Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Northern Intertie Revised Macro-Corridor Study & Project Alternative Study 1994
Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc. Northern Intertie Revised Macro-Corridor Study and Project Alternative Study Prepared by DAMES & MOORE ae — December 1994 @ | United States i Washington | fr lectrification 1L\ ner o of hgrtcuture Administration 20250 wilt DEC 21719 December 15, 1994 SUBJECT: Healy-Fairbanks Transmission Line Macro-Corridor Study/Project Alternative Report TO: See Attached List The Rural Utilities Service (RUS), formerly the Rural Electrification Administration, is serving as the lead agency responsible for the environmental review of the proposed Healy-Fairbanks 230 kV transmission line project. Dames and Moore, Inc., of Anchorage, Alaska, has revised the Macro-Corridor Study/Project Alternative Report for the project. This revised report incorporated project changes resulting from agency and public comments received during the scoping process. Because of your expressed interest in the project, we are sending a copy of the subject report for your review. Please submit any written comments to the address below by January 20, 1995. If you have any questions, please contact: Mr. Nurul Islam Rural Utilities Service Environmental Compliance Branch Agriculture South Building Washington, DC 20250 Tel: (202) 720-1784 RUS appreciates your interest in the project. Sincerely, he 2 fh LAWRENCE R. WOLFE Chief, Environmental Compliance Branch Electric Staff Division Rural Utilities Service Enclosures — A ia Mr. Kim H. Whitman Regional Director Federal Emergency Management Agency Region X Federal Regional Center 130 228th Street SW Bothell WA 98021-9796 (206) 487-4678 Mr. Kevin Morgan Chief, Compliance Section Regulatory Branch Department of the Army U.S. Army Engineer District, Alaska PO Box 898 Anchorage AK 99506-0898 (907) 753-2720 Mr. John Hall National Wetland Inventory Project United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 1011 East Tudor Road Anchorage AK 99503-6119 (907) 786-3542 Mr. Ron Garrett Coordinator, Endangered Species United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 1011 East Tudor Road Anchorage AK 99503-6119 (907) 786-3542 Mr. Neil Johannsen Director State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation PO Box 107001 Anchorage AK 99510-7001 (907) 762-2617 Ms. Judith E. Bittner State Historical Preservation Officer State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation PO Box 107001 Anchorage AK 99510-7001 (907) 762-2617 Northern Intertie Notification List Page 2 10. LT 126 Mr. Philip J. Carpenter District Chief United States Geological Survey Water Resources Division 4230 University Drive Suite 201 Anchorage AK 99508-4664 (907) 786-7100 Mr. Paul Bateman State of Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Northern Region Office 1001 Noble Street Suite 350 Fairbanks AK 99701 451-2360 Ms. Derylee Hecimovich County Executive Director United States Department of Agriculture Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service 268 East Fireweed Suite 3 Palmer AK 99645 (907) 745-4271 Mr. Alvin G. Ott, Regional Supervisor State of Alaska Department of Fish and Game Wildlife Conservation, Habitat Division 1300 College Road Fairbanks AK 99701 451-6192 Mr. Pat Sousa Field Supervisor United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Fish and Wildlife Enhancement Ecological Service Federal Building, Box 20, Room 232 101 12th Avenue Fairbanks AK 99701 456-0388 Mr. Al Ewing Assistant Regional Administrator Environmental Protection Agency Alaska Operations Office 222 West 7th Avenue #19 Anchorage AK 99513 (907) 271-5083 Northern Intertie Notification List Page 3 13. Mr. Rex Nutter, Director Fairbanks North Star Borough Division of Community Planning PO Box 71267 Fairbanks AK 99707-1267 459-1260 14. Mr. Bill Keller Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers Regulatory Branch PO Box 898 Anchorage AK 99506-0898 15. Mr. Gary Forman U.S. Bureau of Land Management 1150 University Avenue Fairbanks AK 99709-3844 16. Mr. John Huber ADOT&PF, Utilities Section Northern Region 2301 Peger Road Fairbanks AK 99709-5399 17. Mr. Dave Bloom ADOT&PF, Environmental Section 2301 Peger Road Fairbanks AK 99709-5399 18. Ms. Joyce Bealman Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation 610 University Avenue Fairbanks AK 99709-3643 19. Mayor John Gonzales Denali Borough PO Box 480 Healy AK 99743 20. Mr. Jack Granfield Fairbanks North Star Borough Property Management Section PO Box 71267 Fairbanks AK 99707 21. Mr. Larry Bright U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 101-12th Avenue, Box 19 Room 232 Fairbanks AK 99701 Northern Intertie Notification List Page 4 22. 23). 24. 257. 26. Bile 28. 29. 30. Mr. Mark Jen U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 222 West 7th Avenue, #19 Anchorage AK 99513-7588 Mr. Tom Brooks Alaska Railroad PO Box 107500 Anchorage AK 99510-7500 Mr. Kraig Hughes Alaska Railroad PO Box 107500 Anchorage AK 99510-7500 Albert J. Kraus Colonel, U.S. Army Director of Public Works 600 Richardson Drive #5000 Fort Richardson AK 99505-5000 Mr. John Bregar Environmental Scientist EPA Region 10 1200 Sixth Avenue Seattle WA 98101 Mr. James G. King Alaska Working Group Chairman The Trumpeter Swan Society 3800 County Road 24 Maple Plain MN 55359 Ms. Nancy J. Welch Acting Regional Manager Alaska Department of Natural Resources Division of State Land 3700 Airport Way Fairbanks AK 99709-4699 Ferry Community Association c/o Ms. Jenasy Jensen HO BOX SLOZA Healy AK 99743-9604 Ms. Lolita Valq Rock Creek Bed & Breakfast HG 1); BOxX)/ 345.0 Healy AK 99743 Northern Intertie Notification List Page 5 31. 32. 33¢ 34. 35 « 36. 37. Mr. Doyle Ruff Airport Manager Fairbanks International Airport PO Box 60369 Fairbanks AK 99706 Ms. Janey Fadley U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 101-12th Avenue, Box 19 Room 232 Fairbanks AK 99701 Ms. Sharon Duboin FAA, Airports Division AAL600 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14 Anchorage AK 99513-7587 Mr. Thomas Wardleigh Alaska Aviation Safety Foundation 4134 Ingra Street, #201 Anchorage AK 99503 Mr. Bob Durand FAA, Air Traffic Division AAL531 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14 Anchorage AK 99513-7587 Alaska Airmen's Association Attn: President 1515 East 13th Avenue Anchorage AK 99501 Alaskan Command Attn: Major Jeff Lane, J42 Building 5-800 G Street, Suite 215 Elmendorf AFB AK 99506 NORTHERN INTERTIE HEALY TO FAIRBANKS 230 kV TRANSMISSION LINE REVISED MACRO-CORRIDOR ANALYSIS AND PROJECT ALTERNATIVE REPORT DECEMBER 1994 NORTHERN INTERTIE HEALY TO FAIRBANKS 230 kV TRANSMISSION LINE REVISED MACRO-CORRIDOR ANALYSIS AND PROJECT ALTERNATIVE REPORT Prepared for: Golden Valley Electric Association P. O. Box 71249 Fairbanks, AK 99707-1249 Prepared by: Dames & Moore, Inc. 5600 B Street, Suite 100 Anchorage, AK 99518-1297 D&M Job #09057-012-020 December 1994 Section TABLE OF CONTENTS 3 eo E io 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND NEED ............... 00000 2c eee 1-1 1.1 -PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2... .0060 ans ST £6 oda ae dees 1-1 1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED ......... bee Goes gins aie 5g SUS OH Vw a 1-3 2.0 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION .......... 0.0.02. 2-1 2.1 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE .............22002220 eee Tae Zl 2.2 ENERGY CONSERVATION/DEMAND MANAGEMENT .......... 2-2 2.3. ADDITIONAL GENERATING CAPACITY .............2.005- 2-2 2.4 NEW TRANSMISSION LINE - TOTAL UNDERGROUND CONSTRUCTION ........ 2... eee eee ee eee 2-3 2.5 NEW TRANSMISSION LINE - PARTIAL UNDERGROUND CONSTRUCTION j005 fase uee cee nsee ae ws yee wee nes 2-4 2.6 NEW TRANSMISSION LINE - OVERHEAD LINE .............. 2-5 2.6.1 Operating Voltages and Reactive Compensation ............ 2-5 2.6.2 Transmission Line Routing Evaluation .................- 2-7 2.6.3 Substation Location Study ..................22000. 2-13 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS ............. 0.000000 eee 3-1 3.1 OVERVIEW ........... ee ee 3-1 3.2 AGENCY INFORMATION MEETING .................-244- 3-2 3.3 AGENCY SCOPING MEETING ................-0000000 ee 3-2 3.4 PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGS ...............0 50002 e ee eee 3-3 3.5 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS (306.005.3008 ses Aiewaee ese cee ge ae we 3-6 3.5.1 Federal Permits «os icc oes wie sees tte ome Bad oe ee 3-6 3.5.2, State of Alaska Permits «6.6066 ool dh w nets wee oth d's 0% 3-11 3.5.3: Local Permits *. 5230 a6 ace wnck 2066 deh oe Hw ame as 3-12 3.5.4 Construction Camp Related Permitting ................ 3-12 GVEAMCS.RPT i DECEMBER 1994 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Section Title Page 4:0 ENVIRONMENTAL BASEEINE 32.7... 22650 ss 5 6 yi ee 4-1 451 OVERVIEW sesso 5 Serie tin tah et ee to ed 4-1 42 STUDY AREA DELINEATION = fee te ts 4-1 ASS (CLIMATIC SETTING tigre ieee eos Goss sore oe eo 4-1 4:4 GEOLOGIC SETTING, 3 2 4 ee gee se oe i ee ee 4-2 4°4-1— Permatrost§— 35sec ie oes ey es soho cine sees eee 4-3 4:4.2" Seismicity/Raults' =... .2--. <0 6 eee Sag 43 (4:4:3' “Route Geology g. 5 6. ce ee eo wea Pi ee ote ee 4-4 4.5 SURFACE WATER AND AQUATIC BIOLOGY ................ 4-9 ASAT ana iwen: sacs ys ete toca oe sees ios) ass he) ho) or ef se fy ster 4-9 A352, Nenana Rivers cays... 5 eis ys cn 5 0 A ss oe ee 4-13 4°6' WILDEIFEVAND HABITAT. 5: 552 cs ee = i me 4-14 A631 Birds 23a ee ee otc eee ets sie aes 4-14 A Gi2; Mammals pase esata ok oie opto sio oie order te seiusi- oes sss bora 4-18 4:57- VEGETATION AND WETLANDS sco see ce 4-20 Asis eV egetation ct cere et eo, es oes) een: 4-20 ASTD: Wetlands — eos on sco eke ta tae ste Sissi eres 5 ode oot ss 4-22 4:8 CULTURAL RESOURCES ©5515 5. che ee ee 4-24 4.9 SOCIOECONOMIC/SOCIOPOLITICAL RESOURCES ............ 4-25 4.9512 Land Stats 359 aoe osc sen ow es a rss oto ots to 4-25 4.9.2 Land Use and Community Characteristics ............... 4-27 4:93: Wand! Use Regulation = 36.566 oc 5s os oe ne 4-28 4-974 “Aviation Usesi- 5, <3. 5 ocean oe et got oe sy oslo sc. 4-31 4.10 VISUAL AND RECREATIONAL RESOURCES .............-.. 4-33 4230512 Visual Resources) 226.20. 2 srntess eos) ee ewe 4-33 4-10°2) Recreational Resources, .-=.. 3.3 fs es se oe 4-34 Al) “SUBSISTENCE RESOURCES! 33. 5 5 3 oe 4-36 412, ELECIRO-MAGNETIC FIELDS 22. 33. 3 os i a i 4-38 GVEAMCS.RPT ii DECEMBER 1994 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Section Title Page 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS ......0%. 02 cee eee ee eee 5-1 5.1 AQUATIC BIOLOGY: . 3: . acts. cise als cPhae ee ee 5-1 5.1.1 Potential Construction Impacts ................---4-- 5-1 5.1.2 Potential Impacts of Operation ................--004.- 5-1 5.1.3. Alternative Route Evaluation .................20005- 5-2 5.2 WILDLIFE AND HABITAT 2%. .2. 06 ee ec ec tee te eee eee 5-2 5.2.1 Potential Construction Impacts ..................0--. 5-2 5.2.2 Potential Impacts of Operation ...................0.-. 5-4 5.2.3 Alternative Route Evaluation ....................020. 5-5 5.3 VEGETATION AND WETLANDS ...............--.2-2-055 5-8 5.3.1 Potential Construction Impacts ...............22.005. 5-8 5.3.2 Potential Impacts of Operation ..................006, 5-8 5.3.3. Alternative Route Evaluation ..................000- 5-11 5.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES 3026.4 disc occ seed eee we. oe 6 fo 5-13 5.4.1 Potential Construction Impacts ..............0--2005 5-13 5.4.2 Potential Impacts of Operation ...............2-2...2-- 5-14 5.4.3. Alternative Route Evaluation ...................... 5-14 5.5 SOCIOECONOMIC/SOCIOPOLITICAL RESOURCES ............ 5-17 5.5.1 Potential Construction Impacts .................2204. 5-17 5.5.2 Potential Impact of Operation ..................004. 5-18 5.5.3 Alternative Route Evaluation ...................004. 5-19 SG VIS Aaa etek et chatted eta all ated SPO opr cp eet else bal 5-20 5.6.1 Potential Construction Impacts .................2.204. 5-21 5.6.2 Potential Impact of Operation .............--20000e 5-21 5.6.3. Alternative Route Evaluation ..............0-2 000s 5-21 5-7 RECREATION 55 feoece co eo ee a os ae ee ane = 9 2 5-25 §:7.1 Potential Construction Impacts <2. «12. cc ce tow ote ee 5-25 5.7.2 Potential Impact of Operation .. 6.6 256s cee ee ec ee 5-25 5.7.3 Alternativé Route Evaluation «. 2... 52. s.06-65 set8s eae 5-26 GVEAMCS.RPT iii DECEMBER 1994 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Section Title Page 5:8 “SUBSISTENCE RESOURCES #22 Soe ete ieee sie 5-26 5.8.1 Potential Construction Impacts .............-2.00000-% 5-26 5.5.2 |. Potential Impact of Operation yee ye teeta eternal 5-27 5.8.5 alternative Route|Evaluation’ jem seer ate eee ee ee 5-27 5.9 ELECTRO-MAGNETIC FIELDS AND SAFETY CONCERNS ....... 5-27 5.9\1 | Potential Construction Impacts) (23566 .56 24 «215 =) «1s etl <1 5-27 5.9.2 Potential Impact of Operation .................4-. Brees: 5.9:3 Alternative Route| Evaluation’ #2) 0%). 23 ss os soe oes oe ee 5-28 6.0 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE ROUTE ALIGNMENTS ............. 6-1 OSL IN PRODUCTION | oF fire 12) bt oie eet boule) a) cre nireitonte. Yisi eile sire Layee fet | ce Fe 6-1 6:2 DEVALUATION CRITERIA ra cee see toyed Sie oie ello steko lot elie bo) ised sila fo) te Fe 6-1 6:2 sIL Biological Resources [ii Pacers cle) sha teitd oes holt alu cues ka tel aus rs 6-1 6:2-2)| (Wetland Resources) | iat ee yc of sla ln else) ol sts euskeks ee shcil 6-3 6:2:5) (Culairal Resources |.) 504 -ieig aisle sie i) sce ieee alc et lols el el ail 6-4 622.4) and Status) ie bi eh) 3 heaton bell celeste bol dete [aria fel sale fone fail ails 6-4 6:25) 2Visual Resources|.) i012 is (e515 1.) 6) om) folie bs) Serle nieisy aie [o elie ie ol eile 6-5 6:2:6) Geotechnical Criteria hic to cite teeters cole 6-5 6.227 {Socioeconomic Resources| bei c i.) -psie (eee loss ha eels tafe) <1 ake} ts 6-6 6.3) ALTERNATIVE ROUTE ‘COMPARISON... ........ . oi 3 3 es ss soe 6-6 720k SUMMARYAND) CONCLUSIONS iestai-eehoiciaiey oo tieteloteieh homer ehebene) che 7-1 APPENDICES A Agency and Government Contacts B Raptor Survey Cc Cultural Resource Study D Wetlands Survey E References F Acronyms GVEAMCS.RPT iv DECEMBER 1994 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) TABLES 2-1 Operating Voltage and Reactive Compensation Options 3-1 Agency Scoping Issues 3-2 Public Scoping Comments 3-3. Potential Environmental Permits and Approvals 4-1. Named Creeks and Rivers Crossed by Proposed Route Alignments 4-2 Anadromous Fish Streams Crossed by Proposed Route Alignments 4-3 Trumpeter Swan Observations 1992 - 1994 4-4 Tanana Basin Area Plan Land Use Designations 4-5 Tanana Valley State Forest Management Plan 4-6 Typical Magnetic Field Levels 5-1 Wetlands Acreage by Wetland Type 6-1 _ Evaluation Criteria 6-2 Alternative Route Evaluation FIGURES 1-1 Typical Transmission Line X Structure 1-2. Typical Transmission Line Y Structure 1-3. Typical Transmission Line V Structure 1-4 Typical Transmission Line Tall Lattice Structure 1-5 Typical Transmission Line I-String Structure 1-6 Typical Transmission Line V-String Structure 1-7 GVEA Service Area 2-1 Macro-Corridor Study and Proposed Route Alternatives 2-2 Proposed Substation Locations 4-1 Waterfowl Concentrations and Raptor Nest Sites 4-2 Fish and Wildlife Concentration Areas GVEAMCS.RPT Vv DECEMBER 1994 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND NEED Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA), as construction manager for the Intertie Participants Group (IPG), is proposing to construct a 230 kilovolt (kV) transmission line, to initially be operated at 138 kV, between Healy and Fairbanks, Alaska. This project, known as the Northern Intertie, would provide a loop capability for GVEA’s existing 138 kV transmission line between Healy and Gold Hill, increase the power transfer capability for power from the Anchorage area, increase the capacity to transfer power from the Healy generation site, reduce losses for transfers north of Healy, and provide a direct connection from the intertie to the Fairbanks Municipal Utility System (FMUS) via the Northern Intertie. 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed Northern Intertie is a 50 percent State of Alaska grant funded/50 percent Railbelt Utilities funded transmission line between Healy and Fairbanks, including reactive compensation, and substation additions at both ends to allow for interconnection to the existing facilities. GVEA is the Northern Intertie Construction Manager for the IPG. The IPG is made up of seven Alaskan Railbelt utilities who are working together to construct, own, and operate the Northern Intertie. The IPG participants consist of Anchorage Municipal Light and Power (AMLP), Chugach Electric Association (CEA), the City of Seward Electric System (SES), FMUS, GVEA, Homer Electric Association (HEA), and Matanuska Electric Association (MEA). The state agency administering the state grant is the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority (AIDEA). The Northern Intertie is a proposed 230 kV transmission line, to initially be operated at 138 kV, between Healy and Fairbanks, Alaska. The Northern Intertie is designed to increase transfer capacity between Anchorage and Fairbanks in order to improve the reliability of service in the Railbelt and to increase the electric transmission capability between Healy, Fairbanks, and Anchorage, to allow the Railbelt utilities to provide the lowest cost, most reliable service to their customers. Over the past several years there have been several system, engineering, and economic studies, all of which have helped define the costs, routes, reactive compensation, and sizing for a transmission line intertie from Healy to Fairbanks (the Northern Intertie). The Railbelt Intertie Feasibility Study, published in 1991, examined the feasibility of upgrading both the northern (Healy to Fairbanks) and the southern (Kenai to Anchorage) ends of the Railbelt transmission GVEAMCS.RPT 1-1 DECEMBER 1994 system. The Feasibility Study showed a substantial excess of benefits over cost for the Northern Intertie. The Northern Intertie Project would include construction of approximately 160 kilometers (km) or 100 miles of 230 kV transmission line, modifications to existing substations, and construction of a new substation in Fairbanks. Substation modifications would include battery energy storage systems and/or static volt-ampress reactive compensation systems at various substation sites along the Railbelt Intertie. Modifications to the Gold Hill substation in Fairbanks would be required if the North Route is chosen. A new substation, near the GVEA 69 and 138 kV, and FMUS 69 kV transmission lines in southern Fairbanks, would be required if a southern route is chosen. Either Gold Hill or this new substation would be the northern terminus of the Northern Intertie, although the Gold Hill substation would not provide a direct interconnection to the FMUS system. If approved, construction of the line is expected to begin in 1995 and to be completed by 1997. The proposed transmission line would be constructed using metal structures with non-reflective finishes. Structure types that are likely to be used include X structures, lattice structures, and single pole structures. Foundations would consist of driven or drilled piles for the majority of the route, with drilled piers and rock anchors used as needed. The majority of the structures used for the proposed line would likely be guyed X-configuration as shown in Figure 1-1. This structure carries a single three-phase circuit with the energized conductors suspended by insulators from a crossarm, in a horizontal configuration. Two non- energized conductors are positioned above the crossarm supported by individual masts. These conductors shield the energized conductors from lightning. The X structure is used where a standard right-of-way width of about 46 meters (150 feet) is available. An X structure allows for shorter structures to be used because all energized conductors are at the same level. It also allows for long spans, thus requiring fewer structures per mile of line. A maximum span distance of 366 meters (1,200 feet) between structures is expected for this type of construction. Two types of X structures may be used. The standard X structure would be used as a tangent structure and could span up to 305 meters (1,000 feet). A modification, the long span X structure, would be used on longer spans and for normal spans with up to five degree line angles. Other possible tubular type structures are illustrated in Figure 1-2 and 1-3. Tall, steel lattice structures are typically used at river crossings. These structures are illustrated in Figure 1-4. River crossings require long spans, which in turn require taller structures. These lattice structures are configured similar to the X structures, with two non-energized conductors GVEAMCS.RPT 1-2 DECEMBER 1994 at the top of the structure and three energized conductors in a horizontal configuration. These structures may require a slightly wider right-of-way width than an X structure. Single pole structures, such as those shown in Figures 1-5 and 1-6, would be used in areas of restricted right-of-way and within existing road rights-of-way. The single pole structures are designed to allow all energized conductors to be aligned in a vertical configuration, thereby reducing the horizontal clearance requirements. The I-String structures (Figure 1-5) would likely be used on the line coming out of the Healy substation where rights-of-way may be limited to less than 30 meters (100 feet). The V-String structures (Figure 1-6) are typically used in areas where the line could be placed within an existing road right-of-way. 1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED The IPG has initiated this project in order to improve utility service to customers of the Railbelt utilities, including GVEA and FMUS. In the Fairbanks area, GVEA and FMUS provide service to an area of interior Alaska containing approximately 80,000 residents. GVEA is a consumer- owned electric cooperative providing electric service to approximately 28,000 customers in the interior. As a customer-owned cooperative, GVEA has adopted a Least Cost Plan Policy which States that the utility will plan for current and future needs in order to "meet(ing) power requirements at the lowest cost consistent with sound economy, wise use of resources and good management." In fulfillment of this goal, the purpose of this project is to increase the reliability of service in the Fairbanks area; increase the transfer capacity between Healy, Fairbanks, and Anchorage; and, provide the least cost, most reliable service to Railbelt utility customers. The need for this project is described in the following pages. GVEA’s service area is located in interior Alaska, primarily in the Fairbanks North Star Borough (Figure 1-7). FMUS provides service to much of the City of Fairbanks itself, while GVEA provides service to the remainder of the Borough and other areas in interior Alaska. GVEA generation facilities are located in Fairbanks, North Pole, and Healy. In addition to these generation sources, GVEA purchases power from CEA and AMLP in Anchorage and from Bradley Lake near Homer. GVEA currently relies on generation at Healy, along with purchases from CEA, AMLP, and Bradley Lake for the majority of its electric supply. The GVEA generation units in Fairbanks and the North Pole are primarily used for supplemental power at peak load, due to the fact that power produced by these units is more expensive than the other power sources. However, GVEA is constrained in the amount of power it can receive from Bradley Lake and the Anchorage area by limited bulk transmission capabilities between GVEAMCS.RPT 1-3 DECEMBER 1994 Anchorage and Fairbanks. FMUS operates coal and oil-fired generation units at the Chena Station facility in Fairbanks. In order to ensure that GVEA customers have sufficient power resources at the lowest possible cost, GVEA conducted an Integrated Resource Planning Study in 1991. This study evaluated new generation sources, purchases of energy from other suppliers, transmission upgrades, and demand management (energy conservation) strategies. The recommendations for providing for the lowest cost reliable source of power to GVEA customers were to evaluate conservation options, evaluate repowering GVEA’s oil fired generators to extend their expected life, to seek approval of the Healy Clean Coal Project, and to actively pursue the Northern Intertie transmission line project. GVEA is currently interconnected with utilities in the southern railbelt area by the Anchorage to Fairbanks intertie which is owned by the State of Alaska. The State developed the railbelt intertie system to allow utilities throughout the state to participate in large state energy projects, such as the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project. The system also allows utilities in the railbelt to share excess reserves and to provide interconnections for utilities to buy and sell power to each other as needed. This flexibility allows utilities to provide highly reliable, low cost service to their customers. The Anchorage to Fairbanks intertie, over which GVEA receives the majority of its current power supply, is approximately 280 km (175 miles) long. The Douglas to Healy portion of the Anchorage to Fairbanks intertie was constructed for 345 kV, but is currently operated at 138 kV. The portion of the intertie between Douglas and Teeland was constructed for and is operating at 138 kV, and would require reconstruction to allow for operation at 230 kV. The Feasibility Study completed by the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) in 1991 listed several benefits provided by the Northern Intertie. The major benefits include increased reliability of electric service both in Fairbanks and throughout the Railbelt area; the ability for Railbelt utilities to buy and sell energy in order to maximize use of the lowest cost generation power; and a decrease in power losses in the transmission system by splitting the power flow between the existing Healy to Fairbanks 138 kV transmission line and the Northern Intertie. The Feasibility Study summarized the impact of the Northern Intertie on transfer capability and transmission losses as follows: GVEAMCS.RPT 1-4 DECEMBER 1994 "e Substantial reduction in transmission losses between Healy and Fairbanks; ° Modest additional increase in transfer capability between Anchorage and Fairbanks; and ° Significantly increased reliability." Construction of the Northern Intertie could significantly improve the reliability of electric service throughout GVEA’s and FMUS’s service areas. GVEA currently receives up to 65 percent of its total power from the Anchorage area over the existing 138 kV transmission line. The 1991 Feasibility Study estimated that 50 percent of power outages in Fairbanks are transmission related and could be avoided with the proposed new intertie. Outages result in costly losses to consumers, not only through inconvenience and lost production, but also equipment damage. The 1991 Study states that improvements to transmission capabilities between Anchorage and Fairbanks could result in up to $10 million in increased reliability (the benefit associated with reducing the current number of outages). The Study also notes that new generation at the Healy Clean Coal Project site and a new transmission line between Healy and Fairbanks may increase the reliability of electrical service for GVEA’s service area to a level closer to that of the reliability of service in Anchorage. The addition of a new transmission line intertie between Healy and Fairbanks increases reliability by providing dual track transmission capability. This means that if there is a problem with or a failure of one of the transmission lines, power from Healy will still be available over the other line. With over 65 percent of the area’s power supply received over the transmission line from Healy or further south, loss of transmission capability would cause a major disruption of service in the Fairbanks service area. In addition to increasing service reliability, power losses during transmission can be reduced by splitting the power load between two transmission lines. Cost savings associated with reducing transmission losses are estimated at $7 million (AEA, 1989). The existing 138 kV transmission line between Healy and Fairbanks was constructed in 1967 and is due for reconstruction around 1997. The presence of the proposed Northern Intertie would allow for reconstruction of the existing line without disruption of the existing power supply from the Anchorage area. If reconstruction of this line cannot occur in a timely manner, it may be expected that transmission power outages would increase as the line ages and exceeds its expected life. GVEAMCS.RPT 1-5 DECEMBER 1994 In addition to increasing the reliability of service for GVEA customers, the proposed intertie would also improve reliability for Fairbanks residents served by FMUS. FMUS currently purchases power from the interconnected system and has expressed an interest in increasing purchases from the other railbelt utilities. The Northern Intertie would also allow GVEA or FMUS to transfer power south in case of generation shortages or transmission failures in ‘the Railbelt area south of Fairbanks. All of the utilities in the Railbelt system benefit from being able to buy and sell electricity to each other. The ability to purchase excess power from other utilities in the event of a failure of a utility’s system greatly increases the reliability of service for all of the utilities. GVEAMCS.RPT 1-6 DECEMBER 1994 14 m (46') STRUCTURE LEG VARIABLE PILE FOUNDATION | STS | | GUY ANCHOR VARIABLE R.O.W. CENTERLINE 46 m (150') R.O.W. WIDTH SOURCE: DRYDEN & LARUE, INC. TYPICAL TRANSMISSION LINE eee ENGINEERS xX STRUCTURE 06/13/' BNE Neve Golden Valley Electric Association SCALE NTs Northern Intertie Macro-Corridor Study FIGURE 1-1 23% DAMES & MOORE i TST ToT oro or ae TT Sia eT | SOURCE: DRYDEN & LARUE, INC. TYPICAL TRANSMISSION LINE mu CONSULTING ENGINEERS Y STRUCTURE = DAMES & MOORE 11/28/94 FILE NAME: GVE1-2.DWG Golden Valley Electric Association SCALE: N.TS. Northern Intertie Macro-Corridor Study FIGURE 1-2 Tr ee ea TT SOURCE: DRYDEN & LARUE, INC.| CONSULTING ENGINEERS 07/01/94 FILE NAME: GVE1-3.DWG SCALE: N.T.S. eR TYPICAL TRANSMISSION LINE V STRUCTURE Golden Valley Electric Association Northern Intertie Macro-Corridor Study Te ee ene TTS 23 DAMES & MOORE FIGURE 1-3 GABION STONE/ RIP-RAP FLOOD LEVEL NORMAL GROUND ELEVATION SOURCE: DRYDEN & LARUE, INC] TYPICAL TRANSMISSION LINE CONSIIING ENGINEERS TALL LATTICE STRUCTURE = FILE NAME: XING-1.DWG Golden Valley Electric Association SCALE: NTS. Northern Intertie Macro-Corridor Study FIGURE 1-4 [7 R.0.W. CENTERLINE 23m (75') R.O.W. WIDTH SOURCE: DRYDEN & LARUE, INC. TYPICAL TRANSMISSION LINE CONSIRTING ENGINEERS I-STRING STRUCTURE === DAMES & MOORE 101/94 FILE NAME: I-STRING.DWG Golden Valley Electric Association SCALE: NTS. Northern Intertie Macro-Corridor Study FIGURE 1-5 t PROPERTY LINE SOURCE: DRYDEN & LARUE, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 07/01/94 FILE NAME: VSTRINGS.DWG SCALE: N.T.S. ROAD SURFACE ROAD RIGHT—OF—WAY TYPICAL TRANSMISSION LINE V-STRING STRUCTURE Golden Valley Electric Association Northern Intertie Macro-Corridor Study PROPERTY LINE 23% DAMES & MOORE FIGURE 1-6 Fairbanks North Star Borough Boundary Golden Valley Electric Assoc. Service Area FT. Greely GOLDEN VALLEY ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION se =e er SERVICE AREA 23# DAMES & MOORE ; RECTRIC Golden Valley Electric Association ecient ie Northern Intertie Macro-Corridor Study FIGURE 1-7 2.0 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION GVEA analyzed several alternatives for increasing the reliability of service, increasing power transfer capacity between Healy and Fairbanks, and providing low cost reliable service to the GVEA service area. These alternatives included energy conservation, additional generation capability at the North Pole facility, an underground transmission line, use of the existing 138 kV transmission line corridor, a new transmission line corridor, and alternative voltages for the proposed transmission line. Twelve options were evaluated regarding operational voltages and reactive compensation. The alternatives considered are described briefly below. 2.1 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE The no action alternative assumes that the Northern Intertie is not constructed and that GVEA continues to rely on the existing 138 kV transmission line to transfer power from Anchorage and the Healy power plant to the Fairbanks area. This alternative would avoid most environmental impacts to the study area, although increased use of oil-fired generators in the Fairbanks area would be required, resulting in some air quality impacts in the Fairbanks area. This alternative would not achieve the purpose of this project, which is to improve the reliability of electric service in the Railbelt utilities’ service areas, increase the power transfer capacity between Healy and Fairbanks, and provide GVEA and FMUS customers with the lowest cost, most reliable service. If no action is taken, the possibility of a power shortage due to a failure of the existing transmission line would not be diminished. If there is a failure of the existing line, GVEA loses access to the generation capacity at the Healy power plant, GVEA’s share of the power produced at the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Plant, and the power generally purchased from the Anchorage area. Power from the Anchorage area typically makes up almost 65 percent of the power used by GVEA. In addition, GVEA owns an approximately 17 percent share of the power generated at the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Plant and pays for the power generated at Bradley Lake whether or not it can transmit that power to Fairbanks. As mentioned earlier, the existing 138 kV transmission line will be 30 years old in 1997 and will require extensive reconstruction. Without the Northern Intertie, GVEA customers would likely face higher electric rates during this reconstruction, as GVEA would be forced to rely on more expensive local power generation units that are used primarily for peak loads. GVEA would lose access to its share of the power from the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Plant, but would still be required to pay for its share of the cost. In addition to these additional costs, the reliability GVEAMCS.RPT 2-1 DECEMBER 1994 of service in Fairbanks would be significantly lower during the reconstruction project, since local power generation sources would be required to provide baseline power requirements rather than peak power requirements, resulting in an increased possibility of outages. 2.2 ENERGY CONSERVATION/DEMAND MANAGEMENT Energy conservation can be used to decrease the demand for electricity in an area, delaying the need for additional sources of power. GVEA examined several conservation program options in its 1991 Integrated Resource Planning Study. Residential programs studied included rebate programs for purchases of efficient water heaters, refrigerators, freezers, and lighting. Commercial programs studied included an incandescent to fluorescent lamp conversion program, a new construction rebate program for installation of energy-efficient lighting systems in new projects, and rebate programs for purchases of fluorescent lamps and electronic-ballast by existing commercial customers. GVEA has already initiated a program called Energy$ense. This program includes conservation initiatives for homeowners (Home$ense), builders (Builder$ense), and businesses (Business$ense). Over 1,000 home audits have been completed under the Home$ense program and GVEA recently received a Department of Energy Special Recognition Award for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy for this program. The Business$ense program was kicked off in March of 1994 and over 31 business customers have submitted proposals for participation in this program. GVEA estimates that energy conservation programs could reduce peak demand by 7 to 9 megawatts (MW). Although these programs are important, energy conservation will not substantially improve the reliability of service in the GVEA service area, since baseline electrical requirements would not be significantly impacted by these programs. The energy being saved could not replace the power currently being supplied from the Anchorage area nor could it provide the additional 70 to 100 MW of power which could be accessed with the new transmission line. Since energy conservation programs do not fulfill the purpose and need for this project, this alternative will not be analyzed further in the Environmental Assessment. 2.3, ADDITIONAL GENERATING CAPACITY GVEA has considered adding additional generating units at the North Pole generation facility in order to increase local supplies of power. GVEA could generate up to 80 MW of additional power by adding a new, oil-fired gas turbine to its North Pole generator facility. The capital costs associated with building this unit are estimated at $60 million, including plant expansion, the turbines, and the controls associated with them. This unit would cost an additional $5 to $6 GVEAMCS.RPT 2-2 DECEMBER 1994 million per year for operating costs, including fuel, labor, and maintenance. Although the capital costs of the proposed transmission line may be near $77 million, annual operating expenses are anticipated to be less than $300,000. In addition to the cost of constructing and operating the new unit at North Pole, construction of an additional generation unit at this facility may result in additional costs consideration of many more environmental regulations including air quality, oil spill prevention and contingency planning, wastewater discharge, and waste handling. GVEA’s most cost effective power supplies are currently received over the existing transmission line from the Anchorage area and from the Healy plant’s steam generation units. Although the power supplied from these sources could be replaced by new generation in Fairbanks, power produced by an oil-fired gas turbine would cost significantly more than the current sources. This option would therefore not meet the needs of this project, which are to provide the lewest cost, most reliable service to GVEA customers and to increase the transfer capability between Healy and Fairbanks. 2.4 NEW TRANSMISSION LINE - TOTAL UNDERGROUND CONSTRUCTION Underground cables are commonly used in urban settings for distribution of low voltage power to customers. Cable technology has produced good reliability for underground installations up to 35 kV. Underground installation of transmission conductors involves using direct buried (solid dielectric) cables or cables in oil filled pipes. Voltages of over 65 kV, or transmission voltages as opposed to distribution voltages, are generally placed underground only when overhead installation is not feasible. Underground transmission cables must be insulated and sized larger than overhead cables, substantially increasing the cost per foot for the line. Cables for voltages above 138 kV are typically oil filled, requiring the cables be installed inside pipes and construction of pressurization stations for circulating oil through the pipeline. In addition, transition stations (similar to a small substation) would need to be constructed at each point where the line went underground or came above ground. Environmental impacts associated with an underground line are substantially higher than for an above ground line. Although visual impacts could be reduced in some areas, visual impacts associated with the transition stations and/or pressurization stations would increase. The risk of bird collisions is reduced with an underground line, however, the amount of habitat disturbed would increase as would impacts from construction activities. Construction of an overhead line GVEAMCS.RPT 2-3 DECEMBER 1994 limits disturbance to the areas where the tower structures are placed, which in most cases would be about every 300 meters (1,000 feet). An underground transmission line would disturb the entire transmission line corridor from Healy to Fairbanks, resulting in more hectacres of wetlands disturbed; more earth moving; increased potential for sedimentation of streams and rivers; more disturbance of wildlife due to the greater increase of habitat disturbed; and a longer construction period in each area. Other impacts would include significant warming of the ground surrounding the underground line resulting in significant impacts to the permafrost located throughout the project area. Underground transmission is not an economically viable alternative for this project due to the presence of thaw unstable permafrost and/or saturated conditions throughout much of the study area. Heat produced by dielectric cables would create an artificial thaw bulb around the underground line, unless costly measures such as insulated pipe or utilidors were used-to convey the cable. Thaw bulb formation may subject an underground transmission line to both settlement as the permafrost is melted and increased heave as portions of the thaw bulb are seasonally frozen. This can result in cables being damaged or broken, resulting in service interruptions and the possibility of an underground oil spill. As evidenced by the Alyeska pipeline, in areas of permafrost it is technically, environmentally, and economically more desirable to install facilities above ground than below. 2.5 NEW TRANSMISSION LINE - PARTIAL UNDERGROUND CONSTRUCTION Due to the problems described above associated with placing a transmission line underground in permafrost areas, and the technical problems associated with placing a transmission line underground in steep, mountainous terrain, only selective undergrounding of portions of the transmission line is considered to be technically feasible. With directional drilling, the transmission line could be placed underground for the crossing of major streams and rivers, such as the Tanana River. However, transition stations would need to be constructed at each point where the line went underground or came above ground. Directionally drilled crossings are made from behind the stream banks and result in the transmission line being installed deep below the banks and streambed. Drilling technology has advanced to the point that 610 meter (2,000 feet) borings are possible with good accuracy. Soil consistency affects the success of borings in that poor or loose soils tend to increase risks. The risks of boring failures beyond 610 meters (2,000 feet) increases exponentially primarily because of guidance problems. Due to the meandering nature of the Tanana River and the resulting broad floodplain, the total crossing distance would be approximately 1,220 meters (4,000 feet). GVEAMCS.RPT 2-4 DECEMBER 1994 In addition to economic and technical infeasibility of the crossing, transition stations would be required at each end to tie underground cables to the overhead lines. Additionally, a pressurization station would be required if oil filled cables were used. Currently, oil filled cables are typically used for 230 kV underground transmission. Based on the economic and technical impracticality of this option, along with the environmental impacts associated with the drilling itself, construction of transition stations, and placement of an oil filled pipeline under the river, this option was not considered to be feasible for this proposed project. 2.6 NEW TRANSMISSION LINE - OVERHEAD LINE When evaluating construction of an overhead transmission line, GVEA considered various voltages, various reactive compensation options, several transmission line route alternatives, and eleven potential substation sites. The various options evaluated are described in the following sections. 2.6.1 Operating Voltages and Reactive Compensation GVEA considered various operating voltages for the operation of the transmission line, as well as various reactive compensation options, based on the operating voltage, transfer capacities, and system response to disturbance. Operation of the transmission line was evaluated at 69 kV, 138 kV, and 230 kV. A 69 kV transmission line was determined not to be economically feasible, due to the low transfer levels, high amounts of reactive compensation, and high losses which would occur on the 160 km (100 mile) route. Losses, transfer limits, and reactive compensation were evaluated in detail for a 138 kV and 230 kV transmission line operating voltage. Generally, the higher the voltage on a transmission line, the more reactive power is generated. This increase in the reactive power can replace or reduce the size of additional reactive compensation for equivalent transfers. The construction of only a transmission line between Healy and Fairbanks, without any additional reactive compensation, would provide for an increase in reliability and loss reduction benefits, but would only allow for an increase of 4 MW in transfer capacity. Therefore, the addition of reactive compensation, which allows for a greater increase in transfer capacity, is an integral part of this proposed transmission line project. GVEAMCS.RPT 2-5 DECEMBER 1994 There are three general constraints which must be considered when sizing new transmission facilities. These are thermal limits, voltage limits, and system synchronism. Thermal limits are the easiest to understand. If excessive power is transferred over a transmission line, conductor overheating can occur. Under extreme electrical loading, the aluminum strands of the conductors may anneal, reducing the tensile strength of the conductors. This can result in excessive conductor sag and possible conductor breakage. Voltages must also be kept within acceptable limits both in the steady state, and following disturbances. Maintaining voltages throughout the power system requires the supply of enough reactive power to sustain the magnetic fields needed to transmit alternating current. The reactive power supplied is measured in volt-amperes reactive (VAR). For one million VAR, the term mega-VAR (MVAR) is used. The application of VARs have a local effect on voltage; therefore, on long transmission lines the addition of reactive power at intermediate points is required to maintain voltage levels. The rotation of all generators connected to the system must remain synchronized. When a fault occurs on a transmission system, it can cause some generators to accelerate and others to decelerate, which can make generators swing out of synchronization. In order to provide reliable service, a power system must have enough resilience to recover from such an event on its own, because transient events occur too quickly for human intervention. Recovery is more likely if a system is not too heavily loaded, so the stability constraint involves the limitations placed on the amount of power transmitted in order to ensure system stability in the event of transient or longer system oscillations. FACTS (flexible alternating current (AC) transmission system) technology is now available with the advent of new power electronic controllers and converters. These controllers use solid-state thyristors to quickly control power flow, and can increase the capacity of particular transmission lines by as much as 50 percent, while reducing stability problems throughout the transmission system because of their virtually instantaneous response time. FACTS devices include thyristor switched series capacitors (TSSC), multi- stepped thyristor switched shunt capacitors called mini-comps, and gate-turn-off thyristor power conversion systems which can convert direct current (DC) to AC power from batteries called Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS), and from superconductor coils called Superconducting Magnetic Energy Storage Systems (SMESS). Both BESS and SMESS can supply both real and reactive power to the system. There are two basic conditions applicable to the proposed project which must be considered in sizing the reactive compensation for the proposed Northern Intertie between Healy and GVEAMCS.RPT 2-6 DECEMBER 1994 Fairbanks. These are the loss of generation on the northern end of the intertie and a tripping or loss of the proposed Northern Intertie. The size of the reactive compensation north of Healy will be based on the loss of the proposed Healy to Fairbanks intertie (Northern Intertie). If the proposed intertie trips out of service, the load which is shared between the Northern Intertie and the Healy to Gold Hill line, will all transfer to the Healy to Gold Hill line. For example, if both lines were sharing the transfer of 135 MW when the Northern Intertie tripped, the existing Healy to Gold Hill line loading would be the full 135 MW. The reactive compensation must be sized to allow the power to flow while maintaining the voltages on the system. This additional reactive compensation would be added near the center of the existing Healy to Gold Hill line at the existing Nenana substation, and at the receiving end of the Northern Intertie at the proposed new substation site in Fairbanks. If a BESS was installed in Fairbanks, 40 MW of the 135 MW transfer would be supplied in the Fairbanks area and the existing Healy to Gold Hill transmission line would only require loading to transfer 95 MW. The existing Healy to Gold Hill line can maintain the 95 MW transfer without any additional reactive compensation, negating the need for the additional reactive compensation at the Nenana substation or the northern receiving end of the existing Healy to Gold Hill 138 kV transmission line. A base case and twelve different options were investigated which looked at different transfer levels, operation voltages, post disturbance voltages, and sizing and placement of reactive compensation, series compensation and battery energy storage. The first six options are based on operating a new transmission line at 138 kV, while the last six options consider operating a new line and portions of the existing intertie at 230 kV. The base case and the other options are summarized in Table 2-1. Option 5 has been identified as the preferred operating voltage and reactive compensation option for the proposed Northern Intertie project. This option consists of a 230 kV transmission line, to initially be operated at 138 kV, with a 40 MVAR BESS located at a proposed new substation in Fairbanks. 2.6.2 Transmission Line Routing Evaluation Co-locating with the Existing Transmission Line: Transmission line routes between Healy and Fairbanks have been studied several times over the last ten years. In order to minimize environmental disturbance, constructing the Northern Intertie along the same route as the existing 138 kV transmission line was considered by GVEA. It was determined that this was GVEAMCS.RPT 2-7 DECEMBER 1994 TABLE 2-1 OPERATING VOLTAGE AND REACTIVE COMPENSATION OPTIONS Option Operating Reactive Compensation Comments Voltage Base Case 138kV 40 MVAR SVC Ft. Wainwright | Option inctuded in AEA’s 1991 Feasibility Study. Includes 63 MVAR SVC Healy new breakers at Ft. Wainwright and Healy substations. 108 MVAR SVC Teeland Option #1 138kV 25 MVAR Teeland Teeland substation would get a fixed shunt capacitor on a 60 MVAR SVC Wilson new 230/138 kV 60/80/100 MVAR transformer. 40 MVAR SVC Nenana 60 MVAR SVC Igloo Option #2 138kV 25 MVAR Teeland 60 MVAR SVC Wilson 2 MVAR TSC Nenana 60 MVAR SVC Igloo Same as Option #1 except 2 MVAR minicomp thyristor installed on distribution bus at Nenana substation instead of a 40 MVAR SVC. ? & mn #2a 138kV 25 MVAR Teeland 60 MVAR SVC Wilson 60 MVAR SVC Igloo g Same as Option #1 except no work required at Nenana. Requires reduction in transfer levels and/or modification in the acceptable transient voltage limits for the system. 138kV 25 MVAR Teeland 60 MVAR SVC Wilson 60 MVAR SVC Igloo Same as Option #1 except a new 4-bay switching substation would be added to Nenana to connect the 2 existing lines and the new line, instead of a 40 MVAR SVC. Option #4 138kV 25 MVAR Teeland 60 MVAR SVC Wilson TSSC Nenana/Gold Hill 60 MVAR SVC Igloo Option #5 40 MVAR BESS Wilson Same as Option #1 except series capacitors added at Nenana and Gold Hill to regulate voltage levels following an outage of new transmission line instead of a 40 MVAR SVC at Nenana. This option is preferred due to limited environmental footprint for new substation and large benefits which can be gained. 230kV 60 MVAR SVC Wilson Includes reconstruction of existing line from Teeland to Douglas, including switching station at Healy, plus changing existing transformers at Cantwell, Stevens, and Douglas substations. Option ion #6a 230kV 60 MVAR SVC Wilson Same as Option #6 except would re-use existing equipment as much as possible. ion #6b 230kV 60 MVAR SVC Wilson Limited upgrade similar to Option #6, would convert intertie from Douglas north to Wilson for operation at 230 kV. Healy substation would still be required as proposed in Option #6. Line between Teeland and Douglas would Option #6c 230kV 60 MVAR SVC Wilson _ 230 kV 20 MVAR BESS ? continue to operate at 138kV. Ta Similar to Option #6 except only the line from Douglas to Healy would be operated at 230kV. North of Healy/south of Douglas would continue to be operated at 138 kV. Similar to Option #6 except the line from Teeland to Healy would be operated at 230 kV and would be stepped down to 138 kV at Healy. Combination of a limited BESS and Option #7. Not a valid option as base case load flows require reactive compensation in excess of the BESS. BESS: Battery Energy Storage System MVA: Mega-volt-amperes MVAR: Mega-volt-amperes reactive SVC: Static VAR Compensation TSC: Thyristor Switched Capacitor (mini-comp) TSSC: Thyristor Switched Series Capacitors GVEAMCS.RPT 2-8 DECEMBER 1994 not an acceptable alternative for several reasons. First, routing the Northern Intertie along the same route as the existing 138 kV transmission line would not improve the reliability of transmission between Healy and Fairbanks as much as an alternative route would. Reliability is significantly increased when there is a second, independent transmission line corridor. If the transmission lines were co-located, a major event which takes out the existing transmission line would be likely to also take out the Northern Intertie. Co-locating the two transmission lines would result in construction and maintenance problems caused by the transfer of electricity between the two lines. This results in safety concerns and higher maintenance costs, since neither line could ever be considered de-energized while the other line is in use; both lines would have to be considered energized at all times. This has significant impacts on repair and maintenance costs as it is more costly to perform repairs and maintenance on an energized line. - Other problems associated with using the existing route include the amount and concentration of private land and occupied dwellings in the area surrounding the existing transmission line route. The population along the Parks Highway has increased significantly since the original transmission line was built in 1967. Construction of an additional transmission line within the existing right-of-way is not possible, and an expanded right-of-way, or a parallel right-of-way along the same corridor, would have substantial impacts on residencies and private properties in the area, as well as having a significant visual impact on the Parks Highway corridor and in the area near Ester Dome. Due to the reasons described above, co-location of the new Northern Intertie with the existing Healy-Fairbanks Intertie is not considered to meet the purposes of this project. New Transmission Line Corridor Study: In order to select a route alternative for the proposed transmission line intertie, GVEA initiated an environmental study of the macro-corridor area. Three routes for the proposed intertie were analyzed in the original Macro-Corridor Study and Project Alternative Report (MCS/PAR) released in July 1994. The North and South Routes primarily reflected the routes that were studied in the 1991 Feasibility Study, although some modifications were made based on a limited flyover and other data collected. The Tanana Flats Route was developed as a more direct route from Healy to Fairbanks, which minimized impacts to the developed areas near Nenana, Ester, and Chena Ridge, as well as avoiding two of the river crossings proposed in the South Route. GVEAMCS.RPT 2-9 DECEMBER 1994 The U.S. Rural Utilities Service (RUS), formerly the Rural Electrification Administration (REA), and GVEA held agency and public scoping meetings in Fairbanks and Healy in September 1994 to provide an opportunity for interested parties to comment on the project and to identify those areas which would need to be addressed in the Environmental Assessment (EA) to be prepared by RUS. Based on these meetings and follow up meetings with residents of the Ferry area, GVEA agreed to evaluate four other routes in this Revised MCS/PAR. These routes were suggested by the public and by GVEA personnel in an attempt to minimize the impacts on residences and private properties along the Parks Highway corridor. The seven routes evaluated are shown on Figure 2-1 and are described briefly below. The North Route was evaluated from the Healy substation to the Gold Hill substation. The southern routes were evaluated from the Healy substation to the Tanana River. At this point, all of the southern routes converge to two Tanana River crossings. North of the Tanana River both of the potential routes follow roads through an industrial area. The routing study focused on the route alternatives south of the Tanana River, where the concerns raised by the public and agencies are focused. The two routes from the Tanana River crossing to the proposed substation are described further in Section 2.6.3. orth Rou The North Route would leave the Healy substation and run north through the Nenana Valley along the east side of the Nenana River. The route would run parallel to the river at a distance of up to three km (two miles). Near Liaho, the route alignment would leave the river and follow the Parks Highway corridor from Clear to an area a few kilometers south of Nenana, where it would head northeast to cross the Tanana River at a point approximately five kilometers (three miles) east of Nenana. The route would then head northeast and east through the Goldstream Creek Valley, crossing the Parks Highway near Bonanza Creek. From this point, the route would head northeast toward Ester Dome. The route would then circle around Ester Dome to the southeast and end at the Gold Hill substation located near Ester Creek. Based on the data gathered during the Macro-Corridor Study and conditions that have changed during the planning efforts associated with this project, it was decided that the North Route would be dropped from consideration. Although the North Route minimized impacts on some environmental resources, such as wetlands, it was found to have the greatest impact on visual resources and socioeconomic/sociopolitical resources (including residences and private properties). Due to its close proximity to the Parks Highway, the Alaska Railroad, and dispersed residences, the North Route was considered to have the most significant visual, GVEAMCS.RPT 2-10 DECEMBER 1994 recreation, and socioeconomic impacts, including impacts to several prominent views from along the highway, scenic pulloffs, the railroad, and dispersed residential areas, particularly those in the Healy to Nenana area and in the Murphy Dome and Ester areas. A count of private and residential parcels within the corridor indicated that there were 83 private interests impacted by the North Route, including 35 houses, 45 residential parcels, 30 mining claims and coal leases, and eight commercial or agricultural parcels. The portion of the proposed route from the Murphy Dome Road area to Gold Hill substation is no longer available due to the construction of the transmission line along the selected route to serve the Fairbanks Gold Mine Inc. gold mine on Gilmore Dome. The Gold Mine line route will follow an existing 34.5 kV line route through this area, and is felt to be the only possible route through this area due to the level of residential development, gold mines, and other development. Additional route options into the Gold Hill substation are felt to be nen-existent from the Goldstream Valley once the gold mine transmission line has incumbered the available routing. The availability of service to FMUS is also reduced if the North Route is chosen, due to its termination at the Gold Hill Substation. All the routes that terminate on the south side of Fairbanks provide access to the GVEA transmission system as well as the FMUS 69 kV intertie. As a member of the IPG and part owner in the intertie, one of FMUS’s prime objectives is to have direct access to the intertie from their 69 kV transmission system. Access to the intertie would allow FMUS to transfer power from the intertie directly to the FMUS system. If the proposed intertie were to terminate at the Gold Hill Substation, it would provide direct access to GVEA but would restrict access to the intertie for FMUS. Due to the extensive impacts on residential areas, highly sensitive viewpoints, loss of the route to Gold Hill, and low service availability to FMUS, the North Route was determined not to be a feasible alternative and therefore was not carried forward in this analysis. South Route The South Route would begin at the Healy substation and head north along the east side of the Nenana River. The proposed route would generally parallel the North Route from Healy to an area approximately 10 km (six miles) south of Clear. This route alignment is almost identical to the North Route between Healy and Lignite. The route would head further east near Lignite and remain three to five km (two to three miles) east of the North Route as it passes through the Browne area. South of Clear, the South Route would head northeast to the eastern boundary of GVEAMCS.RPT 2-11 DECEMBER 1994 the Clear Air Force Station and then head directly north along the boundary for approximately 32 km (20 miles). The route would then head northeast for about eight km (five miles), crossing the Tanana River approximately eight km (five miles) east of Nenana. The route would then continue in a northeast direction along the bluffs north of the Tanana River for about 40 km (25 miles) before turning southeast and crossing the Tanana River south of Rosie Creek. The route would then head east and northeast through the Fort Wainwright Military Reservation and cross Salchaket Slough about six km (four miles) south of the Fairbanks International Airport, then proceed north across the Tanana River. In this area, the route would follow parallel to the Tanana Levee located along the river, south of the airport. From this point, the transmission line route would follow a northeast route to the proposed new substation site in South Fairbanks. Tanana Flats Route The Tanana Flats Route is a modification of the South Route. The Tanana Flats Route would be identical to the South Route from Healy to a point approximately 10 km (six miles) south of Clear. From this point, the Tanana Flats Route would head northeast at a diagonal across the Tanana Flats to a point near the Salchaket Slough, approximately 13 km (eight miles) southwest of Fairbanks. At this point, the Tanana Flats Route would again join the South Route for the remainder of the alignment. Jumbo Route The Jumbo Route was suggested by Ferry area residents as an alternative to following the Nenana River Valley to the north. This route would follow the South Route alignment for the first six km (four miles) and then head northeast for approximately 32 km (20 miles) through the Lignite Creek Valley and the surrounding mountains. The route would then head directly north to Tatlanika Creek and then head northeast across the Tanana Flats across the Wood River, the Salchaket Slough, and the Tanana River near Goose Island. The route then proceeds north through Fairbanks to a proposed new substation. Rex Route The Rex Route was another route proposed by GVEA in an attempt to mitigate and express concerns by residential areas near Ferry and the Parks Highway. This route would follow the South Route alignment for the first 10 km (six miles), then turn northeast for about three km (two miles) then head directly north along the west sides of the Walker and Rex Domes. This GVEAMCS.RPT 2-12 DECEMBER 1994 route alignment continues north until it meets the Tanana Flats Route described earlier. The route would essentially be the same as the Tanana Flats Route from this point on. Walker Route The Walker Route would follow the Rex Route for the first 13 km (eight miles), or until the Rex Route heads due north. At this point, the Walker Route would head northeast, passing to the north of Walker Dome, then winding north/northeast through the California Creek area east of Rex Dome. At a point approximately 16 km (10 miles) east of Rex Dome, the Walker Route would head northeast across the Tanana Flats, crossing the Wood River west of the Wood River Buttes. Just south of Salchaket Slough, the route would head east and join with the Jumbo Route alignment as it crosses the Tanana River near Goose Island. This route is identical to the Jumbo Route from the Tanana River to the proposed new substation. Tatlanika Route The Tatlanika Route is primarily a combination of the Walker Route and the Tanana Flats Route. This route follows the Walker Route from Healy through the mountains to the northeast. However, once the Tanana Flats are reached, this route heads directly north until it meets the Tanana Flats Route. This route then follows the Tanana Flats Route to the terminus. 2.6.3 Substation Location Study The southern terminal point of the proposed Northern Intertie is the existing Healy substation. An additional breaker and bay would need to be added to this substation to allow for interconnection with the proposed line. The northern terminal point would be in Fairbanks. As described in Section 2.6.2, the North Route was removed from consideration due to the impacts on private properties, visual impacts, and loss of the route to the Gold Hill substation to another transmission line. All of the southern routes converge to two river crossings south of the Tanana River near Fairbanks International Airport (FIA). A study was conducted to locate available substation sites in southern Fairbanks which would allow for the interconnection of the new line to existing GVEA transmission facilities, and interconnection to existing FMUS facilities. The study evaluated various sites based on existing land uses, zoning, the availability for purchase, soils classifications, wetland status, vehicle access, title restrictions, and the length of the interconnection that would be required for the proposed Northern Intertie. : GVEAMCS.RPT 2-13 DECEMBER 1994 The eleven sites evaluated are illustrated in Figure 2-2. Site 11 was selected as the preferred site based on the analysis conducted. Site 11 is located near the intersection of Van Horn Road and South Cushman Street in southern Fairbanks and is accessed by Van Horn Road. The site is currently designated for industrial use under the FNSB Comprehensive Plan and is zoned for general use, which is the least restrictive of all zoning classifications. Of the sites evaluated, Site 11 was ranked the highest in terms of avoiding wetland impacts, ease of acquisition, soils and geotechnical characteristics, access to the railroad, and access to city water. GVEA proposes to purchase a 10-acre parcel from the 80+ acre site. The proposed parcel has an existing building on-site which could be used to house a BESS, reducing construction impacts to the surrounding area. Two terminal leg route alternatives were identified for reaching the proposed substation site from the two Tanana River crossing alternatives. These routes are shown on Figure 2-1-(Map 4 of 4). The South/Tanana Flats/Tatlanika/Rex Route (western route), which crosses the closest to FIA, runs east along the south side of the Tanana Levee for approximately four miles before heading north, west of South Cushman Street, to the proposed substation site. The Walker/Jumbo Route (eastern route) crosses the Tanana River near Goose Island and heads north, west of South Cushman Street, to the proposed substation site. Both routes cross lands which are designated as Industrial in the Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB) Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the majority of the lands crossed by the proposed routes are zoned either Industrial or General Use, which is the least restrictive of all zoning classifications. The western route crosses the Tanana River closest to FIA and is adjacent to an airport approach control tower located near the Tanana Levee. Coordination with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and FIA would be required to ensure that impacts to these facilities are mitigated. The eastern route crosses the Tanana River at Goose Island which is operated as a borrow pit by the FNSB. Due to the width of the crossing at this point, a tower would have to be placed on Goose Island. Coordination with the FNSB would be required to ensure that impacts to the FNSB’s operation on Goose Island are mitigated. GVEAMCS.RPT 2-14 DECEMBER 1994 Golden Valley Electric Association Northem Intertie Macro-Corridor Study age ee Macro-Corridor Study Area and Proposed Route Alternatives om — Walker Map 1 of 4 Scale 1: 250,000 --—-— Tanana Flats ===" Jumbo Source: USGS, 1956 25%® DAMES& MOORE November 1994 Figure 2-1 eeeee North ———= Tatlanika es South o———: Walker Scale 1: 250,000 Golden Valley Electric Association Norther Intertie Macro-Corridor Study Macro-Corridor Study Area and Proposed Route Alternatives Map 2 of 4 —+—-+-= Tanana Flats ==== Jumbo Source: USGS, 1956 oem Rex 25% DAMES & MOORE November 1994 | Figure 21 | CIRCLE 147 me 7 & twenoooe ow 4@ ni $3 sel site 4 Golden Valley Electric Association Norther Intertie Macro-Corridor Study Walker Macro-Corridor Study Area and Proposed Route Alternatives Map 3 of 4 Scale 1: 250,000 Tanana Flats*=== Jumbo Source: USGS, 1956 omens Rex S3@® DAMES & MOORE November 1994 Figure 2-1 e=m=—=— Tatlanika Golden Valley Electric Association Norther Intertie Macro-Corridor Study eeee: North ——==Tatlanika fee gan pec ee Macro-Corridor Study oe ree Route Alternatives semen Tanana Flats ====Jumbo omew= Rex =3@= DAMES * MOORE —_ November 1994 Figure 2-1 Legend } » frais INTEBNATIONAL AIR Golden Valley Electric Association NOTTO SCALE Norther Intertie Macro-Corridor Study FIGURE 2-2 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS 3.1 OVERVIEW The environmental review for this project is being performed under regulations adopted by the RUS for implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Since GVEA is a participating member of RUS, it is anticipated that RUS will be the lead agency for the environmental review process. Under RUS’s NEPA regulations, codified in 17 CFR 1794, a transmission line of 230 kV or greater, which is more than 40 km (25 miles) in length, requires the preparation of a MCS/PAR and an EA with public scoping. A MCS/PAR was prepared in July, 1994, and released to agencies and the public for review and comment. This Revised MCS/PAR has been prepared to address the comments received on the earlier study, to meet RUS requirements, and to provide the public and relevant agencies information on the potential significance of impacts associated with the proposed project. The intent of the environmental studies conducted for the proposed Northern Intertie 230 kV transmission line project was to acquire and analyze enough data in sufficient detail to allow for a comparison of the environmental impacts associated with alternative transmission line routes. The multidisciplinary approach used to obtain these data was comprised of the following components: e Coordination and consultation with affected and jurisdictional agencies; e Identification of major issues and concerns; ° Interaction between project engineers and the environmental study team; ° Review and compilation of data from published sources and agencies; e Assessment of regional constraints and opportunities for transmission siting; and, e Comparison and refinement of route alternatives based on environmental data, engineering evaluations, and public and agency input. This Revised MCS/PAR evaluates the seven route alternatives in terms of their impacts on environmental resources and land use, based on existing data. The study includes a qualitative analysis of land status, aquatic biology, wildlife and habitat, wetlands and vegetation, and GVEAMCS.RPT 3-1 DECEMBER 1994 cultural resources. Other issues, such as socioeconomic and sociopolitical considerations, are also addressed. This study addresses the proposed southern routes from the Healy substation to the Tanana River near FIA, where the majority of the potential impacts of the proposed project would occur. In the next stage of this project, an EA will be prepared to document any potentially significant environmental impacts associated with the project, as well as describing proposed mitigation measures for mitigating any impacts identified. 3.2, AGENCY INFORMATION MEETING Prior to initiating the Macro-Corridor Study in February 1994, GVEA submitted a general project description and a map of the proposed routes to relevant agencies and local governments. These agencies were then invited to an agency information meeting to identify any issues that needed to be addressed in the environmental study portion of this project. A complete list of agency and local government representatives contacted is contained in Appendix A. Representatives of the following agencies attended the agency information meeting: e Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities; ° U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; ° U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; ° U.S. Bureau of Land Management; and, e The State Historic Preservation Office. Issues which were raised at the meeting included the potential for archaeological sites in upland areas overlooking rivers and creeks; increased access into wilderness areas; visual impacts; road and airstrip crossings; use of section lines; impacts on subsistence activities; river crossings; clearing activities in wetlands; construction techniques; and the timing of construction. 3.3 AGENCY SCOPING MEETING RUS and GVEA held another agency scoping meeting in September, 1994, after release of the original MCS/PAR. Agency representatives were sent a copy of the MCS/PAR prior to the meeting and were asked to identify any other issues which would need to be addressed in the GVEAMCS.RPT 3-2 DECEMBER 1994 environmental review process for this project. Representatives from the following agencies attended this meeting: ° U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; e Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities; e Alaska Department of Natural Resources; e Fairbanks North Star Borough; and, e Fairbanks International Airport. Issues raised at the meeting included visual impacts, impacts to wetlands, an insufficient evaluation of non-transmission line alternatives, impacts to commercial and general aviation, and impacts to trumpeter swans, raptors, and other wildlife. Other agencies which have provided comments or have been asked to provide comments since the scoping meeting include the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), the Denali Borough, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and the U.S. Army. Comments received from federal, state, and local agencies are listed in Table 3-1. 3.4 PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGS Public scoping meetings were held in Fairbanks and Healy in September 1994 to allow the public to comment on the project and to identify issues which they felt should be addressed in the environmental review process. These scoping meetings were advertised in the Fairbanks News Miner and in the Federal Register. These public scoping meetings were lightly attended and most of the comments received centered on avoiding residential areas and private properties. A 30-day public review period followed the public scoping meetings. During this 30-day period, RUS received approximately 50 letters from the public (including agencies and local governments). Concerns expressed by the public have been categorized by issues and are summarized in Table 3-2. Of the letters received, over 90 percent were either from Ferry residents, Ferry property owners, or others concerned about the Ferry community. Residents of the Ferry area, north of Healy, expressed the most interest in the project and requested that GVEA hold additional meetings in Ferry to address their concerns. GVEA GVEAMCS.RPT 3-3 DECEMBER 1994 Fairbanks International Airport GVEAMCS.RPT TABLE 3-1 AGENCY SCOPING ISSUES a) Impacts to Trumpeter Swan habitat b) Impacts to black bear denning on Tanana Flats c) Impacts to raptors a) Impacts to private property b) Visual impacts c) Impacts to Peregrine Falcons d) Impacts to Bald Eagles & Trumpeter Swans e) Impacts to wetlands, need for quantitative data f) Increased access to remaining wildlife habitat g) Justification for elimination of alternatives h) Need for a Cost/Benefit Analysis i) ROW width a) Design of tower structures, including height b) ROW width, clearing, maintenance c) Size of substation site d) Justification for elimination of alternatives a) Health hazards from EMF b) Impacts to recreation/tourism c) Visual impacts d) Impacts to quality of life of Ferry residents e) Impacts to archeological and historic resources f) Consideration of an eastern route alternative a) Height of towers/existing aircraft landing strips b) Proximity of temporary construction camps to existing aircraft landing strips a) Impacts to area air traffic and aircraft use b) Site selection of substations c) Justification for elimination of alternatives 3-4 a) 5.5 b) 5.6 c and d) 5.2 e) 5.3 f) 5.2.2 g and h) 1.2, 2.0 i) 1.1 a) 1.1, 5.6 b) 1.1, 5.0 c) 2.6.3 d) 1.2, 2.0 a) 5.9 b) 5.7, 5.5 c) 5.6 id) 55 e) 5.4 f) 2.0 Jumbo Route) DECEMBER 1994 TABLE 3-2 PUBLIC SCOPING COMMENTS Impacts to Private Property Visual Impacts _ _ wn n Alternative Evaluation Threat to Rural Lifestyle _ 1.2, 2.0 _ Impacts to environmentally sensitive areas (undeveloped areas), particularly the Tanana Flats Impacts to Vegetation | Impacts to Trumpeter Swans and other rare species | Construction and maintenance impacts Impacts to Historical and Traditional Hunting and | 5 | Impacts to Tourism and/or Local Economies | Concerns about Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) wn Impacts to Water Quality from herbicide use along right-of-ways Impacts to Aircraft Traffic Wn wn ; ‘ ba fe a ‘ in & ]& a ‘ | Impacts to radio frequency communications Positive impacts of increased capacity and reliability in Interior Alaska 1.2, 5.5 Nn w Comments on particular routes: North (for/against) South (for/against) Tanana Flats (for/against) Existing Intertie Route (for/against) Easterly Routes (for/against) Weight of social impacts versus environmental impacts Need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Note: This table does not include agency comments, which were addressed in Table 3-1. GVEAMCS.RPT 3-5 DECEMBER 1994 representatives met with Ferry residents twice (once in September and once in October) to address their concerns and receive their input. Most of the issues raised in these meetings were related to the rural quality of life in the area and the impact that a transmission line through the area may cause. Other specific issues raised included fears of health impacts from electro- magnetic fields, visual impacts to homesteads, and impacts to the wildlife resources in the area. GVEA worked with the residents of Ferry to identify three new route alternatives to be evaluated, along with the original three, in order to address concerns raised by the community and to reduce impacts to the residents along the Parks Highway corridor. These three routes have been incorporated into this report, along with an alternative route (Tatlanika Route) which combines the Tanana Flats Route and the Walker Route. The North Route has been eliminated from consideration as discussed in Section 2. Therefore, this analysis compares the remaining six routes. 3.5 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS As mentioned in Section 3.1, GVEA is a member utility of the RUS, and the environmental review process is being conducted under RUS guidelines. According to these guidelines, an EA will be prepared after this MSC/PAR. Based on the environmental analysis submitted to RUS by GVEA, RUS will prepare an EA on the project. The EA prepared by RUS will document whether or not the project is expected to have significant environmental impacts and whether an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is needed or whether the EA is sufficient. If after the EA or EIS is prepared, RUS determines that the project will not have a significant negative environmental impact, RUS will prepare a Record of Decision (ROD). Once an ROD is issued, the project would still need to go through all relevant federal, state, and local permitting processes. The federal, state, and local permitting process is described below. A complete listing of potential federal, state, and local permits required is provided in Table 3-3. 3.5.1 Federal Permits Federal permits that might be required for this project include a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit for Stormwater (non-point) sources associated with construction; a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) Section 404 permit for filling, construction, or placement of structures in wetlands; a COE Section 10 permit for construction of a structure in or over a navigable water of the U.S.; a notice of proposed construction to the FAA; a Section 7 Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) regarding threatened and endangered species; a Section 106 survey for cultural resource sites; and a right- GVEAMCS.RPT 3-6 DECEMBER 1994 TABLE 3-3 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS AND APPROVALS Agency Name Federal Agencies Rural Utilities Service (RUS) (formerly the Rural Electrification Administration (REA)) Bureau of Land Management Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service U.S. Army Corps of Engineers EA with Scoping Right-of-Way Permits EA with Scoping National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Permit NPDES Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plans Section 7 Consultation Section 404 Permit Reason for Permit/Approval NEPA process as adopted in RUS regulations Right-of-way permits will be required for any portions of the corridor which cross federal lands. These lands include military lands, state selected lands under the statehood act, native selected lands under ANSCA, and non-certificated Native allotments under the Alaska Native Allotment Act of 1906. Permit required for discharge of wastewater from a point source into federal and state owned waters. The Permit is also required for stormwater runoff. A stormwater pollution prevention plan is required for construction activities in order to be covered under the state’s General Permit for stormwater discharges. Plans are required for oil storage facilities storing in excess of 660 gallons in a single container above ground; in excess of 1,320 gallons in aggregate in tanks above ground; or in excess of 42,000 gallons below ground. A Section 7 consultation is required to assure protection of endangered or threatened species and wildlife. The presence of the Peregrine Falcons and Bald Eagles or Golden Eagles in the project vicinity would trigger the need for the consultation. A Section 404 permit is required when wetlands are affected by the discharge of dredge or fill material, or construction activities. TABLE 3-3 (Continued) POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS AND APPROVALS Type of Permit/Approval Reason for Permit/Approval Federal Agencies (Continued) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 10 Permit A Section 10 permit is required for the construction or placement of any structures in or above navigable waters of the U.S. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Review/Approval that The Council protects properties of historical, architectural, proposed actions do not archaeological and cultural significance at the national, state adversely impact National | and local level by reviewing and commenting on Federal Register and eligible actions affecting National Register and eligible properties. properties Federal Aviation Administration Notice of Proposed A notice to the FAA, for review and approval, will be Construction or Alteration | required if any structure enters the airspace within a 100:1 slope of any runway. State of Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Plan Review/Drinking A plan review is necessary for all facilities providing water Water System for human consumption (for construction camp water supply). Department of Environmental Conservation Plan Review of Sewage ADEC reviews all plans for facilities which collect or treat Systems or Wastewater wastewater or sewage. Plans must be approved before Treatment construction commences (for construction camp sewage system). Department of Environmental Conservation Certificate of Reasonable ADEC must, issue a 401 Certificate to accompany any Assurance (401 Certificate) | federal permit issued under the Federal Clean Water Act. For example, a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 permit would trigger the need for a state certificate. TABLE 3-3 (Continued) POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS AND APPROVALS Agency Name Type of Permit/Approval Reason for Permit/Approval State of Alaska (continued) Department of Environmental Conservation Air Quality Control Permit | ADEC must authorize plans and specifications for construction that would be undertaken and must assess emission standards and possible air contamination resulting from that construction. Road dust, wind-blown contaminants, emissions from generators could cause this permit to be required. Department of Environmental Conservation Surface Oiling Permit Control of road dust. To control and legalize surface oiling in order to prevent water pollution. Department of Fish and Game Fish Habitat Permit (Title A General Waterway/Waterbody Application must be 16 Permit) submitted to ADF&G if heavy equipment usage or construction activities disturb the natural flow or bed of any stream, river, or lake. These permits also stipulate how stream water withdrawals may be conducted. Department of Fish and Game Approval for Equipment An Application for Equipment Ford must be submitted for Ford of State Waters approval to move equipment across State waters Department of Natural Resources, Burn Permit ADNR must approve any plan to burn materials during fire Division of Forestry season. Permit issued by State Forester or local rangers after review of burn plan. Temporary Water Use Permit This permit is required if water withdrawals will occur during construction. The permit lasts for the length of a temporary project. Department of Natural Resources, Material Sale A material sale is required for the use of state materials Division of Land along the proposed right-of-way. Department of Natural Resources, Land Use Permit A land use permit is required for use of state lands along Division of Land the proposed right-of-way. Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mining and Water Management TABLE 3-3 (Continued) POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS AND APPROVALS v Agency Name Type of Permit/Approval Reason for Permit/Approval State of Alaska (continued) Department of Natural Resources, Right-of-Way A ROW permit is required for construction of transmission Division of Land lines or other improvements that cross state lands. Department of Natural Resources, Concurrence with the In accordance with information provided by the Advisory State Historic Preservation Office Advisory Council on Council on Historic Preservation, SHPO will provide a Historic Preservation determination regarding a project’s impacts on known cultural resources. Department of Transportation and Utility Permit on State Required before construction on ADOT/PF managed state Public Facilities Right-of-Way lands or for structures crossing ADOT/PF right-of-ways. Denali Borough ' Planning Commission/Assembly Notice Requested Borough requests notice of actions within Borough boundaries. Fairbanks North Star Borough Planning Commission Conditional Use Permit CUP may be required for transmission line and/or substation in certain zoning districts. Planning Department Floodplain Permit Administrative approval for development in floodplains. Department of Public Works Right-of-Way Permit Public Works Department issues right-of-way permit for utility crossings of Borough lands. of-way permit from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for crossing the lands associated with Clear Air Force Station and Fort Wainwright. BLM would coordinate with the Department of Defense (DOD) to ensure that the right-of-way would not have a detrimental effect on the DOD mission of the area. BLM also serves as the custodian of lands which have been selected by the State of Alaska, but which have not yet been conveyed. Likewise, the BLM handles lands selected under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) and Native Allotments under the Alaska Native Allotment Act of 1906 for all lands which have not been certificated. 3.5.2 State of Alaska Permits State of Alaska permits may be required from the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), ADF&G, and the Alaska Department of Natural Resources-(ADNR). ADEC permits include Wastewater Discharge Permits, Water Quality Certificates, Air Quality Permits, and approval of oiling to control dust or burning of slash from cleared areas. These permits are listed on Table 3-3. Any direct discharges of wastewater to waters of the state would require a Wastewater Discharge Permit from ADEC. In addition, if a COE Section 404 permit is issued, a state Certificate of Reasonable Assurance (Section 401) by ADEC is also required. An Air Quality Permit may be required if there are expected to be significant emissions from construction related dust or wind- blown contaminants. If road dust is to be controlled by oiling during construction, ADEC may require a Surface Oiling Permit. Finally, ADEC requires a burn plan when more than 16 hectares of land are to be cleared and the slash burned during the life of the project. A Fish Habitat Permit from the ADF&G would be required for any structures placed below the ordinary high water line or for equipment crossings of anadromous and resident fish streams. In addition, approval for fording equipment through State waters must be approved by ADF&G. ADNR has four Divisions which have regulatory powers over a project of this type. In order to burn material from areas cleared during the fire season, written approval is required form the Division of Forestry. A burn plan would need to be submitted prior to approval. In order to secure temporary (during construction) use of state waters, the Division of Mining and Water Management requires a Temporary Water Use Permit. The use of state materials, such as sand and gravel, would require a Material Sale by the Division of Land (DOL). A Land Use Permit and Right-of-Way would have to be issued by DOL for any construction on state lands. For GVEAMCS.RPT 3-11 DECEMBER 1994 construction near known cultural or historic resource sites, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) would provide a determination regarding project impacts on cultural resources. The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT/PF) would require a Utility Permit for any work impacting ADOT/PF right-of-ways. 3.5.3 Local Permits The Denali Borough and the Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB) both regulate land use along the proposed route alignments. The Denali Borough Planning Commission and Assembly make decisions related to approval of leases or sales of borough land, while a Land Use Planning Commission is being set up. No permits are required at this time. Potential permits required for the transmission line in the FNSB include a floodplain permit for construction in floodplains, a right-of-way permit for a utility crossing of borough roads, and possibly a conditional use permit for the transmission line and/or the proposed new substation. 3.5.4 Construction Camp Related Permitting In addition to the permits required for construction of the proposed project, use of construction camps for construction in remote areas could result in the need for additional permits. ADEC would probably require a plan review for the drinking water and wastewater (sewage) disposal systems for any construction camps associated with the project. If dust, contaminants, or generator emissions are discharged during construction and occupation of camps, an Air Quality Control Permit to Operate would also by required by ADEC. If construction camps are located on state lands, a Land Use Permit could be required by ADNR as well as a Temporary Water Use Permit for the domestic water supply. In addition to these state permits, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) may require a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan (SPCC) if a significant amount of fuel is stored at any construction camp site (more than 5,000 liters). GVEAMCS.RPT 3-12 DECEMBER 1994 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE 4.1 OVERVIEW This section describes the study methods and results of the regional environmental baseline studies and impact analyses conducted for the proposed Northern Intertie. The focus of the regional environmental study was to document and evaluate the environmental resources in the macro-corridor area and to assess the impacts-of transmission line construction along six alternative route alignments. These studies are primarily based on existing data, with limited field verification. The regional environmental study investigated geology, soils, climate, aquatic resources, wildlife and habitat, wetlands and vegetation, land status, socioeconomics, recreational areas, visual resources, aviation concerns, and permitting issues. Data were collected and mapped at a scale of 1:250,000 for the study area. Resources mapped include anadromous fish streams, wetlands, wildlife concentration areas, swan nesting areas, raptor nesting areas, areas with known cultural resources, and areas with high potential for cultural resources. 4.2 STUDY AREA DELINEATION The study area for the original Macro-Corridor Study was based on the proposed north and south route alternatives identified in earlier intertie feasibility studies. The study area was chosen to provide at least one mile of buffer between the alternative routes and the study area boundary in any direction. Along much of the western edge of the study area, the boundary was drawn to include existing linear corridors (i.e., the Alaska Railroad and the Parks Highway). After meeting with the Ferry residents in September and October 1994, the study area was expanded to include and allow consideration of new routes east of the original study area. 4.3, CLIMATIC SETTING The proposed route alignments for the six alternatives lie in the interior continental climatic zone. Weather records over the past 90 years indicate that the region has a continental climate characterized by an extreme range of temperatures, low precipitation, cold winters, warm summers, low cloudiness, and low humidity. Snow cover usually persists from mid-October until late April. GVEAMCS.RPT 4-1 DECEMBER 1994 The minimum recorded temperature in Fairbanks is -54°C and the maximum is 37°C. The mean annual number of days with freezing temperatures is 233, with a mean annual temperature -3°C. The average precipitation is classified as semi-arid, with an average of 29.7 centimeters (cm) or approximately 12 inches of annual precipitation (Pe’we’, 1982). The climatic data at Healy and Nenana are equivalent to that in Fairbanks, although the prevailing winds from the south are far more intense in the Healy area than along the northern part of the alignment (Wahraftig and Black, 1958). 4.4 GEOLOGIC SETTING The macro-corridor study area is located in the Yukon Region of interior Alaska. The area is underlain by three physiographic provinces: the Tanana Lowlands, the Northern Foothills of the Alaska Range, and the Yukon-Tanana Uplands. - The south portion of the corridor lies in the northern foothills belt of the Alaska Range. This belt is about 40 km (25 miles) wide and consists of parallel, east-trending ridges and valleys. The ridges are 910 to 1,400 meters (3,000 to 4,500 feet) in elevation and the valleys generally 365 to 760 meters (1,200 to 2,500 feet) in elevation. Slopes are generally moderate but locally steep. The foothills belt is crossed by north-flowing streams originating in the Alaska Range. The region is underlain by a variety of bedrock types including schist, sandstone, and coal- bearing formations, and was partially glaciated during the late Pleistocene Epoch. The strength of the coal bearing rocks is typically low and numerous landslides have occurred in these formations on some of the steeper slopes. The middle portion of the macro-corridor extends across the Tanana Lowlands. This area is a broad depression between the Alaska Range to the south and the western foothills of the White Mountains to the north. The terrain is typically flat, with the elevation ranging from 110 to 305 meters (350 to 1,000 feet). The Lowlands are a sediment-filled trough comprised of a series of coalescing alluvial fans and shallow swamps. The area has not been glaciated. Several rivers — and streams originating in the Alaska Range and Northern Foothills flow across the Lowlands to the Tanana River. These include the Nenana River, Totatlanika River, Tatlanika Creek, Wood River, and their numerous tributaries. The northernmost section of the macro-corridor study area lies in the Yukon-Tanana Uplands. Rounded ridges and gentle to moderate slopes characterize these foothills of the White Mountains. These rounded ridges trend northeast to east and have ridge crest altitudes of 305 to 730 meters (1,000 to 2,400 feet) that are 150 to 460 meters (500 to 1,500 feet) above the GVEAMCS.RPT 42 DECEMBER 1994 lowlands floor. Streams in the uplands within the macro-corridor flow southward to the Tanana River. The hills are generally underlain by metamorphic rocks which are mantled by wind- deposited silt (loess) on the middle and upper slopes. Lower slopes and valley bottoms are typically covered by silt which has been washed down from the upper slopes. 4.4.1 Permafrost Permafrost, perennially frozen ground, is common throughout the region traversed by the proposed project. The distribution of permafrost is discontinuous with respect to occurrence, depth, and thickness which are controlled by several factors including slope orientation, vegetation, landform, drainage, and soil type. Permafrost is more prevalent on north facing slopes that received less solar heat than sunnier, south facing slopes. Although some permafrost is the result of the present climate, ground temperatures show that many permafrost areas are not in equilibrium with the present climate and thus are a product of a colder past climate (Pe’we’, 1982). Most of the permafrost in the region is warmer than -1°C and is relatively sensitive to disturbance. 4.4.2 Seismicity/Faults Although interior Alaska is not regarded as particularly earthquake prone, it is in a region that has been periodically shaken by severe shocks. Several faults in the vicinity of the proposed transmission line alignments are considered active. Large earthquakes, with Richter magnitudes up to 7.8, have been recorded in the Fairbanks area (Pe’we’, 1982). In 1947, an earthquake with an intensity of 8+ on the Mercalli Scale was centered at Clear. Recurrence of earthquakes of similar intensity is probable, according to the U.S. Geological Survey (Kachadoorian, 1960). The macro-corridor study area lies in seismic zone 3 (ICBO, 1994), where major earthquake damage (corresponding to modified Mercalli intensity = VIII (MM VIII)) and peak ground accelerations ranging from 0.2 g to 0.3 g, have a 10 percent probability of occurring at least once in 50 years (Algermissen et al., 1990). Several large east-west trending faults, including the Hines Creek and McKinley faults occur south of the alignment. Both are strands of the Denali fault, one of the largest crustal breaks in Alaska. Geologic evidence indicates that up to 61 meters (200 feet) of lateral movement has occurred along the Denali fault in the last 10,000 years (Pe’we’ and Reger, 1983). A large east- west trending fault breaks the Nenana Gravel formation north of Poker Creek, about five km GVEAMCS.RPT 4-3 DECEMBER 1994 (three miles) north of the Healy power plant (Wahraftig, 1970). It is not known if this fault is active. No other significant faults are known to cross the alignments. The Healy fault, located a few hundred yards south of the GVEA power plant and outside of the macro-corridor area, is inferred to have had three separate episodes of movement in the last 22,000 years, totalling about 6.5 meters (21 feet) of total vertical displacement (Thorson, 1978). Based on the location and inferred recurrence intervals of the faults, surface rupture due to faulting is not a design consideration. 4.4.3 Route Geology Geologic conditions along the six routes within the macro-corridor are described in the following sections. These descriptions are related to significant landmarks along the routes, Where portions of the various routes are similar, we have not repeated the description, but have instead referred to the initial description. Tanana Flats Route: The Tanana Flat Route initially extends north for six km (four miles) along the east side of the Usibelli Coal Mine access road. This portion of the route is common to all of the proposed route alternatives. The flat areas of this portion consist primarily of coarse alluvium deposited by the Nenana River. The route is constrained by large cliffs of Nenana Gravel which extend to just north of Poker Creek. Geologic hazards in this section include potential flooding of the Nenana River, bank erosion, buildup of gravel which is raveling from the steep slopes, and reactivation of the ancient landslide north of Poker Creek. North of Lignite Creek the route ascends a moderately steep slope of coal bearing rocks to an outwash-covered terrace. The route then parallels the Nenana River on broad terraces covered with glacial outwash deposits and alluvial fans which overlie uncemented Tertiary sedimentary rocks. After several kilometers, the route crosses Moose Creek and ascends a steep slope of Nenana Gravel. The route continues northward to the end of the foothills, crossing broad terraces of Nenana Gravel covered with sand and gravel from glacial outwash and drift. Boulders associated with the drift are evident on the surface. Small, elongated, shallow swamp deposits intermittently overlie the glacial sediments. North of the foothills, the route traverses a broad flat valley of the Tanana Lowlands. This segment extends for approximately 80 km (50 miles) to the northeast ending a few kilometers GVEAMCS.RPT 44 DECEMBER 1994 south of Fairbanks. The Lowlands are poorly-drained and characterized by deposits of frozen channel silt and fine sand with high ice content. Permafrost, which may occur in about 80 percent of this segment, is warm and sensitive to disturbance. These deposits are underlain at depth by outwash sand and gravel close to the foothills. Shallow swamps of saturated organic material overlie the silt and sand in places, becoming more prevalent as the route progresses to the north. North of the lowland permafrost soils, the ground becomes thawed near the active floodplain of the Tanana River. Most of this segment traverses abandoned floodplain alluvium consisting of saturated sand and gravel overlain by about a meter (approximately three to five feet) of silt. Over most of the northern part of the segment, shallow swamp deposits consisting of less than a meter (two to three feet) of saturated peat and organic silt overlie the alluvium. Zones of discontinuous permafrost may also exist where drainage is poor. Due to the flat terrain and erodible nature of the sediments, the portions of this segment which traverse islands, or are near the active channels of the Tanana River, may be subject to flooding or scour. The Tanana River generally appears to be shifting to the north, based on observations of active erosion along the north bank of the river and the abandoned channels south of the river. The resistant nature of the Birch Creek Schist in the hills north of the river has slowed the northward shifting of the river east of Fairbanks. The crossing of the Tanana River south of Fairbanks overlies thawed saturated alluvium. A levee lined with riprap has been constructed along the north bank of the river to prevent channel migration and flooding. The final segment of the route, which extends north of the river, is underlain primarily by saturated alluvial sediments with pockets of discontinuous permafrost. Rex Route: The Rex route initially extends north for six km (four miles) along the east side of the Usibelli Coal Mine access road. This portion of the route is common to each proposed route alternative and is described in Tanana Flats Route section. After crossing Lignite Creek, the route ascends to the northeast up a moderate slope of coal- bearing rocks and alluvial deposits to the south side of Walker Dome. The route then extends due north for 10 km (six miles) over poorly cemented sandstone and conglomerate of the Nenana Gravel formation. This portion of the route crosses Walker Dome at an elevation of about 1,220 meters (4,000 feet) and is mostly free of vegetation due to the altitude and extreme winds. The route continues northward to an elevation of about 910 meters (3,000 feet) for five km (three miles) over Tertiary coal-bearing rocks of the Lignite Creek formation and for five km GVEAMCS.RPT 4-5 DECEMBER 1994 (three miles) over Totatlanika Schist. The route then ascends the low angle south facing slopes through alluvial fan deposits for about two km (one mile) before continuing up a steep slope to the top of Rex Dome through Totatlanika Schist. From the top of Rex Dome, at an elevation of 1,219 meters (4,000 feet), the route descends an eight km (five miles) long bedrock slope of schist and Nenana Gravel to an elevation of 305 meters (1,000 feet). North of the foothills, the route joins the Tanana Flats Route (see Tanana Flats Route description). South Route: The South Route follows the Tanana Flats Route for the first 56 km (35 miles), and branches off to the north at a point south of Clear Air Force Station. The geology of this portion of the route is described in the above section. North of Clear, the South Route continues about 29 km (18 miles) north over the low, flat, swampy, and mostly frozen fine-grained soils of the Tanana Lowlands. As the route approaches the Tanana River, the soils become transitional between the Tanana Lowlands and the Tanana River alluvium. The materials are characterized by three to six meters (10 to 20 feet) of channel silt deposits which overlie the coarser Tanana River alluvium. These deposits are expected to be thawed and saturated. Shallow swamps of saturated organics overlie the silt in places. The near surface soils are highly frost susceptible. The northern portion of this segment may be subject to flooding or scour near the Tanana River. Soils south of the active channel in this segment consist of Tanana River alluvium. The alluvium consists of silt about three meters (10 feet) thick overlying sand and gravel. North of the river, the route enters the hills of Yukon-Tanana Uplands. The route follows a northeast trending ridge for about 40 km (25 miles). The ridge is characterized by a thin mantle of windblown silt overlying Birch Creek Schist. Limited portions of this segment traverse deep silt, which is prevalent below the ridge tops. In the low-lying areas the silt is typically frozen and ice-rich. As the route approaches Rosie Creek near Fairbanks, it crosses about three km (two miles) of ice-rich silt to a bedrock knob, then crosses the Tanana River onto thawed floodplain alluvium. The remainder of the route traverses about six km (four miles) of the thawed floodplain alluvium where it rejoins the Tanana Flats Route, described above. GVEAMCS.RPT 4-6 DECEMBER 1994 Walker Route: The Walker Route initially extends for six km (four miles) along the east side of the Usibelli Coal Mine access road. This portion of the route is common to each alternative and is described in the Tanana Flats Route above. After crossing Lignite Creek, the Walker Route follows the Rex Route, ascending to the northeast up a moderate slope of coal-bearing rocks and alluvial deposits to the south side of Walker Dome. At this point, the Walker Route separates from the Rex Route and traverses northeastward for about 16 km (10 miles) at elevations ranging from 610 to 914 meters (2,000 to 3,000 feet) over poorly cemented sandstone and conglomerate of the Nenana Gravel formation and recent alluvial deposits to Eva Creek. North of Eva Creek, the route crosses five km (three miles) of rugged, east-west trending ridges of Totatlanika Schist to the base of a broad valley underlain by Tertiary uncemented sandstone, siltstone, and coal-bearing rocks. The route crosses California Creek and heads northeast for 10 km (six miles) over low-angled: slopes of the Tertiary rocks. The route then crosses the upper Tatlanika Creek onto low hills of Totatlanika Schist and coal- bearing sandstone and siltstone. Landslides have occurred in some of the steep slopes between the river and the hills. The route continues along a flat ridge at an elevation of 610 meters (2,000 feet) for about three km (two miles) and descends a belt of Nenana Gravel to an elevation of about 305 meters (1,000 feet) at the northern margin of the Northern foothills of the Alaska Range. North of the foothills, the route extends for about six km (four miles) down the low angle slope of an alluvial fan which may be mantled with several feet of windblown silt. The route then begins to cross the broad, flat valley of the Tanana Lowlands (described in the Tanana Flats Route section) which extend northeast for the next 64 km (40 miles). The Walker Route crosses the Wood River, a meandering stream with numerous oxbow lakes and crescent-shaped abandoned channels, just west of the Wood River Buttes. This route passes over ground that is slightly better drained than most of the Lowlands. North of the Lowland permafrost soils, the ground becomes thawed near the active floodplain of the Tanana River. Most of this segment traverses abandoned floodplain alluvium consisting of saturated sand and gravel overlain by about a meter (three to five feet) of silt. The route rejoins the Tanana Flats Route at the south side of the Tanana River crossing near Fairbanks. The remainder of the route is described in the Tanana Flats Route. GVEAMCS.RPT 4-7 DECEMBER 1994 Tatlanika Route: The first 58 km (36 miles) of the Tatlanika Route follows the Walker Route which is described above. The Tatlanika Route departs from the Walker Route at the southern edge of the Tanana Lowlands and extends straight north for about 32 km (20 miles). This segment involves a crossing of Tatlanika Creek and is characterized by poor drainage, shallow permafrost, and fine-grained soils as described in the Tanana Flats Route. The route rejoins the Tanana Flats Route on the west side of the Wood River. Jumbo Route: The Jumbo Route initially extends for six km (four miles) along the east side of the Usibelli Coal Mine access road. This portion of the route is common to each alternative and is described in the Tanana Flats Route. At the confluence of Lignite Creek and the Nenana River, the Jumbo Route extends east- northeast for about 40 km (25 miles) through Tertiary coal-bearing rocks consisting-of weakly cemented sandstone, siltstone, and coal. The first 24 km (15 miles) of this segment crosses a south-facing slope deeply incised by numerous steep drainages. Numerous landslides have been mapped along these slopes. These slides typically have started where groundwater has concentrated along the tops of impervious beds which slope toward Lignite Creek or its tributaries. The last few kilometers of this segment extend through the Totatlanika Schist. In the vicinity of Sheep Creek, the route turns due north and extends for about 23 km (14 miles) through lower angled slopes of coal-bearing rocks with sporadic outcrops of Nenana Gravel and zones of late Pleistocene alluvium. A two km (one mile) wide landslide on an east-facing slope also occurs in this segment. Near the crossing of Tatlanika Creek at the northern limit of the foothills, the route descends to an elevation of about 366 meters (1,200 feet). North of the foothills, the route extends for about six km (four miles) down the low angle slope of an alluvial fan which may be mantled with several meters of windblown silt. North of the alluvial deposits, the route extends east of the Wood River Buttes across the Tanana Lowlands to the crossing of the Tanana River. This portion is subparallel to the Walker Route crossing of the Tanana Lowlands and is expected to encounter similar conditions as described for the Tanana Flats Route. A few kilometers south of Fairbanks, the route transitions onto thawed alluvium of the Tanana River floodplain. The final segment of the route crosses the Tanana River over Goose Island and then traverses mostly thawed alluvial sediments with discontinuous permafrost pockets north of the river. A levee protects the route from river erosion on the north bank. GVEAMCS.RPT 4-8 DECEMBER 1994 4.5 SURFACE WATER AND AQUATIC BIOLOGY The macro-corridor lies within the Yukon drainage basin in the Tanana subregion. Mean annual stream runoff in the area is approximately 0.5 to one cubic feet per second (cfs) per square mile, with a mean annual peak stream runoff of approximately 10 cfs per square mile. In steep upland basins, the mean annual peak runoff may be as high as 50 cfs per square mile. Most of the rivers and creeks in the northern portion of the macro-corridor are at elevations of 120 to 305 meters (1,000 feet) above sea level. Streams in the southern portion of the macro-corridor, in the foothills of the Alaska Range, are at elevations from 305 to 1200 meters (1,000 to 4,000 feet) above sea level. Numerous lakes, ponds, creeks, rivers, and muskegs (swamps, bogs) are situated in the macro corridor. There are no large lakes near any of the proposed route alignments, and few on- stream lakes, except for a few on-stream lakes on the shallow gradient Goldstream and Ohio creeks. In addition to the named creeks and rivers crossed by the alternative route alignments in the macro-corridor (Table 4-1), there are numerous small creeks that are not named on U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps. Most streams in the area are likely to support grayling throughout most of their length, when they are not frozen. Northern pike, sheefish, whitefish, burbot, and Arctic char/dolly varden also occur in this general area, although most of these species are probably not present in great numbers in many of the streams and rivers crossed by the alternative route alignments. Anadromous fish, primarily chum, coho, king and silver salmon, are found in the Nenana River, Tanana River, Salchaket Slough, the Chena River through Fairbanks, and in sloughs and tributaries off of these rivers. Table 4-2 provides a complete list of anadromous fish streams crossed by the alternative route alignments, based on the ADF&G’s catalog of anadromous fish streams. 4.5.1 Tanana River The Tanana is the largest river in the region. It is formed by the confluence of the Chisana and Nabesna rivers near the village of Northway, and flows northwest for 855 km (530 miles) where it enters the Yukon river at Tanana. It flows southwest across the upper third of macro-corridor and turns north and west in the vicinity of Nenana. The river drains 113,960 square km (71,000 square miles), including almost 1,300 square km (800 square miles) in Canada. The floodplain GVEAMCS.RPT 4-9 DECEMBER 1994 TABLE 4-1 NAMED CREEKS AND RIVERS CROSSED BY PROPOSED ROUTE ALIGNMENTS Creek/River Name Boulder Creek California Creek Chicken Creek Cody Creek Crooked Creek Davis Creek Dexter Creek Elsie Creek Eva Creek Fish Creek Frances Creek Crossed _b’ oN SP Pb n ow on -? a a oe ? 1S |. a fa = yw TE Julius Creek Lignite Creek Louise Creek Moose Creek Poker Creek Popvitch Creek Salchaket Slough Shovel Creek Tanana River Tatlanika Creek Thistle Creek Totatlanika River Walker Creek Willow Creek Windy Creek Wood River STE. S, TF, R S, TF, R, W, J, T S, TF, R, W, J, T TF, R, W, 5, T TERI S, TF, R TR OR Wek S, TF TF, R, W, J, T y 9 g Route Alignment Abbreviations S - South Route R - Rex Route J - Jumbo Route TF - Tanana Flats Route W - Walker Route T - Tatlanika Route GVEAMCS.RPT 4-10 DECEMBER 1994 TABLE 4-2 ANADROMOUS FISH STREAMS CROSSED BY PROPOSED ROUTE ALIGNMENTS Stream Name ADF&G Stream No. Fish Route usage Alignment Julius Creek 334-40-11000-2490-3200- Kr, COs South Route, 4011-5015 Tanana Flats Route Salchaket Slough 334-40-11000-2490-3290 _ eminem [oACoR Legend: CH - Chum 5 - spawning CO - Coho r - rearing K - King Source: Catalog of Waters Important for Spawning, Rearing or Migration of Anadromous Fishes - Interior Region. ADF&G, Habitat Division. 1993. Note: The Catalog of Waters Important for Spawning, Rearing or Migration of Anadromous Fishes - Interior Region documents streams surveyed by ADF&G and streams nominated for inclusion by the public and approved by ADF&G. The catalog does not necessarily list all anadromous streams in the area. However, it is the best published resource for documenting the occurrence of anadromous streams. GVEAMCS.RPT 4-11 DECEMBER 1994 area has abundant water resources and an alluvial aquifer. The Tanana River is the major source of recharge to the alluvial aquifer. Mean annual runoff in the Tanana region averages up to one cfs per square mile in the lowlands and basins north of the Tanana River. Annual runoff ranges from one to four cfs per square mile south of the River, with the higher runoff associated with the uplands of the Alaska Range. Approximately 85 percent of the water flow and sediment load of the Tanana River is contributed by glacial streams draining the Alaska Range and Wrangell Mountains to the south. Four major tributaries, the Kantishna, Nenana, Nabesna, and Delta are responsible for approximately 50 percent of the flow from that region. The remaining 15 percent of total discharge originates from the north in the Yukon-Tanana Upland region with flows from the Salcha, Tolovana, Chena, and Goodpastor rivers being the most significant. Normal sediment loads in the Tanana River range from 500 to 2,000 milligrams per liter (mg/L). Non-glacial streams that drain from the north generally carry only 10 to 300 mg/L, and streams originating from low elevations on both sides of the Tanana River carry approximately five to 50 mg/L sediment. Streamflow variability in the region is most significant in nonglaciated streams. Glacial streams, because of the regulatory effects of ice storage, are less variable. Floods frequently occur in the region due to spring runoff or summer rains, with the most damaging events associated with rain or snow events. Ice constriction in the channel may aggravate the situation and render flood-frequency curves based solely on discharge unreliable. Discharge data is readily available for the Tanana River, though oftentimes the actual drainage area at a gauge is difficult to define, due to the presence of a large number of sloughs. The high flow on record for the gauge located on the Tanana River at Fairbanks occurred during the flood of August 16, 1967. It was based on stage height and approximated at 125,000 cfs. The highest daily instantaneous peak flow for the water years 1973 through 1993 was 96,400 cfs. Average discharge is approximately 20,000 cfs. The Tanana River contains chum, coho, and King salmon, as well as grayling, whitefish, burbot, pike, and sheefish. Chum salmon spawn in a number of tributaries of the Tanana River. Coho and King salmon also spawn in tributaries such as the Chatanika and Salcha Rivers, and Clearwater Creek. GVEAMCS.RPT 4-12 DECEMBER 1994 4.5.2 Nenana River The Nenana River is the second-largest river in the macro-corridor and runs the length of the macro-corridor from Healy to Nenana. Originating at the Nenana Glacier in the Denali Highway area of the Alaska Range, it runs northward, entering the Tanana River near the town of Nenana. The river drains approximately 10,000 square km (6,200 square miles) along its 230 km (143 mile) length. The Nenana is located within the Tanana basin and is one of the major contributors to the Tanana River. As such, it shares a number of the hydrologic characteristics discussed above. Specific data is difficult to obtain for the Nenana River as its more remote nature presents access and logistical difficulties. Gauging stations have been established, but have been operated only sporadically. The limited amount of data available from a gauge near Healy indicates an average discharge of 3,725 cfs. A maximum discharge of 11,900 cfs was estimated at that gauge by rating curve extension (logarithmic plotting). There are no gauging stations currently in operation on the Nenana River. The Nenana is a glacially-fed system and, as such, demonstrates relatively low streamflow variation. At the gauge at Healy, the Nenana varied from 86 percent to 123 percent of the average annual flow over a 14 year period. Precipitation records for the period show a variation of 60 percent to 151 percent. In contrast, streamflow variation in the Chena River, a nonglacial system, ranged from 47 percent to 173 percent over the same period. The Nenana River gains large amounts of sediment as it flows downstream, with summer sediment concentrations ranging from less than 50 mg/L at the headwaters to more than 1,000 mg/L downstream. The high concentration of suspended solids in the Nenana River is typical of glacially fed streams. Maximum river flow occurs in the late summer when runoff from the glaciers feeding the Nenana River is at a maximum. In the winter, the river is fed by groundwater at a lower and more constant rate. The Nenana River contains chum, coho, and King salmon, as well as grayling, whitefish, longnose sucker, burbot, and slimy sculpin. Conditions are not favorable for spawning in the Nenana River, although spawning occurs in tributary streams and sloughs. The abundance of fish in the Nenana River has not been measured, due to the relatively high velocity of the river, which makes it difficult to sample. GVEAMCS.RPT 4-13 DECEMBER 1994 4.6 WILDLIFE AND HABITAT The macro-corridor provides important habitat for various wildlife populations. Figures 4-1 and 4-1 illustrate waterfowl concentration areas, raptor nesting locations, and fish and wildlife concentration areas within the macro-corridor. The majority of state lands crossed by the proposed alternative route alignments range in value from "critically rated" to "high value" areas in which fish and wildlife habitat is designated as the area’s primary use and is managed as such under the Tanana Basin Area Plan. Some of the areas receiving a high or critical habitat value included the Parks Highway corridor, the Rex Dome to Liberty Bell Mine area, the north slope of the Alaska Range, and the Tanana Flats, which include the Totatlanika Flats and the lower Dry Creek-Japan Hills areas. Areas where fish and wildlife habitat are not the primary management intent or land use, and which: generally have lesser habitat value, include portions of the Nenana Ridge, the Ester Dome area, and agricultural areas in the Goldstream Creek area. The Tanana Valley State Forest is managed primarily for timber production and not wildlife habitat. 4.6.1 Birds Approximately 150 species inhabit the Tanana and Nenana River Valleys (ADF&G, 1985) and many of these same species are common throughout the interior region of Alaska. Passerines: Spindler and Kessel (1980) documented a total of 36 species of passerines in terrestrial habitats in the upper Tanana River Valley. The greatest number of passerine species and the highest density populations of passerines are found in tall shrub habitats. Mixed deciduous-coniferous forests, in particular, support a large number of species and represent the highest breeding densities of passerines, due primarily to a diverse habitat structure. Waterfowl: Waterfowl concentrations in the project study area are generally low to moderate (Selkregg, 1976), although specific areas are used for nesting and rearing of young. The Nenana and Tanana Rivers also serve as major migration corridors in spring and fall for birds returning to, and leaving, their arctic breeding areas. The area between the Salchaket Slough, off the Tanana River south of Fairbanks, and the Wood River to the west, has the highest waterfowl density within the macro-corridor. The Tanana Flats, south of the Tanana River, provide a vast area of wetlands suitable to many types of waterfowl. Though concentrations are not as high as in other areas, such as Minto Flats, congregations of waterfowl may occur anywhere across the Tanana Flats. Common waterfowl species found in the area include diving GVEAMCS.RPT 4-14 DECEMBER 1994 ducks such as Scoters, Greater and Lesser Scaup, Canvasbacks, Common and Barrow’s Goldeneyes, and dabblers such as the Pintails, Northern Shoveler, Green-winged Teal, American Wigeon, and Mallards (Selkregg, 1976). The macro-corridor includes lands which have been designated as critical habitat for Trumpeter Swans, a species of concern (ADNR, 1991). Areas designated by ADNR as critical habitat for swans include the Tanana Flats east of the Parks Highway to the Wood River. USFWS Trumpeter Swan nesting habitat maps indicate that Trumpeter Swan concentrations extend even further east and into Fort Wainwright, south of Fairbanks. Since the 1970s, populations of Trumpeter Swans have been increasing in the interior and southcentral areas of Alaska (Racine, 1970). Consequently, swans and pairs of nesting swans have expanded into areas where swan numbers were historically low or unknown. The USFWS began conducting Trumpeter Swan surveys on the Tanana Flats in 1968 (Racine, 1970). The initial survey recorded 103 swans and 13 broods in the Tanana Flats. A USFWS swan survey in 1994 recorded 342 swans and 34 broods (P. Bruce - personal communication, 1994). Table 4-3 provides a breakdown of Trumpeter Swan observations, per topographical quadrangle, on the Tanana Flats for the last three years. USFWS data indicates that nesting Trumpeter Swans occur throughout the Tanana Flats. According to Racine (1970), swan pair and brood density was highest in the area around the Wood River. Current data indicates that concentrations of swans are high around the Tatlanika and Wood Rivers, and in the areas around the Wood River and Clear Creek buttes in the central and eastern portions of the Tanana Flats, although swans may be encountered in any suitable habitat across the Tanana Flats. Minto Flats, located north of Nenana, is one of the major waterfowl nesting areas in the interior and supports high densities of nesting waterfowl. Consequently, waterfowl migrating to and from Minto Flats are likely to be present in the macro-corridor either to feed or rest during migrations. Raptors: A variety of raptor species occur throughout the macro-corridor area, including owls, hawks, eagles, and falcons. In 1991, Roseneau and Springer conducted a raptor survey of the area around Healy. In their report, they concluded that at least 15 species of raptors had been identified as occurring, or likely to occur, in the Healy area (Roseneau and Springer, 1991). Species potentially in the area include Bald Eagles, Golden Eagles, Northern Harriers, Northern Goshawks, Red-tailed Hawks, Rough-legged Hawks, Sharp-shinned Hawks, American Kestrels, GVEAMCS.RPT 4-15 DECEMBER 1994 TABLE 4-3 ; TRUMPETER SWAN OBSERVATIONS 1992-1994 [Fairbanks Quad | Bi |p2 |Bs [ps [cr |c2 [cs [cs | Tom | fait eto dae eee ie ee ee ee ee ai eee ee ee ee eee ee ee ee ee faewaes —Tetetete tots taps ta japieesigtiinie eee pete ee tee eee oem tO |e Sag Scare ee eae egal gs |e oes 1993 Trumpeter Swan Observations on Tanana Flats | Fairbanks Quad | Bi_|p2 [Bs |p [cr |c2 |c3 [cs | Tom | putes Weeden ee faim ari | mente faeces Debio eet | Ge eel) ae ee aes eee ane a ee ieee ee oa | j Batted Na | es | Be | |e ag | ee tabi Bin | ies | | oe ie yen | te a Oia) 1992 Trumpeter Swan Observations on Tanana Flats [Fairbanks Quad | Bi | w2| ws{Bs [ci |c2 [cs [cs | tow | see eee ee ese eee netics gd ee ioe eo nee a ee [Paired Birds | 4 [| 4 | 50| a8 | 2 | ao | a | 24 | 216 | ieee Bo oe eee os ee eae GVEAMCS.RPT 4-16 DECEMBER 1994 Merlins, Peregrine Falcon, Gyrfalcon, Great Horned Owls, Northern Hawk Owls, Short-eared Owls, and Boreal Owls. During their survey, at least 11 Golden Eagle nest sites were documented within a eight km (five mile) radius of Healy. Two of these were documented up the Lignite Creek drainage. High mountain areas of the north slope of the Alaska Range are considered prime-rated raptor habitat by ADF&G (ADNR, 1991). Golden Eagles and Peregrine Falcons are the most likely raptors to be encountered at higher elevations in the Alaska Range. The Bald Eagle and its nests are protected under the Bald Eagle Protection Act. This Act restricts activities such as ground clearing within 100 meters (330 feet) of eagle nests (USFWS, 1993). Bald Eagles nest in close proximity to rivers, lakes, or streams where there is access to an adequate food supply. These birds are opportunistic feeders and take advantage of seasonally available or locally abundant fish, waterfowl, and carrion (USFWS, 1980a). Bald Eagles nest at several locations along the Tanana River and its tributaries (S. Ambrose - personal communication, 1994). According to USFWS biologists, there are ten documented: nest sites between Fairbanks and Nenana on the Tanana River (J. Fadley - personal communication, 1994). Three of these are located across the Tanana River from Fairbanks, and the remainder are situated on islands in the river or on tributaries to the Tanana River draining from the Tanana Flats. Bald Eagles are relatively scarce along the Nenana River corridor, probably due to competition with other raptors. The American Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) is protected under the Endangered Species Act. Peregrine Falcon surveys have been conducted on the Tanana River each of the last two years by ADF&G and were conducted again this year (Bente and Wright, 1993 and 1994). According to ADF&G, the Tanana River presently supports a total of 26 active Peregrine Falcon nest sites, two of which are located between Fairbanks and Nenana (P. Bente - personal communication, 1994). In addition to the two active nests, Roseneau (1984) identified six additional historical or potential nest sites between Fairbanks and Nenana, and the USFWS identified an additional three (J. Fadley - personal communication, 1994). The Peregrine Falcon population has been expanding its range in the last several years and there is now a strong possibility that some of the historic nest sites may become occupied again as young birds begin to establish their own territories. The Tanana River has already shown a steady increase in newly occupied sites and productivity in recent years (P. Bente - personal communication, 1994). If this increase continues, the optimal habitat will likely become saturated with nesting pairs and lower quality sites will have some activity. Therefore, it is important to treat all suitable habitat as possible Peregrine nesting sites. GVEAMCS.RPT 4-17 DECEMBER 1994 The USFWS advised GVEA that a raptor survey along the Tanana River would be required to verify active Peregrine Falcon nest locations prior to preparation of an EA on the proposed project (S. Ambrose - personal communication, 1994). This raptor survey report is provided in Appendix B. The USFWS has indicated that transmission lines should not be located within one mile of any active nests and that they may be required to stay away from historical nests and high potential nesting areas as well. In addition to the American Peregrine Falcon nesting sites discussed above, migrant Arctic Peregrine Falcons could also occur in the area during spring and fall migration. Arctic Peregrine Falcons are listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. 4.6.2 Mammals Five species of large mammals are of particular importance in the project area because of their subsistence, recreational, or ecological importance. These species are black bear, brown bear, caribou, Dall sheep, and moose. Black Bears: Black bears are abundant throughout the macro-corridor and utilize a wide range of habitat types. Black bears prefer open forest, and mixed forest and shrub habitats, which provide cover and preferred food species such as berries, succulent forbs, and grasses. Black bears avoid open areas and extensive areas of dense timber, except during spring when grasslands provide important feeding habitat for bears emerging from their dens (USFWS, 1980a). Black bears feed mostly on herbaceous vegetation, but also feed on carrion and spawning salmon in many of the rivers and streams during the summer months (Selkregg, 1976). The highest quality habitat for black bears is forested area with relatively small openings (close to escape cover), a high diversity of forage species, and a high percentage cover of these species. The area around Seventeen Mile Slough, off the Nenana River on the western edge of the macro-corridor, is classified as critical habitat for black bear (ADNR, 1991). Black bears feed in boggy wetlands in this area in the spring and feed along salmon streams in the fall. No major black bear concentration or denning areas have been delineated within the macro-corridor area; however, according to ADF&G research, many black bears den on the Tanana Flats. The estimated population of black bears on the Tanana Flats is one adult per 39 square km (24 square miles) (Al Ott and John Hectel - personal communication, 1994). GVEAMCS.RPT 4-18 DECEMBER 1994 Brown Bears: Brown bears occupy more remote areas than black bears and are relatively common in the higher elevations of the north slope of the Alaska Range. Brown bear dens are usually located in the higher elevations (USFWS, 1980). Brown bears can be found in any habitat type, but prefer open habitats and are most common in upland shrub and tundra communities (USFWS, 1980a). The mountainous areas east of Healy are prime-rated habitat for brown bears (ADNR, 1991). Brown bear are omnivorous and rely on a wide variety of food items. They feed heavily on grasses and forbs throughout summer and on berries in late summer and fall. Brown bears are drawn down to streams in the late summer by the availability of spawning salmon. Carrion is a highly desirable food item for brown bears and is taken when found. Moose: Moose are widespread throughout the Tanana and Nenana River drainages, with the highest concentrations occurring in the Tanana Flats region. The Tanana Flats are of seasonal importance to all sex and age groups because of the abundance of herbaceous vegetation. The density of tall shrub communities in the area also provides a suitable calving area for moose (Bishop, 1969). The greatest use of the area occurs in mid-summer to fall, when moose concentrate on the numerous bog habitats (ADF&G, 1985). Use of the area in fall and winter depends on the availability of other winter habitat. Moose concentrations occur in fall and winter in the area from Healy to Clear. The Windy Creek area, east of Rex.at the base of the northern base of the Alaska Range, is an ADF&G rated special value area for moose and the state lands adjacent to the Nenana River are classified as prime habitat for moose (ADNR, 1991). The area is managed to maintain or enhance willow stands, which provide important fall staging areas and winter browse for moose. Some moose also concentrate along active rivers and streams across the Tanana Flats, where recently exposed bars support thick stands of young willows. The lower Dry Creek - Japan Hills areas of the Tanana Flats south of Fairbanks also contain prime-rated moose habitat. Moose also tend to concentrate along the Tanana River from Fairbanks to Nenana, in willow thickets along the river. Many moose leave the Flats for higher elevations in winter to take advantage of better browse conditions in the upland areas north of the Tanana River, in the Goldstream Valley, and into Fairbanks. Caribou: The range of the Delta Caribou Herd includes the southern portion of the Tanana Flats and the northern foothills of the Alaska Range, both within the macro-corridor study area (Hemming, 1971; ADF&G, 1985). Animals from this herd utilize the entire northern foothills from the Japan Hills westward to the Parks Highway. The area of the foothills from Walker Dome eastward is heavily used by the herd in fall and winter, and is considered prime caribou GVEAMCS.RPT 4-19 DECEMBER 1994 range by ADF&G (Pat Valkenberg - personal communication, 1994). There are no calving areas within the macro-corridor. During spring and fall, many of the caribou undergo a east-west movement in the foothills across the southern edge of the Tanana Flats and the Nenana River Valley. This movement is typically across a broad front, with small bands moving east in spring and west in the fall. Small bands have historically congregated in the drainages of Boulder and Buzzard Creeks between the headwaters of the Totatlanika and Tatlanika Rivers in the foothills (W. Hymer - personal communication, 1994). Winter range habitat is primarily west of the Nenana River, and outside of the macro-corridor, though several mountain domes east of Healy are managed as important winter feeding areas for the Delta Caribou Herd. Dall Sheep: Dall sheep are widely distributed in the Alaska Range. The high mountainous area east of Healy toward Wood River is Dall sheep range, including areas rated as critical habitat for Dall sheep (ADNR, 1991). Dall sheep feed on grasses and sedges and will also browse on willows and lichens. In the spring, sheep follow the retreating snow line into high meadows and ridges to feed on emerging succulent vegetation. Breeding season is from late November through mid-December and lambing occurs from mid-May through mid-June. An important feature of Dall sheep spring and summer habitat is the proximity to mineral licks, which provide nutritional requirements and social interaction between members of the herd. Several mineral licks have been identified in these mountains and others, yet unidentified, are suspected. According to ADF&G, there is an important mineral lick just east of Needle Rock on a flat area between All Gold Creek and Dexter Creek (W. Hymer - personal communication, 1994). According to ADNR, mineral licks in these mountains are heavily used by sheep populations in the spring (ADNR, 1991). Other Small Mammals: Other wildlife species common to the macro-corridor area include snowshoe hare, hoary marmot, Arctic ground squirrel, red squirrel, beaver, muskrat, porcupine, red fox, coyote, gray wolf, marten, short-tailed weasel, mink, wolverine, land otter, and lynx. 4.7 VEGETATION AND WETLANDS 4.7.1 Vegetation The area included in the macro-corridor traverses the Nenana and Tanana River Valleys, which include the lowlands of the wide valley floors and the uplands of the Tanana/Yukon highlands. GVEAMCS.RPT 4-20 DECEMBER 1994 The north slope of the Alaska Range from Healy eastward to around the Wood River is also in the study area. The study area is within the northern zone of the taiga and supports a diverse variety of vegetation community types (Viereck, 1975). The interaction of severe climate with repeated fires, discontinuous permafrost, and braided drainage systems have resulted in complex patterns of vegetation (Selkregg, 1976). The study area incudes three main forests types: upland spruce-hardwood, lowland spruce-hardwood, and bottomland spruce-poplar (Selkregg, 1976). Upland spruce-hardwood is the most widespread forest type, occupying approximately 43 percent of the region. The community is found on well-drained, south-facing slopes and consists of dense white spruce (Picea glauca), paper birch (Betula papyrifera), balsam poplar (Populus balsamifera), and quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides). Black spruce (Picea mariana) replaces white spruce on north facing slopes. Understory is typically mosses and grasses in dry sites and brush species in lower and wetter locations. Lowland spruce-hardwood forests cover approximately 23 percent of this region, and are dominated by extensive stands of black spruce with some balsam poplar and some paper birch. Tamarack (Larix laricina) is often associated with black spruce in wet lowlands. This forest type grows extensively on shallow peat soils, glacial deposits, outwash plains, in intermountain basins, and on lowlands and north facing slopes throughout the region (Selkregg, 1976). Bottomland spruce-poplar are typically found in permafrost-free areas along floodplains of meandering streams and rivers, such as the Tanana River. This forest community is primarily made up of white spruce with varying amounts of balsam poplar (Selkregg, 1976). Only about 12 percent of the region supports this forest type. The understory of this community usually consists of dense brush of green alder (Alnus crispa), thinleaf alder (A. tenuifolia), willows (Salix spp.), wild rose (Rosa acicularis), Labrador tea (Ledum groenlandicum), and dogwood (Cornus spp.). Grasses, forbs, and mosses are common on the forest floor. Tall shrub communities in the Tanana River Valley occur both as floodplain thickets on major streams and rivers, and in the higher elevations as birch-alder-willow communities in the transition zone between forest and alpine tundra. The riparian thickets on river floodplains consist of primarily willow and alder. The high brush communities at the timberline consist of shrub birch (Betula glandulosa), thinleaf alder, green alder, and several species of willow. GVEAMCS.RPT 4-21 DECEMBER 1994 Bogs and muskegs occur in low-lying, wet areas on old, poorly-drained floodplains and in the higher elevations of stream drainages. These are typically low shrub communities with varying amount of sedges and mosses, and are usually classified as wetlands. 4.7.2 Wetlands Wetlands within the Nenana River and Tanana River drainages have been delineated by the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory Program (USFWS, 1980b; 1982; 1985). The classification system used by the USFWS follows Corwardin et al. (1979) and defines wetlands according to ecological characteristics and not according to regulatory guidelines of the COE. Therefore, not all wetland types mapped by the USFWS come under jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act (Section 404). Wetland types in the macro-corridor area include palustrine and riverine wetlands. Palustrine wetlands are freshwater wetlands dominated by woody plants or emergents and shallow ponds. Riverine wetlands are areas contained within the outer limits of river or stream channels. No large lakes are located in the macro-corridor, although some small lakes are present. Permafrost occurs regularly in much of the Tanana River Valley, which prevents downward movement of water and results in saturated soils over areas of permafrost during the growing season (USFWS, 1982). Saturated shrub bogs and forested lowlands are the most common wetland type encountered within the macro-corridor (Kidd, 1994). Common species associated with shrub bog wetland types in this region include shrub birch, diamond leaf willow (Salix planifolia), sweet gale (Myrica gale), thin leaf alder, dwarf birch (Betula nana), Labrador tea, shrubby cinquefoil (otentilla fruticosa), bog blueberry (Vaccinium uliginosum), mountain cranberry (V. vitis idaea), black crowberry (Empetrum nigrum), bog rosemary (Andromeda sp.) and several lesser species of willow. Shrub birch and stunted black spruce are the dominant components of shrub bogs but are occasionally mixed with tamarack. Emergent species include several species of sedge (Carex spp.), cottongrass (Eriophorum spp.), bluejoint grass (Calamagrostis canadensis), swamp horsetail (Equisetum fluviatile), and several types of sphagnum moss (Sphagnum spp.) Within the northeastern portions of Tanana Lowlands, many scrub shrub communities grade into large areas of floating mats, which extend over a considerable area just south of Fairbanks (C. Racine - personal communication, 1994). Although these areas are extensive, some discontinuity does exist within them. Floating mat wetlands consist of one-half to one meter (one and one-half to three feet) thick mats of herbaceous vegetation, occasionally with shrubs, that float on a one GVEAMCS.RPT 4-22 DECEMBER 1994 and one-half to two meter (five to seven feet) deep layer of roots, loose peat, and water. This zone grades into more dense peat, which overlies unfrozen gray silts and gravel. The vegetation is dominated by buckbean, sedges, and swamp horsetail, occasionally co-dominated by shrub birch and sweet gale. These wetlands are unique in that they appear to be maintained by groundwater that flow below the permafrost from the Alaska Range, upwelling into unfrozen areas within the Tanana Lowlands. This differs from the other wetlands in the study area which primarily are maintained by precipitation and seasonal runoff. These wetlands function primarily as wildlife habitat for birds and mammals, as well as providing general biomass production. Forested wetlands (saturated black spruce bogs) are another common wetland type encountered in the macro-corridor on north-facing slopes and ridge tops (Kidd, 1994). These areas are typically open, black spruce forests or stunted spruce woodlands, with an understory of deciduous shrubs, such as Labrador tea and cottongrass tussock (Eriophorum _vaginatum). Where the canopy is more open, the understory is similar to the scrub shrub communities. This type of wetland is extensive in the lower Tanana Valley. The functional value of these wetlands is primarily wildlife habitat, especially for moose and songbirds. Seasonally flooded and temporarily flooded riparian shrub wetland habitats occur along old bars of rivers, and stream corridors which have stabilized enough to support woody plants. These wetlands are found in areas within the floodplains of the rivers and small streams. Typical vegetation includes cottonwood (Populus balsamifera), thinleaf alder, and several willow species such as the diamond leaf willow, felt leaf willow (Salix alaxensis), and gray leaf willow (Salix glauca), with undergrowth of bluejoint grass, fireweed (Epilobium angustifolium), swamp horsetail, marsh cinquefoil (Potentilla palustris), and nagoon berry (Rubus arcticus). Stunted black spruce may also occur in small amounts on the higher terraces. These wetlands have a high functional value as wildlife habitat for passerines, furbearers, black bear, and moose. Riverine wetlands, both open water areas and frequently flooded bars and flats, include the Tanana River, Salchaket Slough (off the Tanana River), and several smaller tributaries. These areas have high functional values and are primarily used as fish habitat (for fish passage to spawning and nursery areas), wildlife habitat for furbearers, and feeding and resting areas for wildlife such as waterfowl. River bars provide nesting habitat for Mew Gulls and some songbirds and foraging for moose, if enough vegetation is present. These systems also function to maintain surface and groundwater regimes. Small ponds are scattered throughout the macro-corridor. Wetlands associated with ponds are generally a complex of open water and emergent and shrub bog habitats. Dominant plant species GVEAMCS.RPT 4-23 DECEMBER 1994 in these complexes include sedges, narrow-leaf cottongrass (Eriophorum angustifolium), cattail (Typha latifolia) and buckbean (Menyanthes trifolia). The primary function of these areas is for wildlife habitat, such as for furbearers and waterfowl nesting and brood rearing. 4.8 CULTURAL RESOURCES Cultural resources generally refer to archaeological or historic sites or remains. These resources generally include deposits, structures, ruins, sites, buildings, graves, artifacts, fossils, or other objects of antiquity, which provide information about the historic or prehistoric culture of people or the natural history of the area. In order to be considered "historic", an object must be more than 50 years old, unless it has exceptional national, state, or local significance. Archaeological sites on state lands are protected by the Alaska Historic Preservation Act (Alaska Statute 41.35) which protects historic, prehistoric (including paleontological deposits), and archaeological resources situated on state owned or controlled lands, including tidelands and submerged lands. Archaeological sites on federal lands, and some Indian lands, are protected under the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (PL 96-95), which was designed to extend protection to prehistoric sites. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA - 16 USC 470a) requires that federal agencies consider what effects their actions, and actions they may assist, permit, or license, may have on historic and prehistoric properties. NHPA also confers upon SHPO the responsibility to ensure that concerns related to the importance of cultural resources are addressed. The macro-corridor encompasses areas containing sites which span the entire period from the late Pleistocene (ice age) to the present, and include some of the oldest, well-documented archaeological sites in North America. The macro-corridor contains the locations of over 320 archaeological and historic sites: Areas with high concentrations of archaeological and historical sites include Fairbanks, Nenana, Healy, and the Wood River Butte and Clear Creek Butte areas. Over 200 sites are located in and around the urban area of Fairbanks. The area surrounding Healy has 68 known sites, 34 sites have been identified in the vicinity of the Wood River Butte and Clear Creek Butte, and 10 sites are known to exist in and around Nenana. More detailed information on the cultural resources associated with the macro-corridor is provided in Appendix C. In addition to the known archaeological and historic sites, the macro-corridor has areas which have a high potential for cultural resources but which have not yet been surveyed. Common topographic settings for the prehistoric sites include areas with relatively high topographic relief GVEAMCS.RPT 4-24 DECEMBER 1994 and good drainage such as buttes, bluff edges, and ridges, as well as proximity to streams and rivers. Discovery of archaeological sites is no doubt biased towards these settings because of their greater visibility in the archaeological record (Dixon et al., 1980). Sediment deposition on ridges and buttes is low and cultural remains are often encountered within 50 cm below the surface. In contrast, cultural remains located in topographically low areas, such as the Tanana floodplain, may be covered by hundreds of feet of alluvium. Due to the high potential for cultural resources in areas of the proposed corridors, an archaeological survey is likely to be required along the final route alignment in the high potential areas. However, the nature of transmission line construction, with disturbance limited to tower structures every few hundred meters, is such that even fairly large sites can usually be avoided through careful tower location siting. 4.9 SOCIOECONOMIC/SOCIOPOLITICAL RESOURCES 4.9.1 Land Status The proposed route alignments traverse federal, state, Native, borough, Alaska Railroad Corporation, University of Alaska, and private lands. An effort has been made to avoid private land holdings and residential parcels wherever possible. Information on land status was gathered primarily from the ADNR, but other sources included the BLM and the FNSB. The majority of the land in the macro-corridor is owned by the State, although other lands are also crossed as mentioned above. Private: Private land holdings are any properties owned by individuals or businesses, but not by Native Corporations, certificated Alaska Native Allotments, municipal governments, or the state or federal governments. The proposed route alignments were designed to avoid private lands where possible. However, there are private lands scattered throughout the macro-corridor. Concentrations of private lands are located in and around Fairbanks, in the Nenana area, and near the Parks Highway between Healy and Nenana. Borough: The macro-corridor includes areas within both the Denali Borough and the FNSB. The Denali Borough was recently formed and does not yet have title to any municipal entitlement lands. By the end of 1994, the State of Alaska should have determined how much land the Borough will select and receive. It is not known how long it will take for the Borough to select land and acquire the title to the land. The FNSB owns lands in the macro-corridor in the Fairbanks area. GVEAMCS.RPT 4-25 DECEMBER 1994 Native Corporations: Several Native Regional and Village Corporations own land or have selected land within the macro-corridor. Under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, Native Corporations were allowed to select lands from federal land holdings. These selections were then adjudicated and conveyed to Native Regional and Village Corporations. Due to conflicting selections between various Native Corporations and the state, the process of granting these lands is complicated and is still ongoing. Native Corporations have selected more lands than will eventually be transferred to them; therefore, transfer of Native selected lands may or may not occur. Native Regional Corporations for the most part have selected the subsurface estate associated with the surface estate selected by the Native Village Corporations. Cook Inlet Region Incorporated (CIRI), Doyon Regional Corporation, and the Toghotthele Village Corporation have selected lands within the macro-corridor. CIRI lands are located near Clear Air Force Station, while Doyon and Toghotthele lands are primarily located along the Tanana and Wood Rivers. : State: The State of Alaska was granted over 100 million acres of land when it achieved statehood in 1959. The state owns the majority of the lands included in the macro-corridor. Some state-owned areas have mining and mineral claims on them, particularly in the Healy and Lignite Creek area. Other state lands have been designated as special use areas, such as the Minto Flats State Game Refuge north of Nenana, and the Tanana Valley State Forest. Most state lands are managed for multiple use. Management policies for state lands in the area are included in the Tanana Basin Area Plan for State Lands, the Minto Flats State Game Refuge Management Plan, and the Tanana Valley State Forest Management Plan. Mental Health: State of Alaska Mental Health Trust Lands were granted to the territory by the federal government prior to statehood, to generate revenue to support Alaska’s mental health programs. In 1978, the state legislature waived the trust status of these lands, allowing the land to be leased for oil and gas development, sold to individuals, or transferred to municipalities. In the 1980s, mental health advocates sued and the state was ordered to "reconstitute, as nearly as possible the holdings which comprised the trust when the 1978 law became effective." At this time, no settlement between the State of Alaska and the mental health interests has been approved. The outcome of this continuing litigation may impact the status and use of lands designated as mental health lands. Mental health lands in the corridor are mostly located in the mining areas east of Healy and Ferry, and along the Tanana River near Nenana. Federal: Federal lands included in the macro-corridor primarily consist of lands owned by the United States and managed by the Department of Defense for military purposes. These lands include the Clear Air Force Station and the Fort Wainwright Military Reservation, located just GVEAMCS.RPT 4-26 DECEMBER 1994 south of Fairbanks. These lands are managed by the U.S. Department of the Interior, BLM, with the concurrence of DOD, for non-military purposes. The BLM also manages state selected lands, ANSCA selected lands, and Alaska Native Allotments which have not yet been certificated. 4.9.2 Land Use and Community Characteristics Primary land uses in the macro-corridor area are public recreation use and wildlife habitat. Other land uses in the general project area include low-density residential uses, mineral and materials mining, and forestry. Coal mining occurs on state lands in the vicinity of Healy. The macro-corridor includes lands located in the newly established Denali Borough and the FNSB. The population of the Denali Borough is estimated at approximately 2,077 residents. The Denali Borough population within the macro-corridor is concentrated along the Parks Highway in the communities of Healy and Anderson. These communities have a rural character, with low-density residential development and limited commercial and service development. The unincorporated Healy area (Healy, Suntrana, and Usibelli) has a population of approximately 700 residents. The mainstay of the local economy is the Usibelli coal mine, which produces approximately 1.5 million tons of coal per year. Additional employment is provided by GVEA, the Borough School District, and tourism (ADCRA, 1994c). Anderson is incorporated as a Second Class City. The area surrounding Anderson and the Clear Air Force Station has a population of approximately 800, with about half residing in Anderson itself. Most Anderson residents are military personnel and their families (ADCRA, 1994a). Clear Air Force Station is the largest employer in the Denali Borough. The Air Force Station employees over 300 people and accounts for nearly 75 percent of the workforce in the area around Anderson. The Usibelli coal mine is the other major employer in the Borough, employing approximately 100 people. Other opportunities for year-round employment are somewhat limited by the seasonal nature of the area’s tourist industry and a lack of commercial and industrial development. The Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs lists the 1990 median household income for Healy at $56,313 and for Anderson at $53,413. The FNSB, Alaska’s second largest population center, has approximately 80,000 residents. The major population centers of the FNSB, the City of Fairbanks and the City of North Pole, contain GVEAMCS.RPT 4-27 DECEMBER 1994 approximately 40 percent of the Borough’s population. The City of North Pole is located outside of our study area. Fairbanks is a Home Rule City of approximately 32,000 residents. Located at the northern end of the Alaska Highway, Fairbanks serves as a regional center for interior Alaska. Fairbanks offers a diverse economy, including city, borough, state, and federal government services, as well as tourism and mining (ADCRA, 1994b). The median household income for Fairbanks in 1990 was $32,033. Nenana, located on the Parks Highway about 55 miles south of Fairbanks, is a Home Rule City located outside of any organized borough. The City has about 575 residents and functions primarily as a transportation and service center. Fuel, barge services, and retail positions complement a subsistence lifestyle for the majority of the residents in Nenana (ADCRA, 1994d). The median household income in 1990 was $27,292. 4.9.3, Land Use Regulation Land use in Alaska is regulated primarily by federal and state agencies and local governments. Forms of land use control include laws, regulations, and ordinances, which provide the basis for permits and authorizations for use of land or resources. Comprehensive plans and special areas management plans also provide a land use control mechanism. State and local plans regulating land use in the macro-corridor are described below. Borough Comprehensive Plans: The FNSB Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1984. The Comprehensive Plan is a framework for citizens and officials to make decisions related to the use of land and forms the basis for other land use ordinances and programs guiding land development, preservation, and use. Lands within the Borough have been categorized into 16 land use designations and general land use policies have been developed for each land use category. Many of the 16 land use designations are included on lands within the macro-corridor. Lands within the macro-corridor area are primarily designated as industrial, military, forest, and high mineral potential lands. The area within the floodplain of the Tanana River within the FNSB is classified as a reserve area. Reserve areas are designated for hunting, trapping, and other activities. The Denali Borough is currently in the process of developing a Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Until a Land Use Planning Commission is established, the Borough Assembly reviews potential GVEAMCS.RPT 4-28 DECEMBER 1994 land uses in the Borough. The Borough does not yet require any permits for projects crossing Denali Borough lands. The Borough Assembly does request a courtesy notice of potential actions within the Borough boundaries. ’ Tanana Basin Area Plan for State Lands: The Tanana Basin Area Plan for State Lands (Tanana Basin Plan) is a planning document which identifies the primary and secondary surface and subsurface uses planned for state lands in the Tanana Basin area. The area is divided into eight subregions and each subregion is divided further into management units. Most state lands allow more than one use, and the Tanana Basin Plan establishes guidelines to allow for multiple uses of the state land, while minimizing conflicts. The macro-corridor falls into two subregions, the FNSB subregion and the Parks Highway and West Alaska Range subregion. The FNSB subregion covers the very northern portion of the macro-corridor, in the vicinity of Fairbanks. This subregion is the most populated in the Tanana Basin and has the greatest potential for land use conflicts. The primary land use designations for most state lands in this area include forestry, public recreation, and wildlife habitat. Other primary land use designations in selected areas include mineral development, agriculture, and settlement. The area around Ester Dome, in particular, is a highly mineralized area with many active claims. The Parks Highway and West Alaska Range subregion contains the majority of the lands included in the macro-corridor. There are several management units comprising these areas as indicated on Table 4-4. Most of the land in the macro-corridor falls in management units which list wildlife habitat and public recreation as the primary land use designations. Other primary uses include settlement, agriculture, forestry, and mineral development. The area along the Nenana River has been designated as the Nenana River Corridor. This area has public recreation and wildlife habitat-as primary land use designations. Special management guidelines apply to this area to protect the scenic, recreational, and wildlife values present in this area. In addition to the Nenana River Corridor, areas along the Parks Highway have been designated as the Parks Highway Corridor. Several areas of the state land in this corridor have been sold for settlement or agricultural development, or are designated for these uses in the future. The remaining state land is primarily managed for recreation, wildlife habitat, forestry, and mining. Mining claims are abundant in the foothills east of Healy and Ferry. Primary and secondary land use designations are identified for each management unit in Table 4-4. In addition, land uses prohibited in each management unit are listed in the table. GVEAMCS.RPT 4-29 DECEMBER 1994 TABLE 4-4 TANANA BASIN AREA PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS Subregion Subregion Name Primary Land Use Designations Secondary Land Use Prohibited Surface Uses Designations Fairbanks North Star Borough Parks Highway and West Alaska Range 1Al: Forestry, Public Recreation, Wildlife Habitat 1B2: Agriculture 1B3: Forestry, Public Recreation, Wildlife Habitat 1Cl: Minerals 1DIc: Settlement 4D1: Minerals, Wildlife Habitat 4F1: Settlement 4F2: Public Recreation, Wildlife Habitat 4F3c: Agriculture, Settlement 4F4: High Value Resource Mngmt: Recreation, Settlement, Habitat 4J2: Settlement 4K1: Forestry, Public Recreation 4K2b: Settlement 4K3: Public Recreation 4L1: Public Recreation, Wildlife Habitat 4M1: Minerals, Wildlife Habitat 4P1: Minerals, Wildlife Habitat 4P2: Wildlife Habitat 4Q2: Wildlife Habitat 4R2: Public Recreation, Wildlife Habitat 1B2: Improved Pasture Grazing, Public Recreation, Wildlife Habitat 1Dic: Forestry 4D1: Forestry, Public Recreation 4F1: Forestry, Public Recreation, Wildlife Habitat 4F2: Forestry 4F3c: Forestry, Public Recreation, Wildlife Habitat 4J2: Forestry, Public Recreation, Wildlife Habitat 4K1: Settlement 4K2b: Forestry, Public Recreation 4M1: Public Recreation, 4P1: Public Recreation 1A1: Land Disposal, Remote Cabins 1B2: Remote Cabins 1B3: Land Disposal, Remote Cabins 1C1: Land Disposal, Remote Cabins 1Dic: Remote Cabins 4D1: Land Disposal, Remote Cabins 4F1: Remote Cabins 4F2: Land Sales, Remote Cabins 4F3c: Remote Cabins 4F4: Remote Cabins 4J2: Remote Cabins 4K1: Remote Cabins 4K2b: Remote Cabins 4K3: Land Disposal, Remote Cabins 4L1: Land Disposal, Remote Cabins 4M1: Land Disposal, Remote Cabins 4P1: Land Disposal, Remote Cabins 4P2: Land Disposal, Remote Cabins 4Q2: Land Disposal, Remote Cabins 4R2: Land Disposal, Remote Cabins, Grazing Tanana Valley State Forest Management Plan: The Tanana Valley State Forest was established as the first unit of the Alaska state forest system on July 1, 1983. The primary purpose in the establishment of the state forest is the perpetuation of personal, commercial, and other beneficial uses of resources through multiple use management. The Tanana Valley State Forest Management Plan identifies and prioritizes management activities that the state will initiate in lands designated by the State Legislature as the Tanana Valley State Forest. The plan also sets policy on how the ADNR should review proposals for use of State Forest land by the public, industry, and other governmental agencies. Because the plan is designed to promote multiple use, it establishes rules and guidelines aimed at allowing various uses to occur with minimal conflict. Table 4-5 summarizes management intent for the various management units within the macro-corridor. 4.9.4 Aviation Uses According to the ADOT/PF, there are over a dozen airstrips scattered throughout the macro- corridor area. Most of these airstrips are small private strips and limited data is available on them. Three of the airstrips are located in the Fairbanks area, near FIA. None of the other airstrips are crossed by or adjacent to any of the route alignments based on the information received from ADOT/PF. However, many small planes use the Tanana River as a flight path when traveling to and from Fairbanks, according to aviation interests. FIA is located in the southern part of Fairbanks near where many of the proposed route alternatives cross the Tanana River. The facility is a controlled airport, with a 24-hour FAA- operated air traffic control tower. It is classified by the FAA as a small air traffic hub, based on passenger traffic on certified airlines. The airport services both commercial air carrier traffic, with major airlines such as Alaska Airlines, Delta Airlines, United, and MarkAir, as well as smaller commuter airlines, general aviation operations, and some military operation usage. FIA has also become a major facility for international cargo operations, due to its strategic location for access to foreign markets. FIA’s major facilities include the airfield, aviation facilities, passenger terminal complex, airport access and automobile parking facilities, general aviation facilities, and airport support and utilities (ADOT/PF, 1980). The airport runway generally follows a north-south alignment, with a 50:1 approach surface to the south of the runway. Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77 specify criteria for identifying objects that affect navigable airspace in airport approach areas. An imaginary surface is delineated around the airport which specifies the height that man-made surfaces and natural obstructions may be without becoming obstructions to air navigation. The GVEAMCS.RPT 4-31 DECEMBER 1994 TABLE 4-5 TANANA VALLEY STATE FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Management Subunit Timber production, protect Timber sales Remote cabins stream values Scenery on Parks Highway, Public use cabins, boat launch, Remote cabins timber production, interpretive site/ campground/visitor habitat/public use near Tanana | center, trail, timber sales River Scenery on Parks Highway, Public use cabins, boat launch, Remote cabins timber production, interpretive site/ campground/visitor habitat/public use near Tanana | center, trail, timber sales River 5D Experimental forest Research, interpretative site/ Commercial leases, remote campground/visitor center cabins, trapping cabins 5B Fairbanks North Star Borough | None planned Remote cabins industrial sites : 1980 Master Plan for FIA listed nine existing obstructions to the runway’s approach surface, primarily trees. A new Master Plan for FIA has been drafted, but copies have not been made available to the public at this time. 4.10 VISUAL AND RECREATIONAL RESOURCES 4.10.1 Visual Resources The western boundary of the macro-corridor area generally parallels the Parks Highway (Alaska State Highway 3), and the Alaska Railroad, between Healy and Fairbanks. The eastern boundary of the macro-corridor extends out to Japan Hills and continues north to Fairbanks across the Tanana Flats and Fort Wainwright Military Reserve. The Parks Highway connects Alaska’s two largest urban areas and provides travelers with views of some of Alaska’s most magnificent scenery, including the Alaska Range, Mount McKinley, and the broad Nenana River and Tanana River Valleys. In addition to being the principal link between Anchorage and Fairbanks, the Parks Highway is also the primary access route to Denali National Park and Preserve and other recreational locations. The Alaska Railroad is a popular summer season train ride for tourists between Anchorage and Fairbanks. The railroad also provides spectacular views of Alaska scenery, similar to views along the Parks Highway. There are also small communities, dispersed residents, and military installations within the corridor located primarily along the Parks Highway. The proposed Northern Intertie would generally pass through two landscape character types: mountain uplands and valley lowlands. The uplands include river terraces between Healy and Nenana and the Tanana Uplands in the northern portion of the study area. The lowlands include the expansive areas of the Nenana River and Tanana River Valleys. Where the Parks Highway and the Alaska Railroad traverse the upland river terraces north of Healy, along the Nenana River and the mountain ridges north of Nenana, views are expansive. The views extend from the Parks Highway and the Alaska Railroad across the broad Tanana River and Nenana River and their valleys. Views to the west include spectacular views of Mount McKinley and the Alaska Range. Mountainous areas are vegetated predominately with dense white spruce, birch, poplar, aspen, and black spruce (Selkregg, 1976). The study area also traverses lowland areas in the Nenana River and Tanana River Valleys characterized by extensive braided glacial channels of streams originating from the Alaska Range. The lowlands landscape is densely and homogeneously vegetated by extensive stands GVEAMCS.RPT 4-33 DECEMBER 1994 of black spruce with some poplar and birch (Selkregg, 1976). This landscape provides minimal visual diversity or interest as viewed from viewpoints such as the Parks Highway or the Alaska Railroad (ADNR, 1981). In the larger context, the vast undisturbed areas and the interplay of distinctive natural landscape elements (e.g., mountains ranges, rivers) generally create high scenic quality, or strong visual interest, along the Parks Highway and the Alaska Railroad. The Parks Highway is regarded as a highly scenic travel route, providing views of the rugged Alaska Range, Mount McKinley, as well as the extensive Nenana River and Tanana River Valleys, and is considered a highly sensitive viewpoint. The Alaska Railroad, which generally parallels the highway, provides similar views as the Parks Highway, and is also considered a highly sensitive viewpoint. Residences and communities within the study area corridors are also regarded as highly sensitive viewpoints. The visual character within the study area is largely natural appearing. With the exception of the Parks Highway and isolated areas where the landscape has been modified by development near Fairbanks, small communities, dispersed residential uses, mineral and materials mining, forestry, and coal mining near Healy, very little commercial or residential development occurs beyond the Parks Highway corridor. Expansive background views from sensitive viewpoints vary with the terrain and vegetation and, in some areas along the corridor, vegetation and/or terrain would completely screen the proposed routes from view. 4.10.2 Recreational Resources The macro-corridor area has a high value in terms of recreational resources. The rivers, mountains, and valleys are accessible through numerous trails and are actively used for dog mushing, skiing, fishing, hunting, trapping, snowmachining, airboating, and other activities. Although recreational use is widespread throughout the corridor, several primary use areas can be identified. The Nenana River is one of the most important recreation areas in the state due to its close proximity to Denali National Park and Preserve. The Nenana River is heavily used for rafting, boating, fishing, and sightseeing. Although the Tanana Basin Plan recommends the Nenana River be designated as a Recreation River, the River corridor north of Healy (between Healy and Liaho) has been dropped from the recommendation. This portion of the river is considered to have a lower recreation value and lower usage than the portion south of Healy, near Denali National Park and Preserve. In addition, the portion of the Nenana River corridor north of GVEAMCS.RPT 4-34 DECEMBER 1994 Healy includes active and potential mining developments and will be left open for mineral entry. The Parks Highway corridor not only offers scenic views, but provides access to areas for hiking, hunting, fishing, sightseeing, and other activities. Other areas in the corridor with high recreational value include the Minto Flats State Game Refuge and areas along the Tanana River outside of Nenana, which have traditionally been used for hunting, fishing, trapping, and other subsistence activities by residents of the area. Much of the land within the Tanana State Forest is designated for recreation as a primary use. Recreational values include outstanding views across the Tanana Flats, and off-road trail activity. Ester Dome, west of Fairbanks, is a another popular recreation area, offering the Equinox Trail, outstanding views of the Fairbanks area, and a scenic alpine environment which provides a variety of recreational activities and has the potential for future development as a downhill ski area. The Tanana River is extensively used for boating, fishing, and sightseeing, as well as snowmachining and skiing in the winter. The riverboat Discovery is a tourist attraction in Fairbanks that offers a several hour riverboat trip down sections of the Chena and Tanana rivers. The Discovery is capable of carrying over a thousand passengers per trip and takes two or three trips per day. Riverboat trips occur throughout the summer, commencing in June and ending in October. Riverboat trips begin several kilometers up the Chena River from its confluence with the Tanana River and extend about eight km (five miles) down the Tanana River from the confluence. The endpoints of several alternative route alignments converge to a point along Salchaket Slough approximately three km (two miles) east of the riverboat route down the Tanana River. Canoers, kayakers, rafters, airboaters, power boaters, and other recreational boaters also utilize the Tanana River. A boat launch is located at the end of Bonanza Road and a nearby bluff overlooking the river has been used as a campsite for years. In the winter, when the river freezes solid, snowmachiners, dogmushers, and skiers use the river corridor and the nearby Rosie Creek Trail. The Tanana Flats area has become increasing popular to airboaters in recent years. The area most extensively utilized by airboaters is from Salchaket Slough south to the Clear Creek Butte area and westward to the Crooked Creek area north of the Wood River Butte. Airboat activity on the flats occurs from May through September. GVEAMCS.RPT 4-35 DECEMBER 1994 The northern foothills of the Alaska Range, east of Healy, receive only moderate recreational use (ADNR, 1991). Recreational use in this area includes, hiking, mountain biking, and sightseeing and supports many small businesses in the area between Healy and Nenana. Although Denali National Park and Preserve (DNPP) lies outside the boundary of the macro corridor, its proximity to the corridor requires consideration. The entrance to DNPP and the main visitor center are located about 17 km (11 miles) south of the Healy substation, which serves as the southern termination point of the Northern Intertie. DNPP is a popular tourist attraction featuring Mount McKinley, the highest mountain peak in the U.S. In addition, DNPP provides areas for hiking, wildlife observation, photography, camping, backpacking, fishing, and mountain climbing. DNPP boundaries come within 10 km (six miles) of proposed route alignments in a 10 km (six mile) stretch west of the community of Ferry. The proposed transmission line would be in the background of the view from the DNPP boundary;- while the Alaska Railroad, the Parks Highway, and the Nenana River would be in the midground view from this boundary. This eastern boundary area of the DNPP is not, however, among the areas typically used by tourists. 4.11 SUBSISTENCE RESOURCES According to State regulations, a subsistence user is any resident of the State of Alaska whose annual primary residency is in the state. Within the proposed project area, residents of Fairbanks and Nenana make up the vast majority of subsistence users. Most subsistence activities are focused in the area located south of the Tanana River in the extensive lowland spruce-hardwood forests between the Kantishna River and the Wood River. Residents in the macro-corridor area utilize fish, wildlife, and plants for subsistence purposes. Subsistence resources are accessed primarily via river travel and by vehicle along the road system. Cross- country trails are also utilized, especially in the winter via snowmachines. Subsistence fishing takes place throughout the year. Common fish harvested for subsistence include king, chum, and silver salmon; Arctic whitefish; sheefish; burbot; grayling; and northern pike. Most subsistence fishing efforts focus on salmon runs in the Tanana River, particularly chum and silver salmon. All salmon runs in the Tanana River are exploited, from the first kings in late June or early July; to chums in July; to late August/early September chums and silvers (Shinkwin and Case, 1984). Salmon fishing ends at freeze-up in early August or late September. Salmon are caught using fish wheels and set nets operated from permanent and temporary fish camps. Primary use areas for harvesting salmon from the Tanana River are within 32 km (20 miles) of Fairbanks and Nenana. The highest subsistence use area on the Tanana River is the GVEAMCS.RPT 4-36 DECEMBER 1994 area within 32 km (20 miles) downstream of Fairbanks. Between 1990 and 1993, an average of 150 subsistence and personal use household fishing permits were issued for this area of the Tanana River, compared to approximately 90 permits issued around Nenana. Conversely, about five commercial salmon permits are issued annually near Fairbanks, while approximately 15 are issued upstream and downstream of Nenana (R. Holder - personal communication, 1994). Moose is the primary large mammal taken by subsistence hunters in the macro-corridor area. In a 1984 survey of subsistence moose hunters in Nenana, 95 percent of those interviewed stated that they hunt moose in the area south of the Tanana River between the Wood River and the Totatlanika River just west of Nenana (Shinkwin and Case, 1984). Moose are also taken along the Nenana River between Clear and Healy and in the Walker Creek drainage near Ferry. Caribou are taken in the northern foothills of the Alaska Range and the Tanana Flats between Clear and Healy. Sheep are hunted at the higher elevations of the northern foothills of the Alaska Range east and south of Ferry. The harvest timing for caribou and sheep (August and September) conflicts with the more important fishing season; consequently, caribou and sheep are taken to a lesser degree. Black bears are taken in small numbers, and usually as a matter of opportunity rather than as a regularly hunted animal. Black bear are hunted in the Tanana Flats and foothills west of Tatlanika Creek from Nenana to Healy. Small game, such as snowshoe hare, grouse, ptarmigan, and porcupine, are also harvested for subsistence use, although no high subsistence use areas have been identified. Furbearing animals such as beaver, muskrat, mink, marten, land otter, lynx, and both Arctic and red foxes are commonly trapped by area residents for subsistence and commercial uses. Most trapping within the study area occurs around the Totatlanika River. Extensive trapping of furbearers also occurs in the vicinity of the Parks Highway. The Julius Creek area, east of Clear on the Tanana Flats, is used for harvesting small game and waterfowl (APLC, 1993). Waterfowl are also harvested from a large unnamed lake adjacent to Nenana, to the east and south of the Tanana River, and the Wood River drainage in the Tanana Flats is also an important waterfowl subsistence use area. In addition, waterfowl are harvested extensively in the area around Nenana, particularly to the north, where Linder Lakes and the Minto Flats State Game Refuge are located. Subsistence use of vegetation includes many types of berries, such as blueberries, lowbush cranberries, and crowberries. Small amounts of sourdock, as well as the roots and seedlings of cotton grass are also used. The most important subsistence use of vegetation in the project area is the use of trees as fuel for heating and timber for building. Harvests of subsistence vegetation GVEAMCS.RPT 4-37 DECEMBER 1994 occurs primarily along the Parks Highway corridor and, to a lesser extent, along other area roads and trails, such as in the Bonanza Creek Experimental Forest area and in the Goldstream Creek drainage. 4.12 ELECTRO-MAGNETIC FIELDS Over the past several years there has been increasing public awareness and concern regarding electro-magnetic fields (EMF) and potential health effects associated with electrical transmission lines. Although a large number of scientific studies have been conducted to research various aspects of EMF and possible health risks associated with them, the results of these studies have often been contradictory. Therefore, there is currently no consensus within the scientific community linking health risks to exposure to EMF at levels expected to be generated by the intertie. Below is a simple description of electric and magnetic fields and a comparison of relative field strengths between common appliances and power transmission lines. Electric fields are generated when power lines are energized from a voltage source, such as from an electrical substation or even a household electrical outlet. Magnetic fields are generated whenever power flows through the line, with the strength of the field dependant on the current in the line. Public perception of health risks associated with transmission lines is focused on the magnetic field component of EMF. The magnetic field generated by transmission lines is directly dependant on the amount of current in the transmission line conductors. The higher the voltage level of the transmission line, the lower the amount of current needed to deliver the power across a line. Magnetic field strength is typically measured in milligauss (mG). Table 4-6 compares typical magnetic fields generated by common household appliances, GVEA distribution lines, and fields expected from the intertie. From this table it is evident that magnetic field levels 25 meters (80 feet) from the centerline of the transmission corridor are expected to be well below field levels generated by other common sources. As shown in the table, GVEA distribution lines are typically sited within a nine meter (30 foot) right-of-way, whereas the transmission line right-of- way is expected to be 46 meters (150 feet) in most areas. It should be noted that electric transmission systems experience different levels of power throughout any given period as electric consumption varies; therefore, the magnetic field level will vary from day to day and from month to month. GVEAMCS.RPT 4-38 DECEMBER 1994 TABLE 4-6 TYPICAL MAGNETIC FIELD LEVELS Distance from Source Magnetic Field Source of Field meters (ft) (mG) ame —i*dtCCiC Pcoweoet toa ot aro 9 Television ' 1 (3.25) GVEA 3-phase distribution line 23 meters (75 ft) from centerline 23 meters (75 ft) from centerline ROW edge 23 meters (75 ft) from centerline NOTES: 4 Data taken from Bonneville Power Administration’s "Electrical and Biological Effects of Transmission Lines", 1989. 2 Data taken from Electric Power Research Institute Journal, February 1990. 3 Based on tower configuration shown in Figure 1-1 and typical operation at 55 MVA (230 amps for a 138 kV line and 137 amps for a 230 kV line). The range of field strength is due to wire sag. The low value represents the field strength at the tower, and the higher value represents the lowest sag point in the line between towers. GVEAMCS.RPT 4-39 DECEMBER 1994 % tvenaooo oo 4@) aie Gy WARES fo FEE 4 AINWRIGHT 4 Golden Valley Electric Association Northem Intertie Macro-Corridor Study Waterfowl Concentrations and Raptor Nest Sites “Np 1994 Active Peregrine Falcon Mp iets Nesting Area c= rama Golden Valley Electric Association Northem Intertie Macro-Corridor Study Waterfowl Concentrations and Raptor Nest Sites Map 2 of 3 Figure 4-1 a 8 Golden Valley Electric Association Northem Intertie Macro-Corridor Study Waterfowl Concentrations and Raptor Nest Sites Map 3 of 3 p= Trumpeter Swan Nesting Area ane Fite “Y~ Faicon Nesting Area 1994 Active Peregrine Falcon Area a oon Fase —— south BN AL T i i Ry J - “ MNS oy re JS) a #2 fr WAINWRIGHT \ 4. - Golden Valley Electric Assocation Intertie Macro-Corridor Study SS r bial oe ae | Dota caivoy Her Fish and Wildlife — Areas Concentrations 1 <Wec_| Anadromous Fish Streams } SB Danese MOORE November 1904 | DAMES & MOORE —_— November 1994 Figure 4-2 Golden Valley Electric Association Northem Intertie Macro-Corridor Study Fish and Wildlife Concentration Areas Map 2 of 3 Golden Valley Electric Association Northem Intertie Macro-Corridor Study R) Critical Black Bear a | Delta Caribou Herd Fish and Wildlife Concentration Areas EX) Habitat Fall-Winter Concentrations = Map 3 of 3 in Winter Moose <Sépez) Anadromous centrati Fish Steams = * HEN} Con ions @SH= DAMES& MOORE —_November 1994 Figure 4-2 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS This chapter summarizes the potential environmental impacts to the resources described in Chapter 4.0 as a result of the proposed project. The evaluation of consequences includes analyses of short term impacts that might occur during construction and long term impacts which may result from the continuing operations associated with the transmission line. Proposed mitigation measures are discussed where appropriate. 5.1 AQUATIC BIOLOGY 5.1.1 Potential Construction Impacts Potential impacts to aquatic resources from project construction could result froin clearing activities. Potential impacts include increased turbidity, sedimentation, and debris deposition in streams, which could inhibit migration and disrupt fish spawning activities. However, very little surface disturbance is expected to occur near stream beds and it is expected that only small areas of riparian vegetation, if any, will need to be cleared. Towers will be located as far from stream banks as possible and care will be taken to minimize any debris entering the streams. To minimize the potential for erosion, structures will be set back at least 30 meters (100 feet) from waterways where possible. With careful construction management of activities near stream locations, impacts on streams from clearing and construction are expected to be minimal. 5.1.2 Potential Impacts of Operation A potential impact associated with operation of the transmission line is increased accessibility to streams along the proposed corridors. Increased access could increase fishing pressure along some remote rivers and streams. Also, all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) could impact streams and/or rivers where access to these waterways has been opened by clearing of vegetation along the transmission corridor. These impacts are expected to be minimal, for several reasons. First, no permanent maintained access road will be built along the transmission line corridor. Access to the line will be through established trails wherever possible, with minimal construction of new access points and some non-maintained access roads in gravel bearing areas of the northern foothills of the Alaska Range. Second, trails exist throughout the uplands areas and provide access to many of the streams and rivers. Access to rivers and streams in the Tanana Flats currently occurs by airboat during the summer and by snowmachine in the winter. Although the transmission line corridor may be used as a route by some residents, it is not likely to have a GVEAMCS.RPT 5-1 DECEMBER 1994 significant impact on rivers and streams either through increased fishing pressure or increased access to remote areas. 5.1.3 Alternative Route Evaluation All of the proposed alternative route alignments cross several named creeks and rivers based on a review of USGS maps. The South Route crosses 11 named creeks and rivers, including three streams which ADF&G classifies as anadromous fish streams (Julius Creek, Tanana River, Salchaket Slough). Although all of the proposed route alignments cross the Tanana River at least once, the South Route is the only proposed route which crosses the Tanana River three times. The Tanana Flats Route crosses more named creeks and rivers (14) than the South Route, and crosses the same three anadromous streams, crossing the Tanana River once near Fairbanks. All of the remaining proposed route alternatives cross only one anadromous stream, the Tanana River. The Rex Route crosses 11 named creeks and rivers; the Walker Route crosses nine; and the Tatlanika Route crosses nine. The Jumbo Route crosses the most named creeks and rivers (16). 5.2 WILDLIFE AND HABITAT The following sections discuss potential impacts to wildlife and habitat from the construction of the transmission line and during operation of the line. It is assumed that any potential construction activities on the Tanana Flats which require heavy equipment or significant traversing of the right-of-way would occur during the winter months. It is also assumed that existing roads and trails will be used for access as much as possible and construction of new access roads would be kept to the minimum practicable. 5.2.1 Potential Construction Impacts During construction activities, some temporary disturbance and local displacement of local moose and caribou is likely to occur, due to increased noise and activity in the area. All of the proposed route alternatives traverse some caribou range, either from Healy to Clear, in the northern foothills of the Alaska Range east of Healy, or on the Tanana Flats. Timing certain construction activities in caribou habitat areas during the summer, when there are comparable habitat areas available to move to, would reduce the potential for impacts to caribou. GVEAMCS.RPT 5-2 DECEMBER 1994 The clearing of vegetation during construction operations would likely result in the loss of a small amount of moose calving habitat on the Tanana Flats; however, the area lost should not affect the moose population, considering the amount of available habitat in the area. Some loss of moose winter habitat could also occur from clearing heavily forested areas on the Tanana Ridge and across the Tanana Flats. This habitat loss would largely be temporary and would be offset by increased growth of browse species following right-of-way clearing. Winter moose habitats have higher moose densities over a shorter period of time; therefore, disturbance of wintering areas may result in a greater impact to moose if alternative habitats are not easily accessible. Potential impacts to winter moose habitat could be reduced if stands of willows, a high value moose browse, are selectively removed and not cleared within the entire right-of-way. While there are no Dall sheep concentration areas in the macro-corridor, there is a known mineral lick area used by sheep and caribou east of Jumbo Dome. Should a transmission line be sited through the foothills of the Alaska Range, a consultation with ADF&G regarding protection of mineral lick areas and buffer zones around the areas would mitigate the impacts to area sheep and caribou. Black and brown bear use a wide variety of habitats in the macro-corridor area and may be temporarily impacted by construction activities associated with the transmission line. Black bear are generally more adaptable and tolerant of change or disturbance than are brown bear. There is the possibility that summertime construction activities in bear habitat could result in some bear/human encounters which may result in increased bear mortality. Potential impacts on bears would increase with any temporary campsites and waste storage areas used during construction. Appropriate construction management practices, such as proper storage of food and incineration of burnable garbage, would reduce the potential for impacts to bears. Impacts on bears may also be reduced by timing construction activities through bear habitats during the winter when bears are less active and in hibernation. However, even when timing construction activities in the winter, there is the potential to disturb denning black bears across the Tanana Flats (A. Ott and J. Hectel - personal communication, 1994). Based on the bear density in the Tanana Flats, it is unlikely that there will be significant interactions between humans and bears during transmission line construction. Disturbance of waterfowl, and particularly Trumpeter Swans, due to construction noise and activities is not expected to occur, since construction of a line across the Tanana Flats would most likely take place in the winter. Construction activities near raptor nest sites would also be expected to occur during the winter and disturbance and/or displacement of raptors during winter construction activities would be minimal. According to a 1981 report by the Raptor Research GVEAMCS.RPT 5-3 DECEMBER 1994 Foundation, considerably more disturbance can be tolerated by raptors in the winter. Removal of nest trees would reduce raptor habitat availability and would be avoided. In general, a 100 meter protective buffer zone around Bald Eagle nest trees is an acceptable form of mitigation and means of reducing impacts. The USFWS has recommended a one and one-half km (one mile) buffer around Peregrine Falcon nests along the Tanana River (S. Ambrose - personal communication, 1994). It is likely that some furbearers, small mammals, and passerine birds would be displaced during construction activities and/or experience some loss of habitat. Conversely, the opening of some areas from clearing of a right-of-way may enhance habitat availability for some species. 5.2.2 Potential Impacts of Operation Operation of a transmission line is expected to have a minimal impact on wildlife and wildlife habitat. GVEA does not intend to use herbicides along the right-of-way. As mentioned above, some habitat may be lost through right-of-way clearing, but this loss is expected to be minimal. In some areas, moose browse may be enhanced by the clearing of vegetation along the right-of- way. Rights-of-way sometimes open protected wildlife habitat areas to human activities such as hunting, trapping, and recreating, and these activities can have adverse impacts on particular wildlife species populations. Year-round access would be created in some of the wooded upland habitats, such as along the Tanana Ridge, and along the western edge of the Tanana Flats. Winter access may be improved across some areas of the Tanana Flats that would be too wet to use in the summer. Improved human access into wildlife habitat areas could result in increased disturbance and displacement of wildlife due to noise and activity. An area of considerable concern for both the public and agency biologists is the potential of creating a significant collision hazard for raptors and waterfowl by placing transmission lines in areas frequented by such species. That manmade structures, such as transmission lines, cause mortality in birds as a result of birds colliding with such structures is well documented (see Avery et al., 1978, which contains 853 records of published accounts of such occurrences). However, the actual amount of waterfowl mortality that occurs due to transmission lines appears to be quite low (Kroodsma, 1977). Most mortality from collisions with power lines occurs during spring or fall migration, involves lighted structures, and occurs during periods of overcast weather. This problem is most often associated with large birds having relatively low maneuverability and a tendency to move about in flocks (Hoover, 1978; Beer and Ogilvie, 1972; Harrison, 1963; Ogilvie, 1967; Willard et al., 1977). Field feeding "puddle-ducks" (i.e., GVEAMCS.RPT 5-4 DECEMBER 1994 pintail, mallard, shoveler, wigeon, and teal) are the most likely to sustain mortality from wire strikes due to their high speed flight and flocking behavior (Thompson, 1978; Krapu, 1974). In the Tanana Basin Area Plan for State Lands, ADNR and ADF&G list guidelines for the siting of power lines in or near Trumpeter Swan nesting areas. Activities in Trumpeter Swan nesting areas are restricted during the period from May 1 to August 31. Any construction occurring in Trumpeter Swan nesting areas during this period will be subject to approval by ADNR in consultation with ADF&G. Excessive helicopter traffic would have the potential to impact nesting waterfowl and raptors. Therefore, helicopter traffic should be limited near nest sites during the breeding season. 5.2.3 Alternative Route Evaluation South Route: The South Route would traverse winter and fall moose concentration areas along the Nenana River from Healy to Clear. Caribou from the Delta Caribou Herd infrequently cross the Nenana River Valley (P. Valkenberg - personal communication, 1994). Impacts to caribou are expected to be minimal since the South Route is located near the western-most edge of the caribou range. The South Route angles to the northeast near the community of Clear, before continuing north to the Tanana River. Along this section of the route, the alignment traverses the western edge of the Tanana Flats. The Tanana Flats supports year-round moose concentrations, spring and fall waterfowl concentrations, and large numbers of denning black bear. Each of these wildlife species could be affected by this alignment; however, relative to areas on the Tanana Flats further to the east, population densities are expected to be smaller. Caribou may also be affected by this alignment, though potential impacts would be small due to low numbers of caribou using the western edge of the Tanana Flats. The South Route crosses the Tanana River three times before reaching Fairbanks. The only two active Peregrine Falcon nest sites along the Tanana River between Fairbanks and Nenana are within two km (one mile) of this route. Additionally, four historical or potential Peregrine Falcon nest sites are also within about two km (one mile) of the route. At least six Bald Eagle nests are also within two km (one mile) of the route. The South Route crosses high density Trumpeter Swan nesting habitat for approximately six km (four miles) as it crosses the western Tanana Flats east of Nenana. Waterfowl using the Tanana River as a migratory corridor in the spring and fall may be impacted by the three river crossings of this route. GVEAMCS.RPT 5-5 DECEMBER 1994 Tanana Flats Route: The Tanana Flats Route is the same as the South Route from Healy to about Rex. From Rex the route angles approximately 70 km (43 miles) northeast, directly to Fairbanks, crossing the central area of the Tanana Flats. Potential impacts to year-round moose concentrations, and denning black bear, would be expected to be greater than for those from the South Route, as construction and operation of the route would necessitate increased helicopter and snowmachine activity as means to access the line. Additionally, the clearing of trees for the right-of-way would open an otherwise minimally accessed area to hunters and trappers. Moose wintering on the Tanana Flats depend on willow stands along exposed banks of the areas many rivers and streams for browse. Potential impacts to moose on the Tanana Flats would likely be minimal and consist of temporary disturbances from increased human access, and from construction and line maintenance activities, as well as increased hunting pressures. Caribou may also be impacted by increased human access and activity on the Tanana Flats as a result of the line. Potential impacts to spring and fall waterfowl concentrations, particularly those to Trumpeter Swan, would be greater than impacts from the South Route, as Trumpeter Swan nesting habitat is more abundant along this route alignment. According to USFWS Trumpeter Swan surveys, Trumpeter Swan nesting habitat occurs in greatest densities in the central portion of the Flats and in the area around, and particularly west of, Clear Creek Butte. Trumpeter Swan concentrations in the central area of the Tanana Flats are largely associated with the numerous small ponds and wetlands around the Wood, Totatlanika, and Tatlanika rivers. On the east side of the macro-corridor, there are swan concentrations around the floating mat wetlands west of Clear Creek Butte. The Tanana Flats Route crosses approximately 60 km (37 miles) of high density Trumpeter Swan nesting habitat across the Tanana Flats. Rex Route: The Rex Route is the same as the South Route from Healy until just past Lignite, where it angles northeast towards Walker Dome. From the west base of Walker Dome, the Rex Route extends straight north into the foothills where it crosses the upper reaches of the Moose Creek drainage. The Route then runs north past the west side of Rex Dome and down out of the foothills, where it connects with the Tanana Flats Route. The foothills area traversed by this route is considered by ADF&G to be prime-rated raptor habitat (ADNR, 1991). The Delta Caribou Herd range encompasses the north slope of the Alaska Range, including the area around Rex Dome, though caribou generally occur more frequently east of Rex Dome. There could be some displacement of or disturbance to caribou during construction of a line through this area, particularly if construction takes place in the winter, when caribou sometimes browse for vegetation on area mountain domes. However, potential impacts to caribou are expected to be minimal. While moose utilize the foothills, particularly in the winter in search of browse, there GVEAMCS.RPT 5-6 DECEMBER 1994 . are no concentration areas of moose in the foothills. Brown bear inhabit the north slope of the Alaska Range but, although the area is prime-rated brown bear habitat, no concentration areas or known denning sites have been identified in this area. Any impacts on bears would be temporary impacts associated with construction. The Rex Route is the same as the Tanana Flats Route from Clear to Fairbanks; therefore, the route has the same impacts on waterfowl as the Tanana Flats Route does. Walker Route: The Walker Route is the same as the Rex Route to the west base of Walker Dome. From the base of Walker Dome, the Walker Route traverses the top of Walker Dome and heads northeast through the foothills towards the Tanana Flats. These foothills are considered by ADF&G to be prime-rated raptor habitat (ADNR, 1991). The area east of Walker Dome is considered by ADF&G a high use area for caribou from the Delta Caribou Herd in fall and winter. Small bands of caribou move through and congregate in some of the foothill drainages in the area. The foothills of the Alaska Range are also prime rated brown bear habitat, although there are no known concentration or denning areas. The Walker Route comes out of the foothills and onto the Tanana Flats between the Tatlanika Creek and Totatlanika River, where it angles northeast directly to Fairbanks. Approximately 65 kilometers (40 miles) of the Tanana Flats are crossed by this route. High density Trumpeter Swan nesting habitat would be crossed by this route between the Tatlanika Creek and the Wood River, and in the floating mat wetland area west of the Clear Creek Butte. In general, this route crosses drier portions of the Tanana Flats than most of the other routes. Approximately 47 km (29 miles) of high density Trumpeter Swan nesting habitat is crossed by the Walker Route. Impacts to winter moose habitat across the Tanana Flats would be the same as those described along the Tanana Flats Route. Tatlanika Route: The Tatlanika Route is a combination of the Walker Route and the Tanana Flats Route. This route is identical to the Walker Route in the northern foothills and would have similar impacts on raptors, bears, and caribou. At the Tatlanika River, the route heads directly north to the Tanana Flats Route and follows this route to the proposed terminus in Fairbanks. Along this stretch, across the Tanana Flats, the route passes through approximately 58 km (36 miles) of high density Trumpeter Swan nesting habitat. Jumbo Route: The Jumbo Route traverses the northern foothills of the Alaska Range for about half of its length. Potential impacts to wildlife through this area would be similar to those from GVEAMCS.RPT 5-7 DECEMBER 1994 the Rex and Walker Routes. However, cumulative impacts would be greater for the Jumbo Route, as it traverses a larger area through the foothills, much of which has no pre-existing access such as mining roads or trails. Wildlife potentially impacted through the foothills include raptors, Dall sheep, caribou, and brown bear. In particular, the Jumbo Route approaches a mineral lick used by sheep and caribou east of Jumbo Dome, and is also near fall-winter caribou congregation areas near the Boulder and Blizzard creek drainages. Across the Tanana Flats, the Jumbo Route traverses similar habitat to the Walker Route. Approximately 52 km (32 miles) of high density Trumpeter Swan nesting habitat would be crossed by this route near the upper Wood River, and in the floating mat wetland area west of the Clear Creek Butte. 5.3. VEGETATION AND WETLANDS Wetland impacts were evaluated based on a review of National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps and a limited field survey of portions of the macro-corridor area. NWI maps were used as basemaps for delineating the linear boundaries of each wetland type along the proposed routes. Mapping codes used for each wetland type followed the Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et al., 1979). A complete summary of wetlands investigations performed on these routes is included in Appendix D. Wetland acreages based on a 46 meter (150 foot) right-of-way for each route are summarized in Table 5-1. 5.3.1 Potential Construction Impacts Impacts to wetlands from the construction of the transmission line are expected to be minimal. Potential impacts include loss of wetland habitat or degradation of wetland quality. Construction requiring heavy equipment or significant traversing of the proposed right-of-way is expected to occur in the winter in wetland areas, in order to minimize any impact to wetlands. In addition, the proposed types of tower design and foundations to be used in wetland areas minimize soil displaced during pole placement. Wetlands subject to brush cutting (primarily forested and scrub shrub wetlands) would not be adversely impacted as long as the soil is not disturbed and access is somewhat restricted to the drier periods of the year. 5.3.2 Potential Impacts of Operation Operational impacts to wetlands are also expected to be minimal. Summer access to the right-of- way would rely primarily on existing roads and trails, or for those areas that are not accessible GVEAMCS.RPT 5-8 DECEMBER 1994 TABLE 5-1 WETLANDS ACREAGE BY WETLAND TYPE F Tatlani Tanana Flats g z Percent of Total Percent of Total Percent of Total i § = i : & liv i Percent of Total So 2, 2 5 = g ° 2, 2 5 > Acres Wetland Cres River, Creek R3UBH 39.2 River Flat/Bar R3USC Pond PUBH PAB3H TOTAL Sedge Marsh PEM1H Floating Bog PEMIF 14.3 cres Acres Acres i] o w = ‘ ie ‘ S zp _ 7.8 1 “_ -_ Nn t XS t - 2 Nn Nn _ 10.2 ss wn w 2 w o < < 0.2 Nn Nn 27.0 w w wn ww w 357.0 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.2 > XN = _ S t 5 Nn Moist Meadow PEM1C 7 7 0.7 a <0.1 Riparian Shrub . PSS/EM1C 57.7 63.3 2.3 TOTAL Scrub Shrub Lowland PSS/EM1B PSS2B PSS4B 47.9 PSS4/1B 15.7 PSS4/2B _ o Nv = o co _ i we 0.2 oer at 7.3 48.3 76.8 130.4 8.8 73.5 10.3 234.6 189.2 123.8 153.7 178.0 195.3 N ~ os 1.8 93.1 57.9 76.4 24.6 35.3 3.1 27.4 Sa 1.4 2.0 N 2 Ss S t = wn Nv a > n R a : gy Oo [dS [= — m IX [oo = LS = s bm li - wv > a bb co 12.4 114.7 1.9 TABLE 5-1 (Continued) WETLANDS ACREAGE BY WETLAND TYPE Tanana Flats 5 2 B 5 ¥ g Percent of Total Percent of Total 37.6 Percent of Total Percent of Total 24.4 Wetland Type ) ze > Acres | of Total 487.6 Acres Acres TOTAL E Broadleaf/Mixed Riparian Forest PFO/SS1A 19 Needleleaf Forested Lowland PFO4/SS1B 61.8 Mixed Forested Lowland Acres Acres 429.9 cres 625.8 wn 1, So Ss ~ : ad : © > v co w - i _ oO 31.8 nN 23:5 53.7 34.7 34.7 N Nn 17 _ & & ee : S : : = & a a io So s <0.1 0.0 07 2.6 neo) <0. w Nn w Nn N N we 25.7 28.7 1.7 Nn w w LT PFO4/1B 131.7 67.2 : PFO4/2B 12.4 183.2 9.3 TOTAL 117.2 7.6 273.1 18.8 285.6 314.9 21.3 Total Uplands 578.1 Total Wetlands Total Wetlands and Uplands Source: Kidd, J. Wetlands Survey for the Proposed Northern Intertie, Healy to Fairbanks. ABR, Inc., 1994, 37.4 471.3 314.7 1239.7 20.2 79.8 100.0 849.5 48.3 67.5 71.9 51.7 wv a 8 > ply ufo 1482.2 1475.9 1760.6 by road, brush-cut trails, or helicopter. As mentioned above, wetlands subject to brush cutting would not be adversely impacted as long as the soil is not disturbed and access is somewhat restricted to the drier periods of the year. Those trees and shrubs which must be cut would be hydro-axed and mulched, and the mulched material should be spread thinly within the right-of- way. 5.3.3 Alternative Route Evaluation South Route: The South Route has the lowest acreage of wetlands (911 acres) of any of the proposed route alignments (Table 5-1). This probably was due to the fact that much of the northern portion of the route follows the Tanana Uplands. Shrub and forested lowlands cover the most area (695 acres) and are found interspersed throughout the entire route. Although ponds and marshes made up only four acres of wetlands on the South Route, this is the highest of any of the routes. This route also encountered the highest acreage of floating mat wetlands (57 acres), although it crosses much of the same floating mat areas as the Tanana Flats, Rex, and Tatlanika Routes. The higher acreage accounts for some wetlands in the western portion of the Tanana Flats east of Nenana which fall under the same wetland classification as the floating mat wetland areas in the eastern Tanana Flats. The South Route had the lowest acreage of shrub and forested riparian habitats (123 acres), and had 11 river crossings identified, three of which were crossings of the Tanana River. All of the other routes evaluated have only one Tanana River crossing. Tanana Flats Route: The Tanana Flats Route differed most notably from all the other routes in that it transected the highest total acreage of wetlands (1,240 acres). This was not surprising, however, considering that the route crosses the entire Tanana Lowlands, which is almost exclusively was classified as wetland. Like the other routes, the majority of the wetland types encountered fell under the categories of scrub shrub and forested lowlands (966 acres), but the field survey revealed that some of the scrub shrub lowlands in the northern section of the route were closely related hydrologically to floating mats. However, these differing hydrologic regimes were not distinguishable on aerial photos and were classified and mapped as saturated communities. Thus, their hydrologic status would have to be verified in the field on a case-by-case basis. The acreage of riparian wetlands (shrub and forested combined) was higher than that found along all of the other routes (197 acres) except the Rex Route (200 acres), but acreages of ponds and sedge marshes were similar to the other routes (two acres). The acreage of floating mats encountered was the same as that encountered on the Rex Route (51 acres) and slightly higher GVEAMCS.RPT 5-11 DECEMBER 1994 than the acreage encountered along the Tatlanika Route (50 acres). The Rex and Tatlanika Routes include part of the Tanana Flats Route, thus they encounter much of the same habitats. The number of river crossings identified (14) was more than that for the South Route, but includes only one crossing of the Tanana River, south of Fairbanks. Jumbo Route: The Jumbo Route is second to the South Route in terms of the lowest total acreage of wetlands (966 acres). Scrub shrub (581 acres) and forested lowlands (200 acres) are the most dominant wetlands and account for over 80 percent of all the wetland types identified for this route. The dominance of these lowlands is due to the fact that the route transects the Alaska Range foothills for the first 32 km (20 miles), and this more mountainous terrain restricts the number and type of wetlands encountered. The total acreage of ponds and marshes is approximately two acres. The acreage of floating mats encountered is the lowest (14 acres) of all of the proposed routes. The total acreage of riparian wetlands (122 acres) is the lowest of all of the routes, even though this route has the highest number of river and creek crossings identified (16). This difference may be a reflection of the route’s lower wetland acreage in general, which is a result of the significant portion of the route through the foothills and the fact that the Jumbo Route enters the Tanana Lowlands farther to the east than the other routes, and the eastern portion appears to be slightly drier. Walker Route: The Walker Route is fairly similar to the Jumbo Route, although it crosses a higher total acreage of wetlands (978 acres), and encounters a slightly higher acreage of riparian habitats (157 acres). Like the Jumbo Route, the first 24 km (15 miles) of the route are located within the foothills of the Alaska Range where the wetlands encountered are primarily scrub shrub and forested wetlands (741 acres). The route then heads northeast into the Tanana Lowlands. The Walker Route crosses few ponds and marshes (one acre), and the second lowest acreage of floating mats (27 acres). Nine river and creek crossings were identified along the Walker Route, one of which is the Tanana River. Rex Route: The Rex Route is very similar to the Tanana Flats Route, although it encounters a slightly lower total acreage of wetlands (1,062 acres vs. 1,240 acres). The main differences between the two routes is the lower percentage of scrub shrub lowlands (448 acres vs. 626 acres) along the Rex Route. Instead of following the Nenana River Valley as does the first portion of the Tanana Flats Route, the Rex Route is deeper in the Alaska Range foothills, which results in the replacement of scrub shrub wetlands by upland habitats and also a few riparian habitats. Acreages of ponds and marshes crossed is approximately two acres and floating mats were the same as the Tanana Flats Route (51 acres). Eleven named rivers and creeks are crossed by this GVEAMCS.RPT 5-12 DECEMBER 1994 route and the acreage of riparian habitat crossed is slightly higher than the acreage of riparian habitat crossed by the Tanana Flats Route. Tatlanika Route: Like the Rex Route, the Tatlanika Route is very similar to the Tanana Flats Route, although it encounters a considerably lower total percent acreage of wetlands (1,026 acres vs. 1,240 acres). The main differences in wetland abundance are lower acreages of riparian wetlands (131 acres vs. 197 acres) and scrub shrub lowlands (488 acres vs. 626 acres), and a higher percentage of uplands (456 acres vs. 315 acres). The higher percentage of uplands is due to the fact that the Tatlanika Route is the same as the Walker Route for the first 40 km (25 miles), and this route section is predominantly upland. The Tatlanika Route then heads north across the Tanana Flats and joins the Tanana Flats Route. Percent acreages of ponds and marshes were lower than for the Tanana Flats Route (one acre vs. two acres), and acreages of floating mats were just slightly lower (50 acres vs. 51 acres). The Tatlanika Route crosses nine named creeks and rivers. 5.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES The proposed routes were analyzed for cultural resources potential by review of archaeological, ethnographic, historical, and geological literature data files in the State Office of History and Archaeology, review of relevant Bureau of Indian Affairs files, map and airphoto analysis, and land records of the BLM and ADNR. A helicopter reconnaissance and ground survey was conducted in portions of the study area. 5.4.1 Potential Construction Impacts The potential for direct impacts to archaeological and historic resources are related to site disruption during clearing and construction associated with the proposed project. Direct impacts are typically limited to those areas where surface disturbance occurs. Potential indirect impacts include long term changes in land use such as increased access to and use of an area for recreation or development, or increased population growth. Other potential indirect impacts could occur from increased access to remote areas or increased erosion caused by construction of the project. These changes can result in long-term impacts on the resources. As a result of Section 106 clearance surveys already completed in limited areas, two prehistoric sites have been identified which may be adversely affected by construction activities associated with the proposed project. Options for mitigation of these impacts include avoidance, monitoring, and data recovery (excavation). Adverse impacts to these sites can likely be GVEAMCS.RPT 5-13 DECEMBER 1994 prevented through careful siting and placement of transmission line structures, by minimizing ground disturbing activities, and by avoiding use of ATVs in the immediate area of known sites. The nature of transmission line project construction (i.e., towers placed a few hundred meters, or several hundred feet, apart) is such that tower locations can be altered somewhat to avoid even fairly large sites. If cultural or historic resources were found during actual construction of the proposed project, work in that area should immediately stop and appropriate state and federal agencies should be notified to determine the proper course of action. By surveying high potential areas and following the procedures of Section 106 of NHPA, direct impacts to archaeologic and historic resources from construction activities are expected to be minimal. 5.4.2 Potential Impacts of Operation Potential indirect impacts to archaeologic and historic resources include activities that might occur because construction of rights-of-way may provide increased access. Examples would include vandalism and ground disturbance caused by off-road vehicles. These potential impacts may be mitigated to some extent by restricting access along project rights-of-way and access roads (if there are any) in areas of high potential for resources. In some cases, data recovery (i.e., excavation) may be the appropriate mitigation strategy for avoiding indirect impacts. 5.4.3 Alternative Route Evaluation South Route: A total of 22 historic, archaeological, or recent use sites were located within about one km (one-half mile) of the proposed route during a ground survey in 1994 (Bowers et al., 1994). Eight of these sites were previously unknown archaeological or historic sites, and were discovered as a result of a pedestrian survey of selected areas of the proposed right of way. A total of five sites lie within 0.1 km of the alignment. The greatest number of sites occurs in the northern foothills of the Alaska Range, although two recent use sites were identified within the Tanana Flats area, and three sites were identified in the hills north of the Tanana River. Two of the sites, both prehistoric sites dating to between 7,700 and 11,350 years old, lie adjacent to the proposed South Route alignment and meet eligibility requirements for the National Register of Historic Places. Several other areas along the alignment in the vicinity of the Tanana River could not be surveyed on the ground because permission from private land owners could not be obtained. Based upon helicopter reconnaissance, air photo analysis, and comparisons with similar settings, the river crossings appear to be high potential areas for the GVEAMCS.RPT 5-14 DECEMBER 1994 discovery of significant cultural resources. Should this alternative be chosen, these areas will need to be surveyed to satisfy the requirements of Section 106 of the NHPA. Tanana Flats Route: A significant number of prehistoric sites occur in the northern foothills of the Alaska Range in the southern portion of this route. No significant cultural resources were either previously reported or observed during the 1994 field survey of the Tanana Flats portion of this route, although one minor recent use area was observed. The Tanana Flats Route primarily crosses an area of low archaeological potential through the Tanana Flats. Walker Route: The proposed Walker Route alternative has high potential for cultural resources in the foothills portion of the route, and moderate to low potential in the Tanana Flats portion. Along this route alternative, historic mining sites might be expected at the heads of Elsie, Emma, and California Creeks. Prehistoric sites related to lithic quarrying and big game hunting might be expected in the Walker Dome area and in the foothills to the north. Prehistoric sites are known to be located near the Wood River Buttes and there has been recent Native use of the Wood River in the area of the proposed alignment crossing. Three of the known prehistoric sites in the project area are located near the southern end of the proposed Walker Route in the northern foothills of the Alaska Range. A concentration of 27 sites occurs in the Wood River Buttes area located east of the Walker Route about 40 km (25 miles) southwest of Fairbanks. The two buttes rise 121 meters (400 feet) above the surrounding lowland, forming "islands" of relatively well-drained ground among the surrounding spruce muskeg and marshes. The nearby Wood River is the most prominent Alaska Range drainage east of the Nenana River and west of the Delta River. The Wood River Butte sites are defined primarily by lithic and bone scatters. Diagnostic artifacts are few, but five sites suggest affiliations with the Denali Complex, three with the Northern Archaic Tradition and one with both (Dixon et al., 1980). Lithic materials include rhyolite, chert, quart, jasper, obsidian (Reynolds, 1986). All of the sites have commanding views of the surrounding lowland and may have served as game lookouts. Jumbo Route: The proposed Jumbo Route alternative also has high cultural resource potential in the foothills portion of the route and low to moderate potential in the Tanana Flats portion. The route would quite likely cross in the vicinity of historic mining camps along Lignite Creek and the tributary creeks at the head of Totatlanika River, and prehistoric sites related to lithic quarrying and big game hunting in the Lignite Creek, Marguerite Creek, Thistle Creek, and GVEAMCS.RPT 5-15 DECEMBER 1994 Tatlanika Creek areas. Late prehistoric or historic Native use of the area was probably fairly common. Known prehistoric sites exist at the Clear Creek Butte. Three of the prehistoric sites in the project area are near the southern end of the proposed Jumbo Route in the northern foothills of the Alaska Range. Cultural materials consist of lithics (flakes and a triangular point) made of chalcedony, rhyolite, and diabase. Fifteen of the 27 prehistoric sites on the Wood River Buttes occur within five km (three miles) west of the Jumbo Route about 40 km (25 miles) southwest of Fairbanks. Five sites are located on Clear Creek Butte within five km (three miles) east of the proposed Jumbo Route, about 16 km (10 miles) south of Fairbanks. The topographic setting of Clear Creek Butte is similar to the Wood River Buttes. Four of the sites suggest a Denali Complex affiliation and four a Northern Archaic one; two sites contained elements of both (Dixon et al., 1980; Reynolds, 1986; Staley, 1993). Rex Route: The proposed Rex Route crosses lands of high cultural resources potential in the foothills, and low to moderate potential in the Tanana Flats. Historic mining camps may be expected to occur at the heads of Moose and Eva creeks, and prehistoric sites related to lithic quarrying and large mammal hunting may be found elsewhere in the foothills. Late prehistoric or historic Native use of the area was probably fairly common. Four sites are located near the proposed Rex Route about eight to 16 km (five to 10 miles) north of Lignite Creek. One site containing basalt projectile points is located two km (one mile) east of the Rex Route along Eva Creek. Three other sites are within five km (three miles) west of the proposed Rex Route on a ridge between Walker Creek and Moose Creek and contain blades and prismatic core flakes. Tatlanika Route: The Tatlanika Route has a high cultural resource potential in the foothills, and low to moderate potential in the Tanana Flats. Historic mining sites may be encountered as described for the Walker Route, and recent Native use is reported in the Wood River Area. No cultural resources have been previously reported for this segment of the intertie connecting the Walker Route with the Tanana Flats Route. This crosses an area of low archaeological potential. GVEAMCS.RPT 5-16 DECEMBER 1994 5.5 SOCIOECONOMIC/SOCIOPOLITICAL RESOURCES 5.5.1 Potential Construction Impacts Potential direct impacts associated with construction of the proposed project include noise impacts, traffic impacts, increased demand for services in rural communities, and increases in wages and earnings. Due to the remote nature of the proposed transmission line route alternatives, noise and traffic impacts on residents of the macro-corridor are expected to be minimal. It is possible that there might be temporary impacts on backcountry skiers and snowmachine riders during winter construction in areas where the route alignment passes near or across trails. In addition, the area around the Healy substation and the proposed new substation in Fairbanks may experience noise and traffic congestion from construction in these areas. These inconveniences would be expected to be minimal since these substations are located in areas with industrial rather than residential development and the disturbance should be of a limited duration. Construction crews are likely to use facilities in Healy and Fairbanks for food and lodging during construction periods. This is likely to have positive economic benefits on these communities. Most of the construction activities in the Tanana Flats area would take place in the winter and construction crews for this portion of the work are likely to stay in Fairbanks for the duration of these construction periods. This would coincide with off-season period for tourism in Fairbanks, and food and lodging should be readily available. Construction in the foothills near Healy would be likely to take place in the summer or fall. The Denali Borough has approximately 50 Bed & Breakfast establishments as well as a lodging facility with 30 units. Construction timeframes for this project and the Healy Clean Coal Project may overlap, creating a significant demand for construction crew housing, during the area’s typical tourism season. Construction housing in the Healy area would be closely coordinated with both the Denali Borough and the construction contractor for the Healy Clean Coal Project, in order to minimize any impacts on housing supply in the Borough during the construction period. Any impacts on housing would be expected to be of a short term nature during the construction period. During agency scoping, the FAA expressed concerns regarding temporary construction camps in proximity to aircraft landing strips. As described above, construction crews are likely to stay in Healy or Fairbanks. Temporary construction camps are not likely to be set up in the field, however, temporary staging areas may be used. Staging area locations will be coordinated with the FAA to ensure that they are not located in an area which would significantly impact aircraft landing strips. GVEAMCS.RPT 5-17 DECEMBER 1994 Construction of the proposed project could result in increased wages and earnings for various construction trades and materials suppliers. The number of positions and length of employment will vary depending on the contractors selected and the construction schedule. The geographic distribution of the increased earnings and materials sales revenues will depend on contractors and vendors selected for project construction. 5.5.2 Potential Impact of Operation Potential impacts related to operation of a transmission line include long-term impacts on aesthetic impacts, discussed in the visual resource section, and social impacts such as changes in quality of life and concerns regarding health impacts associated with EMF. Many social impacts, such as those on quality of life, are subjective in nature and can not be accurately quantified. Information on EMF levels associated with this project are discussed in Section 5.9. These types of impacts are difficult to mitigate and are best minimized by siting transmission lines where they impact the fewest people. Other mitigation options may include modifications to the specific right-of-way alignment to avoid private interests, purchases of properties, or payment of fees for use of the land. During public and agency scoping meetings, other concerns were raised regarding the operation of the transmission line. These concerns included impacts to aviation, particularly small planes using the Tanana River as a flight path; impacts to groundwater from herbicide use on the transmission line right-of-way; and impacts to radio frequency communications. Aviation impacts can be reduced by marking transmission line crossings across the Tanana River and providing notice of the crossings to both the FAA and the local pilot associations. As mentioned in Section 4.9.4, none of the proposed routes are expected to impact private landing strips located throughout the study area. The proposed route alternatives are far enough south and west of FIA that they are not expected to impact air traffic to FIA. There is a an approach control radar tower near the Tanana Levee adjacent to the proposed route along the levee. Coordination with the FAA and FIA on the line route in that vicinity is expected to ensure that the impacts to the radar are minimal. Other towers which may be located in the area include radio communication towers, microwave relay facilities, television translators, FM translators, earth stations, and air navigational aides. If construction of the project is approved, contacts will be made with the FAA; the Federal Communication Commission (FCC); Alascom, Inc.; and other operators of these systems to ensure that facilities located within one mile of the proposed route are identified. Route GVEAMCS.RPT 5-18 DECEMBER 1994 modifications may be made to ensure that the separation between the proposed transmission line and the facility is great enough to ensure that the proposed line has a minimal impact on the facility. Separation distances of 61 to 1,200 meters (200 to 3,800 feet) were recommended for various communication and navigation facilities in a study commissioned by the AEA (Torri, J. and J. Hancock, 1982). , As mentioned in Section 5.2.2, GVEA does not intend to use herbicides along the transmission line right-of-way. Positive long-term impacts associated with operation of the proposed project include an increased reliability of service to residents of the Fairbanks area (the GVEA and FMUS service areas). 5.5.3 Alternative Route Evaluation Aviation interests have indicated that the Tanana River serves as a major air traffic corridor for small planes, although plane traffic occurs throughout the study area. In order to account for both air traffic throughout the area and air traffic along the Tanana River, the proposed routes were evaluated by measuring the total length of each route and the number of times that the route crosses the Tanana River. The South Route alternative is the longest route (161 km or 100 miles) and crosses the Tanana River three times. This is expected to result in the greatest impact on air traffic. All of the other routes are similar, in that each crosses the Tanana River one time. The proposed routes, excluding the South Route, range in length from 132 to 144 km (82 to 90 miles). The Walker Route is the shortest route at 132 km (82 miles). The land status on each route was evaluated based on a review of BLM and ADNR plats. The lands crossed by each of the proposed route alignments are described below. South Route: The South Route crosses primarily state lands from Healy to the edge of Fort Wainwright near Rosie Creek. The route crosses six Alaska Railroad Corporation parcels near Healy, as well as four mining interests. The South Route crosses 12 mental health parcels, including six near Healy, four near Nenana, and two north of the Tanana River near Whiskey Island. Six private parcels are crossed, two near Healy and four near Nenana. There are three Native Corporation parcels crossed east of Nenana, near the Tanana River. This routes crosses nine federal parcels which have been selected by the State or a Native Corporation, in addition to crossing federal military lands at Fort Wainwright. , GVEAMCS.RPT 5-19 DECEMBER 1994 Tanana Flats Route: The Tanana Flats Route also crosses mostly state and federal lands from Healy to Fairbanks. The Tanana Flats Route crosses the same Alaska Railroad Corporation lands and mining claims in the Healy area as the South Route. This route crosses seven mental health parcels, six near Healy and one near Clear. Two private parcels are crossed in the Healy area and two Native Corporation parcels are crossed near the Wood River. This route crosses more of the Fort Wainwright military are than the South Route and crosses seven other federal parcels which have been selected by the State and/or a Native Corporation. Walker Route: This route crosses mostly state lands from Healy to the Wood River, and mostly federal military lands from the Wood River to Fairbanks. As with the other routes, Alaska Railroad Corporation, two private parcels, and four mining claims are crossed near Healy. This route crosses 98 other mining claims as it crosses through the northern foothills of the Alaska Range. Twenty-nine mental health parcels are crossed in the mining areas in the foothills and nine Native Corporation parcels are crossed near the Wood River. Jumbo Route: The Jumbo Route crosses state lands between Healy and the Wood River, and federal military lands between the Wood River and Fairbanks. The route crosses three private parcels near Healy, along with Alaska Railroad Corporation lands, mental health lands, and mining claims. Four Native Corporation parcels are crossed near the Wood River. This route crosses the greatest portion of the Fort Wainwright military area. Rex Route: This route again crosses state lands in the southern portion of the route and federal military lands in the northern portion. This route crosses more mining and mental health parcels than the Tanana Flat Route as it crosses through the northern foothills of the Alaska Range. Once this route joins the Tanana Flats Route, it crosses the same Native Corporation parcels near the Wood River and federal military lands associated with Fort Wainwright. Tatlanika Route: Like the other routes, this route also crosses state lands in the southern portion of the route and federal lands in the northern portion. This route is very similar to the Walker Route in terms of lands crossed. The differences are that the Tatlanika Route crosses fewer Native parcels (five) and slightly less federal military land. 5.6 VISUAL The characterization of the potential adverse visual effects of the proposed project is based on a review of existing documents, literature, personal communications, maps of the study area, and a field reconnaissance conducted in October 1994. GVEAMCS.RPT 5-20 DECEMBER 1994 Visual impacts to specific viewpoints were determined based on how the proposed transmission line and the associated activities would be perceived by viewers. The analysis considered how slope, aspect, distance, and the relative capacity of the landscape to absorb visual change would be perceived within the three distance zones. Three impact levels were used to describe visual effects. HIGH Impacts are obvious to the average viewer; modifications to the visual setting dominate the view. MODERATE Impacts are evident but visually co-dominant in the landscape setting; though noticeable by the average viewer, modifications do not dominate the view. LOW Impacts may be easily overlooked by the average viewer; modifications are subordinate in the visual setting and may blend with view. 5.6.1 Potential Construction Impacts Construction impacts would be of short duration and not a major concern in terms of visual impacts. 5.6.2 Potential Impact of Operation Generally, the landscapes of the study area are of high scenic quality or visual interest. Removal of trees for access road and right-of-way clearing and the presence of the angular steel structures of the proposed transmission line would visually contrast with the scenic values of the existing environment. The construction of the proposed line could cause incremental degradation of scenic quality throughout the corridor. Visual impacts can be reduced through careful siting of tower locations, modifications to tower and conductor materials, careful attention to stream or trail crossings, and by minimizing the clearing required for rights-of-way and access. 5.6.3 Alternative Route Evaluation South Route: The South Route generally parallels the Nenana River from Healy to approximately two km (one mile) northwest of Lignite (Healy-Lignite segment) and would be visible in the foreground to the Parks Highway, Alaska Railroad, small communities (i.e., Healy and Lignite) and dispersed residents, resulting in high visual impacts. From approximately two km (one mile) northwest of Lignite to near Liaho Landing Strip, the South Route would be GVEAMCS.RPT 5-21 DECEMBER 1994 located farther east, and farther from high sensitivity viewpoints (approximately three to six km or two to four miles). Between Healy and Liaho Landing Strip, the South Route would generally be located on a river terrace plateau at the base of the mountains where it would be visible, in the middleground, to travelers on the Parks Highway and the railroad, and would likely have low visual impacts. The landform of the river terrace and vegetation cover would help screen the proposed transmission line from sensitive viewpoints. Visual contrasts from the clearing of the trees for the right-of-way may be visible at a distance for a short duration where travelers would view the route along the highway or railroad. In this area, the South Route would be highly visible in the foreground from dispersed residents east of Ferry and possibly pass directly over some of the dwellings. The South Route would have significant impacts to the dispersed residents. From Liaho Landing Strip to Nenana, the South Route is located east of the highway where views of the proposed transmission line from the Park’s Highway and residences located along the highway would be largely screened by terrain and vegetation. East of Nenana, the South Route would cross the Tanana River and continue along the south facing slopes of a ridgeline in the Tanana Uplands, south of the Parks Highway. This portion of the proposed transmission line would not be visible from the highway or the railroad. The route would continue in a northeasterly direction south of the Parks Highway where it would be visible in the middleground from the highway. Terrain and vegetation would partially to fully screen views from travelers on the Parks Highway. The South Route would drop down to the floor of the Tanana River Valley, crossing the Tanana River continuing northeast for approximately 18 km (11 miles) to the proposed substation in Fairbanks (Tanana River-Fairbanks segment). The Tanana River-Fairbanks segment of the South Route would be visible to recreation users on and around the Tanana River in the foreground on the valley floor (Harza, 1987). Recreation users and residents south of Chena Ridge may also be impacted along the Tanana River-Fairbanks segment (Harza, 1987). The crossing of the Tanana River near FIA would have moderate to low impacts, due to the visual compatibility of the existing industrialized character of the area (Harza, 1987). The South Route would be largely dominant in the landscape to sensitive foreground and middleground views from the proposed Healy-Lignite segment to near Liaho Landing Strip and along the Tanana River-Fairbanks segment. Impacts to viewers (i.e., Parks Highway, Alaska Railroad, communities, dispersed residents, and recreation users) would be high along these segments of the proposed route. The remaining portion of the South Route may only be visible intermittently as a result of terrain, vegetative screening, and distance from sensitive viewpoints. GVEAMCS.RPT 5-22 DECEMBER 1994 Tanana Flats Route: The Tanana Flats Route follows the South Route from the Healy-Lignite segment to approximately six km (four miles) northeast of the community of Browne. From that point, the Tanana Flats Route would continue in a direct northeasterly direction across the Tanana River Valley, crossing the Tatlanika River and the Wood River. The Tanana Flats Route continues to the proposed substation in Fairbanks following the Tanana River-Fairbanks Segment. From approximately six km (four miles) northeast of Browne up to the Tanana River- Fairbanks segment, this route would pass largely through the Fort Wainwright Military Reservation and would not be visible from any high sensitivity viewpoints such as the Parks Highway, Alaska Railroad, small communities, or dispersed residences. The Tanana Flats Route would be largely dominant in the landscape to sensitive foreground views from the proposed Healy-Lignite segment to near Liaho Landing Strip and along the Tanana River-Fairbanks segment. Impacts to viewers (i.e., Parks Highway, Alaska: Railroad, Communities, dispersed residents, and recreation users) would be high along these portions of the proposed route. The remaining portion of the Tanana Flats Route would not be visible from sensitive viewpoints as a result of terrain, vegetation screening, and distance. Jumbo Route: The Jumbo Route follows the Healy-Lignite segment, until reaching Lignite Road. At Lignite Road, this route continues in a northeasterly direction, following Lignite Road and beyond, between Jumbo Dome and Usibelli Peak and Mount Lathrop for approximately 32 km (20 miles). The Jumbo Route continues in a north, northeasterly direction across the Tanana Flats (and the Fort Wainwright Military Reservation) crossing Tatlanika Creek, Wood River, Salchaket Slough, and the Tanana River. This route then continues due north through Fairbanks to the proposed substation. There are no residents along the remainder of the Jumbo Route once it separates from the South Route after the Healy-Lignite segment. Jumbo Route would not be visible from any sensitive viewpoints (i.e., highway, railroad, residences) between the end of Lignite Road and the proposed substation in southern Fairbanks. The Jumbo Route would be largely dominant in the landscape to sensitive foreground views from the proposed Healy-Lignite segment until reaching Lignite Road. Impacts to viewers (i.e., Parks Highway, Alaska Railroad, Healy, Lignite, dispersed residents, and recreation users) would be high along these portions of the proposed route. The remaining portion of the Jumbo Route would not be visible from sensitive viewpoints as a result of terrain and distance. Walker Route: The Walker Route follows the Healy-Lignite segment. Beyond the Healy- Lignite segment, Walker Route proceeds generally in a northeasterly direction toward Walker Dome, then continues in the same direction, east of the Liberty Bell Mine, and crosses Elsie GVEAMCS.RPT 5-23 DECEMBER 1994 Creek, Fox Creek, the Ferry Road, and California Creek. There are no permanent residents along the remainder of Walker Route once it separates from the South Route, beyond the Healy- Lignite segment. Walker Route continues in a northeast direction across the Tanana Flats (and the Fort Wainwright Military Reservation), crossing Tatlanika Creek and the Wood River. The route heads east across Salchaket Slough to join with the Jumbo Route as it crosses the Tanana River and proceeds north to the proposed substation in Fairbanks. Walker Route would not be visible from any sensitive viewpoints (i.e., highway, railroad, residences) between the Healy- Lignite and the proposed substation in Fairbanks. The Walker Route would be largely dominant in the landscape to sensitive foreground views from the proposed Healy-Lignite segment. Impacts to viewers (i.e., Parks Highway, Alaska Railroad, Healy, Lignite, dispersed residents, and recreation users) would be high along these portions of the proposed route. The remaining portion of Walker Route would not-be visible from sensitive viewpoints as a result of terrain and distance. Tatlanika Route: The Tatlanika Route follows the Healy-Lignite segment and then continues along the Walker Route to Tatlanika Creek. Where Walker Route crosses Tatlanika Creek, the Tatlanika Route separates from the Walker Route and proceeds directly north across the Tanana Flats, intersecting with the Tanana Flats Route near Wood River. From the intersection, the Tatlanika Route is identical to the Tanana Flats Route. The Tatlanika Route continues along the Tanana Flats Route to the proposed substation in Fairbanks following the Tanana River- Fairbanks segment. The Tatlanika Route would not be visible from any sensitive viewpoints (i.e., highway, railroad, residences) between the Healy-Lignite and Tanana River-Fairbanks segments. The Tatlanika Route would be largely dominant in the landscape to sensitive foreground views from the proposed Healy-Lignite segment and along the Tanana River-Fairbanks segment. Impacts to viewers (i.e., Parks Highway, Alaska Railroad, Healy, Lignite, dispersed residents, and recreation users) would be high along these portions of the proposed route. The remaining portion of Tatlanika Route would not be visible from sensitive viewpoints as a result of terrain and distance. Rex Route: The Rex Route follows the Healy-Lignite segment, and continues along Walker Route for approximately three km (two miles). Rex Route separates from Walker Route and proceeds directly north until it intersects with the Tanana Flats Route near the Clear Air Force Station. From the intersection, Rex Route follows the Tanana Flats Route across the Tanana River Valley and continues to the proposed substation in Fairbanks following the Tanana River- GVEAMCS.RPT 5-24 DECEMBER 19% Fairbanks segment. Rex Route would not be visible from any sensitive viewpoints (i.e., highway, railroad, residences) between the Healy-Lignite and Tanana River-Fairbanks segments. The Rex Route would be largely dominant in the landscape to sensitive foreground views from the proposed Healy-Lignite segment and along the Tanana River-Fairbanks segment. Impacts to viewers (i.e., Parks Highway, Alaska Railroad, Healy, Lignite, dispersed residents, and recreation users) would be high along these portions of the proposed route. The remaining portion of Rex Route would not be visible from-sensitive viewpoints as a result of terrain and distance. 5.7 RECREATION 5.7.1 Potential Construction Impacts As noted in Section 4.10, the macro-corridor area has a high value in terms of recreational resources. Construction impacts to recreation are expected to be of short duration and limited to a low number of recreation users. Construction is expected to occur primarily in the winter in wetland areas. This could cause some temporary impacts on snowmachiners and skiers venturing out onto the Tanana Flats. Construction of other portions of the route could potentially impact backcountry hikers, fishermen, hunters, and trappers where the proposed alignments cross rivers, trails, or other recreation areas. Since many of the proposed route alignments cross relatively remote areas, it is unlikely that impacts to recreation during construction would be significant. 5.7.2 Potential Impact of Operation The proposed transmission line is expected to have a minimal impact on recreation in the macro- corridor. The northern foothills of the Alaska Range receive only moderate recreation use. The proposed routes may have a limited impact in those areas where the proposed routes cross rivers, creeks, and existing trails. Although access will primarily be limited to existing access where possible, any new access to the more remote areas may have a positive impact of allowing recreation users to access backcountry areas. The Tanana River is extensively used for boating, fishing, and other activities. In addition, the Tanana Flats has become a popular recreation area for airboats in the summer and for snowmachines in the winter. The transmission line may have a limited impact on these uses, GVEAMCS.RPT 5-25 DECEMBER 1994 primarily an indirect visual impact; although, again, some airboat and snowmachine users may consider additional access via the corridor a positive impact. The Tanana Uplands north of the Tanana River is another popular recreation area. Much of the land within the Tanana State Forest is designated for recreation as a primary use, and a boatramp and campsite are available off Bonanza Road. There may be a limited visual impact on recreation users in this area, depending on the route chosen. 5.7.3 Alternative Route Evaluation The South Route crosses the Tanana River three times, resulting in the greatest impact to recreation resources along the Tanana River. In addition, the South Route traverses the uplands north of the Tanana River in the area near the Bonanza recreation areas. The route-would not have a direct impact on the recreation area itself, but an indirect impact associated with any visual impact on the recreation user. The Tanana Flats Route limits the recreation impacts along the Tanana River somewhat since it is located farther from the river. This route, and the other routes that cross the Tanana Flats, has the potential to have limited impacts associated with the crossing of the Wood River. However, limited information is available on the intensity of fishing on the Wood River. The four remaining routes are located primarily in more remote areas of the northern foothills and the Tanana Flats. None of these routes is expected to have a significant impact on recreation users. 5.8 SUBSISTENCE RESOURCES 5.8.1 Potential Construction Impacts Construction activities may temporarily disrupt wildlife and reduce subsistence opportunities in the areas adjacent to the transmission line corridor. Since the duration of construction activities in any one location would be short, no significant restriction of access to subsistence resources is expected; therefore, the impact on overall subsistence use in the area is not expected to be significant. The clearing of vegetation along a right-of-way may in some cases reduce or diminish habitat quality for some wildlife, while in other cases wildlife habitat may be enhanced by clearing GVEAMCS.RPT 5-26 DECEMBER 1994 activities. Human access into densely vegetated habitat areas would be improved with the construction of a right-of-way and this would be expected to improve subsistence opportunities. There are subsistence and commercial fish camps along the Tanana Rivers that could be temporarily impacted by construction activities along the banks of the river. To mitigate any potential impacts to subsistence and commercial fishing efforts, construction activities should be planned so as to avoid peak salmon run periods from June through August. 5.8.2 Potential Impact of Operation Operation of the line is not expected to have a significant impact on subsistence resources. There would probably be some temporary disturbance to area wildlife from line maintenance activities that require helicopter or snowmachine access to the line; however, based on the intermittent nature of these activities, subsistence opportunities would probably not be significantly impacted. 5.8.3 Alternative Route Evaluation Any of the proposed routes has the potential to provide increased access to previously undisturbed habitat through the clearing of a right-of-way. Currently, most subsistence activity in the macro-corridor occurs along the road system or along established trails. Any potential impacts to subsistence resources would be more likely along the more remote routes (Rex, Walker, and Jumbo) through the northern foothills of the Alaska Range and across the Tanana Flats as increased human activity, primarily via snowmachines, could increase hunting pressures and increase the potential for noise disturbance of subsistence resources. However, none of the proposed route alternatives are expected to have a significant impact on the abundance of subsistence resources. 5.9 ELECTRO-MAGNETIC FIELDS AND SAFETY CONCERNS 5.9.1 Potential Construction Impacts Potential impacts associated with EMF and other safety concerns are related to operation of the transmission line and are described in Section 5.9.2. GVEAMCS.RPT 5-27 DECEMBER 1994 5.9.2 Potential Impact of Operation The lack of scientific consensus regarding potential health effects from exposure to 230 kV transmission line magnetic fields precludes the identification of any adverse environmental health impacts that would occur as a result of the proposed intertie. No federal agency has set any EMF standards and in 1990 the International Radiation Protection Association concluded that no cancer risk had been proven and that the information from current studies has not provided a basis for a health risk assessment which would be useful in developing exposure limits (Slesin, et al., 1991). Some states, such as Florida, New York, and New Jersey, have adopted EMF limits at the edge of transmission line right-of-ways; however, these have been based on the best available technology as opposed to any health based standard. Until more information is known, the best precaution is to avoid private properties and especially residences wherever possible. An acknowledged potential impact to public health from the proposed electric transmission line is the hazard of electric shock. Electric shocks from transmission lines are generally the result of accidental contact by the public with the energized wires or conductors. As is required by the National Electric Safety Code and accepted engineering practice, the design of the intertie would include safeguards to protect the public and minimize the potential of electric shock. These safeguards include construction of the transmission line to maintain sufficient clearance between energized conductors and the ground or other objects, grounding of each structure and guy wire to reduce the possibility of shock by contact, and protecting the line with a relay system that would detect line transmission problems and shut off the line so as to minimize the potential for adverse impacts from power failures. 5.9.3 Alternative Route Evaluation All of the proposed route alternatives are expected to have approximately the same right-of-way width and would be operated at the same voltage. As indicated above, the EMF level outside of the transmission line right-of-way is not expected to produce any adverse impacts. Mitigation for EMF concerns is limited, based on current knowledge and technology. The only mitigation currently available is to site the transmission line such that it is located a reasonable distance away from residential and other sensitive areas. In terms of avoiding private properties, the Walker Route, the Rex Route, the Tatlanika Route, and the Tanana Flats Route each cross only two private properties in the Healy area. The South Route crosses six private properties and is located closer to development areas along the Parks Highway corridor. The Jumbo Route GVEAMCS.RPT 5-28 DECEMBER 1994 crosses three private parcels near Healy, but is located the farthest from developed areas for the majority of the route. GVEAMCS.RPT 5-29 DECEMBER 1994 6.0 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE ROUTE ALIGNMENTS 6.1 INTRODUCTION To evaluate the proposed routes and compare the potential impacts to environmental resources, the resource features identified within the study area were evaluated for their sensitivity to construction and operation of a transmission line intertie. Sensitivity levels of high, moderate, or low were assigned to resource evaluation criteria in consideration of the intrinsic value of the resource, its legal or protective status, the potential for adverse effects based on the project description, the duration of the impact (short term during construction versus long term during operations), and the potential to mitigate these effects. These sensitivity levels were then used to determine the extent to which environmentfal features represented a constraint to transmission line siting or an opportunity for siting. Constraints to transmission line siting are generally resources that are highly sensitive to transmission line siting and which offer little opportunity for mitigation. These include endangered and threatened species nesting areas; residential development; private lands; and scenic resources, such as the Parks Highway and the Nenana River Corridors. Opportunities for siting generally include existing linear corridors, such as existing transmission lines or railroad corridors. In this particular case, however, the existing corridors (Parks Highway, Alaska Railroad, and Nenana River) have high visual, socioeconomic, and environmental sensitivity. Other opportunities for siting include areas through state lands managed for multiple uses, land being used for military operations, areas with ample buffering for visual impacts, and industrial areas. 6.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA Evaluation criteria used in the regional environmental study and the sensitivities assigned to them are presented in Table 6-1. As mentioned above, sensitivities were assigned not only based on the value of the resource and its compatibility or incompatibility with transmission line construction and operation, but also based on the duration of the impact and the opportunities for mitigation of impacts. 6.2.1 Biological Resources Biological resource criteria include Peregrine Falcon and Bald Eagle nests, high density Trumpeter Swan nesting areas, moose winter concentration areas, caribou fall/winter concentration areas, waterfowl migration corridors, brown bear critical habitat, black bear GVEAMCS.RPT 6-1 DECEMBER 1994 TABLE 6-1 EVALUATION CRITERIA Biological Resource Criteria Peregrine Falcon Nesting Areas High Bald Eagle Nesting Areas High High Density Trumpeter Swan Nesting Areas High Moose Winter Concentration Areas Moderate/High Caribou Fall/Winter Concentration Area Moderate/High Waterfowl Migration Corridors Moderate/High Brown Bear Critical Habitat Moderate/High Black Bear Denning Habitat Moderate Named Creeks/Rivers Crossed Moderate/Low Anadromous Fish Streams Moderate/Low Wetland Criteria Wetlands (Total) Moderate/Low High Value Wetlands Moderate/High Floating Bog Moderate/High Cultural Resource Criteria Known Archaeologic or Historic Site Moderate High Potential Area for Archaeologic/Historic Resources Moderate Land Status Criteria Private High Native Moderate/High Mental Health Moderate/High ini Moderate Low Federal (State and Native Selected) Moderate State (including ARRC/UA) Moderate/High Visual/Recreational Resource Criteria Foreground view from Recreation Areas High Mid-ground view from Recreation Areas Moderate/High Foreground view from Residences High Mid-ground view from Residences Moderate/High Foreground view from Alaska Railroad High Mid-ground view from Alaska Railroad Moderate/High Foreground view from Parks Highway High Mid-ground view from Parks Highway Moderate/High Geotechnical Considerations Frostheave Potential High Landslide Potential High Liquification Potential Moderate/High Adverse Trafficability Moderate/High Foundation Installation Difficulty High Socioeconomic Considerations Aviation Concerns (general) Moderate Aviation Concerns (high traffic corridor) High EMF Concerns High GVEAMCS.RPT 6-2 DECEMBER 1994 denning habitat, named creeks and rivers crossed, and anadromous fish streams. Most biological resources were assigned a moderate to high sensitivity value. Bird nesting areas were rated high due to the potential to disrupt the birds during construction and the potential for bird/transmission line collisions during operation of the project. Although short-term disruptions during construction can be mitigated through construction timing, bird collisions remain a potential impact throughout the life of the project. Waterfowl migration corridors were rated moderately high, again based on the on-going potential for conflicts between birds and the transmission line. Brown bear critical habitat was also rated moderately high. Although there is not expected to be a significant impact of the quantity or quality of habitat from project construction, there may be some increased access to these areas, resulting in increased hunting pressure. Winter concentration areas for moose and caribou were also rated as having a moderately high sensitivity. Impacts to these areas are expected to be short-term in nature (during construction); however, winter ranges are typically more limited than summer ranges and therefore impacts to winter habitat are considered more sensitive. Black bear denning habitat was also rated as moderately sensitive. Although no black bear denning concentration areas have been identified along any of the proposed routes, ADF&G States that black bears do den in the Tanana Flats and may be disturbed during construction. Anadromous streams and other named creeks and rivers were assigned moderately low sensitivities based on the ability to limit impacts to these resources during construction and operation of the transmission line. 6.2.2 Wetland Resources The wetland criteria evaluated included total wetland acres, high value riparian wetlands, and floating mat wetlands. Wetland impacts from this project are expected to be minimal, since structures will supported by driven and drilled piles, resulting in a minimal amount of disturbance. Also, most wetland construction will take place in the winter in order to minimize any impacts. Based on the opportunities to minimize wetland impacts, total wetland acreage was rated as moderately low. High value wetlands and floating mat wetlands were rated moderately high to reflect the higher or unique value of these particular wetlands. Riparian wetlands have a high functional value for nutrient export and provide wildlife habitat for passerines, furbearers, black bear, and moose. GVEAMCS.RPT 6-3 DECEMBER 1994 The floating mat wetlands are considered to be unique in that they appear to be maintained by groundwater below the permafrost as opposed to the other wetlands in the area which are maintained by precipitation and seasonal runoff. 6.2.3, Cultural Resources Cultural resource criteria include known cultural resource sites, and areas of high potential for cultural resources. Although areas of the macro-corridor are known to contain a significant number of cultural resources, the transmission line can be routed and constructed in such a way as to minimize the impact on cultural resources and to mitigate the impacts on any identified sites in the final right-of-way. Therefore, these resources were considered to have moderate sensitivity. 6.2.4 Land Status Land status criteria evaluated the ownership status of lands crossed by each of the proposed route alternatives. Private lands were assumed to have the highest sensitivity to the project. These lands are primarily residential/homestead or certificated Alaska Native Allotment lands. These lands would be very sensitive to both construction and operation of the proposed transmission line. As indicated in Section 5.9, although the scientific debate on EMF has not been resolved, it is prudent to avoid private lands. Native Corporation and mental health lands are accorded a slightly lower sensitivity, both due to the uncertainty associated with the future disposition of these lands and the fact that many of these lands are held for speculative future development. These lands are not as likely to have residents on them as private or Alaska Native Allotment lands. Mining interests were rated as being moderately sensitive to the project. Owners of mining interests are not likely to be disturbed during construction, however, siting of the line would need to be coordinated with these interests to ensure that it does not disrupt current or future mining uses on these lands. Mining interests must be compensated for any interference with their mining activity. Non-military federal lands which have been selected by the State or by a Native Corporation are also rated as moderate. Again, future disposition of this land is uncertain, particularly for those parcels which have been selected by both the State and Native Corporations. State lands are also assumed to have a moderate sensitivity, since most state lands are managed for multiple use and this project is not expected to have a significant impact on GVEAMCS.RPT 6-4 DECEMBER 1994 other uses for these lands. University of Alaska and Alaska Railroad Corporation lands have been included under state lands for this evaluation. Federal military lands are rated as having low sensitivity since construction and operation of the project is not expected to have a significant impact on the military mission associated with these lands. 6.2.5 Visual Resources Visual criteria are based primarily on the location of the transmission line within the view. Impacts are expected to be greatest for a transmission line which appears in the foreground of a scenic view, moderate for a transmission line occurring in the mid-ground, and low for a transmission line occurring in the background of a view. A transmission line is generally considered to be in the foreground if it is within two km (one mile) of the viewpoint, the mid- ground is generally considered to be from two to eight km (one to five miles) from the viewpoint, and lines located over eight km (five miles) are generally considered to be in the background. These distances may change somewhat based upon topography and vegetation. Residences, recreation areas, the Alaska Railroad, and the Parks Highway were identified as the most sensitive viewpoints. Recreation areas were considered to be the Nenana River, the Tanana Valley State Forest near Bonanza Creek, and the Tanana River. 6.2.6 Geotechnical Criteria Geotechnical criteria were evaluated to assess the geologic environment’s impact on the technical feasibility of constructing the proposed project along each route alternative. The criteria evaluated include frost heave, landslide areas, liquefaction potential, adverse trafficability, and difficulty of foundation preparation. Frost heave is the upward movement of tower foundations due to freezing of the surrounding soil. This movement can result in the loss of support and the ultimate failure of the foundation of the system. This condition is particularly severe in fine-grained, high moisture content soils. All of the alignments have portions which cross soils which are susceptible to frost heave. Landslides involve the downward movement of soil, rock, or a mixture of the two. These movements are detrimental to transmission lines as they may displace or cause total failure of GVEAMCS.RPT 6-5 DECEMBER 1994 support structures. Landslide areas are common in the northern foothills and have been mapped by the USGS. Liquefaction of wet soils triggered by earthquakes can result in movements of tower foundations. Wet sandy soils such as are found in the Tanana River floodplain are susceptible to liquefaction. Trafficability is the capacity of the soil and the terrain to support moving vehicles. Trafficability of the terrain along a transmission line alignment affects the time of year and the type of equipment which may be used for construction and maintenance of the transmission line. Low wet areas and steep rugged slopes result in adverse trafficability conditions. The ease of installation of tower foundations is related to the type of rock or soil underlying the site. Those routes which have more areas with frozen soil and shallow hard bedrock are less favorable for foundation installation than those areas with soft bedrock or unfrozen soils. 6.2.7 Socioeconomic Resources The socioeconomic criteria were established to measure the potential for other impacts raised during public scoping meetings, particularly general aviation impacts and EMF. Crossings of the Tanana River were considered to be highly sensitive since this has been identified as an air traffic corridor. Since air traffic is widespread throughout the study area, the total length of each proposed route was also considered for impacts on air traffic; however, this was considered to be less sensitive than the air traffic corridors. There is currently a lack of scientific consensus regarding potential health effects from exposure to transmission line magnetic fields. Until more information is available, it is prudent to avoid residential areas whenever possible. In terms of evaluating EMF impacts, the number of private parcels crossed was used as a measurement of potential for EMF impacts. 6.3 ALTERNATIVE ROUTE COMPARISON The six proposed route alternatives were evaluated and compared based on the environmental criteria and sensitivities described above. In addition to weighting individual criterium (i.e., Peregrine Falcon Nest, Bald Eagle Nests, etc.) within a resource category (i.e., Biological Resources, Wetland Resources, Cultural Resources, etc.), each of the seven resource categories evaluated was also weighted for a final composite score. Weighting was assigned by a multi- GVEAMCS.RPT 6-6 DECEMBER 1994 disciplinary team consisting of environmental planners, land use specialists, biologists, geologists, and engineers. The route evaluation methodology is described below. First, the magnitude of the potential for impact on each environmental resource was evaluated by quantifying the resources present along each proposed route. Next, these measurements were scaled to result in a score of between zero and one, with one representing the route with the highest potential to impact that individual criterium. After all of the criteria were converted to scores (ranging from zero to one), these scores were multiplied by a sensitivity weighting factor. Sensitivity factors were assigned according to the sensitivity listed in Table 6-1, with a factor of five assigned to high sensitivity, a factor of four to moderately high, three to moderate, and so on. This resulted in weighted scores for each criteria (a score multiplied by a sensitivity weighting factor). All of the weighted scores in each resource category were then combined to give an overall score for each resource category (Biological Resources, Wetland Resources, etc.). The various resource categories were then weighted before being combined into the final composite score. As described above, these weights were assigned by a multi-disciplinary project team. The results of the evaluation, including the sensitivity weighting factors for each individual criterium, the resource measurements, the resource category scores, the resource category weighting factors, and the weighted final composite scores are included in Table 6-2. The Jumbo Route had the lowest weighted score of all of the proposed route alternatives. The Jumbo Route had the lowest score in the wetland resource category and the visual resource category. This is due to the fact that it crosses a significant area of uplands in the northern foothills of the Alaska Range, which reduces the acreage of wetlands crossed and places the route in a very remote area where few people will see it. Jumbo Route score the highest in terms of geotechnical criteria, which indicates that it is the route that poses the most problem in terms of geological stability and engineering design. This route passes through severe topography with landslide areas and high wind concerns. The Walker Route had the next lowest score and had the lowest score for biological resources, socioeconomic resources, and geotechnical criteria. The Rex Route and the Tatlanika Route were rated close to the Walker Route, while the South Route and the Tanana Flats Route had ratings that were significantly higher than the other proposed routes. GVEAMCS.RPT 6-7 DECEMBER 1994 TABLE 6-2 ALTERNATIVE ROUTE EVALUATION Route ===> Walker Tatlanika Resource 0 0 i 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Bald Eagle Nests (w/in 2 km) High Density Trumpeter Swans Nesting Area (km) Moose Winter Concentration Areas (km) Caribou Fall / Winter Concentration Area (km) aterfowl Migration Corridors (# crossings) Brown Bear Critical Habitat (km) TABLE 6-2 ALTERNATIVE ROUTE EVALUATION (continued) 14 1.8 Anadromous Fish Streams (# crossings) 1240 1.0 2.0 197 200 etlands - High Value Wetlands (Acres) i 1.0 1.0 4.0 4.0 letlands - Floating Bogs (Acres) Archeologic Known Archeologic or Historic Site (#) | High Potential Area for Archeological/ Historic Sites (km) TABLE 6-2 ALTERNATIVE ROUTE EVALUATION (continued) Land Status 3.2 2.8 0 0 0.4 Private (km) 1.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 5 5.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 4 2.4 2.4 72 4.8 3.2 Native Corporation (km) 0.6 0.3 0.3 1.0 0.7 0.4 4 2.4 1.2 12 4.0 2.8 1.6 8.1 3.2 12.9 25.7 25.7 7.2 Mental Health (km) 0.3 0.1 0.5 1.0 1.0 0.3 4 1.2 0.4 2.0 4.0 4.0 12) §.2 §.2 10.1 12.1 12.1 20.1 Mining (km) 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.6 1.0 3 0.9 0.9 1:5 1.8 1.8 3.0 22.5 45.1 45.1 41.8 45.1 49.9 Military (km) 0.5 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.9 1.0 1 0.5 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.9 1.0 cee 8.9 7.2 0 0 0 Federal (State and Native Selected) (km) 1.0 0.5 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 3.0 1.5 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.2 77.3 62.4 45.1 50.7 §7.5 State Lands (inc ARR/UA) (km) 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 3 3.0 2.4 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.8 TABLE 6-2 ALTERNATIVE ROUTE EVALUATION (continued) Route ===> Resource 10 Foreground view from Recreation Areas (km) A 1.0 5.0 Mid-ground view from Recreation Areas (km) Foreground view from Residences (km) Mid-ground view from Residences (km) Foreground view from Alaska Railroad (km) Mid-ground view from Alaska Railroad (km) Foreground view from Parks Highway (km) Mid-ground view from Parks Highway (km) TABLE 6-2 ALTERNATIVE ROUTE EVALUATION (continued) Hees cele Liquification Potential (km) Adverse Trafficability (km) Difficult Foundation Installation (km) Air Traffic Corridor Concerns (# Tanana Crossings) Electromagnetic Fields (# private parcels) TABLE 6-2 ALTERNATIVE ROUTE EVALUATION (continued) Jumbo ewororis TOTALS RESOURCE CATEGORY SCORES Biological Resource Criteria 26.3 19.2 16.6 15.6 16.6 18.5 Wetland Criteria 7.8 9.6 9.4 6.8 8.0 4.8 Cultural Resource Criteria 4.5 3.9 2.4 5.7 3.0 5.1 Land Status 16.0 11.8 8.6 12.1 11.0 9.1 Visual / Resource 36.0 31.2 19.8 17.0 19.8 9.0 Geotechnical Criteria 14.5 15.8 16.2 13.9 15.3 18.3 Socio-economic Criteria 13.0 ad. 4.2 3.9 4.2 4.7 TOTALS 118.1 99.2 77.2 75.0 77.9 69.5 | WEIGHTED FINAL COMPOSITE SCORES Biological Resource Criteria 20 5.3 3.8 3.3 3.1 3.3 3.7 Wetland Criteria 14 141 1.3 1.3 1.0 at 0.7 Cultural Resource Criteria 9 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.5 Land Status 18 2.9 ai 1.5 2.2 2.0 1.6 Visual / Resource 12 4.3 3.7 2.4 2.0 2.4 1.1 Geotechnical Criteria 11 1.6 1.7 1.8 15 137, 2.0 Socio-economic Criteria 16 2.1 1.2 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.8 TOTALS 100 17.6 14.4 © 11.2 11.0 11.4 10.3 7.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS GVEA, as the construction manager for the IPG, has proposed the construction of a 230 kV transmission line between Healy and Fairbanks, Alaska. The IPG is made up of seven utility companies located in Southcentral and Interior Alaska. The project is designed to increase the transfer capability between Anchorage and Fairbanks in order to improve the reliability of service in the Railbelt; to increase the electric transmission capability between Healy, Fairbanks, and Anchorage; and to allow the Railbelt utilities to provide the lowest cost, most reliable service to their customers. GVEA evaluated several alternatives for meeting these goals and determined that construction of a 230 kV overhead transmission line between Healy and Fairbanks was the best alternative. GVEA initiated an environmental analysis under RUS guidelines to select the appropriate transmission line corridor between Healy and Fairbanks. In the original MCS/PAR, three routes were evaluated. Based upon agency and public scoping conducted in September, 1994, four new routes were incorporated into the study. Significant efforts were taken to avoid private properties and residential areas, and one route alternative was dropped from consideration based on a preliminary analysis of the potential to impact private properties and residential areas. This Revised MCS/PAR evaluates the remaining six routes. The six proposed route alternatives were evaluated based on biological, cultural, land status, visual, geotechnical, and economic criteria. These criteria were weighted to reflect the sensitivity of the particular criteria to the construction and operation of a transmission line as discussed in Section 6.0. Although the weighting of the criteria were done in a very simple manner, the weighting was determined to be reasonable based on consultations with specialists in the various disciplines. As would be expected, each route had relatively high impacts in some areas and relatively low impacts in other areas. Based on consideration of all of the resource criteria, the Jumbo Route was found to have the lowest score, reflecting the lowest potential for impacts. The Walker Route, the Rex Route, and the Tatlanika Route were rated close behind the Jumbo Route, while the South Route and Tanana Flats Route were rated as having the highest potential for significant impacts. There are many qualitative considerations that can not be quantified, and are therefore more difficult to compare between routes. This MCS/PAR evaluated criteria which could be measured and which were considered to provide some insight into the potential for impacts associated with each proposed route. Quantifiable data must be refined, qualitative considerations must be weighted and evaluated, and more specific mitigation information must be provided in order to GVEAMCS.RPT 7-1 DECEMBER 1994 more specifically evaluate the potential impacts associated with the proposed project and each proposed route. The MCS/PAR will provide the background data for a more thorough evaluation of potential impacts to be included in the project’s EA. GVEAMCS.RPT 7-2 DECEMBER 1994 APPENDIX A AGENCY AND GOVERNMENT CONTACTS Mr. Bill Keller Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers Regulatory Branch Post Office Box 898 Anchorage, AK 99506-0898 Mr. David Nixon U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 3745 Giest Road, Unit B Fairbanks, AK 99709 Mr. Al Cronk U.S. Bureau of Land Management 1150 University Avenue Fairbanks, AK 99709-3844 Mr. Gary Forman U.S. Bureau of Land Management 1150 University Avenue Fairbanks, AK 99709-3844 Ms. Judy Bittner Alaska Department of Natural Resources State Historic Preservation Officer Post Office Box 107001 Anchorage, AK 99510 Mr. Rick Smith Alaska Department of Natural Resources Division of State Lands 3700 Airport Way Fairbanks, AK 99709 Mr. John Huber ADOT&PF, Utilities Section 12301 Peger Road Fairbanks, AK 99709-5399 Mr. Mike Tinker ADOT&PF, Environmental Section 2301 Peger Road Fairbanks, AK 99709-5399 Ms. Joyce Bealman Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation 610 University Avenue Fairbanks, AK 99709-3643 Mayor John Gonzales Denali Borough Post Office Box 480 Healy, AK 99743 Mr. Jack Granfield Fairbanks - North Star Borough Property Management Section Post Office Box 71267 Fairbanks, AK 99707 Mr. Larry Bright U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 101 - 12th Avenue, Box 19 Room 232 Fairbanks, AK 99701 Mr. Al Ott Alaska Department of Fish & Game 1300 College Road Fairbanks, AK 99701 Mr. Mark Jen U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 222 West 7th Avenue, #19 Anchorage, AK 99513-7588 Mr. Tom Brooks Alaska Railroad Post Office Box 107500 Anchorage, AK 99510-7500 Mr. Kraig Hughes Alaska Railroad Post Office Box 107500 Anchorage, AK 99510-7500 GVEAMCS.RPT A-1 DECEMBER 1994 APPENDIX B RAPTOR SURVEY FIELD REPORT PEREGRINE FALCON NESTING SURVEY TANANA RIVER - FAIRBANKS TO NENANA June 7 - 10, 1994 1.0 INTRODUCTION Dames & Moore has been contracted by Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA) to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) of the proposed 230 kV Northern Intertie Transmission Line from Healy to Fairbanks. Potential environmental affects from the construction and operation of three alternative transmission line routes are addressed in the EA. Two of the proposed alternative routes cross the Tanana River in the vicinity of historic nesting sites of the endangered American Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus annatum). The American Peregrine Falcon is a summer resident of interior Alaska where it nests on steep cliffs and bluffs along rivers. Peregrine Falcon populations throughout North America, including interior Alaska, declined severely in the 1960’s and 70’s due to widespread use of DDT. However, numbers of Peregrines in Alaska have been on the increase since the mid 1980’s and birds are now reoccupying nesting locations which have not been used in many years (S. Ambrose, USFWS, personal communication). In order to adequately assess potential impacts to Peregrine Falcon along the Tanana River within the project area, a Peregrine Falcon field survey was conducted by Dames & Moore along the Tanana River between Fairbanks and Nenana. The purpose of the survey was to document current Peregrine activity at historic nest sites and to see if any new nest sites had been established in the vicinity of proposed transmission line river crossings. The survey was highly recommended by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife (USFWS) - Endangered Species Division during discussions about the transmission line project. Peregrine Falcon surveys have been conducted on the Tanana River each of the last two years by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) (Bente and Wright 1993 and 1994). According to ADF&G, the Tanana River presently supports a total of 26 active Peregrine nest. sites, of which two are located between Fairbanks and Nenana (P. Bente, ADF&G, personal communication). In addition to the two active nests, Roseneau (1984) identifies six additional historical or potential nest sites between Fairbanks and Nenana, and the USFWS has identified an additional three (J. Fadley, USFWS, personal communication). There was a possibility that an ADF&G Peregrine Falcon survey along the Tanana River between Fairbanks and Nenana would not be completed this year in time for inclusion into the EA. Therefore, this survey was Falcon.dee GVEA RAPTOR SURVEY D&M Job No. 09057-012-020 1 OCTOBER 1994 conducted to insure that adequate documentation of the occurrence of Peregrine Falcons within the project area was included in the EA. 2.0 METHODS Initially, two surveys of the river were planned: one during the early nesting period when birds are incubating (around the first week in June); and a second after hatching and prior to fledging of the young (early July). The first survey was conducted from June 7 - 10, 1994. The second survey, primarily intended to document nesting success, was canceled when ADF&G biologists were able to visit the nest sites in July and were able to ascertain nesting success and band the young at each site (P. Bente, Raptor Biologist, ADF&G, personal communication). Dames & Moore’s survey was conducted according to standard Peregrine Falcon survey protocols developed by the USFWS, Endangered Species Division. Historic or potential nesting sites were approached by boat and were observed using a spotting scope. A frontal view approach of the nesting cliff or bluff from a distance far enough away so as to minimize disturbance was the method used. All Peregrine activity in the vicinity of the nesting cliff during the period of observation was recorded, such as vocalization, perching, nest exchanges, or hunting activities. Most sites were watched for approximately four hours or until an active nest was documented. If no activity was noticed, a closer examination of the site was made on foot to see if there were any signs of recent activity or if there were any available nesting ledges. Historic or potential nesting locations surveyed between Nenana and Fairbanks along the Tanana River are presented in Figure 1 and included: ° Chena Bluff ° Salchaket Bluff #1 e Salchaket Bluff #2 (Luke’s Sough) ° Rosie Creek Bluff ° Whiskey Island Bluff e Bonanza Creek Bluff ° Nenana Bluff #1 e Nenana Bluff #2 e Nenana Bluff #3 All other observations of raptors or raptor nests along the river such as Bald Eagles or their nest sites were also recorded incidental to the Peregrine observations. Falcon.dee GVEA RAPTOR SURVEY D&M Job No. 09057-012-020 2 OCTOBER 1994 HISTORICAL/POTENTIAL PEREGRINE NESTING AREA 7 SOUTH ROUTE =eeensnsm 1994 ACTIVB PEREGRINE NEST SITB Y SOUTH ALTERNATIVE ROUTB 3.0 RESULTS The results of the June 1994 survey are summarized in Table 1. A total of two active Peregrine Falcon nesting sites were documented within the section of the Tanana River between Nenana and Fairbanks, both at locations which have been active in recent years. The one closest to Fairbanks is on a large river bluff on the north side of the river, upstream of the mouth of Rosie Creek near Luke’s Slough (Salchaket Bluff #2). This site is referred to as TANA550.0 by the USFWS (river code (TANA) followed by the river milepost (in kilometers) from the headwaters). On June 9th, an adult male Peregrine was perched on the top of the cliff when we arrived. After watching the bird for 2.5 hours, the male exchanged with the female on the nest and the location of the nest site was documented. On July 12th of this year, two nestlings were banded at this site by ADF&G (P. Bente, ADF&G, personal communication). . This site was also active in 1992 when one Peregrine was fledged. In 1993, a non-defensive pair of birds were present at the site early in the breeding season but only a single bird was present in early July when the ADF&G survey was conducted (ADF&G 1993). No young were found at this nest during the 1993 survey. The other active Peregrine nest site was documented on June 7 at what is commonly referred to as “Nenana Bluff #1" or TANA610.0. The site is located approximately 5 miles upstream from Nenana, just below the mouth of Totatlanika Creek. An adult male Peregrine was initially seen flying and vocalizing over the cliff as we arrived at the cliff. A helicopter was taking off from a nearby landing site east of the site but the female on the nest did not flush from the nest as a result of the disturbance. From our vantage point we could not see the exact location of the nest but it was later located in a small shallow cave by ADF&G biologists in July (P. Bente, ADF&G, personal communication). The cliff was also the site of an active raven nest which had three young ready to fledge. The TANA610.0 site was active in 1992 and the pair produced a total of two young. In 1993, this site was also active with a total of four young, all of which were banded. This year, the site was again active and three young were banded (P. Bente, ADF&G, personal communication). According to Dave Maxwell, a forestry technician with the Alaska Department of Natural Resources who is familiar with this site, Peregrines have been nesting at this site for at least the past eight years (P. Bente, ADF&G, personal communication). There were no new Bald Eagle nests sighted along the Tanana River during the Peregrine survey nor were any Bald Eagles seen during the survey. Bald Eagle nest sites along the Tanana River Falcon.dee GVEA RAPTOR SURVEY D&M Job No. 09057-012-020 4 OCTOBER 1994 TABLE 1 RESULTS OF PEREGRINE FALCON SURVEY TANANA RIVER - JUNE 7-10, 1994 — ies ee Chena Bluff 6/9/94 No Peregrines seen - one raven’s nest with three young. House on top of bluff and activity on the river may limit this site as a viable Peregrine nesting site. Salchaket Bluff #1 6/9/94 No Peregrines seen - little available nesting habitat. . Salchaket Bluff #2 6/9/94 Active Peregrine nest. Adults incubating. (TANASS0.0) Two young fledged at this site (P. Bente, pers. comm.). Rosie Creek Bluff 6/8/94 No Peregrines seen - House on top of the bluff may limit use of this site by Peregrines. Bonanza Creek Bluff 6/8/94 No Peregrines seen - little available nesting habitat, no signs of any recent nesting activity. Whiskey Island Bluff 6/8/94 Nenana Bluff #1 6/7/94 (TANA610.0) Nenana Bluff #2 6/7/94 Nenana Bluff #3 6/7/94 Falcon.dee GVEA RAPTOR SURVEY D&M Job No. 09057-012-020 5 OCTOBER 1994 No Peregrines seen - little available nesting habitat and no sign of any recent nesting activity. Active Peregrine site, adults incubating. Three young fledged at this site (P. Bente, pers. comm.). No Peregrines seen - One Merlin seen flying over the site. No Peregrines seen - some habitat exists in the general area but exact location of historic site is unknown, could be at one of three locations. are rather sparse with ten documented nest sites between Fairbanks and Nenana (J. Fadely, USFWS, personal communication). Three of these are located across the Tanana River from Fairbanks, and the remainder are situated on islands in the river or on tributaries to the Tanana River draining from the Tanana Flats. The only other raptors recorded during the survey included one Red-tailed Hawk soaring over Bonanza Creek and a Merlin flying over the Nenana Bluff #2 site. 4.0 DISCUSSION With the rapid expansion of the Tanana/Yukon Peregrine population, there is a strong possibility that some of the historic nest sites may become occupied in the near future as young birds begin establishing new territories. The Tanana River has shown a steady increase in newly-occupied sites and productivity in recent years (ADF&G 1994). If this increase continues, the optimal habitat will likely become saturated with nesting pairs and lower quality sites will have some activity. Therefore, it is important to treat all suitable habitat as possible Peregrine nesting sites. Of the three alternative routes under consideration for this project, the South Route alternative comes the closest to Peregrine nesting habitat. This route passes near potential nest sites at two of the three river crossings (Figure 1). The first crossing, approximately 10 kilometers upstream from Nenana, passes within two kilometers of the active nest at Nenana Bluffs #1 and the historic site at Nenana Bluffs #2. The second crossing of the river by the South Route is, approximately 22 kilometers downstream from Fairbanks and within 1.6 kilometers of Rosie Creek Bluff. There is some question as to whether Peregrines have ever nested at this site but it does offer some potential habitat (P. Bente, personal communication). This crossing location is far enough downstream from the active nest at Salchaket Bluff #2 that it should not have any significant affect on the pair using that site. The North Route crosses the Tanana River once approximately two kilometers downstream from the Southern Route crossing near the Nenana Bluffs. The route crosses the river between the historic nest sites at Nenana Bluffs #2 and #3. This crossing is farther away from the active nest at TANA610.0 and passes behind the hill so it would not be directly visible from the cliff. The South Alternative (Tanana Flats) Route does not come closer than 5 kilometers of the active nest at TANA550.0 or any of the historic or potential nest sites on the Tanana River. Potential impacts to nesting Peregrines at the active site on Nenana Bluff #1 from the crossing locations could likely be mitigated by locating the crossing of the Northern or Southern routes Falcon.dee | GVEA RAPTOR SURVEY D&M Job No. 09057-012-020 6 OCTOBER 1994 a minimum of 2.5 kilometers downstream of the Nenana Bluff #2 and routing the line behind the hill just west of the site so it would not be within the direct view of the nesting cliff. 5.0 REFERENCES Bente, P. and J. Wright. 1993. Documentation of active Peregrine Falcon nest sites. Final Report. Fed. Aid in Wildlife Restoration. Project SE-2-7. July 1992 - June 1993. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, AK. Bente, P. and J. Wright. 1994. Documentation of Peregrine Falcon nest sites in relation to State land use proposals. Draft Report. Project SE-2-7. July 1993 - June 1994. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, AK. . Ambrose, S. Raptor Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, personal communications, 1994. Bente, P. Raptor Biologist, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, personal communications, 1994. Roseneau, D. 1984. Peregrine Falcons: Historical nesting habitat, Tanana River, Fairbanks to Nenana. LGL Alaska Research Associates. Report to Harza-Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture. Anchorage, AK. Falcon.dee GVEA RAPTOR SURVEY D&M Job No. 09057-012-020 7 OCTOBER 1994 ASAAUIS AULAVA VIAL APPENDIX C CULTURAL RESOURCE STUDY CULTURAL RESOURCES OF THE GVEA NORTHERN INTERTIE PREPARED BY NORTHERN LAND USE RESEARCH, INC. PREPARED FOR DAMES AND MOORE, INC. FOR INCLUSION IN THE REVISED NORTHERN INTERTIE MACRO-CORRIDOR STUDY NOVEMBER 1994 Cultural Resources Cultural resources refer to archaeological or historic properties. Such resources generally include sites, districts, structures, buildings, artifacts, fossils or other objects of antiquity, which provide information about the historic or prehistoric culture of people or the natural history of the area. In order to be considered "historic", a property must be more than 50 years old, unless it has exceptional national, state, or local significance. It generally must meet the requirements for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. Archaeological sites on state lands are addressed by the Alaska Historic Preservation Act (Alaska Statute 41.35) which protects historic, prehistoric (including paleontological deposits), and archaeological resources situated on state owned or controlled lands, including tidelands and submerged land. Archaeological sites on federal land and some Indian lands are protected under the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (PL 96-95). Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA - 16 USC 470a) requires that federal agencies consider what effects their actions, and actions they may assist, permit, or license, may have on historic and prehistoric properties. NHPA also confers upon the State Historic Preservation Officer certain duties to ensure that concerns related to the importance of cultural resources are addressed. The macro-corridor encloses areas containing sites which span the entire period from the late Pleistocene (ice-age) to present, and includes some of the oldest, well-documented archaeological sites in North America. Much of the research efforts which led to the discovery of these sites took place in the vicinity of Healy and adjacent localities along the northern flank of the Alaska Range. Nearly 12,000 years of human prehistory are recorded in the Nenana Valley, and over 9,000 years are recorded in the Fairbanks area. The cultural chronology for the study area includes the following temporal and cultural divisions: (1) Nenana/Denali complexes, (12,000 to 7,000 years before present (B.P.)), (2) Northern Archaic Tradition (6,000 to 1,000 B.P.), (3) Late Denali complex (3,500 to 1,500 B.P.) (5) Athapaskan Tradition (2,000 B.P. to Present), and Historic Period (A.D. 1875 to Present). (Powers and Hoffecker 1989; modified from Dixon 1985). Prehistoric site types that may be expected in the study area include camp sites, kill and game butchering sites, stone tool manufacturing sites, villages, fishing sites, burials, caribou drive sites, and quarry sites. Historic resources might include sites associated with the Alaska railroad, mining, roadhouses, and historic trails. The lower Tanana region was traditionally used by Tanana Athapaskans of the Salcha-Goodpaster, Chena, and Wood River/Nenana-Toklat bands (McKennan 1981). The Native bands had semi-permanent, seasonally used camps located along the Tanana River near the mouths of the Chena, Wood, and Nenana rivers (Andrews 1977:131). Traditional hunting technology included caribou fences or corrals, moose and mountain sheep snares/bow and arrow hunting, snares and deadfall for smaller game, and fish weirs, dip nets and cylindrical traps for fish. Moose and salmon were gathered for community use. Berries were picked in late summer and fall. Beavers, muskrat and lynx were trapped during winter for furs and consumption. Wood River people set nets in sloughs of the Tanana for whitefish during the late spring/early summer runs (Shinkwin and Case 1984). Three abandoned historic native villages, camps, and cemeteries are reported in the general vicinity of the macro-corridor (Andrews 1977). Two camps are associated with the Wood River band of Athapaskan Indians during the late 19th and early 20th centuries; the other village, Chena Village and cemetery, is associated with the now extinct Chena band of the Athapaskans. The present town of Nenana has become a common settlement for descendants of the Wood River and Nenana-Toklat bands and former band boundaries have become indistinct with respect to recent use of wild resources (Shinkwin and Case 1984:4). The non-Native population grew between 1916 and 1923 due to the construction of the Alaska Railroad (Shinkwin and Case 1984). = Historic settlements in the macro-corridor area occur along the Tanana and Nenana Rivers. The non-native Historic Period dates to the first accounts of exploration into Alaska’s interior region, which began in about 1875. Several military and geological expeditions were mounted to map water/land routes, and explore animal and mineral resources. Euroamerican durable goods traded into the Alaska’s interior affected Native subsistence gathering and settlement practices. Mining, railroad construction and centralization of supplies were the principle reasons for the establishment of Fairbanks, Ester, and Healy, all initially settled in the first decade of the 20th century. Fairbanks was founded in 1901, by trader E.T. Barnette, on the banks of the Chena River. Fairbanks grew as a major supply center as the mines north of town were developed. Ester, located less than 12 miles from Fairbanks, was established in 1906 from placer gold camps located along Ester Creek at the base of Ester Dome. Many early small placer claims produced gold from the Ester area creeks, but the most significant amounts of gold were retrieved through the dredging efforts of the Fairbanks Exploration Company during the 1930s and 1940s. The proposed routes of the GVEA powerline skirt the northern and western limits of the Bonnifield mining district, established in 1903. After the major gold strike of Fairbanks in 1902-1903, interest in the Bonnifield region began with much gold prospecting on the major creek basins between 1903 to 1906 (Capps 1912:9). By 1906 the Tanana hills placer gold producing creeks included Totatlanika (1906), Tatlanika (1905), Gold King (1903) and Portage creeks (Capps 1911:222-229). Placer mining on eastern tributaries of the Nenana River, began on Hoseanna (Lignite) Creek, Moose Creek, and Healy Creek began as early as 1909. No rich placers were found in the district but placer mining continued at a small scale. Low-grade placer mines developed along the western edge of the district as the new Alaska Railroad improved transportation to the region (Brooks 1923). Gold lode prospecting in the Bonnifield district started in 1908 along bedrock exposures on tributaries of Wood River. Prospects in 1916 were centered around Eva Creek, a tributary of California Creek of the Totatlanika River. The principal property producing lode ore was from the Liberty Bell mine on Eva Creek, only 11 miles from Ferry (Moffit 1930). Other properties were producing gold from ores whose principal metals of value were silver and lead (Smith 1941:174). The region’s vast coal sources eventually overshadowed the steady but minimal gold production. Coal deposits in the Healy area were first noted by Brooks (1902), but exploitation of the resource was not planned until a railroad was built that could economically transport the coal to Fairbanks (Capps 1912:55). A. E. “Cap” Lathrop of Fairbanks and two partners from Nenana established the Healy River Coal Company and mining community of Suntrana several miles up Healy Creek (Usibelli Coal Miner 1993:6). Suntrana supplied the bulk of coal to Fairbanks and the military up to 1943. Usibelli Coal Mine (UCM) was founded in 1943 by Emil Usibelli under contract to the military as a secondary supplier (Usibelli Coal Miner 1993:1). A few railroad employees lived with their families in Healy. The Broad Pass Development Co. mined some coal from Lignite (Hoseanna) Creek during the winter of 1920-21 (Brooks 1923:17), but significant coal production from the creek did not began until fairly recent times. Healy miners began settling with the railroad community on the west side of the Nenana River after the construction of the Parks Highway in 1971, and Suntrana was eventually dismantled (Usibelli Coal Miner 1993). Trails across the Tanana flats were created principally for supplying mining ventures in the Alaska Range. The Bonnifield trail (RS 2477 #462), established in 1903, was a good winter road from Fairbanks to Gold King Creek. The trail, which passes near Clear Creek Butte, was primarily used in winter to haul supplies into gold producing creeks of the Bonnifield mining district. Another trail, the Kobe-Bonnifield trail (RS 2477 #119), runs east-west along the margin of the Tanana Flats and the Alaska Range. A wagon road, built in the 1920s by the Alaska Road Commission, ran from Ferry into the head of the Totatlanika River basin, and enabled supplies to be brought into the district during the summer months (Moffit 1930). This road contributed to development of lode gold mining in the Eva Creek area. The Alaska Heritage Resource Survey files document over 100 archaeological and historic sites within one mile of the Northern Intertie macro-corridor. Areas with high concentrations of known archaeological and historical sites include Fairbanks, Nenana, Healy, and the Wood River Buttes and Clear Creek Butte areas. The east side of the Nenana Valley has over 40 sites within the proposed corridor. Thirty-four sites have been identified on the Tanana Flats in the vicinity of the Wood River Buttes and Clear Creek Butte, while seven sites are known to exist in and around Nenana. Many of the Nenana Valley prehistoric sites contain lithic artifacts (e.g. microblades, projectile points, scrapers, and debitage) composed of chert, rhyolite, basalt, and obsidian. Organic remains are limited to occasional bone fragments. Lithics generally found at the sites suggest Nenana Complex, early and late Denali Complex, or Northern Archaic tradition affinities (Dixon 1985, Powers and Hoffecker 1989). Twenty-eight historical or archaeological sites are documented in the Wood River Butte area (Dixon et al. 1980, Reynolds 1986). Sites are located for the most part on areas of high ground suitable for scouting game and are split fairly evenly between the east and west buttes. All but one of the sites are classified as prehistoric. Surface reconnaissance at the prehistoric sites produced an assortment of tools and evidence of toolmaking including flakes and waste flakes, projectiles, scrapers, and ungulate bone and tooth fragments. Five archaeological sites have been documented at the Clear Creek Butte area. All are classified as prehistoric and are located within the Clear Creek Butte Archaeological district. Surface reconnaissance at the five sites produced an assortment of tools and debris similar to those described at Wood River Butte sites. All sites, save the lower-lying one, are in areas that have been heavily disturbed by past military activities. In addition to the known archaeological and historic sites, the macro-corridor has areas which have a high potential for cultural resources but which have not yet been surveyed. Common topographic settings for the prehistoric sites include areas with relatively high topographic relief and good drainage such as buttes, bluff edges and ridges and proximity to streams and rivers. Discovery of archaeological sites is no doubt biased towards these settings because of their greater visibility in the archaeological record (Dixon, et al. 1980:33). Sediment deposition on ridges and buttes is low and cultural remains are often encountered within 50 cm below the surface. In contrast, cultural remains located in topographically low areas such as the Tanana floodplain may be covered by hundreds of feet of alluvium. Due to the high potential for cultural resources in areas of the proposed corridors, an archaeological survey is likely to be required along the final route alignment in the high potential areas. In 1994, a Section 106 cultural resources survey was undertaken of the Southern Route and Tanana Flats Alternatives of the Northern Intertie, which identified a total of 22 historic, archaeological, or recent use sites located within about 0.5 mile of the project. Eight of these sites were previously-unknown archaeological or historic sites, and were discovered as a result of a pedestrian survey of selected areas of the powerline right of way. A total of five sites lie within 0.1 mile of the alignment, although not all of these sites are historically significant. The greatest number of sites (n = 17; 15 archaeological, 1 historic, 1 recent use) occurs in the northern foothills of the Alaska Range, within the Link 1 segment. Two recent use sites were identified within the Link 2 area (Tanana Flats area), 3 sites (2 archaeological, 1 recent use) in the Link 3 area (hills north of the Tanana River), and none in either Link 4 or Link 5 (both located in the Tanana Flats south of Fairbanks). Two prehistoric sites dating to between 7,700 and 11,350 years old, lie adjacent to the alignment and meet eligibility requirements for the National Register of Historic Places. Both sites may be adversely affected by construction activities associated with the 230 kV Intertie. Options for mitigation include: (1) avoidance, (2) monitoring, and (3) data recovery (excavation). The recommended mitigation measures at these important archaeological sites are avoidance and monitoring. It is believed that adverse impacts to the sites may be prevented through careful placement of utility features, by minimizing ground disturbing activities, and by avoiding use of all terrain vehicles in the immediate area of the sites. Several areas along the alignment in the vicinity of the Tanana River could not be surveyed on the ground in 1994 because permission from private land owners could not be obtained. Based upon helicopter reconnaissance, air photo analysis, and comparisons with similar settings, these areas appear to be high potential areas for the discovery of significant cultural resources. Should an alternative be chosen that affects these areas, they will need to be surveyed to satisfy the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. References Cited Andrews, Elizabeth F. 1977. Report on the Cultural Resources of the Doyon Region, Central Alaska. Anthropology and Historic Preservation Cooperative Park Studies Unit, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Occasional Paper No. 5 Brooks, A. H. 1902. Coal resources of Alaska. Twenty-second Annual Report of the U. S. Geological Survey, pt. 3: 515-571. -----1923. The Alaska mining industry in 1921. in Mineral Resources of Alaska, 1921. U. S. Geological Survey Bulletin 739, pp.1-44. Government Printing Office, Washington. Capps, Stephen R. 1911. Mineral Resources of the Bonnifield Region. In: Mineral Resources of Alaska, 1910. U. S. Geological Survey Bulletin 480, pp.218-235, Government Printing Office, Washington. -----1912. The Bonnifield Region Alaska. U. S. Geological Survey Bulletin 501, Government Printing Office, Washington. Dixon, E. James. 1985. Cultural Chronology of Central Interior Alaska. Arctic Anthropology 22(1):47-66. Dixon, E. James, George S. Smith and David C. Plaskett. 1980. Archaeological Survey and Inventory of Cultural Resources, Fort Wainwright, Alaska. Final Report Submitted by the University of Alaska-Fairbanks to the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District (DACA85-78-C-0047). Gudgel-Holmes, D. 1979. Ethnohistory of Four Interior Alaskan Waterbodies. Research report from State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Research and Development, Anchorage. McKennan, Robert A. 1981. Tanana. Jn Handbook of North American Indians Vol. 6, pp. 562-576. Moffit, Fred H. 1933. Mining Development in the Tatlanika and Totatlanika Basins, Jn Mineral Resources of Alaska, 1930. U. S. Geological Survey Bulletin 836, pp.339-345, Government Printing Office, Washington. Powers, W. Roger and John F. Hoffecker. 1989. Late Pleistocene Settlement in the Nenana Valley, Central Alaska. American Antiquity 54(2):263-287. Reynolds, Georgeanne. 1986. Historic Preservation Plan, U.S. Army Installations and Satellites in Alaska, Phase I: Inventory of Cultural Resources and Overview. Anchorage, Alaska: US. Army Corps of Engineers. Shinkwin, A. and Martha Case. 1984. Modern Foragers: Wild Resource Use in Nenana Village, Alaska. Alaska Department of Fish & Game, Division of Subsistence, Technical Paper No. 91. Smith, Philip S. 1941. Past Lode-Gold Production from Alaska. In: Mineral Resources of Alaska, 1938. U. S. Geological Survey Bulletin 917, pp.159-212, Government Printing Office, Washington. Usibelli Coal Miner . 1993. "Usibelli Coal Mine Celebrates 50th Anniversary." Usibelli Coal Mine, Inc., Vol. 13, July. List of Preparers: Peter Bowers (M.A., Washington State University). Cultural resources task leader, author/editor of final report, field director. Owen Mason (PhD, University of Alaska). Geoarchaeology, predictive modeling, co-author of resources report, literature review, field survey. Stefanie Ludwig (M.A. Washington State University). Co-author of resources report, literature review, field survey. Andrew Higgs (M.A. University of Alaska). Co-author of resources report, literature review, field survey. Charles Smythe (PhD, University of Oregon. Co-author of resources report, literature review. APPENDIX D WETLANDS SURVEY APPENDIX D WETLANDS SURVEY Ld = , \ 3 wo ‘ 1 ~ _ rat v3 ) ) r s " 1S oF a wee e J ff 7 Vw é % Y le “ 4 sis Ne ~ rt p 6 4 J G > J 1 : a iy : 4 ( 5 pute eae « f * ve) S) PS tn IK ; w_'S 7 7 ( > SG 5 MM yy RV = 24 ok Z fT \ 4 ~ f ¢ 77 od |‘ | WETLANDS SURVEY FOR PROPOSED . NORTHERN INTERTIE - HEALY TO FAIRBANKS ? I | ai Revised Draft Report ( \ -Prepared for: Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc. P. O. Box 71249 Fairbanks, AK 9970731249 Prepared by: Janet G. Kidd Alaska Biological Research, Inc. , P. O. Box 81934 Fairbanks, AK 99708 30 November 1994 WETLANDS SURVEY FOR PROPOSED NORTHERN INTERTIE - HEALY TO FAIRBANKS Revised Draft Report Prepared for: Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc. P. O. Box 71249 Fairbanks, AK 99707-1249 Prepared by: Janet G. Kidd Alaska Biological Research, Inc. P. O. Box 81934 Fairbanks, AK 99708 30 November 1994 TABLE OF CONTENTS SASTIUAIN UGA RO UIC srsscsarratsscsesuscecenensshesvansqioteonasssurssussisexaesevisesstvecssesciapomssaasns esas agrees 17: ROUTE COMPARISONS ooscscigg 8s csscecxsvcssucscactgesecucevtsscnesesesnsasacreasenecdeeeveqeesueessditusgesteereo-ores 17 CONCLUSIONS ...00...eeeeceeecseseesesseseeseeeeseeseeseeseeseeseeseeaesaeeseesecseesecsacsecseceaeeaesaeeaeseaeseeeaeseaeeaeens 19 LITERATURE: CYIED is... qssscessscscsssessesuesessvsvtasssctactetisuvenlsurvdbaseenasedisesesttsneqra nb eemeseessssoreasecw 21 APPENDIX A. WETLAND MAPS 0.000... cccccecsseseeeseseseseesseceneeceseeseseeaeseseeseeeaeeaeeaeeeseeaeeeees 23 APPENDIX B. LISTING OF PLANT SPECIES. .0000..0.....ccccesccscssscsseseeseeesceecesceaeeeneeeceeeeeeeenees 62 APPENDIX C. WETLAND DELINEATION FIELD DATA FORMS. ...00..0.....ccecceeceeseeseeseeeees 64 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Wetland types identified within the proposed Northern Intertie routes. ............0.0...e 7 Table 2. Total acreage and percentage of each wetland type (and upland) along the six proposed Northern Intertie routes. ..............ccccccccccescesceseeseeseeeseecesceseeeeeaeeseeaeseeeeseeseeenseeseeseeeeeees 13 Table 3. Total number of each wetland type encountered along each of the six proposed Northern Intertic routes..............:se-sccceescenceseeseoceceocecensnceareneiesstacetsecessesascessssesegececsssosseesvesSebeeser 15 Table of Contents Table 4. Relative ranking of each route alternative based on percent total acreage and selected wetland fUNCHONS (=e eee Sees Geiser so ae 18 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Map of Northern Intertie Study Area showing proposed intertie routes................0..0.0... 2 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This study was funded by Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc. (GVEA). I would like to thank Steve Haagenson, Manager of Engineering Services, GVEA; Maryellen Tuttell and Dave Erickson, Dames and Moore, Inc.; Jon Hall, National Wetlands Inventory, and Roger Post, Alaska Dept. Fish and Game for their help in this study. Laura Jacobs assisted in the field, Betty Anderson assisted with wetland functional characterization, and Mike Smith, John Rose, and Allison Zusi-Cobb provided graphical assistance. Terrence Davis gave clerical help and Betty Anderson provided editorial assistance. INTRODUCTION This wetlands survey was conducted to evaluate the wetland resources along six alternate intertie routes being considered for placement of a single 230-kV transmission line that will run from Healy to Fairbanks, Alaska. The proposed intertie, known as the Northern Intertie, is designed to increase the efficiency of electrical transfer between Healy and Fairbanks and to improve the overall electrical service in the railbelt area. The wetlands survey will identify the different wetland types that occur along each of the routes, map their distribution and abundance, and evaluate their resource functions. Although there are no plans to fill or dredge wetlands during construction or maintenance of the intertie route, this survey will help identify wetlands that have important functional significance to provide guidance for selecting the final route and directing intertie development efforts. STUDY AREA The Northern Intertie study area is located in the Yukon-Tanana Lowlands of Interior Alaska (Figure 1). The climate is continental, with long, very cold winters (mean = -2.5 °C) and short, mild summers (mean = 11.9 °C). Total annual precipitation is low (28 cm). Boreal and taiga forest dominate at this latitude, comprised of solid and mixed stands of white spruce and paper birch on well-drained uplands, stands of black spruce on north-facing slopes, and scattered forests of balsam poplar and quaking aspen on active floodplains and south-facing slopes respectively. Low-lying areas that are poorly drained with shallow permafrost are composed of tamarack and stunted black spruce that grade into treeless bogs of shrub birch and diamond-leaf willow with emergent grasses and sedges. Oxbow lakes and small ponds are numerous within the large meandering floodplain of the Tanana River. The six intertie routes analyzed for wetland resources are referred to as the Jumbo, Rex, Walker, Tatlanika, Tanana Flats, and South routes (Figure 1). All routes (referred to as the Common Route) begin in Healy, heading north along the east side of the Nenana River on an old river terrace. Approximately six km north of Healy, the Jumbo Route diverges from the G Map Location % Northern Intertie Study Area Proposed Routes ——— Common Route ccces Jumbo Route —— Walker Route e---e-- Tatlanika Route —+-— Rex Route ++ Tanana Flats Route +—+— South Route © Field Stations Map Scale: 1 in. = 10 mi. ABR Map: STDYAREA.WOR Figure 1. Map of Northern Intertie Study Area showing proposed intertie routes. Study Area Common Route to the northeast for about 28 km before heading north to converge again with all the other routes 13 km south of Fairbanks. The Walker Route diverges from the Common Route a few km north of the Jumbo Route, heading northeast to join the other routes. The Tatlanika Route heads north from the Walker Route just south of Tatlanika Creek to join the Tanana Flats Route near the Wood River. The Rex Route follows the Walker Route for approximately 5 km before heading north to join the Tanana Flats Route. The Tanana Flats Route diverges from the Common Route where the foothills of the Alaska Range grade into the Tanana Lowlands, and heads northeast across the Tanana Lowlands into south Fairbanks. The South Route continues north from the Common Route across the Tanana Lowlands, then shifts to the northeast traversing the Tanana Uplands before joining the Tanana Flats Route 13 km south of Fairbanks. METHODS The wetlands survey comprised five elements: National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map review, field survey, classification and description, final mapping, and map production. The NWI maps were used as base maps for delineating the linear boundaries of each wetland type along the proposed intertie routes. A southern section of the Common Route (where all the routes are joined) near Chicken and Moose Creek (Figure 1) was mapped in more detail because brush-cut roads may need to be constructed within the floodplains of the creeks to gain access to the intertie (Steve Haagenson, GVEA, pers. comm.). The mapping codes used for each wetland type followed the Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et al. 1979). After the preliminary mapping was completed, a field survey of the South and Tanana Flats intertie routes was conducted by helicopter on 15-16 September 1994 to verify the NWI delineations and provide preliminary jurisdictional wetland determinations. A total of 20 sites were surveyed to obtain onsite information for the wetland types identified. Although every attempt was made to deploy the field crew directly on the alignment, this often was difficult due to logistical constraints. All of the wetland types identified in the field, however, occur along the routes and thus, still serve to validate NWI photo interpretations and provide wetland 3 Methods jurisdictional determinations. The remaining routes have not been field surveyed because they were added to the study after it was no longer feasible to conduct field investigations due to winter conditions. The wetland status of each site investigated in the field was determined following the procedures described in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (1987). The Federal manual approach involves evaluating the vegetation, pedology, and hydrology of each proposed wetland type to determine if it possesses wetland characteristics. Specifically, plant communities are considered wetlands if they "... are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions." (Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual 1987, p. 13). The field method used to determine whether the wetland types mapped satisfied wetland jurisdictional requirements was Level 2 (Onsite Inspection Necessary) of the Routine Determinations methods (Section D, Subsection 2, Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual 1987). First, the dominant species were recorded within each vegetation type by surveying the vegetation in a 5-m? area. If species were highly clumped in distribution, a larger area was surveyed to more accurately assess the dominant species. Each species was assigned a wetland indicator status code, obtained from the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Alaska (Region A) (Reed 1988). Five wetland indicator categories are used to identify wetland species: 1) Obligate wetland species - species that occur in wetlands 100% of the time (OBL); 2) Facultative wetland species - species that occur in wetlands most of the time, but are also found in non-wetland areas (FACW); 3) Facultative species - species that are equally likely to occur in wetland and non- wetland areas (FAC); 4) Facultative upland species - species that usually occur in upland areas (FACU); and 5) Upland species - species that are rarely found in wetlands (UV). Methods To determine if soils reflected wetland conditions, a soil pit was dug in each vegetation type to determine if hydric soil indicators were present. Indicators of hydric soil conditions include the presence of an organic soil at least 40 cm thick (Histosol); an aquic or peraquic moisture regime; gleyed, low chroma, and low chroma mottled soils; and dark vertical streaking of subsurface horizons by overlying organic matter (common in sandy hydric soils). Soil color and composition were determined from Munsell Soil Color Charts (1990) and Keys to Soil Taxonomy (Soil Survey Staff 1990). Photographs were taken of each site using ASA 200 print film. Finally, the site was examined for the presence of wetland hydrologic indicators. These included the presence of standing water, soil saturation within 30 cm of the surface or evidence suggesting periods of past inundation, such as water marks, drift lines, soggy or mucky surface conditions, surface-scoured areas, and surficial water-borne sediment deposits on vegetation or other land features. Each wetland type was classified according to Cowardin et al. (1979), and vegetation types were classified using The Alaska Vegetation Classification (Viereck et al. 1992). Taxonomic nomenclature follows Hultén (1968), with the exception of willows (Salix spp.), which follows Viereck and Little (1972). Soil types were identified using Keys to Soil Taxonomy (Soil Survey Staff 1990), Soil Survey of Goldstream-Nenana Area, Alaska (Furbush and Schoephorster 1977), and Phase 1 Geotechnical Investigation Northern Intertie Healy to Fairbanks, Alaska (Golder Associates 1994). A generalized description for each map unit then was developed, describing the hydrology, environmental setting, soils, and dominant plant species. Final mapping of wetland types for the South and Tanana Flats routes was based on field revision of preliminary maps and on information obtained from the field stations. The other routes were mapped using the NWI maps as the base map, with the exception of a small portion of Jumbo Route that has not been mapped by NWI. Wetlands along this portion of the route were classified and delineated on acetate overlaying a 1:65,000-scale color infrared (CIR) aerial photo. The maps then were proofed and cross-checked for consistency in mapping units. The final maps were produced by digitizing the segment lengths of each wetland type using At/as-GIS and MapInfo. To calculate the total acreage of each wetland type along the routes, segment 5 Methods lengths along each alignment were multiplied by 50 m, which is the approximate width of the right of way that will be needed to construct the intertie. Minimum mapping unit was 0.5 acres. RESULTS OVERVIEW Twenty-eight wetland types were identified along the six proposed intertie routes (Table 1). Maps presenting the distribution of the wetland types along each route are located in Appendix A. The most common wetland types in the study area were scrub shrub and forested lowlands. These wetlands were found in valley bottoms, in depressions on hilltops, and interspersed among marshes and floating mats in the Tanana Lowlands. Riparian communities were the next most common wetland types and they were found along major rivers and smaller streams, and as isolated islands within the Tanana Lowlands. Ponds and marshes were scattered within the lowlands in areas with impeded drainage. The six most common soil types in the study area were Pergelic Cryaquepts, Histic Pergelic Cryaquepts, Pergelic Cryofibrists, and Typic, Alfic, and Aeric Cryochrepts. Pergelic Cryaquept soils were found in low-lying seasonally flooded wetlands and had a shallow surface mat of partially decomposed organic matter grading into a dark gray sandy loam. Histic Pergelic Cryaquept soils were typical of saturated scrub shrub and forested lowlands and had a surface horizon of slightly to moderately decomposed organic matter followed by a dark green-gray (gleyed) silt loam. Pergelic Cryofibrists were poorly drained organic soils (Histosols) made up of predominantly a thick layer of undecomposed sedge and moss peat. They were found in sedge marshes and some scrub shrub lowlands where the water table was close to the surface. The Typic, Alfic, and Aeric Cryochrepts were upland soils found on floodplains and gentle-sloping hills. They consisted of well-drained silty gravels (or sands) to moderately well drained silt loams. The vegetation of these soil types was comprised of solid or mixed forests of paper birch, white spruce, quaking aspen, and willows. Results Dominant Plant Species? Buckbean-water horsetail- marsh cinquefoil Beaked sedge -cattail- buckbean-soft-leaf sedge Beaked sedge-poor sedge- narrow-leaf cottongrass Bluejoint-river beauty Felt-leaf, diamond-leaf, gray- leaf willows-alder /bluejoint- narrow-leaf cottongrass Felt-leaf, gray-leaf willows- thin-leaf alder Felt-leaf, gray-leaf willows- thin-leaf alder See above listing for seasonally flooded Felt-leaf, gray-leaf willows- thin-leaf alder Shrub birch-diamond-leaf willow-leatherleaf-Labrador tea-marsh cinquefoil/ cottongrass tussock-bluejoint -beaked sedge-poor sedge Table 1. Wetland types identified within the proposed Northern Intertie routes. Wetland NWI Type Classification’ Hydrology Physiognomic Vegetation Type’ _ Creek R3 UBH Permanently flooded River Fla/Bar R3 USC Seasonally Barren (cover less than 30%) flooded Pond PUBH Permanently flooded PAB3H Permanently Aquatic bed flooded Sedge Marsh PEMIH Permanently Subarctic lowland herb bog flooded meadow Floating Mat PEMIF Semi- Subarctic lowland sedge wet permanently meadow flooded Moist Meadow PEMIC Seasonally Bluejoint meadow flooded Riparian Shrub P SS/EM 1C Seasonally Open tall shrub flooded PSS1C Seasonally Closed tall shrub flooded PSS1/USA Temporarily Open tall shrub flooded PSS/EM1A Temporarily Open tall shrub flooded PSSI1A Temporarily Closed tall shrub flooded Scrub Shrub P SS/EM 1B Saturated Mixed shrub-graminoid Lowland meadow PSS1B Saturated © Mesic shrub birch-ericaceous shrub Shrub birch-diamond-leaf willow-Labrador tea- lingonberry-bog blueberry/ cottongrass tussock Results Table 1. (continued). Wetland NWI Type Classification’ __Hydrology _ Physiognomic Vegetation Type” Dominant Plant Species Scrub Shrub PSS2B Saturated Dwarf tamarack Tamarack/shrub birch- Lowland Labrador tea PSS4B Saturated Dwarf black spruce Black spruce/Labrador tea PSS 4/1B Saturated Dwarf black spruce/ ericaceous _ Black spruce/Labrador tea- shrub/shrub birch lingonberry-blueberry- shrub birch PSS 4/2B Saturated Dwarf black spruce-dwarf Black spruce-tamarack/ tamarack Labrador tea Riparian PFO/SS1A Temporarily Open Poplar-birch Paper birch-balsam Broad-leaf flooded poplar/willow/bluejoint Forest PFOI1A Temporarily Aspen-poplar-birch Aspen-paper birch-balsam flooded poplar/willow/bluejoint Riparian - PFO4/SS1A Temporarily Open white spruce White spruce-willow/ Needle-leaf flooded bluejoint Forest Riparian PFO4/1A Temporarily White spruce-paper birch White spruce-paper birch/ ixed Forest flooded willow/bluejoint Needleaf PFO4/SS1B Saturated Open black spruce Black spruce/green alder- Forested shrub birch-lingonberry Lowland PFO/SS4B Saturated Open black spruce Black spruce/Labrador tea- bog blueberry-lingonberry PFO2B Saturated Tamarack Tamarack/Labrador tea- shrub birch PFO4B Saturated Black spruce Black spruce/Labrador tea/ cottongrass tussock Mixed PFO4/1B Saturated Black spruce-paper birch Black spruce/paper birch/ Forested Labrador tea/lingonberry Lowland PFO4/2B Saturated Black spruce-tamarack Black spruce-tamarack /Labrador tea ' National Wetlands Inventory, Cowardin et al. (1979). ? Level IV, Alaska Vegetation Classification, Viereck et al. (1992). > Scientific names of plant species are given in Appendix B. Results types are grouped within one description because soil and hydrologic relationships are similar and the types differ only in the dominance of one or more plant species. The functional assessment of each wetland type (group) came from a variety of sources including Sather et. al. (1984), Kessel (1979), and Dan Gibson (UAF Museum, pers. comm.). Rivers/Creeks, Flats/Bars (R3 UB H, R3 US C) are upper perennial, permanently flooded water courses and exposed gravel and sand bars that occur along river and creek drainages. The flats/bars consist of a matrix of large and small cobbles mixed with sand. They have little vegetative cover, although small percentages of felt-leaf willow, alder, horsetail, and various legumes occasionally are present. Rivers are important for spawning and rearing habitat for fish and as feeding habitat for waterfowl and shorebirds. Rivers also provide nutrients to, aerate soil in, and remove plant metabolic waste products from adjacent riparian communities when soils are flushed during seasonal flooding. River flats/bars provide nesting habitat for shorebirds and Mew Gulls and some forage for moose if sufficiently vegetated, but tend to be more ephemeral due to river channel fluctuations. Ponds and Sedge Marshes (P UB H, P AB3 H, P EMI H, P EM1 F) are small water bodies, and wet sedge meadows found in lowland areas where drainage is poor and groundwater is close to the surface. Soils are fibric and mucky peats. Dominant plant species are beaked sedge, poor sedge, and narrow-leaf cottongrass. These wetlands are important feeding and breeding habitat for ducks and swans, brood-rearing habitat for diving and dabbling ducks, feeding habitat for shorebirds, forage for moose in spring and summer, and overwintering habitat for fish and aquatic invertebrates. Furbearers use these communities if larger ponds or streams are nearby. Floating Mat Wetlands (PEMIF) consist of mats of herbaceous vegetation 0.5-1.0 m thick (occasionally with shrubs) that float on a layer 1.5 - 2.0 m deep of roots, loose peat, and water. This zone grades into more dense peat, which overlies unfrozen gray silts and gravel. The vegetation is dominated by buckbean, sedges, and swamp horsetail, occasionally co-dominated by shrub birch and sweet gale. These wetlands are unique in that they appear to be maintained by groundwater that flows below the permafrost from the Alaska Range, upwelling into unfrozen 9 Results areas within the Tanana Lowlands. This differs from the other wetlands in the study area which primarily are maintained by precipitation and seasonal runoff. Functional values are the same as those for ponds and marshes. Moist Meadows (P EMI C) are seasonally flooded wetlands that form in old sloughs, along streambanks, and in recently drained lakes. Soils have a thin to moderately thick organic surface horizon overlying a silt loam. Dominant plant species is bluejoint. These wetlands attract invertebrates that serve as prey for birds breeding in nearby shrub or forested habitats. Raptors also hunt over these open areas for small birds and mammals, and moose and bears forage on the early green shoots in spring. Riparian Shrub (P SS/EMI1 C (A), PSS1 C (A) P SS1/US A) wetlands form open and closed tall shrub communities that are seasonally or temporarily flooded, usually during spring runoff, but also during periods when river levels rise from heavy precipitation or rapid snowmelt from mountains in the Alaska Range due to high summer temperatures. Soils are silts overlying sands and/or gravels, sometimes interbedded with narrow bands of organic matter. The vegetation is dominated by felt-leaf,; diamond-leaf, and gray-leaf willows and/or alder with an understory (if present) of bluejoint, fireweed, and alpine milk vetch. These wetland communities provide forage for moose, nesting habitat for songbirds, and if adjacent to water courses, cover for spawning and rearing fish. Scrub Shrub Lowlands (P SS/EM 1 B, P SS1 B, P SS 2B, P SS4 B, P SS4/1 B, P SS4/2 B) are the most common wetland types in the study area, located on the tops of hills, gentle hillslopes, and valley bottoms. The soils are saturated and usually consist of a moderately thick organic horizon followed by a gleyed or highly reduced silt. Within the Tanana Lowlands, many scrub shrub communities grade into floating mats, where the soil is entirely organic. Vegetation consists of open and closed shrub stands of birch, diamond-leaf willow, blueberry, lingonberry, Labrador tea, and cottongrass tussocks. Open and closed stands of stunted black spruce, sometimes mixed with tamarack also are included in this category. These wetland communities provide forage for bears (berries) and habitat for small mammals and songbirds. Moose 10 Results commonly use these wetlands during spring and summer, especially during calving season in spring, and ptarmigan are found in these areas in winter. Broadleaf/Mixed Riparian Forest (P FO/SS 1 A, P FO1 A, P FO4/SS1 A, P FO4/1 A) wetlands are temporarily flooded areas that are common on alluvial terraces and isolated upland areas within lowlands. They frequently do not satisfy the three-parameter criteria needed for jurisdictional wetland status but may show some signs of flooding such as high chroma mottling and a fairly low chroma matrix (but not U 2). The vegetation is comprised of paper birch and/or balsam poplar, quaking aspen, willow, and bluejoint. A well developed understory is absent so forage for moose is limited to sites where willow becomes a larger component of the total vegetation. If present along streambanks, these wetlands can provide bank stabilization and canopy cover to streams, thus improving fish habitat. Bald Eagles nest in these habitats, as well as songbirds, woodpeckers, raptors, grouse, and a few duck species (e.g. Goldeneye). Small mammals take up residence in these areas and serve as prey for mammalian and avian predators. Needleleaf Forested Lowlands (P FO4/SS1 B, P FO/SS4 B, P FO2 B, P F04 B, P FO4/2 B,) are frequently found interspersed among scrub shrub lowlands but are predominant on north- facing slopes and ridgetops. The soils are saturated and consist of a moderately thick organic horizon overlying a reduced or gleyed silt. The vegetation is dominated by black spruce with an understory of predominantly Labrador tea and cottongrass tussocks. Where the canopy is more open, tamarack may be present and shrubs including birch, alder, diamond-leaf willow, lingonberry, bog blueberry, and Labrador tea are more prevalent. Occasionally, scattered individuals of paper birch can be found. This wetland serves as habitat for woodpeckers, songbirds, small mammals, and moose (if forage plant species are present). Mixed Forested Lowlands (P FO 4/1 B) are common on old floodplains and slopes that are cold and poorly drained. The soil is similar to that found in black spruce forested wetlands, with a moderately thick organic horizon overlying a reduced or gleyed silt. The vegetation consists of black spruce and paper birch, with an understory of Labrador tea and lingonberry. Functional characteristics are similar to those of needleleaf forested lowlands. 11 Results SOUTH ROUTE The most dominant vegetation type of the South Route in terms of percent total acreage is upland (U) (51.8 %) (Table 2). This high percentage of uplands occurrs because much of the northern portion of the route follows the Tanana Uplands, which primarily is composed of mixed and solid upland stands of paper birch, quaking aspen, and white spruce. Of the wetland types that occur along the route, scrub shrub and forested lowlands cover the most area and are found interspersed throughout the entire route. Percent acreage of ponds (0.2%) and marshes(0.1%) are among the lowest of all the wetland types identified, but floating mats covered slightly more area (3.2%). The South Route has the lowest percent acreage of shrub and forested riparian habitats (7.0%), and among the lowest number of river crossings (9) identified (Table 3), but the number of crossings probably is a conservative estimate because small creeks occasionally are identified as seasonally flooded wetlands on NWI maps (Kidd 1994). Three river crossings are of the Tanana River, whereas all of the other routes have only one Tanana River crossing. TANANA FLATS ROUTE The Tanana Flats Route differed most notably from all the other routes in that it encounters the highest percentage and total acreage of wetlands (79.8%, 1239.0 acres) (Table 2). This difference was not surprising, however, considering that the entire route crosses the Tanana Lowlands, which almost exclusively was classified as wetland. Like the other routes, most of the wetland types encountered fell under the categories of scrub shrub and forested lowlands, but the field survey revealed that some of the scrub shrub lowlands in the northern section of the route were closely related hydrologically to floating mats. These differing hydrologic regimes, however, were not distinguishable on aerial photos and were classified and mapped as saturated communities. Thus, their hydrologic status would have to be verified in the field on a case-by-case basis. The percent acreage of riparian wetlands (shrub and forested combined) was slightly higher than that found along all of the other routes (12.6% vs. 7.0-10.8%) except the Rex Route 12 Wetland Type River, Creek R3UBH River Flat/Bar R3USC Pond PUBH PAB3H TOTAL Sedge Marsh PEMIH Floating Mat PEMIF Moist Meadow 3 PEMIC Riparian Shrub PSS/EM1C PSSIC PSSI/USA PSS/EM1A PSSIA TOTAL Scrub Shrub Lowland PSS/EM1B PSS1B PSS2B PSS4B PSS4/1B PSS4/2B TOTAL Jumbo Walker Tatlanika Acres % Acres % Acres % 39:2.aaa2.5 313 2.2 20.3 1.4 6.6 0.4 10.2 0.7 6.9 0.5 08 <O1 10 O.1 1.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 0.0 0.0 08 <01 10 Ol 1.0 0.1 08 Ol 0.0 00 0.0 0.0 14.3 0.9 270 19 49.9 3.4 2.4 0.1 10.1 0.7 10.5 0.7 24.1 16 50.1 3.5 23.9 1.6 4.7 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19 «(O01 19 O01 1.9 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ep 0.2 65.9 4.3 53:5. “37 48.3 3.2 96.7 6.3 105.5 7.3 76.9 52) 142.6 9.2 123.8 8.5 153.7 10.3 182.4 118 153.6 10.6 178.0 12.0 0.0 0.0 16 0.1 0.0 0.0 479 3.1 119 08 11.9 0.8 15.7 10 30.3 2.1 27.4 1.8 191.9 12.4 114.7 7.9 116.6 718 580.4 37.6 436.0 30.1 487.6 32.8 “soynol Rex Tanana Flats South Acres % Acres % Acres % 17.8 12 17.8 Det 22.2 13 Sia 0.2 4.9 0.3 4.9 0.3 1.0 0.1 1.0 0.1 1.0 0.1 1.2 0.1 1.2 0.1 12 0.1 2.2 0.2 ae 0.2 2.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ZA 0.1 51.0 3.4 51.0 Sis) 57.0 32 0.7 0.0 0.7 <0.1 5.6 0.3 Siar 39 63.3 4.1 40.6 23) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19 0.1 1.9 0.1 1.9 0.1 2.7 0.2 27. 0.2 0.0 0.0 68.1 4.6 64.0 4.1 31.0 18 130.4 8.8 132.0 8.5 73.0 4.2 199.3 13.5 234.6 A 195.3 111 146.1 9.9 189.2 12.2 98.3 5.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.4 18 93.1 6.0 76.4 4.3 24.1 1.6 57.9 3:7 24.6 1.4 51.0 3.4 51.0 3.3 35:3 2.0 447.9 30.2 625.9 40.3 429.8 24.4 ‘7 M192L anJaIU] WopON pesodoid xts om Suoye (pueydn pue) ody puepom yore Jo o8equsosed pue oSvoioe fe10L synsoy Jumbo Walker Tatlanika Rex Tanana Flats South Wetland Type Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Broadleaf/Mixed Riparian Forest PFO/SS1A 0.0 0.0 255 0.2 0.0 860.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 PFOIA 16.1 10 42.8 3.0 30.2 2.0 34.7 23 30.2 9 31.8 18 PFO4/SS1A 0.9 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 860.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 PFO4/1A 1.9 0.5 6.2 0.4 23.5 16 34.7 2.3 34.7 2.2 17.3 1.0 TOTAL ee) 16 S15 a5 Sas: 3.6 69.4 4.6 64.9 4.1 49.1 2.8 Needleaf Forested Lowland PFO4/SS1B 6.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 00 8600.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 PFO/SS4B 8.1 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.7 <O1 0.7 0.1 3.0 0.2 0.7 <0.1 PFO2B 06 = <0.1 0.0 0.0 00 = 60.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 _. PFO4B 67.8 44 32.3 2.2 336032 23.6 1.6 25.7 1.7 32.6 1.9 ~ TOTAL 82.9 33) 32:3 2.2 34.0 2.2 24.4 1d 28.7 1.8 33,3 1.9 Mixed Forested Lowland PFO4/1B 61.6 4.0 123.9 8.6 108.6 8 §=7.3 137.1 33 128.6 8.3 67.2 3 PFO4/2B 55.6 3.6 149.2 10.3 182.4 12.3 183.2 12.4 183.2 11.8 164.1 9.3 TOTAL 117.2 16 273.1 18.8 291.0 19.6 320.3 217 311.8 20.1 231.3 13.1 Uplands U 578.1 37.4 471.3 32.5 455.9 30.6 414.1 28.0 314.7 20.2 849.5 48.2 Total Wetlands 966.3 62.6 978.0 67.5 1031.8 69.4 1067.3 72.0 1239.8 79.8 911.1 51.8 Total Wetlands and Uplands 1544.4 100.0 1449.2 100.0 1487.7 100.0 1481.4 100.0 1554.5 100.0 1760.6 100.0 “(penunuos) Z 21921 synsoy Results Table 3. Total number of each wetland type encountered along each of the six proposed Northern Intertie routes. Wetland Type Jumbo Walker Rex Tatlanika §Tanana Flats South Route Route Route Route Route Route River, Creek R3UBH 16 13 9 10 9 9 River Flat/Bar R3USC 2 4 2 4 3 3 Pond PUBH 1 Z as | 1 1 PAB3H 0 0 1 1 1 TOTAL 1 1 2 i 2, Sedge Marsh PEM1H 1 0 0 0 0 1 Floating Bog PEMIF ll 16 25 25 25 20 Moist Meadow PEMIC 1 3 1 4 1 3 Riparian Shrub PSS/EM1C 8 14 26 13 27 17 PSSIC a 0 0 0 0 PSS1/USA 1 1 1 1 1 1 PSS/EM1A 0 0 1 1 1 0 PSS1A 15 24 24 16 23 8 TOTAL 28 39 52 31 52 26 Scrub Shrub Lowland PSS/EM1B 1 0 0 0 0 0 PSS1B 30 39 47 47 43 38 PSS2B 51 a4 48 50 64 33 PSS4B 0 1 0 0 0 0 PSS4/1B 13 5 6 o 28 25 PSS4/2B 7 8 9 9 14 12 TOTAL 102 97 110 1ll 149 108 Riparian Broadleaf/ Mixed Forest PFO/SS1A 21 29 19 27 19 13 PFOLA 8 18 16 13 13 13 PFO4/SS1A 1 0 0 0 0 0 PFO4/1A 3 2 7 6 7 5 TOTAL 33 49 42 46 39 31 Needleaf Forested Lowland PFO4/SS1B 2) 0 0 0 0 0 PFO/SS4B 1 0 1 1 2 : PFO2B 1 0 0 0 0 0 PFO4B 19 12 8 11 9 ll TOTAL 23 12 9 sb 11 12 Mixed Forested Lowland PFO4/1B 15 25 32 26 32 21 PFO4/2B 17 27 34 29 34 28 TOTAL 32 52 66 55 66 49 15 Results Table 3 (continued). Wetland Type Jumbo Walker Rex Tatlanika Tanana Flats South Route Route Route Route Route Route Uplands U 62 76 59 69 66 82 Total Wetlands 250 288 318 299 357 264 Total Wetlands and Uplands 312 364 377 368 423 346 JUMBO ROUTE The Jumbo Route is second to the South Route in terms of the lowest percent total acreage of wetlands (62.6% vs. 51.8%, respectively) (Table 2). Scrub shrub (37.6%) and forested (12.9%) lowlands are the most dominant wetlands and account for over 80% of all the wetland types identified. The high percentage of lowlands occurs because the route transects the Alaska Range foothills for the first 30 km, and this more mountainous terrain restricts the number and type of wetlands encountered. The total percent acreages of ponds, marshes, and floating mats are among the lowest for all the routes (1.0 % vs. 1.0-3.6%), as is the total percent acreage of riparian wetlands (7.9 % vs. 7.0-13.4 %), even though the route crosses the Tanana Lowlands as it heads toward Fairbanks. The low percentages may be because the Jumbo Route enters the Tanana Lowlands farther to the east than the other routes, and this area is perhaps slightly drier. The highest number of river and creek crossings identified (16) are along this route, one of which includes the Tanana River. WALKER ROUTE The Walker Route is fairly similar to the Jumbo Route, although it crosses a higher total percentage of wetlands (67.5% vs. 62.6%, respectively), and encounters a slightly higher percentage of riparian habitats (10.8% vs. 7.9%, respectively). Similar to the Jumbo Route, the first 25 km of the route are located within the foothills of the Alaska Range where the wetlands encountered are primarily scrub shrub and forested wetlands, and include a higher percentage of uplands. The route then heads northeast into the Tanana Lowlands. The Walker Route crosses few ponds and floating mats (2.0%), but is intermediate among all the routes for the percent 16 Results acreage of riparian habitats (10.8%). Thirteen river and creek crossings were identified along the Walker Route, one of which is the Tanana River. REX ROUTE The Rex Route is very similar to the Tanana Flats Route although it encounters a slightly lower total percent acreage of wetlands (72.0% vs. 79.8%, respectively). The main difference between the two routes is the lower percentage of scrub shrub lowlands along the Rex Route (30.2% vs. 40.3%, respectively). Instead of following the Nenana River Valley, as does the first portion of the Tanana Flats Route, the Rex Route is deeper in the Alaska Range foothills, which results in the replacement of scrub shrub wetlands by upland habitats and also a few riparian habitats. Percent acreages of ponds and floating mats were the same (3.5%) for both routes. TATLANIKA ROUTE Like the Rex Route, the Tatlanika route is very similar to the Tanana Flats Route, although it encounters a considerably lower total percent acreage of wetlands (69.4% vs. 79.8%, respectively). The main differences in wetland abundance are lower percent acreages of riparian wetlands (8.8% vs. 12.6%, respectively) and scrub shrub lowlands (32.8% vs. 40.3%, respectively), and a higher percentage of uplands (30.6% vs. 20.2%, respectively). The higher percentage of uplands occurs because the Tatlanika Route is the same as the Walker Route for the first 40 km, and this route section is predominantly upland. The Tatlanika Route heads north from this point into the Tanana Lowlands. Percent acreages of ponds and floating mats were about the same (3.5-3.6%) among the Tatlanika, Rex, and Tanana Flats routes. ROUTE COMPARISONS When comparing routes in terms of potential impacts to wetlands, the Tanana Flats, Rex, and Tatlanika routes contain the highest total acreage of wetlands and generally have higher wetland function rankings relative to the other routes (Table 4). Some of these functions include 17 Results Table 4. _ Relative ranking of each route alternative based on percent total acreage and selected wetland functions. Route Alternatives Jumbo Walker Tatlanika Rex Tanana Flats South Wetland Acreage Moderate Moderate High High High Moderate Wetland Function Groundwater Discharge Low Low High High High Moderate Nutrient Export Low Low Moderate Moderate Moderate Low Fish Habitat Low Low Low Low Low Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Wildlife Habitat Moderate § Moderate /High /High /High Moderate Regional Ecological Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Diversity Moderate § Moderate /High /High /High Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Recreation Use Moderate Moderate [Hi [Hi Hi [Hi providing aquatic and riparian habitats important for waterfowl and other wildlife, sources for groundwater discharge, and contributions to regional ecological diversity. One of the aquatic wetland types, floating mat wetlands, appears to have hydrologic and chemical characteristics that have not been described elsewhere (Racine and Walters in press), although they do not have any officially protected status. The Tanana Flats, Rex, and Tatlanika routes had low rankings for fish habitat relative to the other routes because most of the streams the routes cross are too small to sustain viable fish populations. The Tanana River, which supports several fish species, is crossed only once by each of the routes, whereas it is crossed three times by the South Route. The South Route encounters a considerably lower total acreage of wetlands than all of the other routes, primarily due to lower percent acreages of scrub shrub and forested wetlands and a higher percentage of uplands. The abundance of ponds, sedge marsh, and floating mat wetlands however, is about the same as that found along the Tanana Flats, Tatlanika, and Rex routes (Table 2). This similarity is because the South Route joins these routes about 18 km south of Fairbanks, where many aquatic habitats are concentrated. The total acreage of riparian wetlands 18 Results is not measurably different from the other routes, but the acreage of riparian shrub wetlands is the lowest along the South Route. The Jumbo and Walker routes are intermediate, relative to the other routes, in abundance and distribution of wetlands along each route. They both are routed to a considerable extent in the foothills of the Alaska Range where uplands predominate, but they eventually enter the Tanana Lowlands (primarily wetland) near the eastern margin of the study area. Nevertheless, these two routes encounter fewer ponds and floating mats within the lowlands, perhaps because they occur at a lower density in that area. In terms of wetland function, the Jumbo and Walker routes have low-to-moderate rankings, primarily because they include less wetland acreage and a smaller percentage of wetland habitats important for wildlife. Their recreational value also is somewhat diluted due to part of the route being in the Alaska Range foothills. Wetlands in this area are sporadic and primarily scrub shrub and forested lowlands, which have limited recreational use. CONCLUSIONS All of the proposed Northern Intertie route alternatives include greater than 50% wetlands. Thus, wetlands will be a consideration no matter which route is chosen. Because proposed construction of the intertie will be conducted during the winter, impacts to wetlands during this phase should be minimal. The proposed type of pole design does not require cement foundations and little soil is displaced during pole placement. Thus, soil will not need to be stockpiled in adjacent wetlands. Summer access to the right-of-way will rely primarily on existing roads, or for those areas that are not accessible by road, on brush-cut trails or by helicopter support. The wetlands subject to brush-cutting (primarily forested and scrub shrub wetlands) would not be adversely affected as long as the soil is not disturbed and access is somewhat restricted to the drier periods of the year. Under section 404 (Clean Water Act) guidelines, the trees would be hydro-axed and mulched, and the mulched material spread thinly within the right- of-way. 19 Conclusions The dominant wetland types for all routes (scrub shrub and forested lowlands) are not the most productive wetlands in terms of wildlife habitat, but they do provide some forage for moose in the spring when they have calves, and they provide cover for small mammals and nesting birds. If the forested lowlands are brush cut, moose may become even more attracted to these areas because willows tend to colonize recently cleared black spruce wetlands. However, there have not been any reported cases of moose being killed or injured as a result of using powerline right- of-ways as foraging habitat (Roger Post, ADF&G, pers. comm.). Ponds, marshes, and floating mats are small percentages of the total acreage of wetlands intersected by the intertie routes, but they are abundant throughout the Tanana Lowlands, which includes a considerable portion of all the routes. These wetlands are important waterfowl habitats because they serve as potential nesting areas, and for staging during the spring and fall migration. Certain areas have already been recognized as critical habitat for Trumpeter Swans. Although mortality from collisions with powerlines has not been identified as a major cause of avian mortality (Beaulaurier 1981), some studies from the lower forty-eight states have documented large numbers of birds dying from transmission line collisions (Avery et. al. 1980). Some Trumpeter Swan deaths have been attributed to collisions with transmission lines (Dames and Moore 1994). To reduce the number of high quality wetlands encountered along the intertie route, the Jumbo Route and the Walker Route are the preferred routes. Although the South Route has the lowest total acreage of wetlands, it has a higher percentage of wetland habitats important for waterfowl than either the Jumbo or Walker routes. However, because all routes traverse at least a portion of the Tanana Lowlands, where a large concentration of wetlands occur, concerns over wetland impacts associated with the other routes also, will in part, apply to the Jumbo and Walker routes. 20 LITERATURE CITED Avery, M. L., P. F. Springer, and N. S. Dailey. 1980. Avian mortality at man-made structures: an annotated bibliography (Revised). U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Services Program, National Power Plant Team. FWS/OBS-80/54. 152 p. Beaulaurier, D. 1981. Mitigation of bird collisions with transmission lines. Unpubl. rep. prepared for Bonneville Power Admin., U. S. Dept. Energy. Portland, OR, by Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE), Boulder, CO. 83 p. Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. Office of Biol. Serv., U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv., Washington, DC. 103 p. Dames and Moore, Inc. 1994. Northern Intertie Macro-Corridor study and project alternative study. Rep. prepared for Golden Valley Electric Assoc., Inc., Fairbanks, AK. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Tech. Rep. Y-87-1. 100 p. plus appendices. Furbush, C. E., and D. Schoephorster. 1977. Soil survey of the Goldstream-Nenana area, Alaska. U. S. D. A. Soil Conserv. Serv. and Univ. of AK, Inst. of Agric. Sci. 44 p. (plus maps). Golder Associates Inc. 1994. Phase 1 geotechnical investigation Northern Intertie, Healy to Fairbanks, Alaska. Rep. prepared for Golden Valley Electric Assoc., Inc., Fairbanks, AK. 48 p. Hultén, E. 1968. Flora of Alaska and neighboring territories. Stanford Univ. Press, Palo Alto, CA. 1008 p. Kessel, B. 1979. Avian habitat classification for Alaska. Murrelet 60: 86-94. Racine, C. H., and J. C. Walters. In press. Groundwater-discharge fens in the Tanana Lowlands, interior Alaska. Arctic. Reed, P. B., Jr. 1988. National list of plant species that occur in wetlands: Alaska (Region A). USS. Fish Wildl. Serv., Biol. Rep. 88(26.11). 86 p. Sather, J. H., and R. D. Smith. 1984. An overview of major wetland functions and values. Rep. prepared for Western Energy and Land Use Team, Div. of Biol. Serv., Res. and Develop., U.S. Dept. of Int., Wash., DC, by 3CI, Fort Collins, CO. 68 p. 21 Literature Cited Soil Survey Staff. 1990. Keys to Soil Taxonomy, fourth ed. Soil Management Support Services Tech. Mono. No. 6. Blacksburg, VA. 422 p. Viereck, L. A., and E. L Little. 1972. Alaska trees and shrubs. Agriculture Handbook No. 410. U.S. Dept. Agric., Washington, DC 265 p. Viereck, L. A., C. T. Dyrness, A. R. Batten, and K. J. Wenzlick. 1992. The Alaska vegetation classification. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-286. U.S. Dep. of Agric., Forest Serv., Pacific Northwest Res. Stat., Portland, OR. 278 p. 22 APPENDIX A. WETLAND MAPS Maps A1-A38 are wetland maps of the six proposed alternate routes for the northern intertie. See Table 1 in results section of report for definitions of wetland codes. 23 ABR Map: MAP1CODE.WOR Wetlands Segment Field Station ® = V € 3 8 a ABR Map: MAP2CODE.WOR | Wetlands Segment Field Station © SxJ Scale: 1 in. = 1 mi. rtie Wetlands Survey ABR Map: MAP3CODE.WOR Field Station Scale: 1 in. = 1 mi. 1 2 7 = “Ag J ® 8 yz Northern Intertie Wetlands Survey a—— a Wetlands Segment Field Station © Scale: 1 in. = 1 mi. ABR Map: MAP4CODE.WOR Map Location Northern Intertie Wetlands Survey 2———«. Wetlands Segment © Field Station Scale: 1 in. = 1 mi. ABR Map: MAPS5CODE.WOR Wetlands Segment Field Station © Scale: 1 in. = 1 mi. ABR Map: MAP6CODE.WOR Map Location = Northern Intertie Wetlands Survey |? 2——s Wetlands Segment : © Field Station Scale: 1 in. = 1 mi. ABR Map: MAP7CODE.WOR Pes :PSStA b Pss428 bes > | B & z z % PFO T° “PSS1B WAINWRIGH PssiB 32 st 4 4 s é 8 4 | q == i . Sa a | =: \ g 30 . ‘ai 8 : PROM = ess MELITARY ZA TION . a a one ge we? 18 mp OY € r | a ial | : sx: ° | cS 120 | ' | 38 jz North »——. Wetlands Segment ® Field Station <q] Scale: 1 in. = 1 mi. ABR Map: MAP8CODE.WOR = [iia ern Intertie Wetlands Survey |- Northern Intertie Wetlands Survey Wetlands Segment Field Station ABR Map: MAPSCODE.WOR ® Scale: 1 in. = 1 mi. Northern Intertie Wetlands Survey P 2»——— Wetlands Segment Field Station © Scale: 1 in. = 1 mi. ABR Map: MP10CODE.WOR MER ORT leone 7 S/EM1C saat Y “RESE 04728— — | SSfEm1B™ ~~~ 2 . PSS1B Northern intertio Wetlands Survey a——2 Wetlands Segment © Field Station i. ABR Map: MP11CODE.WOR a——s Wetlands Segment © Field Station Scale: 1 in. = 1 mi. ABR Map: MP12CODE.WOR rtie Wetlands Survey | Northern Inte’ Wetlands Segment ABR Map: MP13CODE.WOR Field Station © Scale: 1 in. = 1 mi. rtie Wetlands Survey »——s Wetlands Segment Northern Inte Field Station Y ® \ Scale: 1 in. ABR Map: MP14CODE.WOR =1 mi. Northern intertie Wetla Map Location © sy n =——- Wetlands Segment Field Station Scale: 1 in. = 1 mi. ABR Map: MP15CODE.WOR ds Survey Northern Gowe=| © Intertie Wetlands Survey : Wetlands Segment Field Station Scale: 1 in. = 1 mi. ABR Map: MP16CODE.WOR oa =——« Wetlands Segment © Field Station Scale: 1 in. =1 mi. ABR Map: MP17CODE.WOR =———s Wetlands Segment @ _ Field Station Scale: 1 in. = 1 mi. ABR Map: MP18CODE.WOR ABR Map: MP19CODE.WOR Field Station ® 2——— Wetlands Segment Scale: 1 in. = 1 mi. Map Location prance 4 - bE 3 © juaewBes spuejeny *———* ‘Ww | = "Ul | :a[eog | Konang spuepen en493U] WeyyION UOREIS Piel4 YOM'SACGOD0Zd WN :deW usV ABR Map: MP21CODE.WOR Field Station @ 5 — nD ®o no n To & oO 3 Sig 7 £ : 8 a 13 2 3 10 te 5 |3 a oD Ne | & £ ¢ | @ = ° {2 ABR Map: MP22CODE.WOR Field Station © Scale: 1 in. = 1 mi. Northern Intertie Wetlands Survey »———« Wetlands Segment Northern Intertie Wetlands Survey | ‘|g -« +Wetlands Segment ; © Field Station ‘_] Scale: 1 in. = 1 mi. ABR Map: MP23CODE.WOR Map Location Field Station © ow 2 a 9 g a = § a 2 = % 3 ee Se Northern Intertie Wetlands Survey =———« Wetlands Segment ® Field Station /| Scale: 1 in. = 1 mi. ABR Map: MP25CODE.WOR Northern Intertie Wetlands Survey a——+ Wetlands Segment © Field Station Scale: 1 in. = 1 mi. ABR Map: MP26CODE.WOR ABR Map: MP27CODE.WOR Field Station ® Scale: 1 in. = 1 mi. =—— Wetlands Segment Northern Intertie Wetlands Survey ABR Map: MP28CODE.WOR Wetlands Segment Field Station @ Scale: 1 in. = 1 mi. _[ Northern Intertie Wetlands Survey |- Psst. Northern Intertie Wetlands ‘Survey a———s Wetlands Segment ABR Map: MP2SCODE.WOR Field Station © Scale: 1 in. = 1 mi. Map Location Northern Intertie Wetlands Survey 2——s Wetlands Segment t i | ® Field Station | Scale: 1 in. = 1 mi. ABR Map: MP30CODE.WOR i 2——+s Wetlands Segment ® Field Station Scale: 1 in. = 1 mi. ABR Map: MP31CODE.WOR Northern Intertie Wetlands Survey -| , Wetlands Segment “ ® Field Station :-| Scale: 1 in. = 1 mi. ABR Map: MP32CODE.WOR Map Location | = a Mu RY RE SERY ATI Map Location ABR Map: MP33CODE.WOR Wetlands Segment Field Station © Northern Intertie Wetlands Survey | Scale: 1 in. = 1 mi. Northern Intertie Wetlands Survey Wetlands Segment ABR Map: MP34CODE.WOR Field Station ; © “| Scale: 1 in. = 1 mi. a———2 Wetlands Segment { © Field Station i Scale: 1 in. = 1 mi. ABR Map: MP35CODE.WOR f ; 7 th YuTe ran rong Ci : | Northern Intertie Wetlands Surve See — s____«_ Wetlands Segment ¥ ed — . , : e ae : } ® Field Station ent : ‘| Scale: 1 in. = 1 mi. ABR Map: MP36CODE.WOR > a = | # 1Ze 8 Lloe 2 5 ols & 2 J2Sec ez das? 8 ¢ e282 (es 25 s33< yest eE \e he ie 1S % z § ( 7M if A y | Map Location ea “| Northern Intertie Wetlands Survey | a2——« Wetlands Segment 20 © Field Station -| Scale: 1 in. = 1 mi. ABR Map: MP38CODE.WOR Zt = APPENDIX B. LISTING OF PLANT SPECIES. 62 Table B1. scientific names Balsam poplar = Populus balsamifera Beaked sedge = Carex rostrata Black spruce = Picea mariana Bluejoint = Calamagrostis canadensis Bog blueberry = Vaccinium uliginosum Buckbean = Menyanthes trifoliata Cattail = Typha latifolia Cottongrass tussock = Eriophorum vaginatum Diamond-leaf willow = Salix planifolia Felt-leaf willow = Salix alaxensis - Fireweed = Epilobium angustifolium Gray-leaf willow = Salix glauca Green alder = Alnus crispa Labrador tea = Ledum palustre Leatherleaf = Chamaedaphne calyculata Table of common names of plants identified in study area cross-listed with their Lingonberry = Vaccinium vitis-idaea Marsh cinquefoil = Comarum palustre Narrow-leafed cottongrass = Eriophorum angustifolium Paper birch = Betula papyrifera Poor sedge = Carex magellanica Quaking aspen = Populus tremuloides Shrub birch = Betula glandulosa Shrub cinquefoil = Potentilla fruticosa Soft-leaf sedge = Carex disperma Swamp horsetail = Equisetum fluviatile Sweet gale = Myrica gale Tamarack = Larix laricena Thin-leaf alder = Alnus tenuifolia White spruce = Picea glauca APPENDIX C. WETLAND DELINEATION FIELD DATA FORMS 64 Tore = 2e sites DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD? Field Investigator(s): Kigek “ Date: _| 4 =. M Project/Site: State: . ——— County: ‘ ApplicantOwner: —__________________. Plant Community #/Name:_Cs <1 f ' MVwT ¢ Jess’ Up wet Chess’, ) Note: if a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook: Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? LIG4#A-I )e Yes _- No (If no, explain on back) Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes No (If yes, explain on back) VEGETATION 7 dicat Dominant Plant ies Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum [eee oe PAG 5 1h, oo — AE. 2S 12, FAcw oS 13. ean eee ee 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 10. 20. Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC __i 00 Ye Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes_— No HT TILT ITAL Rationale: SOILS Series/phase: ——___ Subgroup: 2 Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes No_~ Undetermined Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No 7 Histic epipedon present? Yes_~__ No____ Is the soil: Mottled? Yes Ni Gleyed? Yes No Matrix Color: i Mottle Colors: SR Other hydric soil indicators: > c S Is the hydric éoil criterion met? Yes_~ Rationale: net biel reek Eee aa sol tage ob th, teehee ses) HYDROLOGY Is the ground surface inundated? Yes_____—s-—- No uv Surface water depth: ————______________ ls the soil saturated? Yes ae No Depth to free-standing water rin pit pit/soil probe hole: fa List other field evidence of surface inundation ~ soil saturation. Of cAz Qs a Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes 2 No Rationale: JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland? Yes x No Rationale for jurisdictional decision: ee fore Ck bes eer Sa at 1 This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community Assessment Procedure. 2 Classification according to “Soil Taxonomy.” (i DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD! Field Invamtigatortsy, cat fh ot SJ Ph ete: Le eet 1 Project/Shte:——_2-A State: A OE ApplicantOwner: GVEA iit inks Suse Plant Community #/Name: Wipe Cerys Note: if a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook: Do normai environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Yes 1Z No (if no, explain on back) Has the vegetation, sojls; and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes No (if yes, explain on back) VEGETATION Indicator Indicator Dominant Plant Species - —<. Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum 1, —2ten 70% 8 FAcw _—T_ 11. 2 eGR yo Farw F312. ee ee 9 VV Oo EKG. eS 13; ee scenester sie eee tin, eee cree; « ———— . oe SE ee «1S —s 6. : et 1G, a se 7 esi Paz > A ee, ee na aaa 0 ee SS Oe Se YS. ——— ee ee —— 5 | > ie aaa 20. ——————— Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC Lo Yo Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes__—~ No Rationale: a Te omg eed SOILS Series/phase: a ee el Is the soil on the hydric soils list? 2 Undetermined e+ Is the soil a Histosol? Yes fava bee “apipedon npeett Yes__s No iy Is the soil: Mottled? Yes Zz Ne Gleyec? Yes ow Matrix Color; 12 V2. 5/2-/12 YE77Z Mottle Colors: 70 £ rove §£/¥% Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes_/ _ Rationale: Sige beeen teeth BR aecenies RE a HYDROLOGY Is the ground surface inundated? Yes___-=—»- No__»~ Surface water depth: Is the soil saturated? Yes____—s- No ae ae Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole: ate tig List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation. Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes No_ Rationale: JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland? Yes No_~ ‘ . Rationale forjurisdictional decision: Tite The —+t = . te that a =a, 5 = 1 This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community +* “H+ eet «¢ Assessment Procedure. st Av; tpretogrc Cp Peete S 2 Classification according to “Scil Taxonomy.” s tS cts on me eed. B-2 DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD? Field Investigators); aa CD etn Li Bh __ Date: x Le 2ept 12 Project/Site:—_Guc 2 ionk eds # 2 State: ________. ApplicanvOwner: ——_______ Plant Community #/Name: eS SS Note: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook: = norm: ne environmental conditions exist at the piant community? LIqyA 5,b ___ (If no, explain on back) Hee the veg aie soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes No__-~ (If yes, explain on back) VEGETATION Indicator Indicator Dominant Plant Species Can Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum 1. Oe BEA) Es 47 ea 2 en Vi hae Ls O0/ ok iy Ce AS 0 ch SE ey EY VE IS ee eee ae ee 4. ZAVA Doi PCr) AGG. (4 eee 5 ee eS cee] ee 6 eee Ee ee = — SS, eS ss OS Do es eee ees fy ee ee | ee | 10; Ce CO,” a Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC__) 00 Yo Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes _— No Rationale: Ss ol ee eee es SOILS Series/phase: ee ere 22 i. 2s Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Lg Undetermined _ Is the soil a Histosol? Yes paiva mek “epipedon wreags Yes_Uu_ No_ \\e Fe Ors Is the soil: Mottled? Yes_ _ = Gleyed? Yes_ ~~ Matrix Color: a Mottle Colors: —— Other hydric soil indicators: 2 hi As ares rs Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes a No Rationale: Doe eet ee eee ee | DE LE ed HYDROLOGY Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No VA Surface water depth: Is the soil saturated? Yes__“ No Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole: List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation. Soil 6 eepink be He bench 6 ticte ns Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes_.~ No Rationale: Set th caret eS ec FP 2 DS eet ices eh aH Cer JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE ee Is the plant community awetland? Yes ~ No Rationale for jurisdictional decision: DAK hee ae te Aig at, tere § er 1 This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community . Assessment Procedure. 2 Classification according to "Soil Taxonomy.” B-2 Applicant/Owner: Plant Community #/Name: Hess Note: if a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook: iL Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Ls 4Y 1D AN Yes No (If no, explain on back) Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes No_ | (If yes, expiain on back) VEGETATION . Indicator Indicator Dominant Plant Species << ~ Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum 1, ~_RENA- 40% ~=_ Eat 1. 2. c Ws FAC 12. sactmnienSi | |i ces 3. 4 Seve . FAC) 13. a 4. Lela | fleas | 1 is “ee 5. S| je 15. pees 1 6. is | Fama, | Ve ——— 7. ae | Heel | hee ee | emcee 8. eS | ee |S. — 9: ey ec 1/1 acct seep 10. 20. eee: pecan DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD! Field Investigator(s): —————————— Date: |b S ProjectStte:__cvf £2 tCrrks#Y state: AIS County: Is the hydrophytic vegetation ai ear met? Yes Rationale: = Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC 16° % _~_No SOILS Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No__— Histic epipedon present? Yes No_ No_—_Gleyed? Yes No Mettle Colors: Series/phase: ——— Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes No Is the soil: Mottled? Yes Matrix Color: = L Other hydric soil indicators: - = Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes_+~ No Rationale: Is the ground surface qo Yes. ls the soil saturated? Yes No Depth to free-standing water in rin pit/soil probe hole: “ c TiS HYDROLOGY No_ = ~ Surface water depth: ——————__________ \F “Owstee Romrins into bole Sexe) List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation. Weve of ergnnrc Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes wa No Rationale: horizon (16 ewe JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE No Is the plant community awetland? Yes Rationale for jurisdictional decision: 4 a 1 This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community Assessment Procedure. 2 Classification according to "Scil Taxonomy.” aoe 3-2 ) DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD! Field Investigator(s): £ Z ik Date: je Suge 49 : Vix) 54 State: A _ County: ApplicanttOwner: ——__________ Piant Community #Name:_@O4/zZ— Note: f a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a fieid notebook: Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? L344 -'(2 Yes No (lf no, explain on back) Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes No ___ (If yes, explain on back) VEGETATION Indicator Indicator Dominant Plant Species 7 2.<~ Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum 1. z Gove Excw 41, 2. & fo EeewW oe 12. —————————— 3, — Liha Frew TT 13, ——— 4. —_ 14, 5 —— EES S'S". SC 6. SEE Lai, SC ———— es. _—— —————— ee. es . CC Ls 19, — eo, — ss ————_ Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC boo % is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes_“ No Rationale: ZL. 2 base : SOILS er — Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes No Undetermined \ Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No __7_Histic epipedon present? Yes No_ = Corgerse hoe Is the soil: Mottled? Yes _~ No Gleyed? Yes No _ on ‘ Matrix Color: ze =X 72 Mottle Colors; to We S/o Other hydric soil indicators: ——Se- is bighty, set wate Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes_.—~“ No Rationale: HYDROLOGY Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No__-~ Surface water depth: Is the soil saturated? Yes_.~ No Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole: List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation. i) {jet =a c in aN Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes_,/_ No Rationale: JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland? Yes — No Rationale for jurisdictional decision: i te ne et els Sct F Serr 1 This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Piant Community . Assessment Procedure. 2 Classification according to “Soil Taxonomy.” B-2 (C DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD" pa rae ee ee ee Project/Site:. Mi eS Ahn MONS sierstitrcinenee: KODUIIIS ccrnaasscppciindaicenidigeamentapeanaaiioens Applicant/Owner: Plant Community #/Name: fran = PERI Note: if a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook: Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? LIAY Pe- 1d Yes No ——__ (If no, explain on back) Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes No (If yes, explain on back) : VEGETATION Indicator Indicator Dominant Plant i Cevt~ Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum OReat eae ae ee ee ee 2, CR ore boo EAD ou (2 eS SS 9: LTR 29% _O6F _I4+ _ 13, — 4, —Dsgoc 20 14, as 5. ce ERE, He | 6, <= CAI ee See Se 16 ee OE Z 173 en Ph elt Fe 8. a aes ea ee 9. = ——— 10. 20. eee Se Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC__/ oo % Is the hydrophytic vegetation cr criterion mete Yes_~__No Rationale: adara bin -leerse SOILS Series/phase: a VP Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes__ ~~. Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No. 2. Histic ep ae —— ves __ No Is the soil: Mottled? Yes No —: Gleyed? Matrix Color: AWehe = Mottle Colors: Other hydric soil indicators: rere eek Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes____—s—/No Vise, Aeohre= Ise lS Rationale: becouse of vegetere?e — by bo celos ever whe (~~ + im Indicates of eetlerct soe s) Y HYDROLOGY ( Stas bes. Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No Surface water depth: LO = a Is the soil saturated? Yes No : AS ie = Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole: List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation. Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes_.~_ No Rationale: JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland? Yes i No Rationale for jurisdictional decision: ol 2 - s 1 This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community Assessment Procedure. 2 Classification according to “Soil Taxonomy.” DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD! Field Investigator(s): Sie: \ds og Date: ie "gy Project/Stte: We ee ee State: Applicant/Owner: ———_ Plant Community #/Name: sone Si\feEM) Note: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook: Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? - | Yes See No___ (If no, expiain on back) Lsa4h 4 Has the veg ae tion, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes uw _- (lf yes, explain on back) VEGETATION : 5 Indicator Indicator Boman Pant Specs __ Status __ Stratum Dominant Plast Sonces____ Saws_ aun {ICC REE aiot/ ie Ce se 2 eC Ra 0a A) ee | 2 Ee ee gh = CERO Geen 68 ee io ee es Se SS OSS SS EES = eS Se NA pi Oo bee Se 6 SSS SS eS SS To eee ems eee Ne , OT, | 9 eS ee SS EE 10). ee Ee ee Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC 200% Is the hydrophytic vegetation chedon met? Yes 173 No =a Rationale: 7 rte SOILS Series/phase: = SS Subgroup: Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes No Undetermined Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No Histic epipedon present? Yes No Is the soil: Mottled? Yes No Gleyed? Yes No Matrix Coll: ci Motte Colors: Other hydric soil indicators: ee ee Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes No Wo sols date Las on Rationale: Se eee A od ort ee a 2 HYDROLOGY ( Is the ground surface inundated? Yes Z No____ Surface water depth: Ea <—— Is the soil saturated? Yes No Depth to free-standing water in piv/soil probe hole: List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation. ihe welandivaeyaoron nel? Yep Nea Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes _ ~~ _ ene Rationale: See ec eeh eee er i thee Aryest © ee JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community awetland? Yes x No Rationale for jurisdictional decision: Theaet= 2 Cope te oe tae en as aoe 1 This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community s Assessment Procedure. 2 Classification according to "Soil Taxonomy.” DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD" Field Investigator(s): __ Row: Date: 1b Saget. /44 ProjecySte: Lami ge a State: _4 __ County: Applicant/Owner: Plant Community #/Name: _¢ G4 1/551 Nw) PEMIeE Note: if a more detailed site description is n , use the back of data form or a field notebook: Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Yes _- No___ (If no, expiain on back) Has the veg vegetation, so sails, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes No__t~ (If yes, explain on back) Indicator Indicator ET nee on, ee EE 1. ZAK : Aa ae nr ae ae ———— OE 1 eee ee 3. cece etic TSS a 4 ahs ves, ABS eee eee 5. ee ae 15. a ee 6 eo ee eS 7, —kssocteAes 0 L877, _———————— 6, CATA es 1B: ees, es Os ee es ae | en 6 —— 20. a eee Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC__1 00s Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion metry Yea Za No Rationale: . SOILS ~ Series/phase: Subgroup:2—<——— Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No Is the soil: Mottled? Yes Matrix Color: Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes No ' Rationale: 2 a Oe Kiel hk ee: si peatec = 2m = *. aor ~ HYDROLOGY Is the ground surface inundated? Yes Y_ No Surface water depth: H+ tee degen hen wakLkiit a— Is the soil saturated? Yes No Depth to free-standing water in pit/soi! probe hole: List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation. Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes /_ No Rationale: JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community awetland? Yes YY No Rationale for jurisdictional decision: LL + 22 ta enter S i + ' This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community Assessment Procedure. 2 Classification according to “Soil Taxonomy.” B-2 AC AN EEN A 5 TL TEE ETC TARE CN CS PTET LAS Se OR CC LEAT A DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD? Field Investigator(s): eat <i Bd Date: Project/She:. State: ________ County: Applicant/Owner: ————___ Piant Community #/Name: IAS SE Note: if a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook: Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? . W4A49A -1G Yes _ No_____(Ifno, explain on back) inde Carter Has the veg vegetation, so soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? 2 Yes No_-~_(Ifyes, expiain on back) tt a a a ee em a eres te os rear VEGETATION Sui Indicator Indicator Dominant Plant Species Status_ Stratum Dominant Plant Species__—_—s Status_ Stratum 2. ot / oi een eee (2) es Sra CRO ee ere 1 7 ee enn ree Oo Ce a | or es EE oe ) | 8 eC C8, 9. ——— eel 0a ace ge Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes No_ rs aap amie ae Ad oder A beer tlie Ee SOILS Series/phase: —-_E Subgroup: Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes No Undetermined Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No __— Histic epipedon present? Yes No_i~ O-D YX. od Is the soil: Mottled? Yes_ Gleyed? Yes No_. ~ ae Matrix Color: eso Mottle Colors: a4 Bf, Other hydric soil incicators: Is the hydric soil cziterion met? Yes Rationale: ee eee ee ee HYDROLOGY Is the ground surface inundated? Yes sss No Y Surtace water depth: Is the soil saturated? Yes No ae Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole: List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation. e x =+ Sues, <45> =~! =< Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes No” ~~ Rationale: JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland? Yes No_— Rationale for jurisdictional decision: : xy 2 a Cen a roe tl egt parhey § 1 This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and ths Plant Community tore oot ya Assessment Procedure. 2 Classification according to “Soil Taxonomy.” B-2 DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD! A Date: _)& ua State: ___-_____. Cou Saeei — Plant Community #/Nameo: Cae a ars en Note: if a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook: Do norm: ronmental conditions exist at the plant community? Yes No (If no, explain on back) Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes No (if yes, explain on back) Wf = a XN °o Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC ) 00%o Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes __\~ No Rationale: SOILS Series/phase: ee eee aa AL eT Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes No came Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No____ Histic ‘epipedon | present? Yes No Is the soil: Mottled? Yes No yed? Yes No Matrix Color: Mottle Colors: Other hydric soil indicators: : Is the hydric soil criterion m Boll pit becerse V Rationale: ii merc ace a ee Ae oO t=+: eee ne ee ee ee ee gathered ce areal eee Roto if HYDROLOGY Is the ground surface inundated? Yes_./__No Surface water depth: Wace23, S - 7 20 Is the soil saturated? Yes No Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole: List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation. Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes Z No Rationale: JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland? Yes ~_ No Rationale for jurisdictional decision: =a 2 r = c 1 This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community Assessment Procedure. 2 Classification according to “Soil Taxonomy.” DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD? Field Investigator(s): Ko pt JS Date: _/6 Scot, “FY Project/Stte: State: AK __._ County: ApplicantOwner: Gus A (ct (nts S$ eeven Plant Community #/Name: 24 ASC ( teow ara Q mee Note: it a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook: Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Yes pa No___ (If no, explain on back) Has the veg vegetation, sc ils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes No (if yes, explain on back) VEGETATION I ir Indicator Dominant Plant Species Status__ Stratum Dominant Plant Species _____ Status _ Stratum 1. —< 2272 Ven’ Jit ALTA M0 2g SST SST 2 Se ea nena ee tt as 3. —— 13, Ge errr ees | beeen eee A ————s) | eee 5s eC LS. 6... 18. To 1 ee 8 Cl L188. | ee, 1, ee 20, ee Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC MI Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes____ No Rationale: SOILS Seriesiphases 2 Subgroup: Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes No Undetermined Is the soil a Histosol? Yes_.~“ No Histic epipedon present? Yes No Is the soil: Mottled? Yes No__-~ Gleyed? Yes No_i Matrix Color: eal; Mottle Colors: ae Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes_,~ _ No Rationale: I HYDROLOGY Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No Surface water depth: Is the soil saturated? Yes_.4— No Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole: List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation. ak A Lon \ Is the wetland hydrology criterién met? Yes — No Rationale: eet tered Ns cacti eated Sad JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland? Yes wa No Rationale for jurisdictional decision: -) —_— _ ‘ s 1 This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community Assessment Procedure. 2 Classification according to “Soil Taxonomy.” This wetlmk toe NS Greg Pee oon iene * DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD" ApplicantOwner: 6 + 7-4 Coats ev Plant Community #/Name: ese Note: Hf a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook: Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Yes _\ No (Hf no, explain on back) e : lA iho Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes No — (If yes, explain on back) VEGETATION In lor Indicator Dominant Plant Species... Status _ Stratum Dominant Plant Species _—__—Status_ Stratum ft) E To. ee Se 2. sf ua 2OCl2 35 __-*42! ——<— 9, Ponta 29% fre _S_ 13, 4. (7. 1 eT eee 5. LO _——— 6. —S 6, — ———— 7”, — 6. ee a8", Se SS ——————————————— ee — VO, cm 2. Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC 100% Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes___—sNo Rationale: = SOILS Sereephase: Subgroup? ts the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes No Undetermined Is the soil a Histosol? Yes_.— No Histic epipedon present? Yes No_ ts the soil: Mottled? Yes No_~ Gleyed? Yes No_ =~ Matrix Color: - Mottie Colore: Ghertyéfesdt idioites: — ee ee Is the hydric soll criterion met? Yes _+~_ “_ No Rationale: a} isc Ll > cS ~ sO uo HYDROLOGY Is the ground surface inundated? Yes____- No_1~_ Surface water depth: ls the soll saturated? Yes_ ~~ No___ Depth to free-standing water In pit/soil probe hole: a List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation. Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes Rationale: CE ee re a eS JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE —* Is the plant community a wetland? Yes No Rationale for petdtonsl: decision: 1 This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community Assessment Procedure. 2 Classification according to "Soll Taxonomy.” B-2 | RRR SNS SE SST a RR NY a ARN RES ESS ESS TS TEE AT EE EE SS SOS PETA SE ET DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD? Field Investigator(s): qq Sees Date: _'! 5 Sept. “44 ProjectGke: 1 a inte: A County: ApplicantOwner: —GVE2 ext (ants Sieur Plant Community #/Name: ail |= SI Note: Hf a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook. Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Yes _«“ No (If no, explain on back) Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes No__-~ (If yes, explain on back) VEGETATION Indicator , Indicator Dominant Plant Species ~~ Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species __—Status_— Stratum 1. P56 70% 9 _Frop _T 11. 2. ALchkR 212Veo ara S 12. i 3. Sere Joyo <a#tW _W_ 13, — —__ 4. 14. —— 5: ——— 6. 16. ee ees i 175 _——— 8. 18. —————— 9. 19. 10 20. ——————— Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, — om <“s s% Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes Rationale: aici 7 aaa sr rl Woy artis SOILS Series/phase: —_-__ Subgroup: Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes No Undetermined v Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No = Histic epipedon present? Yes No__ + Is the soil: Mottled? Yes_ ~ No Gleyed? Yes No Matrix Color: 10 Y¥@°37T " Mottle Colors: —S 4K G7 @ Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes ~~ No . Rationale: 5) is es Se ST Sethe Cntr. HYDROLOGY Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No_—~ Surface water depth: Is the soil saturated? Yes No Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole: ome List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation. Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes No_ Rationale: Se" “ a wit ive ct evidence of arent at on, z JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland? Yes No_~ Rationale for jurisdictional decision: . Pi ders ot 28 pee eet th ft pee Ce? vice ct oA on we 1 This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community Arg tot gy a Assessment Procedure. Efe, ere tls 2 Classification according to “Soil Taxonomy.” Cet eS: B-2 > DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD? Field investigator(s): I< £4 /acet) éate: IS Ser AY Project’ Site: 5 eee sate County: ApplicantOwner: 25 > ast (Ser eee, Plant Community #/Name:_° SSJem ca C torte fa Note: f a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook: sere FS81IG i ie can aun ws ein CSS sw is siecle le Ga a Wl RL am cnet Ai ae en i Uae a nc Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? “ -, i. Yes No (If no, explain on back) Prot TK4 4P-% 4 Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes No__— (If yes, explain on back) VEGETATION Indicator Indicator Dominant Plant ee ceve~ Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species Status e . _ | ee 1. 2 SAP 3.0% 12. a ei oe 13. 14, 15. 16. iz 18. 19. 10. 20. Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC 122 Yo Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? yes ~__No Rationale: 2 2O°/s ba, da aah 0 v g Z 3 cfr 2 ||| BREF HI] FER CONANEY HILT TL HI TITTTT| —_ SOILS Series/phase: ——-__ Subgroup? —s Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes No Undetermined ___* Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No__Histic epipedon present? Yes No _~ Is the soil: Mottled? Yes _~ No Gleyed? Yes No_ Matrix Color: ___15 YR 4/7 Mottle Colors: 2.5 Ye S/e Other hydric soll indicators; ——tasartg ere Fe Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes ~~ No e Rationale: Many St Cg hee a - n a 2 fo $ Lo, oe HYDROLOGY Is the ground surface inundated?_ Yes No _~~_ Surface water depth: Is the soil saturated? Yes_+~ No Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole: List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation. Soi pes “betieh" wo nt nA we Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes_v~ No —_— hetura«tian Rationale: on a at piel 2 T= os ~ 4 eS ; Bl ee Se eh 6K et St tb en Bate. Si eests 7 = of. JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE yy emrtet wets, Is the plant community awetland? Yes_~% No - Rationale for jurisdictional decision: Bet thine ¢ = Bie eel ieee ee apt meet t 5, 1 This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community Assessment Procedure. 2 Classification according to “Soil Taxonomy.” B-2 wert Ov vieRy ware i / ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD! ThA Tee Date: | SiS: State: ________ County: » DATA FORM Field Investigator(s): Project/Stte: Applicant/Owner: BYE A eet eS Sere Pfant Community #/Name: _? £6 = LS inp EL = VW Note: if a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook: Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Yes ~_No (If no, explain on back) Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes No__“(If yes, explain on back) VEGETATION Indicator Indicator Dominant Plant Species_--v<~ Status _ Stratum Dominant Plant Species _—-Status_— Stratum 1. E 3d Yo Fach Tt. 2. -LTGE 320% Ewe 12. ee 3. —sA Lin _3n “Le Facw) _S 13. 4, _3A@E ie SS 14. evStnEns musianioner 5. hast 32 a — ZACK 4 15. en 6 —EOPR Yoyvo facw _ 16, ae Ss ws 1S Des Wz. ——— 8. 18. ———— 9, 19. ————— 10 ee 20, as Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or _ n°. VS 5 yids of Oe 1sa~ yo ) Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterionmet? Yes Rationale: Fo 4 oe ee Fee SOILS Series/phase: a Subgroup:2 Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes No Undetermined _ ~~ Is the soila Histosol? Yes a Lv Histic epipedon present? Yes___—ss—«s No v Is the soil: Mottled? Yes /_ Gleyed? Yes No y Matrix Color: ee Mies, —® Mottle Colors: +S eR Y/L ( > 35 —— Other hydric soll indicators: ee Is the hydric soll criterion met? Yes No_~ Rationale: EEE HYDROLOGY Is the ground surface inundated? Yes_——Ss—s No «~~ Surface water depth: Is the soil saturated? Yes No 7 Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole: __—— List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation. Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes__—Ss—s No Zz Rationale: Ae Ecce art tat ail gy JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland? Yes No_ VW Rationale for jurisdictional decision: <i =~ Tee < A- = ' This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community Assessment Procedure. 2 Classification according to “Soil Taxonomy.” ec " DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD Field Investigator(s): << 2 A /Secwl-s Date: a csi Project/Stte: = 1S. Ss State a ‘Cobnty:, ApplicanvOwner: SUE ted Cds Aaarees Plant Community #/Name: __¢ 35 Em 1 3 wor S/En 18 (Nwr) Note: lf a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field catelapalc. Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Yes _»~ No (If no, explain on back) Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes No __.— (If yes, explain on back) VEGETATION . . Indicator Indicator Dominant Plant Species -,.— Status Stratum DominantPlant Species _—_—Status_— Stratum 1. _BEA/A bo Exe TS 44. 2. LEP EESO/AL Fag? 12. is ate 3 CHCA 22°4 FACw _S 13. AER veNpRNN 4. Ea va 22% FACW _H 14. — 5. CACK 22° Ere _u 15. ———— 6. 16. ————— qe 17: _—— 8. 18. eee eet 9. 3 x 19. ——— 10. 20. — Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC loo% Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion msl Yes _ ov No Rationale: Pe SOILS __ Series/phase: —___ Subgroup? Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes No Undetermined ~~ Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No __ Histic epipedon present? Yes No_— Is the soll: Mottled? Yes — No Gleyed? Yes_— No Matrix Color: Mottle Colors: _= Other hydric soll indicators: ——S2.' feels wet ape SN Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes Zs No_ Rationale: ine iS ge lg. ln iaremieetin tea ong ayaneipnnneetetee ” HYDROLOGY Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No _+~ Surface water depth: Is the soil saturated? Yes ~~ No _ Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe he adh in cereesiamnneeegabiter ntciemmenigict icp acigpeataememmmamnlons List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation. Is the wetland ey criterion met? Yes_* No . Rationale: < 1th JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland? Yes__™ No Rationale for jurisdictional decision: weet. Spee . ' This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community Assessment Procedure. 2 Classification according to “Soil Taxonomy.” ee Ch B-2 ‘ * DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD! Field Investigator(s): A —— Date: 1S Sept, “99 Project/Stte: State: AK County: Applicant/Owner: GEA (re ben ts Sires Plant Community #/Name: _PeniteCue) Note: lf a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook. Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Pheer OKAYS ey Yes No (If no, explain on back) Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes No_~ (If yes, explain on back) \ or VEGETATION or Dominant Plant Species_-_. Status_ Stratum Dominant Plant Species __——s Status_ Stratum 1. —LARO 739% _e&t 4 4, = iN en i ole 12, ———— 3. eee 3", Se, EE a EE To ————_—_ a, 8 eC LB", Se 9. 19. ——<— 10. DO, Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC fae = Is the hydrophytic veosiation criterion met? Yes_W No _ ee See cteth tee Rationale: a enh A Coreg ~maqeitopn ey SOILS Series/phase: Subgroup :? Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes = ~No Undetermined Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No_ ~_ Histic ‘epipedon present? Yes___——s—«sNéo Is the soil: Mottled? Yes No__ Gleyed? Yes No Matrix Color: ___________mtmtm§t__ Mottle Colors: Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes No Rationale: - Sn EE HYDROLOGY Is the ground surface inundated? Yes_-~~ No____ Surface water depth: a ee eS Is the soil saturated? Yes“ No____ Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole: ___. List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation. Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes_y~ Ss No___ Rationale: (=x : A JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community awetland? Yes_t No Rationale for jurisdictional decision: ON ea tt le ek er St ST 1 This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil.Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community , Assessment Procedure. 2 Classification according to “Soil Taxonomy.” B-2 DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD? Field Investigator(s): 472A / Tecetes Date: I SS St FY Project/Ste;___lle State A Cotnty: ee ApplicanvOwner: ek ie td Sein Srey Plant Community #/Name:__@ ss/em (@ Note: Hf a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook. normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? tats IKE on No ____(If no, explain on back) o Hee the veg Sicadaibon, be soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes No __.~ (If yes, explain on back) VEGETATION icator Dominant Plant Species - .. Status Stratum Dominant Plant les Status Stratum i 7 EAC 11. 12) 13. 14, 15. ee ee 17. 18. 9. 19. 10. 20. Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC __/ 53 °*/o !s the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes“ _ No Rationale: : all ||| reth 3. 4. 5. & 22%. OB 6 7 8 v = o SOILS cinamiane? nen Series/phase:) —— eS ihgroup:? Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes No Undetermined Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No_~_ Histic epipedon present? Yes No_— Is the soil: Mottled? Yes No Gleyed? Yes No Matrix Color: “1a YRS/>——— Mottle Colors; 7. S- Other hydric soil indicators: Set eet be ee eB ee Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes_% No___ Rationale: ; HYDROLOGY ls the ground surface inundated? Yes No__&_ Surface water depth: Is the soil saturated? Yes_ ~~ No Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole: _ 20 ¢>— List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation. Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes _ No Rationale: JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland? Yes ~ No Rationale for jurisdictional decision: Gos 5 24s A mi 5 = 1 This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community Assessment Procedure. 2 Classiication according to “Soil Taxonomy.” B-2 Qn “R= Matrix Color: ek ays Mottle Colors: —— DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD? Field Investigator(s): meh Lc ph Date: 16 Segoe FY Project/Ste:———_=-<.£.___‘¢|______ State: 2K Cow ApplicanvOwner: Gv £2 asa Umea Sarasin Plant Community #”Name: wibes[as1 BST ta aehty Note: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook: oa a ea a a a a a a na ee a release =< ¢ a noi invironmental conditions exist at the plant community? s/Er. Ne _——___ (If no, expiain on back) = 1374 3,4 °= /@ . ise the iawgedon oe soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Cert Yes No __1 (ifyes, explain on back) qe ett a eee ae ee ae ae ae wine ies ae ee SS a 0 SS SS SS SS a SS See == yee’ ; VEGETATION ree Indicator Indicator SS Dominant Plant Species «+ Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum i a 1. < Zo FACK _T 11. ° 2 SS AA Ye EAL tS 12. —— a a CAS Oe 8. ; ———— 4. ——— eae Ls", 5, eee LL 1", 6. eee Ca. ee a eS. eeeierenen ipa C—O ae ——————— 10, 20, —— Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC___ 25 °/, ae Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes _u No Rationale: d oa ——— SCILS Series/phase: Subgreup:2 —_- Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes No Undetermined Is the soil a Histosol? Yes _v Ke Histic epipedon present? Yes No Organic be Is the soil: Mottled? Yes “—7_Gleyed? Yes. No_w > 4 2 er Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes_-“_ No Rationale: See (s wags HYDROLOGY ‘ ts the ground surface inundated?, Yes No 4 Surface water depth: Is the soil saturated? Yes_~ No Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole: List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation. jee tt 35 l Is the wetland Syerolaey criterion met? Yes_.~ No. Rationale: JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community awetland? Yes_v~ No Rationale for jurisdictional decisicn: 1 This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community . Assessment Procedure. 2 Classification according to “Soil Taxonomy.” B-2 a ™ wf ( ie Ww : DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD! Field Investigator(s): hee ete eRe Le, ProjectStte:___<72 igi “State: AK ApplicantOwner: GVEA aout lems S ewiss Plant Community #/Name: 6 9 County: Note: tf a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook: Yes (If no, explain on back) Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes No__1 (If yes, explain on back) Do ats sega conditions exist at the plant community? No 10. Rationale: ~ 20. Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC gs Ta Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes --_No || SCILS —— Series/phase: Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes No Is the soil a Histosol? Yes__“__—No Is the soil: Mottled? Yes Matrix Color: 104771 Mottle Other hydric soil indicators: - —— Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes_.“_ No Rationale: Is the soil saturated? Yes_ ~~ No Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole: __- List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation. HYDROLOGY ts the ground surface Inundated?, Yes No__~ Surlace water depth: — Subgreup:2 —_- Undetermined Histic epipedon present? Yes No_— Gleyed? Yes Coiors: A No _- No A el a ee ee a hata —— pcan Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes_.~_ No. Rationale: JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community awetland? Yes_w~ No Rationale for jurisdictional decisicn: 9 ad 0 Se te tet teeter KE ee 1 This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community Assessment Procedure. 2 Classification according to “Soil Taxonomy.” B-2 . DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD? Field Investigator(s); - a we Date: ‘ 4 Project/Stte: State: ________ County: ApplicantOwner: Plant Community #/Name: ee Note: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field hotebook: Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? LSa4 hk ee Yes _.“ _No____ (If no, expiain on back) Has the vogue, ils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes____—No__? (If yes, expiain on back) T 11. : Bees EAC _T 12: 2 Sena eat eee SS aEAC. Las E*cw 14. 5. - ay 20% frw _ wt 15. —— 16. es a — a, | en 9, ——____ 19, ee 20, ———_______ Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC__) 00 %o Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes_W~ No < Rationale: SOILS Series/phince so Situ: Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes_.=No_____—S— Undetermined . Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No _.~ <Z_Histic ‘epipedon present? Yes_ “No \O- 2O eR org. Is the soil: Mottled? Yes No Gleyed? Yes No 7 3 Matrix Color: __<¥ S77 —____ Mottle Colors; 1. S ve S/H Other hydric soil indicators: 9 Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes _ZN Rationale: i x 3 cn. - HYDROLOGY ls the ground surface inundated? , Yes No 4 Surface water depth: Is the soil saturated?’ Yes__—“ No Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole: 9 List other fi jeld evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation. 2!) et +> sty Sis Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes — No Rationale: JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community awetland? Yes wa No Rationale for jurisdictional decision: The aa AS oem 1 1 This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community Assessment Procedure. 2 Classification according to “Soil Taxonomy.” APPENDIX E REFERENCES APPENDIX E REFERENCES REFERENCES Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs (ADCRA). 1994a. Community Profile of Anderson. Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs. 1994b. Community Profile of Fairbanks. Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs. 1994c. Community Profile of Healy. Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs. 1994d. Community Profile of Nenana. a Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G). 1985. Alaska Habitat Management Guide, Interior Region. Map Atlas. ADF&G Division of Habitat. Juneau, Alaska. Alaska Department of Fish & Game. 1986. Alaska Habitat Management Guide. Impacts of Land and Water Use on Wildlife and Their Habitat and on Human Use of Fish and Wildlife. ADF&G, Division of Habitat. Juneau, Alaska. Alaska Department of Fish & Game. 1987. Alaska’s Wildlife and Habitat. ADF&G Habitat Division. Juneau, Alaska. Alaska Department of Fish & Game. 1993. Documentation of Peregrine Falcon Nest Sites in relation to State Land Use Proposals. Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration, Final Report, Project SE-2-6. ADF&G. Fairbanks, Alaska. Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR). 1981. Scenic Resources along the Parks Highway - Inventory and Management Recommendations. Land and Resource Planning Section Division of Research and Development. Alaska Department of Natural Resources. 1991. Tanana Basin Area Plan for State Lands. ADNR, Fairbanks, Alaska. GVEAMCS.RPT E-1 DECEMBER 1994 Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT/PF). 1980. Airport Master Plan Study, Fairbanks International Airport, 1980 - 2000. ADOT/PF, Division of Planning and Programming, Fairbanks, Alaska. December 1, 1980. Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. 1986. Airport Master Plan Study, Fairbanks International Airport, 1980 - 2000, 1985 Supplement. ADOT/PF, Division of Planning and Programming, Fairbanks, Alaska. April, 1986. Alaska Energy Authority. 1989. Economic Feasibility of the Proposed 138 kV Transmission Line in the Railbelt. Prepared for the Railbelt Electric Utilities by Decision Focus, Inc. Alaska Energy Authority. 1987. Anchorage-Fairbanks Transmission Intertie Upgrade, Feasibility Design and Cost Estimate. AEA, Anchorage, Alaska. 7 Alaska Pipe Line Contractors (APLC). 1993. The Denali Pipeline Project, Environmental Assessment. Prepared for Denali Pipeline Company by APLC, Houston, Texas. Alaska Power Authority. 1991. Railbelt Intertie Feasibility Study - Final Report. APA, Anchorage, Alaska. Algermissen, S.T., et al. 1990. Probabilistic Earthquake Acceleration and Velocity Maps for the United States and Puerto Rico. Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-2120, USGS. Andrews, E.F. 1977. Report on the Cultural Resources of the Doyon Region, Central Alaska. Anthropology and Historic Preservation Cooperative Park Studies Unit, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Occasional Paper No. 5. Associated Pipeline Contractors. 1993. The Denali Pipeline Project - Environmental Assessment. Prepared for Denali Pipeline Company, Anchorage, Alaska. Avery, M.L., P.F. Springer, and N.S. Dailey. 1978. Avian mortality at man-made structures: annotated bibliography. Biological Services Program. FWS/OBS-78/58. USDI. Fish and Wildlife Service. Beer, J.V. and M.A. Ogilvie. 1972. Mortality. pp 125-152 In Peter Scott and the Wildlife Trust, the Swans. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. GVEAMCS.RPT E-2 DECEMBER 1994 Bente, P. and J. Wright. 1993. Documentation of Peregrine Falcon nest sites. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration, Final Report, Project SE-2-7. Juneau, Alaska. Bente, P.J. and J. Wright. 1994. Documentation of Peregrine Falcon nest sites in relation to State land use proposals. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration, Draft Report, Project SE-2-7. Juneau, Alaska. Bishop. 1969. Moose Report, Volume 10. Annual Project Segment Report, Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration, Project W-15-R-3. Bowers, P.M., O.K. Mason, S.L. Ludwig, and A.S. Higgs. 1994. Cultural Resources Inventory and Assessment of the Proposed Healy to Fairbanks 230 kV Northern Intertie. Draft Report. Northern Land Use Research, Inc. Fairbanks, Alaska. October 24, 1994. Brooks, A. H. 1902. Coal resources of Alaska. Twenty-second Annual Report of the U. S. Geological Survey, pt. 3: 515-571. Brooks, A.H. 1923. The Alaska mining industry in 1921. in Mineral Resources of Alaska, 1921. U. S. Geological Survey Bulletin 739, pp.1-44. Government Printing Office, Washington. Capps, S.R. 1911. Mineral Resources of the Bonnifield Region. In: Mineral Resources of Alaska, 1910. U. S. Geological Survey Bulletin 480, pp.218-235, Government Printing Office, Washington. Capps, Stephen R. 1912. The Bonnifield Region Alaska. U. S. Geological Survey Bulletin 501, Government Printing Office, Washington. Coady, J. 1973. Interior Moose Studies, Volume I. Project Progress Reports, Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration, Projects W-17-4 and W-17-S. Corwardian, L., V. Carter, F. Golet, and E. Laroe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. USFWS, Biological Services Program, Report FWS/OBS-79/31. GVEAMCS.RPT E-3 DECEMBER 1994 Dixon, E. J. 1985. Cultural Chronology of Central Interior Alaska. Arctic Anthropology 22(1):47-66. Dixon, E. J., G.S. Smith, and D. C. Plaskett. 1980. Archaeological Survey and Inventory of Cultural Resources, Fort Wainwright, Alaska. Final Report Submitted by the University of Alaska-Fairbanks to the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District (DACA85-78-C-0047). Dryden and LaRue, Inc. 1994. Northern Intertie Project Cost Estimates. Anchorage, Alaska, July, 1994. Fairbanks North Star Borough. 1990. Fairbanks North Star Borough Comprehensive Plan. Community Planning Department. Adopted March 1984, Amended 1990. - Golder Associates, Inc. 1994. Phase 1 Geotechnical Investigation Northern Intertie Healy to Fairbanks, Alaska. Anchorage, Alaska. August, 1994. Gudgel-Holmes, D. 1979. Ethnohistory of Four Interior Alaskan Waterbodies. Research report from State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Research and Development, Anchorage. Harrison, J. 1963. Heavy mortality of Mute Swans from electrocution. Wildfowl Trust Ann. Rep. 14:164-165. Harza Engineering Company (Harza). 1987. Draft Report of Feasibility Study for Expansion and Upgrade of Anchorage to Fairbanks Intertie. Hemming, J. E. 1971. The Distribution and Movement Patterns of Caribou in Alaska. ADF&G, Wildlife Technical Bulletin Number 1. Juneau, Alaska. Hoover, K. H. 1978. Introduction To: Impacts of transmission lines on birds in flight. A proceedings. Oak Ridge Associated Universities. Sponsored by USDI, Fish and Wildlife Services. International Conference of Building Officials (CBO). 1988. Uniform Building Code. International Conference of Building Officials, Whittier, California. GVEAMCS.RPT E-4 DECEMBER 1994 Kachadoorian, R. 1960. Engineering and surficial geology of the Nenana-Rex area, Alaska. U.S. Geologocial Survey, Miscellaneous Geological Investigations, Map I-307. Kidd, J. G. 1994. Wetlands Survey for Proposed Northern Intertie - Healy to Fairbanks. Draft Report. Alaska Biological Research, Inc. Fairbanks, Alaska. October 14, 1994. Krapu, G. L. 1974. Avian mortality from collisions with overhead wires in North Dakota. Fall 1972. The Prairie Naturalist (6)1. Kroodsma, R. L. 1977. Effects of powerlines on raptors and waterfowl. Paper presented at AIBS Meetings, East Lansing, Michigan. , McKennan, Robert A.. 1981. Tanana. Jn Handbook of North American Indians Vol. 6, pp. 562-576. Moffit, Fred H. 1933. Mining Development in the Tatlanika and Totatlanika Basins, In Mineral Resources of Alaska, 1930. U. S. Geological Survey Bulletin 836, pp.339-345, Government Printing Office, Washington. Ogilvie, M. A. 1967. Population changes and mortality of the Mute Swan in Britain. Wildfowl Trust. 1965-66, 18:64-73. Pe’ we’, T.L. 1982. Geologic hazards of the Fairbanks area, Alaska. Alaska Geological and Geophysical Surveys Special Report 15. Pe’ we’, T.L. and R.D. Reger. 1983. Guidebook to permafrost and quaternary geology anlong the Richardson and Glenn highways between Fairbanks and Anchorage, Alaska. Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys, p. 93. Powers, W. Roger and John F. Hoffecker. 1989. Late Pleistocene Settlement in the Nenana Valley, Central Alaska. American Antiquity 54(2):263-287. Racine, Charles. 1970. The Use and Environmental Impact of Airboats on the Tanana Flats. Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Fort Wainwright, Fairbanks, Alaska. GVEAMCS.RPT E-5 DECEMBER 1994 Reynolds, Georgeanne. 1986. Historic Preservation Plan, U.S. Army Installations and Satellites in Alaska, Phase I: Inventory of Cultural Resources and Overview. Anchorage, Alaska: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Roseneau, D. 1984. Peregrine Falcon Nesting Habitat in the vicinity of the Proposed Healy to Fairbanks Intertie Route Crossing of the Tanana River and along the Tanana River between Fairbanks and Nenana. Unpublished report for LGL, Alaska Resource Association, Inc. Anchorage, Alaska. Roseneau, D. and A. Springer. 1991. Raptor Surveys in the Vicinity of the Healy Clean Coal Project near Healy, Alaska, May 30-31 and July 21-22, 1993. Selkregg, L. 1976. Alaska Regional Profiles, Yukon Region. University of Alaska, Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center. Prepared for the Office of the Governor and the Joint Land Use Planning Commission for Alaska. Shinkwin, A. and M. Case. 1984. Modern Foragers: Wild Resource Use in Nenana Village, Alaska. Alaska Department of Fish & Game, Division of Subsistence, Technical Paper No. 91. Slesin, L., M. Connelly, and D. Bergman. 1991. Electomagnetic Fields and Land-Use Controls. American Planning Association, Planning Advisory Service, Report No. 435, Chicago, Illinois. Smith, P. S. 1941. Past Lode-Gold Production from Alaska. In: Mineral Resources of Alaska, 1938. U. S. Geological Survey Bulletin 917, pp.159-212, Government Printing Office, Washington. Spindler, M. and B. Kessel. 1980. Avian Populations and Habitat Use in Interior Alaska Taiga. Syesis, Volume 13. Staley, D.P. 1993. A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of 19 Locations for the Proposed Yukon Measurement and Debriefing System in Interior Alaska. Prepared for Spectrum Sciences and Software, Inc. by Mariah Associates, Inc., Albuquerque, New Mexico. Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, Inc. 1982. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Report. Prepared for Acres American, on behalf of the Alaska Power Authority. GVEAMCS.RPT E-6 DECEMBER 1994 Thompson, L.S. 1978. Transmission line strikes: Mitigation through engineering design and habitat modification. In Impacts of transmission lines on birds in flight. pp 51-92. Proceedings of a symposium sponsored by the USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service. Thorson, R. M. 1978. Recurrent Late Quaternary Faulting Near Healy, Alaska. Alaska Division of Geologic and Geophysical Surveys Geologic Report 61, 10-14. Torri, J.F. and J.T. Hancock. 1982. Communication Tower Survey for 345 kV Intertie, Prepared for the Alaska Power Authority by Commonwealth Associates, Inc., Jackson, Michigan. Preliminary Report, Revised January 8, 1982. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1980a. Terrestrial Habitat Evaluation Criteria Handbook - Alaska. USFWS, Division of Ecological Services, Anchorage, “Alaska. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1980b. National Wetlands Inventory. Healy and Fairbanks quadrangles. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1982. National Wetlands Inventory. Healy and Fairbanks quadrangles. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. National Wetlands Inventory. Healy and Fairbanks quadrangles. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Bald Eagle Basics - Alaska. USFWS, Alaska Region. Usibelli Coal Miner. 1993. "“Usibelli Coal Mine Celebrates 50th Anniversary." Usibelli Coal Mine, Inc., Vol. 13, July. Viereck, L. 1975. Forest Ecology of Alaska Taiga, in Proceedings of the Circumpolar Conference on Northern Ecology, Natural Resources Council, Canada. Wahraftig, C. and R.G. Black. 1958. Quaternary and engineering geology in the central part of the Alaska Range. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 293. Wahraftig, C. 1970. Geologic map of the Healy D-4 quadrangle, Alaska. U.S. Geological Survey Map CQ-806. GVEAMCS.RPT E-7 DECEMBER 1994 Willard, D.E., J.T. Harris and M.J. Jaeger. 1977. The impact of a proposed 500kV transmission route on waterfowl and other birds. Public Util. Comm., Salem, Oregon. 89 pp. GVEAMCS.RPT E-8 DECEMBER 1994 PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS Ambrose, Skip. Ecological Services, USFWS, Fairbanks, Alaska. Personal communication, 1994. Bruce, Pam. Ft. Wainwright Resources Specialist, Ft. Wainwright, Alaska. Personal communication, 1994. Bente, Peter. Raptor Biologist, ADF&G, Fairbanks, Alaska. Personal communication, 1994. Fadley, Janie. Ecological Services, USFWS, Fairbanks, Alaska. Personal communication, 1994. Hectel, John. Bear Biologist, ADF&G, Fairbanks, Alaska. Personal communication, 1994. Holder, Russ. Fisheries Biologist, ADF&G/DFMD Division, Fairbanks, Alaska. Personal communication, 1994. Hymer, Wayne. Biologist, ADF&G, Fairbanks, Alaska. Personal communication, 1994. Ott, Al. Regional Habitat Biologist, ADF&G, Fairbanks, Alaska. Personal communication, 1994. Racine, Charles. Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanford, Connecticut. Personal communication, 1994. Valkenberg, Pat. Caribou Biologist, ADF&G, Fairbanks, Alaska. Personal communication, 1994. GVEAMCS.RPT E-9 DECEMBER 1994 APPENDIX F ACRONYMS ACRONYMS AC alternating current ADEC Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation ADF&G Alaska Department of Fish and Game ADNR Alaska Department of Natural Resources ADOT/PF Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities AEA Alaska Energy Authority AIDEA Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority AMLP Anchorage Municipal Light and Power ATVs all-terrain vehicles BESS Battery Energy Storage Systems BLM Bureau of Land Management Cc Celsius CEA Chugach Electric Association cfs cubic feet per second cm centimeters COE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers DC direct current DNPP Denali National Park and Preserve DOD Department of Defense DOL Division of Land EA Environmental Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement EMF electro-magnetic fields EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FAA Federal Aviation Administration FACTS flexible AC transmission system FIA Fairbanks International Airport FMUS Fairbanks Municipal Utility FNSB Fairbanks North Star Borough GVEA Golden Valley Electric Association HEA Homer Electric Association IPG Intertie Participants Group km kilometers kV Kilovolts MCS/PAR Macro-Corridor Study and Project Alternative Report GVEAMCS.RPT F-1 DECEMBER 1994 MEA mG ML&P MVAR NEPA NHPA RUS ROD SES SHPO SMESS TSSC USFWS USGS VAR ACRONYMS (continued) Matanuska Electric Association milligauss miligrams per liter Municipal Light and Power mega volt-amperes reactive megawatts National Environmental Policy Act National Historic Protection Act National Wetlands Inventory U.S. Rural Utilities Service (formerly REA) U.S. Rural Electrification Administration Record of Decision City of Seward Electric Association State Historic Preservation Office Superconducting Magnetic Energy Storage Systems thrystor switched series capacitor U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Geological Survey volt-amperes reactive GVEAMCS.RPT DECEMBER 1994