost as it simultaneously directs activity
to more resilient ecosystems.
Specific mitigation measures to reduce the impact of the transmission
line are presented in Subsections 3.5.1 and 3.5.3. Right-of-way man-
agement techniques include feathering adjacent tree height; 1 inear and
transverse undulation of the cut tree line; and clearing the transmis-
sion line access road, only as required for maintenance access to the
transmission structures.
E-9-57
-
6 -AUTHORITIES CONTACTED
The following list docLJllents the authorities contacted in the course of
preparing the Land Use Chapter for the FERC permit application for the
Sus itna Hyd roe 1 ectri c Project. Written records of these conversations
are available at offices of the Alaska Power Authority.
E-9-59
l l
Agencies
FEDERAL
u.s. Department of Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service
U.S. Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration
U.S. Department of Defense
Army Corps of Engineers,
Alaska District
U.S. Department of Interior
Bureau of Land Management
AUTHORITIES CONTACTED
Person
Ster 1 i ng Po we 1l :
Phys ica 1 Engineer,
Water Resource Specialist
Larry Boyles:
Floodplain Management Branch
A 1 an Ch ur c h i 11 :
Floodplain Management Branch
Ted Rock we 11 :
Regulatory Functions Branch
Paula Benson: ANCSA
John Rego: Geologist
Sandy Thomas: ANCSA
Date
10/19/82
11/02/82
~ 11/02/82
11/02/82
12/16/82 and
12/20/82
12/17/82
12/14/82
10/07/82 and
12/14/82
10/27/82
]
Communication Subject
Meeting Special Lands
Phone Floodplain and
Coastal Zone Management
Phone Air Landing Areas
Meeting Fl oodpl ai ns
Phone Floodplains
Meeting Wetlands Permit
Phone Land Status
Phone Land Use
Phone Land Status
AUTHORITIES CONTACTED
Agencies Person Date
U.S. Department of Interior (Cont.)
Bureau of Land Management
(Cont.)
National Park Service
STATE
Department of Commerce and
Economic Development
Alaska Power Authority
Department of Community and
Regional Affairs
Coastal Zone Management
Department of Fish and Game
Division of Habitat
Protection
Bob Ward:
Environmental Planner
Larry Wright:
Outdoor Recreation Planner
Bruce Bedard:
Inspector, Native Liaison
Christy Miller
Dan Huttman
Carl Yenigawa
10/20/82,
11/01/82 and
12/14/82
11/08/82
10/04/82
10/12/82
11/09/82
11/29/82
12/14/82
11/02/82
12/02/82
10/07/82
Communication
Meeting
Phone
Phone
Phone
Phone
Phone
Phone
Meeting
Meeting
Phone
Phone
Phone
Subject
Land Use Management
Land Use
Land Use
Land Status
Land Management
Floodplains
Land Status
Land Use
1
Agencies
Alaska Land Use Council
Department of Law
Department of Natural Resources
Division of Forest Land and
Water Management
Division of Reseach and
Development
LOCAL
Fairbanks Northstar Borough
l l -1
AUTHORITIES CONTACTED
Person
Lisa Parker:
Executive Director
Bob Price
Arl an DeYong:
Assistant Planner, District
Classification Officer
Keith Quintavell:
Land Management Officer
Christopher Beck:
Regional Planner
Al Carson:
Deputy Director
Randy Cowart
Paul a Tevel ker:
Planner II
Date
10/14/82 and
10/20/82
10/14/82
12/14/82
12/15/82
12/17/82
12/20/82
12/14/82
10/13/82 and
10/14/82
10/13/82 and
12/16/82
12/16/82 and
01/18/82
10/11/82
Communication
Phone
Meeting
Phone
Phone
Meeting
Phone
Meeting
Phone
Phone
Phone
Phone
Phone
Meeting
Phone
-l
Subject
Land Status
Land Status
Land Classification
Land Status
Land Use
Land Management
Land Use
Land Use Management
Land Use Development
Land Use
AUTHORITIES CONTACTED
Agencies Person Date Commu·ni cation Subject
LOCAL {CONT.l
Matanuska-Susitna Borough Claudio Arenas: 10/07/82 Phone Land Use
Planning Director 10/14/82 Phone Land Management
10/30/82 Meeting Land Management
12/14/82 Phone Land Use
12/15/82 Phone Land Management
Al rtna, Inc. Lee Adler: 10/08/82 Phone Land Status
Director 11/29/82 Meeting Land Status
Cantwell Vi 11 age Charles Hubbard 10/08/82 Phone Land Status
Planning Co unci 1
Cook Inlet Region, Inc. Don Marx 12/20/82 Meeting Land Status Management
Steve Cl anehan 12/20/82 Meeting Land Status
Roland Shanks 10/08/82 and Phone Land Status
12/01/82 Meeting Land Status and Management
Dowl Engineers Rick Feller 10/07 I 82 Phone Land Management Plans
Hollmes and Narver Warren Samples: 10/7/82 Phone Land Status
Susitna Project Manager
Knik/ADC Ray Goodman 10/21/82 Meeting Land Status
Land Field Services Jay Sullivan 10/14/82 Phone Land Status
Morene Bockman 10/15/82 Meeting Land Status
Tyonek Native Corporation Agnes Brown: President 10/25/82 Phone Land Status
-
REFERENCES
Acres American IncorporatedjTerrestri al Environmental Specialists, Inc.
1981. Susitna Hydroelectric Project, Environmental Studies
Subtask 7.07: Land Use Analysis. Prepared for the Alaska Power
Authority, Anchorage, Alaska.
Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Matanuska-Susitna Borough.
1981. Draft Land Use Plan for Public Lands in the Willow Sub-
basin. Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
Alaska Department of Natural Resources, et al. 1982. Land Use Issues
and Preliminary Resource Inventory, Planning Background Report.
Volume 1. Prepared for the Matanuska-Susitna-Beluga Cooperative
Planning Program.
Alaska Department of Natural Resources, 1980. Susitna Basin Land Use/
Recreation Atlas Planning Background Report. Prepared in
cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Social
Conservation Service.
1982. Tanana Basin Land Use Atlas.
Arnold, R.D. 1978. Alaska Native Land Claims. Alaska Native Founda-
tion, Anchorage, Alaska.
Bureau of Land Management. 1982. Amendment to the Southcentral Alaska
Land Use Plan for the Denali/Tiekel Planning Blocks (Draft).
Commonwealth Associates, Inc. 1982. Environmental Assessment Report,
Anchorage -Fairbanks Transmission Intertie. Prepared for the
Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage, Alaska.
Dowl Engineers 1982. Growth Potential, Development Issues, Settlement
Patterns (Draft). Volume 2. Matanuska-Susitna-Beluga Cooperative
Planning Program. Prepared for the Matanuska-Susitna Borough.
Executive Order 11988. 1977. Floodplain Management.
Maynard and Partch/Woodward-Clydfr Consultants. 1981. Coastal Manage-
ment Program Phase II Progress Report. Prepared for Alaska
Coastal Management Program and the Office of Coastal Zone Manage-
ment, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce.
Price, .R. E. 1982. Legal Status of the Alaska Natives: A Report to
the Alaska Statehood Commission. Prepared by Department of Law
for the Alaska Statehood Commission, Fairbanks, Alaska.
R&M Consultants, Inc. December 1981. Susitna Hydroelectric Project -
Regional Flood Studies. Prepared for Acres American
Incorporated.
R&M Consultants, Inc.
River Morphology.
January 1982. Susitna Hydroelectric Project
Prepared for Acres American Incorporated.
Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, Inc., Frank Orth & Associates
and the University of Alaska. 1981c. Susitna Hydroelectric
Project, Environmental Studies Report Subtask 7.14: Access Road
Environmental Analys1s-Env1ronmental, Socioeconomic and Land Use
Analysis of Alternative Access Plans. Prepared for the Alaska
Power Authority, Anchorage, Alaska.
Terrestrial Environmental Specialists and the University of Alaska.
1981b. Susitna Hydroelectric Project, Environmental Studies
Annual Report Subtask 7.12: Plant Ecology Studies. Prepared for
the Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage, Alaska.
U.S. Corps of Engineers 1980. Protecting Alaska's Waters.
U.S. Corps of Engineers 1972. The Floodplain Information Report,
Talkeetna, Alaska.
U.S. Office of Technology Assessment. 1977. Analysis of Laws
Governing Access Across Federal Lands, Opt1ons for Access in
Alaska. Washington, D.C.
-
-
r-
-'
,...
r
....
-I
-
r
I""'
I
TABLE E.9.1: PARCELS BY LAND STATUS/OWNERSHIP CATEGORY(a)
USGS Talkeetna Land Status/
Mountains Quad Ownership Category Location Acreage
C-1 Federal T29N, R12E SM(b) 3,200
Federal (SSS)(c)
T30 & 31N, R11E SM -11,840
T29-31N, R10 & 11E SM 28,160
State Selection T29N, R10 & 11E SM 23,040
. Regional Selection T30 & 31N, R12E SM 12,800
C-2 Federal (SSS) T29-31N, R8-10E SM 86,400
State Selection T29 & 30N, R8-10E SM 51,840
Private (Clarence Lake) T30N, R9E, SM
Sections 19, 20, 21 12
C-3 Federal (SSS) T30 & 31N, R5-8E SM 56,639
State Selection T29 & 30N, R5-8E SM 81,920
Native Selection T31N, R5E, SM 998
Private (Watana Lake) T31N, R7E SM
Sections 25 & 36 15
C-4 Federal (SSS) T30N, R3-5E SM 18,304
State Selection T29 & 30N, R3-5E SM 73,088
Native Selection T29-31N, R2-5E SM 47,872
Private (Stephan Lake) T30N, R3E SM
Sections 9,16,17,20,21 42
C-5 Federal (SSS) T30 & 31N, R1W, 1&2E SM 52,006
State Se 1 ect ion T29 & 30N, R1W, 1&2E SM 52,480
Native Selection T29-31N, R1 & 2E SM 32,665
Private T29N, R2E SM Section 15 5
(a) Status and ownership are subject to change through administrative
and court proceedings.
(b) Seward Meridian
(c) SSS -State Selection Suspended
(d) TA -Tentatively Approved
(e) Fairbanks Meridian
Source: Compiled from various sources including Land Status Maps prepared by·
CIRI/H&N 1980 and 1981; Alaska Department of Natual Resources, State
Land Disposal. Brochures 1979, 1980, 1981; U.S. Department of
Interior, Bureau of Land Management Records, 1982.
TABLE E.9.1 (Page 2)
USGS Talkeetna Land Status/
Mountains Quad Ownership Category
C-6
0-6
Federal (SSS)
State Selection
State Patented (TA)
Native Group Selected
Private (north of
Chuni 1 na Creek)
(south of
Gold Creek)
Mining Claims
Federal (Railroad
Withdrawal)
(near Chulitna)
Federal (SSS)
Denali State Park
State Selection
State Selection TA
Native Selection
Private (Indian River
Remote
(Indian River S.D.)
(near Chulitna)
(near Gold Creek)
(Pass Creek)
(Summit Lake)
(Chulitna Pass)
(near Alaska Railroad)
Location
T29-31N, R1 & 3J SM
T29 & 30N, R1 & 2W
T31N, R2W SM
T30N, R2W SM
T30N, R 2W SM
Sections 23, 26
T31N, R 2W SM
Sections 29, 30
T29N, R2W SM
Sections 2,3,10,
11,15,16
T22S, RllW FM(e)
SM
Sections 22, 23, 26
27, 33, 34
T33N, R3J SM
Sections 15-17
T32N, R2W SM
Sections 1, 2 & 11
T31N, R 1W SM
T33N, R1W SM
T31-33N, R3J SM
T32 & 33N, R2W S'-1
T32 & 33N, R2W SM
Sections 6 & 31
T22S, R llW FM
T31N, R2W SM
T22S, R1CW FM
T31 & 32N, R1W SM
T31 & 32N, R3J SM
Sections 2-4,9,10,13
24,25-27,33-36
T33N, R2W SM
T32N, R2W SM
Sections 1,2,11,12
T31N, R2W SM
Sections 17,19-21, 29,30
T33N, R2W SM Section 27
T33N, R2W SM Section 34
T33N, R2W SM Section 35
T31N, R2W SM Section 9
Acreage
23,999
30,399
5,760
3,840
403
84
Unknm'ln
1,984
257
180
2,303
3, 840
2 5, 600
10,240
479
5,120
9,600
3,200
7,680
6,400
1,280
371
959
2
5
2
2
TABLE E.9.1 (Page 3)
.....
USGS Talkeetna Land Status/
Mountains Quad Ownershi~ Categorl Location Acreage
0-5 Federal (SSS) T31N, R1W, 1 & 2E SM 17,860
T33N, R1W SM 11, 520
State Selection T32 & 33N, R1W, 1&2E SM 61,438
State Selection TA T22S, R8-1CM FM 29, 119
Native Selection T31-33N, R1W, 1&2E SM 52,198
Private (High Lake) T32N, R2E SM Section 20 111
(north of Devil Canyon) T32N, R1E SM Section 16 12
T32N, R1E SM Section 30 7
T32N, R1W SM Section 9 5
F" T32N, R1W SM Section 10 12
T32N, R1W SM Section 23 7
0-4 Federal (SSS) T31N, R3E SM 12,160
State Se1ection T32 & 33N, R3-5E SM 95,039
State Selection TA T22S, R5-8tJ FM 29,440
Native Selection T31 & 32N, R3-5E SM 3 7, 914 -Private (Tsusena T33N, R5E SM
Butte area) Sections 16, 21 49
0-3 Federal T32 & 33N, R8E SM 2,560 ,_
Federal (SSS) T31 & 32N, R5-7E SM 26,880
State Se1ection T32 & 33N, R5-7E SM 82,560
State Selection TA T32N, R8E SM 2, 081
F"' T22S, R2-4W FM 21,760
T22S, R5W FM 5, 760
Native Selection T31 & 32N, R5W-7E SM 28,160
Private (Fog Lakes Jlr ea) T31N, R5E SM
Sections 13 & 24 52
0-2 Federa1 T31-33N, R8-10E SM 110,080
T22S, R1 & 2W, 1E FM 26,240
Federal (SSS) T31N, R8-10E SM 30, 720
State Selection TA T32N, R8E S\1 4,480
r T22S, R2v.J FM 3, 519
l D-1 · Federal T31-33N, R10-12E SM 78,080
~ T22S, R1-3E FM 12,800
Federal (SSS) T31N, R10E SM 154
Regional Selection T31 & 32N, R12E Sl"l 17,280
Fish & Wildlife Service T33N, R11E sr~ Section 20 Unknown .....
USGS Hea1l Quad
r A-1 Federal T22S, R1 & 2E FM 3,840
I Regional Selection T22S, R1 & 2E FM 960 I
A-2 Federal T22S, R1E, 1 & 2W FM 30,720
Private T22S, R2W Fr~ Section 3 5
TABLE E.9.1 (Page 4)
r-··--,
A-3 Federal T22S, R2-5W FM 24,320 State Selection TA T22S, RSW FM 5, 760
A-4 State Selection TA T22S, R5-7W FM 29,440
r,,,.., A-5 State Selection TA T22S, RB-1 CW FM 21,120
A-6 Federal (Railroad
Withdrawal) T22S, RllW FM 2,303
State Selection T22S, R11W FM 2,240 State Selection TA T22S, Rla.J FM 3,200
Private T22S, R11W FM Section 1 32
-'
!
-
-
TABLE E.9.2: SUMMARY OF LAND STATUS/OWNERSHIP IN PROJECT AREA(a)
Land Status/Ownership Category
Federal
Federal (State Selection Suspended)
Federal (Railroad Withdrawal)
State Se 1 ect ion
State Selection Patented or TA
Denali State Park (within study area)
Regional Selection
Native Group Selection
Native Selection
Village Selections (included in Native selection total)
Chickaloon
Tyonek
Kn i k
Private
(a) Summarized from Table E.9.1.
Total Area
Acres
303,680
370,945
4, 724
569,883
174,239
25,500
31,040
3,840
207,487
5,120
20,480
39,680
9,874
TABLE E.9.3: USE INFORMATION FOR EXISTING STRUCTURES
IN THE MIDDLE SUSITNA RIVER BASIN
Zone 1 Zone 2
PRESENT CONDITION OF STRUCTURE
Remains of structured foundations only (no use) 1 5
Badly weathered; partial structure remains
-use no longer possible 2
Structure intact; not currently maintained
-seasonal use -past and present 2 2
-no current seasonal use 2 7
Structure intact; maintained, with season a 1 use
-past and present 3 49
Structure intact; maintained, with year-round use 9
Structure intact; maintained; no current use
information 4
USE TYPES
Hunting, fishing, trapping 3 7
Hunting, fishing 2 43
Hunting only 1 7
Fishing only 1
Boating 1 21
Skiing 6
Mining 4
Research/exploration .3 2
ACCESS
Air:
Airstrip 3 26
Floats/skis 2 34
ATV 1 20
4WD 1 16
Boat 3 3
Foot, dog team 6 37
Snowmachi ne 6
Horse 4
Rail 1
Car -1
Zone 3
1
2
1
12
3
3
1 I~
3
2
,r---·-,
1
6
6 ,,-I
5
1
1 r-:--
9
1
2
2
I
TABLE E.9.4: MAJOR TRAILS IN THE MIDDLE SUSITNA RIVER BASIN
-
Type Beg·i nni ng IY!iddle End Years Used
Cat, ORV Gold Creek Devil Canyon 1950s-present
Cat, ORV Gold Creek Ridge top west Confluence of 1961-present
of VABM Clear John & Chuni lna
Creeks
Packhorse Sherman Confluence of 1948
I'""" John & Chunilna
Creeks
Cat Alaska Chunilna Creek 1957-present -Railroad,
Mile232
!""" Foot Curry Cabin 2 miles 1926
east of VABM Dead
-Packhorse, Ta 1 keetn a North of Stephan Lake 1948
Di sap poi ntment
Creek -Packhorse, Chunilna Port age Creek Lake west of 1920s-present
old sled road High Lake
,-ATV Denali Butte Lake Tsusena Lake 1950s-present
Highway
-
-
....
TABLE E.9.5: EXISTING STRUCTURES IN THE SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC IMPOUNDMENT VICINITY
Map Structure
1 Cabin; meat
house
2 Boat cabin
3 Cabin; shed
4 Cabin
5 Cabin
6 Cabin
foundations
7 Cabin; shed
8 Cabin
Zone(a)Location
2 Lake E. of Stephan Lake,
1850 feet elevation
floatplane, skis
1
2
2
1
2
2
S. bank Susitna: on boat, foot
tributary 3 miles S.W.
of Fog Creek/Susitna
Confluence
N.W. shore of Stephan airplane
Lake
Tsusena Creek: 3. 5 mi 1 es foot, dog team
from Tsusena/Susitna
Confluence
N. shore of Susitna:
W. bank of 1st tribu-
tary w. of Tsusena/
Susitna Confluence
S. shore of Fog Lake #2
On knob of Fog Lake #1
foot, dog team
floatplane
airplane
9 Stephen Lodge 2
( 1 J s tr uc t ur e s)
W. central shore of
~tepha n Luke
airplane, foot
Maintained
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Use Status
Built in 1960s and in current use
for seasonal hunting, fishing, and
boating.
Built in 1960s for Stephan Lake
Lodge; currently used seasonally
by Stephan boating/hunting guests.
Bu i 1 t 1960s and in current use for
seasonal hunting, fishing, and
boating.
B u i1 t i n 1 94 Os as a t r a p 1 i ne c a b i n
and used until late 1950s; no longer
in use.
Built in 1939 by Oscar Vogel as a
trapping line cabin; used until late
1950s, now collapsed; no longer
used.
Built in 1960s and currently being
usd as a seasonal fishing and
hunting cabin.
Built in 1960s and currently being
used as a seasonal hunting and
fishing cabin.
Built in 1960s and in current use as
hunting, fishing, and recreation
lodge; can accommodate up to 35
guests; operates year-round.
. 1 .l .... 1 1 1
TABLE E.9.5 (Page 2)
Map Structure
10 Cabin; shed
11 Cabin; shed
12 Cabin; shed
13 Cabin; shed
14 Cabin; shed
15 Cabin; shed
16 Cabin; shed
17 Cabin
18 Cabin
19 Cabin ; meat
house
20 Cabin; shed
21 Cabin; shed
22 Cabin; shed
Zone(a)Location
2 0.5 mile S.W.
of Stephan Lodge on
Stephan Lake Shore
Access(b)
airplane, foot
2 E. shore of Stephan Lake airplane, foot
2
2
2
2
3
3
E. shore of Stephan Lake airplane, foot
Mouth of Prairie
Creek at Stephan Lake
W. shore of Prairie
Creek
E. shore of Murder
Lake (S. of Stephan
Lake)
S.E. shore of Daneka
Lake
Prairie/Talkeetna
confluence
air p 1 a ne , foot ,
horse
airplane, foot
airplane, foot
airplane, foot
foot, dog team,
boat
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
l )
Use Status
Bu i 1 t in 1960s and in current use
seasonally as a hunting and fishing
cabin.
Hunting, fishing, boating, seasonal
use; built in 1960s.
Built in 1960s and in current
seasonal use as hunting, fishing,
and boating cabins.
Built in 1940s and used until late
1950s as a hunting, fishing, and
trapping base and residence; no
1 anger used.
Built in 1960 and 1979, respec-
tively, and currently used as a
year-round residence from which
hunting, fishing, and trapping
occur.
Built in 1960s and used as a
year-round residence; hunting and
fishing.
Built in 1960s and currently used on
a seasonal basis for hunting,
fishing, and recreation by guests of
Stephan Lodge.
Built in 1960s and currently used
seasonally by Stephan Lodge for
purposes of f1sni ng o.rrd ilu~rti ny.
TABLE E. 9. 5 (Page 3)
Map Structure Zone(a)Location
23
25
26
Cabin; shed
Mining
buildings
(5)
Cabins (2)
27 Cabins (2)
2
2
2
28 Lodge, High 2
Lake ( 9
buildings)
30 Cabin 2
foundations
34 Chunilna 3
Creek Placer
( 7 b u il d i ng s )
36 Mining 3
.buildings
Game Lake
Portage Creek : 2. 5 mi 1 es
N. of Portage/Susitna
Confluence
1 mile N. of Portage
Creek mining
N.W. shore of Dawn Lake
S. shore of High Lake
S. shore of High Lake
Chunil na Creek
Chunil na Creek: 8 miles
S.W. of VABM Clear
Access(b)
airplane, foot
airplane, ATV
foot, dog team,
horse
airplane, ATV,
foot, dog team
airplane, ATV,
horse, dog team
airplane, ATV,
horse, dog team
a i r p 1 a ne , AT V,
horse, dog team
airplane, ATV,
4WO, snowmachi ne
airplane, ATV,
4WD, snowmachine,
dog team, foot
urrently
Maintained
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Use Status
Built in 1940s and used since then
for trophy game hunting; now a part
of Stephan Lodge•s series of out-
reach cabins used on a seasonal
basis.
Mining records exist as far back as
1890s; mined 1920 and sporadically
1930s, then 1950-70s; currently
inactive mining operations;
buildings not in use.
Mining; built in 1950s; used Creek
seasonally.
Built in 1960s by owners of High
Lake; used currently as a hunting
cabin on a seasonal basis.
Built in 1960s for use as an inter-
national hunting/fishing lodge;
currently in use by Acres American
Susitna rroject on a seasonal
basis.
Built 1980.
Large placer m1x1ng operation in
existence since 1950 and currently
mined on a seasonal basis.
Four buildings built in the 1920s,
1940s and 1960s and used seasonally
for mining.
J
TABLE E.9.5 (Page 4)
Map Structure Zone(a)Location
37 Cabin
38 Cabin
39 Cabin
40 Cabin; shed
42 Cabin
45 Cabin
46 Cabin
47 Cabin
48 Cabin
49 Cabin
50 Trailer
3 3 miles N.E. of VABM
Curry
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Grizzly Camp: 5 mi 1 es
E. of Daneka Lake
9 miles of Stephan Lake:
7 miles s. of Fog Lake
E. shore of Stephan
Lake
Portage Creek: 2 miles
N.W. of Dawn Lake
1 mile w. of Portage
Creek mining
1 mile W. of Portage
Creek mining, on
sled road
Unnamed lake N. of
Otter Lake
W. end of S. shore of
unnamed lake N. of
Otter Lake
1 l
Access(b)
foot, dog team
foot, dog team,
airplane
foot, airplane
airplane, foot
foot, sled, road,
airplane, ATV
f oat, air p 1 a ne,
ATV, 4WD
foot, airplane
ATV, 4WD
foot, airplane,
ATV, 4WD
foot, airplane,
ATV, 4WO
1
Currently
1 Maintained Use Status
No Built in 1940s and used seasonally
for trapping until early 1960s; no
longer used.
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Built by Vogel in the 19405 as a
hunting cabin; currently used on a
seasonal basis as a Stephan outrach
cabin for hunting.
Built in 1970s; current use not
known at this time.
Built in 1960s and in current
seasonal use as hunting, fishing,
and boating cabins.
Built in 1960s and currently used
on a seasonal basis for hunting and
fishing.
Currently used on a seasonal basis
for recreational purposes.
Currently used on a seasonal basis
for recreational purposes.
Currently used on a seasonal basis
for recreational purposes.
Currently not in use, abandoned.
l
TABLE E.9.5 (Page 5)
Map Structure
51 Cabin
52 Cabin
53 Cabin
55 Cabins (3)
56 Cabin
57 Lodge
58 Cabin
foundations
59 Cabin
60 Cabin
61 Cabin
62 Cabin
63 Cabin
64 Cabin
65 Cabin
69 Cabin
1
)
Zone(a)Location
2 W. end of S. shore of
unnamed lake N. of
Otter Lake
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
S. shore of unnamed ,
1 ake N. of Otter Lake
w. end of Bear Lake
N. shore of Bear Lake
N. shore of Bear Lake
E. end of Bear Lake
Chulitna Pass: near
rail road
Miami Lake
S. shore of Bear Lake
Accesfb)
foot, airplaine
ATV, 4WD
foot, airplane,
ATV, 4WD
foot, airplane,
ATV, 4WD
foot, airplane,
ATV, 4WD
foot, air p 1 a ne,
ATV, 4WD
foot, airplane,
foot, airplane,
rail, car
rail, foot, car,
airplane
airplane, foot,
4WD
Currently
Maintained
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Use Status
Built in late 1960s and currently
used for hunting and fishing on a
seasonal basis.
Built in late 1960s and is
seasonally used for hunting and
fishing.
Built in 1970s and currently used
on a seasonal basis for hunting and
fishing.
Built in 1970s and currently used
on a seasonal basis for hunting and
fishing.
Built in 1970s; lodge and cabin
used for fishing, hunting, and ski-
; ng on a year-round basis; seasonal
boating.
Built in 1950s for trapping
purposes; no longer in use.
Exact construction dates not known;
currently used as year-round
residences.
Perhaps being used as recreational
cabins.
Built in 1960s nnd currently used
for hunting, fishing, and swimming.
.)
TABLE E. 9. 5 (Page 6)
1
Map Structure Zone(a)Location
70 Lodge
72 Cabin
73 Cabin
74 Cabin
75 Cabin
76 Cabin
77 Cabin
78 Cabin
79 Cabin
80 Cabin
81 Cabin
3 N. shore of Tsusena
Lake
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
Deadman Lake: W. of
Big Lake
Big Lake
4 miles from Watana/
Susitna confluence
7 miles E. of
Big Lake
W. end of Watana Lake
E. end of Watana Lake
E. end of Gilbert/
Kosina confluence
l l
Access(b)
airplane, ATV
a i r p 1 a ne , AT V
ATV
airplane, ATV
a i r p l a ne , AT V
air p l a ne, dog
team, snowmachine
air p 1 a ne , dog
team, snowmachine
foot, dog team
]
Currently
Maintained
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
-1
Use Status
Built in 1958; used for commer-
cially guided hunts until 1976;
presently used on a seasonal basis
for private hunting, fishing, and
skiing trips.
Built in 1960s for fishing and
hunting purposes and currently used
on a seasonal basis.
Built in 1960s; currently used on a
seasonal basis for hunting and
fishing.
Built in 1960s; currently used
on a seasonal basis for hunting.
Constructed in 1970s and currently
used on a seasonal basis for hunting
and fishing.
Built in 1950s and 1960s, respec-
tively, and currently used
seasonally for hunting and fishing.
Built in 1950s and 1960s, respec-
tively, and currently used
seasonally for hunting and fishing.
Built on 1936 as a trapptng 1 i ne
cabin; used until 1955; currently
abandoned with evcrythi ng intact.
TABLE E. 9. 5 (Page 7)
Map Structure Zone(a\ocation
82 Tent frame
84 Cabins (2)
85 Cabin
86 Cabin
87 Cabin
88 Cabins (2)
89 Cabin
90 Hunting
1 ean-to
2 s.w. foot, Clarence
Lake
2
2
2
2
2
3
1
S.E. end of Clarence
Lake
E. end of Clarence
Lake
N. end of Clarence
Lake
On tributary 1 mile
E. of Clarence Lake
Gaging station: S.
bank of Susitna
Unnamed lake 3 miles
S.W. of Clarence Lake
(island in middle)
S.E. bank of Kosina/
Susitna confluence
Access(b)
foot, dog team
airplane
airplane
airplane
foot, dog team
a irp 1 a ne
floatplane, boat
boat, foot,
floatplane
Currently
Maintained Use Status
No Built in 1950s and used until
1960s for seasonal hunting.
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Built in 1950s and currently used
seasonally as a hunting and fishing
cabin.
Built in 1970s and currently used
on a seasonal basis for hunting,
fishing, and trapping.
B u i 1t i n 1 9 6 Os a nd c ur rent 1 y u s e d
on a seasonal basis for hunting,
fishing, and trapping.
Built in 1930 and used until 1950
for trapping, hunting, and fishing
(Simco's line Cabin #4); currently
used seasonally as a hunting
shelter.
Built in 1950s for research
purposes; currently not used or
maintained.
Exact construction date not known;
currently used on a seasonal basis
for fishing.
Built in late 1970s for hunting/
fishing purposes; fresh supplies
indicate current use.
l l
TABLE E.9.5 (Page 8)
Map Structure Zone ( a)Locat ion
91 Cabin 1
92 Cabin/cache 1
93 Cabin 2
94 Cabin 2
95 Cabin 2
96 Cabin
98 Cabin 3
99 Cabin 2
100 Tent 2
platform
101 Cabin 3
2 miles N.E. of Watana/
Susitna confluence
N. w. bank of Watana/
Susitna confluence
w. of Jay/Susitna
confluence
Laha Lake: 1. 5 mi 1 es w. of Jay Creek
Unnamed lake: 2.5 miles
S. E. of Vee Canyon
gaging station
Oshetna River: 10 miles
s. of Oshetna/Susitna
confluence
Tyone River/Susitna
confluence
Susitna sandbar: S.
of Tyone River I
Susitna confluence
a. 2 mi 1 e s. of
•·lac 1 a.r~n/ ::ius i tnct
confuence
l
floatplane
dog team, foot
airplane
floatplane,
airplane
airplane
dog team, foot,
boat
boat
boat, helicopter
boat
Maintained
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
l
Use Status
Built in 1950s; used as a seasonal
hunting and fishing cabin; supplies
indicate current use.
Built in 1960s for hunting pur poses;
cabin collapsed; no longer in use.
Built in 1960s and used currently on
a seasonal basis for hunting and
fishing.
Built in 1960s and used currently
on a seasonal basis for fishing.
Built in 1950s and used currently
on a seasonal basis for fishing.
Built by Simco in 1930 as a trap
1 i ne cabin and used on a seasonal
basis for hunting and fishing.
Built in 1960s by Stephan Lodge
owner as a river cabin for Stephan
Lodge boating guests.
Built in 1970s and used currently
for transient boaters.
Built in 1960s and currently used
for boatin~ 011 a S~<tSundl uasis.
TABLE E. 9. 5 (Page 9)
Map Structure Zone(a)Location
103 Cabin 2
105 Cabin 3
106 Cabin 3
107 Cabin L
110 Cabin 2
111 Cabin 1
112 Line cabin 1
112 Cabin 2
foundations
Jay Creek : 3 mi 1 es
N. of VABM Brown
Co a 1 Creek
S. end of Coal Lake
S. bank of Susitna
at Devil Canyon
N. end of Madman Lake
S. bank of Susitna;
1 mile upstram of
Watana/Sus itna
confluence
N.E. corner of Jay/
Susitna confluence
w. bank of Portage
Creek: 4 miles from
Portage/Susitna
confluence
Access(b)
ATV
ATV, airplane
ATV, airplane
4WD
airplane
dog team, foot
foot, dog team,
boat, floatplane
dog team, foot
Currently
Maintained
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
Use Status
Built in 1970s for hunting and
currently used on a seasonal basis.
Built in 1970s for hunting and
currently used on a seasonal basis.
Built in 1960s and currently used
on a seasona 1 basis for mining and
fishing.
Built and used in 1950s for Bureau
of Rec. study; currently not in use.
Built in 1960s and currently used
on a seasonal basis for hunting and
fishing.
Built in 1945 as a trapping 1 i ne/
hunting cabin; used for trapping
until mid 1950s, presently covered
with brush; no longer used.
E. Simco's line (trapping) and
hunting cabin built in 1939; dates
and game records indicate annual
use.
Built in 1940s as a mining/prospect-
ing cabin; no longer in use.
~·~. 1 l -~~1 --l
TABLE E. 9. 5 {Page 10)
Map Structure Zone ( a)Locat ion
113 Cabin
114 Cabin
115 Cabin
116 Cabin
117 Cabin
118 Cabin
119 Trailer;
work shack
120 Shack
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
Unnamed lake: 6 miles
W. of Murder Lake
7 miles N.E. of VABM
Disappointment
2 miles of N. of
Tsusena Lake
1 mile W. of VABM
Oshetna
Tyone River/Tyone
Creek confluence
7 miles due E. of
Tyone River/Susitna
confluence
N. bank of Susitna:
1 mile of Deadman/
Susitna confluence
S. bank of Susitna:
1 mile of Deadman/
Susitna confluence
Notes: (put on bot tan of first page)
Access(b)
airplane
airplane
airplane
airplane
boat, dog team
boat, dog team
helicopter
helicopter
(a) Zone 1 is the impoundment zone plus a 200 foot perimeter.
Zone 2 is the 6 mile perimeter around Zone 1.
Zone 3 is that zone between 6 and 12 miles from the impoundment.
(b) Almost all sites are accessible by helicopter.
Currently
Maintained
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Use Status
Built in 1960s for hunting purposes;
no longer in use.
Built in 1970s for hunting use and
currently used for seasonal hunting.
Built in 1970s and currently used
as a year -round residence by a
guiding outfit.
Built in 1970s for hunting purposes
and is currently used on a seasonal
basis.
Built in 1960s for hunting and
fishing purposes and currently used
on a seasonal basis.
Built in 1960s for hunting and
fishing purposes, no longer in use.
Built in 1970s by Army Corps for
Susitna study.
Used and built in 1970s as a
research site; since Army Corps
study, has collapsed; no longer
used.
--,
I
i
i
J
I
i
.!
~
SWIMMING
BEAR LAKE
#STEPHAN jl' <AKE
BRUSH KANA
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT AREA
WATANA
LAKE
\J
CLARENCE
~
0 3 6 9 MILES
SCALE ~~5iiiiiiiiiiiiiiil~~~
FIGURE E.9 I
l J l
~~AU OF LAND MANAGEMENT! ., • • ' ' .. • f STATE SELECTION
BY STATEHOOD ACT
I UNPATENTED ~
MINING CLAIMS
*NATIVE ALLOTMENTS I
HOMESTEAD SINCE 1906
CIRI SELECTION BY I
ANCSA a AMENDMENTS
I REGIONAL CORPORATION l
SELECTION BY ANCSA
I VILLAGE CORPORATION I
SELECT BY ANCSA
!
STATE SELECTION ~~ I ~:ATE SELECTION I I * PATENTED i I
MINING CLAIMS
r STATE SELECTION
1
SUSPENDED BY ANCSA
PATENTED AMENDMENTS
BOROUGH OR .I 'It PRIVATE RECREATIONAL I ,... MUNICIPALITY
., LAND SELECTION
+
I *AGRICULTURAL
I
BOROUGH OR *CIRI H CIRI SELECTION I I *REGIONAL CORPORATION I I* VILLAGE CORPORATION I -~ LAND MUNICIPALITY SURFACE a PATENTED SELECTION PATENTED SELECTION PATENTED
TA BY SUBSURFACE
STATE RIGHTS
---1 MATERIAL LAND I ~
*BOROUGH OR *CIRI H *VILLAGE SELECTION l
MUNICIPALITY SUBSURFACE SURFACE RIGHTS
I RESOURCE MANAGEMENT I SELECTION RIGHTS
PATENTED
-~ LAND
LEGEND:
* PRIVATE LAND 'l *uTILITY ~ ANCSA ALASKA NATIVE CLAIMS SETTLEMENT A
LAND CIRI COOK INLET REGION, INC.
TA TENTATIVELY APPROVED
CT
·: UNCLASSIFIED I _I SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC l
I -~IMPOUNDMENT VICINITY
PROCEDURES FOR ALASKA LANDS ACQUISITION
(NOT REVIEWED BY ALL AFFECTED AGENCIES 12/82)
FIGURE E.9.2
SCALE
LAND STATUS OF THE ANCHORAGE-WILLOW TRANSMISSION LINE
LEGEND
COOK INLET
PRIVATE PROPERTY
STATE PATENTED OR
TENTATIVELY APPROVED
BOROUGH APPROVED OR
PATENTED
FEDERAL PARCELS
NATIVE SELECTION
STATE SELECTION
0 5 10 MILES
~~~~iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil
FIGURE E.9:4
LEGEND
~ .
~~ ~
PRIVATE PROPERTY
STATE PATENTED OR
TENTATIVELY APPROVED
BOROUGH APPROVED OR
PATENTED
FEDERAL PARCELS
NATIVE SE L ECTION
STATE SELECTION
.··~···
~··
~~~~~~~5iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiil0 MILES
LAND STATUS OF THE HEALY-FAIRBANKS TRANSMISSION LINE SOUTH
FI GU RE E. 9.5
~
SWIMMING
BEAR LAKE
BRUSHKANA
LAND USE AGGREGATIONS
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC
IMPOUNDMENT AREA
CREE~
LEGEND
USE
RECREATION
RECREATION/
RESIDENTIAL
MINING
MINING/
RESIDENTIAL
INTENSITY
LOW k <l
MEDIUM f\\~
LO'N r·.:·:::>.:-:;-::J
MEDIUM I',':',':-]
0 3 6 9 MILES
SCALE ~~§iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil~~~
FIGURE E .9.8
HIGH
LAKE
0
28 •• 30
113
~
SWIMMING
BEAR LAKE
38 •
J
BRUSHKANA
TSUSENA
C0LAKE
ry.'~ Q~ ~9' <J
115
FOG sa LAKES c:?
~Vc?
cRt:t:K • 7
• 76
t
WATANA $
L~79 \]'-
77\\.! ~
78 aoJ 81
~
EXISTING STRUCTURES SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC
IMPOUNDMENT AREA
86
.CLARENCE
~85
82·~·87
84
0
SCALE
3 9 M ILES
~~iiiiiiiiiiiiil~~
6
FIGURE E.9.9
I
I ·;
/
I
I
I
I
COOK INLET
0 5 10 MILES
SCALE ~~~~~~iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil
FI GUR E E .9 .10
0
J
ANCHORAGE-WILLOW TRANSMISSION LINE LAND USE DEVELOPMENT
SHEET 20F 3
COOII' INLET
0 5 10 MILES
FIGURE E.9.10
J
r:1 LJ
®
COOK INLET
0 5 10 MILES
SCALE ~~~~~~iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil
FIGURE E . 9.10
PROPOSED
J
./
HEALY-FAIRBANKS TRANSMISSION LINE
LAND USE DEVELOPMENT-SOUTH
SHEET I OF 3
0~~~~~~~5iiilliliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiil0 MILES SCALE c
FIGURE E.9 .11
j
J
,.,'/.~/···
fl..~ .. · 1'~
PROPOSED
~··
•.
.--~·
~-·· ...
/
HEALY-FAIRBANKS TRANSMISSION LINE
LAND USE DEVELOPMENT-SOUTH
SHEET 2 OF 3
0
SCALE
5 10 MILES
. .
FIGURE E.9.11
PROPOSED
~-··
\k··
.. ·
J /
HEALY-FAIRBANKS TRANSMISSION LINE
LAND USE DEVELOPMENT -SOUTH
SHEET 3 OF 3
0
SCALE
5 10 MILES
~~~~~-------
FIGURE E .9 .11
~I
(/)
0
il..
~
il.. ·~
HEALY-FAIRBANKS TRANSMISSION LJNE
LAND USE DEVELOPMENT-NORTH
SHEET I OF 3
\
FIGURE E.9 .12
~
HEALY-FAIRBAN .
LAND USE DE~~ TRANSMISSIO
SHEETL02PMENT OF 3
SCALEO 1!!!~~~~~~~5biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii~;;;;;;;;;~ 10 MILES
FIGURE E .9 .1Z
Gc. ·.
J
~I
(/)
0 a._
~ a._ -~
HEALY-FAIRBANKS TRANSMISSION LINE
LAND USE DEVELOPMENT-NORTH
SHEET 3 OF 3
~ +
SCALE
1
~
\
0 5 10 MI LES ~~~~iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil
F IGURE E .9.12
\ ) (
\_ . ) SUSI~NA I
··~ LJ RIVE>
\ CHULITNA RIVER
~--· ~;~DY
LIMIT
J FLOOD PLAIN INFORMATION-TALKEETNA, ALASKA
(
),
USGS GAGING
STATION
9!J
LEGEND.
INTERMEDIATE REGIONAL
FLOOD
STANDARD PROJECT
FLOOD
GROUND ELEVATION IN FEET
SEA LEVEL DATUM
• CABIN
NOTE : MAP BASED ON USGS QUADRANGLE
SHEET TALKEETNA B-1. MINOR
ADDITIONS AND ADJUSTMENTS
MADE BY CORPS OF ENGINEERS.
\~
( 0 2000 4000 FEET ~ SCALE ~~~~iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiil
FIGURE E.9.13
1 1 l l l 1 ' -J
GLENN p,WY.
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
DENALI PLANNING BLOCK
l ) -----1
L ... ~
~
)
FIGURE E 9.14
-
-
-
-
-
!f'-
-
-
lli :>;;
~
~ f.;;
iii
1il
COOK INL£T
O~~~~~IO~iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii2iiii10 MILES SCALE ~:::
BIOPHYSICAL COASTAL BOUNDARY MATANUSKA-
SUSITNA BOROUGH COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
FIGURE E.9.15
BRUSHKANA
I v
I
J I
SUS/TNA RIVER
d STEPHAN
;:/ <AKE
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FACILITIES
WATANA
LAKE
\J
CLARENCE
~
LEGEND:
I. HEALY -WILLOW INTERTIE
2. GOLD CREEK SUBSTATION
3. DEVIL CANYON RAIL SPUR
4. DEVIL CANYON VILLAGE
5 . DEVIL CANYON CAMP
6. DEVIL CANYON DAM
7. DEVIL CANYON ACCESS ROAD
8. WATANA/GOLD CREEK TRANSMISSION LINE
9 . WATANA DAM
10. WATANA VILLAGE
II. WATANA CAMP
12. DENALI HIGHWAY-WATANA ACCESS ROAD
13. RAILHEAD FACILITIES
0 3 6 9 MILES
SCALE ~~§iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil~~~
FIGURE E . 9 .16
J
J
GENERAL LAYOUT SITE FACILITIES
SCAL£; 0~~~4'"--~8 MILES
(I INC~ • 4 MILES)
2-345KV
TRANSMISSION LINES
TO GOLD CREEK
LEGEND
SCALE: ?
MAIN ACCESS ROAD
CONSTRUCTION ROAD
PERMANENT SITE ROAD
UTILIDOR
1000 2000 FEET
( I INCH • 1000 FEET)
FIGURE E .9.17
1 ® 8 8
"' v
CD <D
LIJ LIJ
J
I N 3,212,000
~N'-'3.,2.,;14,,000""""~-->
N 3.216.000
N 3,218,000
N 3 220.000
N 3,222,000
N 3,224,000
N 3 226 000
TO WATANA
~
N 3.228.000
J ~N'-'3~,2:.:3;::,2,,_000=----~
~\
r
8 8 0
0 8 § § §
0 ~ CD <D
...,
0 <D <D 0
<D
LIJ LIJ LIJ LIJ LIJ LIJ
DEVIL CANYON GENERAL LAYOUT SITE FACILITIES
SCALE 0 ~ ~~4~-~8 MILES
(liNCH= 4 MILES)
~c"~-~
4-345 KV TRANSMISSION
LINES TO GOLD CREEK
LEGEND
ACCESS ROAD (PERMANENT)
ACCESS ROAD (TEMPORARY)
CONSTRUCTION ROAD
PERMANENT SITE ROAD
UTILIDOR
RAILROAD
0 1000 2000 FEET
( I INCH • 1000 FEET)
FIGURE E . 9 .I 8