Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
The Denali Pipeline Project, Refined Petroleum Products Pipeline, 1993
DENALI PIPELINE COMPANY CALLED DENALI, THE GREAT ONE, BY ALASKAN NATIVES, 20,320 FT. MT McKINLEY IS VISIBLE FROM HALF THE STATE. PHOTO © KEN GRAHAM PHOTOGRAPHY The Denali Pipeline Project Environmental Assessment July 29, 1993 Prepared for Denali Pipeline Company 1200 West Dowling Road Anchorage, Alaska 99518-1517 Prepared by Associated Pipe Line Contractors, Inc. 3535 Briar Park, Suite 135 Houston, Texas 77042 DENALI PIPELINE COMPANY Foreword The individual applications necessary for construction and operation of the proposed Denali Pipeline Project require a considerable amount of information. Much of this information is general in nature, while some is very specific to the jurisdiction of a particular permitting agency. No one application, therefore, would contain an overall picture of the project. It was recognized also that certain federal permit applications would need to be reviewed under the guidelines of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This would likely require a substantial amount of supplemental information. To address this situation, Denali Pipeline Company (DPLC) decided to produce this environmental assessment (EA) document. Its threefold purpose is to provide: e One document in which all aspects of the project are described so a reviewer can understand the project’s full scope e More detailed, specific information required by agencies whose jurisdiction covers only a small aspect of the project e An assessment of the potential environmental effects of the proposed project to assist federal agencies in their NEPA reviews Because of the wetlands and navigable waters that would be crossed by the Denali Pipeline Project, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) will be the principal federal agency involved with the project. Therefore, the format of this EA document is patterned on previous COE Alaska NEPA documents. This format will provide the information required by state and federal agencies in a manner with which they are familiar. This should expedite the permit application review process and result in a more timely issuance of the required leases and permits. TABLE OF CONTENTS MaAablevofi CONSENS eee NN ae eee ene eles raterseelelewelrel te mG=t EFSCHOF/ TELS | ie) ile Cele eel testes) lek tel el et fet cand settee ted ad tt Fa) ya lied del Fol fey fey olcot hed el odie co TC-6 LISGOMEIGUTES | alaiaie ellison smench etal el elt emelledaiolrel) oats TC-8 SUT SARY) | [ase coh to Po) sale beh feels] ttl esd fot Pet Leslee Tel oen cet | fel tol ted ft koe [ral ol fe) tet fe asl] Jed ce 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION U1) Purpose of and) Need fon Action) |i il) oie) el eit et rete fe) eile) ot ote ror eile) oo 1-1 de2y Project Hocationy emilee cicero ced eld tetra eltalitelstecdtel aalealtevielitey alts 2-4 ARSE PrOjeCt HISTORY Mey eco y Met ee sete ted ito) oftcd teltotton sake soled clod oykellieeler loll oy celts 2-4 2.0 ALTERNATIVES 2.1 Transportation Mode Identification and Evaluation ........... 2-2 2.1.1 Alternative and Evaluation Criteria Identification ....... 2-2 2k2,AlternativesiEValuationy 4 sisjera oni aieieeeaierac aia 2-3 2.2 Pipeline Options Identification and Evaluation ............... 2-5 2.2.1 Option and Evaluation Criteria Identification .......... 2-5 2 2e2OVUONSLEValUatiON ey araae ea ieielelekel ners tealslaaltetohentee ellos 2-7 2.3 Applicant’s Preferred Alternative .......... 0.00. eee eee 2-15 2 SAM || PALM ATVG HE oy Le) le Fetessy oooh pet =p ley lat Fe [entesleclladechts} sh Fe taal ericed sl ad iat 2-15 Segment 1. North Pole to Cripple Creek ............ 2-16 Segment 2. Cripple Creek to Nenena .............. 2-18 Segment 3. Nenana to Healy .............--2008 2-19 Segment 4. Healy to Broad Pass ..............44.% 2-20 Segment 5. Broad Pass to Hurricane .............. 2-22 Segment 6. Hurricane to Talkeetna Spur Road........ 2-23 Segment 7. Talkeetna Spur Road to Nancy Lake ...... 2-24 Segment 8. Nancy Lake to Knik Arm ..........2006 2-25 Segment) So) |Knik ArmiGrossing) by araiaieiaie)e ce lel ka) +t ol el 2-27 2.3-2))) Substances to) bel liransported)) |i 4 siale) sie) ei eloie era ielel eet 2-29 223.3))| |(Gapacity, size,1anGg, Operation |code rele lst 2-31 2.3.4 Storage and Operational Tankage ..............4. 2-31 2.3.5 Pump Stations, Hydraulics, and Operating Pressures ... 2-34 2.3.6 Geotechnical Considerations ............000 eee 2-40 2.3.7 Depth of Burial, Bedding, and Backfilling ........... 2-45 2.3.8 Hot and Cold Pipeline Characteristics ............. 2-47 223-9) Mainline Piping ariel Sel eitee eeealelcioleleiere loi ote 2-48 2S lOn HIVGLOStatiGuleStinG maior |sWeielecesiiiiet ren cyonRee il laelets 2-51 DES Stlealm CLOSSINGS MMe ie sy literal toil siterrenl lat ol stlcdenlsata alta sits 2-52 July 29, 1993 PAGE TC-1 2.3.12 Highway and Railroad Crossings ...........0005 2-55 2.3.13 Special Construction Areas ............ 0000 eee 2-58 2.3.14 Block, Check, and Bleeder Valves ............00. 2-60 2.3515 Meters and Provers 2....4..s5250+50 5860 ar 2-61 2.3.16 Scraper Stations ............ eee eee ee ee ee 2-61 2.3.17 'Cathodici Protection) aan. <1) eee oii) ete aie ee 2-62 2.3.18 Pipeline Installation ©... .. ee ee es 2-64 2.3.19 Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) ... 2-74 2.3:20) Communications 325.5. .5268 40646 05 6a cles ae 2-75 2.3.21 Construction Materials Storage and Transportation .... 2-75 2.3.22 Intermediate Delivery Facilities ................. 2-75 2.3.23 Temporary and Permanent ROW Widths ........... 2-77 2.3.24 Access Roads, Airstrips, and Heliports ............ 2-79 2.3.25 Borrow Needs and Sources ..........-...0-e00- 2-82 223-26) CUS) ANGiFillSierweraieesi oro le raicicasinelienlelicnenneercneioeia te 2-82 23-27 Erosion Control ye same cree) ee) =) ee) te) rea ete ali 2-83 225-20 PREV EGetatlOMmn ae M ies Monens ince ion Nn Cnicn srentenere 2-83 2.3.29 Surface Disturbance ............ 0. eee eee eee 2-85 25330) ANKE la UnUCKS 3 ara ice cess cll ciel iiete pie) ielle) sitellel cite ite 2-86 Zo. oi DeSIQh) Life mcmsucucneiciaisicneionciciercinns ncn cnencncee ner en siaitenens 2-86 2.3.32 Operation and Maintenance ..............00000 2-86 2.3.33 Spill and Leak Prevention and Containment ........ 2-88 2.3.34 Construction Employment ..............0 0800s 2-117 2.3.35 Permanent Employment ............ 000 ee eee 2-118 2.3.36) Construction Gampsia.. sae eee ace eo orleans 2-119 2.3.37 Public and Worker Safety .............000 000s 2-120 2.3.38 Waste Disposal ......... 0. eee ee es 2-123 223539 NMItIQAationyarorce an ieineialcine lle yeeicelisiien siren enero h 2-125 2.3.40 Quality Assurance/Quality Control .............. 2-132 2.3.41 Termination .......... eee eee eee et eens 2-133 2.3.42 Rights of Way Acquisition ..............00000- 2-134 2.3.43 Prevention of Property Damage ................ 2-137 2.3.44 Schedule and Construction Sequences ........... 2-138 2.3.45) Construction Costs) 2. 2a se sam ete ca ee es 2-149 2.3.46 Community Awareness Program ............... 2-149 2.45 ruckingrAltermative mrrsnomn- ouch sicher ier -i-l- icici tice nom op Koen iielte 2-150 2.5 No Action Alternative . 1.1... .. cee eee 2-151 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE TC-2 3.1 Oo wh OO WW WWW WW WWW Ww Nee eS SB = a a aH OWOVNOoFf COMNDWN—O July 29, 1993 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Physiography, Geology, Soils, Permafrost, and Seismicity ...... 3-1 3.1.1 Regional Overview ......... ccc eee ee eee 3-1 3.1.2 Pipeline Segment Descriptions .............000 00 3-7 Segment 1: North Pole to Cripple Creek ...........4-. 3-7 Segment 2: Cripple Creek to Nenana ...........+45+ 3-9 Segment 3: Nenana to Healy .......... 00s eee eee 3-11 Segment 4: Healy to Broad Pass ............00005 3-13 Segment 5: Broad Pass to Hurricane ..........000- 3-17 Segment 6: Hurricane to Talkeetna Spur Road........ 3-18 Segment 7: Talkeetna Spur Road to Nancy Lake ...... 3-20 Segment 8: Nancy Lake to Knik Arm .... 2... . 2.000% 3-22 Segment 9: Knik Arm Crossing ...........20 ee eee 3-23 MOGETALION | [tl lel! . slot Jollet lle! o allel @ lef a lorlal o [etal ce altel sl sla sofas laslalte fo 3-25 Wetlands) | jo) ie ale le lakes loll bet or melel « pelicy o leet ve fons! fo [ot afin! be lavtesl : bate loe|tel oe fo 3-29 Segment 1: North Pole to Cripple Creek ............ 3-30 Segment 2: Cripple Creek to Nenana .............. 3-30 Segment 3: Nenana to Healy ............ 00000 ee 3-31 Segment 4: Healy to Broad Pass .............004. 3-31 Segment 6: Hurricane to Talkeetna Spur Road........ 3-32 Segment 7: Talkeetna Spur Road to Nancy Lake ...... 3-32 Segment 8: Nancy Lake to Knik Arm ............4.4. 3-33 Segment 9: Knik Arm Crossing ..........020-000% 3-33 Surface and Groundwater Hydrology ............ 00 eee eee 3-34 PASH) | oils lola ls alo let els wel ale] wieleletola. 4 law llellelal ollie + lela » ferme te 3-38 MANEFG:|el fa ce fat paste ae leap fel to sl altel fol ai ae [ore Fotos fe [nlm leilil Mela olor [a 3-54 Threatened, Endangered, and Protected Species ............ 3-76 CCHTTATO ic! fo} te | cnt lorie oh fetlce, ele] ar fete] allen fartieh oe [tio fod te: [tet os lvls] feller loro! cl 3-79 Pri; UN IE yy | tell ca lesls « lellte el os lle] eetette o ferlct + [olin le falen |r| miele sles shel @ [a 3-81 INQISE! fa licl | feline | a] a felie & lelle llsl ets] avelal 4 feats lap felon fe [sl o ce te] ar lallee sles a 3-82 SOGCIOECOMOMICS|| |.| 4. bells ble! acces] axles. a [orig © fad jest ms! a foye Sellen, ffl ae a 3-84 Recreational or Commercial Fisheries ............000 000s 3-87 Cultural Resources/Historic Properties ........... 0000 eee 3-96 Mista] |e fs) |s| a] % tela folie llal ed =| sete al og faint fare le a fea] aaa] Sr] orl fe 3-98 Land Status and Use .. 1... . ee es 3-100 Transportation and Traffic Patterns ............00000 0s 3-104 NAVIGATION: |i je| 4 a cil + fale els) @ ble] alalers aleve ole Ills & whe Sia] swat s 3-106 PAGE TC-3 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AE VEO CUI CEO Mme tee sale i ca stale fr arc decaec tals tm oa cdc loch toa 4-1 As 2auV COeCtaAtiON ie adcus sscmos baum oe rain med i -arciisa im siclimeli 4-2 4ss=sWetlands en eet ean ot eLetter ic nit elt stir ell 4-4 4- AN Ground Watery Giologyaceria cert eieecteterteotcntnreliciattsy it his etieteeietcetotictisi str 4-7 4 Sat SUlaCOaW ate V.GlOlOG Valet iomcpieieom oben stolen isimontoit- Ho -mcuaimentel< Mow oI uvel= 4-8 A= GVW ater © Clality ae aeals armel tera alcur al sla) siete aldol ukedlete outed all temo aietaealedieuroat oscar 4-13 As/—Eishtincshiantinticent ati ati nin ecient ticle telecine Toles 4-15 71S fo] ee eae Ceca CICRECICECECICSCIOICECICRSOICACS IR ECICE ECE RGICE ACHR 4-20 4. SS pecialvAquatiCuSiteSwey-jern ices e eee ele oncom operetta etree 4-24 4.10 Aesthetics of the Aquatic Ecosystem .............02000.% 4-28 4.11 Possible Contaminants in Dredge/Fill Material ............. 4-28 4.12 Threatened, Endangered and Protected Species ............ 4-30 AUS AN Ua Ua ty fea tak arc ee era ea ore cat ste toaster te cok Peeeweok cdr oem tare 4-32 ATT ATENOISC tues suites saltesnls camels ake curabeure steel sleteleke Loud soleusalpemebsarilolk sce 4-37 Aa 15 SOCIOCCOMOMMUCS ny ceciasdctrcdet cael dicted trated sled wroullreuell mre felon 4-41 43116-SubDSIStONCEn ashe seeieeeiteeieiene ener ietenes areata tee tee tre are 4-43 4.17 Cultural Resources/Historic Properties ..........-.00 ee eee 4-45 AUST ISU Moe eral taal eet te ee al derek lec ral yh aleIueareul dred uralel ours 4-47 4-19 TF Recreation iia daichii elite cata eirciie sleiroteiiet ote ite tellers 4-49 4-20 sl ransportationvandsliragicyPattermsrrarctsterstcisrtoirente ferret el tenet arte tell ore 4-51 4.21 Legislatively Designated and Special Areas ............04. 4-52 4.22 Energy Consumption/Generation .......... 0000 eee eee 4-52 A523 Navigationerr rin ari uc lalcloe leur ici ier foe iotelone ter. 4-53 424 tc SAFOEY ateestmsrtctesetatireeitetsamcrtatereteatrc cette aba ecisah serena eictiicat taints tiataat cts 4-54 4.25 Prime and Unique Farmland... .......... 0002020 e eee 4-55 4°20) 00d and Gibem mrodUCtiOnyar-ucm-usaci-Mice eri mrmcuen ima leemollcmealelions 4-55 45277 A COMMUNITY A CONES ION eaeentamet tei ieaeuaeaeien-leraallcnte cron 4-56 4.28 Community Growth and Development ............++008% 4-56 4.29 Relocation (business, home, etc.) .........2.0522ccsce 4-57 4.30 Consideration of Private Property ............ 0. ee ee eee 4-57 Aes I KuCckingrAltennativen | sisi ore stale yo choi lencasl core ils 4-57 4-324 CumulativesEftectsia-cas eres ieee iene tectey ite ene 4-59 A SSUNOLACTIONFAITENMatiV.eiey ese ir-eee ce eototectelopraynemont tee ntochomt ae -pyeatclee pret teenie ome 4-62 4.34 Comparison of the Proposed Action with Alternatives ........ 4-63 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE TC-4 5.0 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS REQUIRED AND COORDINATION SST Listof REquined= Permits = csccm cece cnecren crore een se een ves ein erase sets 5-1 5.2 Detail of Major Required Permits .......... 0.0... ee eee eee 5-4 5.2.1 State of Alaska Authority ........... 0000 ce eee eee 5-4 5.2.2 Federal Authority ..... 0.0... 00. eee eee ee ee ees 5-10 LoVe Jul LoL oY Ko [Tat= 14 (0) § ereryerecerecscer eran sclera acer irieiereceoecatiace cariatetariac= Sanecscatacecac 5-14 5 4 = iStiof- Pre DanelrS=caecmnnse-eeemese sree seraracee etter va vuea saunter: asa n smears 5-16 6.0 GLOSSARY, ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS G5 GIO S Si rte certs cree store om vena oc 9m cee re ese eeeremtomeeroar 6-1 6.2 Acronyms and Abbreviations .......... 0000 e eee eee 6-12 7.0 REFERENCES 7 ctl CItAtiONS aecncu-nomemca--mee cme eee oem Pom ee eee es) eee e eee 7-1 7.2 Bibliography of Geotechnical References...............0005 7-6 APPENDICES Appendix A Alignment Sheets Appendix B Land Ownership Appendix C Stream Crossings Appendix D Wetlands Appendix E Permafrost Assessment Appendix F Coordination with the Port of Anchorage Appendix G Preliminary Engineering Report July 29, 1993 PAGE TC-5 2.3.1 2.3.2 2.3.4-1 2.3.4-2 2.3.5 2.3.7 2.3.9 2.3.24 2.3.34 2.3.35 3.2 3.6-1 3.6-2 3.6-3 3.6-4 3.6-5 Soll, 3.8 3.13 3.14 3.19-1 3.19-2 List of Tables Comparison of the Relative Project Environmental Consequences .... 1 Products Presently Produced at One North Pole Refinery ....... 2-29 Projected Denali Pipeline Products Batching Sequence ......... 2-30 Line Fill Storage Volumes for Three Pipeline Diameters ......... 2-32 Interface) Mixing) Volumes) ccm a eicieleieie)cialenelielehciens er ci siete aie rs 2-34 Flows CimitationstSummany reperenoncl isle heii ili oiielts) eto momen eatals)ritent: 2-39 Minimum Burial Depth to Top of Pipe... ........ eee ee eee ee 2-46 Minimum Pipe Wall Thicknesses ........... 0.000 eee eee 2-49 Existing Airports, Landing Strips and Heliports .............0.4 2-82 Estimated! Project Total and Localimire 3) )-)5 ai). ale s)e te 4 ele) © 2-117 Estimated Permanent Employment .............020000 es 2-118 Major Plant Associations Crossed by the Proposed Pipeline ...... 3-28 Fresh Water Anadromous Fish Stream Crossings ...........-.5 3-41 Nonanadromous Fish Streams with Known Resident Fish ....... 3-44 Summary of Anadromous and Resident Fish Life Histories ...... 3-47 Periods of Biological Sensitivity for Anadromous and Resident Fish 3-51 Fish and Shellfish Associated with the Knik Arm Crossing ...... 3-53 Period of Biological Sensitivity for Mammal and Bird Populations .. 3-58 Endangered, Threatened, and Protected Plants and Animals ..... 3-78 Total Estimated 1991 Sport Fishing Effort from Streams ....... 3-90 Parks, Forests, Recreation Rivers, Game Refuges, etc. ......... 3-95 1990 Average Daily Traffic Count ........... 0.0.0 ee 3-107 1990 Average Daily Traffic Count, by Month .............. 3-108 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE TC-6 List of Tables 4.14 Noise Levels of Construction Equipment .............00000- 4-38 4.34 Comparison of the Relative Environmental Consequences ....... 4-69 July 29, 1993 PAGE TC-7 1.2-1 2.3.5-1 2.3.5-2 2.3.11 2.3.12-1 2.3.12-2 2.3.18-1 2.3.18-2 2.3.18-3 2.3.18-4 2.3.18-5 2.3.18-6 2.3.18-7 2.3.27 2.3.33-1 2.3.33-2 2.3.33-3 2.3.33-4 2.3.33-5 2.3.33-6 2.3.33-7 2.3.33-8 2.3.33-9 2.3.44 3.11 List of Figures -tef=veis (Efotey-1 (ola cl uclolold GD O10 0 N00 0 Clo a clo ololo nlc clolnujno ooo 1-5 Pump Station and Terminal Schematics ...........0000000% 2-37 Pump Station and Terminal Site Layouts ..............+-4- 2-38 Typical Stream Crossing Requirements ...........0++ eee eee 2-53 Uncased Slick Bore Railroad Crossing with Concrete Coated Pipe . . 2-56 Uncased Slick Bore Road Crossing with Concrete Coated Pipe... . 2-57 Pipeline Construction Sequence .......... 0. ee eee eee 2-65 14"-18" Pipeline New Alignment .......... 0 eee eee eee ene 2-67 14"-18" Pipeline on Edge of Road .... 1... . ee eee ee ees 2-68 14"-18" Pipeline 20’ from Edge of ROW ..... 2... eee eee eee 2-69 14"-18" Pipeline Outside Guy Wires ....... 0... eee eee eee 2-70 14"-18" Pipeline Inside Guy Wires ... 2.0... . eee eee ee eee 2-71 14"-18" Pipeline Side Slope Trenching ...........00 000 e ee 2-73 Diversion Berm Requirements For Side Slopes ...........0005 2-84 Water By-Pass Dam (Valved Pipe) ............00 0c eee eee 2-108 Water By-Pass Dam (Inclined Tube) ......... 2.000 ee ee aee 2-109 Overflow Becmmweracin one eieienenel-iiiserci mn nocnionel nels 2-110 DiversioniBOOms qrnacrc rend icin ie ienei lel NoneM ence ne WoieN-tonc none rs 2-111 Culvert/Blocking = 46 eee oie oy ones oielelciene i-inr 2-112 [PW AeTTlola eteroranltnye} a qmroro Blo old olola ciclo dsord Golo Glo oO aloo ol ciclo 2-113 Firebooming) Method tere nore ciel creer oie iene reien nate tse eiten-telic 2-114 Sorbent and Trash Fences ........ccc cc esescrcesscane 2-115 Removal of Oil Slick From Under Ice Layer/River ............ 2-116 Construction Spread and Specialty Crew Schedule........... 2-139 ToT Tne ECW: are neslolo ololand a clio cldo oO DiGiO)onn Oro mroloid oc) olarcloru orc 3-83 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE TC-8 Summary The Denali Pipeline Company (DPLC) proposes to construct a 351-mile, small-diameter refined petroleum products pipeline from the existing refineries located at North Pole, Alaska, to existing storage facilities at the Port of Anchorage. The proposed route would closely follow existing transportation and utility rights-of-way (ROW), generally paralleling the George Parks Highway (Parks Highway), the Alaska Railroad, and several overhead electrical transmission lines. It would cross under the Knik Arm of Cook Inlet from near Point MacKenzie to the Port of Anchorage. DPLC has filed a State of Alaska pipeline ROW lease application, and Section 404, and Section 10 permit applications with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). To assist the COE in evaluating these last two applications under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), DPLC has prepared this environmental assessment (EA) of the proposed project. This EA also contains much of the information required by the State for its review of DPLC’s ROW lease application, as well as information required by other federal and state agencies for reviewing and processing DPLC’s permit applications. This EA identifies three alternative modes for transporting refined products from North Pole to Anchorage: truck, rail, and pipeline. The document describes and evaluates these alternatives, and identifies the pipeline as the preferred alternative. The EA then describes the preferred alternative (Project Description), discusses the existing environment before the project is built, and then describes the environmental consequences of building the project. It concludes that there would be no significant impact to the human environment from construction and operation of the proposed pipeline system and that a buried pipeline would have a lower risk for a spill than either a rail or truck transportation system. July 29, 1993 Page 1 Project Description The preferred alignment would originate at the North Pole refineries and proceed west through Fairbanks to Nenana, then turn south, roughly paralleling the Parks Highway through the Alaska Range, and continue down the Susitna River Valley to Point MacKenzie, where it would cross under Knik Arm to Anchorage. Ninety-four percent of this alignment (331 miles) would be closely associated with ROWs of existing transportation and utility corridors. These would include powerlines belonging to Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA) between North Pole and Healy; the Alaska Energy Authority’s (AEA) Intertie between Healy and Hurricane; the Parks Highway between Fairbanks and Houston; and the Matanuska Electric Association (MEA) and Chugach Electric Association (CEA) powerlines between Houston and Knik Arm. Only 6 percent of the alignment (20 miles) would require new ROWs. These would be in the Moody Creek Valley just south of Healy, and at Hurricane Gulch. The alignment would cross the following land ownerships: MilitaryA(Eort Wainwright) mover crencnenenctn-mortedoieiiemen omen eriotsieectten nem orte 3.0 Mi. Other Federal iereieueeeedcdcediei-leiememeN levied ime iellioltolic ton nene ire ae 0.0 Mi. Stateline ecrereobslet che ceeactolenslchiclesmoncuten eh eiffel slonten-el emteltei fell) ured reuters 274.7 Mi. BoOrOughieencrstciclheioich nailer icin nonce Nile ciel ei eleitellelaiclisi icine 12.9 Mi. Municipality iesael sees a fone aller ota cea pore ales or eren lerfetcclcel clel etna 5.8 Mi. IM CC rere tect m orto rotts otal ctaceiecioureatedratitatas asst atop ledholerl ccicm yalomoated afc edrcetem ys 52.8 Mi. Mentalibtealtn yaoi e teste ttet rete ot gem ene) etter epee o terior te fetal (et sito to 61 or fe 0.0 Mi. Wmiversity 5 fee fasted! at colsol co. orbentie | bol eol co ct, rons ot foto foufoi es forte ts foptel scl siete sete 2.0 Mi. TTOtal | arepaes bifelredellelat eaten euistes te) fe rev leilisy (esi ey wo ds follicle evottes 351.2 Mi The pipe diameter would be under 24 inches, and the pipeline would have one to three pump stations, and periodic scraper stations. One pump station would be built adjacent to the refineries at North Pole. If a second pump station was needed, it would be built in the vicinity of Healy. A third station, if needed, would be located SUMMARY Page 2 in the vicinity of Willow. No additional storage tanks would be constructed as a component of the DPLC project. Shippers of refined product would be responsible for any additional storage requirements. The mainline pipe would be buried for its entire length. Mainline valves and intermediate pig launcher/receiving stations would be constructed above grade. Depending on the diameter of the pipe and the number of pump stations, the pipeline could carry up to 56,000 barrels of refined products per day (bpd). These products would include regular leaded, regular and premium unleaded gasoline (with the oxidizer MTBE in winter), jet aviation fuels, N+ A Naphtha, diesel fuel, heating fuel, and heavy atmospheric gas oil. Geotechnical considerations during construction would include permafrost, hydraulic erosion, and seismic faults. Refined products would enter the pipeline at temperatures of up to 140° F. Since the pipeline temperature would remain above ambient ground temperature for between 15 to 50 miles from North Pole, thaw-unstable permafrost areas would be avoided whenever possible. Five areas of the preferred alignment would require special construction techniques because of geotechnical, topographic, or other constraints: Chena Ridge (steep profile and cross slopes, discontinuous permafrost); Bonanza Creek ridge top (steep profile and cross slopes); Nenana to Clear (permafrost); Moody Creek drainage (narrow with steep profile and side slopes); Knik Arm crossing (underwater crossing with high tides and currents). The proposed pipeline would be installed at water and road crossings along the route by the following methods: Major river crossings would be directionally drilled whenever feasible. Smaller streams would either drilled or open-cut. Major highway crossings and railroad crossings, would be bored. Unpaved secondary road crossings July 29, 1993 Page 3 would be open-cut, usually requiring less than a day to complete. The project would require approximately 42,000 tons of mainline steel pipe that would be manufactured in the U.S. or Japan according to the specified standards for pipe grade and wall thickness. The pipe would be coated with fusion bonded epoxy. At stream crossings, under Knik Arm, and in certain locations in wetlands, a continuous concrete coating or concrete weights would be placed on the pipe to protect the pipe and to provide negative buoyancy. Typical construction ROW widths would vary from 80 to 110 feet. The permanent operational ROW width would be between 50 and 70 feet, except at locations where the pump station(s) and scraper stations would be installed. The average number of construction workers during site preparation would be approximately 70. Pipeline installation would employ directly an average of approximately 400 workers, with peak employment of approximate 700. Additional construction-related employment (construction camp labor, logistical support) would employ an average of approximately 50 workers. It is estimated that Alaskan residents would fill approximately 63 percent of the construction-related jobs. Permanent employment is estimated at approximately 24, with about half the workers in each of Fairbanks/North Pole and Anchorage. Two main construction camps, each accommodating up to 250 workers, probably would be located in the vicinity of Healy and Willow. The general construction period would last approximately 18 months. This would include an initial period of 6 months for site preparation, followed by approximately 12 months of pipeline installation. As presently scheduled, mobilization would begin in approximately April, 1994, with site preparation commencing in mid-summer of the SUMMARY Page 4 same year. Pipe installation would begin about December 1994, and would be completed by approximately October 1995. The pipeline would be commissioned and ready to begin operations sometime between April and July 1996. Affected Environment The proposed pipeline would cross six broad vegetation types: lowland spruce-hardwood forest (33 %), upland spruce-hardwood forest (33%), bottomland spruce-poplar forest (13%), alpine tundra (2%), high shrub thicket (7%), and low brush, muskeg-bog (12%). The entire proposed pipeline alignment has been mapped by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for the national wetlands inventory (NWI). The major wetlands that would be crossed by the proposed pipeline are lowland spruce-hardwood forest and lowland bogs and marshes in the Tanana flats and lower Susitna Basin. Other wetlands are associated with the same plant communities in the Alaska Range, and in shrub thickets on floodplains and coastal marshes along the northern shore of Knik Arm. These wetlands are part of the palustrine system. All river and stream channels (riverine system), and the open waters of Knik Arm and the adjacent mud flats, tidal marshes, and brackish river channels (esturine system) that would be crossed by the pipeline are also classified as wetlands. There would be a total of 142 stream and river crossings along the proposed alignment, 43 of which involve anadromous fish. Nine of the crossings would be of nonanadromous streams with known resident fish populations. Only 4 of the anadromous stream crossings would be north of Broad Pass. The anadromous fish found in these streams are 5 species of Pacific salmon (sockeye, king, silver, pink, and chum). Resident fish species include rainbow trout, Arctic grayling, Dolly July 29, 1993 Page 5 Varden/Arctic char, sheefish, burbot, northern pike, and round and humpback whitefish. The major terrestrial mammal species found in the vicinity of the proposed pipeline route include moose, caribou, Dall sheep, and black and brown (grizzly) bears. Marine mammal species potentially found in Knik Arm include Gray, fin, and beluga whales. Important bird species found along the route include swans (whistling and trumpeter), geese (Canada, white-fronted, and snow), and dabbling and diving ducks. Other key bird species include bald and golden eagles, peregrine falcons, and other raptors. Three endangered and one threatened animal species potentially occur within influence of the proposed pipeline. These are the endangered American peregrine falcon, which nests on cliffs near one part of the proposed alignment, and the endangered Gray and fin whales, which are rare in Knik Arm. The threatened spectacled eider is also rare in Knik Arm. The Tanana and Susitna basin streams crossed by the proposed alignment provide fisheries for a large number of anglers. In particular, the middle Tanana, lower Chena, and Nenana rivers in interior Alaska, and the streams between Montana Creek and Knik Arm in the lower Susitna Valley, are heavily fished. The area adjacent to the pipeline route provides other recreational activities ranging from seasonal (white water rafting, berry picking, cross country skiing, and snowmachining), to those supported by intensive commercial public and private facilities, to extensive ones such as sightseeing, hiking, hunting, photography and bird watching. Local residents along the proposed pipeline route use fish, wildlife, and plants for subsistence purposes, and there is extensive trapping in the vicinity of the Parks Highway. SUMMARY Page 6 Environmental Consequences While construction of the proposed pipeline would have impacts on several resources, none would be significant. This is largely due to the fact that 94 % of the proposed alignment would be within or adjacent to existing highway and powerline ROWs, and because of the extensive mitigation measures which DPLC would use during design, construction, and operation of the pipeline. Table S-1 compares the relative environmental consequences of the pipeline, truck, and rail transportation mode alternatives. Below is a discussion of the environmental consequences of just the pipeline alternative. Pipeline construction would disturb an average of between 9.7 and 13.3 acres per mile, depending on ROW width. Therefore, the pipeline and associated new access roads would disturb a total of between approximately 3,390 and 4,685 acres. This range includes wetlands, but does not include the approximately 8 miles of alignment in Knik Arm. The large majority of this acreage would be within or adjacent to existing disturbed highway and powerline ROWs. Approximately 107 miles of the pipeline alignment (32 %) would cross wetlands. The estimated area of wetlands that would be disturbed by the pipeline is approximately 1,250 acres. This figure does not include the approximately 8 miles of alignment in Knik Arm. Installation of the proposed pipeline hopefully would qualify under the COE nationwide permit No. 12 for construction of certain utility lines in wetlands. In addition, the majority of wetlands would be crossed by construction activities in winter. There would be no permanent workpads parallel to the pipeline system, and limited new access roads or heliport pads for valve operation and maintenance in remote areas. July 29, 1993 Page 7 Therefore, surface and groundwater flows would remain substantially unaltered. The proposed combination of scheduling pipeline construction and maintaining existing surface water general drainage would minimize impacts to wetlands. Accordingly, there would be no significant impact to wetlands. The number of stream crossings already has been minimized during initial alignment identification, and additional crossings may be avoided during final alignment selection. At larger streams where technically feasible, the pipe would be installed by directionally drilling under the waterway, thus having no effect on water flow or fish. Pipeline installation at smaller stream crossings would be timed to coincide with the least biologically sensitive period for fish. Installation methods would not interrupt stream flows, and would minimize downstream siltation by use of fluming and similar techniques. Stream banks would be stabilized to prevent erosion immediately after pipeline installation. Accordingly, there would be no significant impacts to surface water hydrology or fish. With the exception of moose, the proposed project would have almost no effect on large mammals. For moose, winter construction in moose concentration areas would have the potential to temporarily displace an unknown, but small number of moose. Under certain circumstances this temporary displacement might cause a very limited number of moose to die, but this only would be a local condition of short duration in any one area. A long-term positive impact on moose populations could be an overall, long-term reduction of up to 40 % in the number of moose killed annually by trains in winter because of the reduced number of trains needed as a result of the pipeline’s construction. Winter construction in the two major areas used by waterfowl would preclude significant impacts on these species. No bald or golden eagle nests are located within one mile of the proposed alignment. The one peregrine falcon nest within one mile SUMMARY Page 8 of the alignment is presently located on the outskirts of Nenana less than a mile from the existing Parks Highway and Alaska Railroad. The Gray and fin whales, and the spectacled eider, are all rare in Knik Arm. DPLC would coordinate the construction schedule in the Arm with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and FWS to insure that there would be no significant impact to these threatened and endangered species. From an air quality perspective, the pump station(s) would be powered by electricity from a distribution network having substantial existing permitted capacity. The only point source emissions from construction or operation of the proposed pipeline would be from the small incinerators at each of the two construction camps for a period of up to 18 months. Thus, the proposed pipeline would have no significant impact on air quality. The most probable effect of noise would be to reduce use by wildlife of some habitat areas. Residents and travelers near the ROW would also hear this noise from construction equipment and from limited blasting in certain localized areas. Because of the fast-paced and transient nature of pipeline construction, however, these effects would be short term. Therefore, construction noise impacts would cause no significant impacts to people or wildlife. The relatively small scale of the project’s construction and employment impacts would be modest and short term, with no one location hosting construction-associated impacts, nor benefiting from them, for more than a several-month period. The provision of temporary work camps, and the relatively high number of local workers, would tend to limit any substantial influx of new workers or increase the volume of purchases of local goods and services. The primary economic impacts likely would be positive, but modest. Despite the generally rural character of most of the proposed route, construction activities would not have a significant impact on employment and July 29, 1993 Page 9 population levels, nor on the local demand for housing or public services or facilities. As discussed above, there would be no significant impact to subsistence resources. Because the proposed alignment would be within or adjacent to existing transportation and utility systems, and because of the short duration of construction in any one locality, no significant restriction of access to subsistence resources would occur. The proposed pipeline route has a relatively low probability for intersecting important cultural resource sites. Before construction would begin, a centerline archaeology survey would be conducted to insure that any sites discovered would be avoided, if possible. If avoidance was not practicable, the site would be mitigated according to standard procedures acceptable to the American Council of Historical Places (ACHP). Accordingly, there would be no significant impact to cultural resources. The proposed schedule for pipeline construction avoids peak periods of human use of recreational resources adjacent to the pipeline corridor, and construction would cause no physical barrier to the use of such resources. Pipeline installation within the Parks Highway ROW also would avoid the peak summer tourist season. Therefore, the proposed pipeline would cause no significant impact to recreation. From a cumulative impacts perspective, the Trans-Alaska Gasline System (TAGS) environmental impact statement (EIS), considered an alternate route that would closely parallel the Denali Pipeline’s alignment. In its analysis, the TAGS EIS considered the cumulative impacts of the TAGS project and determined they would not be significant. The proposed Denali Pipeline Project would be of an order of magnitude smaller than the TAGS pipeline system, having a much smaller work force, a much shorter construction period, and a smaller amount of surface disturbance. Accordingly, the cumulative impacts to resources and social conditions as a result of the Denali Pipeline Project would not be significant. SUMMARY Page 10 Table S-1 Comparison of the Relative Project Environmental Consequences of the Pipeline, Truck and Rail Transportation Mode Alternatives Element Pipeline Truck Rail Estimated Capital Cost $200,000,000 NA‘ No new costs Estimated Cost of Transportation per Barrel of Product $2.40 $4.50 $3.67 (ARRC 7/20/93) Miles of Pipe 351 None None Pump Stations 1 None None Duration of Construction 18 months None None Construction Work Force 400 with peak of 700 Some? None Permanent Work Force 24 175 to 275° Loss of train crews Number Railroad Tank Cars None None 50-55 daily Number of Double Tanker Trucks Up to 3 per Week 60-100 daily None Risk of Spill Fuel Consumption Highway Traffic: Fairbanks Wasilla-Palmer-Anchorage Port of Anchorage Existing Transportation and Utility System Minor Up to 2 MW electricity per pump station, reduces railroad fuel consumption None None Eliminates traffic delay from trains Minor The cost, if any, or the location of these facilities is speculative. Increased chance for spill Fuel used for 60-100 trucks daily, reduces railroad fuel consumption Major increase Major increase Major increase Road deterioration, more highway patrol needed ? Assumes that truck and tanker trailers would be acquired by existing Alaskan trucking companies. Continued chance for spill No change None None No change No change Size of trucking fleet suggests that some expansion, or new facilities would need to be constructed for effective, long-term management and maintenance of the trucks and tanker trailers. Assumes that each truck has two drivers in order to make the round trip each 24 hours. An estimated administrative and support staff and backup drivers are included. Table S-1 (Cont'd) Element Pipeline Truck Rail Navigation Minor No change No change Air Quality Eliminates emissions from two trains daily, Major emission increase from trucks No change reduces emissions from fuel transfers in Port of Anchorage and North Pole Noise Eliminates noise from two trains daily Major increase along highway, No change eliminates noise from two trains daily Wetlands About 107 miles in existing corridors No change No change Water Quality Minor No change No change Hydrology Minor No change No change Stream Crossings 142 and Knik Arm No change No change Anadromous Fish Stream Crossings 43 and Knik Arm No change No change Fish Minor No Change No Change Moose Up to 40% decrease in railroad winter kill Increased winter road kill, up to 40% No change decrease in railroad winter kill Threatened, Endangered, Protected Species Minor No change No change Recreation, including fishing, hunting, bird watching, cross country skiing, boating Minor Moderate due to more truck traffic No change Scenic Values Minor Minor No change Commercial Fishing Minor No change No change Subsistence No significant restriction No significant restriction No change Land Ownership and Use Minor No change No change Cultural and Historic Minor No change No change Note: Each alternative is ranked relative to the other two alternatives for the same element. Impacts are based on the full and effective implementation of mitigation measures described in Section 2.3.39. ee ——————————— ——————————————————————————————————————————SSSSSSsSsSsSsSseses 1.0 INTRODUCTION Denali Pipeline Company (DPLC), proposes to construct a 351-mile long, small- diameter pipeline to transport refined petroleum products from existing refineries at North Pole, Alaska, to existing tank farms at the Port of Anchorage. The proposed alignment would follow the existing "railbelt" transportation and utility corridor between Fairbanks and Anchorage. The project schedule calls for receiving final decisions for the pipeline ROW lease and other permits by spring of 1994, final lease agreements by fall of 1994, material procurement in spring 1994, and with mobilization and site preparation beginning in July 1994. Pipeline installation would begin in December 1994, and construction would be completed in the fall of 1995. The proposed pipeline system would be operated as a separate entity independent of the refineries at North Pole or the tank farms at the Port of Anchorage. This arrangement would be similar to Alyeska Pipeline Service Company’s current arrangement with the North Slope producers and the shippers at the Valdez terminal. 1.1 Purpose of and Need for Action The Denali Pipeline Project would provide transportation services from North Pole to Anchorage to move such products as regular gasoline, unleaded gasoline, premium unleaded gasoline, blended diesel fuel, JP-4, Jet-A, military jet fuel, and #4 high atmospheric gas oil (HAGO). DPLC proposes to construct a small-diameter pipeline to move these refined products from North Pole refineries to Anchorage markets to obtain the benefits of a more efficient, economical, and environmentally safer means of transportation. The project would be an infrastructure expansion within the existing transportation and utility corridor between interior and southcentral Alaska. July 29, 1993 PAGE 1-1 Petroleum products produced at North Pole are currently transported to Anchorage using tank cars on the Alaska Railroad, or by tank trailers using the George Parks Highway (Parks Highway). Pipeline transportation of refined petroleum products is safer and more economically efficient than surface transportation, especially in larger markets. The potential for environmental damage is greater during surface transportation than during movement through a refined products pipeline. The pipeline would be owned and operated by Denali Pipeline Company, an Alaska corporation, formed as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Mid-America Pipeline Company of Tulsa, Oklahoma. As part of its efforts to acquire leases and project permits, DPLC has applied to the State Pipeline Coordinator’s Office (SPCO), and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), respectively, for a state pipeline ROW lease, and a Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permit to discharge fill materials into waters of the United States and adjacent wetlands. This review process is intended to enable the COE to assess the potential impacts of the proposed pipeline project and, if appropriate, to issue the necessary permits. The initial step in the permit process requires the COE to prepare an environmental assessment (EA) to determine whether issuance of a Section 404 or Section 10 permit for the project would constitute a "major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment." To assist the COE in making that determination, DPLC has developed this EA document. INTRODUCTION PAGE 1-2 The purpose of this document is to determine whether issuance of a Section 404 or Section 10 permit to DPLC would significantly affect the quality of the human environment. This EA approaches that task in a three-step process. First, in Chapter 2 (Alternatives), this document discusses the project options and alternatives that have been considered by DPLC in preparation for submitting its Section 404 application. This chapter identifies evaluation criteria, and discusses how options were screened, how alternatives were identified and evaluated, and how the preferred alternative was selected. Chapter 2 also describes the preferred alternative (project description), discusses mitigation measures designed to eliminate or reduce potential undesirable impacts, and addresses the no action alternative (continued railroad transportation of petroleum products), and the highway transportation alternative. In the second step, accomplished in Chapter 3 (Affected Environment), the EA describes the environment of the proposed pipeline route as it exists today, before the project is developed. This description serves as a baseline for comparison with project development. In the third step, addressed in Chapter 4 (Environmental Consequences), the EA describes the environmental consequences of project development, determines whether the impacts would have a significant effect on the human environment, and, if significant impacts are identified, discusses whether those impacts could be mitigated further. Figuratively, the EA superimposes the project description (Chapter 2) on the existing environment (Chapter 3) to determine whether significant impacts would occur (Chapter 4). Finally, the proposed project, including 13 alignment options, are compared with the alternatives of continued railroad transportation of petroleum products, and highway transport of these products. July 29, 1993 PAGE 1-3 Another purpose of this EA is to provide state and federal agencies, members of the public, and interested groups, a document that contains the relevant aspects of the proposed DPLC pipeline project so that issues of concern may be addressed constructively by all parties. It is hoped that the EA in its present form will stimulate interest in the project. 1.2 Project Location The proposed alignment would be built within or adjacent to existing powerline and highway easements from North Pole to Fairbanks and Nenana; then south through the Alaska Range and the Susitna River Basin to Cook Inlet within the existing railbelt transportation and utility corridor. This corridor contains the Alaska Railroad, the Parks Highway, the Alaska Energy Authority’s (AEA) Willow to Healy electrical powerline intertie (intertie), and powerlines operated by Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA), Matanuska Electric Association (MEA), and Chugach Electric Association (CEA) (Fig. 1.2-1). The alignment would cross Knik Arm about 2 miles northeast of Point MacKenzie. The Knik crossing would be located above the Port of Anchorage’s turning area for large vessels, and would follow the intertidal zone southwest below the bluff through a future Port of Anchorage upland development and utility corridor to the existing port’s tank farms. 1.3 Project History The pipeline corridor selected by DPLC for the proposed project has long been proposed as a possible alignment for major natural gas pipelines from the North Slope and Canada’s MacKenzie River Delta. The Trans-Alaska Gas System (TAGS) proposed the corridor as its main alternate route during the TAGS route selection process. The INTRODUCTION PAGE 1-4 AEA has considered the corridor as a route for transportation of natural gas from Cook Inlet to the Alaska interior. More recently, Mid-America Pipeline Company (1990), and Tesoro Alaska (1991), considered the route for a possible petroleum products pipeline from North Pole to Anchorage. In early February 1993, Hondo Oil and Gas Company chairman Robert O. Anderson mentioned the corridor as part of a pipeline route for a natural gas pipeline from the MacKenzie Delta to tidewater in Cook Inlet. In the fall of 1992, DPLC began a_ study to determine the feasibility of constructing the proposed project. July 29, 1993 DENALI NATIONAL’ PARK F AIRBANKS Figure 1.2-1 PAGE 1-5 2.0 ALTERNATIVES The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the project alternatives that have been considered by DPLC in preparation for submitting its applications for various federal, state, and local permits. Identifying alternatives and selecting a preferred alternative is a key element of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review process. Alternative analysis involves many factors, including engineering feasibility, environmental concerns, title acquisition, security, and the cost of construction, operating and maintenance costs. This chapter is composed of four sections. Section 2.1 identifies transportation mode alternatives, describes the criteria used to evaluate those alternatives, and discusses the process by which the alternatives were screened against the evaluation criteria to select the preferred mode of transportation. In a similar manner, Section 2.2 describes the options that were considered for the pipeline alternative to determine whether the project would "significantly affect the human environment." It discusses how certain options were identified and evaluated, and how the applicant’s preferred alternative was selected. Section 2.3 then presents the details of the applicant’s preferred alternative (Project Description). Section 2.4 addresses the no action alternative, and finally, section 2.5 discusses the truck transportation alternative. In reviewing this chapter, it is important to understand the relationship between the terms "alternative" and "option." A complete refined products transportation system, such as the proposed pipeline, constitutes an alternative. For example, railroad or highway transportation of refined products from North Pole to Anchorage would each constitute an alternative. An option refers to a choice among parts of a complete alternative. For example, an alignment option is a choice of another route for a July 29, 1993 PAGE 2-1 portion of the proposed pipeline. Whether to build one or three pump stations and the size (diameter) of the pipeline constitute other options within the whole pipeline alternative. Arriving at the applicant’s preferred alternative was a two-stage process. First, various alternatives were identified and then evaluated to determine the best /ong-term mode of transportation (e.g., rail, highway, or pipeline). Then an array of options specific to the preferred alternative (pipeline) was identified and evaluated to determine the best options to constitute that alternative. The following two subsections describe those processes for the transportation mode and for the pipeline options, respectively. 2.1 Transportation Mode Identification and Evaluation To determine the best transportation long-term mode alternative, alternate systems were identified, and then a set of criteria was developed for use in evaluating those alternatives. These processes are described below. 2.1.1 Alternative and Evaluation Criteria Identification Three transportation mode alternatives were identified as being technically, environmentally, and economically feasible for transporting refined petroleum products from North Pole to Anchorage: railroad, highway, and pipeline. ALTERNATIVES PAGE 2-2 Four major criteria were used to evaluate these alternatives. Long-Term Cost -- Lowest long-term transportation cost for maintaining a competitive position in the Anchorage market Long-Term Stability -- Assurance of a stable, long-term cost structure for product transportation under reasonable control of the applicant Environmental Risk Reduction -- Minimize environmental risk for transportation of refined products Transportation and Utility Corridor -- Minimize establishing new corridors, thereby minimizing new or significant cumulative environmental impacts 2.1.2 Alternatives Evaluation The majority of refined petroleum products produced at the North Pole refineries have been transported to Anchorage using tank cars on the Alaska Railroad for several years. The balance of production at North Pole is used in local markets in the Fairbanks region. Presently, approximately 50 to 55 tank cars per day, each carrying an average 20,000 gallons (476 barrels) of product, are moved from the North Pole refineries to Anchorage. These are usually carried on one train each day. Loading and unloading of these tank cars increases the potential for a greater release of hydrocarbons to the atmosphere compared to the automated loading-unloading operations of a pipeline. July 29, 1993 PAGE 2-3 Typically, railroad tariff rates are higher than the long-term amortization of capital and the operational tariffs associated with a pipeline. Further, short-term rate structures and periodic changes in tariff charges do not enhance long-term competition and marketing of petroleum products in the Anchorage area. While highway transport of refined products also is feasible, and provides flexibility for short-term movement of products, the long-term perspective is less positive. The transporting of products solely by using the existing highway system would require approximately 60 to 100 double-tanker round trips per day to move the proposed amount of products between North Pole and Anchorage. On average, an observer at any point along the route during a 24-hour period would see one truck pass that point every 12 minutes for the 60-truck scenario, or every 7 minutes for the 100-truck scenario. In addition to the long-term wear and tear on road surfaces, particularly during spring breakup when the state Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT/PF) would limit weigh loads and thereby increase the number of trucks required to transport products, this amount of traffic would raise human safety and esthetics concerns, especially for traffic between Wasilla-Palmer-Anchorage. Truck traffic would impact existing traffic in downtown Anchorage as trucks move to and from the port. There also would be increased risks of railroad/truck tanker collisions, such as occurred near Willow several years ago, as well as increased risk of collisions with other highway vehicles and fuel spills. From an environmental risk perspective, the potential for a spill of a petroleum product is greater on surface transportation systems, such as a railroad or highway, than through a buried pipeline system. In 1991, the Alaska Railroad spent $6 million for clean up of a derailment and fuel spill at Dunbar (ARRC, 1992). More recently, on April 27, 1993, a northbound Alaska Railroad train derailed 12 miles north of ALTERNATIVES PAGE 2-4 Talkeetna, sending eleven cars (involving four empty petroleum tank cars) and four locomotives off the track (ADN, 1993). Overall analysis of the three transportation alternatives showed that the long-term cost of transporting products to the Anchorage market would be lower using the pipeline alternative. Finally, the environmental and associated economic risks from fuel spills would be reduced by using a pipeline transportation system. Thus, based on the three evaluation criteria, a pipeline system appeared to be the best transportation mode alternative. This is consistent with past experience in the petroleum transportation industry as pipelines are traditionally the preferred method of transportation for movement of larger volumes of refined products. 2.2 Pipeline Options Identification and Evaluation To determine the best options for the pipeline alternative, a set of evaluation criteria was developed and then pipeline alignment options and other options were evaluated. 2.2.1 Option and Evaluation Criteria Identification By its inherent nature, and under various mandated federal and state regulations, many aspects of a petroleum products pipeline’s design, construction and operation are predetermined. Examples include design pressures and related wall thickness, welding standards, depth of burial, and cathodic protection. There are some options, however, over which the applicant has some discretion. For this proposed pipeline, four options were identified: alignment location, construction mode (buried or above- ground), pipe diameter, and the number and location of pump stations. To evaluate these discretionary options, the following 10 evaluation criteria were developed. July 29, 1993 PAGE 2-5 is Most Efficient System Size -- The size and throughput of the pipeline should provide the most efficient long-term transportation of products consistent with the capacity of the North Pole refineries and market demands at the Port of Anchorage. Least Costly Route -- The least costly route is of primary importance for the project. The shortest alignment, the constructibility, the ability to obtain rights of way (ROW) and permits, and the long-term maintenance of the pipeline system, are the determining factors in selection of the least costly route. Established Rights of Way -- The preferred alignment should take advantage of existing transportation and utility corridors in the vicinity of the proposed pipeline wherever possible. The use of these corridors would provide access for construction, minimize creation of new ROWs across undisturbed lands, assist in surveillance and maintenance activities, and result in a lower overall cost of the project. Avoidance of Lands without Clear Title -- To avoid unnecessary delays, lands that do not have "clear" title should be avoided, if possible. Mental health, and State of Alaska or native corporation selected BLM lands would fall within this category. Avoidance of Permafrost Soils -- Because the pipeline would contain hot products from the pump station terminal point at North Pole to a point where the temperature of the pipeline product would be lowered by natural cooling to the ambient soil temperature, areas containing permafrost soils should be avoided to the greatest extent possible. ALTERNATIVES PAGE 2-6 6. Perpendicular Crossings of Faults -- To minimize seismic effects on the pipeline, all fault crossings should be perpendicular to faults. 7. Avoidance of Denali National Park -- Prior investigation for a natural gas pipeline determined that no portion of the ROW should be within Denali National Park and Preserve. An alignment through the park would require federal legislation. 8. Avoidance of Wetlands -- The pipeline alignment should avoid wetlands whenever possible. Some wetlands, however, would have to be crossed by the alignment. 9. Minimize Number of Stream Crossings -- The number of streams crossed by the alignment should be minimized. 10. No Exposed Crossings on Bridges or Streams -- Exposure of the pipe should be avoided. Existing bridges should not be used for pipeline crossings. 2.2.2 Options Evaluation Once the four option categories and option evaluation criteria were identified, the four option categories were screened against the evaluation criteria. Two option categories, pipe diameter and the number and location of pump stations, were considered relative to the most efficient system size criterion (no. 1). In the initial concept and permit application stages of a pipeline project, however, determining the exact system size is not critical from a preliminary design or application perspective provided the proposed project would be a small-diameter pipeline (less than 24 inches in diameter). Whether the pipe diameter would be 14 inches, 16 inches or 18 inches, July 29, 1993 PAGE 2-7 or whether there would be one or three pump stations, is not critical at this stage. As the design and permit application processes continue, an applicant develops information that would permit it to specifically identify these options before final design commences and the notice-to-proceed authorizations were issued. Thus, at this time the applicant has not specifically determined the pipe diameter nor the number or exact locations of pump stations. For purposes of this document, the pipeline diameter would be no greater than 24 inches, and there could be three or more pump Stations, including one at North Pole. The other potential pump stations, if required, would be located in areas where increased line pressure is needed to maintain required flow rates. Healy and Willow areas would be locations for two potential pump stations as determined by preliminary pipeline hydraulic calculations. For the construction mode option category, the security evaluation criterion (no. 10) dictated burial of the mainline pipe throughout its length. Mainline valves would be located above ground. No pipe would be exposed on existing bridges. Most streams would be crossed by directional drilling or conventional trenching methods. In the case of an abrupt change in ground elevation, such as at Hurricane Gulch, the alignment would be routed to a location which provides a less steep gradient for the installation of a buried crossing. The pipeline alignment location option category provided the largest number of options for evaluation. Evaluation criteria nos. 2 through 9 were used to screen the various alignment options. Following is a description of the 16 alignment options that were considered, with an explanation of why each was either rejected as not responsive to the selection criteria, or not selected as the preferred alignment based on the screening criteria. The 3 options rejected as nonresponsive were dropped and not considered further. The other 13 options, while not selected as the preferred option, ALTERNATIVES PAGE 2-8 were retained as being viable options. A description of each alignment option selected for detailed evaluation may be found under the appropriate alignment segment in Section 2.3.1. The retained options are shown on maps in Appendix A. Options Considered but Rejected The following options were rejected as not being responsive to the evaluation criteria, and they were not considered further. We Richardson and Glenn Highway Alignment -- This entire alignment option would be approximately 425 miles long and would follow the Richardson Highway from North Pole to Glennallen, and then the Glenn Highway to Anchorage. This option was rejected as nonresponsive to the selection criterion no. 2. because it would be 75 miles longer than, and offered no significant advantages over, the preferred alignment. . East Side Susitna -- This option would follow the AEA Intertie between Hurricane and the Talkeetna Spur Road as opposed to the preferred alignment along the Parks Highway. While this option would be 9 miles shorter, and would avoid Denali State Park, it was rejected as nonresponive to selection criterion no. 2 because of substantial access problems associated with its very isolated location, its higher elevations requiring increased pumping horsepower, the difficulty of construction due to the very rough terrain through which the option would pass, and it would require a major crossing under the Talkeetna River. July 29, 1993 PAGE 2-9 3. Railroad Right of Way -- This option would use the Alaska Railroad ROW. The design parameters for construction of a products pipeline adjacent to a railroad are more restrictive than within a powerline, highway, or new ROW. The pipe design values as a percent of mainline pipe steel design strength would be reduced, requiring increased wall thickness, additional burial depths, and therefore increased cost to the project. There also would be safety problems related to the impacts to a buried refined products pipeline from serious derailments. The railroad alignment also would pose difficult construction problems in certain locations such as the high permafrost areas along Goldstream Creek, the narrow confines of Nenana Canyon, including the Moody slide area in Nenana Canyon (not to be confused with Moody Creek), and along the Susitna River in an area of very limited access and questionable constructibility between Hurricane and the Talkeetna Spur Road. Also, a segment of the Alaska Railroad alignment is within Denali National Park, and therefore would require congressional approval for pipeline construction. There are portions of Alaska Railroad ROW that have some advantages (e.g., fewer wetlands) over the preferred alignment or certain optional alignments, (e.g., from Eklutna area to the Port of Anchorage on the Palmer Hay Flats Option). These advantages have to be considered in the context of the more restrictive design parameters discussed above. Options Retained for Evaluation 1. Fort Wainwright Rifle Range -- This option would avoid crossing under the Army’s rifle range south of Fairbanks. While this would be a viable option, it was not selected because it would add approximately 2.75 miles to the alignment without more favorably addressing any of the other evaluation criteria. ALTERNATIVES PAGE 2-10 The alignment through the rifle range was reviewed by Fort Wainwright personnel in May of 1993. The Army representatives commented that the preferred alignment would be well to the south and would pass beyond the range of the small arms used on the rifle range. Larger ordinance is used south of Tanana River, outside of the designated rifle range area. The Army, however, would make the final determination as to whether the preferred alignment may be built under the rifle range based on the Army’s own criteria. 2. Ester -- This option, just west of Fairbanks, was considered in the event the preferred alignment across Chena Ridge proved unacceptable because of the residential nature of that area. While a viable option, it was not selected because it would add approximately 6.5 miles to the alignment, almost double the length of the preferred option, and it would cross five additional streams. For the other evaluation criteria the two options were roughly equivalent. 3. Tanana Flats -- This option was considered as a more direct route between Cripple Creek, just west of Chena Ridge, and Clear Air Force Base south of Nenana. It would be approximately 7.5 miles shorter than the preferred alignment, and would cross four fewer streams. While a viable option, it was eliminated because the entire 49-mile alignment would require a new ROW and new access. It also would cross more wetlands and permafrost areas than the preferred alignment. 4. Nenana -- This alignment following a combination of powerline and highway corridors, through and in the vicinity of the City of Nenana, would be approximately the same distance as the preferred alignment. While a viable option, it was eliminated because most of the segment involves land without clear title. July 29, 1993 PAGE 2-11 5. Julius Creek -- This alignment just north of Clear Air Force Base, would follow the powerline and would be approximately the same distance as the preferred alignment. While a viable option, it was eliminated because the segment involves land without clear title. 6. Nenana Canyon -- This alignment, just south of Healy, was considered as an option to the preferred alignment through Moody Creek Valley. It would be 4 miles shorter than the preferred alignment, and would avoid the need to construct the pipeline in the bottom of Moody Creek Valley. While a viable option, it was not selected because it would require hanging the pipeline from the Parks Highway bridge over the Nenana River, and necessitate technically difficult construction, similar to the Moody Creek alignment, on the uphill side of the highway through a narrow section of Nenana Canyon and through private lands with several tourist facilities. This option also would cross an additional seven high-gradient streams, and closely parallel the eastern boundary of Denali National Park in the vicinity of Denali Village. 7. Summit Lake -- This option would leave the Parks Highway at about Mile Post 160 and follow the AEA Intertie to approximately Mile Post 186. This option is about the same distance as the preferred alignment along the Parks Highway. While a viable option, it was eliminated because the segment involves land without clear titles and about 3 more miles of wetlands. 8. AEA Intertie -- This option would leave the Parks Highway at its junction with the Talkeetna Spur Road and continue east, next to a MEA powerline ROW until it intersected the AEA Intertie alignment. It would then turn southward along the intertie, parallel to and approximately 1 to 3 miles east of the Parks Highway and ALTERNATIVES PAGE 2-12 the Alaska Railroad, to the southern terminus of the intertie at Willow. It would then continue south along a MEA powerline to a point approximately 2 miles southeast of Nancy Lake. It would be essentially the same length as the preferred alignment. This option was not selected because it would cross approximately 11 more miles of wetlands and 5 more streams than the preferred alignment, including 2 more anadromous streams. It would also require construction of some new access roads to the ROW from the Parks Highway. 9. Big Lake -- This alignment would be the shortest route between Nancy Lake and Knik Arm. It was presented as an option by the Mat-Su Borough as a probable transportation corridor for the Alaska Railroad to service the proposed Point Mackenize Port on Knik Arm. The route would be approximately 2.5 miles shorter than the preferred alignment, and would avoid crossing the Goose Bay State Game Refuge. This option would cross 9 fewer streams, but would cross more wetlands than the preferred alignment. While a viable option, it was not selected because it would require 19 miles of new ROW, would cross selected mental health lands, cross a segment of the Little Susitna Recreation River, would pass through the important private recreational area adjacent to Big Lake, and would be only 2.5 miles shorter than the preferred alignment. 10. Nancy Lake Creek -- This option was considered because it continued to follow the same MEA powerline east of Nancy Lake and would be one mile shorter than the preferred alignment. This viable option was not selected because it would cross more wetlands, two more anadromous fish streams, and would cross the Little Susitna Recreation River in an area heavily used by fishermen and boaters. July 29, 1993 PAGE 2-13 11. Point MacKenzie Road -- This option was considered because it would avoid traversing the Goose Bay State Game Refuge, and would cross fewer wetlands and 4 fewer streams. While a viable option, it was not selected because it would be 6.5 miles longer than the preferred alignment, and would cross selected mental health lands. 12. Palmer Hay Flats -- This option was considered because it avoided an underwater crossing of Knik Arm by skirting the Arm into Anchorage within the existing transportation corridors of the Alaska Railroad, and Parks and Glenn highways. While a viable option , it was not selected because it would be approximately 20 miles longer than the preferred alignment, would cross several more anadromous fish streams as well as the Knik and Matanuska Rivers, and would cross the Palmer Hay Flats State Game Refuge. Since underwater pipeline installation in Cook Inlet has been proven, no substantial advantages were identified for this option over the preferred option. 13. Knik Arm Crossings -- Four options for underwater crossings of Knik Arm were considered, each further southwest in the Arm toward Cook Inlet than the preferred alignment. While viable options, none of these options was selected for a combination of reasons, including: the hard composition of the bottom sediments, making pipe trenching difficult; tidal currents up to 12 knots, making the pipe burial process from a barge very difficult; conflicts with the existing CEA buried cables; location in ship navigation channels, significantly increasing the risk of dragging anchors breaking the pipeline. ALTERNATIVES PAGE 2-14 2.3 Applicant’s Preferred Alternative This section describes the applicant’s preferred alternative, including the alignment and other aspects that constitute the complete proposed pipeline project. 2.3.1 Alignment The applicant’s preferred alignment would originate at the North Pole refineries and proceed west to Fairbanks and Nenana, then turn south, roughly paralleling the Parks Highway through the Alaska Range, and continue down the Susitna River Valley to Point MacKenzie, where it would cross under Knik Arm to Anchorage. The proposed alignment would require approximately 20 miles of new ROW. The remaining approximately 331 miles, or 94 percent, would be closely associated with existing transportation and utility corridors. Using these highway and powerline ROWs, as well as existing pipeline corridors, would provide additional flexibility in avoiding areas of more technical difficulty, or those with more potential environmental problems. Use of existing corridors not only would minimize the length of new ROWs, but also provide better access for pipeline construction activities as well as for surveillance and maintenance operations. Transportation and storage of materials and movements of camps and construction personnel would be considerably more efficient. Following is a description of each of the nine preferred alignment segments, outlining the ROW location, land ownership, stream crossings, special construction areas, and alignment options. Alignment sheets showing the proposed ROW location are located in Appendix A. A more detailed description of each of the five special construction July 29, 1993 PAGE 2-15 areas may be found in Section 2.3.13. A discussion of land status and land use is found in Section 3.18. Segment 1. North Pole to Cripple Creek The pipeline would start at the storage tanks of the existing refineries at North Pole and proceed along the northern bank of the Tanana River, just north of the flood control levee, to the west end of the Fairbanks International Airport. In this section the route would pass through the Fort Wainwright Rifle Range. Turning north past the airport, the alignment would cross the Chena River and proceed west along a section line up Chena Ridge and on to Cripple Creek. ROW location From North Pole to the Chena River, the alignment would be within a new ROW. From the Chena River across Chena Ridge to Cripple Creek, it generally would be adjacent to the existing GVEA powerline ROW that services Cripple Creek Subdivision. The North Slope Borough has designated road alignments in area of preferred alignment to Chena Ridge that have not been developed. Land ownership Military Saneauer eae sae veces ssa vee som are ae 3.0 Mi. State weecpeutcneycclcmeiilclcneie-icire cites) satuci ici iton aiecrtoltcliontell ticle nora 5.4 Mi. Oru hye eteme fone rionieu sie oile stevie ore yoteu sp oesuis votewsmayicus isueneee 6.6 Mi. Private) on cwr ae e DOr AMG 1 sas UM 6 8 sie 6 wie oreo olf 7.3 Mi. WUNIVENSItV merncuemcmeNcuetons clic llieiiotelcl menisci erie ei iieleneicnencn 1.6 Mi. Otalmenemmocacanncicic est icee iis aenoiniee 23.9 Mi ALTERNATIVES PAGE 2-16 Stream crossings Route July 29, 1993 BUCO ead rapist est cttct etcetera es cts cet mts arcs caer area an Anladromousmestersetered soso eed becede erate e eee ener eieeee te 2 Nonanadromous with known resident fish .......... None Special construction areas Chena Ridge -- The pipeline would climb steep slopes with some permafrost, and then pass through a residential area just west of the Chena River crossing. Construction methods and timing would be such that disturbance to homeowners and commuters would be minimized. options Fort Wainwright Rifle Range -- This option would avoid traversing under approximately 3 miles of the Fort Wainwright Rifle Range by making an approximately 5.75 mile loop that would proceed north to and then west along the Richardson Highway, and then south to return to the preferred alignment. This option would be constructed within an existing GVEA powerline ROW. Ester -- This option would avoid traversing approximately 7.5 of the preferred alignment across Chena Ridge by making an approximately 14 mile triangular loop that would proceed northeast within the Chena Pump Road ROW to a GVEA powerline ROW near the Parks Highway, then west along the GVEA ROW to Gold Hill. From Gold Hill the alignment would follow the GVEA Gold Hill to Healy powerline ROW through Ester until it intersected the preferred alignment about 5 miles to the southwest. PAGE 2-17 Segment 2. Cripple Creek to Nenena The alignment would traverse the upper elevations of the south side of the ridge overlooking the Tanana River from Cripple Creek to Nenana, mostly in the Bonanza Creek and Little Goldstream Creek drainages. ROW location The alignment would be adjacent to the GVEA powerline ROW for the segment, possibly deviating to the Parks Highway in locations where specific site conditions warranted. Land ownership States. amis oy me ye Ls Ge esis we cue oie suleueueenie nee 27.2 Mi. State (Highway ROW) ........... 2. eee eee eee ees 2.8 Mi. iiVate mce-e one -e ome -m one oneonen Ronee cm cnem em emonemcnionsmsiyp omens eer 8.7 Mi. TO tall repre seeteaiew sateen sesnioasesetnowonsproeoriems 38.7 Mi mOtalsemen-rcute| CCE chy neat neice tiCnsICIC ECan ta aC In na a carats 26 Anadromous .. 1... eee ee ee eee 1 Nonanadromous with known resident fish .......... None Special construction areas Bonanza Creek Ridge -- This is an area with steep profiles and side slopes that would require special construction techniques including increased ROW widths and possibly terracing. Isolated areas of thaw- unstable permafrost are anticipated through this segment. ALTERNATIVES PAGE 2-18 Route options Tanana Flats -- This option would deviate from the preferred alignment at Cripple Creek, just west of Chena Ridge. It would proceed to Clear Air Force Base on an alignment that would parallel the preferred alignment on the south and east, generally at a lower elevation, and traverse the flats of the Tanana River. This option would be built within a new ROW approximately 49 miles long, versus 62.6 miles for the preferred alignment within existing ROWs. Segment 3. Nenana to Healy At Nenana the alignment would turn south across the flat terrain on the east side of the Nenana River. It would skirt the east side of Clear Air Force Base and then turn southwest across the Nenana River. It would continue south southeast paralleling the Nenana River, the Alaska Railroad and the Parks Highway to Healy. ROW location The alignment would be adjacent to the GVEA powerline or Parks Highway ROW for the entire segment. Land ownership Stat 26 ic 5a cata s Bee Bae se Bee ee ee eee oe 35.3 Mi. State (Highway ROW) ....... 2... 0... eee eee ee eee 10.9 Mi. State (ARRC) ... 2.2... eee ee ee ee eee 3.9 Mi. Privat: cs scuwust aes can twee BOGS SEs ew ee en eee 8.7 Mi. Total 2... eee eee eee 58.8 Mi July 29, 1993 PAGE 2-19 Uta | aces rel ayre fe dtet ee el does seytedies coal c4 edtet toiled oo Peay ce tetenk Co Feat cs faicy altel ei falc 24 AMACLOMOUS err iedereuled cor led yore ter tosl creel coeated sired onaiesit edie} on fel cite 2 Nonanadromous with known resident fish ............. 3 Special construction areas Nenana to Clear AFB -- The pipeline would encounter permafrost for most of this section. Winter construction and special construction techniques would be necessary to ensure thermal stability of the pipeline. Route options Nenana -- This option would follow the powerline through the Nenena area. The number of stream crossings and length of the option and the preferred alignment are essentially the same. Julius Creek -- This option would follow the powerline rather than the preferred alignment along the Parks Highway. The number of stream crossings and the overall length of the option and the preferred alignment are essentially the same. Segment 4. Healy to Broad Pass The alignment would continue southeast, leaving the vicinity of the Parks Highway and the Alaska Railroad, and cross the Nenana River at Healy. It would then proceed up the bottom of the Moody Creek Valley, turn southwest up a tributary to Moody Creek, cross a low pass, and continue down Montana Creek (a tributary to the Nenana ALTERNATIVES PAGE 2-20 River) and return to the Nenana River. The alignment would then cross the Yanert River and continue south on the east side of the Nenana River until it emerged from the Alaska Range just north of Cantwell. It would then cross the Nenana River for the last time and proceed southwest into Broad Pass. ROW location The alignment would be adjacent to the AEA Intertie ROW for the entire segment with two exceptions. At Healy the alignment would leave the GVEA powerline ROW, cross the Nenana River, and proceed along a new ROW in the bottom of the Moody Creek Valley, closely parallel to, but downhill of, the AEA Intertie. It would continue in its own ROW until it rejoined the intertie in the Montana Creek Valley. This new ROW would be approximately 12 miles long. At Cantwell, the alignment would change from the Intertie ROW to the Parks Highway ROW. Land ownership SlAte sc sees RSG OT es RS 20.1 Mi. State (Highway ROW) .......... 0.000. ee eee 1.2 Mi. Private 2... ee eee eee 18.7 Mi. VOtal ee ae te a ee 40.0 Mi. Total 2... ee ee eee ee eens 22 Anadromous ....... 0... eee ee ee ee ee eee None Nonanadromous with known resident fish ............. 4 July 29, 1993 PAGE 2-21 Special construction areas Moody Creek -- Because of the steeply-sloped terrain, the pipeline alignment would leave the AEA Intertie ROW in this area and proceed up Moody Creek in the valley bottom, possibly in the creek itself on occasion when topographic or geotechnical constraints required. Route options Nenana Canyon -- This option would avoid the new Moody Creek alignment by leaving the GVEA ROW at Healy and proceeding within the Parks Highway ROW through Nenana Canyon until it intersected the preferred alignment at Montana Creek. This option would be approximately 15 miles in length, versus 19 miles for the preferred alignment. It would require only three miles of new ROW versus 12 miles for the preferred alignment. Segment 5. Broad Pass to Hurricane The alignment would proceed south through Broad Pass, on the east side of the Parks Highway and the Alaska Railroad, to Hurricane. ROW location The alignment would be adjacent to the AEA Intertie or Parks Highway ROW for the entire segment, except for a 5-mile section at Hurricane Gulch, where the alignment would move approximately 1 mile to the east of the intertie to cross the gulch at a less steep location. ALTERNATIVES PAGE 2-22 Land ownership Statemrer et (or ie oe aL ele ta LelLtcteLcanil: 13.3 Mi. States(Highway ROW) seeee cei erensreeieeienareiehseeietenatet 23.4 Mi. OTA attnt state cptatie oprerkcelmemrantstigerertcteemtentaliamenta t= sematatis 36.7 Mi. Stream crossings HOTA ere irradi syrerrote—etettom erterharrsctestatbroterk sire sntadtatmarteltom sitotttemerterteme-penteine athe a ua ANAC KOMMOUS se eae oats dred eens La 3 Nonanadromous with known resident fish ............. 1 Special: CONStHUCtION! AlEOSuelcur aster eelouaieeersal siecle sieve once alsarclevelswcsecmeuctecpes None Route options Summit Lake -- This option would follow the AEA intertie along the eastern side of Windy Pass. The number of stream crossings and the relative distance between this option and the preferred alignment along the Parks Highway are about the same. Segment 6. Hurricane to Talkeetna Spur Road At Hurricane, the alignment would leave the AEA Intertie and follow the Parks Highway south through Denali State Park to Trapper Creek, cross the Susitna River, and continue to the point where the Talkeetna Spur Road leaves the Parks Highway. ROW location The alignment for the entire segment would be within the Parks Highway ROW. July 29, 1993 PAGE 2-23 Land ownership Staten(Highway ROW) eee ee eee rec. 74.1 Mi. Stream crossings WOtal tectonics olsecanlelh itil scteleLtisicLtaaielice ielscciel cities wes icLedeleeaeds 34 ANAGTOMOUS Serer setae eager tales eee rete ieee Ts 15 Nonanadromous with known resident fish .......... None Special-constructionvareaSmrearieeioiercra icicieioicime enero None ROUTELOPTIONS oe ere peed ee ecce eet atten taeda pore None Segment 7. Talkeetna Spur Road to Nancy Lake At the junction of the Parks Highway and the Talkeetna Spur Road, the pipeline alignment would continue south within the Parks Highway ROW to Nancy Lake. ROW location The alignment would be within the Parks Highway ROW for its entire length. Land ownership Staten (HighwayiROW) oon nee ae cele sone aril 36.0 Mi. Stream crossings Total ela oe eel Se ele hen 19 Anadromoushen ricci orleans ican 14 Nonanadromous with known fish ............... None ALTERNATIVES PAGE 2-24 Special construction areaS 2.1... ee es None Route Segment 8. options AEA Intertie -- This option would leave the Parks Highway and continue east, next to a MEA powerline ROW until it intersected the AEA Intertie alignment. It would then turn southward along the intertie, parallel to and approximately 1 to 3 miles east of the Parks Highway and the Alaska Railroad to Nancy Lake. It would be essentially the same length as the preferred alignment. Nancy Lake to Knik Arm At a point approximately 2 miles southeast of Nancy Lake, the alignment would turn southeast immediately adjacent to the Parks Highway, cross the Little Susitna River at Houston, and proceed to approximately milepost 54 of the Parks Highway. At that point the alignment would leave the Parks Highway and proceed south and then southwest, crossing Goose Bay State Game Refuge, to a point just northeast of Lake Lorraine where it would reach the Knik Arm of Cook Inlet. ROW location July 29, 1993 From Nancy Lake the alignment would be within the Parks Highway ROW until it left the highway at approximately milepost 54. One mile of new ROW would be needed before the alignment would again intersect and continue adjacent to the MEA and CEA powerline easement all the way to Knik Arm. PAGE 2-25 Land ownership State eld eal 5 Falls Sled 2 leafed 2 Pihelee sitolee ie feller eilie) © fekeln forpe] stall 10.8 Mi. Staten(ighwaysROW) ewe neaedciea ele ieareleiemcineaealeliciismel-tentoliair 8.0 Mi. BOfOUGIMa emelnrnclemen siclraeyisatelteticn ses urea acces entcer elem tie mentees 6.3 Mi. LIMIVERSIBY ede dott ti Peattetsosrlotre sorters oto are te ttettrer et ot ae ental o}- srt -etenfte}t® 0.4 Mi. PEIN tO aietespsapette tear ere etyte ote re foupaie: ote. o fo fallior et elsefeifteliset Sif] or elle 9.4 Mi. MOtal lato alcoralaoee el cralelce ales nale 34.9 Mi Stream crossings TOTS | ae tele le Meath ltr edtellrere lollee eed tarcle | slescttals eee maleic lephoe eof esee oul etka atest 13 FAMAGLOMOUS Merete mentee oten etenree seas sitet eee sterol oytoy araeeere alent ate sure 9 Nonanadromous with known resident fish .......... None Specialiconstruction) areas) i}: \5 oe) 4 cole) ser eike) se tedieh fell) el teres fer ele) fs None Route options Big Lake -- This option would diverge from the preferred alignment near Nancy Lake, cross a segment of the Little Susitna Recreation River and proceed essentially directly south to Point MacKenzie, passing just to the west of Big Lake. It would require new ROW for most of its length of approximately 33.5 miles, versus 36 miles within existing ROWs for the preferred alternative. Nancy Lake Creek -- (This option crosses "Lake Creek" that flows from Nancy Lake southeast into the Little Susitna River. To avoid confusion with other "Lake Creeks," it is referred to as "Nancy Lake Creek” in this document.) This option would continue adjacent to a MEA ROW east of Nancy Lake rather than follow the Parks Highway ROW as would the preferred alignment. A segment of the Little Susitna Recreation River ALTERNATIVES PAGE 2-26 would be crossed. This option would be approximately 9.5 miles in length, versus 10.5 miles for the preferred alignment. Point MacKenzie Road -- This option would leave the preferred alignment just north of Goose Bay State Game Refuge and proceed west along Point MacKenzie Road a distance of 4 miles until it intersected the Big Lake alignment option. This option would be approximately 17.5 miles in length, versus 11 miles for the preferred alignment. Palmer Hay Flats -- This option would avoid a Knik Arm crossing by roughly following the Parks Highway and Alaska Railroad east, south and then west, through the Palmer Hay Flats State Game Refuge, around the east end of Knik Arm, and to the Port of Anchorage. This option would cross the Palmer Hay Flats State Game Refuge and would be approximately 54 miles in length, versus 34 miles for the preferred alignment. Segment 9. Knik Arm Crossing Upon reaching Knik Arm, the alignment would cross under the Arm in a southeasterly direction for a distance of approximately 3 miles to the vicinity of Sixmile Creek. Upon reaching the base of the bluff under Elmendorf Air Force Base, the alignment would turn southwest and proceed approximately 5 miles through the tidelands along the base of the bluff to the existing Port of Anchorage facilities. The Municipality of Anchorage holds the patent to the tidelands between Sixmile Creek and the Alaska Railroad properties near the pipeline terminus. Administrative control of the properties is assigned to the Port of Anchorage. Development of the tidelands by the Port, or subsequent lessees, has been made contingent upon approval July 29, 1993 PAGE 2-27 by the U.S.Air Force. A pipeline ROW on this parcel will require close coordination with and approval by the Air Force to avoid conflict with possible National Defense priorities. ROW location With the exception of a short distance through the uplands at the existing Port of Anchorage, the alignment would be in a new ROW on state tide and submerged lands, and municipality of Anchorage tidelands. Land ownership SUC Carre wren ore to orrntem srrortem etsy Seeley OE 2.3 Mi. MUMICID ality Stes weceercecrcnvecnsncne seemenscerensecesmceer seer ep ease menos ne 5.8 Mi. NOtalsa-uca-ccu-e-n ee en ee eae aceon one 8.1 Mi Stream crossings Otaltecpea-eaces Cate eta eee eee ee ree ne eee EEE a ete eee ae ee 1 Anadromous ........ cee ee ee ee ee eee 1 Nonanadromous with known resident fish .......... None Special construction areas Knik Arm Crossing -- An undersea crossing of Knik Arm would involve substantial currents, high tides, possible high winds, and approximately 8 miles of tide and submerged lands. Crossing of Turnagain Arm by the Tesoro refined products pipeline in 1976, and its subsequent reburial in about 1983, provides a basis for construction of a similar pipeline in Knik Arm. ALTERNATIVES PAGE 2-28 Route options Vari rossing L ions -- Four options would cross Knik Arm to the southwest of the preferred alignment, closer to Cook Inlet. Each of these crossings would be shorter than the preferred alignment and would leave the north shore of the inlet closer to Point MacKenzie and cross more directly to the Port of Anchorage. 2.3.2 Substances to be Transported Table 2.3.1 shows the products that are presently produced at one North Pole refinery (MAPCO Petroleum, Inc.). Table 2.3.1 Refined Products Presently Produced at One North Pole Refinery API SG Pour Point Inlet Temp. Visc. (60 F) (60F) (F) (Max.F) (CST @ 104F) Light Products N+A Naphtha 59.5 0.7400 —- 80 o-- Regular Leaded Gasoline 55.1 0.7584 -- 62 - Unleaded Gasoline 56.4 0.7530 -- 76 - Premium Unleaded Gasoline 54.5 0.7607 --- 76 _ Unleaded Gasoline 56.4 0.7530 --- 76 -_ Premium Unleaded Gasoline 54.5 0.7607 oo 76 = Regular Leaded Gasoline 55.1 0.7584 -- 62 -- JP-4/Jet B 55.9 0.7549 _ 80 --- Heavy Products Aviation Turbine Fuel, Jet A-1 43.7 0.8076 -57 80 -- No.1 (-60 Deg F) Heating Fuel 43.6 0.8080 -60 - 13 Blended No.2 (-15 Deg F) 37.4 0.8379 -15 75 2.2 No.2 Diesel Fuel Oil 33.6 0.8572 +5 120 3.4 JP-8 44.1 0.8082 -56 80 4.1 Heavy Atmospheric Gas Oil 25-32 0.8654-0.8871" 140 2.0-8.5 " Pour point depressant required to provide fluidity at colder temperatures. July 29, 1993 PAGE 2-29 The actual pipeline batching sequence would reflect current market demands and the storage facility capacity at the Port of Anchorage. Expanded or decreased demands for refined products, installation of additional shipper’s storage tanks, and changes in product types, would alter product demand and batching requirements of the shippers. The travel time for products in the pipeline would be approximately one week, requiring that product sales be determined at least a week in advance. Additional shipper’s storage at the Port of Anchorage or Point MacKenzie would relieve some of the product demand problems for periods shorter than the one-week transit time, and provide the opportunity to increase batch sizes. Table 2.3.2 indicates a proposed batching sequence for Denali Pipeline system. Table 2.3.2 Projected Denali Pipeline Products Batching Sequence Type of Product Volume (bbls) Regular Leaded Gasoline 8,000 to 18,000 barrels Unleaded Gasolines 8,000 to 18,000 barrels N+A Naphtha 10,000 to 12,000 barrels Aviation Turbine Fuel, Jet A-1 40,000 to 60,000 barrels No.2 Diesel Fuel Oil 15,000 to 18,000 barrels Heavy Atmospheric Gas Oil (HAGO) 20,000 Barrels Any expansion of shipper’s storage tanks at the Port of Anchorage would be subject to a site-specific permitting process in the future. Section 2.3.4 discusses storage and operational tankage. ALTERNATIVES PAGE 2-30 2.3.3 Capacity, Size, and Operation The maximum capacity of the pipeline would be approximately 56,000 barrels per day (bpd) which would exceed present summer demands on the North Pole refineries. The winter volumes would be approximately 24,000 bpd, with minimum flows of 10,000 bpd. The proposed products pipeline would not exceed the 24-inch diameter regulatory limit for small pipelines. Actual pipe dimensions and pump station requirements would vary according to pipeline routing, and the hydraulic and operational characteristics of the pipeline would be determined during the detailed design phase. 2.3.4 Storage and Operational Tankage There are currently six operating fuel storage facilities at the Port of Anchorage that operate independently with common pipelines at the docks for receiving and discharging fuel products that could qualify as shippers of products from North Pole refineries. These shippers would be responsible for any additional storage requirements or piping requirements beyond the limits of the pump stations and the receiving meter locations at the Port of Anchorage. The Port of Anchorage fuel storage facilities have developed over a period of 60 to 70 years, with the dock facility as the only common entity. Introduction of a products pipeline into this area could change the current methods of fuel handling and probably would create an opportunity to consolidate some of the six fueling systems (Reid Middleton, 1993). Coordinating with the Port of Anchorage and the six fuel supply companies would be one of the main objectives of the detail design phase of the proposed project. The products pipeline construction and location must comply to the land-use requirements of the Port. July 29, 1993 PAGE 2-31 The pipeline itself serves both as a transportation and a storage facility. Storage volumes within the pipeline itself are shown in Table 2.3.4-1. Table 2.3.4-1 Line Fill Storage Volumes (bbls) for Three Pipe Diameters Pipe Diameter Description 14" 16" 18" Winter Regular Gasoline w/ MTBE 44,343 57,918 73,302 Unleaded Gasoline w/MTBE 44,343 57,918 73,302 N+A Naphtha 37,521 49,007 62,025 Aviation Fuel, Jet A-1 170,551 222,760 281,931 No.2 Diesel Fuel Oil 56,282 73,511 93,037 353,040 461,114 583,597 Summer Regular Gasoline 37,162 48,538 61,431 Unleaded Gasoline 37,162 48,538 61,431 N+A Naphtha 31,445 41,071 51,980 Aviation Fuel, Jet A-1 142,931 186,686 236,274 No.2 Diesel Fuel Oil 47,167 61,606 77,970 HAGO 57,153 74,674 94,510 353,040 461,114 583,597 42) Gallons per barrel Operational tankage -- When batches of different refined products are moved sequentially through a pipeline, a certain amount of mixing occurs, producing contaminated products. This happens in all pipelines using batched refined products. The volume of these contaminated products, called "slop products,” depends on the size of the pipe, the size of the batches, and the speed with which the products move through the pipeline. Depending on the degree of contamination of the slop products, and the quality limits of uncontaminated products in shipper’s storage tanks, some of the slop products can be blended into the existing volume in the shipper’s storage ALTERNATIVES PAGE 2-32 tanks. The greater the amount of tank storage for different products, the more opportunities exist to blend slop products. When this is not possible, the slop products are considered "waste products," and could be returned by tanker truck or railcar from Anchorage to a North Pole refinery for reprocessing or marketed as blending materials for heavier bunker type fuels. The shipper is responsible for all actions associated with movements of these waste products and are not part of the carrier’s (DPLC) responsibility. There is no operational tankage provided within the components of the DPLC system. Historically, transitionally turbulent flow associated with velocities less than 2.5 feet per second in a products pipeline meant unstable interfaces between the products, and greater amounts of contaminated products at the pipeline’s terminal that would require reblending or reprocessing. For the proposed project, this would be of special concern at low winter flow-rates of 24,000 bpd, and the minimum flow rate of 10,000 bpd. At the velocity of 2.5 feet per second, the rate of flow would be 50,000 bpd in a 16-inch pipeline. More recent studies have shown, however, that after initial pump station mixing, commingling of products progresses in a predictable pattern. Once above a turbulent threshold (estimated as Reynold’s Numbers of 10,000), the pattern does not vary significantly, so velocity has no apparent effect upon mixing between products. In all cases for the proposed project the turbulence threshold of the various products would be reached (Reynold’s number of 110,000 at 10,000 bpd, to 600,000 at 56,000 bpd). Table 2.3.4-2 presents the estimated interface mixing volumes expected for the Denali Pipeline Project. July 29, 1993 PAGE 2-33 Table 2.3.4-2 Interface Mixing Volumes Interface Relationship Mixing Interface Volume ___(bbls) Upstream Downstream Zone 14-Inch 16-Inch 18-Inch Reg.Gas Un! Gas 210254 450 600 750 Unl.Gas Naphtha 2,500 425 575 m2) Naphtha Jet A-1 3,200 550 725 925 Jet A-1 #2 Diesel 5,500 950 1,250 1,600 #2 Diesel HAGO 8,800 1,525 2,000 2,550 HAGO Reg.Gas 5,350 925 1,200 1,550 Source: Christenson Engineering Company (1993) 2.3.5 Pump Stations, Hydraulics, and Operating Pressures Initial hydraulic calculations indicate a requirement for one pump station to produce a 56,000 bpd flow rate of batched products in a 16-inch pipeline. Two pump stations would be needed to produce 56,000 bpd of batched products in a 14-inch pipeline, and a third pump station would be needed for higher flows. The first pump station would be located at the refineries in North Pole. The second pump station, if required, would be located between approximately 120 and 150 miles from North Pole, in the general area of Healy. A third pump station, if needed, would be in the vicinity of Willow. An efficient mainline pump (such as multistage, horizontal split case, centrifugal) would be evaluated during detailed design to provide maximum capacity when pumping the HAGO at winter ground temperatures. An additional smaller unit pump would be considered during detailed design to provide additional differential pressure when pumping gasoline at maximum capacity. Centrifugal in-line booster pumps would supply the necessary suction pressure to the mainline pumps. ALTERNATIVES PAGE 2-34 Totally enclosed pipe ventilated electric motor enclosures with intake and exhaust air ducts to the exterior of the building would be used for all mainline pumps located indoors. Booster pumps located indoors would have explosion proof motors. Weather-protected Type II motors with space heaters would be used for any booster pump located outdoors. Motors would be sized to handle the maximum load required by the hydraulic conditions. Motors would have a 1.15 service factor to provide reserve Capacity to handle transient conditions such as line packing (e.g., lighter products in the pipeline with heavier diesel in the pump). During detailed design, motors would be evaluated for efficiency and capital cost versus corresponding operating expenditures. Pumps could be programmed for local-automatic and remote-automatic control. Unit suction and discharge valves would have motor operators. Pushing the run button would open the suction valve, start the motor and then open the discharge valves. Transmitters, recorders and a controller would be provided for suction pressure, discharge pressure, and motor amperage demand. The output from an autoselector would feed to a control valve on the station discharge piping to control any of the three variables. A ramp signal for start-up and gradual acceleration could also be provided. Set points to the controllers could be entered locally for all variables and remotely for discharge pressures. Station pump discharge piping would be designed for shut-in pressures. Mainline pump alarms and shutdowns could be generally programmed for the following: high pump case temperature, excessive pump vibration, high pump bearing temperature, no flow at pump suction, mechanical seal failure, low suction pressure, high discharge pressure, excessive motor vibration, high motor wind temperature, high motor bearing temperature, electric interlocks indications on preset valve settings, and emergency shutdowns. Pump equipment would be enclosed in an indoor heated building constructed of prefabricated steel with insulation. The building would have July 29, 1993 PAGE 2-35 a CO, fire protection system. An emergency shutdown switch would be installed near each exit door. See Figure 2.3.5-1 and Figure 2.3.5-2 for piping schematic and site layout of pump station at North Pole and pipeline terminal at Port of Anchorage. Hydraulic Design Parameters Hydraulic Calculations -- Products produced at the North Pole refineries were analyzed with respect to flow resistance. Three products were selected as being representative because of the normal summer and winter shipping schedules. These were unleaded gasoline, Jet A-1, and HAGO product. The pressure losses for each due to friction were superimposed on an elevation scale of the pipeline route to assure that the following hydraulic design parameters were met: Pipeline Design Pressure -- The assumed design pressure would be a maximum of 1,480 pounds per square inch gauge (psig), to not exceed the ANSI Class 600 rating for forged flanges. Initial Pressure -- The assumed line pressure on the discharge side of the pump station at North Pole would be 50 psig less than the design pressure, or 1,430 psig. Minimum Pipeline Operating Pressure -- The assumed pressure in the pipeline would be no lower than 50 psig anywhere along the alignment, and specifically at the highest points of elevation. End Pressure -- The assumed discharge pressure at the Port of Anchorage terminal would be no less than 50 psig. ALTERNATIVES PAGE 2-36 Figure 2.3.5-1 Pump Station and Terminal Schematics NORTH POLE PUMP STATION NORTH POLE REFINERIES PRODUCT FROM STORAGE SHIPPER'S PORT OF ANCHORAGE PRODUCT STORAGE PROCESS SCHEMATIC THE DENALI PIPELINE PROJECT ASSOCIATED PIPELINE CONTRACTORS, INC. 2693001-SK-02 Wi06-03-93 1042 AM WABR-004 T SK-Oo Figure 2.3.4-2 Pump Station and Terminal Site Layout WAREHOUSE AND WASHROOMS, _| Wi 06-03-99 1V18 AM WABR- 004 NORTH POLE _PUMP_STATION FIVE ACRE SITE 16 PIPELINE TO PORT OF ANCHORAGE (it nn nn en ee 7 | | | | pH JOPERATIONS| | | PIG RECEWER | | | eS 8 § | | F | | | PORT OF ANCHORAGE | Pa PRODUCT STORAGE | | e — — =) PIPELINE TERMINAL F H ONE ACRE SITE (MINIMUM) PUMP STATION AND TERMINAL FACILITY PLOT PLANS THE DENALI PIPELINE PROJECT ASSOCIATED PIPELINE CONTRACTORS, IN( 2693001-SK-03 To meet these parameters, the pipeline throughput rate was varied until all limits were met for both cold (24° F) and warm (60° F) weather conditions. The results were averaged for both winter and summer conditions. Table 2.3.5, Flow Limitations Summary, lists the results of the hydraulic analysis for the Denali Pipeline system. The addition of pump stations at Healy, and at Willow, would provide additional Capacity to meet the requirements of the North Pole refineries. Table 2.3.5 Flow Limitation Summary (Barrels Per Day) Winter (24° F Average) Pipe Gasolines Jet A-1 HAGO/F.O. Weighted Diameter (36%) (48%) (16%) Average 14" 45,700 35,800 22,800 37,300 16" 64,800 51,000 30,600 52,700 18" 89,800 71,100 46,100 73,800 Summer (60° F Average) Pipe Gasolines Jet A-1 HAGO/F.O. Weighted Diameter (30%) (40%) (30%) Average 14" 49,200 41,700 28,400 40,000 16" 69,600 59,100 40,600 56,700 18" 96,300 82,100 56,800 78,800 Source: _—~—~sChristenson Engineering (1993) July 29, 1993 PAGE 2-39 2.3.6 Geotechnical Considerations Permafrost -- Permafrost, or permanently frozen ground, is defined as ground in which a naturally occurring temperature below 32° F has existed for two or more years. It is found in most of Alaska. It exists as a continuous layer in the Arctic and becomes discontinuous and then sporadic or isolated as one proceeds south. Only the southern coasts of the state are completely free of permafrost. The proposed Denali Pipeline would lie, for the most part, within the zones of discontinuous and sporadic permafrost. Permafrost in these zones is said to be “warm", that is, its temperature is relatively close to its melting point, being greater than about 23°F. Warm permafrost is, therefore, sensitive to changes in mean annual ground surface temperatures resulting from surface disturbances, and can quickly begin to thaw as a result. "Cold," continuous permafrost, on the other hand, is generally much thicker and somewhat slower to thaw when disturbed. Formation and maintenance of permafrost requires a mean annual temperature below freezing. Ground shading and insulation by vegetative cover such as mosses are favorable to permafrost. Once permafrost is established, it stops the infiltration of ground water and forces melt and rain water to escape by surface drainage. Mosses and other plants that exploit saturated soil conditions further impede surface drainage. Permafrost areas, therefore, tend to develop marsh and tundra characteristics. This makes it possible to draw general conclusions about the underlying soil regime by an examination of the surface vegetative cover. For example, black spruce is commonly found growing in permafrost areas, while white spruce, birch, and aspen are common indicators of permafrost-free well-drained soil conditions. The ground at and near the surface that goes through an annual freeze-thaw cycle is called the active layer, and ranges from a few inches to several feet thick. Permafrost ALTERNATIVES PAGE 2-40 lies below the active layer, or depth of summer thaw, and ranges from a few feet to over 1,000 feet in thickness. Measured thicknesses of permafrost layers along the proposed pipeline alignment include 265 feet near Fairbanks, 49 feet near Nenana, and 100 feet near Healy. Active layers vary in depth according to the thermal input at the soil surface, terrain types, and whether the surface has been disturbed. In general, the active layer is one to three feet in depth. Frozen ground forms an extremely strong and stable foundation material, particularly in fine-grained soils, if it is kept in the frozen state. If the ice rich permafrost is allowed to thaw, however, the soil becomes extremely weak, and settlement and thermal erosion can occur. For pipelines, differential settlement as a result of permafrost degradation will be a concern. The vegetative ground cover helps to insulate the underlying permafrost from incoming solar radiation. Since it is proposed that the pipeline be buried for its entire length, trenching and vegetation stripping for the ditch would be required. Vegetation stripping would cause an increase in mean annual ground surface temperatures along the disturbed area since the exposed soil would absorb solar radiation at a much greater rate than when covered by vegetation. The result would be some permafrost degradation in areas of ice-rich soils. Coarse-grained, well-drained soils are usually thaw-stable, that is, they are resistant to settlement when they thaw. Fine-grained, poorly-drained soils, on the other hand, have a tendency to become highly unstable when thawed. The amount of moisture present in a frozen soil plays an important role in its stability when thawed. Most permafrost contains ice in quantities ranging from partial filling of the soil pore space to massive formations of segregated ground ice. The greatest amount of thaw settlement would be experienced in the most ice-rich soils. July 29, 1993 PAGE 2-41 Having the Denali Pipeline Project follow existing ROWs, such as those of the GVEA power line or the Parks Highway, is especially attractive from the standpoint of minimizing potential permafrost problems. Soils disturbed during construction along these ROWs have had many years to thaw the underlying permafrost. Settlement associated with this thawing should already have taken place, for the most part, making soils in these regions of the alignment relatively stable. Engineering practice in previously undisturbed permafrost areas uses three general approaches - avoidance of permafrost areas; destruction of the permafrost layer by increasing the thaw depth; or preservation and maintenance of a permafrost layer through insulation, refrigeration, or construction techniques to avoid surface disturbances (such as pile-supported structures). Preservation and maintenance of permafrost would not be possible since vegetation stripping during construction of the pipeline would guarantee degradation of the underlying permafrost layer. Destruction of the permafrost layer by vegetation stripping, as discussed above with regard to existing ROWs, is only effective in the long term as a soil stabilizing technique. A considerable amount of time, at least five to ten years, must elapse prior to construction on the bare ground before soils would become stabilized. During pipeline construction, however, vegetation stripping and construction would occur essentially concurrently. The prime alternative for dealing with undisturbed permafrost areas along the proposed pipeline alignment would be avoidance of those areas whenever possible. When not possible, the alignment would be routed across thaw-stable soils. When thaw-unstable soils could not be avoided, design accommodations for expected soil settlement would be made. Pipeline design for crossing permafrost in areas of thaw-unstable soils would make allowances for movement of the pipeline. Direct burial in thaw-unstable ice-rich soils ALTERNATIVES PAGE 2-42 would result in settlement. The pipe would be designed to withstand the forces of settlement, especially at transition zones from thaw-unstable areas to areas of no predictable settlement. A small-diameter pipeline is a relatively flexible linear structure that is capable of movement within the strength limits of the pipe. The Norman Wells pipeline in northern Canada was installed under conditions similar to the proposed Denali Pipeline, except the Norman Wells line was installed in "cold" permafrost, as opposed to the "warm" permafrost found between Nenana and Healy. There are reported vertical movements of three-feet in the Norman Wells pipeline system with apparently minimal impact on the pipeline (IPLL, 1983). The temperature of the product flowing through the pipeline raises concerns with regard to permafrost and ice. If the product temperature is greater than that of surrounding permafrost soils, then thawing around the pipe would occur. Insulation of the pipe would only slow.down, rather than halt, the process. If the product temperature was below the temperature of surrounding permafrost soils, no problems would occur. If surrounding soils were only seasonally frozen, however, then increased freezing would occur around the pipe. In such cases, frost heave, resulting in differential uplift or jacking of pipe sections, might occur. If the soils are fine-grained and frost susceptible, then frost heave would be expected. Another consideration would be surface water infiltration of the pipeline trench. The infiltrated waters could cause considerable convective heat transfer, melting along the bottom of the trench in permafrost areas. Hydraulic Erosion -- Surface hydraulic processes originate at drainage divides. Hydraulic erosion begins when water is unable to percolate through the ground surface it travels over. The forces of cohesion, adhesion, and friction allow the water to pick up or drag particles and move them downslope. The process of hydraulic erosion is usually slow unless some alteration of the surface occurs. Surface water July 29, 1993 PAGE 2-43 flow does not generally cause soil erosion where the soil layers are protected by vegetation. However, if the vegetative cover is disturbed and bare soil is exposed, the potential for surface flow to cause extensive erosion is greatly enhanced for both nonpermafrost and permafrost soils. Exposure of fine-grained soils (silts and clays) is more critical than exposure of coarse-grained sands and gravel because the finer soils are more easily transported. The pipeline installation procedure would make allowances for this by replacing the relatively thin active layer or overburden over fine- grained soil with coarser material where practical. Faults -- Faults are a major concern in the design of a buried pipeline. The Denali Pipeline would cross several major faults in its 351-mile length, primarily through the Alaska Range from north of Healy to Hurricane, but one major fault, the Castle Mountain Fault, would be crossed between Nancy Lake and Knik Arm (see Section Sale): Whenever possible, the pipeline would cross faults at a right angle. The following procedures would be used to improve the capability of the pipeline to withstand differential movements that could occur at a fault: e Backfill would be composed of loose and medium granular materials for 1,000 feet on either side of a fault. If the native soil differed from this type of material, an oversize trench would be excavated and backfilled with suitable materials for 50 feet on each side of the fault. e No field bends would be installed on either side of a fault e Pipe with increased wall thickness would be used for 1,000 feet on either side of a fault ALTERNATIVES PAGE 2-44 e Depth of burial would be the minimum permitted by CFR Title 49, Part 195 e The FBE coating would reduce skin friction during movement in granular soils Knik Arm Crossing -- There are several important physical factors that must be considered with regard to the Knik Arm crossing. The tides in Knik Arm are among the highest in the world, with an extreme range of nearly 40 feet. Tidal currents greater than 10 feet per second have been recorded. Bottom current velocities are estimated at up to 3 feet per second, so scour must be taken into account. Seasonal ice floes, sometimes present for as much as seven months of the year, could severely damage inadequately protected pipe, particularly in the transition zone between the uplands and tidelands. 2.3.7 Depth of Burial, Bedding, and Backfilling The minimum depth of burial for the pipeline is determined by 49 CFR, Part 195, except where additional cover would be required to meet the Alaska Railroad’s standards, or for burial below scour depths at river crossings. The minimum burial depths for the top of the pipe, in feet, in various locations and soil conditions, are as listed in Table 2.3.7. July 29, 1993 PAGE 2-45 Table 2.3.7 Minimum Burial Depth (in Feet) to Top of Pipe Normal Rock or Location Soils Hard Soils Public and private lands 3.0 2.5 Drainage crossings of greater than 100 feet between high water marks 4.0 1:5 Drainage crossings less than 100 feet between high water marks 3.0 3.0 Offshore areas with water depths less than 12 feet 3.0 1-5 Offshore area with water depths greater than 12 feet 4.0 2.0 The excavated materials would be used as the backfill, bedding, and padding materials whenever possible. If excavated materials were unsuitable for backfill, e.g., saturated silts, large boulders, or frozen-soils, imported backfill from existing commercial operations would be used. In general, after bedding and padding the pipe, the excavated material would be backfilled into the pipeline trench. Larger rock, and saturated silts, would be blended into the area above the bedding. During pipeline installation through rock, e.g., in Moody Creek Valley where acceptable padding materials would not be available, concrete coated pipe would be considered for protection of the pipe and coating system. The existing topsoil would be segregated during trench excavation, and then would be replaced on top of the backfilled trench to enhance revegetation efforts. ALTERNATIVES PAGE 2-46 2.3.8 Hot and Cold Pipeline Characteristics Refinement of crude oil into other petroleum products results in residual process heat being retained in the products during initial storage. These products would generally be pumped into the pipeline above ambient ground temperatures, establishing the parameters of a hot products pipeline. In permafrost areas, hot products pipelines can cause frost thaw conditions in the pipeline regime if not properly designed. Through heat transfer from the pipe to the ground, the temperature of the pipeline would eventually drop to ground temperature, resulting in a cold pipeline that would limit frost thawing. Thermal flow analysis can be used to determine how far along the pipeline the effects of elevated product temperatures would extend from the pipeline inlet. Heat loss calculations take into consideration the thermal conductivity of the product, the steel pipe, and the soil. Soil thermal conductivity values range from 0.25 for sandy soils to as high as 1.3 for water-soaked sandy soils. Clay soils vary between 0.2 for dry clay to 0.9 for wet clays. The temperature in the pipeline would be elevated above ambient ground temperature for between 15 to 50 miles from the start of the pipeline at North Pole, with 95% of the temperature drop within the first 15 miles. The proposed pipeline initially would travel through 19 miles of thaw-stable permafrost that includes saturated gravel and sand between the North Pole refineries and the Chena River crossing just west of Fairbanks International Airport. These conditions would act to increase the loss of heat from the pipeline. A permafrost assessment was performed by the University of Alaska for the Denali Pipeline Project during May, 1993 (Appendix E). An above-ground pipeline would aid in cooling the product in the cold winter temperatures of Fairbanks. In summer, however, during the period of highest pipeline flow, air temperatures are well above 50° F. Being higher than ground ambient July 29, 1993 PAGE 2-47 temperatures, the air would not cool a hot product pipeline as well as being below ground. Thus, an above- ground pipeline was not considered a viable option for heat dissipation, and such a mode would not meet the evaluation criterion of a buried pipeline for security purposes. 2.3.9 Mainline Piping Mainline pipe would be manufactured according to American Petroleum Institute (API) 5L specifications in grades appropriate to wall thickness requirements. The pipeline would be designed and constructed to the standards of the American Society of Metallurgical Engineers and the American National Standards Institute (ASME/ANSI) B31.4, Liquid Transportation Systems for Hydrocarbons, Liquid Petroleum Gas, Anhydrous Ammonia and Alcohol. \nternal and external corrosion control would be required in accordance with Chapter VIII of ASME B31.4. It would be high frequency, electric resistance welded pipe. The internal diameter of the pipe would allow passage of pigging devices for pipeline maintenance and inspections. The pipe would be manufactured with plain ends, bevelled for welding, and would be delivered in triple random lengths. The design factor for internal pressure would be 72 percent, except where a lower factor for greater strength was required. Pipe for stream and seismic crossings would be 50 percent of specified minimum yield strength. Crossings of the Alaska Railroad ROW could require a wall thickness of 40 percent of the specified minimum yield strength, depending upon depth of bury and distance to the tracks. Road crossing wall thickness would be adjusted according to the loading requirements of the roadway, but generally would be 50 percent of design yield strength. ALTERNATIVES PAGE 2-48 Key API specifications applicable to line pipe include the following: Uo API Spec 5L covers seamless and longitudinally welded steel pipe in Grade A and B. 2. API Spec 5LX applies to high-test line pipe (both seamless and longitudinally welded) in Grades X42 through X70 API line-pipe grades are designated by their minimum yield strength in pounds per square inch (psi). Yield strength is the tensile stress required to produce a specified total, permanent elongation in a test sample of the steel; the test sample and procedure are detailed in specifications. Grade A line pipe has a minimum yield strength of 30,000 psi; Grade B a minimum yield of 35,000 psi. In the remaining grades, X42 indicates pipe made of steel with 42,000 psi minimum yield strength; X60 pipe has a minimum yield strength of 60,000 psi, etc. The following wall thicknesses listed in Table 2.3.9 are the calculated minimum pipe wall thicknesses expected for the DPLC project. Table 2.3.9 Minimum Pipe Wall Thicknesses API 5L Grade X52 X60 X70 14-Inch 0.277" 0.240" 0.206" 16-Inch 0.317" 0.275" 0.235" 18-Inch 0.356" 0.309" 0.265" Basis: ANSI B31.8 and DOT CFR 195.100 Design Pressure at 1480 psig Construction Type Design Factor “F" =0.72 Longitudinal Joint Factor "E"=1.00 Temperature Deviating Factor "T"=1.00 July 29, 1993 PAGE 2-49 The pipe installation stress for the lay barge portion of the crossing of Knik Arm would be determined during the detailed design phase, however, a_ wall thickness of 0.5 inches is anticipated for the Knik Arm crossing. The pipeline under Knik Arm would be protected with a continuous concrete coating that also would provide negative buoyancy to ensure that the pipeline remained firmly at the bottom of the trench. A comparison of the ANSI standard code method of calculating design pressures and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) method at 49 CFR 195 found that the two methods have the same results. Basically, the method prescribed at 49 CFR 195.100, subpart C, is taken from the ANSI B31.8 Code of Pressure Piping, Gas Transmission and Distribution Piping, which is the standard code for gas pipelines. This method calculates design pressures using a, "specified minimum yield strength" of the material and a separate "construction type design factor" multiplier. The standard code for liquid pipelines, ANSI B31.4, uses yield strength values that already include the same type factor, so this multiplication is not seen. Otherwise, the formulas are similar and the results are identical. The outside pipe surface would be protected using a fusion bonded epoxy (FBE) coating a minimum of 16 mils thick. The FBE coating could be applied in Alaska, or the pipe could be shipped to Alaska after being coated at another location. Prior to pipe installation, the coating would be tested for any damage that might have occurred during hauling or handling. In addition to the FBE coating, pipe to be located in wetlands would be coated with continuous concrete or weighted down with concrete weights as required. As pipe-laying activities proceeded along the pipeline, a change in horizontal or vertical direction might require a bend in the pipeline. A review of the alignment and listing of all horizontal plane bends would be part of the detailed design. Many bends would ALTERNATIVES PAGE 2-50 be made during pipe installation using a pipe bending machine. Based on the degree of bend, pipe materials, and space available to accommodate the prescribed radius of bend, certain bends could be shop-fabricated. A quality control inspection team would be assigned to the selected pipe steel mill to ensure that inspections would be performed, and that all necessary inspection and test documentation was properly executed. The mainline pipe would be manufactured in strict accordance with the requirements of API 5L for Grade B materials, and with API 5LX for higher grade materials, with additional requirements possibly specified by DPLC. The inspection team would ensure that all phases of mainline pipe manufacture, delivery, storage and handling, were conducted in accordance with specifications. 2.3.10 Hydrostatic Testing After trench backfilling, the pipeline would be hydrostatically tested in accordance with DOT regulations to ensure the system would be capable of operating at design pressures. Should a leak or break occur during testing, the line would be repaired and retested until the specifications were met. Test segment lengths would be determined by topography and water availability. Water would be obtained from surface water sources in accordance with federal, state and local regulations. No additives would be used in the test water. Following testing, water would be disposed of in accordance with state water quality regulations. The mainline and pump station piping would be hydrostatically tested to a minimum of 1.25 times the internal design pressure, but less than the specified material yield strengths. The pipeline would be cleaned internally with cleaning pigs prior to the hydrostatic test, and then filled with water of a quality sufficient to meet water discharge requirements. After displacement of air through the bleeder valves, the July 29, 1993 PAGE 2-51 pipeline would undergo testing in accordance with Title 49 CFR, Part 195 standards, as a minimum. Pressure-time charts and certified testing forms would be prepared and signed by the contractor’s engineer, and verified by a DPLC representative. This information would be filed with the permanent records of the proposed pipeline. 2.3.11 Stream Crossings River and stream crossings are considered the most environmentally sensitive and schedule-dependent aspects of the pipeline’s construction. Closed periods associated with anadromous fish streams, access constraints, additional ROW requirements, slope stability, hydraulic scour depths, and the logistics of construction spread crossings, all add to the complexity of stream crossing construction and timing. Stream crossings would be evaluated on an individual basis. Major river crossings would be directionally drilled, if technically and economically feasible. The open cut method of installation of major crossings would be considered only when directional drilling would be impractical. Directional drilling is not practical in areas of loose gravel or cobble subsoils, for long crossings over 5,000 feet in length, or across very narrow streams or drainages that could be crossed in a conventional buried mode during normal pipe laying activities. Aerial crossings of streams by attaching the pipe to bridge structures are not anticipated, thus keeping exposure of the pipeline to a minimum. Directionally drilled crossings would be made from behind the stream banks and would result in the pipe being installed deep below the banks and the streambed. This type of installation has the advantage of not disturbing the bottom of the stream or its banks, thereby minimizing sedimentation in the stream, and eliminating cuts in the banks. Figure 2.3.11 shows typical detail for a stream crossing. ALTERNATIVES PAGE 2-52 SEE NOTE 2 SEE NOTE 2 t SEE NOTE 2 SEENOTES 3_. r HIGH WATER LEVEL WATER LEVEL SEE NOTE 5 Installation would be in accordance with applicable permits and specifications. This distance would vary depending upon terrain. Pipe would be level under stream channel to the depth shown above except in rock formations where top of pipe may be laid to a minimum of 18" below stream bed. Single sag crossing to accommodate directional drilling would be use if the river bed at crossing is not subject to deepening and provides minimum covers. Pipe would be installed by directional drilling or conventional open-cut methods. Conventional open-cut crossings of smaller streams and Knik Arm would be weighted with bolt-on/set-on weights or externally coated with concrete coating. The navigable waters of Chena River at Fairbanks, Tanana River at Nenana, and Susitna River at Sunshine, and other larger streams would be crossed using directional drilling, if economically and technically feasible. TYPICAL STREAM OR RIVER CROSSING REQUIREMENTS Conventional open cut stream crossings require a trench excavation in the stream bed, pipe placement, and trench backfill with the available spoil materials. The placement of spoil material the same as the existing streambed material would minimize the change in channel characteristics with respect to scour and erosive forces. The bank cuts for pipeline installation would be restored to original grade and stabilized to withstand the scour forces of the stream at extreme flood levels. In most cases, some form of revetment, such as rip-rap or concrete headwalls, would be required. Traditional construction practices at stream crossings with small flows associated with winter construction and narrow streams include a fluming and filtering technique that minimizes sedimentation during excavation and backfilling. Buried river and floodplain crossings would be aligned perpendicular to the flow, unless it was necessary to cross at an angle for topographic or other reasons. A right angle orientation would prevent channelization along the pipeline alignment, and minimize the crossing length. Angle crossings would require slope protection to control erosion and channelization of the embankments. The objective in the design of a buried pipeline crossing is to ensure that the pipe would not be exposed to the hydraulic and abrasive forces of water flow and sediment movement. Because of potential degradation from hydraulic scouring, the detailed design phase would evaluate the potential for pipe exposure on individual river ‘or stream beds. Erosion and scour estimates would be based on hydraulic calculations corresponding to the design water discharge unless some other discharge was considered critical (e.g., large flows resulting from breakage of log or ice dams occurring naturally in the streams). Pipe buoyancy would be controlled by concrete coating of the pipe, or by placing concrete weights on the pipe, that would provide negative buoyancy even when the pipe was submerged and empty. This condition could exist prior to system ALTERNATIVES PAGE 2-54 startup. The design water discharges would be based on statistical flood frequency data for a particular stream. The minimum cover requirements for buried pipelines (Table 2.3.7) mandate burial depths of 48 inches for normal soils in stream crossings, and 18 inches in rock. The top of the pipe would be placed below the projected stream bed profile that might develop due to effects of local scour. Normal stream flows would be maintained at all times during construction. The pipeline crossing for each stream would be designed to prevent erosion of the stream bed, banks and surrounding area. The design also would use criteria to minimize effects on scenic resources at crossings with heavy recreational use. Construction spread access roads and additional ROW requirements for stream crossings would be part of final design. 2.3.12 Highway and Railroad Crossings The number and location of highway and railroad crossings would be determined during the detailed pipeline alignment process. Bored crossings would be in accordance with highway, railroad, and municipal specifications. Figures 2.3.12-1 and 2.3.12-2 show conceptual railroad and highway bored crossings, respectively. All unpaved secondary road crossings would be open cut, and uncased pipe would be installed. Secondary road crossing would be completed in less than a day where possible. Highway crossings would be bored and uncased. Railroad crossings would July 29, 1993 PAGE 2-55 CATHODIC PROTECTION TEST STATION — AS SPECIFIED ON ALIGNMENT SHEETS (TYPICAL 2 PLACES) RAILROAD GARRIER- PIPE . 1” CONCRETE COATING 50° MIN. HEAVY HEAVY W.T. STEEL PIPE 50’ MIN. HEAV W.T. PIPE SEE NOTE 6 W.T. PIPE SEE NOTE 6 SEE NOTE 6 SLICK BORE CROSSING NOTES: 1. CROSSING INSTALLATION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE PERMIT. 2. ALL CARRIER PIPE WILL BE ERW STEEL PIPE WITH FUSION BONDED EPOXY COATING. 3. ALL GIRTH WELDS SHALL BE 100% RADIOGRAPHICALLY INSPECTED. 4. ALL LONGITUDINAL SEAMS SHALL BE MILL INSPECTED BY A NON-DESTRUCTIVE TEST METHOD. 5. CARRIER PIPE SHALL HAVE ONE INCH CONTINUOUS CONCRETE COATING, THE COATING SHALL EXTEND A MINIMUM OF 4’ BEYOND THE EDGE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY. 6. CARRIER PIPE DIAMETER, WALL THICKNESS, AND GRADE SHALL BE SPECIFIED ON THE ALIGNMENT SHEET DRAWINGS. CROSSING SHALL BE DESIGN FACTOR OF 40%. 7. PIPE BENDS SHALL NOT BE PLACES WITHIN 50’ OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL. 8. COMPANY SUPPLIED WARNING SIGNS SHALL BE INSTALLED AS REQUIRED. UNCASED SLICK BORE RAILROAD CROSSING W/CONCRETE COATED PIPE CATHODIC PROTECTION TEST STATION ~\ AS SPECIFIED ON ALIGNMENT SHEETS \ (TYPICAL 2 PLACES) ROADWAY N=] i= : + UI aaa Mi i 1" CONCRETE COATING 50° MIN. HEAV W.T. PIPE SEE NOTE 6 HEAVY W.T. STEEL PIPE SEE NOTE 6 50° MIN. HEAVY W.T. PIPE SEE NOTE 6 SLICK BORE CROSSING NOTES: 1. CROSSING INSTALLATION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE PERMIT. 2. ALL CARRIER PIPE WILL BE ERW STEEL PIPE WITH FUSION BONDED EPOXY COATING. 3. ALL GIRTH WELDS SHALL BE 100% RADIOGRAPHICALLY INSPECTED. 4. ALL LONGITUDINAL SEAMS SHALL BE MILL INSPECTED BY A NON-DESTRUCTIVE TEST METHOD. 5. CARRIER PIPE SHALL HAVE ONE INCH CONTINUOUS CONCRETE COATING, THE COATING SHALL EXTEND A MINIMUM OF 4’ BEYOND THE EDGE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY. 6. CARRIER PIPE DIAMETER, WALL THICKNESS, AND GRADE SHALL BE SPECIFIED ON THE ALIGNMENT SHEET DRAWINGS. CROSSING SHALL BE DESIGN FACTOR OF 40%. 7. PIPE BENDS SHALL NOT BE PLACES WITHIN 50’ OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL. 8. COMPANY SUPPLIED WARNING SIGNS SHALL BE INSTALLED AS REQUIRED. UNCASED SLICK BORE ROADWAY CROSSING W/CONCRETE COATED PIPE be bored and could require a casing pipe for the actual products carrier pipe under America Railway Engineering Association (AREA) and Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) requirements. Casing and carrier pipe for crossings would be specified to meet the API RP 1102 standard or other stricter local specifications. 2.3.13 Special Construction Areas Five areas of the proposed alignment would require special construction techniques because of geotechnical, topographic or other constraints. See the alignment maps in Appendix A for locations. It should be noted that crossing of streams, rivers, highways, the Alaska Railroad, Port of Anchorage, and areas with concentrated residential use, all require site specific design and construction techniques. Chena Ridge (Mileposts 21 to 22) -- The profile slopes in this area range from 10 to 15 percent near the base of the ridge, and from 20 to 25 percent near the ridge crest. Cross slopes approaching 35 percent would be encountered. Also, the pipeline, still containing hot products at this point, would encounter discontinuous permafrost in this area. Route options include the Ester and Tanana Flats, both longer routes, with the Tanana Flats option being a new alignment with more permafrost. Hydraulic and thermal erosion pose potential long-term impacts in this area that would require modified methods of pipeline installation and slope stabilization. Detailed design would determine actual final alignment through this area with design requirements for accessibility and slope stabilization. Techniques for construction would include expanded ROW widths for side slope and pipeline slope reductions. Terracing of the ROW after pipeline backfilling would be required to reduce hydraulic erosion until the soils revegetated and the pipeline thermal regime stabilized. ALTERNATIVES PAGE 2-58 Bonanza Creek Ridge Top (Mileposts 23 to 38) -- The pipeline profile slopes vary from 5 to 25 percent, with side slopes of 15 to 35 percent. Permafrost is limited in the upper ridge area. Special construction techniques would include expanded ROW for slope reductions. Terracing of the ROW after pipeline backfilling would be required to restrict hydraulic erosion until soil revegetation and stabilization occurred. Nenana to Clear AFB (Mileposts 61 to 90) -- Permafrost is expected at depths of 2 to 4 feet below the surface, with common lenses and stringers of pure ice. Winter construction would be used to minimize soil disturbance in this thermally erodible area. Soils are considered thaw-unstable. The pipeline would have reached an ambient ground temperature before reaching this segment. Disturbance of the ground cover would expose these thaw-unstable soils, and any settlement resulting from such disturbance would have a longer-term effect on the ROW than the temperature of the pipeline. Approximately five to ten years would be required for the area to completely stabilize thermally. This relatively flat area would restrict hydraulic erosion, and backfill techniques would include trench plugging to preclude any hydraulic erosion. Construction within the cleared GVEA or Parks Highway ROW would avoid some permafrost degradation because of past thawing of permafrost. During final design, the pipeline alignment would be adjusted to avoid permafrost within thaw-unstable areas. Where thaw-unstable soils could not be avoided, mainline pipe strength would be designed to allow for pipeline settlement. Moody Creek Drainage (Mileposts 122 to 135) -- Alignment profile slopes in this drainage range from 15 to 25 percent, with some side slopes in excess of 60 percent. Any permafrost encountered would be thaw-stable. July 29, 1993 PAGE 2-59 The narrow drainage and steep side slopes would require pipeline construction within a narrow ROW immediately adjacent to Moody Creek. Construction could be supported by helicopters because of very difficult road access. By reducing the size of the construction spread (equipment and workers), and by using some concrete coated pipe, a narrow ROW would probably be sufficient for pipe installation. An on- site investigation of Moody Creek Valley would be required to determine route feasibility. Silt protection of Moody Creek would be required to avoid disturbance to resident fish. Slides and slope stability would be a special parameter for detailed design in this area. Summer construction has been proposed to avoid potential avalanche risk to workers during winter. Knik Arm Crossing (Mileposts 342 to 350) -- While the Knik Arm crossing would require special construction techniques, subsea pipeline installation by Tesoro Alaska across Turnagain Arm, the laying of many Cook Inlet oil field gathering lines, and CEA’s installation of submarine cables, have all defined acceptable practices for underwater installations within Cook Inlet. 2.3.14 Block, Check, and Bleeder Valves Mainline pipe block and check valves would be installed at all major river crossings, and at intermittent 10-mile locations along the pipeline. Installation of check valves above stream crossings would minimize spill potential in the unlikely event of a pipe break. Check valve spacing could be increased in areas with relatively little elevation change. ALTERNATIVES PAGE 2-60 Bleeder valves would be installed at high points to serve as vents during hydrostatic testing. At the conclusion of testing, a plug and blind flange would be installed and the bleeder valve removed. 2.3.15 Meters and Provers The primary purpose of the metering system is volume measurement and leak detection (see Figure 2.3.5-1, Pump Station and Terminal Schematics). Meter provers are used to calibrate the meters. Meters and meter provers would be installed at pump stations and terminal locations. The inventory control between pump volumes and delivery volumes would be critical to determination of pipeline integrity. Meters would be positive displacement or turbine types and calibrated periodically for verification of measurements. Any tap along the pipeline alignment would require meters, provers, and sampling-equipment for the different batches of products in the line. 2.3.16 Scraper Stations Scraper launching and receiving stations would be spaced a maximum of 100 miles apart. They would not disturb more than 2 acres of land and would be accessible from the Parks Highway or secondary access roads. The overall profile of scraper stations would be low to the ground, creating minor visual contrast. Screening with natural trees and brush could reduce visual impacts along roadways. July 29, 1993 PAGE 2-61 2.3.17 Cathodic Protection Corrosion is a principal cause of leaks in pipelines over the service life of the pipeline system. External corrosion of underground steel is an electrochemical process. The soil is an electrolyte, or conductor of corrosion current. Corrosion currents flow through the soil between different points on the buried metallic structure. When corrosion current enters or leaves the metal surface, a chemical reaction takes place. The result of this process is corrosion of the metal surface where current leaves the metal and enters the soil. Without cathodic protection, soils conduct direct current which collects on the structure (cathode) and follows the steel to points of dissimilar electrical potential on the metal surface caused by a variety of conditions. Corrosion occurs where the current leaves the structure at these points (anode). Cathodic protection halts the corrosion process on an underground pipeline by changing the electrical condition and transferring the damaging chemical reaction away from the pipe to an independent anode. Once the anode is installed in the soil, it would continue to provide a protective barrier for the pipe for the design life of the system. Acurrent intentionally run through the pipeline (impressed current) could also disrupt the pattern of different currents and eliminate the electrochemical reactions. Corrosion of pipelines is caused by basically one of the four following conditions: Wet to Dry Soil - Corrosion is caused by differences in oxygen and moisture content of soil, which set up differences in electrical current. Dissimilar Soils - Differences in soil composition set up an electrical current. ALTERNATIVES PAGE 2-62 Bimetallic - Current flows between two different kinds of metal when they are in moist earth. Stray Current - The electrical field around an operating electrical circuit causes current to flow through nearby metal objects. The cathodic protection program would be an ongoing process through design, construction and operation. During design, assessment of soil resistivity values would be performed to evaluate the spacing of the cathodic protection system. Cathodic protection test points would be installed at regular intervals and, where possible, combined with pipeline markers or crossing markers. Power for an impress current system would be obtained from the nearest available power source. During operation, electrical current flows in the pipe would be monitored yearly, survey of pipe would be conducted using "smart pigs", and the cathodic protection system would be modified based on the changes experienced. Special attention to the design of the pipeline system cathodic protection system would consider the existing cathodic systems in service within the Port of Anchorage. The addition of another pipeline protection system in the area might modify existing electrical currents in the area, possibly resulting in changes to the existing systems and long-term degradation of the existing pipelines. The Knik Arm concrete coated pipe would include embedded anode bracelets at designated intervals. Specific corrosion protection requirements for the subsea crossing would be addressed during detailed design. For a majority of its length, the proposed pipeline would be located within or adjacent to the ROWs of electrical transmission lines. Stray electrical currents could have a detrimental effect on the longevity of the pipeline without a properly designed cathodic protection system. July 29, 1993 PAGE 2-63 2.3.18 Pipeline Installation This section describes the general procedures that DPLC plans to use to construct the proposed pipeline, pump station(s), and scraper stations. The pipeline would be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained in accordance with DOT regulations at 49 CFR, Part 195, and ASME/ANSI B31.4 (7ransportation of Hydrocarbons by Pipeline). Figure 2.3.18-1 depicts the pipeline construction sequence typical for an overland pipeline construction spread ina rural environment. Prior to construction, DPLC would survey and stake the centerline and exterior ROW boundaries, and maintain thesemarkers throughout construction. The ROW would be cleared, and cut timber handled in accordance with the land management agency’s regulations or private landowner’s wishes. The trees would be removed from the area prior to excavation or any soil disturbing activities to prevent soil from covering or being ground into the trees during ROW clearing. Figures 2.3.18-2 through 2.3.18-6 present typical cross-section drawings for installation of 14-inch to 18-inch diameter pipelines, showing temporary work space requirements, proposed operational ROW requirements, and the limits of existing operational ROWs for powerline and highway easements. Shrub vegetation would be removed from the ROW by cutting off the tops with a hydro-ax, leaving the roots. Grass or other low growth vegetation, including the roots from brush cut with a hydro-ax, would not be removed except in areas directly over the trench, or where grading was required. ALTERNATIVES PAGE 2-64 AaBut Foouge «X-Ray and Weld Repay Costing Fleid © Irapection and Fecory eaping) Weide ond Repew el Comng PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE NOT TO SCALE Figure 2-3.18-1 During ROW clearing, any fence or natural barrier that would be crossed would be temporarily fenced to prevent passage of vehicles, people, wildlife or livestock. This would occur in relatively few locations, mainly in areas of private land ownership in the lower Susitna Valley. Any fence crossed by the ROW would be braced and secured prior to cutting to prevent slacking of the wires. The fence would be reconstructed to agency or private landowner specifications during the ROW cleanup operations. Construction of the proposed pipeline would generally follow standard pipeline construction methods. Ditching would be conducted with a wheelditcher, a saw trencher in frozen conditions, or a backhoe. A double-ditching technique could be used in summer in areas of thin overburden above sand/gravel cobble-type soils. The overburden and/or soils would be stored in separate rows on the nonworking side ofthe ROW. On all lands, the wishes of the private landowner or land management agency would be considered in determining ditching techniques. The depth of the ditch would vary depending on the diameter of the pipeline, but in all cases it would be sufficiently deep to accommodate at least 36 inches of soil on top of the pipe in normal soils, and 18 inches of cover in areas of consolidated rock. Deeper burials or differing trench sections are anticipated in areas of highway and railroad crossings, slope transitions, seismic fault crossings, stream crossings, the Knik Arm crossing, and in wetlands. The trench would be approximately 30 inches wide at the bottom with side slopes in unfrozen soil. In areas of rugged topography with steep slopes, DPLC would use cut and fill techniques (Fig. 2.3.18-7). On sidehill slopes, a level working pad would be cut from the hillside with a bulldozer. During cleanup and reclamation, the disturbed land would be restored to as near the original contour as possible, using fill material, vegetation and other stabilization techniques as appropriate. ALTERNATIVES PAGE 2-66 EXCAVATED DITCH SUBSOIL SEGREGATED TOPSOIL | 50’ PROPOSED OPERATIONAL ROW 14”-18" PIPELINE NEW ALIGNMENT Figure 2.3.18-2 SEGREGATED TOPSOIL EXCAVATED DITCH SUBSOIL PIPELINE ny, SHOULDER-\ CONSTRUCTION WORK AREA 25’ PAVEMENT SURFACE 33'-52’ |- MINIMUM 3’ CLEARANCE SHOULDER ~ is 19”-18”" PIPELINE ON EDGE OF ROAD Figure _2.3.18-3 OULDER Fase PAVEMENT SURFACE 33'-52' SHOULDER ~ FEE lige (es NS 14”-18”" PIPELINE 20’ FROM EDGE OF ROW NOT TO SCALE Figure 2.3.18-4 - TOWER GUY WIRES TOWER —~ EXCAVATED DITCH- SUBSOIL SEGREGATED ~ TOPSOIL } 32.5’ MINIMUM EQUIPMENT WORK SPACE 70’ PROPOSED|CONSTRUCTION ROW 1 1 50’ EXISTING OPERATIONAL ROW +—— 14”-18” PIPELINE OUTSIDE GUY WIRES ricure_2.3.18-5 TOWER GUY WIRES TOWER —— EXCAVATED DITCH SUBSOIL SEGREGATED TOPSOIL 55’ MINIMUM EQUIPMENT WORKSPACE 109’ PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ROW, 14"-18" PIPELINE INSIDE GUY WIRES NOT TO SCALE Figure 2:-3.18-6 75’ EXISTING OPERATIONAL ROW | In areas where surface or subsurface rock was unrippable, and excavation or grading was required, blasting for grade or ditch excavation would be necessary. In these areas, Care would be taken to prevent damage to underground structures or potential water sources. All blasting would be conducted during daylight hours. Blasting likely would occur at several locations along the alignment, e.g., in Moody Creek Valley. Blasting mats or soil cover would be used on shots where damage to structures, such as electric lines, might be a factor. All applicable federal, state and local blasting regulations would be observed, and necessary permits would be obtained. After ditching was complete, the pipe joints would be strung along side the trench, bent to fit the trench contour, aligned, welded together, and placed on temporary supports. All welds would be visually and radiographically inspected, and repaired if necessary. The pipe, already FBE coated prior to stringing, would then have the welded field joints FBE coated or shrink-sleeve coated prior to final inspection. The entire pipeline coating would be electronically inspected to locate and repair any faults or voids. The assembled pipe would then be lowered into the trench by side-boom tractors, and the trench would be backfilled using a backfilling machine or bladed equipment. In wetlands, all excavated material would be used during backfilling, or would be removed and transported to uplands for disposal. In saturated and flooded wetland crossings with pipeline during summer, temporary workpads such as moveable timber mats or geofabrics pads, would be used to support excavation and backfill equipment. The pipe section would be fabricated outside of the wetlands and pulled into place. Access roads outside of the wetlands would be provided to transport vehicles around the wetlands where practicable. ALTERNATIVES PAGE 2-72 EXCAVATED DITCH SUBSOIL SEGREGATED TOPSOIL ga: 32.5’ MINIMUM EQUIPMENT WORK 84.5' PROPOSED] CONSTRUCTION [ SPACE 15° 20’ 15° ws a 14"-18”" PIPELINE SIDE SLOPE TRENCHING rioune 2.3.18-7 2.3.19 Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) A supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system would be installed along the pipeline for leak detection and pipeline operational controls. At any one time the products pipeline likely would have several batches of differing petroleum products. Detection and location of the batches would be required for operation of storage terminals. Dedicated land communication lines would be used, with local control of the pipeline maintained at the Port of Anchorage. The supervisory control system would regulate pressure and flow, start and stop pumps at pump stations along the line, and monitor the status of pumps, and valves. A SCADA system would consist of both a master control station at North Pole, and remote terminal at Port of Anchorage. Master Control Station -- The master control station would include a variety of components that control and monitor the operation of the pipeline. The master control station could include dual computers with standby operation, auto failover, two CRT consoles, printers for logging events and alarms, SCADA software, a leak detection computer, LAN networking for rapid data sharing, terminal server, and eight channel communications. The design would be open system architecture that provides maximum flexibility and portability to promote an integrated data sharing environment. The SCADA master system would be the hub for data gathering using a relational database that supported data query, networking, and development tools for user defined sub-systems. The sub-systems could include leak detection, power optimization, scheduling, ticket printing, and pipeline planning/modeling. Remote Terminal Units -- The remote unit at the Port of Anchorage would record fluid specific gravity, metering and meter proving data. The remote terminal would be located at the Port of Anchorage, and at the Healy and Willow pump stations, if ALTERNATIVES PAGE 2-74 built. Selected remote units could collect a wide variety of information, including: operation control points for motor-operated valves (MOV), pump controls at intermediate pump stations, digital inputs for status and alarms of MOVs, and tank high/low levels of shipper storage tanks; also, analog points for monitoring temperature, pressure, shipper’s tank level, specific gravities of products, and power. In addition, data could be collected from pulse counter points from meters, sequence of events points, and product process computational software support as well as status of the twelve-hour battery backups, strip heaters, and communication ports. 2.3.20 Communications Communications between the manned locations at Anchorage and North Pole could be by leased wire. The pipeline would be operated as a separate entity, independent of the North Pole refineries or the Anchorage terminals. UHF radio telephones could be acomponent of the maintenance communication system during operation. During construction, communications between construction spreads could be maintained using UHF telephones with repeater towers. The radio/repeater system could remain in place during pipeline operation. 2.3.21 Construction Materials Storage and Transportation Material storage site locations would be determined during the detailed design phase. Sufficient storage areas presently exist along the Parks Highway to accommodate the storage requirements for construction of this small-diameter pipeline. The predominant material for the pipeline would be approximately 42,000 tons of mainline pipe. Other materials such as valves, fittings, manufactured bends, and above-ground structures such as buildings and scraper components would be combined with the transportation and storage operations of the mainline pipe. July 29, 1993 PAGE 2-75 Steel mills in the U.S. or Japan likely would produce the mainline pipe required for the Denali Pipeline Project. The pipe would be FBE coated at the pipe mill, or it could be shipped to coating plants at other locations in the U.S. prior to shipment to Alaska. The FBE coating process also could be performed in Alaska. The mainline pipe could be transported by hydro-train to Whittier for transportation to staging yards along the Parks Highway or to areas adjacent to the Alaska Railroad. The pipe also could be shipped to Seward, Whittier or Anchorage and staged prior to movement to storage yards along the alignment using trucks. The 42,000 tons of mainline pipe would require approximately 12 to 14 barges for transportation. Concrete coating of mainline pipe would be necessary at some wetland crossings, and possibly in areas of bedrock where adequate pipe padding materials were not available. The concrete coating would be applied in Alaska. Mainline pipe storage yards would require approximately 5 acres at each of the seven proposed yard locations listed below. Fairbanks -- Pipe for all the alignment north of lower Little Goldstream Creek would be staged at Fairbanks. Nenana -- Pipe for the area between Clear Air force Base and the lower Little Goldstream Creek area would be stored at this location. Healy -- The Healy storage area would provide pipe for the area between Cantwell and Clear Air Force Base. Healy would serve as the operations base for Moody Creek construction activities that could require helicopters for stringing of pipe and support of the construction spread. ALTERNATIVES PAGE 2-76 Hurricane -- This area would provide pipe for the Parks Highway alignment north of the Chulitna River crossing, and for the area between Hurricane and Cantwell. Montana Creek Area -- The Montana Creek storage area would provide pipe for the alignment between approximately the Kashwitna River and the Chulitna River crossing. Houston/Willow Area -- This storage area would hold pipe for the area from Knik Arm north to a point in the vicinity of the Kashwitna River. Anchorage -- Mainline pipe storage at Anchorage would include pipe for the Knik Arm crossing and the Port of Anchorage. Material barges would be required to transport the pipe from the Port of Anchorage to the lay barges. 2.3.22 Intermediate Delivery Facilities No intermediate delivery facilities (taps) are planned along the pipeline alignment at this time. Currently, petroleum products can be delivered to smaller markets more economically by truck and trailer combinations using the Parks Highway. Intermediate delivery facilities, however, could be constructed later when market conditions warrant. A products pipeline tap would include meters, a prover station, interface detection, and storage tanks for each product. 2.3.23 Temporary and Permanent ROW Widths Almost all of the proposed pipeline would be installed within or adjacent to existing powerline and highway ROWs. A minimum of new ROWs would be established, and then only where necessary to avoid sensitive environmental areas, to accommodate constructibility requirements in areas of steep profiles and cross slopes, in potential July 29, 1993 PAGE 2-77 thermal and hydraulic erodible areas, or for operating requirements of existing transportation and utility systems. Typically, construction of the proposed pipeline would use an 80 to 110-foot wide construction ROW, depending on possible topsoil segregation, ROW slope, and natural obstacles within the ROW. The construction ROW would encompass both the permanent ROW,needed for long-term operation and maintenance requirements, and the temporary work areas that would require only temporary easements. The width of the construction ROW would vary depending on soil types and corresponding trench widths required for safe installation of the pipeline. Based on local soil types, the U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), has regulations that require varying angles-of-slope for trench walls to protect workers in the trench at all times. These various angle requirements could change ROW requirements by up to 7 to 10 feet. The estimated ROW widths have assumed these OSHA trench width requirements for all pipeline segments. Expanded work areas, located outside the typical 80 to 110-foot wide construction ROW, would be required at paved road and railroad crossings, rivers, streams, and some wetland crossings. At all road and railroad crossings, an additional 0.5 acres of temporary work space would be required. At stream crossings greater than 20 feet in width, an additional 0.75 acre would be required. At stream crossing less than 20 feet in width, an additional 0.35 acres would be required. There also would be other special temporary work space requirements at the beginning of each construction spread for staging of construction equipment. Because a relatively level work space would be needed for trenching equipment, ROW widths could exceed typical conditions in steep areas, or in areas of excessive side slopes. ALTERNATIVES PAGE 2-78 The operational ROW width would be 50 feet, with the exception of pump stations and scraper stations. 2.3.24 Access Roads, Airstrips, and Heliports Temporary roads would be required in some areas to gain access to stream crossings and other sections of the ROW inaccessible from either end of current working segments. Existing access roads would be used wherever available. If temporary access roads were required, the routes would be chosen and constructed using the following criteria. Clearing -- Trees and heavy brush would be cut and removed in a manner that would not disturb the surrounding vegetative mat. Activities that create severe hydraulic and thermal erosion and rehabilitation problems would be avoided, if practicable. In areas where surface vehicles might disturb the vegetative cover to the point of exposing soils and creating hydraulic and thermal erosion, vehicle use would be strictly controlled, and revegetation efforts would be specified to mitigate disturbances. Seasonal Considerations -- One of the primary considerations used in determining an area’s sensitivity would be whether a construction activity would occur when the land surface was frozen or unfrozen. Identification of sensitivities would differentiate between winter and summer activity periods. Areas would be considered sensitive to disturbance if organic layers, vegetative ground covers, and shrub layers would be removed during trafficking to the extent that soils would be exposed. Winter construction conditions would be defined as the period after the first 12 inches of the surface layer have frozen, until the surface layer begins to thaw the following spring. The winter season could be accelerated by using ice roads. Summer construction would apply to the remaining period, from the initiation of spring thaw to the point when the top 12 inches of the surface layer froze the following autumn. July 29, 1993 PAGE 2-79 Summer Activity -- During summer, access routes would avoid, if possible: Wetland Areas (black spruce bogs, marshes and wet tundra communities) -- In these areas, even the most discriminate use of vehicles might disturb the vegetative cover and expose ares of permafrost, ice lenses, and ice-rich soils, leading to problems of thermal erosion and habitat degradation. Also, because of high moisture levels, these areas probably would be impassable to most surface vehicles. Slopes in Excess of 10 Percent -- With careful operation, tracked vehicles can usually traverse slopes of 10% or less without tearing into the organic mat and vegetative cover. On slopes in excess of 10%, however, slipping of tracks and ripping of the organic mat is more common. These areas would be considered susceptible to surface disturbances and to hydraulic erosion. Also, in many cases they would be impassable to all but tracked vehicles. Disturbance of insulative vegetative and the organic layer on slopes could lead to hydraulic and thermal erosion problems which could be very difficult to control and correct. Winter Activity -- During winter, the frozen surface and subsurface layers in most areas would allow environmentally safe access to and along the pipeline ROW, assuming the vegetative layer was not removed or severely disturbed, and that stream banks were not cut. The following areas, however, would not be traversed. Slopes in Excess of 10 Percent: These areas probably would be impassable to all but tracked vehicles, even in winter. If attempts were made to traverse these areas by tracked vehicles, the vegetative cover probably would be severely disturbed. This would lead to the same erosion and subsequent control and revegetation problems discussed under summer activities. Access roads would not be built in areas with slopes in excess of 10 percent. ALTERNATIVES PAGE 2-80 Low Snow Coverage: Because of wind conditions or low snow cover, these areas would have little protection from damage by vehicular traffic. Ice roads could limit the surface impacts within these areas. Water for ice roads would be taken from sources that would not affect overwintering fish. Encroachment on Wetlands -- If encroachment of a surface-sensitive zone was required, protective measures would be taken so surface disturbance would be minimized. Mitigating measures would include, at a minimum, the following: Only trees and shrubs that physically would impede surface travel would be cut. Vehicles would drive over small trees and shrubs. Trees to be removed would be cut, leaving the roots intact, rather than be pushed over so the root masses and vegetative mats were disturbed. When access routes followed a drainage, a buffer zone of at least 100 feet would be established along the stream. When access across a stream was required, banks would not be cut. Access would be via temporary snow ramps, large timbers, or a temporary trestle bridge structure. Existing airport infrastructure would be used to support construction activities. Construction of the pipeline in the Moody Creek Valley could require helicopter support either from the Cantwell Airport or the Healy Landing Strip. All air traffic would be from existing airports, landing strips, or pipe storage yards. Short-term storage of aircraft fuel would incorporate required fuel spill containment structures. Listed below are the airports along the proposed alignment referenced on U.S. Geological Service (USGS) topographic maps. The eight airports, fourteen landing strips, and one heliport located along the preferred pipeline route, all accessible from the Parks Highway, are listed in Table 2.3.24. July 29, 1993 PAGE 2-81 Table 2.3.24 Existing Airports, Landing Strips and Heliports Airports Landin i Fairbanks International Liaho at Clear Nenana Municipal Lignite Clear Sky Healy Cantwell Denali Talkeetna Golden North at Cantwell Palmer Summit Merrill Field Talkeetna Village Anchorage International Montana Creek (Private) Rustic Wilderness (Private), Willow Heliports Shirley Lake at Willow Big Lake Igloo At Broad Pass Goose Bay Wasilla Philos at Wasilla 2.3.25 Borrow Needs and Sources Borrow needs for access roads, revetment protection, and screened aggregates for concrete would be obtained from existing commercial operators along the alignment, or would be transported to staging areas from Anchorage or Fairbanks using the Alaska Railroad or Parks Highway. Bedding and padding materials for pipe installation could come from these same sources, but would be obtained from the materials removed from the trench whenever possible. 2.3.26 Cuts and Fills Alignment profile and cross slope cuts would be required to accommodate excessive grade changes, and to allow equipment to pass through the area. Blasting would be ALTERNATIVES PAGE 2-82 used in areas requiring excavation of rock. No permanent modification to existing topography is anticipated except for operational access roads, pump station(s), and scraper stations. Small depressions that would cross the alignment would be filled temporarily to accommodate passage of construction equipment. After construction, these fills would be removed and the areas returned as near as practicable to their original contours. Earthmoving equipment such as, crawler tractor dozers, rubber-tired and crawler type hydraulic excavators, rubber-tired graders, dump trucks, rubber-tired and crawler type loaders, and percussion type drills for blasting, would be used for cut and fill operations. 2.3.27 Erosion Control Work areas would be graded and restored, as near as practicable, to the original contours of the land. Restoration would include moving fill material back into sidehill cuts. Permanent soil stabilization efforts would include construction of water bars and diversion berms (Fig. 2.3.27) along contours of disturbed areas, and revegetation of the ROW. 2.3.28 Revegetation Reseeding would be used for all of the disturbed soils along the ROW. The reseeding program would be necessary to establish vegetation to stabilize soils from hydraulic erosion. Native plants from roots and seeds eventually would propagate to the disturbed soils. Aerial application, hand seeding and hydroseeding methods would be considered wherever practical and economical. The seed variety would be determined during the detailed design phase within the requirements of the lease agreements with both public and private landholders. July 29, 1993 PAGE 2-83 - # BACKFILLED > PIPE DITCH .- OUTLET TO STABLIZED DIVERSION BERM REQUIREMENTS FOR SIDE SLOPE FIGURE 2.3.27 NOT TO SCALE 2.3.29 Surface Disturbance Surface disturbances would be restricted to the easements granted for the construction and permanent ROWs, and to the access roads required to support the construction spreads and the specialty crews for road, railroad, and stream crossings and for tie-ins. The surface disturbances would be those associated with construction of a buried pipeline, with subsequent restoration as required by lease agreement. Construction of the proposed pipeline would involve an average of between 9.7 acres and 13.3 acres of land per mile, depending on ROW width. The cumulative total for the proposed 351-mile preferred alignment, therefore, would be between 3,400 acres and 4,700 acres. Approximately 20 miles of the proposed pipeline route would not be adjacent to ROWs for existing transportation or utility systems. Because of the steep terrain associated with the Moody Creek area and Hurricane Gulch, these 20 miles would involve up to approximately 270 acres. There could be up to 10 miles of new access roads (involving a total of approximately 25 acres) associated with the proposed Denali Pipeline Project. The pump stations, construction camps, and laydown areas would be largely on lands that have already been developed. Excluding the approximately 8 miles of the proposed pipeline ROW in Knik Arm, the pipeline and access roads would involve a total of between approximately 3,390 to 4,685 acres of vegetation and freshwater streams. July 29, 1993 PAGE 2-85 2.3.30 Tanker Trucks Shippers of refined product might require movement of waste petroleum products from the shipper’s storage tanks at the Port of Anchorage via the Parks Highway back to the North Pole refineries for reprocessing (see Section 2.3.4). The volume of waste products would vary depending on several factors; however, no more than three single-tanker trucks per week would be needed to move waste products between Anchorage and North Pole. Waste products could be sold in Anchorage as a blending stock for other fuels, thus eliminating the requirement to transport waste products back to the North Pole refineries. It is possible that the volumes might be such that periodic movement by rail could be economically viable as an alternative to trucking. 2.3.31 Design Life The pipeline would be designed for a minimum service life of approximately 50 years, with a probable longer actual life. The pipeline would be capable of modification for transportation of crude oil, natural gas, or other products required by demands and markets. With modifications the products could flow south to Anchorage or north to Fairbanks. 2.3.32 Operation and Maintenance Pipeline control systems would protect the pipeline and equipment by monitoring and adjusting pressure and other operating variables, providing alarms when limits of operating conditions were exceeded, scheduling the shipment and delivery of different products, monitoring machinery performance and wear, controlling pressure surges in the pipeline, and detecting leaks. The primary goal of a pipeline control system is to obtain the highest throughput at the lowest cost without exceeding pressure limits ALTERNATIVES PAGE 2-86 in the system, and to deliver the required product volumes to the customer on schedule. Leak detection is an important part of the pipeline operation. Early detections of leaks would greatly reduce the loss of product and the danger of pollution. One of the most important functions of the pipeline operation would be to schedule the volumes for each product transported by the pipeline to ensure delivery to the customer at the desired time. DPLC could serve a shipper with a variety of products, requiring frequent changes in flow and operating conditions. The assignment of shipment and delivery times would be done quickly by computer, which also would calculate the hydraulic rates at which the products would move through the pipeline. Hydraulic rates would be a function of pump configuration, product mix, and line characteristics. The scheduling system would examine various pump configurations and choose the one that moved the product within the desired timeframe while minimizing the cost of power. Another important operating function of the Denali Pipeline would be to record the passage of the interfaces between two products, or batches. This capability would be necessary to provide accurate measurement of the volume of each product shipped. The interfaces would be located by measuring the difference in fluid properties with a densitometer or a sonic interface detector. Pipeline pigs would be used for both periodic cleaning and inspection of the pipeline. Differential pressure required to move a pig through the pipeline would overcome the friction of the pig against the inside wall of the pipe. The force required would depend on elevation changes in the pipeline, friction between the pig and the pipe wall, and the amount of lubrication available in the line. Pig velocity would be relatively constant at about the same velocity as the fluid in the pipeline. Cups around the pig would be designed to seal against the wall by making them 1/16 to 1/8 inch larger July 29, 1993 PAGE 2-87 than the inside diameter of the pipe. As the cups became worn, the amount of product "blow-by" would increase because the seal would not be as effective. Pig launchers and receivers would be required to introduce and retrieve a pig from the pipeline. DPLC intends to space pig launcher and receiver stations ("Scraper traps") at approximately 100-mile intervals along the alignment, and at each pump station. Other maintenance operations would involve the checking and operation of valves, corrosion monitoring and protection, monitoring of digging activities along the alignment and surveillance, spill contingency planning, and maintenance of the ROW as required by lease agreements. 2.3.33 Spill and Leak Prevention and Containment Prevention of spills and leaks would be a primary objective in the design, construction, and operation of the Denali Pipeline. There are three basic aspects of a spill prevention and containment program: operational prevention during construction and operation, contingency planning, and training. Construction Procedures Construction procedures would use standard spill prevention and fuel storage methods typically used for other construction projects in Alaska. Fuels would be handled and stored in accord with ADEC requirements. Spills would be contained, reported, and cleaned-up. Operating Procedures Operating procedures would be designed to minimize the risk of product loss through leakage or rupture of the pipeline system. The pipeline would utilize the best ALTERNATIVES PAGE 2-88 available, proven, leak detection equipment and methods at all pumping and receiving stations. Any future intermediate taps would require similar equipment. In addition, the pipeline would be immediately shut down following either low or high pressure indications. A qualified operator would be on continuous duty at the origin and the terminus of the pipeline. If any unusual situation occurs, the operations manager on duty would then be alerted. The pipeline would be patrolled on a weekly basis by aircraft unless precluded by weather and safety conditions. Any leaks would normally be detected as a discoloration of the soil or snow, as a degradation or discoloration of the vegetation, or as a floating film on nearby water. Corrosion of the pipeline may be detected through the use of "smart pigging" devices. In addition to valves, instrumentation, and monitoring of the pipeline system by DPLC, the location of the system in a major transportation corridor between Fairbanks and North Pole would enhance the probability of early discovery of any leaks. Spill Contingency Plan A contingency plan is needed for effective, efficient, prompt, and aggressive response to a petroleum pipeline emergency. Denali Pipeline Company would ensure that appropriate staff members were organized, trained and equipped for all spill situations. Initial response after detection of a spill would be to contain and minimize the effects of the spill. This would be followed by activities directed at recovery of the spilled product, cleanup of the affected ares, disposal of recovered product, and restoration of the spill-effected environment. The purpose of these activities would be to mitigate adverse impacts of the released products on people, property, and the natural environment. July 29, 1993 PAGE 2-89 Environmental conditions, such as adverse weather, could limit spill containment efforts. In these adverse conditions, containment efforts could pose greater environmental risks than allowing the discharge to temporarily spread. Circumstances such as weather, or the breakup of ice on a large river, could create situations in which containment activities would be futile. The risk of injury to people, or damage to fish, wildlife and their habitats, are factors which would be considered in determining the course of spill response actions. The objective of the spill contingency plan would be to prevent and mitigate damage to the environment, and to protect the public and personnel employed in the event of a product spill. To accomplish these objectives, resources would be organized in a preplanned manner to provide rapid response. Planning would include the best available technology in selecting spill containment and cleanup equipment. The spill contingency plan would be prepared in accordance with the guidelines promulgated in the State of Alaska Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Control Regulations (18 AAC 75), and distributed to supervisory, operating, contractor and agency personnel. The plan would define specific initial response actions to: a Assign supervisory personnel responsibility sl Initiate reconnaissance actions to determine the exact location and extent of a spill, and type of refined product released * Initiate control actions to minimize the spread of a spill, and to attempt to prevent products from reaching previously identified sensitive areas * Initiate appropriate containment, cleanup and recovery actions for a product spill ALTERNATIVES PAGE 2-90 Preplanned responses covering prescribed reconnaissance, operations, control, and support actions would be delineated for individual segments of the pipeline alignment to ensure rapid response to a product spill. The preplanned responses would also require coordination with public Emergency/Spill Response Agencies and any response contractors that are an integral part of the response effort. Although the initial response actions would be preplanned, they would always be subject to review and modification by the senior on-scene person at the time of an actual spill. All actions taken after the initial response would be controlled by the judgement of the most qualified on-scene person. The spill situations that would activate the Spill Contingency Plan include: * A report by pipeline or contractor personnel of a visual sighting while conducting routine surveillance and/or maintenance * A confirmed visual sighting reported by a third party * A monitored indication of a product loss by the operation control center The operation control center supervisor would initiate additional assessment procedures, if necessary, to assist in determining the appropriate degree of response. The operation supervisor, in cooperation with the incident commander, would call out additional response, advisory, and support crisis management team members, as needed to implement the various response actions. Training Periodic training and field exercises would be carried out at the Anchorage facility, North Pole facility, intermediate pump stations, intermediate scraper stations, and at July 29, 1993 PAGE 2-91 locations along the pipeline to maintain familiarity with all aspects of the plan. The objective of this training program would be to: ® Ensure that product spill response personnel were ready to handle foreseeable spill emergencies * Maintain the contingency plan as a fully operable working document = Ensure worker familiarity with the use of spill containment equipment * Revise the plan on the basis of information gained from the field exercises Periodic communication and company-wide field exercises would be held to ensure overall readiness for response to product spills, and to verify the effectiveness of the plan. Contingency Plans Initial spill response actions would be those which could be planned in advance. The specific extent, location, and type of actions would depend on the nature of the spill, the response resources available, and on the judgment of the response personnel. The pipeline and contractor personnel that are assigned spill response positions would have a thorough knowledge of the contingency plan objectives. A specific contingency plan would be developed for each contingency area, showing primary containment sites designed to minimize damage to sensitive areas. Depending on the magnitude of the spill and environmental conditions, on-scene response personnel might be required to devise additional containment measures and locations. ALTERNATIVES PAGE 2-92 Contingency Areas The proposed pipeline would traverse two major drainage basins (Tanana and Susitna) which are further subdivided into the Tanana and Nenana (Tanana River Basin) and Chulitna, Susitna and Little Susitna Rivers (Susitna River Basin). The pipeline would cross many tributaries to these major rivers along its alignment. A contingency area would be a part of one of these major drainage basins that could be affected by a spill within that area. To facilitate spill response organization, spill contingency plans would address nine contingency areas. Following is a description of these nine areas, including the major waterways within each. 1. Tanana River -- (North Pole to Cripple Creek) The pipeline alignment in this area would be along north of the Tanana River Flood Control Levee. The levee would be the initial containment structure for any spill. 2. Chena Ridge -- (Cripple Creek, Alder Creek, Bonanza Creek, Little Goldstream Creek) A spill generally would move towards the Chena or Tanana rivers, either by overland flow or through a tributary. The steep gradient of these streams would shorten the travel time of a spill to the receiving waters of streams and/or rivers. A spill could be intersected along these drainages prior to entering either river. The expected spill travel time, and its proximity to Fairbanks, would require the containment resources to be located in the Fairbanks/North Pole area. July 29, 1993 PAGE 2-93 3. Lower Nenana River -- (Fish Creek, Julius Creek, Nenana River, Birch Creek, Bear Creek, June Creek, Rock Creek, Slate Creek, Little Panguingue Creek, Panguingue Creek, Dry Creek) The area from Nenana to Rex is relatively flat. A spill would be localized within this area because of the flat topography and relatively long distance between the pipeline system and the Nenana river. The area from Rex to Healy increases in gradient, and the proximity of the proposed alignment to the Nenana river would quicken the travel time for a spill to the river. The Parks Highway and the Alaska Railroad embankments would provide initial containment structures for any spills. Culverts and bridges across streams and the Nenana River also would serve as containment sites. 4. Moody Creek -- (Moody Creek) The pipeline would be located next to Moody Creek. Containment of a spill would be restricted to the mouth of Moody Creek at Healy Creek just south of Healy. A spill during high water events such as spring runoff, could make localized containment impractical in this area. The alignment in Moody Creek Valley could include some berming to channel a spill to a catchment basin, thus reducing the potential for a spill to reach Moody Creek quickly. 5. Upper Nenana River -- (Montana Creek, Yanert River, Carlo Creek, Slime Creek, Nenana River, Jack River, Cantwell Creek) The pipeline would be located near the AEA Intertie ROW until moving to a highway alignment at crossing the Nenana River near Mile Post 156. From there southward, the alignment would continue in the highway right of way until crossing the Middle Fork of the Chulitna River near Mile Post 185. The Parks Highway, generally located between the alignment and the Nenana River, would provide initial spill containment ALTERNATIVES PAGE 2-94 and good access to a spill site. The cross slope profiles in this area are relatively flat, which would slow the travel time of any overland spills moving toward the Nenana River. 6. Chulitna River -- (Middle Fork, Coal Creek, Fourth of July Creek, East Fork, Hardage Creek, Antimony Creek, Honolulu Creek, Little Honolulu Creek, Hurricane Gulch, Granite Creek, Division Creek, Pass Creek, Little Coal Creek, Horseshoe Creek, Byers Creek, Troublesome Creek, Chulitna River, Trapper Creek) The deep drainages of Hurricane and Little Coal Creeks would quicken the travel time of a spill to the Chulitna River. Stream gradients in this area, however, generally are lower and would slow travel time for a spill. Use of culvert dams and other spill containment techniques would be appropriate in this area. The check valve locations in the pipeline would reduce spillage to localized areas in the event of a leak. 7. Susitna River -- (Sawmill Creek, Rabideau Creek, Susitna River, Little Montana Creek, Montana Creek, Goose Creek, Sheep Creek, Caswell Creek, Kashwitna River, 197-1/2 Mile Creek, 196 Mile Creek, Little Willow Creek, and Willow Creek) The increased travel time for a spill due to flat topography should provide sufficient time for initial response actions. The existing barriers of the highway and railroad embankments would act as containment structures, by directing the released product to culverts or bridges for interception and cleanup. July 29, 1993 PAGE 2-95 8. Little Susitna River -- (Lilly Creek, Nancy Lake, Nancy Lake Creek, Little Susitna river) Slower travel times due to flat topography would assist in keeping spills from reaching important anadromous fish habitat. The existing barriers of roads within the area also would assist in spill containment. 9. Knik Arm (Freshwater) -- (Little Meadow Creek, Lucille Creek, Fish Creek, Goose Creek, Mule Creek). Slower travel times due to flat topography would assist in keeping spills from spreading quickly. 10. Knik Arm (Marine) -- Actual waters of Knik Arm. The initial response to a spill within Knik Arm itself would be automatic shutdown of the pipeline followed by cleanup. During winter periods when heavy ice would be present, spill response would be limited to shore-based activities. Pipeline Failures Sudden leakage generally would be a result of damage to the pipeline caused by external mechanical damage, unsound pipeline operations, defective pipe materials, or excessive stress loadings associated with environmental occurrences such as mass wasting or an earthquake. Long-term leakage would generally result from pipe corrosion, both external and internal, or defective construction. Sudden loss of products from pipeline rupture would cause a pressure surge detectable at a pump station. The surge would upset the station suction pressure- ALTERNATIVES PAGE 2-96 control switch, resulting in a rapid shutdown of the pump station. Small leaks, caused by long-term corrosion, would be less evident than a sudden rupture. Following is a description of four major types of pipeline failures. 1. Mechanical Damage -- The most common cause of sudden volume loss is by heavy equipment puncturing the pipeline while conducting excavation work. The pipeline would be located within ROW currently in use by other utilities and roadways. There would be potential for maintenance and expansion of these utility and road ROWs that would involve heavy equipment. The Knik Arm crossing would have the added potential of mechanical damage from ship anchors, especially in the immediate area of the Port of Anchorage. It is an established practice for ships to use the strong currents and a pivot anchor for turning. The proposed pipeline crossing would be located upstream of established ship channels, dramatically reducing this potential for mechanical damage. 2. Pipeline Operations -- The operators could have the potential to overload a section of pipe by closing valves too quickly, causing increased pressure surges above the rating of the pipe. The block valves are designed and operated to closed slowly to eliminate the potential for sudden pressure overloading of the pipeline. In addition, the motor operated valves and pump starters would be timed to avoid pressure surges. 3. Defective pipe material -- Careful quality control and quality assurance programs developed during design, manufacturing, construction and pressure testing, would eliminate faulty pipe materials and construction techniques. Sudden product loss from the pipeline by defective pipe materials can be virtually eliminated through these programs. July 29, 1993 PAGE 2-97 4. Geological related failures -- Earthquakes and related lateral soil movements at fault zones, stream scouring, liquidification of unstable slopes during earthquakes, and pipeline movements caused by thawing permafrost, are examples of geological events which could lead to geological-related failures. Geological-related failures would be minimized by appropriate design standards during the detailed design process. Fault line shear movements could result in a sudden rupture of the pipeline. The small diameter of the pipeline and the allowance for movement of pipe within these zones should eliminate the potential for sudden rupture. Pipelines would cross streams below scour depths as determined by bottom soil composition and stream crossing analyses. Spill Potential Check valves would be located to reduce the maximum amount of refined product spilled at all sensitive locations. Following such a rupture, the monitoring system immediately would detect the leak, sound an alarm, and commence automatic shutdown procedures. Estimates of product loss are dependent upon actual pipeline elevations and topography, static pipeline pressures, distance from the nearest valves, and product vapor pressures. The estimated spill volumes discussed herein should be reduced during the final design process. The estimated potential volume loss from sudden rupture of the pipeline is as follows: Sudden Leaks - These would not exceed 100 to 150 barrels (4,200 to 6,300 gallons) prior to detection and pipeline shutdown. ALTERNATIVES PAGE 2-98 Following a rupture, the small diameter of the pipe would reduce the magnitude of the overall size of a spill. During the detailed pipeline design process, the spill potential for each contingency area would be assessed, and the potential of large spills would be restricted through the use of check valves and automatic closure options. Maximum Product Loss - The estimated worst case loss throughout the entire pipeline has been estimated to be in the range of 1,000 to 2,000 bbls (42,000 to 84,000 gallons), which includes a one-hour time period for closure of valves. By comparison, the realistic maximum spill size for the TAPS is estimated in the 4,000 barrels range, with no spillage beyond 16,000 barrels. The above volumes for static drainage from the proposed pipeline are very conservative, and would occur only under worst case conditions, and with limited protective measures. Spill Transport A spill in locations other that rivers, streams, and Knik Arm, normally would be restricted to a relatively small area. In areas other than the rivers, streams, and Knik Arm, the products would be released into some combination of the marshes, lakes and ponds, and dry land bordering the pipeline. In any of these spill conditions, the product would be contained naturally by such barriers as sand, silt, gravel, vegetation, ice and snow. The greatest potential for spread of spilled product would be at river and stream crossings. These would be protected by block and check valves to reduce the volume of product that may be released into a receiving stream or river. A rupture or leakage under Knik Arm would result in the immediate movement of product into the waters of Cook Inlet. Knik Arm would be protected in a similar manner to river crossings with block and check valves. July 29, 1993 PAGE 2-99 During periods of heavy ice cover on streams and ice movements within Knik Arm, a spill might become trapped between pieces of ice. The residence time of the product would be increased because of the thicker concentrations of the product and reduced rates of evaporation and dispersion. Under such conditions, the product would be less likely to be transported onshore, and certain spill control measures could actually be enhanced (e.g., use of in-situ burning). Contingency Response Organization A product spill contingency response organization would be established and trained before the pipeline would be commissioned. Large spills could involve contracted equipment and personal services to supplement DPLC capabilities. The constituent parts of the DPLC organization are discussed below: Incident Commander -- The Incident Commander would have the authority to obtain company and contractor support personnel and the resources required to respond to the spill, based on the magnitude of the spill. Each contingency area would have a detailed contingency plan for that particular area. The Incident Commander would implement the appropriate contingency plan, coordinate with public response agencies, exercise operational authority over Denali Pipeline Company resources, coordinate and execute the plan for ongoing oil spill activities, and receive and disseminate information dealing with the response and containment activities. Operations Manager -- This position would be responsible for overall field actions in support of the Incident Commander. This person would be further responsible for seeing that all the pump station and area personnel are properly assigned for emergency duties, and for taking initial actions according to the plan. ALTERNATIVES PAGE 2-100 Crisis Management Team -- The Incident Commander would alert a previously designated crisis management team according to the type of product released and the size of the spill. The team would be divided into five functional areas: command, operations, plans, logistics, and finance. The command, plans, logistics, and finance areas would perform staff functions. The required positions, including the Incident Commander and Operations Manager, would normally be staffed by Denali Pipeline Company personnel. The initial field response positions would be staffed by operating and maintenance personnel located in Anchorage and North Pole. In addition to providing response to oil spills within their primary assigned location, they would also be available for assistance in other locations as directed by the Incident Commandeer. Logistics would include supervisors for staging, air operation, equipment, food service, medical services, and situation planning. Operation supervisors would be individual task force leaders. Documentation personnel would track field personnel and costs related to the incident, and personnel designated as environmental team leaders would make recommendations on environmental concerns (e.g., fish and wildlife habitats). Small spills could be controlled by a few people with the proper equipment. For this reason a response team, equipped for small spills, would be part of the response organization. The response team would be trained and equipped to provide response to a small spill. If the initial response team was unable to handle a spill completely, it would notify the Operations Manager, and take actions to protect sensitive areas and initiate specified intermediate containment until additional containment help arrived. The Operations Manager would notify the designated Incident Commander of the containment and cleanup efforts. The Incident Commander would call on outside resources as necessary. July 29, 1993 PAGE 2-101 If a spill was visually detected, the Operation Manager would be notified. The operation manager would initiate the procedures to notify the government agencies that a spill had occurred. The Incident Commander would initiate appropriate response actions and take over direction of the emergency. The Incident Commander would also activate the reconnaissance teams. Weather and daylight hours permitting, the reconnaissance teams would consist of both ground and air personnel. Aerial support would normally be a requirement for initial response for a majority of the pipeline system. Both aerial and ground reconnaissance would be used concurrently, when possible. If visibility conditions prohibited aircraft use, ground reconnaissance only would be used. Reconnaissance would continue until the leak was found or the Operations Manager confirmed that there was no leak. The ground reconnaissance crew would be equipped with a spill response box containing hand tools, sorbents, etc., so that if a leak was discovered, preliminary spill control could be undertaken. A reconnaissance supervisor would determine the location of any aircraft and ground vehicles in the area, assess local weather conditions, and initiate a reconnaissance plan based on the circumstances. Communications would be maintained between the operation control center and reconnaissance crews at all times to assure all portions of a particular alert were covered. Containment Site Selection Criteria Preplanned spill containment sites would be an essential component of the contingency plan. Every spill would pose a different situation depending on many conditions such as water levels, time of year, product spilled, location, etc. The presence of a preplanned containment site does not necessarily mean that ALTERNATIVES PAGE 2-102 containment efforts would take place at that exact site. Equipment might be better deployed at different locations depending on the exact conditions at that time. Following is a discussion of some containment site selection criteria. River/Stream Characteristics -- The selection of containment sites within drainages would consider the range of stream characteristics during each season of the year. Availability of access, presence of adequate topography for working conditions, storage area for oil removed from the water, and environmental factors would be considered. Existing Structures -- The presence of existing structures such as roads, Culverts, and railroad embankments within the south-central transportation corridor would provide excellent containment structures. Topography -- The presence of topographic features, such as depressions or old moraine ridges, would lend themselves to the construction of containment sites. Access and Sensitive Areas -- These would be critical in determining the location of potential containment sites. Seasonal restrictions on modes of access, ground transportation routes, and constraints arising from the presence of sensitive cultural, biological, soil, and topographical areas, would limit both the choice of access and location of containment sites. (Section 2.3.24 Access Roads, Airstrips, and Heliports). Potential Spill Volume -- The proposed containment sites must be able to hold a potentially large spill volume to ensure that the site is acceptable for the containment and subsequent cleanup, and disposal of the released product. July 29, 1993 PAGE 2-103 Product Type -- The physical characteristic of the product(s) spilled would determine the appropriate actions for containment. Refined products have high volatility resulting in rapid evaporation of product to the air, and present the potential for accidental fires. Refined products would seldom settle below the water surface, thereby simplifying cleanup procedures. A rapid reduction in the volume of a spill could be anticipated under ideal conditions of strong winds and warm temperatures. Snow and ice conditions would slow evaporation of the product, but would have the added benefit of enhancing containment. Response Time -- This would be a consideration in the selection of the containment sites. Containment of a spill at a well-placed site would be more critical than trying to intercept the leading edge of a spill in all instances. Each contingency area would have differing response times based on the hydrology and topography of the area. Containment Methods There are seven basic techniques which, when used singularly or in combination, can help limit the spread of a spill, or exclude it from sensitive areas. These are dams, berms (dikes), culvert blocking, interception barriers, booming, sorbents, and trash fences. Because some of these techniques involve removal or disturbance of vegetative cover, it must be remembered that many of the soils along the pipeline route are sensitive, and surface disturbance during the unfrozen parts of the year can cause thermal erosion in areas between North Pole and Healy, and hydraulic erosion on slopes. In order for any containment technique to be effective, it is essential that the product be stored or removed from behind the containment or diversion device. The area to which a spill would be diverted must be capable of storing all the product, or the product must be periodically removed from the containment area as a part of the ALTERNATIVES PAGE 2-104 approved response. The same restrictions would hold for spilled products being stored upslope from a containment device or structure. Following are descriptions of a number of spill containment devices. Figures 2.33-1 through 2.3.33-9 illustrate many of those devices. Dams -- There are two types of dams; blocking dams for drainage courses that have little or no water flow, and underflow dams for waterways with higher stream flows. The dam structure provides storage for the spilled product and would restrict the spread of the product. Water contained by adam could be pumped over the blocking dam, or pass through the dam with piping in the case of underflow dams. Berms -- Berms would be constructed to control flow of product by diversion or overflow. Berms could be constructed from nearby materials. In winter, if there was sufficient snow, snow could be used for berm construction. Diversion Berm -- Diversion berms would be constructed in short sections in waterways, and connected with short pieces of boom. The intent of these structures would be to divert product to a containment pit, or side channel, for storage. Overflow Berm -- An overflow berm would reduce water velocity by widening and deepening a stream. Overflow berms must be constructed across the entire channel. The excavation of material from the upstream side of the berm would create a pool where stream flow would be retarded, subsequently permitting boom deployment and the removal of the spilled product upstream of the berm. Land Berms -- Berms built on land would act as a barrier to product flows. These could be used to divert the flow in a different direction to protect sensitive areas. July 29, 1993 PAGE 2-105 Culvert Blocking -- Blocking culverts would be an important part of an overall contingency plan because the pipeline routing parallels the George Parks Highway, Alaska Railroad, and secondary roads along most of the routing. There are several ways to block culverts including earthen materials, sand bags or sheets of plywood over the end of a culvert. Culverts that contained flowing water that would be blocked, might require installation of an underflow device or a pump or siphon to remove impounded water. Intercept Barriers -- Intercept barriers would consist of trenches, ditches and sheets of metal or plywood to intercept subsurface flow of a spilled product. Booming -- Boom deployment would be used to block and divert product to a collection point. Booms deployed across a waterway usually would contain the flow of product if current velocity was less that 1 knot (1.7 fps). On rivers and streams with high velocity, several booms would be required to divert products to slower velocity areas. Sorbents -- Sorbents would be used whenever mechanical skimming/suction devices could not be used or were unavailable. Sorbents would not be used on water unless there was a definite way to recover them. Sorbents are a practical approach for handling small spills on water. Trash Fences -- Trash fences could be used whenever stream depth or configuration render dams, berms, or boom impractical. Fences could be constructed quickly with stakes, wire mesh, and sorbent material. The mesh would hold the sorbent materials while allowing water to pass. Spilled products approaching a floodplain should be blocked at the point of entry (contained within the drainage course). This would be particularly important during ALTERNATIVES PAGE 2-106 spring breakup. Berms should be constructed between the spill and the main river channel. Underflow devices might be used if there was water flow. Diversion berms could be built to direct a spill to a floodplain feature (side channel, abandoned meander or channel, oxbow or oxbow lake, or excavated diversion pit). A spill on a main river channel would be difficult to contain, but could be treated in several ways. During periods of high stream flow and velocity, a series of diversion berms and booms could be used, diverting the spill to a containment pit or floodplain feature. The usefulness of booms on fast-flowing, large rivers would be limited, however, they could be deployed in containment pits, upstream from natural or created pools, and near sandbars. Little could be done to recover a spill in main river channels during a period of freezup or breakup. Mobilization of personnel and materials to a spill site many miles from a safe haven during bad weather, with the additional possibility of equipment malfunction, could lead to injury or death. Likewise, the usual procedure of containing a spill at or near its source might, in the event of a highly flammable spill, result in unnecessary exposure of people and property to fire and explosion. There are situations in which it is clearly more desirable to route a flammable product away from its spill source. Each spill category (size, location, and product) would have a preplanned response to avoid undue risk to human life or property. July 29, 1993 PAGE 2-107 VALVED PIPE(S) OF ADEQUATE CAPACITY TO BY-PASS WATER OIL LAYER WATER FLOW OF STREAM OR SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE IS BY-PASSED TO MAINTAIN RESERVOIR LEVEL. PRODUCT IS SKIMMED OFF OR ABSORBED AS CONDITIONS DICTATE. CREST OF DAM SHOULD BE OF SUFFICIENT WIDTH TO ACCOMODATE COMPACTION VEHICLE. HEIGHT OF FILL IS 2 TO 3 FEET ABOVE FLUID LEVEL. NORMAL FALL ANGLE OF FILL WILL SUFFICE FOR SLOPING. WATER BY-PASS DAM C(VALVED PIPE) OIL LAYER (= i Lie ty | EARTH FILL i Iniieeseliee WATER FLOW OF STREAM IS BY-PASSED TO MAINTAIN RESERVOIR LEVEL. ELEVATE DISCHARGE END OF TUBE(S) TO DESIRED RESERVOIR LEVEL. WATER BY-PASS DAM CINCLINED TUBE) OVERFLOW BERM SKIMMER TOP VIEW OIL SKIMMER PRODUCT LAYER OVERFLOW BERM OVERFLOW BERM OIL SKIMMER COLLECTION ¢ < 3 < = = 1% 3 0 & 3 2 2 FLOW THIS REPRESENTS A SERIES OF DIVERSION BERMS JOINED BY BOOMS. THEY ARE POSITIONED SO THAT A SPILL CAN BE DIVERTED TO A LOCATION WITH ADEQUATE STORAGE AND ACCESSABILITY TO REMOVAL EQUIPMENT. IF STREAM AND SPILL CONDITIONS PERMIT, ONE BERM MAY BE ALL THAT IS REQUIRED. DIVERSION BOOMS FIGURE 2.3.33-4 SAND BAGS PLYWOOD SHEET THE BLOCKING DEVICES SHOULD BE COVERED WITH EARTHEN MATERIALS. CULVERT BLOCKING NOT TO SCALE FIGURE 2.3.33-5 COLLECTION POINT DIVERSION-RIVER SUMMER) ANCHOR COLLECTION POINT Q é 2 0 0 0 2 Q My] oc w 2 q FIGURE 2.3.33-6 NOT TO SCALE OIL SLICK COLLECTION AREA SPILL SOURC ee ie RETAINER BOOM (ALLOW OIL TO BE RELEASED AND SENT DOWN TO FIREBOOM AT INTERVALS TO PREVENT OVER-ACCUMULATION AT FIREBOOM) 3 - CASCADING BOOMS TIE POINT,—~ TYPICAL - ANCHOR, TYPICAL _~ OIL BURN 4 \. CLEAR BRUSH ac -FIREBOOM FIREBOOMING METHOD FIGURE 2.3.33-8 So SRSA) SOK PSC ROg eo) OSCR RSS PCOS SK 505¢ NOT TO SCALE y | Ww O 2 Ww uw F 2 Ww o a 0 1) TRASH FENCE CHAMFER ICE. REMOVED TO CONSTRUCT SLOT SHOULD BE PLACED ON UPSTREAM SIDE OF THE SLOT SO THAT IT DOES NOT IMPEDE OIL FLOW 7° STEEL PLATE PITONS~_> e> = Slistier Oe = B. NATURAL HIGHPOINT c. AR . ae \ y “PRODUCT . RIVER BANK REMOVAL OF OIL SLICK FROM UNDER ICE LAYER/RIVER 2.3.34 Construction Employment The general construction period would last approximately 18 months. The construction schedule includes an initial period of 6 months for site preparation, followed by 12 months of pipeline installation (see Section 2.3.44 [Schedule and Construction Sequences]). The average number of construction workers during site preparation would be approximately 70. Pipeline installation would employ directly an average of 400 workers, with peak employment of 700. Additional construction- related employment would include worker camp labor and logistical support (e.g., helicopters, material deliveries, contract labor for maintenance). This additional employment would average approximately 25 for the duration of construction. Workers would likely work a schedule of 6 days per week, 10 hours per day. Table 2.3.34 presents a breakdown of work categories, an estimate of the percentage of Alaskans that would be hired in each, and the estimated corresponding hours of labor expected for the proposed project. Table 2.3.34 Estimated Project Total and Local Hire Estimated Local Hire Estimated Worker-Months Local Hire Worker-Months Description Hours (@ 260 Hours) (Percent) (@ 260 Hours) Engineering/mgmt. 230,000 1,329' 70 931! Laborers 390,000 1,500 80 1,200 Equipment operators 350,000 1,346 60 808 Drivers 240,000 923 80 738 Pipe layers 440,000 1,692 40 677 Support staff 170,000 654 50 327 Total 1,820,000 7,445 Avg. 63 4,681 ‘ Based on 173 Hours per Month July 29, 1993 PAGE 2-117 2.3.35 Permanent Employment The proposed products pipeline, transporting several different product batches per day, would require more operational staff at its pump station(s) and receiving terminals at North Pole and Anchorage than a single product pipeline. Using a one- pump Station project scenario, the pump Station and receiving terminal would employ a manager, and two operators at each location for 24 hours per day. There could be a maintenance crew of three located at Fairbanks and Anchorage. In addition, there would be an overall pipeline management office in Anchorage employing about three workers. Table 2.3.35 Estimated Permanent Employment Description Fairbanks Anchorage Operations Y 7 Maintenance 3 3 Management ail 3 Total 11 is The proposed pipeline, therefore, could create approximately 24 permanent jobs. This would occur, however, in conjunction with job losses related to current employment with the surface transportation of the refined products. Thus, there probably would be a net reduction in permanent employment within the proposed project area. These permanent workers would live in private housing in the Fairbanks/North Pole and Anchorage areas. ALTERNATIVES PAGE 2-118 2.3.36 Construction Camps Each of the two construction spreads (see Section 2.3.44 [Construction Spreads]) would be supported by one main worker camp. Limited access to the ROW, and travel requirements to project sites, would require that workers be centrally located to increase efficiency. For the northern spread, the camp likely would be located in the vicinity of Healy. For the southern spread the camp likely would be located in the Willow area. The camps would be of modular-type construction. The typical housing complex would be a 56-worker unit consisting of seven 8-worker trailers, and one utility trailer with an enclosed walkway. A larger camp requires additional worker trailers and utility trailers combined to form a larger food service area. Camp size would not exceed accommodations for approximately 280 workers. Warehouse and shop buildings also would-be of modular-type foldaway construction. Floors would probably be precast panels. The camp units would be interconnected with covered walkways for summer and winter operations. Office trailers and housing for both contractor management and government representatives would be a part of the camp complex. All camps could be serviced with commercial electricity when readily available along the proposed route. Diesel generators would be considered only if no potential camp sites were available near a source of electricity. Commercial telephone service also would be available in the camps. Soil conditions and the temporary nature of the installations should facilitate the use of septic tank/absorption field systems for sanitary waste (Section 2.3.38). Water would be supplied from onsite wells with minimal chlorination. July 29, 1993 PAGE 2-119 2.3.37 Public and Worker Safety Public Safety One of the principal factors in the design, construction and operation of the proposed pipeline would be the safety of workers and the public. All aspects of pipeline design, construction, and operation would be in compliance with federal and state safety requirements, with added margins of safety incorporated in site-specific designs (e.g., Knik Arm crossing, stream and road crossings, etc.). A major purpose of the safety program would be to detect and abate any conditions which might cause, or threaten to cause, a hazard to the safety of pipeline workers or the public. The Materials Transportation Bureau of DOT is charged with enforcing safety requirements under the Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Act of 1979, and the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act. Hazardous liquids are defined in the regulations as petroleum, petroleum products, and anhydrous ammonia. Rules for the design, construction, and operation of liquid pipelines to ensure that they are safe are set out in 49 CFR, Part 195, Subpart D. The Denali Pipeline Project would be subject to these regulations. Regulations regarding pipe design, welding procedures, installation procedures, pressure testing, system shutdowns, and many other areas are contained in 49 CFR, Part 195. Part 190 of 49 CFR describes procedures for reporting leaks, making inspections, warning of violations and how to respond, compliance orders, and civil and criminal penalties that can be assessed for violation of the regulations. ALTERNATIVES PAGE 2-120 Regulations in 49 CFR are detailed and specific. Key subjects covered by these regulations include: Materials: Including steel pipe, marking of materials, and pipe transportation Pipe design: Design formulas, yield strength, wall thickness, and design factors for steel pipe Components: Valves, flanges, other fittings, welded components, instrumentation and control equipment, pressure relief and pressure limiting devices, and others Welds: Qualification of welding procedures and welders, preparation for welding, preheating, stress relieving, inspection, testing and repair Corrosion: External corrosion control methods, monitoring, inspection; internal corrosion control and atmospheric corrosion control Other: Other regulations address accident reporting, construction, hydrostatic testing, and operation and maintenance Worker Safety Worker safety would be a priority of the construction contractor. Safety procedures would be rigidly adhered to because of the sometimes remote construction areas of the Denali Pipeline Project. Components of the safety program would include safety meetings, a safety officer, identification and mitigation of potential work hazards, contingency plans for medical evacuations, first-aid training, and screening of workers for remote construction. The safety program would require continuous monitoring and modification during construction to provide quick response time in case of injury. All construction practices would comply with OSHA requirements. July 29, 1993 PAGE 2-121 Accidents do not just happen, they are caused. DPLC’s accident prevention program would strive to reduce personal injuries, property damage, and excessive costs that result from job mishaps. Accident prevention guidelines proposed by DPLC would be those generally accepted in the cross county pipeline industry by experienced, knowledgeable, and safety-minded companies. Following is a list of those aspects of pipeline construction for which detailed safety procedures would be developed by DPLC before construction would begin. Cross Country Pipeline Operations Office safety & response procedures Warehouse and equipment shop Removal of structures Clearing rights of way Grading Hauling, unloading and stringing of pipe Ditching Bending Pipe and skid crew Welding Cleaning and coating of pipe field joints Road and stream crossings Lower-in and tie-in Hydrostatic testing Backfill and clean-up Miscellaneous Safety Operations General safety meetings Individual safety orientation Operation of construction equipment Operation of automotive equipment Accident procedure for vehicles Driving safety Blasting safety Tools and equipment safety Cutting and welding safety Hazard communication program Health care facilities would be located along the length of the proposed pipeline. In areas with a sizable permanent population existing health care facilities would be used. This would include North Pole, Fairbanks, Nenana, Healy, Willow/Houston, ALTERNATIVES PAGE 2-122 Wasilla, and Anchorage. Worker camps, likely to be located in the Healy and Willow areas, would contain a small health care facility and would be staffed by trained personnel to at least the emergency medical technician (EMT) level. EMTs also would be on the major construction spread teams. In case of more serious emergencies, evacuation by air would be used, by helicopter or fixed wing as appropriate, to the major hospitals in Fairbanks or Anchorage. 2.3.38 Waste Disposal Sanitary Wastes -- Sanitary wastes are presently generated all along the proposed pipeline route by people and industrial facilities. Because of low population density, disposal of such wastes is not a problem except on a local level in areas that have high water tables. There are no significant common sewage disposal sites or systems along the pipe line route except in the Fairbanks, Nenana and in Anchorage. Each dwelling, business or service center disposes of liquid wastes using individual systems. Most do so by leach fields or with individual commercial packaged sewage treatment plants (BLM/COE, 1988). Sanitary wastes generated at pipeline construction camps would be disposed of ina similar manner, with onsite septic or packaged sewage treatment systems. The expected soil conditions at construction camp sites, and the temporary nature of those facilities, should facilitate the use of septic tank/absorption field systems for sanitary waste. Portable chemical toilets would be used along the ROW during construction activities and cleaned regularly to acceptable sanitary requirements. Solid Wastes -- Solid waste disposal is presently handled in a variety of ways by different communities along the proposed pipeline corridor, primarily with the use of landfills. Combustible and putrescible solid wastes generated at pipeline construction camps, and along the alignment during pipeline installation, would be incinerated July 29, 1993 PAGE 2-123 under state air quality permits, and the ash disposed of at local landfills. At worker camps, putrescible refuse would be collected daily and stored within fenced areas until incinerated to prevent attracting wildlife, particularly bears. Noncombustible solid wastes would be taken directly to local landfills. No refuse would be disposed of on site. The relatively small quantity of solid wastes, and the low worker population, would not be expected to cause disposal problems during construction (BLM/COE, 1988). Liquid Wastes -- Liquid wastes generated by the proposed project would include domestic wastewater and filter backwash, equipment washdown, storm water runoff, and industrial wastewater. These wastes produced at the construction camps and pump stations would be treated by packaged treatment plant systems designed to meet Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) water quality criteria at the discharge point. These treatment plants would be sized and operated also to accept wastes from camp facilities as well as wastes from portable field toilets. Wastewater would probably average about 100 gallons per day per person (BLM/COE, 1988). Hazardous Wastes -- Hazardous wastes are presently generated by several entities along the proposed route, including the state highway department, schools, and small generators such as service stations and cleaners. Hazardous wastes associated with pipeline construction would include waste oil and filters from motor vehicles and heavy equipment, batteries, pipe coating, and paint thinners. Currently, there is no mechanism for storage or disposal of toxic or hazardous material in Alaska, and all such materials generated from pipeline construction would be transported to approved disposal sites in the lower 48 states. ALTERNATIVES PAGE 2-124 2.3.39 Mitigation The term "mitigation" can have several meanings in a NEPA review process. The following presents meanings under CEQ guidelines, in priority order: (a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action (b) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation (c) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment (d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action Mitigation by avoiding impacts altogether, as in (a) above, has been incorporated extensively throughout the project planning process through alteration or elimination of options or designs to avoid significant impacts. Three forms of mitigation -- (b) minimizing impacts, (c) rectifying impacts through repair, and (d) eliminating impacts over time -- are described throughout Section 2.3 (Applicant’s Preferred Alternative) and Chapter 4 (Environmental Consequences). The proposed Denali Pipeline Project has used several mitigation measures to reduce potential adverse environmental, land use, or social impacts that otherwise might occur during the construction, operation, or maintenance of the petroleum products pipeline system between North Pole and the Port of Anchorage. These mitigation measures are incorporated in the proposed project description. The measures were July 29, 1993 PAGE 2-125 developed after a careful review of the environmental and social changes resulting from the construction and operation of the ENSTAR 99-mile long, 20-inch diameter natural gas pipeline from the Beluga gas fields around Knik Arm to Anchorage that was built in 1983, and the Tesoro 10-inch diameter petroleum products pipeline from Nikiski to Anchorage, built in 1976, which included a Turnagain Arm crossing. Following are brief descriptions of some of the mitigation measures proposed by DREC: = Using existing transportation and utility corridors, where compatible with existing land and resource uses and economically feasible, to avoid establishing new ROW * Avoiding wetlands to the maximum extent feasible * Clearing only areas directly affected by project activities Chopping smaller trees and brush by hydro-ax and using chopped vegetation for erosion control, and reseeding as appropriate. Salvageable timber from public lands would be cut and made available to the public, or disposed of as directed by the appropriate authority = Scheduling winter construction for pipeline segments crossing substantial wetland areas = Scheduling construction to minimize construction-related use of the highway and railroad during the peak of the tourist season ALTERNATIVES PAGE 2-126 7 Wherever feasible and prudent, using existing access to pipeline segments . Commencing stabilization of all disturbed steam banks and slopes within 48 hours of pipe placement and final inspection of the installed pipe 7 Commencing the backfilling of the open pipeline trench within 48 hours of pipe placement and final inspection of the lowered-in pipe 7 Maintaining, to the maximum extent practicable and feasible, the existing contour of the pipeline ROW \ Minimizing the number of pipeline crossings of streams, rivers, ponds, lakes, and marine waters * Coordinating scheduling for constructing crossings of anadromous and resident fish streams with ADF&G on the basis of site specific fish information and appropriate pipeline crossing design i Scheduling fish stream crossings to avoid peak sport fishing and boating periods = Completing revegetation measures during the first growing season after surface disturbance, rechecking the following growing season to insure that stabilization and revegetation measures were effective, and taking appropriate follow up action as necessary "i Enhancing revegetation of areas cleared for pipeline construction by leaving roots in place where consistent with operation and maintenance requirements July 29, 1993 PAGE 2-127 Evaluating with ADF&G the potential of using suitable vegetation, cleared from the ROW, as a localized supplemental winter food sources for moose Storing fuel and toxic materials on upland sites at least 100 feet from any wetland, stream, or river bank Locating permanent facilities, such as pump stations that may require full time or regular staffing, near established communities Developing a pipeline metering and measuring system that provides for rapid detection of leaks and shutdown of the pipeline system Installing block valves at appropriate intervals to minimize the amount of petroleum product that could leak into an anadromous fish stream, tidelands, wetlands or filled area within a developed tidelands or wetlands zone in the event of a major system failure Developing, in cooperation with adjacent ROW holders, pipeline design and location criteria that do not impede routine operation or maintenance of existing transportation and utility systems Using an external coating of concrete in some wetlands and at some stream crossings to provide negative buoyancy, and in some areas with bedrock conditions without suitable bedding materials to prevent damage to the pipe’s external coating Maintaining minimum flows to nearby downstream fish spawning and overwintering habitat during stream crossing construction ALTERNATIVES PAGE 2-128 = Maintaining, to the maximum extent possible, existing traffic patterns on state highways, local roads, and the Alaska Railroad of Maintaining existing and planned access across the pipeline in accordance with land use plans. This would include scheduling construction bypasses, and scheduling road or railroad closures, with DOT/PF, military base commanders, the Port of Anchorage, and the Alaska Railroad to coincide with periods or times of minimum traffic. = Maintaining existing access to private property * Avoiding interruption of the Port of Anchorage operation during duration of the construction of pipeline within the area jurisdiction of the Port. The pipeline construction contractor would coordinate activities with the Port of Anchorage with the arrival, loading, unloading, and departure of ships using the dock‘and related facilities. Y Developing and implementing erosion control practices for elements of the construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed pipeline system. This would include: use of energy dissipators, rip-rap or other bank protection measures, Culverts, dikes, berms, water bars, overburden and spoil storage use and disposal, buffer areas, and ditch plugs. * Maintaining water quality at or above required standards by effective use of approved erosion control measures, containment dikes or other suitable impervious means around fuel or other hazardous substance storage areas, and collection and disposal of all waste products for disposal at approved sites July 29, 1993 PAGE 2-129 = Avoiding wildlife harassment by use of environmental briefings for all pipeline systemconstruction, operation, and maintenance workers, and scheduling work to avoid undue stress to wildlife during sensitive life-cycle periods Avoiding attraction of wildlife by careful handling and incineration of all putrescible wastes, and through worker education to highlight the dangers to humans and wildlife from feeding animals = Minimizing nonconstruction-related use of new access along the pipeline, or for access to the pipeline system bl Taking water for hydrostatic testing and for snow/ice roads during construction only from designated surface water sources * Maintaining ROW vegetation control with mechanical means rather than with herbicides or other chemicals * Assuring that blasting does not injure humans, or cause damage to adjacent property, or to fish or wildlife i Avoiding activities that have a high risk of starting a forest fire * Conducting a centerline cultural resources survey by a qualified archaeologist in areas scheduled for new disturbance prior to commencing the disturbance * Avoiding cultural resource sites. Where avoidance is not possible, evaluating sites for significance and, where required, excavating them under a plan approved by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and the American Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) ALTERNATIVES PAGE 2-130 * Scheduling construction work in Knik Arm to avoid undue impacts to marine life, and to be compatible with annual dredging at the Port of Anchorage = Coordinating work near bald eagle or peregrine falcon nests with FWS * Developing a spill prevention and containment plan emphasizing prevention = Developing a spill containment plan appropriate to each petroleum product transported in the pipeline = Inventorying areas of suspected contaminated soils and assuring that any contaminated soils discovered during pipeline construction would be stored in a manner that prevented redistribution * Developing and implementing a comprehensive quality control and quality assurance program * Developing and implementing a comprehensive environmental monitoring program that would be integrated with construction, operation, and maintenance of the pipeline system ~ Using local housing for the construction work force to the maximum extent practicable without impacting current cyclic housing demands. Any construction camps would be built on existing disturbed areas, generally near population centers. al Assuring the pipeline system has adequate cathodic protection July 29, 1993 PAGE 2-131 : Using existing sources of electrical energy for operating pump stations, and other pipeline system components, to maintain existing air quality bi Using topography, existing vegetation and/or plantings, design, and color schemes, to screen and/or blend pipeline facilities into the existing setting to the maximum extent practicable = Using Alaskan residents to the maximum extent possible for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the pipeline system * Providing a pipeline system design that permits future taps to be installed for local delivery of petroleum products when economic demand warrants 2.3.40 Quality Assurance/Quality Control DPLC would provide personnel with specific training in the establishment, implementation and execution of quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) programs. A quality control supervisor would be appointed to serve as the on-site officer to report directly to the chief operating officer (CEO) of DPLC. The overall project manager and project engineer would provide administrative and technical assistance to the quality control supervisor, and assist in the implementation of the QA/OQC program as required. Duties of the quality control supervisor would include safety, inspection and test planning, document and drawing control, a corrective action system, and material control. Staffing requirements would include quality control engineers, document control supervisors, specialized inspection personnel, material specialists, inspectors, and quality control land surveyors. ALTERNATIVES PAGE 2-132 A corrective action procedure would be developed to identify and report all deficiencies and nonconforming actions. Once identified, deficiencies and nonconformance would be investigated so that the causes could be determined and solutions developed. Deficiency reports and daily inspection reports would be maintained to document the existence of minor deficiencies and to generate punch list items. A nonconformance report would be used to document the existence of any deficiency. The quality control supervisor would notify the project manager immediately of any deficiency or nonconformance report and develop corrective action to be taken. If the project manager did not respond in a timely manner, a corrective action directive would be issued. The project manager would provide, for each such directive, a report detailing the cause of the deficiency or nonconformance, the proposed methods of repair or replacement, and the date of compliance. The quality control supervisor would assure that all deficiencies and nonconformances would be corrected in a timely manner to eliminate the possibility of defective materials or workmanship being concealed or buried, and to eliminate reoccurrence of similar deficiencies. 2.3.41 Termination Procedures for demolition, removal and restoration (DR&R) of the pipeline, pump station(s), scraper stations and other appurtenances would be established as part of the tariff rate structure at the end of the service life or termination of operations of the pipeline system. The estimated cost of DR&R would vary according to the changing uses of the pipeline facility. July 29, 1993 PAGE 2-133 Surface Structures -- Pump stations, scraper stations, storage tanks, valve structures and electrical substations would require demolition and removal. These sites would be restored as close as possible to original elevations and reseeded. Alternate uses of the structures would be a consideration at each site. Buried Pipeline -- The pipeline would be cleaned and abandoned in place. Removal of the pipeline from sensitive soils could create greater impacts than leaving the pipe in place. Abandonment would inciude a process for removing petroleum products from the pipe, cleaning the interior to acceptable standards, and filling the pipeline with water or nitrogen, if required or specified by permitting agencies. Other economical uses for the pipeline would be considered before its abandonment. 2.3.42 Rights of Way Acquisition The ROW acquisition process generally falls into two categories, depending on whether the lands are publically or privately owned. Section 3.18 describes the land ownership status along the proposed pipeline alignment. Public ownership The government entities controlling public lands generally have standard procedures for granting ROWs across their lands. If an applicant adheres to these procedures, a ROW is usually granted without undue problems. The process may require submission of detailed information, and in some cases public hearings. Federal Lands -- Federal lands in Alaska are managed by numerous land management agencies, most of which are within the U.S. Department of the Interior (chiefly the Bureau of Land Management [BLM], the National Park Service [NPS], and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS]), and the Department of Defense (Fort Wainwright and ALTERNATIVES PAGE 2-134 Clear Air Force Base). The statutory authority and the procedures for acquiring federal land interests depend on which agency is involved and on the legal status or classification of the land. In some instances, acquisition of a ROW interest is relatively straight-forward. For example, federal public lands under the authority of BLM are subject to disposition under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, which provides for the issuance of ROWs with appropriate terms and conditions. State of Alaska Lands -- The Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR) serves as the principal state land management agency. It administers statutes and regulations which provide for the sale, lease and other disposition of interest to private parties. The Alaska Right-of-Way Leasing Act (AS 38.35) was passed specifically to authorize the issuance of a ROW permit for the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) in the early 1970’s. It authorizes the issuance of a ROW lease on a noncompetitive basis (AS 38.05.020 (a)) for a primary term of up to 30 years (AS 38.05.110). As a condition to the issuance of such a lease, DNR has the authority to require that the lessee operate the pipeline as a common carrier (AS 38.05.120 (a) (1) and .122). The detailed pipeline ROW application requires information about land ownership, clearing and disposal techniques, construction methods and timing, environmental impacts and consequences, and other items as described in the permit application document. Following an affirmative preliminary decision, a 30-day public review period, and a final finding by the two DNR regional managers involved and the commissioner, a ROW survey would be required prior to actual construction. A pipeline ROW lease can be given for a maximum of 30 years, and is renewable in 10- year increments thereafter. July 29, 1993 PAGE 2-135 A successful applicant is obligated to reimburse the State for all reasonable costs incurred in processing a pipeline ROW application, and in monitoring the construction of the pipeline on the State’s ROW. An annual land rental fee would be incurred during construction, followed by an annual lease fee. The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT/PF) issues several permits relating to use of DOT/PF highway ROWs. DOT/PF has in the past asserted it’s right to issue utility permits to applicants within portions of the Parks Highway ROW that cross state lands. DOT/PF holds a ROW permit from DNR and functions as the manger for those state lands. DOT/PF also asserts the right to issue utility permits for portions of the Parks Highway ROW crossing federal, borough, and private lands, depending on the type of patent. Private ownership Private lands constitute approximately 15 percent of the preferred pipeline route as selected during the preliminary design stage. Private lands include traditional private lands, and Alaska Native corporation lands, as well as those in a form of trust Capacity. To secure easements across these private lands, DPLC representatives would arrange a meeting with each property owner along the route to discuss acquisition of an easement to permit the pipeline to be constructed across the property. Permission to survey would be obtained at that time, if needed. After an agreement was reached, DPLC would pay the owner for the easement based on local land values determined by recent sales on the area. If desired by the landowner, DPLC would also pay in advance for damages expected to occur as a result of construction (e.g., clearing of vegetation). After installation, a DPLC representative would contact each landowner to settle claims for any additional damage that may have occurred during construction. ALTERNATIVES PAGE 2-136 Property Values -- Land values along the proposed alignment are estimated at between $800 and $2,000 per acre, depending on the proximity to urban areas and related infrastructure. An average value of $1,000 per acre has been assumed for this project. ROW acquisition cost estimates were based on an assumption of 50% of land values. State lands are controlled by DNR, DOT/PF, and the Alaska Railroad. DNR’s pipeline rental would be $50 per acre during construction, and then 10 percent of appraised value of the land per year during the term of the lease. These fees would apply to the construction ROW as well as the final pipeline ROW, and to temporary access roads, storage yards, and construction camps. It would also apply to permanent ancillary facilities such as pump and scraper stations. 2.3.43 Prevention of Property Damage Damage to property would be prevented by good planning, design, and training policies. Standard pipe-laying procedures would be employed during construction (e.g., Clearly flagging the construction ROW, erecting silt fences at the edge of the ROW where needed). QA/QC inspectors would continually monitor construction to insure compliance with DPLC procedures, and operations would be modified as necessary to avoid property damage, or to alter procedures that were not working. Property damage inherent in pipeline construction is usually predictable considering the repetitious nature of small-diameter pipeline installation. During ROW negotiations for both public and private land, an assessment would be made of expected property damage, the mitigation procedures to be used during and after construction, and an estimated cost of damages would be determined. Following installation and subsequent mitigation, damages would be reassessed to determine conformance with the ROW agreement. Any additional damages would be determined, followed by additional mitigation as required, and the payment of compensation for damages if July 29, 1993 PAGE 2-137 appropriate. DPLC would have to meet financial and insurance standards before commencing construction. 2.3.44 Schedule and Construction Sequences The projected overall project schedule is as follows. Submission of applications for state ROW lease and COE 404 permit. ........ 0... eee ee ee ee eee July 26, 1993 Indication of application approvals ..............4. February 1, 1994 Initiate Mainline Pipe and Pump Procurement ......... February 1, 1994 Receive all leases and permits ...............200% October 1, 1994 Commence mobilization ........... 0.0 eee eee eee April 15, 1994 Commence pipe laying .......... 0.0 e eee eee December 1, 1994 Complete pipeline construction ..............45. October 10, 1995 Complete demobilization ........ 0.0... 0000. e eee October 31, 1995 Commence pipeline operation ......... Between May ‘95 and July ‘96 Mobilization -- Most of the equipment would be mobilized from a point in the continental U.S, with some ancillary equipment being obtained in Alaska. The volume of equipment and materials required to support the pipeline construction spreads could be moved economically via barge or by Alaska Hydrotrain to Whittier, and by the Alaska Railroad directly to the various project sites. (See Section 2.3.21 for a discussion of construction materials storage and transportation.) ALTERNATIVES PAGE 2-138 Figure 2.3.44 Construction Spread and Speciality Crew Schedule is (JAN TFEB MER [APH TRAY | [ADE ISEP OCT INOW IDET TAN TFET DS TSEP TORT INOV TET JAN TEER [NED [APH TRAY TON TUL) JALL AREAS : : : 12JAN94___ 40FEB94 CooSolictation for Long Lead Materials 44FEB94 —_30JUN94 _ ———————Procurement of Long Lead Materials ° {5APR94 — 48AUG94 . c————Tontractor Mobilization {9AUG94___ 30NOV94 a ; c——Site Preparation & Access Roads, 4DEC94 40CT95 . —*oatway/Rai lroad Borings 4DEC94__—-A0CT95 - SO — Tie-In Crews 4DEC94 40CT95 z : . ee ooo tren Crossings 340CT95 1APAQE ae ; “Pump Stations, Metering Skids, & Manifold Pipes (————————4 2APRQB JUNE oe _ _ # : _ 2, ec . _ Line Testing ——I / 4JUN96__ 24JUN96 : : : on re . : . Line Fill Co 24JUN96: ; _ . : . . Commence Operations NORTH POLE TO CRIPPLE CREEK 9s : . / . 4DEC94 4JANS5 : : so C—Spread No.4 (Winter) - Right of Way Preparation 2DEC94 SANS an _ == Spread No.4 (Winter) - Light Crews 7DEC94 40 JANS5 . . . ,C=]Spread No.4 (Winter) - Pipe Stringing & Welding 12DEC94 43 JAN95 oo : 7 oo, C— Spread No.4 (Winter) - Excavation 130EC94_ 46 JANQ5 , ‘ " [Spread No.1 (Winter) - Pipe Laying 44DEC94__ 24UANS5 : : Spread _No.t (Winter) - Backfil) & Cleanup CRIPPLE CREEK TO NENANA . . . . . {7MAY95 _23MAY95 : 2. OSpread No.4 (Summer) - Mobilization (Cripple Ck.). 24MAY95 19 JUL95 : > : . . C——Spread No.4 (Summer) - Right of Way 26MAY95 —24JUL95 . : — yo. ' . [==—spread No.4 (Summer) - Pipe Stringing 29MAY95 —_ 24JUL95 “o. / ce Soe So 8. Spread No.t (Summer) - Excavation | SOMAYOS —— 25JUL95 : a a . : Co Spread No.4 (Summer) - Pipe Laying B4MAYS5 — 26JUL95 : . : . C——Spread No.1 (Summer] - Backfill & Cleanup INENANA TO HEALY : 5JAN95 SUANS5 : ‘ OMobilization to Segment No. 3 JOJAN95 _ 22MAA95 : ‘Spread No.1 (Winter] - Right of Way 44JAN95 __ 23MAA95 oe oo. 8 C|DSpread No.{ (Winter) - Light Crew 43JAN95 27MARQ5 : : i ooo.. f | =—spread No.4 (Winter) - Pipe Stringing & Welding. 16JAN95 _ 28MARO5 : P C———Spread No.1 (Winter) - Excavation 17JAN95 _ 29MARQ5 . , C———— Spread No.4 (Winter) - Pipe Laying S7JANQS __SAPAQS . : ; - _Co———=spread_No.4 tWinter) - Backfil) & Cleanup HEALY TO BROAD PASS : . . . ‘ 20JUL95 — 30AUG95 C—Spread No.1. (Summer) - Right of Hay. 24JUL95__SSEP95 [Spread No.4. (Summer) - Light Crew Co tivity BarfEerly Dates os ONtical activity Progress Bar Associated Pipe Line Contractors (ite revi ae Tore | __ in Stace cuameuesduanananndiasaiiiccl-comeal Dota Date smangg | | Pasnning Unit: Oey Associated Pipe Line Contractors The Denali Pipeline Project CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE Project Start : 4MARG3 Primavera Systems, Inc. 3986-1990 Project Finish: 25JUN97 Figure 2.3.44 (Cont'd) Construction Spread and Speciality Crew Schedule See a (=): )- C - S [ JAN TFER TMAH [APH T WAY [UN [ JUL TAUG SEP TOCT TNOV IDET JENIFER MAR TAP [WAY TON T JUD TAUS TSEP OCT TROY TET TaN IFES TRAM [APH WAY JON TIC HEALY TO BROAD PASS - / / : | 25JUL95 4SEP95 = . . Spread No.4 (Summer) - Pipe Stringing & Welding (— 26YUL95__SSEP95__| C— Spread No.1 (Summer] - Excavation © 27 JUL95 6SEP95 Co spread No.1 (Summer) - Pipe Laying 2BJUL95 ——7SEP95 C—7Spread No.1 (Summer) - Backfill & Cleanup BROAD PASS TO HURAICANE 23MAR95 _46MAY95 . : —— = C———JSpread No,4 (Summer) - Right of Way 24MARQ5 —_47MAY9S re Ct - , C=—=spread No.4 (Summer) - Pipe Stringing & Welding 27MARQ5 —_18MAY5 ——— ee _ (= Spread No.1 (Summer] - Excavation _ , 28MARQS —_ASMAYSS = = — Ce C—— Spread No.4 (Summer) - Pipe Laying | [29MAROS — 22MAYSS C——Spread No.1 (Summer) - Backfill & Cleanup HURRICANE TO TALKEETNA CUTOFF 10MAR95 —_46MAR95 “DSpread No.2 (Summer) = Mobilization [{7MARQ5 __11MAY95 C———JSpread No.2 (Summer) - Right of Way 20MARQ5 _42MAY95 C—— Spread No.2 (Summer) - Pipe Stringing & sedis 20MARS5 _12MAY95 rn —— , : . 9, C=—JSpread No.2 (Summer) - Excavtion 24MARS5 __15MAY95 spread No.2 (Summer) ~ Pipe Laying 22MARQ5 —_AGMAY95 C—— Spread No.2 (Summer) - Backfill] & Cleanup TALKEETNA CUTOFF TO. NANCY LAKE 34AUG95 1 10CT95 : . Spread No.4 (Summer) - Aight af Way Preparation [— 4SEP95__130CT95 Sa : C—oSpread No.{ (Summer) - Light Crew 5SEP95 _160CT95 . i Spread No.4 (Summer) - Pipe Stringing & welding ——) GSEP95 —_470CT95 TSEP95 _480CT95 BSEP95 _490CT95 .C—Spread No.1 (Summer) - Excavaton / / / Co $pread No.1 (Summer) - Pipe Laying Spread No.1 (Summer) - Backfill] & Cleanup C— NANCY LAKE TO KNIK ARM DB JANOS OWAROS 27JAN95 _40MAR9S 3QJAN9S ——43MAAS5S SAJANSS ——44MAASS 1FEB95 _15MAR95 2FEBQS —46MAR95 C— Spread No.2 (Winter) - Right of Way [Spread No.2 (Winter) - Light Crews [Spread No.2 (Winter] - Pipe Stringing & Welding C— Spread No.2 (Winter) - Excavation _ Co Spread No.2 (Winter) - Pipe Laying C= Spread_No.2 (Winter) - Backfill & Cleanup IKNIK ARM CROSSING {7MAY95 — 27JUN95 2BJUNS5 — 25JUL95 26JUL95 _22AUG95 —knik Arm Crossing Staging COx«nik Arm Crossing Coknik Arm Tie-In to Port of Anchorage Piping Planning Unit : =| HHH sereery ew Ly Associated Pipe Line Contractors Siete ote poeta Cope Lee Coates ats z . . : Tate Fevision a epee The Denali Pipeline Project Rr aEaee CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE Project Finish: 25JUNQ7 Data Date: $MAAg3 | Plot Date 250193 Primavera Systers, Inc. 1986-1990 Site Preparation -- Initial construction work would include site preparation along the ROW for construction camps, development of gravel and backfill storage sites, identification of water procurement points at rivers and streams, development of access roads for support of construction spreads, erection of fuel storage tanks with containment structures for construction equipment, installation of communication equipment, and the development of equipment maintenance areas. Timely site preparation would maximize the efficiency of the construction spreads that constitute the predominant equipment and manpower requirements of the project. Construction Spreads -- Proposed construction rates and seasonal construction requirements, taking into account environmental, logistical, and technical constraints, suggest the use of two main pipeline construction spreads, one north of Hurricane, and one south. Other spreads would include roadway/railroad borings, stream crossings, support for material movements, tie-in spreads, testing teams, and clean-up crews. Figure 2.3.44 shows the approximate proposed mobilization, and construction dates for each construction spread and specialty crews. Following is a discussion of the geotechnical, stream crossing, and scheduling considerations related to each of the nine construction segments. See the alignment maps in Appendix A for segment locations. July 29, 1993 PAGE 2-141 Segment 1: North Pole to Cripple Creek (Sheet 1-14) Distances: Uplands Sj acesy erence cere sree oenes cree susie nara see eens} earene 5.2 Mi. Wetlands isc tee teienec es iecienenenensielieien eof 18.7 Mi. Total segment length ............. 23.9 Mi Construction period: Dec. 1, ’94 to Feb. 1, ‘95 From the North Pole refineries to the vicinity of the Chena River, soils are silty sands and gravel with discontinuous, thaw-stable permafrost. Profile and cross slopes are less than 1 percent. The area is adjacent to the Tanana River, with a high ground water table. Water flows through the area year around, even during the coldest periods of winter. The area is principally wetlands. The thaw-stable soils and the underlying gravel and sands would provide sufficient support for equipment during summer months, however, construction would occur in winter to minimize impacts to wetlands. Several road crossings and other obstructions would slow trenching operations. The use of backhoe for excavation of the trench could be more desirable than wheel-type trenchers.The alignment would be generally in disturbed ROWs, adjacent to the Tanana River Flood Control Levee and along roadways. The Chena River crossing, and installation of the pipeline through the Chena Ridge area, would require specialty crews. The alignment across Chena Ridge has profile slopes of 5-25 percent, cross slopes up to 35 percent, and is underlain by discontinuous thaw-unstable soils. The pipeline design and construction parameters considered for the Chena Ridge area include mitigation of thaw-unstable soils and restrictions on ROW widths through the area as it includes a larger number of residential properties. Installation of the pipeline on steep slopes for short distances ALTERNATIVES PAGE 2-142 requires anchoring, soil stabilization, trench plugs to stop surface drainage into the trench, and slope terraces and reseeding for slope stabilization. Segment 2: Cripple Creek to Nenana (Sheets 1-14, 2-14 and 3-14) Distances: UplandS eis ee elite ciel) ci onenie elena 35.0 Mi. WV tla) serereprsprarceutciratteiienrontourencvioisenoticntWrapielionton?oVioulcte 3.7 Mi. Total segment length ......... 38.7 Mi Construction period: May 17, ‘95 to Jul. 26, ’95 This area consists of silts over bedrock, with unstable permafrost located in drainages along the alignment. The area along the ridge top has only about 10 percent wetlands, mostly at the drainages. The pipeline would be constructed in the GVEA powerline ROW which is adjacent to the Parks Highway. Access to the ROW would be sufficient to allow use of trenching machines, with backhoes used on the steeper slopes. Construction would occur during summer months due to the lack of many wetlands. There are several small stream crossings within this segment, and a major river crossing of the Tanana at Nenana. Some of these crossings could be avoided if the pipeline alignment was put into the Parks Highway ROW for a short distance. The area approaching Nenana and the Tanana River from the north is already constricted by the railroad, the highway and secondary roads, and a high river bank above the Tanana. The Parks Highway would be crossed several times in this segment. July 29, 1993 PAGE 2-143 Segment 3: Nenana to Healy (Sheets 3-14, 4-14 and 5-14) Distances: Uplands .......... 0.0.0 ce eee ee eee eee 18.0 Mi. Wetlands! jo. .seseuae+ ser aee wie ses 40.8 Mi. Total segment length ......... 58.8 Mi Construction period: Jan. 5 '95 to Apr. 5, ‘95 Eighty percent of the area between Nenana and Clear Air Force Base consists of silts and sands with discontinuous thaw-unstable permafrost. Silts mantling sands and sandy gravel with sporadic thaw-stable permafrost, and 80 percent wetlands, are anticipated from Clear to Healy. The large amount of wetlands and the general soil instability would restrict construction to a winter operation. The pipeline alignment would closely parallel the GVEA powerline, with the Parks Highway providing access to the ROW. There would be two major river crossings of the Nenana, south of Clear and again at Healy. There would be four smaller crossings of streams with resident or anadromous fish. Segment 4: Healy to Broad Pass (Sheet 5-14, 6-14, 6-14 and 7-14) Distances: Uplands ............. 0c eee 27.0 Mi. Weetlandsi 2 errors seater iy serie es) fa 13.0 Mi. Total segment length ......... 40.0 Mi Construction period: Jul. 20, ‘95 to Sep. 7, '95 The preferred route through the Alaska Range would be along Moody Creek, generally parallel to the AEA Intertie. The soils through Moody Creek are coarse gravels over bedrock. From Montana Creek to Broad Pass, the soils are poorly sorted silty, sandy gravels with a six-mile section of coarse gravels over bedrock near Panorama Mountain. The pipeline would cross the upper Nenana River in the vicinity of the ALTERNATIVES PAGE 2-144 Denali Fault of the McKinley Strand. Three smaller streams that have resident fish would be crossed. The Denali Fault of the Hines Creek Strand also would be crossed. Moody Creek is a narrow drainage with limited access for construction activities. Pipeline construction through this area would use a small spread of equipment. Design and construction parameters would include narrow ROWS, siltation control in Moody Creek, access constraints, and possible berming along the creek for spill contingency purposes. A special crew might be required to lay pipe across wetlands through this area in advance of the main spread. Most construction in the Moody Creek Valley likely would occur in July. Wetlands and related silty soils would be encountered from the Yanert River to Carlo Creek. This section might require special winter construction. Segment 5: Broad Pass to Hurricane (Sheets 7-14 and 8-14) Distances: Uplands ............. 00.0000. e eee eee 29.8 Mi. Wotlands er i-n-eeiennaiien sr itenieneieieneae nay irueiite 6.9 Mi. Total segment length ......... 36.7 Mi Construction period Mar 23, ‘95 to May 22, ‘95 Soils in this segment are basically poorly-sorted silty, sandy gravels, with discontinuous thaw-unstable permafrost, and areas of coarse gravel with bedrock in the vicinity of Hurricane Gulch. The wetland polygons are elongated in a north-south direction through most of the segment. Following the AEA Intertie and Parks Highway as the principal alignment would assist in avoiding most permafrost areas. Construction would occur in summer. Wetlands and restricted access might require some winter construction by a smaller construction spread. July 29, 1993 PAGE 2-145 There are no major stream crossings in this segment. There would be three smaller crossings of anadromous streams as well as the deeper drainages of Hurricane Gulch and Little Honolulu Creek. The alignment would leave the intertie to cross Hurricane Gulch to the east of the Intertie to avoid construction through the much steeper banks of the creek associated with the highway and railroad bridges. Segment 6: Hurricane to Talkeetna Spur Road (Sheets 8-14, 9-14, 10-14 and 11-14) Distances: Uplands emicrals mice aaeneiciore eilellolehetec 63.7 Mi. Wetlands pam sccne) stay sichiersener cist aeoish ons 10.2 Mi. Total segment length ......... 73.9 Mi Construction period: Mar. 11, ‘95 to May 15, ‘95 The pipeline would be constructed within the Parks Highway ROW throughout this segment. Construction would occur from March to May, with completion prior to the period of heavier highway traffic during the tourist season. Although the alignment would be within the highway ROW, some of the alignment would cross wetlands already disturbed by highway construction. Areas between the road surface and the edge of the ROW would narrow in some areas, requiring either that the highway be bored, or additional ROW be acquired along the edge of the highway ROW. The highway would provide excellent access and support for pipeline construction. Most of the pipeline would be installed on the east side of the highway ROW for spill contingency purposes. Some of the alignment would be on the west side of the highway. Two major river crossings, the Chulitna and Susitna, would occur in this segment. The smaller crossings would include thirteen anadromous streams. Stream crossing crews would work in advance of the mainline construction spread during construction windows dictated by fish presence and habitat. ALTERNATIVES PAGE 2-146 Segment 7: Talkeetna Spur Road to Nancy Lake (Sheet 11-14 and 12-14) Distances: }Uplands) mais) aia sialic el eielelel kelsiaiael ate 29.2 Mi. Wetlands aac eae eieeaiereeer 6.8 Mi. Total segment length ......... 36.0 Mi Construction period: Sep. 9, ‘95 to Oct. 28, ’95 The pipeline would be adjacent to the Parks Highway through an area of 19 percent wetlands, with stratified silts or silts mantling poorly-sorted silty, sand gravels, and with isolated occurrences of perennially frozen soils. Construction would occur in the fall after summer tourist traffic has decreased to near normal local traffic requirements. No major river crossings would occur in this segment, but 11 smaller crossings of anadromous streams would be made. Stream crossing crews would work in advance of the mainline construction spread during construction windows based on fish presence and habitat. Segment 8: Nancy Lake to Knik Arm (Sheets 12-14, 13-14 and 14-14) Distances:tnW planGsirerere cede rset spores tstisekaes eet eal sais a sal aa 28.3 Mi. Wetland sit startedsHatater seep te tects etter cate e ate apoE te 6.6 Mi. Total segment length ......... 34.9 Mi Construction period: Jan. 26, ‘95 to Mar. 15, ‘95 The pipeline alignment would be adjacent to the Parks Highway from a point southeast of Nancy Lake to southeast of Houston, and then would follow MEA and CEA powerline ROWs. The soils are silts mantling poorly-sorted, silty-sandy gravels with 25 percent wetlands. The Parks Highway would provide excellent access to the pipeline ROW. There would be no major stream crossings within the segment, but 9 smaller crossings of anadromous fish streams would occur. Stream crossing crews July 29, 1993 PAGE 2-147 would work in advance of the mainline construction spread during construction windows based on fish presence and habitat. Winter construction would occur in wetlands within the powerline ROWs. The frozen soils that would be required to support winter construction are seasonal and might not freeze to adequate depths during any given winter. Asummer construction season, therefore, might be required if adequate frost depths did not occur to support equipment during the winter. The Parks Highway ROW alignment could be constructed either in winter or summer. Segment 9: Knik Arm Crossing (Sheet 14-14) DistancestaeWietlanGSeee-re peace -eeecee ee eae -eomeeeerars 7.0 Mi. Total segment length .......... 8.3 Mi ConstructionEpeniod seerrecedeseeecedet feta May 11, ‘95 to Aug. 22, ‘95 The pipeline would avoid subsea electrical lines within Knik Arm by crossing approximately 1,000 feet to the southwest (downstream) of the CEA buried electrical cable ROW from the Point Mackenzie area to Elmendorf Air Force Base. It would cross to the base of the bluff below Elmendorf in the Sixmile Creek area. From that point to the Port of Anchorage the pipeline would be buried in tidelands that are scheduled for future upland development by the port. The pipeline trench near the shore could be excavated using a backhoe working from a temporary access road that could withstand flooding. Construction timing would require careful coordination with existing utilities within the area, and with the Port of Anchorage. ALTERNATIVES PAGE 2-148 2.3.45 Construction Costs The total installed cost of the Denali Pipeline Project is estimated to be approximately $200 million, inclusive of engineering, project management, materials, construction and startup. Areas of difficult construction, poor access for construction support, slowed production rates through areas of wetlands, and required special construction through areas of sensitive habitats, all would influence the seasonal nature of construction restrictions and would have a direct bearing on total cost. Detailed cost estimates would be developed during the detailed design phase, and would be responsive to ROW permit application requirements. Some cost savings should be realized in the micro alignment process of detailed design. 2.3.46 Community Awareness Program The purpose of the community awareness program (CAP) would be to provide a forum for communities and individual members of the public potentially affected by the proposed pipeline to obtain information, ask questions, and make suggestions about aspects of the project that concern them. Unlike pipeline construction in many areas of the Lower 48 with larger percentage of private lands, in Alaska the ROW application process is a very open and public process requiring considerable effort on the part of the applicant to communicate to the public the details of its proposed project. If the applicant does not initiate its own program, the state and federal agencies will conduct their own public notice and hearing programs to fulfill their statutory mandates. This small-diameter pipeline is not conceived as a project that would develop new resources, impose additional impacts or burdens on communities, or create new enterprises that require compromise by the community. Refined petroleum products are currently transported in this same corridor by the Alaska Railroad. The diversion July 29, 1993 PAGE 2-149 of products from the railroad to a pipeline would be more efficient, and safer from an accidental spillage perspective, than the current mode of surface transportation. The thrust of the CAP would be to communicate the scope of the proposed pipeline, and examine its advantages and disadvantages. Accurate information would be provided using personal phone contacts, prepared written materials, and individual and public meetings. Specifically, the CAP process would provide an orderly way for community and individual questions and concerns to be heard, and for DPLC to respond. Public Meetings -- A list of the interested and affected public and their initial concerns and levels of interest would be developed from Alaska Permanent Dividend Fund listings of residents within the area of the proposed route. There is also added information available from the AEA’s public participation programs conducted during feasibility and permitting stages of the intertie project. Contacts with individuals and groups first would be made by telephone, followed by written notice. Pre-meeting publicity would include mailing to key individuals and interest groups, flyers posted in major public gathering places (post offices, libraries, community schools, community bulletin boards, community stores, etc.), and public advertising in newspapers and on radio. 2.4 Trucking Alternative Transporting products solely by use of the existing highway system would require approximately 60 to 100 double-tanker round trips per day to move the proposed amount of products between North Pole and Anchorage. On average, an observer at any point along the route during a 24-hour period would see one truck pass that point ALTERNATIVES PAGE 2-150 every 12 minutes for the 60-truck scenario, or every 7 minutes for the 100-truck scenario. 2.5 No Action Alternative In the no action alternative, no products pipeline would be constructed. This alternative may be used as a baseline comparison with the other alternatives. The no action alternative would result from a denial of at least one, or perhaps more, of the federal or state permits necessary for project development. It also could result if Denali Pipeline Company chose not to develop the project. Under the no action alternative, the refineries at North Pole would continue shipping refined petroleum products to Anchorage via the Alaska Railroad, without modification of existing practices. July 29, 1993 PAGE 2-151 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT To determine whether a project would have a significant effect on the human environment, it is necessary to have an accurate understanding of the environment as it exists before the project is developed. This chapter describes, on a resource-by- resource basis, the existing environment that would be affected if the Denali Pipeline Project proceeds. Unlike many projects in Alaska, the proposed DPLC pipeline would traverse an established and well developed transportation and utility corridor system that has already been affected to varying degrees by more than 60 years of use. 3.1 Physiography, Geology, Soils, Permafrost, and Seismicity The following discussion is divided into a regional overview, followed by a segment by segment description of the pipeline alignment. A bibliography of references used in writing this section may be found in Section 7.2. 3.1.1 Regional Overview Physiography -- The proposed pipeline route crosses four physiographic divisions - the Tanana-Kuskokwim Lowland, the Yukon-Tanana Upland, the Alaska Range, and the Cook Inlet-Susitna Lowland. The pipeline alignment begins in North Pole along the northern margin of the Tanana-Kuskokwim Lowland. This broad, gently northward-dipping alluvial plain has been built from glacially-derived sediments from the Alaska Range to the south. Growth of the alluvial plain has pushed the Tanana River northward to its present location along the southern margin of the July 20,1993 Yukon-Tanana Upland. The pipeline alignment generally follows the northern bank of the Tanana River within the Tanana-Kuskokwim Lowland for approximately 20 miles to near milepost (MP) 20. The preferred alignment leaves the lowlands for approximately 35 miles as it climbs up and traverses a southern extension of the Yukon-Tanana Upland. The uplands consist of low, ancient mountains and hills with generally rolling topography. After leaving the uplands near MP 55, the pipeline alignment travels approximately 35 miles south along the northward-flowing Nenana River, through the Tanana-Kuskokwim Lowland to the foothills of the Alaska Range (MP 90). The alignment passes through the generally rolling topography of the foothills for approximately 25 to 30 miles until the high, rugged, glaciated Alaska Range proper is reached (MP 120). The alignment crosses through approximately 40 miles of the high mountain terrain of the central Alaska Range until reaching Broad Pass near MP 160. The alignment then follows the southeastern margin of this large, glacially-carved valley, drained by the southward-flowing Chulitna River. After following the Broad Pass/Chulitna River Valley system for approximately 80 miles, the alignment leaves the Alaska Range near MP 240. It then travels through the Cook Inlet-Susitna Lowland, crossing the Knik Arm of Cook Inlet before reaching the pipeline’s terminus at the Port of Anchorage at MP 351. The Cook Inlet-Susitna lowland, a vast, swampy, low-relief region, is the result of numerous large-scale glacial advances flowing southward from the Alaska Range and westward from the Talkeetna and Chugach Mountains. Bedrock, General Geology, and Seismicity -- The extent and intensity of glaciations in the Alaska Range and southcentral Alaska during the Pleistocene (1.8 million to 10,000 years before present) are reflected in much of the surfical geology crossed by the pipeline alignment. From the start of the pipeline alignment in North Pole to near MP 20, where the alignment climbs into the Yukon-Tanana Upland, the geology AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT PAGE 3-2 consists of Pleistocene deposits composed of alluvium (river-deposited sediments), loess (wind-deposited silty sediments), and reworked sand and silt deposits. The geology crossed in the 35-mile-long section through the Yukon-Tanana Upland consists of loess-mantied Paleozoic (greater than 250 million years old) and pre-Paleozoic (greater than 570 million years old) metamorphic rocks. After leaving the uplands near MP 55, the preferred alignment crosses approximately 50 miles of Pleistocene deposits consisting of alluvium, loess, reworked sand and silt deposits, and some small deposits of dune sand. As the alignment continues south towards the Alaska Range, it crosses Late Tertiary (25 to 2 million years old) continental deposits made up of conglomerates, sandstones, siltstones, claystones, and coal beds, until near Healy (MP 120). Through the central Alaska Range, from Healy to Cantwell (MP 160), the alignment crosses Paleozoic and pre-Paleozoic metamorphic rocks, Paleocene (67 to 55 million years old) continental deposits made up of conglomerates, sandstones, siltstones, claystones, and coal beds, and also some Triassic (250 to 200 million years old) basaltic volcanic rocks. From Cantwell to the alignment’s exit from the Alaska Range near MP 240, the geology generally consists of Pleistocene deposits composed of alluvium, glacial deposits, and outwash (glacially-derived debris reworked by water). Along the hillsides of Broad Pass and the Chulitna River Valley, however, some Tertiary (67 to 2 million years old) granitic intrusive rocks may be encountered, as well as some Cretaceous and Jurassic (200 to 67 million years old) mudstones, sandstones, conglomerates, and volcanic rocks. The geology crossed on the remainder of the alignment to Anchorage (MP 351) consists of a complex array of Pleistocene deposits composed of alluvium, glacial and outwash deposits, dune sand, loess, proglacial lake deposits, reworked sands and silts, and Holocene (10,000 years old to recent) estuarine muds in Knik Arm. Two major fault systems are crossed by the alignment - the Denali and the Castle Mountain. The Denali fault system has two major strands - the Hines Creek and the McKinley - that would be crossed approximately perpendicularly by the alignment near MP 138 and MP 156, respectively. A smaller, probably related fault - the Healy Creek - would be crossed approximately perpendicularly by the alignment near MP 117. Broad Pass is bounded by northeast/southwest-trending extensions of the Denali fault system and, through this area, the alignment generally parallels the fault bounding the southeast margin of the valley. Near the southern end of the alignment, the Castle Mountain Fault is crossed near the Little Susitna River crossing (MP 313). Surficial Geology and Soils -- The soils that would be encountered along the entire length of the alignment are, with very few exceptions, the direct result of the Pleistocene and recent glaciations occurring in the Alaska Range and southcentral Alaska. The most widespread of these Pleistocene soils is loess, which forms a blanket of silt and very fine sand covering almost all areas of the alignment that lie below altitudes of 1,000 to 1,500 feet. Loess was blown from the vegetation-free floodplains of braided glacial rivers, and is still being deposited near modern outwash streams. As a consequence, loess is thickest near streams draining glacial areas. A large part of the loess deposited on summits and slopes of hills has been washed into valley bottoms to form thick deposits of bedded to massive silt that is rich in organic debris. The loess blanket ranges in thickness from a fraction of an inch to more than 150 feet. From the North Pole refineries to Chena Ridge near MP 20, soils consist of moderately thick to thick loess mantling coarser-grained alluvial deposits. From MP 20, through the Yukon-Tanana Uplands to near MP 55, soils consist of loess of variable thickness AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AGE Sa mantling. weathered bedrock. Loess thicknesses in this area are greater on lower slopes and in valley bottoms. From MP 55 to near MP 105, soils consist of moderately thick loess mantling relatively fine-grained alluvial deposits. Through the northern foothills of the Alaska Range, from MP 105 to Healy near MP 120, soils consist of relatively thin loess over coarser alluvial deposits. Through the central Alaska Range, between Healy near MP 120 and Cantwell near MP 160, soils are relatively loess-free. Much of this section of the alignment crosses steep, mountainous terrain where soils are thin, coarse, and rubbly, overlying weathered bedrock. Exposed bedrock occasionally would be encountered. Finer-grained soils also would be encountered occasionally, but only when crossing the valley bottoms of Nenana River tributaries. From Cantwell to Knik Arm at MP 342 at the southern end of the alignment, loess-mantled glacial, glaciofluvial (river-deposited, glacially-derived sediments), and glacial lake deposits would be encountered. Loess thicknesses are relatively thin near Cantwell, but increase southward, especially in the Susitna River Valley. The underlying glacial and associated deposits would be quite complex and variable, with poorly sorted deposits of silt- to boulder-sized particles being common. Peats of considerable thickness in lowland areas are common, especially in the Susitna River Valley. Tidal muds composed of clays, silts, and fine sands would be encountered when crossing Knik Arm and also on the eastern side of the arm, from the crossing to near the pipeline terminus. Permafrost -- The proposed pipeline would traverse two major permafrost types. The first, Type I, exists in mountainous areas in which summits exceed 3,000 feet in altitude and are predominately underlain by bedrock at or near the surface. The second, Type Il, exists in lowland and upland areas with summits less than 3,000 feet in altitude that are predominately underlain by thick, unconsolidated deposits. Permafrost thicknesses and temperatures are extremely variable in the Type | zone, but are more uniform in the Type Il zone. Within the Type | and Type II zones are a number of further subdivisions of permafrost characteristics, such as discontinuous or sporadic, that would be encountered along the alignment. From the North Pole refineries to the base of Chena Ridge near MP 20, Type Il discontinuous permafrost would be found in areas of predominantly coarse-grained deposits. It would be present in most areas, but may be locally absent especially where influenced by the thaw regime surrounding the Tanana River. From MP 20 on Chena Ridge to just north of Nenana near MP 60, Type Il moderately-thick to thin discontinuous permafrost would be found on northerly-facing slopes and lower hill sides in areas of predominately fine-grained soils. From MP 60 to just south of Rex Station near MP 95, Type II discontinuous permafrost and numerous isolated masses of permafrost would be found in predominately fine-grained deposits. Interspersed within this section would be permafrost within coarse-grained deposits. The GVEA and Parks Highway cleared ROWs from North Pole to Healy (MP 120) have been thawing permafrost for many years because of the disturbances created by the ROW and construction of the powerline and highway. A pipeline installed along these alignments would have the advantage of being constructed in stable soils that normally would be thaw-unstable in undisturbed areas. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT From MP 95 to the Chulitna River crossing near MP 236, Type | discontinuous permafrost would be encountered at higher elevations. Type Il discontinuous permafrost would be encountered along floodplains. The section of the alignment from MP 236 to Knik Arm at MP 342 would be essentially permafrost-free, with a few isolated masses present locally. No permafrost would be encountered near or across Knik Arm to the pipeline terminus at the Port of Anchorage at MP 351. 3.1.2 Pipeline Segment Descriptions The following sections discuss the physiography/terrain, surficial geology and soils, permafrost, and seismic history for each pipeline segment. See Appendix A for a graphic presentation of these factors. Segment 1: North Pole to Cripple Creek Physiography/Terrain -- The first 20 miles of the alignment follows flat, nearly level ground along the north bank of the Tanana River. From MP 20 to MP 21, the alignment ascends east-facing slopes to the top of Chena Ridge. Profile slopes range from 10 to 15 percent near the base of the ridge, and from 20 to 25 percent near the ridge crest. Cross-slopes approaching 35 percent would be encountered. The alignment then descends the west- and northwest-facing slopes of Chena Ridge into the Cripple Creek drainage, from MP 21 to MP 22. Profile slopes range from 15 to 20 percent near the ridge crest, and from 5 to 10 percent near the base of the ridge. Cross-slopes up to 20 percent would be encountered in this section of the alignment. Surficial Geology and Soils -- From North Pole at MP 0, to the crossing of the Chena River near MP 18, the alignment crosses modern floodplain and associated low terrace deposits. Silty sands and gravels with isolated pockets of sandy silts are to be expected along this section of the alignment. Silts are thickest in old slough channels. From the Chena River crossing to the eastern slopes of Chena Ridge near MP 20, the alignment crosses thick valley bottom silt and sand, predominately loess, and occasionally stratified alluvium. From the lower slopes of Chena Ridge to the termination of the segment at Cripple Creek near MP 22, the alignment crosses loess, and loess-mantled coarse- and fine-grained deposits of colluvium (soils associated with slope processes such as soil creep on moderate to steep-sloped mountains and hills). Loess deposits are thickest in valley bottoms, reaching depths of more than 30 feet. Ridge crest loess deposits are usually less than 10 feet. Bedrock exposures are largely restricted to upper slopes and crestlines. Two sources of soil contamination can be found in the general Fairbanks area. Excavations that expose unweathered Birch Creek Schist have a documented natural capability to release arsenic, a constituent of the unweathered country rock. Also, old homesteads, businesses, or current and former military lands may have soil contamination from past waste disposal practices. Permafrost -- Mean annual air temperatures along this segment of the alignment range from 24 to 28° F. Permafrost temperatures range from 28° to 31° F, but may be higher locally. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT = ne —r—“‘—OOOCUPPFRGE From MP O to MP 18, permafrost occurs discontinuously within relatively coarse-grained, thaw-stable deposits. Permafrost is absent entirely at certain locations along this section, especially near the margins and underneath stream channels. From MP 18 to MP 22, thick to thin layers of permafrost occur discontinuously in areas of predominately fine-grained soils. Thicker layers are expected on north-facing slopes. Both well-drained ridge crests and the upper portions of south-facing slopes are usually permafrost-free. Seismicity -- No major faults have been identified within this segment of the pipeline alignment. During the period 1958 to 1988, approximately 50 earthquakes that had a Richter magnitude of 4.5 or greater were recorded within a 100-mile radius of the center of the segment. Of that group of earthquakes, the largest occurred in 1968 and had a 7.1 Richter magnitude. Segment 2: Cripple Creek to Nenana Physiography/Terrain -- The alignment climbs eastward up southeast-facing slopes out of the Cripple Creek drainage to a ridge crest. During the ascent, profile slopes range from 5 to 20 percent while cross-slopes range from O to 20 percent. The alignment crosses several small, north-facing drainages in the process of traversing eastward a few miles along the ridge. Profile and cross-slopes in this section range from 15 to 25 percent. From MP 27 to MP 38, the alignment generally follows ridge tops through the Bonanza Creek Experimental Forest. Profile slopes range from 5 to 10 percent, with isolated sections as high as 25 percent. Cross-slopes through this section range from 15 to 35 percent. From MP. 38 to MP 52, the alignment descends from the ridge crests to the lower, south-facing hillsides of the Little Goldstream Creek Valley. Profile slopes are gentle to rolling and range from O to 10 percent, with isolated sections increasing to 15 percent. Cross-slopes up to 10 to 15 percent occur along the hillsides. After crossing Little Goldstream Creek near MP 53, the alignment enters the Tanana River floodplain, following the base of northwest-facing slopes. The Tanana River would be crossed at Nenana, near MP 62. Profile and cross-slopes through this section are nearly level at O to 2 percent. Surficial Geology and Soils -- The preferred alignment continues to cross loess, and loess-mantled coarse- and fine-grained colluvium, from the beginning of the segment at Cripple Creek, to where it enters the floodplain of the Tanana River near MP 53. Loess deposits are thickest in valley bottoms, reaching depths of more than 30 feet. Ridge crest loess deposits are usually less than 10 feet. Bedrock exposures are largely restricted to upper slopes and crestlines. From MP 53, to the termination of the segment at Nenana, the alignment crosses thick valley bottom silt and sand along the base of hill slopes, predominately loess and more than 5 feet thick, and loess-mantled alluvial silt and sand deposits on the floodplain of the Tanana River. Silts are thickest in old slough channels. Permafrost -- Mean annual air temperatures along this segment of the alignment range from 24° to 28° F. Permafrost temperatures range from 28 to 32° F. A large portion of this segment is underlain by moderately thick to thin permafrost in areas of fine-grained soils. Exceptions include well-drained ridge crests, the upper portions of south-facing slopes, and areas along the margins and underneath major stream channels, such as the Tanana River. Lower slopes, where loess mantles are AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT oe _ PAGE S410 thickest, and cold, north-facing slopes, are almost always perennially frozen. North-facing slopes have especially shallow depths to permafrost, being on the order of 8 feet. Seismicity -- No major faults have been identified within this segment of the alignment. During the period 1958 to 1988, approximately 75 earthquakes that had a Richter magnitude of 4.5 or greater were recorded within a 100-mile radius of the center of the segment. Of that group of earthquakes, the largest occurred in 1968 and had a 7.1 Richter magnitude. Segment 3: Nenana to Healy Physiography/Terrain -- From MP 62 at Nenana to MP 90 just south of Rex Station, the alignment follows low-lying, nearly level floodplains on the east side of the of the Nenana River. Profile and cross-slopes are less than 5 percent. After crossing to the west side of the Nenana River near MP 90, the alignment continues along the floodplain of the river for approximately 3 miles before climbing onto a complex of east-facing terraces paralleling the river to Healy near MP 119. Profile and cross-slopes continue to be less than 5 percent. Surficial Geology and Soils -- From the beginning of the segment at Nenana to near Julius Station at approximately MP 72, the alignment crosses holocene floodplain deposits. Near the Tanana/Nenana River confluence, these deposits are mostly silts and sands. Southward from the confluence, fine gravels would also be encountered. From MP 72 to the Julius Creek crossing near MP 80, the alignment crosses alluvial fan deposits. These deposits consist of a complex array of swamp deposits, channel sands, and interchannel silts. Swamp deposits consist of saturated silt and peat from 2 to 15 feet thick. Channel sands consist of loess-mantled sands with some fine gravel included. Interchannel silts are loess-mantled, silt-filled relict stream channels. Holocene floodplain deposits would be encountered in the immediate vicinity of the Nenana River crossing to near MP 93. Because of the proximity to the Alaska Range, cobbles and gravels would likely be encountered along with sands and silts. From near MP 80 to the termination of the segment at Healy, the alignment crosses oOutwash gravels. Within this section, from near MP 93 to the end of the segment, Outwash gravels in the form of terrace deposits would be crossed. These outwash deposits consist of sands and sandy gravels with cobbles present locally. The upper 2 to 3 feet of the gravels have been enriched with loess. Near Healy, the alignment crosses a short section of prominent, little-modified moraines and associated tills. Tills are nonsorted, nonstratified glacial ice-deposited debris that has not been reworked by water. Till deposits are quite complex, with materials ranging from silts to boulders. Tills are expected to be predominantly very dense, clayey, silty, gravely sand or sandy gravel with numerous cobbles and boulders. Permafrost -- From Nenana to near MP 95, the mean annual air temperatures along the alignment range from 24° to 30° F. Permafrost temperatures range from 28° to 32° F. From MP 95 to Healy, both mean annual air temperatures and permafrost temperatures are extremely variable. From Nenana to the area of the Julius Creek crossing near MP 80, permafrost is expected at depths of 2 to 4 feet. Lenses and stringers of pure ice are common throughout this swampy and silt-rich area. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT PAGE 3-12 From MP 80 to the termination of the segment at Healy, permafrost is sporadic and localized in occurrence at depths of approximately 20 feet below the surface of outwash gravels. Isolated lenses of near-surface permafrost may be present locally in fine-grained deposits interspersed within the typically well-drained, coarser-grained gravels. An exception to this is in the immediate vicinity of the Nenana River where the margins and soils underneath the channels of the river are expected to be ice-free. Permafrost may be present, however, in silt-filled sloughs within the river’s floodplain. Seismicity -- One major fault - the Healy Creek Fault - has been identified within this segment of the alignment. The fault is probably related to the Denali Fault system. It crosses the alignment at approximately MP 117. During the period 1958 to 1988, approximately 115 earthquakes that had a Richter magnitude of 4.5 or greater were recorded within a 100-mile radius of the center of the segment. Of that group of earthquakes, the largest occurred in 1968 and had a 7.1 Richter magnitude. Segment 4: Healy to Broad Pass Physiography/Terrain -- The alignment crosses to the east side of the Nenana River just south of Healy near MP 120. It then travels southeast up the Healy Creek drainage for approximately 1.5 miles to MP 122, where it begins climbing the steep, northeast-facing slopes of the Moody Creek drainage. Alignment profile slopes in the drainage range from 15 to 25 percent, while cross-slopes exceed 60 percent. At MP 129, the alignment makes a turn to the southwest, back toward the Nenana River, following southeast-facing slopes until MP 135. Profile slopes along this section range from 5 to 20 percent, while cross-slopes range from 20 to 40 percent. From MP 135 to MP 138, the alignment follows the lower southwest-facing slopes of Mt. Fellows. The alignment follows gently rolling terrain with profile slopes of 5 to 20 percent, and occasional short stretches exceeding 70 percent. Cross-slopes range from 10 to 20 percent. The alignment crosses the Yanert Fork of the Nenana River near MP 138 and proceeds to cross broad lowlands to the base of Mt. Carlo near MP 145. Profile and cross-slopes in this area range from O to 5 percent. The alignment crosses Carlo Creek near MP 146 and then traverses the generally west-facing lower slopes of Panorama Mountain, paralleling the Parks Highway. Slime Creek is crossed near MP 151. Near the southern end of Panorama Mountain, the alignment follows the floodplain of the Nenana River, crossing the river to the south near MP 155, and continues to parallel the highway. Valley bottom slopes in this section are nearly level, while cross-slopes exceed 40 percent. After crossing the Nenana River, the alignment traverses approximately 2 miles of nearly flat floodplain to the south of the confluence of the Jack and Nenana rivers. It then continues along the eastern margin of the Jack River, along the west-facing lower slopes of Cantwell Mountain to the Cantwell Airport, near MP 160. Profile slopes range from O to 5 percent. Cross-slopes on the west, towards the Jack River, are nearly flat, while those along the base of Cantwell Mountain exceed 40 percent. Surficial Geology and Soils -- At the beginning of the segment, at approximately MP 120 near Healy, the alignment crosses the Nenana River. Holocene floodplain deposits would be encountered in the immediate vicinity of the crossing. Boulders and cobbles would likely be encountered along with gravels, sands, and silts. Immediately beyond the crossing, a short section, approximately 1/2-mile-long, of Outwash gravel terrace deposits would be crossed. These consist of sands and sandy gravels with cobbles present locally. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT o PAGE 3-14 The alignment then crosses approximately 2 miles of discontinuous alluvial deposits (sands and sandy gravels) overlying dissected unconsolidated, semiconsolidated, and locally consolidated silt, sand, and gravel of Tertiary age, to roughly the junction of Moody and Copeland Creeks near MP 122. From MP 122, the alignment skirts Sugar Loaf Mountain, passing up the Moody Creek drainage and down the Montana Creek drainage. Throughout this section, from near MP 123 to near MP 135, the alignment crosses shallow soils, probably less than 5 feet thick, consisting of dominantly coarse, rubbly, colluvial deposits with a high percentage of bedrock exposure. After leaving the mountain front near MP 135, the alignment crosses prominent, little-modified moraines and associated unsorted, unstratified tills, lake clays, and peats until approximately MP 146 near Carlo Station. Tills are expected to be predominantly very dense, clayey, silty, gravely sand or sandy gravel with numerous cobbles and boulders. The alignment then crosses shallow soils, probably less than 5 feet thick, consisting of dominantly coarse, rubbly, colluvial deposits with a high percentage of bedrock exposure, until Windy Station near MP 155. From near MP 155 to the termination of the segment at Cantwell near MP 160, the alignment crosses prominent, little-modified moraines and associated unsorted, unstratified tills, lake clays, and peats. Tills are expected to be predominantly very dense, clayey, silty, gravely sand or sandy gravel with numerous cobbles and boulders. Permafrost -- Both the mean annual air temperatures and permafrost temperatures are extremely variable along the entire length of this segment. From Healy to the alignment’s entrance to the Moody Creek drainage near MP 122, discontinuous permafrost and isolated ice lenses within silt deposits are expected along north-facing terrace slopes. Between MP 122 and near MP 135, discontinuous permafrost would be encountered within thin, coarse-grained, thaw-stable soils. Isolated ice lenses also may be encountered within fine-grained deposits along the base of slopes between MP 129 and MP 133. From MP 135 to MP 146, the alignment crosses low-lying, ice-rich, glacial deposits. Discontinuous permafrost would be encountered, its extent being governed by the local composition of the complex glacial soils. From MP 146 to Windy Station near MP 155, permafrost would be encountered within thin, coarse-grained, thaw-stable soils. From MP 155 to the termination of the segment at Cantwell near MP 160, the alignment crosses discontinuous permafrost within generally low lying ice-rich deposits. Seismicity -- The two major strands of the Denali Fault system - the Hines Creek Strand and the McKinley Strand - are crossed in this segment of the pipeline alignment. The alignment crosses the Hines Creek Strand at approximately MP 138 and the McKinley Strand at approximately MP 156. During the period 1958 to 1988, approximately 130 earthquakes that had a Richter magnitude of 4.5 or greater were AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ae Se ee PAGE 3-46 recorded within a 100-mile radius of the center of the segment. Of that group of earthquakes, the largest occurred in 1963 and had a 6.1 Richter magnitude. Segment 5: Broad Pass to Hurricane Physiography/Terrain -- The alignment crosses the Jack River near MP 161 and then follows the Parks Highway through the wide, flat-bottomed Broad Pass. Climbing a gentle grade to the summit near MP 170. From MP 186 the alignment continues southwest along gentle, northwest-facing slopes on the eastern margin of the valley to Little Honolulu Creek, near MP 192. With the exception of individual stream crossings, the terrain along this section is gentle to rolling, with profile slopes ranging from O to 5 percent and cross-slopes from 5 to 10 percent. At approximately MP 192, the alignment turns southeasterly up the Little Honolulu Creek drainage for approximately 1/2 mile before crossing the stream. It then travels due south, along the lower slopes of the mountains in order to cross the upper part of Hurricane Gulch near MP 195, to the east of the deep canyon crossed by the Parks Highway and Alaska Railroad. Profile and cross-slopes in this section would range from 5 to 15 percent. After crossing Hurricane Gulch, the alignment turns southwesterly, returning to the lower, valley bottom slopes of the Chulitna River Valley at Hurricane Station, near MP 199. Surficial Geology and Soils -- Along almost the entire length of the Broad Pass to Hurricane Station segment, from MP 160 to MP 199, the alignment crosses prominent, little-modified moraines and associated unsorted, unstratified tills, lake clays, and peats. Tills are expected to be predominantly very dense, clayey, silty, gravely sand or sandy gravel with numerous cobbles and boulders. The exception to this is a 2- to 3-mile section in the vicinity of the Hurricane Gulch crossing, approximately MP 194 to MP 197, where the alignment crosses shallow soils, probably less than 5 feet thick, consisting of dominantly coarse, rubbly, colluvial deposits with a high percentage of bedrock exposure. Permafrost -- Mean annual air temperatures along this segment of the alignment range from 25° to 30°F. Permafrost temperatures are extremely variable along the entire segment. Because almost the entire segment is underlain by low-lying, ice-rich, glacial deposits, discontinuous and isolated ice lenses of permafrost would be encountered, the extent being governed by the local composition of the complex glacial soils. Near the Hurricane Gulch crossing, approximately MP 194 to MP 197, soil conditions likely would be ice-free due to their coarse-grained, shallow nature. Seismicity -- Major faults, extensions of the Denali Fault system, bound the valley margins in the Broad Pass area within this segment. The alignment generally parallels the fault along the southeastern margin of the valley. During the period 1958 to 1988, approximately 155 earthquakes that had a Richter magnitude of 4.5 or greater were recorded within a 100-mile-radius of the center of the segment. Of that group of earthquakes, the largest occurred in 1962 and had almost a 6.4 Richter magnitude. Segment 6: Hurricane to Talkeetna Spur Road Physiography/Terrain -- From Hurricane Station near MP 199, to the Chulitna River crossing near MP 237, the alignment generally parallels the Parks Highway along the east side of the Chulitna River Valley. Profile and cross-slopes are gentle to rolling, ranging from Oto 5 percent with steeper slopes to 10 percent encountered at isolated stream crossings. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AGE SAB After crossing to the west side of the Chulitna River near MP 237, the alignment continues to parallel the Parks Highway through gentle, swampy terrain to the Talkeetna Spur Road near MP 272. The Susitna River is crossed near MP 266. Profile and cross-slopes remain gentle, ranging from O to 5 percent with isolated occurrences of steeper slopes up to 10 percent at stream crossings. Surficial Geology and Soils -- From the start of the segment at Hurricane near MP 199, to the Susitna River crossing near MP 266, the alignment crosses prominent, little-modified moraines and associated unsorted, unstratified tills, lake clays, and peats. Tills are expected to be predominantly very dense, clayey, silty, gravely sand or sandy gravel with numerous cobbles and boulders. The exception to this is a roughly 2-mile stretch in the vicinity of the Chulitna River crossing near MP 237. Holocene floodplain deposits would be encountered in the immediate vicinity of that crossing. Gravels, sands, and silts would be encountered as well as some cobbles and perhaps some boulders. In the vicinity of the Susitna River crossing, a roughly 2-mile stretch, holocene floodplain deposits consisting of gravels, sands, and silts would be encountered. From the Susitna River crossing to the Talkeetna Spur Road near MP 272, the alignment crosses fine-grained, stratified proglacial lake deposits, discontinuously mantling glacial and glaciofluvial deposits (till and outwash). Underlying glacial topography is not completely obscured. Most deposits along this segment of the alignment are capped by a mantle of loess and organic material. Permafrost -- Mean annual air temperatures along this segment of the alignment range from 25° to 33° F. Permafrost temperatures are extremely variable along the entire segment. From Hurricane Station to near MP 235, isolated lenses of permafrost may be encountered near swamps or within silt-rich deposits. South of this area, soils are expected to be permafrost-free with the exception of small, isolated ice lenses beneath peat-covered bogs. Seismicity -- No major faults have been identified within this segment of the pipeline alignment. During the period 1958 to 1988, approximately 190 earthquakes that had a Richter magnitude of 4.5 or greater were recorded within a 100-mile radius of the center of the segment. Of that group of earthquakes, the largest occurred in 1962 and had a Richter magnitude of 6.4. Segment 7: Talkeetna Spur Road to Nancy Lake Physiography/Terrain -- The alignment follows the ROW of the Parks Highway throughout the entire segment. It crosses gentle, rolling to flat and occasionally marshy terrain until reaching the Nancy Lake area near MP 305. Profile and cross-slopes range from O to 5 percent. Surficial Geology and Soils -- From the beginning of the segment at the Talkeetna Spur Road near MP 272 to just south of the Kashwitna River crossing near MP 287, the alignment crosses fine-grained, stratified proglacial lake deposits, discontinuously mantling glacial and glaciofluvial deposit (till and outwash). Underlying glacial topography is not completely obscured. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT From south of the Kashwitna River crossing to Willow, the alignment crosses fine-grained, stratified proglacial lake deposits. Tills are expected to be predominately very dense, clayey, silty, gravel sand or sandy gravel with numerous cobbles and boulders. From Willow to the termination of the segment near Nancy Lake, the alignment again crosses prominent, little-modified moraines and associated unsorted, unstratified tills, lake clays, and peats. Most deposits along the alignment segment are capped by a mantle of loess and organic material. Because of the swampy, low-lying nature of much of the area, it is very common to find peats of considerable thickness underlain by silts or silty sands, which in turn overlie tills. Permafrost -- Mean annual air temperatures along this segment of the alignment range from 33° to 35° F. This is higher than the mean annual temperature needed to produce and maintain permafrost. The only permafrost that is expected to be found along this segment would be small, isolated lenses of relict ice beneath thick peat deposits. Seismicity -- No major faults have been identified within this segment of the pipeline alignment. During the period 1958 to 1988, approximately 240 earthquakes that had a Richter magnitude of 4.5 or greater were recorded within a 100-mile radius of the center of the segment. Of that group of earthquakes, the largest occurred in 1964 and had a 8.4 Richter magnitude. Segment-8: Nancy Lake to Knik Arm Physiography/Terrain -- The proposed alignment continues to follow the Parks Highway ROW, following the east side of the road to near MP 316. The Little Susitna River is crossed near MP 313. Through this section, profile and cross-slopes are gentle to rolling, ranging from O to 5 percent. After crossing to the west side of the Parks Highway near MP 316, the alignment travels south, east of Big Lake, toward Knik Arm. At approximately MP 323, the alignment turns southwest and roughly parallels the arm, approximately 2 miles inland, traveling across alternately hummocky and swampy topography. Near MP 340, just north of Lake Lorraine, the alignment turns southeast directly toward Knik Arm. Profile and cross-slopes along the section between MP 316 and MP 342 are, for the most part, gentle to rolling, ranging from O to 5 percent. A short stretch of tidal mudflats is crossed at Goose Bay between MP 333 and MP 335. Several isolated, low but steep hillsides would be encountered, with profile slopes ranging between 20 to 40 percent and cross-slopes between 20 to 30 percent. Surficial Geology and Soils -- Along almost the entire length of the Nancy Lake to Knik Arm segment, the alignment crosses prominent, little-modified moraines and associated unsorted, unstratified tills, lake clays, and peats. Tills are expected to be predominantly very dense, clayey, silty, gravely sand or sandy gravel with numerous cobbles and boulders. There are two notable exceptions to this geology. The first is a roughly 2-mile stretch in the vicinity of the Little Susitna River crossing, where the alignment crosses a short section of modern floodplain deposits consisting of sands, silts, and some fine gravels. The second is a 2-mile stretch of silts present at Goose Bay between MP 333 and MP 335. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT oe PAGE 3-22 Most deposits along the alignment segment are capped by a mantle of loess and organic material. Because of the swampy, low-lying nature of much of this area, it is very common to find peats of considerable thickness underlain by silts or silty sands, which in turn overlie tills. Permafrost -- Mean annual air temperatures along this segment of the alignment range from 34° to 36° F. This is higher than the mean annual temperature needed to produce and maintain permafrost. The only permafrost that is expected to be found along this segment would be small, isolated lenses of relict ice beneath thick peat deposits. Seismicity -- The portion of southcentral Alaska traversed by this segment is one of the most active seismic zones in the world. The Castle Mountain Fault system passes through this segment in the area of the Little Susitna River crossing (MP 313). During the period 1958 to 1988, approximately 260 earthquakes that had a Richter magnitude of 4.5 or greater were recorded within a 100-mile radius of the center of the segment. Of that group of earthquakes, the largest occurred in 1964 and had an 8.4 Richter magnitude. Segment 9: Knik Arm Crossing Physiography/Terrain -- The alignment crosses the Knik Arm of Cook Inlet between MP 342 and MP 345. The section begins by descending a very steep 100-foot-high bluff on the northwest side of the arm. The alignment then travels across several hundred feet of tidal mud flats before descending submarine slopes to a depth of -80 to -100 feet mean lower low water at mid-channel. Sea bottom slopes up to 10 percent would be encountered. Near MP 345, the alignment reaches the southeast bank of Knik Arm and then turns southwesterly, in tidal mudflats. The alignment leaves the mudflats and goes onshore approximately 1 mile north of the pipeline terminus at MP 351. Surficial Geology and Soils -- The high, steep bluff on the northwest side of the Knik Arm crossing is composed of dense till interbedded with clays. The clays, which do not extend under the arm, have the potential for liquefaction during severe earthquakes. From the bottom of the bluff to the southeast bank of the arm, the alignment crosses very dense till mantled with medium-dense, stratified, estuarine silts and fine sands. The till consists of very poorly sorted sandy and silty gravels, with cobbles and boulders present locally. Some gravels and scattered boulders are present locally in the silts and sands. The thickness of the silt and sand mantle generally increases in the deeper water areas toward the axis of the arm, but is quite variable locally. Thicknesses would range on the order of several to hundreds of feet. From the southeast bank of the arm until the alignment comes fully onshore, about 1 mile from the terminus, soil conditions remain similar to those encountered in the crossing. For the last mile to the terminus, the soils crossed consist of very dense till with perhaps some interbedded clays. Large quantities of suspended sediments are fed into Knik Arm each year by the Matanuska and Knik rivers. Sediment deposition near the Port of Anchorage requires a yearly dredging program. The soils within or adjacent to the Port of Anchorage’s industrial zone may have contamination from past operations or waste disposal procedures. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ee : : | PAGE 3-24 Permafrost -- Permafrost would not be encountered along this segment of the alignment. Seismicity -- This segment lies within a zone of intense seismic activity. As a result of the 1964 earthquake, extensive landslides, slumps, and sloughs were experienced along the bluffs of Knik Arm. Although no identified faults cross this section of the alignment, the arm is bracketed between the Castle Mountain Fault system to the north, and the Border Ranges Fault system, which runs along the Chugach Mountain front to the south. During the period 1958 to 1988, approximately 285 earthquakes that had a Richter magnitude of 4.5 or greater were recorded within a 100-mile radius of the center of the segment. Of that group of earthquakes, the largest was the 1964 earthquake that had a Richter magnitude of 8.40. 3.2 Vegetation Vegetation along the proposed pipeline route is highly variable over its 351-mile length. Differences reflect regional and local climatic conditions, surficial geology, hydrology, and soils. Disturbances such as that caused by transportation and utility construction, fire, flooding, and human use such as forestry, farming, and settlement also affect plant distribution. Major vegetation types in Alaska have been classified in numerous ways. Each classification system is similar, but plants are grouped into slightly different associations and descriptive units. The vegetation classification system used in this analysis is based on Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center (AEIDC 1974, 1975). It should be noted that this classification system does not identify wetland elements in sufficient detail to meet current wetland permitting requirements. Accordingly, a different classification system was used to describe wetlands (See Section 3.3). The totals shown in Section 3.3 for vegetation, and in Section 3.4 for wetlands, are not additive. The proposed pipeline would cross six broad vegetation types: lowland spruce- hardwood forest, upland spruce-hardwood forest, bottomland spruce-poplar forest, alpine tundra, high shrub thicket, and low bush, muskeg-bog. These are described as follows: Lowland spruce-hardwood forest -- This forest association is characterized by extensive pure stands of black spruce mixed with paper birch, balsam poplar, and aspen. Understory plants include willow, dwarf birch, low bush cranberry, blueberry, labrador tea, crowberry, bearberry, cottongrass, ferns, horsetail, lichens, and a thick cover of spagnum and other mosses. Treeless bogs occur in depressions throughout. Willow scrub and dense stands of small black spruce are found in large areas burned since 1900. Where permafrost is present, or soils are saturated, this forest type is considered a wetland. Lowland spruce-hardwood forest is found along the Tanana Flats and lower Susitna River Basin, and is often interspersed within upland spruce- hardwood associations. Upland spruce-hardwood forest -- On moderate south-facing slopes this forest association is comprised of white spruce, paper birch, or aspen either as pure stands or in mixtures on northern exposures or on shallow, nutrient-poor soils. On well- drained soils in upland areas, black spruce stands are not considered wetlands; however, on saturated soils underlain by permafrost (principally on north facing slopes) black spruce stands are considered wetlands. Understory plants includes mosses with grasses on drier sites and with brush on moist slopes. Typical understory plants are willow, alder, ferns, rose, high and low bush cranberry, raspberry, current, and horsetail. This forest association is greatly affected by fire. As such, the plant succession over large areas leads to a patchwork of plant groups. Upland spruce-hardwood forest occurs primarily in the upper Nenana and Chulitna valleys. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ne a ee : PAGE 3-26 Bottomland spruce-poplar forest -- This forest association generally is found along actively meandering rivers and streams where there are thick, young alluvium soils without permafrost. Trees are tall and dense and confined to narrow bands along stream banks. Understory plants are generally dense stands of high and low shrubs including American green alder, thinleaf alder, willow rose, dogwood, Labrador tea, and berry bushes. The forest floor is usually carpeted with ferns, bluejoing, fireweed, horsetails, lichens, herbs, and moss. Bottomland spruce-poplar forest is located immediately adjacent major rivers such as the Tanana, Chulitna, and lower Susitna. Alpine tundra -- This plant association is found on well-drained mountainous gravel ridges. It generally consists of prostrate shrub and lichen with occasional forbs, sedges, and mosses on barren rock and rubble areas. White mountain-avens is dominate in some places, but low growing herbs, such as moss-campion, black oxytrope, Arctic sandwort, and several lichens, grasses and sedges are also present. Associated plants include resin birch, dwarf Arctic birch, cassiope, crowberry, alpine- azalea, Labrador tea, mountain heath, rhododendron, Arctic willow, dwarf blueberry, bog blueberry, and cranberry. Alpine tundra is limited to the crest of the Alaska Range (Moody Creek area) and locally along floodplains. High shrub thicket -- This plant association forms the transition between upland spruce-hardwood forests and alpine tundra and along floodplains near treeline. Plants in this association are several species of willows and alders with dogwood, prickly rose, raspberry, buffaloberry, and high bush cranberry. Thickets may be dense, or open interspersed with reindeer lichens, low heath type shrubs, or patches of alpine tundra. Low shrub, muskeg-bog -- These plant associations exist where conditions are too wet for tree growth such as old abandoned floodplains, partly filled ponds, and abandoned stream channels. Occasionally these conditions exist on gentle north- facing slopes. Some areas have nearly continuous cover of low shrubs; other are characterized by a cover of sedges and moss. Plants in this association include varying amounts of sedges, sphagnum and other mosses, bog rosemary, resin birch, dwarf Arctic birch, Labrador tea, willow, cranberry, and blueberry. Localized saturated flats have large patches of cotton grass tussocks. Areas of tall willow, alder, and widely spaced dwarf spruce and tamarack are sometimes found along the edges of this association. Bog surfaces often have uneven, string-like ridges that are too wet for shrubs. The majority of this type of plant association is found in the Tanana Flats and in the Susitna River Basin. Table 3.2 summarizes the amounts of major plant associations crossed by the proposed Denali Pipeline. Table 3.2 Major Plant Associations Crossed by the Proposed Denali Pipeline Plant Association Total Percent " Miles Total Lowland spruce-hardwood forest 110 33 Upland spruce-hardwood forest 115 33 Bottomland spruce-poplar forest 56 13 Alpine tundra 10 2 High shrub thicket 25 7 Low shrub, muskeg bogs 29 12 Total 345) 100 {All numbers are rounded '2) Does not include Knik Arm Source: AEIDC (1974, 1975) AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 2 ae : PAGE Sea 3.3 Wetlands This discussion of wetland plant distribution is based on 1:63,360 scale (1 inch = 1 mile) maps prepared by the FWS for the national wetlands inventory (NWI). This wetlands inventory was prepared using stereoscopic analysis of high altitude aerial photographs on the basis of vegetation cover, visible hydrology, and geography. Mapping standards were in accordance with Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States developed by the FWS, Office of Biological Services, December 1979. All but approximately five miles of the proposed pipeline route have been mapped under the NWI process. These missing five miles were kindly mapped to NWI standards for this project by the FWS Division of Habitat Conservation in Anchorage. The NWI classification system is more detailed than that used in Section 3.2 (vegetation), therefore, data in these two sections are not directly comparable. The major wetland areas that would be crossed by the proposed pipeline route are lowland spruce-hardwood forest and lowland bogs and marshes in the Tanana Flats and lower Susitna River Basin. Other wetlands are associated with the same plant associations in the Alaska Range, and shrub thickets on floodplains and coastal marshes along the northern shore of Knik Arm. Wetlands that would be traversed by the proposed pipeline in this area are best described as a part of the palustrine system. The palustrine system includes all wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, emergent moss and lichens that are not influenced by ocean- derived salinity. Wetland types commonly referred to as bogs, muskegs, fens, marshes and swamps are grouped in the palustine system. Also, it includes lakes and ponds of less than 20 acres. All rivers and stream channels crossed by the proposed pipeline, upstream from the influence of ocean-derived salinity, are included in the riverine system. The open water of upper Knik Arm and the adjacent mud flats, tidal marshes, and brackish river channels, are classified in the esturine system. Following is a description, by pipeline segment, of wetlands identified by the NWI that would be crossed by the proposed pipeline alignment. Segment 1: North Pole to Cripple Creek W plan S Sraeeses a cmon resem or cutee orton seo oir oe wae) oiaenicn oer seis eeece enon 5.2 Mi. Wetlands & Stream Crossings ........... eee eee eens 18.7 Mi. Total ..........4. 23.9 Mi Percent Wetlands .......... cc cece eee eee eee eee 78.2 % Wetlands (Potential Permafrost)... 1... 0... 0. e eee eee 8.7 Mi Wetlands are evenly divided between scrub and forest needle-leaved evergreens with saturated soils. There are small lake crossings that are permanently flooded. Wetlands consisting of scrub evergreens are an indication of potential permafrost soils. Segment 2: Cripple Creek to Nenana UY) ead S rae cece er emrem cee ermvastce acne momenta enone ce nm ceeriee cece 35.0 Mi. Wetlands & Stream Crossings ......... 0. eee eee eee eee .7 Mi. Otel Segoe pepe memes 38.7 Mi PONCE mt Wetland Serre rcerecrrente om ctolie ne ae'eiictrostemton'smonenee se eje= sy 0-(-ep ouentonon 9.6% Wetlands (Potential Permafrost) ...... 0.0... eee eee eee eee 0.3 Mi AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT. Wetland are found along tributary streams to Goldstream Creek and Alder Creek, and include forest areas of predominately needle-leaved evergreens and small areas of scrubs that are indicative of potential permafrost conditions. Segment 3: Nenana to Healy UW plandsiieucrrcicrcioenrnenciciaieienoncile lente ichlciieitelc ley -Neree) eltomenon events Nerlolte 18.0 Mi. Wetlands & Stream Crossings! 5). rer oe eee) ee are +m 40.8 Mi. Total ........... 58.8 Mi Percent Wetlands sec ce csi ale eles ia) lft ie 69.4 % Wetlands (Potential) Permafrost) 52. 0..:5 0.5 du0 00% sae sce 36.5 Mi. Wetlands are predominately scrub and forest needle-leaved evergreens. There is a mixture of scrub, broad-leaved deciduous, and emergent wetlands along 10 miles of the routing. Permafrost is likely in wetlands as shown by the thaw and frost heave experience on the Parks Highway and the Alaska Railroad through this area. Segment 4: Healy to Broad Pass Uplands: oc incc anime chaps yams swe THER AOE Ee Ow NDS 27.0 Mi. Wetlands & Stream Crossings ......... 00. eee eee eens 13.0 Mi. UE Gooocoscadge 40.0 Mi Percent, Wetlands «2... 0.5..0000000%860 00% sass sees 32.5 % Wetlands are seasonally flooded saturated shrub bogs with a canopy consisting of broad-leaved deciduous shrubs mixed with some emergent and forest type evergreens. The wetlands are located on the slope parallel to Moody Creek and the Yanert River. Segment 5: Broad Pass to Hurricane Wplamds) fhe) tat tafe o estele euler ce 4 taley ep lailepem ovis] aio lafet css fold © tedtet oe ej kel a fete 29.8 Mi. Wetlands)&!'Stream (Crossings) 6 3)4)5 i) 4 leo le lel elete ete § sie) o lol 6.9 Mi. Ota seco eiet cer rare eile 36.7 Mi Percent Wetlands |e latcels]s cilia oleic) olaicion eilalen aiieiteeilctieetiele alters 23.0 % The dominant wetlands are scrub, needle-leaved evergreens and emergents. The wetlands are generally saturated with seasonal flooding. Smaller areas of wetlands consist of saturated shrub bog with greater than 70 percent of the canopy consisting of broad-leaved deciduous shrubs. Segment 6: Hurricane to Talkeetna Spur Road Uplands 1725/5 fala ited ct ile | ret ol leslel eh tetha) corte let cote he ny teleles selolater elie) reilertcet ces dey ee 63.7 Mi. Wetlands and Stream Crossing ..........000cceveccvees 10.2 Mi. Total yaaa eelees 73.9 Mi PercentiWetlandsiiier)-aceici aici a eee aie racic 13.8% The wetlands adjacent to the Parks Highway have been impacted or changed by construction of the highway. Some wetlands have been split by highway construction. However, the highway routing avoided wetlands whenever possible. The proposed pipeline would be included within this same ROW and could protrude onto adjacent wetlands. These wetlands are a mixture of broad-leaved deciduous and needle-leaved evergreen shrubs and emergent vegetation. Segment 7: Talkeetna Spur Road to Nancy Lake Uplands eal caalecciertsietecrrieilcl cure tolloleerseiltcieenelieticmenrellsdierrercelseciial einer elite 29.2 Mi. Wetlands) & Stream) Crossings lye) cr aiene siete orelleey e)isheiciteieny eel a) 6.8 Mi. otal eicnaeraiciene 36.0 Mi AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT = | .—==€>? FREY Percent Wetlands .......... cece eee ee ete eee eee 18.9 % These wetlands are characterized by a mixture of broad-leaved deciduous shrubs and emergent vegetation. Temporarily flooded areas occur on stream and creek floodplains. Segment 8: Nancy Lake to Knik Arm Wplands eine cist ciiece cliereler relent e evrier tenis) alto) eli svreeneusiis cl ueli ett ve) 28.3 Mi. Wetlands & Stream Crossings ..........00 0c eee eee eens 6.6 Mi. sOtal mcusroin nen neon: 34.9 Mi Percent Wetlands ........... eee eee ee eee eee eens 18.9 % The wetlands in the northern part of this segment are characterized by a mixture of broad-leaved deciduous shrubs and emergent vegetation. Temporarily flooded areas occur on stream and creek floodplains. The southern area, near Knik Arm, is saturated, open-canopy black spruce bog. The spruce in these wetlands are shrub height (less than 20 ft). A dense deciduous shrub understory is present and is dominated by sweet gale, labrador tea, cloudberry, dwarf birch and lowbush Cranberry. Segment 9: Knik Arm Crossing Wplands eepeereerey eicleeiren i oitereiicy ore citrieineevicirsllsiielio telielietonennconcn itil alia 1.3 Mi. Knik Arm Crossing and Tidal Flats ........ 00. e eee eee eee 7.0 Mi. Otal Mrorersrereisyr-t nel 8.3 Mi The tidal flats of Knik Arm consist of layered tidal deposits on broad areas along the edges of Cook Inlet. The flats range from sand to clay in texture. They are inundated regularly by high tides. Most areas are bare of vegetation, but sparse stands of beach wild-rye and sedges grow in places. 3.4 Surface and Groundwater Hydrology North Pole to Broad Pass North of Broad Pass, the proposed pipeline route is wholly contained within the Tanana River drainage, a large tributary of the Yukon River. The Tanana River drains an area of approximately 44,000 square miles through a valley 50 to 60 miles wide. Drainages into the Tanana from the south originate on the northern slopes of the Alaska Range, and the high elevations, numerous glaciers, and relatively heavy precipitation result in different runoff characteristics than those originating in the less rugged areas on the north side of the Tanana. Nearly all north flowing tributaries, such as the Nenana, are glacial in origin. They are generally swift and steep and carry large volumes of suspended sediments during spring and summer. For example, in the vicinity of Healy, the Nenana River carries approximately 1,700 tons of sediment per square mile of drainage basin. Channels in the lower reaches of the rivers are braided through extensive gravel deposits in the bottoms of canyons. In winter, flows are reduced and carry only a small amount of sediment (AEIDC, 1974). Mean annual runoff averages about 0.5 to 1 cfs per square mile in the lowlands and tributary basins on the north side of the Tanana, such as those between Fairbanks and Nenana traversed by the proposed pipeline route. South of the Tanana, mean annual runoff ranges from about 1 cfs per square mile adjacent to the river to over 4 cfs per square mile in the uplands of the Alaska Range. The runoff varies widely year to year (AEIDC, 1974). AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT) Mean annual peak runoff from small areas ranges from about 10 cfs per square mile in the lowlands to as high as 50 cfs per square mile in the steep basins of the uplands. Most annual peaks occur in summer and are caused by rain, often from thunderstorms, but spring snowmelt occasionally causes annual peaks. Frequent channel icing and ice-dam flooding contribute to high susceptibility to floods in the lowlands of both the Tanana and Nenana Rivers (AEIDC, 1974). Low flows averaging 0.1 to 0.2 cfs per square mile usually occur in late winter or early spring following along streamflow recession extending through the cold winter. Since streams in small tributary basins freeze completely during most winters, the only large source of streamflow during the winter is the subchannel water under the large rivers. During low flow some of the streams lose most of their water to the aquifers in the lowlands (AEIDC, 1974). Water storage is seasonal and limited. Few near-stream lakes provide sufficient storage to sustain streamflow during winter or through dry summers. The snowpack retains most precipitation during the winter, which causes the annual low flow. Glaciers provide year-to-year storage that helps sustain streamflow during dry years. Even though the Tanana basin is widely underlain by permafrost, alluvial aquifers near large rivers provide significant water storage that helps sustain baseflow (AEIDC, 1974). Throughout the Tanana basin, groundwater occurs under unconfined artesian conditions. Unconfined groundwater generally is found in unconsolidated alluvium in the valleys and in fractured bedrock beneath high slopes and ridges. Artesian conditions generally occur in the lower slopes where permeable beds are confined by permafrost or by impermeable sedimentary beds. Flowing artesian wells are common along the lower hillslopes (AEIDC, 1974). In the alluvium and glacial outwash of the Tanana and its major tributaries, such as the Nenana, yields of from 1,000 to 3,000 gpm can be obtained from wells at depths of less than 300 ft. Along the flanks of the Alaska Range near the headwaters of the Nenana River the sediments are coarse, and the depth to groundwater is commonly greater than 300 ft. This may be due to limited recharge. Icing occurs in most stream valleys in winter as a result of groundwater discharge from fractured bedrock sources or from shallow alluvium (AEIDC, 1974). Broad Pass to Cook Inlet South of Broad Pass, approximately 80 percent of the route of the proposed pipeline traverses the Susitna River drainage. The Susitna, the sixth largest river system in Alaska, drains an area of approximately 19,600 square miles. Extensive glaciers in the Alaska Range and the Talkeetna Mountains contribute substantial sediment loads to its larger rivers (AEIDC, 1974). Mean annual runoff is about 0.5 to 1 cfs per square mile in the central Susitna lowlands. Peak runoff means are less than 10 cfs per square mile in the lowlands, and range up to over 50 cfs per square mile in the mountains. Mean annual low runoff is generally between 0.3 and 1.0 cfs per square mile. Low flows generally occur in late winter when precipitation is stored as snow and groundwater additions to the streams are at a minimum. Low flows occasionally occur during dry summer months, but stream discharge is generally maintained by glacial melt (AEIDC, 1974). The mountains surrounding the subregion are considered a poor source of groundwater, although springs generally flowing less than 100 gpm do occur on the mountain flanks. Good groundwater sources are found in the Susitna River lowlands. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Wells drilled near principal streams throughout these lowlands may yield up to 1,000 gpm. Areas away from the streams may yield from 10 to more than 100 gpm (AEIDC, 1974). The northern 50 miles of the route south of Broad Pass is located on a high terrace in the 5-mile-wide glaciated valley of the Chulitna River, a major tributary of the Susitna River. Tributaries to the Chulitna crossed by the route drain the southern slopes of the Alaska Range and the Talkeetna Mountains, and tend to be small and deeply incised into bedrock. Most of the streams are clear, and their floodplains are narrow. The Chulitna itself is a steep, gravel-bed river affected by large glacial outburst floods (BLM/COE, 1988). The lower 90 miles of the route passes through the Susitna River lowlands. This is glaciated lowland containing many small lakes, separated by drumlins and eskers, and contains streams that are less active that tend to be meandering or have split channels with gravel beds. 3.5 Water Quality Both groundwater and surface water quality are generally good throughout the proposed pipeline corridor. North of Broad Pass iron is often present in undesirable amounts, especially where it may be complexed with organic material. Streams flowing north from the Alaska Range are usually somewhat higher in sulfate and magnesium content than other streams. Localized areas throughout the Interior have high natural concentrations of arsenic. Surface waters generally have dissolved solid contents ranging from 60 to 500 mg/l, with most under 200 mg/I (AEIDC, 1974). Many streams carry high levels of sediment. Glacial fed tributaries of the Tanana have normal summer sediment concentrations ranging from 500 to 2,000 mg/l. In contrast, larger nonglacial streams carry less than 100 mg/I, with a range of 10 to 300 mg/I. Smaller streams at lower elevations probably carry only 5 to 50 mg/I of sediment. The maximum recorded stream water temperature is 66° F in the Chena River near Fairbanks in June. Rivers cool to about 32° F in winter (AEIDC, 1974). South of Broad Pass almost all groundwater and surface waters are of acceptable chemical quality for most uses. Dissolved solids in groundwater are low, and there are no special problems with iron. Excepting glacial rivers, most streams are clear. Almost all surface waters are of the calcium bicarbonate type and is low in dissolved solids content (less than 250 mg/l). Surface waters from lakes and streams draining lakes in the lowland areas may contain objectionable amounts of iron and organic materials. The intestinal parasite giardia is prevalent in waters throughout the area, and treatment of this water is required before drinking (AEIDC, 1974). Suspended sediment loads in larger rivers emanating from glaciers at higher elevations, such as the Susitna, are among the highest in the state. Surface water temperatures in streams range from near 32° F in winter to a summer high of approximately 53° F. Shallow lake temperatures will reach 65° F (AEIDC, 1974). 3.6 Fish The proposed pipeline route traverses two major drainage systems: Tanana and Susitna. North of the hydrologic divide in Broad Pass near Cantwell, the Tanana River, and two of its major tributaries, the Chena and Nenana Rivers, are crossed by the proposed route. South of Broad Pass, the Chulitna River, a major tributary to the Susitna River, and the Susitna River, are crossed. There would be approximately 142 stream crossings between the existing North Pole refineries and the Port of Anchorage. The total number of crossings may be reduced by shifting crossings slightly to avoid oxbows, or by crossings below the confluence of several tributary AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT : oe : PAGE 3-38 streams. This might involve supplemental modification of terrestrial or riparian habitats since the proposed route generally follows existing transportation and utility corridor ROWs. Forty-three of the stream crossings, plus Knik Arm, would be associated with segments classified by ADF&G as anadromous fish waters. These anadromous fish steam crossings are shown in Table 3.6-1. There would be additional nine nonanadromous fish stream crossings that have known resident fish populations. Streams having only resident fish are shown in Table 3.6-2. Key fish species selected for discussion are ones that have one or more of the following characteristics: e important habitats directly associated with the proposed pipeline route e species considered important to human use e species with special legal status e species that use important habitats common to several other species. 3.6.1 Anadromous and Resident Fish The Tanana, Chena, and lower Nenana Rivers are important migration routes for three species of adult and young salmon (king, chum, and silver salmon). Only 4 of the 43 stream crossings with anadromous fish populations are in the Tanana River Basin. With one exception, there are no known salmon spawning or rearing habitats closely associated with the pipeline route north of Broad Pass. The exception is for chum salmon spawning habitat in the Tanana River upstream from the existing refineries at North Pole. Seven other stream crossings in the Tanana River Basin involve streams having only resident fish populations. Resident fish (whitefish, burbot, northern pike, arctic grayling, Dolly Varden, and sheefish) also are known, or are likely to be found, in the four anadromous fish streams in the Tanana River Basin crossed by the proposed pipeline. It is possible that other stream crossings, especially smaller clear water tributaries, provide localized habitat for resident fish species. (See Tables 3.6-1 and 3.6-2 for a list of anadromous fish streams and non-anadromous fish streams with known resident fish populations.) South of Broad Pass, the proposed pipeline route is associated with migration, spawning, and rearing habitats for all five Alaskan species of Pacific salmon (king, chum, silver, red, and pink). The 39 crossings of fresh water anadromous streams by the proposed pipeline alignment south of Broad Pass also contain known, or are likely to contain, resident fish species (Dolly Varden, rainbow trout, northern pike, burbot, arctic grayling, and whitefish). It is possible that other streams crossed provide localized habitat for resident fish species. Several streams in the Susitna River Basin crossed by the proposed alignment terminate directly in the marine waters of upper Cook Inlet. In addition to the anadromous and resident fish species discussed above, it is possible that the lower reaches of these streams also may have hooligan. Table 3.6-3 summarizes the life history of anadromous and resident fish associated with the proposed route, with an emphasis on identifying periods having the /east sensitivity to disturbances that might reasonably occur during construction of the proposed pipeline. The determination of sensitivity to disturbance considers periods of peak sports fishing. (See Section 3.13 for a discussion of sport fishing.) Table 3.6- 4 graphically shows the period of least biological sensitivity for each of the anadromous and resident fish species associated with streams crossed by the proposed pipeline route and for the proposed Knik Arm crossing. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT a ee PAGE 3-40 Table 3.6-1 Fresh Water Anadromous Fish Stream Crossings (43) by the Proposed Pipeline Alignment Nearest Pipeline Mile Post Name Species Period of Least Sensitivity! TANANA RIVER BASIN 18 Chena River 61 Tanana River 90 Nenana River 116 Panguinque Creek SUSITNA RIVER BASIN 176 M.F. Chulitna River 182 E.F. Chulitna River 191 Honolulu Creek 210 Horseshoe Creek 228 Byers Creek 234 Troublesome Creek 238 Chulitna River 243 Chulinta R. trib. 245 Chulitna R. trib. 246 Chulitna R. trib. 250 Chulitna R. trib. 251 Chulitna R. trib. 255 Trapper Creek K, CH, sf, hwf, rwf, gr-r, np, bb K, CO, CH, rwf, hwf, sf K,CO,—CH,— rwe CO-r, av-r, gr-r CO-s, K-s, gr, rb K-s, CO, bb, dav, gr, rb K-s, gr, rb co, (bb, dv, gr, rb) K-s, S, CO-s, CH-s,(bb, dv, gr, rb) P-s, K-s, CH-s, CO-s, gr CH-s, CO, S, K, P, (bb, dv, gr, rb) P-s, (bb, dv, gr, rb) co, (bb, dv, gr, rb) co, (bb, dv, gr, rb) CoO, (bb, dv, gr, rb) CoO, (bb, dv, gr, rb) CO-sr, K-r, rb October to June June June Winter Winter Winter Winter December to June Winter Winter Winter Spring December to June December to June December to June December to June Winter ' Crossings avoid major spawning areas where possible, construction activities maintain acceptable water quality and supply to downstream spawning areas. also given to periods of heavy human use. sensitivity see Tables 3.6-3 and 3.6-4 and Sections 3.13 and 3.14. Consideration For additional information on biological Table 3.6-1 (Cont’n) Nearest Pipeline Period of Least Mile Post Name Species Sensitivity 258 Rabideaux Cr. trib. CO-sr, gr, rb, bb Winter 261 Sawmill Creek CO-s, rb, gr Winter 265 Rabideaux Creek CO-s, K-r, bb, gr, rb Winter 267 Susitna River co, P, CH-s, S, K, gr, rb, bb, dav Winter 271 Little Montana Cr. CO-r, (bb, gr, rb) Winter 274 Montana Creek Ks-r, P-s, CH-s, CO-r, bb, gr, rb Winter 20 Goose Creek K-sr, P-s, CO-sr, CH-s, bb, gr, rb Winter 281 Sheep Creek K-sr, P-s, CH-s, CH-s, bb, gr, rb Winter 285 Caswell Creek CO-sr, bb, dv, rb Winter 287 Kashwitna River K, CH-s, P-s, CO, bb, av, rb Winter 289 196 Mile Creek K-r, gr Winter 295 Little Willow cr. co, gr, bb, rb December to June 298 Willow Creek co, CH, P, S, K-sr,rb, bb, dav, gr Winter LITTLE SUSITNA RIVER DRAINAGE 303 Lilly Creek co-r, (rb, bb, dv, gr) Winter 305 Nancy Lake trib. Cco-r, (rb, bb, dv, gr) Winter 307 Nancy Lk. Cr. trib. CO-r, (rb, bb, dv, gr) Winter 311 Nancy Lk. Cr. trib. CO-r, (rb, bb, dv, gr) Winter 323) Little Su. R. trib. CO-r, (rb, bb, dv, gr) Winter 314 Little Susitna R. K-s, S, CO-s, P-s, CH-s, rb, bb, dv, gr Winter FISH CREEK DRAINAGE 318 Meadow Creek trib. CO-r Winter 319 Little Meadow Creek P, CH, CO-s Winter 320 Lucile Creek S, CO-r Winter 329 Fish Creek K, S, P-s, CO-r, CH, rb Winter Table 3.6-1 (Cont’n) Nearest Pipeline Period of Least Mile Post Name Species Sensitivity GOOSE CREEK DRAINAGE 330 Goose Creek co, rb December to June 332 Goose Creek co-s December to June 334 Goose Creek co December to June (See Table 3.6-5 for Knik Arm aquatic life) Key- anadromous resident Ss sockeye salmon rb rainbow trout K king salmon bb burbot co silver salmon gr Arctic grayling P pink salmon sf sheefish CH chum salmon dv Dolly Varden/arctic char np northern pike -s spawning rwf round whitefish -r rearing hwf humpback whitefish -sr spawning and rearing ( ) (resident fish that may be present based on known resident fish distribution in nearby steams) Source: ADF&G Anadromous Stream Catalogue, 1992; Alaska Habitat Management Guide, Vol V (Western and Interior Regions) 1986; Alaska Habitat Management Guide, Vols II and III (Southcentral Region) 1985. Table 3.6-2 Proposed Pipeline Alignment Nonanadromous Fish Stream Crossings (9) with Known Resident Fish Populations Nearest Period of Pipeline Least Mile Post Stream Species Sensitivity Tanana River Basin 68 Fish Creek rwf, gr winter 79 Julius Creek rwf, gr winter 96 Bear Creek dv, gr winter 90,121 Nenana River" bb, gr winter 128 Moody Creek av-r, gr-r winter 138 Yanert Fork dv, rb winter 146 Carlo Creek dv, gr winter Susitna River Basin 194 Little Honolulu Cr. gr winter © Pwo crossings Key- rwf round whitefish gr Arctic grayling dv Dolly Varden/arctic char rb rainbow trout bb burbot -r rearing Source: ADF&G (1986c, 1985, and 1978a) Five of the Optional alignments (Nenana Canyon, Nancy Lake Creek, Big Lake, Point MacKenzie Road, and Palmer Hay Flats) would involve a different group of streams or stream segments. The other eight optional alignment are essentially the same as the preferred alignment in terms of fishery resources. These differences are discussed below. The Nenana Canyon Option would avoid the Moody Creek drainage with its known resident fish populations. However, this option would be on the immediate uphill side of the Parks Highway in very close proximity to the Nenana River with its known resident fish populations. The Nancy Lake Creek Option and the preferred alignment both cross the Little Susitna River in the same general area. The basic difference is that the Nancy Lake Creek Option would follow an existing powerline southward along Nancy Lake Creek to a crossing of the Little Susitna in a designated segment of the Little Susitna Recreation River that is about four river miles west (downstream) of the Parks Highway. This area has heavy sport fishing use by boaters and bank fishermen during the summer, and for snowmachine travel during the winter by people using established access points and facilities at the Parks Highway. The preferred alignment would cross the Little Susitna River adjacent to the Parks Highway in an area that is not within the state’s recreation river classification. The Big Lake Option crosses nine fewer streams than the preferred option, but those with fish populations would be crossed in areas where habitat values and human uses are higher than the preferred alignment. The Point MacKenzie Option would cross four fewer streams than would the preferred alignment. The Palmer Hay Flats Option would avoid an underwater crossing of Knik Arm, but would cross several more anadromous streams, as well as the Matanuska and Knik Rivers. 3.6.2 Marine Species Knik Arm is a glacial estuary characterized by very turbid cold water, with extreme tides and strong currents. Primary biological production is very low. Intertidal and subtidal benthic organisms are sparse, but moderate production of fish and epibenthic invertebrates does occur. According to DOT/FHA and DOT/PF (1984), energy for this simple ecosystem is probably related to organic detritus from adjacent upland areas. Important resident marine fish include saffron cod and Bering cisco. Knik Arm also serves as a migratory corridor and temporary residence for adult and juvenile salmon migrating to and from headwater freshwater streams. Juvenile salmon migrate seaward through the area during the period from May to late June, while adults ready to spawn are present from May through September. Epifaunal animals (crustaceans such as shrimp) are common. Most juvenile salmon move out of Knik Arm within a period of a few days (DOT/FHA and DOT/PF, 1983). Chum salmon fry are present in Knik Arm in significant numbers from mid-May until at least mid June and perhaps July. Silver salmon juveniles are present from about May 20 until at least mid-June with a peak probably occurring in early June. Some silver salmon rearing may occur in the estuary. Red salmon juvenile are present at about the same time as silver salmon, but red salmon abundance peaks some what later and tapers off more slowly. Available data suggest AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ae a NGE S46 Table 3.6-3 Summary of Anadromous and Resident Fish Life Histories Associated with the KING SALMON -- King salmon usually arrive in the Fairbanks area in early July. They enter the fresh water streams of the Susitna River Basin in late May and June, with peak abundance in late June and early July. Spawning is during June and July. Coarse gravel substrate in medium sized streams with moderate currents is the preferred spawning habitat. Incubation takes about three months. Young fish remain in fresh water about one year, with migration to saltwater in May and early June. Two to six years may be spent in saltwater before returning to their home stream to spawn. Spawning does not occur in the streams associated with the proposed pipeline route north of Broad Pass. Streams segments used by king salmon for spawning or rearing generally are considered sensitive year around because of the presence of rearing young salmon when the mature adults are returning to spawn. Other stream segments are sensitive only when the adults are there in the summer and when the juveniles migrate through in the spring. SILVER SALMON -- Silver salmon reach the Fairbanks area in September and October, but enter fresh water streams of the Susitna River Basin in late summer or early fall. The peak of the run in the Fairbanks area is during late September Proposed Pipeline Route and early October, and in the Susitna River Basin during late July and August, with spawning from September through November. Medium gravel substrate associated with upwelling ground water in small to medium sized streams is the preferred spawning habitat. Incubation takes 1.5 to two months. Young silver salmon remain in fresh water for one year, usually in lakes, ponds, sloughs, and stream pools with slow currents. Migration of young silver salmon to saltwater is in May and early June. Two to three years are spent in saltwater before returning to their home stream to spawn. Generally, stream segments with silver salmon spawning or rearing habitat are sensitive year around, but the period after the spring outmigration of juvenile silver salmon in May and June and the return of adults in the late summer is somewhat less sensitive than the rest of the year. Other stream segments are sensitive only when the adults are present and when the juveniles are migrating through in the spring. RED SALMON -- Red salmon are not present in the segments of the Tanana River Basin associated with the proposed pipeline route. In the Susitna River Basin, red salmon enter fresh water streams to spawn during the period of early July to September, with peak abundance during July and early August. Fine gravel in lakes or streams is the preferred spawning habitat. Incubation takes two to five months, with hatching from mid winter to early spring. Young red salmon then move to a lake and remain there for one to two years. Juveniles migrate to saltwater in the May through July period. Two to three years are spent in saltwater before returning to their home stream to spawn. Unless spawning or rearing habitats are present, the most sensitive periods for red salmon are during the migration of spawning adults and during the outmigration of young red salmon. CHUM SALMON -- Chum salmon arrive in the Fairbanks area in early July. A second run arrives in mid-August and continues through September. Peak abundance in the Fairbanks area for the first run is during July, while the peak of the second run is during late September and early October. Chum salmon enter fresh water streams in the Susitna River Basin during early June, with peak abundance in August. Spawning takes place during July and August. Spawning in the Fairbanks area is about one month later. Spawning locations and habitats are variable. Incubation takes two to three months. Young chum salmon start to migrate to saltwater immediately upon hatching. Three to four years are spent in saltwater before returning to their home streams to spawn. The sensitive periods for chum salmon are during the migration of adult salmon and in the spring as the young salmon are migrating to saltwater. PINK SALMON -- Pink salmon are not indigenous to the Tanana River Basin. In the Susitna River Basin, pink salmon enter fresh water streams during the period of mid-July through August. Fine gravel in small to moderate sized streams close to saltwater is the preferred spawning habitat. Incubation requires two to four months with an additional two to three months spent in the gravel where they hatched. Young pink salmon immediately began to migrate to saltwater after emerging from the gravel. About 18 months are spent in saltwater before returning to their home stream to spawn. The sensitive period for pink salmon is from the time adult salmon enter fresh water in mid July through December when young migrate to saltwater. RAINBOW TROUT -- Rainbow trout are not indigenous to the Tanana River Basin, but occur naturally in the Susitna River Basin. Some waters are stocked with hatchery raised rainbow trout. Preferred habitat for adults includes streams with riffles and pools having gravel bottoms and moderate current. Adult rainbow trout may spawn over a period of several years, but most spawn only twice. Spawning takes place during May and June as water temperatures begin to raise. Gravel-bottomed riffles with some fine gravel in moderately swift clearwater steams, lake outlets, and lakes are preferred spawning habitat. Depending upon the water temperature, hatching takes from a four to Table 3.6-3 (Cont’n) seven weeks, but can be as long as four months. A few weeks more may pass before the fry emerge from the gravel. At that time, the fry seek shelter in small tributary streams, along stream margins, or along protected lake shores. Stream segments having rainbow spawning habitat are most sensitive during the period between May and July. Stream segments with rearing habitats are sensitive during the period between July and freezeup. DOLLY VARDEN -- Dolly Varden are members of the char family. Some populations are anadromous; others are not. Anadromous Dolly Varden migrate to saltwater after they are three years old. Anadromous populations then move back and forth between saltwater during the summer and overwinter in fresh water lakes each year. Migration to the sea usually is in May or June, but some populations may migrate in September and October. Little is known about the life history of resident Dolly Varden that spend their entire life in streams. Resident Dolly Varden are common in headwater streams during spring, summer and fall. They may periodically return to lakes during these times. Overwinter habitat is deep pools in streams and rivers. Adults may spawn over a period of several years. Spawning can take place in freshwater streams with or without lake systems. Spawning begins in September and locally may extend into November. Hatching takes place usually in March with young emerging from the gravel in April or May. The sensitive period for stream segments with Dolly Varden spawning habitat is between September and May. Stream segments with rearing habitat are sensitive between May and freezeup. ARCTIC GRAYLING -- Arctic grayling prefer clear, cold streams and lakes but also are found in fairly turbid and streams stained from adjacent peaty areas. Clearwater sloughs and backwaters of glacial streams also provide suitable habitat. Spawning takes place between April and June soon after the streams are ice free. At that time, adults often migrate from ice-covered lakes and larger rivers to small, gravel- bottomed tributaries. Riffle areas or fast- flowing sections of streams with gravel or rubble bottoms are preferred spawning areas, but swampy area with emergent vegetation are sometimes used. Eggs hatch between 11 to 23. days. Young Arctic grayling live throughout a stream system, including tributaries not associated with spawning. As water temperatures drop in the fall, all age classes of Arctic grayling move toward more favorable habitats such as larger rivers and deep lakes. Stream segments with spawning habitat are sensitive during the period of April through July. Stream segments with rearing habitat are sensitive from June through freezeup. Also smaller streams may be sensitive during the fall grayling migration period just prior to freezeup. SHEEFISH -- Sheefish are large fish belonging to the whitefish family. In Interior rivers, adult sheefish seldom reach weights much more than 15 pounds. Although some populations of sheefish are anadromous, populations associated with the pipeline route are year- around residents. Migrations from the overwintering areas start in April and May and are widely dispersed by June or July. Adults spawn over a period of years, perhaps every two or three years. Spawning is during late September and early October. Spawning habitat is restricted to areas where the stream bed is made up of differentially-sized coarse gravel with some sand and no silt. The water depth must be between four to eight feet deep with a fast current. Hatching takes up to six months with the fry moving downstream with spring floods. Stream segments with sheefish spawning habitat are sensitive from September to April. ROUND WHITEFISH -- Round whitefish are most abundant in clearwater streams with gravel bottoms, but are also present in large rivers and lakes. Adult round whitefish are multi-year spawners, with spawning during the last half of September and the first half of October. Clear streams are preferred for spawning, but shallow, gravel-bottom lakes are also used. Hatching is in the spring. Young round whitefish rear in shallow portions of lakes and in streams and rivers. HUMPBACK WHITEFISH -- Humpback whitefish are the most widely distributed whitefish species in Alaska. Preferred habitat includes slower moving waters, side channels and sloughs associated with large rivers, brackish deltas and freshwater lakes. Adults spawn over a period Table 3.6-3 (Cont’n) of years. Sexually mature adults move to spawning areas in the summer and early fall, but some lake spawners may spawn as late as January. Shallow reaches of rivers and rocky reef areas of lakes are preferred. Eggs hatch in March or April. Young humpback whitefish rear in both lakes and flowing waters, but prefer protected shallow near shore habitat. Some populations of humpback whitefish are anadromous. These populations overwinter in freshwater and then return to saltwater in May and June during breakup. NORTHERN PIKE -- Northern pike generally prefer slow moving clear or brown-stained waters flowing through peaty areas. Few northern pike are found south of the Alaska Range. Spawning takes place soon after the ice goes out in the spring. Preferred spawning habitat is ice fee water with mud bottoms covered with a vegetation mat where there also is emergent vegetation. Water depths range from three inches to several feet with little or no current. Hatching takes 10 to 12 days. Young northern pike remain in the area where they hatched for several weeks. After spawning, the adults disperse to deeper waters. Winter movements of northern pike are largely unknown. However, summer habitat is often completely frozen or is in areas where oxygen depletion is likely during the winter. Accordingly, the overwintering areas are in deep, slow waters of larger rivers. Spring migrations to the spawning ground and then to summer feedings areas are usually quite short. Movement during the summer is minimal. BURBOT -- Burbot are the only member of the cod family to live in freshwater. This species is primarily found in the cool deep water of large lakes, but are also found in large rivers, small streams and ponds. Source: ADF&G ( 1978a, 1985, 1986a, 1986b, and 1986c) red salmon spend only a short time in Knik Arm, but there is some feeding. King salmon juveniles are present in the same general time frame as other salmon. No prominent peak in abundance of king salmon juveniles has been reported. Pink salmon juveniles move along the shoreline during the first few weeks in saltwater. Table 3.6-5 shows the fish species associated with the proposed pipeline options across Knik Arm. Only biological sensitivities are summarized in Tables 3.6-3 and 3.6-4, because there is essentially no human sport, commercial or subsistence uses associated with the proposed crossing area. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT PAGE S60 Table 3.6-4 Periods of Biological Sensitivity for Anadromous and Resident Fish Populations Associated with the Proposed Denali Pipeline Project! Fish Anadromous Fish King Salmon Silver Salmon Red Salmon Chum Salmon Pink Salmon Hooligan Drainage Tanana River Susitna River Knik Arm Tanana River Susitna River Knik Arm Susitna River Knik Arm Tanana River Susitna River Knik Arm Susitna River Knik Arm Susitna River Knik Arm Month J F M A M J J A Ss Oo N D mmmm MMM rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrmSmSrSrSrSrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr mmmMmMMMMM rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrmmmmrrrrrrrrrrrMMMMMMMMrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrmmmmrrrSSSSSSSSrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr mmmmMMMMMMMMM LITT. eee eee eee ee ee /-mMMMMMMMMMSMSSSSSSrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr mmmmm MMMMMMMM mmmm SSsss SmSmSm Cee meer rrr crc eer eres eeeee s SOOSSLIYYrrrrrrrrmmmmmm mmmMmMmM rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmnmSSSSSSrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr mmmmMmMmMmMm ssss ssss ' General periods of sensitivity are indicated. Table 3.6-4 (Cont’n) Fish Drainage Month Resident Fish Rainbow Trout aielelateliolsleletelsielslcliclele SOS Sale oc] oletotslsleleyerel svelslelotelerevclete ote Dolly Varden/ Arctic Char eccceceee edYErrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrSSSSSSSS....... Arctic Grayling ooeeeeeeeee -SSSSSSSSrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr......-- dooce Sheefish ole) el otolonelelelotoleiaielicheletetcrerele sioleValaletsfofetaieieieloieletetetcte elle Bleiote Round whitefish ater Humpback whitefish Northern Pike Burbot eitelokelley <\lelielolotelele lelielie] «| ofele|o le o's oe] eieheloleielle)«) slie\iols} olelee/e cial s}oie Saffron Cod Knik Arm failelovotolsrelorelaratereicielerers afelaleralielotel elieketetatael er eveielets aiovorehereieions Bering Cisco Knik Arm Note: The sensitivity periods are generalized for each river basin and Knik Arm; each crossing of a fish stream would have a specific set of habitats and related sensitivities which might be only a portion of the periods shown. Key: r = incubation/rearing, m = migrating immatures toward salt water, M = migrating adults toward spawning areas, S = spawning adults, ...... = fish present Table 3.6-5 Fish and Shellfish Associated with the Knik Arm Crossing Period of Least Biological Species Comment Sensitivity King salmon Juveniles present at about the same periods as other July-April salmon. No prominent peak noted. It is possible that the peak occurred after the study period. Adult spawning migration. August-May Silver salmon Juveniles present from about May 20 until at least mid- July-May Red Salmon Chum salmon Pink salmon Hooligan Saffron cod Bering cisco June. Peak of the outmigration probably in early June. Some rearing may occur in the Knik Arm. Adult spawning migration. Juveniles present from about May 20 until at least mid- June. Peak of the outmigration in mid- to late June and tapers off slowly. Short residence time in the estuary, but some saltwater foods are eaten. Adult spawning migration. Fry present in significant numbers from mid-May until at least mid-June and perhaps July. Adult spawning migration. Juveniles present from mid April to mid-July. Oriented to the shoreline during the first few weeks in saltwater. Adult spawning migration. Adult spawning migration. Present year around. Present Year around. October-June August-April October-June July-May August-May August-March September- July July-March ' See Table 3.6-3 for additional information about salmon. A 60 day period between May and July 1 has previously been identified as the period of maximum biological sensitivity (DOT/FHA and DOT/PF, 1984). Source: DOT/FHA and ADOT/PF, 1983; and DOT/FHA and ADOT/PF, 1984. 3.7 Wildlife The natural distribution and abundance of wildlife along the proposed pipeline route has been altered by historical settlement and development. These include the presence of Fairbanks, Anchorage, and the smaller communities and scattered rural residences and commercial enterprises along the existing highways; the railroad network between North Pole and the Port of Anchorage; construction and periodic maintenance of the Parks, Richardson, and Glenn Highways, and the GVEA, MEA, CEA and APA Intertie powerlines; several buried utility crossings of Knik Arm; and the 99-mile long, 20-inch diameter gas pipeline between the Beluga gas fields and Anchorage. Moose populations and distributions also reflect locally significant high levels of mortality during the winter from train and highway traffic. Wildlife habitats shown on the Alignment Maps (Appendix A) focus only on key areas that are important to maintaining healthy wildlife populations. For example, winter moose concentration areas, moose rutting and calving areas, and caribou migration routes are shown, but general moose or caribou distributions are not. Likewise, Dall sheep lambing areas and waterfowl concentration areas are identified, while general Dall sheep and waterfowl distributions are not. Wildlife sensitivities are based on literature review, especially ADF&G 1990, 1988, 1986a through 1986e, 1985, 1978b, and 1973; and DNR 1989. Therefore, indications of sensitivities and the potential for adverse impacts to wildlife assume that: 1) existing environmental practices would continue; and 2) a measurable increase in sensitivity for a specific resource or locality would not occur without a substantial change in levels of existing use such as the general volumes of rail or highway traffic, logging, and the extent of community development and rural settlement patterns. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT PAGE 3-54 Key mammal and bird species selected for discussion are ones that have one or more of the following characteristics: e important habitats directly associated with the proposed pipeline route e species considered important to human use e species with special legal status e species which use important habitats common to several other species Mammals and birds associated with the proposed pipeline route move from place to place throughout the year, often in predictable patterns. Many mammals and some birds move only relatively short distances and stay close to the pipeline route throughout their life, whereas, others move great distances and are associated with the pipeline for only certain periods of the year. Others, especially most birds, travel to other states or countries during their annual movements. Daily and seasonal movements are made in response to the availability of food; breeding, nesting, molting habitats; and the need to escape from predators and insects. Seasonal sensitivities are also identified. Life histories, habitats, and sensitivities for mammals and birds, unless otherwise referenced, are summarized from the ADF&G publication: Alaska Habitat Management Guide-Life Histories and Habitat Requirements of Fish and Wildlife (1986a). Sensitivities are based on information summarized from the ADF&G publication: Alaska Habitat Management Guide-/mpacts of Land and Water Use on Wildlife and Their Habitat and on Human Use of Fish and Wildlife (1986b). 3.7.1 Mammals Moose -- Moose are highly adaptable and use a wide variety of habitats, especially transitional vegetation types that typically follow surface disturbance or forest fire. Moose periodically move between mountains and adjoining lowlands. Annual habitat requirements are extremely broad and include the following: breeding grounds, winter feeding areas, calving grounds, and summer feeding areas. Specific characterization of each habitat type is not practicable because of the diversity of habitats used at any time. Winter range is crucial for survival of adults, young-of-the-year, and unborn calves. Winter ranges consist of two types: successional and climax. Climax willow stands in river valleys are very important winter moose habitat. In late April to early June, moose drift to lowland areas where calves are born during the last week of May and the first week of June. Calving frequently occurs on a portion of the winter range, but may be on spring/summer ranges. Calving areas tend to be open meadows interspersed with islands of black spruce, alder, willow, sedges, and shallow lakes and ponds with associated emergent and aquatic vegetation. From early June to mid-July, many moose shift back to the adjacent highland areas. Rutting peaks in late September and early October. At that time large groups of moose frequently concentrate in relatively small areas. These rutting areas appear to be used year after year. Moose move from the summer/fall highland areas to lowland winter range in November. Early snowfall may accelerate this movement. Moose are generally found along the entire proposed pipeline alignment. Major moose concentration areas, however, are found only from Broad Pass area southward. South of Broad Pass, the pipeline alignment proceeds along the Parks Highway near the extreme western boundary of known moose rutting concentration and known moose winter concentration areas. Known winter concentration and calving areas occur in AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT a —— a PAGE 3-56 the Willow and Nancy Lake-Little Susitna River areas. Goose Bay State Game Refuge also is a known moose calving concentration area, while the area south of Elmendorf Moraine on Knik Arm is a known winter concentration area. All of the optional alignments involve essentially the same moose habitats and population abundance as the proposed pipeline routing. Moose use a wide variety of plant foods throughout the year. During the winter, foods include shrubs such as willow and the new growth on aspen and cottonwood. During the remainder of the year, aquatic plants, shrubs, and other lush vegetation are eaten. Willow and birch are preferred winter food, but aspen is locally important. Mountain cranberry and foliose lichens are also eaten in some localities. Willow is the most important spring-time food, but horsetails, sedges, aquatic plants, and lichens also are eaten. Moose habituate to regular human activity. Moose/vehicle and train collisions can cause substantial mortality to local moose populations. Response to aircraft noise is not predictable, but work in, or close to moose concentrations in the late winter (w) should be minimized to the extent possible since this is the time when additional stress may be fatal to adults or to unborn calves. Likewise, activities should be minimized in or close to calving (c) areas during and immediately after calving (pc). The period of biological sensitivity shown in Table 3.7 includes the time moose are in winter concentration areas during late winter, calving, and post-calving. Caribou -- The proposed pipeline route skirts the western edge of the Delta, Yanert, and Nelchina caribou herd ranges, and is near the eastern edge of the Denali caribou herd (BLM/COE, 1988). Table 3.7 Periods of Biological Sensitivity! for Mammal and Bird Populations Associated with the Proposed Denali Pipeline Project Animal Month Mammals Moose {--Winter.] [calves] Caribou mmmmmmm mmmmmmm Dall Sheep 1111 Brown Bear and Black Bear denning............ Jj [cubs] (..denning Birds Ducks and Geese mmmmnnnrrrrrrrr mmmm Swans mmmmmnnnnrrrrrrmlrrrrmmmmm Bald and Golden Eagles? {-pn...]{active nests] Peregrine Falcons’ {..active nests...] KEY: 1111 = lambing, mmmn = migration, ml = molting, nnn = nesting, pn = prenesting, rrr = brood rearing ' Based on the relative importance of habitats and concentrated periods of animal use of areas crossed by the proposed pipeline route. 2 Period of sensitivity established by the FWS under the provisions of the Bald Eagle Protection Act. 3 Period of sensitivity established by FWS under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act. The proposed pipeline route crosses a known caribou summer and summer/winter concentration area located between Clear and Healy. An eastward spring migration zone and a western fall migration zone follow Walker Creek on the east side of the Nenana River near Healy. All of the optional alignments would involve essentially the same caribou habitats as the proposed pipeline route. Caribou migration routes tend to follow favorable terrain such as river valleys that terminate in lower mountain passes or along the flanks of mountain ranges or low hills. Migration routes are typically a broad corridor, or a series of corridors, rather than a "single" route. Movements appear to be influenced by a variety of events including calving, weather, availability of food, predation and insects. Caribou migration often is seen as an intermittent stream of animals moving in one direction at a given time (ADF&G, 1973). Caribou begin their fall migration in mid-August to early October (ADF&G, 1973). In most years, the spring caribou migration from wintering areas to traditional calving areas occurs from mid-March to mid-May. Following calving, cows and calves join into larger aggregations that sometimes include some bulls and yearlings. During September, the sexes are fully integrated, with the peak of rutting during the first two weeks of October. Calves are born in late May to early June (ADF&G, 1973). The traditional calving ground is the focal point or "center of distribution" for each herd. None of the caribou herds associated with the proposed pipeline route has its calving area near the preferred route or optional alignments. Characterization of caribou foods on an annual basis is difficult since they use a wide variety of habitats. Generally, caribou prefer relatively undisturbed tundra and boreal forests. Fructicose lichens, sedges and grasses are dominant winter foods. Willow, horsetails and dwarf shrubs may also be eaten. Spring foods include willow catkins, sedges, grasses, and lichens. New leaves on resin and dwarf birch and willow, and dui y BO 199s horsetail-are favored. Legumes and herbs are added to the caribou food list during summer. As fall progresses, caribou gradually shift to winter foods. Sensitivity of caribou to human disturbance along the proposed pipeline route is largely dominated by the existing transportation infrastructure and traffic along the Parks Highway and Alaska Railroad. The only potential sensitivity to additional activity along the proposed pipeline route would be associated with the east-west spring and fall migration (m) route near Healy. This period of sensitivity is shown in Table 3.7; Sheet 4-14 and 5-14 in Appendix A show its location. Dall Sheep -- Dall sheep are not migratory, although there may be extensive movement between winter and summer ranges. They generally expand their movements in the summer when climate is not a major limitation. By late winter they may be confined to snow-free high ridge tops where food is available. Sheep leave the winter range for lower areas as soon as the snow melts and new vegetation emerges. They slowly work back to higher elevations as the snow melts. After lambing, the ewes, lambs, and yearlings tend to concentrate in areas around mineral licks. Rams form small bands in the spring. Although separate from ewes and lambs, bands of rams are sometimes seen on the same slopes at higher elevations. By October, rams rejoin the ewes and lambs. Breeding takes place from late November through mid-December. Lambing occurs from early May through mid-June. Dall sheep are not closely associated with the proposed pipeline route except in the Moody Creek area just south of Healy. There the western flanks of Sugar Loaf Mountain are used for lambing. This part of the mountain is on the opposite side of the valley occupied by Moody Creek and would be more closely associated with the Nenana Canyon Option (See Sheets 5-14 and 6-14 in Appendix A). There are no known mineral licks associated with the proposed route or optional alignments. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT. PAGE 3-60 Dall sheep eat a variety of food. Forage is selected on a seasonal and location-specific basis. Bunchgrass is the most important food in some areas, in others, grasses as well as sedges also are important. Forbs, browse (including willow) and dryas are eaten in small amounts when available. Lichens also are eaten. (ADF&G, 1973). During summer sheep feed primarily on leaves, buds, flowers, and herbaceous stems. During winter, the leaves and seed heads of grasses, sedges, and mountain cranberry stems are favored. In Denali National Park, grasses and sedges averaged 81.5 percent of the winter diet. Increased levels of human activity and/or noise can increase Dall sheep sensitivities. Some sheep may react strongly to humans on foot and to aircraft within 1,640 feet. Noisy equipment, such as rock crushers, can influence sheep distribution. Blasting within 3.5 miles may cause an adverse action. Aircraft should avoid circling over sheep. Ground activity, especially high noise making operations such as blasting and gravel crushing, should be minimized near lambing areas during the period between May 15 and June 20. The potential period of maximum sensitivity to activity reasonably associated with construction and operation of the pipeline is shown in Table 3.7. Black Bear and Brown (grizzly) Bear -- Black bear are generally distributed along the entire proposed pipeline route. Although brown and grizzly bears are now considered to be the same species, the term "brown" bear in the past more often was used to describe the larger-sized individuals in coastal populations, while "grizzly" bear described smaller sized individuals in interior populations. Brown bear occur in moderate densities throughout the Alaska Range, and in lower densities elsewhere (BLM/COE, 1988). Both species overlap in the Broad Pass area. Concentrations of bears occur along salmon steams in the mid- to late summer, and in berry patches in the fall to the east of the proposed pipeline route. One black bear known denning concentration area is located along the south side of the Hurricane drainage area. A similar area is located to the east of the proposed pipeline route on the south side of the Pass Creek drainage. No brown bear known denning concentration areas are associated with the proposed pipeline route. All of the optional alignments would involve essentially the same bear habitats and populations as the proposed pipeline route. Black bear have a decided preference for open forests with maximum populations generally in areas of mixed habitats composed of semi-open forest areas with fruit-bearing pioneer shrubs and herbs, lush grasses and succulent forbs. They frequently concentrate along salmon spawning streams. Home ranges are generally within 5 miles of their birth site, with males ranging slightly further than females. Winter denning is variable in timing and duration with denning generally starting in October and lasting through April or early May. Cubs are born in late January or early February and stay with their mother for about one year, but cubs have been known to survive alone after they are 5 months old (generally late May or early June) (ADF&G, 1973). Home ranges of brown bear are generally less than 30 miles in diameter. Brown bear denning begins in late October and extends through April or into May. Females and young apparently den earlier in the fall and emerge later in the spring than do old males. Breeding takes place from May to early July, with the peak in early June. Young are born in late January or February, and stay with their mother until the third spring. Sows have been reported to "adopt" cubs, resulting in mixed-aged litters of yearlings and cubs-of-the-year. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT : : oo PAGE 3-62 Black bears eat plants, carrion and will occasionally kill other animals. Plants form the major part of the total food intake. In the spring, grasses, sedges and early emergent herbaceous plants are favored. Later, grasses are supplemented with a variety of berries such as blueberry, mountain cranberry, highbush cranberry, elderberry, and Arctic bearberry (ADF&G, 1973). Brown bears eat a wide variety of animals and plants, and their diets are highly variable between areas and at different seasons. In the spring, grass and other early plants such as cow parsnip, sedges, horsetails, lupine, false hellebore, viscid oxytrope, American hedysarum, and overwintered alpine bearberries make up the bulk of the diet. Carrion and fresh meat, including moose and caribou calves are eaten when available. During summer and fall these foods are supplemented by a variety of fruit and berry-producing plants and shrubs. Blueberry, elderberry, soapberry, mountain cranberry, highbush cranberry, and crowberry are eaten in large quantities. Animals (salmon when available in the summer and early fall, ground squirrels, rodents, insect larvae, carrion, moose, caribou and Dall sheep) constitute a minor but important portion of their diet. Grassland habitats appear to be very important during the spring, when other foods are scarce. A variety of sites and structures are used by black bear for denning. These include holes in hillsides or excavations beneath logs or other large objects (ADF&G, 1973). Brown bear den sites are most often on hillsides or high on mountain slopes. Timing and duration of denning varies according to location and the physical condition, sex, and age of individuals. Wind direction and active snow deposition are probably the most important factors in den site selection. Most brown bear dens are excavated, although natural cavities are also used. They are commonly located beneath boulders or rock strata or root systems of trees. The terrain slope varies, but the majority are located on 30 to 45 degree slopes. Winter wind leeward sites are preferred, but topography can produce localized conditions that have a leeward effect that is not aligned with the prevailing winter wind direction. Black and brown bears are readily attracted by improper garbage disposal and feeding practices. Once attracted, they may become a hazard to workers and equipment and often must be killed. Brown bear react to noise, with helicopters producing a stronger reaction than do fixed-wing aircraft. Blasting, even the small charges used for seismic work, can produce a reaction in denning bears 1.5 miles away. Increased levels of existing background noise within 0.5 miles of denning areas can also influence the selection of a winter den site. When possible, aircraft flights should be at least 1,000 feet above a brown bear den site. At other times aircraft should be at least 500 feet above brown bears, and avoid circling a brown bear when it is moving or feeding. The period of sensitivity for both black and brown bear shown in table 3.7 includes the time just before denning (d) starts and just after they first emerge in the spring. Sheets 5-14 through 10-14 of Appendix A show key near habitats. Other Mammals -- These include shrews, lemmings, voles, mice, arctic ground squirrel, snowshoe hare, porcupine, beaver, muskrat, mink, weasels, river otter, wolverine, marten, lynx, fox and coyote. The abundance of small mammals is often cyclic with regular population peaks and valleys. The abundance of small mammals influences the abundance of other bird and mammal populations that use small mammals as a food source. These species are generally distributed along the pipeline route in suitable habitat. No special concentration areas for any of these species has been identified. (See Section 3.8 for a discussion of the North American lynx, the only terrestrial mammal protected under the Endangered Species Act that potentially is associated with the proposed pipeline route.) 3.7.2. Birds Approximately 225 species of birds have been reported in interior Alaska, but only 75 percent occur regularly. These include more than 30 species of loons, grebes and AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Se nn PAGE 3-64 waterfowl. More than 20 species of shorebirds and gulls commonly nest in or migrate through interior Alaska, while about half of the world population of lesser sandhill cranes migrates through the upper Tanana River Valley during spring and fall (BLM/COE, 1988). Common birds of upland forested areas along the entire pipeline route include: alder flycatcher, American kestrel, hawk owl, great-horned owl, yellow-rumped and orange-crowned warbler, common and hoary redpoll, dark eyed junco, hairy woodpecker, red-tailed hawk, spruce grouse, ruffed grouse, mew gull, gray jay, common raven, black-capped chickadee, American robin, varied thrush, hermit thrush, Swainson’s thrush, gray-cheeked thrush, Bohemian waxwing, and snow bunting (BLM, 1988). Major concentrations of waterfowl occur along the southern part of the proposed pipeline route. For example, the Goose Bay State Game Refuge is an important spring and fall resting and feeding area for waterfowl migrating to and from more northerly nesting concentration areas. Over 20,000 geese use this area during the mid-April to mid-May period. Most of these are Canada geese, but there are several thousand snow geese and an occasional white-fronted goose. Other waterfowl include mallards, green-winged teal, pintail, and northern shovelers. Snipe, and yellowlegs are also common. Frequently, sandhill cranes move through the refuge. Several thousand trumpeter and tundra swans also use the refuge during their annual migrations (ADF&G, 1990). The nearby Palmer Hay Flats State Game Refuge probably hosts about 165 species of birds, with 83 species actually observed during 1980. This refuge provides spring staging and resting habitat for over 100,000 ducks, 50,000 geese (snow, Canada, and white-fronted), and 5,000 swans (tundra and trumpeter). These large spring concentrations usually occur between April 10 and May 10. During the fall, up to 50,000 ducks, 10,000 geese, and 15,000 swans stop there. The fall migration is from mid-August to early October. Waterfowl nesting on the refuge are primarily limited to ducks (ADF&G, 1986d). Bird populations and species diversity are at a maximum between late spring (mid- April to late May) and early fall (early September to early November). Except for the Little Susitna River and the Goose Bay State Game Refuge, there are no known concentrations of nesting birds closely associated with the proposed pipeline route. It is noted, however, that most ponds, lakes, steams, and rivers likely will have nesting populations of birds. The Big Lake Option would involve slightly more waterfowl habitat, especially trumpeter swan habitat, than would the preferred pipeline alignment. The Palmer Hay Flats option would avoid the Goose Bay State Game Refuge. Overall, the other options are essentially the same as the proposed alignment. Bird species associated with the proposed pipeline system having special protection are the bald eagle and migratory waterfowl. Bald and golden eagles are protected under the provisions of the Bald Eagle Protection Act. Most bird species in Alaska are migratory, and therefore protected under federal law. Waterfowl are protected under international treaties between the United States, and Canada (1916), Mexico (1936), Japan (1972), and the former Soviet Union (1976). Dabbling Ducks -- Dabbling ducks get their food by dabbling and tipping up rather than by diving, and swim with the tail held quite clear of the water. They "jump" into the air when leaving the water. Most dabblers have distinctive metallic colored patches on the trailing edge of the wing. This group of ducks includes the mallard, northern pintail, green-winged teal, northern shoveler, and American widgeon. Nesting begins as soon as the margins of ponds and lakes are free of ice. Nesting occurs in mid-April to mid-June. They are persistent nesters and will attempt to nest again if the first attempt fails. Incubation lasts slightly more than 3 weeks, with the mallard taking the longest (23 to 29 days). Drakes begin flocking by mid-June, and are flightless by late June and early July. Flight feathers are generally regained by early August. Hens do not molt until after incubation has been completed. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT = ne AGE Ses Dabbling ducks prefer shallow, small pond or lakes bordered by shrubs, trees, or aquatic plants. The mallard is one of the most abundant dabblers; green-winged teal are very common, while the American widgeon and northern pintail are frequently present. Dabbling ducks are highly opportunistic and will concentrate on readily available foods. They prefer an early season diet high in protein (insects, crustaceans, mollusks, earthworms, and stickleback, and will feed on salmon carcasses). Plant foods include pondweeds, cattails, bulrush, sedges, horsetails, marestail, algae, grasses, buttercup, and cultivated grains. Nest sites vary, but northern pintail and American widgeon prefer dry ground usually away from water; the widgeon likes brushy areas. Mallards prefer pond shorelines. The green-winged teal like tall grassy dry ground bordering marshes while the northern shoveler likes shallow depressions. Dabbling ducks are sensitive to low-level aircraft flights, especially by helicopters, at altitudes less than 500 feet above or 0.25 miles from duck nesting areas, molting areas, and spring/fall migration concentration areas, such as the Goose Bay State Game Refuge. Diving Ducks -- Diving Ducks get their food by diving, often to considerable depth. Most, however, feed in waters 2 to 10 feet deep. To escape danger, they can travel great distances underwater, emerging only enough to show their head or bill tip before submerging again. When launching into flight, most diving ducks patter along the water surface before becoming airborne. Wing patches lack the brilliance of dabbling ducks. This group of ducks includes oldsquaw, eider, scaup, scoters, goldeneyes, bufflehead, canvasback, ring-necked duck, and mergansers. Nesting starts in early to late June, depending on the species and weather conditions. Scoters are generally the last to nest. Incubation also varies by species and ranges from 19 to 28 days. Diving ducks generally are found near the larger and deeper inland bodies of water, major river systems, and along the sea coasts. Water bodies with good escape cover and high aquatic invertebrate populations are preferred. Canvasback and scaup are common south of the Brooks Range. Buffleheads are common in wooded ponds, lakes, and streams. Diving ducks use a wide variety of plant and animal species for food. Animal species comprise the majority of their diet for most of the year. Animal foods include insects, leaches, amphipods, snails, blue mussel, other mussels, clams, freshwater shrimp, and other crustaceans. Plants include muskgrass, pondweed, bulrush, sedge, nilfoil, duckweed, buttercup, ditch grass, cattail, pond lily, bur reed, and green algae. Most diving ducks require lowland pond habitats for nesting. A wide variety of habitats is used, with each species having specific requirements. The majority build their nests over shallow water in emergent vegetation or along the shorelines. Goldeneye, common merganser, and bufflehead nest in tree cavities. There are no identified concentrated use habitats for diving ducks associated with the proposed pipeline route or with optional alignments. Geese -- These large waterfowl are heavier-bodied and have longer necks than ducks. Male and female geese are not readily distinguishable. Geese associated with the proposed pipeline system include the white-fronted, Canada, and snow. Nesting is initiated in early May, but varies with the species and is dependent on weather conditions. Persistent cool spring temperatures may delay nesting several weeks. Geese pair for life, but when one dies, the survivor seeks a new mate. Incubation AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Se PAGE 3-68 varies by species and usually averages between 25 and 30 days. Most species of geese return to the same breeding grounds or nest colonies each year. Both parents are attendant to their young. Molting varies by species and by breeding condition; they are flightless for about 3 to 4 weeks. The first to molt are subadults, followed by mature breeders that failed to nest successfully. Breeding birds molt when goslings are between 1 and 3 weeks old. No concise summary of breeding habitats and distribution of Canada geese is possible because of the wide variety of habitats each subspecies can use. The largest concentrations of geese occurs during the spring and fall migrations. Little information is available on the distribution of non-coastal goose populations, but all major river valleys provide nesting habitat. Molting generally starts in early July or August. Depending upon the onset of freezing weather, southward migrations generally start in late August to early October. Geese are predominantly vegetarians, eating leaves, roots, and seeds of a wide variety of plants. Along coastal areas, geese are known to feed on mollusks, crustaceans and other animal materials.. Most geese are opportunistic and forage in any area having plentiful food. Coastal salt marshes and adjacent shallow water areas, cultivated fields, freshwater marshes, and a variety of other habitats are used. Canada geese eat a wide variety of grasses and sedges. During spring, they frequently dig up tubers and rhizomes, and in the fall they often eat berries. Except during nesting, geese feed socially in flocks that move and react to disturbance as a unit. Nest sites for geese vary by species, but there are three universal prerequisites: proximity to water, cover for the nest itself, and an exposed view of the surrounding area. Canada geese nest in dense marshes, on islands, cliffs, elevated platforms in trees, in muskeg, and on tundra. White-fronted geese nest on both coastal and 993 upland areas, typically in tall grass bordering tidal sloughs or in sedge marshes, lakes and ponds in depressions, and willow or shrub-fringed streams and ponds (less often on the margins of tundra hammocks). Sensitivity varies by species and whether they are migrating, nesting (n), brooding (br) or molting (ml). Geese are generally more sensitive to disturbance than are ducks. Low-level aircraft flights, especially by helicopters, at altitudes less than 1,500 feet or less than 1 mile from goose nesting, molting, and spring/fall migration concentration areas, can cause geese to react. The preferred and optional alignments would essentially affect similar waterfowl habitats and concentration areas in the same manner. The primary differences are discussed below. The Tanana Flats Option would involve more wetlands than the preferred alignment and, therefore, potentially more waterfowl habitat. The Nancy Lake Creek and Big Lake options both would cross the Little Susitna River in a known fall waterfowl concentration area. The Big Lake Option would pass close to several large lakes with their waterfowl habitats. Both the Big Lake and the Point MacKenzie Road options would avoid the important waterfowl habitat in the Goose Bay State Game Refuge. The Palmer Hay Flats Option would also avoid the Goose Bay State Game Refuge, but would cross important waterfowl habitat in the Palmer Hay Flats State Game Refuge. The periods of maximum sensitivity to disturbance for both ducks and for geese, principally noise from equipment or from low level aircraft flights, are shown in Table Sie Swans -- Swans are very large white waterbirds, larger with much longer necks than geese. Their extremely long, slender necks that are fully extended in flight, and the AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ee | PAGE 3-70 lack of black wing-tips distinguish them from all other large white swimming birds. This group is comprised of the trumpeter and tundra (whistling) swans. About 50 percent of the world population of trumpeter swans is in Alaska during the summer. The trumpeter swan is the world’s largest waterfowl and typically has an all-black bill. Both swans often arrive at their nesting area in early May, before the snow is gone. When snowmelt is late, nesting may be delayed. Trumpeters require a minimum of 140 to 154 ice-free days to complete a reproductive cycle. Both species of swans return to traditional nesting areas. Incubation is from 33 to 37 days for trumpeters, and 30 to 33 days for tundra swans. Breeding swans molt in mid- to late summer, following the nesting period. Non-breeding birds molt in late June or early July. Molting swans remain flightless for about 3 weeks; trumpeters require up to 30 days. Both species pair for life, but when one dies, the survivor will seek another mate. Both parents care for cygnets. Tundra swans generally stay within 100 to 400 yards of the nest site. Migrations start in early October and are typically in family units. The Tanana River Valley in the Fairbanks area is a major spring/fall migration route for swans and sandhill cranes. Trumpeter swans can be found in suitable habitat to the west of the Parks Highway and Alaska Railroad in the southern Broad Pass area and to the west of the Susitna River south of its confluence with Rabideaux Creek. This latter dispersed nesting and brood rearing habitat generally extends southward to Cook Inlet, but generally remains westward of intensive development and existing roads. Tundra swans prefer secluded shallow water bodies, while trumpeters like coastal marshy areas dotted with small lakes. The Big Lake Option would involve slightly more trumpeter swan habitat than the proposed pipeline route. Both the Big Lake and Point MacKenzie Road options would involve slightly less swan habitat than the preferred alignment by avoiding the Goose Bay State Game Refuge. The Palmer Hay Flats Option would avoid the important swan habitat within the Goose Bay State Game Refuge. Tundra swans feed largely on leaves, stems, and tubers of aquatic and marsh plants. Berries, particularly lowbush cranberry and blueberry, are also important. Adult trumpeters prefer wild celery and other freshwater plants, (such as marestail, horsetails, sedges, and buckbean), but also will eat grain, grasses, insects, snails, and small invertebrates when available. Pondweed tubers are used extensively. Young trumpeters, during their first 3 weeks, eat primarily animal matter; plants become more important as the cygnets get older. Preferred nest sites for tundra swans are hummocks on peninsulas and islands and heath tundra. Nesting habitats for tundra swans are on secluded lakes ranging from 6 acres to several miles in length. Generally there will be no more than one pair of nesting tundra swans unless the lake is larger than 1 mile long. Nesting trumpeter swans are very sensitive to disturbance and sometimes will abandon the nest. Even aircraft flights 2,000 feet above occupied nesting areas can cause nest abandonment. Helicopter use can be especially disturbing. Adult trumpeters with cygnets have greatest sensitivity to disturbance. ADF&G (1988) recommended that general public aviation using fixed wing aircraft over the Susitna Flats State Game Refuge above prime waterfowl habitat be at least 500 feet above ground level, and that rotary wing aircraft be at least 1,500 feet above ground level. At least 1/4 mile lateral distance should be maintained from known swan nests. These aircraft restrictions are recommended for the period from April 1 through October 31. The period of maximum sensitivity for trumpeter swans, including nesting (n), brooding (br), molting (ml), and spring and fall migration/staging, is shown in Table 3.7. Raptors -- Over twenty species of hawks, falcons, eagles, and owls occur regularly within Alaska. Nineteen species are probably associated with the proposed pipeline AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT =—sisyO SO BAGE S72 route. Kestrels, marsh hawks, and short-eared owls are among the most abundant raptors nesting in Alaska. Other conspicuous species such as the rough-legged hawk, bald eagle, and great-horned owl are often observed. Raptor habitat in Alaska has remained relatively stable, however, populations fluctuate annually in response to food and other environmental factors (ADF&G, 1978b). Raptorial birds often have traditional nesting areas that are used each year. These nest habitats range from solitary nest trees for bald eagles to communal sites on large cliffs or long bluffs where several species nest. Nests may be abandoned if nesting birds are disturbed by low-level aircraft flights (less than 1,500 feet above the nest), or are disturbed by surface activity within a prescribed distance of the nest. There are no known raptor nesting concentration sites associated with the pipeline route. Bald Eagles -- Bald Eagles are typically associated with an interface between land and water. A prominence (the largest tree or cliff) provides perching or nesting habitat. Paired eagles are territorial from the start of nesting through fledgling. Where foliage is available, bald eagles show a strong preference for nest sites with overhead and surrounding foliage that provide shelter from wind, sun, and rain. Nests are usually within a few hundred yards of water. Nests are large structures constructed of sticks lined with seaweed, vines, grass, plant stalks, and sod. The center is lined with leaves, mosses, straw, and feathers. Nests are reused. Bald eagles will habituate to human activity, but new or increased levels of activity (including noise) may cause nest abandonment or shift of the nest site. Nesting begins in mid-March with egg laying completed by the end of May. Incubation lasts about 35 days. Fledgling takes about 72 to 75 days (late August). Bald eagles, their nests and nest trees, are fully protected under the Bald Eagle Protection Act of 1940. None of the Alaska populations is listed under the Endangered Species Act. FWS is the responsible federal agency. Bald eagles are opportunistic feeders. They may eat carrion or prey on fish, small mammals, or birds. Fish are the preferred food. FWS has established the following restrictions under the Bald Eagle Protection Act. Between March 15 and June 1 of each year, all nests are considered active, whether occupied or not, and all of the following ground and aircraft restrictions apply. After June 1, restrictions apply only to active nests. The period of sensitivity, April 1 through August 31, includes the arrival of paired birds at traditional nesting areas through fledgling. Restrictions on activity are scaled to avoid undue disturbance of nesting bald eagles. These restrictions are: Minor ground activity -- limited, short-term activity that does not involve significant amounts of personnel, equipment, surface disturbance, or noise: Between March 15 and August 31, minor ground activity is prohibited within 1/8 mile (220 yards) of active bald eagle nests. Major _groun ivi -- (involving significant amounts of personnel, equipment, surface disturbance, or noise, and including activities such as clearing, blasting, road and facility construction, and materials site operations): Between March 15 and August 31, major ground activity is prohibited within 1/4 mile (440 yards) of active bald eagle nesting locations. Construction of permanent facilities is prohibited within 1/2 mile of any bald eagle nesting location, whether or not it is active in any given year. Aircraft activity -- (fixed wing and helicopters): Aircraft must maintain an altitude of at least 1,000 feet above ground level within 1/4 mile horizontal distance of active bald eagle nesting locations. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Data on-the location of bald eagle nests were obtained from the Fairbanks and Anchorage offices of FWS. Those data show that bald eagles commonly nest along the Tanana River in the vicinity of Fairbanks, and that generally nest sites are located at least one mile away from the existing road network. Bald eagle nesting is reported along the eastern slopes of Bonanza Creek, but the locations are generally more than a mile distance from the Parks Highway and concentrated settlement areas. No bald eagle nests are reported along the Nenana River in the vicinity of the preferred alignment. Bald eagle nests are reported along the Susitna River southward from the general vicinity of Talkeetna, but as in the Fairbanks area, none are close to the proposed pipeline route. The Tanana Flats Option is closely associated with several raptor nest sites; other optional alignments are essentially the same as the proposed pipeline route. Golden Eagles -- This species is generally migratory, but individuals may overwinter in southcentral Alaska. Nests are usually located on rocky ledges or cliffs, or occasionally in trees. Nests are large and constructed of sticks, roots, grass, leaves, and other bulky materials. Incubation takes 40 to 42 days (ADF&G, 1978). Golden eagles, their nests and nest sites, also are’ fully protected under the Bald Eagle Protection Act. The FWS is the responsible federal agency. Golden eagles eat small mammals, such as hares and marmots, and birds, like ptarmigan (ADF&G, 1978b). The zones of restricted activity for golden eagle nesting areas are the same as for bald eagles as discussed above. No golden eagle nests have been recorded by FWS for the proposed pipeline route or for optional alignments. The period of restricted activity for both bald and golden eagles is shown in Table 3.7. duly 29, 1993. 3.8 Threatened, Endangered, and Protected Species Under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the FWS and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) periodically identify animals and plants that are threatened, endangered, or are candidate species that are likely to be listed. A total of 53 animal and plant species that may be found in Alaska has been formally designated for protection under the ESA. The FWS has listed as either threatened or endangered five species of birds and one plant species that may be found in Alaska. In addition, FWS has listed seven other bird species, five mammals, seventeen plants, and one amphibian as candidates for listing as threatened or endangered under the ESA. Eight other bird species are being considered for candidate status. NMFS has listed as either threatened or endangered nine marine mammals that may be found in Alaskan inland or offshore marine waters. The Bald Eagle Protection Act also provides specific protection for bald and golden eagles. The State also has an endangered species protection mechanism that parallels the federal system. The basic difference is that the State does not recognize candidate species. A species classified as endangered is one that is in danger of extinction throughout all, or a significant portion of, its range. A threatened species is one which is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future throughout, or in a significant portion, of its range. A category 7 (C1) species is one for which FWS has on file sufficient data to warrant listing as threatened or endangered. A category 2 (C2) species is one for which the best available scientific and commercial information indicate the species might qualify for protection, but the FWS needs further information, evaluation of threats, or taxonomic clarification, before the species can be determined to warrant listing. For the purposes of this report, a protected species is one for which special legislation has been passed to provide specific protection, regardless of its status under the ESA. This includes birds protected by the Bald Eagle Protection Act. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT | oe PAGE 396 Data from the Anchorage and Fairbanks FWS offices were reviewed to determine whether any of the 44 non-marine animal or plant species, and any bald or golden eagle nesting habitats, were likely to be associated with the proposed pipeline route. Similar data about the nine listed marine mammals were reviewed with NMFS. All currently (1992) designated threatened, endangered, candidate, or protected species that might occur near the preferred pipeline alignment or optional alignments are shown in Table 3.8. Two marine mammals, listed as endangered, might be indirectly associated with the proposed pipeline crossing of Knik Arm. These are the Gray and fin whales. It is noted that both species are very rare in the project area. The North America lynx (a C2 species) is the only land mammal listed under the ESA that is potentially associated with the proposed route. Threatened or endangered bird species potentially associated with the route include the American peregrine falcon (endangered), spectacled eider (threatened), Steller’s eider (C1 species), and the harlequin duck and northern goshawk (C2 species). The Swainson’s and grey-cheeked thrushes, and the blackpoll and Wilson’s warblers, are being considered by FWS as C2 species. The American peregrine falcon also is listed by the State for special protection. The American peregrine falcon is highly sensitive to disturbance during the period between April 15 and August 31. Specific written approval from FWS is required before work can be done within 2 miles of known nest sites. Data provided by FWS, with one exception, show there are no known peregrine falcon nest sites within 2 miles of the proposed route. The one exception is at Nenana where known peregrine falcon nesting habitat is just over a mile from the Parks Highway. It is noted, Table 3.8 Endangered, Threatened, and Protected Plants and Animals that Might be Associated with the Proposed Pipeline Route Species Status Comment Marine Mammals Gray whale E Rare in Knik Arm Fin whale E Rare in Knik Arm Terrestrial Mammals North American lynx c2 Present in forested habitats Birds American peregrine E Nests along the Tanana River and adjacent uplands falcon west and south of Fairbanks Spectacled eider' T) Rare in Knik Arm Steller’s eider’ cl Rare in Knik Arm Harlequin duck c2 Present in cold, rapidly flowing steams with open or no forests Northern goshawk c2 Present along forest edges Swainson’s thrush c2 (under consideration) Present in mixed deciduous-coniferous woodlands, shrub thicket, coniferous forests Gray-cheeked thrush c2 (under consideration) Present in tundra, bushes, and low trees Blackpoll warbler c2 (under consideration) Present in coniferous and mixed deciduous- coniferous forests, woodlands and shrub thickets Wilson’s warbler c2 (under consideration) Present in shrub thicket, mixed deciduous- coniferous woodlands Plants Taraxacum carneocoloratum c2 May be present in alpine habitats in Moody Creek . E = endangered, T = threatened, C = candidate Source: 40 CFR 17.11; ADF&G, 1992b; bird habitats from Armstrong (1980 ' Proposed for Threatened status May 8, 1992 (Federal Register 57:90 19852) and reported listed May 1993 ? Found to warrant listing, but not listed due to higher FWS listing priorities (Federal Register 57:90 19852) however, that the community of Nenana and the Alaska Railroad also are well within 1 mile of this nesting habitat. None of the optional alignments involve known peregrine falcon nesting habitat. Bald and golden eagle restrictions and nest locations are discussed in Section 3.7. One plant species, Taraxacum carneoco/oratum, a dandelion designated as a C2 species, potentially may occupy alpine habitats in the Moody Creek area. The closest reported locality for this plant is in Stony Pass, approximately 50 miles to the southwest. The AEA Intertie already passes through this area and no listed plants were reported along its route. 3.9 Climate The climate along the proposed pipeline route includes three major zones: continental interior (from North Pole to Broad Pass), transitional (from Broad Pass south to approximately Talkeetna), and maritime (from approximately Talkeetna to Cook Inlet) (ESSA, 1968). Temperatures in the Interior during summer are commonly in the upper 60s and 70s, with extremes in the 90s. Average winter lows range from -5° F to -25° F, with extremes between -50° and -65° F. Winds are usually less than 50 mph, and there are relatively few occurrences of strong winds for long durations except in mountain passes. Annual precipitation in the Fairbanks area is 10 to 13 inches. Heaviest amounts occur in summer from thunderstorms. Snow accumulations average 50 to 70 inches. Some drifting of snow occurs, but snow depths are generally not of concern for construction purposes. Outside the Fairbanks bowl area, annual precipitation can exceed 26 inches (BLM/COE, 1988). For a 100 mile stretch of the Alaska Range, the Nenana Gorge is a main wind funnel, bringing southeasterly Chinook winds to Healy. The extreme gust wind in the Healy area is anticipated to be 160 mph for a 50 year period of return (Commonwealth Associates Inc., 1982). At Broad Pass the proposed route is in the transitional zone. Summer temperature averages range from 40° to 60° F, while winter temperature averages range from -5° to 30° F. Annual precipitation is approximately 20 inches, including 119 inches of snow. Average wind speed is approximately 10 mph, with high wind speeds of 48 mph (AEIDC 1974). Trapper Creek and Talkeetna are located in the middle Susitna Valley within the interface between the transitional and maritime zones. Summer temperature averages range from 44° to 68° F, while winter temperature averages range from O° to 30° F. Annual precipitation is approximately 29 inches, including 102 inches of snow. Average wind speed is approximately 4 mph, with high wind speeds of 38 mph (AEIDC 1974). At Willow, in the lower Susitna Valley, summer temperature averages range from 40° to 70° F, while winter temperature averages range from -10° to 33° F. Annual precipitation is approximately 24 inches (AEIDC 1974). At the southern terminus of the proposed pipeline route, Anchorage summer temperature averages range from 46° to 66° F, while winter temperature averages range from 4° to 42° F. Annual precipitation is approximately 15 inches, including 66 inches of snow. Average wind speed is approximately 7 mph, with high wind speeds of 61 mph in the lowlands of the Anchorage bowl (AEIDC 1974). AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT o eo BES BO 3.10 Air Quality With the exception of North Pole, Fairbanks, and Anchorage, air quality along the proposed pipeline route is generally considered to be very good due to minimal human and industrial development. Only small communities dot the route through an otherwise sparsely populated corridor. Localized sources of emissions include wood smoke from residential heating, vehicular traffic, and wind-generated dust and forest fires which contribute to temporary increases in air pollution in summer. Seasonal and annual weather variability greatly influences ambient pollutant concentrations. No Class | air shed would be crossed by the proposed pipeline. For a distance of about 30 miles, however, from approximately McKinley Park Station to Broad Pass, the proposed ROW would be within two miles of the eastern boundary of Denali National Park, which is a Class | air shed. In the Interior, periods of cold temperatures and low wind speeds can lead to long-lasting atmospheric temperature inversions. During severe winter cold periods, the relatively large volume of water vapor and other material emitted by vehicles, space heating systems, power generating stations, and industries in Fairbanks and North Pole is kept near ground level by these extremely high-gradient inversions, often for long periods. This produces ice fog, which hinders vehicular travel and air traffic and poses a health hazard. Fairbanks, North Pole, and Anchorage are "attainment areas" in summer, i.e., they meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for all pollutants. In winter, however, they are attainment areas only for pollutants other than carbon monoxide, which is generated primarily from automobile exhausts. These three communities have had to institute federally mandated programs to reduce their carbon monoxide levels. In Fairbanks and Anchorage recently this has included the addition 99300 of an oxygenated gasoline additive (MTBE) to increase combustion during the winter months. Subsequently, use of MTBE was suspended in the Fairbanks and North Pole areas because of uncertainty on its potential to enhance the formation of ice fog under certain conditions. During extended dry periods, but especially in the spring and fall, dust associated with travel on unpaved roads (and more recently, volcanic eruptions) sometimes exceed standards. Only two significant sources of air pollutants exist between Fairbanks and Anchorage. At Clear Air Force Base a coal-fired generating station burns less than 100,000 tons of coal per year. The Healy 25-megawatt (MW) Unit No. 1 coal-fired steam electrical generating facility burns approximately 180,000 tons of coal per year. A proposed new 50-MW coal-fired generating facility has just received state air quality approval. This would be a Department of Energy (DOE) Clean Coal Technology Program demonstration plant constructed adjacent to the existing coal-fired Healy Unit No. 1. Twelve months’ data measured at a location 4 miles south of the existing Healy Unit No. 1 facility in 1990 and 1991 show SO, and NO, at between 4 and 6 percent of the NAAQS. The maximum measured concentration for particulate matter less than 10 wm in diameter (PM,,) in a 24 hour period was 86, or 57 percent of the NAAQS; however, that concentration resulted from forest fire smoke (USOE, 1992). 3.11 Noise Almost the entire route of the proposed pipeline would be within an existing transportation and utility corridor system from North Pole to Anchorage. For most of the route, the ROW would be within ear shot of the Parks Highway. Parts of the alignment also would parallel closely the Alaska Railroad. These two transportation systems constitute a source of localized, human generated background noise. In PRESSE Typical Sound Levels of Familiar Noise Sources and Public Responses Physically Painful Extremely Loud Threshold of Physical Discomfort Hearing Damage Criteria for an 8-Hour Workday Most Residents Highly Annoyed Acceptability Limit for Residential Development Goal for Urban Areas No Community Annoyance Threshold of Hearing Figure 3.11 dBA 145 140 135 130 125 120 “115 110 105 100 (95 90 85 80 “75 70 65. 60. 55) 50. 45. 2 40 235: 30° (25) ~ 20° 1 5. 10. -0 Sd Sonic Boom Jet Takeoff (Near Runway) Rock Music Band (Near Stage) Piledriver at 50 feet Freight Train at 50 feet Ambulance Siren at 100 feet Inside Boiler Room '| Garbage Disposal in Home at 3 feet Inside Sports Car at 50 MPH Average Urban Area Inside Department Store Typical Daytime Suburban Background Typical Library Quiet Rural Area Inside Recording Studio addition to highway and rail traffic noise, receptors in this transportation corridor hear low-flying small fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters, commercial jets, air boats, motorboats, ATVs, and firearm discharges. Existing noise levels in North Pole, Fairbanks, and Anchorage are representative of larger urban areas. Smaller communities along the route exhibit more rural noise characteristics. Although the corridor itself is developed, most of the area adjacent to the route is undeveloped and sparsely populated, and ambient noise levels are low. Most of the ambient noise is generated by wind and moving water (BLM and COE, 1988). Similar locations typically exhibit natural noise levels ranging from 15 to 45 DBA, which is considered quiet. The DBA scale represents how the human ear hears various sound frequencies. Figure 3.11 shows typical sound levels as they equate to the DBA scale. Natural noise levels up to 64 DBA many be associated with storms and wildlife (EPA and DOI, 1984). An average urban area has a DBA of approximately 64, while at a 50-foot distance from a freight train a person would experience a DBA of approximately 95 (FGMI, 1992). A bulldozer operating at 50 feet is about 87 DBA, while machines, outboard motors, and float planes generate noise levels up to 85 DBAs at 50 feet. Noise carries considerable distances during calm, cold conditions due to increased air density (EPA/DOI, 1984). 3.12 Socioeconomics The proposed pipeline route spans three long-established boroughs (Fairbanks North Star, Matanuska-Susitna, and Anchorage), and the recently established Denali Borough (which includes the communities of Anderson, Healy, and Cantwell). Between these regional government jurisdictions lies the unincorporated borough. Scattered along the route are several small communities: including Nenana, Anderson, Healy, McKinley Park Station, Cantwell, Trapper Creek, Talkeetna, Willow, and Houston. The Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB), at the north end of the pipeline route, is Alaska’s second largest population center. It is the transportation, trade, and service center of the vast interior of the state, and serves many smaller surrounding communities, including North Pole (BLM and COE, 1988). The FNSB’s population trend over the past decade roughly matched the statewide trend: an early-mid decade burst of growth, followed by economic recession and population loss, then a modest economic and population rebound. Between 1980 and 1990, the FNSB’s population grew from 53,983 to 77,720 residents, a gain of 44 percent. About 40 percent of the FNSB’s residents live in its two incorporated cities: Fairbanks and North Pole (FGMI, 1992). Between 1980 and 1990, FNSB civilian employment increased 29 percent from 20,886 to 26,869. Alaska Division of Labor payroll data, however, indicate that FNSB wage rates have lost ground over the past decade. In 1980, the average monthly wage was $2,049. This was above the state average of $1,931. By 1990, the average wage was $2,320, which was below the statewide average of $2,471. The 1991 unemployment rate was 10.5 percent (FGMI, 1992). Nenana, with about 575 residents, is located on the Parks Highway about 55 miles south of Fairbanks, and functions primarily as a transportation and service center. The community is about 40 percent Alaskan Native, and is the only community along the pipeline route with a high percentage of Native residents. It has a small retail and service sector, but residents rely on Fairbanks for most goods and services. In addition to its highway connections, Nenana also has rail and barge services. Considerable amounts of rail freight and petroleum products are barged from Nenana to interior villages along the Tanana and Yukon rivers. Construction and development projects "downriver" have historically mobilized from Nenana (BLM and COE, 1988). The Denali Borough, a home rule borough established in December 1990, stretches from north of Anderson to south of Cantwell. It has a total population of approximately 1,850. Its tax base includes a four percent bed tax aimed at the tourist trade associated with Denali National Park, and 5¢ per cubic yard for coal mined. In addition to its taxing authority, it has areawide education and planning powers (Kane, 1993). Anderson, 21 miles south of Nenana within the Denali Borough, is adjacent to Clear Air Force Station - an early warning missile site. The total military and civilian population is approximately 800, with about half located in Anderson. Nearly 75 percent of the workforce is employed at the air force site. The reduction in military spending by the federal government could have an effect on employment in this area (BLM/COE, 1988). The Healy area (Healy, Suntrana, and Usibelli), about 56 miles south of Nenana within the Denali Borough, has a population of approximately 450 residents. The mainstay of the local economy is the Usibelli Coal Mine, which produces approximately 1.5 million tons of coal annually. About half of this coal is burned in six interior Alaska power plants, with the other half exported to Korea via the Alaska Railroad and Seward (DGGS, 1992). This area has potential for industrial growth through additional electric generation using coal for energy. The mine enjoys the use of existing infrastructure that is relatively uncommon in most of Alaska. The residents in the vicinity of the entrance to Denali National Park and Preserve number less than 100, and are highly dependent on income from federal employment AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT es cee PAGE 3-86 or from tourism associated with the world class national park. Tourism is active during the warmer summer months of June through September, resulting in some congestion outside the park entrance. This local economy is not directly influenced by resource development or infrastructure expansion unless the existing environmental setting is significantly changed. About 30 miles south of McKinley Park Station, the community of Cantwell serves as a highway service center. It has a population of less than 100. Within the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, approximately 3,000 people live along the proposed pipeline route in several small, scattered, unincorporated communities. The largest is Talkeetna and its surrounding area, with a total population of approximately 1,100. A little less than half of that total lives in Talkeetna itself. Trapper Creek, 4 miles to the west as the raven flies, but about 40 miles by road, is included in that area’s total population figure. About 1,700 people live between the Talkeetna and Willow areas. Willow itself has a population of approximately 250 (BLM/COE, 1988). The Municipality of Anchorage and adjacent communities, at the terminus of pipeline, has a population of over 200,000 people. The resident labor force in the area is relatively small, and the variety of industrial and commercial services provided by the local economy are limited. The borough’s workforce experiences high chronic unemployment. Employment is subject to wide seasonal swings, reaching a summertime peak when construction labor and recreation-oriented trade and services are in demand, and declining during the off-season to a winter time low (APA, 1989). 3.13 Recreational or Commercial Fisheries ADF&G (undated) has ranked fisheries in the Tanana and Susitna River Basins on the basis of a "significant sport fishery", e.g. there are enough fish available to support 993 July 29 a large fishery or there are large numbers of anglers in an area. These ratings are based on the opinions of ADF&G’s Sport Fish division staff and simply means there are enough fish available to make "life interesting" rather than meeting a firm set of criteria. Because of the easy access from the highway network and from the railroad there is heavy recreational fishing use of freshwater streams associated with the proposed pipeline route. This existing transportation system not only connects Alaska’s largest population centers, it also provides the most direct surface access to Denali National Park. Accordingly, the recreational fishery resources are used by large numbers of tourists, as well as by Alaskan residents. Although fishing in streams in the Fairbanks area can occur on a year around basis, none of those associated with the proposed pipeline route or with optional alignments in the Tanana River Basin have been rated by ADF&G as having a significant sport fishery. See Section 3.6, Tables 3.6-1 and 3.6-2, and 3.6-3 for the species of fish and general times of fish abundance in the major Tanana River Basin streams. Table 3.13-1 summarizes the sport fishing efforts for streams crossed by the proposed route. Most of the major streams in the Susitna River Basin have locally significant sport fishing opportunities. These include the Chulitna River, Montana Creek, Goose Creek, Sheep Creek, Caswell Creek, Little Willow Creek, Willow Creek, Little Susitna River, and Fish Creek. See Section 3.6, Tables 3.6-1, 3.6-2, and 3.6-3 for the species and general times of fish abundance in the major Susitna River Basin streams. Table 3.13 summarizes the sport fishing efforts for streams crossed by the proposed pipeline route. The following summary about sport fishing opportunities on streams entering the Susitna River that are crossed by the Parks Highway is from ADF&G (1993). AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT NE Starting in the second weekend in June, certain road accessible streams in the Susitna River Basin are open to fishing for king salmon for four consecutive weekends. Peak sport fishing pressure generally is concentrated in these four weekends. Rabideaux Creek sport fishing includes runs of kings and silver salmon in addition to grayling, rainbow trout, and burbot. Silver salmon fishing can stay good through the first week in September. All species of salmon are sought in the lower section of Montana Creek with rainbow trout to 12 pounds. Portions of Montana Creek upstream of the Parks Highway are good for rainbow trout and grayling fishing. Goose Creek also has good sized rainbow trout as well as king, silver and pink salmon. Sheep Creek is reported to provide some of the best salmon fishing on streams accessible from the Parks Highway. The Kashwitna River, especially in the fall, provides good roadside fishing for rainbow trout, Dolly Varden, and grayling. Little Willow Creek provides favorable trout and grayling fishing, while Willow Creek provides good fishing for pink, chum, and king salmon during the later parts of each run. Sport fishing for large king salmon is especially good. According to the ADF&G, in its publication Alaska Sport Fishing Predictions, the area of upper Cook Inlet north of the Forelands which includes Knik Arm "...is not suited to successful sport fishing because of silt-laden waters. Strong currents and extreme tidal fluctuation also reduce sport fishing opportunities." There is no known major commercial fishery in close proximity to any of the freshwater streams crossed by the proposed pipeline route or by optional alignments. Likewise, there is no major commercial fishery in the immediate vicinity of the proposed crossing of Knik Arm. March 1993 data maintained by DNR show that the closest set-net sites (six sites) are located to the west of Point MacKenzie. See section 3.14 for a discussion of commercial sport fishing guiding. duly 29, 1993 a See PAGE 3-89 Table 3.13 Total Estimated 1991 Sport Fishing Effort from Streams Crossed by the Proposed Pipeline Route Pipeline Effort Mile Post Stream (days) Catch’ Comments 0-20 Middle Tanana River 2,344 2,561 43% burbot, 20% Arctic grayling, 17% northern pike, other species less than 5%. 18 Lower Chena River 12,547 18,222 81% Arctic grayling, 13% northern pike, other species less than 5%. 20-155 Nenana River drainage 1,550 6,842 69% Arctic grayling, 24% silver salmon, other species less than 5%. 68 Fish Creek No data available 70-79 Julius Creek No data available 116 Panquinque Creek No data available 126-128 Moody Creek No data available 138 Yanert Fork No data available 176 M.F. Chulitna River No data available 182 E.F. Chulitna River No data available 194 Little Honolulu Creek No data available 191 Honolulu Creek No data available 210 Horseshoe Creek No data available 228 Byers Creek No data available 234 Troublesome Creek 1,649 2,827 65% rainbow trout, 12% silver salmon, 8% Arctic grayling, 5% red salmon, other species less than 5%. 238 Chulitna River No data available 256 Trapper Creek No data available 258-265 Rabideaux Creek 459 382 40% red salmon, 23% pink salmon, 21% burbot, 8% silver salmon, other species less than 5%. 267 Susitna River No data available 271 Little Montana Creek No data available 274 Montana Creek 10,745 9,365 26% silver salmon, 23% rainbow trout, 19% king salmon, 12% pink salmon, 9% Arctic grayling, 9% chum salmon, other species less than 5%. ' Includes both fish kept and fish released. Table 3.13 (Cont’n) Pipeline Mile Post Stream Effort (days) Catch Comments 276 Goose Creek 281 Sheep Creek 285 Caswell Creek 287 Kashwitna River 289 196 Mile Creek 295 Little Willow Creek 298 Willow Creek 303 Lilly Creek 303-306 Nancy Lake 314 Little Susitna River 318 Meadow Creek 318 Little Meadow Creek 319 Lucile Creek 329 Fish Creek 329 Fish Creek 330-334 Goose Creek 341-351 Knik Arm 2,811 6,838 14,872 10,951 7,816 6,336 1,981 1,494 No data available 7,792 6,745 32,520 20,792 No data available 3,951 3,086 50,838 32,977 No data available No data available No data available 3,963 2,342 8,220 15,691 No data available No data available 31% rainbow trout, 16% Arctic grayling, 16% pink salmon, 12% chum salmon, 11% king salmon, 10% silver salmon, other species less than 5%. 23% silver salmon, 22% king salmon, 15% chum salmon, 11% pink salmon, 11% Arctic grayling, 10% rainbow trout, other species less than 5%. 75% silver salmon, 7% rainbow trout, 7% king salmon, 5% red salmon, other species less than 5%. 46% rainbow trout, 18% Arctic grayling, 18% silver salmon, 8% Dolly Varden-Arctic char, 5% king salmon, other species less than 5%. 26% silver salmon, 18% rainbow trout, 13% king salmon, 12% Arctic grayling, 11% pink salmon, 8% chum salmon, other species less than 5%. 25 % king salmon, 25% silver salmon, 19% rainbow trout, 11% pink salmon, 9% chum salmon, 5% Arctic grayling, other species less than 5%. 76% rainbow trout, 10% red salmon, 8% lake trout, other species less than 5%. 64% silver salmon, 9% king salmon, 6% red salmon, rainbow trout slightly less than 5%. 29% red salmon, 27% silver salmon, 26% rainbow trout, 9% pink salmon, other species less than 5%. (Personal Use Fishery) 94% red salmon, 4% each pink and chum salmon. Source: ADF&G (1992) Anadromous fish streams crossed by the proposed pipeline route are considered important to the commercial fishing industry in Cook Inlet (DNR/ADF&G, 1985). These streams are listed in Table 3.6-1. 3.14 Other Recreation The proposed pipeline route crosses an area of Alaska having very high value for a variety of recreation activities. Those range from seasonal activities (white water rafting, berry picking, cross country skiing, and snowmachining), to those supported by intensive commercial public and private facilities, to extensive ones such as sightseeing (both by surface and air), hiking, hunting, photography, and bird watching. There are numerous commercial enterprises along the proposed pipeline route, principally in the small communities situated beside the Parks Highway or Alaska Railroad. Both Fairbanks and Anchorage have major tourism-related businesses that use the resources along the preferred and optional alignments. Most of the State’s population is concentrated near the proposed route. Recreation use, therefore, is heavy, and reflects the availability of good surface transportation along the corridor. Table 3.14 summarizes areas close to the proposed pipeline system having high value for outdoor recreation. The eastern boundary of Denali National Park and Preserve is approximately midway between North Pole and Anchorage. As such, there is heavy recreation related travel on the Parks Highway and the Alaska Railroad during the summer months. Highway travel includes private and rented cars and vans, campers, motorhomes, and commercial van and bus service. The Alaska Railroad provides daily passenger service between Fairbanks and Denali National Park and Anchorage during the summer tourist season. Denali National Park is an international attraction that forms an important leg of tour packages promoted by the tourism industry (DNR, 1989b). AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT PAGE 3-92 Denali State Park, about 324,240 acres, adjoins a part of the southeastern boundary of Denali National Park. The Parks Highway transects the state park, as does the AEA Intertie. The proposed pipeline route through Denali State Park is in the existing Parks Highway ROW. The Denali State Park Master Plan (DNR, 1989b) designates this general area as being zoned primarily for maintaining the existing natural environment. The three exceptions are at the north and south entrances to the state park, and at Byers Lake. These three areas are designated for potential recreation development. DNR (1985) notes that state ownership in the North Parks Highway Subregion (from the northern boundary of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough to the north boundary of Denali State Park) has high value for recreation. The Parks Highway in this subregion provides one of the most scenic drives in the planning area. The area east of the highway between North Chulitna Butte and Summit Lake (Middle Fork of the Chulitna River) contains the "...finest terrain and conditions for cross-country skiing along the entire Parks Highway" (DNR, 1985). Winter recreation includes dog mushing, snowmachining and cross-country skiing especially between Hurricane and Broad Pass. Summer activities include hiking, fishing, floating, and camping. Trapping and hunting also are important uses for the area. The Chulitna River is growing in popularity for floating and boating trips. The DNR plan notes that one of the alternative routes of the TAGS project parallels the Parks Highway through this subregion. The area plan does not consider that large pipeline system to be incompatible with existing or planned recreational resources. State ownership to the south of Denali State Park along the Parks Highway have outdoor recreation values similar to those described above. Byers Lake and Troublesome Creek are developed state recreation sites within Denali State Park. Other developed public outdoor recreation sites along the Parks Highway southward from Fairbanks include the state rest areas on the south bank of the Susitna River, Montana Creek, Willow Creek, and Deception Creek. Willow Creek State Recreation Area encompasses the lower five miles of Willow Creek and its confluence with the Susitna River. The Deception Creek campground is upstream of the Parks Highway at the confluence of Deception Creek with Willow Creek. This campground is managed by the Alaska Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation within DNR. Nancy Lake State Recreation Area is located four miles south of Willow Creek State Recreation Area. The proposed pipeline would be in the existing ROW of the Parks Highway in this area. The Big Lake and Nancy Lake Creek optional alignments would follow the existing MEA powerline ROW and cross a segment of the Little Susitna Recreation River downstream from the Highway. This part of the recreation river is heavily used by boaters and bank fishermen during the summer. During the winter, the river is used for snowmachine travel. The proposed pipeline would cross the Iditarod National Historic Trail south of Nancy Lake. There are several trails that, depending on snow conditions, were used as part of the winter trail to Iditarod. The official trail is now located on a seismic line that runs from the Little Susitna River westward to the Susitna River (DNR, 1988). Goose Bay State Game Refuge is located on the west side of Knik Arm. Access is from the Parks Highway via the Knik/Goose Bay Road from Wasilla. The proposed pipeline route through the refuge would follow an existing CEA powerline. See section 3.7 for a discussion of this refuge. The Big Lake Option would cross the western part of the Big Lake recreation complex. The Point MacKenzie Option would avoid the Goose Bay State Game Refuge, but would cross some of the same important wildlife habitats as would the preferred alignment. The Palmer Hay Flats Option would continue to follow existing powerlines AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ae PAGE 3-94 and highway ROWSs to Anchorage and avoid the Knik Arm crossing and Goose Bay State Game Refuge, but would cross the Palmer Hay Flats State Game Refuge. Hunting and trapping are major uses of the lands along most of the proposed pipeline route. Table 3.14 Parks, Forests, Recreation Rivers, Game Refuges, Public Recreation Sites, Waysides, and Areas Near the Proposed Pipeline Route Pipeline MP Name 28-32 Tanana Valley State Forest 36-38 Tanana Valley State Forest 49-51 Tanana Valley State Forest 55 Tanana Valley State Forest 55-58 Minto Flats State Game Refuge 138 Denali National Park and Preserve 147-156 Nenana State Rec. River (proposed) 183 E.F.Chulitna River Rest Area 202-239 Denali State Park 224 Byers Lake Campground 225 Alaska Veterans Memorial 234 Troublesome Creek Campground 235 McKinley View Wayside 249 Chulitna Rest Area 267 Big Susitna River Rest Area 273 Montana Creek Wayside 283 Sheep Creek Boat Launch Site 287 Susitna Landing Boat Launch Site 300 Deception Creek Campground 300 Willow Creek State Recreation 306-310 Nancy Lake Recreation Area 314 Little Susitna Recreation River 327 Iditarod National Historic Trail 333-336 Goose Bay State Game Refuge July 29, 1993 . Sos PAGE S396 3.15 Subsistence Local residents along the proposed pipeline route use fish, wildlife, and plants for subsistence purposes. Residents from as far away as Kenney Lake (in the Copper River Valley) are reported to use wildlife resources along the Denali Highway as far west as Cantwell. Generally, the road network defines the primary subsistence use areas since this is where people live. Residents of Fairbanks and Anchorage do not qualify for subsistence use of federally managed resources (BLM/COE, 1988). However, residents in the small communities along the Parks Highway do qualify; some may even hunt in the adjacent Denali National Park and Preserve. Residents from Minto use subsistence resources upstream along the Tanana River to the vicinity of Nenana (ADF&G, 1986e). Most residents along the proposed pipeline route qualify for subsistence use of nonfederal lands and waters under state law. There is extensive trapping in the vicinity of the Parks Highway. The Julius Creek area is used for subsistence harvest of waterfowl and small game, while the Panquinque Creek area is used for small game harvest. 3.16 Cultural Resources/Historic Properties A regional context summary of the cultural resources prehistory of the project area can be found in APA (1983). A condensation of that summary may be found in APA (1982). Relatively few archaeological sites are presently known to exist in the vicinity of the pipeline route, and fewer still are dated or contain culturally diagnostic artifacts. Of the major periods outlined in the regional archaeology, only aspects of each can be identified from the vicinity of the pipeline route. No archaeological sites have been AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT = WIR AE discovered which contain complete or nearly complete too! assemblages. While several Athapaskan sites are known to exist in the vicinity of the pipeline route, none has been excavated systematically (APA, 1983). An inventory of archaeological sites from the Alaska Heritage Resource Survey (AHRS) in the vicinity of the pipeline route indicated a large majority was little more than lithic flake scatters. Very few of the sites located in the vicinity of the pipeline route have been excavated: The Teklanika West site (HEA-001), the Dry Creek archaeological site (HEA-005), the Carlo Creek site (HEA-031, and the Nenana Gorge site (HEA-062). These sites vary in age, and represent prehistoric occupation at circa 11,000 years before present (B.P.) (HEA-005), 8,000 years B.P. (HEA-001 and HEA-031), and 350 years B.P. (HEA-062) (APA, 1983). While almost all of the proposed pipeline alignment would be constructed within or adjacent to existing powerline and highway ROWs, only a little over half of the proposed pipeline ROW actually has been surveyed for cultural resources. In conjunction with the AEA Intertie project in the early 1980s, APA (1983) conducted a ROW survey covering approximately 170 miles from Willow to Healy. The survey identified only 18 sites, all of which contained only flakes, flake fragments, projectile points, microblades, or log structures (historic) and a military encampment. Of the 18 sites, 17 were located in the southern foothills of the Alaska Range. Among the reasons for the lack of sites between the Alaska Range and Willow were that site visibility over much of the AEA ROW is extremely limited due to heavy surface vegetation, many sites were originally created in areas of geologic instability (e.g., actively eroding stream banks and floodplains), and the ROW did not cross the mouths of major streams or their confluences with other major streams normally favored for settlement locations. With one exception, which is not relevant to the duly 29,1993. proposed pipeline ROW location, it was concluded that the AEA Intertie would not pose a threat to any property listed in or presumed eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. In conjunction with the proposed Susitna Hydroelectric Project, Dixon et. al. (1983) identified 12 sites within the Healy to Fairbanks segment during a preliminary reconnaissance level aerial survey. Most of the remainder of the proposed pipeline ROW not associated with the AEA Intertie would be constructed within or adjacent to the GVEA, MEA, and CEA powerline ROWs at the northern and southern ends of the route, and within the Parks Highway ROW for a distance of approximately 156 miles between Nenana and Nancy Lake. While some portions of these ROWs have been surveyed for cultural resources, most have not. 3.17 Visual Visual resources along the proposed pipeline route include a broad spectrum of the beauty that is Alaska. A detailed description of the mostly undeveloped landscapes and view sheds along the proposed route may be found in the Scenic Resources Along the Parks Highway (DNR, 1981), from which much of the following is excerpted. From North Pole to Nenana, the route traverses the white spruce forest of the Tanana Hills, with expansive views to the south across the Tanana River lowlands to the Alaska Range. Mt. McKinley can be clearly seen to the southwest. At Nenana the route crosses the Tanana River and turns south through the mostly flat terrain of the Tanana and Nenana River lowlands, with ever closer views of the Alaska AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT : PAGE 3-98 Range. Vegetation is primarily black spruce, with scattered stands of hardwoods and white spruce on well drained soils. South of Healy the route enters the Alaska Range via Moody Creek and returns to the Nenana River canyon at the mouth of the Yanert River. Steep mountainous topography and water dominate the landscape in this area. The route emerges from the Alaska Range into Broad Pass with its contrasting topographies: very broad, gently rolling, glacial-carved valley floor with little relief, and steep mountainous sides. White and black spruce stands contrast with surrounding treeless lands, and border the elongated lakes that are the most visible water features. South of Broad Pass the route descends below timberline and enters spruce-hardwood uplands with mixed spruce-popular in the bottomlands. Water is abundant with the presence of the Chulitna River system, and the waterfalls of Hurricane, Honolulu and Antimony creeks. There are prominent views of the Alaska Range and Mount McKinley to the west, as well as steep river gulches. Entering the Susitna and Little Susitna River lowlands the landcover is predominantly coniferous along the rivers with mixed stands of white spruce and deciduous trees on the uplands. The Alaska Range forms the northern and more distant western horizons, while the Talkeetna Mountains form the eastern boundary. As the route approaches upper Cook Inlet, the mountain ranges recede toward the horizons as the topography flattens towards the coast. Overall, the corridor visual resources retain a high degree of naturalness when viewed from the ground. Major human alterations of the natural setting include the larger cities and smaller communities along the route. In addition to the Parks Highway, the Alaska Railroad and the AEA Intertie and associated powerlines all intrude into the visual environment to some extent. Local electrical distribution lines and communications towers present foreground to middle distance distractions. Numerous small, private landholdings, including classic examples of the "Alaska homestead," have been developed along the Parks Highway, varying in degree of obtrusiveness as natural vegetative screening has been altered or removed . 3.18 Land Status and Use Land status along the proposed pipeline route generally falls into two categories based on whether the land is publicly or privately owned. The majority of the lands bordering the route, about 60 percent, are in public ownership and designated as, or classified for, parks, forests, wildlife, minerals, public recreation, or other retention and resource management purposes. Areas encompassing or bordering the route that have been specifically designated by Congress or the State Legislature include the Tanana State Forest and the Minto Flats State Game Refuge west of Fairbanks, Denali National Park and Preserve, Denali State Park, the Willow Creek and Nancy Lake Recreation areas, the Little Susitna Recreational River, and the Goose Bay State Game Refuge. The following discussion categorizes lands that likely would be crossed by the pipeline. Public Lands Federal -- These lands are controlled by federal agencies. Some lands titled to United States of America associated with the proposed pipeline alignment are in process of leaving federal agencies contro! through the operation of the public land laws, state selections, or Native selections. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ee a ee PAGE 3-100 Military -- The rifle range on Fort Wainwright in Fairbanks, and Clear Air Force Base located south of Nenana. Developments on tidelands along the eastern side of Knik Arm must be coordinated with Elmendorf Air Force Base to assure that the military mission at that base is not impacted. BLM -- Includes BLM lands selected by Native corporations or the State of Alaska, or both (dual selections) that have not yet been transferred from federal ownership State -- Lands controlled by state agencies such as DNR (including state parks, forests, recreation rivers), DOT/PF (highway ROWs), and ARRC (railroad ROW and other lands) Borough -- Lands controlled by the Fairbanks North Star, Denali, Matanuska-Susitna, and Anchorage boroughs/municipality, as well as those that may be controlled by communities along the alignment Private Lands This category encompasses those lands not controlled by a public agency. It includes Alaska Native corporation lands, as well as those in a form of trust capacity. Traditional -- All traditional individual private and corporate land ownerships, including private lands owned by Alaska Native corporations Trust -- Those lands controlled by the University of Alaska, the Mental Health Trust, and certain other special relationships such as the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ (BIA) Native allotments duly 29, 1993 © Following is a summary of approximate land ownership over which the proposed pipeline alignment would pass. Military (Fort Wainwright) .. 6.6... . 0. ee ee eee 3.0 Mi. Other Federal .. 1... . ee eee eee 0.0 Mi. State tarecermmcmsr te atermra mara nce em ecete eee ee Eee EE EUS 274.7 Mi. BOrOUG i pceseence ee tsceeeoeeee oe eee atest ae eae seem eee ee eee 12.9 Mi. IMU iGipial lity Seren eeepc proms eoe cece orret) cece -n nee een h-oree Seen oeerens 5.8 Mi. Brivate Semeaeaepresaereerer acetate area aetna mmcnc am Erntae Ee enee eee ems 52.8 Mi. Metall tet eea thn ror creo core cect ott ertom te mtomtom-nionissee ss ees acne eee en enens 0.0 Mi. LUTTE LS reer tec Fe Ge PietinteOatede be Catietate Ged ated cecacecacevacscanetace CeGat=OaDecer 2.0 Mi. sO tal Seeecmcerecceceeat- a mcete eee esr moe REE ee ent 351.2 Mi * Includes lands crossed by the preferred alignment within the Parks Highway right of way and the Alaska Railroad. Federal lands, under military jurisdiction, would constitute less than 1 percent of the lands to be crossed using a limited title search along the preferred route as the basis for ownership. Fort Wainwright in Fairbanks constitutes the military land directly associated with the proposed pipeline. It is noted, however, that the preferred alignment along the tidelands adjoining Elmendorf Air Force Base must be coordinated with the Air Force to assure the national defense mission at Elmendorf is not impacted. Approximately 78 percent of the proposed pipeline alignment would be constructed on lands conveyed to the State of Alaska under the Alaska Statehood Act and along the State of Alaska Parks Highway ROW. Approximately 2 percent of lands are controlled by municipalities. State lands are located throughout the length of the pipeline alignment, being especially dominant from just west of Fairbanks to the Susitna River crossing. Borough lands predominate around Fairbanks, and in the lower Susitna Valley, and represents approximately 4 percent of preferred route. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT a a PAGE 3-102 Private Alaska Native corporation lands are those acquired under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) of 1971, as amended. Under this federal law, Alaska Native regional and village corporations obtained title to lands throughout Alaska. These lands are privately owned like those of any individual or corporation. Less than 5 percent of the lands that would be crossed by the proposed pipeline are owned by Native corporations. These lands are found in the vicinity of Nenana and Cantwell and in the middle segment of the Susitna Valley. Private lands total approximately 15 percent of the route, including native lands. The majority of these were either homesteaded from the Federal Government, or were obtained through various state and borough land disposal programs since statehood in 1959. They may be found as scattered parcels along most of the route, with some concentrations near small communities, but the large majority of these lands is located between Montana Creek and Knik Arm in the lower Susitna Valley. Trust lands would constitute less than 1 percent of the pipeline alignment. These include lands set aside for the University of Alaska. There are also state lands selected for support of the mental health programs. There are some titled mental health lands on the preferred route and state selected lands for the mental health programs are proposed on the alignment. These titled and state selected mental health lands are located primarily in the Fairbanks area and Moody Creek, with some in the Susitna Valley. No native allotments were identified. Native allotments are owned by qualified Alaska Natives, but are retained by the BIA under a trust arrangement. From a land use perspective, the pipeline route would follow the relatively well developed "railbelt" corridor between Fairbanks and Anchorage. This corridor contains three major transportation facilities: the Alaska Railroad, state highways ( Richardson and Parks), and powerlines (Golden Valley, Matanuska-Susitna, and Chugach cooperatives and AEA intertie). It would generally traverse sparsely developed lands with a number of small communities and peripheral roads and other developments. At the southern end of the corridor, many small private land parcels serve as recreational retreats for residents of Anchorage and the Matanuska and Susitna valleys. Activities such as fishing, hunting, boating, and trapping are common throughout the corridor. The proposed pipeline route traverses two areas containing state lands classified as suitable for agriculture. The first area is approximately 25 miles long between Nenana and the northern foothills of the Alaska Range. The second area is the mid- and lower Susitna lowlands roughly between Talkeetna and Cook Inlet. Both areas contain scattered small plots of farmed agriculture land, and the area just north of Point MacKenzie contains the failed large-scale state dairy project. None of these agricultural endeavors has proved economically viable on other than an individual landowner basis. With title reversion to the state, some of these lands have been, or are being, considered for other non-agricultural uses. 3.19 Transportation and Traffic Patterns The route of the proposed pipeline would follow the existing transportation corridor between North Pole and Anchorage. Two primary surface transportation systems use this corridor: the Alaska Railroad and the Richardson and Parks highways. (See Section 3.20 for a discussion of water transportation.) The Alaska Railroad runs from Seward via Anchorage to Fairbanks and on to Eielson Air Force Base southeast of North Pole. It is primarily a freight railroad, receiving 76 percent of its revenue from hauling petroleum products from North Pole to Anchorage, coal from Healy to Seward and to power generating facilities at Clear and other electrical plants near Fairbanks, gravel from the Matanuska-Susitna Valley to AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT : PAGE 3-104 Anchorage, and interline and miscellaneous freight. Freight moving northward generally originates in the Seattle/Portland areas and is moved to Seward via Hydro- train barges. Another 12 percent of its revenues come from passenger service, primarily tourists during the summer, between Anchorage, Denali National Park, and Fairbanks. In 1991, the Railroad carried 471,000 passengers. The proposed pipeline alignment would cross the ARRC ROW approximately nine times between North Pole and Knik Arm. Railroad traffic is relatively light, and seasonal. In summer, up to 10 trains a day, traveling in both directions, would pass a given point between Fairbanks and Wasilla. In winter, up to 5 trains a day would pass the same point. These figures do not include maintenance operations. The Richardson Highway is the land link between Alaska, via Canada, and the contiguous 48 states. The proposed pipeline alignment would be accessible from the last 12 miles of that link, which terminates at Fairbanks. It should be noted, however, that the preferred alignment is along a powerline closely paralleling the north bank of the Tanana River. The Parks Highway is the main vehicle route between Fairbanks and Anchorage. In addition to linking the Interior with southcentral Alaska, the highway serves as the spine for local surface transportation between the small communities that dot the route. In addition to passenger traffic, the highway is used by trucking companies hauling a broad variety of goods, some destined for the North Slope. The Parks Highway would be crossed by the preferred pipeline alignment at least 15 times between Cripple Creek and Knik Arm. In three areas the pipeline would be constructed within the Parks Highway ROW. The first area would be a total of 14 miles between Nenana and Clear AFB, MP 60 to 78. The second area would include 25 miles from Jack Creek to Hardage Creek, MP 160 to 185. The third area includes July 29, 1993 a 118 mile distance from Hurricane to Little Meadow Creek, MP 199 to 317. Within the highway ROW, the pipeline would cross the highway when required due to ROW space, terrain, or other conditions. The exact number of highway crossings in these three areas cannot be determined until the detailed design phase of the project. Neither the Richardson nor the Glenn highways would be crossed by the proposed alignment. Table 3.19-1 presents the 1990 daily traffic count for selected locations on the Richardson and Parks highways between North Pole and the Big Lake area. These figures, however, mask the seasonal variation in traffic, which varies substantially. Table 3.19-2 presents the average daily traffic count, by month, for five locations along the proposed pipeline route. In addition to the Parks Highway, the proposed pipeline alignment would cross a number of secondary roads, primarily around population centers such as Fairbanks, Nenana, Healy, Trapper Creek, and the more rural population areas between the Susitna River crossing and Knik Arm. These secondary roads do not carry high traffic volumes, but they are very important to local users. 3.20 Navigation Several rivers crossed by the proposed Denali Pipeline have, or are now, supporting commercial barge traffic. These include both the lower Chena River and Tanana River at Fairbanks, the lower Nenana River and Tanana River at Nenana, and the lower Susitna River. Knik Arm provides direct access to the Port of Anchorage. Crossings AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT : oe . 2 PAGE S106 Table 3.19-1 1990 Average Daily Traffic Count (Both Directions) at Selected Locations on the Parks and Richardson Highways HEROES IIIT TIN NIP TIN NN MIN NIT MN iesoAverage Mile Post Location Daily Traffic 52 ; Junction with Big Lake Road 3,920 57 Houston 2,036 67 Junction with Nancy Lake Road 2,260 ail Willow Wi2Te: 83 Kashwitna River 1,600 98 Junction with Talkeetna Spur Road 1,234 Wu) Trapper Creek 1,020 133 Chulitna River 620 185 East Fork Chulitna River 751 237 Denali Park Entrance 1,650 248 Healy 1,425 304 Nenana 1,291 352 Ester 1,609 358 Junction with Richardson Highway 11,300 349 North Pole (Richardson Highway) 12,350 Source: DOT/PF (1991) Table 3.19-2 1990 Average Daily Traffic Count (Both Directions), by Month, at Selected Locations on the Parks Highway") East Fork Month Willow Chulitna Chulitna Nenana Ester January 748 353 298 734 945 February 850 390 300 756 960 March 953 459 444 1,018 1,208 April 1,043 532 627 leant 1,389 May 1,697 957 781 1,564 1,824 June 2,609 1,458 1,176 2,016 2,398 July 2,752 1,817 1,612 2,206 2,578 August 2,705 1,678 1,568 2,009 2,328 September 1,793 1,098 941 1,466 1,874 October 1,144 541 498 1,028 1,407 November 1,107 457 420 845 1,252 December 1,055 408 344 738 1,139 Ann. Average 1,538 846 751 1291 1,609 4991 data for Willow and Chulitna Source: DOT/PF (1991, 1992) AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT < PAGE 3-108 of these rivers and Knik Arm would be subject to the provisions of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, which provides the COE jurisdiction for protecting navigation on waters of the United States. Currently, Nenana is the center of barge operations (bulk fuels, mining supplies) on the lower Tanana and upper Yukon rivers during the ice free portion of the year. Supplies to be barged are delivered to Nenana by rail or by highway. Knik Arm provides tidewater access and deep water import and export facilities for Alaska’s Railbelt. This location will become increasingly critical to economic growth and development of natural resource exports such as coal, forest products, and petroleum products. Navigational impact planning must account for the significant volume of cargo movement through the Port of Anchorage and the next generation of vessels that will be calling on this area in terms of both frequency and size. Potential port facility sites and their proximity to the proposed ROW must also be acknowledged as to avoid possible future conflict. In addition to the existing and historic barge traffic on the Tanana, Chena, Nenana, and Susitna Rivers, many smaller streams are used by commercial recreation enterprises and private individuals for boating and boat access to other areas. For example, the Nenana River Canyon adjacent to the entrance to Denali National Park and Preserve is heavily used by commercial white-water rafting businesses, while the Tanana River, Willow Creek and the Little Susitna River are used for boating access during the summer for sport fishing purposes and during the fall by waterfowl and moose hunters. 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 4.1. Introduction It is of prime importance to make an assessment of all of the environmental consequences that could occur as a result of the construction of the Denali Pipeline Project. This chapter addresses those consequences, and its purpose is threefold: first, to describe the environmental and social consequences that reasonably could be attributed to the proposed Denali Pipeline Project; second, to determine whether those impacts would cause a significant change to the existing human environment; and third, to determine the extent to which any significant impacts might be mitigated. This chapter reflects design, construction, and schedules described in Chapter 2, and the full and effective implementation of the mitigation measures identified in Section 2.3.39. Since over 94% of the proposed pipeline route would be located adjacent to, or within, the existing transportation and utility system ROWs, the identification and evaluation of foreseeable environmental consequences along the proposed route can be reasonable assessed through a review of the actual environmental impacts that have occurred as a result of the construction and maintenance of those systems. Additional information regarding the environmental consequences caused by the construction and operation of the existing ENSTAR natural gas pipeline system from the Beluga Gas Field to Anchorage, and the Tesoro petroleum products pipeline system from Nikiski to Anchorage also has been reviewed in the preparation of this Chapter. A considerable amount of literature (see Section 7.0) has been reviewed to determine whether the proposed Denali Pipeline Project would reasonably be expected to cause adverse consequences on: fish and wildlife populations or habitats; July 29, 1993 PAGE 4-1 threatened, endangered or protected animals and plants; and, approved federal, state, and local land use plans. Special attention has been given to the 7rans-Alaska Gas System Final Environmental Impact Statement (BLM/COE, 1988), the Railbe/t /ntertie Reconnaissance Study...of a Natural Gas Pipeline System Linking Fairbanks with the Cook Inlet Area (APA, 1989), and to approved land use plans for state lands in the Tanana and Susitna river basins. 4.2 Vegetation BLM and COE (1988) evaluated an alternative routing of the TAGS project, a large- diameter, buried and chilled natural gas pipeline system that generally followed the proposed Denali Pipeline route between lower Little Goldstream Creek and the vicinity of Willow. That EIS concluded that the primary impact to vegetation would be direct plant mortality as a result of digging the trench for the pipe or placement of permanent facilities in vegetated areas. It noted that natural revegetation would ultimately reduce impacts, but that any spills or fires could impact vegetation. Overall, the impact on vegetation from the larger, chilled natural gas pipeline system was determined not to be significant. APA (1989) concluded that clearing for a potential 16-inch diameter buried natural gas pipeline system would disturb approximately 3,043 acres of existing vegetation. That potential pipeline would have been located primarily in the existing Parks Highway ROW. Therefore, it was estimated that a width of only 30 to 70 feet of existing vegetative cover would need to be modified. The primary impact to vegetation identified in the 1989 evaluation was limited to forested areas affected by a direct result of removal of trees. This would cause localized, full-sun conditions that would produce microclimate site specific changes in the type of vegetation that would exist after pipeline construction. Maintenance clearing would maintain a vegetative cover that would permit routine maintenance and inspection of the pipeline system. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES PAGE 4-2 Generally, tree clearing would have been done by hand with proper disposal of downed trees to avoid providing habitat suitable for the spread of the spruce bark beetle. This would have included chipping and using chips for revegetation purposes, burning, and, where there was a demand, cutting into lengths suitable for fire wood or house logs. Hydro-ax, hand clearing, and other mechanical clearing would have been used where there were known moose winter concentration areas to enhance regrowth of shrub species and sprouts from stumps as a moose enhancement measure. The hydro-ax or similar mechanical clearing methods also was proposed in high shrub vegetation associations to enhance natural plant revegetation because root systems would remain largely intact. The proposed Denali Pipeline Project would use the same construction and mitigation measures described above. All but about 20 miles of the proposed pipeline route would be located adjacent to, or within, the existing transportation or utility system ROWs. Therefore, only between 30 to 70 feet of additional ROW clearing (3.6 to 8.5 acres per mile) would be required for approximately 331 miles of the proposed pipeline route. The 20 miles of new pipeline ROW would have the potential of modifying 270 acres of existing vegetation. The proposed Denali Pipeline would use a much smaller diameter pipe than the TAGS natural gas pipeline evaluated by the BLM/COE (1988). Also, the Denali Pipeline system would be primarily operated at ambient temperatures, whereas the TAGS pipeline system would create a frost zone around the pipe because of its below freezing operating temperatures. Accordingly, the proposed Denali Pipeline Project would have no significant impact on vegetation. It would have a slightly lesser impact on existing vegetation than the larger TAGS natural gas pipeline (BLM/COE, 1988), and about the same as the smaller natural gas pipeline evaluated by APA (1989). For additional discussion of impacts to plants, see Sections 4.3 (Wetlands) and 4.8 (Wildlife). July 29, 1993 PAGE 4-3 The optional pipeline alignments would have essentially the same impacts to vegetation as those described for the preferred pipeline alignment. 4.3 Wetlands Approximately 32 percent (107 miles) of the proposed Denali Pipeline alignment would be located in wetland areas. Whenever possible, the proposed pipeline route, in the segments not following the existing transportation or utility ROWs, would be located in areas not classified as wetlands by the NWI. Therefore, impacts to previously undisturbed wetland areas would be minimized. COE regulations provide for the issuance of individual permits for construction within navigable waters of the U.S. (Section 10), and for the discharge of dredged or fill material in waters of the U.S. and their adjacent wetlands (Section 404). COE regulations also provide for issuance of specific nationwide permits when certain types of proposed work would have minimal impacts to waters of the U.S. and adjacent wetlands. The COE regulations (33 CFR, Part 330, Appendix A, B.12) provide for issuance of a nationwide permit for "Utility Line Backfill and Bedding”. The definition of “utility line" includes pipelines for the transportation of "...any gaseous, liquefiable, or slurry substance, for any purpose...." Accordingly, the proposed Denali Pipeline would qualify for this type of nationwide permit (Nationwide Permit 12) for backfilling and bedding. For those locations where the pipeline would cross navigable waters, or where access roads or permanent facilities would be constructed in wetlands, individual Section 10 and 404 permits would be required. The proposed Denali Pipeline project would have potential impacts similar to those for the ENSTAR 99-mile long natural gas pipeline from the Beluga Gas Field to Anchorage. That pipeline system was authorized by the COE in 1983. For the ENSTAR project, the COE (1983) determined that pipeline crossings of certain navigable waterways, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES PAGE 4-4 and the-construction of certain access roads in wetlands, would require individual Section 10 and 404 permits. However, other discharges of dredged or fill material into other waterways and their adjacent wetlands associated with actual backfill and bedding of the pipeline within the ENSTAR ROW qualified under Nationwide Permit 12. Specific conditions for the ENSTAR pipeline nationwide permit were: 1 The purpose of the discharge is for backfill or bedding. 2) There is no change in preconstruction bottom contours (excess material must be removed to an upland disposal area). 3 The enclosed special conditions and management practices are satisfied. The special conditions referenced above were: a That all fuel and toxic materials be stored upland at a minimum of 100 feet from any wetland, stream, or riverbank. b That all stream bank stabilization commence within 48 hours of placing the pipeline. c That revegetation be done during the first growing season after surface disturbance, then rechecked the following year to insure that disturbed areas have been stabilized. Any additional restoration measures which are needed be performed immediately. Nationwide Permit 12 also requires that the area disturbed must be kept to a minimum. Materials resulting from trench excavation may be temporarily sidecast into the waters of the U.S. for a period that generally does not exceed 90 days provided that the material is not placed in such a manner that it is dispersed by currents or other forces. The top 6 to 12 inches of the trench generally should be backfilled by material excavated from the trench, and excess materials must be removed to upland areas for disposal immediately upon completion of construction. Finally, any exposed slopes and stream banks must be stabilized immediately upon completion of the utility line. July 29, 1993 PAGE 4-5 The proposed Denali Pipeline would comply with all of the above conditions contained in the 1983 COE authorization for the ENSTAR pipeline. In addition, construction activities across the majority of the wetlands would be done during the winter. No permanent workpads are planned to parallel the pipeline system. No new permanent roads for access for ongoing maintenance or operations are planned. Therefore, surface and groundwater flows would remain substantially unaltered. The proposed combination of scheduling pipeline construction activities for the winter period, and maintaining existing surface water general drainage would minimize impacts to wetlands. Accordingly, there would be no significant impact to wetlands. For additional discussion of impacts to wetlands see Sections 4.2 (Vegetation) and 4.8 (Wildlife). The optional pipeline alignments would have wetlands impacts similar to those described for the preferred pipeline alignment with two exceptions: the Tanana Flats Option and the AEA intertie Option. The 49-mile long Tanana Flats Option would require a new ROW located almost entirely in largely undisturbed wetlands. The AEA Intertie Option would increase the total amount of wetlands crossed in that segment from 7 miles to about 18 miles. Both the preferred and the optional alignments would be in existing transportation and utility corridors. 4.3.1 Flood Control Functions The discharge of dredged or fill material on wetlands can alter normal water level fluctuations, prolong periods of flooding, and can intensify or eliminate high and low water levels. DPLC proposes to maintain the existing contours of the pipeline ROW to the maximum extent practicable. It is unlikely, therefore, that there would be any significant changes in the flood control functions of wetlands as a result of constructing the proposed pipeline. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES PAGE 4-6 The pipeline alignment between North Pole and the Chena River would be on the north side of the existing Tanana River Flood Control Levee. No crossings of the levee would occur. Therefore, the proposed pipeline would pose no threat to the flood control function of that system. 4.4 Groundwater Hydrology Construction and operation of the Denali Pipeline Project would involve construction in and across the floodplains of 142 rivers and streams along the alignment. These activities would have the potential for causing both short- and long-term impacts to riparian habitat and to adjacent property. Additionally, thermal effects of construction, both in and out of floodplains, could affect groundwater movements and alter surface drainage. Impacts to ground water ultimately result in impacts to surface water. The most common influence to ground water in frozen soil results from disturbance of flows where there is a shallow active zone overlaying permafrost. This zone could be rendered impermeable by compaction penetration of frost from the surface because of alteration of surface thermal characteristics. Diversion of an aquifer would create a new groundwater flow pattern that would surface and result in an icing, accelerated erosion, or diversion of surface flow. These alterations might in turn further affect the thermal regime and initiate more thermal degradation, causing negligible to moderate impacts, depending on the area affected (BLM/COE, 1988). If conditions exist along the alignment which might cause compaction penetration from the surface, they would be rare. Proper excavation, bedding, and backfilling techniques would alleviate this problem. Excavation for ditches and material sites could intercept shallow groundwater flow and permeate bedding material in pipe ditches. These activities could create new July 29, 1993 PAGE 4-7 subsurface drainage paths and dewater existing springs. They could also contribute to formation of surface aufeis. These same pipeline features could intercept surface flow and recharge groundwater aquifers in unfrozen areas which could cause depletion of surface water entering streams (BLM/COE, 1988). This condition is not expected due to the general absence of major aufeis conditions associated with the Park Highway. Along much of the route, winter groundwater availability would be nonexistent or limited to unfrozen alluvium underlying major streams. Volume in the alluvium would be low, and there is no recharge during winter (BLM/COE, 1988). The impact of the proposed pipeline on existing groundwater resources, and on the fluvial environment, would depend on the specific design, construction, and maintenance procedures used, and scheduling of activities. Impacts would be minimized, however, by application of the construction techniques and mitigation measures described in Chapter 2, and by the special conditions that would be mandated by the various permits required for construction. Accordingly, there would be no significant impacts to groundwater hydrology from construction and operation of the proposed pipeline. 4.5 Surface Water Hydrology The hydrologic processes described below are systematically interrelated -- an impact to one process could, in time, cause a change in other processes. If sufficient care is exercised during the design, construction, and operation of the Denali Pipeline, these impacts could be reduced substantially. The following discussion is largely drawn from the TAGS EIS (BLM/COE, 1988). ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES PAGE 4-8 Alteration of stream hydraulics includes changes in existing velocity, stage, or water quality patterns directly by construction of in-stream works, or by inducing natural changes such as aufeis or deposition of sediment. Flow alterations could be caused by the construction of access roads, pads, low water crossings, berms, elevation of the ditch, backfill, culverts, or naturally by ice. Effects on stream hydraulics could in turn affect other resource values, such as the deposition of sediment in an existing channel that might cause modifications or diversion of a stream, creating moderate impacts. Scour, the lowering of a stream bed, occurs naturally in response to passage of a flood. Long-lasting construction-related increases in scour could be caused by a constriction or impingement of flow, or deflection of flood flows to maintain pipeline system integrity at stream crossings, in either a channel or floodplain. Scour would also cause a short-term local increase in suspended sediment downstream of the scouring area and could create deep holes in the stream bed, thus increasing bottom diversity. Scour is a major concern for pipelines because it can expose a buried pipe to the hydraulic and abrasive forces of water flow and sediment movement. Therefore, during construction of the Denali Pipeline considerable effort would be made to insure that no constrictions or other alterations of the natural hydraulic regime of the stream bed would be made that would cause the existing downstream hydrologic regime to change. Bank erosion is the lateral migration of riverbanks in response to erosion that would occur from impinging flow during construction. Bank erosion is the chief source of suspended sediment in most nonglacial streams. If allowed to continue, bank erosion could undermine and destroy riparian property and create a moderate impact. Migration is a natural ongoing process on the outside of bends in any alluvial river; however, it can be accelerated by either natural or man-made changes in stream geometry or an increase in flow intensity. Aufeis or depositions of sediment also July 29, 1993 PAGE 4-9 change flow patterns. During construction of the proposed pipeline, these concerns would be addressed through use of energy dissipators, rip-rap, or other bank protection measures. Diversion is the removing of water from one drainage channel to another. It is a naturally occurring process in braided river channels, in deltas, and on alluvial fans. The usual natural cause of diversions in rivers is blockage of an existing active channel by deposition of sediment, aufeis, or ice jams. Although often natural, diversion frequency and severity could be increased by any activity that increases erosion or sediment deposition, restricts channels, or creates new channels. Particular concerns created by construction of the proposed project would be creation of aufeis by thermal or groundwater discharge changes and creation of new channels by thermal degradation of ice-rich soils. Diversion could cause rapid destruction of property and could destroy road access to the ROW or facilities. Diversions could also disturb sensitive habitat areas. Temporary diversions to facilitate installation of buried pipe under streams and in floodplains would occur. When this occurred in winter, dewatering of fish Overwintering areas could be a concern if not closely controlled. These diversions, however, could be controlled by ditch plugs and other standard stream construction and mitigation techniques that would be used to minimize impacts. Minimum required flows would be maintained downstream of construction to provide necessary water to protect fish spawning and overwintering areas. Aggradation is the rise in bed level of a stream at a specific site in response to deposition of sediment. During construction, aggradation could be caused by a downstream flow constriction, such as a Culvert, or by increased production of sediment upstream, such as from a disturbed area. Aggradation could also cause ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES PAGE 4-10 diversion. Aggradation could permanently alter the character of the stream bed in the aggrading area to a finer, less permeable bed because the finer material deposited would clog the interstitial spaces in the original bed, causing moderate impacts where it occurred. Aggradation would be controlled during construction of the proposed pipeline by use of standard techniques such as fluming, which reduces sediment deposits resulting from excavation and backfilling; selection of backfill appropriate to the stream bed; and, depth of burial of the pipe. Aufeis, sometimes called icings, is formed by successive freezing of sheets of water that seep from the ground, a river, or a spring. Aufeis may form naturally in thick sheets in floodplains, as a result of surfacing streamflow, or as hillside aufeis formed below springs. Aufeis often occurs because local thermal characteristics are altered by construction. This allows frost to penetrate, thereby blocking aquifers and stream channels and causing water to the surface where it freezes. The Denali Pipeline could alter surface thermal characteristics because of construction of access roads or pads. The buried pipe could alter subsurface temperatures by thawing normally frozen.areas. This could create aufeis by altering groundwater flow patterns and causing water to surface. Although the impact of aufeis itself is minor, the resulting diversion of water could be moderate. Aufeis could divert streamflow during breakup, or it could inundate roads or other improvements. The Denali Pipeline would mitigate these potential problems by avoiding areas of regular formation of aufeis, or would control aufeis areas that could not be avoided using standard techniques such as ice fences. Erosion is the wearing away of lands or structures by running water or wind. Erosion could be caused by construction activities which concentrate water flow or which loosen soil surfaces. Erosion rates could be accelerated if ice-rich soils were thermally disturbed. Erosion could cause moderate impacts if silt and sand size particles were July 29, 1993 PAGE 4-11 deposited on the spawning beds of fish. Clay size particles tend not to settle out and would cause minor impact to a stream by reducing light transmission, thus impacting growth of basal food chain organisms. Secondary minor erosion impacts to streams could include an increase in turbidity and sedimentation of spawning beds, which could smother the beds, result in loss of eggs and/or fry, the disruption of the food chain by displacement of organisms, and a change in stream flora. Erosion, particularly in ice-rich sands and silts, could rapidly concentrate streamflow and create new drainages. Erosion impacts would be mitigated by use of several construction techniques. Pipeline crossings would be at right angles to the stream flow whenever possible. Rip-rap or concrete headwalls would be commonly used, as would energy dissipators, ditch plugs, dikes, berms, water bars, and culverts. Because of the narrow, linear nature of the pipeline, and its generally perpendicular crossings of streams, with one possible exception the project would have very little, if any, effect on several water-associated factors. Baseflow in streams would not be affected, and there would be no affect on existing or potential water supplies. The buried pipeline would have no affect on the quantity of water in areas it traversed, and it would have no impacts on current, circulation, drainage patterns or accretion. The possible exception might involve burial of the pipeline near the stream bed in the bottom of Moody Creek Valley. Because of product spill prevention and containment concerns, berms might be constructed next to the stream to channel a spill away from the stream. This would produce a minor alteration of the existing drainage pattern on a local basis, but it would be engineered to avoid any long-term erosion. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES PAGE 4-12 In summary, construction of the Denali Pipeline Project would cause a range of impacts to the surface and subsurface waters along the alignment. These impacts would consist of changes in stream geometry, introduction of sediment and possibly pollutants, diversions of surface water flow, and aufeis formation. Depending on the location and nature of existing conditions, these impacts would cause mostly minor, but some moderate, impacts that in turn might affect other resource values, habitat, and property adjacent to the ROW. All these impacts would be minimized, however, by application of the construction techniques and mitigation measures described in Chapter 2, and by the special conditions that would be mandated by the various permits required for construction. Accordingly, there would be no significant impacts to surface water hydrology from construction and operation of the proposed pipeline. 4.6 Water Quality The generally good groundwater and surface water quality that exists along the proposed pipeline route could be affected by actions that occurred both during construction and operation of the Denali Pipeline. During construction shallow ground water and surface water could be contaminated by improperly treated wastewater from camps, from accidental spills of fuels, lubricants, or chemicals, by release of contaminated hydrostatic test water, by fertilizer used for revegetation, or by sediment from erosion. Groundwater contamination would be long term because groundwater movement is slow. Impacts created by such incidents could have impacts ranging from negligible to major, depending on where and when they occurred, and what was spilled (BLM/COE, 1988). The construction procedures (fuel handling and refueling techniques, refueling location restrictions, hydrostatic testing methods) and mitigation measures that would be used July 29, 1993 PAGE 4-13 during construction of the proposed project would substantially reduce the likelihood of such water quality impacts. Examples of mitigation measures designed to prevent or minimize impacts to water quality would include no refueling of vehicles within 100 feet of a waterway or wetland, clearing only areas directly affected by project activities, avoiding wetlands, minimizing stream crossings, commencing stream bank and slope stabilization within 48 hours of pipe placement and inspection, directionally drilling major stream crossings, and using fluming techniques when streams must be trenched. (See Section 2.3.39 for other mitigation measures.) In addition, a detailed spill prevention and containment plan would be developed to handle spills that occurred during construction (see Section 2.3.33). During operation of the pipeline, the primary threat to water quality would be from leaks or a rupture. Mitigation of these possibilities would begin during the detailed design to insure that the quality, size and strength of the pipe would withstand the forces that might cause a leak or rupture. Block and check values would be located at strategic points along the pipeline route to minimize the volume of a spill that could reach water. Meters and provers would be maintained to detect low volume leaks. Routine operational and maintenance procedures would be specified and implemented to minimize the risks of a leak and rupture. And, if one should occur, the detailed spill and leak prevention and containment plan would be followed to minimize the impacts. This overall plan would include a specific plan appropriate to each petroleum product transported in the pipeline. Thus, while spills and leaks could occur during construction and operation of the proposed pipeline, the design, construction, operations, maintenance, and spill prevention and containment procedures would act cumulatively to substantially reduce the probability of a significant impact to groundwater and surface water quality. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES PAGE 4-14 4.7 Fish The proposed Denali Pipeline route involves up to 146 rivers and stream crossings and a crossing of Knik Arm (see Appendices A and C). ADF&G (1992) has classified 43 of the proposed river and stream crossings, and Knik Arm, as being anadromous fish streams (see Table 3.6-1). Another 9 nonanadromous stream crossings involve known populations of resident fish (Table 3.6-2). Marine waters in Knik Arm also are used by anadromous fish (Table 3.6-4). Designated fish spawning or rearing habitat (ADF&G, 1992), would be associated with 35 of the 43 known anadromous fish stream crossings; 1 of the 8 non-anadromous fish stream crossings with known resident fish populations; and the Knik Arm crossing. BLM and COE (1988) determined that the primary, but temporary, impacts to fish from construction of the TAGS project would be caused by temporary diversions, fluming, pumping, or working in flowing water of a stream with resultant turbidity. Erosion, turbidity and siltation were noted as part of the natural cycle of physical changes and that aquatic life adjusted to short-term increases in the level of silt and turbidity. Streams have the capacity to recover from moderate amounts of siltation, whether natural or human induced. This natural recovery depends on the velocity of flow, ambient clarity, and size of introduced particles. Adverse impacts to aquatic life would result if the level of silt and turbidity was abnormally high, for a longer duration than normal, or at an unusual time of the year. Overall, BLM and COE (1988) concluded that siltation "...would not normally affect anadromous fish in migratory streams, but would greatly affect salmonids in their spawning and rearing areas. The increased turbidity and disturbance during construction of crossings July 29, 1993 PAGE 4-15 would be extreme but typically local and temporary in nature with moderate impacts in the immediate vicinity of activity and as particulates settle out...." Overall, BLM and COE (1988) concluded the impacts to fish and their habitats along a major portion of the route now proposed for the Denali Pipeline Project would be moderate during construction and minor during operation. APA (1989) noted that anadromous and non-anadromous fish stream crossings would have primary issues of concern related to timing, downstream siltation, stream bank stabilization, and stream bank revegetation. Potential methods to avoid or minimize adverse impacts to fish populations or fish habitats included fluming, stream channel diversion, use of filter fabric and temporary dams, replacement of stream bed and bank materials, and removal of all man-made diversion materials from the natural and diversion channels. Erosion control measures associated with fish stream crossings included ditch plugs, water bars, and revegetation on an as-needed basis to control surface erosion and downslope flow of erodible soils. ADF&G commenting on the railbelt natural gas pipeline reconnaissance study (APA, 1989) stated that a variety of stream crossing methodologies have been used on other projects or recommended by ADF&G in the past. ADF&G further noted: ",..The ADF&G will require crossings of important salmon spawning and rearing areas to occur during the May through July window and allow construction during other periods only if construction methods are used that will eliminate impacts to the fish resources present or to their habitat. Fluming, diversions and other construction means can be costly.... ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES PAGE 4-16 Resident fish streams crossed in the openwater period will have different ‘construction windows’ than salmon streams, depending on the fish species occurring in specific drainages. In the case of spring spawners such as grayling, July and August is the preferable stream crossing period. Fall crossings may also be considered for some resident fish systems." ADF&G (in APA, 1989) also noted that there may be streams in the area that were not classified as anadromous fish streams that may require surveys prior to issuance of ADF&G approvals. (See Chapter 5 for a discussion of permits that would be needed for the proposed Denali Pipeline Project.) Streams with spawning and rearing habitats for king or silver salmon are sensitive to disturbance on a year round basis (see Tables 3.6-1 and 3.6-3). Major river crossings (Tanana, Chena, Nenana, and Susitna) and some stream crossings would be installed by the directional drilling method if the topography and subsoil conditions at those locations are suitable for drilling. This method of stream crossing would have negligible impact on fish populations or fish habitats. Crossings of a majority of the smaller rivers and streams would be installed by conventional open cut trenching and backfilling methods. This would be similar to the recent construction of a fiber optics cables laid across the bed of Willow Creek by the Matanuska Telephone Association. That effort, as reported in the Anchorage Daily News on July 20 (1993a) indicates an open trench was constructed to a depth of at least 3.5 feet below the stream bed during the same time that salmon were present. The proposed pipeline system would cross Willow Creek in the same general area as the new fiber optics cables. July 29, 1993 PAGE 4-17 The proposed pipeline would be installed under Knik Arm by a pipe laying barge with a jetting system to excavate the bottom for pipe burial. Pipe burial would be below predicted scour levels to assure the stream bottom contour retains its natural condition, and to assure the pipeline would not be exposed to the lateral forces of flood flows or tidal currents. Scheduling construction of anadromous and/or resident fish stream crossings would be coordinated with ADF&G. This coordination would be on the basis of site specific fish habitat information and the activities required for the installation of the pipeline crossing. As noted in Section 3.3-Wetlands, the COE would require specific permits for the crossing of the Knik Arm and the other rivers classified as navigable waters of the U.S. Peak sport fishing activities in the Susitna River Basin tend to coincide with the arrival of salmon and the traditional mid-June to mid-July weekend openings. Many of these streams also are used for recreational boating and for boat access to downstream fishing areas, and in the fall by waterfowl and moose hunters. (See Sections 3.13 [Recreational or Commercial Fisheries] and 3.14 [Other Recreation].) Accordingly, the winter season has been proposed for construction of the Denali Pipeline across these heavily used sport fishing streams. The proposed winter construction period would have the advantage of providing fuller protection to streams from siltation because frozen soils would be more resistant to damage, and surface flows capable of transporting disturbed soils into the stream would be absent or greatly reduced. DPLC would maintain minimum flows of good quality water to any nearby downstream spawning or overwintering habitats. Further, final design and centerline location would minimize the number of fish stream crossings. (See Sections 4.6 (Water Quality) and 4.19 (Recreation) for additional discussions of these issues). Moody Creek is a known Dolly Varden and grayling rearing steam. The proposed pipeline route would be close to, or possibly at some locations, in this stream, because of the very steep terrain and several deeply incised side drainages. The AEA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES PAGE 4-18 Intertie ROW is located well upslope of Moody Creek in terrain so rugged that helicopters were used to construct that segment of the powerline. Detailed examination of potential routings along the valley bottom and lower side slopes could show that it would be necessary to install several crossings or short segments of the pipeline in the stream bed. Special designs would be developed for this segment, including potential construction of berms or other appropriate containment structures between the pipeline and Moody Creek as part of the spill prevention, containment, and contingency plan. This plan would be closely coordinated with ADF&G to assure that no undue or unreasonable impacts to the rearing Dolly Varden and grayling fish populations in Moody Creek would occur. Summer construction would be scheduled because of potential risk to workers during the winter. Permanent access to the pipeline would not be developed in this area. Construction in the marine waters of Knik Arm would be coordinated with ADF&G to assure that fish were not unduly or unreasonably impacted. Similar coordination would take place with NMFS to assure that beluga whales or harbor seals also were not adversely impacted. Recently, CEA constructed a marine cable crossing of Knik Arm during June. Accordingly, June has been proposed for installing the Denali Pipeline crossing. (See Section 4.23 [Navigation] for additional discussion of the Knik Arm crossing.) Optional alignments would have impacts to fish populations and habitats similar to those described for the proposed pipeline route. The major differences would be for the Nenana Canyon, AEA Powerline, Big Lake, Point MacKenzie Road, and Palmer Hay Flats Options. The Nenena Canyon Option would avoid the fish habitat in Moody Creek, but would be in close proximity to similar habitat in the Nenana River. The AEA Powerline Option would cross fish streams higher in stream drainage. This higher crossing location would involve more stream crossings and would have a more difficult spill containment program due to the more remote access when compared to July 29, 1993 PAGE 4-19 the proposed alignment along the Parks Highway. The Big Lake Option would cross 9 fewer steams than the proposed pipeline route, but the other crossings would involve more important fish habitats. The Point MacKenzie Option would cross 4 fewer streams. The Palmer Hay Flats Option would cross several more anadromous fish streams (as well as both the Knik and Matanuska Rivers) than would the preferred alignment. 4.8 Wildlife There are potential impacts to wildlife associated with the construction, operation, and maintenance of a pipeline system in Alaska. BLM and COE (1988) noted that the range and magnitude of specific impacts to wildlife from the TAGS natural gas pipeline system would be proportional to the diversity of habitats associated with that pipeline. Potential wildlife impacts identified for the TAGS project included: * direct mortality * passive and active disturbance caused by human activities during sensitive periods in an animal’s life cycle * indirect loss of habitat through displacement or disruption of movements and migrations * direct habitat loss through physical alteration, or attraction to artificial food sources * contact with and contamination of food by pollutants, especially petroleum product spills. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES PAGE 4-20 Overall impacts to wildlife from the TAGS alternative routing through the area now proposed for the Denali Pipeline Project were determined to be moderate during construction and minor during operation (BLM/COE, 1988). APA (1989) concluded that impacts to wildlife from a 16-inch buried natural gas pipeline system would be directed toward individual animals rather than whole populations. The two primary impacts identified by APA were direct habitat modification and temporary displacement of animals due to construction activities. Important wildlife habitats associated with the proposed Denali Pipeline Project are discussed in Section 3.7 and are shown in Appendix A. Approximately 94 percent (331 of 351 miles) of the proposed pipeline route would be located within, or close to, existing and planned transportation and utility systems. Therefore, only an estimated 3.6 to 8.5 acres of natural habitat per mile would be modified for the proposed pipeline. The 20 miles of new ROW would have potential to modify 270 acres of natural vegetation. Moose can be found in favorable habitats anywhere along the proposed pipeline route. Important moose habitats crossed by the proposed pipeline include winter, calving, and rutting concentration areas. Often the proposed route is next to the heavily travelled Parks Highway where wildlife have adjusted to human activities. Even so, the proposed construction schedule for the pipeline generally would be scheduled for times when moose are not concentrated in those areas. The one exception would be across 2 miles of the Goose Bay State Game Refuge, when February to mid-March construction would occur. Construction would occur in winter to minimize impacts to wetlands and to avoid on impact important waterfowl habitats during the periods that large concentrations of birds would be present. The proposed pipeline route would follow existing powerlines not closely associated with heavily travelled roads. July 29, 1993 PAGE 4-21 Construction would have the potential to temporarily displace an unknown, but small number of moose as a direct result of construction activity. This temporary displacement might cause a very limited number of moose to die, but this would not be a prevalent condition because of the relatively short duration of construction activity in this area. A positive direct impact on moose populations could be an overall, long-term reduction of up to 40 percent of the total number of moose killed by trains during the winter when moose use the cleared railroad as a travel way when there is a deep accumulation of snow. This reduction in the historic railroad induced winter time moose mortality would be directly related to the corresponding reduction in railroad traffic as a result of shifting the transportation of petroleum products from rail tanker cars to the Denali Pipeline. Otherwise, no significant impacts to moose populations or habitats would be expected. Important caribou habitats crossed by the proposed pipeline route include known winter and summer concentration areas. An east-west caribou migration zone is located in the Healy area. This migration zone is on the opposite side of the Nenana River from the proposed Denali Pipeline Project. APA (1989) noted that caribou distribution was limited, and that alteration of existing caribou habitat would not be significant. BLM and COE (1988) reached a similar conclusion about potential impacts to caribou with the TAGS alternative routing through the same areas. Accordingly, the proposed Denali Pipeline Project would have no significant impact on caribou. No important Dall sheep habitats would be crossed by the proposed alignment. The only important Dall sheep habitat even near the pipeline system would be on the opposite side (western, or the side nearest the Parks Highway) of Sugar Loaf Mountain from Moody Creek just south of Healy. Moody Creek pipeline construction would not create any form of measurable disturbance to ewes or lambs in the lambing ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES PAGE 4-22 area because construction work would occur after the May 15 to June 20 sensitive period for Dall sheep lambing. Further, aircraft used to carry workers and supplies to the Moody Creek segment would not fly near the lambing area. Generally, both black and brown bears can be found in favorable habitats anywhere along the proposed pipeline route. Measures to protect bears and to reduce human/bear conflicts would include worker orientation training and proper disposal of unnatural food sources (e.g., camp refuse, worker meals). The proposed pipeline would be close to known black bear denning concentration areas in Hurricane Gulch and the northern portion of Denali State Park during the period when bears are first emerging from their winter dens. Work in these areas during the mid-March to mid- May period might cause some limited impact to sows with young cubs. The extent or severity of such an impact on black bears from constructing the pipeline system is not known, but is not expected to be fatal to either bears or humans. No known brown bear concentration areas would be directly associated with the pipeline route. Therefore, construction and operation of the proposed pipeline would cause no significant impact to bears. Waterfowl can be found in favorable habitats along substantial parts of the proposed pipeline system. This is especially true along the Tanana River and in the Susitna River Basin. Except for a few places, such as at the Little Susitna River crossing and in Goose Bay State Game Refuge, no known waterfowl (ducks, geese, or swans) concentration areas would be associated with the pipeline route. Construction in both areas has been scheduled for periods when waterfowl are not present. Winter construction would also occur along the Tanana River segment at Fairbanks. Accordingly, construction of the proposed pipeline would have no significant impact on waterfowl. July 29, 1993 PAGE 4-23 Other birds and mammals would not be significantly impacted by the construction, operation, or maintenance of the Denali Pipeline System. (See Section 4.12 [Threatened, Endangered, and Protected Species] for a discussion about bald eagles and peregrine falcons.) Impacts to wildlife from construction of optional alignments would be similar to those described for the preferred alignment. The basic differences would occur with the Nenana Canyon, Big Lake, Point MacKenzie Road, and Palmer Hay Flats options. The Nenana Canyon Option would be closer to the Sugar Loaf Mountain Dall sheep lambing area. The Big Lake, Point MacKenzie Road, and Palmer Hay Flats options would avoid the Goose Bay State Game Refuge, but the latter option would cross the Palmer Hay Flats State Game Refuge. Despite avoiding the Goose Bay State Game Refuge, however, both the Big Lake and the Palmer Hay Flats options would cross a greater extent of waterfowl habitat than the preferred alignment. The Point MacKenzie Road Option would cross slightly less waterfowl habitat than the preferred alignment. 4.9 Special Aquatic Sites Guidelines for disposal sites for dredged or fill material require consideration of several factors, including special aquatic sites, which are defined as: "...geographic areas, large or small, possessing special ecological characteristics of productivity, habitat, wildlife protection, or their important and easily disrupted ecological values....generally recognized as significantly influencing or positively contributing to the general Overall environmental health or vitality of the entire ecosystem of a region." [40 CFR 230.3 (q-1)] ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES PAGE 4-24 The Alaska Fiscal Year ‘94 budget recently enacted by the legislature included several major new electrical intertie projects and upgrades to existing ones. Additionally, a second coal-fired generating unit is planned for Healy. These projects could make available to the GVEA network substantially more power generated outside the Fairbanks and North Pole areas. This additional power would supplement that which now comes to Fairbanks over the Intertie. Routine monitoring and maintenance activities would include periodic flights along the alignment, with occasional surface vehicles accessing various points of the ROW. The emissions from these aircraft and vehicles would have insignificant negative effects on air quality. Completion of the proposed project would have a modest but positive long-term indirect impact on air quality in the North Pole and Port of Anchorage areas by eliminating the HC emissions released to the atmosphere during loading and unloading of railroad tank cars. The products would be moved directly from storage tanks at the refineries operated by others into the DPLC pipeline system and then directly from the DPLC pipeline system into the storage tanks in Anchorage. The degree of reduction in those emissions has not been calculated. 4.14 Noise Noise from both construction and operation of the proposed pipeline would have effects on the environment. Construction noise would be short term and transient in nature, while operational noise would be long term and continuous. Construction phase -- Both direct and indirect noise impacts would occur during construction of the proposed pipeline. Direct impacts would be a function of the noise level generated by construction equipment, the location and sensitivity of nearby land July 29, 1993 PAGE 4-37 uses and users, and the timing and duration of the noise-generating activities. They would all be of short duration (BLM/COE, 1988). Indirect noise impacts would occur from increased road hauling of pipe, equipment, and personnel, and any aircraft use not related directly to pipe laying activities. These effects also would be transient in nature, and relatively minor. Pipeline construction would involve various types of earth-moving and other heavy equipment -- most of it noisy -- working in tandem to lay the pipe most efficiently. Noise levels of the noisiest construction equipment typically used on pipeline construction sites are shown in Table 4.14. Table 4.14 Noise Levels of Construction Equipment Typically Used at Pipeline Construction Sites Noise Source Decibel Range (DBA) Front-end loader 72 - 85 Backhoe 72 - 94 Dozer 72 - 95 Welding equipment 75 - 86 Graders 76 - 94 Pneumatic drill 77 - 81 Trucks 68 - 96 Source: BLM/COE (1988); Bolt, Beranek and Newman (1971) Normal atmospheric sound divergence results in a reduction of 6 DBA per doubling of distance to the receptor. Thus, a piece of equipment that registers 80 DBA at a receptor 50 feet from the equipment would register 74 DBA at a receptor 100 feet ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES PAGE 4-38 from the equipment. This is a worst-case assumption since it does not account for sound absorption from vegetation, terrain, or other attenuation caused by atmospheric conditions (FGMI, 1992). Figure 3.11-1 may be used to compare familiar sound levels with those found in Table 4.14. Construction of the pump station(s) would require a relatively small amount of grading at the site(s). Most of the activity would entail hauling materials to the site(s), and construction. Those activities, which include installation of the pumps and erection of the pump building, should be of short duration. Blasting during construction would produce direct impacts. Drilling and blasting would be required where trenching through rock could not be accomplished by ripping and removing the loose material with a backhoe. Detonation of explosives induces motion in the rock that is then transmitted through transient motion into the surrounding rock and through any overlying or underlying strata. It is this ground motion that produces noise and stress levels. In some areas the impact would result in a startled response from wildlife for greater distances than from typical construction activities. All construction noise has the potential to temporarily affect wildlife near construction activity. When an activity begins in an area, wildlife may initially react adversely, but over a period of time begin to habituate to constant noise levels. Sudden changes in sound levels, such as blasting, would create a startled response and, depending on the timing, could result in substantial impacts to wildlife (BLM/COE, 1988). The proposed pipeline construction schedule, however, has been developed to mitigate those time-sensitive periods to eliminate any major impacts (see Section 2.3.39.3 - Mitigation). Studies have indicated that the most probable effect of noise would be to reduce use of affected habitat areas. Due to the fast-paced and transient nature of the pipeline’s July 29, 1993 PAGE 4-39 construction, this effect should be short term, and likely would vary between the species affected (BLM/COE, 1988). Accordingly, during pipeline construction, there would be some short-term disturbances to wildlife and human receptors adjacent to the ROW, however, these construction noise impacts would cause no significant effects. Operations phase -- With the exception of the pump station(s), and routine monitoring and maintenance activities, operation of the proposed pipeline should cause minimal noise. The pumps would be completely enclosed within a building, with noise abatement techniques used as needed. The incremental noise attributable just to the North Pole pump station, located adjacent to an existing North Pole refinery, likely would be indistinguishable from present refinery noise levels except in the immediate vicinity of the station. If an additional pump station(s) was built at Healy or Willow, it would emit a continuous, relatively low-level noise generated by the pumps. While an additional pump station would be built in a developed area, it would be built in proximity to existing industrial sites. Therefore, this noise would not likely disturb humans. The noise level would be such that wildlife would adjust to it within a relatively short time period. Routine monitoring and maintenance activities would include periodic flights along the alignment, with occasional surface vehicles accessing various points of the ROW. The transportation corridor within which the pipeline would be constructed presently is used by small aircraft flying between the Interior and the Cook Inlet area. The small increase in the number of existing transportation and utility system-related overflights would be insignificant compared to existing general aviation use. While vegetation would generally be allowed to grow on the ROW, certain areas would be maintained ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES PAGE 4-40 in a low brush stage. This would require use of a hydro-ax or similar equipment to these locations, perhaps every five or six years. Thus, operation of the proposed Denali Pipeline Project would cause no significant noise impacts. 4.15 Socioeconomics The socioeconomic impacts from construction and operation of the proposed Denali Pipeline Project would be several orders of magnitude smaller than those associated with the TAPS project of the 1970s. The cost of the TAPS project, in constant dollars, approached 50 times the estimated cost of the Denali Pipeline. While TAPS employment exceeded 8,000 at its peak, average employment for the Denali Pipeline system would be approximately 400, with a peak of 700. Where TAPS construction lasted more than 4 years, the Denali Pipeline system would be completed within 18 months. The scale of the project’s construction employment impacts would be modest and short term, especially in comparison with the existing labor pool along the proposed route, as well as other development projects planned in these areas. The number of local workers needed would be well within historic demand fluctuations of previous projects such as the AEA Intertie. As discussed in Sections 2.3.34, 2.3.44, and 3.12, the relatively small number of total workers would be located along the 351-mile alignment in two spreads, each covering three segments, during a period of only 18-months. Thus, no one location would host construction-associated employment impacts, nor benefit from them, for more than a several-month period. July 29, 1993 PAGE 4-41 The use of.temporary work camps to quarter field workers would effectively forestall problems that might arise from short supply of rental housing and commercial accommodations in the project area. The work camps also largely would avoid creating additional demands for most public services due to the project (APA, 1982). The use of work camps, the very limited construction period in a given area, the 10-hour/day, 6-day/week work schedule, the general local unavailability of housing, and a labor force with significant local composition, all would discourage immigration of workers’ families to take up temporary or permanent residence in the project area. Thus, the project is not expected to generate any significant permanent population growth in the project area, nor are any significant additional demands for housing, education, or other local public services or facilities expected to result from the proposed project (APA, 1982). The provision of temporary work camps, and the substantial number of local workers employed during construction, would tend to limit any substantial increase in the volume of purchases of local goods and services by the work force. Likewise, due to the specialized nature of the project, it is expected that local purchases of materials, equipment, and supplies for the project would be relatively small. These circumstances would minimize the stimulus to the local secondary economy that might be endangered by the project. The primary economic impacts on the project area likely would be positive but modest, stemming from direct employment of some local residents and the purchasing power added to the local economy by their wages. To some extent, the project would temporarily lower the chronic high unemployment in communities along the route, especially during the winter (APA, 1982). In summary, despite the rural character of most of the proposed pipeline route, construction activities would not have a significant impact on employment and population levels, nor on the local demand for housing or public services or facilities. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES PAGE 4-42 Similarly, the logistic requirements for the project could be met without overload of existing transportation facilities. From a long-term perspective, the increase in pipeline operations employment would be more than offset by a loss of current positions associated with railroad transportation of refined products. This small net loss of jobs would not be significant. For example, the Alaska Railroad cut 10 of its 535 permanent, full-time jobs in July, 1993 "...to become more efficient...when the transportation and freight industry as a whole is becomingly increasingly competitive.” These employment reductions were reported to "...save the railroad about a half-million dollars this year." During 1992, 23 employees were laid-off for similar reasons (ADN, 1993b). The four local governments along the route would benefit from an increased property tax base (the pipeline, pump stations and associated facilities) without having to provide an equivalent increase in pipeline-related services. Other real property values, e.g., commercial, industrial and residential, would not be significantly impacted by the project. 4.16 Subsistence BLM and COE (1988) concluded the TAGS natural gas pipeline project alternative, a portion of which would traverse the same route as the proposed Denali Pipeline Project, would potentially affect subsistence uses to the extent that there would be impacts on fish and wildlife used for subsistence, access to subsistence resources, and potential interference with or disruption of harvest activities. On a worst case basis, it was concluded that the impacts to community subsistence uses in the area would be major during construction, and negligible during operation. The impacts during construction were related primarily to two factors: temporary disturbance to animals and their habitats, and the large construction work force. July 29, 1993 PAGE 4-43 APA (1989) did not specifically address subsistence. It did, however, conclude that the single major overall impact having greatest potential impact would be the cumulative impact on fish resources directly associated with the gas pipeline crossings of fish habitats. APA concluded that its proposed program of environmental design and project mitigation, with close monitoring of construction "...should result in no significant impact to fisheries or other resources." The Denali Pipeline Project would cause no significant impact to either existing fish resources (see Section 4.7) nor existing wildlife resources (see Section 4.8). Proposed construction schedules also consider peak periods for fishing and hunting. The construction work force for the proposed 351-mile Denali Pipeline Project would be substantially smaller than that for the much larger and longer TAGS project (400 average and peak work force of 700 for the proposed project during an 18-month period compared to a pipeline almost 800 miles long with a work force of between 4,700 and 7,300 workers during the last three years of a five year construction period). Because the proposed Denali Pipeline Project would be constructed within or next to existing transportation and utility systems, and because of the short duration of construction in any one locality, no significant restriction of access to subsistence resources would occur. Likewise, the short duration of total construction and the relatively small work force makes it very unlikely that construction workers would qualify for special access to subsistence resources in Denali Park and National Preserve. In summary, the proposed Denali Pipeline Project would not significantly restrict access to existing resources used for subsistence purposes. Further, and most importantly, the proposed project would not significantly impact existing fish and wildlife populations used for subsistence by local Alaskan residents. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES PAGE 4-44 4.17 Cultural Resources/Historic Properties It is reasonable to assume that the only impact which can harm an archaeological site is impact which causes damage to surface or near surface soils. Thus, most secondary impacts from construction activities, such as increased noise levels, cannot be expected to harm qualities of archaeological sites which might make them eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. In a similar manner, it is logical to assume that direct and indirect impacts would occur in locations within or adjacent to areas where surface disturbance reasonably could be expected to occur. Direct impact areas would be those scheduled for actual construction activities, including ROW clearing, pipe burial, stream crossings, camp and staging areas, and new access roads (APA, 1983). Anticipated clearing and movement of equipment along the ROW would occur within a narrow corridor. The general construction ROW width, within which all activity would occur, would be approximately 80 to 110 feet Because the proposed alignment would be located close to existing transportation and utility ROWs that have been previously disturbed, only 30 to 70 feet of new disturbance would be required for the pipeline ROW. In addition, direct impacts could occur within new overland road ROWs providing access from the Parks Highway to the pipeline ROW. Such new roads would be only about 20 feet in width to allow for passage of heavy equipment. The total area encompassed by proposed camp and staging sites could have direct impacts as the total surface area would be subject to new disturbance. Most, if not all of these sites, however, would be constructed in areas of existing disturbance. Indirect impacts would include activities that might occur because construction of the pipeline would bring more people near cultural resource sites. Examples would be vandalism, and ground disturbance caused by off-road vehicles. Because nearly all July 29, 1993 PAGE 4-45 of the proposed camp and staging sites would fall mostly within presently disturbed areas, a buffer zone of disturbance would already surround them. Thus, for most camp and staging sites, probable indirect impact areas would already have been sufficiently disturbed so as to preclude the likelihood of impact to significant cultural resources (APA, 1983). Based on the results of archaeological surveys of the other narrow transportation and utility system ROWs, e.g., TAPS and two other large-diameter pipeline systems, the Solomon Gulch to Glennallen transmission line, the AEA Intertie, and periodic relocation of highway segments, overall potential for encountering important cultural resources within the proposed pipeline ROW, new access roads, or camp and staging areas, would be low. While existing archaeological investigations in the vicinity of the proposed pipeline ROW have not identified any significant sites that might be affected by pipeline construction, buried cultural resources often remain undetected by cultural resource surveys. Before actual pipeline construction would commence, a preconstruction cultural resource survey of the ROW would be conducted to identify specific resources so they could be avoided. The nature of pipeline construction lends itself to some flexibility in routing around obstacles. If, despite this preconstruction survey, cultural remains were found during actual construction, work would immediately stop at the location of the find and appropriate state and federal representatives would be notified to determine the proper course of action. If a site was discovered which could not be avoided or otherwise protected, and it was considered of historical or cultural importance to justify nomination to the National Register of Historic Places under CFR 800, Section 106, the site could be mitigated by excavation. Mitigation of a site, however, does not mean it has been significantly affected. This is because a site may be physically removed, but the ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES PAGE 4-46 information, including measurements, photographs, and matrix samples, can be salvaged through careful archaeological techniques and scientific inquiries. Important artifacts can be removed for preservation in perpetuity. Reconstruction of the site occurs in the completion of reports about the excavation and inquiries. Thus, while sites and artifacts may be taken from their surface or subsurface location, information such as who lived at the site, their activities, and the importance of the site lives on through careful documentation and recording (FGMI, 1992). Thus, by adhering to these established standards for protecting cultural resource sites, no significant impacts to cultural resources would occur. 4.18 Visual There would be both short- and long-term visual impacts from both construction and operation of the proposed pipeline. Construction phase -- A portion of the proposed alignment would be located away from areas frequented by people. This would include those segments located primarily within or adjacent to existing powerline ROWs and new alignments at Moody Creek and Hurricane Gulch. Most of the construction activities, therefore, would not be visible to people. In areas where the alignment would be near roads and other areas of human use, e.g., from Hurricane to the vicinity of Nancy Lake, viewers would see newly cleared ROWs, disturbed soil, and the actual process of construction with its attendant equipment and activity. Such views, however, would be transitory in nature as construction would proceed in most places at approximately 3,000 to 5,000 feet per day, with the entire project completed within a 18-month construction period. On a longer-term basis, disturbance caused by construction would be visible for varying lengths of time. Being buried for its entire length, the pipeline itself would not July 29, 1993 PAGE 4-47 be visible and vegetation would quickly be re-established on disturbed areas. In areas where the alignment would be within the Parks Highway or other road ROW, it would lie in the immediate foreground for highway travelers. The visual impression would be one of a re-clearing of the highway ROW on the side of the road occupied by the pipeline. The pipeline location markers and aerial observation markers would be visible at periodic intervals along the entire pipeline system. In many instances, particularly north of Willow, the highway ROW clearing would need to be widened to accommodate pipeline construction. In all cases, except around valves and scraper stations, and any other permanent facilities, revegetation would be commenced and vegetative cover maintained. Thus, the visual impact would be reduced as new growth covered soil exposed during construction. The viewing public accepts a highway ROW cleared some distance from the edge of the road -- if only for safety purposes to avoid collisions with moose. A widened modification of vegetation within, or a re-cleared, highway ROW would not be expected to elicit a negative response from most travelers using the Parks Highway. Likewise the periodic pipeline markers would not be expected to elicit a negative response from most travelers. In some instances clearing of some trees within the highway ROW could enhance the visual quality by opening views to background landforms (APA, 1989). In areas away from the road corridor, the visual scar where new vegetation was of a different composition and/or age, would be seen by hikers, fishermen, boaters and other recreational users. The same would be true of pipeline markers. Since the alignment would be within or adjacent to powerlines for almost its entire length in the more remote areas, the visual impacts of the existing powerlines and towers, and the modified vegetation cover on the ROW beneath them, would generally mask the visual impact of the buried pipeline and the occasional marker. In areas of high relief and low vegetation, such as in the Alaska Range between Healy and Cantwell, the cleared ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES PAGE 4-48 ROW, any borrow sites, cuts and fills, and any access roads would remain as features of the landscape, visible in some cases to viewers for some distance. These situations, however, would be small in number, and would be associated closely with the existing AEA Intertie. Thus, there would be no significant visual impact to people using the road system from construction of the proposed pipeline. Operations phase -- Since the pipeline would be buried, it would not be visible during operations. The pump station(s), valves, pipeline markers, and scraper stations, however, would be above ground. The North Pole pump station would be located in relatively close proximity to the existing refineries, as well as the GVEA power plant. Thus, it would be in an already well developed industrial area. If additional pump stations were needed in the vicinity of Healy and Willow, they likely also would be built close to existing industrial sites or otherwise developed areas. Use of topography, existing vegetation and/or plantings, design, and color schemes would be used to blend pump stations, scraper stations, and valves into the existing setting to substantially lessen the visual impact of the pump stations. The pipeline markers would be colored to be readily visible from the ground and the air, but these would be small in size and not concentrated in any one area. Therefore, they would cause only minor visual impacts to travellers. Accordingly, operation of the proposed pipeline system would cause no significant visual impacts to the existing visual settings along the proposed alignment. 4.19 Recreation Existing recreation and commercial uses of resources associated with the proposed pipeline route have been identified (Appendix A). The proposed location and schedule for construction has been developed to create no significant impacts to either the resource base or to the use of these resources (see Section 3.39) July 29, 1993 PAGE 4-49 4.19.1 Recreational or Commercial Fisheries The proposed schedule for construction considers peak periods of human use and was designed to avoid construction during these periods of recreation and commercial fisheries use. Construction methods and the location of proposed pipeline facilities would be designed to cause no significant impacts to fishery resources (see Sections 3.6 and 4.7). Accordingly, the proposed Denali Pipeline Project would cause no significant impact to either recreation or to commercial fisheries. 4.19.2 Other Water-related Recreation The proposed schedule for construction considers peak periods of human use and was designed to avoid peak periods of boating and to water-related hunting. Construction methods and location of proposed pipeline facilities would be designed to cause no significant impacts to water-related recreation resources (see Sections 3.6 and 4.7) or to wildlife resources (see Sections 3.7 and 4.8). Accordingly, the proposed Denali Pipeline Project would cause no significant impact to other water-related recreation uses associated with the project area. 4.19.3 Nonwater-related Recreation The principal nonwater-related recreation uses of the project area are tourism and extensive recreation uses such as hiking, wildlife viewing, and photography. For the purposes of this analysis, snowmachining, cross country skiing, and snowshoeing are considered as nonwater-related. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES PAGE 4-50 The Broad Pass area southward, and especially in Denali State Park, would be scheduled for construction during the mid-March to June period. Other construction associated with the Parks Highway would be scheduled to avoid the peak tourist periods. Wildlife resources, especially moose and caribou, would not be significantly impacted (see Section 4.8). The proposed pipeline route would be closely associated with existing transportation and utility corridors and, therefore, would cause no significant long-term impact to scenic resources (see Section 4.18). Accordingly, the proposed Denali Pipeline Project would cause no significant impact to nonwater-related recreation uses associated with the project area. 4.20 Transportation and Traffic Patterns During pipeline construction, there would be some temporary disruption of local highway and road traffic patterns, primarily on secondary roads near population centers. Since the pipeline crossings of major (paved) roads, e.g., the Parks Highway, would be bored, this temporary blockage would primarily occur on open-cut gravel roads, and would generally last for only one day. In most cases, traffic would continue to pass the work sites, either in a single lane or by short detours. Therefore, no significant impacts to highway or road traffic are expected as a result of project construction. Since all crossings of the Alaska Railroad would be bored, pipeline construction would have no effect on railroad traffic. The pipeline would have a long-term effect on the railroad, however, since refined products no longer would be transported to Anchorage by rail. During the summer, this would reduce existing rail traffic from up to 10 trains per day to approximately 8 trains per day. In the winter, the reduction would be from up to 5 trains per day to approximately 3 trains per day. Therefore, operation of the proposed pipeline would impact railroad traffic by reducing rail traffic July 29, 1993 PAGE 4-51 and freight revenues on a year around basis. The extent of this impact has not been estimated since the options available to the railroad for expanding freight haulage from other or new sources, or the overall net gain or loss associated with a reduced number of petroleum product trains between Anchorage and Fairbanks is beyond the purview of this evaluation. For example, the net effect to the railroad operation from a reduction of 10 jobs in 1993 was reported to be an annual savings of half a million dollars (see Section 4.15). 4.21 Legislatively Designated and Special Areas The proposed Denali Pipeline Project would cross lands within Fort Wainwright and Clear Air Force Base military withdrawals, Bonanza Creek Experimental Forest, Tanana Valley State Forest, the proposed Nenana Recreation River, Denali State Park, and Goose Bay State Game Refuge. The proposed route would be close to, but not enter, Minto Flats State Game Refuge, Denali National Park and Preserve, and Nancy Lake State Recreation Area. Optional alignments could involve crossing the Little Susitna Recreation River and the Palmer Hay Flats State Game Refuge. DPLC would coordinate the siting, design, and construction schedule with the managers of these legislatively designated areas to assure the proposed project would cause no significant impacts. See Section 4.9 for a discussion of special sites. Special areas designated to protect threatened, endangered, and protected species are discussed in Section 4.12. 4.22 Energy Consumption/Generation The proposed pipeline project would result in an overall savings in the energy currently consumed for transporting refined petroleum products from North Pole to Anchorage ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES PAGE 4-52 via railroad. This energy consumption savings would be directly proportional to the amount of diesel fuel used by the petroleum product tanker trains between the North Pole refineries and the Port of Anchorage tank farms. For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that the decreased use of diesel fuel by the railroad would be offset by the increased consumption of electrical energy for operating the proposed Denali Pipeline Project with a three pump station configuration. The additional supply of electrical energy that would be used for the pipeline system could be supplied by existing and planned developments to the electrical generation and distribution systems that currently serve the project area. Accordingly, the proposed Denali Pipeline Project would cause no significant impact to the total energy consumption now used in transporting refined petroleum products between North Pole and Anchorage. There would be no significant impact to existing and planned electrical generation or transmission systems. 4.23 Navigation Major river crossings and the crossing of Knik Arm would be directionally drilled or buried at depths which would avoid impacts to navigation, as well as avoid potential impacts to the pipeline or cause unnecessary restriction of existing or potential navigational uses of the waterways crossed by the pipeline. The proposed locations of river crossings and construction schedules have considered existing and potential navigational uses. DPLC also would consider the navigational use of smaller waterways, such as the Little Susitna River, where there is heavy use by small watercraft for private and commercial recreational purposes. The Knik Arm crossing would be close to the existing buried CEA cable field. DPLC has discussed the proposed locations of the Knik Arm crossing alternatives with staff July 29, 1993 PAGE 4-53 from the Port of Anchorage and CEA. The proposed construction schedule for the crossing also would be coordinated with the port to assure compatibility of pipeline burial with the annual dredging at the port to maintain adequate water depths for efficient vessel traffic. This coordination would continue through final siting, design and scheduling to assure the proposed construction, operation, and maintenance of the pipeline system caused no significant impacts to navigation at the port. Two other aspects of the proposed pipeline project have potential to impact existing and planned operations at the Port of Anchorage. These are the timing and duration for pipeline construction within the port, and pipeline location. The final timing and duration of construction would be developed on the basis of maintaining internal port traffic flows required for efficient loading and unloading of cargo. Pipeline alignment and depth of burial, especially along the eastern shore of Knik Arm in the future port expansion area, would be made on the basis of port expansion needs, geotechnical and environmental considerations, national defense requirements and utility corridor needs. In addition to alignment, the design of the pipeline in this area would be such that there would be no significant restriction to future expansion and development of port facilities. For these reasons, the proposed project would cause no significant impact to existing and planned operations at the Port of Anchorage. Thus, there would be no significant impacts to navigation from construction or operation of the proposed pipeline. 4.24 Safety DPLC would follow all required safety requirements to protect the public and workers during the construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed pipeline system. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES PAGE 4-54 This includes compliance with OSHA, DOT and ADEC sanitation, waste disposal, and food handling standards (see Section 2.3.37 for a more detailed description of Public and Worker Safety). Proposed construction schedules would be developed taking into account risk to workers due to rock or snow avalanches, and climatic conditions. The pipeline system design would emphasize spill prevention. Detailed spill containment plans would be developed to deal with each petroleum product that would be transported in the pipeline system (see Section 2.2.33 for a detailed discussion of Spills and Leak Prevention). Accordingly, the proposed project would cause no significant impact to the safety of the public or to workers. 4.25 Prime and Unique Farmland While the pipeline route would traverse some lands with agricultural potential, no prime or unique farmland exists in the vicinity of the proposed project. Therefore, no significant impacts to prime and unique farmland would occur as a result of project construction. 4.26 Food and Fiber Production The pipeline could traverse a very small area presently in agricultural production. If this occurred, construction would be in winter when no crops would be affected directly. Soil stabilization would occur quickly after pipe burial, and any adjacent surface area disturbed during construction would be suitable for planting the following summer. Some wood fiber would be lost during ROW clearing, but the alignment would be primarily within or adjacent to existing cleared ROWs. The alignment would pass July 29, 1993 PAGE 4-55 through several units of the Tanana Valley State Forest. The proposed alignment, however, would follow existing transportation and utility systems. On other areas having potential for commercial timber production, the proposed alignment would also follow existing cleared ROWs. Therefore, no significant impacts to food or fiber production are expected as a result of project construction. 4.27 Community Cohesion During pipeline construction, there would be some temporary disruption of community cohesion due to blocking of travel, primarily on secondary roads near population centers, as each road would be open-cut and crossed by the pipeline. Since major (paved) roads would be bored, this temporary blockage would only occur on gravel roads, and would generally last for only one day. In most cases, traffic would continue to pass the work site, either in a single lane or by short detours. Once the pipeline was buried, access across the ROW by road or other surface vehicles, e.g., snow machines, would be essentially the same as before construction. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts to community cohesion would be expected as a result of project construction. 4.28 Community Growth and Development The proposed pipeline would have no effect on community growth or development during its short construction period, and once in place would be passive in nature. The ability to add taps to the pipeline in the future might prove favorable to development in communities in the vicinity of the pipeline if larger quantities of refined products were needed. However, no significant impacts to community growth and development would be expected because taps would merely substitute for supplies that now travel by rail or highway. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES PAGE 4-56 4.29 Relocation (business, home, etc.) Construction and operation of the proposed pipeline would not require relocation of any businesses or homes since almost all of the preferred alignment would be constructed within or adjacent to existing powerline and highway ROWs. If a portion of the ROW was to pass near a business or home, the surface of the ROW would be revegetated, repaved, or otherwise returned to acondition compatible with preexisting adjacent land uses. Therefore, no significant impacts related to relocation of business or homes would be expected as a result of project construction. 4.30 Consideration of Private Property About ##18 percent of the proposed alignment would cross private lands, including those owned by individuals and Alaska Native and other corporations. The remainder of the alignment is under federal, state, local government, or trust entity control. By locating almost all of the alignment within or adjacent to existing powerline and highway ROWs, impacts to private property would be minimized. Where private property would be crossed, easements would be obtained from owners and a fair market fee paid. In addition, advance payments would be made for any estimated damages that might occur during construction, and an additional fee would be paid if more than the estimated damages occurred as a result of construction. Therefore, no significant impacts related to private property would be expected as a result of project construction. 4.31 Trucking Alternative Under this alternative, refined petroleum products would be trucked from the North Pole refineries to markets in Anchorage. Potential impacts associated with trucking these refined petroleum products would include the following: July 29, 1993 PAGE 4-57 ue 2: Significantly increased truck traffic on the Richardson, Parks, and Glenn highways. Significantly increased truck traffic through the Fairbanks and Anchorage urban areas, with corresponding delays in rush hour traffic movements in both areas. Increased risk of spills from vehicle and/or train collisions with truck tankers. No long-term stability in determining the competitiveness of transporting refined petroleum products from the North Pole refineries to the Anchorage markets. . No additional disturbances from pipeline crossings of about 146 streams including 43 crossings involving anadromous fish habitats and 9 nonanadromous streams with known resident fish populations. - No additional disturbance to approximately 3.6 to 8.5 acres of land per mile from pipeline construction within or adjacent to existing transportation and utility corridor systems. Reduction in the revenues to the Alaska Railroad presently derived from transporting refined petroleum products. . A substantial net increase in the number of permanent jobs, directly proportional to the number of truck drivers and support personnel, over the number of permanent jobs now related to railroad transportation of refined petroleum products. No construction employment for 400 to 700 people during the two-year construction period for the proposed pipeline system. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES PAGE 4-58 10. Increased truck traffic within the Port of Anchorage. 11. Reduction in traffic delays related to railroad traffic within the Port of Anchorage. 12. Increased, long-term wear on the highway system between North Pole and the Port of Anchorage from more trucks. 4.32 Cumulative Effects CEQ regulations at 40 CFR 1508.7 define a cumulative impact as: "...the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time." (emphasis supplied) The U.S. Supreme Court, in Kleppe v. Sierra Club (1976), determined that: "...when several proposals for ... actions that will have cumulative or synergistic environmental impact upon a region are pending concurrently before an agency, their environmental consequences must be considered together." (emphasis supplied) Accordingly, if an application has not been filed with COE or other appropriate federal permitting entity, such as for a major wetlands permit in the transportation and utility corridor between North Pole and Anchorage, then a cumulative impacts analysis is not required under NEPA. From a public perspective, however, it is prudent to recognize July 29, 1993 PAGE 4-59 future projects that have reasonable potential to interact with the proposed Denali Pipeline Project. These would include upgrading or constructing new powerlines in or adjacent to existing cleared powerline ROWs. When these powerlines might be built, or where they would be located in relation to existing powerlines, is speculative. Further, litigation has been initiated about the source of funding for these powerlines. Available information, however, indicates these would not cause significant cumulative impacts since the overall net effect would be a wider area of modified vegetation that would be similar to the existing vegetation under established powerlines. Another potential major action would be construction of the proposed Point MacKenzie Port on the northwest side of Knik Arm, near the point where the Denali Pipeline would cross the arm. Port operations would require fuel, and storage tanks likely would be constructed in conjunction with the port. There is no available information to indicate, however, that storage tanks for that port would cause significant cumulative impacts that could be reasonably attributed to the Denali Pipeline Project. Further, any decision to develop storage tanks, if any, at such anew port would be an economic one that is beyond the scope of this analysis. Any such decision to construct tanks at that location would be subject to the normal environmental permitting application and review process. A "connected action" is defined by 40 CFR 1508.25(a)(1) as an action that would be closely related to approval and implementation of a proposed action. In the case of the Denali Pipeline Project, a connected action could include the construction of expanded refinery facilities at North Pole, or an increased storage capacity at the Port of Anchorage. A final test for a connected action is whether the proposed project would logically proceed as an independent action. No increases in refinery or storage Capacities are necessary for the proposed Denali Pipeline Project as it is intended to simply substitute pipeline transportation for existing railroad transportation of refined ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES PAGE 4-60 petroleum products. Since the existing refinery, transportation system, and storage facilities are market driven, predicting whether future markets might require one, or both, ends of the pipeline system to increase capacity is the responsibility of the shipper, and therefore speculative at this time. Such an action would be subject to appropriate environmental and permitting analyses if it was determined by the shipper that existing facilities were no longer adequate. Likewise, the use of interface product resulting from mixing of similar refined adjoining products during the time they are moving from North Pole to Anchorage would be the responsibility of the shipper. How, or where, these interface products might be used is speculative since it also is market driven. BLM and COE (1988) considered the potential cumulative impacts associated with construction of TAGS in close proximity to the preferred alignment of the proposed Denali Pipeline Project. That analysis included consideration of the towns and communities along the route, existing transportation infrastructure, and reasonably possible major future construction projects. Those projects included: "The ENSTAR Natural Gas Company...proposed small diameter natural gas pipeline from Big Lake to Fairbanks, some upgrades to the existing power transmission intertie system between Anchorage and Fairbanks..." BLM and COE (1988) noted that the communities along the route were economically depressed and would probably absorb project construction and operational effects with a "minimum of detrimental social impacts." Expected cumulative impacts to transportation were described as minor for TAGS construction due to the ability of the existing transportation system to absorb movement of supplies. This existing transportation infrastructure also was a major factor in the determination that expected cumulative impacts on fish and wildlife resources, noise, water, cultural resources, and subsistence would be minor. Expected cumulative impacts to July 29, 1993 PAGE 4-61 socioeconomic, land use, air quality, vegetation/wetlands, and recreation were considered to be moderate. The proposed Denali Pipeline Project would be an order of magnitude smaller than the TAGS pipeline system, having a much smaller work force and a much shorter construction period. Accordingly, the cumulative impacts to resources and social conditions as a result of the Denali Pipeline Project would not be significant. 4.33 No Action Alternative The no action alternative simply means the existing rail transportation of refined petroleum products from the refineries at North Pole to the tank farms at the Port of Anchorage would continue. The no action alternative would have the following effects: 1. No additional disturbance to approximately 3.6 to 8.5 acres of land per mile from pipeline construction within or next to existing transportation and utility corridor systems. 2. No reduction in the revenues to the Alaska Railroad presently derived from transporting refined petroleum. 3. Continued level of risk for a spill associated with railroad transportation. 4. No long-term stability in determining the competitiveness of transporting refined petroleum products from the North Pole refineries to the Anchorage markets. 5. No additional disturbances from pipeline crossings of approximately 146 streams, including 43 anadromous fish stream crossings and 9 nonanadromous stream crossings with known resident fish populations. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES PAGE 4-62 6. No overall, but small, net loss of permanent jobs within the project area. 7. No construction employment for 400 to 700 people during the two-year construction period for the proposed pipeline system. 8. No potential reduction of traffic stoppages or improved internal access within the Port of Anchorage. 9. Continued loss of moose during winters with heavy snowfall from train/moose collisions. 4.34 Comparison of the Proposed Action with Alternatives A primary purpose of this EA is to objectively compare all reasonable alternatives for transporting refined petroleum products from the North Pole refineries to markets served from storage tanks at the Port of Anchorage. Another purpose is to summarize the process used by DPLLC in selecting its preferred alternative -- construction and operation of a buried pipeline. Three alternative transportation modes were identified and evaluated: a small-diameter buried pipeline, trucks, and the railroad. The proposed action is to construct a small- diameter buried pipeline system. For the purposes of this evaluation, truck transportation was considered a viable alternative to either a pipeline or rail transportation refined petroleum products system. The no action alternative would be to continue to use rail transportation. Table 4.34 compares the environmental consequences of the three alternatives. July 29, 1993 PAGE 4-63 Table 4.34 Comparison of the Relative Project Environmental Consequences of the Pipeline, Truck and Rail Transportation Mode Alternatives Element Pipeline Truck Rail Estimated Capital Cost $200,000,000 NA’ No new costs Estimated Cost of Transportation per Barrel of Product $2.40 $4.50 $3.67 (ARRC 7/20/93) Miles of Pipe 351 None None Pump Stations 1 None None Duration of Construction 18 months None None Construction Work Force 400 with peak of 700 Some? None Permanent Work Force 24 175 to 275° Loss of train crews Number Railroad Tank Cars None None 50-55 daily Number of Double Tanker Trucks Up to 3 per Week 60-100 daily None Risk of Spill Fuel Consumption Highway Traffic: Fairbanks Wasilla-Palmer-Anchorage Port of Anchorage Existing Transportation and Utility System Size of trucking fleet suggests that some exp: Minor Up to 2 MW electricity per pump station, reduces railroad fuel consumption None None Eliminates traffic delay from trains Minor The cost, if any, or the location of these facilities is speculative. Increased chance for spill Fuel used for 60-100 trucks daily, reduces railroad fuel consumption Major increase Major increase Major increase Road deterioration, more highway patrol needed ? Assumes that truck and tanker trailers would be acquired by existing Alaskan trucking companies. Continued chance for spill No change None None No change No change ion, or new facilities would need to be constructed for effective, long-term management and maintenance of the trucks and tanker trailers. Assumes that each truck has two drivers in order to make the round trip each 24 hours. An estimated administrative and support staff and backup drivers are included. Table 4.34 (Cont'd) Element Pipeline Truck Rail Navigation Minor No change No change Air Quality Eliminates emissions from two trains daily, Major emission increase from trucks No change reduces emissions from fuel transfers in Port of Anchorage and North Pole Noise Eliminates noise from two trains daily Major increase along highway, No change eliminates noise from two trains daily Wetlands About 107 miles in existing corridors No change No change Water Quality Minor No change No change Hydrology Minor No change No change Stream Crossings 142 and Knik Arm No change No change Anadromous Fish Stream Crossings 43 and Knik Arm No change No change Fish Minor No Change No Change Moose Up to 40% decrease in railroad winter kill Increased winter road kill, up to 40% No change decrease in railroad winter kill Threatened, Endangered, Protected Species Minor No change No change Recreation, including fishing, hunting, bird watching, cross country skiing, boating Minor Moderate due to more truck traffic No change Scenic Values Minor Minor No change Commercial Fishing Minor No change No change Subsistence No significant restriction No significant restriction No change Land Ownership and Use Minor No change No change Cultural and Historic Minor No change No change Note: Each alternative is ranked relative to the other two alternatives for the same element. Impacts are based on the full and effective implementation of mitigation measures described in Section 2.3.39. -—-_—_ererrereree——————————— > :_OOO— Oo 5.0 Environmental Permits Required and Coordination 5.0 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS REQUIRED AND COORDINATION This chapter addresses the major environmental permits and authorizations that likely would be required for construction of the proposed North Pole to Anchorage products pipeline. Section 5.1 presents a list of likely required permits, while Section 5.2 presents a more detailed description of the major permits. 5.1 List of Required Permits State of Alaska Permits and Authorizations Department of Commer nd Economic Developmen Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (public utility) Alaska Railroad Corporation Permit and Construction Agreement (crossing right of way) Construction Contracting License Application and Permit for Oversized and Overweight Vehicles (pipe hauling) rtment of Environmental Conservation Air Quality Control Permit to Open Burn (vegetation from ROW) Air Quality Control Permit to Operate (need uncertain) Certificate of Reasonable Assurance (COE 404 and EPA NPDES permit certifications) Food Service Permit (work camps) Plan Review for Public Water System (work camps) July 29, 1993 PAGE 5-1 Plan Review for Sewerage System (work camps) Solid Waste Disposal Permit (work camp and other solid refuse) Wastewater Disposal Permit (water discharge from pipe testing) Department of Fish and Game Fish Habitat Permit (crossing fish streams) Special Area Permit (crossing Goose Bay State Game Refuge) Department of Labor Employer Identification Number Department of Natural Resources Burning Permit (vegetation from ROW) Field Archaeology Permit (archaeological surveys) Cultural Resources Concurrence (construction of pipeline and camps) Land Use Permit (equipment use) Material Sales Contract (use of gravel) Right-of-Way or Easement Permit (access roads) Pipeline Right-of-Way Lease (ROW across state lands) Tidelands Permit (Knik Arm construction) Temporary Water Use Permit (camps, pipe testing) Department of Public Safety Commercial Motor Vehicles Proof of Insurance Life and Fire Safety Plan Check for the Construction and Occupancy of Buildings (camps) SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL PERMIT PAGE 5-2 Approval to Transport Hazardous Materials Department of Revenue Alaska Business License rtment of Tran rtation and Public Faciliti Utility Permit on State Rights of Way (locating pipeline in highway right of way) ffi f th vernor, Division of Governmental rdination Coastal Zone Conclusive Consistency Determination (project consistent with regional coastal zone plan) Federal Permits and Authorizations r f Alcohol, T nd Firearm Permit and License for Purchase of Explosives Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit (discharge of dredge or fill material into waters of the U.S.) Section 10 Permit (structures or works in or affecting navigable waters) Environmental Protection Agency National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit (water discharge from pipe testing) Review of Corps Section 404 Application U.S. Coast Guard Bridge Permit (activities in navigable waters) || Federal Agencies Floodplain Management Considerations July 29, 1993 PAGE 5-3 Wetlands Protection Considerations Local Government Permits and Authorizations Fairbanks North r Bor h Floodplain Permit (?) Zoning Permit (?) City of Nenana Denali Borough Matanuska- itna Borough Municipality of Anchorage Tidelands ROW lease 5.2 Detail of Major Required Permits 5.2.1 State of Alaska Authority Department of Environmental Conservation Activity: New sources of air pollution Authorization: Air Quality Permit to Open Burn Agency: DEC District Office Authority: AS 46.03.020, and 18 AAC 15 and 50.030 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL PERMIT PAGE 5-4 Description: Activity: Authorization: Agency: Authority: Description: Activity: Authorization: Agency: Authority: Description: Activity: July 29, 1993 DEC must issue a permit for controlled open burning of forest land, land-clearing operations greater than 40 acres, vegetative cover, fisheries, or wildlife habitat New sources of air pollution Air Quality Permit to Operate, and Prevention of Significant Deterioration [PSD] Permit DEC Air and Solid Waste Section, Regional Office AS 46.03.010 to .170, and 18 AAC 15 and 50. Also, Clean Air Act of 1963, as amended (42 USC 1857) DEC must authorize plans and specifications for construction that would be undertaken and must assess emission standards and possible air contamination resulting from that construction. Since 1983, the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permit formerly granted by EPA was incorporated under DEC’s authorization. Discharge into navigable waters Certificate of Reasonable Assurance DEC District Office Section 401, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, as amended in 1977 (Clean Water Act) (33 USC 466) DEC must issue a certificate stating that the proposed activity would comply with the requirements of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Completion of all federal permits, including Corps Section 404 and EPA NPDES, would depend upon DEC granting a Certificate of Reasonable Assurance. (DEC does not issue a permit for mining spoil or waste rock, but does for mine tailings. It only exercises its 401 authority via 404 and NPDES permits) Fo rvi PAGE 5-5 Authorization: Agency: Authority: Description: Activity: Authorization: Agency: Authority: Description: Activity: Authorization: Agency: Authority: Description: Activity: Authorization: SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL PERMIT Food Service Permit DEC District Office AS 03.05.010 to .020, and AS 44.46.020 DEC must issue a permit for food service facilities serving 10 or more people per day. Nstruction, alteration, or modification of lic water m Plan Review for Public Water Systems DEC District Office AS 46.03.020 to .100 and AS 46.03.720. Also 11 AAC 72 Prior to the start of construction, DEC must approve, in writing, detailed engineering reports, plans, and specifications for the construction, alteration, or modification of a public water system Nstruction, alteration, or modification of w mor treatment _ works Plan Review for Sewage and Wastewater Systems DEC District Office AS 46.03.020 to .100 and AS 46.03.720. Also 11 AAC 72 Prior to the start of construction, DEC must approve, in writing, detailed engineering reports, plans, and specifications for the construction, alteration, or modification of a sewage system or treatment works Solid waste disposal Solid Waste Disposal Permit PAGE 5-6 Agency: Authority: Description: Activity: Authorization: Agency: Authority: Description: DEC District Office AS 46.03.020 and AS 46.03.100 DEC must authorize plans, specifications and proposed methods of operation for a facility to dispose of solid waste Wastewater discharge into or upon all lands and waters of the state Wastewater Disposal Permit DEC District Office AS 46.03.090 to .110 and AS 46.03.720. Also 11 AAC 15, 70, and 72 DEC must authorize the discharge of wastewater into or upon all waters or land surface of the state. Includes review and approval of treatment facility plans Department of Fish and Game Activity: Authorization: Agency: Authority: Description: Activity: July 29, 1993 Alteration of stream flow Fish Habitat Permit Regional Habitat Division Office AS 16.05.840 and AS 16.05.870 (Anadromous Fish Stream Act) ADF&G must approve methods and schedule of any project which would alter the natural flow or bed, or use equipment in, specific anadromous rivers, lakes or streams. It must also certify that any stream obstruction has a durable and efficient fishway or a device for efficient passage of fish. Activity in legislativel ign me ref ritical habi r nd gam n ri PAGE 5-7 Authorization: Agency: Authority: Description: Special Area Permit Regional Habitat Division Office AS 16.20.010--.080, 16.20.220--.260, 16.20.090--.140, and AS 16.20.160--.170. Also, 5 AAC 95.420 ADF&G must approve any activity listed in 5 AAC 95.420 that would occur within legislatively designated game refuges, critical habitat areas, and game sanctuaries Department of Natural Resources Activity: Authorization: Agency: Authority: Description: Activity: Authorization: Agency: Authority: Description: Archaeological survey or excavation on state owned or controlled land, including submerged lands Field Archaeology Permit Division of Parks, Office of History and Archaeology/State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) AS 41.35 ( Alaska Historic Preservation Act), and 11 AAC 16 The SHPO must issue a permit prior to commencement of any archaeological survey or excavation on state lands Development possibly affecting historic or archaeological sites Cultural Resources Concurrence Division of Parks, Office of History and Archaeology/State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) National Historic Preservation act of 1966, as amended (16 USC 470) and AS 41.35.010 to .240 (Alaska Historic Preservation Act) The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) must be given a reasonable opportunity to review and comment on the SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL PERMIT PAGE 5-8 Activity: Authorization: Agency: Authority: Description: Activity: Authorization: Agency: Authority: Description: Activity: Authorization: Agency: Authority: Description: July 29, 1993 adequacy of the management plan for historic or archaeological sites potentially impacted by any federally permitted or licensed Project. of gravel Materials Sale Contract Division of Land Management, Regional Office AS 38.05.110 DNR must issue a materials sale contract for use of gravel or other materials obtained from state lands. Volumes over 25,000 cubic yards would be sold by competitive bid. Transportation acros lan Right-of-Way Permit Division of Land Management, Regional Office AS 38.05.035 and AS 38.05.330 DNR must issue a right of way or easement for any road, pipeline, transmission line or other improvement that crosses state lands. f tidelan Tidelands Permit or Lease Division of Land Management, Regional Office AS 38.05.330 and AS 38.05.070 to .300 DNR must issue a one-year permit for use of tidelands for nonrecurring activities which do not involve permanent structures. It must issue a lease for projects involving permanent structures on tidelands. Issuance of a lease would be competitive. PAGE 5-9 Activity: Authorization: Agency: Authority: Description: Use of public water Water Rights Permit Division of Water Management, Regional Office AS 46.15.030 to .185 DNR must issue a permit before temporary use or appropriation of state water can be made. Once use of appropriated water has commenced, rights to that water can be secured by a "Certificate of Appropriation.” Office of the Governor, Division of Government Coordination Activity: Authorization: Agency: Authority: Description: Development within the coastal zone Coastal Zone Management Consistency Determination Governor's Office, Division of Governmental Coordination (DGC), Regional Office Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended in 1976. (16 USC 1451) AS 46.40 Alaska Coastal Management Program Act of 1977 DGC must concur with the applicant’s Coastal Zone Management Consistency Determination that, to the extent practicable, a development project would be consistent with the approved State Coastal Zone Management Plan. 5.2.2 Federal Authority Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Activity: Authorization: Agency: Acquiring explosives from outside the user’s state for personal use Permit BATF SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL PERMIT PAGE 5-10 Authority: 18 USC (40) Description: The BATF must issue a permit to anyone obtaining explosives for personal use from outside the user’s state Corps of Engineers Activity: Discharge of dredged or fill material in .S. waters includin wetlands Authorization: Section 404 Permit Agency: Corps Regulatory Branch Authority: Section 404, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 as amended in 1977 (Clean Water Act) (33 USC 1344). Also, 33 CFR 323 Description: The Corps must authorize the discharge of dredged or fill material into U.S. waters, including wetlands. Includes siting of facilities, roads, etc. Corps determines compliance with the EPA Section 404 (b)(1) guidelines. Activity: nstruction of str r r_work in or affecting navi | waters of the Authorization: Section 10 Permit Agency: Corps Regulatory Branch Authority: Section 10, River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 USC 403) Description: The Corps must authorize the construction of any structure in or over navigable waters of the U.S.; the excavation of material in such; or the accomplishment of any other work affecting the course, location, condition or capacity of such waters. Environmental Protection Agency July 29, 1993 PAGE 5-11 Activity: Authorization: Agency: Authority: Description: Activity: Authorization: Agency: Authority: Description: Waste discharge into a waterway National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System [NPDES] Permit EPA Region X, Water Permits Section Section 402, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, as amended in 1977 (Clean Water Act) (33 USC 1251). Also 40 CFR 125 Before commencing operation, EPA must authorize any activity or wastewater system which would discharge waste from one or more points into a waterway Discharge of dredged or fill material into U.S. waters, including wetlands Review of Corps Section 404 Permit EPA Anchorage Regional Office Section 404, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 as amended in 1977 (Clean Water Act) (33 USC 1344) EPA reviews the Corps Section 404 permit under its Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines for Specifications of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material Federal Communications Commission Activity: Authorization: Agency: Authority: Description: Construction, installation or engagement in communications by wire or radio Permit FCC 47 USC (154.303) The FCC must issue a permit to anyone involved in constructing or using radio, telephone, and two-way radio communications SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL PERMIT PAGE 5-12 U.S. Coast Guard Activity: Authorization: Agency: Authority: Description: nstruction, reconstruction or modification of ri r useway_acr navigable waters of th S.. an iviti affecting freedom of navigation Bridge Permit District Bridge Program Administrator, Juneau Section 9, Rivers and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 USC 403) and the General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 USC 525). Also 33 CFR Parts 114 and 115 The USCG must issue a permit before commencement of any construction, reconstruction or modification of a bridge or Causeway across navigable waters of the U.S. The USCG must also be given an opportunity to comment on proposed temporary activities within navigable waters of the U.S. which might affect freedom of navigation. The USCG also reviews plans for docks and other facilities in navigable waters (via Corps Section 10 application notices) to insure proper navigational lighting All Federal Agencies Activity: Authorization: Agency: Authority: Description: Activity: Authorization: July 29, 1993 c n nd _ modification of fl lain Floodplain Management Considerations All federal agencies Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management) May 24, 1977 All federal agencies must avoid, to the extent possible, adverse impacts associated with occupancy and modifications of floodplains, including direct or indirect support of floodplain development whenever there is a practicable alternative. Destruction of modification of wetlan Wetlands Protection Considerations PAGE 5-13 Agency: All federal agencies Authority: Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands) May 24, 1977 Description: All federal agencies must avoid, to the extent possible, adverse impacts associated with destruction and modification of wetlands, including direct or indirect support of new construction in wetlands whenever there is a practicable alternative 5.3 Coordination The analysis in this document concerning the proposed project’s preferred alignment, alignment options, and major environmental concerns, incorporates preliminary input from several entities. These include meetings with the following: State Pipeline Coordinator’s Office, Anchorage Federal Pipeline Office, Anchorage U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Anchorage U.S. Army Fort Wainwright, Fairbanks Alaska Department of Highway and Public Facilities, Anchorage and Fairbanks State Historic Preservation Office, Anchorage Alaska Energy Authority, Anchorage Anchorage Port Authority, Anchorage Fairbanks North Star Borough, Fairbanks Chugach Electrical Association, Anchorage Golden Valley Electrical Association, Fairbanks Matanuska Electrical Association, Palmer In addition, preliminary consultations about plant and animal species listed under the Endangered Species Act, their critical habitats, and special protection requirements, SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL PERMIT PAGE 5-14 were made with the Fish and Wildlife Service (Anchorage and Fairbanks), and with the National Marine Fisheries Service (Anchorage). The next phase of the Denali Pipeline Project will require input from the public, and coordination with major powerline upgrades proposed for portions of the proposed pipeline alignment between Fairbanks and Healy, and between Willow and Anchorage. Likewise, the preliminary location of the preferred alignment within the Parks Highway ROW is on the up-slope side of the highway, largely to enhance spill containment. This up-slope criterion, however, may require more cuts and fills, which in turn may affect scenic or other values. Accordingly, the specific location of the pipeline within the highway ROW would be coordinated with DOT/PF after on-the-ground examination. July 29, 1993 PAGE 5-15 5.4 List of Preparers Years of Name and Firm Responsibility Experience Associated Pipe Line Contractors, Inc. Randolph M. Metcalfe, Project Manager Project Implementation 30 yrs Bobby A. Crotts, V.P. Engineering Project Direction 22 yrs Gary Harkey, Project Engineer Project Dev. Engineer 19 yrs Samuel R. Upton, Pipeline Construction Superintendent Alignment 40 yrs Robert G. Cagle, Pipeline Engineer Technical Review 36 yrs Christenson Engineering Corporation Fred E. Bergstrom, Principal Process Engineer Pipeline Engineering 25 yrs Mike E. Hay, Supervisory Mechanical Engineer Pipeline Engineering 20 yrs John Lukacovic, Supervisory Process Engineer Pipeline Engineering 20 yrs Mid-America Pipeline Company Ronald V. Ledingham, Manager - Construction Project Management 24 yrs Kevin C. Bodenhamer, Manager - M/E Engineering Technical Review 20 yrs Ray Penderson, V.P. - Engineering Technical Review 20 yrs George W. Bechtel, Manager - Right of Way Right-of-Way Review 22 yrs Harold M. Langdon, V.P. - Process/Regulatory Compliance Technical Review 15 yrs Leith V. Watkins, Manager Environmental Compliance Technical Review 15 yrs Peratrovich, Nottingham & Drage, Inc. Engineering Consultants Alan B. Christopherson, Principal Engineer Civil, Geotech., Thermal 18 yrs Charles R. Somerville, Civil Engineer Civil, Geotechnical 14 yrs Hans Arness, Geologist Geology, Hydrology, Geotech. 9 yrs Terry Irwin, Surveyor Ownerships, mapping 21 yrs John Pickering, Civil Engineer Geotechnical 20 yrs Troy Gere, Surveyor Mapping 11 yrs Clark Flygare, Draftsperson Drafting 40 yrs Arlene Frost-Mitchell, Draftsperson Drafting 13 yrs Dennis Nottingham, Principal Engineer Civil, Structural, Coastal 33 yrs SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL PERMIT PAGE 5-16 Terra Nord Michael C. T. Smith, Natural Resource Manager Permitting 29 yrs Tileston and Associates Jules V. Tileston, Natural Resource Manager Permitting 34 yrs July 29, 1993 PAGE 5-17 6.0 Glossary, Acronyms, and Abbreviations 6.1 Glossary 6.0 GLOSSARY, ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS The following terms are used in this document. Active Layer Aerie Aggregate Alaska Native Alignment Alluvial Fan Alluvium Ambient temperature Anadromous Aquifer July 29, 1993 The top layer of ground above the permafrost table that thaws each summer and refreezes each winter. Nest of a bird on a cliff or mountaintop; a brood of birds of prey. Hard, fragmentary material (usually rock) mixed with cement to make concrete. Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut, as defined in Section 3, Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), December 18, 1971. Route of the proposed products pipeline. A low, relatively flat to gently sloping deposit of alluvium shaped at the surface like an open fan (but actually a segment of a cone) and laid down by a stream at the place where it issues from a narrow mountain valley or a plain broad valley. Unconsolidated geologic materials deposited by the running water in which they were transported. The temperature of the surrounding air in which an activity takes place. Referring to sea-going fish which spawn in the fresh waters of rivers and lakes. A rock formation, bed, or zone containing water that is available to wells. An aquifer may be referred to as a water-bearing formation or water-bearing bed. PAGE 6-1 Archaeological Area of critical environmental concern (ACEC) Authorized officer Attainment zone Aufeis A-weighting Backfill Bathymetry Bcf Bedding Bedrock Benthic Berm Bifurcation Of or pertaining to the study of prehistoric peoples--their dwellings, artifacts, and way of life. Area of national or international significance threatened by adverse change or reduction or loss of values unless special management attention is applied. ACEC status indicates public land managed to prevent irreparable damage to important historic, cultural, or scenic values; fish and wildlife resources; or other natural systems or processes. Federal employee assigned the responsibility of overseeing compliance with right-of-way stipulations during pipeline construction and operation. Area that meets the federal air quality standards. A mass of surface ice formed by successive freezing of sheets of water that seep from the ground, a river, or spring. (See "icings") A weighting scheme applied to sound level measurements; corresponds approximately to human sensitivity. Expressed as decibels, A-weighted (DBA). Material used to fill the pipe ditch after pipe installation. Submarine topography. Billion Cubic feet. Selected fill material placed under an object to provide uniform bearing. Stratification in sedimentary or volcanic rocks. Rock that has undergone no major change through the effects of weathering and erosion at the surface of the earth; commonly overlain by surficial material. Pertaining to the bottom of a body of water. An embankment of fill. Point at which a linear feature (stream, highway, etc.) divides or forks into two branches. GLOSSARY, ACRONYMS, AND ABBREVIATIONS PAGE 6-2 Block Valve Bog Bolt-on weights Borrow Borrow sites Breakup Carrier Cathodic Construction segment Continuous permafrost Creep July 29, 1993 A valve capable of completely closing off product flow in a pipeline. An acidic, mineral-deficient, peat-filled or peat-covered wetland, usually having vegetation of peat moss (Sphagnum spp.), sedges, heath shrubs, and scattered black spruce and tamarack. Concrete weights that are bolted in place around pipes traversing rivers and streams to provide negative buoyancy. Any earthen, granular, or rock material taken from one area for use in another. Site from which road construction materials (gravel) would be extracted. In general, the time of year when snow, ice, and nonpermanently frozen ground melt. Specifically, the ice cover on rivers thaws, i.e., the time when the solid sheet of ice on rivers breaks into pieces that move with the current. Breakup connotes the end of winter to residents of the North. Means Denali Pipeline Company A method of preventing corrosion of steel pipe and components by causing an electrical current to flow from the soil to the pipe. A portion of the pipeline system that constitutes a complete physical entity that can be constructed independently of any other portion of the pipeline in a designated area or between two proximate geographical points. The occurrence of permanently frozen ground everywhere beneath the exposed land surface throughout a geographic regional zone with the exception of widely scattered sites, such as newly deposited unconsolidated sediments where the climate has just begun to impose its influence on the ground thermal regime. The slow, gradual, more-or-less continuous, non-recoverable deformation sustained by ice, soil, and rock materials under gravitational body stresses. PAGE 6-3 Cryogenics DBA Decibel Discontinuous permafrost Ditch Ditch plug Drainage basin Drumlin Emergent Endangered species Erosion GLOSSARY, ACRONYMS, AND ABBREVIATIONS The science of low-temperature phenomena. A unit for measuring sound which takes into account the frequency of a sound as well as the intensity. See also Decibel. A unit for measuring the relative loudness of sounds, equal approximately to the smallest degree of difference of loudness ordinarily detectable by the human ear, the range of which includes about 130 decibels on a scale beginning with 1 for the faintest audible sound. Permafrost occurring in some areas beneath the ground surface throughout a geographic regional zone where other areas have none. The excavation in which a pipeline is buried. An impervious barrier placed across the pipeline ditch to prevent subsurface axial water flow in the ditch. A part of the surface of the Earth occupied by a drainage which consists of a surface stream or a body of impounded surface water together with all tributary surface streams and bodies of impounded surface water. A low, rounded, elongated hill, mound, or ridge of compact till formed under a glacier and shaped by its flow or carved out of older drift by readvancing ice. An aquatic plant with any of its parts extending above the water surface. Any species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. This definition excludes species of insects that the secretary of the interior department determines to be pests and whose protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 would present on overwhelming and overriding risk to man. The process whereby materials are loosened or dissolved and removed from a part of the Earth’s surface by running water, waves, ice, and winds. Causes include weather, corrosion, and man’s activities. PAGE 6-4 Esker Estuary Fault Fault zone Floodplain Freeze up Frost bulb Frost heaving Frost susceptible Geofabric Gravel Ground heaving July 29, 1993 A long, low narrow, sinuous, steep-sided ridge or mound composed of irregularly stratified sand and gravel that was deposited by a subglacial or englacial stream. The seaward end or widened tidal mouth of a river valley where fresh and salt water mix and where tidal effects are evident. A surface or zone of rock fracture along which there has been movement, which may range from microscopic to many miles. A relatively long and narrow band on the surface of the earth comprising numerous faults and fractures expressed by a single fault or fault system at depth. A strip of relatively smooth land bordering a stream, built of sediment carried by the stream and dropped in the slack water beyond the influence of the swiftest current. The time of year when temperatures generally stay below freezing long enough so that ice covers form on rivers. Freeze up connotes the beginning of winter to residents of the North. A mass of frozen soil which often develops from temperature differentials, such as occurs surrounding a pipe containing gas at a temperature below 32° F. The lifting of the ground surface caused by the freezing of internal moisture. A soil condition capable of producing frost heave from the convergence of freezing temperatures, available water, and certain finely-graded soils. Man-made material, usually consisting of cross-linked polymer fibers, generally designed to prevent fines from mixing with material supported or contained by the geofabric so that drainage or support of overlying material is not adversely affected. Unconsolidated deposits of rounded rock fragments larger than sand; more than 0.83 inch in diameter. Upward movement of the ground surface as a result of the formation of ground ice in excess of pore space. PAGE 6-5 Ground water Habitat Hydrostatic test Ice bulb Ice Fog Ice-rich permafrost Ice wedge Icing Impact Infrastructure Inversion GLOSSARY, ACRONYMS, AND ABBREVIATIONS Water in the ground that is in the zone of saturation form which come wells, springs, and ground-water runoff. The place and its total environmental complex where a plant, animal, or community of organisms lives. The application of a predetermined fluid pressure to the interior of a pipe to test its ability to withstand the specified test pressure over a prescribed time period. A ring of frozen soil surrounding a chilled pipeline in unfrozen ground. A dense foglike composition of minute ice crystals that forms because of temperature inversions during times when (a) temperatures are below -25° F, (b) there is a source of moisture, such as Cars or a power plant, and (c) particulates in the air form a nuclei for droplet and ice particle condensation. Perennially frozen ground that contains ice in excess of that required to fill pore spaces. A massive, generally wedge-shaped body with its apex pointing downward and composed _ of foliated or layered, vertically oriented, usually white ice. . A mass of surface ice formed by successive freezing of sheets of water that seep from the ground, a river, or spring. River icings are formed from waters of the river itself building up over the existing river ice and sometimes extending beyond the river channel onto the floodplain. Ground icings are formed on the ground surface when as obstruction blocks normal ground-water flow. Spring icings are formed by water flowing from a spring. In this environmental assessment any change in existing physical, biological, or cultural conditions that would ensue if the proposed products pipeline system were built, operated, and abandoned. The basic, underlying framework or features of something. The condition which exists in the atmosphere when warm air is above cooler air. Ground-based inversions caused by radiative PAGE 6-6 Isobath Jeep Lineament Liquefied natural gas Liquid petroleum gas Loess Mass wasting Mineral deposit Moraine Muskeg Natural gas liquids July 29, 1993 cooling and cold air drainage are common in the Arctic and sub- Arctic in winter. A line on a map or chart that connects points of equal water depth. A machine for detecting gaps or defects in pipe coating. A linear topographic feature of regional extent that is believed to reflect crustal structure. A clear, flammable liquid principally composed of methane. Natural gas must be cooled to -259° to produce LNG, and its volume occupies 1/600 of the volume of gas. Primarily the propane, butane, and pentane fractions of the natural gas liquids. A widespread, homogeneous, commonly _ nonstratified, unconsolidated, but slightly coherent deposit generally laid down by the wind, and consisting predominantly of silt with subordinate grain sizes ranging from clay to fine sand. Movement of material down a slope by the force of gravity. A naturally occurring concentration of potentially valuable minerals or rocks; need not be economically minable under current economic conditions. A mound, ridge, or other distinct accumulation of generally unsorted, unstratified glacial drift deposited chiefly by direct action of glacier ice in a variety of topographic landforms that are independent of control by the surface on which the drift lies. A bog, usually a sphagnum bog frequently with tussocks of deep accumulation of organic material, growing in wet, poorly drained, boreal regions, often areas of permafrost. A group of hydrocarbons that occur naturally in gaseous form or in solution with oil in reservoir. PAGE 6-7 Overburden Particulate matter Permafrost Ponding Population Proven reserves Raptor Reach Reserves Riparian Rip-rap Route Barren rock material, usually unconsolidated and often overlying a deposit of useful materials so it must be removed prior to mining. Minute separate particles in which air pollution are airborne. (PM10 refers to particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers as measured by a reference method based upon Appendix J, 40 CFR 60.) Soil, rock, or any other earth material whose temperature remains below 32° F (O° C) continuously for two or more years. Forming ponds by the blocking of natural drainage courses. The total individuals of a species or of a mixture of species in an area. Mineral reserves, especially of crude oil, natural gas liquids, and natural gas, for which reliable quantity and quality estimates have been made. Bird of prey, e.g., falcon, hawk, eagle. The length of a stream channel uniform with respect to discharge, depth, area, and slope. Identified deposits known to be recoverable with current technology under present economic conditions. Situated on or pertaining to the bank of a river, stream, or other body of water. Often used to describe plants of all types that grow near bodies of water. Blocks of rock, commonly of irregular shape, used to buttress parts of streambanks, shorelines, and artificial embankments against erosion. The path of the proposed pipeline. GLOSSARY, ACRONYMS, AND ABBREVIATIONS PAGE 6-8 Salmonid Scour Seiche Shipper Significant impact level Slash Slump Snow/road pad Soil liquefaction Solifluction Sound attenuation Spoil Subsistence uses July 29, 1993 A fish of the salmon family (Salmonidae), including salmon, trout, char, and whitefish. Erosion, especially by moving ice or water. A free-or standing-wave oscillation of the surface water of an enclosed or semienclosed body of water that varies in duration and height and can be caused by changes in atmospheric pressure, wind, tidal current, and earthquakes. Anyone who contracts with the Carrier for transportation of refined petroleum product under the terms of the Carrier’s tariff. Ambient air concentration of criteria pollutants contributed by a proposed source above which the source is considered to contribute significantly to NAAQS. Tree limbs and brush debris cut down to clear a right-of-way. A mass of earth material that has moved down a slope. A temporary access road or activity area constructed by leveling and packing snow to the required depth and density to support traffic or other human endeavor. A situation in which soil strength is greatly reduced. because of excessive pore water pressure buildup, especially in saturated sandy soils that are subject to compaction and remolding triggered by earthquake vibrations. The process of slow, gravitational, downslope movement of saturated, nonfrozen earth material behaving apparently as a viscous mass over a surface of frozen material. A reduction in sound level. Any earth or rock material that has been excavated. The customary and traditional uses by rural Alaska residents of wild, renewable resources for direct personal or family consumption as food, shelter, fuel, clothing, tools, or transportation; for the making and selling of handcraft articles out PAGE 6-9 Taiga Talus Terrestrial Thaw-stable Thaw-unstable Thermokarst Threatened species Title XI Tundra Unconsolidated material of nonedible byproducts of fish and wildlife resources taken for personal or family consumption; for barter, or sharing for personal or family consumption; and for customary trade. The boreal forest of coniferous, mostly evergreen, needle-leaved trees. Rock fragments of any size and shape lying at the base of the cliff or very steep slope from which they were derived. Movement of fragments is by gravity. Consisting of or pertaining to the land. Frozen soils that upon thawing do not show loss of strength below normal long-time thawed values, nor produce detrimental settlement. Frozen soils that upon thawing show significant loss of strength below normal long-time thawed values and/or significant settlement as a direct result of the meeting of the excess ice in the soil. The irregular topography resulting from differential thaw settlement or caving of the ground because of the melting of ground ice in thaw-unstable permafrost. Any species likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant part of its range. Part of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) of 1980 that provides a mechanism for the secretary of the interior department to grant access through certain reserved lands in Alaska. A treeless, level or gently undulating plain characteristic of arctic and subarctic regions. It is usually has a marshy surface which supports a growth of mosses, lichens, grassed and sedges, and dwarf shrubs underlain by a dark, mucky soil and permafrost. A sediment whose particles are not cemented together. GLOSSARY, ACRONYMS, AND ABBREVIATIONS PAGE 6-10 Ungulate Water table Wetlands Wilderness Working land Workpad Zooplankton July 29, 1993 Hoofed mammal, such as caribou, deer, and moose. The upper surface of a zone of saturation. No water table exists where that surface is formed by an impermeable body. Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support a prevalence of vegetation, typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. An uncultivated, uninhabited, and usually roadless area set aside for preservation of natural conditions according to Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act of 1964. The area along side a pipeline right-of-way used for most activities. A longitudinal gravel pad used to support construction equipment during installation of the pipeline and for access to areas during the pipeline construction period. Passively drifting to weakly swimming, mainly microscopic animals of marine and fresh waters. PAGE 6-11 6.2 Acronyms and Abbreviations ARRC ACHP ADEC ADF&G AEA AEIDC AREA ANSI APA API bbl BLM bpd CAP CST CEA CEO CFR co COE Alaskan Railroad Corporation American Council on Historical Preservation Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Alaska Department of Fish and Game Alaska Energy Authority (previously APA) Alaska Environmental Information and Data Center American Railway Engineering Association American National Standards Institute Alaska Power Authority (now AEA) American Petroleum Institute Barrel = 42 U.S.Gallons Bureau of Land Management Barrels per Day Community Awareness Program Centistokes Chugach Electric Association Chief Operating Officer Code of Federal Regulations Carbon Monoxide U.S. Army Corps of Engineers GLOSSARY, ACRONYMS, AND ABBREVIATIONS PAGE 6-12 CWA DBA DNR DOT DOT/PF DPLC DR&R EA EIS EMT EPA ESA FBE FHA FWS GVEA HAGO hp JET-A JP-4 Ibs. MEA July 29, 1993 Clean Water Act Decibel A-Weighted Alaska Department of Natural Resources U.S. Department of Transportation Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities Denali Pipe Line Company Demolition, Removal and Restoration Environmental Assessment Environmental Impact Statement Emergency Medical Technician U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Endangered Species Act Fusion, Bonded Epoxy Pipe Coating Federal Highway Administration U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Golden Valley Electric Association High Atmospheric Gas Oil Horsepower Commercial Jet Fuel Military Jet Fuel Pounds Matanuska Electric Association PAGE 6-13 MLLW MOV NAAQS NEPA NMFS NPDES NPS NWI OSHA QaA/ac ROW SCADA SPCO TAGS TAPS USGS Mean Lower Low Water Motor Operated Valve National Ambient Air Quality Standards National Environmental Policy Act National Marine Fisheries Service National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System National Park Service National Wetlands Inventory Occupational Safety and Health Administration Quality Assurance/Quality Control Right of Way Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition State Pipeline Coordinator’s Office Trans-Alaska Gas System Trans-Alaska Pipeline System United States Geological Survey GLOSSARY, ACRONYMS, AND ABBREVIATIONS PAGE 6-14 7.0 REFERENCES 7.1 Citations The following references were cited in the text of this document. ADF&G (Alaska Department of Fish and Game). 1973. Alaska’s Wildlife and Habitat. February. . 1978a. Alaska’s Fisheries Atlas. Vols. | and Il. . 1978b. Alaska’s Wildlife and Habitat, Vol. Il. . 1985. Alaska Habitat Management Guide Reference Maps. Southcentral Region. Map Atlas, Vols. | (Distribution and Human Use of Mammals), Il (Distribution and Human Use of Birds and Fish), and III (Community Use of Fish, Wildlife, and Plants). . 1986a. Alaska Habitat Management Guide - Life Histories and Habitat Requirements of Fish and Wildlife. . 1986b. Alaska Habitat Management Guide - Impacts of Land and Water Use on Wildlife and Their Habitat and Human Use of Fish and Wildlife. . 1986c. Alaska Habitat Management Guide Reference Maps. Western and Interior Regions. Map Atlas, and Vols. | (Distribution of Mammals), Il (Distribution of Birds and Human Use of Mammals), Ill (Distribution of Freshwater Fish, Marine Fish, and Shellfish, 1V (Subsistence Use of Fish, Wildlife, and Plants). . 1986d. Palmer Hay Flats State Game Refuge Management Plan. November. . 1986e. Susitna Flats State Game Refuge. Pamphlet. June. . 1988. Susitna Flats State Game Refuge Management Plan. March. July 29, 1993 PAGE 7-1 . 1989. Northern Cook Inlet King Salmon sport Fishing. Pamphlet. - 1990. Goose Bay State Game Refuge. Pamphlet. October. - 1992 edition. Anadromous Stream Catalogue, Anadromous waters listed pursuant to AS 16.05.870 (a), (1:63,630 Scale Maps, Various Dates . 1992a. Harvest, Catch, and Participation in Alaska Sport Fisheries During 1991. M.J. Mills. September. . 1992b. Wildlife Watchers’ Newsletter, Fall/Winter 1992-93. Vol. 11, No. 2 . 1993. Eastside Susitna River (Sport Fishing Opportunities) Pamphlet. . No Date. Alaska Sport Fishing Predictions. Distributed at 1993 Alaskan Sportsman Show, Anchorage. April. . Undated. Recreational Fishing Guide, Including Area Maps, Site Maps, and Charts. A supplement to Alaska Fish & Game Magazine. Distributed at 1993 Alaskan Sportsman Show, Anchorage. April. [A] DNR (Alaska Department of Natural Resources). 1981. Scenic Resources Along the George Parks Highway. Anchorage. - 1982. Willow Sub-Basin Area Plan, A Land Use Plan for Public Lands. . 1983. Nancy Lake State Recreation Area Master Plan, Draft. October. . 1987. Fish Creek Management Plan, Amended. 1984 Original. . 1988. Fish Creek Management Plan. September. . 1989a. Deception Creek Land Use Plan. - 1989b. Denali State Park Master Plan. Prepared by the Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation. - 1991a. Tanana Basin Area Plan for State Lands, Updated 1985 Plan. July. . 1991b. Tanana Valley State Forest Management Plan, Amended. August 1988 original. REFERENCES PAGE 7-2 - 1992. Alaska’s Outdoor Legacy, State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan ~~ 1992-1996 (draft). December. . Undated. Winter Guide to Nancy lake State Recreation Area. . Undated. Summer Guide to Nancy Lake State Recreation Area. DGGS ([A] DNR (Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys). 1992. Alaska’s Mineral Industry, 1991. Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Anchorage. 89 pp. . Alaska’s Mineral Industry, 1991. Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Anchorage. 89 pp. [A] DNR/ADFG. 1985. Susitna Area Plan. . 1989. Deception Creek Land Use Plan. November. [A] DNR, In Cooperation with ADF&G and Matanuska- Susitna Borough. 1990. Willow Creek State Recreation Area Master Plan. . 1991a. Kashwitna Management Plan. - 1991b. Susitna Basin Recreation Rivers Management Plan, August. [A] DOT/PF (Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities). 1991. Northcentral Region Annual Traffic Report. Fairbanks. . 1992. Central Region Annual Traffic Report. Anchorage. ADN (Anchorage Daily News). 1993. Mudslide Derails Train; Diesel, Chemicals Spill. April 28. . 1993 (a). Matanuska Telephone Association crossing of Willow Creek with fibre optic cable. July 20. . 1993 (b). Alaska Railroad cuts 10 from the top. Employee reductions. July 20. AEIDC (Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center, University of Alaska) 1974. Alaska Regional Profiles. Vol. |. Southcentral Region. . 1974. Alaska Regional Profiles. Vol. VI. Yukon Region. July 29, 1993 PAGE 7-3 APA (Alaska Power Authority [now Alaska Energy Authority]). 1982. Environmental Assessment Report, Anchorage - Fairbanks Transmission Intertie. Prepared by Commonwealth Associates Inc. 375 pp. . 1983. The Final Report of the 1981 and 1982 Cultural Resource Survey of the Anchorage - Fairbanks Transmission Intertie. Prepared by Alaska Heritage Research Group, Inc., Fairbanks, AK. 107 pp. . 1989. Railbelt Intertie Reconnaissance Study. Vol. 10. Estimated Costs and Environmental Impacts of a Natural Gas Pipeline System Linking Fairbanks with the Cook Inlet Area. January. __. 1989. Railbelt Intertie Reconnaissance Study, Estimated Costs and Environmental Impacts of a Natural Gas Pipeline System Linking Fairbanks with the Cook Inlet Area. Vol. 10. Prepared by Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation. January. APSC (Alyeska Pipeline Service Company). 1990. Environmental Evaluation for the Atigun Pipeline Replacement Project. Prepared by James M. Montgomery Consulting Engineers Inc. ARRC (Alaska Railroad Corporation) 1992. Alaska Railroad Corporation 1991 Annual Report. Anchorage. 20 pp. ARRC (Alaska Railroad Corporation). 1993. Freight-Sales and Rates 265-2490. Tariff rate 500 and 520 amounts. July 21. Armstrong, R.H. 1980. A Guide to the Birds of Alaska. Banks, Scott. 1993. Alaska Railroad Corporation. Personal communication with M. C. T. Smith, Anchorage, AK. Bolt, Beranek, and Newman. 1971. Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances. Office of Noise Abatement and Control, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. BLM (Bureau of Land Management). 1988. Fort Wainwright Draft Resource Management Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement. September. , and COE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) 1988. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Trans-Alaska Gas System (TAGS). June. REFERENCES PAGE 7-4 Christenson Engineering Corporation. 1993. Preliminary Engineering Report No. 2, Denali Pipeline Project. May 18. COE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 1983. Permit 071-OYD-2-830189 for work below ordinary high water marks of the Susitna, Little Susitna, Matanuska, and Knik Rivers as part of a 99-mile long, 20-inch natural gas pipeline system between the Beluga Gas Field and Anchorage. DGGS (See [A] DNR) Dixon, E. J., G. S. Smith, M.L. King and J. D. Romick. 1983. Cultural Resource Sensitivity Mapping of Preliminary Transmission Corridors and Alternatives. /N Susitna Transmission System Status Summary. Vol. 1, Technical, Economic and Environmental Considerations. Prepared for the Alaska Power Authority by Harza-Ebasco. DNR (See [A] DNR) DOT/FHA (Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration), and DOT/PF (Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities). 1983. Knik Arm Crossing, Technical Memorandum No. 15. Marine Biological Studies. For DOT/FHA and DOT/PF by Dames & Moore. December. - 1984. Knik Arm Crossing Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation. August. EPA/DOI (Environmental Protection Agency and U. S. Department of Interior) 1984. Red Dog Mine Project Northwest Alaska, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Anchorage, AK. ESSA (U.S. Department of Commerce, Environmental Science Services Administration) 1968. Weather Atlas of the United States, June. FGMI (Fairbanks Gold Mining, Inc.) 1992. Fort Knox Mine Draft Environmental Assessment. Fairbanks, AK. Godfrey, W.E. 1966. The Birds of Canada. IPLL (Interprovincial Pipe Line [NW], Ltd.). 1983. The Norman Wells Pipeline. Project Orientation. July 29, 1993 PAGE 7-5 Kaill, M. 1984. Anchorage Audubon Society, Inc. Field Guide to Alaskan Whales. Kane, Gene. 1993. Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs. Anchorage. Personal communication with M. C. T. Smith. Mile Milepost. 1993. Vernon Publishing Company. 45th Ed. Murray, D.F. 1980. Threatened and Endangered Plants of Alaska. ,and R. Lipkin. 1987. Candidate Threatened and Endangered Plants of Alaska. NPS (National Park Service). 1986. Denali National Park and Preserve/Alaska, General Management Plan, Land Protection Plan, Wilderness Suitability Review. Reid Middleton, Inc. 1993. Port Area Transportation Analysis. Prepared for Port of Anchorage. February. USDOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 1992. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Healy Clean Coal Project. November. 7.2 Bibliography of Geotechnical References The following references were used for geotechnical aspects of the proposed project. General geotechnical references are listed first, followed by individual segment-by- segment bibliographies. General Alaska Geological Society, 1986. Glaciation In Alaska: The Geologic Record. Anthony, L. and Tunley, A., 1976. Introductory Geography and Geology of Alaska. BLM, Alaska Resource Library. 1993. List of Geologic/Geotechnical References Availabel from the Alaska Resources Library. Mar. Commonwealth Assoc., Inc., Alaska Power Authority. 1982. Environmental Assessment Report, Anchorage/Fairbanks Intertie. March. REFERENCES PAGE 7-6 Commonwealth Assoc., Inc., Alaska Power Authority. 1982. Anchorage-Fairbanks Transmission Intertie Route Selection Report. Commonwealth Assoc., Inc., Alaska Power Authority. 1982. Geotechnical Investigation, Anchorage/Fairbanks Intertie Transmission Line Route. Shannon and Wilson, Inc. Aug. Gilbert/Commonwealth, Alaska Power Authority. 1982. The Anchorage-Fairbanks Transmission Intertie. Dec. University of Alaska, 1974. Alaska Regional Profiles; Volume |: Southcentral Region; and Volume VI: Yukon Region. Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center (for) the State of Alaska and the Joint Federal-State Land Use Planning Commission for Alaska. University of Alaska, Institute of Water Resources/Engineering Experiment Station. 1984. Environmental Atlas of Alaska. C. Hartman and P. Johnson. USGS, ADGGS. 1980. Geologic Map of Alaska; Scale 1:2,500,000. H. Beikman. USGS, 1964. Miscellaneous Geologic Investigations, Map !-357: Surficial. T. Karlstrom. USGS, 1975. GS Professional Paper 835: Quaternary Geology of Alaska. T. Pewe. USGS, 1958. GS Professional Paper 293: Quaternary and Engineering Geology in the Central Part of the Alaska Range; A. Quaternary Geology of the Nenana River Valley and Adjacent Parts of the Alaska Range; B. C. Wahrhaftig and R. Black. USGS, Earthquake Information. 1993. Seismicity Report for Denali Park (McKinley Station). Mar. USGS, Earthquake Information. 1993. Seismicity Report for Fairbanks. Mar. USGS, Earthquake Information. 1989. Seismicity of Alaska 1786-1987 (map). USGS, The Alaska Earthquake. 1970. March 27, 1964: Effects on Transportation, Communications, and Utilities; Geological Survey Professional Paper 545-D: Effects of the Earthquake of March 27, 1964. D.S. McCulloch and M.G. Bonnilla. Woodward-Lundgren & Assoc. W-L Pipeline Active Fault Study (Partial), Major Faults and Lineaments, Appendix D - Illustrations (Minus photos). July 29, 1993 PAGE 7-7 ADGGS, 1986. The Alaska Railroad Between Anchorage and Fairbanks, Guidebook. T.C. Fuglestad. Moore, R.M., 1970. Permafrost Problems on the Alaska Railroad, An Economic Study. National Research Council, 1974. Some aspects of Airphoto Interpretation of Permafrost in Canada. R.J.E. Brown. Feb. National Research Council, 1965. Proceedings of the Canadian Regional Permafrost Conference. Sept. Segment No.1: North Pole to Cripple Creek ADGGS, Fairbanks. 1983. Public Data File 83-5, A Brief Outline of the Seismic Hazard in the Fairbanks/North Pole Area, Davies, J.N. March ADGGS, Fairbanks. 1982. Special Report 15: Geologic Hazards of the Fairbanks Area, Alaska, T.L.Pewe. ADOH, Fairbanks. 1963. Materials Report, Chena Ridge Road, Project No. S-0645(4) Aug. ADOH, Materials Division. 1978. Engineering Geology and Hydrology Report, Ester Siding to Ester, Project No. RF-037-01-35, Interior Region. ADOH, Materials Section. 1964. Supplemental Materials Report, Ester Siding, Project No. F 037-17, Materials Site No. 371-131-2, Fairbanks District. ADOH, Materials Section. 1964. Materials Investigation, Ester Toward Ester Siding, Project No. F-, May. ADOT/PF,Northern Region. 1993. Van Horn Road Geotechnical Report, Federal Project No. F-M-, May. R&M, Consultants Inc. 1982. Soils Investigation at Fairbanks Wastewater Treatment Plant, R&M, April. Shannon and Wilson, Inc.Subsurface Investigation.1976.Energy Company of Alaska North Pole, Jan. USGS, Earthquake Information. 1993. Seismicity Report, May. REFERENCES PAGE 7-8 SEGMENT NO. 2: CRIPPLE CREEK TO NENANA ADGGS, Fairbanks. 1987. Public Data File 87-19, Preliminary Photointerpretive Maps of the Geology, Geologic Materials, Permafrost, and Wetlands-Classification, Fairbanks C-5 Quadrangle, Alaska. R.D. Reger. Aug. ADOH, Department of Public. 1960. Soils Survey: Tanana River Crossing (Alternate), Fairbanks. Aug. ADOH, Fairbanks District. 1965. Seismic Survey, Tanana River Bridges 201 and 202, Project No. F-037-1(9), Fairbanks District. Apr. ADOH, Fairbanks District. 1970. Ester 25 Mile West, Project No. F-037-1(25), Route Reconnaissance. Materials Section, Engineering Geology Section. Jun. ADOH, Materials Section. 1965. Materials Report, 25 Miles West Ester - North Bank Tanana River, Project No. F-037-1(8), Fairbanks District. Mar. ADOH, Materials Section. 1965. Materials Investigation, Tanana River Crossing at Nenana, Projects F-037-1(9) and F-037-2(10), "L4" Station 5+76.87 to "L3" Station 85 + 87.90, Fairbanks District. Feb. ADOH, Materials Section. 1973. Engineering Geology and Soils Report, Ester 25 Miles West, Project No. F-037-1(25), Interior District. May ADOT/PF, Northern Region. 1985. Engineering Geology and Soils Report, Parks Highway. April. ADOT/PF, Northern Region. 1986. Engineering Geology and Soils Report, Parks Highway Mile 324.5. April. Clair A. Hill, Feasibility Study For Proposed Tanana River Bridge No. 202. C.H. Harned. Aug. Clair A. Hill & Assoc., For DOH. 1962. Centerline Soils and Material Sites Report, Fairbanks-McKinley Parks Highway, Tanana River Crossing at Nenana, "L" Station 6+25+149+47.35, Project No. F 037-1(9), Fairbanks District. Fairbanks District. Nov. USGS, Earthquake Information. 1993. Seismicity Report. Mar. July 29, 1993 PAGE 7-9 SEGMENT NO. 3: NENANA TO HEALY ADGGS, Fairbanks. 1987. Public Data File 87-17: Preliminary Photointerpretive Maps of the Geology Materials, Permafrost, and Wetlands-Classification, Fairbanks B-5 Quadrangle, Alaska. S.E. Rawlinson. ADGGS, 1976. Alaska Open-File Report 101: General Geology and Geochemistry of Healy D-5 and D-6 Quadrangles, Alaska. W.G. Gilbert and T.K. Bundtzen. Oct. ADOH, Department of Public. 1962. Materials Site Investigation, Nenana - Rex. April. ADOH, Engineering Geology Section. 1976. Engineering Geology and Soils Report, Nenana to Rex, Project No. F-037-2(27), Interior District. April. ADOH, Fairbanks District. 1959-1960. Centerline and Borrow Pit Investigation, Fairbanks to McKinley Parks Highway, Rex-Lignite Section, Project No. F-037- 2(2). ADOH, Materials Division. 1970. Engineering Geology and Soils Report, Rex-Healy Paving, Project No. FO37-2(16), Engineering Geology Section, Fairbanks District. Jan. ADOH, Materials Section. 1962. Centerline Soils Survey and Materials Site Investigation, Fairbanks-McKinley Parks Highway, Lignite to Garner, Project No. F-037-2(2), Fairbanks District. May. ADOH, Materials Section. 1963. Supplemental Materials Investigation, Lignite to Garner, Project. Nov. ADOH, Materials Section. 1962. Centerline Soils Survey and Materials Site Investigation, Fairbanks. June. ADOT/PF, Engineering. 1985. Engineering Geology and Soils Report, Parks Highway. July. Alaska Railroad Commission. Highway Soils Survey, Parks Highway (?) Milepost 280- 314.7 (Soil Logs). Juneau. Clair A. Hill, 1961. Foundation Report, Nenana River Bridge Near Rex, Alaska. C.H. Harned & Associates for DOH. REFERENCES PAGE 7-10 U.S. Dept. of Comm., Bureau, 1956. Soils Survey of the Fairbanks-Nenana Highway, Section "B". USGS, Earthquake Information Center. 1993. Seismicity Report. Mar. USGS, 1960. Miscellaneous Geologic Investigations, Map I-307: Engineering and Surficial Geology of the Nenana-Rex Area, Alaska. R. Kachadoorian. SEGMENT NO. 4: HEALY TO BROAD PASS ADGGS, 1976. Alaska Open-File Report 95: Geologic Map of Central Healy Quadrangle, Alaska. R.G. Hickman and C. Craddock. Mar. ADOH, .Materials Section. 1964. Materials Investigation: Fairbanks-Anchorage Highway, Cantwell-North to Nenana River, Project No. F 052-2(1), Fairbanks, Alaska. Fairbanks District. Feb. ADOH, Materials Section. 1965. Materials Report: Cantwell to Nenana, Bridge Number 2, Project No. F-052-2(1), Fairbanks District, Supplement No. 1. June. ADOH, Materials Section. 1969. Materials Investigation: Nenana Canyon to Nenana Bridge No. 3, Project No. F-037-2(2), Fairbanks District. Feb. ADOH, Materials Section. 1968. Special Report: Nenana Canyon, Project No. F-037- 2(2), Fairbanks District, Material Laboratory. Oct. Commonwealth Associates Inc., Alaska Power Authority. 1982. Geotechnical Investigation, Anchorage/Fairbanks Intertie Transmission Line Route. Shannon and Wilson Inc. Aug. USGS, Earthquake Information Center. 1993. Seismicity Report. July 29, 1993 PAGE 7-11 SEGMENT NO. 5: BROAD PASS TO HURRICANE ADOH, Engineering Geology Section. 1971. Material Source Investigation, Cantwell to Hurricane Gulch Paving, Project No. F-035-4(1), Interior District. Interior District. Nov. ADOH, Engineering Geology Section. 1965. Supplemental Materials Investigation, Hurricane Gulch to the East Fork of the Chulitna River, Project No. F-035-4(1), Fairbanks District. Interior District. Nov. ADOH, Materials Section. 1964. Materials Evaluation, East Fork Chulitna - Summit. July. ADOH, Materials Section. 1965. Materials Investigation, Hurricane Gulch to East Fork. April. ADOH, Materials Section. 1962. Centerline Soils Survey and Materials Site Investigation, Cantwell. Aug. ADOH, Materials Section. 1985. Engineering Geology and Soils Report, Parks Highway Rehabilitation and Resurfacing, Little Coal Creek to the Middle Fork of the Chulitna River, I|-R-OA4-3(2), A-46732. Fairbanks District. April. ADOT/PF, Northern Region. 1982. Anchorage-Fairbanks Transmission Intertie, Route Selection Report. Design and Construction. Jan. Commonwealth Associates, Inc., 1982. Geotechnical Investigation, Anchorage/Fairbanks Intertie. Aug. Commonwealth Associates, Inc., Alaska Power Authority. 1961. Preliminary Soil Survey, Cantwell to Summit, F 035-4(1). Shannon and Wilson, Inc. Oct. State Road, Materials Laboratory. 1964. State of Alaska F.A.P. 35 Willow-Summit, Contact 13, East Fork. June. ADOH, 1965. State of Alaska F.A.P. 35 Willow-Summit, Contract 12, Hurricane Gulch to East Fork, Design Report. Tippets-Abbett-McCarthy-Stratton. Feb. Tippets-Abbett-McCarthy, 1960. F.A.P. 35, Division Creek to Summit Section, Subsurface. Dec. REFERENCES PAGE 7-12 Tippets-Abbett-McCarthy, 1965. State of Alaska F.A.P. 35 Willow-Summit, Contract 13, East Fork. Feb. USGS, Earthquake Information. 1993. Seismicity Report. SEGMENT NO. 6: HURRICANE TO TALKEETNA SPUR ROAD ADOH, Anchorage District. 1968. Supplemental Materials Report, Chulitna River to Division Creek. April. ADOH, Anchorage District. 1965. Supplemental Materials Report, Susitna River to Chulitna River. June. ADOH, Anchorage District. 1967. Supplemental Materials Report, Chulitna River to Division Creek. Aug. ADOH, Anchorage District. 1968. Supplemental Materials Site Investigation. #3, Chulitna River. June. ADOH, Central District. 1971. Materials Site Report, Materials Site Investigation, Chulitna River to Alaska Railroad, Project No. F-035-3(1) & Alaska RR to Hurricane Gulch Project No. F-035-4(1). Engineering Geology Section. Oct. ADOH, Materials Section. 1966. Materials Report, Chulitna River to Division Creek. April. Tippetts-Abbett-McCarthy, 1965. F.A.P. 35 Willow-Summit, Contracts 8,9,10, Chulitna River. June. Tippetts-Abbett-McCarthy, 1964. F.A.P. 35 Willow-Summit, Contract 11, Alaska Railroad. Aug. USGS, Earthquake Information. 1993. Seismicity Report. USGS, 1993. Miscellaneous Field Studies, Map MF-870-J: Folio of the Talkeetna Quadrangle, Alaska; Surficial Deposits Map of the Talkeetna Quadrangle, Alaska. S. Nelson and B. Reed. July 29, 1993 PAGE 7-13 SEGMENT NO. 7: TALKEETNA SPUR ROAD TO NANCY LAKE ADGGS, 1983. Public Data File 83-9, Reconnaissance Geology & Geochemistry of the Willow Creek-Hatcher Pass Area, Alaska. M. Albanese, J.T. Kline, T.K. Bundtzen, and K. Kline. May. ADGGS, 1978. Alaska Open-File Report 107C, Slope Map of the Talkeetna-Kashwitna River Area, Susitna River Basin, Alaska. J.T. Cline. ADGGS, 1977. Alaska Open-File Report 103, Reconnaissance Geology - South. D.L. McGee. ADGGS, 1978. Alaska Open-File Report 107B, Reconnaissance Map. R.D. Reger. ADOH, Anchorage District. 1965. Supplemental Materials Report, Susitna River to Chulitna River, Project No. F-035-3(1). June. ADOH, Central District. 1970. Materials Report, Susitna River to Chulitna River Paving, Project No. F-035-2(1). Materials Division. June. Commonwealth Associates, Inc. Alaska Power Authority. 1982. Geotechnical Investigation, Anchorage/Fairbanks Intertie, Transmission Line Route. Shannon and Wilson, Inc. Aug. R & M Consultants, 1978. New Capital City Environmental Assessment Program - Phase 1. Dec. USDA, Soil Conservation Service. 1978. Soils of the Capital Relocation site, Alaska. Feb. USGS, Earthquake Information. 1993. Seismicity Report. SEGMENT NO. 8: NANCY LAKE TO POINT MACKENZIE ADGGS, 1981. Geologic Report 71, Geologic & Materials Maps of the Anchorage C-7 SW Quadrangle, Alaska. C.L. Daniels. ADGGS, 1981. Geologic Report 67, Geologic & Materials Maps of the Anchorage C-7 SE Quadrangle, Alaska. C.L. Daniels. REFERENCES PAGE 7-14 ADGGS, 1978. Alaska Open-File Report 113A, Reconnaissance Geology of the New Capital Site and Vicinity, Anchorage Quadrangle, Alaska. R.D. Reger. ADGGS, 1981. Geologic Report 68, Geologic & Materials Maps of the Anchorage C-8 SW Quadrangle, Alaska. R.D. Reger. ADGGS, 1981. Geologic Report 65 Geologic & Materials Maps of the Anchorage C-8 SE Quadrangle, Alaska. R.D. Reger. ADGGS, 1981. Geologic Report 69 Geologic & Materials Maps of the Anchorage B-8 NE Quadrangle, Alaska. R.D. Reger. ADGGS, 1981. Geologic Report 70 Geologic & Materials Maps of the Anchorage B-8 NW Quadrangle, Alaska. R.D. Reger. ADGGS, 1978. Alaska Open-File Report 113B, Reconnaissance Geologic Materials. R.D. Reger. Mark Hansen, 1992. South Big Lake Road, MSB #RO86, Geotechnical Investigation. Matanuska-Susitna Borough. Feb. Matanuska-Susitna Borough, 1974. Point MacKenzie Land Use Permit #21-01-020 G:2Dec: PN&D, 1992. Point MacKenzie Transportation Corridor Study. Feb. Ted Forsi & Assoc., 1980. Point MacKenzie Materials Reconnaissance Lands Classified Industrial Matanuska-Susitna Borough. Oct. SEGMENT NO. 9: KNIK ARM CROSSING ADOH, Materials Division. 1970. Engineering Geology and Foundation Report. ADOH/PF, Planning. 1986. Knik Arm Crossing Documents Listing. Alaska Development, 1981. Point MacKenzie, Knik Arm, Preliminary Tidal Current Study. Dames and Moore, 1070. Report of Seismic Reflection Survey, Proposed Knik Arm Highway. Dec. July 29, 1993 PAGE 7-15 EMPS, 1983. Description and Interpretation of Knik Arm Seismic Survey. Harding Lawson and Assoc. J.V. Sverdrup. Feb. Harding Lawson and Assoc., 1983. Knik Arm Crossing, Technical Memorandum No. 3, On shore. Nov. USDOT/FHWA, ADOT/PF. 1983. Knik Arm Crossing, Technical Memorandum No. 2, Marine Seismic Reflection Survey. Harding Lawson Associates. Feb. ADOH, 1972. Basic Research, Analysis, and Exploratory Investigations, Knik Arm Highway Crossing, Anchorage, Alaska. Howard, Needles, Tammen, and Bergendoff. Jan. LCMF, DPW. 1993. Analysis of Hydrographic Data, Knik Arm, Cairn Point to Latitude 61 18 N. Matanuska-Susitna Borough. Mar. Northern Technical Services, 1980. Point MacKenzie Hydrographic Study. Matanuska- Susitna Borough. April. PN&D, Matanuska-Susitna Borough Port Study. Shannon and Wilson, Inc., 1989. Geotechnical Report, New P.O.L. Terminal, Port of Anchorage, Anchorage, Alaska. Tryck, Nyman, and Hayes. July. USACOE, Alaska District. 1988. Soils Report for Anchorage Harbor. Jan. USDOT/FHWA, ADOT/PH. 1984. Knik Arm Crossing, Technical Memorandum No. 17, Survey of Archeological and Historic Resources. Jan. USGS, Earthquake Information. 1993. Seismicity Report. Earthquake Information Center. Mar. USGS, 1982. Open File Report 82-464: Physiography, Texture, and Bedforms in Knik Arm, Upper Cook Inlet, Alaska During June and July, 1980. S. Bartsch-Winkler. USGS, ADOT/PF. 1983. Comments and literature form Susan Bartsch-Winkler regarding sedimentation in Knik and Turnagin Arms. Branch of Alaskan Geology. June. REFERENCES PAGE 7-16 | 80% Wetland ] 10% Wetland at Drginages 2 Gistiansda/vegasasion) Silty Sands and Gravels | Sandy sits | tling Bedrock +) (Soil Type Discontinuous, Thaw-Stable | i i : nstable (Permafrost = P.S. 0-1%, C.S. 0-14% £.S. o-35%_) (Terrain Condition ) = eS. o Fort Wainwright 2 Hurricane Trapper Creek Willow ANCHORAGE THE DENALI PIPELINE PROJECT Be ace cree as { M.P. LOCATION: | M.P._ 0 to M.P._24-9 _ (y% Peratrovich. Nottingham & Drage. Inc. May) Engineering Consultants SSoomant se Scale: Brew | (July-Augustp| 17-2 Miles (Rev. 1 oA} —— Legend Ke : onstruction Segment + (December-January)— Tanana River, Anadromous Fish Stream f f f Denali Pipeline MP 0.0 7 L Raptor Nest Bald Eagle Nest | lL anadromous Fish Stream ssing PAVED HIGHWAY —-— POWERLINE >= UNPAVED ROADWAY KNOWN RESIDENT FISH ® Raptor NEST AREA STREAM CROSSING Bed BLOCK OR CHECK VALVE ANADROMOUS FISH STREAM |= PROPOSED PIPELINE ROUTE ROSSING — j=" OPTIONAL ROUTE | PIPELINE MILEPOST rs: PROFILE SLOPE C.S. CROSS SLOPE _ _/) c Military | (_ ) SS Note: Proposed alignment is to the North of th - posed alignm of the flood-control dikes along the Tanana River \L and Ownershi p J) Cc 10% Wetlands at Drainages ) Wetlands/ Vegetation ) Cc Silts Mantling Bedrock -) Soil Type ) Discontinuous, Thaw-Unstable -) Permafrost Condition) CES $283. - | 1S. 5-10%, C.S._ 15-35% I P.S._0-10%, C.S. |_)CGferrain Condition _) Fairbanks State Forest / eee Ae i yore , Tanana Flats Option. iis Hurricane orth Trapper Creek Tanana Valley State Forest ~ — > TVENSRNEAITA Naa petimentat “Ores ie atlh shi gee rig ee THE DENALI PIPELINE PROJECT M.P. LOCATION: M.P. 23.5 to M.pP._52-8 XS z Peratrovich, Ni & Drage, Inc. Engineering Consultants ‘Fairbanks S/S 7 —— . = : ~ « we s : ing : , . i : : A (Scale: Draw e =~ : Construction Segment 2 (July-August) - £ J—_—f (1°72 Miles || Rev. 2114 Bald Eagle vent tt Symbol Legend PAVED HIGHWAY —-— POWERLINE "Zu UNPAVED ROADWAY KNOWN RESIDENT FISH RAPTOR NEST AREA STREAM CROSSING Bed Lock OR CHECK VALVE @ ANADROMOUS FISH STREAM jee! PROPOSED PIPELINE ROUTE GROSSING j=" OPTIONAL ROUTE | PIPELINE MILEPOST P.S. PROFILE SLOPE .S. CROSS SLOPE ( <—_State Forest i State, ; f le State Forest 3] >) - * Forest Western Boundary = Land Ownership Fairbanks North = Star Borough 7 C 10% Wetlands at Drainages Dry [ 87% Wetlands _) lands/Vegetation Cc Silts Mantling Bedrock L Silts Mantfing Silty Sands to Gravely Sands L Silts and Sands ) Goil Type —»DS <q Dis¢ontinuous, Thaw-Unstable SY Permafrost Condition) C P.S.. 0-10%, C.S. 10-15% [ P.S. 0-2%, C.S. 0-2% P.S. 0-5%, C.S. 0-5% )( Terrain Condition ) . a A ; 7 >) r fo AW USO. SMHS Egy 2 ee ; a * @ el ile re *: Fairbanks -Tanana Valley _ State Forest : Raptor Nesting - ‘Concenteat' on Hurricane orth Trapper Creek Willow ANCHORAGE THE DENALI PIPELINE PROJECT a) , { M.P. LOCATION: | M.P._47.8 to M.P._77-2 _ Peratrovich. Nottingham & Drage, Inc. Mh) Engineering Consultants SS A eee : saa $82 anes )[ nev. } 3.14 Construction — Segment 3 (January-February) Construction a 2 (July-August) J ; ft e z Peregrine Falcon nadromous Known Resident Fish Symbol Legend Nesting Habitat tream Crossing Steam Crossing —— PAVED HIGHWAY —-— POWERLINE > UNPAVED ROADWAY KNOWN RESIDENT FISH RAPTOR NEST AREA STREAM CROSSING Ded BLOCK OR CHECK VALVE ® ANADROMOUS FISH STREAM meen PROPOSED PIPELINE ROUTE \;” CROSSING j=— =" OPTIONAL ROUTE | PIPELINE MILEPOST P.S. PROFILE SLOPE C.S. CROSS SLOPE —— jes} tL renane Valley State Forest ° (~ Tanana Valley \ State Forest Land Ownership J) @ 87% Wetlands ao 62% Wetlands ) /Me ation G@ Silts and Sands | _Silts Mantling Sands and Sandy Gravels >) Soil Type : rien | Sporadic, Thaw-Stable _)(®ermafrost Condition) fa - > = — PS. 0-8, CS. 9758 )@ferrain Condition _) Fairbanks North Pole vu oenne Cantwell asree / Hurricane PS = rs ° Trapper Creek Willow ANCHORAGE if THE DENALI | PIPELINE PROJECT S| ee eee ey, — wp. Location: | M.P._76.1 to M.p._108.1 tN = S oC (% Peratrovich, Nottingham & Drage, Inc. ® : b= i i ere Saad Reet aie e ae = H Construction ; Se cere: aaa | = ——— Segment.3-(January-February) —— - - — 17:2 Miles || Rev. ott sees eae 4 l. ¥ Caribou Known Winter Concentrationtarea f Symbol Legend L if — Pave nicway —-— powentine Known Resident Fish Anadromous Fish Known Resident Fish : RAPTOR HES AREA Streaw crossing Stream Crossing Stream Crossing Stream Crossing Bed BLOCK OR CHECK VALVE ® ANADROMOUS FISH STREAM| Caribou Spring-Fall —===™ PROPOSED PIPELINE ROUTE enossma Migration Zone Recttovconn aroccll eateosaaleccoxti re reg reenter = \ Land Ownership WS) 38% Wetlands T) Weti lan pda Veaerssen. ) Coarse Gravels Mantling Bedrock {Eg oil Type Discontinuous, " ‘Thaw-Unstable Discontinuous, Thaw-Stable +) ®ermafrost ——— Es Qe: = P.S. 15=25%, C.S. > 60% [ es 30-40% \(ferrain Condition ) Fairbanks 62% Wetlands Silts Mantling Sands and Sandy Gravels Sporadic, Thaw-Stable P.S. 0-5%, C.S._0-5% = Fe . Hurricane orth Trapper Creek ANCHORAGE THE DENALI PIPELINE PROJECT ey i{ M.P. LOCATION: | M.P._103.7 to M.p..135.5 IL fo > | Ga) Peratrovich, Nottingham & Drage, Inc. \ ~ Engineering Consultants ) “ ~ > Drawing Construction ~ Scale: Segment 3 (January-February) - sa Segment. 4 (Late W hid W “i »Ji 1°=2 Miles || Rev. 50119) | : Moody Creek, Known Resident Fish Stream | (E 4 Caribou Spring-Fall 4 Anadromous rian | Aspserinate Upper Limit i ke ° " ee eee Migration Zone Stream Crossing of Anadromous Fish in Known Resident Fish Stream Crossin === UNPAVED ROADWAY KNOWN RESIDENT FISH the Nenana River . 9 ® RAPTOR NEST AREA STREAM CROSSING Potential Area for Pump Station Bed sL0cK OR CHECK VALVE ANADROMOUS FISH STREAM PROPOSED PIPELINE ROUTE GROSSING p=" OPTIONAL ROUTE PIPELINE MILEPOST \\P-S._ PROFILE SLOPE C.S. CROSS SLOPE Y ‘a >) L sowsetroan End, Proposed Nenana Recreation River \Land Ownership ) wt en Teer Sage C 38% Wetlands | 35% Wetlands : _) Wetlands/ Vegetation ) Ccoarse Gravels Mantling Bedrock] Poorly-Sorted Silty, Sandy Gravels Coarse Gravels Mantling Bedrock [ Pog aac ) Soil Type ) Discontinuous, Thaw-Stable | Discontinuous, Thaw-Unstable Discontinuous, Thaw-St eae aaa Cai =Stable Thaw-Unstab! C ~40% | ES: $0298 So me table ___ >) @®ermafrost Condition) P.S. 5-20%, C.S. 20-40 6:8: 70-20% P.S._0-5%, C.S._0-5% P.S. 0-5%, C.S.>40% [eee » [ES 28%) (Ferrain Condition a = - ——_— — Segment.4 (Late! Known Resident rien Stream Crossing Stream Grossing —— { Tersossas Nenana Recreation River a Known Resident Fish f es ( M.P. LOCATION: | Fairbanks Hurricane orth Trapper Creek Willow ANCHORAGE THE DENALI ‘PIPELINE PROJECT M.P._129.5 to M.p. 159-5 Known Resident int Stream Crossing ___) Le Proposed Nenana Recreation River ; | } {2t%iaen (nee Symbol Legend PAVED HIGHWAY —-— POWERLINE > — UNPAVED ROADWAY KNOWN RESIDENT FISH RAPTOR NEST AREA STREAM CROSSING Bed SLOGK OR CHECK VALVE ANADROMOUS FISH STREAM “=== PROPOSED PIPELINE ROUTE CROSSING ===" OPTIONAL ROUTE 1 PIPELINE MILEPOST \P-S. PROFILE SLOPE C.S. CROSS SLOPE _)\ Land Ownership 27% Wetlands ) Gveriends/Vesstation, Poorly-Sorted Silty, Sandy Gravels ) (Soil Type Discontinuous, Thaw-Unstable >) (Permafrost —— — £8: 2 er - - — )GFerrain Condition ) 35% Wetlands Fairbanks Hurricane orth Trapper Creek ANCHORAGE THE DENALI | | PIPELINE PROJECT M.P. LOCATION: M.P. 153.1 to m.p._181-3 Peratrovich. & Drage, inc. + : Drawing a Jl 7 +14 Symbol Legend Known Resident Fish Stream Crossing PAVED HIGHWAY —-— powentine 1 Anadromous Stream Crossing = — UNPAVED ROADWAY ® KNOWN RESIDENT FISH RAPTOR NEST AREA STREAM CROSSING Bed BLOCK OR CHECK VALVE ANADROMOUS FISH STREAM j= PROPOSED PIPELINE ROUTE \;/ CROSSING + PIPELINE MLEPOST Proposed Nenana Recreation River Land Ownership C 27% Wetlands ¢ Poorly-Sorted Silty, Sandy Gravels Discontinuous, Thaw-Unstable 0-5%, C.S._5-10% | P.S. 5-15%, C.S. 5-15% | 14% Wetlands 3 Watiansia/ Vegetation, ) oorly-Sorted Silty, Sandy Gravels ) Soil Type Sporadic, Thaw-Unstable _) (Permafrost —— P.S. _0-5%, C.S._0-5% _)ferrain Condition _) i j= r= (OO Fairbanks vO P.S. Hurricane orth Trapper Creek ANCHORAGE ‘THE DENALI PIPELINE PROJECT M.P. LOCATION: M.P._180.4 to M.p._208.0 Peratrovich. & Drage, inc. Ya) Engineering Consultants / ; | $82aues )[mer. Jl. 8.14) Symbol Legend nstr nf a segment 6 (Mid Ma | siack Bear,| i Construction ‘Segment 5 (May-June) 4 Moose Known Winter Concentration Area Moose Known Rutting-Winter Concentration Area — a rati — PAVED HIGHWAY —-— POWERLINE ; Denning Concentration == UNPAVED ROADWAY KNOWN RESIDENT FISH Anadromous Stream Crossing nadromous Area RAPTOR NEST AREA STREAM CROSSING Stream Bq BLOCK OR CHECK VALVE ANADROMOUS FISH STREAM Crossing i PROPOSED PIPELINE ROUTE ® CROSSING Known Resident Fish Stream Cr =n "8 OPTIONAL ROUTE PIPELINE MILEPOST ee : P.S. PROFILE SLOPE _€.S. CROSS SLOPE a LL Denali State Park —| » Land Ownership ) 1s Meta Wetlands/Vegetation ) wi ai- ege Poorly-Sorted Silty, Sandy Gravels Soil Type Sporadic, Thaw-Unstable Permafrost Conditio Terrain Condition Cantwell Hurricane rth Trapper Creek Willow ANCHORAGE (enn) ‘ THE DENALI | PIPELINE PROJECT | M.P. LOCATION: M.P. 207.3 to M.p._236.0 (Py Peratrovich. Nott & Drage, inc. Engineering Consultants Drawing )(sir44 ) Joins (ne Moose Known Rutting - Winter Concentration Area | Symbol Legend L —— PAVED HiGHWaY —-— POWERLINE Anadromous Fish Stream Crossing ar GS saree peer /aaan Stecau"crossina Bed 5L0CK OR CHECK VALVE ® ANADROMOUS FISH STREAM ==" PROPOSED PIPELINE ROUTE CROSSING p= OPTIONAL ROUTE T pieLine miLepost P.S. PROFILE SLOPE C.S. CROSS SLOPE Denali State Park Land Ownershi C C Poorly-Sorted Silty; Sandy Gravels |Sandy Graveld C _Sporadic, Thaw-Unstable | Absent 14% Wetlands Silts Mantling Poorly~Sorted Silty, Sandy Gravels Absent or Isolated Occurrences Underlying Peats P.S. 0-5%, C.S. 0-5% > l Crossings Moose Known Rutting-Winter Concentration Area Denali State Park ol L Anadromous Fish Stream “7 K Anadromous Fish Stream Crossings Moose Known Winter Concentration Area _) Wetiands/Vegetation ) Goil Type i”) +) Permafrost Conditio )CGferrain Condition ) +o Fairbanks North Pole Cantwell Hurricane orth rapper Creek Willow ANCHORAGE M.P. LOCATION: M.P._ 231.6 to M.p._259.0 Drawing Rev... 10,,14 —— PAVED HIGHWAY —-— POWERLINE = — UNPAVED ROADWAY KNOWN RESIDENT FISH RAPTOR NEST AREA STREAM CROSSING Bed BLOCK OR CHECK VALVE ® ANADROMOUS FISH STREA! seme PROPOSED PIPELINE ROUTE \;/ CROSSING ===" OPTIONAL ROUTE 1 PIPELINE MILEPOST P.S. PROFILE SLOPE —=_—_C.S. CROSS SLOPE __ = Ownership C C 14% Wetlands Silts Mantling Poorly-Sorted Silty, Sandy Gravels | Sand Gravels Silts or Silts Mantling Poorly-Sorted Silty, Sandy Gravels 19% Wetlands = Sotatienda’ ———— ) C Absent or Isolated Occurrences Underlying Peats [ Absent [ S. 0-5% Construction Segment 6 (Mid March-Mid May) Absent or Isolated Occurrences Underlying Peats _) Soil Type ») Permafrost =a ———— Condition ) (parks | Hurricane North Trapper Creek Be ANCHORAGE J THE DENALI PIPELINE PROJECT M.P._256.4 to M.P._285.9 Construction ~ Segment 7 (Mid December-January) — 7 ‘s j Drawing JE82%aues | Rev. _} 110,14) (7 Peratrovich. Nottingham & Drage, Inc. Ya) Engineering Consultants _S x ¥ Anadromous Fish Stream Crossings Symbol Legend PAVED HIGHWAY —-— PoweRLiNE aes ~ 7 UNPAVED ROADWAY KNOWN RESIDENT FISH RAPTOR NEST AREA STREAM CROSSING Moose Known Winter Concentration Ares Bed BLOCK OR CHECK VALVE ANADROMOUS FISH STREAI ‘—s=—""" PROPOSED PIPELINE ROUTE CROSSING ===" OPTIONAL ROUTE 1 PIPELINE MILEPOST P.S. PROFILE SLOPE C.S. CROSS SLOPE — S * ¥ Anadromous Fish Stream Crossings : Moose Known Winter-Calving Concentration Area S\ Land Ownership J C 19% Wetlands Cas oF Silts Mentiing Poorly- Sorted ‘| = Absent to Isolated Occurrences Underlying Peats P.S. 0-5%, C.S. 0-5% ~\( Kashwitna State Management _ Area 5. rumpeter Swan Known: btclicenit Nesti ing: : pool negra Cobcantration Area... Silts Mantling P 19% wetlands) Wetlan a ) -) Soil Type [eerVine wna ») Permafrost — )Gferrain Condition ) Fairbanks Hurricane Trapper Creek ANCHORAGE ) THE DENALI | | PIPELINE PROJECT M.P. LOCATION: M.P. 281.0 to M.p._311.2 NR (YZ Peratrovich, Nottingham & Drage. Inc. Engineering Consultants ms r L Moose Known Rutting-Winter Calving Concentration Area £ Symbol Legend ¢ - l eaves inant? —-— owen Anadromous Fish Stream Crossings | oS mest yscaewny KNOWN RESIDENT FISH L Bed SLOcK Of CHECK VALVE @ muapgome ANADROMOUS FISH STREA! oo ae ROUTE Moose Known Winter-Calving Concentration Area Potential Area for Pump Station == oprionaL noure F pipetine snepost P.S. PROFILE SLOPE CS. CROSS SLOPE [Lene Ownership a JV tion Silts Mantling Poorly-Sorted Silty, Sandy Gravels ») (Soil Type ) C C ( Absent to Isolated Occurrences Underlying Peats Y( Permafrost Condition) _)Cferrain Condition ) = Fairbanks North Pole 19% Wetlands Cantwell Hurricane Trapper Creek ANCHORAGE a | THE DENALI | PIPELINE PROJECT M.P. LOCATION: M.P._311.0 to M.p._331.0 “Construction 4 ~ - “ 2 : i 3 )(a8%44) = Segment’8 (Febr : aah Iditarod National Historic a Symbol Legend ‘ Anadromous Stream Crossings — PAVED HiGHWAY —-— POWERLINE ~ —>— UNPAVED ROADWAY KNOWN RESIDENT FISH ® RAPTOR NEST AREA STREAM CROSSING Bed SLOCK OR CHECK VALVE ANADROMOUS FISH STREAM /=—"" PROPOSED PIPELINE ROUTE CROSSING NS ==" OPTIONAL ROUTE | PIPELINE MILEPOST P.S. PROFILE SLOPE __ _€.S._ CROSS SLOPE Land Ownershi 19% Wetlands C Cc ia Silt | Silts to Silt-Mantled Poo C Cc Tidal Area D) w etiands/Vegetation ) ) Soil Type =) _) @®ermafrost Condi ion) )Cferrain Condition ) =) >) Sorted Silty, Sand Gravels Absent to Isolated Occurrences Underlying Peats Absent P.S. 0-5% C.S. 0-5% ET = Fairbanks North Pole Nenana Clear Healy Cantwell Hurricane = = = °| z Trapper Creek - ~ \ , gee | ae ee wey ee Cs fee LN é Se oe THE DENALI = _ ‘sz “3 = Ua ee Seay ee a | PIPELINE PROJECT M.P. LOCATION: M.P. 329.5 to m.p. 351-2 NR + re @ 4 Peratrovich, Nottingham & Drage, Inc. %) Engineering Consultants XN y je = fe tional Summer Work ie ne ‘ : nt.8 (February-Mid. March). >. a ry [$5 %iaes |[ney \aacia — site) . ) Symbol Legend adromous Stream Crossings le State Nearshore Tidelands Ls trumpeter Swan Known Spring Concentration Area, Knik Arm Cro Denali Pipeline MP 351.2 eee ecenoway Ca) RwOWN RESIDENT FISH Dabbling Duck Known Fall Concentration ® Raptor NEST AREA STREAM CROSSING Bed 5LOCK OR CHECK VALVE ANADROMOUS FISH STREAM Area, Moose Known Calving Concentration \ Area ( : | _ State Game ~ Refuge =m PROPOSED PIPELINE ROUTE CROSSING ===" OPTIONAL ROUTE 7 piPELine miLeposT P.S. PROFILE SLOPE =——_C.S._ CROSS SLOPE S\ | Municipal Tidelands | End of Denali Pipeline Land Ownership SD) Line _ Milepost APPENDIX B Land Ownership, Scales from Ownership Alignment Sheets, Scale 1"=1/2 Mile ROW Distance North Pole to Cripple Creek 1 OeOAIAUNFWHN Www NNN YN NYNNN DN SSFSBSRBYRRERBRRSSRIAAEBSHHS Cripple Creek 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 0.0 1.1 1.5 2.6 29 3.1 3.2 3.4 3.6 44 45 5.1 5.3 5.6 6.0 6.7 73 8.4 11.4 11.6 12.2 12.4 12.7 15.9 16.2 16.3 16.4 19.6 aa mak a0 23.9 to Nenana 24.3 41.6 43.1 44.7 50.9 53.0 53.3 53.6 Land Ownership 0 5,900 2,000 5,600 1,700 1,100 300 1,100 600 4,500 600 2,800 1,400 1,400 2,000 3,900 3,100 5,900 15,700 1,400 2,800 1,400 1,400 16,800 1,400 16,800 17,600 1,400 2,500 1,400 1.02 2,200 93,200 8,100 8,600 33,400 11,300 1,600 1,600 Land Classification Start State Private Borough State Borough Private Private Borough Private Borough Private Borough State Private Borough Private University Federal State Private Borough Private Borough State Borough Private State Private Borough University Borough Private State State State Private State Private State Page B-1 Land Ownership Description North Pole Refineries Fort Wainwright Chena River Cripple Creek Cripple Creek APPENDIX B Land Ownership, Scales from Ownership Alignment Sheets, Scale 1"=1/2 Mile ROW Land Line __ Milepost Distance Classification Land Ownership Description 41 54.0 2,200 Private 42 55.9 10,200 State 43 56.2 1,600 Private 44 56.3 500 State 45 56.4 500 State 46 56.5 500 State 47 56.6 500 Private 48 57.0 2,200 State 49 573 1,600 State 50 57.6 1,600 Private 51 58.9 7,000 State 52 59.6 3,800 Private 53 59.8 1,100 State 54 62.0 11,800 State Highway ROW 55 62.6 3,200 State Highway ROW Nenana to Healy 56 65.6 15,600 State Highway ROW Ss7 72.3 35,400 Private 58 80.3 42,200 State Highway ROW 59 87.4 37,500 State GVEA Powerline 60 88.1 3,700 State ARRC 61 93.4 28,000 State GVEA Powerline 62 93.8 2,400 Private 63 94.7 4,800 State GVEA Powerline 64 95.2 2,600 Private 65 101.7 34,100 State GVEA Powerline 66 102.4 4,000 Private 67 107.7 28,000 State GVEA Powerline 68 108.0 1,300 Private 69 1175 50,200 State GVEA Powerline 70 1203 14,800 State ARRC 71 121.0 3,700 State GVEA Powerline 72 1214 2,400 State ARRC Healy to Broad Pass (Jack Creek @ Cantwell) 73 136.5 79,700 State AEA Powerline/Moody Creek 74 1412 24,600 State AEA Powerline 75 144.4 17,200 Private Athna Corporation 76 144.7 1,600 State AEA Powerline 77 1476 15,300 Private Athna Corporation 78 1478 1,100 Private 79 160.2 65,500 Private Athna Corporation 80 1614 6,100 State Highway ROW Land Ownership Page B-2 APPENDIX B Land Ownership, Scales from Ownership Alignment Sheets, Scale 1"= 1/2 Mile ROW Land Line __ Milepost Distance Classification Land Ownership Description Broad Pass to Hurricane 81 1848 123,600 State Highway ROW 82 198.1 70,200 State Hurricaneto Talkeetna Road Cutoff 83 2722 391,200 State Highway ROW Talkeetna Road Cutoff to Nancy Lake 84 308.2 190,100 State Highway ROW Nancy Lake to Knik Arm 85 316.4 43,600 State Highway ROW 86 316.9 2,400 State 87 3174 2,600 Borough 88 3195 11,100 Private 89 320.4 4,800 State 90 3218 7,400 Private 91 3228 5,300 Borough 92 3258 15,800 Private 93 3262 2,400 State 94 3272 5,000 Private 95 3275 1,600 State 96 3278 1,600 Private 97 328.6 4,200 State 98 329.4 4,500 Borough 99 3298 1,800 State 100 3302 2,100 University 101 3309 4,000 Private 102 331.1 800 State 103 331.7 3,200 Borough 104 332.4 3,700 Private 105 335.4 16,100 State 106 335.6 1,100 Private 107 339.7 21,600 State 108 343.1 17,700 Borough Knik Arm to Port of Anchorage 109 3453 11,900 State Tideland of Knik Arm 110 3512 30,900 City Muncipality of Anchorage Land Ownership Page B-3 APPENDIX C Stream Crossings Locations, Methods and Anadromous Numbers Pipe Preferred Mile ROW Constr. Cross. Anadromous # Post Description S_T_R_ Type Period Method Stream No. North Pole to Cripple Creek 0 0.0 North Pole Refineries 1 9.4 Trib. Tanana River 25 = 1S1W New Winter Trench 2 17.2 Slough Tanana River 26 1S2W New Winter Trench 3 18.2 Chena River 26 1S 2W New May/June Drill 334—40—11000—2490—3301 4 20.0 Trib. Tanana River 22 _1S2W New Winter Trench 5 22.2 Cripple Creek 25. 1S 3W GVEA Winter _ Drill Cripple Creek to Nenana 6 24.4 Trib. Alder Creek 27. +18 3W GVEA Summer Trench 7 25.3 Trib. Alder Creek 28 1S 3W GVEA Summer Trench 8 31.1 Trib. Bonanza Greek 9 2S 4W GVEA Summer Trench 9 38.7 Trib. Bonanza Creek 26 2S 5W GVEA Summer Trench 10 39.7 Trib. Bonanza Creek 34 2S 5W GVEA Summer Trench 11 40.7 Trib. Bonanza Creek 33. 2S SW GVEA Summer Trench 12 41.2 Little Goldstream Creek 32 2S SW GVEA Summer Drill 13 41.3 Unnamed Trib. Little Goldstream 32 2S 5W GVEA Summer Trench 14 43.0 Unnamed Trib. Little Goldstream 1 3S 6W GVEA Summer Trench 15 43.1 Unnamed Trib. Little Goldstream 13S 6W GVEA Summer Trench 16 44.4 Unnamed Trib. Little Goldstream 2 3S 6W GVEA Summer Trench 17 45.1 Unnamed Trib. Little Goldstream 3 3S 6W GVEA Summer Trench 18 46.3 Unnamed Trib. Little Goldstream 4 3S 6W GVEA Summer Trench 19 47.2 Unnamed Trib. Little Goldstream 5 3S 6W GVEA Summer Trench 20 52.0 Little Goldstream Creek 10 3S 7W GVEA Summer Drill 21 55.8 Unnamed Creek to Minto Flats 19 3S 7W GVEA Summer Trench 22 56.1 Unnamed Creek to Minto Flats 30 3S 7W GVEA Summer Trench 23 56.7 Unnamed Creek to Minto Flats 25 3S 8W GVEA Summer Trench 24 57.6 Unnamed Creek to Minto Flats 36 3S 8W GVEA Summer Trench 25 57.8 Unnamed Creek to Minto Flats 36 3S 8W GVEA Summer Trench 26 60.4 Trib. Tanana River 10 4S 8W GVEA May/June Trench 27 61.0 Tanana River 14. 4S 8W GVEA June Drill > 330—40-—11000—2490 Nenana to Healy 28 67.5 Fish Creek 23. SS 8W GVEA Winter _ Drill 29 70.0 Unnamed Trib. Julius Greek 36 5S 8W GVEA Winter _ Trench 30 70.4 Unnamed Trib. Julius Greek 36 5S 8W GVEA Winter Trench 31 70.9 Unnamed Trib. Julius Greek 1 6S 8W GVEA Winter — Trench 32 71.0 Unnamed Trib. Julius Creek 1 6S 8W GVEA Winter Trench 33 76.7 Unnamed Trib. Julius Greek 6 7S 7W GVEA Winter — Trench 34 78.7 Julius Creek 12. 7S 8W GVEA Winter _ Drill 35 90.1 Nenana River 14. 8S 9W GVEA Winter _ Drill > 330-—40-11000-2490-3200 Stream Crossings Page C-1 > Control Mileage from App. A Maps # APPENDIX C Stream Crossings Locations, Methods and Anadromous Numbers Preferred Pipe Mile Post Description S_T_R_ Type Period Method ROW Constr. Cross. Anadromous Stream No. Nenana to Healy (Cont’d) 36 90.6 Unnamed Trib. Nenana Creek 15 8S 9W GVEA Winter Trench 37 91.9 Unnamed Trib. Nenana Creek 27. 8S 9W GVEA Winter Trench 38 92.7 Unnamed Trib. Nenana Creek 34 8S 9W GVEA Winter Trench 39 93.2 Birch Creek 34 8S 9W GVEA Winter __ Drill 40 86.5 Bear Creek 14 9S 9W GVEA Winter _ Drill 41 96.8 June Creek 23. 9S 9W GVEA Winter _ Drill 42 99.6 Unnamed Trib. Nenana River 36 9S 9W GVEA Winter Trench 43 104.9 Rock Creek 21 10S 8W GVEA Winter _ Drill 44 108.7 Slate Creek 4 11S 8W GVEA Winter _ Drill 45 144.4 Little Panguingue Creek 27 11S 8W GVEA Winter _ Drill 46 115.9 Panguingue Creek 35 11S 8W GVEA Winter _ Drill 47 119.0 Dry Creek 12S 7W GVEA Winter _ Drill 48 119.1 Unnamed Trib. Dry Creek 7 12S 7W GVEA Winter Trench 49 120.5 Nenana River 28 12S 7W GVEA Winter _ Drill > Healy to Broad Pass 50 122.9 Copeland Creek 34 12S 7W AEA Summer Trench 51 126.1 Unnamed Trib. Moody Creek 7 13S 6W AEA Summer Trench 52 126.4 Unnamed Trib. Moody Creek 7 13S 6W AEA Summer Trench 53 127.2 Unnamed Trib. Moody Creek 7 138 6W_ AEA Summer Trench 54 128.0 Moody Creek 8 13S 6W AEA Summer Drill 55 132.4 Montana Creek (Nenana R.) 6 14S 6W AEA Summer Drill 56 134.0 Unnamed Trib. Nenana River 12 14S 7W AEA Summer Trench 57 135.8 Unnamed Trib. Nenana River 18 14S 6W_ AEA Summer Trench 58 138.5 Yanert River 19 14S 6W AEA Summer Drill > 59 145.5 Carlo Creek 3115S 7W_ AEA Summer Drill 60 148.1 Unnamed Trib. Nenana River 18 16S 7W AEA Summer Trench 61 150.1 Slime Creek 24 16S 7W_ AEA Summer Drill 62 154.9 Unnamed Trib. Nenana River 12 178 7W AEA Summer Trench 63 155.2 Nenana River 12. 17S 7W AEA Summer Drill > 64 156.0 Unnamed Trib. Nenana River 12 17S 7W AEA Summer Trench 65 156.2 Unnamed Trib. Jack River 1417S 7W AEA Summer Trench 66 159.3. Unnamed Trib. Jack River 27. 17S 7W_ AEA Summer Trench 67 161.5 Jack River 3 18S 7W AEA Summer Drill 68 162.2 Unnamed Trib. Jack River 9 18S 7W AEA Summer Trench 69 164.8 Unnamed Trib. Cantwell Creek 18 18S 7W AEA Summer Trench 70 166.0 Unnamed Trib. Cantwell Creek 24 18S 8W_ AEA Summer Trench 71 166.3 Unnamed Trib. Cantwell Creek 24 18S 8W AEA Summer Trench 72 168.1 Unnamed Trib. Cantwell Creek 26 18S 8W AEA Summer Trench > Control Mileage from App. A Maps Stream Crossings Page C-2 APPENDIX C Stream Crossings Locations, Methods and Anadromous Numbers Pipe Preferred Mile : ROW Constr. Cross. Anadromous # Post Description S_T_R_ Type Period Method Stream No. Broad Pass to Hurricane Cutoff 73 174.3 Chulitna River—Middle Fork 14. 19S 93W) AEA Summer Drill > 247-41-10200-2381 74 175.4 Coal Creek 23 19S 9W AEA Summer Drill 75 179.3 Fourth of July Creek 5 20S 9W AEA Summer Drill 76 182.5 Chulitna River — East Fork 19 20S 9W AEA Summer Drill > 247-41 -—10200—2381 —3260 77 186.3 Hardage Creek 3 21S 10W AEA Summer Drill 78 186.6 Unnamed Trib. East Fork(Chulitna) 3 21S 10W AEA Summer Trench 79 188.9 Antimony Creek 16 218 10W AEA Summer Drill 80 191.0 Honolulu Creek 29 21S 10W AEA Summer Drill 247—41—10200—2381-—3240 81 192.5 Unnamed Trib. Honolulu Creek 31 21S 10W AEA Summer Trench 82 193.7 Little Honolulu Creek 6 22S 10W AEA Summer Trench 83 195.8 Hurricane Gulch 18 22S 10W AEA Summer Trench Hurricane Cutoff to Talkeetna Spur Road 84 199.2 Granite Creek 27 22S 11W HWY Summer Trench 85 202.2 Division Creek 20 33S 2W HWY Summer Trench 86 204.7 Pass Creek 31 33N 2W HWY Summer Trench 87 206.7 Little Coal Creek 1 32N 3W HWY Summer Trench 88 208.6 Unnamed Trib. Chulitna River 10 32N 3W HWY Summer Trench 89 209.9 Horseshole Creek 16 32N 3W HWY Summer Drill 247—41—10200—2381—3220 90 227.5 Byers Creek 4 30N SW HWY Summer Drill 247—41—10200—2381—3180 91 231.7 Unnamed Trib. Chulitna River 28 30N SW HWY Summer Trench 92 233.7 Troublesome Creek 5 29N SW HWY Summer Drill 247—41—10200—2381-—3180 93 233.8 Unnamed Trib. Chulitna River 8 29N SW HWY Summer Trench 94 233.9 Unnamed Trib. Chulitna River 8 29N SW HWY Summer Trench 95 234.6 Unnamed Trib. Chulitna River 9 29N SW HWY Summer Trench 96 235.4 Unnamed Trib. Chulitna River 16 29N SW HWY Summer Trench 97 235.8 Unnamed Trib. Chulitna River 16 29N SW HWY Summer Trench 98 238.1 Unnamed Trib. Chulitna River 28 29N SW HWY Summer Trench 99 238.2 Chulitna River 33 29N SW HWY Summer Drill > 247—41-—10200—2381 100 242.7 Unnamed Trib. Chulitna River 20 28N SW HWY Summer Drill 247-41 —10200—2381-—3073 101 243.5 Unnamed Trib. Chulitna River 30 28N SW HWY Summer Trench 102 244.0 Unnamed Trib. Chulitna River 30 28N SW HWY Summer Trench 103 244.8 Unnamed Trib. Chulitna River 31 28N SW HWY Summer Drill 247—41—10200—2381 —3060 104 246.2 Unnamed Trib. Chulitna River 6 28N SW HWY Summer Drill 247—41—10200—2381-—3051 105 249.1 Unnamed Trib. Chulitna River 19 27N SW HWY Summer Trench 106 250.2 Unnamed Trib. Chulitna River 30 27N SW HWY Summer Drill 247—41—10200—2381—4029 107 251.0 Unnamed Trib. Chulitna River 31 27N SW HWY Summer Drill 247—41-—10200—2381—4017 108 253.1 Unnamed Trib. Chulitna River 8 26N SW HWY Summer Trench 109 254.1 Unnamed Trib. Chulitna River 17 26N SW HWY Summer Trench 110 256.1 Trapper Creek 20 26N SW HWY Summer Drill 247—41—10200—2381-—2341 111 258.1 Unnamed Trib. Rabideaux Creek 5 25N SW HWY Summer Drill 247—41-10200—2291—3049 > contro! Mileage from App. A Maps Stream Crossings Page C-3 APPENDIX C Stream Crossings Locations, Methods and Anadromous Numbers Pipe Preferred Mile ROW Constr. Cross. Anadromous # Post Description S_T _R_ Type Period Method Stream No. Hurricane Cutoff to Talkeetna Spur Road (Cont’d) 112 261.4 Sawmill Creek 20 25N SW HWY Summer Drill 247—41—10200—2291—3041 113 263.3 Unnamed Trib. Rabideaux Creek 32 25N SW HWY Summer Trench 114 265.3 Rabideaux Creek 9 25N SW HWY Summer Drill 247—41—10200—2291 115 266.6 Susitna River 15 24N SW HWY Summer Drill > 247-41-10200 116 269.5 Section Hour Lake Creek 24 24N 4W HWY Summer Trench 117 271.4 Little Montana Creek 29 24N 4W HWY Summer Drill 247—41—10200—2254 Talkeetna Spur Road to Nancy Lake 118 273.5 Montana Creek 5 23N 4W HWY Winter Drill 247—41—10200-—2250 119 276.4 Goose Creek 20 23N 4W_ AEA Winter _ Trench 120 277.6 Unnamed Trib. Susitna River 32 23N 4W AEA Winter Drill 247—41—10200—2230 121 281.0 Sheep Creek 17 _22N 4W_ AEA Winter _ Drill 247—41—10200—2200 12 285.1 Caswell Creek 32 22N 4W AEA Winter _ Drill 247—41—10200-—2190 123 286.8 Kashwitna River 7 21N 4W_ AEA Winter _ Drill > 247-41-10200-2180 124 288.8 197—1/2 Mile Creek 19 21N 4W AEA Winter Trench 247—41—10200-—2170 125 288.9 196 Mile Creek 19 21N 4W AEA Winter _ Drill 126 295.1 Little Willow Greek 24 20N 4W > AEA Winter Drill 247—41—10200—2130—3030 127 298.0 Willow Creek 6 19N 4W_ AEA Winter _ Drill 247—41—10200—2120 128 303.1 Lilly Creek 28 19N 4W AEA Winter _ Drill 247—41—10100—2231—3080 129 305.1 Unnamed Trib. Nancy Lake 34 _19N 4W_ AEA Winter _ Drill 247—41—10100—2231—3050 130 307.3 Unnamed Trib. Nancy Lake Creek 11 18N 4W AEA Winter Drill 247—41—10100—2231 —3026 Nancy Lake to Knik Arm Crossing 131 311.1 Unnamed Trib. Nancy Lake Creek 17 18N 3WHWY Winter Trench 12 311.8 Trib. Little Susitna River 21 18N 4WHWY Winter _ Drill 247—41—10100—2255 133 313.9 Little Susitna River 27 18N 3WHWY Winter Drill 247—41—10200 134 318.1 Unnamed Trib. Meadow Creek 11_17N 3W_ MEA Winter _ Drill 247—S0—10330—2050—3025 135 318.8 Little Meadow Creek 13 17N 3W MEA Winter _ Drill 247—50—10330—2050 1% 319.8 Lucile Greek 24 17N 3W MEA Winter _ Drill 247—S0—10330—2050—3030 137 328.6 Fish Creek 28 16N 3W MEA Winter _ Drill 247—50—10330 138 329.6 Goose Creek 29 16N 3W MEA Winter _ Drill 247—S0—10360 139 331.5 Goose Creek 6 1SN 3W MEA Winter _ Drill 247—50—10360 140 333.6 Goose Creek 11 15N 4W MEA Winter _ Drill 247—50—10360 141 334.2 Unnamed Trib. Goose Creek 14 1SN 4W MEA Winter _ Drill 247—S0—10360 142 338.0 Mule Creek 3 14N 4W MEA Winter Trench Knik Arm Crossing 143 341.5 Knik Arm 15 14N 4W NEW Summer Trench 351.2 End of Line — Port of Anchorage Stream Crossings Page C-—4 APPENDIX D NATIONAL WETLANDS INVENTORY Information and Legend for Map Products DEVELOPMENT OF THE WETLAND CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM The Service’s wetlands classification system was developed by Cowardin, et al. and is titled Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (FWS/OBS - 79/31). This classification was developed to identify, delineate and characterize wetland systems throughout the United States. The major purposes of the wetland classification system are: (1) To describe ecological units having certain natural attributes; (2) To arrange these units in a system that will facilitate resource management decisions; (3) To furnish units for inventory and mapping; and (4) To provide uniformity in wetland concepts and terminology throughout the United States. The wetlands classification system defines the limits of wetlands according to ecological characteristics and not according to administrative or regulatory programs. Three key attributes define the term "wetland": (1) the presence of wetland plants (hydrophytes) or (2) the presence of wet soils (hydric soils) or (3) soil saturation or flooding. Wetlands are naturally extremely diverse and complex. The classification system presents a method for grouping ecologically similar wetlands. The classification system is hierarchial with wetlands divided among five major Systems at the broadest level: Marine, Estuarine, Riverine, Lacustrine and Palustrine. Each System is further subdivided by Subsystems which reflect hydrologic conditions (e.g.; subtidal vs. intertidal in the Marine and Estuarine Systems). Below Subsystem is the Class level which describes the appearance of the wetland in terms of vegetation (e.g.; Emergent, Aquatic Bed, Scrub/Shrub, Forested) or substrate where vegetation is inconspicuous or absent (e.g.; Unconsolidated Shore, Rock Bottom, Streambed). Each Class is further subdivided into Subclasses. The classification system also includes modifiers for hydrology (water regime), water chemistry (pH, salinity and halinity), soils (organic and mineral) and special modifiers relating to the activities of man (e.g.; impounded, partly drained, farmed, excavated, artificial), or nature (beaver). Wetland data are displayed on overlays or maps by a series of letters and numbers (alpha- numerics) with the first letter representing the System level and subsequent alpha-numerics representing, in a sequential manner, the subordinate levels of detail down to the modifiers. Where classes and subclasses have been mixed, they are separated by a diagonal line. The following is a typical alpha-numeric illustrating how a wetland is classified to the water regime, and special modifier level of detail: System Estuarine —_—————_ Subsystem Intertidal Class Emergent Subclass Persistent ile | = Water Regime Irregularly flooded WT Special Modifier Partially drained/ditched 1 | 1 E 2 EM 1 Pd Wetland classes and subclasses can be mixed as shown in the following example: PFO4/SS1B Palustrine (P), forested, needle-leaved evergreen (FO4), mixed with scrub-shrub, broad-leaved deciduous (SS1), with a saturated soil (B). In some regions of Alaska, this would indicate a wetland plant community consisting principally of an open spruce (Picea mariana) forested wetland with a shrubby (Salix spp., Vaccinium uliginosum, Rubus chamaemorus, Ledum palustre, Betula nana) understory. Areas of this type are typically called black spruce bogs. WETLAND CLASSIFICATION LEGEND System Subsystem M Marine E Estuarine 1 Subtidal 1 Subtidal 2 Intertidal 2 Intertidal L_Lacustrine R_ Riverine 1 Limnetic 1 Tidal 2 Littoral 2 Lower Perennial 3 Upper Perennial P_ Palustrine 4 Intermittent No Subsystems 5 Unknown Perennial U Upland Class Subclass RB Rock Bottom 1 Bedrock 2 Rubble UB Unconsolidated Bottom 1 Cobble/Gravel 2 Sand 3 Mud 4 Organic OW Open Water/ Unknown Bottom SB Streambed Bedrock Rubble Cobble/Gravel Sand Mud Organic Vegetated NANADNAWNPKR quatic Bed Algal Submergent Vascular Rooted Vascular Floating-leaved Vascular Floating Vascular Unknown Submergent Unknown Surface ADMKHFPWNeE YD SS S 1 Broad-leaved Deciduous 2 Needle-leaved Deciduous 3 Broad-leaved Evergreen 4 Needle-leaved Evergreen 5 Dead 6 Unknown Deciduous 7 Unknown Evergreen RS_ Rocky Shore 1 Bedrock 2 Rubble US Unconsolidated Shore Cobble/Gravel Sand Mud Organic Vegetated nAPWNe ats Cobble/Gravel Sand Mud Organic Vegetated CAEN BB Beach/Bar 1 Cobble/Gravel 2 Sand ML Moss/Lichen 1 Moss 2 Lichen EM Emergent 1 Persistent 2 Nonpersistent 5 Persistent FO Forested Broad-leaved Deciduous Needle-leaved Deciduous Broad-leaved Evergreen Needle-leaved Evergreen Dead Unknown Deciduous Unknown Evergreen ADMNAPWNH Water Regime Modifiers Nontidal ImAIMGDOwW>D Temporarily Flooded Saturated Seasonally Flooded Seasonally Flooded (well drained) Seasonally Flooded (saturated) Semipermanently Flooded Permanently Flooded Water Chemistry Modifiers Coastal Halinity 1 SCANMNAWN Hyperhaline Euhaline Mixohaline/Brackish Polyhaline Mesohaline Oligohaline Fresh Special Modifiers xunrmad Beaver Partially Drained/Ditched Farmed Diked/Impounded Artificial Spoil Excavated Tidal (Salt Water) L_ Subtidal M Irregularly Exposed N_ Regularly Flooded P Irregularly Flooded Tidal (Fresh Water) R_ Seasonally Flooded-Tidal S Temporarily Flooded-Tidal T Semipermanently Flooded-Tidal V_ Permanently Flooded-Tidal Inland Salinity 7 Hypersaline 8 Eusaline 9 Mixosaline 0 Fresh pH Freshwater a Acid t Circumneutral 1 Alkaline Soil Modifiers g Organic n Mineral APPENDIX D Wetlands, by Milepost, that would be crossed by proposed Denali Pipeline Ref. Line Milepost__Distance (ft.) Class Description North Pole to Cripple Creek 1 0.1 500 PUBH North Pole 2 2.1 10,600 PF04/18 3 3.3 6,300 PSS4/2B Bradley Sky Ranch 4 4.2 4,800 PF04B Richardson Highway 5 4.6 2,100 Dry 6 49 1,600 PUBH 7 5.1 800 P SS/EM 1A 8 55 2,100 Dry 9 6.1 3,200 P SS/EM 1B 10 6.2 800 P SS/EM 2B 11 6.4 1,100 PUBH 12 6.8 2,100 PFO4/2B 13 7.0 1,100 PSS4/2B 14 72 1,100 PF04/2B 15 8.7 7,700 PSS1B 16 11.4 14,300 PSS114B 17 12.1 3,700 L1UBH 18 12.6 2,600 Dry Alaska Railroad Spur 19 12.7 800 PSSB/1B 20 13.1 2,100 Dry 21 13.2 500 PSS1A 22 13.7 2,600 Dry 23 14.2 2,600 PSS2B S/O Metro Field 24 14.5 1,600 PAB3H S/O Metro Field 25 14.7 1,100 Dry 26 15.0 1,600 PSS4/2B 27 15.6 3,200 PSS1B 28 15.8 800 P SS/EM 1C 29 16.0 1,300 PSS4/2B 30 16.4 1,800 Dry 31 16.6 1,100 PSS1A 32 17.8 6,300 RSUBH Fairbanks Airport 33 18.2 2,100 PF04/1A 34 18.5 1,600 PF04/1B 35 18.8 1,600 PFO1A 36 19.0 1,600 PF04/1B Turn into Chena River 37 19.2 800 Dry 38 19.5 1,600 PFO1A Chena River 39 19.8 1,600 PFO04/1A 40 21.0 6,300 PSS4/2B 41 23.3 12,100 Dry 42 23.9 3,200 PF04B Cripple Creek Wetlands Page D-1 APPENDIX D Wetlands, by Milepost, that would be crossed by proposed Denali Pipeline Ref. Line Milepost _Distance (ft.) Class Description Cripple Creek to Nenana 43 = 8,400 Dry 44 25.5 300 PF04/1B Tributory to Alder Creek 45 26.6 5,500 Dry 46 26.6 300 PSS/EM 1C_ Tributory to Alder Creek 47 35.2 45,100 Dry 48 35.4 1,300 PF048 49 36.3 4,500 PF0412B 50 40.0 19,500 Dry 51 40.1 800 PF04B Tributory to Goldstream Creek 52 40.3 800 PSS4B Tributory to Goldstream Creek 53 40.9 3,200 Dry 54 40.9 300 PF04/2B Tributory to Goldstream Creek 55 41.1 800 PSS/EM 1C_ Tributory to Goldstream Creek 56 41.6 Dry Si, 41.8 800 PF04/2B Tributory to Goldstream Creek 58 42.0 1,100 PF04/1b Tributory to Goldstream Creek 59 42.0 500 PSS4/1B Tributory to Goldstream Creek 60 43.7 8,700 Dry 61 43.8 300 PSS4B 62 43.9 800 Dry 63 44.0 500 PSS1B 64 48.0 20,900 Dry 65 48.4 2,400 PF04B Tributory to Goldstream Creek 66 49.0 3,200 Dry 67 49.1 500 PF04B Tributory to Goldstream Creek 68 49.7 3,200 Dry 69 49.8 500 PF04B Tributory to Goldstream Creek 70 52.4 13,700 Dry 71 52.9 2,600 PF04B Goldstream Creek 72 62.3 49,600 Dry 73 62.6 1,600 RSUBH Tanana River Nenana to Healy 74 64.5 10,000 Dry 75 64.7 1,100 P SS/EM 1B Start of Flats 16 64.8 800 Dry 77 64.9 300 P SS/EM 1B 78 65.9 5,300 P SS/EM 1C 79 66.3 2,100 PF04/1B Parks Highway 80 66.7 2,400 P SS/EM 1C 81 67.0 1,600 Dry 82 67.2 800 P SS/EM 1C 83 673 500 P FO/SS 4B Wetlands Page D-—-2 APPENDIX D Wetlands, by Milepost, that would be crossed by proposed Denali Pipeline Ref. Line Milepost__Distance (ft.) _ Class Description 84 67.8 2,600 P SS/EM 1B 85 68.6 4,200 PF04/2B 86 68.9 1,600 P SS/EM 1C 87 69.1 1,100 PF04B 88 69.4 1,600 PSS4/2B 89 69.6 1,100 P SS/EM 1B 90 69.7 500 P SS/EM 1C 91 69.9 1,300 PSS1B 92 70.3 2,100 PSS4/2B 93 70.5 1,100 P SS/EM 1C 94 70.6 500 Dry 95 70.8 1,100 PSS4/1B 96 71.0 800 PEMIF 97 71.4 2,100 PFO4/1B 98 19 2,600 PFO1A 99 72.1 1,100 PSS1B 100 72.8 3,700 PFO4/1B 101 73.9 5,800 P SS/EM 1C 102 74.4 2,600 PFO4/2B 103 75.4 5,300 P SS/EM 1B 104 76.9 8,200 PFO4/2B George Parks Highway Crossing 10S 719 5,300 PSS4/1B 106 78.4 2,600 Dry 107 78.7 1,600 PSS4/1B 108 79.0 1,600 PFO4/2B George Parks Highway Crossing 109 81.1 11,100 PSS4/1B 110 85.6 23,800 Dry 111 85.9 1,600 PSS4B 112 86.4 2,600 Dry 113 86.9 2,600 PSS4B 114 89.0 11,100 Dry 115 89.4 2,100 PSS4B 116 89.8 1,600 Dry 117 89.9 800 PSS4B 118 90.2 1,600 Dry 119 90.5 1,300 PSS4B 120 913 4,200 Dry 121 91.5 1,100 PFO1A 122 91.7 1,100 RSUSC Nenana River Crossing 123 9355) 9,500 PSS4B 124 96.0 13,200 Dry Gaining Elevation Rapidly 125 97.8 9,500 PSS4B 126 98.3 2,600 PFO4B 127 98.5 1,300 Dry Wetlands Page D-3 APPENDIX D Wetlands, by Milepost, that would be crossed by proposed Denali Pipeline Ref. Line Milepost Distance (ft.) Class Description 128 98.8 1,600 PSS4B 129 99.0 1,100 PFO4B 130 100.5 7,700 PSS4B 131 106.2 30,100 PSS4B 132 106.7 2,600 RSU Rock Creek 133 109.0 12,100 PSS4B 134 1133 22,700 P SS/EM 1B 135 114.0 3,700 River Panguingue River 136 1148 4,200 P SS/EM 1B 137 1152 2,400 River Panguingue River 138 1158 3,200 Dry 139 1162 2,100 PSS1/4B 140 1165 1,600 Dry 141 117.0 2,400 PSS1/4B 142 1179 4,800 River Dry Creek 143 1208 15,300 Dry 144 1214 3,200 River Nenana River Healy to Broad Pass 145 1222 4,500 Dry 146 122.6 1,800 P SS/EM 1B 147 1228 1,100 Dry 148 1233 2,900 P SS/EM 1B 149 123.6 1,600 River Copeland Creek 150 124.7 5,800 P SS/EM 1B 151 1312 34,300 Dry 152 132.1 4,800 PSS1B 153 134.1 10,600 Dry 154 1343 1,100 River Montana Creek 155 1348 2,600 Dry 156 134.9 500 PSS1B 157 135.1 1,100 Dry 158 1352 500 PSS1B 159 135.5 1,600 Dry 160 135.7 800 PSS4/1B 161 1358 500 Dry 162 1363 2,900 PSS1/4B 163 137.4 5,800 Dry 164 137.7 1,600 PSS1B 165 138.6 4,800 Dry 166 138.9 1,600 River 167 139.5 3,200 P EMSSS 1C 168 139.9 2,100 Dry 169 1402 1,600 P SS/EM 1B Wetlands Page D-—4 APPENDIX D Wetlands, by Milepost, that would be crossed by proposed Denali Pipeline Ref. Line _Milepost__Distance (ft.) Class Description 170 1412 5,300 Dry 171 141.6 2,100 PSS1/4B 172 143.0 7,400 Dry 173 1433 1,300 PSS4/1B 174 143.4 500 Dry 175 143.6 1,300 PSS4/1B 176 1438 800 PEM1C 177 1442 2,400 Dry 178 1448 2,900 PSS4/1B 179 1449 500 PSS1A 180 145.1 1,100 Dry 181 1455 2,400 PSS4/1B 182 1463 4,000 Dry 183 146.6 1,600 PSS4B 184 1476 5,300 River Carlo Creek 185 148.1 2,600 PSS1B 186 1492 5,800 Dry 187 1503 5,800 PEM1iC 188 1508 2,600 PSS1/4B 189 1512 2,100 Dry 190 1513) 500 River Slime Creek 191 1552 20,600 Dry 192 1553 500 River Nenana River 193 1563 5,300 Dry 194 156.7 2,100 P FO/SS 4B 195 157.6 4,800 Dry 196 1583 4,000 P SS/EM 1B 197 159.4 5,800 Dry 198 159.6 800 P SS/EM 1B 199 1613 9,000 Dry 200 161.4 500 River Jack River—Cantwell Broad Pass to Hurricane 201 1624 5,300 Dry 202 1629 2,600 P SS/EM 1B 203 168.7 30,600 Dry 204 1688 500 P SS/EM 1C 205 169.5 4,000 Dry 206 1698 1,600 PEM 1F 207 1728 15,800 Dry 208 173.0 1,100 PEM1H 209 174.0 5,300 Dry 210 1743 1,600 PSSIB 211 176.1 9,500 Dry Wetlands Page D-5 APPENDIX D Wetlands, by Milepost, that would be crossed by proposed Denali Pipeline Ref. Line Milepost__Distance (ft.) Class Description 212 1763 1,100 PUSH 213 177.1 4,200 Dry 214 1773 1,100 PSS1D 215 180.5 16,900 Dry 216 180.8 1,600 PSS1B 217 181.4 3,200 Dry 218 181.9 2,600 PEMIF 219 1838 10,000 Dry 220 183.9 500 Riverine 221 1842 1,300 Dry 222 1845 1,600 PEMI1C 223 185.0 2,600 Dry 224 185.1 500 River Hardage Creek 225 186.4 6,900 Dry 226 1873 4,800 PEM1C 227 187.6 1,600 PSS1B 228 188.0 2,100 PSS1B 229 188.4 2,100 P EM/SS 1C 230 189.0 3,200 Dry 231 189.1 800 PEM1H 232 189.7 3,200 Dry 233 189.8 500 River Honalulu Creek 234 190.5 3,700 Dry 235 190.8 1,600 PEM1C 236 1913 2,600 River 237 191.6 1,600 P EM/SS 1C 238 192.2 3,200 Dry 239 192.4 800 PSS1B 240 192.6 1,100 Dry 241 192.7 500 River Little Honolulu Creek 242 194.7 10,600 Dry 243 1948 500 River Hurricane Gulch 244 195.0 1,100 Dry 245 12 1,100 PUBHb 246 198.1 15,300 Dry 247 198.1 300 Dry Enter Parks Highway ROW Hurricaneto Talkeetna Cutoff (Highway) 248 198.30 1,100 Dry 249 198.80 2,600 PEMI1B 250 201.00 11,600 Dry 251 201.20 1,100 PSS1B 252 205.70 23,800 Dry 253 206.25 2,900 PEM/OWH Wetlands Page D-6 APPENDIX D Wetlands, by Milepost, that would be crossed by proposed Denali Pipeline Ref. Line Milepost__Distance (ft.) Class Description 254 206.45 1,100 Dry 255 206.90 2,400 P SS/EM 1C 256 212.50 29,600 Dry 257 212.80 1,600 P SS4/1B 258 213.25 2,400 Dry 259 214.65 7,400 PEm/SS 1B 260 221.05 33,800 Dry 261 22132 1,400 PEMIC 262 222.12 4,200 Dry 263 222.26 700 PEMIC 264 222.49 1,200 Dry 265 222.62 700 PEMIC 266 231.60 47,400 Dry 267 23181 1,100 P SS/EM 1C 268 231.94 700 PUBHb 269 235.22 17,300 Dry 270 239.22 21,100 Dry 271 23939 900 PEMIC 272 24439 26,400 Dry 273 244.66 1,400 P FO4B 274 244.79 700 Dry 275 245.09 1,600 P EMIF 276 245.43 1,800 P EMISS 1C 277 24637 5,000 Dry 278 246.63 1,400 P EM1/SS4 B 279 247.00 1,900 Dry 280 247.07 400 PEMIC 281 247.41 1,800 Dry 282 24747 400 PSS1IC 283 24797 2,700 Dry 284 248.44 2,500 P SS/EM 1C 285 248.91 2,500 Dry 286 250.05 6,000 P SS/EM 1C 287 250.32 1,400 Dry 288 250.65 1,800 P SS/EM 1C 289 256.89 32,900 Dry 290 257.02 700 P SS/EM 1C 291 257.56 2,800 Dry 292 257.62 400 P SS/EM 1C 293 258.02 2,100 Dry 294 259.10 5,700 P SS/EM 1C 295 259.77 3,500 Dry 296 259.90 700 P FO4B 297 260.24 1,800 Dry Wetlands Page D-7 Wetlands, by Milepost, that would be crossed by proposed Denali Pipeline APPENDIX D Ref. Line Milepost Distance (ft.) Class Description 298 260.30 400 PSS1A 299 260.70 2,100 Dry 300 260.77 400 P SS4/1B 301 261.11 1,800 Dry 302 261.44 1,800 P EM/SS 1C 303 262.25 4,200 Dry 304 26235 500 PSS1B 305 265.88 18,600 Dry 306 265.94 400 PUBHb 307 266.14 1,100 Dry 308 266.28 700 P UBFh 309 266.48 1,100 River — Susitna River 310 268.15 8,800 Dry 311 268.22 400 P SS4B 312 268.96 3,900 Dry 313 269.06 500 P EMIC 314 26939 1,800 Dry 315 269.49 500 P EMISSS 1C 316 272.17 14,200 Dry Talkeetna Cutoff Talkeetna Cutoff to Nancy Lake 317 2738 8,650 Dry 318 2739 400 PSS 4B Woman Lake 319 2739 200 P UBH Woman Lake 320 274.0 130 PSS4D Woman Lake 321 2743 1,980 Dry 322 2744 260 Water Montana Creek 323 2744 200 Dry 324 2744 130 PSS1Cb 325 2745 400 Dry 326 2745 130 PSS 1Cb 327 2746 400 Dry 328 2748 1,120 PSS4/1B 329 2762 7,330 Dry 330 2763 460 PEM1C 331 2769 2,970 Dry 332 2769 260 PSS1B/P EM1B 333 2774 2,310 Dry 334 2774 60 Goose Creek 335 2777 1,650 Dry 336 277.7 200 P SS4/1B 337 2785 4,160 Dry 338 278.7 1,120 P SS1/4B 339 2803 8,580 Dry Wetlands Page D-8 APPENDIX D Wetlands, by Milepost, that would be crossed by proposed Denali Pipeline Ref. Line Milepost__Distance (ft.) Class Description 340 280.5 1,120 P SS1/4B 341 281.7 6,270 Dry 342 281.9 1,060 P SS1b/P EM1B 343 282.1 1,040 Dry 344 2823 835 Sheep Creek 345 285.1 15,060 Dry 346 2853 1,040 Caswell Creek Meander 347 2855 1,040 Dry 348 285.6 315 Caswell Creek Crossing 349 286.1 2,395 Dry 350 286.4 2,080 PSS 1B / PEMBS 351 286.9 2,285 Dry 352 2872 1,670 P SS1B/PEMSB 353 287.4 1,040 Kashwitna River 354 2875 410 P SS1B / PEMSB 355 287.7 1,040 Dry 356 288.0 1,560 P SS1B/ PEMSB 357 289.1 6,240 Dry 358 289.4 1,245 196 Mile Creek & 197 1/2 Creek 359 290.0 3,120 Dry 360 290.0 410 PFO 4B 361 2913 6,445 Dry 362 2913 315 PSS1B 363 293.8 13,205 Dry 364 294.1 1,245 PSS1B / PEMS 365 2943 1,245 Dry 366 2945 1,245 PSS1B / PEMS 367 2952 3,640 Dry 368 2955 1355) PFO4B / PSS1B 369 295.6 520 Little Willow Creek 370 295.7 410 Dry 371 295.7 315 PEM 5B 372 298.1 12,625 Dry 373 298.5 1,875 P SS1B / PEMSB 374 298.6 520 Dry 375 298.8 1,245 Willow Creek 376 299.1 1,560 P SS1B/PEM 5B 377 299.6 2,490 Dry 378 300.0 2,080 P SSS1B / PSS411B 379 301.7 9,320 Dry 380 302.0 1,245 P SS1B / PEMSB 381 303.0 5,247 Dry 382 303.1 520 PEMSC 383 303.8 3,845 Dry Wetlands Page D-9 APPENDIX D Wetlands, by Milepost, that would be crossed by proposed ‘Denali Pipeline Ref. Line Milepost__Distance (ft.) Class Description 384 303.8 95 Lilly Creek 385 305.9 10,845 Dry 386 305.9 95 Creek 387 306.6 3,955 Dry 388 306.7 520 PSS 1B / PEMSB 389 306.8 410 Dry 390 306.9 315 PSS 1B / PEMSB 391 307.1 1,245 Dry 392 307.1 205 PSS 1B/PEM 5B 393 307.4 1,560 Dry 394 308.2 3,955 PSS 1F/PEMSF Nancy Lake to Point MacKenzie 395 309.0 4,300 Dry 396 309.2 1,400 P SS1/EMS 397 3185 48,800 Dry 398 318.6 600 R30WH 399 318.9 1,700 Dry Road to Big Lake 400 319.1 900 PSS4/1B 401 3193 1,100 Dry 402 319.4 600 PSS4/1B 403 319.6 1,100 Dry 404 319.7 600 PSS4/1B 405 320.1 1,700 Dry 406 320.1 300 POWH 407 3212 6,000 Dry Cross Road 408 3213 600 L10WH 409 3215 600 Dry 410 3216 600 PSS4/1B 411 322.7 6,000 Dry 412 322.7 300 PSS1/4B 413 324.0 6,800 Dry 414 3242 900 PSS4/1B 415 325.9 8,800 Dry 416 326.2 1,700 P SS1/EM5 B 417 3262 300 POWH 418 3263 300 PSS4/1B 419 3268 2,800 Dry 420 3269 600 PSS4/1B Iditarod Trail 421 328.5 8,200 Dry 422 3285 300 River 423 329.7 6,200 P SS1/EMS B 424 329.9 1,100 PEMSF Wetlands Page D—10 APPENDIX D Wetlands, by Milepost, that would be crossed by proposed Denali Pipeline Ref. Line Milepost Distance (ft.) Class Description 425 330.0 300 PFO4B 426 330.9 4,500 Dry 427 331.0 600 P SS4/EMS B 428 3314 2,300 Dry 429 3314 300 P SS1/EMS B 430 331.7 1,100 Dry 431 3318 600 P SS1/EMS B 432 333.4 8,500 Dry 433 333.6 1,100 P SS1/EMS C 434 333.7 600 E2EMSP 435 334.7 5,100 P SS1/EMS C 436 3348 600 PSS1B 437 335.1 1,700 P SS1/EMS C 438 3379 14,800 Dry 439 338.0 600 P SS1/EMS B 440 338.1 600 PFO4B 441 338.6 2,600 Dry 442 339.0 2,300 P SS1/EMS B 443 3393 1,700 Dry 444 339.5 900 PSS4/1B 445 339.6 600 Dry 446 339.9 1,400 PSS4/1B 447 340.1 1,100 Dry 448 3403 900 PSS4/1B 449 340.7 2,300 Dry 450 340.9 900 P SS1/EMS F 451 343.1 11,900 Dry Knik Arm to Port of Anchorage 452 3433 1,100 E2FLN Tidal Flats 453 345.6 11,900 E10WL Knik Arm Crossing 454 3499 22,600 E2FLN Tidal Lands — Port of Anchorage 455 3512 6,800 Dry Uplands — Port of Anchorage Wetlands Page D-11 The Denali Pipeline Project Comments by John Zarling, University of Alaska May 1993 Interior Alaska is known for its discontinuous permafrost. As a rule, permafrost in such areas is typically found in the valleys and on north-facing hillsides. Permafrost thickness in interior Alaska is typically 100 to 200 feet. Vegetation type is often indicative of the soil thermal regime. Spindly black spruce is commonly found growing over permafrost soils. Birch and aspen are usually found in seasonal frost areas. However, these generalities can not be used to determine the existence of permafrost, but are only indications. Geotechnical exploration must be undertaken in order to determine the actual soil thermal regime. Because permafrost in interior Alaska is discontinuous, it is also warm. That is, it is close to its melting temperature. An increase in the mean annual ground surface temperature will occur if the native vegetation is removed or striped from a site. Any surface thermal disturbance resulting in an increase in the mean annual ground surface temperature above 32 degree F will cause melting. Construction activities such as clearing required for excavation of a pipeline trench and laying a pipeline will necessitate removal of the natural vegetation. If the permafrost is ice-rich, then thaw settlement will be experienced during the thawing process. Surface cooling must be carried out if the construction-related thawing described above is to be avoided. There is no known inexpensive technique for accomplishing this task. The proposed Denali Pipeline route from North Pole to Fairbanks follows the Tanana River flood plain. As such, most of the soils will likely be sands and gravels with a shallow water table. Pockets of permafrost might be encountered along this route, however, the soils will be generally thaw stable. At some places massive ice is likely to be found in sands and gravels resulting in thaw settlement. The Fairbanks Post Office at the airport has experienced thaw settlement problems even after an attempt to pre-thaw the site was undertaken. The FAA building on the east side of the airport is also built on permafrost with a refrigerated foundation. The south-facing ridges are generally free of permafrost because of higher solar intensity during summer and the frequent inversions causing warmer temperature during the winter season. The pictures (slides) taken of the area between Chena Ridge and Ester Hill show the black spruce vegetation typically found on the valley floors, and the birch and aspen on the ridge tops. From these photos, one would expect to find permafrost along the valley floors and seasonal frost along the ridges. If the product in the pipeline is above 32 degrees F, then choosing a route along the ridge tops should generally avoid permafrost and the problem of burial of a warm pipeline in permafrost. Golden Valley Electric Association has a powerline right of way from Fairbanks to Healy. This right of way has been cleared for many years and often follows the ridge tops. It seems this right of way would be an attractive route for the proposed pipeline. Sections crossing permafrost will have been thawing for many years due to the disturbance caused by creating the right of way and construction of the powerline. Using the existing powerline route would also minimize the visual impact of creating another right of way through the trees and thereby minimizing environmental resistance. A second existing right of way following the ridge top is the Parks Highway. It has the same attraction as the GVEA right of way, with the added attraction of accessibility for construction. If the oil product temperature is warm compared to the ground temperature, then thawing around the pipe will occur if burial is in permafrost. Insulation around the pipe will only slow down the process. In ice rich soils, thaw settlement and distress to the pipeline are to be expected. If the oil temperature is below freezing, then permafrost burial is relatively safe. However, frost heave in nonpermafrost soil becomes an issue. Because the oil temperature is below freezing, increased freezing will occur around the pipe. If the soils are frost susceptible, then frost heave is to be expected. Differential heave due to variations in soils (grain sizes) or moisture contents are the usual causes of differential heave. Another consideration is the effect of surface water drainage. One of the major post design/construction problems experienced on the Trans Alaska Oil Pipeline has been the infiltration of surface water into the pipeline trench which had been backfilled with granular materials. This surface water caused considerable amounts of convective heat transfer, melting along the bottom of the trenches in permafrost areas. It is very difficult to predict the rate and extent of this melting. Another post design/construction problem in some isolated areas is the solifluction of the active layer on hillsides. Apparently, construction activities may trigger this phenomenon at times where an entire slope section the depth of the active layer begins to slowly creep downhill. The use of high density polyethylene pipe should be considered. HDPE has proven to be an excellent arctic material. Certainly, it is more forgiving to differential movement than steel pipe. It’s performance at high temperature and pressure should be available from the manufacture.’ ' HDPE is not an acceptable material per CFR part 195. THERMAL ANALYSIS Goals: A) To demonstrate surface load effects as primary cause of thaw over time. B) To illustrate effects of pipeline thaw bulb - attempting to keep thaw zone within the backfill materials. Modeling Cases: 1) Turf removed and not replacing with equivalent insulation: Typical trench section shown Vary pipe insulation, O" to 4" Pipeline temperature, 38 degree F Vary soil: Silts vs Sandy Gravels Vary Ground Temperature: 28-30 degree F. Vary insulation below pipe: O"-4". 2) Turf removed but replace with equivalent insulation (i.e. 4" rigid @ 1’-2’ below surface. Other variable the same. Assumptions: 1) Thermal gradient from North Pole refineries to Fairbanks Airport (15 miles +/-) will reduce pipeline temperature to 38 degree F. Pipe is buried in thaw stable granular soils along Tanana river to accomplish this. Further temperature reduction will occur along the route until pipeline is at ambient ground temperature near Healy, say 28 degree F. 2) Soil Types; A) Silts-Drained & Undrained 8B) Gravels & Sands 3) Ground Temperature: North to Nenana 29.5 degree F. Nenana to Healy 28 degree F. 4) Trenching Methods to minimize Trench section. 2 vertical to 1 horizontal side slopes. 5) Depth of Burial: 5 feet to Invert 6) Thaw effects are predominant from removal of vegetative cover. Thermal Properties of Materials as used in the TDHC analysis K(t) K(f) Ci) Material | (BTU/bftF)| (BTU/hftF)| (BTU/{t3F)| (BTU/E3F)| (BTU/Lt3 Silt 0.64 0.83 [ Bee, Gravel 1.60 1.70 31.3 Insulation 0.02 0.02 1.0 Run Descriptions Run# Upper Surface Boundary _ Lower Surface Boundary fbhot map1 map2 map3 map4 jas1 jas2 jas3 jas4 trench trench clearing clearing trench trench trench trench trench trench Nt=0.8, 4" insul., Tpipe=32 Nt=0.8, 4" insul., Tpipe=140. 45ft Nt=.37, 35ft Nt=1.2 45ft Nt=.37, 35ft Nt=bX OA nt=.37, 4" insul., Tpipe=38 nt=.37, 2" insul., Tpipe=38 Nt=0.8, no insul., Tpipe=?? Nt=0.8, no insul., Tpipe=?? Nt=0.8, no insul., Tpipe=?? Nt=0.8, no insul., Tpipe=?? 67 ft. deep, Geothermal Heat Fl 67 ft deep, Geothermal Heat FI 150 ft deep, Geoth. Ht. Flux 150 ft deep, Geoth. Ht. Flux 67 ft deep, Geothermal Heat Fl 67 ft deep, Geothermal Heat Fl 67 ft deep, Geothermal Heat FI 67 ft deep, Geothermal Heat Fl 67 ft deep, Geothermal Heat Fl 67 ft deep, Geothermal Heat F'l Soil Temperatures After Clearing R.O.W. Sept. 1, Nt = 0.9 Undisturbed 2 Years Temperature (degF) Soil Temperatures After Clearing R.O.W. Sept. 1, Nt = 1.2 Undisturbed 2 Years Temperature (degF) Distance from Surface (ft) Maximum Thaw Depth Nt = 1.2, Silt Soil Test section width (ft) Cooling Curve for Uninsulated Pipeline T(init) = 100 F, March 1st 100 90+-\\. encom tace 80;——\ ann fasneeennoweeswen—soreverercecsnenenceen 70}+——— seconsennseacesn|eouseeseeercerecsereweseesnerressevevers oceeneescersecenneecsewerenneensceseseee 60+ Silt Backfill | 50> “Oil Temperature (degF) 40+- Native Gravel » 30-- —— —— 0 5 10 0 4 20 2 30 35 Pipeline Length (miles) Mass flow] Time |Temperature 38 F will be reached at a distance of cee TT) 54000 All Gravel Temp. of pipe is 140 F 24000 Sept iat_ | +0000 Sept tat | 9] 4000 All Gravel Temp of pipe is Sept ist | 100 F 24000 Septit |S 70000 [March is] | Septet | —SS~S 54000 All Gravel Temp of pipe is 70F 24000 T0000 [March tet] Maximum Depth of Thaw Near Pipeline Distance from Surface (ft) Pipeline Temp = 38 F Distance from Symmetry Axis (ft) 9th Year _ —— _—__— 1st Year at ord Year Se 5th Year =— —_ 7th Year os Temperature Profile in Pipeline Section Fairbanks Area, Tpipe = 32 F, Jan 1 08 = 4 Ss o— a— = ——~ = T > 32F E Joy @ |-[32>T>30 £ ; ye ” ‘| 30>T>20 5 2 = || T<20F O nd Ss O D ‘DO Distance from Symmetry Axis (ft) Temperature Profile in Pipeline Section Fairbanks Area, Tpipe = 32 F, Mar 1 Distance from Surface (ft) Distance from Symmetry Axis (ft) Temperature Profile in Pipeline Section Fairbanks Area, Tpipe = 32 F, July 1 - T>32F = + B 32>T>30 © w 30>T>20 : ||2 oO T < 20F oO Lo S oO a @ Distance from Symmetry Axis (ft) SLIDE 1 View from solid waste transfer station toward North Pole refinery. The vegetation is characteristic of that found between North Pole and Fairbanks. SLIDE 2 View towards North Pole refinery from the Bradley Sky Ranch Airstrip. SLIDE 3 This is the existing flood control dike (levee). Pairs of pictures are always presented first looking back towards the North Pole refinery and then forward along the alignment toward Anchorage. SLIDE 4 SLIDE 5 Mile post 355 on the Richardson Highway. The flood control dike is again evident . SLIDE 7 South Cushman Street south of Van Horn Road. The dike is shown. The Tanana River is less than .5 miles away. SLIDE 8 SLIDE 9 Peger Road south of Van Horn Road. The dike is evident with the Tanana River very close. SLIDE 10 SLIDE 11 Railroad tracks and roadway as they bend around the end of the Fairbanks International Airport runway. SLIDE 12 SLIDE 13 Dike several hundred yards from photos 10 and 11. SLIDE 15 Chena Pump Road near the proposed pipeline crossing. Photo 14 shows view back toward the Chena River. Photo 15 shows the uphill route over Chena Ridge. SLIDE 16 View from Chena Ridge looking back towards the Fairbanks International Airport. Note the road at the end of the runway. SLIDE 17 View from northwest side of Chena Ridge looking back down GVEA powerline ROW towards the International Airport. SLIDE 18 View Chena Ridge from Becker Ridge Road where the proposed pipelin traverse down the west side of Chena Ridge. SLIDE 19 SLIDE 20 View from Cripple Creek Road looking back towards Chena Ridge and Becker Road. Black spruce in foreground indicative of permafrost soils. Area in foreground is ice rich permafrost. SLIDE 21 View from Parks Highway, near top of the hill southwest of Ester, back toward Chena Ridge. SLIDE 22 View to east of GVEA powerline right of way (at right). Tanana River is to the right out of view. SLIDE 23 View of GVEA powerline right of way in the distance towards Nenana. Appendix F Coordination with the Port of Anchorage The Denali Pipeline Project Coordination With Current and Future Activities at the Port of Anchorage Prepared for: Associated Pipe Line Contractors, Inc. 1200 West Dowling Road Anchorage, Alaska 99518 Prepared by: Peratrovich, Nottingham & Drage, Inc. 1506 West 36th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99503 . . 1. Introduction A. Denali Pipeline = The Denali Pipeline Company proposes to construct a 351-mile-long small-diameter pipeline to transport refined petroleum products from existing refineries at North Pole, Alaska to existing tank farms at the Port of Anchorage. The proposed alignment would be built, for the most part, within existing powerline, rail, and highway easements. From North Pole to Nenana, the alignment follows the Golden Valley Electric Association powerline and the George Parks Highway. From Nenana, south through the Alaska Range and the Susitna River basin to Cook Inlet, the alignment follows the existing Railbelt transportation corridor containing the Alaska Railroad, the George Parks Highway, and the Alaska Power Authority Transmission Intertie. The alignment would reach the Knik Arm of Cook Inlet just northeast of Point MacKenzie, cross under the arm, and then follow tidal mudflats to the Port of Anchorage. The schedule calls for a final decision by regulatory agencies on the pipeline right-of-way lease application -by spring of 1994, with pipeline installation to begin in December of 1994. Construction would be completed in the fall of 1995. Much of the Port of Anchorage operations and planning information contained in this report, was obtained in meetings on May 5 and 14, 1993 with Port representatives Richard Burg and Jack Brown. B. Port of Anchorage i. Current Port Configuration The Port of Anchorage is located in a cul-de-sac between Knik Arm and the west-facing bluffs of the Elmendorf Air Force Base and Government Hill. Transportation access to and from the Port is by a single road and rail corridor. Conflicts between road and rail traffic occur frequently at several at-grade rail crossings. Such conflicts can be expected to worsen with increases in Port activity. Additionally, because there is only one transportation corridor, there is no alternate emergency route from the Port area in case of a fire or other emergency situation. Nearly one million tons of petroleum and more than half of all cargo shipped to Alaska passes through the Port of Anchorage, the state's largest port. The Port presently utilizes most of its 130+ acres of uplands for a variety of purposes, most importantly, cargo and fuel storage. General cargo volumes are expected to grow by 30% over the next 20 years. Additionally, the Port is interested in becoming involved in future bulk resource shipments. Additional upland areas will be required to accommodate such activities. ii. Future Port of Anchorage Expansion Non-industrial development is planned for the Ship Creek area, to the south of existing Port of Anchorage operations. This makes expansion of Port operations to the north, utilizing filled tidelands, the most attractive and convenient Port expansion option. The Municipality of ={- Anchorage (MOA) has recently acquired state tidelands extending north from the Port. These tidelands extend from the Port to the mouth of Sixmile Creek, a distance of about 4 miles. The width of the tidelands is approximately 1/2 mile. = Long-range plans by the Port include the filling of large portions of these tidelands to provide needed uplands for future Port operations. Additionally, a northern transportation access route is under consideration that would cross military lands, descend the northwest-facing bluffs a short distance south of the mouth of Sixmile Creek, and run along filled tidelands to the Port. At present, these plans are conceptual and funding has not yet been secured. No schedule, therefore, has been developed for their completion. In the near term, probably within the next five years, the Port is planning on filling up to two 10-acre parcels immediately north of the current Port operations. The Port area is shown on Figure 1. __ iii. Purpose of the Report This report has been prepared for a number reasons - 1) to open up communication channels between the Denali Pipeline Company and the Port of Anchorage with regard to construction of the Denali Pipeline, 2) to address general concerns and requirements that the Port of Anchorage has with regard to routing of the pipeline through the Port, and 3) to address the subject of future adjustments to the pipeline to accommodate Port expansion activities. 2. Knik Arm Crossing A number of options are being examined for the Denali Pipeline's crossing of the Knik Arm of Cook Inlet. The Port of Anchorage has requested that the Denali Pipeline be routed across the arm through the Chugach Electric Association's (CEA's) submarine cable corridor. If the pipeline can not be routed within the cable corridor, then the Port's preference would be that it be parallel and adjacent to the corridor. When contacted regarding the Knik Arm crossing, the CEA requested that the Denali Pipeline be constructed outside their submarine cable corridor. Additionally, CEA has requested that a 1000-foot buffer be provided on either side of the corridor, since their cables are not weighted and have a tendency to shift their position on the sea bottom. Figure 1 shows the approximate location of the CEA's submarine cable corridor across Knik Arm, a proposed 1000-foot buffer to the south of the corridor, and a possible location of the Denali Pipeline's crossing of the arm. The pipeline would enter the arm just south of the CEA submarine cable corridor buffer, traveling essentially parallel to the corridor and east-southeast to the northern end of the MOA- leased tidelands, near the mouth of Sixmile Creek. 3. Pipeline Routing Through the Municipal Tidelands All of the Knik Arm crossing alternatives assume that, once the arm is crossed, the pipeline will be buried within MOA tidelands until reaching the Port of Anchorage. Figure 1 shows the route of the pipeline through the MOA tidelands to the Port of Anchorage. =): APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF THE CHUGACH ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION SUBMARINE CABLE CROSSING - POSSIBLE DENALI PIPELINE CROSSING LOCATION RECENT eae DEVELOPMEN \ Peratrovich, Nottingham & Drage, Inc. THE DENALI PIPELINE PROJECT Engineering Consultants The pipeline would be trenched into the tidal mudflats, making sure that the pipe has a minimum burial depth of 4 feet. Figure 2 show a generalized section of the pipeline trench within the MOA tidelands, along the base of the northwest-facing bluffs of Elmendorf Air Force Base. 4. Routing the Pipeline Through the Port of Anchorage In conversations with representatives of the Port of Anchorage, two alternatives were suggested for routing of the pipeline through the Port area. The two routes, referred to as Routing Alternates 1 and 2, are shown on Figure 3. Routing Alternate 1 follows the eastern margin of the Port area. It passes through Tracts EE and A, to be leased to the MOA by Elmendorf Air Force Base. The route then follows the margin of Terminal Road to Ocean Dock Road, and from there to the tank farms at the terminus of the pipeline. This route has the advantage of being, for the most part, undeveloped. For this reason, few utilities will be encountered during construction. Additionally, disruption of Port activities would be minimal during construction along this route. There are a number of disadvantages to Routing Alternate 1, including the crossing of wetlands and thick peat deposits, which will have an impact on permitting and construction. Another disadvantage is that the MOA does not yet have their lease agreement for the two tracts formalized with the military. In any case, concurrence from the military on the use of their lands would be required. Routing Alternate 2 takes a fairly direct line through the heart of the Port area. It follows existing pipeline easements along Tidewater Road to Gull Avenue, and then continues south along Ocean Dock Road to the tank farms. The advantage of this route is that the pipeline would be constructed within an existing pipeline easement. Routing Alternate 2 also has a number of disadvantages. Construction would be greatly complicated by the maze of buried utilities that would be encountered along the route. Another disadvantage is that construction along this route would temporarily disrupt Port activities. At this time, Routing Alternate 1 is the preferred route for the Denali Pipeline through the Port of Anchorage. A. Contaminated Soils In a conversation with representatives of the Port of Anchorage, it was suggested that areas of known soil Contamination will be encountered along either of the two routing alternatives. It was further suggested that the Environmental Protection Agency and the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) will require that clean-up of contaminated soils encountered during construction be performed. Clean-up of contaminated soils is an expensive process and has hampered some small construction projects in the Port area when clean-up costs have exceeded construction costs. Clean-up techniques might include bioremediation, -3- =| fae Ej (_— fT | T= III =| EW iF f\i=|I| iil ETE | |I\ Fh! DENALI PIPELINE (= = (I fie - a FT MLLW (MHW) | 4 EMF sf rr «meen 0 Ii | = rete flo Ft mw =i a SECTION N.1.S. %) FIGURE 2. PIPELINE BURIAL IN KNIK ARM TIDAL FLATS PRIOR TO ADDITIONAL PORT OF ANCHORAGE DEVELOPMENT Peratrovich, Nottingham & Drage, Inc. THE DENALI PIPELINE PROJECT Engineering Consultants Elmendorf Air Force Base Terminal ~; NO. 3 Transit Area C Routing Alternate 1 5D-1 (Sea-Land) POL — js 6-1 Terminal F (Sea-Land) \ \ (Sea-Land) 8-B (Shell) \ . Routing- ae Alternate'z: (Tesoro- Alaskan) Scale (Feet) 200 9 200 400 600 PIPELINE ROUTING OPTIONS THROUGH THE PORT OF ANCHORAGE burial, or incineration of the contaminated soils. In any case, the expense of clean-up of contaminated soils would need to be factored into routing of the Denali Pipeline through the Port area. It is not known if one routing alternative would be preferable to the other with regard to clean-up costs. In order to minimize the expense of contaminated soil clean-up, pipeline routing and construction should be coordinated with the ADEC and the Port Area Petroleum Users Group. 5. Adjustment of the Pipeline to Accommodate Future Port Activities When the Port of Anchorage expands its activities to the north by filling tidelands, adjustments in the Denali Pipeline will be required in order to accommodate these changes. Fill depths of up to 40 feet are expected. The major concern for the pipeline is that differential settlement of the silts and sands underlying the fill could result in rupture of the pipeline. In order to_insure the safety of the pipeline, a general plan has been developed to adjust the pipeline to accommodate Port tideland filling activities. (It is assumed that the flow of product through the pipeline will not be interrupted while filling is occurring.) The segment of the original pipeline to be filled over would be valved at either end of the fill area during construction. Once the fill operation is completed, a second, parallel segment of pipeline would be constructed within the utility corridor of the filled area. The segment of the original pipeline to be covered by fill will need to be designed to withstand short-term differential settling that will be expected to occur during the time that the filling process is being completed and the new pipeline segment is being constructed. Design possibilities for accommodating short-term settlement include using thick-walled pipe and/or placing the pipeline within a larger-diameter transfer pipe. Once the new segment of pipeline is completed, the flow from the original pipe would be channeled into the new pipe. The original pipeline segment would be either removed or cleaned out, filled, sealed, and then abandoned, as determined by the Port Director. Figure 4 shows a section through a future tideland fill, illustrating relocation of the original pipeline to a utility corridor in the filled upland area. At - wert” mL = f=! ALE ell ROAD RAIL UTILITY | | EE" CORRIDOR | CORRIDOR | CORRIDOR he él f= NE ES" +38 FT MLLW il = = ce = se r £ iL Sill Ae Ail ss. semen S +28 FT MLLW (MEAN HIGH WATER) fA) ) pweuNe _ nee Alle _ 4 == Lec a AiE\« ue-7 ORIGINAL PIPELINE TO BE REMOVED / aan OR CLEANED, FILLED, SEALED AND - Ae ort muw ABANDONED Foti qe] SECTION . N.T.S FIGURE 4. NEW PIPELINE INSTALLED IN KNIK ARM TIDAL FLATS AFTER ADDITIONAL PORT OF ANCHORAGE DEVELOPMENT (Ry Peratrovich, Nottingham & Drage, Inc. THE DENALI PIPELINE PROJECT Ma) Engineering Consultants PORT OF ANCHORAGE July 23, 1993 Mr. Randolph M. Metcalfe Project Manager Associated Pipe Line Contractors, Inc. 1200 West Dowling Road Anchorage, Alaska 99518-1517 Dear Mr. Metcalfe: The Port of Anchorage has concluded a preliminary review of your "coordination" report and offer the following. We heartily endorse the concept of Denali Pipeline Inc's proposal for construction of a common carrier petroleum products pipeline to Anchorage from Fairbanks. However, please be advised that this endorsement is limited to staff opinion and does not necessarily reflect any official action by the Port Commission, the Municipal Administration or the Municipal Assembly. The Port of Anchorage looks forward to working with you as you develop this important project. Please contact us if you have any questions. Sincerely, Aa “ba Ae Donald L Port Director 2000 Anchorage Port Road Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Telephone: (907) 272-1531 Appendix G Preliminary Engineering Report HRISTENSON NGINEERING (CaS Sota 1313 Bay Street * P.O. Box 5098 * Bellingham, Washington 98227-5088 °* (206) 676-1500 June 3, 1993 Associated Pipe Line Contractors, Inc. 1200 W. Dowling Road Anchorage, Alaska 99518 Attention: | Mr. Randolph H. Metcalfe, Project Manager Mr. Gary W. Harkey, Project Engineer Subject: Preliminary Engineering Report Phase 2 The Denali Pipeline Project CEC Project No. 2693001 Gentlemen: Christenson Engineering Corporation has completed the second phase of the preliminary engineering for the Denali Pipeline Project and is pleased to present the results. The scope was to analyze the pipeline hydraulics with respect to line size, line rating, and inter-product mixing. Also requested were discussions of industry codes (ANSI B31.4) and D.O.T. regulations (49CFR 195). Results: This report notes that a single pump station at the North Pole refineries can cover almost all conditions with a 16-inch pipeline. Hydraulic Calculations The full slate of products was analyzed with respect to flow resistances. Due to the normal summer and winter shipping schedules, three products were selected as being representative. These are the Unleaded Gasoline, the Jet A-1, and the HAGO. The pressure losses for each due to friction was superimposed on an elevation scale of the pipeline route to assure that certain limits were met: a) Assume a single pump station, at the North Pole refineries. b) Assume a 1480 psig design pressure limitation (ANSI-600 flange rating). c) Assume the pump station outlet is at least 50 psi lower than the design pressure (therefore, no higher than 1430 psig). CHRISTENSON ENGINEERING CORPORATION d) Assume that the pipe gauge pressure is no lower than 50 psig anywhere along the line (especially at the high points of 2900 ft @ Mile 120, 2650 ft @ Mile 160, and 2300 ft @ Mile 190). e) Assume the destination pressure is at least 50 psig. To meet these calculation criteria, the pipeline throughput rate was varied until all limits were met. This was done for cold (24 F) and warm (60 F) conditions. The results were then averaged (weighted by the actual slate mix). The summary is presented in Table 1 below. Basically, the 14" line handles about 40,000 bpd, the 16" line handles 55,000 bpd, and the 18" line handles 75,000 bpd. By these values, it appears that the 16-inch pipe is adequate. Back-up calculation summaries and tables are attached to this report. Table 1 Flow Limitations Summary (Barrels per Day) Winter (24 F Average) Pipe Gasolines Jet A-1 HAGO / F.O. Weighted t Diameter (36%) (48%) (16%) Average 14" 45,700 35,800 22,800 37,300 16" 64,800 51,000 30,600 52,700 18" 89,800 71,100 46,100 73,800 Summer (60 F Average) Pipe Gasolines Jet A-1 HAGO /F.O. | Weighted Diameter (30%) (40%) (30%) Average 14" 49,200 41,700 28,400 40,000 16" 69,600 59,100 40,600 56,700 18" 96,300 82,100 56,800 78,800 Interface Volumes CHRISTENSON ENGINEERING CORPORATION There is a concern that the low velocities in the pipeline will result in a transitionally turbulent flow. This could mean unstable interfaces between the products and greater amounts of "contaminated" products requiring reblending at the Port of Anchorage terminal. This was of special concern at winter rates (24,000 bpd) and under minimum flow conditions (10,000 bpd). Fifty years ago pipeline design called for velocities above 2.5 fps (about 50,000 bpd for the 16" pipe) to keep turbulent. However, later studies have shown this to be unnecessary. The breakthrough tests were described by E.A. Birge (article attached) who noted that after the initial pump station mixing, the commingling progresses in a predictable pattern. Once above a turbulence threshold (estimated by O. Levenspiel as a Reynold's Number of 10,000) the pattern does not vary significantly, so velocity has no apparent effect upon the mixing between products. The methods by Birge were used in predicting the interface zones and volumes between specific products. In all cases the turbulence threshold is reached (Reynold's Numbers of 110,000 at 10,000 bpd to 600,000 at 56,000 bpd). Table 2 presents the results of these calculations. Table 2 Interface Mixing Interface Interface Volume (Bblis) Upstream _ Downstrm Zone 14" 16" 18" Reg Gas Unl Gas 2625' 450 600 750 Unl Gas Naphtha 2500' 425 575 725 Naphtha Jet A-1 3200' 550 725 925 Jet A-1 #2 Diesel 5500' 950 1250 1600 #2 Diesel HAGO 8800' 1525 2000 2550 HAGO Reg Gas 5350' 925 1200 1550 Material Selection Pipe material will be API 5L. The pipeline will be designed and constructed to ASME/ANSI B31.4, "Liquid Transportation Systems for Hydrocarbons, Liquid Petroleum Gas, Anhydrous Ammonia and Alcohol". Internal and external corrosion control will be required in accordance with Chapter VIII of ASME B31.4. No corrosion allowance is included in the following piping wall thickness calculations which determine wall thickness vs. pipe size and pipe grade (X52, X60, and X70). The design pressure assumed in these calculations is 1480 psig (for ANSI-600 rated ASTM A105 forged flanges with a temperature range of -20 to 100 F). The wall thicknesses used in the hydraulic calculations were conservative when compared with this table, although not significantly ( 0.312" for 14", and 0.375" for 16" & 18"). CHRISTENSON ENGINEERING CORPORATION Table 3 Minimum Pipe Wall Thicknesses API 5L X52 X60 X70 Grade 14Inch 0.277" 0.240" 0.206" 16-Inch 0.317" 0.275" 0.235" 18-Inch 0.356" 0.309" 0.265" Basis: ANSI B31.8 and DOT 49CFR 195.100 Design Pressure at 1480 psig Construction Type Design Factor, F"=0.72 Longitudinal Joint Factor, E" = 1.00 Temperature Deviating Factor, T" = 1.00 A specific concern centered on the differences between the ANSI standard code method of calculating design pressures and the federal Dept of Transportation method in 49CFR 195. CEC was asked to compare these sources to make certain that both are being adhered to. This was done, and it was found that the two calculation methods come up with the same results. Basically, the method prescribed in DOT's 49CFR 195.100, subpart C (copy attached) is taken from the ANSI B31.8 "Code of Pressure Piping, Gas Transmission and Distribution Piping", which is the standard code for gas pipelines. This method calculates design pressures using a "specified minimum yield strength" of the material and a separate "construction type design factor" multiplier. The standard code for liquid pipelines, ANSI B31.4, uses yield strength values that already include the same "type factor", so this multiplication is not seen. Otherwise the formulas are similar and the results are identical. Pump Station and Terminal Schematic This drawing is attached to the report. It shows the separate product lines from storage going to the two in-line booster pumps (200 hp drivers). The discharge is through turbine meters and past a meter prover skid to the main pipeline pumps (2000 hp drivers). The pig launcher is downstream. At the Port of Anchorage the stream is metered again before being sent to the terminal tankage. Also included in the report is a facility plot plan showing a general arrangement of the skids within the buildings at the pump station and the Port terminal. CHRISTENSON ENGINEERING CORPORATION Recommendations As a summary of the recommendations made in this report, the design is taking shape. To meet the design flow criteria, we anticipate a single pump station with two 100 percent booster pumps (200 hp) and two 100 percent main pipeline pumps with 2000 hp drivers, and a 362 mile long 16" pipeline. The questions about changing interface volumes, different piping codes/regulations, and line cooling have been addressed in the report. Christenson Engineering is pleased to be able to present you with this report, and we hope that it meets your expectations and needs. If there are any questions, comments, or changes desired, please contact CEC at 206-676-1500. As before, we look forward to assisting you further in this project. Very Truly Yours, CHRISTENSON ENGINEERING CORPORATION John Lukacovic Project Engineer cc: VJK File Preliminary Engineering Report, Phase 2 The Denali Pipeline Project CEC Project No. 2693001 June 3, 1993 ATTACHMENTS 1. Process Schematic - Pump Station Pipeline Terminal Facility Plot Plans - Pump Station and Pipeline Terminal 2. Product Slate Hydraulic Summaries (Summer @ 56,000 bpd; Winter @ 24,000 bpd; Minimum @ 10,000 bpd) 3. Pipeline Pressure Profile Calculations (14", 16", and 18" for Gasoline, Jet Fuel, and HAGO all at 24 F) 4. Typical Pressure Profile Curve (51,000 bpd of Jet A-1 at 24 F in a 16-inch Line) 5. Interface Mixing Articles: "Control of Commingling in Products Pipe Lines" by E. A. Birge "How Much Mixing Occurs in a Pipe?" by O. Levenspiel 6. Department of Transportation regulation on Pipelines for Liquids, 49CFR 195.100, Subpart C - Design Requirements PUMP STATION BATTERY UMITS NORTH POLE PUMP STATION PIPELINE TERMINAL NORTH POLE REFINERIES PTET PRODUCT FROM STORAGE SHIPPER’S PORT OF ANCHORAGE PRODUCT STORAGE PUMP_STATION _AND_TERMINA| PROCESS SCHEMATIC THE DENALI PIPELINE PROJECT ASSOCIATED PIPELINE CONTRACTORS, INC. WAREHOUSE OFFICES, AND. CONTROL CENTER WASHROOMS AND MCC | NORTH POLE | REFINERIES IN-LINE 16° PIPELINE TO OPERATIONS| PR FROM BOOSTER PORT OF ANCHORAGE pH ‘STORAGE PUMPS PIG RECEIVER a rte he ete el | | | ; | | MAIN. PIPELINE PUMPS 3 | TIER e | ‘xi. 5 2 | SKID a | 3 g | é | “ | par» fatto merce | | | | | | L i) | | | | NORTH POLE PUMP STATION PIPELINE TERMINAL FIVE ACRE SITE PORT OF H ONE ACRE SITE (MINIMUM) sour _ NONE PUMP STATION AND TERMINAL oman _WAB FACILITY PLOT PLANS a THE DENALI PIPELINE PROJECT aT ASSOCIATED PIPELINE CONTRACTORS, INC. xo tebe bet 2693001-SK-03 _|y to SK-03 REVs06-03-93 1M18 AM WABR- 004 Product Slate Hydraulic Summary 56,000 BPD (Summer Maximum) REGULAR | REGULAR PREMIUM | PREMIUM AVIATION | LEADED LEADED | UNLEADED | UNLEADED | UNLEADED | UNLEADED Noa JP-4/ JP 8 JETA NO.1 NO.2 NO.2 HAGO PRODUCT] GASOLINE ] GASOLINE | GASOLINE | GASOLINE | GASOLINE | GASOLINE | GASOLINE | NAPHTHA JETB HEATING | HEATING DIESEL (Winter) (Summer) (Winter) (Summer) (Winter) (Summer) FUEL FUEL AP! DEG 65.1 55.1 $5.1 56.4 56.4 S45 $45 59.5 55.9 444 437 a6 37.4 33.0 25.0 JuoP K 120] 115 Ws 115 115 Ws 11.9 14.7 117 117 14.7 17 0.0 0.0 ISTO BPO 56,000 ‘56,000 ‘56,000 ‘56,000 56,000 56,000 56,000 56,000 56,000 $6,000 ‘56,000 56,000 56,000 ‘56,000 PIPE DIAMETER IN 15.250 15.250 15.250 15.250 15.250 15.250 (E 15.250 15.250 15.250 15.250 15.250 15.250 15.250 15.250 ROUGHNESS 0.00015, 0.00015, 0.00015, 0.00015, 0.00015 0.00015 0.00015 0.00015 0.00015 0.00015 0.00015 0.00015 0.00015 BBLS FLOW each time _> 8 - 18,000 > _ 10 - 12,000 50,000 15 - 18,000 | 20,000 (Sm) ISTORAGE CAPACITY (BBLS) (2) x 10,000 (2) x 15,000 (2) x 60,000 (2)« 20,000 | (2) X 20,000 30,000 CALCULATIONS AT 24 F ISG AT 24 F 0.740 0.770 0.770 0.770 0.770 0.770 0.760 0.770 0.820 0.820 0.820 0.850 0.870 0.915 JOENSITY (LEVCF) 46.10 4797 47.97 4797 47.97 47.97 47.35 47.97 51.09 51.09 51.09 52.96 $4.20 57.00 VISCOSITY AT 24F (CST) 1.45 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 3s 9 9 26 a7 62 VISCOSITY AT 24F (CPS) 1,073 1.386 1.366 1.386 1,386 1,386 (a 1.368 1,386 7.38 7.38 7.38 238 40.89 56.73 FLOW _(LB/HR) 604092 628582 628582 626582 626582 628582 620418 628582 669399 669399 669399 693889 710216 746951 VELOCITY (FT/SEC) 2.87 287 2.87 2.87 287 2.87 2.87 2.87 2.87 287 2.87 287 287 2.87 IREYNOLDS NUMBER 232950 187654 187654 107654 187654 187654 187654 187654 37531 37531 37531 12063 7187 $448 FRICTION FACTOR 0.0162 0.0167 0.0167 0.0167 0.0167 0.0167 0.0167 0.0167 0.0227 00227 0.0227 0.0296 0.0339 0.0366 PRESSURE LOSS PSV100 0.052 0.056 0.056 0.056 0.056] 0.056 0.055 0.056 0.081 0.081 0.081 0.110 0.129 0.146 FRICTION FEET/10 MI 86 89 89 89 = 89 69 89 120 120 120 187 180 195 FRICTION FEET/PIPELINE 3109 3214 3214 3214 3214 3214 | 3214 3214 3214 4358 4358 4358 5695 6526 7046 CALCULATIONS AT 60 F ISG AT 60 F 0.720 0.758 0.758 0.753 0.753 0.761 0.761 0.740 0.755 0.808 0.808 0,808 0.838 0.857 0.905 IDENSITY (LB/CF) 4484 415 47.25, 46.91 46.91 47.39 47.39 46.10 47.03 50.35 50.31 50,34 52.20 53.40 56.38 VISCOSITY AT 60F (CST) 0.790 0.950 0.950 0.950 0,950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 4.300 2.800 2.800 6.000 15,000 18,000 VISCOSITY AT 60F (CPS) 0.569 0.720 0.720 O715 0.715 0.723 0.723 0.703 O77 3.475 2261 2.262 5.027 12.058 16.290 FLOW _(LB/HR) 587520 619112 619112 614704 614704 620990 620990 604092 616255 659766 659276 659603 684011 699767 738788 VELOCITY (FT/SEC) 2.87 287 2.67 2.87 2.87 287 2.87 2.87 2.87 287 287 2.87 287 287 2.67 IREYNOLOS NUMBER: 427566 385585 ‘355555, 355555, 355555 355555, ‘355555, 355555 355555 78553 120635 120635 56296 22518 18765 FRICTION FACTOR 0.0149 0.0152 0.0152 0.0152 0.0152 0.0152 0.0152 0.0152 0.0152 0.0195 0.0180 0.0180 0.0208 0.0254 0.0265 PRESSURE LOSS (PSV/100) 0.047 0.050 0.050 : 0.050 0,050 0.051 0.051 0.049 0.050 0.069 0.063 0.063 0.076 0.095 0.105 FRICTION LOSS _(FT/10 Ml) 79 81 81 at a 81 8 81 81 103 96 96 iT) 135 141 FRICTION LOSS _(FT/362 Ml) 2066 | 2932 2932 2932 2932 | ps2] 2932 2932 2932 3746 3461 3461 4001 4891 5106 NOILVHOdHOD ONIYSAANIDNSA NOSNSILSISHOD Product Slate Hydraulic Summary 24,000 BPD (Winter Maximum) REGULAR | REGULAR | PREMIUM | PREMIUM AVIATION | LEADED | LEADED | UNLEADED | UNLEADED | UNLEADED | UNLEADED | N+ A wP-4t uP -8 JET AA No.1 NO. 2 No.2 HAGO PRODUCT| GASOLINE | GASOLINE | GASOLINE | GASOLINE | GASOLINE | GASOLINE | GASOLINE | NAPHTHA JETB HEATING | HEATING | DIESEL (Wieker) (Summer) (Winter) (Summer) (Winter) (Summer) FUEL FUEL API DEG [sa 35.4 55.1 56.4| 56.4 345 $45, 505 359 rrr 237 a6 34 330 250 jvoP K 120 11.5 11.5 115 11.6 1.5 11.5 11.9 17 47 11.7 147 14.7 0.0 0.0 ISTO BPO 24,000 24,000 24,000 24,000 24,000 24,000 24,000 24,000 24,000 24,000 24,000 24,000 24,000 24,000 24,000 PIPE DIAMETER IN 15.250 et 15.250 15.250 15.250 | 15.250 15.250 15.250 15.250 15.250 15.250 15.250 15.250 15.250 15.250 ROUGHNESS. (0.00015 (0.00015 0.00015 0.00015, 0.00015 0.00015 9.00015, 0.00015 0.00015 0.00015 0.00015 0.00015 0.00015 0.00015 0.00015 BBLS FLOW each time 8 - 18,000 = 8 - 18,000 => > > 10 - 12,000 ‘$0,000 15 - 18,000 | 20,000 (Sm) STORAGE CAPACITY (BBLS) (2) x 10,000 (2) 10,000 (2) «15,000 (2) x 60,000 (2) x 20,000 | (2) X 20,000 30,000 CALCULATIONS AT 24 F SG AT 24F 0.740 0.70 oro] 0.770 0.770 0.70 | 0.770 0.760 0.770 0.820 0.820 0.820 0.850 0.870 0.915 DENSITY (LB/CF) 46.10 47.97 47.97 47.97 47.97 47.97 47.97 47.35 4797 $1.09 51.09 $1.09 52.96 $4.20 57.00 VISCOSITY AT 24F (CST) T 1.45 18 18 18 1.8 1.8 1.8 18 18 9 9 9 26 a7 62 VISCOSITY AT 24F (CPS) 1.073 1.386 1.386 1.386 1.386 1.386 1.386 1.368 1.386 7.38 7.38 7.38 ne 40.89 36.73 FLOW _(LBHR) 258896 269392 269392 269302 269302 269392 269392 265894 269392 286885 206885 286885 297381 304378 320122 VELOCITY (FT/SEC) 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 REYNOLDS NUMBER ++ 99836 80423 80423 80423 80423 80423 0423 80423 16085 16085 16085 5170 3080 2335 FRICTION FACTOR 0.0186 0.0194 0.0194 0.0194 0.0194 0.0194 0.0194 0.0194 0.0194 0.0276 0.0276 0.0276 0.0372 0.0433 0.0472 PRESSURE LOSS PSV107 0.011 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.025 0.030 0.035 FRICTION FEET/10 MI 18 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 27 7 2 36 42 6 FRICTION FEET/PIPELINE 658 685, 685 68s, 68s 685 685 68s, 685, 974 974 974 1314 1529 1666 CALCULATIONS AT 60 F SG AT 60F + 0.720 0.758 0.758 0.753 0.753 0.761 0.761 0.740 0.755 0.808 0.808 0.808 0.638 0.857 0.905 JDENSITY _(LB/CF) 4484 47.25 47.28 46.91 46.91 47.39 47.39) 46.10 47.03 50.35 50.31 50.34 $2.20 $3.40 56.38 VISCOSITY AT 60F (CST) 0.790 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 4.300 2.800 2.800 6.000 15.000 78.000 VISCOSITY AT 60F_(CPS) 0.569 0.720 0.720 o71s 0715 0.723 0.723 0.703 0717 3.475 2.261 2.262 $.027 12.858 16.290 FLOW _(LB/HR) 251794 265334 265344 263445 263445 266139 266139 758896 264109 262757 282547 282687 293148 299900 316623 VELOCITY (FT/SEC) 1.23 1.23 123 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 123 REYNOLDS NUMBER 163243 152381 152381 152381 152381 152381 152361 152381 157381 33666 51701 $1701 24127 9651 8042 FRICTION FACTOR 0.0168 0.0173 0.0173 0.0173 0.0173 0.0173 0.0173 0.0173 0.0173 0.0232 0.0212 0.0212 0.0250 0.0314 0.0329 PRESSURE LOSS (PSI/100) 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 ort 0011 0.010 0.010 0.015 014 014 0.017 0.02 0.024 FRICTION LOSS _(FT/10 Ml) 16 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 2 2 2 24 3 32 FRICTION LOSS (FT/362 MI) 593 61 on | 6it 611 611 611 6it 6it 820 748 748 ea 1108 1163 NOILVeHOdHOO DONIYSANIDONSA NOSNSILSIBHO Product Slate Hydraulic Summary 10,000 BPD (Minimum Flow) REGULAR | REGULAR | PREMIUM | PREMIUM AVIATION | LEADED | LEADED | UNLEADED | UNLEADED | UNLEADED | UNLEADED] 9 N+A sPAl wP-8 JET AS No.1 No.2 NO.2 HAGO PRODUCT| GASOLINE | GASOLINE | GASOLINE | GASOLINE | GASOLINE | GASOLINE | GASOLINE | NAPHTHA | JETB HEATING | HEATING | DIESEL (Winter) | (Summer) | (Winter) | (Summer) | (Winter) | (Summer) FUEL FUEL [APL DEG 65.1 55.1 55.1 56.4 56.4 S45 S45 55.9 | a7 26| 374 so] 20 juoP K 120 115 15 11.5 11.6 115 15 47 11.7 117 11.7 17 00 00 ISTO BPD 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 PIPE DIAMETER IN 15.250 15.250 15.250 15.250 15.250 15.250 15.250 15.250 15.250 15.250 15.250 15.250 15.250 15.250 ROUGHNESS: (0.00015 0.00015 0.00015 0.00015 0.00015 0.00015 0.00015, 0.00015 0.00015 0.00015 0.00015 0.00015, 0.00015. 0.00015, BBLS FLOW each time 8 - 18,000 => 8 - 18,000 = > > 50,000 15 - 18,000 | 20,000 (Sm) STORAGE CAPACITY (BBLS) (2) x 10,000 (2) x 10,000 : (2) x 60,000 (2) x 20,000 | (2)x 20,000] 30,000 CALCULATIONS AT 24 F ISGAT 24F 0.740 0.770 0.770 0.70 0.770 0.70 070] 0.760 0.70 0.820 0.820 0.820 0.850 0.870 091s DENSITY (LB/CF) 46.10 a. =| 4797 4797 47.97 47.97 47.97 47.35 47.97 $1.09 51.09 51.09 52.96 3420 57.00 |Mscosity at 24F (CST) 1.45 18 1.8 1.8 18 18 18 1.8 1.8 9 9 9 28 47 2 VISCOSITY AT 24F (CPS) 1.073 1.386 1.386 1.386 1.386 1.386 1.386 1.368 1.386 7:38 7.38 7:38 28 40.89 56.73 FLOW _(LB/HR) 107874 112247 112247 112247 112247 112247 112247 110789 112247 119536 119536 119536 173909 126824 133384 VELOCITY (FT/SEC) ost ost ost ost Ost ost 051 ost ost ost ost ost ost ost ost IREYNOLOS NUMBER 41598 33510 33510 33510 33510 33510 33510 33510 33510 6702 6702 6702 2184 1263 973 FRICTION FACTOR 002722 (0.0232 0.0232 0.0232 0.0232 0.0232 0.0232 0.0232 0.0232 0.0346 cose | 0.0346 0.0484 0.0574 0.0633 | PRESSURE LOSS PSV/100 (0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.006 0.007 0.008 FRICTION FEET/10 Mi 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 6 6 6 8 10 1" FRICTION FEET/PIPELINE 136 | 142 142 142 142 142 142 12] 142 212 212 212 297 382 388 CALCULATIONS AT 60 F SG AT 60F 0720 0.758 0.758 0.753 0.753 0.761 0.761 0.740 0.755 0.808 0.808 0.808 0.838 0.8s7 0.905 DENSITY (LB/CF) 4484 41.25 a1. 4691 46.91 47.39 47.39 46.40 47.03 50.35 50.31 5034] $2.20 $3.40 $6.38 VISCOSITY AT 60F (CST) 0.790 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 4300 2.800 2.800 6.000 15.000 18,000 VISCOSITY AT 60F (CPS) 0.569 0.720 0.720 0.715 O75 0.723 0.723 0.703 O717 3475 2.261 2.262 5.027 12.858 16.290 FLOW _(LB/HR) 104914 110556 110556 109769 109769 110891 110891 107874 110046 117815 117728 117786 122145 124958 131926 VELOCITY (FT/SEC) ost ost ost ost ost ost ost 051 ost ost ost ost ost ost ost REYNOLDS NUMBER 76351 63492 63492 63492 63492 63492 63492 63492 63492 14027 21542 21542 10053 4021 3351 FRICTION FACTOR 0.0196 0.0203 0.0203 0.0203 0.0203 0.0203 0.0203 0.0203 0.0203 0.0285 0.0257 0.0257 0.0310 0.0400 0.0422 PRESSURE LOSS (PS¥/100) 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.005, FRICTION LOSS _(FT/10 MI) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 s 4 4 5 7 7 FRICTION LOSS (FT/362 Ml) 120 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 175 158 158 190 245 259 NOILWHOdHOO DNIYAANIONSA NOSNSILSIDGHO r— CHRISTENSON ENGINEERING CORPORATION PIPELINE PRESSURE PROFILE Motor Gas Fluid Limits: 50 psi above high points 24 F Temperature 50 psi at destination 121.8 Ft Loss per 10 Mile Section 50 psi below flange ratings 48.0 Lb/CF Density 13.376 Inches |.D. Pipe 1480 Psig Flange Rating 45,700 Flowrate, Sbpd One One One Stn Pump Stn Pump Stn Milepost Elevation Friction Head Head Pressure Head Head Ft Ft/Section ASL AGL Psig Ft Psig 0 475 0 4765 4290 1429 4615 1537 10 450 121.8 4643 4193 1397 4493 1497 20 450 121.8 .4521 4071 1356 4371 1456 30 1150 121.8 4400 3250 1083 4250 1416 40 750 121.8 4278 3528 1175 4128 1375 50 500 121.8 4156 3656 1218 4006 1335 60 500 121.8 4034 3534 14-77: 3884 1294 70 450 121.8 3913 3463 1154 3763 1253 80 650 121.8 3791 3141 1046 3641 1213 90 900 121.8 3669 2769 922 3519 1172 100 1250 121.8 3547 2297 765 3397 1132 110 1300 121.8 3426 2126 708 3276 1091 120 23900 121.8 3304 404 135 3154 1051 130 2400 121.8 3182 782 261 3032 1010 140 2250 121.8 3060 810 270 2910 970 150 2400 121.8 2939 539 179 2789 929 160 2650 121.8 2817 167 56 2667 888 170 2450 121.8 2695 245 82 2545 848 180 2000 121.8 2573 573 191 2423 807 190 2300 121.8 2451 151 50 2301 767 200 1300 121.8 2330 1030 343 2180 726 210 1000 121.8 2208 1208 402 2058 686 220 1300 121.8 2086 786 262] - 1936 645 230 1000 121.8 1964 964 321 1814 604 240 500 121.8 1843 1343 447 1693 564 250 400 121.8 1721 1321 440 1571 523 260 350 121.8 1599 1249 416 1449 483 270 350 121.8 1477 1127 376 1327 442 280 250 121.8 1356 1106 368 1206 402 2390 200 121.8 1234 1034 344 1084 361 300 300 121.8 1112 812 271 962 320 310 250 121.8 990 740 247 840 280 320 100 121.8 869 769 256 719 239 330 250 121.8 747 497 165 597 199 340 100 121.8 625 525 175 475 158 350 100 121.8 503 403 134 353 118 360 120 121.8 381 261 87 231 77 362 150 24.4 357 207 69 207 69 End 207 69 CHRISTENSON ENGINEERING CORPORATION PIPELINE PRESSURE PROFILE Jet A-1 Fluid Limits: 50 psi above high points 24 F Temperature 50 psi at destination 107.0 Ft Loss per 10 Mile Section 50 psi below flange ratings 51.1 Lb/CF Density 13.376 Inches |.D. Pipe 1480 Psig Flange Rating 35,800 Flowrate, Sbpd One One One Stn Pump Stn Pump Stn Milepost Elevation Friction Head Head Pressure Head Head Ft__Ft/Section ASL AGL Psig Ft Psig 0 475 0 4501 4026 1428 4351 1544 10 450 107.0 4394 3944 1399 4244 1506 20 450 107.0 4287 3837 1361 4137 1468 30 1150 107.0 4180 3030 1075 4030 1430 40 750 107.0 4073 3323 1179 3923 1392 50 500 107.0 3966 3466 1230 3816 1354 60 500 107.0 3859 3359 1192 3709 1316 70 450 107.0 3752 3302 1172 3602 1278 80 650 107.0 3645 2995 1063 3495 1240 90 900 107.0 3538 2638 936 3388 1202 100 1250 107.0 3431 2181 774 3281 1164 110 1300 107.0 3324 2024 718 3174 1126 120 23900 107.0 3218 318 113 3068 1088 130 2400 107.0 3111 711 252 2961 1050 140 2250 107.0 3004 754 267 2854 1012 150 2400 107.0 2897 497 176 2747 974 160 2650 107.0 2790 140 50 2640 936 170 2450 107.0 2683 233 83 2533 899 180 2000 107.0 2576 576 204 2426 861 190 2300 107.0 2469 169 60 2319 823 200 1300 107.0 2362 1062 377 2212 785 210 1000 107.0 2255 1255 445 2105 747 220 1300 107.0 2148 848 301 1998 709 230 1000 107.0 2041 1041 369 1891 671 240 500 107.0 1934 1434 509 1784 633 250 400 107.0 1827 1427 506 1677 595 260 350 107.0 1720 1370 486 1570 557 270 350 107.0 1613 1263 448 1463 519 280 250 107.0 1506 1256 446 1356 481 290 200 107.0 1399 1199 425 1249 443 300 300 107.0 1292 992 352 1142 405 310 250 107.0 1185 935 332 1035 367 320 100 107.0 1078 978 347 928 329 330 250 107.0 971 721 256 821 291 340 100 107.0 864 764 271 714 253 350 100 107.0 758 658 233 608 216 360 120 107.0 651 531 188 501 178 362 150 21.4 629 479 170 479 170 End 479 170 CHRISTENSON ENGINEERING ee PIPELINE PRESSURE PROFILE HAGO Fluid Limits: 50 psi above high points 24 F Temperature 50 psi at destination 82.0 Ft Loss per 10 Mile Section 50 psi below flange ratings 57.0 Lb/CF Density 13.376 Inches |.D. Pipe 1480 Psig Flange Rating 22,800 Flowrate, Sbpd One One One Stn Pump Stn Pump Stn Milepost Elevation Friction Head Head Pressure Head Head Ft Ft/Section ASL AGL Psig Ft Psig 0 475 0 4088 3613 1430 3938 1559 10 450 82.0 4006 3556 1408 3856 1526 20 450 82.0 3924 3474 1375 3774 1494 30 1150 82.0 3842 2692 1066 3692 1461 40 750 82.0 3760 3010 1191 3610 1429 50 500 82.0 3678 3178 1258 3528 1396 60 500 82.0 3596 3096 1225 3446 1364 70 450 82.0 3514 3064 1213 3364 1332 80 650 82.0 3432 2782 1101 3282 1299 90 900 82.0 3350 2450 970 3200 1267 100 1250 82.0 3268 2018 799 3118 1234 110 1300 82.0 3186 1886 747 3036 1202 120 2300 82.0 3104 204 81 2954 1169 130 2400 82.0 3022 622 246 2872 1137 140 2250 82.0 2940 690 273 2790 1104 150 2400 82.0 2858 458 181 2708 1072 160 2650 82.0 2776 126 50 2626 1040 170 2450 82.0 2694 244 97 2544 1007 180 2000 82.0 2612 612 242 2462 975 190 2300 82.0 2530 230 91 2380 942 200 1300 82.0 2448 1148 454 2298 910 210 1000 82.0 2366 1366 541 2216 877 220 1300 82.0 2284 984 3390 2134 845 230 1000 82.0 2202 1202 476 2052 812 240 500 82.0 2120 1620 641 1970 780 250 400 82.0 2038 1638 648 1888 747 260 350 82.0 1956 1606 636 1806 715 270 350 82.0 1874 1524 603 1724 683 280 250 82.0 1792 1542 611 1642 650 290 200 82.0 1710 1510 598 1560 618 300 300 82.0 1628 1328 526 1478 585 310 250 82.0 1546 1296 513 1396 553 320 100 82.0 1464 1364 540 1314 520 330 250 82.0 1382 1132 448 1232 488 340 100 82.0 1300 1200 475 1150 455 350 100 82.0 1218 1118 443 1068 423 360 120 82.0 1136 1016 402 986 390 362 150 16.4 1120 970 384 970 384 End 970 384 CHRISTENSON ENGINEERING CORPORATION PIPELINE PRESSURE PROFILE Motor Gas Fluid 24 F Temperature 122.0 Ft Loss per 10 Mile Section 48.0 Lb/CF Density 1480 Psig Flange Rating Limits: 50 psi above high points 50 psi at destination 50 psi below flange ratings 15.250 Inches |.D. Pipe 64,800 Flowrate, Sbpd Milepost Elevation Friction Ft__ Ft/Section One Pump Stn Pressure Head Psig Ft One Pump Stn Head Psig 0 475 0 10 450 122.0 20 450 122.0 30 1150 122.0 40 750 122.0 50 500 122.0 60 500 122.0 70 450 122.0 80 650 122.0 90 900 122.0 1250 122.0 1300 122.0 2900 122.0 2400 122.0 2250 122.0 2400 122.0 2650 122.0 2450 122.0 2000 122.0 2300 122.0 1300 122.0 1000 122.0 1300 122.0 1000 122.0 500 122.0 400 122.0 350 122.0 350 122.0 250 122.0 200 122.0 300 122.0 250 122.0 100 122.0 250 122.0 100 122.0 100 122.0 120 122.0 150 24.4 1430 4619 1398 4497 1357 4375 1084 4253 1176 4131 1219 4009 1178 3887 1154 3765 1047 3643 923 3521 766 3399 708 3277 135 3155 261 3032 270 2910 179 2788 55 2666 81 2544 191 2422 50 2300 343 2178 402 2056 261 1934 320 1812 446 1690 439 1568 415 1446 374 1324 367 1202 343 1080 269 958 245 836 254 714 164 592 173 470 132 348 85 226 67 201 201 1539 1498 1457 1417 1376 1335 1295 1254 1213 1173 1132 1092 1051 1010 970 929 888 848 807 766 726 685 644 604 563 522 482 441 400 360 319 278 238 197 156 116 75 67 67 CHRISTENSON ENGINEERING CORPORATION PIPELINE PRESSURE PROFILE Jet A-1 Fluid Limits: 50 psi above high points 24 F Temperature 50 psi at destination 107.0 Ft Loss per 10 Mile Section 50 psi below flange ratings 51.1 Lb/CF Density 15.250 Inches |.D. Pipe 1480 Psig Flange Rating 51,000 Flowrate, Sbpd One One Pump Stn Pump Stn Milepost Elevation Friction Pressure Head Head Ft Ft/Section i Ft Psig 0 475 0 4353 1544 10 450 107.0 4246 1506 20 450 107.0 : 4139 1468 30 1150 107.0 4032 1430 40 750 107.0 A 3925 1392 50 500 107.0 3818 1354 60 500 107.0 3711 1317 70 450 107.0 3604 1279 80 650 107.0 3497 1241 90 900 107.0 3390 1203 100 1250 107.0 3283 1165 110 1300 107.0 3176 1127 120 2900 107.0 3069 1089 130 2400 107.0 2962 1051 140 2250 107.0 2855 1013 150 2400 107.0 2748 975 160 2650 107.0 2641 937 170 2450 107.0 2534 899 180 2000 107.0 2427 861 190 2300 107.0 2320 823 200 1300 107.0 2213 785 210 1000 107.0 2106 747 220 1300 107.0 1999 709 230 1000 107.0 1892 671 240 500 107.0 1785 633 250 400 107.0 1678 595 260 350 107.0 1571 557 270 350 107.0 1464 519 280 250 107.0 1357 481 290 200 107.0 1250 443 300 300 107.0 1143 405 310 250 107.0 1036 367 320 100 107.0 929 329 330 250 107.0 822 291 340 100 107.0 715 254 350 100 107.0 608 216 360 120 107.0 501 178 362 150 21.4 479 170 End 479 170 | CHRISTENSON ENGINEERING CORPORATION PIPELINE PRESSURE PROFILE HAGO Fluid Limits: 50 psi above high points 24 F Temperature 50 psi at destination 81.9 Ft Loss per 10 Mile Section 50 psi below flange ratings 57.0 Lb/CF Density 14.875 Inches |.D. Pipe 1480 Psig Flange Rating 30,600 Flowrate, Sbpd One One One Stn Pump Stn Pump Stn Milepost Elevation Friction Head Head Pressure Head Head Ft Ft/Section ASL AGL Psig Ft Psig 0 475 0 4088 3613 1430 3938 1559 10 450 81.9 4006 3556 1408 3856 1526 20 450 81.9 3924 3474 1375 3774 1494 30 1150 81.9 3842 2692 1066 3692 1461 40 750 81.9 3760 3010 1192 3610 1429 50 500 81.9 3678 3178 1258 3528 1397 60 500 81.9 3596 3096 1226 3446 1364 70 450 81.9 3514 3064 1213 3364 1332 80 650 81.9 3432 2782 1101 3282 1299 90 900 81.9 3350 2450 970 3200 1267 100 1250 81.9 3269 2019 799 3119 1235 110 1300 81.9 3187 1887 747 3037 1202 120 2900 81.9 3105 205 81 2955 1170 130 2400 81.9 3023 623 247 2873 1137 140 2250 81.9 2941 691 274 2791 1105 150 2400 81.9 2859 459 182 2709 1072 160 2650 81.9 2777 127 50 2627 1040 170 2450 81.9 2695 245 97 2545 1008 180 2000 81.9 2613 613 243 2463 975 190 2300 81.9 2531 231 92 2381 943 200 1300 81.9 2449 1149 455 2299 910 210 1000 81.9 2368 1368 541 2218 878 220 1300 81.9 2286 986 390 2136 845 230 1000 81.9 2204 1204 477 2054 813 240 500 81.9 2122 1622 642 1972 781 250 400 81.9 2040 1640 649 1890 748 260 350 81.9 1958 1608 637 1808 716 270 350 81.9 1876 1526 604 1726 683 280 250 81.9 1794 1544 611 1644 651 290 200 81.9 1712 1512 599 1562 618 300 300 81.9 1630 1330 527 1480 586 310 250 81.9 1548 1298 514 1398 554 320 100 81.9 1467 1367 541 1317 521 330 250 81.9 1385 1135 449 1235 489 340 100 81.9 1303 1203 476 1153 456 350 100 81.9 1221 1121 444 1071 424 360 120 81.9 1139 1019 403 989 391 362 150 16.4 1123 973 385 973 385 End 973 385 SSS ENGINEERING CORPORATION PIPELINE PRESSURE PROFILE Motor Gas Fluid Limits: 50 psi above high points 24 F Temperature 50 psi at destination 122.0 Ft Loss per 10 Mile Section 50 psi below flange ratings 48.0 Lb/CF Density 17.250 Inches |.D. Pipe 1480 Psig Flange Rating 89,800 Flowrate, Sbpd One One One Stn Pump Stn Pump Stn Milepost Elevation Friction Head Head Pressure Head Head Ft Ft/Section ASL AGL Psig Et Psig 0 475 0 4766 4291 1430 4616 1538 10 450 122.0 4644 4194 1397 4494 1497 20 450 122.0 4522 4072 1357 4372 1457 30 1150 122.0 4400 3250 1083 4250 1416 40 750 122.0 4278 3528 1175 4128 1375 50 500 122.0 4157 3657 1218 4007 1335 60 500 122.0 4035 3535 1177 3885 1294 70 450 122.0 3913 3463 1153 3763 1253 80 650 122.0 3791 3141 1046 3641 1213 30 900 122.0 3669 2769 922 3519 1172 100 1250 122.0 3547 2297 765 3397 1132 110 1300 122.0 3425 2125 708 3275 1091 120 2900 122.0 3303 403 134 3153 1050 130 2400 122.0 3181 781 260 3031 1010 140 2250 122.0 3059 809 269 2909 969 150 2400 122.0 2937 537 179 2787 928 160 2650 122.0 2815 165 55 2665 888 170 2450 122.0 2693 243 81 2543 847 180 2000 122.0 2571 571 190 2421 806 190 2300 122.0 2449 149 50 2299 766 200 1300 122.0 2327 1027 342 2177 725 210 1000 122.0 2205 1205 401 2055 685 220 1300 122.0 2083 783 261 1933 644 230 1000 122.0 1961 961 320 1811 603 240 500 122.0 1839 1339 446 1689 563 250 400 122.0 i, 1317 439 1567 522 260 350 122.0 1595 1245 415 1445 481 270 350 122.0 1473 1123 374 1323 441 280 250 122.0 1351 1101 367 1201 400 290 200 122.0 1229 1029 343 1079 360 300 300 122.0 1107 807 269 957 319 310 250 122.0 985 735 245 835 278 320 100 122.0 863 763 254 713 238 330 250 122.0 741 491 164 591 197 340 100 122.0 619 519 173 469 156 350 100 122.0 497 397 132 347 116 360 120 122.0 376 256 85 226 75 362 150 24.4 351 201 67 201 67 End CHRISTENSON ENGINEERING CORPORATION PIPELINE PRESSURE PROFILE Jet A-1 Fluid Limits: 50 psi above high points 24 F Temperature 50 psi at destination 107.1 Ft Loss per 10 Mile Section 50 psi below flange ratings 51.1 Lb/CF Density 17.250 Inches |.D. Pipe 1480 Psig Flange Rating 71,100 Flowrate, Sbpd One One Pump Stn Pump Stn Milepost Elevation Friction Head Pressure Head Head Ft Ft/Section AGL Psig Ft Psig 0 475 0 4029 1429. «4354 1545 10 450 107. 3947 1400 4247 1507 20 450 107. 3840 1362 4140 - 1469 30 1150 107. 3033 1076 4033 1431 40 750 107. 3326 1180 3926 1393 50 500 107. 3469 1231 3819 1355 60 500 107. 3361 1193 3711 1317 70 450 107. 3304 1172 3604 1279 80 650 107. 2997 1063 3497 1241 90 900 107. 2640 937 3390 1203 1250 107. 2183 774 3283 1165 1300 107. 2026 719 3176 1127 2900 107. 319 113 3069 1089 2400 107. 712 252 2962 1051 2250 107. 754 268 2854 1013 2400 107. 497 176 2747 975 2650 107. 140]. 50 2640 937 2450 107. 233 83 2533 8399 2000 107. 576 204 2426 861 2300 107. 169 60 2319 823 1300 107. 1062 377 2212 785 1000 107. 1255 445 2105 747 1300 107. 847 301 1997 709 1000 107. 1040 369 1890 671 500 107. 1433 508 1783 633 400 107. 1426 506 1676 595 350 107. 1369 486 1569 557 350 107. 1262 448 1462 519 250 107. 1255 445 1355 481 200 107. 1198 425 1248 443 300 107. 991 351 1141 405 250 107. 933 331 1033 367 100 107. 976 346 926 329 250 107. 719 255 819 291 100 107.1 762 270 712 253 100 107.1 655 232 605 215 120 107.1 528 187 498 177 150 21.4 476 169 476 169 476 169 -—CHRISTENSON ENGINEERING CORPORATION PIPELINE PRESSURE PROFILE HAGO Fluid Limits: 50 psi above high points 24 F Temperature 50 psi at destination 81.9 Ft Loss per 10 Mile Section 50 psi below flange ratings 57.0 Lb/CF Density 17.250 Inches |.D. Pipe 1480 Psig Flange Rating 46,100 Flowrate, Sbpd One One One Stn Pump Stn Pump Stn Milepost Elevation Friction Head Head Pressure Head Head Ft Ft/Section ASL AGL Psig Ft Psig 0 475 0 4088 3613 1430 3938 1559 10 450 81.9 4007 3557 1408 3857 1527 20 450 81.9 3925 3475 1375 3775 1494 30 1150 81.9 3843 2693 1066 3693 1462 40 750 81.9 3761 3011 1192 3611 1429 50 500 81.9 3679 3179 1258 3529 1397 60 500 81.9 3597 3097 1226 3447 1364 70 450 81.9 3515 3065 1213 3365 1332 80 650 81.9 3433 2783 1102 3283 1300 90 900 81.9 3351 2451 970 3201 1267 100 1250 81.9 3269 2019 799 3119 1235 110 1300 81.9 3187 1887 747 3037 1202 120 2900 81.9 3105 205 81 2955 1170 130 2400 81.9 3023 623 247 2873 1137 140 2250 81.9 2941 691 274 2791 1105 150 2400 81.9 2859 459 182 2709 1073 160 2650 81.9 2778 128 50 2628 1040 170 2450 81.9 2696 246 97 2546 1008 180 2000 81.9 2614 614 243 2464 975 190 2300 81.9 2532 232 92 2382 943 200 1300 81.9 2450 1150 455 2300 910 210 1000 81.9 2368 1368 542 2218 878 220 1300 81.9 2286 986 390 2136 846 230 1000 81.9 2204 1204 477 2054 813 240 500 81.9 2122 1622 642 1972 781 250 400 81.9 2040 1640 649 1890 748 260 350 81.9 1958 1608 637 1808 716 270 350 81.9 1876 1526 604 1726 683 280 250 81.9 1794 1544 611 1644 651 290 200 81.9 1712 1512 599 1562 619 300 300 81.9 1631 1331 527 1481 586 310 250 81.9 1549 1299 514 1399 554 320 100 81.9 1467 1367 541 1317 521 330 250 81.9 1385 1135 449 1235 489 340 100 81.9 1303 1203 476 1153 456 350 100 81.9 1221 1121 444 1071 424 360 120 81.9 1139 1019 403 989 391 362 150 16.4 1123 973 385 973 385 End 973 385 ° 50 100 Iso zoo 250 300 302 “> $000 Pree ree ae ! S000 < i 4500 a 4000 4000 “ Typical Pressure Profile w co & 35900 Jet A-1 51,000 BPD = 5600 16-Inch Line 3000 2 Winter (24 F) 8 < 2500 w ” Pipe ATION 2000 ; %~ooo ELEVATY SS “< 1S00 a 2 tc \o00o {ooo x 2 4 Fr 500 port eneeremarner fermen fn : + — o Oo so 100 ISO zoo zSo 200 250 PIPELINE MILES FROM NoRTHPOLE PUMP STATION sprocrony deo Lyod NOILWHOdHOO ONIYSANIDNSA NOSNSILSIBHO— Control of Commingling ire M-3 Products Pipe Lines HE amount of commingling which will occur between different petro- leum products in a products line is a question which must be answered be- fore the feasibility of a new line can be established. When designing a products line of proper relationship between the amount of commingling which will occur and the volume of products pumped through the line must be es- tablished. This is necessary because the mixture between products must disposed of at the end of the line: and the most economic means of dis- posing of it is to blend it into other products of similar nature. In the following, some of the known factors which effect the commingling between products are discussed; and a means of estimating the amount of such commingling for any given line is included. Design In designing a products pipe line for minimum commingling between products, the follow fundamental principles should be considered: (a) Select a size of pipe such that turbulent flow will be maintained at all times, (b) A single-tube system should be planned. Loops in the line increase commingling. (c) Design for “closed-line’ opera- tion, with one station pumping di- 1947, National Conlerence on Petroleum Mechanical Engineering, Houston, October & 1947 3y EDWIN A.. BIRGE * Plantation Pipe Line Company rectly into the suction of thé down- stream station. No “float” tanks to increase commingling. (d) The lines through pumps, scraper traps, hay tanks, etc., should be as “streamlined” as possible. (e) Adequate sump facilities should be supplied; so any drainage from pump glands or other equipment will go to the sump quickly and can be pumped back into the commingled plug between products. Considering these principles of de- sign in more detail, it is well estab- lished that turbulent flow is neces- sary in products lines to avoid exces- sive commingling. Experiments, wherein the rate of flow (velocity) waa allowed to fall below the critical for turbulence (Reynolds Number be- low 2500), produced relatively rapid commingling between products. On the other hand, diesel fuel against kerosene, and kerosene against gas- oline, have been handled in a pipe line system, through 4, 8, and 10-inch pipe. for long periods of time, at velocities as low as 0.5 feet (': foot) per second (Reynolds Number 20,000), with no detectable ubnormal increase in the commingled portion between products. This proves fairly conclusively that as long as flow re- mains well within the turbulent range, velocity has no apparent ef- fect upon the commingling between products. A plan of typical products pipe line station is shown in Figure 7, as an illustration of streamlined station piping. In this desgin dead spots which do not flush readily are min- imized. Considering Item D, products pipe lines having pumping equipment de- signed so that a quantity of the prod- uct being handled draing from pump giands into water separators and sumps, to be pumped back into the stream, must be equipped with a sump which can be pumped complete- ly dry and with a suitable sump pump which can be run during the change from one product to another. In so doing, all the commingled product draining into the sump is returned to the ‘commingled plug” between the two products in the pipe line. A low speed, recipr.cating pump has been found more satisfactory for this sump pump service. The sump is usually designed so the sump pump takes suction from a small “top-hat” sump in the bottom of the main sump. Products should be scheduled thru the line in such sequence that no in- disposable product is created. The basic principle is to put those prod- ucts next to each other, the mixture of which will be disposable into one or the other product, or into some other product being currently han- died. Figure 1 illustrate this prin- ciple. Heart-cut Deliveries Experience has taught that com- mingling between two products in the pipe line is much more rapid at the beginning and diminishes gradually with distance traveled. For this rea- son, it is advisable to make “heart- ie ROSINE BUFFER IN Vv \ INY, . Figure 1. Pumping sequence for control of commingling. Premium—Housebrand commingling can be split both ways with no loss or degradation. 2, Tractor commingling usually muat be —Y Sout and blended to Housebrand. 3. Tractor Fuel-Kerosene commingling can be cut directly to Tractor Fuel, within certain limits. 4, Kerosene-Diesel Fuel commingling can be cut directly to Diesel Fuel. within certain limits. 5. The Kerosene Buffer batch between diese! fuel and gasoline is cut both ways. 10 PIPE LINE NEWS - ; FIGURE 2 - COMAMINGLING CHART COMMINGLING IN BARRELS GASOLINE — GASOLINE =COAMMINGLING IN 8° PIPEUNE AFTER MOVING 47.35% 400 ~ut" deliveries from a batch at inter- \.. mediate terminals and allow the mix- ture on either end of the batch to go undistrubed to the last terminal for the product. The term “heart-cut” implies that the delivery is made from pure product in the heart of the batch. a fer pal Figure 4 illustrate the increase in commingling when a batch is set out at an intermediate breakout" point ag against pumping it straight thru in a typical pipe line. Note that a batch traveling from Baton Rouge to Greensboro has a spread of 770 bar- rels, while a batch set out at Bremen, approximately the midpoint of the line, and repumped from storage would have a total of 620 barrels from Baton Rouge to Bremen and 425 barrels from Bremen to Greens- boro, or a total of 1065 barrela—a gain of 38.5% because of the accel- erated initial spread. It has been found advisable to set up definite operating procedures at stations to insure proper flushing of pockets in the station piping, shut- town units, sump and water separat- _. ‘8, ete., before the arrival of an eas- “ily contaminated product, such as ker- osene. It has proven advantageous to write these procedures out in detail March (948 LENG A IN FEET in a Joose-leaf Operations Manual, so they become routine. The efficiency with which they are carried out gov- erns the amount of “indused” com- mingling; i.e., the quantity of com- mingled product over and above the theoretical normal spread through a similar system with no intermediate stations. On a typical line, wich 431.6 miles of 12-inch a 356.2 miles of 10-inch, and 28 stations, this “in- duced” spread adds approximately 11% to the theoretical “normal” spread. A means of calculating the “normal” spread of commingled prod- uct is given later in this article. Norma! Commingling The “normal” commingling between two products is believed to be a func- tion of several factors, chief among which are velocity, differential dens- ity between the two products, viscos- ity, and probably the pipe friction factor. The exact relationship of each factor has not been determined. Figure 2 contains two curves wherein the length of the commingled product in feet was plotted against the distance traveled in feet. In this manner, it was possible to utilize these curves for any size line. The equations describing the curves of Figure 2 are: For gasoline-kerosene : Y = 1.93 x*'” For gasoline-gasoline: Y= 1.84 x*" Y1.84X ‘Wherein: X = Distance traveled in feet Y = Commingled portion in feet Having determined, by use of these equations, the anticipated spread of normal commingling, in feet, for any given length of line, the result ig mul- tiplied by the capacity of the pipe, in barrels per foot, to convert the spread to barrels. By making use of the con- version curves on Figure 2, this can be done directly, as indicated in the example given on Figure 2. The curves of Figure 2 represent the spread of commingled product in three experimental cases between Products of different physical char- acteristics. It is not to be interpreted that the two curves of Figure 2 will indicate the commingling between any two products. They will, how- ever, indicate the order of the com- mingling between two petroleum products whose physical differences are similar to the products involved in the experiments recorded by Fig- ure 2. Figure 3 shows the average spread of a large number of batches, of dif- FIGURE 3 4) COMMINGLING COMPARISON CHART Ae ams y, COMMINGLING * SPREAD It Freer SStcse ferent combinations of products, thru a typical pipe line system, as com- pared to the curves from Figure 2. Bearing in mind that the experience “ data indicated by the points on Fig- ure S include products of varying den- sities and viscosities, different, in some instances, from the products used for Figure 2, and that they in- clude “induced” commingling, con- siderable support is given to the claim that Figure 2 will indicate the order of expected commingling for any giv- en line, if the proper interpolation be- tween the curves is made for the two products in contact. Some very interesting facts indi- cated by Figure 3 are as follows: (a) The commingling between prod- ucts at Birmingham is much greater than the curves of Figure 2 indicate. This is explained by the fact that the intial commingling at the point of origin, caused hy switching gate valves, flushing manifold barrels, me- ters and straincrs, hay tank, and sta- tion piping, etc., is many times great- er than the normal spread for the 12 miles of line, as indicated by Figure 2. This illustrate the fact that the curves of Figure 2 will apply to short “fines only if there is a pure interface hetween the two products at the starting point. (b) The figure 2 curves were de- rived at a velocity of approximately 12 7.5 feet per second in the 12 and 10- inch main iines, while the data plotted on Figure 3 were all derived at lower velocities. Most of the data were tak- en for a velocity of approximately 5.45 feet per second. Using an aver- age viscosity between the gasoline and kerosene, the .Reynolds Number for the experiments from which Fig- ure 2 was derived was 490,000; whereas, the Reynolds Number for the average spread data of Figure 3 was only 354,000. This ia offered in support of the contention that the commingling between products does not increase as the Reynolds Number is decreased, as long as turbulent fow is maintained. As further support of this claim, a well known pipe line has pumped gasoline against kerosene in a 10-inch line at a velocity as low as 0.7 feet per second, Reynolds Number based on viscosity of kerosene, of 29,000, with no detectable abncrmal mixture between them. The same two prod- ucts have beer pumped through the 4-inch lines at a velocity as low as 0.5 feet per second, Reynolds Number 20,000, with only normal comming- ling. (c) The commingling between ker- osene and tractor fuel describes a fairly well defined curve lying be- tween the gasoline-kerosene and the gasoline-gasoline curves. This is to be expected since the kerosene and tractor fuel are similar products and the spread between them should be less than the spread oetween gas- oline and kerosene. The gasoline- tractor fuel spread, on the other hand, very closely follows the gas- oline-kercsene spread. The specific gravity and kinematic viscosity of each product involved in the data of Figure 3 are shown be- Jow. This should be helpful in inter- polating on Figure 2 for any given combination of producta. Byecitc Kinematic Kinematic Gravity Vi YY Virooulty ” etiie? F.— atazioe # PRooucT— S0° fF. Cantistokes — Centistenes Gasoline 742 0.58 nae Tractor Fuel .802 1.07 0.58 Kerosene 812 1.79 0.87 Diesel Fuet 846 3.20 1.29 Diesel Fuel BAl 3.40 1.32 It has been'the general opinion, jin the products pipe line industry, that shutting a line down with kerosene and gasoline, or other dissimilar prod- ucts, in contact with each other causes prohibitive commingling be- tween the products. This concept, and the previously eccepted 2'% feet per second minimum velocity rule, im- posed severe restrictions on opera- tions of products lines. With many takeoff points, short batches, and multiple products, it was found prac- tically impossible to keep products moving at a velocity greater than 214 PIPE LINE NEWS Sree GASOLINE 4 Figure 6. ‘eet per second, when fuels were in the line, and make the required de- liveries. It was necessary, therefore, ‘ither to disprove these hypotheses or © work out some arrangement by which only long batches with limited “itermediate takeoffs were put be- ind fuels in the line. Because of this, vests were made to determine the in- -fuence on commingling by falling be- ' *-a velocity of 24 feet per second, ~-. staying well within turbulent flow, and of shutting down the line vith fuels in it. Shutdown Test It has been stated earlier in this article that no excess commingling vas noticed with velocities as low as 4 foot per second, with Reynolds wWumbers not lower than 20,000. To determine the effect of shutting the \ine down with fuel against gasoline, a test batch of kerosene was pumped to a 4-inch lateral line between batch- es of gasoline. The line was shut down under a pressure of 225 pounds per square inch for a period of 57 hours. After the shutdown period the line was started up and the batch ar- rived at the end of the line with only normal commingling. Figure 6 shows the topography of the line where the test batch lay dur- Ing the shutdown period. From this chart, it is possible to draw the con- clusions that: (a) The normal topography of the land hag little effect on commingling _jetween products, in shutdown lines, \—’ ienst, within reasonable limits. It Will be noted that from Point “A” to Point “B", on Figure 6, there is a difference in elevation of 160 feet over a distance of approximately 1600 feet. This is considered to indicate March 1948 the lack of effect of differential ele- vation. (6) The amount of pressure, as long as the line remains tight, has negligible effect on commingling be- tween products in shutdown lines. Only a nominal amount of pressure existed during this test. Flash Point of Fuels The data of Figures 2 and 3 con- sider only the physical mixing of two products within the limits detectable by hydrometer determinations of the API gravity. There is a further commingling be- tween such products as gasoline and kerosene which must be considered. Very smal! quantities of gasoline will have a great effect on the flash point of kerosene. Figure 5 shows the relationship of Fl 6 VRE 5S COMPARISON OF COMMINGLING 8Y GRAVITY & FLASH the commingling by gravity to the commingling by “flash point,” be- tween gasoline and kerosene. This chart was compiled from a typical batch. From it, the following 8i8- nificant facts are indicated: (a) The commingling between prod- ucts, Baton Rouge to Bremen, deter- mined by gravity, is 860 barrels, a5 against a theoretical spread of 770 barrels, from Figure 2. This illu- strates that the actual spread is ap- proximately 11.5% greater than the theoretical spread, because of dispos- ing of drainage from sumps at sta- tions, flushing hay tanks, etc.: “In- duced commingling.” “On lines hav- ing no intermediate stations, the spread should follow more closely to the theoretical spread shown by Fig- ure 2." (bd) Taking 115° F. as satisfactory flash, there was a total of 1180 bar- rels after the first change in gravity, from gasoline to kerosene, before good flash was reached. Therefore, the commingling, based upon flash, was 1180 barrels, or 153%, of the theoretical] spread, based upon gravity. (c) The 320 barrels of product be- tween 860 barrels, where good kero- sene gravity was reached, and 1180 barrels, where the flash became 115° F., was kerosene with enough gasoline in it to lower the flash, but not suf- ficient to show up on the hydrometer. It follows that the total amount of kerosene in the 1180 barrels is 320+ 860/2 = 750 or 65.54% of the total commingled portion. The 13 Figere 7. Typical stotios piping. amount of low flash kerosene at the ends of the batch will vary with each pipe line, according te its design and complexity of operations. (d) It is considered good practice to provide kerosene for pipe line movement having a flash point at least eight to ten degrees above the minimum, in order to provide a safe - margin. Application of Commingiing Data to Design of New Line In the foregoing, a method for es- timating the amount of commingling to be expected in a given line was of- fered. It will now be illustrated how this information can be used in the design of a new line, from the stand- point of control of commingling be- tween products. Assume the following: (a) 200 miles of line from a point “A” to a distribution center “M". (b) Daily throughput of 15,000 bar- rels per day divided: 80°% motor fuels = 12,000 bpd 15% kerosene = 2,250 bpd 5% diesel fuel = 750 bpd In considering the size of pipe to be laid, the sizes of tanks at terminals, etc., the commingling data can be used as follows: (a) By consulting Figure 2, it is seen that the spread between gasoline and kerosene in an 8-inch line 200 miles long is 183 barrels. Adding “8367 for “induced” commingling and ~—- 1ow-flash kerosene, the spread of con- tamination between gasoline and ker- osene will be 280 barrels, There will, therefore, be a total (both ends of 2 X 280 = 580 barrels 14 of commingled product between gas- oline and kerosene. Of this quantity, as shown above, approximately 65.5%, or 387 barrels, will be ker- osene to be disposed of into gasoline. The diesel fuel-kerosene mixture does not involve the low-flash kerosene; therefore there will be only 183 + 11.5% or a total of 204 barrels of kerosene, to dispose of into diesel fuel. By experiment, it can be deter- mined what percentage of kerosene can be blended into gasoline without degrading the gasoline and what per- centage of kerosene can be blended into the diesel fuel. For this exam- ple, assume 0.5% of kerosene in gas- oline, and 3.0% of kerosene in diesel fuel. Considering disposal of the com- mingled products at the end of the line: 367 = 0.5% of 73,400 barrels 204 = 3.0% of 6,800 barrels Consulting the daily throughput figures, this indicates there would be enough gasoline received every 73,400/12,000 = 6.12 days to dispose of the gasoline-kerosene mixture; and that the amount of diesel fuel re- quired to work off the kerosene-diesel fuel mixture, 6800 barrels, would be 6800/750 = a 9+ day supply. On this basis, since kerosene and diesel fuel would invariably be han- dled together, the two products could be scheduled every ten days (cycles are usually multiples of five, for con- venience) and tank sizes at terminals for kerosene and diesel fuel could be designed to hold a ten-day supply ee 1 it PO I, wie i one eal Cee l + aI Gonnenet: —= LEE roma i . plus the appropriate margin for in- ventory fluctuation. The usual formula for terminal tankage, on small pipe line systems, is the maximum requirements for the accepted cycle plus 10% for working space, plus 50% for inventory fluc- tuation. This equals 165% of the re- quirements for the sycle. On this basis, the required terminal tankage would be 1.65 X 10 X 750 or 12,375 barrels for diesel fuel and 1.65 X 10 X 2250 or 37,125 barrels for kero- gene, If the line has several] points where deliveries are made, “heart-cut" de- liveries will probably be made at in- termediate terminals; and the com- mingling contro] data will be applied to the last terminal on the line. In such instance, the daily requirements at the fina] terminal should be used in determining the cycle for each product. In the above example, suppose that, to handle the desired 15,000 bpd, either a 10-inch line was required or an intermediate pumping station on the 8-inch line. If a 10-inch line were laid, again referring to Figure 2, there would be a theoretical spread of 286 barrels, instead of 183, between kerosene and gasoline. Using the principles, above, there will be: 286 X 1.53 X 2 X .655 = 573 bar- rels of kerosene to go into gaso- line, and 286 xX 1.115 xX 2 X .5 = 319 bar- rels of kerosene to go into diesel fuel 573 =0.5% of 114,600 barrels 9.6 days supply 319 = 3.0% of 10,633 barrels 14.2 days supply. Laying the 10-inch line would re- quire a 15-day cycle for kerosene and diesel fuel, and the storage require- ments would become: PIPE LINE Newe { 2.65 X 15 X 750 = 18,562 for die- sel fuel, and 1.65 X 15 X 2250 = 55,687 for ker- osene, In this example, it would be neces- sary to decide whether to build the 10-inch line, with the attendant in- creased cost of construction plugs an additional 25,000 barrels of storage at the terminal, or the 8-inch line with an intermediate pumping station. The means of estimating contami- nation tank sizes by using the com- mingling data is obvious. Acknowledgements 1. Shell Products Pipe Line, which perfored the criginal experiments from fhich Figure 2 was derived. 2. Plantation Pipe Line Company, whose line was used as a laboratory to develop the hypotheses included herein. FPC Issues New Gas Pipe Line Map WASHINGTON — The Federal Power Commission has issued a map showing as of 1947 the principal na- tural gas pipe lines in the United States and information making it possible to trace the flow of natural . gas from its source to the point of _consumption. Pipe lines authorized, but not yet constructed, are also shown. All communities having gas service are indicated. This includes commun- ities supplied with natural, manufac- tured or mixed gas, the type of gas supplied being designated. Principal gas producing fields are identified by name. From an alpha- betical list of operating companies numbered to correspond with num- bers on the map, the course of a pipe line company transporting gas from a designated field can be followed to its distribution point. An alphabet- ical list of principal holding compa- nies numbered in the same manner is also included. From this informa- tion a complete picture can be ob- tained of each system's operations. Enlarged inserts are shown for such complex areas as Pittsburgh and the Appalachian area, the Monroe, La., gas field, and the Los Angeles area, Size of the map is 44 by 56 inches, Lo. “ith one inch representing approx- ~-:mately 60 miles. Printed in 12 colors on heavy map paper and suitable for framing, the map is priced at $5 a copy. March 1948 ~Big Inch Carries Gas, Texas to Philadelphia PHILADELPHIA — Natural gas flowed into Philadelphia on March 26 from fields in Texas through the 1,280-mile Big Inch pipe line, The gas is expected to reach the rate of 4.3 million cu, ft. a day. Mayor Bernard Samue] turned a valve on the grounds of the Phil- adelphia Gas Works Co. near here to start the flow, which the company estimates will enable it to reduce its use of fuel oil by 43,000 gellons daily. The FPC authorized the flow for a 36-day emergency period. By next fall, Texas Eastern Trans- mission Corp., owner of the Big Inch, expects the flow to reach 48 million cu. ft. daily, but tapping it awaits future authorization. Southwestern Short Gas Course Ready The program has been issued for the 1948 Southwestern Gas Measure- ment Short Course, to be held at the College of Engineering, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Okla., on April 13, 14 and 15, 1948. Registration fee for the course is $6.00. In addition to the many course on gas measurement. there will be an equipment exhibit, with some 25 com- panies participating. Huge engine driven pipe cleaning machine at work on the Texas-Califomia 26-inch gas line. El Paso Natural Gas Co. now proposes to loop this line for most of its route to supply additional gas to Califor- nia communities. United Fuel to Get Central Ky. Facilities WASHINGTON — The FPC has authorized United Fuel Gas Co. to acquire all the facilities in West Vir- ginia now owned by Central Ken- tucky Natural Gas Co. The capital cost of the acquisition has been es- timated at $1,085,000. The facilities authorized for pur- chase include the Kenova Compressor Station in Wayne County, W . Va., together with the land. structures, measuring and regulating equipment and transmission lines extending from the station to the West Vir- ginia-Kentucky state line, and about 53 miles of natural-gas transmission pipe lines ranging from 8 to 20 inches in diameter, together with land, land rights, structures and measuring equipment located in Wayne, Cabell and Lincoln Counties, W. Va. All of these facilities with the exception of the Kenova Station are now being operated by United under lease. ' United stated in its application that the transfer of title to it will not change the present mode of op- erations or service, and that the ac- quisition will have no effect upon the rates to be charged. 15 ee A Leods Length —= B Follows ES Station 0 Station | Stotion 2 7 ao Ss Ss = iS FIGURE 1—When one fluid (A) is followed by another (B) there is a zone of mixing. The time (@) for this zone to pass a point is proportional to the contamination width. How Much Mixing Occurs in a Pipe? Here are charts to predict the contamination which will exist if the two fluids are pumped successively through the same transfer line. Octave Levenspiel Bucknell University Lewisburg, Penn. WHEN PRODUCTS are moved around the refinery, one line can be used to handle a variety of materials. These materials are transported successively, and switch- ing from one to another forms a zone of contamination between the two. The effect of mixing in a pipe line is shown schematically in Figure 1. With charts presented in this report, the zone of con- tamination is related to a dispersion number and the pipe dimensions. The dispersion number in turn is ob- tained from a correlation with Reynolds numbers, The over-all design aspects are not considered here. Refer to Birge’ for these. _urbulent flow gives the correlation of dispersion num- bers with Reynolds numbers as shown in Figure 2. For Reprinted trom Petroleum Reynolds numbers above 10,000 the theoretical curve is shown and it brings together much data from the labora- tory and the field for both gases and liquids. Pipe sizes varied from 0.02 to 40 inches in diameter and lengths as great as 400 miles were used. As the Reynclds number is progressively decreased below 10,000, however, the one experimental study in this range to date shows an in- creasing deviation from the theoretical curve. This may be expected for in the development of the theory the laminar sublayer is ignored and it is precisely in this region (Re < 10,000) that the sublayer becomes appre- ciable in thickness. This may result in the additional con- tribution of molecular diffusion in the sublayer as a means of axial transport. Streamline flow is of little interest in product pipe line design. In this region of flow the zone of contarnination is much greater than with turbulent flow. However, the correlation of dispersion number for streamline flow is shown in Figure 3. Here molecular diffusion plays a significant role in product contamination. For short pipe the diffusion mechanism is not ap- plicable. Figure 3 should be used only when the following condition is fulfilled: L (Re) (Se) << 30 | The few data available check these theoretical pre- dictions. The contaminated zone as related to the system vari- ables is shown in Figure 4. The method used for pre- paring this figure is described in the accompanying box. The following problems illustrate the various uses of these charts. ILLUSTRATIVE PROBLEMS In these problems 4 refers to the leading fluid and B refers to the following fluid in a 12-inch ID pipe. Stations 1 and 2 are !),000 and 100,000 feet downstream from Station 0, the point of feed origin as shown in Figure 1. Problem 1—If at Station 1 the 10%-90% contaminated width is 500 feet find the 1%-99% contamination width and the 10%- 99% contaminated width at that station (10%-99% contamina- tion means allowing up to 10% of ‘B in A but only allowing 1% of A in B). Solution—The fraction contaminated wv = 500/10,000 = 5 X 107 From Figure 4 this corresponds to D/uL = 1.9 X 10° Using this value of D/uL we find from Figure 4 that for a 1%-99% contamination Five = 9.2 K 107 therefore the contamination width Wr 22 (9.2 +2 107%) 10°) = 920 fe. To find the 10%-99S¢ contaminated width we proceed as follows: Woe-v = Wre-w + Wooo But as the S-shaped contamination curve is symmetrical in this region (D/uL < 0.01) Ban Sa ana How Much Mixing Occurs in a Pipe?.. . FIGURE 2—For Reyn- olds numbers above ten thousand the dispersion number is a function of the Reynolds number. Here is the relation for Dispersion No., D/ud this turbulent region of flow, Wow and Wiew Wew = —5 therefore 1 Wsere =—57( Wieee 4- Wi-w) "571500 =- 920) = 710 ft. Problem 2--If at Station 1 the 19°¢-90%¢ contaminated width is 500 feet find the 106¢-90% contaminated width at Station 2. Solution -The fraction of pipe line which is 19%¢-90%2 con- taminated at Station 1 is Fro. == 500/10.000 =: 5 0 10? From Figure 4 at Station 1 (D/ul.), = 1.9 2-0 10 ¢ Dispersion No, D/ud 10° w* cy Re Sc: Pubs * FIGURE 3—Here is the chart for getting the dispersion number for streamline flow. It is only applicable when (RE) (Se) << 30 +. For constant flow conditions D and u temain unchanged, there- fore for Station 2 (DéuL): = (D/uL),(Li/L:) = 1.9 10 '(10'/10") = 1.9» 19" And again from Figure 4 but for Station 2. the fraction of pipe line contaminated (Fie-»-)2 = 1.6 X% 107 Hence, the 10¢¢-90%7 contaminated width at Station 2 —— E Wet oie La: =e (1.6 107, 1002. 1600 fr. Note--In, general for small D/uL (D/ul <7 0.01) the contami- nated width varies as the 0.5 power of the pipe leneth as may be seen by «ne slopes in Ficure 4. For example, if the leneth of the pipe line were increased 16 times the contaminated width would inerease by a factor of 4. Problem 3— If at Station 1 the contaniir for flow in a 12-inch ID pipe what would pipe for the same Reynolds number? ted width is 500 fert ithe ina 3-inch ID Solution--The Reynolds number is constant hence D,’ud is un- changed. But (D/uL) = (D/ud) * (d/L) Hence (D/ul diz pine UD) “UL davpipe 2° And from Figure 4 Facsape = Free nape Therefore the contaminated width for the 3-inch pipe, W = 250 fr. Problem 4 -If at Station 2 the averace two fluids is 19,000, find the 19¢¢-904; Reynolds number of the contaminated width Solution —- From Ficure 2 (Meud) = 0.4 Therefore (D/uL) == (D/ud) + (d/L) = (0.4) -( im )s= 7-10" Fraction Of Pipeline Contaminated, F Ss 3S S 10 ‘ ny f w lo-® 30-70 40-60 SST eee nest A eee ec 20-80 Percent Contamination 5-95 10-90 lo 10-4 io~3 1072 107! D/uL = (D/ud)(d/L) FIGURE 4—The example problems bear out that streamline flow results in mach greater contamination than turbulent low. How Much Mixing Occurs in a Pipe?... And from Figure + the fraction of pipe line contaminated Fio-» = 7.26 X 10° Therefore the contaminated width Wro-w = (7.25 X 107) * (10°) = 725 ft. Problem 5—How would the above found contaminated width be affected if the flow rate is changed to give Re = 1C00 and Re = 100,000? Let the average Schmidt number of the two fluids be taken as 385. Solution — For the case where Re = 1000 (Re) * (Sc) = (1000) * (385) =: 3.85 *~ 10° From Figure 3 exteapeleted—- (D/ud) = 2 X 10° Therefore 1 (D/uL) = (D/ud) * (d/L) = (2 X 10) (+o )=2 X 107 And from Figure 4 Fyo-0 = 0.5 So the contaminated width, 4 = 50,008 fr. PRODUCT CONTAMINATION is due to the axial mixing of fluids and as such its extent can be predicted theoretically considering velocity profiles, molecular transfer and eddy transport of the ma- terial in flow. The result of the analysis indicates that axial mixing may be considered as a diffusion mechanism governed by Fick’s Law d ri = DA’c The constant D, called the longitudinal dispersion coefficient, depends on the fluid properties, the physical set up and the flow conditions. For any given situation if the value of D is known the above equation may be integrated to allow prediction of the extent of product contamination. For this report the equation was integrated under appropriate boundary conditions to yield the differ- ential of the S-shaped curve shown in Figure 1. This differential curve approximates the Gaussian error curve for small Du/L (straight line region of Figure +, or for D/uL < 0.01), its variance and standard deviation were determined to prepare Figure 4. Fuller discussion, justification of the method and references may be found elsewhere.” About the Author Octave Levenspiel is an associate professor of chemical engineering at Bucknell University, Lewisburg, Penn. He was born in China, at- tended schools in Germany, Britain, and France. and obtained his B.S. degree in chemistry from the Uni- versity of California in 1947. He re- ceived his M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in chemical engineering from Ore- gon State College. He has been at Bucknell for the past three years. For Re = 100,000 we find from Figure 2 D/ud = 0.26 Then 1 D/uL = (D/ud) + (d/L) = (0.26) -( 19° )= 2.5 X 10° From Figure + Fre.» = 5.86 X 10°? Hence the contaminated width, W = (5.86 X 107) + (10°) =- 586 ft. From the last two problems we may generalize: (1) Streamline flow results in much greater contamina- tion than turbulent flow. (2) For an increase in flow rate in the streamline region contamination rises with the 0.5 power of the Reynolds number. (3) For an increase in flow rate in the turbulent flow region contamination decreases, first rapidly and then more slowly. More complex problems may involve varying flow rates, different pipe sizes in the line. adding waste into the contaminated section as it passes a station, etc. Then it may be necessary to deal with a more fundamental measure of the width of the contaminated zone—the variance of the differentiated curve of the S-shaped con- tamination function of Figure 1. Variances are casy to handle as they may be added, subtracted, etc., hence methods using them may be developed rather casily. Pertinent literature references may be found in a previous report.? There are still many factors in product contamination about which we know embarrassingly little. We need much more good data to accurately locate these curves. We would like to know how bends. fittings, pumps, filters, 7 etc., and non-full pipe gravity flow affect contamination. Theory was developed considering the lead and follow- ing fluids to have identical physical properties. When this is not the case what is meant by the average Reynolds number? We have arbitrarily picked it to be that of the 50 percent-50 percent mixture. But is this the best choice? Only when the many contributing factors are quantita- tively accounted for will we be able to accurately predict product contamination. This will result in better con- aniinatic: weal = es ° : soe tamination control as weil as beiier pipe line design. NOMENCLATURE ¢ = concentration of product in fluid d = pipe diameter (ft.) D = longitudinal dispersion coefficient which characterizes the axial mixing in flowing fluids (ft.?/sec.) D. = molecular diffusion coefficient (ft.?/sec.) F = W/L fraction of pipe line length which is contami- nated (dimensionless) L= length of pipe line, always considered from point of product introduction to distribution station in ques- tion (ft.) Re = dup/yz, — Reynolds number of 509%-50%% mixture of the two products flowing successively in the Pipe line (dimensionless) Sc = »/pD.. — average Schmidt number of the two fluids flowing successively in the pipe linc (dimensionless) u = fluid velocity (ft./sec.) 8 = time fluid density (Ibs. /ft.*) pb = Nuid viscosity (Ibs. /ft. sec.) LITERATURE CITED * Birge, E. A.. Qil & Gas Journal, Sept. 20, 1947. ? Levenspiel, O.. Ind. and Eng. Chem., Vol. 50, No. 3. p. 343 (March, 18, PIPELINES FOR LIQUIDS HAZ-165 301:0507 Subpart C—Design Requirements $ 195.100 Scope. This subpart prescribes minimum design requirements for new pipeline systems constructed with steel pipe and for relocating, replacing, or otherwise changing existing sy_tems constructed with steel pipe. However, it does not apply to the movement of line pipe covered by § 195.424. §195.101 Qualifying metallic com- ponents other than pipe. [48 FR 30637, July 5, 1983, effec- tive Aug. 4, 1983] Notwithstanding any require- ment of the subpart which incor- porates by reference an edition of a document listed in §195.3, a metallic component other than pipe manufac- tured in accordance with any other edition of that document is qualified for use if — Ta) It can be shown through visual inspection of the cleaned component that no defect exists which might im- pair the strength or tightness of the component; and (b) The edition of the document under which the component was manufactured has equal or more str- ingent requirements for the following as an edition of that document cur- rently or previously listed in §195.3: (1) Pressure testing; (2) Materials; and (3) Pressure and temperature ratings. § 195.102 Design temperature. [56 FR 26925, June 12, 1991, effective July 12, 1991] . (a) Material for components of the system must be chosen for the temperature environment in which the components will be used so that the pipeline will maintain its structural integrity. (b) Components of carbon dioxide pipelines that are subject to low temperatures during normal operation because of rapid pressure reduction or during the initial fill of the line must.be made of materials that are suitable for those low temperatures. $ 195.104 Variations in pressure. If, within a pipeline system, two or more components are to be connected at a place where one will operate at a higher pressure than another, the system must be designed so that any component - operating at the lower pressure will not be overstressed. $ 195.106 Internal design pressure. (a) Internal design pressure for the pipe in a pipeline is determined in accordance with the following formula: 6-28-91 P=(2 St/D)XEXF P=Internal design pressure in pounds per square inch gauge. S=Yield strength in pounds per square inch determined in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section. ¢=Nominal wall thickness of the pipe in inches. If this is unknown, it is determined in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section. D=Nominal outside diameter of the pipe in inches. E=Seam joiut factor determined in accordance with paragraph (e) of this section. F=A design factor of 0.72, except that a design factor of 0.60 is used for pipe, including risers, on a platform located offshore or on a platform in inland navigable waters, and 0.54 is used for pipe that has been subjected to cold expansion to meet the specified mini- mum yield strength and is subsequently heated, other than by welding or stress relieving as a part of welding, to a temperature higher than 900° F (482° C) for any period of time or over 600° F (316° C) for more than 1 hour. (49 FR 7567, March 1, 1984, effective April 2, 1984] (b) The yield strength to be used in determining internal design pressure under paragraph (a) of this section is the specified minimum yield strength. If the specified minimum yield strength is not known, the yield strength is determined by performing all of the tensile tests of API Specification 5L on randomly se- lected test specimens with the following number of tests: Pre me Atumnber of tests Less than 6 inches in outexde One test for ach 200 ameter. ; lengths. 6 inches through 12% inches One test for each 100 in outsde diameter. lengths. Larger than 12% inches in One test for each SO lengins. outedde diameter. If the average yield-tensile ratio exceeds 0.85, the yield strength of the pipe is taken as 24,000 p.s.i. If the ; average yield-tensile ratio is 0.85 or less, the yield strength of the pipe is taken as the lower of the following: (51 FR 15333, April 23, 1986, effective May 23, 1986] (1) Eighty percent of the average yield strength determined by the tensile tests. (2) The lowest yield strength determined by the tensile tests. (c) If the nominal wall thickness to be used in determining internal design pressure under paragraph (a) of this section is not known, it is determined by ASTM A691 API 5L.... measuring the thickness of each piece of pipe at quarter points on one end. However, if the pipe is of uniform grade, size, and thickness, only 10 individual lengths or 5 percent of all lengths, whichever is greater, need be measured. The thickness of the lengths that are not measured must be verified by applying a gage set to the minimum thickness found by the measurement. The nominal wall thickness to be used is the next wall thickness found in commerical specifications that is below the average of dll the measurements taken. However, the nominal wall thickness may not be more than 1.14 times the smallest measurement taken on pipe that is less than 20 inches in outside diameter, nor more than 1.11 times the smallest measurement taken on pipe that is 20 inches or more in outside diameter. (d) The minimum wall thickness of the pipe may not be less than 87.5 percent of the value used for nominal wall thickness in determining the internal design pressure under paragraph (a) of this section. In addition, the anticipated external loads and external pressures that are concurrent with internal pressure must be considered in accordance with §§ 195.108 and 195.110 and, after determining the internal design pressure, the nominal wall thickness must be increased as necessary to compensate for these concurrent loads and pressures. (e) The seam joint factor used in paragraph (a) of this section is determined in accordance with the following table: ‘Specification The seam joint factor for pipe which is not covered by this paragraph must be approved by the Secretary. (51 FR 15333, April 23, 1986; 54 FR 5628, Feb. 6, 1989, effective March 8, 1989} [Sec. 195.106(e)] Published by THE BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS, INC., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20037 W17 301:0508 § 195.108 External pressure. Any external pressure that will be exerted on the pipe must be provided for in designing a pipeline system. § 195.110 External loads. (a) Anticipated external loads (e.g.), earthquakes, vibration, thermal expansion, and contraction must be provided for in designing a pipeline system. In providing for expansion and flexibility, section 419 of ANSI B31.4 must be iollowed. (b) The pipe and other components must be supported in such a way that the support does not cause excess localized stresses. In designing attachments to pipe, the added stress to the wall of the pipe must be computed and compensated for. § 195.111 Fracture propagation. (56 FR 26926, June 12, 1991. effective July 12, 1991] A carbon dioxide pipeline system must be designed to mitigate the effects of fracture propagation. $ 195.112 New pipe. Any new pipe installed in a pipeline system must comply with the following: (a) The pipe must be made of steel of the carbon, low alloy-high strength, or alloy type that is able to withstand the internal pressures and external loads and pressures anticipated for the pipeline system. (b) The pipe must be made in accordance with a written pipe specification that sets forth the chemical Tequirements for the pipe steel and mechanical tests for the pipe to provide pipe suitable for the use intended. _ (c) Each length of pipe with an outside diameter of 4 inches or more must be marked on the pipe or pipe coating with the specification to which it was made, the specified minimum yield strength or grade, and the pipe size. The marking must be applied in a manner that does not damage the pipe or pipe coating and must remain visible until the pipe is installed. $ 195.114 Used pipe. Any used pipe installed in a pipeline system must comply with § 195.112 (a) and (b) and the following: (a) The pipe must be of a known specification and the seam joint factor must be determined in accordance with § 19£.106(e). If the specified minimum yield strength or the wall thickness is not known, it is determined in accordance with § 195.106 (b) or (c) as appropriate. (b) There may not be any— (1) Buckles; (2) Cracks, grooves, gouges, dents, or other surface defects that exceed the HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TRANSPORTATION maximum depth of such a defect permitted by the specification to which the pipe was manufactured; or (3) Corroded areas where the remaining wall thickness is leas than the minimum thickness required by the tolerances in the specification to which the pipe was manufactured. However, pipe that does not meet the requirements of paragraph (b)(3) of this section may be used if the operating pressure is reduced to be commensurate with the remaining wall thickness. § 195.116 Valves. Each valve installed in a pipeline system must comply with the following: (a) The valve must be of a sound engineering design. (b) Materials subject to the internal pressure of the pipeline system, including welded and flanged ends, must be compatible with the pipe or fittings to which the valve is attached. (c) Each part of the valve that will be in contact with the carbon dioxide or hazardous liquid stream must be made of materials that are compatible with carbon dioxide or each hazardous liquid that it is anticipated will flow through the pipeline system. [56 FR 26926, June 12, 1991, effective July 12, 1991] (d) Each valve must be both hydrostatically shell tested and hydrostatically seat tested without leakage to at least the requirements set forth in section 5 of API Standard 6D. (e) Each valve other than a check valve must be equipped with a means for clearly indicating the position of the valve (open, closed, etc.). (f) Each valve must be marked on the body or the nameplate, with at least the following: (1) Manufacturer's name or trademark. (2) Class designation or the maximum working pressure to which the valve may be subjected. (3) Body material designation (the end connection material, if more than one type is used). (4) Nominal valve size. § 195.118 Fittings. [a) Butt-welding type fittings must meet the marking, end preparation, and the bursting strength requirements of ANSI B16.9 or MSS Standard Practice SP-75. (b) There may not be any buckles, dents, cracks, gouges, or other defects in the fitting that might reduce the strength of the fitting. (c) The fitting must be suitable for the intended service and be at least as strong as the pipe and other fittings in Chemical Regulation Reporter the pipeline system to which it is attached. § 195.120 Changes In direction: Provision for internal passage. Each component of a main line system, other than manifolds, that change direction within the pipeline system must have a radius of turn that readily allows the passage of pipeline scrapers, spheres, and internal inspection equipment. § 195.122 Fabricated branch connections. Each pipeline system must be designed so that the addition of any fabricated branch connections will not reduce the strength of the pipeline system. § 195.124 Closures. Each closure to be installed in a pipeline system must comply with the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section VIII, Pressure Vessels, Division 1, and must have pressure and temperature ratings at least equal to those of the pipe to which the closure is attached. § 195.126 Fiange connection. Each component of a flange connection must be compatible with each other component and the connection as a unit must be suitable for the service in which it is to be used. §$ 495.128 Station piping. Any pipe to be installed in a station that is subject to system pressure must meet the applicable requirements of this subpart. § 195.130 Fabricated assembiies. Each fabricated assembly to be installed in a pipeline system must meet the applicable requirements of this subpart. $ 195.132 Above ground breakout tanks. Each above ground breakout tank must be designed to withstand the internal pressure produced by the hazardous liquid to be stored therein and any anticipated external loads. Subpart D—Construction § 195.208 Scope. This subpart prescribes minimum requirements for constructing new pipeline systems with steel pipe, and for relocating, replacing, or otherwise changing existing pipeline systems that are constructed with steel pipe. However, this subpart does not apply to [Sec. 195.200] 118