Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutYukon-Kuskokwim Freight and Energy Corridor Plan May 2015portage mountains corridor Cavteact ANcP a ACleSs ra Aare 2 — x Cae Yukon-Kuskokwim Freight and Energy Corridor Plan Prepared for Association of Village Council Presidents May 2015 v CH2MIHILL» AVCP Mission Statement Association of Village Council Presidents yuut aturyukngaitnek paivciluni ikayurluki yuungnaglerkaitnek cali allat yuut aturyukngait ellmegnek piyugngarillerkaitnek makut yuut atugekngait. Yuuyarait piciryarait-llu pingiinallerkaakun ellmegnek, ukut nunat ilakluki. The Association of Village Council Presidents provides human development, social services, and other culturally relevant programs for the people, to promote self-determination, protection, and enhancement of our culture and traditions through a working partnership with member villages of the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta. Contributors Michael J. Hoffman Executive Vice President Association of Village Council Presidents Clarence Daniel Transportation Department Director Association of Village Council Presidents Vivian Korthuis Vice President of Community Services Association of Village Council Presidents Marc Stemp Vice President of Business Development Association of Village Council Presidents Brent Latham Economic Development Coordinator Association of Village Council Presidents Steven R. Street Director/Archaeologist Association of Village Council Presidents Mike McKinnon Project Coordinator Principal McKinnon & Associates, LLC Derek Morse Economics and Business Case Analysis Morse Associates Consulting, LLC Kurt D. Wald Project Manager CH2M HILL James Potts P.E. Contract Manager CH2M HILL Joseph Taylor P.E. Lead Civil Engineer CH2M HILL Jacob Vesotski P.E. Roadway Geometrics CH2M HILL Bud Alto P.E. Pipeline Evaluation CH2M HILL Scot Lust P.E. Pipeline Evaluation CH2M HILL Denny Mengel, Ph.D. Environmental Analysis CH2M HILL John Barker P.E. Terrain Mapping CH2M HILL David Baker P.E. Hydraulics CH2M HILL losefa Matagi P.E. Hydrology CH2M HILL Colleen Richards Strategic Content Development CH2M HILL Leslie Bonneau Facilitation CH2M HILL Jake Gerondale, P.L.S. Survey and Mapping Lounsbury & Associates, Inc. June McAtee Land Status Evaluation Calista Corporation Jeff Foley Geology Calista Corporation John McDonald Video Production Principal H&M Productions Jonathan King Economic Analysis Northern Economics Cal Kerr Economic Analysis Northern Economics Michelle Humphrey Economic Analysis Northern Economics Rosetta Alcantra Public Involvement E3 Environmental, LLC Oscar Evon Public Involvement E3 Environmental, LLC Josephine Chingliak Public Involvement E3 Environmental, LLC Johanna Dreher Public Involvement E3 Environmental, LLC Lincoln Garrick Website Design Solstice Advertising AVCP utilized the Alaskan Native Science and Engineering Program (ANSEP) to place engineering students from the region with the Corridor Study Team. Engineering interns Christian Osentoski and Andrea Moreno supported many aspects of the engineering design activities. The interns were valuable assets to the Corridor Study Team and provided much more than engineering value to the effort. Their local knowledge and on-the-ground familiarity with the terrain and hydrology were assets to the completion of the corridor roadway design. The proposed corridor is located in Southwest Alaska near Kalskag and Lower Kalskag, about 90 miles northeast of Bethel on the Kuskokwim River. The proposed corridor would connect the Yukon and Kuskokwim rivers on the eastern side of the Portage Mountains. The northern terminus of the corridor is located about 20 miles southwest of Holy Cross on the Paimiut Slough, which is the lower portion of the Innoko River. Executive Summary Introduction Over the last several decades, the Association of Village Council Presidents (AVCP)/Calista Region communities have made significant advances on an array of education, health, public safety, social services, and housing issues. Advances also include improvements to transportation. New runways and navigation systems have improved safety for the region’s primary passenger/consumer products transport method, and in the last decade, there have been increases in road and barge landing projects that improve local transportation safety and efficiency. However, the high cost of shipping in heavy freight by barge—especially annual fuel supplies—continues to be an economic challenge and threatens the long-term viability of many villages (Exhibit ES-1). EXHIBIT ES-1 Map of Association of Village Council Presidents’ Member Communities and the Calista Region Bering Sea coastal waters and the Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers, provide year-round personal travel and seasonal barge-based commercial transport, but a number of local, subregional, and regional overland transport projects could improve heavy freight delivery. The most important regional project is overland transport in the Portage Mountains area, which could potentially TBG101614003935B0! Es-1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY combine Yukon and Kuskokwim fuel and freight markets, and position the region for the upcoming Alaska natural gas economy based in the state’s Railbelt region and accessed by the Yukon River. Routes between the two rivers in the project area have been in use since ancient times and remain active today. In the 1800s, when European and then American traders and miners came into the area, they began to use the winter trails and summer portages to move freight and mail. Through the early 1900s, the United States government looked at building a canal between the rivers west of the Portage Mountains with Bethel as the tidewater terminus, and then shifted to a road proposal in 1956. In 1981, the State of Alaska identified a road route, and in 2011, a Denali Commission- sponsored review of the 1956 and 1981 reports by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) resulted a new route that followed the western foothills of the Portage Mountains between Kalskag and Paimiut Slough (Exhibit ES-2). EXHIBIT ES-2 Study Area and Corridors Es-2 TBG101614003935BO! EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 2011, the Native Village of Kalskag, likely the southern terminus of a project in the area, requested AVCP Transportation Department use the Denali Commission report as the base for further project development. The village requested that AVCP lead the project, understanding that management and staff would fully integrate subsistence, culture, and commercial resources and values into project development tasks for long-term benefit of the region. Two key project goals identified in early discussions were to make the area ready for new railbelt- based refined fuel volumes that could result from a North Slope natural gas pipeline, and to provide an opportunity to combine Kuskokwim River and Yukon River fuel and freight markets to improve economy of scale. In 2012, AVCP used a $460,000 State of Alaska grant to complete a reconnaissance engineering report that identified new corridor options designed to meet current engineering and environmental standards with an emphasis on avoiding the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge), subsistence resources, and use areas. In 2013, AVCP, working with a $3,000,000 State of Alaska grant, hired a CH2M HILL team of engineers, economists, and scientists to begin the next step in project development, a Yukon- Kuskokwim Freight and Energy Corridor Plan (Corridor Plan). This work analyzed the transportation problem of high shipping costs from a multi-modal and multiple-energy source perspective. It included economic, environmental, and subsistence/cultural analyses at a detail level that would inform sound decision making, and be useful for bridging planning decisions with future National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) tasks. During Corridor Plan development, the AVCP/CH2M HILL team analyzed existing barge-based delivery systems; looked at overland transport methods, including road, rail, pipeline, and canal; and examined the region’s existing/projected social and economic conditions. From this early work, the team found that a public highway in the Portage Mountains area was the best transport method to meet project goals. The team then evaluated all practical routes between the rivers, finding that Corridor C, a route along the eastern flank of the Portage Mountains was best from engineering, environmental, and local use standpoints. The 44-mile route begins just upriver of Kalskag, traverses the east Portage Mountains foothills, and continues north across lowlands to a port site on Paimiut Slough, along a surveyed “dry” route. Plan Method The first task in a Corridor Plan model is to look at transport challenges from a multi-modal, and in this case, a multi-energy source perspective. The planning team developed a wide range of TBG101614003935B0! ES-3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY construction, operations, and energy source alternatives that might reduce fuel costs in the region’s communities. The Corridor Plan involved two screening levels: Level 1 Screening, an initial broad assessment, (outlined next), and examined concepts that might meet project purpose, need, and goals. Level 2 Screening selected a transport mode from 13 modal options. The final Level 2 Screening task was to select a corridor from five corridor options that best served the preferred transport mode. The project team then took that corridor to 30% design to provide the engineering detail needed for upcoming project development tasks. The team also developed recommendations for the next phase of project development. Level 1 Screening examined existing transport systems for ways to improve fuel and freight transport costs. In addition, this phase of work considered a range of other ideas and methods for achieving project goals, including: e Reduce fuel volumes through programs like super-insulated homes, state of the art power plants and other conservation efforts. While these have great promise, supply remains at volumes that would continue to challenge costs associated with barge-based transport networks. e Deliver fuel to a central power plant located on the Yukon River or Kuskokwim River and transport energy by wire to communities. The analysis showed that cost to construct and operate a wire-based system to small communities over long distances was not practical. e Use a new diesel and gasoline fuel source from Fairbanks-area refineries. Repowering refineries with North Slope natural gas could improve operation costs and expand capacity. These improvements could present barge operators the opportunity to ship fuel down the Yukon, across an overland connection and into the Kuskokwim area. This idea was not without its issues, but the sudden closure of Flint Hills Refinery removed it from consideration in the near-term. Future Fairbanks-area refinery construction or expansion could bring this model back into play. e Use a new fuel type. Importing containerized liquid natural gas into the region for power generation, heating, and motor fuel initially looked promising; however, recent studies indicate liquid natural gas would not be competitive with gasoline and diesel in rural regions of Alaska because of high capital costs for distribution systems, small markets, and long transport distances. Es-4 TBG101614003935BO! EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Level 1 Screening selected a new overland connection between the Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers for carrying into the Level 2 Screening. EXHIBIT ES-3 Sternwheeler and Barge Navigating the Paimiut Slough (UAF, 1920b) EXHIBIT ES-4 Sternwheeler Pushing a Barge and Entering the Paimiut Slough at the Confluence of the Yukon River (UAF, 1920a) TBG101614003935B0! ES-5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CORRIDOR E i s @ Legend Land Status © Towns BLM —~ «Rivers EES Private, Municipal, or Privately Owned BLM A Mountains Village Conveyed Future Infrastructure Alternatives HB viiage Selected ==" Corridor B Native Patented or Native Interim Conveyed =" Corridor C State Patented, State Tentatively Approved, or State and Native Owned = Corridor D HY Yuron Detta National Wildife Refuge —— Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge Boundary === Corridor E EXHIBIT ES-5 The Evaluated Corridors The Level 1 Screening decision to construct a new overland link between the rivers defined the next planning phase. Considering all potential transport modes, initial activities in the Level 2 Screening focused on identifying practical corridors between the rivers. The engineering and environmental teams developed four 2,000-ft-wide corridors that could meet project goals: B, C, D, and E (Exhibit ES-5). The 2,000-ft width is to provide design flexibility in future phases of project development. ES-6 TBG101614003935B0! EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Corridor A (shown as Route A in Exhibit ES-2) lies partially in the Refuge and traversed lowlands where road building would be challenging and access to building materials cost-prohibitive. It was not carried forward as a practical route for consideration in Level 2 Screening. The first step in Level 2 Screening was the modal choice of a public road as the most practical method to connect the two rivers. Other options that received extensive consideration included: e Stand-alone railroad. Area communities often prefer this mode for its ability to control new access into a region; however, the review showed that construction costs in the range of $8 million to $10 million a mile, and significant maintenance challenges make the option cost- prohibitive. e Stand-alone pipeline. This alternative is not a feasible public-sector investment, but may make sense under private ownership within the context of a public road that would allow cost-effective construction and maintenance. A fuel pipeline may be practical in a road corridor when commercial conditions exist. . ay C \~ Yukon Delta ee National Wildlife Refuge a i A A Portage Mountains AA CORRIDOR C A Chuathbaluk RO I SO! ; TEA S3F SE Aniak Se Kalskag_ 4 QAP Kushorwie ® “Wl ay e é 3 EXHIBIT ES-6 Recommended Corridor C Map TBG101614003935BO! Es-7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The second Level 2 Screening step selected Corridor C as most practical for construction and operations based on engineering standards, best practices and judgment, environmental sensitivity, consideration of land ownership, and key subsistence species and use factors. As noted in Exhibit ES-5, Corridor C begins just upriver from Kalskag on the Kuskokwim River, traverses the eastern foothills of the Portage Mountains with a northern terminus on Paimiut Slough, 8 miles upstream from the Yukon River. Paimiut Slough is the lower portion of the Innoko River. Corridor C is 44 miles in length, with a 300-foot elevation gain through the foothills. North of the Portage Mountains, the corridor traverses lowlands on a surveyed “dry route” to Paimiut Slough. A two-lane gravel road alignment in Corridor C would encounter gentle topographic relief requiring little excavation and embankment quantities. Roadway Alignment Development Prior to corridor selection, team engineers designed roadway typical sections for all corridors that minimized steep grades, excessive cuts and fills, and avoided major water crossings to the extent practical. The roadway section evaluated (Exhibit ES-6) is a 24-foot-wide gravel surfaced roadway that accommodates a design speed of 40 miles per hour. The vehicle used for design was the American Association of State and Highway Transportation Official’s (AASHTO’s) WB62, a semi-truck and single trailer combination, with an overall length of approximately 70 feet. The maximum grade on the vertical profile is limited to 8.0 percent, and the minimum horizontal curvature is limited to 600 feet. Center line 65 Mn aa) ‘ — 6 inches aggregate base course Onginal ground \ — 1 5-ft selected matenal, Type A 4 5t selected matenal, Type C Selected matenal. Type C EXHIBIT ES-7 Typical Section for Seasonally Flooded Lowlands Using digital terrain models, the engineers developed three-dimensional models for each corridor. This generated a cut-and-fill footprint for each alignment in each corridor. The Study Team’s environmental scientists then analyzed the cut-and-fill limits and footprints to identify potential impacts to sensitive areas, wetlands, subsistence use areas, and privately held Native allotments. Es-8 TBG101614003935B0! EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This approach treated each corridor similarly during the design process, allowing reasonable comparisons between the corridors. Economic Benefits As part of the overall economic analysis, team economists estimated the economic impacts of construction and operations and maintenance (O&M) Corridor C. For the assessment, they used direct output (funds spent directly for labor and goods for road building) and indirect and induced output (the additional spending that occurs in an economy, measured as multipliers of direct spending). The estimated $100 million construction spending would generate $179 million in statewide economic benefit (rounded). Public Outreach and Context Sensitive Project Development Community input was critical to the Corridor Plan success. AVCP used a regional conversation approach to public involvement that helped define and refine the concepts for Level 1 Screening and confirm Level 2 Screening had come to the correct conclusions. The interaction between the project team and the region’s residents and agencies helped set the stage for engineering, economic, and environmental studies that successfully captured regional goals of fuel and freight transport within the context of important regional commercial, subsistence, and cultural resources values. Corridor planning public involvement also reached out to state and federal agencies to help determine major issues. The planning team used the following tools to ensure public access: e Public meetings including village meetings, and regional and statewide open houses and workshops e Property owner meetings and stakeholder interviews e Project website, http://y-kconnection.com/ e Project update postcards, e-mails, and newsletters e Project brochure and media information packets and news releases e Display boards, fact sheets, and handouts e Presentations Throughout the Corridor Study process, public input guided evaluation of and consideration of a range of important issues, particularly those related to subsistence use areas and resources. TBG101614003935B0! Es-9 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Corridor Plan Recommendation Based on the results of the Level 1 and Level 2 Screenings, a road with public access in Corridor C was determined to be the overall best method to meet project goals. It is clear from economic analyses that the region’s small markets and the current absence of natural gas pipeline benefits preclude construction in the near-term; however, the project may be beneficial in the future, as markets grow or combine, and an Alaska natural gas economy makes new shipping routes and transport methods practical. There is merit to working with the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to integrate the Corridor Plan into the BLM Bering Sea/Western Interior Resource Management Plan currently underway. It also is useful to work with Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF) to integrate the Corridor Plan into the Yukon-Kuskokwim Area Transportation Plan (YKATP) update currently underway. DOT&PF also has a Long-Range Transportation Policy Plan update underway that warrants AVCP’s attention with regard to the Corridor Plan. In addition to these agency planning actions, there is merit to working with the area’s subregional village corporation, The Kuskokwim Corporation (TKC), surface lands owner, and with regional Calista Corporation (subsurface lands owner) to integrate the Corridor Plan into business development and land use planning efforts. These neutral, planning-level actions have no impact on environmental or subsistence resources, and have no pre-emptive effect on consideration of other alternatives that may emerge during a design phase or NEPA phase in the future. While engaged in the corridor identification and planning integration process, AVCP will continue a stakeholder and agency outreach program. Additionally, in response to community input during Corridor Plan development, AVCP will conduct an in-depth anthropological and archaeological subsistence use study for the project area. The study will be modeled on the Calista Elders Council studies model that has been conducted in other parts of the region. ES-10 TBG101614003935BO! Contents Ex@CUti Ve! SUMIMANY maccsccsececscccecserscececesvarsccssscccescscnesecescocscnessessecesscessaaseactscssecesscssecescceesusscescoeste Introduction .... Plan Meth cexccccscecccvccccccerssssccsterccpscarcoceecccesccsacsessossecencsucesseccscecssicsssonseouesceenessecesaseseets Roadway Alignment Development ..............ccccccecseeseeeseeeseeeneesseeceeenseenseenteeseeenees ES-8 Economic Benefits .............ccccccccccceceeeeeeeeseeeneeceeeseeeeeeceeeeeeecseeseeeeneesieeeeeeeeeente ES-9 Public Outreach and Context Sensitive Project Development.................:ccsceesceeeeeeeteees ES-9 Comndor Plan) ROCOMMOeNGatiOnyires.cec.cecscceceesscerssncevecesssucesececessoceeseveneevecesatatesereresasseese ES-10 AcronymsjandiAbbreviatlonSlecrccscccccsssccccscessseaseccsseccesectecsssercecseccececccscssecneceancctessasecacareacesesestezaes ix MOMMINOLOGY ceccsensccsscccssscacserecerssecccescasscscascsennccenccascscesscousseasecssnccesscccssrcatssusssenuceseteaerestcsecsssesscssT xiii Cordon Study OVGIVIGW loccreccsececscsececcrcecereccrsctnacenasteaesrnsenasenarenneccestatsstectnesenseriossiessnseerarsnentectenars 1 WMTROGUCTION Fe ccceececaceeecccescceccoeseceseces-esoceccosceecescceosuressuaeesunctesesceevsneeesseeteansessuaeessseneeesceseotaee saa 1 Corridor Study PUrpOSC ................ccscccsssscssscecssecesseccessceeessacesscessseeeeesseeessaeesessecensceeeeeseneeeees 4 Federal Regulations... 5 Gommid Or! Study (Aree re scccccsrecneescacsnesencoecrescevererereseeseseeeessecccsssescacscacsceresorcucescnesuccsecesecssneeviaesees 7 Historical Portage ROUtES 2.0.0.0... ccc cece cecccceeeceseeeetaeeeeeaeeeeeseceeeeeceaeeeeteeenteeeeeeeeees 10 PYr@ViGUS) StUCGIOS)...5.....-cnccece. sceccsseccscsccveseceesnscvssssessanctswastesusesus cose 1aest evsucevsassetasestiscees tases eee 13 Corridor Study Process ...........ccccccccccecseeceseeeeeeeeeeeccceeceseeeceueeecseeeeteeesteeecnteeecseeesteeeeneees 14 Key Elements Regional Planning Context Wet CHO cre ccs c cern cee waect cos seve ence tseneeet cree ceccresceesscasessusesenerercccccescaccvanecvenevesserevsasesssieesseas Regional LandOwmne!s...............:.-ccssesscscssssssssssssssseecesesssssosssscsesoesootesseeseeessesssessessscssseses 19 The Kuskokwim Corporation Coordination ..............::cccceesceeseesseesseesseeseeeneeenseenseeneees 19 Regional Planning Initiatives...........00. cece ceeceeeeceeneeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeseeeeeseeeenneeeeeeeeneeeeeeeeenees 20 U.S. Bureau of Land Management Resource Management Plan Integration........... 20 Yukon-Kuskokwim Area Transportation Plan ........0.....0::cccccceceseeesseeeeeeeenseeeeneeeeeees State Long-Range Transportation Plan ...........0..ccccecceceeeeeceeeecseeeeeneeesseeessereeenanees Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta Regional Energy Plan.. Emeroy legislation iercccccccccescecssececezece-veesesaceusecesestcnssucceceoseecszcecesccessa-crsasneesterssererese Regional Socioeconomic Conditions ...............:ccscescsseseeeeseeeceeeeeeeceeseseeeseeseeseeeseeseeseeseeseeseaseass 25 INMEROGUCTION essecccsreccececccertececerecesccccescccoccccrncectencacsccenseretearer sates tener TaeTTe EEE Ean DEE See EEE TTT 25 SOcIOECONOMIC CONMITIONS ........... cece ceeeeeeeeeeseeeeeteeeesseeeseeeetseeestsssecessecesaeeesseeessteeessaeeeeea 26 a 26 TBG101614003935B0! iit CONTENTS, CONTINUED POPULATION eee EIR sobre cetabeneteteneuatamtioan caesar susuans seat irareeraneuscnssvenstousensronseenay 26 Employimiontstemmrsercccsceceneceenateremsrerstcncunetssnscosaccoarccsaceneseanrueateresenntecentcersanarenssaressaen 31 InCOMeIANG!) POVENtyeeerserete teeter etereeertcccnececectonsteninenenessoaerstensternccsestesctcserensness 32 Energy Costs; Comidon: Study, Areal scree ceretact reece tetecssessssctonatotercesnccercerasetonesanes 34 Residential Energy) Statistics siesta reece eccrseres cover ccees seesseeesatesstesoecssstetsessteseser esate: 45 Existingiilinansportation: Systems sccsessceetecenersscre rere areans secceeness cr srenarcusassover: tossssnaraesessecetats oes 47 Freight, Fuelilransportation .i.ctsectsc.rsssreresroeresoose rs snnnseoncsatr sat rousineseneoansosnessoneserssenrs 48 (iransportation) Linksjerscsesss es ver cas orcsetsenceere ne cnsatoescrnpesceseesae satasesanssenssrssessneserstersd 48 KUSKOKWIITT RIVET GC Arg Oneerrere a rerrer cree ere eae cee aera ee Seat eect ncet tee ane Sees 50 NUK OM) RIVET Cag Ojercrcrerrerc re tecre eee ee eee reece nee aac tere sean eae nL ever e ence e eter sta 51 Freights Costs acre erctccserecete tered netenctctcoarenseccensncesarearesunasaatencdsuonesanaececcnoreconer ser? 52 Cargo lore cast etre creer erence etree errr rete eset anerat archer ceonerneanceteansenteaccesateuctareriiarcoteseaeseesnesed 53 Kuskokwimi Riven Cargo) FOneCasticrcccccsersscececconcretcoscessecsssresessescectoncssnacsnccencescseseass 54 Yukon River Cargo Forecast Cargo Transportation, Constraints ... Impactito| Fuel and|Freight! Prices eee assess torersetorsscucssceacessoc exsvee secuseessaresaresaravsesszereceees INCORVIGWS WIth) SHIPDETS voorccerscccseccesecrcecserorcestererstescnecdessuccuesserdesssceeosereesstesesssacases 56 Impactsiof Handling on|\ Cargo Logistics worm rescrcseccrssccccssecscssssecssarevetcronecsrcescteteres 58 Socioeconomic Conditions SUMMALY...............:cccceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeceeseeeeesseeeecnseeeseeeeeneees 58 Corridor Study Objectives Introduiction;tsa ces Corridor: Study Engineering) Objectlves et. secssereescerscrcerrencvone rosceesncsaseessusssseroacsvessenseses sere 63 ‘Corridor, Study:Social/and! Cultural'@bjectives ossccce-cectoee cone cssceeseccsaessesccsscrscacscasseccsseessees 63 Corridor) Study ECconomic!Objectivesi.cccscccco-crerees te scrsece cents seccesaesecnaveee sve nesotecsereenesees sat ea 64 Corridor, Study/ Environmental) OBjectives sti sersrerenrsrcvoucrctessee coe casecsncssecesuesevenessarsacccocssseres 64 Context-sensitive| ObDjectives\ers rc nicccestereesresarercsereseesecestcvsnecvacessccoseaessacsonesnacencesusessneseres 65 Purpose and Need.. Introduction ... PUT POSE ee reer teres eer a tent cease nae tae sere agen onanee ee serr enceanceeeee act naceseateuateratcestesunccacaereres INS aaa ered cha trertirac a SA eeH aE Ha tet ete h eter eh thatdanchdetcnedseanseyetacstenatsheleareracedednsedes 70 Corridor Evaluation and Selection Process...........cscccssessssssssessessesssseesessseesseseessseerseeeeeesseeseees 73 PU NGI arse ccc herd ke eae Es nce 6 elem daniels these hahaa tna Level 1 Concept Screening Analysis and Results................:::ccccccsesscceessseesesseeeesseeesseeeneneees Corridor Study Concepts Considered but Dismissed iv TBG101614003935B0! CONTENTS, CONTINUED Corridor Study Concepts Considered and Advanced Level 2 Transport Mode Screening Analysis and Results ................::ccccccesceseeseeeeeteetseeeenees Level 2 Mode Screening Process. ............cccssssesscscseesesecseceeceececeesceeessseeeeseseeeeees Level 2 Mode Evaluation Criteria (Social, Cultural, and Economic) ................:0008 82 Transport Mode Analysis Results.....................:ssssssssssesceseseseecceeceeceeseesesseseeseeseenes 85 Level 2 Modes Removed through the Screening Process. ...............::c:cccccseeceseeeeeeee 87 Level 2 Corridor Screening and Results .................. sc sceescececseecescesceeeceeceeceeceaeeaceeceseeceseees 89 Level/2:Corridon Route! Options irereccssccercarreceeces eevee cone roceeecee tec tesco rte ceete reece ceeteereees 92 Corridor Routes Evaluated... COTTIC OE Bete e steel rele rea ee watt ee ee eae teeta eee eter eae rae eer tvereneses COPTIAON) © aeretereresrerncettne eettucecuneeturetuccaentceecc eee TET Se ES NSE ee Eee eee eee eeee eee COTTAM) BD aes saterees rac tewcteeres retreat ce tlees erect eect nce hae dtacetia sta vew eed ceed toad eceserettaee tren resets GMT ON) Ey ec ce cree reset rset ere crates ar eeerra ne eee cote Set nee cee need need ereteeeunced toast rettecs eeedrecetes Roadway Alignment Development .............c cc ecceecceeceeeteeeteeeseecneeceeeeteeeteeeneeeteeeteeeea 102 Level 2 Corridor Screening Criterial. 05.0. :...tecctecoet swcteastsseceseneseseesucssatestcstscseoseereseree 104 CorridorAnalysis ROSUItS tirccccscccccscecocerscccestecerseesscarcuartsctessceonseassnasenncarnasecnsentanatscuraveseacecanersesa IMtROGUICHON eee cetecctecctcscttac circa tecet tee dtane tose tense tee ee eee eee arte ata nese e ener Meee heeTe Sess Engineering AnalysiSiEindingSietcccrccstecetrce tre rcee eset eee ee ee Environmental Analysis FindingS rcrccrcct-ceccsrccerecscteorecensecessocess-erccevencssatvense seca inasteseyes Mitigation) Plein race ccet erat vcet reece soc eseca rece tone tecraine suteste sae sscarnesteccrencttosstenctoacteacebecsuoesuersrse ECONOMICIBEMENS Ho ieeteccst cot rssacess recesses vase teseetaes ces tes areeoreeeseanaeseietasestcetcceteaestusstacsarereee Capitaliand)}Operating) Costs ceincrcccccete cot cce eectocees settee cee wece stern eeuceetuans Heauateetce Capital Costs, Road Construction .... Operations and Road Maintenance..................ecccesseesesseeeseeeeeceeeeeceseeeeeeeaeeeseeeses Inputiand Output/Analysis cece cctcctecceteseresceeeccnsccrecactecctcaesearsvacesncencestactsressverenrs IMPLAN | Model RESUIES sestecctccatcsetevrsesst reese sottesoeectenactrecstecensosutesarteadtadsecendenctedates ECONOMIC IMPACts rete eee ee Tere eee eee EMpPloyMent. 2 ..ts..csesseeccseesscssurcsrseesurveuccaves ests scervassraseerss nes sranernsesrreerosernssrase rete Ce ct eect tees pean! tage! aie er ea Outreach! and/Context: Sensitivity ccisccrecccrccesecsccscseccessscscccesecessceesecsseocsoecrracsecccraccsvasesasssessensseces 147 HETEOCICHIOT Ae ce tt cect ecce eet cepetnes roe sna ee oaa tee Sane cteccdvectncsttcsaiaceteat tastier eet tecete set icsaneccdasesteneres 147 Public Outreach — A Regional Conversation ..............:::ceccecsceseeeseeeeeeceeeseeseeeteeeseeneeeees 148 Gommunity; Meetings) siacesccnceecsencsncsseeseestrestnosttesiteseescrtecstnacereceveoryvessrseeereeateees 149 OPEN OUSES eee cere erates eee a ee ates a reac sea ere NSSU TER A euR UR CSE NEE Otero nee pee ainateneetessn 151 Context-sensitive Corridor Design Considerations...................c:cccccceeseesseeseeseeseeeeeseeseeseeneees 152 TBG101614003935B0! v CONTENTS, CONTINUED Recommendation and Next Steps ................:csscsscsscssssessessesscsscsecsscsacesscsacsacessesecsasescescescescescesass 157 Wt Cth cate cee tec et ese ewe ee te cent ore rete eee eee SN ANTS YS OEE TT STN Sotto asteeatteadlccd ba Mocaleendie 157 Corndor, Plan) Recomimenhation rececees exer ces cece pecs coer ee aaa eset ee 157 References fis ctiscchecesesccsccsvasetscsesasassncsinn suemaessser uetsvecersusuruuessea vert etsas prea resents SESE HTESEETO SSS aC eTNS 161 Appendixes A U.S. Bureau of Land Management Navigability Summary Report B Socioeconomic Technical Information Cc Engineering 30% Design Corridor C Roadway Alignment Plans and Engineering Technical Reports D Environmental Technical Reports Ee Subsistence Maps E Public Involvement Tables 1 Population and Annual Growth, Selected Communities, Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers, P3000 (07401 ee ere ee ee ee eee eee ee ee eet er ee ee 29 2 Alaska Population Projection, 2017 to 2042, by Region, Borough, or Census Area, with; Annuali Growth Rates cee sseecccre acter eae ce acre teeta ae os erate ed dere eee ae eee eee 3 Largest Employers by Census Area, 2010 4 Three Census Areas, Selected Communities, Population, Housing, Income, Poverty.......... 32 5 Average Annual Household Income, Estimated Energy Costs, and Energy Percent ORM COM Geese etcetera aa tcaee sea tweet anaes penerene renee ete aea ene tere a ener Tune eee rat eee tere ecaneaeuresuecareae ses 35 6 Estimated Annual Gallons of Heating Oil and Gasoline per Household, Yukon and 7 IKUSKOKWIMTHRIVETS orice cectec etc tice a nee ce terra lee ete rene dae tr ee eee e Near ee ee trad eager sd ese hnetiees 37 iu Rural Communities, Estimated Household Vehicle Use, by Type, Gallons, and Annual COS Sees st secaestites temas ste vette ete ett eat hea dtocatnatnoetenatbeettcestonsltcedtecetecetbesetecatocetiesttacetrordteed 39 8 Corridor Study Area Communities, Residential Power Cost, With and Without Power CostiEqualization= = ee 41 9 Estimated Annual Household Energy Costs, Selected Yukon and Kuskokwim Communities ee eee es rae eee 45 10 Inbound Cargo, Top 11 Commodities, Bethel Alaska, 2008 to 2012............ccceceeceeeeeeeees 50 11 Cargo and Fuel Forecasts, 2012 to 2042, Bethel Census Area ..............ccceccececesesseseceeeeseees 54 12 Environmental and Engineering Categories and Criteria 13 Valued Environmental Component Allocation to Various Geographic Information System) LAYS sxe seve evesssseceeceswers vevansacsscns case eemwevesaterssaee evssess eset saeeente vie wsdne sevverereeareanee teres 112 14 Valued Environmental Component Allocation to Various Geographic Information SYSteml Payee ares eee ee ree nee ee eee 117 15 Valued Environmental Component and Valued Socioeconomic Component Category Rankings (Table 14 shows Subsistence Categories) ...............:ccccccesceeseeseeeeeeeeeeeeeeseeeeeees 118 16 Subsistence Types and Areas, by Village, Affected by the Corridor Roadway Alignment within the Four 2,000-foot-wide Corridors ...............c0ccccccccceeesceeesseeeessseeeseeesseees 121 vi TBG101614003935B0! CONTENTS, CONTINUED TA Subsistence Types and Areas, for Grayling, Anvik, Shageluk, Holy Cross Villages, Affected by the Corridor Roadway Alignment within the Four 2,000-foot-wide Corridors ... 122 18 Environmental Evaluation Criteria RAnkKingS ............0..:cccccccseceeteeeeeeeeeseeeeeeeeeseeenteeeeneees 130 19 Environmental Evaluation Criteria Weighted RankingS ...............:ccccccccesseeeeseecesseeessseeeneeee ton 20 Land Ownership Acreage .................--.ccsscsssssscessresssessessssssscssssessssocesscesssessessssnssesesorec ores 132 21 Mitigation Measures Applied during Corridor and Right-of-Way Selection Processes....... 134 22 Mitigation Measures to be Developed following Future Detailed Studies and Surveys...... 135 23 Legal Requirements and Permits, Best Management Practices, and Measures Implemented during Construction to Avoid and Mitigate Impacts..............0::::cecceeeeeeeee 135 24 Output from IMPLAN Analysis ...............0:ccccecceeseeeseeeeeeseeeseceeceeeceseceneeceeeneeessecnseeneeenseenes 141 25 Frequently Asked Questions and ReSponsess ................::cccceseeeeeeeeeseeeeeeeeceseeeeseeeenseeenaes 151 Exhibits ES-1 Map of Association of Village Council Presidents’ Member Communities and the Calista FROGQIOM Secssscencscecceseresese ssvsnceasecsscacssenceesvipsters coseatessnteev ster sestcessneressccsesenecesanessscacseseceeesnccsvenrcoem 1 ES-2 Study Area and Corridors.............. ES-3 Sternwheeler and Barge Alasteaties fie Paimiut Slough ES-4 Sternwheeler Pushing a Barge and Entering the Paimiut Slough at the Mouth of the Gonfluence (of the) YUKON FRIVGMicscccccccece ease cence ovenecesnesoscessesesnevece satrestesvetestecsesceccesccerccevecesneeces 5 ES-5 The Evaluated Corridors...........ccccccecceesceeseeneeeseeeseesecceseceneceneccneecseeesaeeneceneeeeesensseeseneeeseeenees 6 ES-6 Recommended! Gormidon ©, Maphe.-cci-c..-.c.cce-cceccceseceeercorccccccencoscrssctcoscesaccearescssseresensosnreonsesuees 7 ES-7 Typical Section for Seasonally Flooded Lowlands ................::cccceescesssescenseeseceeseesseceeeeeeenaee 8 1 Map of Association of Village Council Presidents’ Member Communities ..................:.:0065 2. 2 Sternwheeler Pushing a Barge and Entering the Paimiut Slough at the Mouth of the HAI FR rcsicecsiesexessccseraecen nen ermine etic sae NRN EEN KA ith Rhee hdinnmnemnnannenanemenenAIOREERESeeRAERERROROTE a 3 Sternwheeler and Barge Navigating the Paimiut SIoUgN.................c::ccceceeseeeceecesceeeeeeetseeees 3 4 Planning and Environment Linkages Integrated Approach..............ccc:cccceessseeeeseeeeseeeeneeeeenee 6 5 Corridor Study Area OVErview ...........cccccccceeceeeeeeeseeeeseeeseeeeeseeeeeseeeccseeeeseeeeeeeceseeeeneeeeneees 8 6 Alaska Road Commission Map of Historic Portages ROutes.................0:ccecceeeeessecesseeeeneeennees 9 7 Crossing Kulik Lake, Yukon-Kuskokwim Portage .. 8 Corridor Planning TOolbox..............::ccccceseeeeeseeeseeeceseeeceseeeesneeeeenes 9 Corridor Plan and Project Development................::ccessessessssseesseneees 10 SOCIOECONOMICS! StUdy/ANOAe recereccsec ceceesscxeorerscecevsatecssessrerateesoneweetenes sessentesursssrasotrseercoscacees 11 Alaska'si Economic: REGIONS i cscccececes secre -ecaccecveeceecescecetseescestecescenectcenceccecracstaessecssasesecesecrsers 12 Relative Community Size, Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta ..............ccccccccesccesseeseeeeeeseeeeeeneeeneeens 28 13 Heating Oil Prices in Socioeconomic Study Area (July 2014) ..........cecceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeseeeeees 36 14 Average Heating Oil Cost per Gallon, 2005 to 2014, Selected Kuskokwim and Yukon Communities, plus Fairbanks and Juneau.................0.0005 15 Gasoline Prices in Socioeconomic Study Area (July 2014)... 16 Gasoline Cost per Gallon, 2005 to 2014, Selected Kuskokwim and Yukon Communities, plus; Fairbanks and | JUNCAU ec. cc cceeesecsnesecteencccenserscessseccsucrsccsstces=cevereesevaseeeneesvessursestesenee = 17 Example Retail Fuel Components in Rural Alaska..............0..ccccccccceceseeesseeeeeeeeeestseeeetseeens 18 Current Western Alaska Transportation LINKS. ..............0..ccccccccesseesscessceeseesseeeseesseeeteeeneeeneees 19 Tons of Cargo Moved Through the Port of Emmonak, 2002 to 2011 TBG101614003935B0! vii CONTENTS, CONTINUED 20 Zn 22 23 24 25 26 2 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 viii Freight Costs in Socioeconomic Study Area from Anchorage.............c:cccssceessseesteesteeeeeee 52 Alaska Housing Finance Corporation, Construction Cost Survey, 2014 ...........ccceeeeenees 53 Corridor, Development) Plan} Process rte qccsese cepa teen cece et eee cece see etna nee eeeeste ee nceeres 73 Gorndor, Plan evel 1:Screeming) PROCOSS reeset rr cmnsca ares roses cccenc th rcccesancnaet its seco vee 75 Corridor Plan Level 2 Mode Screening Benefits Used to Assess Total Value.................cccccssccsssssscssssssccssseescssecscssecesssseesonsesssneesoes Transportation Mode Evaluation Matrix Modal Evaluation Results i rrncccti ccc sncensse ere ceeronens sett secenas et oeecesectere seer sneer’ Corridor Plan Level 2 Corridor Screening Process ................::sscesceseesesesseeesssseeeessessessenseeee 91 Yukon-Kuskokwim Coastal Lowland Region ..............:::c:ceescessscescesseecsseenseeeeeeeseecseeesseeeeeeues 93 Portage; Mountains Alea rcceceescccacers sce ceecccassrece tec seececenect ce seenctorenecet st tnceesoutttsecceesnsccssttetttwcrece 94 Innoko Lowlands Region Showing the Paimiut Slough...............cecceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeseeenneeeens 95 HSE Valuated Commons re ecerennct i arccstacecse tt ccearee ttre eeeneeee ence eeemerreeeay ty encom 99 Corridor Roadway Alignment and Corridor Route Dimensions ................0::cceeceeeereeeeeteeeeee 102 Typical Section for Seasonally Flooded Lowlands.................:ccccecsesseeeseeesscesseeseseeeeneenseees 106 mypicall Section: for plamGs we reccccsete reece cee coceo tee race newer reee=teseeee yes erevecceres nenensoncererstese ores 106 Typical Section for Thermokarst and Discontinuous Permafrost...............:::::cssessceeseeeees 107 Typical Section for Snow Drifting Recommended ComidonGi Map rrccrceerersccconccosere sc vcecsccrs cece ccrssnssstss sonaosaeestctencasssnersseresonss Relative RANKINGOf COMmiGOMSteccccccetersccecevonccotesecssecsssersesscenctecsvseverecsecvestersesncasssuarassseessssece Populated Relative Ranking, Weighted Evaluation Criteria, and Overall Scores for Each Corrido riccecs lee eereececee ere racer ee rarer st ee eeseeenaea era susaestaateseuacTiscneserteesseaes (Gor ih tg I at tN ac ae rere asec nner renee tesnesacenseee repeaters rerrrssecersoseerarseseses Villages with Likely Construction and Operations and Maintenance Benefits . a Chuathbaluk Public Meeting April 2013.20.00... eee cs eeseesecseeeseeseseeeeaeeeseeseesaeesseeseeeees Corridor, PlaniContext-Sensitive SOMRIONS ececceees:conncvet eesnen-sncercostessseceneese+e+soecmesersetsete sens TBG101614003935B0! Acronyms and Abbreviations - not applicable to rie Fahrenheit 3D three-dimensional 4(f) Section 4(f) properties include publicly owned wildlife and waterfowl refuges of national, state, or local significance that are open to the public AASHTO American Association of State and Highway Transportation Officials ADFG Alaska Department of Fish and Game AEA Alaska Energy Authority AHFC Alaska Housing Finance Corporation ANCSA Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act ANSEP Alaska Native Science and Engineering Program ASL Alaska State Legislature ATV all-terrain vehicle AVCP Association of Village Council Presidents AVEC Alaska Village Electric Cooperative BLM U.S. Bureau of Land Management BMP best management practice CEDS Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy CFR Code of Federal Regulations Corridor Plan Yukon-Kuskokwim Freight and Energy Corridor Plan Corridor Project © Yukon-Kuskokwim Freight and Energy Corridor Project Corridor Study Yukon-Kuskokwim Freight and Energy Corridor Study Crowley Crowley Distribution and Petroleum LLC CSS context-sensitive solutions CY cubic yard DCCED Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development DNP&P Denali National Park and Preserve DOT&PF Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities DTM digital terrain model EIS environmental impact statement ESRI Environmental Systems Research Institute FHWA U.S. Federal Highway Administration GASH Grayling, Anvik, Shageluk, and Holy Cross TBG101614003935BO! ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS GIS geographic information system H horizontal HV high-voltage IC Interim Conveyance 10 input and output ISER Institute of Social and Economic Research kWh kilowatt hour LF linear feet LIDAR light detection and ranging LNG liquid natural gas M magnitude m meter MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21%' Century Act MCY million cubic yards mi? square mile mph mile per hour NEC not elsewhere classified NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 NHD National Hydrographic Data No. number O&M operations and maintenance OHWM ordinary high water mark PLL. Public Law PCE Power Cost Equalization PEL planning and environment linkages PEM palustrine emergent PFO palustrine, forested PMio particulate matter less than 10 micrometers in diameter PSS palustrine, scrub shrub Refuge Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge Rivers Lower Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers RMP Resource Management Plan ROW right-of-way SB State Bill T&E threatened and endangered TEU 20-foot equivalent unit x TBG101614003935B0! TKC ™ US. UAA UAF USACE USC USFWS USGS VEC Vitus VSEC WOUS YG YKATP TBG101614003935B0! The Kuskokwim Corporation technical memorandum United States University of Alaska Anchorage University of Alaska Fairbanks U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Code U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Geological Survey vertical valued environmental component Vitus Marine valued socioeconomic component Waters of the U.S. Government of Yukon Yukon-Kuskokwim Area Transportation Plan ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS Terminology Yukon-Kuskokwim Freight and Energy Corridor Project (Corridor Project) The two-lane gravel road construction project in Corridor C. Yukon-Kuskokwim Freight and Energy Corridor Study (Corridor Study) The Corridor Study and the process used to support the development of the Corridor Plan. Corridor Study Area Located in Southwest Alaska near Kalskag and Lower Kalskag, about 90 miles northeast of Bethel on the Kuskokwim River. Yukon-Kuskokwim Freight and Energy Corridor Plan (Corridor Plan) The document produced to document the results of the Corridor Study. Corridor Study Team The Corridor Study team consisted of engineers, economists, environmental subject matter experts, public involvement personnel, and college interns from the region. Corridor concepts The five broad-scale infrastructure concepts considered in the Level 1 Screening to address the preliminary purpose and need of the Corridor Project. Corridor routes Tour 2,000-foot-wide Corridors B, C, D, and E between the Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers evaluated by the Corridor Study. Corridor roadway alignments The horizontal and vertical alignments of two-lane gravel roads and their cut-and-fill footprint in each of the corridor routes. These alignments are buffered by 30 feet on each side to generate a preliminary right-of-way. Corridor integration Activities that result in the adoption of Corridor C and the Corridor Plan into the Bering Sea-Western Interior Planning Area Resource Management Plan and Yukon-Kuskokwim Area Transportation Plan updates and other agency and business plans as appropriate. Corridor preservation The process of securing the right-of-way (ROW) for the Corridor C roadway alignment. The approximate width of the corridor is 2,000 feet. TBG101614003935B0! xili “Without advancement of this Corridor Plan’s recommendations, the potential exists that land use and transportation policies at the local, federal, and state levels might influence future decisions and preclude a corridor from ever being established, despite its merits. This Corridor Plan outlines the justification for corridor integration into Corridor Study Area planning and land use decisions documents to maintain the option of preservation of right-of-way (ROW) and construction in the corridor in the future, if Teel) re a Corridor Study Overview Introduction The Association of Village Council Presidents (AVCP), sponsor of the Yukon-Kuskokwim Freight and Energy Corridor Plan (Corridor Plan), is a regional Tribal 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization based in Bethel, Alaska. The region is approximately 58,000 mi*, an area about the size of the State of Illinois. The residents practice a subsistence-based way of life, where hunting, fishing, and gathering provide the majority of food and are fundamental to traditional cultural values and practices. In 2011, Kalskag Tribal Government requested that AVCP investigate the potential to rebuild the historic Paimiut Portage in the Refuge. Those discussions led to Kalskag requesting that AVCP update the Portage Mountain Road studies from 1956 (Alaska Bureau of Public Roads, 1956), 1981 (Galliett et al.), and 2011 (CH2M HILL, 2011). The 2011 reconnaissance study concluded that it was feasible to connect the two river systems by road. Historical use evidence shows the Paimiut Slough is navigable for barges. Exhibits 2 and 3 show barges entering the Paimiut Slough and traveling upriver to the gold fields. While Bethel, the largest town in Southwest Alaska, with a population of 7,500 is the regional hub for its surrounding 56 federally recognized Tribes, most of AVCP’s member Tribes reside in small, isolated villages scattered throughout the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, as illustrated in Exhibit 1. No roads connect the villages to each other or to the rest of the state, as is the case throughout most of rural Alaska. English is a second language for many people, and most residents continue to practice a centuries-old hunting, fishing, and gathering way of life. The Corridor Plan was a cooperative planning process that evaluated connecting the Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers with an overland transportation link. The Corridor Plan is one of many efforts underway in the region to help address the high costs of goods and fuel, high unemployment rates, and limited economic opportunities that threaten the long-term stability of many communities. The Corridor Plan, based on a 20-year planning horizon evaluated a full range of modal options, route locations and operational alternatives in an effort to develop a transportation connection that provide transport security and redundancy for the movement of freight and fuel in the region. TBG101614003935B0! 4 CORRIDOR STUDY OVERVIEW EXHIBIT 1 Map of Association of Village Council Presidents’ Member Communities (AVCP, 2014) AVCP, and the region as a whole, are pursuing critical social, cultural, and economic objectives to improve the prosperity and quality of life for current and future generations of people in the region. The AVCP Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) describes strategies for developing an economic base in a remote and isolated region with limited infrastructure and resources (AVCP, 2014). The CEDS goals target heathy and affordable communities, improved education, new and expanded business and employment opportunities. The CEDS also targets improved and expanded infrastructure. In 2012, AVCP identified investigating the historic transportation connection between the Yukon and the Kuskokwim Rivers as a project that could help achieve the CEDS objectives. AVCP elected to use the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) corridor plan process to examine the feasibility and desirability of various options for re-establishing the Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers’ transportation link. This Corridor Plan documents that effort. AVCP’s Corridor Plan project development sponsor role aligns with the larger mission to serve its 56 communities in the region. AVCP created a tribal transportation department in the Tribal Transportation Program through FHWA. AVCP has a robust and experienced transportation 2 TBG101614003935BO! CORRIDOR STUDY OVERVIEW department with an average annual budget of $7.5 million. It constructed $5.5 million in transportation improvements in the region in 2014. EXHIBIT 2 Sternwheeler Pushing a Barge and Entering the Paimiut Slough at the Confluence of the Yukon River (UAF, 1920a) EXHIBIT 3 Sternwheeler and Barge Navigating the Paimiut Slough (UAF, 1920b) TBG101614003935B0! 3 CORRIDOR STUDY OVERVIEW AVCP has a well-established line of communication to the villages in the region, which allows AVCP to tailor outreach and project development coordination to the specific style and needs of the region. AVCP and the Tribes in the region have determined that preparing today for future opportunities that can provide for economic security, and freight and fuel transport system redundancy. With the passage of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act 1980, the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) boundary expanded eastward to the base of the Portage Mountains and enveloped the historic portage route. Currently, the opportunity exists for the region to preserve a corridor outside the Refuge in the Portage Mountains in order to reserve it for continued Yukon-Kuskokwim Freight and Energy Corridor development. This key step brings visibility to the Corridor Plan and regional needs, while advancing the ongoing efforts to build regional consensus in support of the project as the Alaskan natural gas economy matures. Without advancement of this Corridor Plan’s recommendations, the potential exists that land use and transportation policies at the local, federal, and state levels might influence future decisions and preclude a corridor from ever being established, despite its merits. This Corridor Plan outlines the justification for corridor integration into Corridor Study Area planning and land use decisions documents to maintain the option of preservation of right-of-way (ROW) and construction in the corridor in the future, if warranted. Corridor Study Purpose The purpose of the Corridor Study is to examine the socioeconomic conditions in the region and evaluate engineering and environmental aspects of re-establishing a transportation link between the Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers. The objective of the Corridor Study is to develop a Corridor Plan recommendation for a transportation solution that could provide security and redundancy for the movement of freight and fuel in the region, and lower freight and fuel costs. This Corridor Plan examines the current high cost of freight and fuel, consolidates relevant environmental information, and makes recommendations based on detailed engineering information. The recommendations provided herein are the first step toward preserving ROW, which is essential to protecting the option of making a connection at some time in the future, if desired. In 2013, AVCP selected the FHWA corridor planning method to identify feasible transportation and energy modes, evaluate connection opportunities, and provide a general understanding to the public and stakeholders about potential solutions to fuel and freight distribution on the Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers (FHWA, 2011). This Corridor Study has a specific set of project goals, and the Corridor Study Team has completed detailed studies to evaluate a corridor connection and its ability to meet these goals. The FHWA corridor planning process takes an integrated approach to balancing corridor planning process outcomes and regional needs. The Yukon-Kuskokwim Freight 4 TBG101614003935B0! CORRIDOR STUDY OVERVIEW and Energy Corridor planning process seeks to help transportation decision-makers consider environmental factors early in the planning process and to use that information to inform the environmental review process. The goals of the Corridor Plan are to determine the project benefits, identify the best transportation mode and route location, and to understand regional issues. The tools used to evaluate these goals are engineering, economic, subsistence, and environmental studies, as well as meetings and outreach in the region to learn about residents’ hopes and concerns. The Corridor Plan coordinated regional and local transportation planning with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, including implementing the planning and environment linkages (PEL) process, to streamline project delivery and improve planning- and project-level decision making (FHWA, 2014). PEL emphasizes linking planning and NEPA activities; specifically, solidifying the connection between systems-level planning and project-level decision making. This Corridor Plan is a product of PEL, which aims to improve the project development and environmental review processes by improving coordination among stakeholders. Federal Regulations On July 6, 2012, FHWA signed into law the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21S‘ Century Act (MAP- 21) (Public Law [P.L.] 112-141), a 2-year funding bill. MAP-21 expired on September 30, 2014; therefore, on August 8, 2014, Congress signed into law an extension of funding for MAP-21. The Highway and Transportation Funding Act (P.L. 113-159) authorized the commencement of funding on October 1, 2014, to expire on May 31, 2015. MAP-21 promotes accelerating project delivery and encourages innovation through the increased use of programmatic approaches and PEL. To better connect long-range planning with NEPA, the FHWA initiated the PEL process. The PEL process will help develop the following types of long-range planning and environmental analysis components in the Corridor Plan and will inform the preparation of subsequent NEPA documents: e Project preliminary purpose and need, including planning goals e Public and stakeholder involvement e Description of the environmental setting e Identification of modal choices e Identification of a reasonable range of alternatives e Preliminary screening of alternatives and elimination of unreasonable alternatives e Recommendations for future studies, including mitigation strategies TBG101614003935B0! s CORRIDOR STUDY OVERVIEW The Corridor Study Team considered a vast array of transportation, land use, subsistence, and environmental factors in the Corridor Study. The integrated approach will assist the team in making a recommendation after considering multiple factors. The team followed the integrated approach illustrated in Exhibit 4. Land ownership Native allotments, 14(c)(3) land selections, TKC, and BLM land Fuel and freight transportation system Regional economic condition improvement proposa Water resources Subsistence use areas and wetland habitats Other natural and cultural resources Habitat or historic places to avoid EXHIBIT 4 Planning and Environment Linkages Integrated Approach Chapter 23, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Section 450 bolsters AVCP’s corridor planning approach, which contains provisions supporting the analysis of potential alternative corridor routes. Section 450.212 states that a transportation planning study, such as AVCP’s Corridor Plan, can be a tool for linking transportation planning and NEPA. A Corridor Plan provides a broad range of analysis and decisions that are consistent with and adoptable into the NEPA process. AVCP’s intent is not to initiate the NEPA process during the corridor planning process. The intent is to encourage planning-level analysis to make sound project development decisions and satisfy parts of the NEPA analysis. The Corridor Plan will incorporate the publicly available reports and source data developed during the Corridor Study into the NEPA process, providing they meet the following conditions: e The lead federal agencies agree to incorporate the information. e The corridor planning process is conducted with: e Involvement of interested state, local, Tribal, and federal agencies e Public review 6 TBG101614003935BO! CORRIDOR STUDY OVERVIEW e Reasonable opportunity to comment during the Corridor Study e Documentation of relevant decisions in a form that is identifiable and available for review during the NEPA scoping process, and can be appended or referenced in the subsequent NEPA document e Review by the FHWA or other federal agency as appropriate The AVCP Transportation Department's purpose is to promote the economic development and quality of life in AVCP villages through planning, designing, constructing, and maintaining priority transportation projects in the region. This Corridor Plan is a key component and top priority of AVCP and its Transportation Department, recognizing the importance of initiating the project planning and coordination efforts in the local and regional setting first. AVCP has set the priority of communication within the region to assist in shaping the Corridor Plan and its outcomes. AVCP recognizes that evaluating consequences early in the planning process during the identification of alternative solutions offers the best opportunity to make informed decisions that minimize environmental impacts. Corridor Study Area The Corridor Study Area, as shown in Exhibit 5, is located in Southwest Alaska near Kalskag and Lower Kalskag, about 90 miles northeast of Bethel on the Kuskokwim River. No road system exists to the communities along the Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers. River depths, channel hazards, and impassable river and sea ice for over half of the year limit barge access, which is the primary means for transporting fuel and bulk materials to the communities on the rivers. TBG101614003935BO! 7 CORRIDOR STUDY OVERVIEW Kalska Lower Kalskag Tuluksak Bethel " ® Corridor Study Area EXHIBIT 5 Corridor Study Area Overview Before the first European contact, the corridor was a significant transportation route used by Native Alaskans to reach subsistence resources; to travel to social, cultural, and religious events; and for trade. European traders, trappers, and prospectors quickly recognized and used the corridor, and located their camps and trading posts on the major rivers at both ends of the historic portage routes. Exhibit 6 shows the location of the traditional trading and transportation routes established because of the proximity of the two major rivers in the region. The Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers are approximately 25 miles apart in the Corridor Study Area. Geographically, the Portage Mountains area is the optimum location for users to travel between the rivers, as it lies on the shortest distance between the two rivers along their entire length. Additionally, the lowlands to the west of the Portage Mountains provide a location with enough surface water to allow for portage by boat along the many connecting creeks, ponds, lakes, and sloughs. The historical role of the corridor has significance to the residents settling in the area and living off its resources. 8 TBG101614003935B01I CORRIDOR STUDY OVERVIEW MT. CHINIKLIK, “2 K va ae helter Cabin S \ \ ALASKA ROAD COMMISSION maP _YUKON-KUSKOKWIM DISTRICT 192 EXHIBIT 6 Alaska Road Commission Map of Historic Portages Routes (With permission from AVCP) TBG101614003935B0! 9 CORRIDOR STUDY OVERVIEW Historical Portage Routes There are two historical portage routes between the Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers near Kalskag. Kayaks, poling boats, and other vessels move along a series of waterbodies and waterways between the two major rivers. Both portages crossed between the Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers through the lowland waterways west of the Portage Mountains, and both routes had the same terminus downriver from the present-day Kalskag villages at the mouth of Mud Creek, a minor Kuskokwim River tributary. Yukon-Kuskokwim Portage The main portage route in the region was the Yukon-Kuskokwim Portage a 70-mile, northwest- southeast-oriented route between Russian Mission on the Yukon River and Kalskag on the Kuskokwim. From the 1800s Europeans made a record of use to the 1930s, the Yukon-Kuskokwim Portage served as an important route for travel, trade, and commerce, connecting two of the most important rivers in Western Alaska. This portage uses the Talbiksok River tributary on the Yukon River to reach a series of large lakes, including Kulik Lake and Kukaklik Lake, and then to Crooked Creek, Johnson River, and Mud Creek, which empties into a Kuskokwim River slough below Lower Kalskag. The route included numerous portages between the waterbodies. See Exhibit 6 for the Alaska Road Commission Map of Historic Portages. Lieutenant Lavrenty A. Zagoskin provided the first written description of the portage route, which he traversed in 1844 during his travels in Russian America. Several travelers described conditions and routes in written accounts, including F. C. Hinckley with Josiah E. Spurr’s reconnaissance expedition of 1898; Major James G. Steese in 1921; Walter W. Lukens of the Alaska Road Commission in 1923; and anthropologist Ales Hrdlicka in 1930 (CH2M HILL, 2014b). After the transfer of Alaska to the United States (U.S.), Americans quickly learned of the existence of the Yukon-Kuskokwim Portage. During his 1898 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) expedition to the region, Mr. Josiah Edward Spun, an explorer, author, and geologist, noted that the water route to the Yukon River was of great commercial interest in the past and, more importantly, the future. Residents, travelers, trappers, fur traders, mail carriers, and prospectors used the Yukon- Kuskokwim Portage in the 1920s; the Alaska Road Commission investigated this route, and, subsequently, expended funds for signage, vegetation clearing, and channel widening. During the period of 1929 through 1931, major improvements to the route included construction of tramways at two portages, and digging a canal between Kulik and Kukaklik Lakes. Improvements to other channels included deepening, installing winches, derricks, and controlling dams to assist boats and control water levels (CH2M HILL, 2013b). 10 TBG101614003935B0! CORRIDOR STUDY OVERVIEW During World War II, mining in the region was suspended, and commercial use of the portage dropped off. Without maintenance, channel sedimentation and shallowing caused deterioration of the infrastructure and made portions of the portage unnavigable. In the 1950s, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) made the last improvements to an existing boat-tram system in the area. Since the 1950s, there has been no additional work done on the portage, although the route was the subject of several studies in later years (CH2M HILL, 2013b). Since Alaska became a state in 1959, federal and state government officials have periodically demonstrated interest in the proposal to improve the Yukon-Kuskokwim Portage as a canal route. The state legislature passed resolutions in 1959, 1961, and 1971, calling on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to survey and construct the canal. In 1969, the U.S. Senate passed a resolution in favor of conducting a preliminary study of the canal project. Also in 1969, residents of Russian Mission, Kalskag, and Lower Kalskag attempted to rebuild the overland route through the Operation Mainstream Program (U.S. Department of Labor funding) (CH2M HILL, 2013b). As shown in Exhibit 7, evidence of a boat trip taken on most of the Yukon-Kuskokwim Portage entitled, “A Boat Ride from Bethel to Marshall” appeared in The Delta Discovery (Horner, 2003). This article documents the route taken, the current condition, and the effort involved to complete this trip. The article demonstrates the past and current use of the route, despite its deteriorating physical condition and lack of land improvements and maintenance. EXHIBIT 7 Crossing Kulik Lake, Yukon-Kuskokwim Portage (The Delta Discovery, 2003) TBG101614003935B0! " CORRIDOR STUDY OVERVIEW On March 10, 2006, the State of Alaska filed five separate applications for recordable disclaimers of interest for the lands underlying the waterbodies comprising the Yukon-Kuskokwim Portage. The state filed these applications under the provisions of Section 315 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, 43 U.S. Code (USC) Section 1745, and the regulation contained in 43 CFR Subpart 1864. The Yukon-Kuskokwim Portage consists of nine waterbodies and four land portages. The state contends these waterbodies were navigable at the time of statehood; therefore, the state received vested title to the submerged lands upon entry to the Union on January 3, 1959. The state based its applications for disclaimers of interest on the Equal Footing Doctrine; the Submerged Lands Act (both 1953 and 1988 versions); the Alaska Statehood Act; and any other legally cognizable reason. On June 25, 2007, the Federal Register published the state’s application. BLM prepared a comprehensive review of the lands applied for that discussed the land status; previous conveyance actions by BLM; and the physical character and historical uses of the waterbodies within the Yukon-Kuskokwim Portage for travel, trade, and commerce. BLM considered all comments and published a final report on August 26, 2010 (Appendix A). In a decision rendered on September 2, 2010, BLM determined that the state’s application for recordable disclaimer of interest was legally sufficient and approved it. The U.S. affirmed it had no interest in the lands up to the ordinary high-water marks that comprise the Yukon-Kuskokwim Portage. BLM has consistently held that those waterbodies comprising the Yukon-Kuskokwim Portage are navigable, and the state has provided evidence to support that finding. The determination that segments of the Yukon-Kuskokwim Portage were navigable conveyed the uplands out of federal ownership. Paimiut Portage The Paimiut Portage was a second portage route east of the Yukon-Kuskokwim Portage. This north-south route used the Paimiut and Twelvemile Sloughs, located across the Yukon River from the abandoned village of Paimiut, to access a series of tundra lakes along the western flank of the Portage Mountains. These headwater lakes and their connecting streams, together with Arhymot Lake and its outlet stream, provided a connection to Mud Creek and the Kuskokwim River (CH2M HILL, 2013b). The Paimiut Portage comprised 16 miles of lake crossings; 10 land portages; and 57 miles of narrow, incised creek passages. Although the distance between the Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers is somewhat closer at Paimiut, the water route is longer than the western route between Russian Mission and Kalskag, and was suitable only for small kayaks. Unlike the Yukon-Kuskokwim Portage, the Paimiut Portage lacked established settlements. Freight and mail did not move between the Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers through the Paimiut Portage. Walter W. Lukens, District 12 TBG101614003935B0! CORRIDOR STUDY OVERVIEW Superintendent of the Road Commission, crossed the portage and wrote a detailed description of the route; however, the portage did not receive any improvements from the Alaska Road Commission (CH2M HILL, 2013b). Kalskag-Paimiut Trail In 1843, Lieutenant Zagoskin investigated a winter trail between Paimiut on the Yukon River and Crow Village on the Kuskokwim. He described the trail as “incomparably” longer than the Yukon- Kuskokwim Portage route, but he used it in the early winter because the spruce forest provided some protection from wind and snowstorms, in contrast to the open and exposed tundra along the Yukon-Kuskokwim Portage route. The trail was still in common use in the 1920s, and the Alaska Road Commission performed maintenance upon it, and made substantial improvements (CH2M HILL, 2013b). In 1925, the Alaska Road Commission located and constructed a new winter trail from Paimiut to a new terminus at Kalskag that roughly followed the old canoe portage route. Work included timber cutting through forested sections, and installing beacons and arrow signage at lakes and slough crossings. In 1930, the Alaska Road Commission performed additional work on the trail, moving and straightening the portion that followed the Paimiut Slough to separate the trail from slough overflows. In 1982, the BLM designated an easement for the winter trail between Kalskag and the Yukon River. Previous Studies There has been a long-recognized need for a connection between the Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers in their lower reaches as they enter the broad Yukon Kuskokwim lowlands, and approach the Yukon Delta and the sea. Yukon Delta residents have historically wanted this connection to expand access for transporting bulk goods and fuel into the region. Early planners envisioned this crossing as a canal. The USACE conducted a survey for a canal during 1923-1924. A cost and feasibility study was developed, but there was no further action. USACE concluded that the canal was not feasible, so the Alaska Bureau of Public Roads identified a route in 1956, connecting the two rivers between Kalskag and the Paimiut Slough with a road. This route traversed the flat, lowland, wet areas west of the Portage Mountains in the area of the Refuge prior to its current boundary. The next major study was a feasibility study initiated in 1974 to investigate the potential for development of a port at Bethel to serve the two river communities. The port was feasible, and construction occurred in 1976 and 1981. The emerging role of Bethel as a port reignited interest in an overland route between the two rivers. In 1981, the State of Alaska conducted a feasibility study TBG101614003935B0! 13 CORRIDOR STUDY OVERVIEW on the proposed route that shifted the 1956 route east and into the base of the Portage Mountains, a more feasible route, as described in the state-prepared Yukon — Kuskokwim Crossing Route and Feasibility Report (Galliett et al., 1981). In 2011, the FHWA’s Western Federal Lands Division initiated a Denali Commission-sponsored study to evaluate the feasibility of a freight and transportation corridor between the Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers. The Denali Commission-sponsored study updated the state’s 1981 study. The 2011 study had a starting point at the community of Kalskag on the northern bank of the Kuskokwim River and an ending point on the southern bank of Paimiut Slough, the lower-most section of the Innoko River, upstream from its confluence with the Yukon River. This area is the location of one of the traditional trading and transportation routes. The 2011 reconnaissance report identified a primary corridor between the Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers and concluded that a road connection was feasible from a constructability standpoint. The report also recommended completing geotechnical and engineering analysis, community outreach, and environmental studies. Upon the completion of the Denali Commission-sponsored feasibility study in 2011, AVCP took the lead on advancing the studies based on the recommendations in the reconnaissance report. AVCP completed an additional reconnaissance engineering and environmental report in 2013. The 2013 report summarized the advancements in identifying potential roadway corridors, geotechnical conditions, and environmental conditions, as well as community outreach. The report further defined opportunities and constraints for advancement of the corridor planning process and built on previous reconnaissance studies. This Corridor Plan updates the 1981, 2011, and 2013 studies; and provides additional information on engineering, environmental compliance, and economic values analysis. Corridor Study Process In 2011, the Kalskag Tribal Government requested AVCP conduct detailed studies to determine if a transportation link between the two rivers could benefit the region. Initially, a concept of intra- Alaskan refining of fuel products, and a distribution system for both freight and fuel out of the interior to the two rivers was the starting point for the study. The Corridor Study Team used the corridor planning process to review the existing freight and fuel distribution network in the context of the region’s many needs. The team also evaluated which changes to the system had potential to provide multi-generational benefits. The process included examination of existing and projected freight and fuel distribution patterns; and social, environmental, and economic issues in the region. The process considered engineering of infrastructure improvements in combination with wise land use and system management actions. 14 TBG101614003935B0! CORRIDOR STUDY OVERVIEW This Corridor Plan is one effort among many projects AVCP is advancing in the region. Other projects include improvements to freight and fuel distribution facilities; construction of energy-efficient housing, public safety, and educational programs; medical services improvements; and economic development projects, while focusing on cultural preservation. This Corridor Plan describes how an array of constraints fit together to develop planning concepts that were used to determine a recommended mode and location for an infrastructure improvement to benefit Yukon Kuskokwim Delta residents and visitors (Exhibit 8). Corridor Planning Toolbox 5 Planning Concepts 13 Transportation Mode Options ” 5 Corridor Options i eneneneeneneneemnennaeeeeennaeeneeREE ; Recommended Corridor and Mode EXHIBIT 8 Corridor Planning Toolbox The corridor planning process is a step in project development designed to fit in between reconnaissance engineering and the NEPA process. The corridor planning process includes: e Examining a project without regard to mode, funding sources, or other predisposed concepts e Refining engineering and environmental data to confirm engineering feasibility in light of impacts, and avoidance and mitigation costs e Developing economic data that illustrate a capacity to meet project goals, and indicate a timeframe for feasibility TBG101614003935B0! 8 CORRIDOR STUDY OVERVIEW e Considering a finance strategy that discusses project funding options, opportunities, and costs for both construction and operations e Working with the public to understand subsistence use areas, and local, subregional, and regional opportunities and challenges e Providing sufficient analytical rigor to legitimately eliminate less-viable alternatives from further consideration as the project moves forward to NEPA compliance AVCP has developed the Corridor Plan with critical community guidance. This stage in the project development process is the beginning of many years of input and guidance from the Tribes and communities in the region. Stakeholder input is a valued, key component to fulfilling AVCP’s mission in the region and drives AVCP’s commitment to proactively seek stakeholder involvement in the process and its outcomes. Exhibit 9 shows how the current corridor planning phase fits in with overall project development. eeneesoneoeoes wesesesoooconcs Laennooonoesols ¢ . € . e Regi 1 o¢ 7 : * ere 3% Final $ Project Start %% Consensus $§ NEPA %% Design and & Reconnaisance Corridor pe Process Permits > Construction Engineering “ Preservation Fo 2years Fe? 2-4years ? 2010-2011 g 3 years 2017-2018 $3 : 2 2013-2016 é : e 2 $ : SSssovesees: Seeeeeceucs eevccccecens eneeres ® Critical Community Guidance E _ Current Phase EXHIBIT 9 Corridor Plan and Project Development Key Elements The Corridor Plan has two key elements. The first is the engineering and environmental work that examined corridor feasibility and practicality. This work includes operational considerations of road, pipeline, telecommunications, and energy transmission components. The other key element is the subsistence and sociocultural aspect, and the economic, market, and finance analyses that illustrate the value and timing of project development. This element outlines the justification for working with public and private landowners in the Corridor Study Area to identify and integrate the 2,000-foot-wide Corridor C between the Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers into land use decision documents. 16 TBG101614003935BO! “In addition to the Corridor Plan, AVCP is identifying improvements throughout the region to lower the cost of energy and reduce energy consumption. These improvements will be tailored to the specific needs of the villages, and may include such things as barge landings, fuel headers, and tank storage; roads; electrical power generation and transmission, including conventional and alternative sources, such as wind, tide, and solar energy; improved building insulation; building new homes and using more efficient mechanical systems.” Regional Planning Context Introduction The Corridor Study Team developed the Corridor Plan within the context of their comprehensive efforts to expand the economy, improve quality of life, and preserve the Native culture of the region. The Corridor Plan is but one element of a coordinated program of projects, services, and initiatives AVCP is pursuing, as documented in the CEDS (AVCP, 2014b). In addition to the Corridor Plan, AVCP is identifying improvements throughout the region to lower the cost of energy and reduce energy consumption. These improvements will be tailored to the specific needs of the villages, and may include such things as barge landings, fuel headers, and tank storage; roads; electrical power generation and transmission, including conventional and alternative sources, such as wind, tide, and solar energy; improved building insulation; building new homes and using more efficient mechanical systems. Regional Landowners The Corridor study area contains two surface land ownerships: The Kuskokwim Corporation (TKC) and the BLM. The Corridor Study Team has had ongoing coordination with both groups on Corridor Plan development and their respective land use planning efforts. The Kuskokwim Corporation Coordination In 1977, 10 ANCSA village corporations located along the middle region of the Kuskokwim River merged, forming TKC. The villages include Kalskag, Lower Kalskag, Aniak, Chuathbaluk, Napaimute, Crooked Creek, Red Devil, Georgetown, Sleetmute, and Stony River. The Corridor Study Area is partially located on TKC land, and the Corridor Study Team met regularly with TKC to coordinate the Corridor Study methods. The Corridor Study Team and TKC coordinated on Kalskags 14(c)(3) land selections, as well as identification of subsistence use areas. TKC continually evaluated the proposed corridor routes in an effort to minimize potential impacts and maximize opportunities for benefits. TKC is a key landowner in the Corridor Study Area and will have a major role as project development continues. AVCP will continue to coordinate key points of the Corridor Plan, including community outreach, corridor adjustments, corridor integration activities, and land access permission for future studies. TBG101614003935B0! aa REGIONAL PLANNING CONTEXT Regional Planning Initiatives U.S. Bureau of Land Management Resource Management Plan Integration BLM is developing a new Resource Management Plan (RMP) for an area in western Alaska that encompasses approximately 62 million acres of land, including 10.6 million acres managed by BLM. This updated RMP includes a portion the Corridor Study Area located in the Bering Sea-Western Interior planning area. The RMP planning area includes all lands south of the Central Yukon watershed to the southern boundary of the Kuskokwim River watershed, and all lands west of Denali National Park and Preserve (DNP&P) to the Bering Sea, including Saint Lawrence, Saint Matthew, and Nunivak Island (BLM, 2015). BLM’s RMPs form the basis for every action and approved use on public lands managed by BLM. BLM prepares RMPs for areas of public lands—called planning areas—that tend to have similar resource characteristics. Planning emphasizes a collaborative environment in which local, state, and Tribal governments; the public; user groups; and industries work with the BLM to identify appropriate multiple uses of the public lands. The BLM revises plans periodically as changing conditions and resource demands require (BLM, 2015). Managers and the public use RMPs to accomplish the following goals: e Allocate resources, and determine appropriate multiple uses for public lands e Develop a strategy to manage and protect resources e Establish systems to monitor and evaluate the status of resources and effectiveness of management practices over time (BLM, 2015) The Corridor Plan study team and BLM have coordinated throughout the corridor planning process. Future actions could include AVCP seeking a utility corridor in the RMP, although it would dedicate no actual ROW at that time. AVCP will need to submit an application form to BLM, which would then note it to the Master Title Plat as an application and, dependent on timing of the RMP approval process, complete it as a separate action that would be in conformance with the RMP. The NEPA class of action required for compliance would depend on analysis within the RMP. BLM will grant no ROW until there is a specific NEPA action and Record of Decision on the specific application. Yukon-Kuskokwim Area Transportation Plan In 2002, Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF) developed the Yukon-Kuskokwim Area Transportation Plan (YKATP), and it currently is being updated. The YKATP analyzed the region’s transportation networks and determined future demand on the 20 TBG101614003935BO! CORRIDOR STUDY OVERVIEW networks. The plan also examined alternatives to the existing systems, including highway and railroad routes from interior Alaska to Bethel. The planning effort focused mainly on the roads, airports, and winter trails. The process will consider all projects brought forward by the public and other government entities. Surveys, public outreach, and public meetings will serve to develop the list of projects; then a set of criteria will determine eligibility for incorporation into the YKATP. The DOT&PF has not formally recognized the Corridor Project in existing planning documents. The AVCP will coordinate with DOT&PF to share Corridor Plan recommendations with the aim of meeting the YKATP’s objectives and goals for consideration as a project of regional significance. State Long-Range Transportation Plan DOT&PF is currently updating its statewide 2035 Long-Range Transportation Plan. The Long- Range Transportation Plan provides direction for all modes of transportation; it aligns the state’s policy direction, addresses needs, communicates issues, and prioritizes solutions. The previous plan, Let’s Get Moving 2030, was prepared in 2008 with a target year of 2030. The current update identifies statewide transportation issues and needs through the year 2035. The plan will be a policy-level guidance document for local entities to use to set their priorities for specific projects, and will identify the following topics: e 10- and 20-year priorities and capital investment needs e Current system and data trends e Current and emerging policy issues e Operations and maintenance (O&M) needs by transportation mode e Revenue analysis e Freight needs and opportunities e Performance goals, measures, and targets AVCP is a member of the Transportation Advisory Committee for the 2035 Long-Range Transportation Plan, and is actively participating in the planning process. Understanding these policy objectives will allow AVCP to shape the Corridor Project to address the multimodal needs in the region, plan for financial sustainability, and develop strategies to preserve and maintain the existing infrastructure. TBG101614003935BO! a REGIONAL PLANNING CONTEXT Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta Regional Energy Plan Nuvista Light and Electric Cooperative, Inc. is a non-profit electric cooperative that seeks to reduce energy costs and provide renewable sources of energy to the people of Western Alaska. NUVISTA Energy Ltd. is leading development of a region-wide energy plan, which will prioritize projects that provide stable, sustainable energy, help the region be more energy efficient, and reduce costs to consumers. AVCP is an active participant in this process and intends to implement or support implementation of the identified, appropriate elements of this plan. Energy Legislation In 2014, the Alaska Legislature passed State Bill (SB) 138, and the Governor signed it into law. SB138 sets out specific provisions relating to an in-state natural gas pipeline and an Alaska liquefied natural gas project. Two specific sections are of interest to the AVCP Region. Section 23 of the bill establishes the Alaska Affordable Energy Fund, with the specific purpose of providing “a source from which the legislature may appropriate money to develop infrastructure to deliver energy to areas of the state that are not expected to have or do not have direct access to a North Slope natural gas pipeline” (ASL, 2014). Section 75 tasks the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) with formulating a plan for: “...developing infrastructure to deliver more affordable energy to areas of the state that are not expected to have direct access to a North Slope natural gas pipeline. The plan must identify ownership options, different energy sources, including fossil fuels, hydro projects, tidal, and other alternative energy sources, and describe and recommend the means for generating, delivering, receiving, and storing energy in the most cost-efficient manner.” (ASL, 2014). These provisions perfectly align with the vision of AVCP’s overall programs and the objectives of the Corridor Study. AVCP has coordinated with the AEA to collaborate on identifying appropriate projects for the AVCP Region and potential implementation pathways. 22 TBG101614003935B0! “Kuskokwim households pay approximately 20 to 25 percent of their average annual household income for home energy; this is more than six times the percentage paid in Anchorage and three times what households in Juneau pay.” “Relative to average household income, Yukon and Kuskokwim families are paying the equivalent of about $12 per gallon, compared to the $4 per gallon paid by families in (<1 2-10), EO E21 Regional Socioeconomic Conditions Introduction This section identifies the region’s existing socioeconomic conditions, and discusses the costs of freight and fuel, the shipping of commodities, and the trends in commodity demand and pricing (Exhibit 10). Paimiut Slough ae Bocsmisen! Pe Towns (Population) e <500 Egegik - 2G g ALOgNIK Ouzinkie @ 500 - 5,000 ee Peiboay 1g 22 omens Bay Chiniak @ 5,000 - 10,000 Pilot Poin Karak Y®*_Uganik Ugashik Larsen Bay —AVCP Member Community Boundary . ‘Ayakulik “Old Harbor [23 corridor Study Area Port Heiden =" AKHIOK Kaquyak " [23 Socioeconomics Study Area Boundary, © ° so 100 : Chgniktate "Eng ” ae a EXHIBIT 10 Socioeconomics Study Area TBG101614003935B80) 25 REGIONAL SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS Socioeconomic Conditions Culture More than 80 percent of the current population in the AVCP Region is Native Alaskan, specifically the Yup’ik People. The Yup’ik People have successfully lived in the harsh climate of Southwest Alaska for hundreds of years, developing highly specialized knowledge and technology that allow them to hunt and gather food, travel, and build dwellings uniquely suited to their environment. Yup’ik society comprises small groups of extended family that were quite mobile as they moved to take advantage of seasonal subsistence resources. The Yup’ik People have a complex, rich, spiritual life that recognizes the People’s connection with and dependence upon the natural environment. Prior to European contact in the 1800s, Yup’ik culture was preserved and transmitted orally. Post-European contact, non-Yup'ik researchers captured Yup’ik traditions in writing, but this was initially a slow process dominated by non-Yup'ik researchers, and much of the memory of the pre- contact period was lost. The people of the AVCP Region have a keen interest in preserving and transmitting Yup’ik culture. Population The AVCP Region consists of approximately 58,000 mi’, with 56 federally recognized Tribes (AVCP, 2014a). The area is often referred to as the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta or Southwest Alaska (see Exhibits 1 and 10). AVCP members include communities and residents from three different census-designated locations within Alaska’s southwest region. Exhibit 11 shows these three areas are the Wade Hampton Census Area, the Bethel Census Area, and the extreme southwest parts of the Yukon- Koyukuk Census Area. 26 TBG101614003935BO! CORRIDOR STUDY OVERVIEW Southeast Fairbanks Census Area Hoonah-Angoon Census Area Southe EN Q st Regi on’ 5) as Sitka City and Borough Prince of Wales-Hyder Census Area EXHIBIT 11 Alaska’s Economic Regions (ADOLWD, 2010a) Northern communities along the two rivers, such as McGrath and Galena, are outside the AVCP area, and are also outside the Bethel and Wade Hampton Census Areas. However, cargo or fuel movement could have economic impacts on these communities; thus, this analysis includes a representative sample of delivered costs of fuel and freight to those communities. As noted in a recent state publication (Abrahamson, 2013), 45 of the 47 villages within the Wade Hampton and Bethel Census Areas have fewer than 1,000 residents, with approximately 17,000 residents of the total 25,300 identified as Alaska Natives (ADOLWD, 2010c). Hooper Bay and Bethel are the two largest communities, as shown in Exhibit 12 (Abrahamson, 2013). TBG101614003935B01 27 REGIONAL SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS Mi Mountain Vilagey Maye Pitkas en. @ ee ee Cred Creek ee Red Devt e Sleetmute 12 Story River ‘Chuatnbaiuk EXHIBIT 12 Relative Community Size, Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta (Abrahamson, 2013) The next three subsections discuss recent population figures and trends, and present a forecast for the area, based on the state demographer’s analysis, along with a discussion of income and employment. Population, 2000 to 2013 Table 1 shows population figures for 2000, 2010, and 2013 for selected, representative communities along the Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers. Annual growth reflects average rates per year over the 13 years shown. 28 TBG101614003935B0! CORRIDOR STUDY OVERVIEW TABLE 1 Population and Annual Growth, Selected Communities, Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers, 2000 to 2013 Kuskokwim River Communities Nikolai Yukon-Koyukuk 100 94 108 0.6 McGrath Yukon-Koyukuk 401 346 320 -1.7 Takotna Yukon-Koyukuk 50 52 56 0.9 Stony River Bethel 61 54 40 -3.2 Red Devil Bethel 48 23 18 -7.3 Lime Village Bethel 6 29 25 11.6 Sleetmute Bethel 100 86 103 0.2 Georgetown Bethel 3 2 2) -3.1 Crooked Creek Bethel 137 105 93 -2.9 Napaimute Bethel 0 2 2 - Chuathbaluk Bethel 110 118 127 1.1 Aniak Bethel 572 501 546 -0.4 Lower Kalskag Bethel 267 282 302 1.0 Kalskag Bethel 230 210 222 -0.3 Tuluksak Bethel 428 373 380 -0.9 Akiak Bethel 309 346 355 1.1 Akiachak Bethel 585 627 675 1.1 Kwethluk Bethel 713 721 783 0.7 Bethel Bethel 5,471 6,080 6,278 14 Napakiak Bethel 353 354 362 0.2 Kasigluk Bethel 543 569 599 0.8 Oscarville Bethel 61 70 61 0.0 Napaskiak Bethel 390 405 442 1.0 Tuntutuliak Bethel 370 408 417 0.9 Eek Bethel 280 296 356 19 Subtotal, Kuskokwim 11,588 12,153 12,672 0.7 Yukon River Communities Grayling Yukon-Koyukuk 194 194 188 -0.2 Anvik Yukon-Koyukuk 104 85 80 -2.0 Holy Cross Yukon-Koyukuk 227 178 167 -2.3 Russian Mission Wade Hampton 296 312 312 0.4 TBG101614003935B0! 29 REGIONAL SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS TABLE 1 Population and Annual Growth, Selected Communities, Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers, 2000 to 2013 Annual Growth, Population Population Population 2000 to 2013 Community Census Area 2000 2010 2013 (%) Marshall Wade Hampton 349 414 473 2.4 Pilot Station Wade Hampton 550 568 628 1.0 St. Mary's Wade Hampton 500 507 544 0.7 Pitka's Point Wade Hampton 125 109 96 -2.0 Mountain Village Wade Hampton 755 813 862 1.0 Emmonak Wade Hampton 767 762 811 0.4 Alakanuk Wade Hampton 652 677 704 0.6 Nunam Iqua Wade Hampton 164 187 211 2.0 Subtotal, Yukon 4,683 4,806 5,076 0.6 Total, Both Rivers 16,271 16,959 17,748 0.7 (ADOLWD, 2010a) Population Forecast Table 2 presents the population forecasts based on official state projections (ADOLWD, 2010b). Projections show the Bethel Census Area growing at an annual rate of 1.0 percent. The Wade Hampton Census Area shows a slightly higher annual rate of 1.3 percent, while the Yukon-Koyukuk Census Area shows fewer residents, contracting at a negative rate of 0.8 percent per year. TABLE 2 Alaska Population Projection, 2017 to 2042, by Region, Borough, or Census Area, with Annual Growth Rates July 1, 2012 July1,2017 July1,2027 July 1,2037 July 1, 2042 oar Location Estimate Projection Projection Projection Projection Growth Southwest Region 42,056 43,346 46,081 49,301 51,754 0.7 Aleutians East Borough 3,227 3,213 3,187 3,140 3,120 -0.1 Aleutians West Census Area 5,881 5,868 5,844 5,727 5,639 -0.1 Bethel Census Area 17,600 18,404 20,103 22,200 23,696 1.0 Bristol Bay Borough 987 961 897 818 779 -0.8 Dillingham Census Area 4,988 5,027 5,104 5,221 5,341 0.2 Lake and Peninsula Borough 1,673 1,703 1,742 1,751 1,779 0.2 30 TBG101614003935BO! CORRIDOR STUDY OVERVIEW TABLE 2 Alaska Population Projection, 2017 to 2042, by Region, Borough, or Census Area, with Annual Growth Rates July 1,2012 July 1, 2017 July 1, 2027 July 1, 2037 July 2, 2082 ATO Wade Hampton Census Area 7,700 8,170 9,204 10,444 11,400 1.3 Interior Region 115,114 121,969 134,073 144,166 149,162 0.9 Denali Borough 1,871 1,848 asa 1,661 1,609 -0.5 Fairbanks North Star Borough 100,343 106,822 118,191 127,560 132,030 0.9 Southeast Fairbanks Census Area 7,218 7,885 9,184 10,425 11,112 1.4 Yukon-Koyukuk Census Area 5,682 5,414 4,927 4,520 4,411 -0.8 Anchorage/Matanuska-Susitna Region 392,643 418,965 468,313 511,276 531,209 1.0 Anchorage Borough 298,842 313,348 338,059 356,584 364,871 0.7 Matanuska-Susitna Borough 93,801 105,617 130,254 154,692 166,338 1.9 State of Alaska 732,298 770,417 839,191 897,034 925,042 0.8 (ADOLWD, 2010a) Employment Over the last 100 years, the economy of the region has evolved from a total subsistence economy to a mixed subsistence and cash economy. Subsistence hunting and fishing remains crucial to the overall economy of the area. Although wage employment exists, it has not developed enough to support village residents. For the immediate future, AVCP expects a mixed economy that combines the activities of wage employment and the harvest of natural resources for both commercial and subsistence use to continue, simply because neither subsistence nor wage employment alone can support village residents. Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development (ADOLWD) data from 2010 (the most recent year available) indicates that the regional economy is highly dependent on public spending and that public employers dominate the list of largest employers (Table 3). Between the two predominant census areas in the Corridor Study Area, just one company on the list, The Alaska Commercial Company, is truly private. Both Coastal Villages Seafood and Kwik’Pak Fisheries are subsidiaries of regional Community Development Quota organizations started via federal legislation (AVCP, 2014b). TBG101614003935B0! 31 REGIONAL SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS TABLE 3 Largest Employers by Census Area, 2010 Bethel Census Area Wade Hampton Census Area Rank = ma | nan a 1 Yukon Kuskokwim Health Corporation Public Lower Yukon School District Public 2 Lower Kuskokwim School District Public Yukon Kuskokwim Health Corporation Public 3 AVCP Public Kwik'Pak Fisheries LLC Public 4 AVCP Housing Authority Public AVCP Housing Authority Public 5 State of Alaska (without University of Rural Alaska Community Action Alaska) Public Program, Inc. Public 6 Coastal Villages Seafood LLC Public Kashunamiut School District Public 7 Akiachak Native Community Public Alaska Commercial Company Private 8 Yupiit School District Public Asa'Carsamiut Tribal Council Public 9 Kuspuk School District Public AVCP Public 10 City of Bethel Public Hooper Bay City Council Public (ADOWLD, 2014b) Income and Poverty Table 4 summarizes housing units per community, average household size, number of households per community, and mean income per household, along with the percent of each community classified as at or below poverty thresholds. TABLE 4 Three Census Areas, Selected Communities, Population, Housing, Income, Poverty Residents Household Housing per Number of Income Community Census Area Units Household Households ($) % in Poverty Nikolai Yukon-Koyukuk 48 2.54 37 29,167 20.6 McGrath Yukon-Koyukuk 195 2.35 147 64,896 14.5 Takotna Yukon-Koyukuk 41 2.36 22 64,167 0.0 Stony River Bethel 26 2.70 20 16,250 88.7 Red Devil Bethel 23 1.92 12 51,250 21.9 Lime Village Bethel 27 2.64 11 51,689 23.8 Sleetmute Bethel 49 2.39 36 28,750 26.8 Georgetown Bethel - - - - - Crooked Creek Bethel 47 2.76 38 35,000 19.2 Napaimute Bethel - - - - - Chuathbaluk Bethel 41 3.28 36 60,893 40.8 Aniak Bethel 214 3.02 166 63,173 16.6 Lower Kalskag Bethel 82 3.76 75 28,375 32.7 oe TBG101614003935BO! CORRIDOR STUDY OVERVIEW TABLE 4 Three Census Areas, Selected Communities, Population, Housing, Income, Poverty : Housing per Number of Income Community Census Area Units = Household Households ($s) % in Poverty Kalskag Bethel 74 3.50 60 37,143 24.7 Tuluksak Bethel 99 4.05 92 25,250 60.8 Akiak Bethel 98 3.84 90 38,333 28.8 Akiachak Bethel 183 4.18 150 50,000 23.9 Kwethluk Bethel 231 4.19 172 43,125 22.3 Bethel Bethel 2,364 3.04 1842 51,689 22.8 Napakiak Bethel 114 3.69 96 31,875 42.9 Kasigluk Bethel 121 5.04 113 42,778 39.0 Oscarville Bethel 30 4.67 15 39,583 44.6 Napaskiak Bethel 135 4.31 94 34,250 22.8 Tuntutuliak Bethel 106 4.25 96 36,250 36.2 Eek Bethel 101 3.25 91 38,438 22.9 aa 4,449 Grayling Yukon-Koyukuk 63 3.53 55 23,125 38.5 Anvik Yukon-Koyukuk 46 2.58 33 21,875 30.3 Holy Cross Yukon-Koyukuk 86 2.78 64 35,833 22.6 Russian Mission Wade Hampton 74 4.27 73 40,625 33.7 Marshall Wade Hampton 108 4.14 100 36,667 17.8 Pilot Station Wade Hampton 137 4.69 121 42,708 26.9 St. Mary's Wade Hampton 209 3.34 151 41,467 18.0 Pitka's Point Wade Hampton 37 3.52 31 46,875 20.8 i Wade Hampton 211 4.42 184 48,036 22.2 Emmonak Wade Hampton 213 4.12 185 55,000 29.4 Alakanuk Wade Hampton 186 4.23 160 33,056 38.4 Nunam Iqua Wade Hampton 46 4.36 43 45,625 16.3 Yukon River 1,416 Both Rivers 5,865 State Average - 2.65 70,760 9.9 Anchorage - 2.64 77,454 7.9 Fairbanks - 2.52 69,223 8.4 Juneau - 2.49 81,490 6.2 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2015; ADOLWD, 2010b) TBG101614003935BO! 33 REGIONAL SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS Based on Table 4, households within the Corridor Study Area tend to have more residents per household than the state average of 2.65 residents. Figures for the Kuskokwim area range from 1.92 at Red Devil to 5.04 at Kasigluk, while similar figures for selected communities along the Yukon range from 2.58 residents at Anvik, to 4.69 at Pilot Station. Household incomes for communities along the Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers are considerably lower than the state average ($70,760 per household) or Anchorage’s average of $77,454. Along the Kuskokwim, Stony River has the lowest income at $16,250 per household, while McGrath has the highest at $64,896. On the Yukon, for the reported communities, Anvik has an annual household income of $21,875; and Emmonak, a hub community, reports $55,000. The average poverty rate for Alaska is 9.9 percent, with Kuskokwim communities ranging from none (at Takotna) to 88 percent at Stony River. Bethel alone reports a poverty rate of approximately 23 percent. Per capita income in the AVCP Region is well below the income in Alaska’s urban areas. The jobs in the region are insufficient, and wages are too low to support a cash economy. The high costs of food, fuel, and virtually every other manufactured product further multiply these impacts. As previously noted, a “mixed subsistence and cash economy,” characterizes the region and is likely the predominant socioeconomic environment for decades to come. Energy Costs, Corridor Study Area This section discusses community energy costs for the Corridor Study Area. To measure total residential consumption, energy consists of diesel (fuel oil and heating oil), gasoline, and electricity. Energy uses at the residential level include space heating, domestic hot water, transportation (water and land), and appliances, including lighting. Table 5 summarizes Corridor Study Area household income and energy costs, compared to statewide averages and those of three urban areas (Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Juneau). Yukon and Kuskokwim areas present a limited number of energy cost samples, but these data clearly show a much larger percentage paid for energy as a percentage of household income. Kuskokwim households pay approximately 20 to 25 percent of their average annual household income for home energy; this is more than six times the percentage paid in Anchorage and three times what households in Juneau pay. 34 TBG101614003935BO! CORRIDOR STUDY OVERVIEW TABLE 5 Average Annual Household Income, Estimated Energy Costs, and Energy Percent of Income Average Household Income Annual Energy Costs Energy Percent of Income Location ($) ($) (%) Statewide 70,760 4,681 6.6 Anchorage 77,454 2,786 3.6 Juneau 81,490 5,737 70) Fairbanks 69,223 8,106 An. Yukon 39,441 6,320 16.0 Kuskokwim 41,840 9,540 22.8 (ADOLWD, 2010b; AHFC, 2014) Data in the area readily quantify three of the four main energy centers (heat, hot water, and appliances), primarily from the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) and other state agencies. Lighting is the fourth energy center, using power generated by electrical utilities. A large cost center is transportation fuel for boats, all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), and both two- and four-cycle boat motors. There is little research on energy demands from these vehicles, though a Norton Sound research project in 2010 provided some cost estimates, discussed under the Gasoline section. Heating Exhibit 13 illustrates retail heating oil prices along the Kuskokwim and Lower Yukon Rivers (DCCED, 2014). AVCP telephoned local fuel retailers in 100 communities statewide and asked them to provide current per-gallon prices on heating fuel and gasoline (see the next section). Prices reflect at-the-pump prices or per-gallon prices as delivered within each community. TBG101614003935B0! 35 REGIONAL SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS @ Kaltag $5.75 $5.75 tio $6.14 Grayling eo Yukon River a enmonak ; Anvik @ $6.00 $7.15 $6.85 © $7.32 @ Holy Cross Mountain Village > Pilots Station aang $5.80 Marshall @ Russian Mission e — e Sleetmute Upper Kalskag $6.75 $6.25 G2 * 85 ss $5.97, : firs} Tuntutuliak 2 $9 e Juneau- $4.10 | Fairbanks- $3.95 Kuskokwim River EXHIBIT 13 Heating Oil Prices in Socioeconomic Study Area (July 2014) (DCCED, 2014) Most of the villages within the Corridor Study Area are small, under 1,000 residents, with fuel delivered just a few times each year, depending on community storage capacity and the ability to deliver during ice-free months. Bethel, for example, receives several fuel deliveries per year; prices quoted for more-frequent deliveries are likely to show greater variation than those communities that have one or two deliveries per year. As noted in a news article on fuel costs in rural Alaska (Demer, 2015), “Bush prices for a winter’s worth of fuel were set months ago...rates won’t change until new shipments arrive after (ice) breakup in 2015.” Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development (DCCED) also provided longer-term price data, from November 2005 to July 2014, which AVCP used to compare both heating oil and gasoline cost averages over time for households in the Corridor Study Area, based on 14 representative communities. Six of the 100 cost-reporting communities are located along the Kuskokwim River: Akiak, Bethel, McGrath, Sleetmute, Tuntutuliak, and Kalskag; eight communities are located along the Yukon River: Anvik, Emmonak, Grayling, Holy Cross, Marshall, Mountain Village, Pilot Station, and Russian Mission. AVCP examined these 14 communities in more detail to determine long-term price trends, as well as to make price comparisons. For additional comparison, AVCP added heating oil and gasoline costs for Fairbanks and Juneau to the analysis. 36 TBG101614003935B0! CORRIDOR STUDY OVERVIEW Table 6 provides the total gallons of heating oil and gasoline estimated for households along the two rivers based on energy audits and personal transportation surveys in the Norton Sound area. TABLE 6 Estimated Annual Gallons of Heating Oil and Gasoline per Household, Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers Bethel Census Area Wade Hampton Census Area Estimated, Oil and Gasoline (Gallons per Year) (Gallons per Year) Space heating, oil, per residence 719 748 Heating oil needed to make domestic hot water 96 104 Total estimated gallons, heating oil 815 852 Gasoline, snow machine, per household 478 478 Gasoline, boat, per household 435 435 Gasoline, ATV, per household 249 249 Total estimated gallons gasoline per household 1,162 1,162 (AHFC, 2014; ISER, 2013) Since 2008, AHFC conducted in-home energy audits on 1,069 residences in the Bethel Census Area and 339 in the Wade Hampton Census Area. For each area, AHFC used the average energy consumption for space heating and domestic hot water to forecast community demand, along with personal transportation estimates for gasoline. Heating Oil Costs Compared Based on project data, Exhibit 14 illustrates the average cost of heating oil per gallon for the years 2005 to mid-2014. AVCP weighted the averages by the estimated demand per river community on a household basis. From 2005 to 2007, Yukon River prices were slightly higher, with Kuskokwim River prices higher from 2007 to 2008. Heating oil prices from 2008 to 2010 similarly reflect major price fluctuations in the cost of crude oil: the average price along the Yukon River was over $2.00 per gallon higher than Kuskokwim River prices. Since 2010, heating oil prices for communities along the two rivers have moved in parallel, with the Kuskokwim River average slightly higher, up to approximately $1.00 per gallon. Commercial fuel shippers suggest there is likely no single reason for the price fluctuations between the communities along the two rivers. In reality, these weighted average prices reflect different market size, different delivery system directions (that is, upriver from Bethel on the Kuskokwim River and downriver from Nenana on the Yukon River), varying water depths (greater depth on the Yukon River), number of fuel transfers, storage tank capacity, mooring and distribution systems, TBG101614003935B0! 37 REGIONAL SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS and retailers’ varying business models, including nonprofit organizations. AVCP also compared the data to heating oil costs for Fairbanks and Juneau in Exhibit 14. $9.00 $8.00 $7.00 Kuskokwim Region $6.00 Yukon Region $5.00 Fairbanks a0 Juneau $3.00 $2.00 $1.00 Nov Nov Jun Nov Jun Oct Nov Feb Jun Jan Jun Jan Jun Jan Jul Jan Jul Jan Jul 2005 2006 2007 2007 2008 2008 2008 2009 2009 2010 2010 2011 2011 2012 2012 2013 2013 2014 2014 EXHIBIT 14 Average Heating Oil Cost per Gallon, 2005 to 2014, Selected Kuskokwim and Yukon Communities, plus Fairbanks and Juneau Since 2010, average costs for heating oil along the Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers have been approximately $2 to $3 per gallon higher than in either Fairbanks or Juneau. Again, major contributing factors to lower prices in Fairbanks and Juneau include market size and storage tank capacity. The difference in average retail heating oil prices between the Yukon and Kuskokwim communities and Fairbanks or Juneau tells only part of the story. Relative to average household income, Yukon and Kuskokwim families are paying the equivalent of about $12 per gallon, compared to the $4 per gallon paid by families in Fairbanks and Juneau. Gasoline Exhibit 15 shows gasoline prices collected under the same conditions and constraints as heating oil described in the last section. 38 TBG101614003935BO! CORRIDOR STUDY OVERVIEW @ Kaltag $6.00 $6.50 $7.45 $6.78 Grayling | McGrath Yukon River 9 Eneosk: wigs Anvik @ $6.50 ~ $6.50 a $8.03 «Holy Cross Mountain Village») Pilots Station re $6.45, Marshall @ Russian Mission aes - Sleetmute Upper Kalskag $7.50 $6.25 $6.95 Bethel * $690 $6.30 / a Tuntutuliak e LC Kuskokwim River EXHIBIT 15 Gasoline Prices in Socioeconomic Study Area (July 2014) (DCCED, 2014) Gasoline sales directly link to transportation in the Corridor Study Area. Table 7 summarizes the estimated annual mileage, fuel use, and cost, at an average of $6.50 per gallon, based on 2010 research in Norton Sound (ISER, 2013). Most households owned a single ATV, more than one snow machine, and more than one boat. a ana Estimated Household Vehicle Use, by Type, Gallons, and Annual Cost Vehicle Type Average Annual Miles Gallons per year = Annual Cost ($), $6.50 per gallon Snow machines 774 478 3,107 Boats 416 435 2,828 ATVs 172 249 1,619 Total 1,362 1,162 7,553 (ISER, 2013) Based on University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA) Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER)- administered questionnaires and interviews in the Norton Sound area about the average annual amount of gasoline (1,162 gallons), subsistence harvesting consumed an estimated 30 percent, with the rest considered used for personal or household transportation. TBG101614003935BO! 39 REGIONAL SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS Norton Sound communities are similar in many ways to those in the Corridor Study Area. Both are located in western Alaska, have no road ties to larger railbelt cities, experience weather extremes, and are considered as subsistence communities for the most part. Gasoline Costs Compared Exhibit 16 illustrates differences in weighted average costs of gasoline for communities along the Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers. However, in the past 2 years, retail gasoline prices for the two rivers appear to be converging, with July 2014 figures only about $0.23 per gallon apart. This may be due to Flint Hills closing its North Pole refinery; fuel transported down the Yukon River (from Nenana) is now obtained from Nikiski or delivered to the Port of Anchorage and shipped north by rail or truck. $9.00 $8.00 $7.00 Kuskokwim Region Yukon Region $6.00 $5.00 Juneau $4.00 Fairbanks $3.00 $2.00 $1.00 Nov Nov Jun Nov Jun Oct Nov Feb Jun Jan Jun Jan Jun Jan Jul Jan Jul Jan = Jul 2005 2006 2007 2007 2008 2008 2008 2009 2009 2010 2010 2011 2011 2012 2012 2013 2013 2014 2014 EXHIBIT 16 Gasoline Cost per Gallon, 2005 to 2014, Selected Kuskokwim and Yukon Communities, plus Fairbanks and Juneau Average Yukon and Kuskokwim River community gasoline prices are comparable with retail gasoline prices in Fairbanks and Juneau, as Exhibit 16 demonstrates. The July 2014 price gap suggested an average retail gasoline cost of about $7 per gallon in the Yukon and Kuskokwim Regions, while Fairbanks and Juneau had an average cost of approximately $4.25 to $4.50 per gallon. The difference of $2.00 to $2.50 per gallon suggests factors similar to those contributing to price gaps for heating oil: market size, isolation, storage tank capacity, number of fuel transfers, and different business models. Once again, the difference in gasoline prices at the pump between the Yukon and Kuskokwim communities and Fairbanks or Juneau understates the economic impact to families. Relative to average household income, families in the Yukon and 40 TBG101614003935B0! CORRIDOR STUDY OVERVIEW Kuskokwim Regions are paying the equivalent of about $12 per gallon compared to the $4.25 to $4.50 per gallon paid by families in Fairbanks and Juneau. Electricity Energy in the form of electricity shows considerable price variation by community (AEA, 2014). Each community has its own power generation systems, generally in the form of one or more diesel-powered generators. There are no major electric power transmission inter-ties similar to those linking Anchorage, Fairbanks, and other railbelt communities. Both residents and the state acknowledge limited market size, high fuel costs, and overall lower household incomes as community concerns. In an effort to equalize power costs, the State Legislature enacted a Power Cost Equalization (PCE) program that seeks to “...provide economic assistance to customers in rural areas of Alaska where the kilowatt-hour charge for electricity can be three to five times higher than the charge in more urban areas” (AEA, 2014). Only residential customers qualify for power cost subsidies under the program; the AEA determines community eligibility, and the Regulatory Commission of Alaska calculates the amount of PCE payment per residential customer of power consumed each month, up to 500 kilowatt hours (kWh). Certain community facilities may receive PCE credit up to 70 kWh per month per resident. For example, a community of 100 residents could receive up to 7,000 kWh for community facilities (combined). Table 8 summarizes power costs by selected Corridor Study Area communities, with and without PCE credit. TABLE 8 Corridor Study Area Communities, Residential Power Cost, With and Without Power Cost Equalization Estimated $ $/kWh,no — $/kWh, with = permonth, _ Estimated $ per Community Census Area PCE PCE no PCE month, with PCE Nikolai Yukon-Koyukuk 0.90 0.24 450 120 McGrath Yukon-Koyukuk 0.73 0.32 365 160 Takotna Yukon-Koyukuk 1.02 0.43 510 215 Stony River Bethel 0.80 0.19 400 95 Red Devil Bethel 0.80 0.19 400 95 Lime Village Bethel 1.77 0.96 885 480 Sleetmute Bethel 0.80 0.19 400 95 Crooked Creek Bethel 0.80 0.19 400 95 Chuathbaluk Bethel 0.80 0.19 400 95) Aniak Bethel 0.76 0.25 380 125 Lower Kalskag Bethel 0.61 0.20 305 100 TBG101614003935B0! 4 REGIONAL SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS TABLE 8 Corridor Study Area Communities, Residential Power Cost, With and Without Power Cost Equalization Estimated $ ; ‘ $/kWh,no —- $/kWh, with_—_— per month, Estimated $ per Community Census Area PCE PCE no PCE month, with PCE Kalskag Bethel 0.61 0.20 328 107 Tuluksak Bethel 0.60 0.16 300 80 Akiak Bethel 0.63 0.22 315 110 Akiachak Bethel 0.60 0.23 300 115 Kwethluk Bethel 0.52 0.20 260 100 Bethel Bethel 0.60 0.17 300 85 Napakiak Bethel 0.84 0.24 472 135 Kasigluk Bethel 0.58 0.19 290 95 Oscarville Bethel 0.60 0.17 300 85 Napaskiak Bethel 0.84 0.24 420 120 Tuntutuliak Bethel 0.65 0.19 325 95 Eek Bethel 0.63 0.20 292 93 Kipnuk Bethel 0.43 0.19 242 107 Nunapitchuk Bethel 0.58 0.19 312 102 Kuskokwim River Average 0.74 0.25 375 124 Grayling Yukon-Koyukuk 0.63 0.20 315 100 Anvik Yukon-Koyukuk 0.65 0.20 325 100 Holy Cross Yukon-Koyukuk 0.60 0.19 300 95 Russian Mission Wade Hampton 0.60 0.19 300 95 Marshall Wade Hampton 0.59 0.19 295 95 Pilot Station Wade Hampton 0.58 0.19 290 95 St. Mary's Wade Hampton 0.59 0.19 295 95 Pitka's Point Wade Hampton 0.59 0.19 295 95 Mountain Village Wade Hampton 0.60 0.19 300 95 Emmonak Wade Hampton 0.57 0.19 285 95 Alakanuk Wade Hampton 0.62 0.20 310 100 Nunam Iqua Wade Hampton 0.53 0.20 324 122 Scammon Bay Wade Hampton 0.64 0.20 375 117 Yukon River Average 0.60 0.19 309 100 Anchorage - 0.15 - 115.39 - Fairbanks - 0.20 - 153.70 - Juneau - 0.13 : 94.52 - (AEA, 2014) There are no PCE subsidies for Anchorage, Fairbanks, or Juneau. 42 TBG101614003935B0! CORRIDOR STUDY OVERVIEW Average power cost for the Kuskokwim River communities shown in Table 8 is $0.74 per kWh, while the average Yukon River cost is $0.60 per kWh. Both are actual costs, without PCE subsidies. With PCE, the Kuskokwim River power costs drop to $0.25/kWh, and $0.19/kWh for Yukon River communities. Comparative costs for Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Juneau are $0.15, $0.20, and $0.13 per kWh, respectively. There are no PCE subsidies for these three communities. Average monthly household power consumption is approximately 750 kWh, compared to approximately 500 kWh in rural communities. The highest-cost community is Lime Village at $1.77/kWh (actual cost) and $0.96/kWh with PCE, reflecting the need to fly fuel into the community, as well as the relatively few households, at just 11. Average monthly household power costs for Kuskokwim and Yukon River communities are $375 and $309, respectively, and $124 and $100, when PCE costs are applied. Monthly costs for Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Juneau are $115, $154, and $95, respectively, with rounding (and no PCE). Fuel Cost Components The process of moving fuel from the refinery to the end-user in rural Alaska requires multiple physical movements and involves a number of entities. In western Alaska, this process starts with the purchase of fuel at the refinery. The fuel ships via linehaul barge or, in the case of communities on the Upper Yukon River, suppliers truck fuel to regional terminals and then transfer fuel to tank farms at regional terminals for further distribution to smaller communities using barges, before final delivery to retail destinations and local tank farms, where fuel is then sold to individual customers. Using Components of Alaska Fuel Costs: An Analysis of the Market Factors and Characteristics that Influence Rural Fuel Prices (ISER, 2010), the study team developed an example of some of the components that form retail fuel prices in rural Alaska (Exhibit 17). The exact amount of each of the components listed will vary depending on the location, size, and accessibility of the specific community and the practices of the local retailer. There are three main cost components for each retail seller or distributor within project communities. First, market forces establish fuel prices from the refinery; communities have virtually no control over this cost center. TBG101614003935B0! 43 REGIONAL SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS Other Additional Fees- Varies Between Retailers $6.00 BES mel etl) Estimated Additional Costs Added in Community $5.00 Working Capital ———> Tank Farm Capital Costs Distributor's Costs for Working Capital & Admin Estimated Distribution Costs to Average Community $4.00 Fee for Use of Hub Facilities—> Fuel Lifting-Fee at Refinery—> $3.00 $2.00 Fuel Price From Refinery 0 cx ead : f aor $1.00 $0.00 EXHIBIT 17 Example Retail Fuel Components in Rural Alaska (ISER, 2010) Transportation costs are the second major cost center. These include costs from the refinery to, for example, a regional hub, as well as costs from that regional hub to the community. Most of these costs are beyond community control, but distributors indicate larger delivered quantities may be sufficient to generate a cost break. Many communities in rural Alaska have participated in a bulk fuel program designed to add additional tankage and take advantage of these potential cost savings. The third and final cost center components are the additional costs paid by each community (or retail distributor). These include costs for the tank farm and its operations, as well as other additional fees and margins for debt service, profit and risk, and administration. Communities (or retailers) have the most influence on this cost center. For example, commercial retailers have an economic model based on conventional business operation; whereas, nonprofit organizations may focus their mission on more than simply profit. There are examples of each of these models within the Corridor Study Area, and they are a main reason why prices for heating fuel and gasoline vary from community to community. 44 TBG101614003935B0! CORRIDOR STUDY OVERVIEW Crowley Distribution and Petroleum LLC (Crowley) suggests (2014) that heating oil costs are the sum of product costs (62 percent of total cost), distribution costs (29 percent), and overhead costs (9 percent). In particular, fuel distribution challenges in western Alaska are a factor. Transportation and distribution costs increase the further the community is from the refinery, which is one reason delivered prices vary so much in western Alaska. The shallow water locations of western Alaska require transportation with specially designed shallow-draft vessels. Insufficient or nonexistent docking and offloading facilities increase time, safety, and environmental risks, which increase costs, as well. Retailers also incur inventory-carrying costs by holding the inventory in storage tanks over the winter season or until sold. Residential Energy Statistics Table 9 shows the average annual residential energy costs for several Corridor Study Area communities, based on detailed household energy analyses (AHFC, 2014). TABLE 9 Estimated Annual Household Energy Costs, Selected Yukon and Kuskokwim Communities Mean Household Income Annual Household Energy ($), Community Census Area ($) no PCE Nikolai Yukon-Koyukuk 29,167 McGrath Yukon-Koyukuk 64,896 Takotna Yukon-Koyukuk 64,167 Stony River Bethel 16,250 Red Devil Bethel $1,250 Lime Village Bethel 51,689 Sleetmute Bethel 28,750 - Crooked Creek Bethel 35,000 Chuathbaluk Bethel 60,893 - Aniak Bethel 63,173 Lower Kalskag Bethel 28,375 Kalskag Bethel 37,143 9,837 Tuluksak Bethel 25,250 Akiak Bethel 38,333 Akiachak Bethel 50,000 - Kwethluk Bethel 43,125 - Bethel Bethel 51,689 - Napakiak Bethel 31,875 11,646 Kasigluk Bethel 42,778 TBG101614003935B0! 45 REGIONAL SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS TABLE 9 Estimated Annual Household Energy Costs, Selected Yukon and Kuskokwim Communities Mean Household Income Annual Household Energy ($), Community Census Area ($) no PCE Oscarville Bethel 39,583 Napaskiak Bethel 34,250 Tuntutuliak Bethel 36,250 Eek Bethel 38,438 6,334 Kipnuk Bethel 6,649 Nunapitchuk Bethel 13,235 Kuskokwim River Average 9,540 Grayling Yukon-Koyukuk 23,125 - Anvik Yukon-Koyukuk 21,875 - Holy Cross Yukon-Koyukuk 35,833 - Russian Mission Wade Hampton 40,625 Marshall Wade Hampton 36,667 Pilot Station Wade Hampton 42,708 St. Mary's Wade Hampton 41,467 Pitka's Point Wade Hampton 46,875 - Mountain Village Wade Hampton 48,036 - Emmonak Wade Hampton 55,000 - Alakanuk Wade Hampton 33,056 - Nunam Iqua Wade Hampton 45,625 $5,857 Scammon Bay Wade Hampton $6,783 Yukon River Average $6,320 State Average 70,760 4,681 Anchorage 77,454 2,786 Fairbanks 69,223 8,106 Juneau - 81,490 5,737 (AHFC, 2014) AHFC publishes residential energy statistics by community and census area for those households that have applied to participate in AHFC’s weatherization or home energy rebate programs. Although the agency rates its community data quantity as low, medium, and high, Table 9 shows only those communities with a high rating. Estimated total annual energy costs consist of space heating, domestic hot water, and appliance use. AHFC calculated costs from each community's typical energy source (that is, fuel oil, wood, 46 TBG101614003935BO! CORRIDOR STUDY OVERVIEW propane, and others) and its power cost (generally for appliances). In addition, Table 9 shows comparable costs for the statewide average, as well as costs for Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Juneau. These figures show rural communities on the Kuskokwim and Yukon Rivers have lower average household incomes, experience higher energy costs, and often exceed AHFC’s recommended 30 percent of total income on housing costs, including rent, utilities, and energy. Existing Transportation Systems The land-based transportation infrastructure in the Yukon Kuskokwim Region is virtually nonexistent. Air is the primary mode of transit for people in the AVCP Region. It is the most common and most reliable means of moving people and freight throughout the region year round. Bethel is the only community that has regular jet service in the region. Most of the smaller communities have single-engine and small twin-engine air service by local air taxis. There are 48 communities in a 56,000-mi? area. Roads or highways do not connect villages, therefore, are not included in national or state highway transportation developments. During the winter, there is more access to the various communities via ice roads and snow machine trails. Village residents use their snow machines and boats, along with ATVs for subsistence hunting, fishing, trapping, and for visiting other villages. These transportation modes are essential for rural Alaskans maintaining their traditional and cultural way of life. Distances in the AVCP Region are vast, which, coupled with the small population and topographic constraints, have made it difficult to justify and support investments in a road network connecting the communities to each other, and connecting this region via road to railbelt Alaska. In the Yukon subregion, one road of about 22 miles in length connects St. Mary’s with three other villages. In the Kuskokwim subregion, a 4-mile road connects Kalskag and Lower Kalskag. This lack of a road network makes transportation of goods and people into and out of the regions only possible by air or water, and movements within the region primarily use these modes. Ice roads are common in the area, especially for transportation corridors that extend from Bethel to outlying villages, such as Aniak. Ice roads are not only seasonal, but they depend on weather, wind, and freeze-thaw cycles. In November 2014, a late thaw cycle created a massive ice jam near the village of Kalskag, upriver from Bethel (Demer, 2015), creating dangerous conditions, including thin ice and areas of open water. TBG101614003935BO! 47 REGIONAL SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS Freight, Fuel Transportation The Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta is part of the socioeconomic study area; however, the two rivers are essentially located in two different Census Areas, with large distances and economic gaps between them (Abrahamson, 2013), resulting in separate statistical data on freight and fuel transport. Bethel is an acknowledged port (or harbor) with a long history of cargo and fuel shipments, storage, and reshipment to upriver Kuskokwim communities, as well as villages downstream. USACE conducted port improvement work at Bethel, with part of that work requiring data collection for their Waterborne Commerce databases. USACE collected and analyzed these data to develop freight and fuel trends and forecasts. By contrast, there are no formal ports or harbors at the mouth of the Yukon River; the nearest community that could serve as a port is Emmonak, about 10 miles upstream from the Bering Sea. The state recently noted there are no established port or harbor facilities on the western Alaska coastline from Bethel to Nome, approximately 700 miles of shoreline (DCCED, 2014). Emmonak currently serves as a beach-access terminal for in-bound cargo; outbound fish products; and fuel receipt, storage, and redirection to 13 other small communities in the Lower Yukon Region. For this analysis, approximately 320 tons of cargo moved through the Port of Emmonak from 2002 to 2011, which is further discussed under the heading Yukon River Cargo. Transportation Links Exhibit 18 illustrates general transportation links within western Alaska. Essentially, all surface traffic on the Kuskokwim originates at Bethel and heads northward, as ice and water depth permit. Barges southbound out of Nenana or, for the 13 or so communities near the mouth of the Yukon, in- bound cargo and fuel barges commonly serve Yukon communities. Black arrows in Exhibit 18 show the approximate location of the Corridor Study Area, further denoting the potential for cargo and fuel transfer between the Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers. © sis DUP S| ow AY, : 48 TBG101614003935BO! Transportation Links Marine and River Air Road and Rail Projection: North America Equidistant Conic December 2014 Source Data: National Elevation Dataset, USGS GNIS EXHIBIT 18 Current Western Alaska Transportation Links TBG101614003935B0! CORRIDOR STUDY OVERVIEW 49 REGIONAL SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS Kuskokwim River Cargo Cargo inbound to the Port of Bethel is considered received cargo, while fuel and cargo that is transferred and shipped up-river on the Kuskokwim, or sent to remote villages south of Bethel, is considered shipments. For the years displayed in Table 10 (2008 to 2012), there are no reported foreign shipments, either inbound or outbound. TABLE 10 Inbound Cargo, Top 11 Commodities, Bethel Alaska, 2008 to 2012 Commodity Units 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2211 Gasoline Gallons 8,090,554 20,605,537 7,134,202 7,239,414 8,960,261 2330 Distillate Fuel Oil Gallons 1,526,757 5,453,784 2,083,784 1,554,595 68,378 4331 Sand and Gravel Tons 33 500 10,100 6,000 5,588 20-foot 4189 Lumber containers 300 209 140 134 112 20-foot 7110 Machinery (Not Electric) containers avs ior 156 177 = 5290 Miscellaneous Mineral 20-foot 201 121 67 96 130 Products containers 20-foot 7900 Manufactured Products NEC containers 7 36 31 ou 86 20-foot 5480 Fabricated Metal Products containers 2 pe a6 ave =a 20-foot 7400 Manufactured Wood Products containers 208 76 =A ea e 2340 Residual Fuel Oil Gallons 996,486 0 450,000 0 0 20-foot 6887 Groceries containers a Be = 33 = 20-foot 61 Other Cargo containers 205 303 131 197 1 As received, 48,959 96,545 50,191 47,694 42,798 Total tons, all cargo tons Summary, Commodities Gallons, gasoline Gallons 8,090,554 20,605,537 = 7,134,202. = 7,239,414 8,960,261 Gallons, fuel oil Gallons 1,526,757 5,453,784 2,083,784 1,554,595 68,378 Gallons, residual fuel oil Gallons 996,486 0 450,000 0 0 Tons, sand and gravel Tons 33 500 10,100 6,000 5,588 ae toe 1,229 1,051 735 1,143 787 Cargo containers (USACE, 2012) NEC - not elsewhere classified 50 TK lla 6) aslo TBG101614003935BO! CORRIDOR STUDY OVERVIEW For reporting purposes, dry cargo is converted to 20-foot equivalent units (TEUs) on the basis of an average cargo weight of 12 tons (or 24,000 pounds), based on industry standards (Cambridge Systematics and Transportation Research Board, 1998). The measurement for liquid cargo (primarily, heating fuel and gasoline) is tons converted to gallons, and the measurement for sand and gravel is tons. Yukon River Cargo No central collection office for Yukon River communities reports on the tons of cargo and fuel deliveries. Most cargo reaches upper and middle Yukon River villages from the Fairbanks and Nenana area; however, some in-bound cargo travels to villages from St. Mary’s down to the river's connection with the Bering Sea. Interviews with shippers reference the southbound nature of most deliveries, starting at Nenana. There is very little public information on trade flows near the mouth of the Yukon, with limited data from Emmonak. Exhibit 19 shows inbound cargo at Emmonak for the years 2002 to 2011. 60 —————————— a = = re 50 40 30 oo = “ 10 - 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 = Estimated Tons EXHIBIT 19 Tons of Cargo Moved Through the Port of Emmonak, 2002 to 2011 (DCCED, 2014) Interviews with shippers indicate cargo and fuel moved through Emmonak are typical of that reported at Bethel: heating fuel, gasoline, and dry cargo. Maritime businesses, such as fish TBG101614003935B0! st REGIONAL SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS processors, ship product in freezer vans loaded onto barges. The tonnage reported at Emmonak is a very small percentage of actual amounts. Freight Costs Exhibit 20 shows the price to ship a 1,000-pound pallet from Anchorage to various communities in the Corridor Study Area. The Corridor Study Team calculated the prices for the communities along the Yukon River by adding the cost to truck the pallet from Anchorage to Nenana to the marine shipping cost for transporting the pallet from Nenana to its final destination. The prices for communities along the Kuskokwim River derive from the cost to ship the pallet from Anchorage to Bethel and the cost of the marine carrier from Bethel to its final destination. @ Kaltag $630 $720 sacorsth $820 Grayling = Yukon River @ Emmonak e ae Anvik ® $720 $720 $800 $800 @ Holy Cross Mountain Village >) Pilots Station ae $720 Marshall @ Russian Mission $800 ° e a See. xy Upper Kalska; bag PrS6B0 Sane, = fink 6: $610 Tuntutuliak e Kuskokwim River EXHIBIT 20 Freight Costs in Socioeconomic Study Area from Anchorage Note: Prices for 1,000-pound pallet originating in Anchorage. (Crowley, 2014; DCCED, 2014) Exhibit 21 illustrates trends in freight costs from 2006 to 2014 for a market basket of construction materials used for home building. The reported costs are for Anchorage, Fairbanks, Juneau, Wasilla, Barrow, Bethel, and Nome. In 2014, the AHFC developed the materials list, with materials costs quoted at Seattle and transportation from there to the designated Alaska communities. ADOLWD used the market basket of construction materials to simulate contractor pricing for a model home; the index provides a benchmark for comparing costs between the communities (ADOLWD, 2010a.) 52 TBG101614003935B0! CORRIDOR STUDY OVERVIEW As discussed earlier in sections on energy costs, residents along the lower Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers pay a larger, but unknown, percentage of their household income when compared to statewide averages or those of Alaska’s three urban areas (Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Juneau). Exhibit 21 shows estimated costs at Bethel approximately one-third higher than Anchorage. 60,000 50,000 40,000 ee ne eztiallll 30,000 20,000 10,000 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Anchorage ——Fairbanks — Juneau ——Wasilla ——Barrow ——Bethel ——Nome EXHIBIT 21 Alaska Housing Finance Corporation, Construction Cost Survey, 2014 Prepared by Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Research and Analysis Section Cargo Forecast Cargo and fuel forecasts contained in this report section address aggregated demand, such as petroleum products (gasoline, fuel oil, and diesel) and cargo (all containerized and measured as TEU-port containers). These forecasts are based on the same years reported earlier (2008 to 2012) for Bethel; there are large variations in certain commodities year-over-year, so a 5-year average formed the base figures for these projections. For example, gasoline delivered to Bethel in 2010 totaled approximately 7.1 million gallons, close to amounts reported for 2009 and 2008; however, in 2011, Bethel received 20.6 million gallons, followed by 8.1 million gallons in 2012. There were more than 10,000 tons of sand and gravel received in 2010, followed by 500 tons in 2011 and 33 tons in 2012. TBG10161400393580! 53 REGIONAL SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS These numbers suggest staging for a large capital project along the Kuskokwim River, especially because shipments outbound from Bethel in 2012 show approximately 11,000 tons of sand and gravel shipped from Bethel. Kuskokwim River Cargo Forecast Table 11 summarizes cargo and fuel forecasts from 2012 (base year) to 2042, by 5-year period, using the annual growth rates derived from the state’s population projections. TABLE 11 Cargo and Fuel Forecasts, 2012 to 2042, Bethel Census Area Commodity Unit 2012 2017 2022 2027 2032 2037 2042 Received in Bethel Gasoline Gallons 10,405,993 10,881,358 11,379,190 11,885,891 12,439,892 13,125,742 14,010,251 Fuel Oil Gallons 2,137,459 ~—- 2,235,102 ~—Ss-2,337,360 += 2,441,440 ~— 2,555,236 2,696,114 ~—«-2,877,798 Residual Fuel oil Gallons 289,297 302,513 316,353 330,440 345,842 364,909 389,499 Tons, sand Tons 4,444 4,647 4,860 5,076 5,313 5,606 5,984 and gravel Cargo TEU 989 1,034 1,081 1,130 1,182 1,247 1,332 Shipped Out of Bethel Gasoline Gallons 1,272,313 1,330,434 1,391,303 1,453,256 1,520,992 1,604,849 1,712,996 Fuel Oil Gallons 616,216 644,366 673,846 703,852 736,658 777,273 829,651 Residual Fuel Oil Gallons 90,000 94,111 98,417 102,799 107,591 113,523 121,173 Tons, sand Tons 4,400 4,601 4,812 5,026 5,260 5,550 5,924 and gravel Cargo TEU 240 251 262 274 287 303 323 Consumed in Bethel Gasoline Gallons 9,133,681 9,550,924 9,987,888 10,432,635 10,918,900 11,520,893 12,297,256 Fuel Oil Gallons 1,521,243 1,590,736 1,663,514 1,737,588 1,818,577 1,918,841 2,048,147 Residual Fuel Oil Gallons 199,297 208,402 217,936 227,641 238,251 251,386 268,327 Tons sand Tons 44 46 48 50 53 56 60 and gravel Cargo TEU 749 783 819 856 895 945 1,008 (USACE, 2012) Av? 5% = uae 54 TBG101614003935B0! CORRIDOR STUDY OVERVIEW Yukon River Cargo Forecast The average reported cargo volume at Emmonak for the years 2007 through 2011 is approximately 40 tons per year; at a 1.0 percent compound annual growth rate, cargo shipments would reach 54 tons in the year 2042. These data suggest the City of Emmonak is counting in-bound data for the city and nearby communities, and may not include private shipments, such as those refrigerated vans shipped out by fish processors, across private docks or access points. As noted earlier, the very limited amount of cargo reported at Emmonak is representative of the type of goods received, though the reported tonnage is a fraction of the total in-bound to the lower Yukon area. Cargo Transportation, Constraints Goods arriving at Bethel or Emmonak transfer onshore, where they restage and transfer to barges for upriver deliveries, which are subject to weather, ice conditions, water levels, and availability and suitability of barge landing sites. This section notes constraints specific to each river. Kuskokwim River Constraints Ocean barges can only access the mouth of the Kuskokwim River once shore-fast ice clears the main navigation channels, usually around late May. During the last 10 years, this date has been as early as May 1 and as late as early June (SRK Consulting, 2013). The Kuskokwim River is ice-free from approximately the first part of June through mid-October— generally, a shipping season of 100 to 120 ice-free days. River barges may start to move upstream of Bethel once the river is free of ice, generally between April 24 and June 1. The Kuskokwim River typically begins to freeze up in early October. The controlling water depth is approximately 12 feet to Bethel, but this can increase during high tides, as the diurnal range at Bethel is 4 feet. Dredging at Oscarville’s Bar could increase the controlling draft to 22 feet. Controlling depths upstream of Bethel are 5 to 6 feet to Crooked Creek, and 3.5 to 4 feet to McGrath. During low water years, tanker aircraft fly fuel in, generally from Anchorage, but also from Fairbanks into McGrath. During colder winters, there often are ice roads constructed on the Kuskokwim River from Bethel to Aniak; these roads are uncertain due to warming conditions, open water, and under-ice scouring by flowing water. Yukon River Constraints The Yukon River entry is at its mouth, via the Kwikluak Pass near Alakanuk. The pass has sufficient depth to enter the river, but accessing it requires many miles of open sea and shallow water crossing to reach it from any port with a protected anchorage. Depending on Yukon River flow TBG101614003935BO) 55 REGIONAL SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS conditions, oceangoing barges that are not fully loaded can navigate from the ocean to St. Mary's, where they load into shallow draft barges for transport upriver. The controlling water depths on the Yukon River are 7 to 8 feet from the mouth northward to the city of Tanana, and 4 to 5 feet from Tanana to Nenana. As a longer river, with extensions farther north and east toward the Yukon, Canada, the Yukon River is subject to ice jams and sudden water releases during spring break-up. Flooding of communities alongside the river is common. The ice-free season is similar to the 100 to 120 days found on the Kuskokwim River, but the Yukon River is more subject to variation, with typical mid-May break-up at Nulato (Gana-A’Yoo, 2014), upstream from the Corridor Study Area. Impact to Fuel and Freight Prices As previously stated, the vast distances and small markets of the AVCP Region are a significant contributor to the high prices of fuel and goods paid by regional consumers. Data gathered by project economists on current regional fuel and freight prices, as illustrated in Exhibits 13 through 21, indicate there are currently relatively small price differentials for fuel and freight between the lower Yukon and Kuskokwim communities. This data suggested that any transportation connection between the two rivers requiring intermodal transfer (such as barge-to- truck-to-barge) would be unlikely under current market conditions to lower fuel and freight costs. This is because the additional costs of delivery, transshipment, storage (especially in the case of fuel), and reloading would overwhelm the small differentials seen between costs on either side of the corridor. It is a near certainty that moving fuel over a road connection would lead to increased prices on the receiving side, which interviews with shippers independently confirmed. Interviews with Shippers Interviews of fuel and freight shippers for the Yukon-Kuskokwim freight and transportation analysis revealed five primary companies are currently conducting fuel and/or freight operations on the Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers: Ruby Marine, Inc.; Crowley, Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC); Vitus Marine, LLC (Vitus); and Delta Western, Inc. AVEC contracts most of their fuel movements to Vitus. The Corridor Study Team interviewed all five of the organizations. Even though the interviewed companies have very different business models, interview results were exceptionally consistent. The team promised the individual operators confidentiality and aggregated these data without source identification. The results include: a a (¢ Nd pooner 56 TBG101614003935B0! CORRIDOR STUDY OVERVIEW Interviewees noted that they had reservations about the economic feasibility of the proposed road. In summary, moving fuel and freight across that corridor would require “a lot of infrastructure when there is not that much volume.” Interviewees consistently mentioned that a much better location for a corridor would be extending the existing road from Ruby/Poorman to Ophir/McGrath. This connection would take advantage of existing roads and provide transport moving south on the Kuskokwim. The middle of the Yukon River does not have much market. Any transport heading up the Yukon is at a disadvantage when compared to down-river transport, given the more favorable economics of coming down the Yukon from Nenana or Tanana; thus, moving fuel north over the road would not be economical. Moving fuel across the proposed corridor requires four loading and unloading cycles and two tank farms, one at each end of the road. The cost of fuel increases every time someone transports or stores it. A typical delivery from the Yukon would be 360,000 gallons, which would require 5,000- gallon trucks. Initial cost estimates indicate moving fuel across the proposed corridor in either direction will add $1.70 to $2.40 per gallon to existing fuel costs. This increased cost includes: e $0.10 to $0.20 per gallon each time the fuel moves from barge to storage tanks. This event would occur twice in a two-farm system. e $0.75 to $1.00 per gallon for each tank farm used to store or unload the fuel. The study assumes needing two farms. e $0.10 to $0.20 per gallon for moving the fuel along the road via truck. All of the interviewees noted that the fuel cost differential between the Yukon and the Kuskokwim does not support moving fuel over the corridor in either direction. The road does not reduce fuel prices moving south on the Yukon. In fact, moving fuel through Bethel, over the road, and up (or down) the Yukon would increase fuel prices because it would require four to six additional cycles of loading, unloading, transport, and storage, and because the travel distance is increased when compared to the cost of delivered fuel at St. Mary’s, for example. There is not enough freight volume in the area to justify the cost of moving it across the road to the other river in either direction. Petroleum products delivered to the Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers come from three sources: Alaska (refinery at Nikiski), the West Coast, and Asia. Interviewees did not perceive these sources TBG101614003935B0! 57 REGIONAL SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS changing. The distribution of the fuel volumes from each source depends on price, as shippers rotate between sources based on price. With the Flint Hills Refinery closure in Fairbanks, fuel can travel in trucks north from Anchorage and then south on the Yukon River. It will still be cheaper to ship from Anchorage or through the mouth of the Yukon River than over the proposed corridor. The Kuskokwim market is currently at overcapacity where shipping is concerned. The interviewees indicated that they expect some sort of consolidation from three to two shippers in the next 5 to 7 years. The shipping season extends from June 1 to October 1 for the Kuskokwim—equal to 110 to possibly 120 days (Bethel north). The controlling water depth (the maximum vessel draft) on the Yukon is 7 to 8 feet from the mouth to the City of Tanana, and 4 to 5 feet to Nenana. The controlling water depth on the Kuskokwim is 12 feet to Bethel, 5 to 6 feet to Crooked Creek, and 3.5 to 4 feet from Crooked Creek to McGrath. Fuel shippers fly fuel into McGrath during low- water years. Impacts of Handling on Cargo Logistics The cost of moving bulk cargo, including fuel, increases with each cargo handling. With today’s transportation technologies, the cost impacts of the additional handling required to transport a product off of a barge onto a truck are significant. Transferring fuel from a barge to a truck crossing the Study Corridor, then from that truck to a storage tank, and then eventually to another barge would add an estimated $1.70 to $2.40 to the price of a gallon of fuel. As current fuel prices on the Lower Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers are comparable, there is very little economic incentive to make such a transfer in either direction. The same constraints also impact a petroleum products pipeline connection between the two rivers. Keeping products on a barge using a canal could potentially address these issues, but current information suggests there are cost, environmental, and regulatory issues that are fatal flaws to the canal mode. Socioeconomic Conditions Summary Most lower Yukon and Kuskokwim River communities have less than 1,000 residents and are isolated from each other by relatively long distances, measured by either air or river miles. Overall, residents have fewer opportunities for employment, with several communities having well over 20 to 40 percent of their households at federal poverty standards. 58 TBG101614003935BO! CORRIDOR STUDY OVERVIEW An added issue is the much higher cost of food and other staples, especially fuel for household heating. Higher transportation costs reflect the sporadic and seasonal nature of ocean and river vessel traffic. Certain villages experience low-water conditions that hinder fuel barge deliveries, sometimes requiring emergency fuel delivery by air, adding more cost. When compared to their urban counterparts, Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta residents face fewer employment opportunities, high fuel and energy costs, and an overall cost of living that can force residents to leave rural villages for greater employment opportunities and less-costly living conditions in Anchorage, Fairbanks, or other parts of Alaska. TBG101614003935B01 59 “The AVCP Region has well-documented economic challenges: small markets, vast distances, and limited economic resources. A future corridor could help address some om Ue ae Corridor Study Objectives Introduction The Corridor Study objectives derive from many sources. The Corridor Study Team drew on decades of planning and conversations with people in the region to develop social, cultural, and economic objectives. Engineering objectives derive from design standards, and construction and maintenance considerations. Environmental objectives relied on regulatory requirements and best practices. Understandably, some of these objectives overlap, and some may be mutually contradictory. The Corridor Study Team recognized and addressed overlaps with the evaluation process and the development of a consensus recommendation across multiple disciplines. Corridor Study Engineering Objectives The engineering objective is to evaluate a freight and energy corridor that provides for safe and efficient movement of freight, energy products, and people between the Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers. Corridor alternatives must meet applicable engineering standards and best construction and management practices, including local, state, and federal codes, policies, and design standards, for construction and O&M. Specific objectives include: e Design infrastructure that allows appropriate connections with other transportation networks in the region. e Identify the most efficient means of moving freight and energy products to and from the corridor end-points. e Design facilities that can be efficiently maintained using the resources available in the region in a cost-effective manner. e Design facilities that can function safely in all seasons. e Design facilities that accommodate social, economic, and environmental objectives. Corridor Study Social and Cultural Objectives The people in the AVCP Region have a rich, cultural heritage rooted in oral traditions. Societal and economic trends since first contact have eroded this cultural heritage, and challenges to its re-emergence continue today. AVCP derived the social and cultural objectives for the Corridor Study from the documented determination of the Alaskan Natives in this region to sustain and preserve their rich culture in harmony with evaluating and advancing solutions to improve economic conditions in the region. TBG101614003935B0! 63 CORRIDOR STUDY OBJECTIVES Corridor Study Economic Objectives The AVCP Region has well-documented economic challenges: small markets, vast distances, and limited economic resources. A future corridor could help address some of these issues. These economic challenges result in high levels of unemployment, lower incomes, exorbitant prices for goods and services, and lack of business formation. The Corridor Study sought to address economic issues with these objectives: Create opportunities to lower energy and bulk cargo prices through improved and alternative supply routes, increased competition, and the potential to merge markets Position the region to take advantage of changes in the regional, state, and world economy and trade routes, both in the near-term and across a multigenerational timeframe Create jobs through construction and O&M activities associated with the Corridor Project Promote regional economic development in both the near-term and across a multigenerational timeframe Provide regional transportation system redundancy and security in the event of a “black swan” event (an event in human history, either natural or human-caused, that is unprecedented and unexpected at the point in time it occurs) Corridor Study Environmental Objectives Environmental objectives address the need to locate the corridors and ROWs in a place and manner that meets environmental standards, regulations, and policies, yet can still function as an efficient means to move goods and services between the rivers. Objectives include: 64 Use the Least Harm Path Analysis and Residual Impact Analysis methodologies to identify the corridor that best protects environmental and subsistence resources. Identify environmental and social regulations and policies that must be satisfied for successful corridor development. Develop best management practices (BMPs) for construction and O&M that protect and minimize impacts to environmental and subsistence resources. Coordinate with the engineering and economic planning disciplines and adaptively develop the design of the corridor and ROW to meet, socioeconomic, engineering, and environmental objectives. Develop mitigation measures that minimize impacts and compensate for unavoidable impacts. TBG101614003935B0! CORRIDOR STUDY OVERVIEW Context-sensitive Objectives The corridor exists in a complex physical, social, cultural, economic, and historic context. This requires context-sensitive solutions (CSS). Many of the objectives stated inherently acknowledge and address elements of this context. Based on dialog with the AVCP, other agencies, and the people of the region, there are two additional demonstrated objectives for achieving context- sensitive corridor solutions in the Corridor Plan: 1. Minimize aesthetic and visual impacts of a new corridor roadway alignment. Zz Conduct a project development process that incorporates Tribal, local agency, and stakeholder values throughout the Corridor Plan development process. TBG101614003935B0! 65 “The Corridor Plan is the source of the preliminary project purpose and need. When defining the purpose and need, AVCP and the communities it serves developed long- range objectives from a multigenerational perspective and forecasted the future needs of the region’s residents. It prioritizes strategies for addressing objectives and proposes a timeframe to develop Corridor Plan recommendations into actual projects that provide the highest potential to meet the preliminary Corridor Project purpose and need.” Purpose and Need Introduction As part of PEL, the Corridor Plan developed a preliminary purpose and need statement. A preliminary purpose and need statement forms a bridge between the corridor planning process and the NEPA process. The Corridor Plan is the source of the preliminary project purpose and need. When defining the purpose and need, AVCP and the communities it serves developed long-range objectives from a multigenerational perspective and forecasted the future needs of the region's residents. It prioritizes strategies for addressing objectives and proposes a timeframe to develop Corridor Plan recommendations into actual projects that provide the highest potential to meet the preliminary Corridor Project purpose and need. The data and information used to construct this Corridor Plan provide the basis on which to build a preliminary purpose and need statement under NEPA in the future. The Corridor Plan has helped refine the preliminary purpose and need in two ways: fe Stating the objectives of the Corridor Plan and the region 2: Framing the scope of the problem a future project will address Purpose The purpose of this Corridor Project is to re-establish a corridor for reliable, redundant transportation, energy, and freight-handling infrastructure between the Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers, which are currently the primary routes for bulk cargo within this vast geographic area, but are now physically separate. AVCP and the Corridor Study Team will meet this purpose in a manner that will: e Minimize Refuge impacts e Promote regional economic development in both the near-term and across a multigenerational timeframe e Provide regional transportation system redundancy and security e Balance the preliminary Corridor Project purpose and need with potential human, biological, and physical resources TBG101614003935B0! 69 PURPOSE AND NEED Need The need was developed to examine the following: e Regional freight, fuel, and energy costs are not sustainable for residents. e Barge access to each river is constrained by multiple oceanic and river factors. A connection between the two riverine transport systems could: e Enhance economic activity and job creation in this economically depressed region e Protect against supply interruptions due to lack of alternative routes e Enhance the opportunity to combine markets, increase competition, and create alternative transportation routes e Position the region to benefit from the Alaskan gas economy 70 TBG101614003935BO! “The multigenerational need to improve the freight and fuel transportation warrants reserving the corridor that has undergone a full engineering and environmental assessment using contemporary standards; and the re-establishment of the ancient connection in a new corridor that can accommodate several transport mode options.” Corridor Evaluation and Selection Process Introduction This Corridor Plan initiated an intergovernmental cooperative planning process to promote community-based and regionally based discussions about reconnecting the Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers with infrastructure. The Corridor Plan provided the first of many opportunities for Tribal, public, and local government and agency participation early and throughout the process. The Corridor Study Team invited each group to participate in development and screening of Corridor Plan concepts, transport mode options, and corridor solutions. This Corridor Plan meets its planning objectives by addressing regional issues and evaluating a full range of multimodal solutions. The Corridor Plan recognizes long-range ROW needs by identifying a recommended corridor before the lands become unavailable. This Corridor Plan: clusions and recommendations of th commends next steps EXHIBIT 22 Corridor Development Plan Process The corridor planning concepts were based on incorporating and expanding existing fuel and freight transport systems in a manner that: e Meets the Corridor Plan objectives e Meets the Corridor Plan preliminary purpose and need TBG101614003935BO) 73 CORRIDOR EVALUATION AND SELECTION PROCESS The Corridor Plan evaluation process involved two levels of screening: an initial broad assessment to examine concepts to meet the preliminary purpose and need (Level 1 Screening), followed by a second, more refined evaluation to select a transportation mode and 2,000-foot-wide corridor, the Level 2 Screening (CH2M HILL, 2014a, 2014b). Ultimately, the Corridor Plan assesses five transportation concepts and five transportation modes, with 13 modal options and five overland corridor connection route options. During the Level 1 analysis, the Corridor Study Team identified the transportation concepts that appeared likely to meet a substantial number of the project objectives and preliminary purpose and need. As a result of the Level 1 Screening, AVCP identified a single transportation concept that was carried forward into the Level 2 process. The Corridor Study Team then screened the single transportation concept that resulted from the Level 1 Screening and the 13 transportation mode options in Level 2 against specific engineering, environmental, and socioeconomic criteria to assess their relative merits. Subject matter experts used appropriate qualitative and quantitative methods to complete the screening at the Level 1 and 2 evaluations. The Tribes and the public served key roles in developing the selection criteria and screening method. This section describes the process used to evaluate the initial concepts considered, as well as the multimodal options considered and advanced. It also describes the process used to evaluate where to locate the corridor. Level 1 Concept Screening Analysis and Results The Level 1 analysis identified concepts to carry forward into the Level 2 analysis. Five concepts addressed the preliminary purpose and need and the Corridor Project evaluation criteria: 1. Improve existing barge system 2. Improve existing bypass mail system 3. Create a new connection between the Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers 4. Improve existing rail system 5. Improve existing road/ice road system The Level 1 Screening process assessed these five concepts against the preliminary purpose and need and Corridor Project evaluation criteria, and identified engineering, environmental, regulatory, or economic fatal flaws using existing quantitative and qualitative data. The screening process advanced only one of the five concepts considered. As illustrated in Exhibit 23, the Corridor Study Team only assessed the concept of creating a new connection between the Yukon and Kuskokwim 74 TBG101614003935B0! CORRIDOR STUDY OVERVIEW Rivers as having no engineering, environmental, regulatory, or economic fatal flaws and being likely to substantially meet the preliminary purpose and need and Corridor Project evaluation criteria. ee) IS a eee ea) i: ct Screening Evaluation Criteria }) Legend => — Screened-out concept, mode, or corridor —— > —Concept/mode/corridor advanced EXHIBIT 23 Corridor Plan Level 1 Screening Process Corridor Study Concepts Considered but Dismissed Improving Existing Barge System This concept focused on only improving barge landings on the Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers. Project data indicates current barge landings on both rivers are both performing and underperforming. A new subregional port is currently in the design phase on the lower Kuskokwim River for the Native Village of Kongiganak. The Ilkivik River Port Access Road is a high-priority project for the village, as the river is becoming too shallow and narrow to accommodate barges. Fish kills, tide restrictions, erosion, and safety are the key drivers for advancing the new port location; however, this specific need and its regional benefit is just one project in a set of many projects needed to improve regional economic conditions. TBG101614003935B0! 75 CORRIDOR EVALUATION AND SELECTION PROCESS The concept recommended for advancement includes two barge landings, one on each of the rivers; however, studies and analysis completed indicate that barge landings alone do not address the multigenerational need, and do not solve the overarching problem of providing a reliable and redundant regional freight and fuel transportation network. This concept was dismissed from further consideration, as it does not meet the Corridor Plan preliminary purpose and need. Improving Existing Bypass Mail System This concept is limited to expansion of the existing bypass mail system. Bypass mail moves much of the region’s freight and perishables. However, it is not practical to move the region’s large volumes of freight and fuel with the existing aircraft fleet. This concept would not provide a new connection between the rivers, or a redundant facility to move freight and fuel. Lacking these elements, the concept would not enhance or build on the region’s freight and fuel delivery and transport network. This concept was dismissed from further consideration, as it does not meet the Corridor Plan preliminary purpose and need. Improving Existing Rail System The Alaska Railroad is a Class II railroad that extends from Seward and Whittier, in the south of the state, to Fairbanks (passing through Anchorage), and beyond to Eielson Air Force Base and Fort Wainwright in the Interior. It is unique in that it carries both freight and passengers throughout its system, including DNP&P. The railroad has a mainline over 470 miles and is well over 500 miles, including secondary branch lines and siding tracks. The State of Alaska owns the Alaska Railroad, which is connected to the Lower 48 states via three rail barges that sail between the Port of Whittier and Harbor Island in Seattle (the Alaska Railroad- owned Alaska Rail Marine from Whittier to Seattle, and the Canadian National Railway from Whittier to Prince Rupert, British Columbia). The Alaska Railroad does not currently have a direct, land- based connection with any other railroad lines on the North American network (ARC, 2012). The cost and feasibility of extending the rail network to a major hub—such as to Bethel, or to any of the 56 communities in the AVCP Region—to use for distribution of freight and fuel is not practicable. Analysis helped to understand more clearly the cost of a potential rail extension. The Port MacKenzie rail extension project, currently under construction, will tie the port, located west of Anchorage across a narrow portion of Cook Inlet, to the 500-mile length of the Alaska Railroad. Considerations of several routes lead to the final route’s extension north 32 miles from the Port to a connection near Houston, Alaska. Estimated total project cost in 2007 dollars was $272.5 million, approximately $8.5 million per mile. Estimated project costs in 2014 dollars are approximately 76 TBG101614003935B0! CORRIDOR STUDY OVERVIEW 20 percent higher, at $327 million, after adjustment with the Anchorage Consumer Price Index. Cost per mile, also in 2014 dollars, is $10.2 million (Port MacKenzie Rail Extension, 2015). Prior to completion of the Alaska Railroad in 1923, there was discussion of a railway linking Alaska to the Lower 48 states. Interest resurfaced in 2005 and 2007 with a joint analysis of the project by the State of Alaska and the Government of Yukon (YG) (YG, 2013). The proposed route would extend from interior Alaska to northwestern Canada. A summary report, submitted in 2007 to both governments (YG, 2013), estimated total length of the connection at 1,610 miles. The estimate for basic construction cost is $7.3 billion, with that amount increasing to $10.9 billion after adding allowances for unknown estimating factors; environmental planning and mitigation; and owner oversight, project engineering, and management. In 2007 dollars, this equates to a cost of approximately $6.8 million per mile; adjusting this estimate to 2014 dollars increases the amount by 20 percent to $8.2 million per mile (rounded). This concept considered by itself does not meet the objectives of the Corridor Plan; however, consideration of connecting the existing rail system to the river transportation network and then, subsequently, to the roadway corridor between the Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers has merit. This concept does not provide a new connection between the rivers or a redundant facility to move freight and fuel. Lacking these elements, the concept would not enhance or build on the freight and fuel delivery and transport network. As such, this concept was dismissed from further consideration, as it does not meet the Corridor Plan preliminary purpose and need. Improving Existing Road/Ice Road System The Kuskokwim River can support an ice road that, at times, is more than 200 miles long. In good winters, the Kuskokwim River Ice Road offers western Alaska, Bethel, and nearby villages a relatively smooth mode of travel between locations on the river; however, the ice can be dangerous and unreliable. Late fall break-ups can create significant impassable locations with frozen ice jambs. The State of Alaska previously funded the ice road in two directions: from Bethel north to Tuluksak and Bethel south of Napakiak. The funding for the effort at the time was about $50,000 per year. The state eventually redirected funding through the City of Bethel, and the City bid the work ona dollar-per-snow event. Since 2002, the effort has received no public funding. Alaska Hovercraft has contracts to deliver mail and other items from Bethel, and they build and use the ice road, when feasible, rather than operate their hovercraft due to expense. They have a box truck that plows snow to keep the road passible in the winter months. TBG101614003935B0! 77 CORRIDOR EVALUATION AND SELECTION PROCESS Improvements to the ice road system are limited, as there is no feasible way to connect the Kuskokwim River Ice Road to any other significant waterbody and to other communities. The unpredictable and seasonality issues associated with the ice road do not make a measureable improvement to the communities, so it does not meet the Corridor Plan objectives. This concept does not provide a new connection between the rivers or a redundant facility to move freight and fuel. Lacking these elements, the concept would not enhance or build on the freight and fuel delivery and transport network. This concept was dismissed from further consideration, as it does not meet the Corridor Plan preliminary purpose and need. Corridor Study Concepts Considered and Advanced Creating a New Connection between the Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers The multigenerational need to improve the freight and fuel transportation warrants reserving the corridor that has undergone a full engineering and environmental assessment using contemporary standards; and the re-establishment of the ancient connection in a new corridor that can accommodate several transport mode options. Studies and analysis completed in the Level 1 Screening process (CH2M HILL, 2014a) indicate that, compared to the other concepts considered, the creation of a new corridor connection between the Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers most fully fulfills the Corridor Project objectives, in that it: e Performs best in promoting regional economic development in both the near-term and across a multigenerational timeframe e Provides regional transportation system redundancy and security in the event of a black swan event e Is best suited for potentially lowering the regional cost of energy and freight in the future e Is feasible from an engineering and environmental perspective Creating a new connection between the Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers when economic conditions warrent re-establishes a corridor for reliable transportation, energy, and freight-handling infrastructure. Level 2 Transport Mode Screening Analysis and Results The Level 2 Screening developed modal options for “new connection between the Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers” concept that emerged from the Level 1 Screening process. The modal alternatives considered for a connection corridor in Level 2 were: 78 TBG101614003935801 CORRIDOR STUDY OVERVIEW e Rail (standalone within the corridor) e Canal e Road — No Public Access e Road — Public Access e Pipeline e Central regional power plant and transmission and distribution network ¢ Combinations of these modes Level 2 Mode Screening Process As illustrated in Exhibit 24, the Level 2 mode screening analysis first focused on reaching a conclusion regarding the best transport mode. To aid in understanding the transportation mode selection process, the following subsections discuss criteria and issues, as well as the economics and business considerations. TBG101614003935B0! 79 CORRIDOR EVALUATION AND SELECTION PROCESS e m < m BF fe) re in ea ke eet cus} Screened out-concept, mode, or corridor Concept/mode/corridor advanced read > Road with public access : HV transmission [ie <> Canal and pipeline ——_—_—_——— : Canal and HV transmission line > : Road with no public access and pipeline ——_———==> : Road with public access and pipeline ——--_-_-__} Road with no public access and HV transmission —=> Road with public access and HV transmission ————> Pipeline and HV transmission ——$—->->-__—> : . EXHIBIT 24 Corridor Plan Level 2 Mode Screening Public Access Highway versus No Public Access To maximize the value of a connection, the region must use it, so modes and locations that create opportunities for many different uses and users are preferable. While a pipeline is useful for transporting petroleum products, it does not offer an opportunity for motor vehicles carrying people and other goods. Any mode that restricts the public from using the connection would almost certainly have fewer users and a narrower range of uses and benefits. 80 TBG101614003935BO! CORRIDOR STUDY OVERVIEW Ownership and Funding The owner of the connection facility will probably be a local or state entity. The most suitable owner will depend on a number of factors, including location, use, and sources of funding. Maintenance responsibility will ultimately lie with the owner, with maintenance activities potentially contracted. In the near-term, user fees and tariffs are unlikely to fund a connection of the Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers. It is also unlikely that this connection will have near-term quantifiable economic benefits that exceed the Corridor Project cost. There are thousands of miles of farm-to-market roads across the U.S. that generate no revenue and that do not have quantifiable economic benefits exceeding their cost. Nonetheless, the public has supported the construction and O&M of these facilities because the combined economic and noneconomic benefits they provide is of sufficient total value to justify the investment. Given these circumstances, the Project may qualify for a combination of state and federal grants to fund design and construction. Currently, the most robust array of transportation grant programs at the state and federal levels are for publicly owned roadways. In the event that single grants for the Corridor Project are financially difficult for the grantors, smaller grants over multiple years may be appropriate. A programming commitment to grants over multiple years would allow financing using such tools as municipal bonds, bank debt, and rural infrastructure loan programs. Small Markets and Vast Distances A connection between the Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers creates the potential to merge the Lower Yukon and Kuskokwim markets, and service the combined market from one supply route. There is currently limited fuel and bulk cargo for the Lower Yukon and Kuskokwim markets. With a combined market, the transport distances would still be about as long and as costly as the routes that currently serve the vast AVCP Region. Fuel Transport and Dispensing Technology Liquid natural gas (LNG) may one day be an abundant product from Alaska’s North Slope or Cook Inlet. The technology needed to liquefy, transport, and then regasify this fuel makes it potentially viable for Alaska’s large metropolitan areas along the route of a pipeline coming from the North Slope to Cook Inlet. Unfortunately, this does not appear to be a viable fuel for the small, isolated communities of the AVCP Region. The cost of pipelines into the region, regasification facilities, a local distribution network, and conversion or replacement of existing mechanical equipment is not currently economically feasible. Widespread use of propane to displace gasoline, diesel, or heating oil is also not currently economic; however, technology for transporting and dispensing these fuels TBG101614003935B0! 81 CORRIDOR EVALUATION AND SELECTION PROCESS is evolving, and these changes in technology may eventually improve the economics to the point where they become viable alternatives for the AVCP Region. Multigenerational Perspective Previous discussions of technologies and cargo logistics are about today’s limitations. Technologies are evolving rapidly, and world markets are changing, as well. In 1874, the Pennsylvania State geologist predicted that the U.S. would run out of oil in 4 years. Since that time, there has been one prediction after another forecasting the end of oil and natural gas. With each prediction, new discoveries and new technologies have overturned these forecasts and pushed back the horizon for depletion by decades. The U.S. was investing hundreds of millions of dollars in port facilities to import LNG as recently as 2008. Just 6 years later, the U.S. is still looking at building LNG port facilities; however, the plan for these port facilities will be as terminals for exporting U.S. natural gas to the rest of the world. In fact, there are now more than 40 proposed LNG export projects in the U.S. and Canada, with about a dozen in construction. In late 2013, many analysts thought that U.S. gasoline prices would remain flat or continue to climb from the current levels. However, due to increasing energy supply (both oil and natural gasoline), overproduction, and increasing fuel efficiency, gasoline prices have fallen about $0.65 per gallon between December 2013 and December 2014, and the current outlook is for them to fall even further. World markets, technology, and supply lines will continue to change rapidly and in a manner that is difficult to imagine today. These changes may create sufficient pricing differentials in fuel and many other products coming through or originating in railbelt Alaska, versus products originating elsewhere in the world, and provide compelling economic incentives for consolidating the Yukon and Kuskokwim markets. The region needs to preserve a corridor connection between the Yukon and the Kuskokwim River communities to take advantage of these changes. Preserving the connection between the Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers allows the region to expand its options and builds flexibility for generations to come. Level 2 Mode Evaluation Criteria (Social, Cultural, and Economic) Traditionally, economists have narrowly focused analysis of transportation investment benefits. Some economists held the view that the sole benefit of transportation investments is to lower the cost of transportation. This perspective has evolved, and it is now widely recognized that, in addition to the economic benefits, investments in transportation infrastructure can provide important social, community, and environmental benefits, as well. Experience has shown that the value given to noneconomic benefits by residents and visitors may be of crucial importance in efforts to achieve 82 TBG101614003935B0! CORRIDOR STUDY OVERVIEW social and political support for transportation investments. While many benefits can be readily assessed using quantitative techniques, there are many, particularly in the social and community arena, that are not amenable to quantitative analysis; thus, economists uses qualitative assessment. There never seems to be funding for all the things communities would like to provide, and competition for available limited resources is fierce. Ultimately, public consensus on the value these investments provide is the basis for the investment decision. Making the case for investments in the corridor system is no different. The public must be convinced that the value provided by transportation investments warrants their cost and the community and environmental impacts. An appreciation of the distinction between “value” and “benefit” is important to this discussion. Benefits are a “good done or received.” As such, benefits are objective and assessed quantitatively or qualitatively (Exhibit 25). Value, defined as “the worth, merit, usefulness, or importance of a thing,” is based on individual or cultural preference. Exhibit 25 displays this concept graphically. EXHIBIT 25 Benefits Used to Assess Total Value The economics and business case team developed a set of criteria for evaluating various transport modes and combinations of modes. Following modal evaluation, the team applied these same TBG101614003935B0! 83 CORRIDOR EVALUATION AND SELECTION PROCESS criteria to assessing the corridor alternatives. The criteria fall into two groups: value, and financial and regulatory. The value criteria derive from the social, cultural, and economic objectives. The financial and regulatory criteria derive from factors common to transportation infrastructure projects in general. The Team then placed these criteria and the transport modes in the matrix shown in Exhibit 26 to facilitate the evaluation process. Transport Modes ey fy: Peale. a4 tei d a4 i 2 2 3 8 i 242, 2) 28 i 3 2E9FLPRRRHERE [—— D__ Construction economic activity E O&M economic activity F Additional economic activity G__Local job creation with construction H Local job creation with O&M | Near-term potential to lower fuel prices J Near-term potential to lower frieght prices 5] K —_Long-erm potential to ower fuel pi § Evaluation value Improved access — medical, education, community services, retail, housing P _ Improved/expanded access to subsistence resources Q__ Fosters knowledge, awareness, and appreciation of Southwest Alaska R___ Facilitates connection of the AVCP Region politically and culturally $S Stronger economic, social, and political bonds with rest of the State T Potential for revenue generation U Potential for significant private-sector financial ee participation (public-private partnerships) { V_— Project capital cost : Critical criteria EXHIBIT 26 Transportation Mode Evaluation Matrix 84 TBG101614003935B0! hes £9 sec \ind CORRIDOR STUDY OVERVIEW Based on the information currently available, the Corridor Study Team ranked each of the transport modes and combination of modes against the evaluation criteria on a scale of 1 to 5. For the value criteria (that is, social and cultural, and economic), the scores indicate assessment of the ability of a particular mode to create value relative to the other alternatives: a higher score indicates a greater value and a lower score a lesser value. For the financial and regulatory criteria, team used the same 1 to 5 scale to score the relative strength and viability of the mode to meet each criterion. Appendix B contains a graphic that displays the criteria with expanded explanations and comments about the basis for scoring. The team also identified six critical evaluation criteria shaded in Exhibit 26; the criteria’s impact on the evaluation is particularly important. Transport Mode Analysis Results Exhibit 27 displays the results of the modal evaluation. The Corridor Study Team considered the evaluation results from several different perspectives. One perspective summed the scores for all factors and for the critical factors, noting the number of times a mode had a high score in a critical factor. Of the single transport modes (for example, canal, road — no public access, and pipeline), the Road — Public Access mode had the highest total score and the highest score of the critical criteria. Among the configurations with more than one mode (for example, canal and pipeline, canal and high-voltage [HV] transmission line, and road — no public access and pipeline), two of the top four total scores were combinations of a public access road and some other mode; they also scored the highest for the critical evaluation criteria. A second perspective was to sum only the scores for the value criteria that addressed economic benefits plus the financial and regulatory criteria. Of the single modes, the Canal had the top score and Road — Public Access was second. Both of these modes also had the highest and an equal number of top critical criteria scores. A third perspective was to sum only the scores for the value criteria that addressed the near and long-term potential to lower fuel and freight prices, plus the financial and regulatory criteria. Of the single modes, the Road — Public Access had the top score, with the Canal being second. Once again, both of these modes had the highest and an equal number of top critical criteria scores. As a result of the focus on lowering fuel and freight prices, and in due consideration of the great number of unknowns currently surrounding the legal, regulatory, and environmental aspects of the canal mode, the economics and business case team judged Road — Public Access as the best TBG101614003935B0! 85 CORRIDOR EVALUATION AND SELECTION PROCESS transport mode. This modal option also has the physical capability to accommodate a pipeline and an HV transmission line in the future, if needed. Road - public access and pipeline ‘Canal and HV transmission line D Construction economic activity E O&M economic activity F Additional economic activity G__Local job creation with construction H Local job creation with O&M | Near-term potential to lower fuel prices J Near-term potential to lower frieght prices —K Long-term potential to lower fuel prices al Me N ° . Long-term potential to lower freight prices __ Facilitates personal travel/contact within region Continuation and strengthening of regional culture Improved access — medical, education, community services, retail, housing P __Improved/expanded access to subsistence resources Critical Criteria Canal >) 4 ew) + = © & NY & & Road no public access a alalelol-l. ow oo o a a Ss Bs 2 NY = DD Pipeline alalafealala a a a ow = Pipelineand HV transmission Oe OW WO 2a RD BE A pay RROD WwSe RRR RRR RR WWKHHTRAN Canal and pipeline PF RR RR WWHHR A Aa anwoworsaarkan alalwlweis kr aw eA a aawowAraankraa® i} a an on a a a Q__ Fosters knowledge, awareness, and appreciation of Southwest Alaska ss) 2 Ye? : 7 3 : . 1 R___ Facilitates connection of the AVCP Region 3° 4 politically and culturally S Stronger economic, social, and political bonds with rest of the State 3 3 3 32 2 3 «3 3 3 3 #3 2 T Potential for revenue generation 4) Me ah. ia ye || 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 U Potential for significant private-sector financial 2 2 _—— participation (public-private partnerships) ‘Project captal cost ann vw on = NNN Noo ies Fan Ny 2 5 1 4 56 69 43 71 37 36 71 71 «+45 73 43 74 = 42 16 17 15 2 16 13 15 15 #13 18 #11 «19 13 36 42 33 40 29 28 44 +44 #35 #442 #33 «43 «(34 Critical criteria EXHIBIT 27 Modal Evaluation Results 86 TBG101614003935BO! CORRIDOR STUDY OVERVIEW Level 2 Modes Removed through the Screening Process Rail The Corridor Study Team considered a rail line connecting the rivers. Rail lines commonly move freight and fuel, and are suitable as a rural transport mode, as indicated by their historical use supporting Alaska mining industries. Rail lines require a more stringent set of geometric design constraints than roadways. Rail is less tolerant of tight horizontal curvature, and railway vertical grades are typically flatter than grades allowable for roadways. Flatter curves result in larger footprints, and tighter constraints limit some of the ability to mitigate environmental impacts through geometric design changes. Additionally, while a rail system moving freight and fuel would benefit the public, railways do not provide the public with any direct-use benefit. Installing a rail system would exclude the public from directly using the corridor by limiting system connectivity to only those goods that could travel by rail. Rail costs in the range of $8 million to $10 million a mile, and significant maintenance challenges make the option cost prohibitive. A railway was dismissed from further analysis because a rail system would require greater environmental impacts than a roadway, while providing a reduced benefit to the public. Canal A 1981 USACE study discounted a canal connection for several reasons: first, irreversible alteration of the thermal regime in ice-rich organic silts and sands would damage the permafrost and result in unstable canal banks; and second, there would be an unassessed danger from mixing fish stock from the two rivers. The USACE presented in testimony to the subcommittee on water resources further potential fatal flaws: “Any alteration of the surface hydrology of the region would affect the vegetation, its surface animal life, and pond life alterations of the surface hydrology appear imminent in any large scale canal project.” The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) concurred with those concerns. In 2014c, a report was prepared based on existing information that confirmed what the previous studies noted: that the engineering challenges associated with designing and constructing a canal are significant. Based on the data presented in the report, the Corridor Study Team anticipates some complications and elevated costs associated with maintaining a canal. Based on existing information, the Corridor Study Team dismissed the canal option because of uncertainties in the degree of environmental impacts, regulatory concerns, and construction costs. TBG101614003935BO! 87 CORRIDOR EVALUATION AND SELECTION PROCESS Pipeline To transport refined petroleum products from the Yukon River to the Kuskokwim River, the Corridor Study Team considered a fuel pipeline without a road, a pipeline-only mode in a corridor connection. The construction of a pipeline without also constructing a road over the same route would likely occur during the winter months to take advantage of the frozen ground, which provides a working surface for construction. Winter construction of a small-diameter (4- to 6-inch) pipeline could be from an ice/snow pad and would not require the mining, transport, and placement of gravel materials from borrow sources. Winter pipeline construction would need to take advantage of routing over as gentle longitudinal and transverse grades as possible to allow the required equipment to operate on slick surfaces. Significant portions of the Corridor Study Area do not lend themselves to winter work due to the steepness of the hills. Under the pipeline-only mode, there will be no construction of a permanent work pad/road along the line. This would somewhat limit the ability to conduct pipeline surveillance and repairs in future years. Winter pipeline construction without an adjacent road or at least an all-weather drivable work pad would create a number of operational challenges, including: e Periodic visual pipeline observation as required by code would be difficult without vehicular access to the pipeline’s full length. Walking the pipeline to monitor for leaks would be time- consuming and expensive. e Pipeline repairs along its length without vehicular access would be very costly, as contractors would have to fly in resources for repairs, labor, materials, and equipment to the repair site, which would require construction of temporary road access. e Lack of road access along the pipeline’s length will severely hamper spill response. For pipeline repairs, again, specialized contractors would have to fly in spill response labor, materials, and equipment to the spill site. e While preventing road access to the pipeline would, in some ways, solve some pipeline security issues, deliberate acts to harm the pipeline or remove product would be difficult to monitor. A very high-level pipeline cost estimate is in the range of $25 to $35 million, which does not include consideration for the terminals at each end, or the terminals’ technical and environmental aspects. A road constructed along this corridor would significantly reduce the capital cost of pipeline construction by an estimated 25 to 40 percent. Road access along the pipeline’s length would largely mitigate all of the O&M issues noted. 88 TBG101614003935B0! \D a CORRIDOR STUDY OVERVIEW Pipeline construction along a road-accessible corridor would also provide an incentive to install a fiber-optic communication link through the corridor by using the pipeline ditch to bury the fiber, providing another benefit to the region. Given the large initial capital cost of the pipeline-only option, as well as the challenges associated without a road, it is difficult to imagine a beneficial cost to benefit ratio associated with this option that would warrant expenditure of public funds. A pipeline-only option appears to be a private section action, not a public sector project. Finally, construction of the pipeline-only option does not address the movement of dry freight along the corridor. The pipeline-only option was dismissed from further analysis because: e The movement of freight and goods is a fundamental element of the Corridor Project. e A pipeline can only move fuel. e There is a high cost for a single-purpose corridor without a clear benefit to the public. e There are significant operational and security concerns with a pipeline-only option. High-voltage Transmission Line One of the initial concepts proposed for lowering energy prices in the AVCP Region was to construct a central electric power plant and transmission network at or near one of the two port sites. A regional, centralized power plant could arguably generate electricity at a lower cost than the current system of multiple, village-based plants due to economies of scale. However, the cost of constructing, operating, and maintaining a transmission and distribution system across the region’s vast distances would offset the savings. Based on this, the concept of a central power plant was dismissed at an early stage in the corridor planning process. However, the Corridor Study Team retained as a modal option the use of the connection corridor for construction of a segment of HV electrical transmission lines as part of a regional power network that others would build. Level 2 Corridor Screening and Results The Level 2 Screening process consisted of a thorough data-gathering effort and analyses of socioeconomic factors, environmental factors, and engineering design. The socioeconomic, environmental, and engineering analyses reflect engineering standards, best practices and judgment, environmental sensitivity, and consideration of land ownership and key subsistence species and use factors. The screening evaluation looked at both a 2,000-foot-wide footprint centered on each of the corridor roadway alignments. The Corridor Study Team evaluated environmental and subsistence impacts, and conducted an engineering evaluation on the designed roadway within the corridors. TBG101614003935B0! 89 CORRIDOR EVALUATION AND SELECTION PROCESS The Level 2 Screening process used specific evaluation criteria, based on the Corridor Project’s components, context, and location, and looked at a wide range of engineering and environmental criteria. The Corridor Study Team consolidated many criteria to the region’s most important criteria for the analysis. The screening process entailed the environmental and engineering categories listed in Table 12. Additionally, the corridor route options must meet the Corridor Project's preliminary purpose and need, and comply with engineering design standards. Subsequent steps entailed data gathering and assessing the alternatives against the defined set of criteria. TABLE 12 Environmental and Engineering Categories and Criteria Category Criteria Environment Natural Resources Wetlands Anadromous Fish Habitats Habitats Stream Crossings Subsistence Salmon Moose Pike Lake Other Resources Land Ownership Native Allotments USFWS Native Patent or IC Village Surface and Calista Subsurface BLM State Selected Engineering Snow Drifting Water Crossing Floodplain Ports Haul Roads Overall Length Earth Work Distance to Infrastructure The Corridor Study Team conducted the Level 2 corridor screening analysis across multiple disciplines, including engineering, environmental, economic, social, and cultural. The analysis focused on reaching a conclusion regarding the best corridor route that avoided and minimized impact. Exhibit 28 illustrates the Level 2 Screening process. The exhibit shows the modes under 90 TBG101614003935BO! CORRIDOR STUDY OVERVIEW consideration, the refinement of the mode, and corridor selections made through the evaluation criteria. The engineering discipline screening criteria analysis centered on the engineering design standards and O&M factors for each corridor alternative. The engineering design criteria ultimately drove the selection of the best corridor route. The environmental discipline identified a number of valued environmental components (VECs) and valued socioeconomic components (VSECs) to be used to in the environmental and Least Harm Path Analysis. The environmental discipline considered multiple environmental and subsistence factors to assess the impacts of each corridor alternative as a means of determining which corridor resulted in the least harm. The environmental study team organized the environmental criteria for performance of a detailed Least Harm Path Analysis for each 2,000-foot-wide corridor, and for the roadways’ footprint (cut-and-fill footprint, plus 30-foot buffers on both sides) in the corridors. The basis for the Least Harm Path Analysis defined the VECs and VSECs that were subject to environmental impact analysis, residual impact assessment, and mitigation. Consideration of the analysis results of all three multidisciplinary teams resulted in reaching a unified technical recommendation on transport mode and corridor. mode, or comdor | Conceptmode/corridor_ | Legend —> — Screened-out concept, | — advanced AA Transport Mode oysters ~~ ey Canal —___________5 Road with no public aCC@SS > Road with public access Pipeline —-———-_—--- —--__------> HV transmission line. —————-———---—-> Canal and pipeline ——_________-» Canal and HV transmission line ———> Road with no public access and pipeline | Road with public access and pipeline > Road with no public access and HV transmission —> Road with public access and HV transmission ———-} Pipeline and HV transmission > : * | EXHIBIT 28 Corridor Plan Level 2 Corridor Screening Process TBG101614003935B0! 1 CORRIDOR EVALUATION AND SELECTION PROCESS Level 2 Corridor Route Options Setting Topographical relief along the proposed corridor routes includes flat, alluvial plains and organic wetlands, moderately rolling hills, and alpine ridges. Vegetation along the routes consists of a mixture of deciduous trees (alder, aspen, and birch) and evergreens (primarily, black spruce) that cover approximately half of the route. The remaining half of the route is primarily lightly vegetated with alpine species, such as moss, lichens, and low bushes. Surficial soils primarily consist of undifferentiated slope wash deposits, alluvial sand and gravel deposits, and minor bedrock outcrops and frost-shattered rock (felsenmeer). Mapping shows that discontinuous permafrost is present throughout the mountains at higher elevations, on north-facing slopes, and throughout the Innoko Lowlands. The team estimates that approximately 35 percent of the route has shallow groundwater or significant wet, organic deposits. Numerous stream crossings are present in the upland areas and along slopes leading to the lowlands. Physiographic Regions and Topography The approximate 40-mile-long proposed corridor routes cross the following three major physiographic regions between the southern terminus on the Kuskokwim River and the northern terminus at Paimiut Slough: e Yukon-Kuskokwim Coastal Lowland Region: The Corridor Study routes initially traverses a short segment of this flat lowland shown in Exhibit 29 from Kalskag to the southern limit of the Portage Mountains. The general characterization of the region is of numerous lakes, ponds, and flat terrain to the north and west. Northeast of Kalskag, the terrain is predominantly a flat, terraced, flood plain of the Kuskokwim River. 92 TBG101614003935B0! CORRIDOR STUDY OVERVIEW EXHIBIT 29 Yukon-Kuskokwim Coastal Lowland Region e Portage Mountains Region: This region, shown in Exhibit 30, encompasses the Portage Mountains, which consist of generally low, rolling hills on east side with sharp relief on west side, dissected by several small river valleys. The two Corridor Study routes traverse this region. TBG101614003935B0! 93 CORRIDOR EVALUATION AND SELECTION PROCESS EXHIBIT 30 Portage Mountains Area e Innoko Lowlands Region: Upon exiting the Portage Mountain Region, the Corridor Study routes traverse across the Innoko Lowlands Region to a terminus at Paimiut Slough. The general characterization of the region, shown in in Exhibit 31, is of numerous lakes and thermokarst ponds, as well as abandoned channels of the Yukon River. 94 TBG101614003935B0! CORRIDOR STUDY OVERVIEW EXHIBIT 31 Innoko Lowlands Region Showing the Paimiut Slough Regional Geology The general geology along the corridors is composed of quaternary alluvium, colluvium, and residual soils over bedrock. The depth to bedrock is highly variable, exceeding hundreds of feet in the lowlands and exposed at the ground surface at high elevations in the Portage Mountains. Where exposed, the rock is generally volcanic, comprising mafic lava flows, basalts, volcanic breccias, and agglomerates with sporadic deposits of siltstone, chert, and greywacke. Near-surface soil deposits vary considerably along the corridor, based on proximity to the mountain slopes and river floodplains. Surficial soils primarily consist of unconsolidated silt; fine sand; and gravel of fluvial, colluvium, and residual, weathered rock. Through the Portage Mountains, there are numerous areas of sand and gravel deposits that originated from stream and slope wash deposition. The general characterization of the flanks of the Portage Mountains are coalescing re-transported silt fans. These soils are primarily residual, weathering products of the underlying bedrock that were transported downslope to form a mixture of silt and fine sand, and that commonly contain organics. The silt fans generally consist of ice-rich permafrost soils. TBG101614003935B0! 95 CORRIDOR EVALUATION AND SELECTION PROCESS Due to in-place weathering of the underlying bedrock, ridge tops through the Portage Mountains generally consist of an unconsolidated mantle of residual soil. The soil is primarily a heterogeneous mixture of silt, sand, angular gravel, and frost-shattered rock. Permafrost is likely present throughout the Portage Mountains at higher elevations along the alpine ridges and north-facing slopes. Climate Western Alaska climate is determined, in large part, by weather from the Bering Sea and cold fronts from the Arctic. There is a subarctic oceanic climate in the southwestern portion of the area anda continental subarctic climate farther inland. Winters are long, somewhat snowy, and moderately cold. Summers are short and mild. Average precipitation ranges from 0.5 inches (February) to 3 inches (August) in Bethel. Farther inland in McGrath, average precipitation ranges from 0.75 inches (April) to 2.5 inches (September). Annual average precipitation ranges from 16.2 inches in Bethel to 18.1 inches in McGrath (CH2M HILL, 2013a). Average temperatures in Bethel range from 6.6 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) (January) to 56°F (July), with an annual average of 36.6°F. In McGrath, average temperatures range from -8°F (January) to 59°F (July), with an annual average of 26.2°F (CH2M HILL, 2013a). Annual average snowfall in Bethel is 44.5 inches, with 97 inches in McGrath (CH2M HILL, 2013a). Geotechnical Hazards Nonseismic-induced geotechnical hazards include landslides resulting from changes to slope geometry and excess pore water pressures from extended heavy rains, downslope soil creep associated with freeze/thaw cycles in ice-rich soils, or both; subsurface subsidence resulting from thawing of the ice-rich permafrost; and localized frost heaving in frost-susceptible soils where a source of shallow groundwater is present. Thawing of ice-rich soils may result in ground settlement and trigger slope movements in steep terrain. Permafrost and Thermal Conditions Discontinuous permafrost is present along the proposed corridor routes, and seasonal frost penetration will be a factor for road construction. The Corridor Study Team anticipates regional ground temperatures in permafrost areas below the active layer to be near thawing. The best description for the overall permafrost condition is degrading. 96 TBG101614003935BO! CORRIDOR STUDY OVERVIEW Seismicity The proposed corridor routes are located in an area of low seismic activity. There have been two earthquakes of magnitude (M) greater than 6.0 recorded in this general area: the 1991 (M6.1) and 1903 (M6.9) earthquakes (CH2M HILL, 2013b). Seismic hazards that could occur during a strong earthquake include slope instability and liquefaction near streams and rivers, leading to liquefaction-induced lateral spreading and settlement. Faults The 2007 USGS seismic hazard study for Alaska indicates no significant faults with recorded surface displacements during the Quaternary Period (Wesson et al., 2007). Corridor Routes Evaluated Concept Corridor Route Development After the Corridor Study Team identified a single concept, to create a new connection between the Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers, and a modal choice of Road — Public Access, further development was necessary to evaluate potential corridor routes. The team developed the new concept of corridor connection routes between the Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers that avoided the Refuge and considered both sides of the Portage Mountains. The routes specified a project start on the Kuskokwim River in several locations and a terminus on the Paimiut Slough. The input from the meetings between AVCP and stakeholders, TKC, the BLM, and Tribes in the Corridor Study Area, agencies, and the public further advanced the new concept of corridor connection routes between the Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers. A subsequent development stage within the Level 2 Screening process defined five specific routes for the connection between the Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers. The Refuge bounds the routes to the west and a large swath of state land on the northern bank of the Kuskokwim River between the communities of Aniak and Chuathbaluk to the east. Each corridor route was 2,000 feet wide to provide flexibility at this early stage of screening and evaluation. Each included a port at each of the termini. Since the mid-1950s, there have been investigations of the road connection between the Kuskokwim and Yukon Rivers. The Alaska Bureau of Public Roads identified a route in 1956 that connected the two rivers between Kalskag and Paimiut Slough. Corridor A (not shown) is an important historic and traditional use route, existing primarily within the Refuge. This route traversed the flat, lowland, wet areas west of the Portage Mountains, where it would be extremely challenging to construct a road. Exhibit 32 shows the four evaluated corridors, labeled Corridor B, Corridor C, Corridor D, and Corridor E, respectively. TBG101614003935B0! 97 CORRIDOR EVALUATION AND SELECTION PROCESS In 1981, the DOT&PF modified the 1956 route by moving it to the east onto the western slopes of the Portage Mountains, where constructability was much more favorable. Concurrent with finalizing the 1981 route, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act expanded the Refuge’s boundary eastward to the base of the Portage Mountains. This inadvertently subjected the 1981 proposed route (Corridor A) to the FHWA’s Section 4(f) analysis process (properties addressed by Section 4(f) include publicly owned wildlife and waterfowl refuges of national, state, or local significance that are open to the public). In an effort to avoid Section 4(f) properties, and due to AVCP'’s own desire to avoid impacts to the Refuge, Corridor A was dropped from further consideration. Roadway Modal Decision and Footprint The engineering work associated with the Corridor Plan made a modal assumption that the corridor route connection would consist of a roadway that connects port facilities on either end. From a planning and corridor selection perspective, this is a conservative assumption. The overall construction footprint and quantity estimates associated with a roadway are larger than with a simple pipeline or transmission line corridor. As such, conducting analysis on the larger roadway footprint provides assurance that a pipeline or transmission line could fit within the analyzed footprint if required in the future. The Corridor Study Team based the proposed roadway section on the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (2011). The team further refined the specific criteria set forth in the policy to incorporate provisions of AASHTO’s Guidelines for Geometric Design of Very Low Volume Local Roads (2001). This standard, which relaxes some of the rigidity of standard highway design criteria, assumes that the average annual daily traffic is limited to less than 400 vehicles. This is a reasonable and contextually sensitive assumption for the Corridor Project. The roadway section evaluated was a 24-foot-wide gravel surfaced roadway that accommodates a design speed of 40 miles per hour (mph). The vehicle used for design was AASHTO’s WB62, a semi-truck and single trailer combination, with an overall length of approximately 70 feet. The maximum grade on the vertical profile is limited to 8.0 percent, and the minimum horizontal curvature is limited to 600 feet. 98 TBG101614003935B0! CORRIDOR STUDY OVERVIEW CORRIDOR E J A AA Portage Mountains AA Legend Land Status © Towns BLM —~r «Rivers Ea Private, Municipal, or Privately Owned BLM A Mountains Village Conveyed Future Infrastructure Alternatives INI) Vilage Selected === Corridor B Native Patented or Native Interm Conveyed = Cormdor C State Patented, State Tentatively Approved, or === Corridor D State and Native Owned HO Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge =—— Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge Boundary == Corridor E EXHIBIT 32 The Evaluated Corridors Corridor B Corridor B begins at Kalskag on the Kuskokwim River and terminates at the Paimiut Slough, an uninhabited and undeveloped location on the Lower Innoko River upstream from its confluence with the Yukon River. The corridor traverses the foothills and elevated mountainous areas of the western TBG101614003935BO! 99 CORRIDOR EVALUATION AND SELECTION PROCESS Portage Mountains, and is approximately 42 miles long. This corridor is closest to the traditional use Corridor A route and is the only alternative within sight of the Refuge. Corridor roadway alignment gains as much as 700 feet of vertical grade above Kalskag, as much of the corridor runs over the Portage Mountains. Numerous locations for side-hill excavations and benching are required for roadway construction in the corridor’s steeper areas. Like all alternatives, Corridor B requires a new port and uplands staging area on each end; some land is readily available for this use on the Kuskokwim River side of the alignment. Its northern terminus is undeveloped, but its southern terminus is located at Kalskag in immediate proximity to existing infrastructure. This alternative’s geotechnical challenge is that there are steep grade sections where side sloping and benching would be required. The two-lane gravel road would require approximately 3.5 million cubic yards (MCY) of embanked material, and up to 1 million yards of required excavation. Much of the excavation is associated with cutting roadway slopes through the steeper terrain of the Portage Mountains. As such, this corridor has the disadvantage of requiring the greatest amount of excavation. Reuse of some of the excavated material in the embanked sections could potentially offset this disadvantage. The corridor requires about 2.5 miles of temporary haul roads located an average of 5 miles apart. There is at least a 1 percent chance each year that up to 3.5 total miles of the corridor could be subject to a 100-year flood event. About 15,000 linear feet (LF) of culvert are required to accommodate the roadway, and almost 25 percent (10 miles) of the roadway is thought to be at risk for seasonal snow drifting. Corridor C Corridor C shares the same termini locations with Corridor B, but runs along the Portage Mountains’ eastern foothills. In addition to more gentle terrain features this alignment has the added advantage of approaching the Kuskokwim River upstream of Kalskag, avoiding the local community and street network. The corridor is 44 miles long, and there is 300 feet of elevation gain along the corridor. North of the Portage Mountains, Corridor C shares much of its alignment with Corridor B. Corridor C has the same port location and proximity to infrastructure advantages as Corridor B. The alignment has gentle topographic relief, and none of the benching and sloping of excavations seen in Corridor B. The gentler slopes require less excavation, and the embankment quantities are less than that of Corridor B, approximately 3 MCY. Corridor C will use up to 11 miles of temporary haul roads an average distance of about 6.5 miles apart. There is at least a 1 percent chance each year that up to 6 total miles of the corridor could be subject to a 100-year flood event. More than 10,000 LF of culvert would be required for this corridor, and as much as 6 miles of the corridor might be subjected to seasonal snow drifting. 100 TBG101614003935BO! CORRIDOR STUDY OVERVIEW Corridor D Corridor D begins on the uninhabited and undeveloped northern bank of the Kuskokwim River, approximately midway between Kalskag and Aniak. At approximately 31 miles long, Corridor D is the shortest corridor analyzed and represents the most direct connection between the two rivers. Approximately two-thirds of the Corridor D alignment is congruent with Corridor C, and the termination point on the Paimiut Slough is the same as Corridors B and C. The elevation gain for roadway alignments within Corridor D is approximately 200 feet. The port locations on each end of the alignment are in uninhabited areas, and the distance to existing infrastructure is significant, at more than 8 miles away from Kalskag on the Kuskokwim River side. The relative remoteness of each port site is a significant disadvantage. The two-lane gravel road route is predominantly in gentle terrain. There are no other snow drifting or benching requirements along this corridor other than those previously identified with Corridor C. The Study Corridor Team only expects about 5,000 LF of culvert in Corridor D. There is at least a 1 percent chance each year that up to 4.5 total miles of the corridor could be subject to a 100-year flood event. Significant earthwork advantages exist in this corridor because of the relatively short distance and gentle grades. Corridor D’s embankment quantities are approximately 1.75 MCY, with an anticipated relatively minimal 55,000 cubic yards (CY) of excavation. The corridor requires about 7.5 miles of temporary haul roads to reach quarry sites, and the distance between quarries averages 8 miles. Corridor E Corridor E begins on the uninhabited and undeveloped northern bank of the Kuskokwim River, approximately midway between Aniak and Chuathbaluk. It terminates on the southern bank of the Paimiut Slough at an undeveloped location east of the termination points for Corridors B, C, and D. Alignments in the corridor gain as much as 600 feet of elevation through the mountainous region, but the corridor features 8 to 10 miles of very wet terrain along its northern portion. Much of the corridor is within state lands, providing some ROW benefit for potential construction. Corridor E is the second shortest route, at just over 33 miles long. While it has port site locations that are unique to this option, nevertheless, it shares the same significant disadvantages as Corridor D with respect to its distance from other infrastructure or inhabited areas. The route, which has significant land ownership and ROW advantages, is in undesirable terrain. The alignment traverses steep terrain for much of the corridor before running through very wet, marshy terrain for much of its northern section. The roadway alignment requires more than 5 miles TBG101614003935B0! 101 CORRIDOR EVALUATION AND SELECTION PROCESS of temporary haul roads located almost 7 miles apart. Its short distance, however, provides similar earthwork advantages to Corridor D. The route requires about 1.5 MCY of embankment and a little less than 100,000 CY of excavation. The Corridor Study Team does not expect the corridor to experience significant snow drifting and expects only about 5,000 LF of culvert would be required. There is at least a 1 percent chance each year that up to 7.5 total miles of the corridor could be subject to a 100-year flood event. Roadway Alignment Development Siting each roadway alignment was an iterative process. The intent of the initial design activities was to site the road in each corridor in an idealized location for the engineering requirement. The Corridor Study Team designed horizontal and vertical geometry in accordance with the design criteria and initially sited the road without consideration of environmental impacts or land ownership constraints. Exhibit 33 depicts how the corridor roadway alignments relate to the corridor route widths. Vicinity Map Corridor route, 2,000-foot-wide ROW Corridor roadway alignment in a corridor route is based on cut-and-fill limits plus 30-foot buffers on each side 7BG121614134347801 EXHIBIT 33 Corridor Roadway Alignment and Corridor Route Dimensions 102 TBG101614003935B0! CORRIDOR STUDY OVERVIEW The Corridor Study Team designed various typical sections based on geotechnical considerations that included an analysis of the existing terrain type. The Corridor Study Team minimized alignments that required steep grades, excessive cuts, or deep fills, and avoided major water crossings as much as practicable. Once the team designed the horizontal and vertical geometry, and proposed the typical sections, they built a three-dimensional (3D) digital terrain model (DTM) for project design. This generated a cut-and-fill footprint for each alignment in each corridor, and was the first result of the evolving design activities. The Corridor Study Team then displayed each of the four corridor alignment’s cut-and-fill limits against computer models of the existing ground, noting areas of deep fills and excessive cuts, and targeted those portions of the corridors for realignment. These realignment activities focused on making significant changes to the corridor roadway alignment to refine the Corridor Project footprint. Additionally, Corridor Project fieldwork conducted after the initial design identified a dry alignment from the Paimiut Slough to the northern end of the Portage Mountains. Scientists recorded the route with global positioning system waypoints as they walked the field. Scientists recognized a dry alignment could serve Corridors B, C, and D, and showed that a viable connection existed between the Portage Mountains and the Yukon River. As such, Corridor Study Team moved each corridor so there was a dry segment common to each corridor. This second phase of the design focused on making wholesale changes to each of the 2,000-foot-wide corridors. The third design phase involved displaying the new cut-and-fill limits over the entire Corridor Project digital database for considering environmental impacts and land use constraints. The environmental scientists analyzed the cut-and-fill limits and footprints to identify undesirable impacts to sensitive areas, wetlands, subsistence use areas, and privately held Native allotments. They focused on making alignment improvements within the corridor, and as a result, the Corridor Study Team developed a third model for all four corridors, representing an advanced understanding of each corridor’s 2,000-foot-wide limits, and proposed engineered alignments within each corridor that intergrated environmental and land ownership constraints. The basis of design for comparing the corridors in the third phase, both from the engineering and environmental perspectives, were the footprints and quantities generated by the second design phase. This iterative approach allowed team to develop each alignment from a technical engineering perspective, with final modifications based on the environmental impacts and considerations. This approach treated each corridor similarly during the design process, allowing reasonable comparisons between the corridors. TBG101614003935B0! 103 CORRIDOR EVALUATION AND SELECTION PROCESS Level 2 Corridor Screening Criteria Engineering Evaluation Criteria The Corridor Study Team’s identification and development of engineering design criteria, including codes, policies, and design standards, was an early milestone in the corridor planning effort. These design criteria provided the rules for development of the various engineering components. The team produced a Design Criteria technical memorandum (TM) in November 2013, which is included in Appendix C. The TM includes design criteria for roadway improvements, uplands staging and port improvements, power transmission, and pipeline design. The majority of the corridors evaluated exist in rolling to level terrain in seasonally flooded lowlands or areas of discontinuous permafrost. Embankment of materials on existing grade is preferred over excavation in these environments, and the preliminary design of each corridor reflects this. Embankment slopes as steep has 2 horizontal to 1 vertical (2H:1V) are allowable, but the actual embankment slopes are often much flatter. The slopes are a direct function of the existing soil conditions and geotechnical parameters. The Corridor Study Team analyzed each of the four corridors under the two-lane road assumption in accordance with the design criteria developed early in the Corridor Study, and assumed each roadway to begin and end at a port facility. The following subsections describe the engineering Level 2 corridor screening evaluation criteria. Overall Length Criterion This criterion, quantified in miles, includes the overall length of the roadway improvements required for each corridor. This criterion only considers the two-dimensional distance from beginning to end of each roadway. This is important because the total length of the constructed roadway directly impacts the distance that fuel and freight would have to move between rivers. In addition, each roadway requires maintenance on an annual basis, with longer roadways often requiring more maintenance dollars. For these reasons, shorter distances are more desirable than longer ones. Port and Uplands Requirements Criteria Regardless of the origin of shipping points or the quantities of fuel or cargo loads requiring transport, the concept of movement between rivers inherently requires the use of barges. For this reason, it is assumed that each roadway begins and ends at a port site that can accommodate barge traffic. The Corridor Study Team required an understanding of the freight and fuel traveling along the waterways to size the proposed port facilities. At present, approximately 10 million pounds of freight and 7 million gallons of fuel travel along the Yukon River annually, and approximately 18 million 104 TBG101614003935B0! CORRIDOR STUDY OVERVIEW pounds of freight and 12 million gallons of fuel travel along the Kuskokwim River annually. Because the Kuskokwim River is the smaller of the two rivers and has the higher current demand, the team selected Kuskokwim as the controlling river for facility sizing purposes (NEI, 2011). Appendix C provides a detailed set of facility-sizing calculations and estimated barge traffic and draft requirements. Proximity to Existing Infrastructure Criteria It is difficult to differentiate between corridor alternatives based solely on the requirement to provide port and uplands facilities, as each site can accommodate these improvements; however, the simple quantity and acreage calculations do not capture the proximity of each port to other existing infrastructure. Because the Paimiut termination points for each corridor are at uninhabited locations, the proximity criteria only apply to routes on the Kuskokwim River side. The consideration is important because fuel and freight delivered to a port site must be loaded, unloaded, inventoried, and secured. These activities require labor, which requires basic accommodations, including billeting and utilities. Additionally, proximity to existing airports supports security and emergency response capability across the corridor. Port sites in immediate proximity to existing infrastructure are more desirable than those that are not. Geotechnical Criteria Geotechnical constraints are of paramount importance during corridor alternative evaluation. The geotechnical work for the Corridor Project focused on identification of various terrain types expected on the road alignment along each route, which included seasonally flooded lowlands, uplands, thermokarst and discontinuous permafrost areas, and areas subjected to snow drifting. This led to the development of typical sections and profile grades required to accommodate each terrain type, as shown in Exhibits 34 to 37. TBG101614003935B0! 105 CORRIDOR EVALUATION AND SELECTION PROCESS Center line 6.5-ft minimum 6 inches aggregate base course 1 5-ft selected material, Type A 4.5-ft selected material, Type C Selected material, Type C EXHIBIT 34 Typical Section for Seasonally Flooded Lowlands Center line §.5-ft minimum 6 inches aggregate base course 1.5-ft selected material, Type A 3.5-ft selected material, Type A Selected matenal, Type C EXHIBIT 35 Typical Section for Uplands 106 TBG101614003935BO! CORRIDOR STUDY OVERVIEW Center line 7 5-foot minimum 6 inches aggregate base course 1.5-ft selected material, Type A 5.5-ft selected material, Type A Selected material, Type C a Original ground EXHIBIT 36 Typical Section for Thermokarst and Discontinuous Permafrost Center line fp 85-ft minimum 6 inches aggregate base course —— 1.5-4ft selected material, Type A 6 .5-ft selected material, Type C Selected material, Type C EXHIBIT 37 Typical Section for Snow Drifting The Corridor Study Team considered side sloping and benching in a few select areas where construction in mountainous terrain would be expected. Constructing in steep terrain requires benching for stability and safety. Greater excavation footprints and quantiles are required in these areas such that the Corridor Study Team considers construction on steep side slopes less desirable than construction on flatter side slopes. Appendix C provides a comprehensive geotechnical report that describes and details the determination of structural sections, existing terrain type, and side sloping and benching requirements. TBG101614003935B0! 107 CORRIDOR EVALUATION AND SELECTION PROCESS Earthwork Criteria The earthwork requirements drive the majority of cost associated with any of the roadway alignment corridors analyzed. The earthwork is a 3D consideration that has direct impacts on the environmental footprint and overall cost of construction. In addition to incorporating the geotechnical considerations, the earthwork requirements reflect the engineering design parameters associated with sight distance, grade, design speed, and roadside safety. Because the earthwork represents so much of the cost and the associated environmental impact of each corridor roadway alignment alternative, developing an accurate picture of the existing topography was a crucial early step in the corridor planning process. To that end, the Corridor Study Team made a significant investment to obtain light detection and ranging (LIDAR) data. The LIDAR data provided a 3D, computer-based picture of the existing ground suitable for design engineering. To calculate the earthwork requirements, the Corridor Study Team developed preliminary horizontal and vertical grades for each corridor. The grades, driven by the geotechnical inputs and engineering codes, were used to develop a 3D DTM of the proposed roadway surface, shown with respect to the existing ground represented by the LIDAR data. The team developed a computer- based model of each roadway that incorporated the geotechnical recommendations to adjust for the various soil types expected. This model allowed for the digital display of cut-and-fill limits to quantify expected environmental impacts associated with each corridor alternative. The model also allowed use of traditional end-area calculations to quantify excavation and embankment requirements at any point along the corridor alternatives. Haul Roads Criteria Proximity to borrow sources is an important constructability consideration for each corridor roadway alignment. A final geotechnical activity involved the identification of potential borrow sources that could support the construction of each roadway. Most of each corridor roadway’s construction involves embanking materials. Because of potentially encountering poor-quality materials on the road alignment, developing quarries in the Portage Mountains and associated foothills will provide most of the roadbuilding materials suitable for embankment. This criterion captures the length of temporary haul roads required for each corridor alternative and the associated average distance between quarry sites. Shorter haul roads and distances between quarries are more desirable when considering this criterion. The geotechnical report in Appendix C includes maps, exhibits, and detailed discussions of potential quarry sites. 108 TBG101614003935B0! CORRIDOR STUDY OVERVIEW Flood Plain Inundation Criteria Connecting two major rivers with a roadway exposes portions of the roadway to the risk of inundation by major flooding events. This criterion quantifies the length of each roadway that a 100-year flood event could inundate, for each river. Reducing the amount of roadway exposed to the 100-year flood event is desirable. Appendix C provides a comprehensive and detailed report on the hydraulic and hydrologic considerations, including a discussion on the 100-year flood events for each river. Water Crossing Criteria The collection of LIDAR data benefits the engineering design by offering the ability to map and locate various water crossings. The LIDAR data allow evaluation of each corridor roadway alignment along the entirety of the route with respect to every water crossing and drainage path. For each route, the Corridor Study Team developed and inventoried station-by-station approximate culvert sizes and required lengths. This allowed for comparison between the corridors to determine the infrastructure required to provide roadside drainage. A corridor roadway alignment requiring more culverts is less desirable than a corridor roadway alignment requiring fewer culverts. Similarly, a corridor roadway alignment with fewer bridges or box culvert structures is more desirable than a corridor roadway alignment requiring more. Snow Drifting Considerations Criteria The final evaluation criteria analyzed pertained to the length of each corridor expected to experience moderate or greater snow drifting. Sections of corridor roadway alignment prone to drifting could have maintenance impacts on spring roadway openings, and these areas provide less benefit to local corridor users during the winter months. For those reasons, the Corridor Study Team considered corridor roadway alignment sections thought to be prone to drifting undesirable. Environmental Resources Evaluation Criteria Early in the Level 2 evaluation process, the Corridor Study Team identified a number of VECs and VSECs to use in the Least Harm Path Analysis, as each described an attribute or component of the natural and human environment for which there is public or professional concern. Within a geographic information system (GIS), the majority of VECs and VSECs cannot be directly mapped onto the ground; therefore, the Corridor Study Team identified surrogate measures, ranked them in importance, and mapped them into GIS layers. The team then converted the VEC and VSEC surrogate measures to layers of polygons for each measure in the GIS system and laid the GIS polygons over a 10-meter (m) by 10-m grid. The team assigned each cell in the grid a value based TBG101614003935B0! 109 CORRIDOR EVALUATION AND SELECTION PROCESS on the resources in that cell, and used the values in the analysis. The document VEC-VSEC Framework in Appendix D describes the conversion process within the GIS system in detail. The consolidated GIS layers formed the foundation of the Least Harm Path Analysis used to determine what the overall environmental impacts of each 2,000-foot-wide corridor and each corridor roadway alignment were. Before impact analysis began, the Corridor Study Team formulated a clear understanding of the Corridor Project, its regional setting, spatial boundaries, timeframe, facilities, and the planned sequences and locations of activities during construction and O&M. This was necessary because the analysts had to identify Corridor Project impact sources and determine impact pathways from those sources to the receptors (VECs and VSECs). As an essential component of this process, the Corridor Study Team documented how analysis footprints evolved through the development, review, and refinement of corridor routes and corridor roadway alignment location selections. The team made many of the corridor route options and corridor roadway alignment selections to mitigate potential adverse environmental effects; and understood, documented, and accounted for these built-in, mitigative features in the impact analyses. The Corridor Study Team used two different approaches to conduct environmental resources evaluations: Least Harm Path Analysis on identified VECs and VSECs and a Residual Impact Assessment. These approaches characterized the impacts to VECs and VSECs, and established baseline resource studies for the Corridor Study. The Corridor Study Team managed Least Harm Path Analysis and Residual Impact Assessment in a sequence of four steps. The multidisciplinary team prepared the environmental analysis for the Corridor Study as follows: 1. Defined the VECs and VSECs. 2. Conducted and documented the Least Harm Path Analysis for each cut-and-fill plus buffer corridor roadway alignment for all VECs and VSECs. 3. Conducted and documented the Residual Impact Assessments for each corridor roadway alignment for all VECs and VSECs. 4. Prepared the environmental analysis summary by each corridor roadway alignment for the Corridor Plan. The process of environmental resource criteria development and VEC and VSEC selection, the criteria used, and the VECs and VSECs selected are documented in the Valued Environmental 10 TBG101614003935BO! CORRIDOR STUDY OVERVIEW Component Memo (Appendix D), which also presents the detailed process of conducting the Least Harm Path Analysis. Factors for selecting VECs and VSECs included statutory or regulatory requirements; importance to human health or well-being; essential roles in maintaining fish and wildlife habitats; key food web positions; function as indicators of environmental health; and key contributions to socioeconomic conditions, regional and community infrastructure, recreation, and other factors. The purpose of the environmental impact analysis as part of the Corridor Study was to identify the direct, indirect, induced, and cumulative impacts of the Corridor Project on the suite of VECs and VSECs. The Least Harm Path Analysis served as the impact analysis and focused on identifying and understanding the linkages between the Corridor Project—its facilities, activities during construction and O&M, and the affected VECs and VSECs. In particular, the impact analysis process explains the mechanisms and pathways by which specific Corridor Project actions affect specific VECs and VSECs. The term “impact mechanism,” as used here, refers to the cause-and-effect relationship between source (Corridor Project action) and receptor (VEC or VSEC). The term “impact pathway,” as used here, refers to the physical means by which a stimulus produced by a Corridor Project action reaches the responding receptor. The VEC-VSEC Framework in Appendix D fully describes these relationships. To conduct the environmental analysis, the Corridor Study Team had to associate each of the VECs and sub-VECs with one of the GIS layers and GIS subdivisions within those layers. In that way, the team could associate a specific location on the ground with a particular VEC or sub-VEC. Table 13 summarizes these allocations of VECs and sub-VECs to various GIS layers and subdivisions. For example, where the location of all bird nesting cannot be shown in the GIS database, the habitat birds use can be; therefore, the team used all wetlands, marsh, tundra, and other habitats within the GIS habitat layer as a surrogates for evaluating the potential for a particular ROW to impact nesting birds. TBG101614003935B0! mW CORRIDOR EVALUATION AND SELECTION PROCESS TABLE 13 Valued Environmental Component Allocation to Various Geographic Information System Layers VEC ms Sub-VECs GIS Layer Subdivision Layer Habitats Essential habitat Wetlands PEM; Open Water (lakes) No | . , Essential habitat Habitat? Open Water (lakes); Marsh; Open No Country/Tundra Open Water (Lakes); Open Water Wetlands/WOUS Wetlands (Streams); PEM; PSS; PFO No Habitat required or critical for survival of Wetlands PEM; Open Water (lakes) No endangered species piabitat required ay . Open Water (lakes); Marsh; Open critical for survival of Habitat Country/Tundra No endangered species ¥ Sites critical to survival NHD Flowline; Wetlands; PEM; Open Water (lakes); Open N of migratory species Habitat Water (Streams) ° Isolated bog wetlands Habitat Isolated Moss Bogs No Mammals Small mammals Fi E : (snowshoe/Arctic hare, Habitat orested; Open Forest; Open Yes . Country/Tundra vole, lemmings) PEM; PSS; PFO; Open Water Beaver Wetland (Streams); Open Water (Lakes) No Shrub; Open Water (Streams); Beaver Habitat Open Water (Lakes); Marsh; No Forested; Shrub Grizzly bear Habitat All Terrestrial Habitats No Black bear Habitat All Terrestrial Habitats Yes Wolf Habitat All Terrestrial Habitats No Moose Wetlands All Categories Yes Forested; Shrub; Open Water 7 (Lakes); Open Water (Streams); Moose Habitat Marsh; Isolated, Moss-dominated No Bogs Aquatic Resident fish (Dolly varden, Artic grayling, NHD Flowline Yes northern pike, burbot, blackfish, sheefish) "2 TBG101614003935BO! Loon & thy Vote useful? CORRIDOR STUDY OVERVIEW TABLE 13 Valued Environmental Component Allocation to Various Geographic Information System Layers ; : : bsi VEC _ Sub-VECs GIS Layer Subdivision Layer Resident fish (Dolly varden, Artic grayling, . northern pike, burbot, Habitat Open Water (Streams) No blackfish, sheefish) Resident fish (Dolly varden, Artic grayling, northern pike, burbot, Wetlands Open Water (Streams) No blackfish, sheefish) Anadromous fish (Chinook, coho, NHD Flowline Yes sockeye, chum, pink) Anadromous fish (Chinook, coho, Habitat Open Water (Streams) No sockeye, chum, pink) Anadromous fish (Chinook, coho, Wetlands Open Water (Streams) No sockeye, chum, pink) Wood frog Wetlands PEM; PFO No Wood frog Habitat Marsh; Forested; Isolated, Moss- No dominated Bogs Invertebrates (Yukon Wetlands Open Water (Lakes); Open Water No floater) (Streams) Invertebrates (Yukon Habitat Open Water (Lakes); Open Water No floater) (Stream) Birds Land birds (Species) Willow ptarmigan Wetlands PSs No Willow ptarmigan Habitat Shrub; Open Country/Tundra No Rock ptarmigan Habitat Open Country/Tundra No Spruce grouse Wetlands PFO No Spruce grouse Habitat Forested No Passerines (including gray-cheeked thrush, olive-sided flycatcher, Wetlands PSS; PFO No snow bunting, rusty Blackbird) Passerines (including Habitat Forested; Shrub No gray-cheeked thrush, olive-sided flycatcher, TBG101614003935BO! TE CORRIDOR EVALUATION AND SELECTION PROCESS TABLE 13 Valued Environmental Component Allocation to Various Geographic Information System Layers VEC : Sub-VECs GIS Layer Subdivision Layer snow bunting, rusty Blackbird) Raven Habitat Open Country/Tundra No Water-associated Birds (Species) Sandhill crane Wetlands PEM; Open Water (Lakes) No Sandhill crane Habitat Marsh; Open Water (Lakes); Open No Country/Tundra Shorebirds (including Hudsonian godwit, Open Water (Lakes); Open Water bristle-thighed curlew, Wetlands (Streams); PEM ee solitary sandpiper) Shorebirds (including Hudsonian godwit, Marsh; Open Water (Lakes); Open bristle-thighed curlew, ae Water (Streams) hh solitary sandpiper) Waterfowl (Species) Yes Geese (Tule white- fronted goose, Wetlands PEM; Open Water (Lakes) No Canadian, cackling) Geese (Tule white- fronted goose, Habitat Marsh, Open Water (Lakes) No Canadian, cackling) Swans (tundra) Wetlands Open Water (Lakes); PEM No h: é Swans (tundra) Habitat Marsh; Open Water (Lakes); Open No County/Tundra Ducks (black scoter, northern pintail, Open Water (Lakes); Open Water mallard, canvasback, wetlands (Streams); PEM No golden eye) Ducks (black scoter, northern pintail, - Marsh; Open Water (Lakes); Open mallard, canvasback, ei Water (Streams) NG golden eye) Raptors (Species) Osprey Wetlands Open Water (Lakes); Open water No (Streams) kes): Osprey Habitat Open Water (Lakes); Open Water No (Streams) 4 TBG101614003935B0! CORRIDOR STUDY OVERVIEW TABLE 13 Valued Environmental Component Allocation to Various Geographic Information System Layers ; Subsistence VEC é Sub-VECs GIS Layer Subdivision _ Layer Bald eagle Wetlands Open ee onic pen: Water No Bald eagle Habitat Open ane Water No Northern harrier Wetlands PEM No Northern harrier Habitat Marsh, Open Country/Tundra No Sharp-shinned hawk Habitat Shrub; Forested No Northern goshawk Habitat Forested No Rough-legged hawk Habitat Open Country/Tundra No Golden eagle Habitat Open Country/Tundra No Merlin Habitat Forested No mania psa Wetlands PEM No American peregrine Habitat Marsh; Open Country/Tundra No falcon Great horned owl Habitat Forested No Habitat Habitat Open Country/Tundra No Northern hawk-owl Habitat Forested No Short-eared owl Wetlands PEM No Short-eared owl Habitat Marsh, Open Country/Tundra No Boreal owl Habitat Forested No ? Based on Alaska National Gap Analysis Program Land Cover data (ANHP, 2015). NHD - National Hydrographic Data PEM - palustrine emergent PFO - palustrine, forested PSS - palustrine, scrub shrub WOUS - Waters of the U.S. To be useful in the analysis, the Corridor Study Team had to prioritize the data in Table 13 to indicate which VECs and sub-VECs were more valuable to society and the environment, or more sensitive to disturbance than others within the same general category (for example, within wetlands or within habitat). The prioritization process resulted in the ability to develop a ranking system for each category of VEC and VESC. The team included the following VEC and VSEC categories in the analysis: TBG101614003935B0! MS CORRIDOR EVALUATION AND SELECTION PROCESS e Wetlands e Anadromous fish e Gap Analysis Program Land Cover e NHD e Subsistence-Salmon e Subsistence-Moose e Subsistence-Pike Lake e Subsistence-Others e Land Status-Native Select, Native Patent, or Interim Conveyance (IC), Native Allotment (Private), USFWS, Other The Corridor Study Team then assigned the ranks for each VEC and VSEC category to the cells in the 10-m by 10-m GIS grid where they occurred. Table 14 shows the prioritization of habitats that were then used to create ranks for the wetlands and habitat VECs. Each GIS grid cell has a number associated with it for each VEC and VSEC category. These numbers are summed to arrive at a total value for each cell. In the analysis, the values of all cells touched by a 2,000-foot-wide corridor or corridor roadway alignment to arrive at a corridor or ROW total. The Corridor Study Team ranked the corridors from 1 to 4, with 4 being the corridor with the least environmental impact. Tables 14 and 15 show these ranks, and the Corridor Analysis Results section of this document discusses them. The Subsistence Evaluation Criteria section following the tables describes subsistence rankings. 6 TBG101614003935BO! TABLE 14 Valued Environmental Component Allocation to Various Geographic Information System Layer Rank Habitat Rationale for Ranking Highest PEM Regulatory protection Anadromous Streams PFO PSs Open Water/Lacustrine Non-anadromous Streams Isolated, Moss-dominated Bogs Forested Open Forested Open Country/Tundra Lowest Shrub Critical for survival of migratory species 12 VECs here T&E species Regulatory protection (WOUS) Regulatory protection High VEC use Subsistence species Regulatory protection High VEC use Subsistence species Regulatory protection (WOUS) Critical for survival of migratory species Subsistence species Regulatory protection (WOUS) Subsistence species 6 VEC species, plus resident fish This is a VEC 13 VEC species, plus passerines 9 VEC species plus passerines Subsistence species 10 VEC species 5 VEC species CORRIDOR STUDY OVERVIEW Subsistence species T&E - threatened and endangered Table 15 shows the resulting ranks for the wetland and habitat VECs; rankings for anadromous fish show that streams with these fish were more sensitive than those without them. For NHD-related VECs, if a GIS grid cell had an NHD feature, the Corridor Study Team assigned it a 1. If none were present, the team assigned a 0. Using 1s and Os gave the team the flexibility to scale this resource higher in the analysis using weights due to its regulatory importance. The Corridor Study Team awarded the land ownership rankings in Table 15 based on the ability to negotiate with the owner on crossing the land. TBG101614003935BO! 7 CORRIDOR EVALUATION AND SELECTION PROCESS TABLE 15 Valued Environmental Component and Valued Socioeconomic Component Category Rankings (Table 14 shows Subsistence Categories) GIS Layer Resource z Rank? Wetlands PEM 5 PFO 4 PSS 3 Open Water (Lakes) 2 Open Water (Streams) iL Anadromous Fish Anadromous Stream 2 Tributary to Anadromous Stream 2 Non-anadromous Stream 1 No Stream a Habitat© Marsh 5 Isolated, Marsh-dominated Bog 4 Forested (Open-Closed) 3 Open County/Tundra 2 Shrub 1 Developed 0 Water o NHD Stream/Waterbody 1 None o> Land Ownership Native /Private/Selected/Patent 2. USFWS 1 Others 0 ? Higher number equals greater importance within the GIS layer > Zero used to avoid double-counting with other GIS layers © Based on Alaska Gap Analysis Program data (ANHP, 2015) 4 Zero used to designate little to no habitat value Subsistence Evaluation Criteria Residents in western Alaska and the Central Kuskokwim River drainage area rely substantially on subsistence hunting, fishing, and gathering for nutrition in support of their customary and traditional ways of life. Harvests vary from community to community, and vary over time in amounts and species. Species harvested by the Central Kuskokwim communities include salmon; moose; 8 TBG101614003935B0! CORRIDOR STUDY OVERVIEW whitefish species, including sheefish (inconnu), broad white fish, humpback whitefish, and Bering cisco; northern pike; geese; ducks; wild berries; and wild greens. The corridor evaluation process acknowledged the importance of subsistence (VSECs) to the region by including several evaluation criteria specific to subsistence resources. The Least Harm Path Analysis valued the subsistence resources for every 2,000-foot-wide corridor route and corridor roadway alignment. The source of the subsistence data used in the Least Harm Path Analysis was a literature review and limited local knowledge. The Corridor Study Team conducted a literature review of the findings published in three studies (ADFG, 2012, 2014; Wheeler, 1997) for the community subsistence assessment, and used local knowledge from TKC. Under Alaska law, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) Division of Subsistence is responsible for conducting research on “all aspects of the role of subsistence hunting and fishing in the lives of residents of the state.” To fulfill its mission since the late 1970s, the ADFG has implemented a social science research program, primarily in rural and Alaska Native communities. Methods have included systematic surveys, respondent interviews, participant observation, mapping, and archival research. The Corridor Study Team used subsistence data provided by the ADFG for several purposes, including establishing baselines of community patterns and wild resources uses so the Corridor Plan can evaluate potential impacts to subsistence ways of life. Technical Papers The ADFG Technical Paper Series contains most of the ADFG’s published research findings (ADFG, 2015). Some papers are responses to specific fish and wildlife management and policy issues, others provide detailed basic information on the subsistence fishing, hunting, and gathering patterns of communities, while others summarize years of subsistence harvest data. The ADFG prepared Technical Paper Number (No.) 365 (2012) and No. 396 (2014) in response to a specific need for subsistence information to assist in the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the proposed Donlin Gold Mine near Crooked Creek. These two papers provided the geospatial subsistence data for most of the communities within the Corridor Study Area. The technical papers summarized the results of a series of comprehensive subsistence surveys with the following objectives: e Estimate subsistence harvests and uses of wild fish, game, and plant resources in a 12-month study year e Map areas used for hunting, fishing, and gathering during the study year e Produce historical use area maps for subsistence hunting, fishing, and gathering TBG101614003935B01 "9 CORRIDOR EVALUATION AND SELECTION PROCESS e Collect demographic information about each community, including population size and composition, ethnicity, birthplace, and length of residency in the study community e Characterize each community's involvement in the cash economy, including jobs and other sources of cash income e Evaluate trends in subsistence harvests e Document traditional knowledge observations regarding resources used for subsistence purposes e Document local concerns related to subsistence hunting and fishing The Corridor Study Team used Technical Paper No. 396 (ADFG, 2014) to summarize subsistence data for Russian Mission; and Technical Paper No. 365 (ADFG, 2012) to summarize subsistence data for the communities of Kalskag, Lower Kalskag, Chuathbaluk, and Aniak. Geospatial subsistence data for Grayline, Anvik, Shageluk, and Holy Cross (GASH) were not as recent as data from the other communities in the Corridor Study Area. A 1997 study (Wheeler) examined contemporary resource use at that time, and included subsistence data for the GASH communities. While the intent of the study was to address the role, place, and perception of cash within the context of a rural village economy, the author also examined the harvest and use of wild fish and game resources. The 1997 paper summarized pre-2000 subsistence harvest areas for fishing, trapping, waterfowl, and berries and greens. ADFG identified areas where each village concentrated their harvest and search areas for a variety of ptarmigan (a gamebird in the grouse family), black bear, caribou, moose, and berries and greens. The Corridor Study Team digitized these data into GIS layers for analysis. The team categorized data for Aniak, Chuathbaluk, Lower Kalskag, Kalskag, and Russian Mission differently than the data for Grayling, Anvik, Shageluk, and Holy Cross; therefore, data were evaluated using different subsistence categories. Table 16 and Table 17 show which data were available for each village. The Corridor Study Team georeferenced paper maps of subsistence search and harvest areas into the GIS environment using ArcGIS Version 10.0. Georeferencing used latitude and longitude graticules in the paper maps as reference points. The team also visually checked the final georeferenced maps to determine if base layers (such as community locations or rivers) from the paper maps aligned with GIS base maps and aerial imagery. After georeferencing, the team converted subsistence search and harvest areas into polygons by digitizing the features in the GIS environment (see subsistence mapping exhibits in Appendix E). The Corridor Study Team labeled the GIS polygon layers based on which community and subsistence resource they represented and 120 TBG101614003935B0! Su por ewe: CORRIDOR STUDY OVERVIEW then overlaid the GIS polygons onto a 10-m by 10-m GIS grid system using Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) software for inclusion in the Least Harm Path Analysis. The Corridor Study Team assigned each 10-m by 10-m cell in the grid a 1 if the subsistence type or area was present within the cell or a 0 if it was not. Tables 16 and 17 show which subsistence type or area, by village, intersects a corridor roadway alignment within the four 2,000-foot-wide corridors. Pike Lake was a subsistence resource not addressed in the reports, but during village meetings, stakeholders expressed it is a concern. The metric used to evaluate impacts to Pike Lake was the distance from the proposed 2,000-foot-wide corridor or corridor roadway alignment to Pike Lake at its closest point. The team gave the corridor located the farthest from Pike Lake the lowest ranking. TABLE 16 Subsistence Types and Areas, by Village, Affected by the Corridor Roadway Alignment within the Four 2,000- foot-wide Corridors Village Subsistence Resource Aniak Chuathbaluk Lower Kalskag Kalskag Russian Mission Salmon ES E BxG B,C No Corridor Impact® Moose BC DFE B,C,D,E B,C BG DFE No Corridor Impact Grouped as Others Trout and E No Corridor No Corridor B,C No Corridor Whitefish Impact? Impact? Impact? Caribou No Corridor No Corridor No Corridor No Corridor B,C,D Impact? Impact® Impact? Impact® Black Bear E No Corridor B,C No Corridor BGO Impact Impact Small Land B,C,D,E No Corridor No Corridor Cc No Corridor Mammals Impact? Impact? Impact? Ducks and Geese GD E B,C,D BC DE No Corridor Impact? Berries and B,C,D,E B,C, DLE B,C B,C,D No Corridor Greens Impact® @|ndicates that within the 2,000-foot-wide corridor, the corridor roadway alignment intersects a particular resource. > Indicates that this resource did not fall within a corridor roadway alignment of any of the four 2,000-foot-wide corridors. TBG101614003935B0! 121 CORRIDOR EVALUATION AND SELECTION PROCESS TABLE 17 Subsistence Types and Areas, for Grayling, Anvik, Shageluk, Holy Cross Villages, Affected by the Corridor Roadway Alignment within the Four 2,000-foot-wide Corridors Grouped as Others Fishing Areas No Corridor Impact? No Corridor Impact? No Corridor Impact? No Corridor Impact? Trapping Areas No Corridor Impact? No Corridor Impact? No Corridor Impact? No Corridor Impact? Ducks and Geese No Corridor Impact? No Corridor Impact? No Corridor Impact? B,C, D, Ee Berries and Greens No Corridor Impact? No Corridor Impact? No Corridor Impact? No Corridor Impact? ? Indicates that this resource did not fall within a corridor roadway alignment of any of the four 2,000-foot-wide corridors for any of the GASH villages. © Indicates that within the 2,000-foot-wide corridor, the corridor roadway alignment intersects a particular resource. The Corridor Study Team summed the 1s and Os for all the cells crossed by the corridor roadway alignment in each 2,000-foot wide corridor to calculate the rankings in Tables 16 and 17. For analysis, the team assigned salmon and moose an individual score for each, and grouped the remaining subsistence types or areas into one category of Others (see Tables 14 and 15). As an example: 1. If Salmon 1s and Os totaled to 50, 10, 25, and 20 for corridor roadway alignment in Corridors B, C, D, and E, respectively, Corridor B would have the highest total (most impact) in Table 16 for salmon. 2. Similarly, after totaling 1s and Os for all the resources included in Others, the corridor roadway alignment with the lowest sum has the least impact for Others. 122 TBG101614003935B0! “Based on the results of the Level 1 and 2 Screenings, including economics, engineering, and environmental evaluations, the corridor roadway alignment in Corridor C appears to have the greatest potential for meeting the Corridor Project’s goals, purpose, and need.” Corridor Analysis Results Introduction The corridor planning process completed detailed transportation concept, mode, corridor route, and corridor roadway alignment screening. The corridor planning process considered engineering, environmental, and socioeconomic information in context with stakeholder feedback. The Corridor Plan measured recommendations against the Corridor Study objectives and the Corridor Plan preliminary purpose and need. Based on the results of the Level 1 and 2 Screenings, including economics, engineering, and environmental evaluations, the corridor roadway alignment in Corridor C appears to have the greatest potential for meeting the Corridor Project's goals, purpose, and need. Exhibit 38 depicts the location of the recommended corridor route. Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge A A Portage Mountains \ Bethel @ Corridor Study Area A A CORRIDOR C Chuathbaluk an awe 78G121614134247B01 © 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed EXHIBIT 38 Recommended Corridor C Map TBG101614003935B0! 125 CORRIDOR ANALYSIS RESULTS Engineering Analysis Findings The Corridor Study Team generated corridor roadway alignment footprints for analysis using a conservative modal assumption of a two-lane, gravel-surfaced roadway to develop all four corridors. Each corridor begins and ends at a port site capable of accommodating a fleet of barges suitable for moving all of the freight and fuel that currently travels on the Kuskokwim River annually. The team developed a computer-based 3D DTM for each of the four corridor roadway alignments, and generated proposed footprints and earthwork quantities based on LIDAR data collected for the Corridor Study. The geotechnical considerations, including an analysis of the existing terrain types, techniques required for construction in steep terrain, and techniques to mitigate areas likely prone to snow drifting, heavily influenced the footprints and models. The engineering discipline performed a hydraulic analysis on each roadway alignment that considered exposure to flooding events and stream and river crossings. The Study Corridor Team developed Corridors B, C, D, and E roadway alignments to the same level. All four roadway alignments were advanced to a level of engineering that places a horizontal and vertical alignment in the corridor with modeled catch limits. The 30% design for Corridor C roadway alignment consists of plans and a construction cost estimate for a two-lane, gravel- surfaced roadway that begins at Kalskag and terminates on the Paimiut Slough. Appendix C includes these approximate 30% design plans and the construction cost estimate. The plans show plan and profile views of the 44-mile-long roadway alignment, complete with expected cut-and-fill slope limits. Also included are details of the expected waterbody crossings, including a single 120-foot-long bridge. Each 3-acre upland staging area has two cellular bulkhead sheet pile walls. Each port site includes a ramp suitable for landing the design barge. The estimated cost of constructing roadway alignment C is between $100 and $150 million. The construction cost estimate contains a detailed breakdown of methodology used, unit rates, local and historical bid tabulations, assumptions, and limitations. The Corridor Study Team completed an estimate of annual O&M costs for the roadway, including a breakout of expected annual costs for springtime road opening. Corridor Ranking and Evaluation The Corridor Study Team used a relative ranking and weighted evaluation system to score each roadway alignment independently against every category analyzed. The criteria considered earthwork, port considerations, proximity to infrastructure, overall length, snow drifting, exposure to flooding, and hydraulic crossings. The team weighted each criterion from 1 to 3. A weight of 1 indicates an evaluation criterion has importance, a weight of 2 represents a moderate importance, 126 TBG101614003935B0! CORRIDOR ANALYSIS RESULTS and a weight of 3 represents significant importance. The team considered local input to assign importance to each criterion. The Corridor Study Team compared each roadway alignment to every other roadway alignment within each individual category. The team assigned the most desirable corridor within an individual category a relative ranking of 4, the second most desirable a 3, the third most desirable a 2, and the least desirable a 1. The relative ranking number multiplied by the weight of the category determined the overall score for a corridor in any given category. The summation of the category scores provided the overall score. The highest overall score represented the most desirable corridor, and the lowest overall score represented the leastdesirable corridor based on the engineering criteria. Exhibit 39 shows the relative ranks of each roadway alignment within each category; and Exhibit 40 shows the populated relative ranking, weighted evaluation criteria, and overall scores for each corridor. EXHIBIT 39 Relative Ranking of Corridors TBG101614003935BO! 127 CORRIDOR ANALYSIS RESULTS EXHIBIT 40 Populated Relative Ranking, Weighted Evaluation Criteria, and Overall Scores for Each Corridor The analysis indicates the roadway alignment in Corridor C is preferred based on the engineering criteria and ranking. Roadway alignments in Corridors B and D appear to be viable and feasible, while the roadway alignment in Corridor E is not favorable. The close scoring between roadway alignments in Corridors B, C, and D reflects the bias in the matrix toward shorter routes and the sensitivity associated with assigning relative ranks and weights to criteria. For example, the Corridor Study Team compared 40-mile-long roadway alignments to 30-mile-long roadway alignments in the earthwork category. Corridors D and E, both being approximately 10 miles shorter than B and C, benefit tremendously by simply being shorter, so less costly. Because earthwork is a highly weighted criterion, a bias in the matrix results for shorter corridors. The scoring used is also highly sensitive to the relative ranking assignments of the corridors within each category. It is also somewhat sensitive to the weights assigned to each of the evaluation criteria. Overall scoring also provides some definitive conclusions. For example, the roadway alignment in Corridor E performs well in the overall earthwork category, but does not perform well in any other categories, which is highly undesirable from the engineering perspective. The roadway alignment in Corridor D represents the most direct link between rivers and benefits tremendously in the earthwork category due to its relatively short distance. This roadway alignment also scores well in the water crossing and flood plain exposure categories because of its shorter distance. However, the corridor begins and ends in uninhabited areas away from existing infrastructure, which largely offsets these benefits. The matrix attempts to capture this issue by 128 TBG101614003935B01I CORRIDOR ANALYSIS RESULTS heavily weighting the proximity to other infrastructure, but the scores do not reflect the unquantifiable negatives associated with operating and maintaining remote port sites. The roadway alignment in Corridor B is the poorest-performing alignment in the earthwork category and, for that reason, would be expected to have the highest initial construction cost. Because much of the route is in elevated terrain in the Portage Mountains, it offsets the penalty. This results in shorter expected distances to borrow sources, less exposure to the flood plain, and fewer required haul routes. Because the roadway alignment in Corridor C is one of the longest corridors analyzed, it performs poorly in the overall length and earthwork categories. However, the alignment benefits from beginning in immediate proximity to existing infrastructure, in an area with some acreage immediately available for port construction; also, its alignment along the foothills of the Portage Mountains results in high scores for water crossings and haul routes. The ranking of corridor roadway alignments and the engineering work conducted shows a viable and constructible roadway corridor that connects the Kuskokwim and Yukon Rivers. The engineering criteria emphasize balancing design principals, constructability, and the critical need to have a port site near existing infrastructure. The engineering recommendation for a roadway alignment in Corridor C aligns with the same recommendation from the economic and environmental disciplines and, ultimately, leads to selecting Corridor C as the recommended corridor. Environmental Analysis Findings The Least Harm Path Analysis combined the subsistence (VSEC) and VEC data for the evaluation of the corridor routes and corridor roadway alignments (cut-and-fill footprint, plus 30-foot buffer on each side) and their environmental effects. Table 18 presents the results of the Least Harm Path Analysis for the VECs and VSECs (subsistence). The corridors have a ranking within each resource, with a rank of four assigned to the corridor with the least potential impact and a rank assigned to the corridor with the highest potential for impact to that VEC or VSEC. Based on an even-weighted scoring, Corridor D roadway alignment had the highest, and therefore, the best score (least overall impact). Corridor D and E roadway alignments had the least impacts to wetlands, streams, important habitats, and stream crossings. TBG101614003935BO! 129 CORRIDOR ANALYSIS RESULTS The analysis then applied weights to the criteria to reflect the importance of certain resources based on input received from communities in the study area and critical regulatory aspects. These are the weight assignments: 1 = low importance 2 = moderate importance 3 = high importance Table 19 shows the results of the weighted analysis. The analysis weighted the criteria to give a high importance to subsistence resources, native allotments, and Refuge land. The analysis weighted wetlands, anadromous fish habitat, and stream crossings as the next most important resources due to their regulatory importance and support of subsistence, commercial, and recreational activities. Table 19 shows the results of taking the raw scores in Table 18 and multiplying them by the weighting factor. The weighted ranking scores were the basis for making a corridor roadway alignment recommendation based on the subsistence and environmental resources. Corridor C roadway alignment has the best score, given the weighting applied to the matrix. It has the least potential for impacts to VECs and subsistence resources (VSECs). TABLE 18 Environmental Evaluation Criteria Rankings Natural Resources Subsistence Land Ownership 2 c 2 & = & g 3 3 2 a 2 5 a . 3 = i i 2 S 4 oe Boe ee | a ei ed es 5 & g = 2 = So) eles o| eee cle eels e 3 = < = a & = a | oO oe a 6 a B 2 2 i, 1 4 3 2 4 2 1 0 22 c 1 1 2 2 3 4 3 3 3 1 0 23 D 4 3 4 3 1 2 3 1 3 1 0 25 E 3 4 3 4 2 1 1 2 1 1 0 22 2 Where there were ties, the range is not 1 to 4. The range starts at 1, and tied numbers are duplicated; for example, Corridors C and D have equal rankings, so therefore, the range is 1 to 3. > No Refuge conflicts, so all scores in this category are set to zero. 130 TBG101614003935B0! CORRIDOR ANALYSIS RESULTS TABLE 19 Environmental Evaluation Criteria Weighted Rankings Subsistence Land Ownership | - c 2 ~o = c ‘ : i ‘ g E S 2 Al, 2i/a4sé & | 3 3] | 28 g . > o 2 ie g é = 2 2 £ 8 = < 5 8 =| & Za] 8 8| 2 Weight 2 2 1 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 B 4 4 1 2 12 i= 6 =e 12 6 3 o | 59 c 2 2 2 4 9 12= =e =9) 9 3 o | 61 D 8 6 4 6 3 69 3 9 3 o | 57 E 6 8 3 8 6 33a 6 3 3 o | 49 @ No Refuge conflicts, so all scores in this category are set to zero. Land Ownership Evaluation Land ownership was an important consideration in selecting the corridor route with the least harm path and subsequent recommendation of the corridor roadway alignment. Examination of five ownership categories help map and assess corridor route location, including BLM lands, Native Patent or IC lands, state-selected lands, Village Surface and Calista Subsurface land, and USFWS land (the Refuge). The ANCSA became law in 1971 to address Alaska Native land claims in response to pressure to develop newly discovered oil reserves. By 1976, the BLM had received large numbers of applications for land they had to adjudicate from Alaska Native corporations, Alaska Native individuals, and the state. In many instances, multiple entities selected the same parcels. By 2012, the U.S. has adjudicated and settled many of the claims, with all right, title, and interest transferred to the new owners; therefore, state-selected lands are parcels that the state selected, but the state has not yet requested title transfer. Native Patent land is land Alaska Natives have surveyed and patented and now own, while IC land is land not surveyed and patented yet. BLM land is self-evident, and the USFWS land is in the Refuge. TBG101614003935B0! 131 CORRIDOR ANALYSIS RESULTS Table 20 shows the land ownership acreage and categories for Corridor C and a 150-foot roadway alignment, which had the least impact to the sensitive categories of Native lands and the Refuge. TABLE 20 Land Ownership Acreage Land Ownership Category Area Affected (Acres) 150-foot-wide Corridor C Roadway Alignment BLM 586 Native Allotment - Private 0 Native Patent or IC 0 State-selected 30 Village Surface and Calista Subsurface 184 Refuge 0 2000-foot-wide Corridor C Roadway Alignment BLM 7,835 Native Allotment - Private 53 Native Patent or IC 0 State-selected 384 Village Surface and Calista Subsurface 2,449 Refuge 0 Residual Impact Analysis The significance of environmental impacts is typically determined by considering their magnitude and severity, extent, duration, and probability. Opposite ends of the significance spectrum are as follows: e Highly significant impacts: Diverse, irreversible, or unprecedented impacts, or some combination of these. e Low significance or insignificant impacts: Impacts that are generally site-specific, largely reversible, and—in relation to adverse impacts—readily addressed by mitigation. The AVCP ranked the magnitude, extent, duration, and likelihood of impacts for road construction in each corridor. AVCP then considered the consequence severity of the residual impact against impact likelihood to determine the high, medium, or low level of each residual impact. AVCP completed the residual impact analysis on corridor roadway alignments in Corridors B, C, D, and E. 132 TBG101614003935B0! CORRIDOR ANALYSIS RESULTS Following are the residual impacts of each of the corridor roadway alignments. ¢ Corridor B’s roadway alignment has the most potential for high to very high magnitude impacts due to proximity to the Refuge. e Corridor B and E roadway alignments have the potential to impact environmental resource complex functions and services at the subregional scale, extending beyond the local scale of each corridor. e Corridor C and D roadway alignment, which are coincident for much of their alignments, have the lowest residual impact ranking. e The magnitude of the impacts for Corridor C and D roadway alignments will be detectable within the environmental resources complex but will not threaten the overall complex function and services, and will comply with established government standards for acceptable environmental quality and permitting. The Corridor Study Team used the Least Harm Path Analysis to quantify the impacts to environmental and subsistence resources from each of the corridors and each corridor roadway alignment. The Corridor Study Team used the residual analysis quantify the magnitude, extent, and duration of impacts to VECs and VSECs. The Least Harm Path Analysis, residual analysis, and the results set the stage for more detailed studies and analyses as Corridor Project development continues. Additional corridor-specific VEC and VSEC fieldwork and data collection will be required in the future to refine the work needed and focus the Corridor Project so that AVCP uses the right resources in the best emerging corridor. Mitigation Planning Mitigation consists of environmental commitments that will address the unavoidable impacts resulting from constructing and operating and maintaining the selected route. Mitigation consists of: e Actions taken during corridor planning to locate the best corridor ROW and then the best alignment within that corridor e Other measures identified by future, more detailed studies and surveys e Environmental commitments in the form of standard specifications, pertinent federal and state laws, and BMPs that will be implemented or followed during construction of the recommended corridor to avoid or minimize adverse effects on the natural and built environments TBG101614003935B0! 133 CORRIDOR ANALYSIS RESULTS Table 21 describes mitigation measures applied during selection of the best corridor and the detailed ROW-specific mitigation measures implemented during planning and locating Corridor C and the roadway alignments. One of the mitigation objectives of the Corridor Plan is to minimize the impacts to subsistence hunting, gathering, and fishing resulting from establishment of the corridor. The Corridor Study Team identifies that this is an important issue, and the local and regional Tribal Governments will work together to develop a subsistence management plan as Corridor Project development continues. TABLE 21 Mitigation Measures Applied during Corridor and Right-of-Way Selection Processes Resource Area Mitigation Measures Corridor Level Planning Erosion Developed Corridor C on the eastern side of the Portage Mountains to prevent sediment or spills from draining into the Refuge. Section 4F Removed Corridor A from further analysis, as it would have potentially affected the Refuge. Property Shifted Corridor B to the south to avoid crossing a corner of the Refuge. Visual Developed Corridor C on the eastern side to the Portage Mountains to avoid visually impacting the Refuge. Property Avoided Tribal allotments and private property to the extent possible. Cultural and Responded to local community's concerns about avoiding important subsistence resources on the western Community side of the Portage Mountains. Resources ae F Avoided sensitive cultural sites. ROW-level Planning Erosion Located the ROW to minimize cut-and-fill requirements to reduce potential sediment issues. Streams Located best stream crossing locations to minimize impacts. Oriented stream crossings to minimize impacts. Property Adjusted the ROW to move around Tribal allotments and private property to the extent possible. Wwous Chose most appropriate method to cross streams to permit flood flows, fish passage, and reduce crossing footprint in WOUS. Minimized the amount of ROW in sensitive wetland areas. Cultural and Community Avoided specific cultural sites. Resources Selected a site for the Port in Kalskag that reduced community impacts. 4F - Section 4(f) properties include publicly owned wildlife and waterfowl refuges of national, state, or local significance that are open to the public. Table 22 shows the additional mitigation measures the AVCP will develop following future detailed studies and surveys. 134 TBG101614003935B01 CORRIDOR ANALYSIS RESULTS TABLE 22 Mitigation Measures to be Developed following Future Detailed Studies and Surveys > . 3 : ; VSEC pM ___ Mitigation Measures 2) Erosion Implement additional sediment control measures in areas found to have soil types susceptible to erosion, particularly in steep areas. wous, Complete on-the-ground surveys to identify and delineate WOUS, including wetlands completed within the including corridor. Make design modifications to avoid WOUS, or minimize and mitigate impacts where they are Wetlands = unavoidable. Isolated Complete on-the-ground surveys to identify and delineate isolated bogs within the corridor. Make design Bogs modifications to avoid isolated bogs, or minimize and mitigate impacts where they are unavoidable. Streams Review each designated stream crossing so that it is in the best location for the crossing that minimizes the length of the structure and material placed between the OHWM. A fisheries biologist will survey each proposed crossing so there will be no impacts to aquatic resources. Adjust proposed crossings to the extent practicable to minimize impacts to WOUS and fisheries. Cultural Qualified cultural resources specialists will coordinate with Tribal cultural resource personnel and the Alaska Resources State Historic Preservation Office to identify resources not already located within the corridor. Implement a pedestrian survey within the corridor to locate unknown resources. Adjust the ROW as needed to avoid cultural resources areas. Migratory Conduct surveys to locate migratory species breeding habitat within the corridor. Adjust the ROW to the Species extent practicable to avoid these areas. Use construction timing to avoid impacts during breeding season. Use construction timing to avoid impacts during the breeding season. Implement preconstruction surveys to avoid impacts to nesting migratory birds. Raptors Locate raptor-nesting locations using nesting surveys within the corridor. Use construction timing to avoid disturbing the nests until fledglings have left the nest. OHWNM - ordinary high water mark Table 23 lists legal requirements and BMPs the AVCP will implement to avoid or minimize impacts of construction and operation and maintenance of the Corridor Project, should it reach that stage. TABLE 23 Legal Requirements and Permits, Best Management Practices, and Measures Implemented during Construction to Avoid and Mitigate Impacts Resource Area _ Legal Requirements and Permits, BMPs, Construction-related Measures Visual Quality Revegetate embankments. Revegetate riparian areas of bridge crossings using local native riparian trees and shrubs. Transportation Maintain access to private property at all times during construction. TBG101614003935B0! 135 CORRIDOR ANALYSIS RESULTS TABLE 23 Legal Requirements and Permits, Best Management Practices, and Measures Implemented during Construction to Avoid and Mitigate Impacts Resource Area Legal Requirements and Permits, BMPs, Construction-related Measures Air Quality Implement BMPs to control emissions resulting from the construction operations for the proposed project, including: Spray exposed soil with water or other suppressant to reduce emissions of PMio, and dispose of particulate matter. e® — Schedule or sequence construction, when feasible, to keep disturbed areas to a minimum. e Use wind fencing, when feasible and necessary, to reduce disturbance to soils. ¢ — Minimize dust emissions during transport of fill material or soil by wetting down or by providing adequate freeboard (space from the top of the material to the top of the truck bed) on trucks. e Cover dirt, gravel, and debris piles as needed to reduce dust and wind-blown debris. e Limit onsite traffic as much as feasible to reduce soil upheaval and dust. * Locate construction equipment and staging areas away from sensitive receptors. ¢ — Maintain all machinery and vehicle engines in good mechanical condition to minimize exhaust emissions. Surface Water, Floodplains, and Water Quality Geology and Soils Wetlands Maintain existing flood elevations in the floodway in the final design of river crossings. Comply with local, state, and federal requirements for construction activities in the 100-year floodplain and floodway. Comply with Executive Order 11988, “Floodplain Management,” during design of the proposed project. Apply State of Alaska drainage design standards to achieve results that will not increase or significantly change the flood elevations, flood limits, or both. Conduct a qualitative assessment of specific, direct floodplain impacts during final design of the selected corridor, including hydraulic modeling to simulate water surface profiles for each existing and proposed structure. Prepare and implement a Spill Prevention Plan to address hazardous materials and water resource sensitivity. Include preparation for preventing, containing, and cleaning utility spills or leaks. Emergency phone numbers will be located in the contract. Design the roadway so it will not discharge untreated road runoff into surface waters. Align culverts to follow the natural channel of streams and wetlands to limit effects to natural channel morphology, flow characteristics, and sediment deposition, and to avoid changes in wetland hydrology. Develop and implement equipment work area restrictions, clearing and grubbing delineation, and any seasonal work windows to help protect source water quality. This Corridor Project is required to meet the Alaska Water Quality Standards. Sample and monitor suspended sediments according to these standards. Design embankments and crossing supports based on detailed geotechnical analyses. Fence wetland areas and buffers for protection during construction. Wildlife, Fish, and Vegetation 136 Clearly delineate construction limits to include all areas that may be disturbed during construction in the field before any site disturbance. The intent is to prevent all unintended impacts to riparian vegetation, wetlands, and other sensitive sites outside of the ROW footprint. Clearly mark construction limits with high-visibility construction fencing prior to any ground-disturbing or construction-related activities. There will be no direct site disturbance outside of the ROW footprint. TBG101614003935BO! TABLE 23 CORRIDOR ANALYSIS RESULTS Legal Requirements and Permits, Best Management Practices, and Measures Implemented during Construction to Avoid and Mitigate Impacts Resource Area Legal Requirements and Permits, BMPs, Construction-related Measures Clear vegetation outside of the breeding season to avoid harming birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Acts. Identify site-specific riparian buffers for specific activities to avoid delivery of sediment or contaminants to streams. Employ in-channel sediment abatement barriers to capture the sediment released during rewatering of dewatered channels. Appropriately clean out and remove barriers, and dispose of captured sediment in uplands to avoid reintroducing it into stream channels. Maintain barriers during construction, and remove barriers at construction completion, providing erosion control. Locate fuel storage and refueling areas in appropriate staging areas away from the waterways and wetlands in areas where a spill will not have the potential to reach open water. Any materials placed below the OHWM—including cobble or boulders for energy dissipation at culvert ends, streambed gravel, or other substrates or other materials—will have a sufficiently low sediment fraction so as not to violate Clean Water Act Section 401 permit conditions after restoring flow to the site. Dewater and completely bypass in-channel construction sites prior to excavation. Construct any temporary bypass systems with non-erodible material, such as a pipe or a plastic-lined channel. Size both to accommodate the predicted peak flow rate (including possible storm intensities) during construction. In cases of channel rerouting, potentially divert water to one side of the existing channel. Install permanent footings and all drilled or pile-driven shafts (and excavated spread footings) below the OHWM in a manner consistent with Clean Water Act Section 404 and other permits issued for the proposed project by USACE and other parties (as applicable). When constructing drilled shafts, the contractor will ensure that all drilling equipment, drill recovery, and recycling pits, and any waste or spoil produced are properly contained to prevent discharge of drill wastes or fluids to any surface water or wetlands. Clean all equipment that is used for in-stream or in-wetland work prior to operations below the OHWM. Do not discharge wash-water directly into any waterbody without pretreatment. Dissipate flow at the outfall of any bypass system to diffuse erosive energy. Place the outflow in an area that minimizes or prevents damage to riparian vegetation. Pump water from the dewatered work area either to a temporary storage and treatment site or into upland areas to allow subsequent filtration through vegetation prior to water re-entering the stream channel. Screen the intake for any temporary diversions of the river necessary during the dewatering and construction phase to prevent fish and other aquatic fauna from entering the structure. For in-stream construction sites that have been dewatered, rewater the sites slowly to prevent loss of surface water downstream as the construction site streambed absorbs water and to minimize a sudden increase in turbidity. If construction occurs “in the wet,” in-stream rocks or bedrock will be broken without blasting, using non-explosive alternatives to avoid adverse impacts on water quality. Prevent turbid water produced during the course of in-water work from discharge to fish-bearing waters or wetlands. Route turbid wastewater to temporary or permanent detention facilities, or to upland areas that provide adequate rates of infiltration. PMy - particulate matter less than 10 micrometers in diameter TBG101614003935B0! 137 CORRIDOR ANALYSIS RESULTS Economics and Business Case Discipline Findings AVCP’s economic and business case team evaluated the four corridor roadway alignments identified by the engineering and environmental disciplines. Based on the results of the modal analysis, the corridor analysis assumed that a road with public access was the preferred transport mode in each corridor route. AVCP employed the same evaluation criteria for corridor roadway alignment analysis as was used for the modal analysis. The corridor roadway alignment analysis also considered the same three perspectives used in the modal analysis. Exhibit 41 displays the results of this evaluation. From perspective 1, which considered all of the evaluation criteria, Corridor C roadway alignment was top ranked, with Corridor B a close second. From perspective 2, which considered only the economic, and financial and regulatory criteria, Corridor C roadway alignment was, again, top ranked, with Corridor B roadway alignment a close second. From perspective 3, which considered only the criteria relating to the potential to lower fuel and freight prices, and the financial and regulatory criteria, Corridor C roadway alignment was, again, top ranked, with Corridor B roadway alignment second. While Corridor D and E roadway alignments were shorter and would probably be somewhat less expensive to construct, neither of the termini for these two roadway alignments was in an existing community, making them less useful than Corridor B and C roadway alignments in fulfilling several of the evaluation criteria. AVCP recommended Corridor C roadway alignment as the preferred corridor based on the evaluation from all three perspectives. 138 TBG101614003935B0! CORRIDOR ANALYSIS RESULTS Corridors Improved access — medical, education, community services, retail, housing Improved/expanded access to subsistence resources Fosters knowledge, awareness, and appreciation of Southwest Alaska Facilitates connection of the AVCP Region politically and culturally Potential for revenue generation Potential for significant private-sector Rrancial participation (public-private pamerenss) D Construction economic activity E O&M economic activity F Additional economic activity G__ Local job creation with construction H Local job creation with O&M | Near-term potential to lower fuel prices g J Near-term poses to lower eri bia. S| Gee tea eee N Continuation and enn oft agi is Criteria O Pp Q R Ss i U ee cS 4 4 § 4 4 2 2 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 2 a 4 5 5 8B B 3 3 5 5 5 2 2 5 5 5 § 5 5 5 5 Stronger economic, social, and political bonds with rest of the state 5 2 2 3 5 5 er D 5 5 3 3 3 1 1 3 3 2 2 2 5 3 2 2 1 1 5 5 5 (2 pe ea Critical criteria EXHIBIT 41 Corridor Matrix Economic Benefits AVCP estimated the economic impacts of building the proposed Corridor Project, both for construction and for O&M. Corridor Study economists used input and output analysis, or 10, running on a software package known as IMPLAN with the most current data, year 2013. For input to the model, AVCP used estimated capital and operating costs developed by AVCP’s engineering team. Three categories of spending expressed output results after analysis: direct, indirect, and induced, measured in dollars; the same three categories projected the number of jobs and labor income. TBG101614003935BO! 139 CORRIDOR ANALYSIS RESULTS Direct output refers to funds spent directly for labor and goods needed for road building; indirect and induced output reflect the additional spending that occurs in an economy, measured as multipliers (of direct spending). This section on economic benefits provides details on model costs, including a likely range of estimates; discusses IO analysis; and presents a summary of economic impacts in dollars and employment (number of jobs). Capital and Operating Costs AVCP’s engineering team provided capital and operating costs using a combination of parametric estimating techniques and semi-detailed unit costs associated with an approximate 30% level of engineering design (CH2M HILL, 2014c). Cost information included historical bid tabulation data from recent projects in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Region. It is important to understand these costs have an expected accuracy range associated with them that captures uncertainty associated with the ultimate design and construction details. In this case, the accuracy ranges from approximately -30 percent to +50 percent; this range is termed a Class 4 (or Level 4) cost estimate by AACE International. Capital Costs, Road Construction AVCP’s engineering team made a series of key assumptions that helped frame capital cost estimates, as follows: e The approximately 30% drawings dated November 2014 (CH2M HILL, 2014e) formed the basis for the cost estimation. e Cost estimators prepared quantities and takeoffs. e Road construction assumptions include a traditional design-bid-build using a single construction contract. e Mobilization for this project is set at 25 percent of the construction total, and includes mobilization, demobilization, camps to support crews, project supervision, bonds, insurance, and other indirect costs. e The estimated total capital expense is $100,009,000 (rounded), with a range from $70,006,000 to $150,014,000, using AACE International criteria. Operations and Road Maintenance O&M costs provided include allowances for typical activities for gravel road maintenance, including additional spring activities associated with opening the road for the season after the winter. For example, the estimate provides for two operators working for 2 weeks with a motor grader and front-end loader during spring snow plowing and clearing activities. In addition to springtime startup, 140 TBG101614003935BO! CORRIDOR ANALYSIS RESULTS annual maintenance includes roadway grading, shoulder shaping, and ditch mowing; and biannual maintenance consists of culvert clearing and application of calcium chloride for dust suppression. Given these assumptions, the O&M cost estimation is $1,330,500 per year. Input and Output Analysis 10 analysis is an economic tool used to measure the impacts of an economic activity—road building, in this case. Project impacts include spending (direct, indirect, induced), labor (employment or jobs), and a series of multipliers. Economists use these multipliers to calculate the added effects of spending per direct dollar spent on building the Corridor Project. For example, direct spending on wages and materials for road O&M in the Kuskokwim Region provides additional spending in other segments of the economy; examples include equipment, fuel, food, transportation, and other supplies. Fuel purchases at Bethel generate indirect spending: additional spending by fuel suppliers, retailers, and wholesalers that support the fuel industry. Induced impacts reflect additional spending from indirect dollars spent. IMPLAN Model Results Table 24 summarizes results from IMPLAN model runs in three groupings: economic impacts, employment, and labor income (payroll). TABLE 24 Output from IMPLAN Analysis Summary Results Direct Indirect Induced Total Economic Impacts Construction Phase, Statewide $100,008,787 $42,982,589 $36,333,988 $179,325,364 Operations Phase, Statewide $1,330,500 $572,244 $577,813 $2,480,557 Operations Phase, Bethel Region $1,330,500 $15,900 $53,379 $1,399,779 Employment Construction Phase, Statewide 407 184 267 858 Operations Phase, Statewide 8 3 4 15 Operations Phase, Bethel Region 8 0 a 9 Labor Income Construction Phase, Statewide $40,897,579 $10,898,974 $14,024,048 $65,820,601 Operations Phase, Statewide $648,135 $166,279 $221,035 $1,035,448 Operations Phase, Bethel Region $473,936 $3,147 $12,086 $489,169 (IMPLAN, Version 3.1, latest data matrix, year 2013) TBG101614003935BO! 141 CORRIDOR ANALYSIS RESULTS Discussions with AVCP’s engineering team suggest approximately 15 to 20 percent of the construction workforce could be drawn from the AVCP area, although almost all supplies will be shipped to staging areas from outside the region. This estimate means direct local employment could range from 60 to 80 jobs, with a corresponding construction labor income (local) of $6.1 million to $8.1 million. Economic Impacts Based on just over $100 million in original Corridor Project spending, statewide economic impacts projections are $179 million (rounded), as shown. AVCP’s engineers and economists have estimated the amount of local hire and direct spending in the Bethel region (Table 24). Other parts of the state will experience economic impacts, and as materials or skills are supplied from the Pacific Northwest (or other out-of-state region), the regional system will experience a leakage of benefits. This is normal for Alaska due to its small population and relatively low level of manufacturing capability. Road O&M will be a regional economic impact, with an estimated $1.4 million (rounded) per year for direct, indirect, and induced economic activity in the Bethel Region. Overall, operational economic impacts are $2.5 million (rounded) across the state. Employment IMPLAN-projected construction-phase employment is 858 total jobs, with 407 of them estimated as direct jobs, working on the Corridor Project or in direct support of it. The rest of the estimated employment will be secondary (indirect) and tertiary (induced), both in the Bethel Region and in the rest of the state. AVCP engineers note there will be some seasonality due to winter conditions, surface-water ice, and temperatures. This seasonality will affect construction and subsequent O&M, especially O&M. As discussed in the Cargo Forecast section of this document, ice-free operations generally begin in mid-May (at Bethel) and extend through freeze-up in October. Total employment linked to operations is 15 jobs across Alaska, with O&M employment in the Bethel Region estimated at eight direct jobs and one induced job, for a total of nine. Labor Income Total labor income projections during the construction phase are $65.8 million (rounded), with $40.9 million classified as direct construction labor. AVCP estimated indirect and induced labor costs at $10.9 and $14.0 million, respectively. 142 TBG101614003935B0! CORRIDOR ANALYSIS RESULTS Total labor income projections for road operations are $1.0 million across the state, with $490,000 of the total allocated for labor in the Bethel Region. Exhibit 42 illustrates those villages in the AVCP Region that will likely receive the majority of construction and O&M benefits from the proposed road. Villages closer to the Corridor Study Area and those with more population will likely see more benefits than smaller and more distant villages. Bill Moores frottik Chuloonawick @ Hamilton Erpmonak 2 \ Ophir © Alakanuk &raviing QNunam Iqua dditarod fat qfountain Village Geammon Bay Pitkas Pointe et Mary's diov Cross Paimiut Filot Station = (Marshall . Chevak ‘ {Pussian Mission crooked cyek Se0tet0" Red Devil Stony River — Kea a @Sleetmute ewok ao oo piak i quununak =e “ Anautivok Soe eye Oscarville' ides ws Umkumiute @ inate Seaee Tuntutuliak Chefornak e eek 4s a Legend fipnuk REESE ¢ Towns ‘ongiga Kwigilingok © _ Less Concentrated Benefits 9) More Concentrated Benefits Quinhagak foliganek EXHIBIT 42 Villages with Likely Construction and Operations and Maintenance Benefits TBG101614003935B0! 143 “Both AVCP and the communities desire to maintain focus on regional solutions to the problem of the high cost of freight and fuel. Learning more about regional community values and concerns related to the Corridor Project has shaped and guided screening criteria, corridors routes considered, study plans, analyses, and designs. The communities indicated to AVCP that they wanted the data and information developed and analyzed, and then brought back to the villages prior to decision making, which is a request AVCP has honored.” Outreach and Context Sensitivity Introduction Public involvement and agency coordination are integral to the planning and preparation of this Corridor Plan, which complies with PEL and corridor planning guidance and procedures published by FHWA (2014). The corridor planning process requires AVCP to make diligent efforts to involve the public and interested agencies in determining the scope of and the major issues related to the Corridor Plan. Communication approach was used to gather views, concerns, and issues of communities, agencies, key stakeholders, and the public. The Corridor Study Team presents the details of the approach in the public involvement plan (Appendix F). To carry out the public involvement goals, the outreach effort used a multitude of activities and tools, including: e Public involvement meetings (open houses and workshops) e Property owner meetings e One-on-one stakeholder interviews e Project website e Project updates and mailings (postcards, e-mails, newsletters) e Project brochure e Media information packets and news releases e Display boards and presentations e Fact sheets and handouts A Corridor Project website is available at http://y-kconnection.com/. The website provides the public with information, including progress updates and public involvement activities, and allows anyone with Internet access to post questions or make comments. AVCP updates the website periodically with milestones and relevant information, such as materials presented at public involvement meetings, reports of public meetings and comments collected, news releases, brochures, newsletters, and meeting notifications. TBG101614003935B0! 147 OUTREACH AND CONTEXT SENSITIVITY, A series of nine community meetings in the Corridor Study Area, two open house public meetings, and more than a dozen project presentations to stakeholders occurred during the planning and development of the Corridor Plan. Appendix F provides details on these meetings and open houses. AVCP conducted stakeholder interviews at two stages in the corridor planning process—during initial data collection for the socioeconomic efforts and during the development and evaluation of corridor concepts and routes—to gain an in-depth understanding of community issues, values, and constraints regarding the Corridor Plan. During the initial data collection, AVCP interviewed local elected and appointed officials, community transportation and planning officials, Yukon and Kuskokwim River shipping providers, and business owners in and near the Corridor Study Area. AVCP also interviewed stakeholders during the development and evaluation of corridor concepts and routes. Public Outreach — A Regional Conversation The public outreach that has been completed to date has provided an opportunity to educate the public and industry about the Corridor Plan, and for the team to learn about the community’s support for and concerns about the proposed corridor. The outreach has focused on a regional conversation with the communities along the Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers. Both AVCP and the communities desire to maintain focus on regional solutions to the problem of the high cost of freight and fuel. Learning more about regional community values and concerns related to the Corridor Project has shaped and guided screening criteria, corridors routes considered, study plans, analyses, and designs. The communities indicated to AVCP that they wanted the data and information developed and analyzed, and then brought back to the villages prior to decision making, which is a request AVCP has honored. Exhibit 43 shows a typical village interaction of the Corridor Study team discussing the Corridor Project in the villages. Village meetings and larger venue Corridor Project gatherings were valuable in developing and prioritizing local input used in the Corridor Plan. 148 TBG10161400393580! OUTREACH AND CONTEXT SENSITIVITY EXHIBIT 43 Chuathbaluk Public Meeting April 2013 The Kalskag Tribal Government initiated the Corridor Study and requested AVCP be the Corridor Project sponsor. AVCP continues to value the guidance received from the Tribes and villages, and understands that regional consensus is required in order to advance project development beyond the Corridor Plan. The Corridor Study Team based overlapping outreach activities on the level of involvement requested by the stakeholders. Public outreach has provided the team with reliable and timely information to support informed decision making. Community Meetings In April 2013, AVCP and the Corridor Study Team traveled throughout the Corridor Study Area presenting information at community meetings. The community meetings were intended to provide an introduction to the Corridor Plan and for the Corridor Study Team to gather feedback from the communities. The Corridor Study Team also presented to AVCP staff and the executive Board of Directors. The outreach meetings were held in these communities: e Atmautluak e Bethel — Orutsararmiut Native Council TBG101614003935B0! 149 OUTREACH AND CONTEXT SENSITIVITY e Holy Cross e Tuluksak e Chuathbaluk e = Aniak e Lower Kalskag e Kalskag e Russian Mission Each community meeting began with a welcome by AVCP’s Transportation Director or the AVCP Project Coordinator, followed by a brief introduction of the project team. The meeting information was translated into Yup’ik in most communities. Following the introductions of the Corridor Project and the team, AVCP provided a presentation on the Corridor Plan. The presentation materials consist of these subjects: e An introduction of the project sponsor, AVCP e The intent of the community outreach efforts e Project history and project area e Regional socioeconomic conditions e Existing freight and fuel distribution system challenges e Project goal e Components of the corridor study that will be evaluated e Schedule e The four corridor concepts to be evaluated Meeting attendees were encouraged to ask questions throughout the presentation to create a dialogue about the opportunities and concerns about the project. Questions and comments were documented after each community meeting summary. The comments and questions received were used to assist in the development of the study plans and corridor selection criteria. 150 TBG101614003935BO! OUTREACH AND CONTEXT SENSITIVITY The communities were focused on learning more about the Corridor Study and welcomed having the opportunity to share their concerns and provide input. The communities were interested in keeping informed about the project as it moves forward. Concerns communicated were primarily related to environmental issues, such as spills, and impacts to the land. The main social concerns were about access to resources and ownership of the corridor. The Corridor Study Team used the comments and information collected in the community meetings to inform the development of the Corridor Plan and outreach efforts conducted for the Corridor Study. Open Houses As part of the outreach activities, in 2014 the Corridor Study Team conducted two open house conferences to discuss the Corridor Plan. The open house meetings took place in Anchorage during a statewide BIA meeting attended by people from around the region and Bethel during an economics summit meeting, with each meeting moderated, including participation from a Yup’ik translator. The meeting agendas included a Corridor Project presentation, multiple Corridor Study maps, and a question and answer session, allowing interested parties the opportunity to ask questions directly to the Corridor Study team. Over 100 individuals attended these meetings and submitted a broad range of questions and comments. Topics of concern included potential impacts to subsistence activities, project costs and funding sources, expected Corridor Project benefits, potential construction schedule, and possible environmental impacts. Table 25 summarizes the most frequently asked questions and responses. TABLE 25 Frequently Asked Questions and Responses What are the benefits of this project? Economic benefits include direct and indirect benefits from construction and O&M, increased general business activity in the region, expansion of tourism and eco-recreation, and the potential to take advantage of any significant long-term differentials in the price of goods coming from the Railbelt down the Yukon or from Coastal Alaska or the Lower 48 States by enabling currently separate markets to interact. The Corridor Project will also provide for a redundant transportation system while connecting the independent river markets. Where did the project come from? The Kalskag Tribal Government brought the project to AVCP in 2012 and requested they reconsider the Portage Mountains Road Studies in establishing a connection. What does the project cost? Preliminary estimates for a two lane gravel road are between $3 million and $4 million per mile Who pays for the project? State appropriations to AVCP fund current work. Future work likely will require both state and federal funding. When will the project be constructed? When economic conditions warrant design, permitting, and construction will take in the range of 7 years. , TBG101614003935B0! 151 OUTREACH AND CONTEXT SENSITIVITY TABLE 25 Frequently Asked Questions and Responses Question : Response Will this impact the Refuge? The Corridor C recommendation avoids impacts to the Refuge. Corridor C is on the eastern side of the Portage Mountains and avoids direct and indirect impacts to the Refuge. What are the next steps? Corridor plan integration into regional plans and regional consensus. Appendix F provides meeting summaries, along with a transcript of the narrative from those meetings. A Stakeholder Participation Plan outlined the Corridor Study Team’s public involvement strategies, which provided early opportunities for public participation in the Corridor Study efforts (CH2M HILL, 2014d). Corridor Project outreach achieved: A Stakeholder Participation Plan (including creation, implementation, and follow-through) Development and distribution of a Corridor Project brochure, newsletters, and notices Construction of community, governments, and industry stakeholder databases Design and management of a public website OP =e Ne Development and management of a Corridor Project brand All public information (technical information, analyses, and meeting notices) is electronically accessible in formats available in various media, including electronic messages, websites, printed handouts, and written and visual communications. The Corridor Study Team clearly communicated public information for ease of understanding, and translated it to the Yup’ik language as needed. The public outreach for this Corridor Study extends far beyond the completion of the Corridor Plan. The Corridor Study Team will continue to facilitate two-way communication with stakeholders with the goal of achieving regional consensus for this multigenerational investment. AVCP will meet with the AVCP communities and TKC to review the Corridor Plan’s analysis and recommendations. AVCP also intends to meet with individual villages to communicate the short-, mid-, and long-term benefits of following through with the Corridor Plan recommendations. Context-sensitive Corridor Design Considerations The application of context-sensitive corridor design considerations within the transportation planning process assists regions and communities reach their transportation goals by encouraging the consideration of land use, local input, transportation, and infrastructure needs in an integrated manner. When transportation planning reflects community input and takes into consideration the 152 TBG101614003935B0! OUTREACH AND CONTEXT SENSITIVITY impacts on both natural and human environments, it also promotes partnerships that lead to balanced decision making. Early in the process, agencies and other key stakeholders expressed the desire to integrate local input and minimize changes to the existing visual experience of living in and traveling through the Refuge region to the west of the Portage Mountain range. The location of the recommended corridor—Corridor C—reflects the outcome of efforts to use local input received to minimize aesthetic and visual impacts. Corridor C considers the subsistence way of life to the communities and sits in the rolling terrain and foothills on the eastern side of the Portage Mountains, with little to no aesthetic or visual impact (including on the Refuge) due to the minimal cut and fill required for the topography, and a minimal number of viewsheds affected by the location. Corridors A and B, would have a significant impact to and from the Refuge. Corridor B has more impacts to known subsistence areas and would sit in mountainous terrain, crest ridges of the mountain range, and have significant cut-and-fill slopes, causing considerable visual impact to those in the Refuge and the western side of the mountain range. Corridor C is the best option based on local input and for blending into the natural and built environment in Kalskag, and has the least amount of aesthetic and visual impact of the four corridors. The process used to develop this Corridor Project followed a CSS approach by including: e A broad range of stakeholders (including Tribes, the public, and regulators) to help define the problem e Stakeholder input into the development of solutions, including corridors that might address the problem as it was defined Exhibit 44 shows the key principals used to arrive at an integrated CSS solution. TBG101614003935BO! 153 OUTREACH AND CONTEXT SENSITIVITY _-TBG121614134347B0! EXHIBIT 44 Corridor Plan Context-sensitive Solutions The development of the preliminary purpose and need—or problem—for the Corridor Project included input from multiple agencies, Tribal villages, and freight and energy representatives. These stakeholders determined what was important to form the basis of evaluation: subsistence impacts; environmental impacts; and connectivity, directness, ease and cost of O&M, safety, and reliability issues. Corridors spanned the full range for these criteria, so the Corridor Study Team had a clear comparison for achieving objectives. Village representation, Tribal governments, landowners, agencies, and Tribal representatives, as the users, owners, and stewards of the infrastructure in this region, significantly influenced alternative corridor development. For example, developing Corridor E was primarily because it is mostly on state-owned land and minimizes potential impacts to the Refuge. Kalskag preferred Corridor C because it minimized the impacts to existing infrastructure and future City-planned facilities, such as sewage lagoons and existing roads. Corridor B was less desirable, as it has impacts to known subsistence use areas. Stakeholder input has resulted in this Corridor Project successfully employing a context-sensitive process during development and achievement of CSS as an outcome. 154 TBG101614003935B0! “The Corridor Plan completion is a significant step toward AVCP’s goal to complete the project development process in a responsible manner. The recommendations in this Corridor Plan set the stage for future project development.” Recommendation and Next Steps Introduction The Association of Village Council Presidents (AVCP) has completed Stage II project development with this Corridor Plan, which recommends Corridor C. As funding allows, the AVCP Transportation Department will continue to work with The Kuskokwim Corporation (TKC), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Calista Corporation, the region’s communities, and the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF) to integrate the recommended corridor into their respective land use, business development and transportation plans for future use as a transportation route. The Corridor Plan completion is a significant step toward AVCP’s goal to complete the project development process in a responsible manner. The recommendations in this Corridor Plan set the stage for future project development. Corridor Plan Recommendation Based on the results of the Level 1 and Level 2 Screenings, a road with public access in Corridor C is selected as the best approach to meeting the project purpose, need, and goals. The Corridor C roadway alignment scored the highest in the engineering, environmental, and economic and business case evaluations. The Corridor Plan indicates design, National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) activities, and construction could be within the 20-year planning horizon, therefore, a next practical step in project development can be corridor integration into Corridor Study Area planning and land use decisions. This Corridor Plan recommends working with public and private landowners in the Corridor Study Area to identify and integrate the 2,000-foot-wide Corridor C between the Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers into the plans noted above to make clear its potential for future transportation uses. AVCP will work with landowners and Corridor Study Area communities on a strategy to preserve Corridor C. TBG101614003935BO! 187 a ee “One of the mitigation objectives of the Corridor Plan is to minimize the impacts to subsistence hunting, gathering, and fishing resulting from establishment of the corridor. AVCP identifies that this is an important issue, and the local and regional Tribal Governments will work together to develop a subsistence management plan as Corridor Project development continues.” References Abrahamson, Mali. 2013. The Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta: A look at the Wade Hampton and Bethel census areas. Alaska Economic Trends. October. http://labor.alaska.gov/research/trends/oct13art1.pdf. Accessed March 2015. Alaska Bureau of Public Roads. 1956. Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development (DCCED). 2014. Lower Yukon River Regional Port Project: Situational Analysis and Potential Impacts, March 2014. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence (ADFG). 2012. “Subsistence Harvests in 8 Communities in the Central Kuskokwim River Drainage, 2009.” Technical Paper No. 365. Brown, C.L., J.S. Magdanz, D.S. Koster, and N.M. Braem, eds. January. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence (ADFG). 2014. “Subsistence Harvests in 8 communities in the Kuskokwim River Drainage and Lower Yukon River, 2011.” Technical Paper No. 396. Ikuta, H., C.L. Brown, and D.S. Koster, eds. May. Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG). 2015. “Subsistence Hunting in Alaska.” Subsistence Hunting & Fishing. Http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=subsistence.hunting. Accessed December 2, 2014. Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development (ADOLWD). 2010a. Census Maps and GIS Data. http://labor.alaska.gov/research/census/maps.htm#cen2010. Accessed on December 16, 2014. Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development (ADOLWD). 2010b. Alaska Local and Regional Information. http://live.laborstats.alaska.gov/alari/ . Accessed December 2014. Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development Research and Analysis (ADOLWD). 2010c. “Census and Geographic Information.” Alaska Census Data. http://aborstats.alaska.gov/census/. Accessed February 19, 2015. Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development (ADOLWD). 2013. Alaska Economic Trends, October. Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF). 2002. Yukon-Kuskokwim Area Transportation Plan. Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF). 2008. Let’s Get Moving 2030. REFERENCES Alaska Energy Authority (AEA). 2014. Power Cost Equalization. http://www.akenergyauthority.org/Programs/PCE. Accessed in December 2014. Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC). (2008-2014), Construction Cost Survey. http://www.ahfc.us/. Accessed December 15, 2014. Alaska Railroad Company (ARC). 2012. Alaska Railroad Route and Connecting Carriers. http://alaskarailroad.com/corporate/Corporate/FreightServices/RoutesMap/tabid/392/Default.aspx. Accessed April 7, 2015. Alaska State Legislature (ASL). 2014. 28th Legislature (2013-2014) Bill History/Action for 28th Legislature. http://www.legis.state.ak.us/basis/get_bill.asp?session=28&bill=SB138. Accessed April 24, 2015. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2001. Guidelines for Geometric Design of Very Low Volume Local Roads. 1st ed. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2011. Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. 6th ed. Washington, DC: AASHTO. Association of Village Council Presidents (AVCP). 2014a. YK Region Information http://www.avcp.org/?page_id=12. Accessed on December 16, 2014. Association of Village Council Presidents (AVCP). 2014b. Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy. Beanlands, G.E., and P.N. Duinker. 1983. An ecological framework for environmental impact assessment in Canada. Hull, Quebec: Institute for Resource and Environmental Studies, Dalhousie University, and Canada Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office. Boggs, K., T.V. Boucher, T.T. Kuo, D. Fehringer, and S. Guyer. 2012. Vegetation Map and Classification: Northern, Western, and Interior Alaska. Alaska Natural Heritage Program. Anchorage, Alaska: University of Alaska Anchorage. Cambridge Systematics and Transportation Research Board. 1988. Multimodal Corridor and Capacity Analysis Manual. National Cooperative Highway Research Program. CH2M HILL. 2011. Yukon to Kuskokwim River Engineering Study. Prepared for Western Federal Lands Highway Division. April CH2M HILL. 2013a. Personal communication between Dr. Dennis Mengel and the Bethel Regional Airport. 162 TBG101614003935B01 REFERENCES CH2M HILL. 2013b. Yukon to Kuskokwim River Corridor, Stage 1, Phase 2 Summary Report. Prepared for Association of Village Council Presidents. May. CH2M HILL 2014a. Level 1 Screening Report. Prepared for Association of Village Council Presidents. CH2M HILL. 2014b. Level 2 Screening Report. Prepared for Association of Village Council Presidents. CH2M HILL. 2014c. Draft Technical Memorandum: Yukon-Kuskokwim Corridor Study Geotechnical Considerations for Tundra Canal. Prepared for Association of Village Council Presidents. February. CH2M HILL. 2014d. Stakeholder Participation Plan. Prepared for Association of Village Council Presidents. CH2M HILL. 2014e. Yukon to Kuskokwim Freight and Energy Plan, Corridor C, 30% Engineering Plans. Prepared for Association of Village Council Presidents. Crowley Distribution and Petroleum, LLC (Crowley). 2014. Freight Rates on Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers. Updated December 16. Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development (DCCED). 2014. What’s New at the DED? http://commerce.state.ak.us/dnn/ded/Home.aspx. Accessed November 2014. Demer, Lisa. 2015. “Bush Alaska locked into high gas prices for fuel delivered last summer and fall.” Alaska Dispatch News. January 1. http://www.adn.com/article/20150101/bush-alaska-locked- high-gas-prices-fuel-delivered-last-summer-and-fall. Accessed April 24, 2015. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2011. Shortening Project Delivery Toolkit: Guidance on Using Corridor and Subarea Planning to Inform NEPA. April 5. http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/integ/corridor_nepa_quidance.asp. Accessed January 2015. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2014. PEL and Corridor Planning: State of the Practice Review of Planning and Environment Linkages Implementation in Corridor Planning. July. http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/integ/corridor_planning report July2014.asp. Accessed March 2015. Galliett, H.R., Jr., George C. Silides Consulting Engineers, and R.A. Kreig and Associates, Engineering Geologists. 1981. A Report on the Yukon-Kuskokwim Crossing. Prepared for the Alaska State Legislature, Senate Special Interim Committee on Transportation. Gana-A’Yoo, Limited, Village of Nulato, http://www.ganaayoo.com/about-gsc/our-villages/nulato/ Accessed December 18, 2014. TBG101614003935BO! 163 REFERENCES Government of Yukon (YG). 2013. Alaska Canada Rail Link Phase1. http://economics.gov.yk.ca/rail.htm. January 10. Accessed February 13, 2015. Horner, Ted. 2003. “A Boat Ride from Bethel to Marshall.” The Delta Discovery. July 23. Northern Economics, Inc. (NEI). 2011. Alaska Regional Ports, Planning for Alaska’s Regional Ports and Harbors Final Report. http://www.westcoastcorridors.org/library/Planning for Alaska%27s Ports and Harbors Final%20 Report.pdf. Accessed January 2015. Port MacKenzie Rail Extension. 2015. Project Overview: Cost and Funding. http://www.portmacrail.com/cost.html. Accessed April 2015. SRK Consulting. 2013. Plan of Operations, Transportation Plan, Donlin Gold Project, Vol 4. Anchorage. February. State of Alaska, Commerce, Community, and Regional Affairs. 2015. “Alaska Fuel Price Report: Current Community Conditions.” Fuel Price Survey. Research & Analysis. http://commerce.state.ak.us/dnn/dcra/researchanalysis/fuelpricesurvey.aspx. Accessed December 15, 2014. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2012. Waterborne Commerce; Alaska Department of Labor. U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2015. Bering Sea — Western Interior Planning Area. (http://www.blm.gov/ak/st/en/prog/planning/bering _sea_western.html. April 20. Accessed April 20, 2015. U.S. Census Bureau. 2015. American FactFinder. http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml. Accessed December 2014. U.S. Senate, 93 Congress. 1973. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Water Resources of the Committee on Public Works. August. University of Alaska Anchorage Alaska Natural Heritage Program (ANHR). 2015. The Alaska Gap Analysis Project. http://aknhp.uaa.alaska.edu/zoology/akgap/. Accessed March 2015. University of Alaska Anchorage Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER). 2010. Components of Alaska Fuel Costs: An Analysis of the Market Factors and Characteristics that Influence Rural Fuel Prices. Prepared for Alaska State Legislature Senate Finance Committee. February 17. http://www. iser.uaa.alaska.edu/Publications/componentsoffuel3.pdf. Accessed December 2014. 164 TBG101614003935B0! REFERENCES University of Alaska Anchorage Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER). 2013. Person Transportation in Rural Alaska. 2013 Alaska Rural Energy Conference, May. University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF). 1920a. Reed Family Papers. UAF-1968-21-112. Elmer E. Rasmuson Library. University of Alaska Fairbanks. University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF). 1920b. Reed Family Papers. UAF-1968-21-114. Elmer E. Rasmuson Library. University of Alaska Fairbanks. Wesson, Robert L., Oliver S. Boyd, Charles S. Mueller, Charles G. Bufe, Arthur D. Frankel, and Mark D. Petersen. 2007. Revision of time-independent probabilistic seismic hazard maps for Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2007-1043. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/products/ak/2007/documentation/ofr2007-1043.pdf. Accessed May 1, 2015. Wheeler, Priscilla Carvell. 1997. The Role of Cash in Northern Economies: A Case Study of Four Alaskan Athabascan Villages. Unpublished doctoral thesis. University of Alberta. October. TBG101614003935B0! 165 “AVCP seeks to accomplish improved intra-Alaska commerce, to reduce fuel and freight transport costs, to enhance long-term Western Alaska transport security and redundancy, and to position Western Alaska for an Alaska Natural Gas Economy.” ( do (oe (9 (¢ (@ (¢@ (@ APPENDIXES All appendixes to the Yukon-Kuskokwim Freight and Energy Corridor Plan are provided on CD. e Appendix A: U.S. Bureau of Land Management Navigability Summary Report e Appendix B: Socioeconomic Technical Information e Appendix C: Engineering 30% Design Corridor C Roadway Alignment Plans and Engineering Technical Reports e Appendix D: Environmental Technical Reports e Appendix E: Subsistence Maps e Appendix F: Public Involvement CONTACT Clarence Daniel AVCP Tribal Transportation Director www.avcp.org (907) 543-7451 3 y-kconnection.com connection