·-­ .~ :- DRAFT , 1"' STUDY ••• To Determine the Desirability of Creating •••• The Denali ' •. National Scenic Highway I I I I I ••

I ' An Interagency Study_ I Prepared under the Direction of the I Alaska· Land Use Council " JJ May 1983

HARZA-EBASCO Susiina Joint Venture Document Number

/Yl ZfY/6 - '2 30 ~I 8" '-Ti.JO- ID~? ~z --- r-~-:8s~=" Return To

1!'\ ... t"'IHH~~~:T CO~JTROl •ill

I SUMMARY Section 1311 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) requires that a study be completed to de.termine 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 study recommendations pertain only to Federally-manage~ public lands in Alaska.

The responsibility for this interagency study was assigned to the Alaska Land Use Council (AI~C). This group was created under Section 1201 of ANILCA to foster cooperative land management and planning between Federal, State and other agencies in Alaska. A specific function of the Council is to conduct cooperative stud:i.es. A Study Group was appointed by the council to oversee the completion of this 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 recommendation was unanimous among all members of the Study Group.

2. McCarthy Road - No Designation

This recommendation was based on:

a. the lack of significant contiguous Federal public lands; the ability to manage this road corridor for its natural, scenic i and recreational values using existing Federal and Stdte authority;

c. a cooperative planning effort between management agencies, under the direction of the Alaska Land Use Council, could effectively manage this area for its natural values without a Federal desig­ nation; and g d. public comments were adverse to the creation of this route, or . any other route, as a part of a National Scenic Highway System • This recommendation was unanimous among all members of the Study g Group,. See page 55 for a more detailed analysis. y 3. Denali Highway - No Designation

While this segment contains the g~eatest contiguous stretches of Federally-managed public lands, this recommendation was made for the same reasons as stated in #2 through #4 above. See page 46 for a detailed analysis.

This was the recommendation of all study group members with one exception (see page 47).

Pursuant to Section 13ll(a), all Federal public lands within one mile on either side of centerline of all highways located within the study corridor (see page 67) were withdrawn from all formr. of entry or appropriation under the mining laws and from operation of the mineral leasing laws of the United States. Based on the preceding recommenda­ tions, it is also recommended that this withdrawal be cancelled. • • PREFACE The purpose of this study is to recommend to Congress the desir­ • ability of establishing a Denali Scenic Highway in Alaska. There is little doubt that the corridor withdrawn for this study - is truly "scenic." Regardless of formal designations, the majestic scenery along most of the corridor will probably remain far longer than the highway corridor, or those who use it.

The question appears to be, then, given the fact that most of the- 500 mile study corridor is indeed "scenic," what did Congress have in mind when it mandated this study which is required by Section 1311 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA)?

The Act did not define the term nscenic highway." Furthermore, there is no generic predecessor that can be used to define "scenic highway .... While there are scenic highways and parkways ~~ at a Federal level, and scenic highways managed by several states, the management and purposes differ. Therefore, no speci­ ~ fic criteria exist upon which to base recommendations in thin report, although the study team has drawn heavily on the experi­ Jt ence gained by other similar studies or designations.

~ The o b j e c t i v e s of the study are br ie f 1 y 1 esc r i bed in th '1 1 e g 1 a­ lation. In conducting the study, the study team, when making their recomm~ndations, was di~ected to consider:

-the scenic and recreational values of the lands withdrawn. for this study;

I J) -the des ira b i 1 it y of en han c in g the e xp e r ie n c e of per sons traveling between national parks in Alaska; and !~ 1 I! ~

-the desirability of providing a symbolic and actual physi­ cal connection between those parks.

The questions then s that th~s study will address are, first, whether a national designation is desirable or necessary to protect these values, given that the managemP.&.lt priorities of public (Federal) lands are subject to change and, second, if such a designation is recommended along any part or all of the study

corridor, what shall be the intent and ~xt~nt of that desig­ nation?

This is not a management plan. Rather, it is a ~tudy mandated by Congress to determine the feasibility and desirability of establishing a national scenic highway along certain existing highways in Alaska. If Congress decides to create such a scenic

highway, then, at that tim~, a management plan would be written.

The study that follows, then, results from the combination of (1) statements of purpose and goals described in the legislation and

its history 9 (2) the experience and lessons learned by examining

other scenic highways and their manag em en t t ( 3) the survey of resourcE's and factors that relate to or may be affected by a scenic highway designation, and (4) an analysis of the effects of maktng a particular designation. The report and recommendations resulting from the study are to be given to the President so that he may report to Congress.

.2 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page PREFACE o o e • o o o o e • o e o o • o o • • o a o o o o • o • • • • • • • • • • o • • o • • o o • • o o o • o o o • • 1

I. INTRODUCTION o o o o o • o o o o o • o o o o • • • o • o o • • • • o • o ~ • o e o • • o o o o o o o o o 6

Area Map o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o e o • o o • • • o • • • o • o • o • • • • • o o ~ o • o o o o o 7 Legislation and Legisla~ive History •••··~··••••••••••••••o•8 Study Organization •••••••••••••••••••••o•••••••••••••••••••9

Goal ..of Study •••••••••••••••••••••••••••e•e••••• .. ••••,••••ll Critical Issues •••••••••••e•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••11

I I. SECTION ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ••••••••••••••••• 0 •••• 20

Parks Highway, Richardson Highway, and Edgerton Highway

I!f Parks Highway ·J o o o e o • o • o o o • o • • o o • o o o o o • • o • • • • o • o • o o • o o o 2 1

Land Status ••••••• o •••••••••••••• e ••••••• e ••••• ::: 2 1 Existing/Proposed Land Use ••••••••••••••••••••••21 Segment Map ••••••• ~ •••• 0 ••• 0 ••••••••••••••••• 0 •• 22 Scenic and Recreational Resources •••••••••••••••23 Other Considerations ~•••••••••••••••••••••••••••25

Richardson Highway I~ • o • • o o • o o o o o • • • • o o • o • o • o • o o eo o o o o o o 26 l 'i; . ;. Land Status •••••••••••••••••••••••~•••••••••••••26 Existing/Proposed Land Use ••••••••••••••••••••••26 Segment Map e • • • o • • o o • o e • • eo • • • • • o • o • • • • • • • • o o o o o 27 Scenic and Recreational Resources •••••••••••••••28 Other Considerations ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••29 I. ·~

Edgerton Highway • e • • a • • • • • • • 8 • • • • • • • • • • e • • • o e • e • e e e e • 30

Land Status •••••••••••••••••••o•••••••••••••••••30 Existing/Proposed Land Use ••••••••••••••••••••••30 Scenic and Recreational Resources • • • • • • • • • • • • ••• 3.0 Segment Map •••••••••••••••o•••••••••••••••••••••30 Other Considerations e&••••••••••••••••••••••••••32

Parks, Richardson and Edgerton Highways Recommendation and Rationale •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••o••••••••••••••33

Denali Highway ••••••••••••• 0 ••••••••••••••••••••• 0 v •••• 0 •• 35

Land Status •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••35 JJ Existing/Proposed Land Use ••••••••••••••••••••••35 " Segment Map ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 35

Scenic and Recreational Resources ••••••••••••~••37 Other Considerations ••••••••••••••&•••••••••••••43 Alternatives ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••46

Preferred Alternative and Rationale ••••••••• 0 ••• 46

McCartby Road • • a eo eo e e e e e e eo e e e e eo e e e • • o • • o o • • • e • • e • o • o • • ~ 48

Land Status •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••48 Existing/Proposed Land Use ••••••••••••••••••••••48

-~ Segment Map ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 48 1 ....t 1 ~l Scenic and Recreational Resources •••••••••••••••50 Other Considerations ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••53 Alternatives •••••••••••c••••••••••••••••••••••••55 Preferred Alternative and Rationale ••••••••••••• 55 :.~~.' 1 d r~i

4 III. APPENDIXES

A. Bibliography •••••••••••••• 0 •••••••• 0 •••••• ' •••••••••• 58 • B. Public Involvement • e • • • o • • • • • • • • • • • e • • v • • • • e • • • • $ • • • • 62 Legislation • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 0 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 6 7 I' c.

D. Study Organization • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • o • o • • • • • ~ • • • • • • • e • • 68 E. Boundaries, Administration, Costs and Legis!~tion

5 I. INTRODUCTION

ft•t J. ~.

6 ,•

{('·,

. ?PE'RL I

LEGISLATION A~D LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

I This study report is intended to meet the requirements of Section 1311 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). This section of the law is shown in Appendix c.. This Act requi::es the Secretary of the Interior, in conjunction with the Secretary of Transportation, the National Park Service, the

Bureau of Land Management, the State of Alaska, and the aff~cted Regional Native Corporations, to study the desirability of estab­ lishing a Denali Scenic Highway to consist of all or part of the following existing highways: the Parks Highway between the Talkeetna Junction and the entrance to Denali National Park, the Denali Highway between Cantwell and Paxson, the Richardson High­ way and Edgerton Highway between Paxson and Chitina, and the existing road between Chitina and McCarthy. ThP. study report must be submitted to the President by the Secretary no later than December 2, 1983.

This report must include the views of all members of the Study Team along with the views of the Governor of Alaska and, in addition, contain recommendations as to the creation of a Denali National Scenic Highway, "together with maps thereof, a defini­ tion of boundaries thereof, an estimate of costs, recommendations on administration, and proposed legislation to create such a scenic highway, if creation of one is recommended."

Legislative History for Section 1311 of ANILCA is rather sparse. The House Interior Committee, when speaking of the Scenic Highway Study, stated that the study should be a cooperative effort between the Secretary, local Native Corporations and the State. The committee further stated that the study should consider

whether the P.xisting approaches to Denali and the Wrangell-S~. Elias National Parks/Preserves should become a scenic highway ('1·." linking the two national parks and thus provide a road co.rridor I}~ that would enable tourists and residents of Alaska to have better access to the parks and a scenic round trip from Anchorage to each park. (Report 1195-1045, p. 221). I I The Senate Energy Committee (Report 1!96-413 pp. 306 & 307) also addressed the Scenic Highway Study contained in HR 39 and stated:

The committee does not intend that this study affect. existing businesses, residences or other occupancies along the study route. It is the in tent of the study that the scenic highway serve to promote tourism between the two park system units .. The withdrawal during the study relatt:s only to mining and mineral leasing and will not affect existing residences, businesses or other occupancies.

Additionally, the House Congressional Record speaks to the issue of minor road realignment and maintenance on p. H-10549, which specifically states that "minor" realignment and maintenance is not to be construed so as to allow widening or substantial up­ grading of the "primitive" McCarthy Road.

STUDY ORGANIZATION

By delegation from the Secretary of the Interior., O'IJ'er all lead and responsibility for the Denali Scenic Highway Study was assigned to the Alaska Land Use Council (ALUC). ~ f t 'I ~ Under the auspices of thE: ALUC, a Study Group was created to complete the study and submit it, through the ALUC, to the Presi­ dent, and then on to Congress as required by the Act (see Appen­ dix D & Illustration 1).

The Study Group directly represents the ALUC and has been ap­

( p o in t ed by it • llI 'If The Technical Team was also created by the ALUC and is composed of r epr esen ta tiv es of various Federal, State, 11 Regional and local agencies, who were appointed by the respective t _j· agencies to actually draft the study. The Technical Team reports directly to the Study Group.

9 (~ .,._ ._ ~ i_t,____ _....,"',.t ~~-;;_,,'".c;J ~"-~ •• _..,....,J ...... ~--..__,_; ,--- ~ .. --~ ~~~ ..... ""*--~·~ ~~ ~ ....,_..,..,. ~...... -. ~...... ,_.., .1111 , ·-- ·------... 1111 ......

Illustration 1 DENALI NATIONAL SCENIC HIGiiWAY FEASIBILITY STUDY ORGANIZATION CHART

PllllDIIfl 001101111

L I

-0 OOYIIIIOI.,, IIC. _, IIITIIIOI ··--C>I ALAliA

ALAII:A TECHJfiCAL TU'M. ~ 0 ITUDYTIAM 1- r>l LAND UIS COUNCIL ----- L·:c··~ LI~ L-:L~-~ Malin ...... ,..... lfath• ltate I I , ...... rm___ l I I I I I I I F I I J I I [= I I

.... hWfe P111ltl!e

...~.~ I GOAL OF STUDY I The goa! of this study is to determine the desirability of·crea­ ting a Denali National Scenic Highway along any, all, or none of nearly 500 miles of existing highways in Alaska.

I The study objectiv~ are outlined in ANILCA. While c-.Jmple t ing the study, the Study Team was directed to consider:

the scenic and recreational values of the lands withdrawn - under this section, the importance of providing protection to those values, the desirability of providing a symbolic and actual physical connection between the national parks in Southcentral Alaska, and the desirability of enhancing the experience of persons traveling between those parks by motor vehicles. (Section 1311, ANILCA)

CRITICAL IS SUES

In light of the discussion above, it is necessary to determine which lands the Act requires be studied, what these lands are to be studied for, and what objectives should be considered in this 11 study. Consequently~ land status, scenic highway definition, and symbolic and physical connection are critical issues. Also, a cooperative approach to management of existing highway corridors 11' .I is discussed whereby various land management agencies could con­ solidate their planning efforts in order to achieve unified,_ common management goals. 11 ' f Land Status

Section 1311 of ANILCA requires that all public lands within the designated corridor be studied and recommendations be made ] regarding designation as a National Scenic Highway. Public lands I1 are defined in ANILCA as Federal lands which have not been selected by the State of Alaska under the Statehood Act or by Native Corporations under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). Since recommendations are only to be made for these Federal public lands, land ownership is a major consideration. 1 1

,,jI'' I

Land status along the study corrido~ is quite varied. The I Federal Government, the State of Alaska, th2 Matanuska-Susitna Borough, various Native corporations and numerous private indi­ I viduals all own or manage land in tha study area. (See Appendix C). The cor1:id.or is approximately 4 72 miles long. Of I this approximately 24 percent is in Federal ownership, 33 percent in State ownership, 6 percent in Mat-Su Borough ownership, 29 I percent in Native corporation ownership and 8 percent in private ownership (Table 1). These percentages include State and Native corporation selected lands as well as those lands which have been

!bh~~~~! under ANCSA and tha Statehood Act.

ANILCA withdraws all Federal "public" lands located one mile on either sitie of centerline during the coarse of the Study_ Since the selected lands, described above, are not "public lands", they are not withdrawn under Section 1311. The withdrawal contained in Section 1311 applies only to new mineral entry or leasing. 11' Consequently, valid exl1.sting mining claims are not affected by 11 this study. Additionally, other forms of use of the upublic --:~nde" are n.ot affected by the ~ithdrawal.

11. ;f 1 1'

1 1,I

12 ~ ~ i~ ,.._ ~ .._ :.....:- "'"': --- __ _,-'. ::...:---~-,..~--.-- ""-l. __ ,.,_~ '(...__ _,.,_...... ,~~ -~ =""~ \;j ·-··.; __ 0:0,.."«.,•.----->~ L __ y ...... ~ ..___ -- .... JA!I 111!1 Jill .. .. -- .- ~

Table 1. Denali National Scenic Highway Study Corridor Estimated Le~gth and Generalized Ownership

Parks Denali Richardson Edgerton McCarth .. , Federal HigJ:t~y{%) J _!!!g}l_1ji(! y (%) Iliggway (%)., Highway{%) Road(%) .Total(%) BLM - - 88 mi. 65% ~l mi. 9% NPS - - - - 97 mi. 21% ------7 mi. 11% ARR 10 mi. 7% - - 7 mi. 1% - - - - - 10 mi. 2% State * 75 mi. 54% 16 mi. 12% 44 mi. 4:l% - - 20 mi. 32% 155 mi. 33% _Borough_ 26 mi. 19% ------26 mi. 6% Native 20 mi. 15% * 29 mi. 21% 37 mi. 36% 20 mi. 60% 33 mi. 52% 139 mi. 29% Private 7 ·mi. 5% 2 mi. 2% 13 mi. 13% 13 mi. 40% ...... - - - - 3 mi. 5% 38 mi. 8% Vi TOTAL 138 mi. 135 mi. 103 mi. 33 mi. 63 mi. 472 mi.

* Includes conveyed and selected lands 1 I ... I I 1 l I ~t_,_·~---...~·---:-;_Ji:'::::_~ .,.A2. -~ ...... '1l'iW~--"~---~~-~~OP\&.~t:- ---·- £.>.. -.3 · .Oi!Ja_ I Symbolic and Physical Connection I The Act require·s that the "desirability of providing a symbolic and actual physical connection between the national parks tn I Southcentral Alaska" be studied. Regardless of whether any of the corridor is designated as a National Scenic Highway, the fact I remains that the Denali National Park and Preserve and the

Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve are physi~ally I connected by the Parks, Denali, Richardson and Edgerton Highways and the McCarthy Road. I The question of a symbolic connection is somewhat more difficult. What was intended by this term cannot be ascertained from the Act 11' . nor from the legislative history. It -would appear that a sym­ bolic link would not necessarily be a true link, i.e., "actual 11 physical." Consequently, a symbolic link could theoretically only include a portion of the entire 500-mile corridor.

llJ The symbolic connection mentioned by Congress would be desirable IJ if the two parks had some development theme in common, and if many tourists really do travel between the two parks by motor IJ vehicle. Denali National Park is a popular tourist destination by motor vehicle partly because of :tts central location between 'l # Anchorage and Fairbanks and because its relatively established lJ tourist facilities are only a few miles off of one of the State's major intercity arterials (the Parks Highway). Wrangell-St~ IJ Elias National Park and Preserve has not developed tourist facil­

1 ities and the National Park Service has indicated that they 1j intend to manage it as a ~ilderness park, with few ~otor vehicle/ tourist related facilities. The Park Service has not decided yet

'I 1: where the main access to the park will be, but the McCarthy Road ., in its present condition could not serve a large number of motor vehicles.

~~~ 14 t l,l

.,.,~. ''""'i I Table 2. -z.. -41> ~ Cl ·O ... *' I ~lZ ::1 Cl ...... Ill! I «l CJ !I til 0::141a:ra ... 02 5 Cl lii ...... ~-al41~011 > ~0 $:11:011!1~! ~0~"-'~ C.l4o! ~0 ...... ~CJ I 4o!c::3CU410~CII ... !&I ~ :II ~fil8lllg,4o!"-'Ill CJ Cll 0 STATE ~~~~ .3~~~ COMMENTS ~ N Cf') ~ r.n ~ ~ ~ I Arizona X YX "' X X 1) Scenic Roads, Historic Roads & Parkways 2) Restricted access (drivewaye & iutersections) 3) Allows acquisition of easement•

I Arkanau X y X X

California X X y XX X X 1) Advertisina signs raotricted I 2) Requires protection plan froa local aovernment - Colorado X y X X 1) Criteria are general 2) Advertiaing signs restricted

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

Massachusetts X N X X 1) State recognizes local designation. I} 2) Maintenance restrictions (tree cutting, fence removal) Mississippi X N X X

I~ Nebraska X X X 1) !'.aintenance Standards relaxed in case of conflict

New Jersey X X N X X l) 11 Parkway" system. restricted use & access

New York· X l) No Statewide System

Ohio X y X 1. l) Criteria & protection are general in nature

Oregon X X X l) Redtrictions on signs & junkyards

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

Tenntesaee X X X X 1) Parkway System . 2) Protection measures to be studied 3) Increased maintanance 1.· Vermont X y X X l) Roadside maiutenance restrictions

Virginia X y X X l) Protection based on local zoning I. 2) Authority to buy euements

This information was compiled from the material sent by each state, and shove the variability 1:L .'.1. amana state program.. Columna 1 and 2 indicatb the type of road included in the oystem. Column 3 indicates whether any criteria are used in route selection. Columns 4, 5, and 6 1.ndicate the level of aovernment mald.ng the route ~election. Column 7 is marked if the designation means no more than posting the route ae scen~c, and Columna 8 and 9 indicate whether there are any activity restrictions associated with the designation, or special protection measures of any of the values associated with the designation. 15 I It appears that the two park units at present have no common bond other than both being National Parks in Alaska. The need for a I symbolic connection between the two National Parks has not been I demonstrated. I Range of Definitions Before examining the desirability of a scenic highway desig­ nation, it is necessary to know what that designation means and I J what criteria must be considered before such designation is made. In short, the term "scenic highway" must be defined. To do so, the Study Group examined other Federal and State efforts to I develop scenic highways. Two relatively comprehensive Federal refe+ences are A Proposed Program for Scenic Roads and Parkways prepared by the U.S. Depart ment of Commerce for the President's Council on Recreation and I~ Natural Beauty, published June 1966, and the Manual: National ' Scenic Highway Study 1974, prepared by the Federal Highway Admin­ istration (FHWA), U.S. Department of Transportation. Federal Scenic Highways include the multistate Great River Road and various scenic highways through National Forests and lands admin­ istered by the U.S. Forest Service, such as the Highland Scenic Highway, the Tellecho Plains-Robbinsville Road and the Kancamagus Scenic Road. Finally, the Parkways of the National Park Service were briefly examined to determine their applicability to this I! study.

Information on state scenic highways was requested from each 1: state to determine what has occurred on a state level that might provide useful information. Thirty-eight (38) states responded, I. and of those 15 reported some kind of scenic highway system. Table 2 summarizes the nature of the state scenic highway systems.

This research indicates that there is no single, accepted set of de fin. it iv e criteria which a scenic highway must meet. In some 16 I

states, a scenic highway designation is strictly a legislative I process without any explicit criteria. At the other extreme, at least one state requires a survey, in one-tenth mile increments, I detailing about 30 positive and negative elements of the l{:lnd­ scape. Common to the criteria studied is the concept of I outstanding and unique scenic beauty. One set of criteria that was referenced by several source~ was found in the 1974 Manual prepared by the FHWA. The range of factors considered includes: I j

-the scenic quality of the corridor; I -service to major population centers; -economic feasibility; -availability and variety of complementary facilities I -availability of other scenic routes and recreation resources in the area; -access to parks and recreation areas;

' ~ -providing connectivity among recreation facilities; I -access to major highways-commuter and nonrecreation t rave 1 need s ; -potential for conserving energy and meeting user needs; I -protection of corridor and ecology; -public demand for development; and -suitability for use by other modes.

II< These criteria were developed to apply to all of the states. 11 They offer a useful expansion of the issu~s that were presented / in Section 1311 of ANILCA, i.ec:

li -the scenic and recreational values of the land; -the importance of providing protection to those values; -the desirability of providing a symbolic and physical link between parks; and -the desirability of enhancing the experience of people traveling between parks by motor vehicles.

The range of management considerations for scenic highways was also examined. In generals stata-3uthorized scenic highways are I" ~xisting multipurpose roads with little difference in management from that of other highways. Federal efforts in the past have tended to involve more new construction and to be more dedicated to recreational use. Minimal implementation of both Federal and State scenic highway systems may be simply marking the highway as

a scenic route. Colorado has restrictions on adverti~ing signs 17 I and Oregon also restricts junkya rd s in designated scenic areas. Massachusetts and Vermont have restrictions on roadside mainten­ I ance activities like tree-cutting and fence removal. Several states, including Arizona and California, are authorized to buy I scenic easements or obtain property in fee title through purchase or gift. Several responses from states without scenic highway I systems indicated that scenic and recreation values along their highways receive similar protection through department policies I or local zoning restrictions. 11 At another level of development, the Federal Government is pro­ viding money to Mississl~pi River states for improvements to roads in the Groat River Roud system along the Mississippi. The I improvements being funded include general pavement and alignment upgrading, and the provision of turnout and roadside recreation

I?. l facilities. About $250 million has been authorized for Great River Road projects through 1983. The funds are appt·opriated by I~ Congress as a line item under the Federal-Aid to Highways Act. An extreme example of a scenic highway is a Parkway administered by the National Park Service such as the Blue Ridge Parkway and the Natchez Trace Parkway. The entire corridor along such a road 1': is man~ged primarily for its scenic and rec~eational values, as a J part of the National Park system. Travel may be restricted to

non-commerical use and entrance fees may be ~barged. A Parkway, being a linear National Park, is recognized as a distinct classi­ fication; there is no evidence either in ANILCA or the legis­ I. lative history that Congress intended such a designation for the Denali Corridor. 1.. Since there baa been no uniform application of the desi.guation

"scenic highwa.y," this study will not adopt any singl~ specific descriptive definition, criteria, or management plan. For the purposes of this study, the foregoing discuss.ion .:>f the range pf management options will serve as defining what a scen.ic highway in Alaska max be. Each segment of the corridor will be studied 1.~ with this range of alternatives in mind. 18 I I

I There are a number of agencies which currently have responsibili­ ties and interests in lands and resources adjacent to the high­ I ways within the study co~ridor.

Regionally, numerous plans exist or are proposed which, if I implemented, could impact land uses or resources along these highways. Locally, many of tho.se who own or manage lands or 11 resources directly adjac.ent to the highways within the study corridor have plans, either existing or proposed, on how those I resources should best be managed.

. I , Because. of the existing and potential impact of these planning efforts at both a regional and local level, the agency repre­ I sentatives in the Study Group (Appendix D) recognized the need for a means to coordinate planning efforts and ,.land management. Therefore, a position paper, seperate from this document, will be prepared and presented to the Alaska Land Use Council (ALUC) on

h~w to best plan for and manage these and other resources within the study area.

The ALUC has statutory authority to establish cooperative ' ~ planning zones in which the management of lands or resources by r~ I one agency may significantly affect the management of lands or resources of other agencies [ANILCA Section 1201(j)]. As coo?erative planning would appear to be particularly appropriate I for this study area, this paper will examine how Federal, State, regional and local agencies can cooteratively manage those lands I and resources within the study area to protect and enhance the recreational and scenic opportunities. This proposal will not be I. submitted as a part of this study but will be submitted seperately to the ALUC for their evaluation and action.

[ 19 [

. •' I I I I I I I I

I! II. SECTION ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS I~ I. I 1. 'I I

I---.-:-' ~~ ·~ 20 I PARKS. RICHARDSON AND EDGERTON HIGHWAYS I Because of numerous similarities, the most notable of which ia I land status, the Parks, Richardson and Edgerton Highways are discussed together, and one recommendation is made for all three.

PARKS HIGHWAY

Land Status

I The Parks Highway from the Talkeetna Junction (milepost 99) north to the entrance of Denali National Park and Preserve (i.e., the I Nenana River Bridge, milepost 231.1) is within the study corri­ dor. This section of the corridor is approximately 138 miles

long. Of this length~ approximately 75 miles of the land along

I the road~ ~re owned by the State of Al~ska; approximately 26 miles are owned by the Mat-Su Borough; approximately 20 miles are Native I Co rp o ration owned land , about 7 mi 1 e s are in private own e r ship , and the remaining 10 miles are under the administration of the I Federal Government and withdrawn as gravel reserves for the Alaska Railroad. (Map #2 ,Table 1) I Existing/Pro2osed Land Use

I Existing lan:d use. along the Parks Highway is varied. Numerous small settlements and businesses dot the route. These include I the Petersvil.le Road Junction, Hurricane, Colorado, Summit, and Cantwell. I From milepost 132 to milepost 169, the Parks Highway passes I through the Denali State Park; however, there are scattered inholdings of private land. Activities within most of the Park are restricted to non-motorized uses. Discharging of firearms is I not allowed in the Park.

I 21 I To I Fairbanks LEGEND I • Federal Public Land I Native Corpcw;; ti on Land r State Land · I -Other Private Land Denali See page 11, Land Status I Highwav for more information

I Federal Public I Land I I I Federal I Public Land I I • Talkeetna I I

To I Anchorage

I Map 2. Parks Highway Land Status I 22 I I I I Several parcels of State owned land north of the Denali State Park have been tentatively identified as being available for. settlement Qnder the State's land disposal program. These I parcels may or may not be dispose.d of, depending upon public I interest. Although not the alternative preferred by the Alaska Powe~ I Au thor i ty (APA), an access route to the proposed Susi tna Hydro Project has been studied from Hurricane (milepost 174) east, and I therefore, it c..>uld become a possible access route to that area pending the outcome of APA's study and review process.

I Except for the extreme northerly portion of the Parks Highway, the entire study corridor is within the Mat-Su Borough. Th·e I corridor area has not been zoned; thus the Mat-Su Borough exer­ cises little regulatory control over the area although it has I legislative authority to do so. However, along approximately 26 miles of the corridor from Talkeetna junction northward, the I Mat-Su Borough owns lands that are being considered in the Borough-wide Comprehensive Plan and have tentatively been iden­ tified for disposal.

Scenic and Recreational Resources

The seen ic resources of the Parks Highway were inventoried in 1 9 7 8 b y the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR) • The DNR study, entitled "Scenic Resources Along the Parks Highway," divided the highway into segments based on character types, and subdivided the character types into assessment units no longer than t h r e e mi 1 e s • The " in t r in s i c vi s u a 1 q u al i t y" of each a s s e s s­ ment un.it was rated according to its various components, includ- • ing patterns of form, line, color, and texture. Also assessed I for each unit was a "composite visual quality" rating which added . or subtracted the effect of development on the intrinsic visual I quality. The potential for screening development areas with vegetation was also rated • Unless otherwise stated, the values I and ratings referred to are the "composite visual quality." I 23 I According to this study, scenic values along the Parks Highway range from low to exceptional. Excluding the portion of the I highway passing through Denali State Park, about 25% of the segment rated low, 15% moderate, and the remainder high to excep­ I t ion ally high in scenic value. The largest block of Federal land, managed by the Alaska Railroad near Hurricane, was rated as exceptionally scenic. The roadway there curves through a rolling I topography with many unobstructed views of Denali National Park and Mount McKinley. The foreground lands have a low capability I to absorb visual impact.

I Recreational opportunities in this area of Federal land include a paved viewpoint at milepost 170.3 and a ·rest area at Hurricane I Gulch that includes a trail with "several scenic views and good berry picking. Other scenic features along the Parks Highway I include: -dense stands of birch-spruce forest on gently rolling I toposraphy;

I -views of Mount McKinley, the Alaska Range, and their numer­ ous glaciers; and the I -canyons and bluffs of the Chulitna River, Hurricane Gulch, I and Honolulu Creeko Other recreational opportunities include: I f -developed and undeveloped rest areas and turnouts, includ­ I ing some at specific viewpoints;

-fishing in feeder streams of the Susitna River and the l I Chulitna River and in various lakes in the area;

I -camping at Honolulu Creek or in the Denali State Park;

I 24 I I I I -picnicking at Byers Lake or any of a number of rest areas; I -boating at Byers Lake; I -berry picking at Coal Creek and other turnouts; -hiking at Denali State Park; and I -hunting and trapping between Talkeetna Junction and the I entrAnce to Denali State Park. I Other Considerations The cor rid or passes through or near several mineralized prov- I inces. Near Broad Pass are many mining claims, with known deposits of gold, lead, copper, and zinc in the area. Other I minerals found along the corridor include silver, platinum, nickeli chromium, and molybdenum. Non-metallic resources include coal, sand, gravel, and a low potential for oil and gas. The I commercial value of these resources is unknown. Water power sites inventoried by the Alaska Power Authority include two sites I on the Chulitna River, as well as the sites being developed on

the Susitna River. Additionally, APA's Willow-He~ly Intertie Project parallels the Parks Highway for much of :!.ts length ..

The Parks Highway is a major transportation link and connects the

State's two most populous citi~s: Anchorage and Fairbanks. Th~ Parks Highway also provides a vital commercial link between the port facilities in Anchorage and interior Alaska. The Parks Highway meets Federal-Aid Highway standards. Because of its

import~nce as a transportation corridor, it has also been desig­ nated as a part of the Interstate Highway system.

25 I RICHARDSON HIGHWAY I I Land Status

That portion of the Richardson High~4} that is within this study I corridor is approximately 103 miles in length. Of this about 44 miles is either State selected or conveyed to the State under the I Statehood Act, and about 37 miles is either Native Corporation sele~ted or conveyed to various Alaska Native Corporations under ANCSA. There are private parcels scattered along the highway I w·ith concentrations at Paxson, Gakona Junction, Glenn Highway Junctton, Copper Center and Edgerton Highway Junction. These I private lands encompass approximately 13 miles of the study corridor. The remaining 9 miles are Federal public lands I administered by the Bureau of Land Management. (Map 113, Table 1) I E~isting/Proposed Land Use

I As is typical of highways in the State of Alaska, the Richardson Highway has numerous small businesses scattered along its length. I For the most part the businesses are concentra.ted where the private lands are concentrated. Se7eral historic roadhouses are located within the study corridor. The most notable of these is the Sourdough Roadhouse at Mile 147, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

Additionally, the Trans-Alaska Pipeline parallels the Richardson Highway for the entire length of the study corridor. Within this section of the study corridor, numerous access roads and material siteA exist associated with the construction and operation of the pipeline.

This section of the Richardson Highway is located outside of any

organized Borough. Therefore, th~ area has not been zoned by the 26

! j: ~ ._ ]II; IJII;. ]II; . ~ :a;; ~ Jll: Aii& .. .1111 .. .. .Ill! :a. lllll .. ~ .. :a.

To Fairbanks Denali Highway Paxson - (' I /.,,.J

Federal Public Land ~ 't'~

~,),-, l

,H (,

To

'1·-]·~. _( '_" ' ' ' ~ ,,-_ Tok ; ~~~.~ .

Glenn To Highway Anchorage

Federal Public LEGEND Land •· Federa 1 Pub 1i c Land 1 Native Corporation Land r State Land - Other Private Land • f I l Map 3. Richardson Highway See page 11, Land Status for more information Land Status -c 0 I Borough and the State has not elected to impose zoning restric­

tions either; There are no current land-usE plans for this area~ I Several areas within the corridor include lands which the State has identified for future settlement under its land disposal I program. This property h.e.s been offered in past dispos!iils and will continue to be offered until the available land has been I transferred into private ownership. I Scenic and Recreational Resources According to a Draft Study prepared by the Alaska Department of I Natural Resources, the scenic resources along the Richardson Highway are mostly of moderate value, with several areas of high I value and a relatively confined area of low scenic value.. Near Paxson, distant views of the Chugach and Wrangell Mountains to I the south and th~ AI.. ska Range to the north contribute to the high scenic value. Foreground features in this area include th~ Gulkana River, the river valley, and Paxson Lake. Much of the I terrain is rolling and the road generally conforms \Tell to the topography. At the extreme southern end of this segment are R stunning views of the Wrangell Mountains with Willow Lake in the foreground. Much of the Richardson segment is an enclosed I corridor through the spruce/hardwood forest, and of moderate scenic value. The areas of low scenic value include the more-populated areas near the junctions with the Tok Cutoff and the Glenn Highway.

Recreational opport,tnities are more abundant along the northern half of the Richardson Highway. Along the Gulkana River and at

Faxson Lake are campgrounds and good spo~s to put in and take out

rafts, canoes, kayaks ~r motorboats~ As a Wild and Scenic River, q the Gulkana receives considerable use for float trips, and it is

a good fishing river as well. Campgrounds along the r~ute I include two Paxson Lake Campgrounds, the Sourdough Creek Camp­ ground, and the Dry Creek Campground. Also, along the Richardson

Highway are trails for hiking and access to various lakes and th~ I Gulkana River. Trailheads include the June Lake Trailhead, Gillespie Lake Trailhead, and Haggard Creek Trailhead . I .28 I I I Other Considerations

I The area along the Richardson Highway is not as heavily minera­ lized as other segments of the study corridor. There are several isolated mines, and the area around Paxson Lake is noted as a mineralized province containing molybdenum, gold, and copper. At I the extreme south end of the Richardson segmetlt is a highly mineralized area, containing chromium, nickel, copper, and I platinum. Sand and gravel are exposed along the Copper River, and the Copper River Petroleu~ Basin has a low potential for oil I or gas deposits.

Caribou and moose mGy be found along this segment, A fall

I caribou migration route crosses the highway about midway betwe~n Paxson and Gulkana. During the winter, moose will concentrate I along the Gulkana and Copper Rivers. There is a moderate concentration of furbearers within the area. I The Richardson Highway, like the Parks Highway, is a major trans­ portation and commercial link to Inter-r or Alaska. Valdez, the southern terminus of the Richardson Highway, is the site of the northernmost year-round ice-free deepwater port in the State. Jl (This was the major reason for selecting Valdez as the terminus of the Trans-Alaska Oil Pi,peline.) That part of the Richardson Highway between the Glenn Highway Junction and Gakona Junction has been designated an Interstate route and the remainder of the Richardson Highway is a Federal-Aid primary route.

~ I

I 29 I I EDGERTON HIGHWAY I I Land Status

The Edgerton Highway is approximately 33 miles long. The entire I length is within the study corridor. About 20 miles is ei·:her

Native-selected or conveyed, while 13 miles is in private own~r­ I ship. There are no Federal public lands on this segment (Map #4, Table 1). Lands in private ownership were predom­ I inantly patented under the Homestead Act, and farming remains the livelihood of many of those along the route, particularly between the small communities of Kenny Lake and Lower Tonsinb. There are I a few small parcels of State land. The Liberty Falls Campground,

although belonging ~o the State, continues to be managed by the B U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) through a cooperative agree­ I ment. Existing/Proposed Land-Use IJ The Edgerton Highway is not within any local governmental unit. H Land-use planninr is virtually non-existent. Future land-use of the area will in large measure be determined by the major land­ owners; e.g., the appropriate Native corporations. The highway J! is a Federal-Aid Secondary route.

H Scenic and Recreational Resources

Using the numerical rating system of the DNR consultant, the Edgerton Highway is one of the most scenic of any of the seg- I ment s. Except for short lengths with moderate ratings, th8 entire road is hi~hly scenic. Mount Drum, Mount Sanford, Mount ;.1 u Blackburn, and Mnunt ~rangell offer the backdrop for small farms ··! ~ 't . and homesteads along the ~oad. According to the study, the farms . r and homesteads are gen~rally neat, and add to the character and

!j~~ '. l ..... qut1lity of the view. The Copper RiYet" is also a scenic ' ''1 30 i I 'I• Jll "' I I I I I I I I I I To I Glennallen

H Richardson Hi gh\-Jay To I ~ Valdez ~1111~ McCarthy ···rffl.~· ~ ... ·PPII/AI I :1-7.· •._..,. -·.-----~------Tl• · · · . LEGEND · Federal P-ublic Land Native Corporation Land State Land Other Private Land See page 11, Land Status for more information ~ Map 4. Edgerton Highway Land Status I There is no Federal Public Land in this segment. I 31 I ......

-.. ,_/'", '..,'-t.: /,' I attraction, being a braided river in a broad valley with steeply I cut banks. The road vari,'!s from flat and straight near Kenny Lake to winding nearer to Chitina. Ground cover in view ranges I from spruce/hardwood forest to alpine tundra, to rocky, barren ground.

I Near Chitina are several lake\S which not only add to the scenic qualities of the road, but are ·good recreation sites as well.

I O""l~mile lake has a rest area and picnic table. Grayling and rainbow trout can be caught from Twomile Lake and Threemile Lake. I The Copper River is popul~'lr for subsistence salmon fishing and for floating. Hiking and camping f'lcilities ara available at I Liberty Falls Campground, where berry picking can also be pro­ ductive. These facilities receive very heavy use during the peak

salmon runs ~n the Copper River. Buffalo can sometimes be seen I across the Copper River, and mountain sheep in the hills above Twomile and Threemile Lakes. The Tonsina River, which \!rosses I the highway, offers an exctting whitewater float-trip.

II Other Considerations H The entire length of the Edgert-on Highway lies within a highly mineralized area, with known deposits of chromium, nickel, copper and platimum. The westernmost end of the Edgerton Highway lies I within the Copper River Petroleum Basin, but the probability of

oil or gas d~posits is considered lowQ The western half of the J! corridor area is mostly agricultural. q Moose and furbearers may be present artywhere along the Edgerton Highway, but are not known to be concentrated there. Black bear q will concentrate along the Copper River.

Of particular significance is the fact that there are virtually no Federal lands along the Edgerton Highway •

.. 32

I I

I PARKS, RICHARDSON AND EDGERTON HIGHWAYS RECOMMENDATION AND RATIONALE: I No Designation

The Study Group concurred udanimously that it is undesirable to I recommend th.:it. these highway segments be designated as part of

a National Scenic Highway (N SH) System o The rationale behind I this conclnsion includes the following points:

I 1 • Land Ownership Sect ion 13.11 of AN ILCA (Appendix C) man- dates that recommendations be made to Congress on "pub lie" I (Federal) lands. The Parks, Richardson and Edgerton High- ways traverse lands that are almost entirely non-Fed2rally I owned or managed. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to make a recommendation to ~:reate a NSH an these highway B segments. 2. Commercial Use - The Parks and Richardson Highways are major IJ commercial corridors in Alaska. As a principal intent o.f Congress was that a scenic highway serve to promote tourism, It a potential conflict exists between a national designation and the existing reliance on. these highways as commercial Q routes.

3 • Public Opinion - Over 25 public meetings were held in Alaska Jl to seek out comments and concerns relating to c:reation of

a National Scenic Highway Sy~tem in Alaska (see Appendix B). ~! It was apparent from those meetings that there was over­ whelming opposition to any such Federal designation in II Alaska.

4. Existing Authority - The State of Alaska has existing N authority to create and manage a State Scenic Highway I System, if they so choose.

I 33 ll I 5, Cobpera't'ive- Hahagefneh't There is a recognized need among I land managers (Federal, State, local and private) in Alaska that an opportunity ex:Lsts to consolidate and coordinate I management efforts on their lands to address common manage­ ment goals, especially for those lands adjacent to trans­ I portation corridors in Alaska (See Discussion on Page 19). An .interagency effort will be undertaken to address these management goals and issues such as the management of I recreational and scenic values along existing highways. The Study Group concluded that this is a more desirable I approach to protection of scenic and recre.""'•.ional values, and enhancement of tvurism than. a National Scenic Highway I designation.

II I II

JJ

Jl Jl g II II 34 I I I I I DENALI HIGHWAY

I Land Status

I The entire length (135 miles) of the Denali Highway is within the study corridor. This highway provides the east-west link between I Cantwell, on the Parks Highway, and Paxson, on the Richardson Highway. Until completion of the Denali Highway in 1957, the I only access to Denali National Park (formerly Mt. McKinley National Park) was via the Alaska Railroad. The Denali Highway remained the only vehicle access to the National Park until the I opening of the George Parks Highway in 1972.

I Of the highways involved in the study, i.e., the Parks, Denali, Richardson, Edgerton and McCarthy Road, the Denali has by far the I greatest amount of AN ILCA pub lie land ~1.d j acent to the road. The route crosses approximately 88 miles of ANILCA public land (BLM), II 16 miles of State land, 2~ miles of Native Corporation owned land and 2 miles of other private latid (Map #5, Table 1). - Most of the private lands are located near Cantwell and Paxson. Several commercial establishments are scattered along the route, ll f o r ins tan c e , a t Mi 1 e 2 0 (Tang 1 e Rive r Inn:) , Mi 1 e 2 2 . 6 ( S p o r t s ·"" man's Lodge), Mile 42 (Maclaren River Lodge), Mile 52 ( private ! ~~ campground), Mile 77 (Susitna Lodge), Mile 82 (Gracious House), !' and at Mile 100 (Adventures Unlimited). r Jl f Native Corporation owned lands are located primarily at the

western end of t:he Denali Highway, while the State lands are II i II located primarily at the eastern end. BLM lands are located l., u along the remainder of the route. il Existing/Proposed Land-Use The Denali Highway traverses the BLM Denali planning block. The II Denali planning block is part of the larger Southcentral Planning y 35

,:.( ~ ~ r~ ...... -~ !il'_:.w ~..:::lOU ~-J:l:l! .,e:;;.:::,;:J '".,_ ._ ~.:..~ ~~ ....._~ ~ ~.. ~- ~ ~ - ;!!!! !!I! .. !11!1 .. .. IIIII -

To Fairbanks f. Parks Highway To Cantwell Fairbanks

~· .: . Richardson .... Highway "l,, < .. ::f ' • :~ . :a r~ --- -- .. - ..•...... "'C; ...... ·;;: ::::..:::: :;;;;;,·:: :··· Paxscn ..... " . t• I ·1,; r,. :: ,· I lN To '• ()'.. Glennallen .c• } lEGEND •· Federa 1 Public land 1 Native Corporation land ,, r State land - Other Private land (I See page 11, land Status for more information ; ~ ,

Map 5. Denali Highway land Status . ,...... ,~ /~I • J~ / .. ·· .....-~: . • • tl ':" ...

(i~ ~ I I Unit. A land-use plan for this unit was completed by BLM in 1980. The passage of ANILCA in late 1980 prompted an amendment I to the original plan. This amendment, pertaining to the Denali planning block, ~a~ completed in July 1982.

I The major provisions of the amendment allow mineral activities to take place in the planning block. However, the Denali Scenic I Highway Study Corridor was specifically excluded from the opening order which allows mineral exploration, leasing, and location,. IJ By the same token none of the lands within the Denali study corridor were opened to settlement under the Alaska Settlement laws or designated for lease or sale under the Fed.era.l Land II Policy and Management Act. These decisions were postponed to allow for completion of the Denali Scenic Highway Feasibility Study as well as for completion of the Matanuska-Susitna-Beluga - Corporative Planning Program being prepared jointly by the Matanuska-Susitna Borough and the State of Alaska.

II Basically, the Denali Highway west of the Maclaren River and approximately 20 miles east of Cantwell is within the Matanuska-Susitna Borough; i.e. Milepost 40 to Milepost 107a The II joint plan for the area is not scheduled for completion until late 1983. Therefore, recommendations on future settlement are I! pending.

_, v.rhat porti.on of the Denali Highway which tra.ti~ects the Mat-Su f Borough is within the Talkeetna Mountains Special Uae District. The intent of the ordinance establishing this District is to ·- provide the Borough with a Multiple Use Management Tool. Allowed I" uses of the district are ,.recreational, mining, grazing, timber i

harvest, guiding, hunting, fishing, trapping, wate~ resource use and enterprise activity." I Jl f f I Scenic and Recreational Resources l !: G i'' The scenic resources of the Denali Highway (and the remainder of 1: the Corridor being studied) were inventoried by the Alaska /:; 37 I; r: t l I Department of Natural Resources in 19&2, The work was done under I the same project manager and consultant who prepared the .Parks Highway report. The following description is taken from the I draft report.

The Denali Road is characterized by very high visual resource I values. This is due to the nume:-ous distinctive landscape elements along its length and the constantly unfolding views that are expressive of the full range and divers! ty of the five landscape character types. At the western end of the I roads views across forested uplands to the Nenana River encom­ pass the Talkeetna Mountai.ns and the Alaska Range, including the glaciated peaks of Mt. McKinley, Mt. Deborah, Mt. Hess and I Mt. Hayes. The Susitna River dominates a broad valley land­ scape enclosed by the Alaska Range, Talkeetna Mountains and the Clearwater Mountains. Expansive vistas across glacial It topography with associated features of moraines, eskers, kettle lakes and pingoes are defined along the ed5es by moun­ tain ranges, including tbe Clearwater, the Amphitheater Mountains and glimpses of the more distant Wrangells.

The ro.9.d alignment generally conforms to the surrounding topography, resulting in a route that provides continually 1.1 changing views and orientations. In addition its general location on the mountain foothills provides a series of composite views that include the full range of landform, II waterform and landcover elements for ~ach unit. While some areas along the Denali have a truly superlative scenic quality~ the entire length of the highway is a rich scenic IJ resource. The richness of the views is also due in part to the openess of the landscape. Along most of the highway the vegetation is II low brush or tundra; there are few trees to obscure views. In l addition, the flat to rolling glaciated valleys yield broad t views that can almost reach from horizon to horizon, adding a r: sense of immensity to the landscape that is only bounded by I steep mountains.

The area, therefore, is exceptional for sightseeing and photo­ j I graphy, not only because of the beautiful views, but also because of the opportunity to see wildlife and to view unique geological I features such as a melting pingo, kettle lakes and eskers. From ! the Denali Highway there are opportunities to see caribou, (part of the Nelchina herd crosses the area in late August, I early September), moose, bear, beaver, porcupine, ptarmigan, and l swans. The. pro!tlability of seei.ng these animals is greater than t

38 I

tl r

(i I

I on other State highw~ys because there is less traffic, an~ the views are generally unobstructed along the Denali. Spawning I salmon can be seen from the bridge over the Gulkana River in August and September.

I A _photographer or hiker may also be interested in the historic sites near the road. The Tangle Lakes Archeological District is I entered on the National Register of Historic Places. Some of the arti.facte there are among the oldest found in Alaska, and the I area may contain evidence of essentially continuous human use for about 10,00 0 years. Close to the Susi tna River is the townsite IJ of Denali, near which gold was discovered in 1903. Gold mining continues there today. li Tangle Lakes and many of the small s trea~ns along the Denali Highway offer good fishi.ng for grayling. The Tangle Lakes are 11 the headwaters for the Delta River, a National Wild and Scenic River. The Delta River Canoe Trail can be reached from the IJ Tangle Lakes campground. Access to the Upper Tangle Lakes Wilderness Canoe Trail . is from the Tangle River Boat Launch. There are trails in the area which can be used for recreation. Examples of such trails include Swede Lake Trail, Landmark Gap Lake Trail, Roosevelt Lake Trailr and Snodgrass Lake Trail. Other trails have been used for mining purposes. Some trails are open to off-road vehicle (ORV) use, although the Clearwater Controllec Use Area prohibits the use of motorized vehicles for hunting. In some areas, berry pick1.ng can be fruitful. BLM JJ campgrounds are maintained at Brushkana Creek and Tangle Lakes. Several of the lodges offer guide service as well as lodgiug.

These resources are important not only to the tourists driving I the highway, but to Alaskan residenta as well. The Denali Highway r area has been an important hunting location for Alaskan ~esidents even before the highway was completed. Hunter check stations were operated by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Alaska Dept.

39 l)

0 I of Fish and Game on the highway beginning in 1954. (Table 3 I shows the numbers of hunters counted between 1960 and 1971.) They also recognized the importance of the su rrounc!ing habitat and established caribou range stations along the Denali Highway

I that have been studied since the early 1960's. The att~ac­ tiveness of the area for hunters probably stems from several I interrelated characteristics which are tl.uplicated by only a few other locations in Alaska. First, the area possesses a diversity I of moderately abundant ~ildlife populations, including moose, caribou, grizzly bears, ~ta~migan, spy~ce grouse, waterfowl, I snowshoe hares, and furbearers. Of special importance is a reasonable opportunity of success for hunters pursuing caribou I from the Nelchina herd. Second, Denali Highway junctions are located between, and within reasonable dr!ving di~tances of, the major population centers of Alaska. Third, a large flortion of IJ the highway i'"i located above timberline, a characteristic which enhances some aspects of hunting. Fourth, th~ road seems to have II had little impact .on migra tiona by either caribou or moose and provides the hunter with the opportunity for a r~laxed drive (in IJ part due to low numbers of other vehicles) while serching for a location to stop and glass the surrounding country side. Fifth, l.i the 128 mile distance from Paxson to Cantwell and accompanying spur trails, ~ivers, and lakes can accommodate a relatively large number of hunters using a variety of equipment, thereby mini­ mizing competition among them. Sixth, the location is ideal for

fam1ly outings because of the presence and th~ variety of game as wr 11 as berries and fish provide a broar! spectrum of outdoor activities.

40

r~--v---..~-·~·~r-··-~··-~- .. ·;-··--~·"~-~"·~----A-~·-·~-·-""·~~ I I

I Table 3. ADF&G Denali Highway hunter check station results, 1960-71. I I

I Year Dates of Operation Number of hunters

I 1960 8/20-10/03 1892 1961 8/20-10/05 3694 I 1962 8/12-10/21 5271 1963 8/17-10/28 4814 1964 8/12-10/12 5052 II 1965 8/14-10/10 3088 1966 8/15-10/10 2799 IJ 1967 8/14-10/09 2977 1968 8/10-10/02 3238 II 1969 8/10-10/13 4029 1970 8/10-10/02 2176 II 19 71 8/10-09/23 3247 Q ' JJ

Jw J~ g ~~ u 41 I I Alt:hough hunting and other recreational interests are usually I biologically compatible, the two different types of users are frequently intolerant of each other. In situations where the two different user groups come in frequent contact conflicts I do occur and managers have usually responded by restricting hunters. This need not always be the case however, as Canadian I Park authorities have demonstrated by excluding non-hunters I from portions of their Parks during open hunting seasons. Regardless of whether or not a scenic highway designation is I made, the Bureau of Land Managemen~ (BLM) plans to enhance recreational resources along the Denali Highway. In its 19 80 IJ Management Framework Plan (MFP), which covers the Denali area, BLM outlines its management approach for the next 10 years. IJ Included in the MFP are the following projects~ a. develop water trails in addition to those already II completed, Maclaren River to Susitna River to Tyone River to Lake Louise; IJ b. rehabilitate campgrounds at Tangle Lakes and Brushkana Creek;

c. develop three-family-unit waysides every 10 miles along Denali Highway;

d. develop 10-unit family campgrounds near the Clearwater River;

e. develop an interpretive prog~am using th~ Denali High­ way lnformation Plan as the base study. The Denali

Highway Information Plan was pr~pared 'by the Colorado

State University in 1976. It discu~ses information

signs, pamphlet programs, visitor information centers~ and interpretive pullouts (e.g., for geologic points of interest such as eskers or a melting pingo, for wildlife viewpoints and scenic viewpoints, for identi­ fication, and for education); 42

. ' I

I f.. develop or maintain foot trails for extended hikes or day hikes, e.g., Tangle Lakes Campground to Sourdough I Campground, Tangle Lakes Campground to Cantwell via historic route, Denali Highway north along Maclaren River, and Denali Highway along Brushkana Creek to I intersect Cantwell trail; and

I g. develop winter-use trails out of Paxson.

11 Implementation of any of these projects is subject to funding levels. m The outstanding scenic resources of the area were recognized in IJ the Management Framework Plan (MFP). Specifically, the Sugarloaf Mountains~ the Talkeetna Mountains, the Alaska Range, the Maclaren River, the Clearwater River, and the Monahan Flats were

If id0 r:.t. ~i ied as highly scenic. As such, these areas should be

manag~\'1 in accordance with BLM guidelines, which suggest that "changes 1 n any of the b a sic e 1 em en t s ( f o rm , 1 in e , co 1 o r and texture) caused by proposed activities should not be evident in the characteristic landscape. A contrast may be seen, but should not attract attention."

Other Considerations ~.:.! 1 ~ Of significance are Alaska Power Authority's (APA) plans for

development of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project. Pre~ent plans call for the construction of the Watana Dam first, and later another dam at Devil's canyon, both on the Susitna River. Proposed access to these sites is via the Denali Highway at a point approximately 21 miles east of Cantwell on Federal public

'J 1:···1·,·'1 land, where APA proposes construction of an access road south to ··~ the Watana Dam site. This road would be of approximately the same width and quality as the Denali Highway. Additionally, APA proposes the construction of a temporary (20 years) overhead 150 KV transmission line. The exact location of this line is not 43 I known; however, location within 'the viewshed of the Denali I Highway could have a significant effect on existing scenic quality. Additionally, upgrading of the Denali Highway from I Cantwell east approximately 21 miles to the junction of the proposed Watana Dam access ~oad is planned. Another APA project, the Fairbanks-Anchorage intertie (a power transmission project), I is proposed to cross the west end of the Denali Highway on I private Native Corporation owned lands. In a letter dated December 21, 1982, the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilitie'7 reported that they have:

II several proposals to upgrade the Denali Highway. These include reconstruction ~ rehabilitation possibly with paving or without paving. There are many variables and factors involved in establishing any definitive plans or time schedule IJ for this work. The only preparations to date are the comple­ tion of a Location Study Report and Environmental Assessment evaluating reconstruction of the Denali Highway including IJ recommendations; and preliminary engineering work for recon­ struction of the Denali Highway from the Parks Highway to Seattle Creek. At this time we haven't decided whether or not to pave the Parks-Seattle Creek segment. It is entirely possible that we would reconstruct only certain segments of the highway and rehabilitate others or rehabilitate a section and postpone its reconstruction. Again, traffic forecasts, costs and other factors will influence our ultimate decisions.

'! Even with the upgrading, the State is not, at this time, ljI·.' I' ~ proposing year-round (winter) maintenance. The State has a

300-foot right-of-way along most of the Denali Highway~ and the vast majority of realignments and other upgrading would take place within the existing right-of-way. ~ ! J 1.~ The effect of the State's plans on the resources a.long the Denali

Highway is unknown~ The State projects a 4 percent per year increa!:le in traffic along the route through 1985 and 3 percent ,, per year thereafter through 2005. Whether a scenic highway ~~.' ~ designation will cause greater rates of ·increase in traffic f volume is not known, but is generally assumed.

44 I I Commercial land use is at present very limited on the Denali Highway, and consists of the various lodges along the route and a few active mining claims, the most notable of which are at Valdez I Creek and the old townsite of Denali near Milepost 79. Should the Denali Highway become the access route for construction of the Watana Dam, then commercial traffic will increase dramatically on the portion of the highway east of Cantwell approximately 20 miles.

11 Active mining occurs not only around the old townsite of Denali, but also elsewhere along tbe road, as much of the area is minera­ lized. Major metallic minerals are gold, molybdenum, and copper. Other minerals in the area are platinum, nickel, and chromium. As mentioned earlier, it is likely that the traveler will see I! wildlife from the Denali Highway, and the area is used by local hunters and those from Anchorage and Fairbanks. There is concern II that an increase in traffic which may accompany an upgrading of the road and scenic highway designation may cause the Nelchina li caribou herd to avoid parts of their present range. Unfortunately, there is no data which will allo't'l prediction of the effect a scenic highway designation will have on traffic levels, but it is generally thought that an upgrading of the road would have a greater effect on traffic levels than designation alone •

.; ln'f... ~ As with the other highway segments the entire range of alter­ natives for a scenic highway were considered under the "designa­ tion" alternativeo

Regardless of which alternative Congress may choose pursuant to ; l.i).·11 '.~ sect ion 1311 of ANILCA, there is recognized need in Alaska to manage the outstanding resource values found along the 135 mile

Denali High~ray. A cooperative planning effort is being undertaken within Alaska to coordinate land use plans and

concerns ~ri thin various Federal, State, local a1 d private agencies.

45

. -- r I ALTERNATIVES I Alt~thktlt~-1 -No designation. I

I The cost associated with this Alternative tbpkt~altijp!h~ ... hltn~~t without~pavlhgj is $88,000,000. This cost is for recons;~.r.uction

to a safe and modern standard ~i~nbht paving. Paving would add I m - approximately $20,000,000 to this figure. 11 PREFERREDPALTERNATIVE-AND'RATIONALE

1!.' 1 Alternative.-! No Designation

II The Study Team concluded that a "no designation" alternative was most desirable for this segment of the study corridor for the following reasons:

1. Cbbp~k~tl~e-§~ti~~efueht - The Study Team felt that under the auspices and direction of the Alaska Land Use Council (ALUC) the existing land manager along the Denali Highway should consolidate their planning and management efforts so that common concerns and goals are attained (See Page 19). It was felt that the direction for this effort could be coordinated by the ALUC and would be more desirable than a Federal designation along this routee

lli 2. ,Et.. ls'tlng'" Aiitnbrlty - As with the other highways within the stuJy corrodor, there is existing St~t•- authority to manage lj the right of way with consideration of scenic and recrea­ tional values without a Federal designation. Further, the

T.l major land manager of the lands adjacent to this highway, r d JI~ the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has completed management plans which recognize the need to manage their lands for

46

,_.,I

,/ ·=-- their scenic and rec~eational values. The cooperative management ap?roach, discussed above, would then consoli­ 11 date their management planning with these of the State and other adjacent land owners to achieve a common objective.

3. Publlc-concierh - There haa been overwhelming public oppo­ sition to the creation of a Federal Scenic Highway System in Alaska (See Appendix B).

The Study Gro~p was not unanimous in this recommendation. In a letter received on February 14, 1983, Ahtna Incorporated's

position was set forth. That letter is as follo~s:

IJ It is Ahtna, Incorporated position that there is a need to designate a Federally recognized scenic highway link between Denali National Park and Wrangell-St. Elias II National Park.

·~ Ahtna recommends that the Denali Highway be designated ll l a modified scenic highway that would take ifito consid­ I eration commercial use while at the same time providing for the upgrading of the Denali to a p·rimary highway ., 1.~.•,'! that could be us&d extensively during the summer months j for tourism and recreational travelo 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 protected through a procedure that considers the views of all the land holders in the area. We feel I f that developed areas could continue their operations ! without further government intervention and regula­ :.,il tions. ·I l:J I Ahtna recommends that the State designate the highways between Paxson and McCarth~ as a scenic State Highway without adding any additional regulations on adjace·nt r land owners or hinder State ability to upgrade the road I n system. ·~ .. I ' I J"!1·' ;J I 'l 1l' I... ~: t \ 47 I I I L. l

D u'"' .. I

FfcCART'IY~ROAD

I ta.n.a· status I The McCarthy Road is 63 miles long and connects the small towns of Chitina and McCarthye Approximately 33 miles of the road 't cross Native Corporation owned land, 20 miles czoss State land, 3 lJ miles cross private lands, and about 7 miles cross National rark Service lands. With the exception of the westernmost mile, the E entire road is within the external boundary of the Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve (Ma~ #6, Table 1). The IJ amount of land administered by the National Park Service along the route could increase significantly if a proposed State of Alaska/ National Park Service land exchange is consummated. A block of land between Long Lake and the '.(enneeott River along approximately 12 miles of the road would be affected.

The road for the most part follows the old Copper River and Northwestern Railway Company right-of-way.' This right-of-way was granted in the early 1900's. The railroad was built to haul supplies to and copper ore from the Kennecott copper mines near McCarthy to the ice-free port at Cordova. The State claims ownership of thi-':1 right-of-way by virtue of a quit-claim geed from the U.S. Department of Commerce to the State of Alaska pursuant to the Alaska Omnibus Act (PL 86-70)o

Future land use, to a large extent, will depend upon the land-use plans adopted by the State of Alaska, the var1ous Native Corpora­ tions and the National Park Service. The area is not within any orsanized borough or other lo'!al governmental unit; therefore,

local governmental land-use c~ntrols are non-existent. I I II

ll 11 11

To Glennallen

Richardson Chitina Highway (To ~~f~~:mr~i!f/ tValdez Mccarthy rr ~'l!h.~.w~ H 77 .tf J 'f##J. l ~1.1.1· .. ·mil~:('' 7'17.1.11· •• ... --r't n ---- ...... ·' 'I'.I I J LEGEND I •· Federal Public Land Federal I Native Corporation Land Public f·'l..·. r Land :( State Land I... -Other Private Land See page 11, Land Status for mqre information

t·1ap 6. ~1cCa rthy Road Land Status

49 I National Park Service planning could have a significant effect on the use of the McCarthy Road even though the road crosses· very I little Park land. The majority of the land outside the study corridtr is administered by the Park Service; thus, off-corridor development and use will be controlled by the Park Service. This adjacent land use and f-tlanning will no doubt affect land use within the study corridor. The Park Service land-use plan for the Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve is presently being drafted. The Park Service representatives on the Study Group have indicated that a Scenic Highway Designation would have little impact upon the Park. ll. . 11 Scenic and Recreational Resources . The following description of the scenic resources of the McCarthy li Road is taken directly from the draft of the Alaska Department of Natural Resources report quoted earlier. That draft suggested the road be called the McCarthy Wild and Historic Road, and consequently, that title appears in the following description.

Along the road between Chitina and McCar­ thy scenic resource values are quite variable. The most dramatic views and experiences tend to be concentrated near the two ends around the Copper and Chit j ·1a Rive r s at the we s t end . and the McCarthy-Kennicott area at the east end. There are several highlights in between - particularly the Kuskulana Bridge and gorge~ the Gilahina railroad trestle and Long Lake aroea. However, far the mo5t part the landscape visible from the road n:! between Chitib~ and McCarthy is typical of IIJ that found a ltH'lg major river valley:S in southcent ral Alaska. This is·, to a large :l extent, the r~sult of the pQsition of the I J rnad in the landscape. !1: follows upper l terraces on the north side ot the Chitina River valley, through de~~e~ predominantly s pruce-ha rJwn od fo7es t. 'th1.J location limits go.od views to the Chitina River itself and to the high·e~ Wrangell Moun­ ., '.·'.,,! t a ins to the not'th and east, wb'ich are 1~ either too dist~nt o:r hidden by nearby lower m.:.~untains. 50

f \ I ' .-.-~~:.t1_,.,..._,...2J.~..._.,...... ,.,.,,.,___._..,.....,"'~'""'"-~·~~'-~- p-.,.'"""''-"'""'''""'~•.,._,..,_,~.,..,.--:.. •-·•.. :-...... _, '":--'"_,.._...,.,... .,.,,,.....,.~,,...... ~ ..,.,....,_.._.,_,..._,...... ,._.. •..,.~ ... ~

';, !!" ...... {) I In spite of this the McCarthy Wild and Hist~ric Road does provide a visually I.J interesting and, at times, memorable experience due to a combination of factors which enhanc:e and complement the inherent I visual opportunities within the landscape. First there is the spatial definition~ The road, in passing t~rough the predomi­ nantly dense forest landcover offers an interesting range of spatial experiences - from "tunnels" created by unmaintained roadside vegetation completely enclosing E the road, to places where natural and man-made openings offer opportuttities for panoramic views, to numerous places where variations between these two extremes II existe

Second, the character of the road is a IJ source of interest. It is narrow, gen­ erally unmaintained, with small bridges, potholes, wet spots and drainage channels If cross1ug its surface. These tend to slow the traveler and are a constant focus of attention. 'fhe road is in many ways a challenge to drive, creating a unique experience not found on many other commonly traveled roads.

Third, land use and development adds to the visu$1 i~terest. Since the scenery is oftentimes not particularly distinctive, the land uses along the road become an important addition~ either ope:1ing up distant views a~ross their clearings or by ~alling attention to picturesque homesteads or to remnants of the bygo11a railroad era. The railroad features. are of special significance and visual interest even th{)ugh some are being removed and the remainder are deteriorating or becoming overgrown with vegetation and are not highly visible.

Fourth, there is a sense of destination associated with this road. Most people drive it to get to the McCarthy-Kennicott at-ea., not to pause and spend time along the way. Thus there ia a real sense of anticipation and a greater emph~sis on the destirtatiQn rather than the experience of getting there. While all roads to a eert~in degree instill this feeling of destinationr it is particularly strong aloilg this one because there are few intermediate stops. .51

' + I These four conditions-spatial definition, road character, land use, and sense of IH destination-work together to make this 63 mile long road visually and experientially t IJ rich. There are few developed recreational resources along the road. The photographer will find the scenic resources of interest and l.i.1 the railroad buff or historian will be interested in what remains from the Copper River and Northwestern Railroad. Sculpin, Van ll and Strelna Lakes are stocked with rainbow trout and coho salmon, and, of course, the Copper River provides several runs of salmon. li Other streams have low productiong of Dolly Varden, grayling and salmon. Long Lake has grayling, rainbow/steelhead, whitefish,

burbot, Dolly Varden, Lake troc~, red and coho salmon. Long Lake

produce~ an escapement of 4 to 46,000 red salmon annually with an estimated equal number caught in the commercial fishery. Camps! tes are available at one or more .lodges along the route. 11 The McCarthy Road has never had the abundance of wildlife that is present along the Denali Highway. Major wildlife species include moose, brown and grizzly bear, black bear, spruce grouse, hares, and furbearers. Sheep and goats are located in nearby mountains but are rarely seen from the road itself. During 1981 18 moose hunters repQrted hunting on the McCarthy Road killing 7 moose. These figures no doubt underestimate the numbers of moose hunters (no hunter check stations have been operated) but in relative importance, the HcCarthy road is not as important for moose hunting area as many other areas in Alas·ka except of course to local hunters. During some years, snowshoe hare populations have been quite high on the McCarthy road whil.e other more northerly hare populations have already crashed. During those years a li,-.,, relatively large number of snowshoe hare hunters may travel to th-e McCarthy Road, but this phenomenon cannot be expected to

re-occur ~ore often than every 9 to iO years. The McCarthy Road

doeg offer transportation to the Mcea~thy airstrip where fly-in

hunters for sh~ep, goat~ bt:•.own/ grizzly bear, black bear and bison depart for the remote parts tif the Wrangell-St. Elias Preserve. 52

j, ('; ·.•.. ~ ·' ---· ,. '0 I

I Other Considerations

I The McCarthy Road is in extremely poor condition. Road main­ Ij tenance at present is minimal. Be that as it may, the McCarthy Road is the only vehicular access to the town of McCarthy and to numerous private residences along the road. It carries a certain amount of traffic in spite of the fact that the Kennecott River immediately west of town can only be crossed by use of a hand­

cable tram because the two bridges have washed away and ha~e not ll been replaced.

For the McCarthy Road to remain eligible for Federal-Aid Highway money, it must retain its status as a "major collector." Unlike ·~ the Denali Highway, the McCarthy Road is cons ide red an "uncon­ "i! I. il structed" road.. Therefore, if the State classifies the road as a "major collector", (the State is currently revising its func­ ~•I .I 1 tional classification system), it must commit to construct ~he road as a secondary route. Construction to secondary standards would certainly change the scenic and recreational experiences the road now offers. Improving the quality of the driving

surfac~ and bridges may be considered a benefi~ial change by some, but not others. The consultant working on the DNR scenic resources inventory judged that making significant changes in the road, such as drastically altering the alignment or significantly widening the road and clearing vegetation, could have a negative impact on the scenic values and the recreational experience of

driving the road. Construction and maintenance as a secetu~a ry highway would almost certainly increase traffic on the road. r 1.: The McCarthy area is a highly mineralized area, as evidenced by the Kennecott Copper Mine (now inactive) and numerous gold mines. Nearer to Chitina is a mineralized ai'ea containing chromium, I nickel, copper and platinum. There are no large scale mining l operations at present. The known remaining copper deposits are Ij ! gene~ally high quality-low quantlty or high quantity-low quality. I' There is low pr obab ili ty of another Kennecott. In general, the t L 53 I

I) .~ --.'~"- '\\\ ~ IJ other mineral deposits around McCarthy are small and well I scattered. However, as the price of these minerals rises, so does the likelihood that mining claims will be more strongly I explo:itedo

There is very limLted grazing or farming j~ the area due to the nature of the soil and climate. Some of the forest may potentially be of commercial quality. The impacts of any II harve3ting are unknown, but heavy truck traffic would affect the condition of thP. road.

A Scenic Highway designati~n should not interfere with the operation or management of the Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve. Planning for the Park is ongoing, and the I wilderness areas of the Park are away from the road. If at some I' J future time the 'Nat:ional Park Service were to select a primary entrance and develop a visitor facility inside the Park, a Scenic Highway designation on the McCarthy Road may influence that decision.

Finally, if a s c en 1 c highway de sign a t ion c au s e s t r a f f i c on the road to increase significantly, it 'tvill negatively impact the seclusion sought by many of those now living there.

:.:K 1. ~~ As with the other highway segments the entire range of alter­ natives for a scenic highway were ,considered under the "designa­ ',, I! tion" alternative.

Regardless of which alternative Congress may choose pursuant to section 1311 of ANILCA, there is a recognized need in Alaska to manage the outstanding historic resource values found along the 63 mile McCarthy Road. A cooperative planning tffort is being undertaken within Alaska to coordinate land use plans and I. concerns within various Federal, State, J..ocal and private agencies.

54

''· ,r,· -- .. -,,~.r--·:---,----~~-----.... ~--·-;-,. ..

- '/ > '>- I "'-'" ~.J '>~.. ~, '".-'t. ; ' ,_ i I

ALTERNATIVE'S

11 Alternatlve-1 - No designation. Alternatlve-2 - Designation.

The cost associated with this alternative is $45,000,000 in 1985 IJ dollars. It is an estimate for construction to a safe and modern standard wi't'hout paving, and includes replacement of deficient 'i 11 bridges" j PREFERRED.ALTERNATIVE·&-RATIONALE l l No Designation. i Alternative- I ~ l.. j

The Study Group unanimously agreed that the McCarthy Road should 11 -not be recommended as a National Scenic Highway for the following reasons:

1. tana~·awnersti1p - while almost ent:trely within the external boundaries of Wrangel-St. Elias National Park, the ownership of the lands immediately adjacent to the road (See Table 1 and Map 6) are, infact, predominately non-Federal.

2. Exls't1ng··Autiior1'ty -_From a Federal perspective the National l Park Service (NPS) has the authority and is mandated by law I to manage this park as a wilderness park. As such it is the intent of the NPS to manage the park lands adjacent to the I. McCarthy Road for their natural scenic and recreational values. Further, the State of Alaska has existing authority to manage the road and its right-of-way as they so choose.

3. Cobpefifl~~-NihK~ifu~fit As is the case with the other highway corridors in their study, an effort to initiate (] cooperative managment of this highway segment among I l IJ 55 various land managers is underway. It was felt by the Study Group thac this method of interagency, cooperative planning and management could enhance the scenic and recreational

~'.I opportunities along these routes without a requirement of a fo.rmal Federal designation. The effort should be direct­ ed, it was felt, under the auspice& of the Alaska Land Use Council. ~· During numerous public meetings held in communities adjacent to the study corridor, there was over­ II' i whelming public opposition to creation of a National Scenic ] Highway System in Alaska (See Appendix B). { I.J' It is, therefore, the unanimous recommendation of the Study Group

1,!., 1.J that the McCarthy Road not be designated a National Scenic Highway. -

:,t 1'l ., ;'· 1... J

.~., 1.1 [ [ [ l t [ [ 56 l I I I

II.J I

III 1 .. , .I IJ

l lli ·' APPENDIXES I''J ",.t

~-I!,,. ~ J

,, 1·1"~ ) IJ

~~.,_..,\

----:)

1: l':· ""<'Jir

I:

1.1

">¢I' ,;'

I. 57 ;:'" l {I . 0,

I

f APPENDIX A I I BIBLIOGRAPHY 11 Dessauer, P.Fv; Harvey, D.W. An historical resource study of the Valdez creek mining district, Alaska--1977 (J.L. Beck, editor). Anchorage, AK: U.S~ Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage District Office; 1980; WIOIE report No~ 24610.

Jones and Jones. Scenic and recreational highway st:ldy, prepared for the Legislative Transportation Committee. Olympia, WA: State of Washington; 1974.

I Jones and Jones. An inventory and evaluation of the environmental, aesthetic and recreational resources of the Upper Susitna River, Alaska, final report. Anchorage, AK: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska I District; 1975; Contract No. DACW85-74-C-0057. Logsdon, C.L., et al. Copper River - Wrangalls socioeconomic overview. Report prepared by the Institute of Social and Economic Research of I the University of Alaska for the U.S$ Forest Service. Alaska: U.S. Department of Agriculture with the University of Alaska; circa I 1976. Matanuska-Suaitna Borough. Background report~ comprehensive plan, Matanuska­ I Susitna Borough. Palmer, AK: 1978. Milepost, The Anchorage, AK: Alaska Northwest Publishing Company; 1982.

Miller, W.D.; Auberman, R.; Fletcher, R.C. The Denali Highway information plan for the Bureau of Land Management. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University; 1976.

Pragnell, R.C. Scenic road: A basis for its pl&nning, design and management. Washington, D.C.: u.s. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; 1970; Engineering Technical Report ETR-770Q-2.

I Shane, B.A. et al. The Wrangell Mountains: Toward an environmental plan. Santa Cruz, CA: University of California Environmental Studies I. Office; 1973. State of Alaska, Department of Commerce and Economic Development. Alaska Visitor Industry: A summary. Juneau, AK: Division of Economic I Enterprise' 1978. State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources. Susitna River basin: Resource bibliography, 197 7. Supplement by Davy Lockhart, 1979.

State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources. Susitna basin land use/ recreation atlas. Anchorage, AK: Division of Research and I... _..,,~: Development; 1980 • l 58 l I I State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources. Scenic Resources along the Parks Highway. Anchorage, AK: Division of Research and Development, I Land and Resource Planning Section; 1981.

State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources. Denali to Wrangell-St. I Elias: assessment and management of scenic resources along the highways between Denali and Wrangell-St. Elias National Parks, prepared by D.L. Kuklok et al. for Alaska Department of Natural I Resources. Anchorage, AK: 1982a. Unpublished draft supplied by Alaska DNR.

State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources. Final report: Roadside I recreational facilities study, Richardson Highway-M82.6 to Ml85.5. Anchorage, AK: Alaska Department of Natural Resources; 1982b; No. I cc 10-0901. State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources. Land use issues and pr.eli­ minary resource inventory: Vol. 1 of 2, planning background report. I Matanuska-Susitna--Beluga Cooperative Planning Program; 1982c. State of Alaska; Joint Federal-State Land Use Planning Commission for Alaska. Alaska regional profiles, Vol. 1, Southcentral region; edited by I Lydia Selkregg. Anchorage, AK: State of Alaska; 1974. State of Alaska, Department of Transportation. Location study report, I Cantwell to Paxson, Denali Highway. Fairbanks, AK: Alaska Depart­ ment of Transportation, Interior Region Reconnaissance Section; 1981; Project RS-0750(1)

I State of Alaska, Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. Six year transportation improvement program, fiscal years 1983 1988, Assembled by Statewide Policy Section Southeast Region, Planning and Programming. Alaska: Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities; 1982a.

State of Alaska, Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. Compila- I tion of highway and maintenance costs. Fairbanks, AK: 1982b; Report No. AK-RD-82-16.

I State of Arizona, Department of Transportation. Guidelines for the establish­ ment of parkways and historical and scenic roads (Draft). Roadside r I Development Services, Highway Division. ) State of California, Depart~nt of Public Works. The scenic route: A guide for the official designation of eligible scenic highyays. I Sacramento, CA: 1970; 81219-500-11-70. f I I Sta.:e of Nebraska, the Board of Public Roads. Procedures for classifications I. and standards; Minimum design standards. Lincoln, NE: 1981. State of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation and Department of Environ­ mental Resources. Guidelines to improve the aesthetic quality of roads in Pennsylvania. Harrisburg, PA: State of Pennsylvania; 1978. I. 59 f' l I I. --it ~~r 1 ·'>'ll· J·,~~" ,., .. •:-..·r·~.. ~.::cJ:{_: )_:;:.;, I

-I State of Tennessee, Department of Transportation. Tennessee parkway plan. Nashville, TN: Tennessee Department of Transportation, Bureau of I Planning and Development; 1982. State of Vermont. Designating Scenic Roads: A Vermont field guideo Montpelie-r, VT: Vermont Scenery Preservation Council and Vermont I Transportation Board; 1979o

U. S . Department of Agr ic ul tu re, Forest Service. Evaluation criteria fo "'t' the location and design of the proposed Highland Scenic Highway in I Monongahela National Forest, West Virginia. Elkins, WV: Forest Service; 1964 July. I U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Talladega Scenic Drive recre­ ation management composite.. Montgomery, AL: National Forests in Alabama; 1968o

I U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Final environmental state­ ment, proposed Wrangell Mountains National Forest, Alaskae I Washington: GPO; 1973. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest. Copper River- Wrangells area guide, I preliminary. Anchorage, AK: Alaska Region; 1977. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Final E.I.S., Highland Scenic Highway study. Draft EIS, 1981. Elkinsi WV: Forest Service, I Monongahela National Forest; 1982. U.S. Department of Commerce. A proposed program for scenic roads and park- ways. Prepared for the President's Council on Recreation and I· Natural Beauty. Washington, DC: GPO; 1966.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Budget. Mallual: Scenic roads and I parkways study. Washington, DC: Bureau of the Budget; 1964; No. 41-6454.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Management frame­ I work plan: Chitina Valley. (unpublished) Available for reference at the Anchorege District Office, Bureau of Land Management; 1973. I u.s. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Interim cultural resource management plan for the Tangle Lakes Archeological District, first draft; by J .L. Beck. Anchorage, AK: Anchorage I District Office, BLM; 1979. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Visual resource management program. Washington, D.C.: Bureau. of Land Management, I Divison of Recreation and Cultural Resoruces; 1980a; GPO No. 024- 011-00116-6. I u.s. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Management frame­ work plan: Southcentral planning area. Anchorage, AK: Anchorage District Office; 1980b. Available at Anchorage District Office, I Bureau of Land Management, 4700 E. 72nd Ave., Anchorage, AK 99507. 60

__ ,., (I I I

I State of Tennessee, Department of Transportation. Tennessee parkway plan. Nashville, TN: Tennessee Department of Transportation, Bureau of I Planning and Development; 1982. State of Vermont. Designating Scenic Roads: A Vermont field guide. Montpelier, VT: Vermont Scenery Preservation Council and Vennont I Transportation Board; 1979.

U.S. Department of Agricult1.lre, Forest Service. Evaluation criteria for the location and design of the proposed Highland Scenic Highway in I Monongahela National Forest, West Virginia. Elkins, WV: Forest Service; 1964 July. I U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Tallaiega Scenic Drive recre­ ation management composite. Montgomery, AL: National Forests in Alabama; 1968.

I U.S. Depa:-tment of Agriculture, Forest Service. Final environmental state­ ment, proposed Wrangell Mountains National Forest, Alaska. I Washington: GPO; 1973. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest. Copper River- Wrangells area guide, I preliminary. Anchorage, AK: Alaska Region; 1977. U.S. Department of Agriculture, For~st Service. Final E.I.S., Highland Scenic Highway study. Draft E~S, 1981. Elkins, WV: Forest Service, I Monongahela National Forest; 1982. U.S. Department of Commerce. A proposed program for scenic roads and park­ ways. Prepared for the President's Council on Recreation and I· Natural Beauty~ Washington, DC: GPO; 1966. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Budget. Manual: Scenic roads and I parkways study. Washington, DC: Bureau of the Budget; 1964; No. 41-6454.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bur:~au of Land Management. Management frame­ I work plan: Chitina Valley. (unpublished) Available for reference at the Anchorage District Office, Bureau of Land Mana&ament; 1973. I u.s. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Inter.tm cultural resource management plan for the Tangle Lakes Archeological District, first draft; by J .L. Beck. Anchorage, AK: Anchorage I District Office, BLM; 1979. U.S. DepartmenL of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Visual resource management program. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Land Management, 'I Divison of Recreation and Cultural Resoruces; 1980a; GPO No. 024- 011-00116-6. I u.s. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Management frame­ work plan: Southcentral planning area. Anchorage, AK: Anchorage District Office; 1980b. Available at Anchorage District Office, I Bureau of Land Management, 4700 E. 72nd Ave., Anchorage, AK 99507 • .60

~n::-:~:.:-~--:-:--;:;--:_-·-~·~--:.,.,.--:-·-----·-··--,c,:--~----·--,;;~-·--·--·~------~---~-·------·--·-"·------,-.---·--·-·----~------·- ~,~.- ----~ I I

U o S. Departm~nt of the Interior, Bureau of Land l"'anagement. BLM land use plan I for Southcentral Alaska: A summary., Anchorage, AK: Anchorage District Office, BLM; 1980c. I U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Draft amendment to the Southcentral Alaska Land-Use Plan for the Denali/Tiekel I planning blocks. Anchorage, AK: Anchorage District Office; 1982. U.S. Department of the Int~rior, National Park Service. Sleeping Bear Dunes: Scenic road study~ Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore, I Michigan: 1977. U.S. Department of Transportation. Manual: National scenic highway study. I Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation; 1974. U.S. Department of Transportation; State of Alaska Department of Transporta­ tion. Environmental assessment Big Timber to Paxson, mile 129-186, Richardson Highway. Juneau, AK: Federal Highway Administration; I 1982a; Project RF-071-3(4).

U.S. Department of Transportation; SLate of Alaska Department of Transporta­ I tion. Environmental assessment, Cantwell to Paxson, Denali Highway. Juneau, AK: Federal Highway Administration; 1982b; Pt'oject RS-0750 (1).

I United States, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Workshops on Alaska National Interest Lands. Washington, D.C.: 1978; Senate I Publication 95-153. United States, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Alaska National Interest Lands. Washington, D.C.: 1979; Senate Report I 96-413. I I I I I I I 6 1

.,.. (, I I APPENDIX B PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT I The public involvement process employed in the Denali Scenic I Highway Study was first outlined by a scoping team working under the auspices and direction of the Alaska Land Use Council (ALUC). I That plan consisted of five basic components: 0 inform the public of the study and solicit comments and •.·· I questions in an effort to have those concerned parti­ I cipate in the project, 0 analyze and use those comments received, I 0 distribute the draft study report to the public,

I 0 conduct formal public hearings to gather comments, and

I 0 analyze and respond to those comments in the final I study report. The first step, informing the public and requesting input, was I done in conjunction with the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF) and the National Park Service (NPS)o It included printing and distributing an information I brochure and questionnaire, compiling a mailing list, and holding

public meetings in communities along the route. The q<-H~stion­ I naires ware distributed by, and returned to, the DOT&PF? and the public meetings were held in association with the DOT&PF's public I meetings for regional planning. A schedule of the meetings held is in Table B-1. The formal public hearings, to elicit comments I on the dr·aft study and the accompanying environmental statementt were to be held at Cantwell and Copper Center. ll The first series of public meetings sho~red very strong and wide­ I spread opposition to a Federal scenic highway in any form. The 62 I

h I I overriding feeling expressed by those attending the meetings was I that people fear that a Federal designation will ultimately lead to land use restrictions and loss of private properties, I regardless of assurances to the contrary. Therefore, nearly everyone attending the meetings was very much against the scenic highway designation. General distrust of the Federal Government I was voiced. A petition was signed by almost 500 people against a scenic highway designation because "the proposed withdrawal will I cause severe hardships to long time residents, hunters, fishermen, and campers who love these lands and care for them." I The most vocal, overwhelming r.ejections of a scenic highway designation came from the communities of Paxson, Chitina, and I Glennallen. Representatives from Paxson traveled over 150 miles to an ALUC meeting in Anchorage strictly to voice opposition to I the designation.

I There were many questions raised about what effect a scenic highway designation would have. While some voiced the feeling I that their input would have no impact on the final recommendation and decision most people were anxious to be kept informed and to I have continued input into the study efforts.

Nevertheless, most people recognized a need for better road I maintenance, and agreed that these roads (as well as most roads in Alaska) are scenic. Also, several lodge owners and workers indicated that they would welcome more tourism, and that the poor condition of the Denali Highway was a definite deterrent to visitors. Others noted a need for more dump facilities and "cleaning up" after tourists.

The questionnaire which was distributed at the meetings and mailed out waa prepared to determine what people thought a scenic IJ highway was or should be, and what qualities and impacts people associated with such a scenic highway. A number of those who , I. attended the public meetings objected, because many of the

E, 63 I --·· I I

questions assum~cl the existence of a scenic highway, and they I expressed the fear that any answer could be interpreted as aupport for a designation. It was made clear that they weren't I interested in saying what a national scenic highway should be, only that they didn't want one. Approximately 350 of the I questi.cnnaires were returned, and while they have not been analyzed statistically, each one has been read. The following I summarizes the information from the responses. The most objectionable land use along a scenic highway is a large I scale commercial development such as a shopping center or fac­ tory, whereas small scale commercial developments (e.g. stores, I gas stations or restaurants) are quite acceptable. The Denali Highway and the McCarthy Road were considered by most to "qualify" I as scenic highways, even though a national designation may be undesireable. The Richardson and Edgerton Highways were gener­ ally consldered much less scenic. The majority of respondents I could see both advantages and disadvaetages for corridor resi­ dents of a scenic highway designation, but corridor residents I envisioned threats to their existing lifestyle more often than they envisioned advantages. For the tourist, a scenic highway I designation was seen also as having both advantages and disadvan­ tages. About half of the respondents not living in or near the I corridor agreed that long term protection of the significant qualities or resource values in the corridor would enhance the experience of tourists, wh.i.le almost no one from the corr.idor I agreed with that viewpoint. Nearly half of those living in the I corridor added strong comments against a national designation. As a result of these first public meetings, the public involve­ ment plan was strengthened by scheduling public meetings in the communities virtually every other month. Public meetings were also held in Anchorage and Fairbanks. In response to the concern and questions raised during the first series of public meetings, a video tape was produced in which the Federal Co-chairman of the ALUC, the Commissioner of the DOT&PF, the Regional Director of the NPS, Ahtna's General Manager and others responded to some of the most commonly asked questions. 64

I I At more recent p\lblic meetings, even though opposition to a I Federal scenic highway still was predominant, some individuals noted that on Federal lands, such a designation may be preferable I ta other decisions (i.e., National Park classification) that would affect their lifestyle more adversely.

I In summary, there was significant opposition to any Federal I designation for the following reasons: A.) Basic distrust of the Federal Government I B.) "Nationaln designations in Alaska have already brought significant and unwelcomed land use restrictions. I I I I I I I I I I I E 65 II ()' I

Table B-1 Schedule of Public M~etings I ' I DATE PLACE I June 14,1982 Gakona, Alaska June 15 Copper Center ·J June 15 Glennallen I June 16 Chitina ..Tune 17 Kenny Lake I June 22 Paxson June 23 Cantwell I June 29 McCarthy Sept 27 McKinley Park Village October 1 Paxson I October 4 Glennallen October 5 Chitina I October 6 Kenny Lake October 8 Fairbanks I October 12 McCarthy November 9 Fairbanks I November 11 Anchorage December 15 Glennallen I December 16 Kenny Lake February 17 t 1983 Talkeetna I March 11 Fairbanks March 12 Cantwell (k March 14 Anchorage I March 16 Glennallen March 17 Paxson I March 21 Chitina March 22 Kenny Lake I IJ IJ 66 ' I • .: I 'r.- ;_

0 "

I APPENDIX C I PUBLIC LAW 96-k.~-DEC. 2. 1980 I 16U8C~. I I I' I I I I I = ~ .. I I 11 I' I

II 67

I I I i\PPENDIX~D STUDY' ORGANIZATION I I

I Wayne Boden -U.s. Bureau of Land Management (Chairman) Chuck Budge -National Park Service I Chuck Chappell -Federal Hi~hway Administration Robert Venusti -Alaska Department of Transportation and I Public Facilities Reed Stoops -Alaska Department of Natural Resources Sterling Eide -Alaska Department of Fish and Game I Charles Hubbard -Cantwell Shareholder Association Martin Finnesand -Chitnia Native Corporation I' Herbert Smelcer -Athna, Inc. I Mac Stevens ~Matanuska-Susitna Borough

I ['. Cary Brown -u.s. Bureau of Land Management (Project Leader) ~ Joan Gidlund -National Park Service il Charles Howard -Federal Highway Administration John Martin -Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities I Dave Watsjold -Alaska Department of Fish and Game Al Meiners -Alaska Department of Natural Resources I Bill Beaty -Alaska Department of Natural Resources Lee Adler -Ahtna, Inc. I I I 6S

I ---...... ~ I I I APPENDIX"E I !_OUNDARIESj"ADMINISTRATIONi- COSTs;· AND. LEGISLA~~ I The Act required that the boundaries, the administration, the cost, and appropriate legislation be provided if a recommendation was made for the designation of a National Scenic Highway. I Since the Study Group has not recommended National designation the above information is unnecessary and therefore is not I included in this report. I I I I I I ~ I I I I ll --·- I 0 Q o- I I ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Denali National Scenic Highway Study

I I. Purpose of and Need for Action

The purpose of the study is to recommend to Congress the desirability of I establishing a Denali Scenic Highway in Alaska pursuant to Section 1311 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). This legis­ lation withdrew all federal public lands along a 500 mile corridor and I directed the Secretary of Interior to study the withdrawn lands and con­ sider:

-the scenic and recreational values of the lands withdrawn for this I study; ·-the desirability of enhancing the experience of persons traveling between national parks in Southcentral Alaska; and, I -tpe desirability of providing a symbolic and actual physical connection between ·national parks in Southcentral Alaska~ I Overall lead and coordination was delegated to the Alaska Land Use Council (ALUC) by the Secretary. The ALUC through an interdisciplinary team prepared the Draft Study Report. The Secretary must report his findings to the President by December 2, 1983. For further information regardi~g the purpose and need for I th:.s study, refer to "A Study To Determine The Desirability of Creating The Denali National Scenic Highway, Draft", May 1983 (Study Report), prepared under the auspices of the Alaska Land Use Council.

II. Alternatives

A. Background

~NILCA Section 1311 withdrew all federal public lands within one mile of ei t:1er s.ide of the centerline along approximately 500 miles of existing highways and roads in the State of Alaska along the Parks, Denali, Rich<~.rdson, and Edgerton Highways and the McCarthy Road. The Secretary was directed to study these public lands to determi.ne the desirability of creating a scenic highway.

The vast majority of these federal public lands lie along the Denali Highway. None of the other highways or roads have significant amounts of federal public land along t.heir routes. (Study Report, T.able 1, page 13). Consequently, for the purposes of an environmental assess­ ment, the Proposed Action pertains only to the Denali Highway.

B. Formulation

At the outset of the study it was hoped that a National Scenic Highway could be defined and that certain criteria ~auld be developed. In this way it was felt that it would be a fairly simple job to compare the characteristics of the various highways and roads in the study corridor against the criteria used for defining a Nat­ ional Scenic Highway. This comparison would then enable a decision to be made as to whether all or portion of the ccrridor qualified as a National Scenic Highway.

I ,~

I

Unfortunately, the task of defining a National Scenic Highway proved I much more complex. Numerous state and federal agencies as well as the general public were contacted so that objective criteria for a Nat­ ional Scenic Highway could be developed. (Study Report, Table 2, I pages 15-13, and Table B-1). However, a range of definitions was received. This was a result of different state, federal and private management objectives as well as different missions among the agencies within these groups. Consequently, it was decided for the purposes of I the Study Report that a range of definitions was the only appropriate way to define a National Scenic Highway (Study Report, pages 16-18).

I c. Alternatives Considered

For the purposes of preparing an environmental assessment and being I consistent with the Study Report, two alternatives will be considered for the Denali Highway. These are No. 1, No Designation (the proposed action) and No. 2, Designation.

I No Designation

This alternative is the proposed action. The Denali Hig~way would be managed under existing local, state and federal authorities. It is proposed that all agencies involved with the management of land, resources or facilities along the Denali Highway explore cooperative management opportunities. To date numerous studies have been com­ pleted by these agencies, however, no cooperative management plans have been undertaken.

Existing federal proposals for management of the Denali Highway area are outlined in the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Hanagement Framework Plan (MFP)prepared in 1980. This plan recommends develop­ ment of an interpretive program for the Denali Highway using as a guideline the Denali Highway Study prepared for BL~ in 1976 by Colo­ rado State University (Study Report, p~ges 42 and 43). The Colorado State study discusses signs, pamphlet programs, visitor information centers~ and interpretive pullouts. Cooperative management is listed as a support opportunity for this MFP recommendation.

The State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT/PF) has prepared in 1981a Location Study Report and an Environ­ mental Assessment for a proposal to upgrade the Denali Highway. The DOT/PF proposal calls for construction of turnouts, boat launching ramps, and service and interpretive signing (Denali Highway Cantwell to Paxson, Environmental Assessment pages 9 and 10). Further it states " ••. the Denali Highway is a most scenic route and the Depart­ ment of Transportation and Public Facilities intends to treat it as such •.• " (Location Study RepC)rt, page 5).

j The scenic resources of the Denali Highway were inventoried by the \ Department of Natural Resources i.n 198 2. This inventory was con­ ! j tracted to D. L. Kuklok and is generally referred to as the Kuklok 1~ Report. l ~· I ! 2 I

I .. -,

I

The above studies and plans can be used as a reference po~nt: for I pursuing cooperative planning and management for the Denali Highway. However, it is not proposed that any of these studies or plans actu­ I ally be implemented at this time. Designation

This alternative calls for a formal N~tional Designation of the Denali I Highway as a National Scenic Highway. Since, as mentioned earlier, a scenic highway consists of a range of possibilities, three represen­ I tative scenarios will be examined. Scenario No. 1 - Under this scenario, it is proposed that there be a formal designation; however, the only on-the-ground work would be that I of signing. Scenario No. 2 - In addition to formal designation .and signing, up­ grading of the road and construction of pullouts and visitor inter­ I pretive facilities similar to developed rest stops .would be estab­ lished.

Scenario No. 3 - In addition to those items contained in Scenarios No. 1 and No. 2, this scenario provides for resurfacing and realignment as well as land use restrictions on adjacent federal lands and right-of- .way use restrictions.

III .. Affected Environment

Existing scenic, recreational and other resource values of the Denali Highway are discussed in detail in the Study Report (pages 37-45). The area along the Denali Highway is exceptional for sightseeing and photo­ graphy, not only because of the beautiful views, but also because of the opportunity to see wildlife and to view unique geologic features such as a melting pingo, kettle lakes and eskers. Wildlife in the area includes caribou (Part of the Nelchina herd crosses the area in late August.) , moose, bear, beave17, porcupine, ptarmigan and swan. The Denali Highway passes through the Tangle Lakes Archeological District and near the town­ site of Denali where gold was discovered on Valdez Creek in 1903. Tangle Lakes and many of the small streams along the Denali Highway of fer good fishing. Numerous canoe trails, off-road vehicle trails, and foot trails may be reached from the Denali Highway. The area is heavily hunted in the fall.

For further information on the affected environment, refer to the Study Report, pages 37-45 and the Environmental A~sessment prepared by DOT/PF for the Denali Highw~y (DOT/PF E.A.) pages 16-26.

The social environment is 1irectly affected by the Study. There is over­ whelming local public opposition to any form of National Scenic Highway designation, however, AHTNA, Inc., has voiced support for such a designa­ I tion (Study Report, pages 47 and 62-65). I. I 3 ,,

I

I IV. Environmeutal Consequences A. No Designation I This alternative is the proposed action; thus the Denali Highway area would be managed under existing authorities. The environmental conse­ quences associated with these proposals are adequately addressed in DOT/PF Environmental Assessment for the Deuali Highway. These impacts I may be summarized as follows:

a) Vegetation - Losses of vegetation would result from approximately I eight miles of realignment. Construction of new turnouts would '·.-:, impact one to nine acres of vegetation per turnout. There ar.e approximately 90 turnouts at present. Several new ones would be I constructed, however. Temporary vegetation loss would occur at material source and construction camp sites. (DOT/PF E.A. pages 9 and 16)

I b) Wildlife According to the DOT/PF Environmental Assessment, impacts upon wildlife are not quantifiable (page 16). Bridge and cutout replacement and put-in construction could increase the I silt load and impact the fisheries. This is a short term impact and would be mitigated by construction timing. There would be a long term benefit because of replacerner. t of poorly placed or inadequately sized culverts that presentl} restrict fish passage (DOT/PF E.A. page 16).

There is a possibility of interruption of ~elchina herd caribou migrations across the Denali Highway. However, due to high-y;ay construction timing it is unlikely that cons t_ruction would occur during caribou migration periods (DOT/PF E.A. page 18).

c) Subsistence - The DOT/PF environmental assessment does not pro­ ject any adverse impacts on subsistence use (page 18).

d) Hater - Bridge and culvert replacement, new culve.rt installaticn and boat ramp construe tion would impact the water resources. There would be unavoidable temporary stream siltation. Cutbanks resulting from construction would be resloped and reveget:.-tted (DOT/PF E.A. page 19)o

Less than one acre of wetlands would be directly impacted by proposed project realignments. Each stream crossin6 involves less than one acre of wetland (DOT/PF E • .A. page 19).

No flood plain development, incompatible with natural or bene­ ficial flood plain values, is expected to result from the project (DOT/PF E.A. page 20, Table 3).

e) Air - Proposed construction activl.ty would temporarily increasQ both dust and emissions. Pollutants from construction equipment I or from projected traffic would not be sufficient to jeopardize air quality standards (DOT/PF E.A. page 20). I 4

-·-~·" I I

f) Noise - Project c.cnstruction would produce a temporary increase I in existing noise levels due to equipment operation. No federal, state, or local noise ordinance is or would be viclated from vehicle ncise emissions of present or projected traffic volumes (DOT/PF E.A. pages 20 and 21).

g) Visual - An improved roadway surface and construction of adequate I turnouts would enhance viewscapes. There would be temporary negative visual impacts (e.g .. » dust, construction equipment operation, surface disturbances) created by project construction activity. These could be controlled to some e~tent by watering I (DOT/PF E.A. page 22)

h) Recreation - Numerous outdoor recreation opportunities exist I along the Denali Highway. Figures indicate that during a 7 5 day period in the summer of 197 5, 6400 groups (averaging 3. 2 persons per group) travelled the Denali Highway to gain access to recre­ I ation areas. Recreation impacts from project construction activ­ ity would be temporary. Recreation benefits would result from safer and more turnouts, put-ins letter barrels, and informa­ I tional and interpretiv·e signing (DOT/PF E.A. page 23). B. Designation

Scenario No. 1 -Under this scenario it is proposed there be a Nation­ al Desi&nation 0f the Denali Highway. The only proposed on-the-ground work would be that of erecting signs. Therefore the impact to the physical environment would consist only of the digging of numerous post holes for the signs. The signs would be designed so as to be aesthetically pleasing. Thus the vegetation where the signs are placed would receive the only impact.

The major impact under this scenario is to the social environment. A National Designation in any form is contrary to local public opinion. The people living along the route are concerned about the "foot in the door" tactic and are wary of future impacts and restrictions in their lifestyle. They cite the Blueridge Parkway in the "Lower 48" which started out as a "scenic highway" as e.n example. Today there are adjacent land-use, speed, and class of vehicle restrictions. (Study Report pages 62-65).

Scenario No. 2 - This scenario calls for a National Designation and upgrading comparable to that contained in the DOT/PF proposal. Con­ sequently the environmental impacts associated with this scenario are adequately addressed under the ·"No Designation" alternative. The negative social 1.mpacts associated with this scenario are addressed under scenario No. 1 aboveo

Scenario No. 3 - This scenario may be viewed as giving rise to the most l:'§Strictive land-use. The impacts to the environment discussed under the "No Designation" alternative would be applicable. In all liklihood, these impacts may be greater because of the possibility of resurfacing the highway •. •I I 5

--·~ I I

Once again, the greatest impact would be to the social environment. I This scenario posits the very thing the local residents are so vehe­ mently opposed toG In addition to a formal National Designation, there would be restrictions c~ adjacent land use. The Secretary could I withdraw the lands in order to protect the viewshed. There could be restrictions on the class of vehicle whic~ used the highway. Howevert I optimum protection would be afforded to the scenic resources, Comparison of Alternatives

As can be seen fom the above discussion, the environmental impacts asso­ I ciated with the various alternatives and scenarios are basically the same 0 except to the socio-economic environment. I There is a significant difference between the No Designation and Designa­ tion alternatives, however. This difference lies in the pullic opinions associated with the two alternatives. (Study Report pages 46 and 47)

I Under the No Designation Alternative the resources of the area could be adequately protected under existing authority. (Study Report pages 46 and I 47) VIo Consultation and Coordination • I) I This Environmental Assessment was prepared in conjunction with uA Study To Detennine The Desirability Of Creating A Denali National Scenic Highway." For the relationship of this action to related plans and studies on ad­ jacent lands, efforts to obtain public involvement, list of preparers and I list of agencies and persons consulted refer to that study. I I

'I I a r' a t ,~,~

I I I 6

__ ... I