a study .., to determine the desirability of creating

The Denali National Scenic Highway

.'

'"

an interagency study prepared under the direction of TE 24 the Alaska Land Use Council .A4 D464 1983 N ovemher 1983 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

SUMMARY

Section 1311 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) requires that a study be completed to determine the desirability of creating a Denali National Scenic Highway System in Alaska. This report analyses a study area which includes nearly 500 miles of existing highways in Alaska and makes recommendations based on that analysis.

The objectives of the study are specified in the legislation. Giving special consideration to the scenic and recreational values of the area, and to their protection, the study is to determine if it is desirable to designate a National Scenic Highway for the purposes of (1) enhancing the experience of persons traveling between national parks in southcentral Alaska; and (2) providing a symbolic and actual physical connection between those parks.

The recommendations of this study pertain only to Federally-managed public lands in Alaska.

The responsibility for this interagency study was assigned to the Alaska Land Use Council (ALUC). The ALUC was created under Section 1201 of ANILCA to foster cooperative land management and planning between Federal, State and other agen­ cies in Alaska. A specific function of the Council is to conduct cooperative studies. The council therefore appointed a special Study Group charged with .. overseeing this particular study . RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Parks, Richardson and Edgerton Highways - No Designation

. This recommendation stems primarily from the fact that little Federal public land exists along these routes. This was the unanimous recommenda­ ·tion of the Study Group.

2. McCarthy Road - No Designation

This recommendation was based on:

a. the lack of significant amounts of contiguous Federal public lands;

b. the ability to manage this road corridor for its natural, scenic and recreational values using existing Federal and State authority;

c. the fact that a cooperative planning effort between management agen­ cies, under the direction of the Alaska Land Use Council, could effectively manage this area for its natural values without a Federal designation; and

d. the fact that public comments were overwhelmingly opposed to the designation of this route, or any other route, as part of a National Scenic Highway System. ... This. was the unanimous recommendation of the Study Group. ARLIS Alaska Resources ii Librarv &- lnformation Services Anchorage, Alaska 3. Denalt Highway - No Designation

While this segment contains the greatest contiguous stretches of Federally-managed public lands, this recommendation was made for the same reasons as stated in b. through d above.

Pursuant to Section 13l1(a), all Federal public lands within one mile on either side of centerline of all highways located within the study corridor (s~e page 6) were withdrawn from all forms of entry or appropriation under the mining laws and from operation of the mineral leasing laws of the United Stat~s. Based on the preceding recommendations, it is also reconrinended that this with­ drawal be cancelled.

This summary and recommendations represents the views of the Study Group members below.

Wayne A. Boden, Anchorage Dist~ict Manager Bureau of Land Management Study Group Leader

Robert Venusti Cq.arles A. Budge, Superintendent Regional Director for Planning Wrangell-St. Elias National Park/ Alaska Department of Transportation .Preserve and Public Facilities

William H. Beaty Charles W. Chappell, Jr. Chief, Resource Allocation Division Transportation Planner Alaska Department of Natural Resources Federal Highway Administration Alaska Division

Sterling Eide Martin Finnesand, President Regional Supervisor Chitina Native Corporat~on Division of Game State Department of Fish and Game

Charles Hubbard Mac A. Stevens Cantwell Shareholder Association Matanuska-Susitna Borough

iii The recomm~ndation for the Denali Highway was not unanimous. The position of Ahtna. Incorporated is as folloWs:

"It is Ahtna. Incorporated position that there is a need to desig~ nate a Federally recognized scenic highway link between Denali National Park and Wrangell-St. Elias National Park.

Ahtna recommends that the Denali Highway be designated a modified scenic highway that would take into consideration commercial use while at the same time providing for the upgrading of the Denali to a prim<;l.ry high¥ay that could be used extensively during the summer monthp for to~rism and recreational travel. We recommend that the Denali Highway be realigned and paved to Federal highway standards at the earliest possible date.

Areas that have high scenic value could be identified and pro­ tected through a proced~re that considers the views of all the land holders in the area. We feel that developed areas could continue their operations witho~t further gQvernment intervention and regulations.

Ahtna recommends that the State designate the highways between Paxson and McCarthy as a scen}c State Highway without adding any .. additional regulations on adjacent land owners or hinder State ability to upgrade the road system."

Herbert Smelcer. General Manager Ahtna. Incorporated

Table of Contents

PAGE

1 PREFACE

3 I. INTRODUCTION

2 Area Map 3 Legisla~ion and Legislative History 3 Study Organization 5 Goal of Study 5 Critil:al Issues

13 II. SECTION ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

13 Parks Fl:f,ghwaY1 Richa!['dson Highway, and Ftqgerton Highway 13 Parks Highway 17 Richardson Highway 21 Edgerton Highway

22 Parks, Richardson and Edgerton Highway Re~ommendations and Rationale

25 Denali Highway 31 Denali Highway Preferred Alternative and Rationale

33 McCarthy Road 36 McCarthy Road Preferred Alternative and Rationale

39 III. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

49 BIBLIOGRAPHY 53 APPENDIXES 55 A. Legislation 56 ' B. Study Organization 57 C. Boundaries, Administrat}on, Costs and Legislation p. Maps 2.-6

vi

Preface

The purpose of this study is to • the desirability of enhancing recommend to Con~ress the desir­ the experience of persons trav­ ability of establishing a Denali eling between national parks in Scenic Highway in Alaska. Alaska; and

There is little doubt that the • the desirability of providing a corridor withdrawn for this study symbolic and actual physical is truly "scenic." Regardless of connection between those parks. formal designations, the majestic scenery along most of the corridor will probably remain far longer The questions then, that this study than the highway corridor or those will address are, first, whether a who use it. national designation is desirable or necessary to protect these The question appears to be, then, values, given that the management given,the fact that most of the 500 priorities of public (Federal) mile study corridor is indeed lands are subject to change and, "scenic," what did Congress have in second, if such a designation is mind when it mandated this study, recommended along any part or all which is required by Section 1311 of the study corridor, what shall of the Alaska National Interest be the intent and extent of that Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA)? designation?

The Act did not define the term This is not a management plan. "scenic highway.!! Furthermore, Rather, it is a study mandated by there is no generic predecessor Congress to determine the feas­ that can be used to define "scenic ibility and desirability of es­ highway." While there are scenic tablishing a national scenic high­ highways and parkways at a Federal way along certain existing highways level,and scenic highways managed in Alaska. If Congress decides to by several states, the management create such a scenic highway, then, and purposes differ. Therefore, no at that time, a management plan specific criteria exist upon which would be written. to base recommendations in this report, although the study team has The study that follows results drawn heavily on the experience from the combination of (1) gained by other similar studies or statements of purpose and goals designations. described in the legislation and its history, (2) the experience and The objectives of the study are lessons learned by examining other briefly described in the legis­ scenic highways and their manage­ lation. In conducting the study, ment, (3) the survey of resources the study team, when making their and factors that relate to or may recommendations, was directed to be affected by a scenic highway consider: desighation, and (4) an analysis of the effects of making a particular • the scenic and recreational designation. The report and recom­ ., values of the lands withdrawn mendations resulting from the study for this study; are to be given to the President so that he may report to Congress.

1 Denali National Park and Preserve

'._...";-"'~__~OPAXSON Wrangel -St" Elias National 'Park and Preserve I

Map 1 ~ Denali Scenic Highway 'Study 'Corridor I. Introduction Legislation and Legislative History

This study report is intended to further stated that the study meet the requirements of Section should consider whether the exist­ 1311 of the Alaska National Inter­ ing approaches to Denali and the est Lands Conservation Act Wrangell-St. Elias National Parks/ (ANILCA). This section of the law Preserves should become a scenic is shown in appendix A. This Act highway linking the two National requires the Secretary of the Parks and thus provide a road Interior, in conjunction with the corridor that would enable tourists Secretary of Transportation, the and residents of Alaska to have National Park Service, the Bureau better access to the parks and a of Land Management, the State of scenic round trip from Anchorage to Alaska, and the affected Regional each park. (Report #95-1045, p. Native Corporations, to study the 221). desirability of establishing a Denali Scenic Highway to consist of The Senate Energy Committee (Report all or part of the following exist­ #96-413 pp. 306 & 307) also addres­ ing highways: the Parks Highway sed the Scenic Highway Study con­ between the Talkeetna Junction and tained in HR 39 and stated: the entrance to Denali National Park, the Denali Highway between Cantwell and Paxson, the Richardson The committee does not intend that this Highway and Edgerton Highway be­ study affect existing businesses, residences or other occupancies along the study route. tween Paxson and Chitina, and the It is the intent of the study that the scenic existing road between Chitina and highway serue to promote tourism between McCarthy. The study report must be the two park system units. The withdrawal during the study relates only to mining and submitted to the Preside,nt by the mineral/easing and will not affect existing Secretary no later than December 2, residences, businesses or other occupancies. 1983.

This report must include the views Additionally, the House Congres­ of all members of the Study Team sional Record speaks to the issue along with the views of the Gover­ of minor road realignment and nor of Alaska and, in addition, maintenance on p. H-10549, which contain recommendations as to the specifically states that "minor" creation of a Denali National realignment and maintenance is not Scenic Highway, "together with maps to be construed so as to allow thereof, a definition of boundaries widening or substantial upgrading thereof, an estimate of costs, of the "primitive" McCarthy Road. recommendations on administration, and proposed legislation to create such a scenic highway, if creation Study Organization of one is recommended."

Legislative History for Section By delegation from the Secretary of 1311 of ANILCA is rather sparse. the Interior, the overall lead and The House Interior Committee, when responsibility for the Denali speaking of the Scenic Highway Scenic Highway Study was assigned Study, stated that the study should to the Alaska Land Use Council be a cooperative effort between the (ALUC). Secretary, local Native Corpora­ tions and the State. The committee DENALI NATIONAL SCENIC HIGI1[WAY FEASIBILITY STUDY ORGANIZATIOI'l CHART

PRESIDENT ~ CONGRESS ~'9"

GOVERNOR SEC. of INTERIOR of (> ALASKA

ALASKA TECHNICAL TEAM' Q STUDY TEAM ¢ LAND USE COUNCIL ,.------_._. ... ------7 I , / I , / ~ Native State Federal Native State Federal Native State Federal

I I : IIII I I : II I I EJ .. Under the auspices of the ALUC, a for, and what objectives should be Study Group was created to complete considered in this study. Conse­ the study and submit it, through quently, land status, scenic high~ the ALUC, to the President, and way definition, and symbolic and then on to Congress as required by physical connection are critical the Act (see appendix A & Illus­ issues. Also, a cooperative ap­ tration) • proach to management of existing highway corridors is discussed The Study Group directly represents whereby various land management the ALUC and has been appointed by agencies could consolidate their it. The Technical Team was also planning efforts in order to created by the ALUC and is composed achieve unified, common management of representatives of various goals. Federal, State, Regional and local agencies, who were appointed by the Land Status respective agencies to actually draft the study. The Technical Section 1311 of ANILCA requires T~am reports directly to the Study that all public lands within the Group. designated corridor be studied and recommendations be made regarding designation as a National Scenic Goal of Study Highway. Public lands are defined in ANILCA as Federal lands which The goal of this study is to deter­ have not been selected by the State mine the desirability of creating a of Alaska under the Statehood Act Denali National Scenic Highway or by Native Corporations under the along any, all, or none of nearly Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act 500 miles of existing highways in (ANCSA). Since recommendations are Alaska. only to be made for these Federal public lands, land ownership is a The study objectives are outlined major consideration. in ANILCA. While completing the study, the Study Team was directed Land status along the study cor­ to consider: ridor is quite varied. The Federal Government, the State of Alaska, the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, the scenic and recreational values of the various Native corporations and lands withdrawn under this section, the numerous private individuals all importance of providing protection to those values, the desirability of providing a own or manage land in the study symbolic and actual physical connection area. The corridor is approxi­ between the national parks in Southcentral mately 472 miles long. Of this Alaska, and the desirability of enhancing the experience of persons traveling between approximately 24 percent is in those parks by motor vehicles. (Section Federal ownership, 33 percent in 1311 AN/LeA). State ownership, 6 percent in Matanuska-Susitna Borough owner­ Critical Issues ship, 29 percent in Native corpor­ ation ownership and 8 percent in In light of the discussion above, private ownership (table 1). it is necessary to determine which lands the Act requires be studied, These percentages include State and what these lands are to be studied Native corporation selected lands

5 as well as those lands Which have Symbolic and Physical Connection been conveyed under ANCSA and the Statehood Act. The Act requires that the "desir­ ability of providing a symbolic and ANILCA withdraws ali Federal "pub­ actual physical connection between lic" lands located one mile on the national parks in Southcentral either side of centerline during Alaska" be studied. Regardless of the course of the Study. Since the whether any of the corridor is selected lands, described above, designated as a National Scenic are not "public lands", they are Highway, the fact remains that the not withdrawn under Section 1311. Denali National Park and Preserve The withdrawal. contained in Sec­ and the Wrangell-St. Elias National tion 1311 applies only to new Park and Preserve are physically mineral entry or leasing. Conse­ connected by the Parks, Denali, quently, valid existing mining Richardson and Edgerton Highways claims are not affected by this and the McCarthy Road. study. Additionally, other forms of use of the "public lands" are The question of a symbolic connec­ not affected by the withdrawal. tion is somewhat more difficult. Notwithstanding any other action, What was intended by this term the withdrawal will expire 2 years cannot be ascertained from the Act after the President reports to nor from the legislative history. Congress. It would appear that a symbolic

Table 1. Estimated Length and Generalized Ownership Within Study Corridor

Parks Denali Richardson Edgerton McCarthy Federal Highway Highway Highway Highway High~7ay Total (mi) (%) (mi) (%) (mi) (%) (mi) (%) (mi) (%) . (mi) (%)

BLM 88 65 9 9 97 21 NPS 7 11 7 1 ARR 10 7 10 2

State * 75 54 16 12 44 42 20 32 155 33 Borough 26 19 26 6

Native * 20 15 29 21 37 36 20 60 33 52 139 29

Private 7 5 2 2 13 13 13 40 3 5 38 8

TOTAL 138 mi. 135 mi. 103 mi. 33 mi. 63 mi. 472 mi.

* Includes conveyed and selected lands

_-.6- link would not necessarily be a term "scenic highway" must be true link, i.e., "actual physical." defined. To do so, the Study Group Consequently, a symbolic link could examined other Federal and State theoretical]~ include just a por­ efforts to develop scenic highways. tion of the 500-milecorridor. Two relatively comprehensive Fed­ The symbolic connection mentioned eral references are A Proposed by Congress would be desirable if Program for Scenic Roads and the two parks had some development Parkways prepared by the U.S. theme in common, and if many tour­ Department of Commerce for the ists really did travel between the President's Council on Recreation two parks by motor vehicle. Denali and Natural Beauty, published National Park is a popular tourist June 1966, and the Manual: destination by motor vehicle partly National Scenic Highway Study 1974, because of its central location be­ prepared by the Federal Highway tween Anchorage and Fairbanks and Administration (FHWA), U.S. Depart­ because its relatively established ment of Transportation. Federal tourist facilities are only a few Sceni~ Highways include the multi­ miles off of one of the State's state Great River Road and various major intercity arterials (the scenic highways through National Parks Highway). Wrangell-St. Elias Forests and lands administered by National Park and Preserve, how­ the U.S. Forest Service, such as ever, has not developed tourist the Highland Scenic Highway, the facilities, and the National Park Tellecho Plains-Robbinsville Road Service has indicated that it and the Kancamagus Scenic Road. intends to manage it as a ~yilder­ Finally, the Parkways of the Na­ ness park. with few motor vehicle/ tional Park Service were briefly tourist related facilities. The examined to determine their appli­ Park Service has not decided yet cability to this study. where the main access to the park will be, but the McCarthy Road in Information on state scenic high­ its present condition could not ways was requested from each state serve a large number of motor to determine what has occurred on a vehicles. state level that might provide useful information. Thirty-eight It appears that the two park units (38) states responded, and of those at present have no common bond 15 reported some kind of scenic other than both being National highway system. Table 2 summarizes Parks in Alaska. The need for a the nature of the state scenic symbolic connection between the two highway systems. National Parks has not been demon­ strated. This research indicates that there is no single, accepted set of Range of Definitions definitive criteria which a scenic highway must meet. In some states, Before examining the desirability a scenic highway designation is of a scenic highway designation, it strictly a legislative process is necessary to know what that without any explicit criteria. At designation means and what criteria the other extreme, at least one must be considered before such state requires a survey, in one­ designation is made. In short, the tenth mile increments. detailing

7 Table 2: Comparison of State Scenic Highway Systems

0 ... 0 r:: zB QJ .g"D • Cll Cll tJ CIl .... 'O CIl o ;:l QJ CIl l-l al-l r:: CIl P=: l-l >l..-l Cll QJ >'0 r:: ... bO o > ...... -l0 bOCIl Cll QJ o tJ ... ~ § l-l l-l ..-l tJ ... U QJ QJ 0 .... CIl l-l QJ CIl ...... Cll r:: ...... -l Cll ... tJ bO CIl 0 1J ~ l-l ... o 0 ..-l QJ l-l STATE r"IZ u'" ~...:l "'P=:I>< COMMENTS C">~ .... ~ a. .... '" In '" Arizona XYX XX 1) Scenic Roads, Historic Roads & Parkways 2) Restricted access (driveways & intersections) 3) Allows acquisition of easements

Arkansas X YXX

California XXY XX XX 1) Advertising signs restricted 2) Requir~s protection plan from local government

Colorado X YXX 1) Criteria are general 2) Advertising signs restricted

Maine Y X X 1) Preservation actions developed on site specific basis

Massachusetts X NX X 1) State recognizes local designations 2) Maintenance restrictions (tree cutting, fence removal)

Mississippi X NX X

.h ._

Nebraska XX X 1) Maintenance Standards relaxed in case of conflict

New Jersey XX NX X 1) "Parkway" system, restricted use & access

New York X 1) No Statewide System

Ohio XYX X 1) Criteria & protection are general in nature -- Oregon X X X 1) Restrictions on signs & junkyards

South Dakota XX X 1) Commits fixed amount of money to system's construction

Tennessee XX XX 1) Parkway System 2) Protection measures to be studied 3) Increased maintenance

Vermont X Y X X 1) Roadside maintenance restrictions

Virginia X Y X X 1) Protection based on local zoning 2) Authority to buy easements

_0·",,·- . __

This information was compiled from the material sent by each state, and shows the variability among state programs. Columns 1 and 2 indicate the type of road included in the system. Column 3 indicates whether any criteria are used in route selection. Columns 4, 5, and 6 indicate the level of government making the route selection. Column 7 is marked if the rl~RignRtinn mPRn~ nn mnr~ thRn pn~tinB ,th@ rout@ ai icgnic, ~nd Columna S ~nd 9 indiaRtQ whether there are any activity restrictions associated with the designation, or special protection measures of any of the values associated with the designation.

8 about 30 positive and negative issues that were presented in elements of the landscape. Common Section 1311 of ANILCA, i.e.: to the criteria studied is the con­ cept of outstanding .and unique • the scenic and recreational scenic beauty. One set of criteria values of the land; that was referenced by several sources was found in the 1974 • the importance of providing pro­ Manual prepared by the FHWA. The tection to those values; range of factors considered in­ cludes: • the desirability of providing a symbolic and physical link • the scenic quality of the corri­ between parks; and dor; • the desirability of enhancing • service to major population the experience of people traveling centers; between· parks by motor vehicles.

• economic feasibility; The range of management considera­ tions for scenic highways was also • availability and variety of examined. In general, state-auth­ complementary facilities; orized scenic highways are existing multipurpose roads with little • availability of other scenic difference in management from that routes and recreation resources of other highways. Federal efforts in the area; in the past have tended to involve more new construction and to be • access to parks and recreation more dedicated to recreational use. areas; Minimal implementation of both Federal and State scenic highway • providing connectivity among systems may be simply marking the recreation facilities; highway as a scenic route. Colora­ do has restrictions on advertising • access to major highways-commuter signs and Oregon also restricts and non-recreation travel needs; junkyards in designated scenic areas. Massachusetts and Vermont • potential for conserving energy have restrictions on roadside and meeting user needs; maintenance activities like tree­ cutting and fence removal. Several • protection of corridor and states, including Arizona and ecology; California, are authorized to buy scenic easements or obtain property • public demand for development; in fee title through purchase or and gift. Several responses from states without scenic highway • suitability for use by other systems indicated that scenic and modes. recreational values along their highways receive similar protec­ These criteria were developed to tion through department policies apply to all of the states. They or local zoning restrictions. offer a useful expansion of the At another level of development, Cooperative Management the Federal Government is providing money to Mississippi River states There are a number of agencies for improvements to roads in the which currently haveresponsibili­ Great River Road system along the ties and interests in lands and Mississippi. The improvements resources adjacent to the highways being funded include general pave­ within the study corridor. ment and alignment upgrading, and the provision of turnout and road­ Regionally, numerous plans exist or side recreation facilities. About are proposed which, if implemented, $250 million has been authorized could impact land uses or resources for Great River Road projects along these highways. Locally, through 1983. The funds are appro­ many of those who own or manage priated by Congress as a line item lands or resources directly adja­ under the Federal-Aid to Highways cent to the highways within the Act. An extreme example of a study corridor have plans, either scenic highway is a Parkway admin­ existing or proposed, on how those istered by the National Park Ser­ resources should best be managed. vice such as the Blue Ridge Parkway or the 1'1at"chez Trace Parkway. The Because of the existing and poten­ entire corridor along such a road tial impact of these planning is managed primarily for its scenic efforts at both a regional and and recreational values, as a part local level, the agency repre­ of the National Park system. sentatives in the Study Group Travel may be restricted to non­ (appendix B) recognized the need commerical use, and entrance fees for a means to coordinate planning may be charged. A Parkway, being a efforts and land management. As a linear National Park, is recognized result of this recognition, the as a distinct classification; there Study Group is preparing two is no evidence either in ANILCA or Cooperative Agreements, one the legislative history that Con­ covering the Denali Highway and gress intended such a designation one covering the McCarthy Road. for the Denali Corridor. The involved agencies, through these Cooperative Agreements, Since there has been no uniform are making (1) a formal recognition application of the designation of the special importance of the "scenic highway," this study will scenic, recreational, and other ~ adopt any single specific resources within the study area, descriptive definition, criteria, and (2) a commitment to work to­ or management plan. For the pur­ gether whenever planning, or any poses of this study, the foregoing other project, is initiated. The discussion of the range of manage­ purpose of this commitment is the ment options will serve as defining maintenance and enhancement of what a scenic highway in Alaska may these special values. be. Each segment of the corridor will be studied with this range of alternatives in mind.

MQunt McKinley is visible from many stretches ofthe Parks Highway. II. Section Analysis and Recommendations Parks,Richardson and Edgerton Highways

Because of numerous similarities, non-motorized uses. Discharging of the most notable of,which is land firearms is not allowed in the status, the Parks, Richardson and Park. Edgerton Highways are discussed together, and one recommendation is Several parcels of State owned land made for all three. north of the Denali State Park have been tentatively identified as being available for settlement Parks Highway under the State's land disposal program. These parcels mayor may Land Stabis not be di·sposed of,depending upon public interest. The Parks Highway from the Tal­ keetna Junction (milepost 99) north Although not the alternative pre­ to the entrance of Denali National ferred by the Alaska Power Author­ Park and Preserve (i.e., the Nenana ity (APA), an access route to the River Bridge, milepost 231.1) is proposed Susitna Hydro Project has within the study corridor. This been studied from Hurricane (mile­ section of the corridor is approx­ post 174) east, and therefore, it imately 138 miles long. Of this could become an access route to length, approximately 75 miles of that area pending the outcome of the lands along the roads are owned APA's study and review process. by the State of Alaska; approxi­ mately 26 miles are owned by the Except for the extreme northerly Matanuska-Susitna Borough; approxi­ portion of the Parks Highway, the mately 20 miles are Native Corpora­ entire study corridor is within the tion owned land, about 7 miles are Matanuska-Susitna Borough. The in private ownership, and the re­ corridor area has not been zoned; maining 10 miles are under the ad­ thus the Matanuska-Susitna Borough ministration of the Federal Govern­ exercises little regulatory control ment and withdrawn as gravel re­ over the area although it has . serves for the Alaska Railroad legislative authority to do so. (map #2, table 1). However, along approximately 26 miles of the corridor from Tal­ Existing/Proposed Land Use keetna junction northward, the Matanuska-Susitna Borough owns Existing land use along the Parks lands that are being considered in Highway is varied. Numerous small the Borough-wide Comprehensive Plan settlements and businesses dot the and have tentatively been identi­ route. These include the Peters­ fied for disposal. ville Road Junction, Hurricane, Colorado, Summit, and Cantwell. Scenic and Recreational Resources

From milepost 132 to milepost 169, The scenic resources of the Parks the Parks Highway passes through Highway were inventoried in 1978 by the Denali State Park; however, the Alaska Department of Natural there are scattered inholdings of Resources (DNR). The DNR study, private land. Activities within entitled "Scenic Resources Along most of the Park are restricted to the Parks Highway," divided the highway into segments based on • dense stands of birch-spruce character types, and subdivided the forest on gently rolling topo­ character types into assessment graphy; units no longer than three miles. The "intrinsic visual quality" of • views of Mount McKinley, the each assessment unit was rated Alaska Range, and their numerous according to its various compo­ nents, including patterns of form, • canyons and bluffs of the Chulit­ line. color, and texture. Also na River, Hurricane Gulch, and assessed for each unit was a "com­ Honolulu Creek. posite visual quality" rating which added or subtracted the effect of Other recreational opportunities development on the intrinsic visual include: quality. The potential for screen­ ing development areas with vegeta • developed and undeveloped rest tion was also rated. Unless other­ areas and turnouts, including wise stated, the values and ratings some at specific viewpoints; referred to are the "composite visual quality." • fishing in feeder streams of the Susitna River and the Chulitna According to this study, scenic River and in various lakes in the values along the Parks Highway area; range from low to exceptional. Excluding the portion of the high­ • camping at Honolulu Creek or in way passing through Denali State the Denali State Park; Park, about 25 percent of the seg­ ment rated low, 15 percent moder­ • picnicking at Byers Lake or any ate, and the remainder high to of a number of rest areas; exceptionally high in scenic value. The largest block of Federal land, • boating at Byers Lake; managed by the Alaska Railroad near Hurricane, was rated as exception­ • berry picking at Coal Creek and. ally scenic. The roadway there other turnouts; curves through a rolling topography with many unobstructed views of • hiking at Denali State Park; and Denali National Park and Mount McKinley. The foreground lands • hunting and trapping between have a low capability to absorb Talkeetna Junction and the visual impact. entrance to Denali State Park.

Recreational opportunities in this Other Considerations area of Federal land include a According to the Alaska Regional paved viewpoint at milepost 170.3 Profiles, the corridor passes and a rest area at Hurricane Gulch through or near several mineralized that includes a trail with several provinces. Near Broad Pass are scenic views and good berry pick­ many mining claims, with known ing. Other scenic features along deposits of gold, lead, copper, the Parks Highway but not on Fed­ and zinc in the area. Other miner­ eral land include: als found along the corridor include silver, platinum, nickel, chromium, and molybdenum. Non­ metallic resources include coal, sand, gravel, and a low potential for oil and gas. The commercial value of these resources is un­ known. Water power sites inven­ toried by the Alaska Power Author­ i ty include two sites on the Chulitna River, as well as the sites being developed on the Susit­ na River. Additionally, APA's Willow-Healy Intertie Project parallels the Parks Highway for much of its length. The Parks Highway is a major trans­ portation link and connects the State's two most populous cities: Anchorage and Fairbanks. The highway also provides a vital commercial link between the port facilities in Anchorage and inter­ ior Alaska. The Parks Highway meets Federal-Aid Highway stand­ ards. Because of its importance as a transportation corridor, it has also been designated as a part of the Interstate Highway system.

15 Like the pipe ofthe Trans-Alaskan Oil Pipeline, cargo bound for the Alaskan interior from the port of Valdez will travel over the Richardson Highway. Richardson Highway This section of the Richardson Highway is located outside of any Land Status organized Borough. Therefore, the area has not been zoned by the That portion of the Richardson Borough, and the State has not Highway that is within this study elected to impose zoning restric­ corridor is approximately 103 miles tions either. There are no current in length. Of this about 44 miles land-use plans for this area. are lands either State selected or Several areas within the corridor conveyed to the State under the include lands which the State has Statehood Act, and about 37 miles identified for future settlement are either Native Corporation under its land disposal program. selected or conveyed to various This property has been offered in Alaska Native Corporations under past disposals and will continue to ANCSA. There are private parcels be offered until the available land scattered along the highway with has been transferred into private concentrations at Paxson, Gakona ownership. Junction, Glenn Highway Junction, Copper Center and Edgerton Highway Scenic and Recreational Resources Junction. These private lands encompass approximately 13 miles of According to a draft study prepared the study corridor. The remaining by the Alaska Department of Natural . . 9 miles are Federal public lands Resources, the scenic resources administered by the Bureau of Land along the Richardson Highway are Management (map #3, table 1). mostly of moderate value, with several areas of high value and a Existing/Proposed Land Use relatively confined area of low scenic value. Near Paxson, distant As is typical of highways in the views of the Chugach and Wrangell State of Alaska, the Richardson Mountains to the south and the Highway has numerous small busines­ Alaska Range to the north contrib­ ses scattered along its length. ute to the high scenic value. For the most part the businesses Foreground features in this area are concentrated where the private include the Gulkana River, the lands are concentrated. Several river valley, and Paxson Lake. historic roadhouses are located Much of the terrain is rolling, and within the study corridor. The the road generally conforms well to most notable of these is the Sour­ the topography. At the extreme dough Roadhouse which is listed on southern end of this segment are the National Register of Historic stunning views of the Wrangell Places. Mountains with Willow Lake in the foreground. Additionally, the Trans-Alaska Pipeline parallels the Richardson Nevertheless, much of the Richard­ Highway for the entire length of son segment is an enclosed corridor the study corridor. Within this through the spruce/hardwood forest, section of the study corridor are and of moderate scenic value. The numerous access roads and material areas of low scenic value include sites associated with the construc­ the more populated areas near the tion and operation of the pipeline. junctions with the Tok Cutoff and the Clenn Highway.

_17, Recreational opportunities are more The Richardson Highway, like the abundant along the northern half of Parks Highway, is a major trans­ the Richardson Highway. Along the portation and commercial link to Gulkana River and at Paxson Lake Interior Alaska. Valdez, the are campgrounds and good spots to southern terminus of the Richardson put in and take out rafts, canoes, Highway, is the site of the north­ kayaks or motorboats. As a Wild ernmost year-round ice-free deep­ and Scenic River, the Gulkana water port in the State. (This was receives considerable use for float the major reason for selecting trips, and it is a good fishing Valdez as the terminus of the river as well. Campgrounds along Trans~Alaska Oil Pipeline.) That the route include two Paxson Lake part of the Richardson Highway Campgrounds, the Sourdough Creek between the Glenn Highway junction Campground, and the Dry Creek and Gakona has been designated an Campground. Also , along the Rich­ Interstate route and the remainder ardson Highway are trails for of the Richardson Highway is a hiking and access to various lakes Federal-Aid primary route. and the Gulkana River. Trailheads include the June Lake Trailhead, Gillespie Lake Trailhead, and Haggard Creek Trailhead. Other Considerations . . The area along the Richardson Highway is not as heavily minera­ lized as other segments of the study corridor according to the Alaska Regional Profiles. There are several isolated mines, and the area around Paxson Lake is noted as a mineralized province containing molybdenum, gold, and copper. At the extreme south end of the Rich­ ardson segment is a highly mineral­ ized area, containing chromium, nickel, copper, and platinum. Sand and gravel are exposed along the Copper River, and the Copper River Petroleum Basin has a low potential for oil or gas deposits.

Caribou and moose may be found along this segment. A fall caribou migration route crosses the highway about midway between Paxson and Gulk~na. During the winter, moose will concentrate along the Gulkana and Copper Rivers. There is a moderate concentration of fur­ bearers within the area.

18

Dipnetters catch salmon in the Copper River near Chitna. This view is looking south from the highway bridge. _. Edgerton Highway ings, the entire road is highly scenic. Mount Drum, Mount Sanford, Land Status Mount Blackburn, and Mount Wrangell offer the backdrop for small farms The Edgerton Highway is approxi­ and homesteads along the road. mately 33 miles long. The entire According to the study, the farms length is within the study corri­ and homesteads are generally neat, dor. About 20 miles is either and add to the character and qual- Native-selected or conveyed, while ;ity of the view. The Copper River 13 miles is in private ownership. is also a scenic attraction, being There are no Federal public lands a braided river in a broad valley on this segment (map #4, table 1). with steeply cut banks. The road Lands in private ownership were varies from flat and straight near predominantly patented under the Kenny Lake to winding nearer to Homestead Act, and farming remains Chitina. Ground cover in view the livelihood of many of those ranges from spruce/hardwood forest along the route, particularly to alpine tundra, to rocky, barren between the small communities of ground. Kenny Lake and Lower Tonsina. There are a few small parcels of Near Chitina are several lakes State land. The Liberty Falls which not only add to the scenic Campground, although belonging to qualities of the road, but are good the State, continues to be managed recreation sites as well. Onemile by the U.S. Bureau of Land Manage­ lake has a rest area and picnic ment (BLM) through a cooperative table. Grayling and rainbow trout agreement. can be caught from Twomile Lake and Threemile Lake. The Copper River Of particular significance is the is popular for subsistence salmon fact that there are virtually no fishing and for floating. Hiking Federal lands along the Edgerton and camping facilities are avail­ Highway. able at Liberty Falls Campground, where berry picking can also be Existing/Proposed Land Use productive. These facilities receive very heavy use during the The Edgerton Highway is not within peak salmon runs on the Copper any local governmental unit. River. Buffalo can sometimes be Land-use planning is virtually seen across the Copper River, and non-existent. Future land use of mountain sheep in the hills above the area will in large measure be Twomile and Threemile Lakes. The determined by the major landowners; Tonsina River, which crosses the e.g., the appropriate Native cor­ highway, offers an exciting white­ porations. The highway is a Fed­ water float-trip. eral-Aid Secondary route. Other Considerations Scenic and Recreational Resources The entire length of the Edgerton Using the numerical rating system Highway lies within a highly miner­ of the DNR consultant, the Edgerton alized area, with known deposits of Highway is one of the most scenic chromium, nickel, copper and plat­ of any of the segments. Except for inum. The westernmost end of the short lengths with moderate rat- Edgerton Highway lies within the

21 Copper River Petroleum Basin, but ance on these highways as commer­ the probability of oil or gas cial routes. deposits is considered low. The western half of the corridor area 3. Public Opinion - Over 25 is mostly agricultural. public meetings were held in Alaska to seek out comments and concerns Moose and furbearers may be present relating to creation of a National anywhere along the Edgerton High­ Scenic Highway System in Alaska way, but are not known to be con­ (see section III, Public Involve­ centrated there. Black bear con­ ment). It was apparent from those centrate along the Copper River. meetings that there was overwhelm­ ing opposition to any such Federal designation in Alaska. Recommendations 4. Existing Authority - The State and Rationale of Alaska has existing authority to create and manage a State Scenic Parks, Richardson and Highway System, if they so choose. Edgerton Highways No Designation .. The Study Group concurred unani­ mously that it is undesirable to recommend that these highway seg­ ments be designated as part of a National Scenic Highway (NSH) System. The rationale behind this conclusion includes the following points:

1. Land Ownership - Section 1311 of ANILCA(Appendix A) mandates that recommendations be made to Congress on "public" (Federal) lands. The Parks, Richardson and Edgerton Highways traverse lands that are almost entirely ~­ Federally owned or managed. There­ fore, it would he inappropriate to make a recommendation to create a NSH on these highway segments.

2. Commercial Use - The Parks and Richardson Highways are major commercial corridors in Alaska. As a principal intent of Congress was that a scenic highway serve to promote tourism, a potential con­ flict exists between a national designation and the existing reli-

22

The Alaska Range presents a backdrop for much ofthe scenery on the Denali Highway. Denali Highway Existing/Proposed Land Use Land Status The Denali Hi~hway traverses the BLM Denali planning block. The The entire len~th (135 miles) of Denali planning block is part of the Denali Highway is within the the larger Southcentral Planning study corridor. This highway Unit. A land-use plan for this provides the east-west link between unit was completed by ELM in 1980. Cantwell~ on the Parks Righway~ and The passage of ANILCA in late 19RO Paxson~ on the Richardson Highway. prompted an amendment to the ori~i­ Until completion of the Denali nal plan. This amendment, pertain­ Highway in 1957~ the only access to ing to the Denali planningblock~ Denali National Park (formerly Mt. was completed in July 1982. McKinley National Park) was via the Alaska Railroad. The Denali High­ The major provisions of the amend­ way remained the only road to the ment allow mineral activities to National Park until the opening of take place in the planning hlock. the George Parks Highway in 1972. However~ the Denali Scenic Highway Study Corridor was specifically Of the highways involved in the excluded from the opening order study~ the Denali has by far the which allows mineral exploration~ greatest amount of ANILCA public leasing~ and location. By the same land adjacent to the road. The token none of the lands within the route crosses approximately 88 Denali study corridor were opened miles of ANILCA pub lic land (BLM) ~ to settlement under the Alaska 16 miles of State land, 29 miles of Settlement laws or designated for Native Corporation owned land and 2 lease or sale under the Federal miles of other private land (map #5, Land Policy and Management Act. table 1). These decisions were postponed to allow for completion of the Denali Most of the private lands are Scenic Highway Study as well as for located near Cantwell and Paxson. completion of the Matanuska­ Several commercial establishments Susitna-Beluga Corporative Planning are scattered along the route, for Program being prepared jointly by instance~ at Mile 20 (Tangle River the Matanuska-Susitna Borough and Inn)~ Mile 22.6 (Sportsman's the State of Alaska. Lodge)~ Mile 42 (Maclaren River Lodge)~ Mile 52 (private camp­ Basically~ the Denali Highway west ground), Mile 77 (Susitna Lodge), of the Maclaren River and approxi­ Mile 82 (Gracious Rouse)~ and at mately 20 miles east of Cantwell is Mile 100 (Adventures Unlimited). within the Matanuska-Susitna Bor­ ough; i.e. Milepost 40 to Milepost Native Corporation owned lands are 107. The joint plan for the area located primarily at the western is not scheduled for completion end of the Denali Highway~ while until late 1983. Therefore~ recom­ the State lands are located primar­ mendations on future settlement are ily at the eastern end. BLH lands pending. are located along the remainder of the route.

25 That portion of the Denali Highway some areas along the Denali have a truly which transects the Mat-Su Borough superlative scenic quality, the entire length of the highway is a rich scenic resource is within the Talkeetna Mountains Special Use District. The intent The richness of the views is also due in part of the ordinance establishing this to the openness of the landscape. Along most of the highway the vegetation is low District is to provide the Borough brush or tundra; there are few trees to with a Multiple Use Management obscure views. In addition, the flat to rolling Tool. Allowed uses of the district glaciated valleys yield broad views that can almost reach from horizon to horizon, are "recreational, mining, grazing, adding a sense of immensity to the land­ timber harvest, guiding, hunting, scape that is only boundedby steep mountains. fishing, trapping, water resource use and enterprise activity."

Scenic and Recreational Resources The area, therefore, is exceptional for sightseeing and photography, The scenic resources of the Denali not only because of the beautiful Highway (and the remainder of the views, but also because of the corridor being studied) were inven­ opportunity to see wildlife and to toried by the Alaska Department of view unique geological features Natural Resources in 1982. The such as a melting pingo, kettle work was done under the same pro­ lakes and eskers. From the Denali ject manager and consultant who Highway there are opportunities to prepared the Parks Highway report. see caribou, (part of the Nel­ The following description is taken china herd crosses the area in from the draft report. late August, early September), moose, bear, beaver, porcupine, ptarmigan, and swans. The proba­ The Denali Road is characterized by very bility of seeing these animals is high visual resource values. This is due to the numerous distinctive landscape elements greater than on other State high­ along its length and the constantly unfolding ways because there is less traffic, views that are expressive of the full range and the views are generally unob­ and diversity of the five landscape character types. At the western end of the road, structed along the Denali. Spawn­ views across forested uplands to the Nenana ing salmon can be seen from the River encompass the Talkeetna Mountains bridge over the Gulkana River in and the Alaska Range, including the glaciated peaks of Mt. McKinley, Mt. August and September. Deborah, Mt. Hess and Mt. Hayes. The Susitna River dominates a broad valley A photographer or hiker may also be landscape enclosed by the Alaska Range, Talkeetna Mountains and the Clearwater interested in the historic sites Mountains. Expansive vistas across glacial near the road. The Tangle Lakes topography with associated features of Archeological District is entered moraines, eskers, kettle lakes and pingoes are defined along the edges by mountain on the National Register of His­ ranges, including the Clearwater, the toric Places. Some of the arti­ Amphitheater Mountains and glimpses of the facts there are among the oldest more distant Wrangells. found in Alaska, and the area may The road alignment generally conforms to contain evidence of essentially the surrounding topography, resulting in a continuous human use for about route that provides continually changing views and orientations. In addition its 10,000 years. Close to the Susitna general location on the mountain foothills River is the townsite of Denali, provides a series of composite views that near which gold was discovered in include the full range of landform, waterform and landcover elements for each unit. l!Jhile 1903. Gold mining continues there today.

26 Tangle Lakes and many of the small are duplicated by only a few other streams along the Denali Highway locations in Alaska. First, the offer good fishing for grayling. area possesses a diversity of The Tangle Lakes are the headwaters moderately abundant wildlife pop­ for the Delta River, a National ulations, including moose, caribou, Wild and Scenic River. The Delta grizzly bears, ptarmigan, spruce River Canoe Trail can be reached grouse, waterfowl, snowshoe hares, from the Tangle Lakes campground. and furbearers. Of special impor­ Access to the Upper Tangle Lakes tance is a reasonable opportunitv Wilderness Canoe Trail is from the of success for hunters pursuing . Tangle River Boat Launch. There caribou from the Nelchina herd. are trails in the area which can be Second, Denali Highway junctions used for recreation. Examples of are located between, and within such trails include Swede Lake reasonable driving distances of, Trail, Landmark Gap Lake Trail, the major population centers of Roosevelt Lake Trail, and Snodgrass Alaska. Third, a large portion of Lake Trail. Other trails have been the highway is located above tim­ used for mining purposes. Some berline, a characteristic which trails are open to off-road vehicle enhances some aspects of hunting. (ORV) use, although the Clearwater Fourth, the road seems to have had Controlled Use Area prohibits the little impact on migrations by use of motorized vehicles for either caribou or moose and pro­ hunting. In some areas, berry vides the hunter with the oppor­ picking can be fruitful. BLH tunity for a relaxed drive (in part campgrounds are maintained at due to low numbers of other ve­ Brushkana Creek and Tangle Lakes. hicles) while searching for a loca­ Several of the lodges offer guide tion to stop and glass the sur­ service as well as lodging. rounding countryside. Fifth, the 135-mile distance from Paxson to These resources are important not Cantwell and accompanying spur only to the tourists driving the trails, rivers, and lakes can highway, but to Alaskan residents accommodate a relatively large as well. The Denali Highway area number of hunters using a variety has been an important hunting of equipment, thereby minimizing location for Alaskan residents even competition among them. Sixth, the before the highway was completed. location is ideal for family out­ Hunter check stations were operated ings because of the presence and by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife the variety of game as well as Service and Alaska Department berries and fish provide a broad of Fish and Game pn the highway be­ spectrum of outdoor activities. ginning in 1954. (Table 3 shows the numbers of hunters counted between 1960 and 1971.) They also recognized the importance of the surrounding habitat and established caribou range stations along the Denali Highway that have been studied since the early 1960's. The attractiveness of the area for hunters probably stems from several interrelated characteristics which

27 Table 3. Denali Highway Hunter Check Station Results, 1960-71

Year nates of Operation Number of hunters

1960 8/20-10/03 1892 1961 8/20-10/05 3694 1962 8/12-10/21 5271 1963 8/17-10/28 4814 1964 8/12-10/12 5052 1965 8/14-10/10 3088 1966 8/15-10/10 2799 1967 8/14-10/09 2977 1968 8/10-10/02 3238 1969 8/10-10/13 4029 1970 8/10-10/02 2176 1971 8/10-09/23 3247

Although hunting and other recrea­ Included in the MFP are the follow­ tional interests are usually bio­ ing projects: logically compatible, the two different types of users are fre­ • develop water trails in addition quently intolerant of each other. to those already completed, In situations where the two diff­ Maclaren River to Susitna River erent user groups come in frequent to Tyone River to Lake Louise; contact conflicts do occur and managers have usually responded by • rehabilitate campgrounds at restricting hunters. This need not Tangle Lakes and Brushkana always be the case however, as Creek; Canadian Park authorities have demonstrated by excluding non­ • develop three-family-unit way­ hunters from portions of their sides (camping facilities for Parks during open hunting seasons. three family-size groups, park­ ing, picnic table, etc.) every Regardless of whether or not a 10 miles along Denali Highway; scenic highway designation is made, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) • develop 10-unit family camp­ plans to enhance recreational grounds near the Clearwater resources along the Denali Highway. River; In its 1980 Management Framework Plan (MFP), which covers the Denali • develop an interpretive program area, BLM outlines its management using the Denali Highway Infor­ approach for the next 10 years. mation Plan as the base study. The Denali Highway Information the construction of the Watana Dam Plan was prepared by the Colo­ first, and later another dam at rado State University in 1976. Devil's canyon, both on the Susitna River. Proposed access to these It discusses information signs, sites is via the Denali Highway at pamphlet programs, visitor in­ a point approximately 21 miles east tive pullouts); of Cantwell on Federal puhlic land, where APA proposes construction of • develop or maintain foot trails an access road south to the Watana for extended hikes or day hikes, Dam site. This road would he of e.g., Tangle Lakes Campground to approximately the same width and Sourdough Campground, Tangle quality as the Denali Highway. Lakes Campground to Cantwell Additionally, APA proposes the via historic route, Denali High­ construction of a temporary (20 way north along Maclaren River, years) overhead 150 KV transmission and Denali Highway along Rrush­ line. The exact location of this kana Creek to intersect Cantwell line is not known; however, loca­ trail; and tion within view of the Denali Highway could have a significant • develop winter-use trails out of effect on existing scenic quality. Paxson. Additionally, upgrading of the Denali Highway from Cantwell east Implementation of any of these approximately 21 miles to the junc­ projects is subject to funding tion of the proposed Watana Dam levels. access road is planned. Another APA project, the Fairbanks-Anchor­ The outstanding scenic resources of age intertie (a power transmission the area were recognized in the project), is proposed to cross the Management Framework Plan (MFP). west end of the Denali Highway on Specifically, the Sugarloaf Moun­ private Native Corporation o~~ed tains, the Talkeetna Mountains, the lands. Alaska Range, the Maclaren River, the Clearwater River, and the In a letter dated December 21, Monahan Flats were identified as 1982, the Alaska Department of highly scenic. As such, these Transportation and Public Facili­ areas should be managed in accor­ ties reported that they have: dance with BLM guidelines, which suggest that "changes in any of the basic elements (form, line, color several proposals to upgrade the Denali and texture) caused by proposed Highway. These include reconstruction or rehabilitation possibly with paving or without activities should not be evident in paving. There are many variables and the characteristic landscape. A factors involved in establishing any definitive contrast may be seen, but should plans or time schedule for this work. The only preparations to date are the completion not attract attention." of a Location Study Report and Environmental Assessment evaluating O~her Considerations reconstruction of the Denali Highway including recommendations; and preliminary engineering work for reconstruction of the Of significance are Alaska Power Denali Highway from the Parks Highway to Authority's (APA) plans for devel­ Seattle Creek. At this time we haven't decided whether or not to pave the Parks­ opment of the Susitna Hydroelectric Seattle Cree~ .segment. It is ~ntirely possible Project. Present plans call for

29. that we would reconstruct only certain earlier, it is likely that the segments of the highway and rehabilitate traveler will see wildlife from the others or rehabilitate a section and postpone its reconstruction. Again, traffic forecasts, Denali Highway, and the area is costs and other factors will influence our used by local hunters and those ultimate decisions. from Anchorage and Fairbanks. There is concern that an increase Even with the upgrading, the State in traffic which may accompany an is not, at this time, proposing upgrading of the road and scenic year-round (winter) maintenance. highway designation may cause the The State has a 300-foot right­ Nelchina caribou herd to avoid of-way along most of the Denali parts of their present range. Highway, and the vast majority of Unfortunately, there is no data realignments and other upgrading which will allow prediction of the would take place within the exist­ effect a scenic highway designation ing right-of-way. will have on traffic levels, but it is generally thought that an up­ The effect of the State's plans on grading of the road would have a the resources along the Denali greater effect on traffic levels Highway is unknown. The State than designation alone. projects a 4 percent per year increase in traffic along the route As with the other highway segments through 1985 and 3 percent per year the entire range of alternatives thereafter through 2005. ~fuether a for a scenic highway were consid­ scenic highway designation will ered under the "designation" alter­ cause greater rates of increase in native. traffic volume is not known, but is generally assumed. Regardless of which alternative Congress may choose pursuant to Commercial land use is at present section 1311 of ANILCA, there is very limited on the Denali Highway, recognized need in Alaska for care­ and consists of the various lodges ful management of the outstanding along the route and a few active resource values found along the 135 mining claims, the most notahle of mile Denali Highway. A cooperative which are at Valdez Creek and the planning effort is being undertaken old townsite of Denali near ¥ile­ within Alaska to coordinate land post 79. Should the Denali Highway use plans and concerns among vari­ become the access route for con­ ous Federal, State, local and struction of the Watana Dam, then private agencies. commercial traffic will increase dramatically on the portion of the ALTERNATIVES highway east of Cantwell approxi­ mately 20 miles. Alternative 1 No designation Active mining occurs not only Alternative 2 Designation around the old townsite of Denali, but also elsewhere along the road, The cost associated with this as much of the area is mineralized. Alternative (upgrading the highway Major metallic minerals are gold, without paving) is 888,000,000. molybdenum, and copper. Other This cost is for reconstruction to minerals in the area are platinum, a safe and modern standard without nickel, and chromium. As mentioned

30 paving. Paving would add approx­ other adjacent land owners to imately $20,000,000 to this figure. achieve a common objective.

3. Public Concern - There has Preferred Alternative been overwhelming public opposition to the creation of a Federal Scenic and Rationale Highway System in Alaska (See part III, Public Involvement). Denali Highway *** Alternative 1 - No Designation The Study Group was not unanimous The Study Team concluded that a "no in the above recommendation. In a designation" alternative was most letter received on February 14, desirable for this segment of the 1983, Ahtna Incorporated set forth study corridor. This conclusion its position. That letter is as was not unanimous; the dissenting follows: position is given below. The reasons for the "no designation" It is Ahtna, Incorporated position that there recommendation are: is a need to designate a Federally recognized scenic highway link between Denali National Park and Wrangell·St. Elias National park. 1. Cooperative Management -The Study Team felt that the major Ahtna recommends that the Denali Highway be designated a modified scenic highway land managers along the that would take into consideration Denali Highway should coordinate commercial use while at the same time their planning and management providing for the upgrading of the Denali to a primary highway that could be used efforts so that common concerns and extensively during the summer months for goals are attained (See page tourism and recreational travel. We 10 ). A cooperative agreement is recommend that the Denali Highway be realigned and paved to Federal highway being written to achieve this co­ standards at the earliest possible date. ordination for the Denali Highway segment. Areas that have high scenic value could be identified and protected through a procedure that considers the views of all the land 2. Existing Authori"ty - As with the holders in the area. We feel that developed other highways within the study areas could continue their operations without further government intervention and corridor, there is existing State regulations. authority to manage the right-of­ way with consideration of scenic Ahtna recommends that the State designate the highways between Paxson and and recreational values without a McCarthy as a scenic State Highway Federal designation. Further, the without adding any additional regulations on major land manager of the lands adjacent land owners or hinder State ability to upgrade the road system. adjacent to this highway, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), has completed management plans which recognize the need to manage lands under its jurisdiction for their scenic and recreational values. The cooperative management approach discussed above would then consolidate their management plan­ ning with that of the State and

31 Travelers must leave their cars on the other side ofthe Kennicott River to reach the historic Kennicott Copper Mines. McCarthy Road land outside the study corridor is ad~inistered by the Park Service; Land Status thus, off-corridor development and use will be controlled by the Park The McCarthy Road is 63 miles long Service. This adjacent land use and connects the small towns of and planning will no doubt affect Chitina and McCarthy. Approxi­ land use within the study corridor. mately 33 miles of the road cross The Park Service land-use plan for Native Corporation owned land, 20 the Wrangell-St. Elias National miles cross State land, 3 miles Park and Preserve is presently cross private lands, and about 7 being drafted. The Park Serv'1ce miles cross National Park Service representatives on the StudyG'toup lands. With the exception of the have indicated that a Scenic High­ westernmost mile, the entire road way Designation would have little is within the external boundary of impact upon the Park. the Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve (map #6, table Scenic and Recreational Resources 1) • The following description of the The road tor the most part follows scenic resources of the McCarthy the old Copper River and North­ Road is taken directly from the western Railway Companyright-of­ draft of the Alaska Department of way. This right-of-way was granted Natural Resources report quoted in the early 1900's. The railroad earlier. That draft suggested the was built to connect the Kennecott road be called the McCarthy "1ild copper mines near McCarthy and the and Historic Road, and consequent­ ice-free port at Cordova. The ly, that title appears in the State claims ownership of this following description. right-of-way by virtue of a quit­ claim deed from the U.S. Department Along the road between Chitina and of Commerce to the State of Alaska McCarthy scenic resource values are quite variable. The most dramatic views and pursuant to the Alaska Omnibus Act experiences tend to be concentrated near (PL 86-70). the two ends - around the Copper and Chitina Rivers at the west end and the McCarthy-Kennicott area at the east end. Existing/Proposed Land Use There are several highlights in between ­ particularly the Kuskulana Bridge and gorge, Future land use, to a large extent, the Gilahina railroad trestle and Long Lake area. However, for the most part the will depend upon the land use plans landscape visible from the road between adopted by the State of Alaska, the Chitina and McCarthy is typical of that various Native Corporations and the found along major river valleys in southcentral Alaska. This is, to a large National Park Service. The area is extent, the result of the position of the road not within any organized borough or in the landscape. It follows upper terraces other local governmental unit; on the north side of the Chitina River valley, through dense, predominantly spruce­ therefore, local governmental hardwood forest. This location limits good land use controls are non-existent. views to the Chitina River itself and to the higher Wrangell Mountains to the north and east, which are either too distant or hidden National Park Service planning by nearby lower mountains. could have a significant effect on In spite of this the McCarthy Wild and the use of the McCarthy Road even Historic Road does provide a visually though the road crosses very little interesting and, at times, memorable Park land. The majority of the experience due to a combination of factors

33 which enhance and complement the inherent trout and coho salmon, and, of visual opportunities within the landscape. course, the,Copper River provides First there is the spatial definition. The road, in passing through the predominantly several runs of salmon. Other dense forest landcover offers an interesting streams have low productions of range of spatial experiences - from Dol]~ Varden, grayling and salmon. "tunnels" created by unmaintained roadside vegetation completely enclosing the road, to Long Lake has grayling, rainbow/ places where natural and man-made steelhead, whitefish, burbot, Dolly openings offer opportunities for panoramic Varden, Lake trout, red and coho views, to numerous places where variations between these two extremes exists. salmon. Long Lake produces an escapement of 4,000 to 46,000 red Second, the character of the road is a salmon annual]~ with an estimated source of interest. It is narrow, generally un maintained, with small bridges, potholes, equal number caught in the commer­ wet spots and drainage channels crossing its cial fishery. Campsites are avail­ surface. These tend to slow the travelerand able at one or more lodges along are a constant focus of attention. The road is in many ways a challenge to drive, the route. creating a unique experience not found on many other commonly traveled roads. The HcCarthy Road has never had the Third, land use and development adds to the abundance of wildlife that is visual interest. Since the scenery is present along the Denali Highway. oftentimes not particularly distinctive, the Major wildlife species include land uses along the road become an important addition, either opening up distant moose" brown and grizzly bear, views across their clearings or by calling hlack bear, spruce grouse, hares, attention to picturesque homesteads or to and furbearers. Sheep and goats remnants of the bygone railroad era. The railroad features are of special significance are located in nearby mountains but and visual interest even though some are are rarely seen from the road being removed and the remainder are itself. During 1981 18 moose deteriorating or becoming overgrown with vegetation and are not highly visible. hunters reported hunting on the McCarthy Road killing 7 moose. Fourth, there is a sense of destination These figures no doubt underesti­ associated with this road. Most people drive it to get to the McCarthy-Kennicott area, mate the numbers of moose hunters not to pause and spend time along the way. (no hunter check stations have been Thus there is a real sense of anticipation operated) hut in relative impor­ and a greater emphasis on the destination rather than the experience of getting there. tance, the McCarthy road is not as While all roads to a certain degree instill this important for moose hunting area as feeling of destination, it is particularly strong many other areas in Alaska except along this one because there are few intermediate stops. of course to local hunters. During some years, snowshoe hare popula­ These four conditions-spatial definition, road tions have been quite high on the character, land use, and sense of destination-work together to make this 63 McCarthy road while other more mile long road visually and experientially northerly hare populations have rich. already crashed. During those years a relatively large number of snow­ There are few developed recre­ shoe hare hunters may travel to the ational resources along the road. McCarthy Road, hut this phenomenon The photographer will find the cannot be expected to re-occur more scenic resources of interest and often than every 9 to 10 years. the railroad buff or historian will The McCarthy Road does offer trans­ be interested in what remains from portation to the McCarthy airstrip the Copper River and Northwestern where fly-in hunters for sheep, Railroad. Sculpin, Van and Strelna goat, hrown/ grizzly hear, black Lakes are stocked with rainbow bear and bison depart for the

34 remote parts of the Wrangell-St. would almost certainly increase Elias Preserve. traffic on the road.

Other Considerations The McCarthy area is a highly mineralized area, as evidenced by The McCarthy Road is in extremely the Kennecott Copper Mine (now poor condition. Road maintenance inactive) and numerous gold mines. at present is minimal. Be that as Nearer to Chitina is a mineralized it may, the McCarthy Road is the area containing chromium, nickel, only vehicular access to the town copper and platinum. There are no of McCarthy and to numerous private large scale mining operations at residences along the road. It present. The known remaining copper carries a certain amount of traffic deposits are generally high qual­ in spite of the fact that the ity-low quantity or high quantity­ Kennecott River immediately west of low quality. There is low proba­ town can only be crossed by use of bility of another Kennecott. In a hand operated cable tram because general, the other mineral deposits the two bridges have washed away around McCarthy are small and well and have not been replaced. scattered. However, as the price of these minerals rises, so does For the McCarthy Road to remain the likelihood that mining claims eligible for Federal-Aid Highway will be more strongly exploited. money, it must retain its status as a "major collector." Unlike the There is very limited grazing or Denali Highway, the McCarthy Road farming in the area due to the is considered an "unconstructed" nature of the soil and climate. road. Therefore, if the State Some of the forest may potentially classifies the road as a "major be of commercial quality. The collector," (the State is currently impacts of any harvesting are revising its functional classifi­ unknown, but heavy truck traffic cation system) it must commit to would affect the condition of the construct the road as a secondary road. route. Construction to secondary standards w'Ould certainly change A Scenic Highway designation should the scenic and recreational exper­ not interfere with the operation or iences the road now offers. management of the Wrangell-St. Improving the quality of the driv­ Elias National Park and Preserve. ing surface and bridges may be Planning for the Park is ongoing, considered a beneficial change by and the wilderness areas of the some, but not others. The consul­ Park are away from the road. If at tant working on the DNR scenic some future time the National Park resources inventory judged that Service were to select a primary making significant changes in the entrance and develop a visitor road, such as drastically altering facility inside the Park, a Scenic the alignment or significantly Highway designation on the McCarthy widening the road and clearing Road may influence that decision. vegetation, could have a negative impact on the scenic values and the Finally, if a scenic highway desig­ recreational experience of driving nation causes traffic on the road the road. Construction and main­ to increase significantly, it will tenance as a secondary highway negatively impact the seclusion

35 sought by many of those now living 1. Land Ownership - while almost there. entirely within the external boundaries of lo7rangell-St. Elias As with the other highway segments National Park, the ownership of the entire range of alternatives the lands immediately adjacent for a scenic highway were consid­ to the road (See table 1 and ered under the "designation" alter­ map 6 ) are, infact, predomin­ native. ately non-Federal.

Regardless of which alternative 2. Existing Authority - From a Congress may choose pursuant to Federal perspective the National section 1311 of ANILCA, there is a Park Service (NPS) has the au­ recognized need in Alaska to manage thority and is mandated by law the outstanding historic resource to manage this park as a wilder­ values found along the 63 mile ness park. As such it is the McCarthy Road. A cooperative intent of the NPS to manage the planning effort is heing undertaken park lands adjacent to the within Alaska to coordinate land McCarthy Road for their natural use plans and concerns within scenic and recreational values. various Federal, State, local and private agencies. 3. Cooperative Management - As is the case with the Denali ALTERNATIVES Highway, an effort to initiate cooperative managment of the Alternative 1 - No designation McCarthy Road segment is under­ way. It was felt by the Study Group that this method of inter­ Alternative 2 - Designation. agency, cooperative planning and management could enhance The cost associated with this the scenic and recreational alternative is $45,000,000 in 1985 opportunities along these routea dollars. It is an estimate for without a requirement of a for­ construction to a safe and modern mal Federal designation. standard without paving, and in­ cludes replacement of deficient 4. Public Comment - During numer­ bridges. ous public meetings held in communities adjacent to the study corridor, there was over­ referred Alternative whelming public opposition to creation of a National Scenic and Rationale Highway System in Alaska (See part III, Public Involvement). McCarthy Road It is, therefore, the unanimous recommendation of the Study Alternative 1 - No Designation Group that the McCarthy Road not be designated a National The Study Group unanimously agreed Scenic Highway. that the McCarthy Road should not be recommended as a National SC;;ic Highway for the following reasons:

_36_

Public meetings like this one in Chitna were important throughout the study. III. Public Involvement

The public involvement process were to be held at Cantwell and employed in the Denali Scenic High­ Copper Center. way Study was first outlined by a scoping team working under the The first series of public meetings auspices and direction of th~ showed very strong and widespread Alaska Land Use Council (ALUC). opposition to a Federal scenic That plan consisted of five basic highway in any form. The over­ components: riding feeling expressed by those attending the meetings was that • inform the public of the study people fear that a Federal designa­ and solicit comments and ques­ tion will ultimately lead to land tions in an effort to have use restrictions and loss of pri­ those concerned participate in vate properties, regardless of the project, assurances to the contrary. There­ fore, nearly everyone attending the • analyze and use those comments meetings was very much against the received, scenic highway designation. Gen­ eral distrust of the Federal Gov­ • distribute the draft study ernment was voiced. A petition was report to the public, signed by almost 500 people against a scenic highway designation be­ • conduct formal public hearings cause "the proposed withdrawal will tQ gather comments, and cause severe hardships to long time residents, hunters, fishermen, and • analyze and respond to those campers who love these lands and comments in the final study care for them." The most vocal, report. overwhelming rejections of a scenic highway designation came from the EARLY PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT communities of Paxson, Chitina, and Glennallen. Representatives from The first step, informing the Paxson traveled over 150 miles to public and requesting input, was an ALUC meeting in Anchorage done in conjunction with the Alaska strictly to voice opposition to the Department of Transportation and designation. Public Facilities (DOT&PF) and the National Park Service (NPS). It There were many questions raised included printing and distributing about what effect a scenic highway an information brochure and ques­ designation would have. While some tionnaire, compiling a mailing voiced the feeling that their input list, and holding public meetings would have no impact on the final in communities along the route. recommendation and decision most The questionnaires were distributed people were anxious to be kept by, and returned to, the nOT&PF, informed and to have continued and the public meetings were held input into the study efforts. in association with the DOT&PF's public meetings for regional plan­ Nevertheless, most people recog­ ning. A schedule of the meetings nized a need for better road maint­ held is in Table 4. The formal enance, and agreed that these roads public hearings, to elicit comments (as well as mos t roads in Alaska) on the draft study and the accomp­ are scenic. Also, several lodge anying environmental statement, owners and workers indicated that

39 · they would welcome more tourism, designation, but corridor residents and that the poor condition of the envisioned threats to their exist­ Denali Highway was a definite ing lifestyle more often than they deterrent to visitors. Others envisioned advantages. For the noted a need for more dump facili­ tourist, a scenic highway designa­ ties and "cleaning up" after tour­ tion was seen also as having both ists. advantages and disadvantages.

The questionnaire which was distri­ About half of the respondents not buted at the meetings and mailed living in or near the corridor out was prepared to determine what agreed that long term protection of people thought a scenic highway was the significant qualities or re­ or should be, and what qualities source values in the corridor would and impacts people associated with enhance the experience of tourists, such a scenic highway. A number of while almost no one from the corri­ those who attended the public dor agreed with that viewpoint. meetings objected, because many of Nearly half of those living in the the questions assumed the existence corridor added strong comments of a scenic highway, and they against a national designation. expressed the fear that any answer could be interpreted as support for As a result of the~e first public a designation. It was made clear meetings, the publieinvolvement that they weren't interested in plan was strengthened by scheduling saying what a national scenic public meetings in the communities highway should be, only that they virtually every other month. didn't want one. Approximately 350 Public meetings were also held in of the questionnaires were return­ Anchorage and Fairbanks. In re­ ed, and while they have not been sponse to the concern and questions analyzed statistically, each one raised during the first series of has been read. The following public meetings, a video tape was summarizes the information from the produced in which the Federal responses. Co-chairman of the ALUC, the Com­ missioner of the DOT&PF, the Re­ The most objectionable land use gional Director of the NPS, Ahtna's along a scenic highway is a large General Manager and others respond­ scale commercial development such ed to some of the most commonly as a shopping center or factory, asked questions. whereas small scale commercial developments (e.g. stores, gas At public meetings, held just prior stations or restaurants) are quite to release of the draft, even acceptable. The Denali Highway and though opposition to a Federal the McCarthy Road were considered scenic highway still was predomi­ by most to "qualify" as scenic nant, some individuals noted that highways, even though a national on Federal lands, such a designa­ designation may be undesirable. tion may be preferable to other The Richardson and Edgerton High­ decisions (i.e., National Park ways were generally considered much classification) that would affect less scenic. The majority of their lifestyle more adversely. respondents could see both advan­ tages and disadvantages for corri­ dor residents .of a scenic highway DISTRIBUTION OF THE DRAFT • Basic distrust of the Federal Government On May 9, 1983 a printed draft report was sent to the more than • "National" designations in Alaska 600 people and organizations on the have already brought significant mailing list. Additional copies and unwelcomed land use restri­ were sent to libraries and commu­ tions. nity centers along the route. Written comments were invited • No need for, or benefit from, a through June 27, 1983 and a series scenic highway was seen. of Public Hearings were held (See Table 4). Response was very lim­ SUMMARY OF COMMENTS ON DRAFT ited, but overwhelming in support of the study recommendations and against a scenic highway designa­ CO~lT: Agree with and support tion. Of the 14 written responses, the recommendations in the draft 2, those of the Sierra Club and the Study Report (ten of fourteen

Trustees for Alaska t were in favor written comments. eight of nine of a scenic highw~y designation for oral testimonies). the Denali Highway and the McCarthy Road. Of the other 12, there were 10 that agreed with the draft's recommendations, and 2 commented COMMENT: The Denali Highway and without specifically supporting or the McCarthy Road should be des­ disagreeing with the draft's posi­ ignated as Scenic Highways. The tion. Those who sent comments are withdrawal from mining and min­ listed on page 42. A more thorough eral leasing should be continued listing of the comments received is and the land should be retaineu on page 41 • in Federal control. Management should emphasize foot and horse At the public hearings, no one trails and water access routes. testified or spoke in favor of a Off Road Vehicle (ORV) use should scenic highway designation. Eight be restricted to trails which do of nine testified that they were not exhibit terrain damage. Con­ against a scenic highway designa­ gress should upgrade the road. tion, or in support of the draft's RESPONSE: Comment noted. recommendation.

Several individuals attending the Public Hearings said that the turn­ COMMENT: The Chitina McCarthy Road outs were low because people were should be designated as a Scenic in agreement with the report. To Road but should not be upgraded. interpret a low response as a lack RESPONSE: Comment noted. of interest would be a mistake, especially considering the response in the first public meetings. COMMENT: Management of the corri­ In summary, there is significant dor should not preclude free opposition to any Federal designa­ market forces as with mining, tion for the following reasons: energy corridors, access to Continued on page 43 41 Table 4, Schedule of Public Meetings and Public Hearings

DATE PLACE

June 14,1982 Gakona, Alaska June 15 Copper Center June 15 Glennallen June 16 Chitina June 17 Kenny Lake June 22 Paxson June 23 Cantwell June 29 McCarthy Sept 27 McKinley Park October 1 Paxson October 4 Glennallen October 5 Chitina October 6 Kenny Lake October 8 Fairbanks October 12 McCarthy November 9 Fairbanks November 11 Anchorage December 15 Glennallen December 16 Kenny Lake February 17, 1983 Talkeetna March 11 Fairbanks March 12 Cantwell March 14 Anchorage March 16 Glennallen March 17 Paxson March 21 Chitina March 22 Kenny Lake May 16 Anchorage (Public Hearing) May 17 Cantwell (Public Hearing) May 18 Fairbanks (Public Hearing) May 19 Glennallen (Public Hearing)

The following organizations and Sierra Club individuals submitted written Dale Sterling (Heritage North) comments to the Draft: Trustees for Alaska Ken and Helen Warburton

John p. Brandt Public Hearing Testimony Was Given Chugach Natives, Inc. By: Citizens Advisory Commission on Federal Areas Nancy Albrittian-Jackson Michael Colavito Armeda Bulard Florence R. Collins Keith Bulard Jack Goddard Dawn Chitty Houston Oil and Minerals Explora­ Muriel J. Cotter tion Company Al Gagnon Jack H. Kolb (Soil Cons. Soc. Fred Seltenreich of Am.) Jaque Tinker Matanuska-Susitna Borough Michael Tinker ~esource Associates of Alaska, Inc.

42 transportation corridors and COMMENT: Question of ownership of roadway improvements. the McCarthy Road right-of-way RESPONSE: Comment noted. should be clarified. RESPONSE: To resolve the question of ownership of the McCarthy Road right-of-way is beyond the scope CO~~NT: Cooperative management of the study and the authority approach (State and BLM) is of the study team. superior to potential restric­ tions of Scenic Highway. RESPONSE: Comment noted. COMMENT: Disagree that State may CO~NT: The Study should incor­ manage its inholdings as it porate a definition of "Scenic pleases - the National Park Ser­ Highway:" recommend use criteria vice has some regulatory author­ on Page 17 of draft as the appli­ ity over inholdings. cable criteria for designation. RESPONSE: Comment accepted, text RESPONSE: The criteria listed were changed. certainly important in helping the Study Team develop a feel for COMMENT: Page 24: In the second what a "scenic highway" should paragraph, it is not clear wheth­ be. However, to formalize these er the "other scenic features as the criteria for designation along the Parks Highway," which neglects the subjectivity involv­ are listed, occur on Federal ed in evaluating each segment lands or other lands. with respect to these factors. RESPONSE: Comment accepted, text Essentially, the Study Team found changed. that the factors listed under the Rationale for each recommendation (and those factors include sever­ al of the ideas contained in cri­ COMMENT: Page 29: The reference teria on page 17 of the draft) to low oil or gas potential along to be of greatest importance. the Copper River Petroleum Basin needs to be documented. The reader asks, "according to whom?" RESPONSE: It was an editorial de­ CO~NT: Details of cooperative cision to minimize the use of management plans and other protec­ footnotes and citations in the tions are necessary to evaluate text. This particular informa­ adequacy of this protection as tion was taken from the Alaska compared with a scenic highway Regional Profiles published by designation. the State of Alaska. A complete RESPONSE: The cooperative agree­ reference is in the Bibliography. ment had not been drafted at the time the draft was released. It will be one of the documents for­ warded to Washington, D.C., with CO~NT: Page 35: Within the sec­ the final Study Report. tion on the Denali Highway, there

43 is no reference to the exi$ttng public. Does such a unit mean poor condition of the road. In that there will be camping areas view of the projected costs for and facilities or only space for upgrading without paving, dis­ three vehicles to pull off the cussed on Page 42, a comment on road? the current condition of the road RESPONSE: Comment accepted, addi­ would help the reader understand tional definition was added to the cost figures for upgrading. the text. RESPONSE: In addition to the cur­ rent condition of the road there are other factors which influence the cost of road improvements. COMMENT: Page 44: Viewshed should Among others, soil conditions and be defined. It is a planning climate factors in Alaska can term which may be familiar to make roadway engineering and re­ some, but not everyone. construction significantly more RESPONSE: Comment accepted, the difficult and expensive than in sentence was reworded to avoid the rest of the nation. Never- what may be a confustng term.

theless t we agree that the road is in poor condition. The fol­ lowing is quoted from the Envir­ onmental Assessment, Cantlvell to COMMENT: Page 48: The likelihood Paxson, Denali Highway as cited and status of the proposed land in the Bibliography: exchange between the State of Alaska and the National Park Ser­ "Little structural improvement vice at the time of publication has occurred since the highway should have been mentioned. The was built in the early 1950's. reader is left uncertain about Most recently, a 1972 project the significance of the proposed provided for paving of 21 miles lanq exchange. How much selected from Paxson, westerly. Portions land will actually be conveyed to of that segment of road now con­ the Native Corporations? tain pavement breaks. The re­ RESPONSE: It is beyond the scope of maining gravel road (approximate­ the study to project future ly 113 miles in length) has a changes in land status. Land deteriorated roadway surface status will be in a state of flux characterized by large rocks for many years. Therefore, for and potholes. An absence of the purpose of the study, a small aggregate material in the "proposed land exchange" is of road surface profile prohibits no significance. Similarly, repair within the scope or cost according to the legislation, of normal maintenance activity. neither selected land nor con­ This uneven road surface requires veyed land is considered as pub­ motorists to exercise extreme lic Federal land. Therefore, caution." even if selections will be relin­ quished in the future, we cannot consider selected land as public land. COMMENT: Page 42: The use of the phrase "three-family-unit" should be defined for the benefit of the

44 COMMENT: Intent of Congress was to Objects to land being withe1d protect visual highlights, and from settlement (personal insult). that requires further study, especially along Denali Highway Contrary to congressional intent and the Federal land on the designation will interfere with Parks Highway near Hurricane. existing businesses, residences and other occupancies along the Cooperative management should route. prohibit or control roadside visual items such as billboards, Implies that if Denali is desig­ logging and mining operation, nated scenic highway, Federal view obstructing structures etc. government will condemn land of RESPONSE: Comment noted. Alaskans. RESPONSE: Comments noted.

COMMENT: Will road indeed be man­ aged under State and Federal COMMENT: Majority of public was authority? Would not like to see against scenic highway designa­ the "strip development" which has tion, yet the one letter in favor occurred along other Alaskan of a designation (Ahtna's posi­ Roads. Notes increasing popula­ tion) was given prominence in the tion and increasing pressure on text, while the majority opinion land and its resources. was downplayed by inserting it into an appendix. "I hope; before this decision is RESPONSE: Ahtna's letter was not a final, you will consider ways to part of the public concern sec­ preserve this beautiful, wilder­ tion, but a position of one ness road, and not let it be member of the Study Team. The spoiled by a series of small de­ section has been reworded to cisions. By what ever means it avoid this confusion. Also, the should remain, even if it is not Public Involvement section has designated as scenic." been moved to the main body of RESPONSE: Comment noted. The Study the text. Team is sensitive to the concerns expressed, and is confident that COMMENT: Suggest adding a third the intrinsic scenic and recrea­ reason for public opposition to tional resources of the area will a designation: no perceived need remain. for it. RESPONSE: This point was made at many of the public meetings. Text is changed. COMHENTS: Importance of protecting scenic and recreational values is recognized by people of area: designation is unnecessary. COMMENT: Support study recommenda­ tion, as a businessman along the Physical and symbolic link is non­ Denali, there are already too sense: Wrangell-St. Elias Park is many Federal designations and not a motorists' park. related restrictions. (Wild and

45 Scenic Rivers and Tangle Lakes Archiological District.) RESPONSE: Comment noted.

NOTE: Transcripts of the Public Hearings, and all written com­ ments are held on file at the Anchorage District Office, Bureau of Land Management, 4700 East 72nd Avenue, Anchorage, AK 99507.

46

I.

Hiking along the Copper River south ofChitina affords fishermen and non-fishermen excellent scenery, Bibliog'raphy

Dessauer, P.F.; Harvey, D.W. An Pragnell, R.C. Scenic road: A historical resource study of the basis for its planning, design Valdez creek mining district, and management. Washington, D.C.: Alaska--1977 (J.L. Beck, editor). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Anchorage, 'AK: U.S. Department of FOJ:est.Servi~e; 1970; Engineering the Interior,Bureau of Land Man­ Tech~ical R~port ETR-7700-2. agement, Anchorage Di.strict Office; 1980; WICR£report No. Shane, B.A. et ale The Wrangell 24610. M()untliiri~: 'To~atd iii"'en,Tirc>nmen­ tal:plan~" s1ihta crti~~ r cA~ Uni­ Jones and Jones. Scenic and recre­ versity of California Environmen­ ational highway study, prepared for tal Studies Office; 1973. the Legislative Transportation Committee. Olympia, WA: State State of Alaska, Department of Com­ of Washington; 1974. merce and Economic Development. Alaska Visitor Industry: A sum­ Jones and Jones. An inventory and mary. Juneau, AK: Division of evaluation of the environmental, Economic~nterprise; 1978. aesthetic and recreational re­ ..-;;..... sources of the Upper Susitna State d,f"l\laska, Department of Nat­ River, Alaska, final report. ural·~es:ources. Susitna River Anchorage, AK: U.S. Army Corps basin: Resource bibliography, of Engineers,Alaska Dist~:i,ct'; 1977. Supplement by Davy Lock­ 1975; Contract No .. DACW85-74-C':': hart, 1979 ..

0057. c ; State of Alaska, Department of Nat­ Logsdon, C.L., et al.' Copper ural Resources. Susitna basin River - Wrangells socioeconomic land use/recreation atlas. An­ overview. Report~prepared by the chorage, AK: Division of Re­ Institute of Social and Economic search and Development; 1980. Research of the University of Alaska for the U.S. Forest Ser­ State of Alaska, Department of Natu­ vice. Alaska: U.S. Department ral Resources. Scenic Resources of Agriculture with the Univer­ along the Parks Highway. Anchor­ sity of Alaska; circa 1976. age; AK: Division of Research and Development, Land and Resource Matanuska-Susitna Borough. Back­ Planning Section; 1981. ground report, comprehensive plan, Matanuska-Susitna Borough. State of Alaska, Department of Natu­ Palmer, AK: 1978. ral Resources. Denali to Wran­ gell-St. Elias: assessment and Milepost, The Anchorage, AK: Alaska management of scenic resources Northwest Publishing Company; along the highways between Denali 1982. and Wrangell-St. Elias National Parks, prepared by D.L. Kuklok Miller, W.D.; Auberman, R.; Flet­ et ale for Alaska Department of cher, R.C. The Denali Highway Natural Resources. Anchorage, information plan for the Bureau AK: 1982a. Unpublished draft of Land Management. Fort Col­ supplied by Alaska DNR. lins, CO: Colorado State Univer­ sity; 1976.

49 State of Alaska, Department of Nat­ State of Arizona, Department of ural Resources. Final report: Transportation. Guidelines for Roadside recreational facilities the establishment of parkways and study, Richardson Highway-M82.6 historical and scenic roads to M185.5. Anchorage, AK: (Draft). Roadside Development Alaska Department of Natural Re­ Services, Highway Division. sources; 1982b; No. CC 10-0901. State of California, Department of State of Alaska, Department of Nat­ Public Works. The scenic route: ural Resources. Land use issues A guide for the official designa­ and preliminary resource inven­ tion of eligible scenic highways. tory: Vol. 1 of 2, planning Sacramento, CA:1970; 81219-500­ background report. Matanuska­ 11-70. Susitna--Beluga Cooperative Planning Program; 1982c. State of Nebraska, the Board of Public Roads. Procedures for State of Alaska; Joint Federal­ classifications and standards; State Land Use Planning Commis­ Minimum design standards. sion for Alaska. Alaska regional Lincoln, NE: 1981. profiles, Vol. 1, Southcentral region; edited by Lydia Se1kregg. State of Pennsylvania, Department Anchorage, AK: State of Alaska; of Transportation and Department 1974. of Environmental Resources. Guidelines to improve the aesthe­ State of Alaska, Department of tic quality of roads in Pennsyl­ Transportation. Location study vania. Harrisburg, PA: State of report, Cantwell to Paxson, Pennsylvania; 1978. Denali Highway. Fairbanks, AK: Alaska Department of Transporta­ State of Tennessee, Department of tion, Interior Region Reconnais­ Transportation. Tennessee park­ sance Se~tion; 1981; Project way plan. Nashville, TN: Tenn­ RS-0750(1) essee Department of Transporta­ tion, Bureau of Planning and State of Alaska, Department of Development; 1982. Transportation and Public Facili­ ties. Six year transportation State of Vermont. Designating improvement program, fiscal years Scenic Roads: A Vermont field 1983 - 1988, Assembled by State­ guide. Montpelier,VT: Vermont wide Policy Section Southeast Scenery Preservation Council and Region, Planning and Programming. Vermont Transportation Board; Alaska: Alaska Department of 1979. Transportation and Public Facili­ ties; 1982a. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Evaluation State of Alaska, Department of criteria for the location and Transportation and Public Facili­ design of the proposed Highland ties. Compilation of highway and Scenic Highway in Monongahela maintenance costs. Fairbanks, National Forest, Wes~ Virginia. AK: 1982b; Report No. AK-RD-82­ Elkins, WV: Forest Service;: 16. 1964 July.

50 u.s. Department of Transportation; State of Alaska Department of Transportation. Environmental assessment Big Timber to Paxson, mile 129-186, Richardson High­ way. Juneau, AK: Federal High­ way Administration; 1982a; Project RF-071-3(4). u.s. Department of Transportation; State of Alaska Department of Transportation. Environmental assessment, Cantwell to Paxson, Denali Highway. Juneau, AK: Federal Highway Administration; 1982b; Project RS-0750(1).

United States, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Workshops on Alaska National Interest Lands. Washington, D.C.: 1978; Senate Publication 95-153.

United States, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Alaska National Interest Lands. Washington, D.C.: 1979; Senate Report 96-413.

52 Appendixes

. .

A. Legislation PUBLIC LAW 96-487-DEC. 2,1980 94 STAT. 2481 SCENIC HIGHWAY STUDY SEC. 1311. (a) WITHDRAWAL.-Subject to valid existing rights, all 16 USC 3200. public lands within an area, the centerline ofwhich is the centerline of the Parks Highway from the entrance to Denali National Park to the Talkeetna junction which is one hundred and thirty-six miles south of Cantwell, the Denali Highway between Cantwell and Paxson, the Richardson Highway and Edgerton Highway between Paxson and Chitina, and the existing road between Chitina and McCarthy (as those highways and road are depicted on the official maps of the department of transportation of the State ofAlaska) and the boundaries of which are parallel to the centerline and one mile distant therefrom on either side, are hereby withdrawn from all forms of entry or appropriation under the mining laws and from operation ofthe mineral leasing laws ofthe United States. Nothing in this section shall be construed to preclude minor road realignment, minor road improvement, or the extraction of gravel for such pur- poses from lands withdrawn or affected by the study mandated herein. . (h) STUDY.-During the three-year period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall study the desirability of establishing a Denali Scenic Highway to consist of all or part of the lands described in subsection (a) of this section. In conducting the studies, the Secretary, through a study team which includes repre­ sentatives of the Secretary of Transportation, the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the State, and of each Regional Corporation within whose area of operation the lands described in subsection (a) are located, shall consider the scenic and recreational values of the lands withdrawn under this section, the importance ofproviding protection to those values, the desirability of providing a symbolic and actual physical connection between the national parks in south central Alaska, and the desirability of enhancing the experience of persons traveling between those parks by motor vehicles. Members of the study team who are not Federal employees shall receive from the Secretary per diem (in lieu of expenses) and travel allowances at the rates provided for employees ofthe Bureau ofIndian Mfairs in Alaska in grade GS-15. (c) CooPERATION NOTICE: IIEARINGs.-In conducting the studies required by this section, the Secretary shall cooperate with the State and shall consult with each Village Corporation within whose area of operation lands described in this section are located and to the maximum extent practicable with the owner of any lands adjoining the lands described in subsection (a) concerning the desirability of establishing a Denali Scenic Highway. The Secretary, through the National Park Service, shall also give such public notice ofthe study as he deems appropriate, including at least publication in a news­ paper or newspapers having general circulation in the area or areas of the lands described in subsection (a), and shall hold a public hearing or hearings at one or more locations convenient to the areas affected. (d) REPORT.-Within three years after the date ofenactment ofthis Act, the Secretary shall report to the President the results of the studies carried out pursuant to this section together with his recom­ mendation as to whether the scenic highway studied should be established and, if his recommendation is to establish the scenic highway, the lands described in subsection (a) which should be included therein. Such report shall include the views and recommen­ dations of all members of the study team. The President shall advise the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives ofhis recommendations and those ofthe Governor of Alaska with respect to creation ofthe scenic highways, together with maps thereof, a definition ofboundaries thereof, an estimate ofcosts, recommendations on administration, and proposed legislation ,to create such a scenic highway, if creation of one is recommended. (e) PERIOD OF WITHDRAwAL.-The lands withdrawn under subsec­ tion (a) ofthis section shall remain withdrawn until such time as the Congress acts on the President's recommendation, but not to exceed two years after the recommendation is transmitted to the Congress. 55 B. Study Organization

Study Group Organization

Wayne Boden, Chairman Bureau of Land Management Chuck Budge National Park Service Chuck Chappell Federal Highway Administration Robert Venusti Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities Reed Stoops (through October, 1982) Al Carson (through May, 1983) Bill Beaty (Acting) Alaska Department of Natural Resources Sterling Eide Alaska Department of Fish and Game Charles Hubbard Cantwell Shareholder Association Martin Finnesand Chitnia Native Corporation Herbert Smelcer Ahtna, Inc. Mac Stevens ~~tanuska~SusitnaBorough

Technical Team

Cary Brown, Project Leader Bureau of Land Management (through April, 1983) Mike Wrabetz (Acting) Bureau of Land Management Joan Gidlund National Park Service Charles Howard Federal Highway Administration John Martin Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities Dave Watsjold Alaska Department of Fish and Game Al Meiners Alaska Department of Natural Resources Bill Beaty Alaska Department of Natural Resources Lee Adler Ahtna, Inc.

56 c. Boundaries, Administration, Costs and Legislation

The Act required that the bounda­ ries, the administration, the cost, and appropriate legislation be provided if a recommendation was made for the designation of a Nat­ ional Scenic Highway. Since the Study Group has not recommended National designation the above information is unnecessary and therefore is not included in this report.

..":.

57

j

.~ MAP 2

Parks Highway o federal public land lS1 non-federal land s N

" ""-"'" ..~':-,4. .. :.,.-.... -J" ,/-', ':, / . t~,1,

," 1.<' \!.. .~it-v." ,'.\ \

J~:';~';_ :\':.

I •• ••

L \. s

r'.' jj .l i~~:~ /.~ ~-.:- " ~}>~"

..\ T () N·· A L

1·1'1·,·I\,,\l'.;I~·: >

. /. T.2S. " ./ .~~;.~:_.~:: t'./

/ , . ·····,>'~:::y;:.~·~l~~~.~_(>t,~

,,',,' '",~ . •\,...... 1. ~~' L '~'

/ ~_\ . ./

~: :=' u .' :.;;~ .. :1 :<-~;.--

1'1 A T o N'A L

('...... _.t;:.'

-/ ,,' T '3S f / t' '4:

I<:-~Nk:":'11·· ...,I~~>};~~:.J.~?~t\··>, ,. -;

T. 24' N.

T. 14 $. ~~ " I . -:.; '-,

A TI L p

t h < • \' ;,~:.;>~"

:'.'

...... ~. ....':: , ? '-.

{ .. ~~.;

' .. '" '~.:

< .;~.--.

1':-"':~ ".~~ ':"> ~. "' , , .. ,., ..~, j

.,~ ., <', r\ / L~'" ....." .. 47C~ ~. 72nIJ AVE. AntI-lIJJtal3& .. Jll ~lIa ElEI5C7 (BC7j2E7-1iliia_ ..

8352 (013)

December 13,

The Honorable Don Collinsworth Commissioner Department of Fish and Game P.O. Box 3-2000 DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME Juneau, Alaska 99802

Dear Mr. Collinsworth:

The Denali Scenic Highway Study has been completed and forwarded to the Secretary of the Interior for transmission to the President. Enclosed for your information are the printed study report, a copy of the Council's transmittal letter to the Secretary, copies of the cooperative agreements which arose from the study, and an unsigned copy of the Governor's letter to the President.

We have a limited number of printed study reports, so if you would like additional copies, please contact me. A notice of the availability of the study report will be sent to those on our mailing list.

The other members of the study team and I are pleased to have been entrusted with the study and appreciate the support that we have received from the Council, its staff, and the Land Use Advisors Committee. If there is any other information I can provide concerning the study, please do not hesitate to call me. F;;o~ Wayne A. Boden Study Group ~eader HABITAT Enclosures ID) rn ©rn ~ wrn fTII· lJlJ DE.C' 21 1983 ~

lBEADQUARTERS JUNEAU

HABiTAT GIONAL OFFle' ---Denali National Scenic Highway Feasibility Study _ ALASKA LAND USE COUNCIL

P.O. Box 120 Anchorage, Alaska 99510

State Co-Chairman (907) 272-3422 Federal Co-Chairmc~' Vernon R. Wiggin LL. SHEFF/ELD, GOVERNOR l-J'oveIT!ber 8, 1983

The Honorable James G. Watt Secretary of the Interior 18th &C Streets, NW Washington, DC 20240

Dear i-lr. Secretarv:., The Alaska Land Use Council is pleased to transmit our report and reco~mendations on the Denali Scenic Highway Study. This study, and the re?ort, were mandated by Sectio4 1311 of the Alaska National Interest ~ands Conservation Act (ANILCA), P.L. 96-487. The Council con­ ducted the study under a delegation of authority from your office, dated April 1, 1982.

Our study findings and the resulting report concludes that no portion of the study area described in Section 1311(a) should be designated "Scenic Hightvay."

In the course of conducting the Denali Scenic Highway Study, the Alaska Land Use Council found that it would be desirable to enhance some of the historic sites and scenic and recrea­ tional use possibilities that exist along the study corridor. To ensure that those qualities are advanced, and to enrich the experience of those who travel by vehicle between Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve and the Denali National Park and Preserve, the several State and Federal agencies having management responsibilities along the route have entered into a cooperative agreement to protect and enhance these features. The Alaska Land Use Council strongly endorses this agreement and believes it to be the most effective way to protect the values of the area. A copy of that agreement is enclosed.

One other important aspect of this issue deserves 'considera­ tion. Consistent with the Council's reco~~endation, we strongly urge that the Administration and Congress expeditG action to terminate the land withdrawal ins~ituted by Section 1311(a) of ANILCA. This withdrawal closed the Federal public lands one mile on each side of the highway route to all forms of entry or appropriation under the mining laws and to the .operation of the mineral leasing laws of the United States. Without expedited congressional action, this withdrawal will remain in effect for two years The Honorable James G. ~att -2- NaV8mber 8, 1983

follo\·,ing the trct11Sini.ssion IJ:C the Prcsiderli:"s r-eco1i.rr..e~dati(J:1 to t~:= Congr~:!s s . '·72 oeli::!ve this \'lould b~ ~1ighl:' de cri­ ~e~tal to the public inter~st and urge the withdrawal be ,~ .. lift~d as soon as poss~D~e.

The i'_las;;:2. Land Use C0uncil urges you to concur \7ith the II no designation ll recorr~end~tion and =urther requests you to expeditiously tr~ns~it the re~0rt and r2co~~endations to the President.

Sincerely, Bi~~ Governor, State of Alaska State Cochairman

Attachments •

MOD AK-950-MU~-01

MEMOR.-L\{i)!JM OF r.JNDERST_~'IDDrG FOB. r:-iE ~~\iAGEli!E~rT OETEE DENALI HIGHWAY CORP,-IDOR AND j...DJACE~T ~"TDS AD~!I::i!STERED BY THE PARTIES OF THIS AGREEXENT

1. Backg~ound Information

This coope~ative management agreement between the Alaska Depart~ent of ~a­ tural Resources (ADNR) , the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT/PF), the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), the u. S. Bureau of Land Management (B1..'1) , the Federal Highway Administtatiot'. (FEWA) , and Ahtna Incorporated is intended to provide a framework for land use actions t~t could impact the Denali High·....ay. This agree~ent is a result of the study conduc ted by these agencies pursuant to Sec tion 1311 of the Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act (~"TILCA).

By participating in the agreement it is recognized by all parties t~at t~e Denaii Highway provides access to large blocks of lands adminis tered by parties to this agreement, which contain valuable scenic, recreational, mineral, and wildlife habitat resources. Because of climatic conditions, vegetative cover and the physical characteristics of the land, special coordination is needed for road"....ay improvements and development of these lands adjacent to the roadway corridor to ensure that the area's unique values are recognized and that adverse impacts are ~inimized.

This agreement, made and entered into on this 15th day o£November,1983, by ADNR, DOT/PF, ADF&G, BL'1, FHWA, and Ahtna Incor1=l0rated is established to ensure that the management of these lands adjacent to the Denali :iighway and the design and operation of the high"....ay itself conside~ the scen.ic, recreational and habitat values of the area, and that these values be retained.

Since the Denali Highway is largely within the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, the Borough has a particular interest in the management of the highway. For this reason, the Borough will be invited by the manage~ent group to participate in the review of member actions, and to submit its development plans for review and comment.

II. Points of Agreement

The parties agree to the following:

a. To form an interagency team composed of at least one member from each

T of the agencies involved. This team would revie "; and comment on any land management or development activities contemplated along the highway corridor. This team would ensure early cClordlndtiou for plans for upgrading the highway. The lead agenc y in the interagenc y team will be the DOT/PF for highway development and the BL~ for land management decisions. They will be responsible for calling ~ee tings ~~ ~~o ~Q~m unQ~ ~QQ~Q~_ It will be the responsibility of each party to submit items for con- side'ration by the team. Such submittals will be done in a timely man­ ner, early in the development process to ensure that the team has suf­ ficient time to provide meaningful input a:nd participation in the planning or development process.

b. To establish criteria, as appropriate, for the evaluation of uses that may be proposed f<:>r the lands administered by the parties to this agreement along the Denali Highway.

c. To cooperatively evaluate plans for the development of lands adminis­ tered by the parties to this agreement along the Denali Highway when existing plans are amended or new plans are drafted.

d. To jointly pursue funding for projects or for the implementation of projects supported by the parties to this agreement.

e. Upon request of the parties to this agreement, DOT/PF agrees to pres­ ent the annual maintenance and operation work plan for comment.

Ill. The parties recognize the following 'measures and qualifications of the agreement:

a. Nothing in this agreement shall obligate any party in the expen­ diture of funds, or for future payments of money, in excess of specific appropriations authorized by law for this corridor.

b. Nothing herein is intended to conflic t with Federal, State or local laws or regulations. If there are conflicts, this agreement will be amended at the first opportunity to bring it into confor­ mance with appropriate laws or regulations.

c. Policy and position announcements representing the decision of the cooperative team may be made only by mutual consent of the member agencies.

d. Upon termination of this agreement, any equipment purchased for studies initiated to furtherence of this agreement will be re­ turned to the agency of intial purchase.

e. The effective date of this agreement shall be from the date of final signature.

f. The agreement shall be annually reviewed and updated as appro­ priate. However, any signatory agency may prematurely terminate its participation in this agreement by providing the other parties with notice in writing 60 days in advance of the date on which its termination becomes effective.

g. Any material published/or data acquired as a result of this co­ operative agreement may be reproduced as needed. h. No member of, or Delegate to Congress, or Resident Commissioner, shall be admitted to any share or part of the Memorandum of Understanding or to any benefit to arise therefrom, unless it is made with a" corporation for this general benefits.

i. Nothing in this agreement will abrogate the authority or res­ ponsibility of any of the parties to this agreement.

STATE OF ALASKA

Department of Transportation and Public F~cilities

t/N/t?At5#// IY;J,j c~~Daniel A. Casey - Date :;; Commissioner

. Department of Natural Resources ~e~ Esther Wunnicke Commissioner

Department of Fish and Game

Don Collinsworth Date Commissioner • PRIVATE LlliD MA.'iAGL~

Ahtna, Incorporated

~~~~ /f~-./, c!? /7~,-- l:~H~e-r-:-b-e-r-t--:S:-m-e~l:-c-e-r------Date General Manager

u. S. GOVER.1'fMENT

Bureau of Land Management

/) ,/ '.~ ~i!d~- ~ ~/~v /C;g~ Curtis Me Vee '-' Date State Direc tor

Federal Highway Administration

Date .(

NOTE: These signature pages are composites of originals which are on file at the Alaska Land Use Council in Anchorage. :ro-9700-4-8002

MEMOR}u~UM OF UNDERST~~DING FOR THE ~~AGEXENT OF THE McCARTHY ROAD AND ADJACENT PUBLIC ~~DS

I. Background Information

This cooperative management agreement between the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR) , the Alaska Department of Transportation and Pub­ lic Facilities (DOT/PF), the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), the National Park Service (NPS), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) , and Ahtna, Incorporated is intended to provide a framework for land use actions that could impact the McCarthy Road. This agreement is a direct result of the study conducted by these agencies pursuant to Section 1311 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (~~ILCA).

By participating in the agreement it is recognized by all parties that the McCarthy Road provides access to large blocks of lands administered by

parties to thi s agreement which contain valuable scenic j recreational, mineral, and wildlife habitat resources. Because of climatic conditions, vegetative cover and the physical characteristics of the land, special co­ ordination is needed for roadway improvements and development of these lands adjacent to the roadway corridor to ensure that the area's unique values are recognized and that adverse impacts are minimized.

This cooperative agreement, made and entered into on this 23rd day of November, 1983, by AnNR, DOT/PF, ADF&G, NPS; FHWA, and Ahtna, Incorporated is established to ensure that the management of these lands adjacent to the McCarthy Road and the design and operation of the road itself consider the scenic, recreational and habitat values of the area, and that these values are retained.

II. Points of Agreement

The parties agree to the following:

a. To form an interagency team composed of at least one member from each of the agencies involved. This team would review and comment on any land management or development activities contemplated along the high­ way corridor. This team would ensure early coordination for plans for upgrading the highway. The lead agency in the interagency team will be the DOT/PF for highway development and the NPS for land management decisions. They will be responsible for calling meetings of the team when needed.

It will be the responsibility of each party to submit items for con­ sideration by the team. Such submittals will be done in a timely man­ ner, early in the development process to ensure that the team has suf- ficient time to provide meaningful input and participation in the planning or development process. b. To establish criteria, as appropriate, for the evaluation of uses that may be proposed for the lands administered by the parties to this agreement along the McCarthy Road.

c. To cooperatively evaluate plans for the development of lands adminis­ tered by the parties to this agreement along the McCarthy Road when existing plans are amended or new plans are drafted.

d. To jointly pursue funding for projects or for the implementation of projects supported by the parties to this agreement.

e. Upon request of the parties to this agreement, DOT/PF agrees to pre­ sent the annual maintenance and operation work plan for comment.

III. The parties recognize the following measures and qualifications of the agreement:

a. Nothing in this agreement shall obligate any party in the expendi­ ture of funds, or for future payments of money, in excess of spec­ ific appropriations authorized by law for this corridor.

b. Nothing herein is intended to conflict with Federal, State or local laws or regulations. If there are conflicts, this agreement will be amended at the first opportunity to bring it into confor­ mance with appropriate laws or regulations.

c. Policy and position announcements representing the decision of the cooperative team may be made only by mutual consent of the member agencies.

d. Upon termination of this agreement, any equipment purchased for studies initiated in furtherance of this agreement will be re­ turned to the agency of initial purchase.

e. The effective date of this agreement shall be from the date of final signature.

f. This agreement shall continue for five years, but shall be an­ nually reviewed and updated by the signatory parties as appro­ priate. However, any signatory agenc y may prematurely terminate its participation in this agreement by providing the other parties with notice in writing 60 days in advance of the date on which its termination becomes effective.

g. Any material published/or data acquired as a result of this agree­ ment may be reproduced as needed.

h. No member of, or Delegate to Congress, or Resident Commissioner, shall be admitted to any share or part of the Memorandum of Under­ standing or to any benefit to arise therefrom, unless it is made with a corporation for this general benefits.

2 ~. ~o:~~~g ~~ :~s ag=ee~~~: ~~:: a:=ogate :~e au:~c=i~: 0= =:S?C~S~- ~~"~-·7 ~~7 ~~Q -~~-i~~ ~O ~~~_. ~a-~~~Q~- ___ - ~ 0;- -_~ 0;_ ...._ :,c:=._ ." ....._~ _= .

~•.i..n: OF AL~SKA

~partnent of T=ansportation ld Public Facilities

?ar~~ent of ~atural ~esources

C J' /' -/ /l // j /k~/ 9?~ /f~Mi,. '_ t-(/~~~ I ther r";unnicke Date mmissioner

~?ar~~ent of Fish and Game

IJ-3 1 -23 In Collinsworth Dace Immissioner

3 '-,' :-:e=::er,,: Smelc e= Ge!leral ~a!lage=

iJ •S. GOVE..~'iMENI'

National Park Service

Fede=al Highway Administ~ation

Jate I

NOTE: These signature pages are composites of originals which are on file at the Alaska Land Use Council in .~.chorage. ..

November S, 1983

The President 'L'he \1hite HOUSi~ Washing'tt-m., DC :~OO::'5

The AIQska ~~tional Interest Lands Conserv~tion Act, Public Law 96-487 I Section 1311, requirod the comole"cion of .:.1 Donali Scenic Highvmy Study. Under the dir~ction of "to,he :'.2.s.:.Jka IJand Use Council the study has been complc ;:cd 3.1,d will be trdnsmitt;~d to ydu ~1 the Secretary of t118 :nter~~r. 'l'ne purposBof th.~ study was to df!te:rmine if the.l·e shoul.a be .. a Federally de~ign~t~d scenic hiqhw~y in Alaska. ' The study concludec that no portion of the study area ~hould bE: designated

r coucur with this recommendation and believe the doeig14ation ,:;f Do l:"ederal scenic highway would be dupliCt"1 t,:,vt: of ~£forts presen'tly being implemented in Al4\l3ka. Thes€' efforts include the implementation of a cooperaLive agreement, between Stata and Federal agencies, to manage the more scenic portions of the corridor and the use of the State of Alaska I s "su-akersemblem- along the cQrl:idor to identify scenic and historic sites. There is un underlying and very important aspect to'this isoue which deserves your consideration. I would strongly urge your request o~ the Conqress to expedite action to terminate the land withdrawal instituted by Section 1311(a) ot ANILCA. This 'Iiithdrawal closed the Federal public lands one mile on each side of the highway route to all forms of antry or ,"lppropriation. under the mining laws and to the u~cration ot the mineral leasing laws of the United States. Without expedited congressional action, this withdrawal will r~main in effect for two years following the transmission of your reco~~~nd~tion to the Congress. I ~elieve'this to be highly detrimental to the public interest and urge that the withdrawal b~ lif.ted as soon as possible. · '

Mr. Presid~nt -2- November 8, 1983

I concur with the N no designation" recommcndation con1:ained iIll:he study and endorsed by the Ala.:;ka LCi.nd Use Council. I urge you to request of the Congress their COl1curr~nr:':e in the "no designation If recommendation and request e::pedited action en the racommendations put forth. Sincorp.ly,

Bill Sheffield Governor bee: Senator Ted Stevens Senator Frank Murkowski Members, Alaska Land Use Council Mr. John Katz