HomeMy WebLinkAboutSusista feasibility Vol 2 Section 5 though 11 1983....
1
j
TK
!Lj(}~
r'lO
.,,.;)C;·l
/1 ,di3
r---------.-_-'--_~IJ17/
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
FEASIBILITY REPORT
VOLUME 2
ENVIRONMENTAL
REPORT
SEC"nONS 5-11
FINAL DRAFT
Prepared for:
[Ii
Prepared by:
Te"e/tlial
Envilonmental
.pecialilt/,Inc.
1....---_ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY __----'
.-
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
LI ST OF FIGURES
PREFACE
-1 -GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE LOCALE
1.1 -Location .
1.2 -Physiography and Topography ,
1.3 -Geo logy and So -j 1s .
1.4 -Hydrology .
1.5 -Climate '~.
1.6 -Vegetation .
1.7 -Wildlife .
1.8 -Fish .
1.9 -Land Use .
1-1
1-1
1-1
1-1
1-2
1-2
1-3
1-3
1-3
2 -WATER USE AND QUALITY
2.1 -Water Use..................................................2-1
2.2 -Water Quality..............................................2-5
3 -REPURT ON FISH,WILDLIFE,ANU BOTANICAL kESUURCES
3.1 -Description of Botanical Resources .
3.2 -Uescription of Wildlife Resources .
3.3 -Description of Fish Resources .
3.4 -Threatened or Endangered Species .
3.5 -Anticipated Impacts on Botanical Resources .
3.6 -Anticipated Impacts on Wildlife Resources .
3.7 -Anticipated Impacts on Fish Resources .
3.8 -Anticipated Impacts on Thre~tened or Endangered Species .
3.9 -Mitigation of Impacts on Fish,Wildlife and Botanical
R.esources .
3-1
3-19
3-83
3-119
3-123
3-131
3-173
3-19~
3-201
4 -REPORT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.1 -Agency Consultation........................................4-1
4.2 -Survey Methods 4-2
4.3 -Historical and Archeological Sites in the Project Area 4-6
4.4 -Impacts on Historic and Archeological Sites 4-8
4.5 -Mitigation of Impacts on Historic and Archeological Sites..4-10
Note:Sections 1 to 4 are bound under separate cover.
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
5 -REPORT ON SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS
5.1 -Summary of Impacts .
5 .2 Ide nt ifi cat ion 0 f Imp ac t Ar e as .
5.3 Baseline Description .
5.4 Project Elements Influencing Change .
5.5 Socioeconomic and Sociocultural Project Impacts .
5.6 Mitigation Process .
6 -GEOLOGY AND SOILS
6.1 -General Geology and Soils .
6.2 Devi 1 Canyon Reservo ir .
6.3 Watana Reservoir .
6.4 Mitigation Measures .
6.5 Conclusions .
Page
5-1
5-4
5-7
5-26
5-46
5-57
6-1
6-2
6-4
6-8
6-9
""l!I
I
!
':1
7 -REPORT ON RECREATIONAL RESOURCES
7.1 -Recreational Lands Designations 7-1
7.2 Existing and Proposed Recreational Facilities 7-1
7.3 Plan for Public Access 7-6
7.4 Estimates of Existing and Future Recreational Use 7-7
7.5 Schedule and Cost of Recreation Facility Development ..7-8
8 -REPORT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES
8.1 -Aesthetic Character of Lands and Water to be Affected .
8.2 -Impacts on Aesthet ic Resources .
8-1
8-2
9 -REPORT ON LAND USE
9.1 -Existing Land Use in Project Area 9-1
9.2 -Land Uses With the Project .........................•.......9-10
10 -ALTERNATIVES TO THE SUSITNA PROJECT
10.1
10.2
10.3
10.4
10.5
10.6
-Non-Susitna Hydroelectric Alternatives .
Environmental Assessment of Selected Alternative Sites .
Upper Susitna Basin Hydroelectric Alternatives .
Coal-Fired Generation Alternative .
Tid alP owe r A1t ern at i ve s .
Comparison of Alternatives .
10-1
10-7
10-13
10-26
10-35
10-51
,
I
11 -LIST OF LITERATURE
11.1 -General Description of the Locale .
11.2 -Water Use and Quality .
11.3 -Fish,Wildlife and Botanical Resources .
11.4 -Historic and Archeological Resources .
11.5 -Socioeconomics .
11.6 -Geological and Soil Resources .
11.7 -Recreational Resources .
11.8 -Aesthetic Resources .
11.9 -Land Use .
11.10 -Alternatives to the Susitna Project .
11-3
11-5
11-7
11-29
11-43
11-63
11-65
11-67
11-73
11-77 -
LIST OF TABLES
Table
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
3.10
3.11
3.12
3.13
3.14
3.15
3.16
3.17
3.18
3.19
3.20
3.21
Title
Susitna Township Grid
Summary of Water Appropriations
Water Appropriptions Within One Mile of the Susitna River
Basin and Runoff Characteristics
Detection Limits for Water Quality Parameters
Parameters Exc~eding Criteria by Station and Season
Common and Sciehtific Names of Plant Species Appearing in the Text
Hectares and Percentage of Total Area Covered by Vegetation/Habitat
Types in the ~pper Susitna River Basin
Hectares and pe!centage of Total Area Covered by Vegetation/Habitat
Types for the A ea 16 km on Either Side of the Susitna River From Gold
Creek to the Mc aren River
Hectares and Pe cent of Total Area Covered by Vegetation/Habitat Types
Within the He ly to Fairbanks Transmission Corridor
Hectares and Percent of Total Area Covered by Vegetation/Habitat Types
Within the W0low to Cook Inlet Transmission Corridor
Vascular Plant ISpecies Recorded in the Upper Susitna River Basin Which
are Outside of Their Range as Reported by Hulten (1968)
Hectares of Different Wetland Types by Project Component
Common and Scientific Names of Furbearer and Big Game Species Mentioned
in the Text
Summary of Elevational Use by Approximately 200 Radio-Collared Moose
From October 1976 Through Mid-August 1981 in the Upper Susitna and
Nelchina River Basins of Southcentral Alaska
Nelchina Caribou Herd Population Estimates,in Fall Unless Otherwise
Noted
Reported Hunter Harvest of the Nelchina Caribou Herd,1972-1981
Summary of Territory Sizes for Wolf Packs Studied as Part of the
Susitna Hydroelectric Project Studies During 1980 and 1981 in
Southcentral Al aska
Estimate of Numbers of Wolves by Individual Pack Inhabiting the Susitna
Hydroelectric Study Area in Spring and Fall 1980 and 1981
Summary of Wolf Den and Rendezvous Sites Discovered From 1975 Through
1981 Occurring Within an 80 Kilometer Radius of the Proposed Susitna
Hydroelectric Project in Southcentral Alaska
Comparisons of Food Remains in Wolf Scats Collected at Den and
Rendezvous Sites in 1980 and 1981 from GMU-13 of Southcentral Alaska
Average Spring Ages of Susitna Area Brown Bear Subpopulations
Reported Brown Bear Densities in North Jlmerica
Comparisons of Mean Home Range Size of Brown Bears Radio-Collared in
1978,1980,and 1981 Studies in GMU-13
Comparison of Reported Home Range Sizes of Brown/Grizzly Bears in North
America
Early Spring Use of Devil Canyon and Watana Impoundment Areas by
Radio-Collared Brown Bears
Number of Aerial Brown ~ear Observations by Month in Each of Five
Habitat Categories
ARLIS
Alaska Resources
Library &Information Services
Anchor.Jge.Alaska
LIST OF TABLES (Cont1d)
Table
3.22
3.23
3.24
3.25
3.26
3.27
3.28
3.29
3.30
3.31
3.32
3.33
3.34
3.35
3.36
3.37
3.38
3.39
3.40
Title
Average Spring Ages of Black Bear Subpopulations in the Susitna Area
and Kenai Peninsula
Densities of Black Bears as Estimated in Studies Conducted in Different
Localities
Comparisons of Mean Home Range of Black Bears Radio-Tracked in 1980
and 1981 Studies in GMU-13
Number of Aerial Black Bear Observations by Month in Each of Five
Habitat Categories
Tabulation of November,1980 Aerial Snow Transect Data,Indicating
the Number of Furbearer Tracks,by Species,Noted on Each Transect
Background Information for Radio-Collared Marten,Tsusena Creek Area,
1980
Occurrence of Beaver Signs Along Three Sections of the Lower Susitna
River
Results of Otter and Mink Surveys,Susitna River,10 through 12
November,1980.Number of Tracks of Each Species Observed at North
and South Sides of 37 River Check Points
Tabulations of November,1980 Aerial Snow Transect Data,Indicating the
Distribution of Furbearer Tracks,by Species,Noted in Various
Vegetation Types
Common and Scientific Names of Birds Mentioned in the Text
Relative Abundance of Loons,Grebes,and Waterfowl,Upper Susitna River
Basin,Alaska,Based Primarily on Total Number Observed on 1980 and
1981 Aeri al Surveys and 1981 Gr.ound Surveys
Relative Abundance of Large Landbirds and Cranes,Upper Susitna River
Basin,Alaska,Based Primarily on Total Number Observed 17 Apri 1-23
October 1981,excluding Observations from Aircraft
Relative Abundance of Shorebirds and Gulls,Upper Susitna River Basin,
Alaska,Based Primarily on Total Number Observed 17 April-23 October
1981,but Supplemented by Data from late Summer and Fall 1981 for
Rare Species
Relative Abundance of Small Landbirds,Upper Susitna River Basin,
Alaska,Based Primarily on Total Number Observed 17 Apri 1-23 October
1981,Supplemented by Data from Late Summer and Fall 1980 for the
Less Numerous Species
Avian Habitat Occupancy Levels,Upper Susitna River Basin,Breeding
Season,1981
Number of Territories of Each Bird Species on Each 10-Hectare Census
Plot,Upper Susitna River Basin,Alaska 1981
Number of Adult Waterbirds (or Independent Young)and Broods Found on
28 Waterbodies,Upper Susitna River Basin,Alaska,July 1981
Summary of Total Numbers and Species Composition of Waterbirds Seen on
Surveyed Waterbodies During Aerial Surveys of the Upper Susitna River
Basin,Fall 1980
Summary of Total Numbers and Species Composition of Waterbirds Seen on
Surveyed Waterbodies During Aerial Surveys of the Upper Susitna River
Bas in,Fall 1981
1
J
~
I
i;;
LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd)
-
-i
-
-,
Table
3.41
3.42
3.43
3.44
3.45
3.46
3.47
3.48
3.49
3.50
3.51
3.52
3.53
3.54
3.55
3.56
3.57
3.58
3.59
3.60
Tit 1e
Summary of Total Numbers and Species Composition of Waterbirds Seen on
Surveyed Waterbodies During Aerial Surveys of the Upper Susitna River
Basin,Spring 1981
Waterfowl Noted Along the Susitna River Between Devil Canyon and Cook
Inlet,7 May 1981
Location of Active Raptor and Raven Nest Sites,Upper Susitna River
Basin,Alaska,1980 and 1981
Bald Eagle Observations Noted During the 26 June 1981 Flight Along the
Susitna River from Cook Inlet to Portage Creek
Breeding Chronologies of Eagles,Gyrfalcon,and Common Raven in
Interior Alaska
Species of Small IVlammals Found in the Upper Susitna River Basin,
Alaska,1980 and 1981
Habitat Locations Between Cook Inlet and Devil Canyon Sampled During
the Juvenile Anadromous and Resident Fish Study
Common and Scientific Names of Fish Species Appearing in the Text
Unadjusted Sonar Counts of Chinook Salmon by Sampling Station,
Anadromous Adult Investigations,1981
Apportioned Sonar Counts and Petersen Population (Tag/Recapture)
Estimates by Species and Sampling Location,Adult Anadromous
Investigations,1981
Summary of Fishwheel Catches by Species and Sampling Location,Adult
Anadromous Investigations,1981
Petersen Population Estimates and Corresponding 95%Confidence
Intervals of Sockeye,Pink,Chum,and Coho Salmon r~igrating to
Sunshine,Talkeetna,and Curry Stations,Adult Anadromous
Investigations,1981
Arctic Grayling Total Catch by Month in the Upper Susitna River
Ora in age,1981
Ranges or Val ues Recorded for Parameters IVleasured at St udy Sites in
the Susitna River and Its Tributaries During the Summer Field Season,
1981
List of Endangered and Threatened Plant Species Sought in the Upper
Susitna Basin Surveys
Hectares of Different Vegetation Types to be Impacted by the Watana
Facility Compared with Total Hectares of That Type in the Entire
Upper Basin and in the Area Within 16 km of the Susitna River
Hectares of Different Vegetation Types to be Impacted by the Devi 1
Canyon Facility Compared with Total Hectares of That Type in the
Entire Upper Basin and in the Area Within 16 km of the Susitna River
Hectares of Different Vegetation Types to be Impacted by the Access
Road Compared with Total Hectares of That Typei n the Upper Basi nand
the Area Within 16 km of the Susitna River
Hectares of Different Vegetation Types to be Impacted by the Trans-
mission Facility Compared with Total Hectares of that Type in the
Transmission Corridors
Area of Overlap of Brown Bear Home Ranges and the Watana and Devil
Canyon Impoundments
LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd)
Table
3.61
3.62
3.63
3.64
3.65
3.67
3.68
3.69
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
5.10
5.11
5.12
5.13
5.14
5.15
5.16
5.17
5.18
5.19
5.20
5.21
Ti t le
Area of Overlap of Black Bear Home Ranges and the Watana and Devil
Canyon Impoundments
General Types of Impacts to Raptors
Disturbance of Raptors --Influence of Timing
Linear Distances of Cliffs in Vicinity of Proposed Impoundments,and
Distances That Would be Inundated
Number of Known Raptor or Raven Nest Sites in Upper Susitna River
Basin,Alaska,That ~~ould be Inundated by Devi 1 Canyon and Watana
Reservoirs
A General Assessment of Potential Fish Ecology Impact Issues by
Project Stage for the Ent i re Sus itna Ri ver Study Area Under Post-
Project Flows
Priority Organization of Wildlife Mitigation Impact Issues
Predicted Downstream Water Temperatures (DC)for an Average Year
with Project Flows
Total Resident Population and Components of Change,by Impact Area,
1970-1980
Civilian Labor Force Data and Percent Unemployed for Selected Areas
Community Population in the Matansuka-Susitna Borough
1981 Housing Stock Estimates and Vacancy Rates,by Areas of the
Matanuska-Susitna Borough
Comparison of Average Per Capita Expenditures for Selected Social
Services
Mat-Su Borough Community Facilities Summary
IVlat-Su Borough Communities:Business Location and Type
Matanuska-Susitna Borough Annual Nonagricultural Employment by Sector
Per Capita Personal Income in the Mat-Su Borough in Current and 1970
Do 11 ars
1981 Civilian Housing Stock in the Municipality of Achorage,by Type
Housing Stock in Fairbanks and the Fairbanks-North Star Borough,by
Type,October 1978.
Impact Area 3 Annual Nonagricultural Employment by Sector
On Site Construction and Operations Manpower Requirements 1983-2005
On Site Construction Work Force:Local,Alaska Nonlocal,and
Out-of-State,1983-2000
Operations Work Force:Local,Alaska Nonlocal,and Out-of-State,
1993-2005
Total Payroll for On Site Construction and Operations Manpower,
1983-2005
Total Construction Work Force Payroll Expenditure Pattern
Total Operations Work Force Payroll Expenditure Pattern
Construction Work Force:Project Employment and Residence of
Individuals Currently Residing in Impact Area 3
Construction Work Force:Inmigration and Place of Relocation in
Impact Area 3
Total Local Impact Area 3 Project Employment:Construction,
Operations,Indirect and Induced
~,
-
-
LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd)
Tab le Title
Regional Recreational Facilities
Description of Opportunity Settings
Description of Proposed Recreation Sites and Facilities
Daily Traffic Count for the Denali and Parks Highway
Visitor Counts for State Recreation Areas Adjacent to Parks Highway
Capital Improvement Costs -Phase 1
Capital Improvement Costs -Phase 2
Estimated Annual Operating Cost
Wasilla
on Houston
Houston and Talkeetna
on Tr apper Creek
on Talkeetna
on Impact Area 3
Anchorage and Fairbanks
on Palmer
Palmer
of the Project
the Project on
of the Project
the Project on
of the Project
the Project on
of the Project
of the Project
of the Project
the Project on
Community Impacts
Fiscal Impacts of
Community Impacts
Fiscal Impacts of
Community Impacts
Fiscal Impacts of
Community Impacts
Community Impacts
Community Impacts
Fiscal Impacts of
Total Inmigration to Impact Area 3:Construction,Operations,
Indirect,Induced.
Total Population Influx into Impact Area 3:Construction,Operations,
Indirect and Induced
Total School-Age Children Accompanying Inmigrant Workers:
Construction,Operations,Indirect,and Induced
Total Primary School-Age Children Accompanying Inmigrant Workers Into
Impact Area 3:Construction,Operations,Indirect,and Induced
Total Secondary School-Age Children Accompanying Inmigrant Workers Into
Impact Area 3:Construction,Operations,Indirect,and Induced
Summarized Community Impacts of the Project on the Mat-Su Borough
Summarized Fiscal Impacts of the Project on the Mat-Su Borough
Summarized Fiscal Impacts of the Project on the Mat-Su Borough School
District
Summari zed
Summarized
Summari zed
Summarized
Summarized
Summarized
Summarized
Summari zed
Summarized
Summarized
5.22
5.23
5.24
5.25
5.26
5.27
5.28
5.29
5.30
5.31
5.32
5.33
5.34
5.35
5.36
5.37
5.38
5.39
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.8
,....
8.1 Exceptional Natural Features
8.2 Other Important Natural Features
8.3 Potential Aesthetic Impacts of Borrow Areas and Housing Sites
r,,
9.1
9.2
9.3
9.4
9.5
9.6
9.7
9.8
Zone 1 -Existing Structures
Zone 2 -Existing Structures
Zone 3 -Existing Structures
Use Information for Existing Structures in the Upper Susitna River
Basin
Major Trails in the Upper Susitna River Basin
Parcels by Land Status/Ownership Category
Summary of Land Status/Ownership in Project Area
Summary of Present and Future Land Management Activities in the
Proposed Susitna Hydroelectric Project Area
LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd)
Table
10.1
10.2
10.3
10.4
10.5
10.6
10.7
10.8
10.9
10.10
10.11
10.12
10.13
10.14
10.15
10.16
10.17
10.18
10.19
10.20
Ti t le
Summary of Results of Screening Process
Sites Eliminated in Second Iteration
Evaluation Criteria
Sensitivity Scaling
Sensitivity Scaling of Evaluation Criteria (2)
Site Evaluations (3)
Site Evaluation Matrix
Criteria Weight Adjustments
Site Capacity Groups
Ranking Results
Shortlisted Sites
Alternative Hydro Development Plans
Operating and Economic Parameters for Selected Hydroelectric Plants
Potential Hydroelectric Development
Results of Screening Model
Environmental Evaluation of Devil Canyon Dam and Tunnel Scheme
Social Evaluation of Susitna Basin Development Schemes/Plans
Overall Evaluation of Tunnel Scheme and Devil Canyon Dam Scheme
Environmental Evaluation of Watana/Devil Canyon and High Devil
Canyon/Vee Development Plans (2)
Overall Evaluation of the High Devil Canyon/Vee and Watana/Devil
Canyon Dam Plans
-
,j
LIST OF FIGURES
,-,
I
-
r-
I
-
-
-
Figure
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
2.10
2.11
2.12
2.13
2.14
2.15
2.16
2.17
2.18
2.19
2.20
2.21
2.22
2.23
2.24
2.25
2.26
2.27
2.28
2.29
2.30
2.31
2.32
2.33
2.34
2.30
2.36
2.37
2.38
2.39
2.40
2.41
Title
Location of the Proposed Susitna Hydroelectric Project
Vicinities of the Proposed Dam Sites,Susitna Hydroelectric Project
Upper Susitna River Basin
Lower Susitna River Drainage
Data Summary -Color
Data Summary -Conductivity
Data Summary -Hardness
Data Summary -PH
Data Summary -Temperature
Data Summary -Total Dissolved Solids
Data Summary -Total Suspended Solids
Data Summary -Turbidity
Data Summary -Alkalinity
Data Summary -Chloride
Data Summary -Ammonia Nitrogen
Data Summary -Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Data Summary -Nitrate Nitrogen
Data Summary -Organic Nitrogen
Data Summary -Total Nitrogen
Data Summary -Oxygen,Dissolved
Data Summary -D.O.,%Saturation
Data Summary -Ortho Phosphate
Data Summary -Phosphorus
Data Summary -Sulfate
Data Summary -Total Inorganic Carbon
Data Summary -Free Carbon Dioxide
Data Summary -Aluminum (d)
Data Summary -Aluminum (t)
Data Summary -Bismuth (d)
Data Summary -Cadmium (d)
Data Summary -Cadmium (t)
Data Summary -Copper (d)
Data Summary -Copper (t)
Data Summary Iron (d)
Data Summary -Iron (t)
Data Summary -Lead (t)
Data Summary -Manganese (d)
Data Summary -Manganese (t)
Data Summary -Mercury (d)
Data Summary -Mercury (t)
Data Summary -Nickel (t)
Data Summary -Zinc (d)
Data Summary -Zinc (t)
Data Summary -Chemical Oxygen Demand
Data Summary -Total Organic Carbon
LIST OF FIGURES (Contld)
-
Figure
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
3.10
3.11
3.12
3.13
3.14
3.15
3.16
3.17
3.18
3.19
3.20
3.21
3.22
3.23
3.24
3.25
Ti t le
Vegetation Map of the Upper Susitna River Basin
Vegetation/Habitat l\<lap of an Area Within 16 km of the Upper Susitna
River,Western Portion
Vegetation/Habitat Map of an Area Within 16 km of the Upper Susitna
River,Central Portion
Vegetation/Habitat Map of an Area Within 16 km of the Upper Susitna
River,Eastern Portion
Vegetation/Habitat Map of Healy to Fairbanks Transmission Corridor,
Northern Portion
Vegetation/Habitat Map of Healy to Fairbanks Transmission Corridor,
Central Portion
Vegetation/Habitat Map of Healy to Fairbanks Transmission Corridor,
Southern Portion
Vegetation/Habitat Map of Willow to Point MacKenzie Transmission
Corridor,Northern Portion
Vegetation/Habitat Map of Willow to Point MacKenzie Transmission
Corridor,Southern Portion
Boundaries of the Susitna Moose Study Area -Upstream
Boundaries of Established Moose Count Areas
Relative Distribution of Moose Observed During a Winter
Distribution Survey Conducted from 4 through 25 March 1980
Distribution of Main Nelchina Radio-Collared Caribou,
14 Apri 1 1980 Through 29 September 1981
Ditribution of Nelchina Radio-Collared Caribou During the Calving
Period,15 May Through 10 June,1980 and 1981
Location of Radio-Collared Caribou in Subherds,9 May 1980 Through
22 September,1981
Suspected Locations and Territorial Boundaries of Wolf Packs
During 1980 and 1981
General Location and Year of Use of Observed Wolf Den and Rendezvous
Sites Discovered in the Susitna Hydroelectric Project Area from
1975 Through 1981
Wolverine Study Area
Furbearer St udy Area -Upstream
Aerial Transects for Furbearers and Checkpoints for Signs of Otter
and Mink
Tracking Locations for Four Radio-Collared Male Marten,1980
Temporal Variation in Numbers of Small Mammal Captures at 12 Sites
in the Upper Susitna River Basin,Alaska
Abundance Patterns of Eight Small Mammal Species Relative to Vege-
tation Types at 42 Sites in the Upper Susitna River Basin,Alaska,
29 July -30 August 1981
Field Stations,Adult Anadromous Investigations,ADF&G Susitna
Hydroelectric Studies,1981
Slough Locations and Primary Tributaries of the Susitna River From
-
,
}!
LIST OF FIGURES (Cont'd)
Figure Tit le
Slough Locations and Primary Tributaries of the Susitna River Between
Chase Creek and Slough 8
Slough Locations and Primary Tributaries of the Susitna River
Between Lower McKenzie Creek and Slough 8B
Slough Locations and Primary Tributaries of the Susitna River
Between Moose Slough and Fourth of July Creek
Slough Locations and Primary Tributaries of the Susitna River
Between Slough 9A (RKm 214)and Slough 20 (RKm 225)
Slough Locations and Primary Tributaries of the Susitna River
Between Slough 21 (RKm 227)and Devil Canyon
Yentna Study Reach
Sunshine Study Reach
Talkeetna Study Reach
Gold Creek Study Reach
Impoundment Study Reach
Dissolved Gas Saturation in Vicinity of Devil Canyon,12 June 1981
Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Plan Development and Implementation
Op t i on An a 1ys i s
Potential for Cultural Resources,
Potential For Cultural Resources,
Sites,Central
Sit e s,Ce nt ra 1
Sites,Central
Hi gh Potent i a 1
Study Area-Map I
Study Area-Map II
Study Area-Map III
for Cultural Resources,
Known Cultural Resources
Known Cultural Resources
Known Cultural Resources
Known Sites and Areas of
Southern Study Area
Known Sites and Areas of High
Northern Study Area-Map I
Known Sites and Areas of High
Northern Study Area-Map II
4.6
3.26
3.27
3.28
3.29
3.30
3.31
3.32
3.33
3.34
3.35
3.36
3.37
3.38
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
r"""
I
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
7.1
7.2
7.3
8.1
Socioeconomic Impact Areas
Employment,Population and Per Capita Personal Income in the
Matanuska-Susitna Borough,1970-1980
Employment,Population and Per Capita Personal Income in the
Railbelt Region,1970-1980
Employment,Population and Per Capita Personal Income in the
State of Al aska,1970-1980
On-Site Construction and Operations Work Force Requirements
Recreational Opportunity Setting for the Susitna Area
Recreation Facilities--Immediate Development
Recreation Facilities--Long-Term Development
Exceptional Natural Features and Other Important Natural Features
-
LIST OF FIGURES (Cont'd)
Figure
9.1
9.2
9.3
9.4
9.5
9.6
9.7
9.8
9.9
10.1
10.2
10.3
10.4
10.5
10.6
Tit le
Study Areas for Land Use Analysis
Existing Structures
Land Use Aggregations:Recreation,Mining,Residential
Land Ownership/Stewardship,Devil Canyon Portion
Land Ownership/Stewardship,Watana Portion
Biophysical Coastal Boundary Matanuska-Susitna Borough
Project Facilities
Induced Land Use Activities -Devil Canyon Portion
Induced Land Use Activities -Watana Portion
Susitna Basin Plan Formulation and Selection Process
Selected Alternative Hydroelectric Sites
Generation Scenario Incorporating Thermal and Alternative Hydropower
Developments -Medium Load Forecast -
Formulation of Plans Incorporating Non-Susitna Hydro Generation
Damsites Proposed by Others
Potential Tidal Power Sites
-'i:
3:;
5 -REPORT ON SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS
This socioeconomic analysis i~.designed to provide an assessment of socio-
economic changes that could occur if hydropower is developed from the
Susitna River.The analysis involved:1)a literature review;2)deter-
mination of data availability,;3)definition of impact areas;4)a descrip-
tion and analysis of baseline~conditions and trends;5)development of
baseline forecasts;6)development of impact forecasts;7)a comparison of
baseline and impact forecasts;and 8)determination of significance of pro-
ject socioeconomic changes.the availability of time-series data for dif-
ferent geographic areas of Alaska was determined.The data available
1 imited the choice of assessment methods because it was not possible to
collect a significant amount of primary data.
Impact areas were defined based upon data availability,worker residence
and commuting patterns and probable locations of most socioeconomic
changes.Because this project involves a construction corrmunity and due to
the vastness of Alaska,the impact areas defined in this study are larger
than most impact areas reviewed in the literature.
To better understand the impact areas and make baseline forecasts,recent
socioeconomic conditions were described and analyzed.These included
employment,population,income,housing,facilities and services,fiscal
aspects,land use,and other socioeconomic elements.
Baseline forecasts were made for each socioeconomic element.Baseline fore-
cast refers to forecast i ng the basel i ne soci oeconomi c el ements over time
given anticipated growth in the absence of the construction of the hydro-
e 1ectri c proj ect.A br i ef descri pt i on of the forecasting techni que used
for each element and sub-element is displayed in this section.Forecasts
were made for the years 1981-2000.
Impact forecasts,which refer to forecasting changes in socioeconomic con-
ditions caused by construction of the hydroelectric project,were also made
for each socioeconomic element listed above.An accounting model was deve-
loped to accommodate the several labor categori~s and geographic disaggre-
gations.This model was computerized to provide for efficient analysis and
to make sensitivity analysis feasible.A brief description of the impact
forecast i ng techniques used for each el ementand sub-element is shown on
the follo'Wing page.The impact forecasts were made from 1983,the year in
which construction is to begin,to 2000.
Fina 11 y,bas eli ne and impact forecast s we re compa red and cont ra sted to
identify project-induced changes in the forecast baseline conditions.The
significance of these changes are analyzed and discussed in the final sec-
tion of this report.
5-1
ELEMENT
EMPLOYMENT
State anc Reoion
Census Division
POPULATION
State and Region
Census Division
Community
BASELINE FORtCASTING TECHNIOUES
FORECASTING TECHNIOUE
Time-series econometric(a)
Linear regression
Time-series econometric(a)
Linear regression
Population Share (judgmental)
~
I '
INCOME
State.Region and Census Division
HOUSING
Region anG Census Division
FACILITIES AND SERVICES
Census Division and Community
FISCA!..
Census Division and Community
Trend analysis and judgment
Person per household trend
multiplier
Per capita planning standards
Per capita multiplier
IMPACT FORECASTING TECHNIQUES
ELEMENT
EMPLonlENT
State.Region and Census
Division
State and Region
POPULATION
State.Region and Census
Division
State and Region
I NCO~IE
State.Region and Census Division
HOUSING
Region and Census Division
FACILITIES AND SERVICES
Census Division and Community
FISCAL
Census Division and Community
Accounting model
Time-series econometric
(for comparison purposes only)(a)
Accounting model
Time-series econometric
(for comparison purposes only)(a)
Accounting model
Person per household trend
mult i pl i er
Per capita planning standards
Per ~apita multiplier
a.Results from Institute of Social and Economic Research's Man-ir.-the
Arctic Model.October.1981.
5-2
-I
!
F"
I,,,
-
F'",,
-I
I
5.1 -Summary of Impacts
Potential impacts of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project are summarized
below.The magnitude and geographic distribution of these impacts are
determined in large part by a series of judgments and assumptions.Some of
the key assumptions include:(1)the number of construction workers that
will relocate from outside the Railbelt region (Impact Area 3)or outside
Alaska to communities in the Railbelt region;(2)the number of workers
that will relocate from various areas of the Railbelt region to communities
of the Matanuska-Susitna (Mat-Su)Borough;and (3)the number of workers
that will remain at place of relocation after construction employment is
terminated.These and other assumptions are elaborated upon in Section
5.4.
The project will provide approximately 6,365 new jobs at the peak of
construction activity in 1990;of this amount,3,500 will be on-site
and 2,865 will be direct and induced.
Between 1983 and 2002,an estimated $418 m'illion will be spent in the
Railbelt region by construction workers;of this amount,$67 million
will be spent in the Mat-Su Borough.
The population of the Mat-Su Borough will increase moderately due to
construction (the peak population influx will equal 1,112 in 1990).
The greatest population impacts are estimated to occur in Trapper
Creek and Talkeetna,where the populations will increase by 107 per-
cent and 26 percent,respectively,over baseline forecast levels
between 1983 and 1990.
Short-term housing shortages,and rapid residential construction are
expected to occur in Trapper Creek and Talkeetna.Housing conditions
in other areas of the Mat-Su Borough and Railbelt region are not
expected to be significantly affected.
Schools and transportation systems will be the most burdened public
services in Mat-Su Borough as a result of the project.These effects
will be most apparent in the greater Trapper Creek-Talkeetna area.
The access road coul d be a major addit i on to the Mat-Su Borough I s
road system,possibly contributing to more mineral development and
recreational activity in the area.
Fiscal impacts will be generally twice as great in 1990 (Watana peak)
as they will be in 1999 (Devil Canyon Peak);however,in all cases
these impacts will be small,both absolutely and relatively.
The Mat-Su Borough will experience relatively more fiscal impacts than
wi 11 incorporated communit i es in the Borough.
The domi nant fi scal impact that coul d be experi enced by the Mat-Su
Borough will result from cash-flow cycles.Initially,the costs of
5-3
servi ce del i very wi 11 be accel erated and will not be matched by an
immediate parallel increase in revenues.However!the tax base is
expected to expand enough to generate suffi ci ent addit i ona 1 revenues
to affect project-induced expenditures.
There are many opportunities within current fiscal structures to raise
local revenues to offset increasing costs in the event that State
Revenue Sharing decreases.
Trapper Creek!and to a lesser extent!Talkeetna!may experience rapid
inflation caused by increased demands of incoming project-induced popu-
lation and the competitive pay scales of the project.
Loca 1 government i nforma 1 community organi zati on in the com-
munities nearest the site will likely develop to respond to rapid
growth.Planning and community organization may themselves change the
nature of the communities.
There is potential for conflict between the values and lifestyles of
local residents and newcomers in the greater Trapper Creek area.
Increases in the incidence and nature of many "people problems"(for
example!rise in alcoholism!drug abuse!crime!divorce!and the lack
of trained medical and counseling personnel)!likely associated with
stress related to rapid changes may occur in the small communities
that experience the highest project-induced population growth rates.
5.2 -Identification of the Socioeconomic Impact Area
Hydroelectric development in the upper Susitna basin will cause employment!
population and related changes for a significant part of Alaska.Due to
current and -likely future "without project"population levels and distribu-
tions!and probable "with project"inmigrant residence and commuting pat-
terns!most of these changes will occur in the Railbelt corridor.These
changes wi 11 .be most si gnifi cant where project-i nduced Dopul at i on changes
are large relative to future ("without project")population levels.
(a)Local-Impact Areas 1-2
The Borough is designated as the "local"impact area (also
referred to as Impact Area 2).It is the smallest statistical
a rea for whi ch rel evant time-seri es economi c and soci oeconomi c
data are available and is large enough to contain a population
sufficient in size to allow for the organization of social life
for the pursuit of one or several common interests and to pro-
vide for necessary support systems.Project-induced population
changes could be large relative to future ("without project")
population levels in the Matanuska-Susitna (Mat-Su)Borough and
in several communities within this Borough.Potential project-
induced -changes in the Borough's communities are addressed
5-4
-
.....
(b)
(c)
(although more data are available for some communities than
others)to provide for an approximation of the geographic
distribution of changes.
The local impact area also includes Impact Area 1:the con-
structi on sites,access road,transmi ssi on 1i ne corri dor from
the dam sites to the Intertie,some staging areas,impoundment
areas and lands to be utilized for the construction camps and
villages.
Regional-Impact Area 3
Eight Census Divisions,including the Matanuska-Susitna Borough,
make up the II regi ona 1"impact area.These are the Anchorage,
Kenai Cook Inlet,Seward,Valdez-Chitina-Whittier,Mat-Su and
Southeast Fairbanks Census Divisions,and part of the
Yukon-Koyukuk Census Division (see Figure 5.1-1).Population
changes could be significant in the seven Census Divisions that
surround the Mat-Su Borough,particularly the Anchorage Census
Division and the Fairbanks North Star Borough (also a Census
Division).Some of the physical inputs and many of the labor
inputs for construction and operation will be drawn
from Anchorage and the Fairbanks North Star Borough.
For analytical purposes,Impact Area 3 is divided into three
regions:Anchorage,Fairbanks and Valdez.The Anchorage,
Kenai-Cook Inlet,Seward and Matanuska-Susitna Census Divisions
comprise the Anchorage region;the Fairbanks North Star Borough
and Southeast Fai rbanks Census Di vi si on compri Sl:the Fai rbanks
region,and the Valdez-Chitina-Whittier Census Division com-
prises the Valdez region.The portion of thl=Yukon-Koyukuk
Census Division that is in Impact Area 3 is considered separ-
ately from these regions.
State-Impact Area 4
The fourth impact area is the State of Alaska.Socioeconomic
changes that could occur outside of the regional impact area,
combined with regional changes,provide an approximation of
statewide socioeconomic change.
.....5.3 -Baseline Description
Basel ine conditions and trends in the impact areas are addressed in this
section.Tables 5.1 and 5.2 indicate resident population and components of
change in local,regional and state impact areas and data on the available
labor force and unemployment for these areas.
5-5
(a)Loca 1
The Mat-Su Borough's trends in population,employment and per
capita income are displayed graphically in Figure 5.2.
Differences in 1980 popul ati on fi gures for the Mat-Su Borough
a re a result of di screpanci es in the 1980 Census data and a
Borough population survey.The latter were used as the basis
for forecasting population.
(i)Population
The Borough's population has grown rapidly since 1970,
largely reflecting construction of the trans-Alaska
pipeline and the evolution of Borough areas into bedroom
corrmunities for the Municipality of Anchorage.From
1970 to 1980 the population of the Borough grew 175 per-
cent.Table 5.3 shows population in the Borough by com-
munity.Palmer and Wasilla stand out as the largest
communities,with 1981 populations of approximately
2,567 and 2,168,respectively.
Approximately 90 percent of the Borough's estimated 1981
population of 22,339 resides within a 20-mile radius of
Wasilla.The bulk of the remainder is distributed along
the Parks Highway and railroad corridor.Several
hundred inhabitants are scattered throughout the
Borough's wilderness regions accessible primarily by
water or air;these inhabitants include the few Borough
residents of the upper Susitna basin in the vicinity of
the proposed impoundments.
(ii)Housing
Table 5.4 shows 1981 housing stock estimates and vacancy
rates,by areas of the Mat-Su Borough.A recent survey
by the Borough shows total housing stock of 8,582 units,
of whi ch 79.4 percent or 6,814 were occupi ed.Most of
the housing units were in the Palmer-Wasilla area.
An earlier survey,by Policy Analysts (1979-1980)showed
that single-family housing units predominate in the
Borough,represent i ng 83 percent of the tota 1;mobil e
homes account for 11 percent and multi-family units five
percent.The dominant pattern in the Borough is
ownership of one's residence.
Housing vacancy rates fluctuate rapidly,with a five
percent rate seen by local authorities to be healthy and
growth-promoting.Some surveys of Mat-Su Borough
housing stocks include a significant number of
recreational units not occupied year-round and thus
serve to artificially inflate the vacancy rate.During
5-6
-
.....
-
,.....
t he summer of 1981,vacancy rates in the incorporated
cities ranged from 6.7 percent to 10 percent;more
remote communities such as Ta 1keetna and Trapper Creek
experi enced very low vacancy rates of between one and
two percent.
Population per household for selected communities in the
Borough averages 3.07 accordi ng to 1980 Census data.
Thi sis cons i derab ly hi gher than the nat i ona 1 and state
averages.
(iii)Fiscal Condition of Local Government
The Mat-Su Borough is a second cl ass Borough and,as
such,has the areawide powers of taxation,education and
planning,platting and zoning.In addition,the Borough
has non-areawide (outside incorporated cities)powers of
solid waste disposal and libraries.The Borough is
admi n-i stered under a part-t ime Mayor-Manager-Assembly
form of government.
In addition,there are currently three incorporated com-
munities in the Borough.Palmer is a first class,home-
rule city,and operates its own police,fire,water and
sewage treatment facilities.Wasilla and Houston are
both second class cities.
The Mat-Su Borough Budget FY81/82 appropriated
$38,419,973 in expenditures consisting of the following
funds and thei r respective port i on of total revenues:
General Fund (36 percent);Service Areas Fund (three
percent);Land Management Fund (three percent),and
Educat ion Operating Fund (58 percent).Property taxes
currently provide almost 50 percent of total General
Fund Revenue.The mill rate for fiscal 1982 is 6.7 per
$1,000 assessed valuation.It provided $5,388,356 in
total property tax revenues.
Mi 11 Levy
General Government
Parks and Recreation
Ambulance Service
Community College
Subtotal
Educat ion
Total
0.06
0.08
0.24
0.07
.45
6.25
6.70
Currently,no taxes are raised for capital projects due
to abundant State fundi ng from petrol eum revenues.The
5-7
current rat i 0 of bonded indebtedness to total assessed
valuation is 0.075,based on a total assessed property
value of $893,591,412 as of January 1,1981.This ratio
represents the maximum total bonded indebtedness desired
by the Borough Administration.
Current per capita expenditures for FY81/82 in the
Mat-Su Borough Budget are provided in Table 5.5 based
upon a total areawide population of 22,285.
The school di stri ct budget for FY81/82 is the si ngl e
largest category of revenues and expenditures across all
services provided within the Borough and within the
incorporated communities.The composition of revenues
for the School District budget for FYR1/82 is:
JlI!I!l
I
State Sources
Local Sources
Federal Sources
Total
68%
26%
6%
$17,434,148
6,560,949
1,448,000
$25,443,097
The distribution of school budget dollars by function is
as follows:
Regular Instruction
Vocational Education
Special Education
Support Servi ces
Operations and Maintenance
Pupil Transportation
Other
33%
4%
6%
18%
19%
8%
12%
The City of Palmer Budget FY82 consists of a General
Fund,and separate funds for water,sewer and capital
projects.The composition of General Fund Revenues is
local taxes 35 percent (property tax 23 percent based
upon four mills per $1,000 assessed valuation;sales tax
12 percent based upon two percent retail sales tax);
intergovernmental revenue 25 percent;service charges 30
percent and miscellaneous 10 percent.The current ratio
of bonded indebtedness to total assessed valuation is
0.04,based on a total assessed property value of
$64,710,668.This ratio is not anticipated to increase
over time.Per capita expenditures for the City of
Palmer are provided in Table 5.5.
The City of Wasilla Budget FY81/82 consists of a General
Fund,Library Fund,and Capital Project Fund.As a 2nd
class city,Wasilla does not levy a property tax and is
dependent upon intergovernmental transfers of revenues
5-8
from the Borough,the State and the Federal Government.
The City has just completed a central water supply
system and will be floating its first local bond issue
in Spring 1982.Other local funding for this project
will be derived from a property assessment only on lots
that will benefit from this improvement.Expenditures
for services are provided in Table 5.5.
The City of Houston Budget FY81/82 obtai ns revenues from
a variety of State and local grants which generally spe-
cify a port i on of the use to whi ch the funds are put.
Expenditures for the services provided by the City of
~Houston are listed in Table 5.5.
The communit i es of Tal keetna and Trapper Creek and other
r-small corrvnunities do not have formal local government.
The Mat-Su Borough provides existing services including
ambulance,fire protection,solid waste disposal and
road maintenance and repair.These services are
admi ni stered by the Borough and paid for by Borough
funds deri ved both locally and from the State.Property
located within the service boundary is liable for taxes
~levied to cover the costs of service delivery.
(iv)Public Facilities and Services
Current usage and capacity of public services,including
water supply,sewage,solid waste disposal,transporta-
tion,police,fire,health care services,education and
recreational services,in the Mat-Su Borough are
displayed in Table 5.6.
Water
The cities of Palmer and Wasilla have water supply
and chlorination treatment systems with peak capabi-
lities of 1,368,000 gallons per day (gpd)and 864,000
gpd,respectively.Other areas are provided with
water on an individual basis,by wells,or by a com-
munity water system.
Sewage
Palmer has a city-wide sewage facility.Residents of
other areas rely on septic tanks,waste from which is
trucked to Anchorage for di sposa 1 by pri vate com-
panies.Borough voters have authorized construction
of a treatment plant in the Borough.Some Borough
areas are served by small public sewage systems:43
Class A systems serve subdivisions and trailer parks;
5-9
77 Class B systems serve schools and businesses,and
45 Class C systems serve duplex and triplex struc-
tures.Ratings are by the Alaska Department of
Environmental Conser-vation and relate to the number
of people served.
Solid Waste
The Borough has non-areawide sol id waste management
authority and operates nine landfills.The Borough
intends to close most of these and set up transfer
stations for bringing the waste to an SO-acre central
site,near Palmer,for final disposal.
Transportation
The Parks Highway is the principal surface transport
route wi thi n the Borough,1ink i ng it to both
Fai rbanks and Anchorage.The Borough is a1 so con-
nected with Valdez and the A1-Can Highway via the
Glenn and Richardson Highways.During the summer
months,the ISO-mile unpaved Denali Highway connects
the Parks and Richardson Highways.Many major
Borough communities are connected by the Alaska
Railroad which also provides access to a number of
small communities which have no road access.The
1 argest ai rport in the Borough is the Palmer
Municipal Airport.There are a number of airstrips.
Police
Police protection in the Borough is provided by
Alaska State Troopers,17 stationed in Palmer and
three in Trapper Creek.Four other troopers are
responsible for fish and wildlife protection and
enforcement.The City of Palmer has police powers
and maintains a force of eight officers and several
civi 1i an support personnel.There are three deten-
tion and correctional facilities in the Borough:a
temporary detention facility maintained by the Palmer
Police Department;McLaughlin Youth Center in
Wasilla,and the Adult Correctional Facility near
Sutton.Borough correctional facilities serve the
whole Anchorage region.
Fire
"""!
I
There are ni ne operat i ng fi re
Mat-Su Borough.Costs of fl re
by special millage rates on
wlthln the servlce areas.
5-10
servl ce areas in the
protection are funded
assessed valuations
In the lnterest of
f"'"
I
-
.."..
achieving a rating of eight from the Insurance
Service Organization (ISO),the maximum rating for
areas without community water systems,the Borough's
fire chiefs in 1981 prepared a fire protection plan
which proposes 12 additional stations and the
purchase of new equipment for existing stations,
Residents of the Borough not within the boundaries of
the fire service areas rely on their own resources
and nei ghbors I vol unteer ass i stance for fi re protec-
tion.
Fire stations in Palmer,Wasilla and Houston are
city-maintained;there are two paid employees in
Palmer and one in Wasilla.The Borough maintains
other stations which rely completely on volunteer
staffing.
Hea lth Care
The 23-bed Valley Hospital,built in Palmer in 1954,
provides acute and some long-term care.The hospital
is staffed by eight doctors.There is a satellite x-
ray facility in Wasilla.A plan for a hospital addi-
tion which will add 7 beds and additional space for
equipment to the Valley facility has been approved
and will enable the hospital to serve a Borough popu-
lation of up to 30,000.Another addition of 30 beds
could be built at a later date.
Ambulance service in the Borough is provided through
the Palmer Fire Center on a 24-hour basis.The 911
emergency service number is connected directly to the
amublance dispatch center at the Palmer Fire Station
and to the Valley Hospital.
Publ ic health centers in the Borough are the Palmer
Health Care Center,Wasilla Health Care Center and
Cook Inlet Native Association Health Care Center
(Wasilla).Langdon (Wasilla)and the Mat-Su Mental
Health Center (Wasilla)provide individual and group
therapy,family and marital counsel ing and al cohol
and drug consulta tion.The Palmer Pioneer Home pro-
vides long-term nursing and non-nursing care for the
elderly.
Education
The Mat-Su Borough operates 17 school s:12 el emen-
tary schools.two junior high schools and three high
schools.At the beginning of the 1981-1982 school
year,enrollment totalled 4,515 students.Plans call
for expansion of existing facilities and construction
5-11
of three new school s:an el ementary school servi ng
400 pupils in Wasilla,a permanent elementary school
in Trapper Creek for up to 150 students and a secon-
dary school initially accommodating 300 in the
Houston area.The School District also offers
correspondent education to any resident of the State.
The Matanuska-Susitna Community College,a branch of
the University of Alaska,provides academic and voca-
tional courses to area residents.Enrollment
totalled 1,500 full and part-time students in
1980-1981.
Recreational Facilities
Opportunities for outdoor recreation abound in the
Borough and surroundi ng areas.The 1argest attrac-
tion in the region is Mount McKinley National park
and the surrounding Denali National Park and
Preserve.Entrance to the park is off the Parks
Highway north of the Borough.
Denali State Park,located within the Borough,will
eventually offer a variety of summer and winter
recreat i ona 1 acti vit i es.Nancy Lake Recreation Area
south of Wi 11 ow,the Lake Loui se area in the south-
eastern part of the Borough and the Bi g Lake area
between Willow and Wasilla include other popular
recreational sites.
There are relatively few local public recreational
facilities in the Borough,but plans call for future
development of playgrounds and neighborhood parks in
conjunction with school complexes.
(v)Economic Base
Table 5.7 describes business locations and types in
Mat-Su Borough communities.The economy of the Borough
reflects the influence of nearby Anchorage and the
Borough's economic dependence on Anchorage.Dominant
sectors of the Borough economy are connected with
tourism,recreation and residential construction.
Businesses involved in support and service sectors pre-
domi nate.
The Borough is encouragi ng economic development and is
concentrating on the Point MacKenzie area across Knik
Arm from Anchorage.Development there is to focus on
dairy farming,an industrial complex and a possible
petrochemical complex.
5-12
-;
A
-
-[
(v i )
Agriculture has played an important part in the histori-
cal development of the Borough.Up unt i1 the early
1960·s,commercial agricultural production continued to
increase.Since then the number of farms and volume of
production has declined.The Borough government is
attempting to reverse the decline through various means,
including the Point MacKenzie Project.
Outside of the major communities in the Borough,econo-
mic activity is related to mining,timber products and
recreational services,in addition to agriculture.Two
of the traditional mining districts are of particular
relevance to the proposed Susitna Dam:The
Susitna-Chulitna portion of the Yentna Mining District
where deposits of molybdenum,gold,copper,lead,silver
and antimony are found,and the Upper Susitna River area
where the Denali copper prospect has been discovered but
not yet mined.However,the major mineral resource in
the Borough is coal.The U.S.Forest Service has
classified 1,295,000 acres in the Borough as commercial
forest land.
Employment
Vi rtually all employment in the Mat-Su Borough,as re-
flected in Table 5.8,is in the government,services and
support sectors.Total employment by place of
emp 1oyment has ri sen steadily from 1,145 in 1970 to
3,078 in 1979,an increase of 169 percent.Employment
in the first three quarters of 1980 averaged 3,224.The
Borough has consistently had high unemployment rates (20
percent in 1970 and 13.8 percent in 1979)because
employment opportunit i es have not kept pace with the
growth of the labor force.The rate is often the
highest in the state;in addition,the Borough is more
dependent on seasonal employment than are larger popula-
tion centers,such as Anchorage.
The Mat-Su Borough has an extremely high ratio of popu-
lation to employment (by place of employment),averaging
around 5.5 during the years for which complete data
exist.This figure is more than twice as high as the
overall Anchorage Region's population to employment
ratio of 2.5.The lower rate for Anchorage is mostly
due to the emergence of the southern part of the Borough
as a bedroom community for Anchorage;approximately 40
percent of all employed Mat-Su residents commute to jobs
outside the Borough.Another,lesser factor contri-
buting to the high population to employment ratio in
Mat-Su is the high unemployment rate prevailing in the
Borough.
5-13
(vii)Income
Trends in per capita personal income are shown in Table
5.9.Personal income rose substantially in the Mat-Su
Borough in 1970's and stabilized as the trans-Alaska
pipeline was completed.Personal income rose from
$3,957 per capita in 1970 to $9,032 per capita in 1977
and decl ined to $8,878 in 1979.The increase between
1970 and 1979 was,therefore,124 percent.However,
us i ng the Anchorage Consumer Pri ce Index -Urban as a
measure of inflation,personal income in 1979 was only
19 percent higher than that of 1970 in real terms.The
mean household income for Matanuska-Susitna Borough in
1980 was $30,627,despite one of the hi ghest
unemployment rates in the state.
(viii)Land Use
Status of land in the Borough is a complicated and on-
going issue,increasing in importance as the Borough
continues to experience substantial growth concentrated
in the southern portion.
Of the 14,720,000 acres in the Borough,25 percent are
Federal lands,68 percent State lands,2.5 percent
Borough 1 ands,one percent Nat i ve-owned 1 and and 3.5
percent privately owned land.Of 525,836 acres of
taxable land in the Borough,only 16 percent (84,838
acres)contai n any type of improvements.The cu rrent
amount of private land,though small in proportion to
the total,has been more than sufficient to meet the
recent and present demand for land.
Both the State and the Borough have been pursuing land
disposal programs which put additional land into private
hands.These programs are expected to cont i nue in the
future.
Much of the land involved in the proposed Susitna Hydro-
electric Project has been selected by the Cook Inlet
Region,Inc.(CIRI)and its member village cor-
porations.Future use of this area will depend largely
on future ownership and owner1s policies regarding land
use.
Some land near the Susitna Hydroelectric project site
has been included in two recent State land disposals in
the Indian River area.The Indian River subdivision
disposal is comprised of 700 acres in 139 parcels.The
Indian River remote disposal contains 1,500 acres.Two
5-14
""""i
-I
additional sites may be disposed of in FY83:one of
these consists of 2,000 acres near the Indian River sub-
division.
Land use pl ann;ng powers in the Borough for the most
part reside with the various land owners.The Borough,
however,does exerci se overall pl anni ng authority for
all lands within its boundaries.Roughly half of the
Borough is designated as a special use district per-
mitting multiple use of the lands within the district.
The Borough's traditional reluctance to allow zoning to
be implemented is beginning to change,and planned
growth is being advocated as a way to avoid strip deve-
lopment and conflicting land use,and to protect
wildlife and wildlife habitat.
(ix)Sociocultural Conditions
.....This section of the report (Section 5.3(a)(ix))is Frank
Orth &Associates,Inc.'s summary of a sociocultural
study conducted by Stephen R.Braund &Associates
for the Susitna Hydroelectric Project.It describes and
analyzes baseline sociocultural conditions in those com-
munities most likely to be directly affected by the pro-
ject.For the southern communities of Talkeetna,
Trapper Creek and the northern railroad communities,
categories addressed include settlement patterns,econo-
mic conditions and values,political systems and com-
munity response capacity and local attitudes toward
growth,change and development.Fi ndi ngs and concl u-
sions relative to the more northern communities of
Cantwell and McKinley,which are relatively remote from
the chosen access route and project area,will be
briefly summarized.
~Southern Communities
Settlement Patterns-Ta 1 keetna,Trapper Creek and the ra i 1 road com-
munities north of Talkeetna have experienced con-
siderable population influx,noteworthy in that
they are too remote from Anchorage to serve as
bedroom communities and offer litle or no economic
opportunity.
Growth of these commu nit i es occu rred in severa 1
distinct phases.At the extreme,settlers can be
class ifi ed into two groups:those who came pri-
5-15
mari 1y to develop and extract and those who came
primarily to enjoy the natural resources.All
residents share the desire to live in a non-
industrial,relatively rural setting.
Ta 1keetna,located 114 mi 1es north of Anchorage,
is the former site of an Indian village.It
became a mi ni ng community after the di scovery of
gold in 1896,serving as a base of operations for
prospectors operating in the Yentna Mining
Di stri ct West and Northwest of town.Some mi ners
spent the winter trapping,which was a significant
part of the local economy until the 1940·s.
Construct i on of the A1 as ka ra i1 road spu rred
growth,increasing access to the area by miners,
trappers and travelers.Upon construction of the
Talkeetna airfield and FAA(CAA)facility in 1940,
young fami 1i es began movi ng to the area to work
.for the government,changing the character of the
community,which had previously been populated
predominately by older bachelors.
Old-time residents of Talkeetna are accustomed to
and inured to change,having experienced suc-
cessive waves of growth.Some newcomers,however,
feel that change in the form of encroaching urba-
nization and industrialization is in direct
conflict with the rural,relatively self-
sufficient lifestyle they moved to Talkeetna to
pursue.
Beginning in the 1950 1 s,a new period of growth
began,based on tourism and recreation.Talkeetna
became the center for mounta i neeri ng expedit ions
to Mt.McKine1y.Construction of the Parks
Highway and Talkeetna Spur Road in 1965,paved the
way for rapid change in the community.
Recreational use of the area increased as did land
sales and home construction for a growing popula-
tion of young families.
New residents in the
best of two wor1 ds:
setting coupled with
access to services
Wasilla.
1960s and 1970s sought the
life in a rural wilderness
relatively easy automobile
offered in Anchorage and
''1
Trapper Creek was settled post-1950,initially by
homesteaders.Upon construction of the Parks
Highway and the operation of the Statels
5-16
....
i
.....
--
Open-to-Entry (OTE)land disposal program
(1968-1973)a new group of residents moved to the
area,some acqui ri ng fi ve-acre parcel s for
recreational use,others seeking a year-round life
in the wilderness.As in Talkeetna,many of the
newer residents moved to the area for the sake of
natural beauty and isolation and are skeptical
about future change and development.
Railroad communities north of Talkeetna include
Chase,Curry,Sherman and Gold Creek.Early resi-
dents worked for the railroad.operated mines or
homesteaded.Many of the settlers who moved to
the area during the OTE program were young people
of the turbulent 1960!s who found in these areas
an al ternat i ve 1 i festyl e ina wi 1 derness sett i ng
which coincided with their rejec tion of
industrialization and urbanization.As in earlier
waves of settlement,many of the settlers did not
remain,but of the 300 to 400 settlers who arrived
in the early 1970's,plus more recent arrivals,80
to 150 are still permanent residents.The summer
population is greater,consisting of many
recreation sites and absentee landowners in addi-
tion to year-round residents.
There has been some friction between new and older
settlers in the Talkeetna area,with some older
residents skeptical of the motivations of newer
settlers,claiming that the new,young,counter-
culture type of resident relies on food stamps and
other as i stance rather than seek i ng a true sub-
sistence lifestyle.With time,however.social
relations between the groups have improved,and
all can be said to share the desire to live in a
rural.relatively undeveloped wilderness or small
town environment.
Economic Overview
Economic opportunities in Talkeetna.Trapper Creek
and the railroad communities north of Talkeetna
are few,and unemployment is high.Recent arri-
vals seem to choose first to live in these rural
communities,then worry about how to support them-
selves there.lack of local jobs forces many men
to leave the area to work on the North Slope,in
Wasilla or Anchorage.Retail businesses in
Tal keetna and Trapper Creek are generally asso-
ci ated with tou ri sm and recreat ion.Some govern-
5-17
ment emoloyment is present.Some res i dents seek
governmental subsidies in the form of food stamps,
energy assistance,aid to dependent children or
other grants to help them cope with the lack of
employment opportunities.Additionally,people in
all communities produce arts and crafts which they
sell.Also,in all communities,residents rely on
local fish and game,gather firewood as well as
berries and other greens,and raise gardens.
Talkeetna has the largest number of businesses and
employers in the area.Most commercial estabish-
ments are ori ented toward tou ri sts and
recreationists.Main employers in town are said
to be the school,Alascom,the railroad,FAA and
the local stores.There are many more people than
jobs in Talkeetna.Most businesses are owner-
operated and hi re few employees.Many res i dents
rely on recreational guiding for income.In 1979,
some of these individuals formed a guiding aso-
ciation called Denali Wilderness Treks,a non-
profit association which books clients and
advertises for its members.
Trapper Creek also has limited job opportunities,
with many residents working seasonally in other
areas.There is some local mining,logging and
farming.Some local people are artists,craftsmen
and guides.
Job opportunities in the railroad communities
north of Tal keetna are al most non-exi stent.
Population density makes pure subsistence living
impossible.Thus most people who live permanently
north of Talkeetna must rely on a combination of
sources to maintain their lifestyle.A typical
househol d may depend on the fo 11 owi ng:seasonal
construction work out of the area,supplemented
with food stamps and unemployment,the harvest of
local fi sh and game resources and personal gar-
dens.In some respects the lack of an economic or
employment base in the railroad communities gives
residents the appearance of being a transient
population.People are continually coming and
going for seasonal jobs,supplies and services.
In addition,many other users of the area are,in
fact,highly transient (sports hunters,fishermen
and absentee land and cabin owners.)
5-18
~'I
-
-
I~
....
......
I
r
r-
I
I
-
Politics and Response Capacity
There are very few local political organizations
in Talkeetna,Trapper Creek,and the railroad com-
munities north of Talkeetna.While rural Native
communities often struggle to determine which
organization has control of what activity.the
general trend in the southern study communities
has been a reluctance to form political groups.
Typically.in rural Alaskan native villages,
numerous political organizations exist or have
influence in each community (i.e.,regional profit
corporations.regional non-profit corporations.
cities.boroughs.traditional councils.and
village corporations).Because none of the
southern study communities are Native villages
under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
(ANCSA).they do not have Native corporations or
traditional councils.Also.because none of the
study communit i es have i ncorpor ated under State
1 aw,there are no cit i es in the study area.The
only State recognized political organization in
the area is the Matanuska-Susitna Borough,incor-
porated as a second cl ass borough in 1964.whi ch
encompasses the entire study area except Cantwell
and McKi nl ey.
In the past few years,as more and more peopl e
have moved into the area,there has been a ten-
dency toward the formation of political organiza-
tions in Talkeetna.Trapper Creek.and Chase.
Thi s trend is primarily the result of proposed
developments (the Capital move,the Susitna
Project,and the Intertie),State land d<isposals,
anticipated population growth,and the growing
belief that local participation and control is
necessary to maintain present values.On the
other hand.the formation of.and participation
in,political groups is contrary to the philosophy
which motivated most people to settle in this
rural area--individualism,a desire for isolation,
and a lack of governmental controls on one1s life.
This section addresses local political organiza-
tions in the area,their formation,and associated
social divisions in the community,as well as com-
munity response capacity.
Organizations active in Talkeetna include the
Talkeetna Historical Society,the Parent-Teachers I
Association,six churches,a local library board.
5-19
road and fi re service area boards and the
Tal keetna Chamber of Commerce.The Chamber of
Cormnerce has a leadership role in local affairs
and has incorporated in order to be eligible to
pursue grants and enter into contracts with the
Borough.In a hotly contested election.Talkeetna
voters rejected.in 1981.a move to incorporate as
a first class city.Both newcomers and long-time
residents opposed incorporation.agreeing that the
results of incorporation.including taxation.
bureaucracy caused by another level of government.
and additional regulations threatening their inde-
pendent lifestyle.were undesirable.
Trapper Creek has a Community Council formed three
years ago.It is designed to bring local issues
into the open.afford res i dents the opportunity
for maximum participation in community self-
government and to influence higher levels of
government rel ated to commun i ty development and
services.The Community Council was pre-dated by
a Tokosha Citizens Council which unsuccessfuly
sought,in 1978.to enact a proposal calling for
transforming 144 square miles of territory into a
unique residential and recreational roadless area.
The spirited public debate on this issue clearly
established two opposing attitudes toward economic
development in the area and served to alert resi-
dents of the need to become involved in the poli-
tical process.The Trapper Creek Community
Council is recognized by the Mat-Su Borough as an
advi sory body and has been associ ated with
acquisition of community facilities and services
desi red by the community.Most of the impetus for
such servi ces has come from newer residents.and
some older homestead families feel costs of added
services are too great compared to the relatively
low population of the area.
The railroad communities have tended to avoid
involve ment in political organizations.due to
their residents'propensity for isolation.indivi-
dual ism and anarchi sm.It was not unti 1 1979 that
the first political group.the Chase Community
Associ at ion,emerged.Residents formed thi s non-
profit corporation primarily to resi st the pro-
posed Chase II State land disposal in their area.
This disposal was for a subdivision of 5-acre
lots.and residents feared it waul d create too
great a population density to allow their semi-
5-20
~,
-'-I
-
I""'"
i
-
-
r
I
r
subsistence lifestyle.The Association has also
responded to other potent i al de vel opments whi ch
its members believe threaten their rural,semi-
remote way of life.These developments include
the Susitna Hydroelectric Project and the Intertie
power line.The Association seems to represent 50
to 75 percent of the permanent 1oca 1 res i dents.
Many residents of the area are very involved in
Talkeetna politics and were vocal in their opposi-
tion to Talkeetna incorporation.
Residents of all the southern communities
generally agree that small,rural towns or wilder-
ness areas are more favorable places to live than
more urban environments,but residents do not
agree on either community priorities or what
should be done to protect common values.There is
no consensu~of opinion in the area;individualism
and self-reliance are prevalent.However,because
divisi on weakens the local abil ity to control,the
trend toward political organization may continue
as rura 1 res i dents band together to protect thei r
envi ronment.
Presently.none of the communities has an adequate
system by which to respond to development impacts,
though Trapper Creek is buil di ng an organi zat ion
of interested people actively reoresenting the
community and recognized by the Borough.The
Chase Community Association has an image as anti-
development,which lessens its effectiveness with
higher levels of government.The Susitna Project
could tend to encourage additional political orga-
nization in the southern study area communities.
Capable leaders reside in all the communities.but
the need for political organization conflicts with
their local rural values.Many of them moved to
the area to escape government and congestion,and
find active participation in the political process
to be in conflict with their individualistic
values.
Attitudes toward Growth,Change,and Economic
Development
Two di fferent phi 1osophi es toward economi c deve-
lopment and rural growth emerged in the southern
communities.Because these two factions.which
represent extremes on a continuum of attitudes and
opinions,were found in Talkeetna.Trapper Creek,
5-21
and the railroad communities north of Talkeetna,
all communities are discussed together in this
sect ion.These di fferent attitudes towa rd econo-
mic development and growth in rural environments
include:
1.On one end of the continuum,residents have a
desire to protect rural,small-town,and
wilderness atmospheres;minimize change;and
avoid industrial development in the area;as
we 11 as preserve wil dl ife and recreat i ana 1
areas.Residents in this group take issue
with the charge that they are agai nst growth
and economic development.Rather,they point
out that economic development does not only
mean industrial growth.They believe that the
real,long-range value for the upper Susitna
valley is not its minerals or hydro potential,
but its untapped potential for visual and
recreational enjoyment,both summer and
winter.These residents argue that a
recreat i ana 1 /tou ri st economy cat ers to peop 1e
who enjoy the land without defacing it,which
is preferred to a commercial,industrial eco-
nomy which does scar the landscape.These
people tend to be opposed to the Susitna
Hydroel ectri c Project as well as other 1arge-
scale development schemes in the area.
2.On the pro-development end of the continuum,
residents do not necessarily desire industrial
development in the area,but they cannot iden-
t ify with what they feel is a no-growth atti-
tude.Residents with an extreme development
view tend to favor roads to open up additional
country and believe that progress (including
hydroelectric dams,more people,and roads)
wi 11 come regardl ess of what they,or anyone
else,want.Generally,long-time residents,
many of whom have already witnessed con-
siderable change in the area,do not view
future developments as necessarily undesirable
(see Settlement Patterns above).Most of
these people are generally in favor of the
Susitna project because they perceive that it
will provide a needed economic boost to a
depressed a rea.
It should be pointed out that these residents
do not generally desire to see their community
5-22
~,
-
radically changed,neither do they necessarily
wish for industrial development to become the
economic base in the area.Like their neigh-
bors,they enjoy small-town qualities and
desire to live in a non-industrial,relatively
isolated,rural environment.But,they view
change as inevitable,feel the local economy
will benefit from development,and as long as
there is no danger to life,not necessarily
lifestyle,the Susitna project is acceptable.
Few peop 1e,in recent yea rs ,ha ve moved to
Talkeetna,Trapper Creek,or the area north of
Talkeetna for economic or job opportunities.
In fact,according to many local residents,
one of the largest limits for growth in
Trapper Creek and Talkeetna is the lack of
local jobs.Some of these residents with a
conservat i ve attitude towards economi c deve-
lopment,maintain that if jobs were available,
they would not want to live in the area
because the increased job oDPortuni ties would
attract more people.This population influx
would,for these residents,make Trapper Creek
and Talkeetna less desirable as rural places
to reside.Others,for example homesteaders
who raised their families in Trapper Creek or
long-time Talkeetna residents,desire economic
development in the area so their children will
have access to local employment.Generally,
the di fference between whether a res i dent is
in favor of or opposed to the Susitna dam
depends on how he percei ves it wi 11 impact the
area.If it is characterized as a massive,
unnecessary proj ect that wi 11 provi de excess
energy and lead to total industrialization of
the area,which some people believe,then very
few ru ra 1 residents are in favor of it.But,
on the other hand,if the project's impacts
will be relatively minor,and it will provide
constant and cost-stable electric power in the
area as well as jobs,then more people are
pro-Sus itna.Consequent ly,consensus related
to the Susitna Project may likely only emerge
once res i dents of thi s subregi on have more
information about the project and its impacts
upon which an intelligent dialogue can ensue
and decisions can be made.
Based on the recent settlement patterns in the
southern study area,it appears as though the
5-23
trend is towards those who favor the develop-
ment of tourism and recreation t minimum
disruption of small-town qualities t the
reasonable preservation of local wildlife and
fish,and the enjoyment,not deterioration,of
the natural environment.Concomitantly,these
people oppose industrial development,rapid
growth t and urbanization in the area.
Land Availability
Between 1979 and 1981,the State of Alaska offered
seven disposals in the Talkeetna area (four agri-
cultural,two subdivisions,and one remote
parcel).In 1980-81,six disposals (one agri-
cultural,four subdivisions,and one remote
parcel)were offered in the Trapper Creek area.
In 1980,the State of Alaska offered the Chase
Remote Parcel area and in 1981,the Chase II sub-
division.Similarly,the State offered the Indian
River Remote Parcel area in 1980 and the Indi an
River Subdivision in 1981.Thus,the State of
Alaska had offered a total of 17 land disposals in
the Talkeetna,Trapper Creek,Chase,and Hurricane
area in the past three years.(This is in addi-
tion to the early Open-To-Entry Program which was
in effect from 1968 to 1973.)
Although not all of the lands are accessible by
road t these land disposals as well as numerous
large unsubdivided homesteads and other tracts in
the Trapper Creek and Talkeetna area provide a
more than adequate land base for substantial
growth.In addition,if the highway is relatively
closet subdivision roads are relatively inexpen-
sive to construct in this area,and large tracts
can be converted into subdivisions fairly quickly.
Gi ven any economi c i ncent i ve for development t it
is likely that more subdivisions will appear in
the upper Susitna basin.
Related to the state land disposals,a relatively
common trend in residents 'attitudes has developed
in the study area.Once an area is opened up to
settlement (either recreational or residential)t
those people who first acquire land are generally
opposed to any further land disposals in the imme-
diate area that would increase the population den-
sity to levels beyond what they believe the land
can support.Most peop 1e were att racted to these
5-24
I!OII!'!I
/!Ill!!
-
..-,
....
I
-
land disposals because the land is relatively iso-
lated in a wilderness area.Generally,persons
who acquire a remote parcel or establish residency
on the land wish to preserve the unpopulated,
wilderness flavor of the area.They perceive that
additional state land disposals,especially sub-
divisions,conflict with this desire.Although at
first this may seem like a selfish motive,it
shoul d be kept in mi nd that the State of Al aska
has made several recent public land disposals in
this area (seventeen in three years).During
interviews,some people claimed they had known
what the State had in store for this region,they
might not have acquired this remote land in the
first place.(Many newer absentee land owners
from Anchorage do not fall into this category.)
Northern Communities
Simil arit i es between Cantwell and McKi nl ey account
for both their stance and likely responses to aspects
of the Susitna project.
The growth of both communities is severely limited by
the unavailability of land and employment;there is
an un avoidable interaction between lack of lands and
lack of employment.Employment in Cantwell is based,
in the main,on direct public employment--
transportation,communications,public health and
safety.and educat ion.The small pri vate sector is
based upon services to public sector employees and to
the seasonal visitors to the general recreation area.
Employment in McKinley is based almost exclusively on
year-round maintenance of the Park and seasonal visi-
tat i on to the Pa rk.Many more persons woul d and
could live in these communities were only land and
employment more available.
Both communit i es have undergone cons i derab 1e growth
in the past few years due to major improvements of
the road system.the communi cat ions system.govern-
ment expenditures.and the growth of visitation.
This has resulted in a greater ability to remain in
the communities year-round,rear children,obtain
supplies,and withstand the physical hardships of
weather and isolation.These changes have sustained
a larger permanent population than has been carried
historically a'nd may be reaching or exceeding the
physical carrying capacity of adjacent lands and
wil dl He.
5-25
This is the critical stage in the life of each
community,in terms of attitude toward growth,forms
of economic development,tolerances of change,com-
munity organization and identity,and attachments to
the non-rural world.Introduction of the Susitna
Hydroelectric Project and the Willow-Healy Intertie
is only one of several forces that appear in these
communities·perceived range of opportunities and
risks;these energy projects are,however,most imme-
diate realities.
Both communities are des i rous of long-term economi c
development,not merely short-term economi c growth.
Cantwell and McKinley differ significantly in their
perceptions and stance toward these energy projects,
based on di fferences in hi story,geography,econo-
mics,population,and values.Cantwell sees itself
at the center of these energy projects as well as
secondary industries leading to long-term development
of population,economy,and employment.If lands
around Cantwell can be made available to accommodate
the thousands of workers anticipated to be associated
with these projects,then economic growth of Cantwell
is possible.
The orientation and interest of McKinley is almost
totally with the Intertie (and other physical altera
tions in the highway-railroad corridor)since it
finds itself too distant from any direct relationship
with the Hydroelectric Project,other than a genera-
lized environmental concern.Given the lack of land
and services and the distance from the Hydroelectric
Project,McKinley sees little that would change.
McKinley residents are also extremely concerned about
the growth of visitation within the park as an
environmental impact,and growth outside the park as
damaging to current lifestyles.If more land becomes
available,they fear a huge growth in recreational
housing;if land remains restricted,they fear con-
tinued inability to remain employed and housed in the
area.Land unavailability is also predictive of con-
tinued escalation of property values and eventual
conversion of highway residential properties (most
residences are adjacent to the highway)to strip com-
mercial properties,altering both the values and
character of the community.
Both communiti es feel that thei r futures are depen-
dent upon the decisions made by urban interests and
5-26
-
r-
I
-
r
(b)
that they are generally helpless in the face of these
interests.Each appears hopeful but not optimistic
that its interests,values,and character will be
protected in these decisions and also by the histori-
cal volatility and uncertainty of Alaska development,
whi ch has va ri ous ly produced huge proj ects and aban-
doned projects.Each would prefer more gradual,
planned,and certai n forms of economi c development,
but they are not politically or economically orga-
nized to assure this kind of development.
Regional
The Railbelt Region,Impact Area 3,includes the greater Anchor-
age area,the Fairbanks area and the Valdez-Chitina-Whittier
area.Data on employment,population and per capita income in
the Railbelt Region,1970-1980,is displayed in Figure 5.3.
(i)Population
Population in the Railbelt Region rose from 204,523 in
1970 to 284,166 in 1980.The Railbelt contains 70 per-
cent of the State's population,with the majority cen-
tered in the greater Anchorage area.Anchorage and
Fairbanks are the largest cities in the Region.
(ii)Housing
Housing stock available in the Municipality of Anchorage
(1981 data)and in Fairbanks and the Fairbanks-North
Star Borough (1978 data)is shown by type in Tables 5.10
and 5.11.
In 1981,the Municipality of Anchorage contained 65,771
civilian housing units.Of this total,46 percent were
si ngl e-fami ly units;12 percent were mobile homes.and
42 percent were in multi-family buildings.The vacancy
rate in the Municipality was approximately 14 percent in
1980.The vacancy rate for hous i ng un its in apartment
buildings with five or more units was nearly twice that
for single-family homes.
Housing stock of the Fairbanks-North Star Borough
totalled 13,738 in October,1978,with 54 percent of the
units located in the City of Fairbanks.Single-family
housing accounted for 50 percent of the Borough's
housing stock;duplexes for seven percent;multi-family
u nits for 28 percent and mobil e homes for 15 percent.
Within the city limits,multi-family units represented
43 percent of the total,and mobile homes only two per-
cent.
5-27
Vacancy rates in the Fai rbanks-North Star Borough have
risen in the post-pipeline period,from a low of 0.4
percent in 1976 to 9.1 percent in 1980.Vacancy rates
were lowest for single-family houses.
(iii)Employment
Table 5.12 presents non-agricultural employment data for
Impact Area 3.Employment increased by 39 percent bet-
ween 1970 and 1975,and by an additional 14 percent bet-
ween 1975 and 1979.Construction,service and support
sectors represent large percentages of employment in the
Rai"lbelt.Employment in the Anchorage Region acounted
for 69 percent of Railbelt employment in 1979.
The Mu ni ci pa 1 ity of Anchorage has generall y represented
87 to 90 percent of employment in the Anchorage Region,
with Kenai-Cook Inlet representing seven percent,
Mat-Su,three percent,and Seward,one and one-half per-
cent.
(c)State
Data on employment,population and per capita income in the
State of Alaska,1970 to 1980,is presented in Figure 5.4.
(i)Population
The population of Alaska has risen steadily since the
1940's,yet this largest of the United States is still
the least populous with an estimated 1980 population of
400,331.Alaska1s population grew 32 percent between
1970 and 1980,jumping by 50,000 between 1975 and 1976
alone.Most of the population is in the Southcentral
Alaska-Fairbanks region (the Rail belt),and half of the
State's citizens reside in Anchorage.
(ii)Employment
Al aska I s economy has hi stori ca lly been dependent upon
development of its natural resources,primarily
fisheries,minerals and timber.As a result,employment
has been oriented towards these consumptive and extrac-
tive industries.The military has played a major role
since World War II.In recent years,employment in
state and local government has increased dramatically.
In addition,employment in service and support sectors
of the Alaska economy is increasing,reflecting the
maturation of the State's economy.
5-28
-if
Impact of the trans-Alaska pipeline is evident in
employment figures.Between 1970 and 1975,a pipe1ine-
induced growth spurt caused employment to increase by 75
percent.From 1975 to 1980,however,total employment
increased by only 2.9 percent.
(iii)Income
The average per capita personal income in the State rose
from $4,638 in 1970 to $10,254 in 1976.Since comple-
tion of the pipeline,however,the pace of increase has
slowed.Per capita income in the State averaged $11,150
in 1979.The real increase in per capita personal
income during the nine-year period was 27 percent.
5.4 -Project Elements Influencing Change (Methodology and Results)
(a)Manpower Requirements and Payroll
Tables 5.13-5.15 display the projected total number and origin
of on-site construction and operations manpower for Watana and
Devil Canyon dams from 1983-2005.For the const ruct i on work
force,manpower has been divided into the categories of labor-
ers,semi-skilled/skilled,and engineering/administrative.As
displayed in Table 5.13,the peak construction year occurs in
1990 with an estimated construction work force of 3,498.
The Watana dam wi 11 be constructed in two phases with an ult i-
mate generat i ng capacity of 1,020 megawatts (MW).The fi rst
installment of 680 MW's will be completed in 1993,at which time
ope rat ions manpower wi 11 total 70 persons.The addit i onal gen-
erating capacity will reach completion in the following year,
1994,and will result in a total operations work force of 145.
Analysis of construction manpower requirements for the 600 MW
Devil Canyon dam is based on construction begi nni n9 in 1994,
with this facility coming on-line in the year 2002.The total
on-site operations work force for both dams will equal 170
during the year 2002 and thereafter.Construction of the Watana
and Devil Canyon dam facilities entails an overlap of one
year in construction.
As can be seen in Figure 5.5,the first phase of the Watana dam
requires a significantly greater number of workers than both the
second phase of Watana and Devil Canyon combined.This dif-
ference can be attributed to the additional labor requirements
'in the initial years for the construction of the work camps,
villages,and access road and to the more labor intensive nature
of a gravel fi 11 dam (Watana)than a concrete thi n arch dam
(Devil Canyon).Dramatic decreases in work force requirements
(relative to the preceding years)occur between 1991 and 1996.
5-29
Total payroll is an important consideration in that it defines
the parameters of monetary impacts resulting from direct on-site
construction and operations work force expenditures.Based on
the on-site construction and operations requirements outlined
above~the total yearly project payroll from 1983-2005 were
derived and are displayed in Table 5.16.These totals were
derived by matching wage figures to the respective trades,
assumi ng that for constructi on workers there are 1,825 worker
hours in the year (54 hours per week and an average of 29 weeks
per year)and for the operat i onswork force there are 2 ~496
working hours in the year (48 hours per week and 52 weeks per
year).The payroll in 1990~the peak year,totals $97.8
million.
Tables 5.17 and 5.18 display estimates of construction and oper-
ations work force payroll expenditure patterns in the various
Census Divisions of Impact Area 3.Using the total construction
and operations payroll figures calculated above~taxes and
savi ngs were subtracted and estimates were made concerni ng the
amounts of disposable income that would be spent in different
areas of Impact Area 3.The methodology for determining payroll
expenditure patterns is built upon the basic premise that place
of residence is the primary factor determining where payroll is
spent.
(b)Numbers and Residence of Work Force and Associated Population
Influx
The level of impact of the proposed Susitna hydroelectric
facility on the communities surrounding the project is propor-
tional to the size of the inmigrant work force related to direct
project employment and subsequent i ndi rect and induced employ-
ment.These individuals create the short-term~peak demand for
services that has the most significant impact.The size of the
inmigrant work force depends on the extent of the primary local
labor supply,that is the availability of craft and profes-
sional labor currently residing in the area from which the labor
force could be drawn (Impact Areas 1~2 and 3).This section of
the report addresses the issue of work force origin~relocation,
and population influx and is divided into two sections:work
force origin;and work force inmigration and associated popula-
tion influx.
(i)Work Force Origin
Labor supply is highly idiosyncratic,and the amount of
available labor from the immediate labor pool depends
upon the proj ected si ze and cra ft mi x of the futu re
labor force,labor force participation rates~demands
placed upon the labor force from other projects~the
5-30
-
-
'""'I
j
.-
I
-
-
-i
match of craft labor available to craft labor required
by the Susitna project,and the differing pol icies and
geographic spheres of each craft.In addition,the
supply and demand conditions will vary from craft to
craft.All of these variables make it difficult to pro-
ject the number of locally available construction trade
and other workers who will become employed on the
Susitna Hydroelectric Project.
IILocal ll versus "non-local'l labor supply is the common
terminology used in literature referring to the origin
of a construction work force.The use of 1I1 0ca lll in
this sense is not to be confused with impact area defi-
nitions and the "local impact area."
Gi ven that there are no uni on hi ri ng hall sin Mat-Su
Borough (Impact Area 2),manual craft 1abor for con-
struction and operations and maintenance will likely be
acquired through a combination of both the Anchorage and
Fairbanks union hiring halls.Based on this and limited
observations of current construction worker commuting
practices in Alaska,the immediate or "local ll labor pool
is defined as that residing in Impact Area 3 (seven cen-
sus divisions:Anchorage,Fairbanks,S.E.Fairbanks,
Mat-Su Borough,Kenai-Cook Inlet,Valdez,and Seward)•
As noted earlier,preliminary manpower requirements for
construction and operations of both the Watana and Devil
Canyon dams indicate that there will be a total peak on-
site construction work force of 3,498 in 1990.
Requirements for operations and maintenance manpower
commence in 1993 at 70 workers and increase to 170 in
the year 2001.
The local availability of construction labor was ana-
lyzed according to the total manpower requirements,
which have been divided into the categories of laborers,
semi-skilled/skilled,and engineering/administrative.
The percentage of jobs which can be filled by the local
available work force varies with each classification.
In general,a greater portion of laborers than engineers
and administrators will be supplied "locally."
The basic assumptions for on-site construction work
force as previously displayed in Table 5.14,are:for
laborers,85 percent will be supplied locally.five
percent from other areas of the state,and 10 percent
will originate from out-of-state;80 percent of
semi-skilled/skilled workers will be supplied from
Impact Area 3,fi ve percent from other areas of the
5-31
state,and 15 percent from out-of -state;a nd for the
administrative/engineering category,65 percent will
come from Impact Area 3,fi ve percent wi 11 come from
other areas of the state,and 30 percent wi 11 be from
out-of-state.For the indi rect and induced manpower
requi rements it is assumed that the percentage of jobs
to be filled by inmigrants in Impact Area 3 ranges from
zero in Seward to 45 percent in the Mat-Su Borough.
Approximately 25 percent of the indirect and induced
jobs in Anchorage will be filled by inmigrants.
The allocation of the construction work force1s residen-
ces among the various census divisions and within Mat-Su
Borough communities is initially based on a calculation
of the total current proportion of workers,by classifi-
cation and census division,to total construction work
force in Impact Area 3.The percentage distributions so
deri ved are then appl i ed to the projected Susitna man-
power requirements to determine the likely residence
distribution of the work force at the beginning of the
project.These percentage distributions are adjusted to
refl ect proximity to the project site,and the percen-
tages change over time as certai n areas become more
attractive as places to reside,and work force migration
occurs.
Table 5.19 displays the residence distribution of the
on-s ite constructi on work force withi n Impact Area 3
prior to factoring in inmigration and relocation.
(ii)Work Force Inmigration and Associated Population Influx
As indicated earlier,the amount of work force inmigra-
tion is directly responsible for the degree of impacts
on the various communities in Impact Area 3.Table 5.19
in the previous section displayed the number and resi-
dence of the work force associ ated with on-s ite
construction.Based on the assumptions of locally
available on-site construction work force
outlined earlier,estimates can be made on the number of
i nmi grants necessary to ful fi 11 the projected manpower
requirements.Table 5.20 displays the results of these
assumptions and includes relocation of construction work
force currently residing within Impact Area 3.
Table 5.21 displays similar information to that
illustrated in TableS.19,but added to direct on-site
construction employment is indirect and induced work
force by place of residence in Impact Area 3.These
residence factors are based on the assumptions of
5-32
-J
1
1"'"
-
fill"'",
i
available local work force for indirect and induced man-
power requirements outlined e,arlier.Table 5.22 then
displays total inmigration and place of relocation of
the work force associated with direct,indirect and
induced employment.
Inmigration into Impact Area 3 at the peak of construc-
tion activity will represent 13 percent of the total
direct construction,indirect and induced work force of
6,365.When considering only direct on-site construc-
tion work force at the peak,3,500 in 1990,the percen-
tage of inmigrants to total is even lower,representing
approximately 5 percent.Thi s low percentage of
inmigration of on-site construction workers is directly
related to the availability of local labor and of the
remote 1ocat i on of the dam sites and the provi si on of
temporary camp and family village facilities.
During the peak of construction activities,828
inmigrant employees.associated with direct,indirect
and induced employment,will be living in Impact Area 3.
Of this total,170 workers are related to direct on-site
construction employment.About 50 percent of the
i nmi grant employees whose employment on the project is
completed after 1990 are expected to remain in the area.
After construction activity peaks at the Watana site in
1990,inmigration subsides until 1997-2000 at which time
construction activity peaks at the Devil Canyon site.
As construction activity is completed in the year 2002,
approximately 12 percent of inmigrants to Impact Area 3
are expected to remain*For the Mat-Su Borough.the
figure is much higher with approximately 60 percent of
the i nmi grants remai ni ng.The maj ority of the i nmi gra-
tian to the Borough consists of workers originating from
Anchorage,Kenai-Cook Inlet and Fairbanks Census
Divisions;it is assumed that 100 percent of these indi-
viduals who move to the Borough will remain even after
their work on the project is completed.When con-
sidering Impact Area 3 in its entirety,the percentage
of workers that remain is much smaller,since Alaska
non-local and out-of-state workers make up a large per-
centage of the total.It is assumed that the majority
of these workers will not remain in the area after their
work on the project is completed,consequently only 12
percent of total i nmi grants to Impact Area 3 remain
after 2002.
Within the Mat-Su Borough,the settlement of inmigrants
is expected to contrast sharply from the settlement
5-33
patterns of the existing population.Accordingly,
inmigrants will establish residence in the communities
of Tal keetna and Trapper Creek with greater frequency.
A great deal of settlement will also occur in "other"
a reas of the Borough,whi ch corresponds to the areas
outside of designated cities or towns,such as Montana
Creek,Caswell and Willow.At the peak of construction
activity,approximately 89 on-site construction,
i ndi rect and induced workers wi 11 i nmi grate to
Talkeetna,117 to Trapper Creek,and 128 to other areas
of the Borough (Table 5.22).
Table 5.23 contains data on the total population influx
into Impact Area 3,by Census Division and for selected
Mat-Su Borough Communities,precipitated by direct,
indirect and induced employment.These projections are
based on assumptions that,for the direct construction
work force,95 percent of inmigrants will be accompanied
by dependents and that an average of 2.11 dependents
will come with each inmigrant worker who is accompanied.
For the indirect and induced work force,the Alaska
State average number of persons per household figure was
used to calculate population influx.Total population
i nfl ux into Impact Area 3 duri ng the two peak peri ods
(1990 and 1999)equal s 2,324 and 1,228,respecti vely.
Of the total population influx associated with direct,
indirect and induced employment in 1990,2,214 or 95
percent,will relocate to the Anchorage region.The
remainder is expected to relocate to the Fairbanks-North
Star Borough,especi ally to the City of Fai rbanks,and
to the Valdez Chitina-Whittier Census Division.
Within the Anchorage region,it is projected that Kenai-
Cook Inl et,Anchorage,and Fai rbanks wi 11 ex peri ence a
slight net outmigration of population during various
stages of construction activity as outmigration to the
Mat-Su Borough exceeds i nmi grat i on from other areas.
The totals increase as the project ends as a result of a
portion of the inmigrant workers and their families
returning to other areas of Alaska and to out-of-state
1 ocati ons.
During the peak constuction period at Watana (1990),the
total project-induced population increase to the Mat-Su
Borough totals 1,112,whi ch accounts for 48 percent of
the total to Impact Area 3.Of this total,694 are
expected to remain in the Borough at the end of
construction in 2002.
In 1990,Talkeetna,Trapper Creek and "other"areas of
the Borough experience 89 percent of the total popula-
5-34
-i
-
-.
.-I
!"'"'"
.1
ti on i nfl ux to the Mat-Su Borough:Trapper Creek 31
percent;Talkeetna 24 percent and;"other"areas 34 per-
cent.These projections represent considerable popula-
tion increases relative to the basel ine forecasts for
each of these areas.Conversely,Palmer,Wasilla and
Houston will experience only moderate increases in popu-
lation.At the conclusion of the project,total popula-
t ion increases to Trapper Creek,Talkeetna and "other"
equal 175,173 and 257 respectively.
The number of school age children accompanying inmigrant
direct,indirect and induced workers into Impact Area 3
will total 562 during the peak of construction.Of this
total,304 will be primary school age and 258 will be of
secondary school age.Tables 5.24,5.25 and 5.26
display data on the projected timing and geographic
d i stri but i on of school age chil dren accompanyi ng
inmigrant workers.
5.5 -Socioeconomic and Sociocultural Project Impacts
This section provides information on probable impacts of the project for
each Impact Area,and for se1 ected communities withi n Impact Area 2
(Trapper Creek and Talkeetna).Attention is focused on the peak construc-
tion years (1990 and 1999)and on the transition to the operations phase of
the Devil Canyon facility (approximately 2002-2003);it is felt that
impacts of the project will be greatest at these points in time.It should
be noted,however,that the changes discussed for those years are expected
to build over several-year periods.
......
(a)Local
It is anticipated that the impacts on socioeconomic conditions
in the Mat-Su Borough will be greatest on the communities of
Trapper Creek and Talkeetna,due to thei r proximity to the
work sites and their relatively small size.Accordingly,im-
pacts of the project on these communities are discussed separ-
ately.
(i)Mat-Su Borough
Table 5.27 presents an overview of impacts of the pro-
ject on the Borough as a whole.Impacts on the incor-
porated communities of Palmer,Wasilla and Houston are
summarized in Tables 5.30.5.32 and 5.34.
Population
The population of the Mat-Su Borough will increase
moderately as a result of construction of the pro-
5-35
ject,but this will be only one of several factors
contributing to the Borough's projected rapid rate of
growth over the next twenty years;the dominant fac-
tor behi nd thi s growth will be spillover from
Anchorage.
Population in the Mat-Su Borough,unrelated to the
Susitna hydroel ectri c project,is projected to
increase by 16,982 people between 1983 and 1990.In
contrast,population influx into Borough communities
associated with the project is estimated to be
approximately 1.112 duri ng the same peri ode Thi s
population influx will represent a 2.6 percent
increase over the baseline forecast population level
in 1990.
As the Watana peak is completed,a slight decrease in
inmigrant population associated with the project is
expected to occur;however,the overall Borough popu-
lation will continue to grow rapidly in the 1990's.
In 1999,the population impact forecast (forecast
with project)of 67,204 represents only a one percent
increase in population over the baseline forecast
(without project).
The population influx into the incorporated com-
munities is expected to be small;between 1983 and
1990,the project wi 11 result in an increase of
approximately 40 people in Palmer and Houston,each,
and 50 in Wasilla.Over 50 percent of the inmigrant
population in the Borough is expected to settle in
t he Trapper Creek Ta 1keet na area,and the rema i nder
will probably establish homes in the Willow-Montana
Creek area,the suburban area surrounding Palmer and
Wasilla,and possibly in the newly available Indian
River subdivision (near Hurricane).
In addition to this increase in population in Mat-Su
Borough communities,there will be an additional peak
amount of 1,464 people from out-of-state and other
areas of Alaska who will be living at the work
camp/village full-time in 1990.This segment of the
population influx is expected to have a limited
effect on conditions in the Borough,as a result of
the planned provision of housing and other facilities
and services ,by the construction contractor.Their
major impact will be related to expenditures made in
Trapper Creek,Talkeetna,and other Borough com-
munities.
5-36
.,
'j
'I
I
,...
-
-
Housing
A total of approximately 374 project-i nduced house-
holds are expected to settle in the Mat-Su Borough
between 1983 and 1990,the height of construction
activity at the Watana site.Based upon an average
five percent vacancy rate,there will be a projected
2,336 vacant housing units in the Borough in 1990,or
about six times as many units as inmigrant house-
holds.Thus,the in-migration is not likely to cause
any dislocations in the Borough's housing market as a
whole.
The availability of housing in some of the small com-
munit i es closest to the project wi 11 be much ti ghter
than the above figures indicate,since communities
nearest to the project typically have the fewest
units of avail abl e vacant hous i ng.In general,the
forecasts for hous i ng need presented in Tables 5.27
through 5.38 should be considered housing demand by
inmigrants.If the supply of housing in a glven com-
munity is not adequate to meet the demands,the
remaining inmigrant households are assumed to locate
their residences elsewhere in the Borough.
Fiscal Impacts on Local Government
The methodology used in the fiscal impact analysis is
the per capita multipl ier method,an average cost
technique that assumes current per capita revenues
and costs are a good approximation of future flows,
other variables remaining constant.It is implicit,
therefore,that any revenue or expenditure projec-
tions based on per capita amounts will vary in direct
proportion to changes in population.The fiscal
impact analysis is to be viewed as a set of trend
indicators of future fiscal flows,and not as a pre-
di ctor of actual recei pts and costs to be incurred.
The analysis is not comprehensive in that it focuses
on major sources of revenue and major categories of
service costs.Therefore,projections could be
either higher or lower varying primarily as a result
of public policy decisions and budgetary allocations.
Matanuska-Susitna Borough Budget
Baseline and impact forecasts for the major sour-
ces of revenue and expenditures for selected funds
in the Mat-Su Borough budget are provided in Table
5.28.The impacts of the project are greater in
5-37
1990 during the peak construction year of the
Watana dam than those to be experienced in 1999,
t he peak constructi on year of the Devi 1 Canyon
dam.Total revenues between 1990 and 1999 will
increase approximately 50 percent with or without
the project,over 1990
levels.
The Service Area Fund will be impacted most by the
project,causing a 28 percent increase in revenues
over baseline in 1990,while other funds will
average a 2.6 percent change due to the project.
However,even in the absence of the project,
Servi ce Area Fund revenues wi 11 ri se 114 percent
by 1990 over 1981 levels,increasing at a faster
rate than the population increase of 93 percent.
Changes in the 1999 impact forecast over baseline
forecast wi 11 be 50 percent 1ess than those in
1990,averagi ng 1.3 percent for all funds
excluding the Service Area Fund.However,Service
Area Fund revenues in 1999 will remain a constant
25 percent over those forecast without the pro-
ject.This is consistent with the population
settl ement forecasts that the majority of the
population influx will reside in the outlying
areas of the Borough.
The Borough will have to increase substantially
the delivery of services to service areas.These
include basic services such as sanitary land fill,
library,fire protection,ambulance,and road
construction and repair.
The Borough administration will experience a
short-term impact from the lag between receipt of
revenues and outlays for service costs.There may
be an initial net deficit due to the costs of
delivering services to substantially larger client
groups and receiving additional revenues,both
local and state.Increases in local revenues will
be generated in the form of property taxes and
service user charges.
The increased popul at i on wi 11 i ndi rect ly expand
the tax base through changes of land ownership,
whereby more Borough lands will be in private
ownership.(See section (a)(ii)for example of
impacts on a service area.)
Currently property taxes account for 30 percent of
total Service Area Fund revenues;however,this
5-38 -
....
-
-
may change dependi ng upon the mi 11 1evy rate per
$1,000 assessed valuation,the ratio of assessed
value to real market value,and the proportion of
total Service Area Revenues attributed to property
taxes.There is usually a lag between the time
new property is placed on tax rolls and is
assessed,and the recei pt of tax revenues.
However,over time,increases in the tax base are
anticipated to offset the increases in service
delivery cost.In addition,there is a lag in the
recei pt of State revenues;however,these wi 11
continue to increase as long as allocation for-
mulas are based upon population.
Certai n General Fund sources of revenues wi 11 be
impacted more than others:property tax revenues
with the project wi 11 ri se nearly 5 percent in
1990 and 3.6 percent in 1999 over the basel ine
forecast.Actual property tax revenues wi 11
doubl e by 1999 for both forecasts.These are
based on a 4 percent annual real rate of increase
in property values and a mill levy of 6.75 mills
per $1000 assessed valuation.Per capita share of
property taxes declines from $261 in 1981 to
$195.40 in 1990,and $179.23 in 1999 under the
basel i ne forecast.Dec1 i nes in per capita share
of property taxes with the project are $199.82 in
1990 and $184.20 in 1999,over 1981 levels.
State funds for school debt servi ce reimbursement
increase from 30 percent of total revenues in 1981
to 37.5 percent in 1990,when 100 percent of local
school capital project debt is anticipated to be
reimbursed by the state.Thi s represents a 150
percent increase in 1990 over 1981 levels and 50
percent increase in 1999 over 1990 levels with the
project forecast.Miscellaneous sources of reve-
nue for the general fund wi 11 dec1 i ne 10 percent
in 1990 with the project over those required
without the project;the reduced requi rements in
1999 will be approximately 7 percent with the pro-
ject over the baseline forecast.This reduction
in miscellaneous sources of revenue is due to the
increases in Muni ci pal Ass i stance Funds and pro-
perty tax revenues,which are a function of
changes in population.
Tota 1 bonded indebtedness for the Mat-Su Borough
is not anticipated to exceed 7.5 percent of total
assessed val uati on.By 1990 total bonded i ndeb-
5-39
tedness for the Mat-Su Borough could reach $95.3
million (baseline forecast)or $97.8 million with
the project.By 1999 thi s coul d increase to
approximately $136 million.
Expenditure forecasts are based upon average per
capita expenditures found in the FY81/82 budget.
The cost of delivering services almost doubles by
1990 and increases by only 50 percent in 1999 over
1990 levels with or without the project.The vast
maj ority of impacts will be experi enced in the
increase in delivery of services to service areas
with particular emphasis on communities
experiencing a large population influx.such as
Ta 1 keetna and Trapper Creek.Total differences
between baseline and impact forecasts in the costs
of service average 2.6 percent in 1990.and only
1.3 percent in 1999.Costs for administration.
fire service.and road maintenance and repair are
likely to experience the largest increases.
Service user changes are anticipated to rise pro-
portionately to the increases in the costs of ser-
vice delivery.
Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District Budget
The school district budget for FY 81/82 is the
s i ngl e 1argest category of revenues and expen-
ditures across all services provided within the
Borough and withi n the incorporated communit i es.
Tabl e 5.29 provi des basel i ne and impact forecasts
of major revenues and expenditures for the school
district budget.Total revenues double by 1990
and increase 60 percent by 1999 over 1990 levels
with or without the project.This is consistent
with increases in the school age population.The
impact of the project in 1990 results in an
overall 2.5 percent average increase over the
baseline forecast.
Total State revenues comprise approximately 75
percent of total school revenues with State
Foundation Program revenues accounting for 86 per-
cent of total State funding.Local property taxes
provide approximately 15 percent with the
remainder of revenues coming from Federal sources.
Local property taxes for school revenues are based
on a mill levy of 6 mills per $1000 assessed
valuation.School Debt Service Reimbursement
monies from the State go to the General Fund to
5-40
-1
-
pay for major capital projects,and thereby make
up the shortfall found between total expenditures
and total revenues.The 1 ag between reimbursement
of funds and expenditu res to be pa i d produces a
short-term impact on fiscal cash flows.This con-
dit ion woul d prevail even in the absence of the
proj ect.
Total expenditures will follow a similar trend as
revenues,increasing by 125 percent in 1990 over 1981
1 evel sand 62 percent over 1990 1evel s without the
project.With the project,increases in expenditures
between 1981 and 1990 will average 130 percent and 64
percent between 1990 and 1999.In either case,
expenditures for education will be rising at a faster
rate than the increase in revenues.Regular instruc-
tion comprises 30 percent of total expenditures,with
special and vocational education accounting for 10
percent and 2 percent,respectively.Special educa-
tion is anticipated to increase substantially from 6
percent in 1981 due to the passage of PL 94142.
Current plans for capital projects for educational
facil ities take into account the possible increases
in school-age population which will be associated
with the project.It is anticipated that school
facilities will have sufficient capacity to ade-
quately handle the influx.Average costs of educa-
tion excluding capital projects are assumed to
increase by 5 percent in real dollars by 1990.
Average per pupil expenditures excluding capital pro-
jects are assumed to be $3,003 per elementary pupil
and $3,728 per secondary pupil.
City of Palmer
The effects of the Sus itna hydroel ectri c project
on fiscal flows in the City budget will be negli-
gible.Total increases in revenues will vary from
one percent in 1990 and 0.5 percent in 1999 over
the baseline forecast (Table 5.31).In general,
increases average 50 percent in 1990 over 1981 and
36 percent in 1999 over 1990 levels assuming nor-
mal growth.Between 1990 and 1999 the impacts on
fi sca 1 fl ows will be the same with or without the
project averaging a 36 percent increase over 1990
levels.
Local sources of revenue provide 35 percent of
total General Fund revenues:property taxes
account for 52 percent of total local revenues and
5-41
(136)1.3152
a re based on a mill 1evy of 4 mill s per $1000
assessed val uati on;sal es tax revenues represent
the balance of local revenues based upon a 2 per-
cent gross retai 1 sales tax assumi ng average per
capita expenditures of $4,674 per year for retail
consumption.In addition,Palmer provides ser-
vices based upon user-fees to help cover the cost
of service delivery.These user fees are assumed
to increase 3 percent in real dollars by 1990 and
represent 30 percent of total General Fund reve-
nues.There are separate funds for sewer services
and water supply with sewer revenues ri sing at a
faster rate than those for water.Both funds levy
service user fees.
The ratio of total bonded indebtedness to assessed
valuation is currently 4 percent and is not anti-
cipated to exceed this ratio.Total possible
bonded indebtedness under these assumptions would
be $3.8 million in 1990 and $5.4 million in 1999,
with little variation between the baseline and
impact forecasts.
Expenditures,like revenues,are not noticeably
impacted by the changes in popul at ion i nfl ux due
to the project.Expenditures for social services
and facilities rise approximately one percent over
the baseline forecast in 1990 at a slightly
greater rate than increases in total revenues.
Total expenditures increase from $2.3 million in
1981 to $4.2 million in 1990 and reach $5.7
million in 1999 without the project.Expenditures
with the project in 1999 wi 11 increase approxima-
tely hal f of one percent over the basel i ne fore-
cast.Between 1990 and 1999 expenditures wi 11
average a 36 percent increase among all services
with or without the project;This is consistent
with popul at ion increases of 36 percent between
1990 and 1999.No sudden large capital improve-
ments are anticipated for the City of Palmer with
or without the project.Expansion or additions to
existing facilities and services appear to be well
integrated into the current planning process.
City of Was ill a
Fiscal impacts on the City of Wasilla will vary
due to normal growth and growth attri buted to
the population influx associated with the project
will be negligible.Actual increases in revenues
5-42
-
,-.
-
-
-I
-
and expenditures wi 11 average about 90 percent
with or without the project,for each decade.
Actual impacts associated with the project will be
very small,with increases in revenues and expen-
ditures averaging about 1.2 percent over the base-
line forecast in 1990 and about 0.5 percent over
the basel i ne forecast in 1999.The majority of
revenues comprise State shared taxes and State
revenue shari ng.Locally deri ved revenues from
licenses and fines account for only four percent
of total revenues,though addi tiona 1 revenues are
to be generated from an assessment on lots
directly benefitting from a new centralized water
supply system.The City of Wasilla does not levy
property taxes and it does not utilize service
user fees to cover costs of service delivery.In
addit ion,capital proj ects are funded primarily
through State and local grants.
Expenditure forecasts are derived from actual
average per capita costs of service,with each
service accounting for the following share of
total expenditures,excl udi ng capital project
costs:parks and recreation seven percent;
library 15 percent,fire service 11 percent,loca
government administration 39 percent,and road
maintenance and repair 28 percent.These propor-
tions are assumed to remain fairly constant over
the period of the forecasts,with possible
increases in administration and road repairs due
to the increased population influx.
City of Houston
The overall impact of the project in 1990 will
raise revenues and expend'itures approximately 2.7
percent over the basel i ne forecast and wi 11
increase fiscal flows slightly less than one per-
centage point in 1999 over the baseline forecast.
Total revenues and expenditures will rise at the
same rate as population increases,doubling
approximately every eight years.Houston does not
raise any funds locally,either through property
assessments or servi ce user fees.Current reve-
nues are derived from State and local grants;this
pattern is expected to continue,however,many
local revenue generating alternatives are
available to the residents within Houston City
limits.
5-43
As the community grows,it is likely to provide
addit i ona 1 servi ces for whi ch it may choose to
1evy taxes,set user charges or other forms of
recipient fees.As petroleum revenues decline in
the 1990's and State funding cuts back,local com-
munities and cities will have to find increasingly
creative methods of raising funds to cover the
costs of service delivery.Local taxes and user
fees are the predomi nant methods used by 1oca 1
fiscal officials.
Expenditures for local government administration
represent 47 percent of total expenditures,and
road maintenance 29 percent,with fire service
comprising 15 percent.This distribution of
expenditures is similar to that of the cities of
Wasilla and Palmer reflecting similar local
priorities.Other major services are provided by
the Mat-Su Borough.
Public Facilities and Services
Public facility and service impacts have been esti-
mated using the following approach:(1)Appropriate
per capita standards were developed,based upon an
extensive literature review and the input of local
officials;(2)the adequacy of existing facilities
and services were assessed;and (3)estimates of
fut u re needs re 1at ed to natu ra 1 growt h and to
project-induced population influx have been compared
with present and pl anned capacity.With the excep-
tion of Trapper Creek,substantial increases in
public facilities and services will be needed to
accommodate baseline forecast growth,and population
influx related to the project will only add slightly
to these needs.In contrast,the large proportional
increase of popul at ion in Trapper Creek wi 11 have
substanti al imoacts on the needs for publ i c faci 1 i-
ties and services.
Water Supply
The water supply needs of the project and of the
work force and fami 1i es 1i vi ng at the Watana and
Devil Canyon sites wi 11 be provi ded for by the
contractors.There will be no impact on public
facilities in the Mat-Su Borough.
The population influx associated with the project
will have only a slight impact on the public water
5-44
..
i
-
systems in the Borough.In Palmer,water con sump-
t i on at the peak of construction at the Watana
site (1990)w"ill rise one percent over the base-
line forecast level of 608,000 gallons per day;
water consumption attributable to the population
influx during the Devil Canyon site construction
peak (1999)will represent a 0.5 percent increase
over the baseline level of 917,650 gallons per
day.There will be no additional need for pipe
associated with this slight increase in water con-
sumpt ion,as these famil i es are expected to move
into vacant housing units,where presumably water
lines are already hooked up.
In Wasilla,water consumption is expected to
increase by 1.1 and 0.5 percent during the two
construction peaks,over the baseline forecast
consumption levels during those years.This
increase in population will not have major impacts
on the Wasilla water system;however,it may
contribute slightly to the population density in
Wasilla,and thereby contribute to the need for an
expansion of the water system (the present system
currently serves only the downtown area).
Sewage
The sewage treatment needs of the '!'Iork force and
families living at the construction sites will be
provided for at the work camp and family village.
No impacts on the local public facilities are
expected.
Population influx into Palmer win result in an
increase in sewage treatment requirements of 5,000
gallons per day (0.9 percent)above the 1990 base-
line forecast level and 4,013 gallons per day (0.5
percent)over the 1996 basel ine forecast level.
The population influx during 1983-1990 will occur
at a time when existing facilities are already
reachi ng thei r 1 imits,and a thi rd sewage treat-
ment cell will be required.
Sewage treatment requirements in Wasilla are
cu rrent ly handl ed by i ndi vi dua 1 septic tanks,but
as the city population grows,a city-wide system
will be needed with or without dam construction.
Solid Waste
5-45
The solid waste requirements of personnel and
dependents living at the construction work sites
wi 11 be provi ded for at the camp and vi 11 age,and
will have no significant impacts on public facili-
ties in the Mat-Su Borough.
The population influx into the Borough communities
associated with the project wi 11 increase the
annual 1andfi 11 needs of the Borough by .069 hec-
tares (ha)(.17 acres)in 1990 and .073 ha (.18
acres )in 1999.This represents 2.5 percent and
1.3 percent increases over the basel i ne forecast
levels in those years.This population increase
may contribute to a slight advance in requirements
for additional landfill acreage,which is expected
to be needed under the baseline forecast con-
ditions around 1994-1995.
Law Enforcement
The population influx into Mat-Su Borough com-
munities that is associated with the project will
increase the requirements of State Troopers by one
to two officers over the baseline forecast need of
38 in 1990,the year of peak construction acti-
vity.
The proj ect const ruct i on contractors will provi de
for police protection around the dam sites,but it
is possible that the State Trooper force in
Trapper Creek may be enlarged somewhat to reflect
the growing population in the northern part of the
Borough during the construction phase of the pro-
j ect.
Fire Protection
Fire protection planning in rural areas such as
the Mat-Su Borough is more dependent on the
distance of facilities from population centers
than on the size of population.Since inmigrants
are expected to settle into existing vacant
housing,there will be little impact on fire pro-
tection facilities in most communities.
Fi refi ghters wi 11 continue to be,for the most
part,volunteers.
The project faci 1it i es and work camp/fami ly
village will be protected by firefighting equip-
ment and servi ces at the work sites;there wi 11 be
5-46
-
-
little impact on the existing governmental facili-
ties and services.
Health Care
The work camp/family vi 11 age at the construction
site will provide facilities for health care,
including a 20-bed hospital.It is expected that
there wi 11 be 1 itt 1e impact of the construct i on-
site population on the Mat-Su Borough's health
facilities,with the exception of cases of major
illness or accidents which cannot adequately be
handled by the site hospital.
The population influx into the Mat-Su Borough com-
muniti es associ ated with the project is expected
to rai se the number of hospital beds needed in
1990 by about one bed.This population influx
may contribute to a slightly accelerated need for
a new hospital,a development which was projected
to be required around 1990 under baseline forecast
conditions.
Education
School-age children at the construction site will
be educated at project facil it i es and hence wi 11
not have an effect on the Mat-Su Borough School
District.There will be an increase of 159 pri-
mary school children and 133 secondary school
children accompanying inmigrants into communities
in the Mat-Su Borough during the Watana peak,
represent i ng about three percent of the base1-j ne
forecast levels.These figures will decline to
127 and 106,respectively,during the Devil Canyon
peak.There wi 11 be a need of about seven addi-
tiona 1 primary school c1 assrooms and teachers and
seven secondary school cl assrooms.and teachers in
1990,in addition to the 216 primary school and
230 secondary school classrooms which will be
needed to accommodate growth without the project.
Public Recreation Facilities
Recreational facilities will be provided at the
construction site for use by project employees and
thei r famil i es.Thus,resi dents of the work camp
are not expected to have much of an impact on
public recreational facilities,although some
increase in visits to the national and state parks
5-47
near Mt.McKi nl ey,and to other parks can be
expected.Residents can also be expected to
engage in outdoor recreation activites in por-
tions of the upper Susitna basin where no public
facilities now exist.
The project-induced population influx into Borough
conmunites wi 11 represent 2.6 percent of Borough
population in 1990 and 1.3 percent in 1999.This
additional population will have a slight impact on
the requirements for public recreational facili-
ties.
Transportation
The Susitna hydroelectric project includes the
construction of a road into an area that currently
has no auto access.If pol i cymakers deci de to
allow publ ic access to this road,the result will
be a maj or add it i on to the 1oca 1 trans portat ion
system.The ultimate status of the road is
unsettled at this point,due to environmental con-
cerns.
It is anticipated that the majority of project-
related supplies and equipment will be transported
by ra il to Gol d Creek,and then by truck to the
work sites.The rail system is currently underu-
tilized and the increased revenues are expected to
benefit the railroad.
An increase in vehicular traffic on the Parks
Highway and nearby roads will result to the
extent that pri vate automobiles are allowed to
use the access road to the sites.Thi s increase
inroad traffi c coul d i ncl ude workers commut i ng
to and from the site,and traffi c rel ated to
potential recreational activity in the impound-
ment areas.
Business Activity
The potential for displacing residences and busi-
nesses in Impact Area 1 and for enhanci ng bus i ness
act i vity in the Borough are di scussed in th is sec-
tion.
Residences
Although some cabins used intermittently by hun-
ters,trapoers and recreat i oni sts wi 11 be
5-48
-
-
-
-
-
displaced by the project,no permanent residences
are expected to be inundated or totally displaced.
Some residents of the upper basin are expected to
vol untarily leave the area for other wil derness
regions in response to increased construction and
recreational activity.
Businesses
Most business activities in Impact Area 1
(proximity to dams,access roads and transmission
1 i nes)are dependent upon abundance and 1ocat ion
of fish and game species.These activities
include guiding,lodging,trapping,salmon fishing
and other recreation.Short term dis placement of
such enterprises by construction activity may
occur,but in the long run increased access to the
area may increase business opportunities.
Guides are expected to have to adjust to changes
in abundance and 1ocat i on of fi sh and game spe-
cies,but may benefit from improved access to
wi 1derness areas.Lodges cateri ng to hunters and
fi shermen wi 11 be affected by the same factors,
but may find new opportunities to offer access to
sports such as cross country skiing or to provide
facilities for business conferences.Trappers
will be affected by loss of habitat for fur-
bearers.Salmon stocks will be affected by
changes in species mix and numbers of fish,but
long term impacts on Cook Inlet commercial
fishermen,recreational fishermen and other user
groups are expected to be minor.Impacts on other
types of recreation will include the loss of sec-
tions of Susitna River to white-water kayaking,
but general recreational use is expected to
increase as a result of improved access.
One active mining site is expected to be totally
displaced by the project and one inactive site
partially displaced.However,the project may
prove beneficial to other mining activities by
improving access,hence allowing existing claims
to be worked more profitably and facilitating
discovery of new deposits.
Bus i ness act i vity wi 11 increase in the Borough
during the mid to late 1980s asa result of road
and dam construction at the Watana site.
Businesses that supply construction materials such
5-49
as sand,gravel,fuel,etc.,will have increased
sales as will firms that provide transportation
services such as trucking,helicopter,and
airplane support services.Further,it is esti-
mated that by 1990 more than 400 support sector
jobs will be created by the project.Existing
support sector businesses such as restaurants,
service stations,lodging establishments,retail
food stores,etc.,will expand and new businesses
will be started.Most of this activity will be
concentrated along the Parks Highway from Wasilla
to Cantwell.
Employment
The Susitna project will dramatically increase the
employment opportunities in the Mat-Su Borough.At
the peak of project construction in 1990,direct on-
site work force requirements of the project will
total 3,500,and an additional 428 indirect and
induced jobs are expected to be created in the
Borough.Altogether,thi s wi 11 represent an increase
of 57 percent over the baseline forecast of
employment in the Borough (by place of employment).
It is expected that Mat-Su Borough residents will
account for over 10 percent of the on-site construc-
t ion employment and over 85 percent of the i ndi rect
and induced employment related to the project.
Income
At the peak of project employment in 1990,it is
estimated that approximately $97.8 million (1980
dollars)in payroll will be distributed to the on-
site construction work force.As previously
displayed in Section 5.4,Table 5.17,this payroll
will be spent in various Census Divisions in Impact
Area 3 based on expenditure assumpt ions.In 1990 it
is estimated that approximately $8 million of on-site
construction payroll will be spent in Mat-Su Borough;
in total,between the years 1983-2002,the figure is
$67 million.This payroll spent in the Borough will,
in turn,stimulate an increase in indirect and
induced business activity and employment.
(ii)Trapper Creek
Impacts of the project on the community of Trapper Creek
are summarized in Table 5.36.
5-50
-
."""
-
I
\',
Population
The population influx associated with the project is
projected to result in a doubling of the population
of this small community by the peak year of project
acti vity (1990),from the basel i ne forecast (without
project)of 320 to the impact forecast of 661 for
that year.As the Watana peak winds down and the
project work force is cut,about half of the workers
and thei r famil i es will 1eave the area (166 persons
between 1990 and 2002).If new sources of
employment do not develop,this exodus could be
somewhat larger.
Housing
The population influx into Trapper Creek between 1983
and 1990 will result in an increased demand for
approximately 114 housi ng units over the basel i ne
forecast level of 107.This is likely to cause a
substantial short-term housing shortage.To the
extent that this doubling in housing needs cannot be
met,it is expected that inmigrants will seek housing
in nearby areas of the Borough.
Traditionally,the availability of vacant housing in
Trapper Creek has been extremely limited.Under
baseline forecast conditions,this trend is expected
to continue,as additional housing is built only to
satisfy definite needs.Thus,only one or two vacant
housing units are expected to be available in 1990,
far short of the 114 needed.
It is possible that speculative activity prior to the
construction peak period will result in additional
housi ng units bei ng avai 1abl e to meet part of the
increase in demand.Some families may reside tem-
porarily in cottages or rooms owned by lodges in the
area,and part of the housing needs may be met
quickly by purchase of mobile homes and trailers,to
be used on individual lots or in trailer parks.
While there is not a great deal of private land in
the Trapper Creek area,there is a sufficient amount
to support the expected population influx.
Fiscal Impacts
Any analysis of fiscal impacts for Trapper Creek and
other small cornmuniti es woul d have to fall under the
Mat-Su Borough budget as revenues and expenditures
5-51
are collected and administered by the Borough.
Changes in revenue receipts would affect the Borough
government directly,and the delivery of services to
communities indirectly.The Borough has the power to
1evy property taxes on servi ce areas to cover the
costs of service delivery.These could be impacted
due to costs of service del ivery which over time
could be offset by increases in the tax base.
In FY81/82,the areawide mill levy was 6.7 per $1000
assessed valuation and the non-areawide (service
areas only)mill levy was 0.52 per $1000 assessed
valuation.
It is assumed that neither Trapper Creek nor other
small communities will incorporate before 2000.
Although population increases will be substantial,
the actual size of the total community is assumed not
to be suffi ci ently 1arge to warrant incorporati on.
Therefore,the Mat-Su Borough government wi 11 remai n
responsible for the provision of services and facili-
ties to the extent necessary.
The Borough is as sumed to 1evy a total property tax
of 6.5 mills per $1000 assessed valuation until 1989
and 6.75 mills from 1990-2000.This will include a
mill levy of 0.5 for 1981-89 and 0.75 for 1900-2000,
for non-areawide services such as fire and road ser-
vice.Ambulance service is assumed to continue
operating on a user fee basis.Projections of esti-
mated local taxes to cover the costs of capital pro-
j ects can not be made as thi s wi 11 depend upon the
size of the project,the avail abil ity of State and
Federal grant monies,local preferences,and the
Mat-Su Borough's bonding capabilities.
The dominant fiscal impact experienced by the Borough
Administration will be the result of cash-flow
cycles.Initially the costs of service delivery will
be accel erated and these wi 11 not be matched by an
immediate parallel increase in revenues.It is anti-
ci pated there wi 11 be a two-year 1ag between the
receipt of revenues and the outlay for additional
service costs.This lag is a function of the time it
takes to input new property owners on the tax rolls,
for the property assessments to be made,and taxes
collected.
Public Facilities and Services
5-52
-
-"J
r
•
Water,Sewage and Solid Waste
Water and sewage needs are met by individual wells
and septic tanks,and solid waste is disposed at a
nearby 1andfi 11 run by the Borough.No adverse
impacts caused by the popul at ion i nfl ux as such
are probable.
It is anticipated that Borough and State oversight
of growth of Trapper Creek could prevent any
problems of hastily built housing developments
that do not meet health standards for wells,sep-
tic tanks and trash disposal.
Transportation
Increased ve~icle traffic on the Parks Highway is
expected.The addition of housing units may
result in additional roads to serve them,and the
increased popul at i on may add to the need for
additional paved or gravel roads.
Police Protection
It is possible the project and the increased popu-
1at ion "j n the northern pa rt of the Borough wi 11
induce an enlargement of the State Trooper substa-
tion at Trapper Creek,thus resulting in an
increased police presence in the community.
Fire Protection
The population influx into Trapper Creek will exa-
cerbate the need for active fire facilities in the
community.It is possible that the additional
population added to the natural growth over the
1983-2000 peri od coul d st imul ate the Borough to
create a fire service area for Trapper Creek.
Health Care
With the exception of an ambulance,no health care
facilities are currently available in Trapper
Creek.The population influx associated with the
project is not expected to have an effect on
health care for Trapper Creek residents.
Education
The planned six-classroom elementary school in
Trapper Creek wi 11 have a capacity of 150 stu-
5-53
dents.It is anticipated that the population
influx associated with the project into Trapper
Creek and the surrounding area could bring the
school's enrollment close to capacity by the peak
year of construction at the Watana site.The com-
bination of natural population growth and the con-
t i nued presence of over ha 1f of the i nmi grants
associated with the project will result in a need
for additional classroom space in the 1990's.
Business Activity
It is not expected that business activity will change
appreciably in Trapper Creek during the 1980s if the
dams are not built.By 1990,project-induced demand
for servi ces wi 11 equal or exceed that of the fore-
cast baseline population.With dam construction it
is very 1i kely that Trapper Creek wi 11 have servi ce
types and levels similar to those of Talkeetna today.
Because Trapper Creek is on the Parks Highway,it
could even have more service businesses than present-
day Talkeetna by 1990.
Employment
The Susitna project will present vastly increased em-
ployment opportunities for residents of Trapper
Creek,both in terms of on-site construction,and in
terms of jobs in the support sector.
Income
Income spent in Trapper Creek is anticipated to
increase sharply during the construction phase of the
project,as a result of the increased employment of
local residents and the inmigrant population,and as
a result of expenditures made by work camp residents
on items such as food,beverages,gasoline and
recreation.
(iii)Talkeetna
Table 5.37 displays a summary of the expected impacts of
the project on Talkeetna.In general,this analysis
refers to the area that was proposed for incorporati on
in 1981.
5-54
~
I
-
-
-i
....
r
....
Population
Between 1983 and 1990,an estimated population influx
of 263 is expected to occur as a result of the pro-
ject.This will represent a 26 percent increase over
the baseline forecast of 1,000.By 1999,210,or 80
percent of the earlier population influx will remain.
A further moderate decline in population of 37 is
expected between 1999 and 2002.
Housing
The population influx related to the Watana construc-
tion phase will result in an addition of 87 house-
hol ds between 1983 and 1990 to the Tal keetna area.
As in Trapper Creek,a shortage of available housing
is probable.Under baseline forecast conditions,
only six vacant housing units will be available in
that year.This estimate is based on the community·s
historically low vacancy rate.
The expected short-term shortfall in housing supply
may be made up by speculative advance construction,
temporary residence in local lodges/hotels,the use
of mobile homes and trailers,and rapid construction.
To the extent that the hous i ng supply cannot meet
demand,it is likely that some inmigrant families
will find housing elsewhere in the northern part of
the Borough.
Fiscal
Baseline and impact forecasts for revenues generated
by or on behalf of the Talkeetna Service Areas for
the Mat-Su Borough Administration are shown in Table
5.35.Due to substantial population changes caused
by the proj ect,there wi 11 be a 26 percent increase
in revenues from property taxes in 1990 over the
baseline forecast for 1990.The change due to normal
growth would increase revenues by 134 percent without
the project and 196 percent with the project,over
1981 levels.Increases of 13 percent between 1990
and 1999 with the project are consistent with other
trends where the changes due to the project are twice
as large in 1990 as they are in 1999.Property tax
revenues are based upon a non-areawi de mi 11 1evy of
1.5 mills in 1990 and 1.75 mills in 1999 per $1000
assessed valuation.
State General Revenues for fi re servi ce areas are
based upon population and therefore will follow the
5-55
same trend as property tax revenues,i ncreasi ng 26
percent ln 1990 and increaslng 13 percent in 1999
over the baseline forecast.Revenues for road main-
tenance and repalr are assumed to increase 10 percent
per year ln 1981,conslstent with assumptions
regardl ng all revenues for mal ntenance of roads
wlthl n the Borough that wi 11 experl ence si gnl fi cant
lncreased use.
Tota 1 revenues to the Borough will 1ncrease 116 per-
cent from 1981 to 1990,and 130 percent from 1990 to
1999 without the project.Total revenues to the
Borough with the project wi 11 increase 10 percent 1n
1990 and four p~rcent in 1999 over baseline forecast.
The corrmunity of Talkeetna is assumed not to 1ncor-
porate before 2000 if the Sus itna project is not
bullt.Under these condit 1ons the Matanuska-Sus itna
Borough wl11 cont 1nue to provi de servl ces,1nc1 udl ng
ambulance,fire protection,solld waste dlsposa1,and
road malntenance and repalr.Po1lce protectlon wlll
continue under State Troopers.Servlces wl11 be
admlnlstered by Borough offlcla1s and pald for by the
Borough government out of funds derived both locally
and from the State.Property located wlthin the ser-
vice boundary will continue to be liable for taxes
levied to cover the costs of service delivery.The
mill levy for education is assumed to remain constant
at 6.0 mills per $1,000 assessed valuation.The
nonareawide tax mill levy is assumed to increase,
thereby generating additional revenues over and above
those that result form real increases in the value of
property over time.
In addition to stimulating revenues and raising
expenditures for service delivery,the impact of the
Susitna hydroelectric project is likely to accelerate
the time-table in which the Talkeetna community will
decide to incorporate.The increased population
i nfl ux wi 11 act as an impetus for the community to
organize itself such that it can control the delivery
of necessary servi ces.The City of Tal keetna woul d
be able to levy taxes to cover the costs of govern-
ment administration and service operations,func-
tioning either as a second class city or a Home Rule
city.The city is likely to elect to provide its own
fi re and ambul ance servi ces and as a second c1 ass
city,would continue police protection under State
Troopers.The Mat-Su Borough wou 1d cont i nue to pro-
vide services to the road service area which would
5-56
-
-l
'..~
-
~,
~'
exclude the city limits of Talkeetna.Local govern-
ment would then be responsible for providing road
mai ntenance and repai r withi n the City 1 imits.The
Borough would continue to levy non-areawide taxes for
services delivered under non-areawide powers.The
areawide tax would also be levied to cover the costs
of education provided by the Mat-Su Borough School
District.
Any additional fiscal exoenditures are not antici-
pated.It is assumed that i ndi vi dua 1 sept i c tanks
wi 11 cant i nue to be the mode of sewage di sposa 1.
Water supply systems are anticipated to remain as
wells on individual lots.However t should city lot
sizes prove to be inadequate for individual wells t
the residents may elect to build a community well.
The costs of this would most likely be borne by those
residents who directly benefit from the improvements.
Solid waste will likely continue to be disposed of at
the Borough land fill sites.The majority of funding
for capital projects is assumed to be grant monies
derived from either Borough or State funds.Local
shares will likely be paid for by monies derived from
taxes levied on residents who benefit directly or by
issuing municipal bonds.
Public Facilities
Water and Sewage
As in Trapper Creek t it is possible that quickly
constructed housing will need to be closely super-
vised to ensure compliance with health standards
regarding wells and septic tanks.
Solid Waste
The peak population influx into Talkeetna asso-
ciated with the project will occur just around the
time that the Borough's landfill near Talkeetna is
expected to be closed (1987-89).A new landf"ill
or a transfer station will be needed at that time.
The additional population is not expected to have
any adverse impacts.
5-57
Transportation
Construction of new housing may result in the need
for additional roads to serve these new units.
Police Protection
As Talkeetna grows,there may be a community
desire for a police presence closer than the
Trapper Creek substation.The additional 26 per-
cent population influx associated with the project
between 1983 and 1990 and the proximity of the
work camp to the community may further rei nforce
this tendency.
Fire Protection
Increased population is not expected to affect
firefighting facilities in the area;these are
planned on the basis of distance between the sta-
tion and population centers,and on the availabi-
lity of pumped water.The planned addition of
equipment to the Talkeetna fire station should be
sufficient to serve the community until such time
as a community water system is put into place.
Hea 1th Ca re
Resi dents of Tal keetna currently use the heal th
care facilities in the southern part of the
Borough and Anchorage.The population influx
related to the project is not expected to have any
adverse impacts.
Education
The population influx associated with the project
will include approximately 38 primary school-age
children by 1990,just as the enrollment in the
elementary school in Talkeetna is projected to
exceed its capacity of 120.Additional classroom
space and teachers will be needed.
Between 1990 and 1999,facilities for an addi-
tional 76 elementary school children will need to
be built,as a result of baseline forecast growth.
The Susitna project is expected to have limited
impacts during this period.
5-58
-
-
r-
There wi 11 be an additional 31 secondary students
associated with the proj ect attending Sus itna
r Vall ey High School in 1990 over the baseline fore-
I cast level.By 1999,this will decline to 26.
Business Activity
By 1990,without the project,the demand for services
will almost double.It is expected that existing
busi nesses wi 11 operate at full er capacity and some
wi 11 expand thei r servi ces.A few new busi nesses
will emerge to meet the increased demands.Some of
these might offer services not currently available in
Talkeetna.
....
r
r
F"
I
r
-
r
i
-
The project is expected to have a significant impact
on Talkeetna's business activity as new residents and
workers from the project spend their income in
Talkeetna.The new residents will have spending pat-
terns similar to those residents now living in
Talkeetna,and the workers who come to Talkeetna for
short vi sits wi 11 be expected to concentrate thei r
expenditures on food,beverages,lodging,and related
items.If workers make visits to Talkeetna fre-
quently (this would be probable if workers are
allowed to fly to and from the construction site),
the demand for services could be double that implied
by the 1990 baseline forecast of population.
Income
Income spent in Talkeetna is anticipated to increase
somewhat during the construction phase of the pro-
ject,but at a more moderate level of increase than
that anticipated for Trapper Creek.The increase in
income and expenditures will be primarily in the form
of local residents obtaining employment on the pro-
ject and due to the inmigrant workers and families.
In that Tal keetna is si tuated off of the Parks hi gh-
way and that the proposed access route does not go
through Talkeetna,there will be fewer purchases of
supplies and other goods and services made by work
camp resi dents in Tal keetna.However,if workers are
able to fly into Talkeetna from the work camp,then
considerably more income could be spent in Talkeetna,
particularly for food,beverages and lodging.
5-59
(iv)Sociocultural Impacts
The sociocultural impacts discussed in this section
(Section 5.S(a)(iv)are extracted from a study prepared
by Stephen R.Braund &Associates for the Susitna
Hydroelectric Project.The impacts are based on popula-
tion,school-age children,and housing stock projec-
tions.In this section,the Base Case refers to
baseline forecasts (i.e.future projections without the
Susitna Project).These Base Case projections are then
compared to the forecasts of population,school-age
children,and housing stock in the local communities
whi ch have resulted from the project.The difference
between the two forecasts results in the project
impacts.These community level forecasts are only
available for Trapper Creek and Talkeetna;therefore,
the discussion of impacts related to the railroad com-
munities north of Talkeetna is totally qualitative.
For purposes of analysis,only the population projec-
tions specifically allocated to Trapper Creek and
Ta 1Keetna were used.If those project-rel ated peopl e
who locate outside of the immediate cities and com-
munities (See the lIOther"category in Table 5.23)are
proportionally allocated to the greater Trapper Creek
and Talkeetna "areas",the impacts discussed below would
be greater.
The Susitna Project will cause a 61 percent population
increase in Trapper Creek from 1986 to 1987.(The pro-
ject adds 175 residents to a Trapper Creek Base Case
population of 285 for a total population of 460).
Included in this one year population influx are 45
school-age chi 1dren.By 1990,the Watana peak,Trapper
Creek is projected to have a population of 661,over
twice as many people as without the project (320).
Included in these cumulative figures for 1990 are an
additional 88 school-age children (a 117 percent
increase over the 75 Base Case projections).Also,by
1990,project-related families who move to Trapper Creek
will require an additional 133 housing units over the
Base Case housing stock.
As Watana winds down,the work force is reduced,and
some families leave the area.The low point between
Watana and Devil Canyon construction occurs in 1995,
when project-related population in Trapper Creek drops to
198 (from a high of 341 in 1990).As a result,Trapper
Creek's population drops from a high of 661 in 1990 to a
low of 588 in 1995 (11 percent drop).(Although 143
project rel ated peopl e 1eave the community,Base Case
growth adds 70 persons duri ng the same peri od.
5-60
-i
I
!
-Il!
-
-
i
Consequently,a total of 213 move in and out of Trapper
Creek.)At the peak of Devil Canyon construction in
1999,the project accounts for 245 of Trapper Creek's 701
people (a 54 percent increase over the Base Case popu-
1at i on of 456).By the end of the proj ect forecast
period (2002),70 project-related people (29 percent of
the 1999 peak)leave Trapper Creek.It is assumed that
Base Case growth accounts for 57 additional inmigrants
for a net population loss of 13 people between 1999 and
2002.
Although the long time frame of the Susitna Project will
cushion any final decline (one is hardly noticeable by
the year 2002),the projected rapi d i nfl ux of project-
related persons in Trapper Creek between 1986 and 1990
will result in a boom situation for the community.
Accordi ng to Davenport and Davenport (Boom Towns and
Human Services,University of Wyoming--PUblications,
Laramie,Wyoming,1979)a "boom town ll is defined as:
1.A community experi enci ng above average economi c and
population growth;
2.which results in benefits for the community,e.g.
expanded tax base,increased employment opportunities,
social and cultural diversity;
3.but which also places or results in strain on
existing comnunity and societal institutions (e.g.
familial,education,political,economic).
Not all impacts associated with boom towns are negative.
For example,positive consequences include substantial
benefits to the 1oca 1 economy such as more jobs,more
businesses,higher pay scales,increased prosperity,and
an increased tax base.In addition,an expanded and
updated educational curriculum may result from the new
demands made by incomi ng students and thei r parents.
Generally,the benefits associated wtih rapid growth
caused by a large development project are primarily eco-
nomic.In the case of Trapper Creek,for the segment of
the population which is not primarily motivated by eco-
nomic advancement,the negative effects of rapid growth
will likely overshadow any benefits.
Among the consequences and human costs associ ated with
boom towns,the following major problem areas have been
identified (liThe Sociological Analysis of Boom Towns".
In Boom Towns and Human Servi ces,Davenport and
Davenport,eds,1979):
5-61
Demands for and strain on existing facilities and ser-
vices,including human services such as marital,
child abuse,and delinquency counseling,that exceed
the capacities of local systems to meet them.
Economic problems centered around high inflation
caused by increased demands of large numbers of
i ncomi ng project-rel ated personnel and fami 1 i es
(increased cost of living,especially for housing;
new pay scales beyond the limits of some local
business;more formality in conducting business;and
hardshi ps associ ated with i nfl at i on on those 1i vi ng
on fixed incomes such as the elderly or chronically
unemp 1oyed).
Increases in the incidence and nature of many "people
problems"(rise in alcoholism,child abuse,crime,
suicide attempts,divorce,and the lack of trained
medical personnel),likely associated with stress
related to rapid change.
Potential conflict between the values,norms,beliefs
and lifestyles of local residents and the newcomers.
Loca 1 government is forced to take a more act i ve and
expansive role in the lives of community residents as
it tri es to expand servi ces and respond to rapi d
growth.Generally,a time lag exists between the
demand for services and their availability.
Based on its lack of infrastructure,its small rural
nature,and the characteristic that a significant
portion of its residents are not primarily motivated
by economi c advancement,most of the precedi ng
general comments related to boom town problems seem
to apply to Trapper Creek.In addition,the problems
are compounded by the 1995 lull and a second project
peak in 1999.Bas ed on the project ions,Trapper
Creek will experience a boom (1986-1990),a downswing
(1991-1995),an upswing (1996-1999),and a slow
decline in project-related persons beginning in 2000.
The lull in the early 1990's could be especially
problematic as workers (especially indirect and
induced)will live in anticipation of another pro-
ject.This period will likely be easier for direct
constructi on workers,as they wi 11 probably go
elsewhere to work.
Uncontroll ed rapi d growth generally results in nega-
tive consequences.Local residents who live in the
5-62
,
'""'I
small cOlmlUnity prior to the growth tend to blame the
developer and the new residents for problems asso-
ciated with population influxes.These problems are
exacerbated if the community does not have the
infastructure to accommodate the new growth.
Resentment between current residents and newcomers
may develop because the former often bears the burden
of the expense for new facilities and services,often
in the form of hi gher taxes.The result is often
citizen against citizen;the town against the
developer;and local government against higher levels
of government (Borough and State)..
One way to diffuse many of these potential conflicts
is to di stri bute the costs and benefits of the pro-
ject equitably (Ji rovec."Preparing a Boom Town for
the Impact of Rapid Growth."In Boom Towns and Human
Servi ces,Davenport and Davenpor~ds.,1979).In
thi s case,those who gain the benefits (the deve-
loper,the state)help pay the costs.In this way,
those who generally pay the costs (the rural com-
munity resident)are protected and their quality of
1 ife preserved.
Generally,a town facing rapid growth desires to
develop the local capability to assure that the
effects of growth will be as beneficial as possible.
Controll i ng the impacts of rapi d growth on small,
rural towns within the context of local values begins
with community planning,community organization,and
research.As Jirovec points out,urban planning
techniques may not apply;a rural community needs
rural pl anni ng.The success of any pl an depends on
corrmunity support and organization.In addition,it
requi res the developer to share with the community
detailed information about the project.Finally,a
corrmunity requires time (i.e.2 years)for planning
and preparation for rapid growth.
Even if it is effectively managed,boom growth
apparently results in increased urbanization and
modernization of the rural style of living --the
population becomes more diverse;current residents
know a small er percentage of thei r nei ghbors;more
a nd more i nte ract ions between people become formal
and con-tractual rather than personal and face-to-
face (Cortese and Jones,1979).Pl anni ng and com-
munity organi zat i on to prepare for the boom become
part of the problem.The planning process typically
adds anonymity,differentiation,bureaucratization,
5-63
impersonalization,and so forth (Cortese and Jones,
1979).In effect,in rural communities,the solution
can become the problem.According to Jirovec (1979)
prospective boom towns must choose between
u ncontroll ed rapi d growth (with many negati ve
side-effects),managed or controlled rapid growth
(with greater urbanization and modernization),or
moderate or no growth (which would maintain the sta-
tus quo).From the community perspective,local
residents do not always have the latter choice.
Based on the population forecasts (both Base Case and
project-related},the most significant feature of
Talkeetna's future is the constant growth without the
project.Whereas Trapper Creek experi ences a boom
between 1986 and 1990,Talkeetna's project-related
population,during the same period,only increases
6.5 percent per year over the Base Case projections.
During the biggest year of project impact,1986-1987,
the project adds 138 persons to a Base Case popul a-
tion of 862.This represents a one year increase of
16 percent where Trapper Creek had a 61 percent
project-related increase in the same year.The fore-
cast situation in Talkeetna emphasizes that although
project impacts are much less than Trapper Creek,the
cumulative effect of both the Base Case population
increase and the project-i nduced growth is si gnifi-
cant and represents the real change with which
Talkeetna must contend.
Without a community effort to identify and implement
common goals,this growth in Talkeetna may result in
the community losing its small-town,rustic,frontier
fl avor whi ch attracts many touri sts.It will 1i kely
continue as a tourist town and staging area for
McKinley climbing parties.The increased population
and access related to the project will likely result
in increased rate of decline in local wildlife popu-
lations,which local residents value highly.
I ncreased human popul at ions in the work camps and
increased aerial activity will likely contribute to
this trend.
It is possible that many more people than are antici-
pated will move to Talkeetna as a result of the pro-
ject.This partially depends on the new work
schedul e,whether Trapper Creek success full y accom-
modates its projected growth,and the possibil ity
that people find Talkeetna,despite its aditional 30
miles from the project,a more desirable place to
5-64
-
live.Because Talkeetna and Trapper Creek are slml-
lar cOrTVllunities,all of the potential problems dis-
cussed for Trapper Creek increasi ngly apply to
Ta 1keetna as its popul at i on (both with and without
the project)increases,and therefore are not
discussed here.
Although there is an abundance of land available,
primarily due to the State 1and di sposa 1s,it is
unl i kely that the permanent popul at i on in the
Chase/Curry area will increase dramatically,either
with or without the project.Without the project,
employment opportunities will likely remain relati-
vely non-existent,and the main attraction to the
area will continue to be recreational for most people
and residential for only a few persons.In this
area,the recreational impact,again both with and
without the project,could be significant.Without
the Susitna project,recreation seekers will continue
to use the area as Ta lkeet na cont i nues to promote
tourism.As more and more people visit this subre-
gi on,the chances that they wi 11 apply for some of
the surplus available State land increases.The
rai 1 road wi 11 cont i nue to provi de access into the
area,and although it will likely remain relatively
unpopulated,seasonal recreationists will probably
increasingly visit it.As more and more of the
existing residents in this area have families,they
will likely desire additional services,such as a
school and better access to Talkeetna.
With the Susitna project,recreation in the area will
more than likely significantly increase (i.e.more
than without the project).Workers and thei I'fami-
lies who move to the area will certainly hunt,fish,
and participate in other outdoor activities.Improved
access to and increased awareness of the area east of
the Susitna River due to the project,will likely
attract more recreationists.The proposed access road
will provide vehicle access to the east side of the
Susitna River and therefore make the general area
more accessible to more people.(Policies related to
public use of this road during and after project
const ruct ion cou 1d post pone or prevent some or most
of the impacts.As more and more people recreate in
this area,the chances for conflict between them and
local residents increase.
The Susitna project will result in increased
employment for residents in this area,which will
5-65
enhance the well-bei ng in these communiti es by pro-
viding potential jobs.At the same time,the
increased employment opportunity created by the pro-
ject will attract more people into the general area.
This population influx will likely have a negative
effect on the existing small town or rural way of
life for those people in the railroad communities who
value relative isolation in a wilderness environment.
With the project,the Gold Creek area is likely to be
the most heavily impacted.If the proposed access
route is chosen,Gold Creek will be connected by an
18 mi 1e road to the Parks Hi ghway.The patented
homesteads in the vi ci nity compri se a pri vate 1and
base that could accommodate future expansion and
growth,a likely occurrence if the area becomes
easily accessible by road.People affected by this
potential development will be mainly local miners,a
few local residents,and absentee,recreational pro-
perty owners,all of whom value their wilderness
retreat.If vehicular access occurs in this area,
local resi dents and absentee landowners between
Hurricane and Gold Creek,as well as entrants in the
Indian River Remote Parcel land disposal will be sub-
ject to increased traffic,noise,and congestion.
Currently,no one lives in the Hurricane/Parks
Highway area nor are any services available:however,
three factors indicate that some development may
occur here related to the project:it is the inter-
sect i on of the proposed access road and the Parks
Highway,private land is available,and it will be
only 44 road miles from Devil Canyon.In the spring
of 1981,the State of Alaska offered the Indian River
subdivision.Located at the junction of the Parks
Highway (Mile 168)and the Alaska Railroad (just
south of Hurricane),access is available from both
the Parks Highway and the rai1raod.The 140 separate
four to five acre lots in this subdivision as well as
the roads are su rveyed and p1 atted,a1 though the
roads within the subdivision are not constructed.
Currently,none of the lots have any structures on
them.
Because of their location,it is likely that some
people will buy these lots,and,if the project pro-
ceeds,a small settlement will probably develop.
Currently,there are no services here,and,even with
the project,it is un1 i ke1y that a school wi 11 be
constructed in the vicinity.Families that locate in
5-66
~
i
!
-
-
-I
.....
the Hurricane area could use the Trapper Creek
Elementary School and the Su-Valley High School;
these facilities are 54 miles and 69 miles away
respectively.Because of the relatively long distnce
to these schools,it is unlikely that many families
with children will locate in the Hurricane area.It
is more reasonabl e to assume that si ngl e persons or
couples without children will acquire lots in the
Indian River subdivision and move a trailer or build
a small cabin on their land.
Once the project begins,it is likely that a limited
amount of servi ces wi 11 appear near the subdi vi s ion:
for example,a service station,restaurant,bar,and
motel (lodge).Because no one currently lives in
t hi s area,th is development wi 11 not impact an
existing community.Without the project,people may
purchase lots from the State,and a few persons may
build recreational cabins.If the proposed access
route becomes final,it is likely that people will
purchase lots in the Indian River Subdivision for
speculation.In this respect,the project,whether
it is built or not,will influence land values in the
area.
Cantwell,situated 85 road mil es from Devil Canyon,
1i es at the extreme boundary for worker commutation
to the construction site.However,in practical
terms J the 41 hi ghway mil es between Hurri cane and
Cantwell are wi ndi ng and seasonally hazardous.Thi s
distance,combined with lack of available private
property,makes it unl i kely for construction workers
or secondary or induced work forces to make Cantwell
their place of primary residence.
This is not to say that Cantwell will not see itself
as si gnifi cant ly affected by the design of the pro-
j ect.Bri efly,the growth and development of
Cantwell is limited by unavailabil ity of private land
and of economic opportunity (jobs or business).As a
consequence,neither incoming populations nor the
school chil dren of current resi dents perceive much
opportunity to settle in this otherwise attractive
locale.Many local residents rely on seasonal and/or
nonlocal employment in order to continue to reside in
Cantwell.
In order for Cantwell residents to participate effec-
tively in the project,they will be compelled to move
closer,individually,to the job site during the
5-67
construction period (similar to workers coming from
Anchorage or Fairbanks).While they may receive
somewhat more hi ghway traffi c and hi ghway bus i ness
due to generally increased activity within the region
as a whole,these benefits are likely to be offset by
the personal,familial,and economic costs of tem-
porary and permanent outmigration.
(b)Region
Table 5.38 summarizes the major impacts of the Susitna
hydroelectric project on Impact Area 3 (the Railbelt).
(i)Population
The Susitna project is expected to stimulate a popula-
tion influx of 2,324 between 1983 and 1990 into Impact
Area 3.This will represent less than a one percent
increase over the baseline forecast for that year.Of
this total,1,137 will relocate in the Municipality of
Anchorage.The population impact on Fairbanks is ex-
pected to be slight.Few people are expected to settle
in Cantwell due to the lack of available housing and of
land to build on and distance to the project site.
(ii)Housing
No si gni fi cant impacts of the project are expected on
housing conditions in the Railbelt,outside of the
Mat-Su Borough.The estimated vacant housing units in
1990 in Anchorage and Fairbanks alone,(4,033 and 1,200,
respectively)should be far more than sufficient to
accommodate the additi onal 482 househol ds associ ated
with the project.
(iii)Fiscal Impacts
Basel i ne and impact forecasts for expenditures in
Anchorage and Fairbanks are provided in Table 5.39.The
project has little impact on either city.Total expen-
ditures in Anchorage are projected to increase one-half
of one percent in 1990 due to the oroject and remain
a lmost the same as basel i ne forecasts for 1999.Normal
growth as measured by the baseline forecast will result
ina 32%increase in expenditures by 1990 over 1981
levels and an 11%increase between 1990 and 1999.
Increases are evenly distributed among all categories of
service.
Total expenditures in Fairbanks increase eight-tenths of
one percent over the baseline forecast for both 1990 and
5-68
I!IIlJIl;i
l
-
-I
!""",
1999.Thi s constant rate of change is refl ected by the
fact that with or without the project the population in
Fai rbanks will increase 30 percent between 1981-1990 t
and 16 percent between 1990-1999.(The prevailing trend
in Impact Area 2 has indicated a decrease of 50%in the
tota 1 fi sca 1 impacts between 1990 and 1999 due to a
decreased rate of population growth.)Natural growth in
Fairbanks without the project is projected to increase
total expenditures by 35%in 1990 over 1981 levels t and
by 17%in 1999 over 1990 levels.Once again t increases
are evenly distributed among all categories of service.
(iv)Employment
The di rect t i ndi rect and induced employment opportuni-
ties in Impact Area 3 associated with the project are
expected to reach a peak of 6 t 365 persons in 1990.This
wi 11 resul tin a three percent increase over the base-
line forecast level of 200 t l12 in that year.Residents
of Impact Area 3 are expected to obtain approximately 80
percent of the new jobs created.
(v)Business Activity
The new employment opportunities created by the project
will provide considerable stimulus to the Railbelt
region economy during 1987-1990.Anchorage and Mat-Su
Borough (particularly Trapper Creek and Talkeetna)t will
receive the most stimulus.Secondary manufacturing
(reforming steel t for instance)could develop in
Anchorage.Fairbanks t Kenai-Cook Inlet,and Palmer t
Wasilla t and Houston will receive significant stimulus.
Industry sectors that will be most affected include:
construction,transportation,wholesale and retail
trade,real estate t and services.
If the natural gas pipeline is constructed by 1987,it
is probabl e that these sectors wi 11 experi ence a boom
period,particularly in Fai rbanks and Anchorage.
Impacts el sewhere in Impact Area 3 woul d be much 1ess
pronounced.In this case t the employment opportunities
made available by the Susitna project could serve to
hel p prevent the Fai rbanks and Anchorage economi es from
stagnating or possibly even retrenching upon completion
of the pipeline.
(vi)Income
Constructi on of the Watana and Devi 1 Canyon dams wi 11
generate approximately $834.3 million in direct on-site
5-69
construction payroll during the years 1983 through 2002.
Based on assumptions of construction work force expendi-
ture patterns,it is estimated that approximately 50
percent,or $418 million,of this payroll distributed
wi 11 be spent in Impact Area 3.Thi s fi gure represents
80 percent of total expendabl e payroll after taxes and
savings are subtracted.The income generated and
expended in Impact Area 3 is a contributing factor to the
indirect and induced employment opportunities in Impact
Area 3 outlined above.
5.6 -Mitigation Process
Mitigation refers to the process of lessening the harsh or undesirable
effects that transpire as a result of a certain action.The definitions of
harsh and undesirable are purely subjective and are voiced as a community
consensus.Each individual within the community will have different defi-
nitions and in all likelihood,each individual IS definitions will change
with time.
An individual IS,or community's attitude toward change,and rate of
change,is an important consideration in developing an effective mitigation
plan.Attitudes toward change,ways of mitigating change,and developing
mitigation plans are elements discussed below as they relate to potential
socioeconomic changes resulting from the Susitna Hydroelectric Project.
(a)Attitudes Toward Change
Persons in Anchorage,Fairbanks,Cantwell,and in the major com-
munities of the southern part of the Mat-Su Borough generally
favor economic growth and development in their area.Some of
the residents of Trapper Creek,Talkeetna and the "ra ilroad com-
munities"are in favor of economic growth and development and
others are against it or undecided.Most of these residents are
very concerned about the types and rates of project-induced
changes.
The impact analysis results of Section 5.5 indicate that Trapper
Creek and Talkeetna are likely to experience significant changes
at a rapid pace.Given this analysis and the current range of
attitudes toward changes in these communities,it would be
appropriate to consider identifying means of mitigating the
changes in those communities.Further,it would be appropriate
to identify means of enhanci ng changes in Anchorage,Fai rbanks,
Cantwell,and the major communities of the southern part of the
Mat-Su Borough..Thi s coul d be done to the extent that the
changes stimulated economic growth and development at
appropriate rates.
5-70
-
..-
r
......
I
I
l
-.
i
(b)
(c)
B'ecause project-induced changes will begin to occur in the mid
to late 1980s in Trapper Creek and Talkeetna,and because there
will be significant population growth in both of these commu-
nities between now and the mid to late 1980s,it would be appro-
priate to reevaluate any mitigation plans that might be
developed in the near future.The reason for this is that per-
sons who move into these corrununi ties may have attitudes differ-
ent from the current consensus of attitudes,and current
rlesidents'feelings toward changes might be different in the
future from what they are now.Thi s argument al so hol ds for
other cities and communities that could be affected by the pro-
j1ect.
Ways to Mitigate Change
Changes in Trapper Creek and Talkeetna wi 11 be caused by
i nfl uxes of new resi dents and frequent stops by construct ion
workers and workers who supply materials for construction.
Changes will include increased employment opportunities,
increased revenues for service and related businesses,increased
demand for housing,schooling,and other public facilities and
services,increased vehicular traffic and population density,
etc.Those changes that are considered harsh or undesirable
are candidates for mitigation.
In general,population influx and workers stopping in these com-
munities could be controlled or mitigated by establishing poli-
cies and associated regulations before,during,and after dam
construction.Several policy issues to consider prior to
construction include:(l)type and size of construction work
camp and village;(2)type,origin,pick-up points and cost (to
workers)of mass transit to construction sites;(3)camp rules
(e.g.,whether workers are allowed to drive personal 'vehicles or
fly chartered planes to the construction site);(4)work sche-
dule (e.g.,four weeks on,one off;or seven weeks on,two off);
and (5)public use of the access roads during and after
construction.Decisions on these and other policy issues will
influence both the magnitude and geographic distribution of
changes.As these decisions are made,communities can begin to
develop policies and plans to mitigate or enhance changes in
their own area.
It shoul d be noted that,as the basel i ne forecasts i ndi cate,
changes are going to occur in Talkeetna and Trapper Creek
r1egardless of the hydroelectric project.It is as important
for these c;ommunities to plan for these changes as it is for
them to begln to consider mitigating and enhancing changes that
could occur if the hydroelectric facility is built.
Developing Mitigation Plans
5-71
Mitigation planning is a dynamic process.The plan must be
flexible and reevaluated at regular intervals;attitudes change
and potential and actual types and rates of changes might be
significantly different from previously anticipated developments.
Thi s impl i es that it is essential to monitor attitudes and
changes and to update forecasts of changes.For example,the
impact forecasts in this report are based on a series of assump-
tions.These assumptions were made using the best available
information and thorough,systematic research and analysis.
There is no doubt that more accurate forecasts of change coul d
be made-next year or in some later year.An accurate forecast
is a prerequisite to a successful mitigation and enhancement
plan.If the forecast were substantially inaccurate,then the
mitigation and enhancement could be totally ineffective or,
worse,couid make conditions less desirable rather than better.
Even with accurate forecasts,the plan could fail because it
reflects old attitudes that have since changed.
Every mitigation plan development process should ideally be com-
posed of at least the following:
1.Initial impact forecasts should be made.
2.Impact areas with appropri ate representat ion (e.g.,com-
munity council,community impact task force,etc.)should
be clearly defined.
3.The roles and responsibilities of government institutions
and contractors involved with the project should be clearly
defined.
4.An effective communication system between (2)and (3)
should be established.
5.Draft mitigation and enhancement plans should be developed
based on initial impact forecasts.
6.Attitudes and changes should be monitored.
7.Forecasts shoul d be updated based on changes to date and
other new information.
8.Draft mitigation and enhancement plans should be revised to
reflect new attitudes and revised impact forecasts.
9.Revision of plans should occur at regular intervals.
These elements will help insure the mitigation and enhancement
plans are successful.The reason that most mitigation plans
have fail ed or have been only partially successful is that one
or more of these elements were neglected.
5-72
-
TABLE 5.l:TDTAL RESID[NT POPULATION AND COHPONENTS or CHANG[BY IHPACl AR[A:
1'970-1980
8.Includes Impact Area 1.
b.Includes Impact Area 2.
c.Includes Impact Area 3.
d.fairbanks,S.E.fairbanks,Hat-Su,Anchorage,Kenai Peninsula,and
Valdez-Cordova Census Divisions.
,.,..,
-
Sources:u.s.Census Bureau and Alaska Department of Labor,Administrative
Services Division.Alaska's 19BO Population:A Preliminary Overview.
Juneau"Ak.p.26.
( a )
TABLE 5.2:CIVIALIAN LABOR FORCE DATA ANti PERCENT UNEMPLOYED FOR SELECTED AREAS
1970 1975 1979
Percent Percent Percent
Area Labor Force Unemployed Labor Force Unemployed Labor Force Unemployed
State 116,800 10.3 155,1 04 6.9 180,000 8.9
Study Area 3 79,347 9.9 110,203 6 •1 126,110 9 .0
Anchorage 51,398 8.3 65,938 5.9 78,822 7.1
Fairbanks 18,003 10.4 24,989 4.8 20,537 12.3
Ken ai -Cook Inlet 5,727 17.1 8,576 8.7 10,971 12.1
Sewsrd 938 17.1 1 ,255 9.2 1 ,494 10.9
Southeast Fairbanks (inclUded in Fairbanks)2,041 3.8 2,052 10.7
Matsnuska-Susitna 2,130 20.3 4,784 11 •1 9,018 13.8
Vsldez-Chitina-
Whittier 1,1 51 11.5 2,700 5.3 3,216 9.5
a.By place of residence
Source:1970 data -Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development,Division of Economic Enterprise.
1975 and 1979 data -Alaska Department of Labor,Research and Analysis Section.
J J .J J ,~,-J _.•~"".•j ,_~,,"I J
TABLE 5.3:COM~IUNI TY POPULATION:MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH CENSUS DATA 1939,
1950,'960 ,1970,1976,1980,1981
(a)(b)(a)
Community 1939 1950 1960 1970 1976 1980 1981-Talkeetna 136 106 76 182 328 265 '640
Willow N.A.(e)N.A.78 38 328 134 N.A.
Wasilla 96 97 112 300 1566 1548 2168
Palmer 150 890 1181 1140 1643 2143 2567
Montana N.A.N.A.39 JJ 76 40 N.A•
Big L ak e N.A. N.A.
74 36 721 412 2408
,-But t e N.A.N.A.559 448 2207 N.A.N.A.
Chickaloon 11 N.A.43 22 62 20 N.A.
[ska Sutton 14 54 215 89 496 N.A.N.A.
Houston N.A.N.A.N. A.69 375 325 600
F'"
COl1MUNI TV POPULATION:OTHER COI·1MUNI TIES NO T IN MATANUSKA-SUSITNA 80ROUGH-(b)
Community 1950 1960 1970 1976 1980
Nenana 242 286 382 493 471
Healy N.A.N.A.79 503 333
Cantwell N.A.85 62 N.A.95
Denali N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.J
I"""Paxson N.A.N.A.20 N.A.30
Glennallen 142 169 363 N.A.488
Copper Center 90 151 206 N.A.213
Gakona 50 J3 88 N.A.85
Gulkana 65 51 53 N.A.,11
r
a.Mat-Su Borough Survey.The methodology for these surveys differs from U.S.Census
data and hence the 1976 and 1981 figures are not comparable to Census data.
-
b.Alaska Department of Labor,.Administrative Services Division.January 1,1981.
Alaska 1980 Population:A Preliminary Overview.Juneau,Ak.
c.N.A.:Not Available.
Source:Matanuska-Susitna Borough Planning Department.April 1978.Phese I:
Comprehensive Development Plan.Pelmer,Ak.
8.Includes an area that is outside of Palmer and Wasilla's city limits and
extends west to Houston and east to Sutton.
Source:Mat-Su Borough Planning Department.
1 1 -1
TABLE 5.5
)--1 ]1 )
COI1PARISOH OF AVERAGE PER CAPITA EXPENDITURES FOR SELECTED SOCIAL SERVICES.
LOCAL SOLID
GOVT PARKS HEALTH SEWAGE WASTE WATER PU9LIC ELECTRIC ROAD
ADMIN POLICE FIRE AI19LNC ~RECR LIBRARY CARE TRANS SERVICE DISPOSAL SUPPLY WORKS UTilS I'IAINT
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANCHORAGE N/A Sl53 SlOO Sl9 t56 t21 S25 S84 t91 t21 U24 N/A N/A MIA
FAIRBANKS N/A Sl35 Sl42 N/A S35 NIA '32 MIA tllO N/A S83 t102 S360 MIA
MT-SU BR t750 N/A U5 no S50 t32 KIA N/A KIA SIb MIA MIA
N/A $33
PALI1ER S190 S190 tSO Sl9 t23 S33 '31 H/A HO N/A S80 S250 MIA MIA
WASILLA Sl22 N/A $34 MIA t22 t47 N/A N/A N/A N/A MIA MIA MIA S88
HOUSTON S54 N/A Sl7 N/A S9 N/A N/A MIA MIA Sl.50 N/A N/A MIA $33
Compiled from data contained in tables providing individual city expenditure data for FY 81/82.
Note:The sum of individual entries may not equal totals due to independent rounding.
TABLE 5.6
COMMUNITY FACILITIES SUMMARY
>,...,e:Government,.........0ra,.........ra
V!...,V ........,O'l .....
0 Vl rQ V ra e:CIJ "'0 CIJ
Cl.0 lL..ra ,.......,.....v CIJ .....
V!a..lL..ra I-"'0 .....::::::JSchools''-CIJ ...,0 ,....>......."'0 0::C l-I-I--e:.....Cl......l-e:CIJ
CIJ CIJ E CIJ ra ...,0-V!:::J CIJ 0 V!...,CIJCIJCl.U CIJ ...,U .....V!e:co CIJ E V1 ''-V! V!ra E>,...,0 ........,c::::ra 0 ra u CIJ ...,V!ra I-0I->,Vl 0 ,....V!,....CIJ E III :I:l-t'''-...,CIJ ra CIJ ra .....0 :I:ra l-ra I-0 >,,....U I-:I:"'0 f-0-....V!c::::U ,....,....u Cl....,ra 3:t-a..V1 ra CIJ ,....ra .....>,.........>,0 .....:::J U I-"'0e:"'0 I-:I:-e:f-,....ra 0 u lo-l-e:0 V1 -e:c:0::"C 0 CIJIIIc:CIJ l-I-"'0 CIJ ,.......,...,ra l-V!l-........,ra :::J l-e.:::J ...,e:v ''-E 0 -e:CIJ CIJ .......,ra I-CIJ ,....O'l ...,CIJ "'0 ,.........V!lo-~...,~CIJ CIJ E CIJ V!0 e:4-
CIJ U O'l ...,3:,....ra u :::J l-rQ e:e:e:ra ......CJ I-oa V!I-:;:,....E E l-V ''-.....,....CIJ .....ra CIJ 0 ...,0 0
.....CIJ 0 CIJ CIJ 0 ra :::J .....''-0 0 ra 0 CIJ 0 0 ....CIJ c:.c:L.LJ V1 :I:3:V1 V1 V1 I U lL..:I:...J ......r.!J ~0::Cl.et ...J U a..a..a..f-u :I:lL..V1 :::>:::>
Nenana * ** * *** * * * ** ** **'k *
Cantwell ******."* * * ***Trapper Creek ****** **Talkeetna ** ***** * * * ****
l'}i llow ****** ******Houston ****** * *Palmer *** * * * *
,~**'*** * ** **** * *** *
Hasilla ** *
** *
."** ***** **** *
Paxson *****-k *
Glennallen ."*** ** *
1,*** *****1r *
Copper Center ******* ****·It *
Gakona *** * * ****
Healy *.,.**** * *
**."**....*
Gul kana ****** ****
Valdez * ****** *****'k * *** ******
Anchorage **** ******.*1,*.,.** *
*********
Fairbanks **** ** *****.,.*****."* *
fr ** ** *
"--~.J ,I ,..~.)..J ]~:])
~}}~...·1 J -~l -..._])>~--}--]J
TABLE 5.7
MAT-SU BOROUGH COMMUNITIES:
BUSINESS LOCATION AND TYPE
Number in Commun ity (a)
Standard Industrial Classification Big Lake Houston Palmer Talkeetna Wasilla Wil low
Agriculture,Forestry,Fisheries 3 -22
Mining - -
2
Construction 19 3 50 3 91 4
Manufacturing .3 -21 2 4 3
Transportation &Public Utilities 2 -20 8 -6
Wholesale Trade - -
11
Reta i 1 Trade 24 3 80 19 -18
Finance,Insurance,Real Estate -1 22 2 37 3
Services 17 1 115 13 129 4
Public Administration -1 12 3 5
lloncl assifiabl e Establishments 6 -19 1 98
Total 74 9 374 51 364 38
(a)SIC classifications were assigned by the OEDP staff for use in this table,and number of establishments
must be considered approximations.
Source:Overall Economic Development Program Inc.July 1980.Volume II:Economic Conditions,Develop~lent
Options and Projections.Palmer,AK.pp.19-21.
TABLE 5.8:MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH ANNUAL NONAGRICULTURAL EMPLOYMENT BY SECTOR
I PERCENT OF
\STUDY AREA 3
I
1970 1975 1979 I 1970 1975 1979
Total '"Total '"Total '"I '"....
'"'"'"'"'"'"----I(a)
TOTAL -Nonagricultural Industries 1 •145 100.0 2.020 100.0 3.078 100.0 I 1•8 1.8 2.7
(b)I
Mining N.A.-N.A•-11 .3 I N.A.N.A..0
I
Conatruction 120 10.5 188 9.3 184 6.0 I 2.3 1• 1 2.2
I
ManUfacturing N.A.-30 1.5 40 1.3 I N.A.1•2 1•1
I
Transportation.Communiciation.&I
Utilities 114 9.6 218 10.8 316 10.2 I 1.9 1.8 2.6
I
Wholesale Trade 44 2.2 49 1.6 I .8 1.0
174 15.2 I 1.4
Retail Trade 271 13.4 696 22.6 I 1.7 3.8
I
Finance.Insurance.and Real Eat ate 22 1.9 62 3.1 129 4.2 I .8 1.3 2.1
I
Services 179 15.6 288 14.3 447 14.5 I 2.0 1.4 2.3
I
federal Government 106 9.3 124 6'.1 97 3.1 I .9 1 .0 .8
I
State and Local Government 376 32.8 758 37.5 1,101 35.8 I 3.2 4.3 5.2
I
Miscellaneous N.A.-N.A.-21 .7 I N.A. N.A.1.8
a.Figures may not total correctly because of averaging and discloaure limitations on dat a.
b.N.A• :Data unavailable due to disclosure policy.
Source:Alaska Department of Lsbor.Statistical Quarterly.Juneau,Ak.
0"']J J .~,""..~.j 'C"J •••.•c,j J _.1
-
TABLE:5.~~PER CAPITA PERSONAL INCOME IN THE MAT-SU BOROUGH IN CURRENT
AND 1970 DOLLARS
-Per Capita Personal Income
Current In 1970
Year Dollars Dollars(a)
1'970 3,957 3,957
iI"'\1971 4,279 4,150
I
1'972 4,539 4,286,....
1973 4,970 4,526
1'974 6,068 5,011
1975 8,092 5,855
1'976 8,542 5,718
1'977 9,032 5,666-1'97 B 8,939 5,231
-1'979 8,878 4,704
a.Discounted using the Anchorage Consumer Price Index -Unadjusted
(CPI-U)as a measure of inflation.
Source:U.S.Department of Commerce,Bureau of Economic Analysis.
-
l""-
I
TABLE S.lO:1981 CIVILIAN HOUSING STOCK IN THE MUNICIPALITY or ANCHORAGE,
BY TYPE
-j
Type of Unit
Single family(a)
Duplex
3-4 Units
5-19 Units
20+Units
Mobile Homes
In Parks
On Lots
Total
8.Excluding mobile homes
Number of Units Percent of 1 at 81
30,097 45.8
6,040 9.2
6.211 9.4
9,356 14.2
6,036 9.2
8,031 12.2
6,146 9.3
1.885 2.9
65,771 100.0---
-I
I
J
Source:Municipality of Anchorage Planning Department
TABLE S.Zl:HOUSING STOCK IN FAIRBANKS AND THE FAIRBANKS-NORTH STAR
BOROUGH BY TYPE,OCTOBER 1978
fai rbank s-
North Star Municipality
Borough of fairbanks
Single Family(a)6,849 3,312
!"""Duplex 690 714
Multifamily 3,832 3,187
Mobile Homes 2,097 138
Total 13,738 7,351
-a.Excluding mobile homes.
-
Source:fairbanks North Star Borough Community Information Center.
Information Quarterly:Summer 1980.Volume III,Number 2,
Community
p.70.
TABLE 5.l;;:RAILBELT ANNUAL NONAGRICULTURAL EMPLOYMENT BY SECTOR
PERCENT OF STATE
1970 1975 1979 I 1970 1975 1979
Total .'Total %Total ~I "".-
'"'"'"'"
TOTAL a -Nonagricultural Industries 62,690 100.0 113,818 100.0 113,204 100.0 67.8 70.4 68.0
Mining 1 ,610 2.6 2,243 2.0 2,822 2.5 53.7 59.2 48.9
Construction 5,264 8.4 16,359 14.4 8,257 7.3 76.3 63.3 81.8
Manu factur ing 1,850 3.0 2,596 2.3 3,705 3.3 23.7 26.9 28.9
Transportation,Communitication,&:
Utilities 6,021 9.6 12,094 10.6 12,062 10.7 I 66.2 73.4 72.2
Wholesale Trade 5,366 4.7 5,083 4.5 I 90.8 92.2
12,111 19.3 I 79.2
Retail Trade 15,965 14.0 18,309 16.2 I 78.6 76.7
Finance,Insurance,and Real Estate 2,520 4.0 4,696 4.1 6,139 5.4 I 81.3 77.9 76.7
Services 8,868 14.1 20,995 18.4 19,674 17.4 I 77.8 83.5 69.4
FederBI Government 12,372 19.7 13,022 11 • 4 12,728 11 • 2 I 72.4 71 .2 71.0
State snd Local Government 11,505 1A•5 17,799 15.6 21.130 18.7 I 62.6 60.9 57.7
Miscellaneous 52 • 1 217 .2 712 .6 I 26 19.0 98.9
a.Figures may not total correctly because of averaging an d disclosure limitations on data.
Source:Alaska DepBrtment of Labor.Stat istical Quarterly.Juneau,Ak.(various issuea)
c)J ~J '<~J ';"~,,,I J 'J,,~J ;.:.,J •,,&"J
J J ~})1 -1 '---1 J --1 1 1 1
TABLE 5.13:ON-SITE CONSTRUCT ION AND OPERATIONS "ANPOWER REgUIRmNTS,I9B3-2005(a)
-~---------------
I~B3 1~84 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1m 1995 1996 1m 1998 1m 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 200S
----------------~----..---------------------.....-------------------.._-----~-..--------------
CONSTRUCT I ON
--~------
LABORERS 140 55 562 84J 1m 1693 18~7 2369 2202 1m 894 m nB 5Jq 844 1076 1144 1002 507 lOS
sm -SkilLED/SKIll ED 120 139 148 m m 448 502 m 583 422 220 136 92 148 230 m m 308 m 24
AMINISTRAT IVE /EN6INEER.40 106 390 194 269 359 402 502 4b7 355 18S 115 71 115 176 r;~q 243 187 m 22
SUB-TOTAL CONSTRUCIION 300 300 1100 1350 1902 2500 2801 3498 32S2 2500 1299 800 501 802 1250 1600 169~14~1 ~OO 151
OPERATIONS AND "AINTEtIANCE
----------------_..----..-...
ALL LAPOR CATEGORIES 70 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 170 110 110 170
TOTAL 300 300 1100 1350 1902 2500 2801 3498 3252 2500 1369 m 646 w 1395 1745 1844 1642 1045 321 170 110 170
~----
15105
-_._-"._---
(a)Suppl jed by Acres American,Inc.
TABLE 5.14 :ON-SITE CONSTRUCTION NORt:FORCE:LOCAL,ALASKA NONIOCAL,AND OUT -OF SlATE,1983-2000-----------------------------------------------------
LOCAL 1983 1984 1985 1986 1m 1988 1989 1990 1791 1992 1m 1994 1m 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
LA80RERS 18m 1I9 47 47B 711 1087 1439 1b12 2014 1872 1465 760 467 281 458 717 915 m 852 4JI 89
SE"I-SnLLEDI
smLED IBOII 96 112 118 258 284 359 402 502 466 m 176 109 74 118 184 m 250 246 187 19
AD"INISIRATIVEI
EIl61NEERHl6 165%)26 69 254 120 174 m 261 J26 304 m 120 75 46 75 114 149 158 122 10J 14
SU8TOTAL LOCAL 241 m 850 1094 1545 2031 2276 2842 2642 2033 1056 650 407 651 1016 1299 1380 1220 122 m
NOHOW
ALASkA NON-LOCAl
LABORERS lSI)
SE~I-SmLEDI
SWI.ED ISII
AD~INISIRAT I VEl
ENGINEERING 1511
SUB-TOTAL ALASrA
NON-LOCAL
OUT-OHTAIE
LA80RERS ((OIl
,E"I-SklLLEDI
SWLED 1151)
AD~INI STRAIIVEI
EN61 NEER ING (JOll
15
14
1B
12
15
21
J2
28
20
55
56
22
117
42
16
67
84
48
55
64
18
13
95
128
53
80
85
22
18
125
169
67
108
95
25
20
140
190
75
121
118
JI
25
\75
2J7
94
151
110
29
23
163
220
87
140
86
21
18
125
172
6J
107
45
II
65
89
33
56
27
40
55
20
35
17
25
34
14
21
27
40
54
22
35
42
II
62
81
34
53
54
15
II
80
108
44
69
57
16
12
85
114
47
73
50
IS
75
100
H
56
25
12
45
51
35
48
II
SUHOTAL
OUT-OHIATE
TilTAL NON-LOCAL
TOTAL
44
59
,01)
58 195 188 262 344 386 482 448 342 178
73 250 255 m 469 526 656 610 467 243
300 1100 1350 1902 2500 2801 me 32~2 2500 1/99
110
150
800
69
94
501
III 172 221 m 202
151 234 301 m 277
B02 1250 IbOO 1699 1497
134
179
900
21
28
151
J -.I .J J ",J ,-...J I J ...c.l "I 'c .J
~~"l ~l -1 1 1 J 1 1 ')--1 }~l
TABLE 5.15:OPERATIONS WORK FORCE:LOCAL,ALASKA NON LOCAL,AND OUT-OF-STATE,1993-2005
YEAR 1993 1994 1995 19%1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Act~
Watana (680 MW)3D 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60
Watana (340 MW)45 45 45 45 45 4S 4S 45 45 4S 45 45
Devil Canyon (600 MW)25 25 25 2S
Dispatch Control 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 AD 40 40
Total 70 145 145 145 145 145 145 14S 145 170 170 170 170
TABLE 5.1&:TOTAL PAYROll fOR ON-SIlE CONSTRUCTION ANDDPERAlIONS NANPOWER,1983-2005
fiN THOUSANDS Of DOLLARS)
19B3 1984 1995 199&1991 1999 1999 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
CONSTRUCTION (a)
LABORERS
Sm-SkIllEDI
SkILLED
ADmlSTRATIVEI
ENGINEER
SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION
OPERATIONS (b)
All LABOR CA TEGOR IES
TOTAL PAYROll
m02
3995 12581&847 25323 39319 50139 561163 10984 m95 51529 2680616543 10196 16141 25m j2211 342552999214950 3114
2607 m9 3671 9162 9441 11150 1J169 16m 15282 10m 5415 3389 2193 3811 5952 7725 819'8182 6438 514
940 2342 81593810 5555 7m 8334 10404 9611 1lb2 3942 2179 IUS 2m 3m 4137 5038 3m 3m m
1m 1068 28m 39295 53m 69'125 711lb6 91828 90938 69534 36113 mID 14034 22306 350~0 44&13 U492 42020 2ml 4180
2684 5559 5559 m9 5559 5559 5559 5559 555'6517 6m 6517 6517
7m 10&8 28m 38295 5JlJ5 69925 19366 91929 90938 69534 38801 27869 19593 21m 40599 50231 5ml 41519 30m 10697 6517 6511 &517
(a)Based on 1.825 working hours in the year.
(b)Based on 2,496 working hours in the year.
",A J .1 'ee];j,;t >J J ,,,,f ]J
"'1 )}J !,--C J "]I J 1 -)J ]
TABLE ~.17:TOTAL ON-SITE CONSTRUCTION WORK FORCE PAYROLL EXPENDITURE PATTERN(a)
Ii H THOUSANiiS OF DOllARS i------------ -------------- - - - - - - - - ---- - ----- -------- -------------------------
PLACE or EXPENDITURE YEARS
-------------------
198J 1984 1985 1986 1987 19B8 1989 1990 1991 1992 mJ 1994 1m ,m 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
TOTAL mROll (b)
------------ ---------------------------------------------..-----------
7442 7068 28671 J9m sJ3Is 69925 78J66 97829 90Y38 69534 3612J 22310 14034 21386 35040 44673 47482 4Z020 24677 4190
mENDA9lE INCO"E (c)4149 3886 15760 m8S 29157 39020 4J729 54589 som JBB03 20157 12457 7BJ8 12499 19ssJ 25583 27799 26109 15517 nOJ
'"PACT AREA 1 lbS9 3282 13m 1994~26J83 m88 3876J 49J90 44982 J4417 17977 11046 6m 11079 17337 mso 24779 23m 13854 2m
ANCHORAGE REG ION 2796 2509 10292 14480 20549 26m J0202 m09 35052 26815 IJ916 8588 sm 8bIJ 13494 17715 19296 1929J 10771 1795
ANCHORAGE 2045 IBJJ 7s2~10596 14104 18475 20m 25825 24010 18185 9576 s93B 17S6 sm 9289 12169 13250 1~6s 7429 1lO8
MT -SUE REGION m m 1607 2228 mJ m8 11428 8012 7471 sm 1924 1778 1092 1784 29JJ 3741 4078 1856 2251 107
KENAI-com:INlEI m m 1130 1621 2051 2692 3017 m8 3502 2681 IJ89 8S6 536 858 1J46 1710 1931 1836 1070 177
SEWARD 6 5 20 29 40 sJ 59 74 69 5J 27 17 II 17 26 35 J8 36 21 4
FAIR9ANY,S 196 116 2930 4119 5352 7008 7851 9794 9106 697l JbJJ 2255 1m 2262 3526 4611 5028 4769 2829 Sol
SE FAIRBANKS 5 4 18 25 36 47 ~2 65 61 46 24 15 9 15 2J 3I 33 J2 19 3
VAlDEHHI TINA-WHITT IER 62 54 m J2l 441 587 657 921 76J 584 JOJ 187 118 188 294 386 421 401 m 40
...-----_.......-.........._..-_...._........__....-_..~--..__....-_..------------------------------------
(a)Table shows total expenditures by construction work force in Impact Area 3.
(b)Total construction payroll.all labor categories.
(c)Gross payroll minus 30 percent for taxes (federal,F.I.C.A.,and unemployment/workman's compensation with self and one dependent)
minus 10 percent for net income saved.
TABLE 5.18:TOTAL OPERATIONS WORK FORCE PAYROLL EXPENDITURE PATTERN(a)
In I housands of Dollars
Place of
Expenditure (b)1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005---.-
(c)2,684 5,559 5,559 5,559 5,559 5,559 5,559 5,559 5,559 6,517 6,517 6,517 6,517TotalPayroll
Expendable Income (d)1,691 3,502 3,502 3,502 3,502 3,502 3,502 3,502 3.502 4,106 4,106 4,106 4,106
Vi llage 1,015 2,101 2,101 2,101 2,101 2,101 2,101 2,101 2,101 2,464 2,464 2,464 2,464
Anchorage 338 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 821 821 821 821
Fairbanks 85 175 175 175 175 175 175 175 175 205 205 205 205
Mat-Su 253 526 526 526 526 526 526 526 526 616 616 616 616
(a)Table shows total expenditures by operations work force in selected areas.
(b)Assumed that 60 percent of payroll to be spent at Village;15 percent in the
Mat-Su Brorough;20 percent in Anchorage;and 5 percent in Fairbanks.
(c)Total Operations Payroll.
(d)Gross payroll minus 30 percent for taxes (federal,FICA,and unemployment/
workman's compensation with self and one dependent)minus 10 percent for net income saved.
]J J ·,1 }"...,LJ -J ,..1 J
1 1 l '~'-Cl --,1 1 1 1
TA~IE 5.19:ON-SITE CONSTRUCTION WOR"FORCE:PROJECT EMPIUYMENT AND RESIDENCE OF INDIVIDUALS CURRENll Y RESIDING IN IMPACT AREA J
--------------.-~----------------------------~~-----~---------------------------------.-------_...---------------...---------------
1993 199~1995 19B6 1997 1999 1999 1990 1991 J992 1993 199~1995 1996 1997 I99B 1999 2000 2001 2002
.----~---------------------- ------~--------- ----
._-,.----
IM~ACT AREA 3 2~1 m 950 I09~15~5 2031 W6 2B~2 2642 2033 1056 650 407 651 1016 1m 13BO 1220 722 t 22
ANCHORAGE REG ION 179 168 627 B09 Jill 1199 1679 2097 1949 1500 779 ~BO 300 4BO 750 959 1019 900 SJ2 90
ANCHORAGE 135 m 475 612 Bb~1135 1272 1588 1m 113b 590 363 m 3M 569 m 772 6B2 ~03 69
MAT-SU 16 15 58 7~104 m m 19/178 137 71 ~~27 44 68 B7 93 82 ~9 8
HIM I-com.WI fT 27 25 9~121 172 225 253 315 m 22b 117 72 ~5 72 1IJ 144 153 IJ5 ao I ~
SEWARD 0 0 2 2 3 4 5 6 5 ~2 I I I 2 3 3 2 I 0
FAIR~,INI S 57 5~202 2MI 368 ~83 m 676 m ~9~251 155 97 155 242 309 m 290 m 29
SE FAIR&ANrS {I 0 2 2 1 ~5 6 5 ~2 I I I 2 3 3 2 I 0
I'AI DE/-r HITlIlA-WH 1111 ER 5 5 18 21 "n 48 60 55 4J 22 I ~9 I~21 27 29 26 15 3.'.
MAI·SU COM"IINIIIES
PAl MfR 2 2 6 7 10 II 15 19 18 I~7 4 3 ~7 9 9 8 5 I
WASillA I I 5 6 8 •11 12 15 I~11 6 ~2 ~5 7 7 7 ~1
ItOllS rON 0 0 2 2 3 4 5 6 5 4 2 I I I 2 1 3 2 I 0
TRAPPER CRm 0 0 I 1 I I 2 2 2 I I 0 0 0 I 1 I I I 0
TAlJEE1Nn I I 2 1 4 5 6 B 7 5 3 2 I 2 3 ~~3 2 0
OrtlER 12 II ~2 5~77 101 l1J 141 111 101 52 32 20 32 50 65 69 61 36 6
(1I10b
TABLE 5.20:OM-SITE COMmUCTlON VORK FORCE:IMMIGRATION ANO PLACE OF RElOCATION IN IMPACT AREA 3
...-------..--....-_....---------_........-.............~-------------_..--...--..--...._..------....-_......--_......-.............------
1983 1984 I?B5 1m 1987 I?BB I Q89 1990 1991 m2 1m 1m m5 1m 1m 1998 1999 2000 2001 2n'1~..--------..-----------------------..-
TOTAL IMPACT AREA 3 16 16 54 67 9l 122 IJ7 170 158 140 III 98 91 91 91 100 102 9B 84 65
ANCHORAGE REGION 12 12 41 51 99 m 147 184 175 160 Il7 128 122 In 122 m 131 127 116 101
ANCHORAGE 5 5 17 20 -37 -51 -57 -73 -7b -80 -86 -89 -91 ·91 -91 -B9 -88 -89 -92 -91
MAT -su 7 7 23 29 152 202 227 285 279 m 253 m 243 m m 248 249 m m ~~9
HNAI-COOf.IMlEr 0 0 I 2 -14 -18 -20 -25 -26 ·26 -21 -2G -28 -28 ...i8 -28 -28 -78 ··iB -it?
SEWARD 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FAIRBANr.S 4 4 IJ 16 ··8 -II -12 -16 -19 -23 -29 -31 -33 -33 -31 -31 -30 -32 -34 ·39
SE FAIRBANr.S 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
VALDEHHI TlNA-VHITTIER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
MT-SU COM"UNITIES
PALMER 0 0 I I 6 9 9 11 II 11 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 9
WA~llLA 0 0 J I 9 10 II 14 14 13 13 12 12 12 l]12 12 12 12 II
H~USTON 0 0 I I 6 9 9 11 11 II 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 \0 Q
TRAPPER CRm 2 2 6 7 38 50 57 71 70 67 63 62 61 bl 61 b2 62 62 bO 57
TAlYHTNA 2 2 6 7 39 50 57 71 70 67 63 b2 61 61 61 62 62 62 60 57
OTHER 2 3 9 II 56 75 84 105 103 99 94 91 90 90 90 92 92 91 R8 85
f2310i
~J .;1'•.,j ,---I _.....-I
1 J 1 -1 ~---l ])1 -1 J
TABLE 5.21:10TAL LOCAL IMPACT AREA 3 EMPlOYMENT:ON-SITE CONSTRUCTION,INDIRECT AND INDUCED
--------~~=~~~~~--~-=
1983 1994 1995 1986 1987 1988 1999 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 199b 1997 1999 1999 2000 2001 200~
~----------- -----------~-----------------------.------------..-------------.
IMPACI AREA J 40B 39b 1475 1997 2Ob4 3609 4tH3 5049 4768 3669 1907 117~7Jb t17b 1875 2399 2549 neB 1J56 m
ANCHDRAr,E REG JON JI9 JOO 1156 1497 2099 2966 3212 4010 3751 2986 1499 92J 579 m 1493 1997 2016 1792 1061 191
ANCHORAGf 250 m 917 1180 Ib09 2193 2456 30b6 2851 2194 1142 705 w 706 1140 1457 1547 1Jb8 912 142
MA I -SU 32 30 III 142 264 375 421 526 499 375 193 117 72 117 195 239 254 m 131 18
KENAI-COOt INLET J6 H 127 163 m 296 332 414 409 3J4 163 100 63 100 157 200 213 199 117 20
SEmD J I 2 J 4 5 6 7 7 5 J 2 I 2 3 J 4 3 2
0
FA IRBAIWS Bl 79 m J7B m 684 7b6 957 942 725 J))m 146 233 363 464 493 460 273 47
Sf FAIRBANKS I I 2 3 4 5 5 7 b 5 2 2 I 2 2 '3 3 3 2 0
l'At DE I-CHI TINA-NH ITT IER 6 b 22 28 39 52 59 72 b7 52 27 17 10 17 26 3J 35 33 19 3
HAT-SU COHHlINlllES
PAL HER 3 1 10 13 22 31 35 H 41 31 16 10 6 10 15 20 21 19 II
~ASlllA 2 2 9 II 20 2B 31 19 J7 28 14 9 5 9 f 4 19 19 17 10 I
HOIISTON I I 4 5 10 14 Ib 20 18 14 7 4 3 4 7 9 9 8 5 I
TRAPPER CREEr.I I 2 3 10 15 17 12 20 15 9 5 3 5 7 10 10 9 5 0
lALHETNA 2 2 7 9 29 n 49 61 57 43 22 13 8 13 21 27 29 26 15 2
OTHER 22 21 79 101 172 m 272 HI J 17 24J 125 76 47 77 120 m 165 145 95 13
1111 n,\
TABLE 5.22:TOTAL IN~rGRATlOH INTO I~PA(!AREA 3:ON-SITE CONSTRUCTION.INDIRECT ANP INDUCED
---------- ----_...--~-~-
1783 1984 1795 1986 UST m8 1989 1990 ml 19qz 1m m4 1995 1796 1997 m8 1999 2000 2001 m2
---~------------...
IMPACT AREA 3 64 62 i~b 300 m m 664 828 783 621 ~61 751 199 245 ~4S m He 409 2b'96
ANCHORAGf REr,JON 55 53 m 261 401 562 630 787 1J~574 363 267 207 261 353 W 444 406 281 127
ANCHORAGE 43 41 164 210 711 302 m m J82 m 98 25 -17 24 100 155 170 m 44 -12
MHU 10 10 34 42 H6 269 301 m m m 287 267 m 2bJ m 289 293 285 262 23:
rENAHDOr.INLET 2 2 7 9 -5 -6 -6 -8 -6 -II -19 -23 -25 -73 -~Q ·18 -17 -17 -i7 18
SEWARD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
f AIRFANI:S 8 8 ~~37 (7 25 27 J3 37 10 -7 -18 -24 -19 -II -4 ·2 -2 -17 -15
SE fA 1FRANKS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
VALDf /-CHI TI NHH I TT1ER 0 0 2 1 3 4 4 5 5 4 2 I I I 2 2 3 "7 0
"A!-SU CO~"UN ITIES
PALNER 0 0 I 2 7 10 II 14 14 13 II 10 10 10 II II II II 10
NAS IUA 0 0 2 2 7 12 n 17 16 15 14 13 13 13 13 14 14 13 IJ 11
HOUSTON 0 0 I 1 7 7 10 13 13 12 II 10 10 10 10 II II II 10 7
TFAPPfR CPEEr 3 3 9 12 60 83 73 117 112 100 80 71 67 71 77 82 84 81 71 58
lAUTETNA 2 1 7 7 46 63 71 97 86 80 70 6S 6J 65 67 70 71 67 64 58
OTHER 4 4 n 16 67 90 101 128 114 liS 10,%73 75 78 m 103 101 q4 85
1,0102
-J ,.j J ~,~--,I ,.J IC·,J '...,'cl
1 1 '--]1 ---,c----c 1 '~1 1 J -1 ]-]J
TABLE 5.23:TOTAL POPULATlOtj INFLUX INTO IMPACT AREA 3:DIRECT.INDIRfCT AND INDUCED
___________________~__4 ____________________~______•••____________________
1983 19B4 19B5 19B6 19B7 \9BB 19B9 1990 199t 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 199B 1999 2000 2001 2002
-------- ----
-....~---------------------------------------- -------------------
IMPAr.T AREA 3 IB2 17B m B52 1203 1671 tB67 2324 2191 ms 1014 714 m 690 957 1170 mB 1122 743 27B
ANCHORAGE REG I ON 157 152 SB3 m 1139 ISB9 1777 2214 2075 1669 1027 761 602 m 9B6 1177 1m 1m 7BB m
AllCHORAGE 122 117 463 590 57B B26 919 1m 1030 m 242 42 -77 35 240 3BS m m B4 -215
MAl -SU 2B 29 99 m SBO 7B9 BB6 1112 1074 9BB Br,796 763 7B4 Bll BS6 B66 B44 77B 694",
mA 1-[OOr.INLET 6 6 21 26 -16 -20 -23 -2B -22 -37 -60 -70 -76 -71 -64 -57 -55 -54 -6B -BS
SEWARD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FAIR~Am 24 24 B5 107 52 66 72 BB 96 49 -26 -57 -75 -62 -41 -20 -14 -15 -56 -107
SE FAIR8ANI:S 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 1 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
VALDE /-CHIT INA-WH III IER I 1 5 6 B II 12 IS 14 II 5 3 2 3 5 7 7 B 5 I
MAI-SU COMMUNITIES
PAl MEk 1 I 4 S 22 30 33 42 40 3B J3 31 30 31 32 33 33 33 3\2B
WASILLA I I 5 6 26 36 40 SO 49 46 41 39 37 3B 39 40 41 40 3B 35
HOIJSlON I I 3 4 20 27 3\3B 37 3S 32 31 30 30 31 32 32 31 30 28
IkAPPER CREEr B B 27 34 175 242 m 341 m 291 m m 19B 209 m 241 m m 209 175
IAUn INA 6 7 22 27 I3B tB6 209 m 254 m 20B \96 1B9 193 199 207 210 20S J91 I7J
OTHER II 11 37 46 199 26B JO I m 366 m 304 2BB 27B 2B4 m 302 305 299 280 257
123106
(a)
TABLE 5.14:TOTAL SCHOOL-AGE CHILDPEN ACCOMPANYING INMIGRANT NORrEPS:ON-SITE CONSTRUCTION,INOIR£C1 AND INDUCED---------~--------------------------------~----------------.._----------------------------------~------
1993 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1m 1m 1994 1m 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 700~
-----_...-~------~-----..------......----...__r ------....---...---- ------------------------
TOTAL Imcr Am 3 44 IJ 160 203 286 400 m 562 SJJ m m 181 \38 176 m m Jl3 287 191 74
ANCHORAGE REGION 37 36 138 m m 38~430 538 507 412 2SQ m m 191 252 100 m 289 205 101
ANCHORAGE 29 27 108 137 127 183 206 257 m 163 49 2 -27 I 52 8'1 99 79 15 '63
MAHU 7 8 76 n 152 207 m 292 183 262 m m 206 m no 230 m m 710 189
YENAHOOr.INLET I I 5 6 -5 -7 ,8 -10 -8 -12 -17 -20 -21 -~O -18 -16 -16 -15 -19 -73
SEWARD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
FAIRPANI:S 6 6 21 77 11 14 15 19 20 9 -'I -17 -71 -18 -13 -7 -6 -6 -16 -2Q
Sf FAIRBANYS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
VALDEHHITI NA·WHITI fER 0 0 I I 2 2 3 3 3 2 I 1 I I I 2 2 2 I 0
MAT -SU COM~UN I lIES
PALMER 0 0 I I 6 8 9 II II 10 9 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 8 8
WASIl LA 0 0 I 2 7 9 II 13 lJ 12 II 10 10 10 II II II II 10 9
HOUSION 0 0 I I 5 7 8 10 10 9 9 8 8 8 8 9 9 8 8 9
TRAPPER cmr.2 2 7 9 45 62 70 B8 95 76 62 57 53 56 60 64 65 63 56 17
IALlHINA 2 2 6 7 36 49 55 70 68 63 56 53 51 52 54 56 56 55 5~41
OIHFR 3 ,10 12 53 71 eo 100 97 91 9·2 78 75 77 79 82 82 81 76 70
nOlO,
(a)CaTculated by applying a ratio of ,86 school-age children per accompanied inmigrant worker to the number of accompanied inmigrants;
these d~ta assume that 95 percent of inmigrant workers are accompanied.
~".1 ..J ].c•.1 """,I <__J ,...J J .1 i ,.•,...cl __~.J
1 1 "J )J 1 I ]--1
(a)
TABLE 5.25:TOTAL PRIHARY SCHOOL-AGE CHILDREN ACCOIIPANYIN6 INMIGRANT womRS INTO IMPACT AREA 3:ON-SITE CONSTRUCTION,INDIRECT.AND INOUCEO
--------,----- -~---- - - - -------- --------------- - ----------~~~~-~~-----~=~=~---------------------------------------_.
1983 1984 1985 19B6 1997 1988 /989 199D 1991 199i 199J 1m 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 iDOl ~0n~
----------------_.._-----------------~---------------
TOTAL IMPACT AREA 3 24 i3 87 110 ISS 2Ib 243 3(14 m 231 137 98 75 95 131 161 169 ISS 104 40
ANCHORAGE REGION 20 20 75 95 148 207 2JJ 292 m m 140 106 85 1~4 137 163 171 157 III 55
ANCHORAGE J5 15 58 74 b8 99 III 138 In 88 26 0 -15 0 27 47 53 42 8 -)4
HAHU 4 4 14 J7 83 113 127 159 154 143 125 117 III 116 120 125 127 124 115 103
lENA I -(OO~HUT I I 3 3 -3 -4 -l -5 -4 -6 -9 -II -II -II -10 -9 -9 -8 -10 -11
SEWARD D D 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
FAIRBANl:S 3 3 12 14 6 7 8 10 II 5 -5 -9 -12 -10 -7 -4 -1 -J -9 -16
SE FAIRsms II 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\'AI OEI-CIII T1NHHITT IER 0 0 I I J I 1 2 2 I I 0 0 0 I I I I I 0
MHU COMMUNITIES
PAl HER 0 0 I I 3 4 5 6 6 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5
WASILLA 0 <)I 1 4 5 6 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
HOUSTON I)~0 I 3 4 4 6 5 5 5 5 4 4 5 5 5 5 4
TRAPPER CREEr I I 4 5 24 34 38 48 46 41 34 31 i9 31 33 IS 36 34 11 26
TAHUTN!,1 I 3 4 20 27 I~38 37 34 31 29 28 28 29 30 31 30 28 7b
OINER 2 2 5 7 29 19 44 55 53 50 45 43 41 42 43 45 45 44 41 38
I ~<)I (,4
----_._._---,--_._.-
(a)Calculated by applying a ratio of .47 primary school-age children per accompanied worker to the number of accompanied inmigrants;
these data assume 95 percent of inmigrant workers are accrnnpanied.
(al
TABLE 5.2b:TOTAL SECONDARY SCHOOHGE CHILDREN ACCOMPAtlYING INMIGRANT WORKERS INIO IMPACT AREA 3:ON-SIJE CONSTRUCTION,INDIRECT,AND INDUCED
---~-~---------------~~------------------------------------------------~------------------.....--------------------......._...-------------
1983 1994 1985 198b 1987 1988 1989 1990 \991 1992 1993 1994 \995 199b 1997 1998 1999 2000 200\2002
-~-----~~----------------------------------- ------------~---------------
TOTAL IMPACT AREA 3 20 20 74 93 131 183 20b 258 m 195 lib 83 63 80 111 13b U1 131 87 34
ANCHORAGE REG I ON 17 17 b3 80 125 175 \97 247 m 189 118 89 7\87 115 138 J~~132 93 46
ANCHORAGE 13 13 49 b3 59 85 95 119 lOS 16 23 I -12 I 24 41 4b J7 1 -28
HAHU 3 3 12 14 b9 9~lOb 133 129 119 10~97 9~9b 100 104 .10b 103 95 8b
mAl-com INLET I 1 2 3 -2 -3 -1 -4 -~-5 -8 -9 -9 -9 -8 -7 -7 -7 -9 -10
SEwARD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FA/RBAln:s 1 3 10 12 5 b 7 9 10 ~.~-7 -10 -8 -b -3 -2 -3 -]-13
Sf FAIRBANr.S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (I 0 0 0
VAL DE loCH ITI NA-wH ITT 1ER 0 0 0 t 1 I . I 2 1 I 1 0 0 0 I I I 1 I 0
HAT-51)COMHUHITIES
PALMER 0 0 (I I 3 4 4 5 5 5 ~~4 4 ~~4 4 4
WASILLA 0 0 I I 3 ~5 b 6 b 5 5 5 <5 5 5 5 5J
HOI/SION 0 0 (I 1 2 3 4 5 5 4 ~~~4 4 4 4 ~~
TRAPPER CREEl.I I 3 ~20 28 32 40 39 35 28 2b 24 25 27 2;9 30 29 2b 22
IALtEETNA I I 3 3 17 22 25 32 Jl 29 25 24 23 2~2~25 2b 25 i'~21
OTHER I I 4 S 2~32 36 4b 44 ~2 37 35 3~15 1b 37 37 37 34 12
130105
_._---~---~---
(al Calculated by applying a ratio of .39 secondary school-age children per accompan.ied worker to the number of a.ccompani·ed inmigrant,;
these data assume 95 percent of inmigrant workers are accompanied.
~.,~~J 'c .•._...1 .1 J I ,C_'.J J ~---].1 ..1 .J J .J ..J
--1 1 1 1 i ~l I )_J ]
TABLE 5.27:SUMMARIZED IMPACT OF THE SUSITNA HYOROELECTRIC PROJECT ON MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH
Present Conditions Watana Construction Peak Devil Canyon Peak
Percent Percent
1990 Increase Increase
1981 1990 Forecast Impact Over 1999 1999 Impact Over
Socioeconomic 1981 Amount/Baseline with of Baseline Baseline Forecast of Baseline
Variable Capacity UsaL-Forecast Project Project Forecast Forecast With Project Project Forecast
Population N.A.22,285 42,964 44 076(a)1,112(a)2.6(a)66,338 67 204(a)866(a)1.3(a),,
(b)N.A.4,002 6,914 10,842 3,928 56.8 9,505 11,554 2,049 21.6Employment
Housing Demand 8,582 6,810 14,417 14,791 374 2.6 24,670 24,992 322 1.3
(no.of units)
Water N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.
(gallons per day)
Solid Waste Disposal 617 2.5 6.7 6.9 0.2 2.5 13.6 13.8 0.2 1.3
(acres per year)
Sewage Treatment N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.N.A. N.A.N.A. N.A.N.A.N.A.
(gallons per day)
Police 20 20 38 40-42 2-4 5.3 60 61 1 1.7
Education
(primary students)3,136 2,388 5,406 5,565 159 2.9 8,884 9,011 127 1.4
(secondary students)3,380 2,141 4,605 4,738 133 2.9 7,568 7,674 106 1.4
Hospital Beds 23 20 60 61 1 1.7 109 110 1 0.9
Community
(c)0 80 82 2 2.4 133 135 2 1.5-
Parks (acres)
N.A.-Not Applicable
(a)Populalion increase refers to population influx in Mat-Su Borough communities,and does not include population residing only at work
camp/village.
(b)By place of employment.
(c)Community parks generally contain facilities such as tennis courts,ball diamonds,play apparatus,basketball
courts,nature walka,and awimming poola.
Source:rorecasts by Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.
TABLE 5.28:SUMMARIZED FISCAL IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT ION THE MAT-SU BOROUGH
General Fund:
Service Land
School Federal General Area Fund Manaqement Total
Property Debt Serv ice Municipal Revenue Misc.Fund Total Total Fund Bonded
REVENUES ($000)Taxes Reimburesment Assistance Sharing Revenues Revenues Revenues Total Rev.$Indebtedness
1981 Current 5,719 3,635 1,900 535 328 12,117 1,190 944 67,019
1990 Baseline Forecast 8,395 8,761 3,663 1,031 1,511 23,361 2,547 1,821 95,389
1990 Forecast W.Project 8,807 8,987 3,758 1,057 1,358 23,967 3,263 1,868 97,857
Impact of Project 412 226 95 26 -153 606 716 47 2,468
~Change 4.91 6.22 2.59 2.52 -10.13 2.59 28.11 2.58 2.59
1999 Baseline Forecast 11,949 13,527 5,656 1,592 3,347 36,071 3,623 2,811 135,769
1999 Forecast W.Project 12,379 13,703 5,730 1,613 3,117 36,542 4,584 2,848 137,540
Impact of Project 430 176 74 21 -230 471 961 37 1,771
~Change 3.60 1.3 1.31 1.32 -6.87 1.31 26.52 1.32 1.30
Areawide Sanitary Fire Parks &Land Mqmt.Road MainL Total
EXPENDITURES ($000)Admin.Ambulance Landfill Library Service Rec.Program &.Repair Expenses
1981 Current 11,151 688 357 713 780 1,114 1;114 797 16,714
1990 Baseline Forecast 21,019 1,353 7Z2 1,375 1,578 2,148 2,148 1,880 32,223
1990 Forecast W.Project 21,611 1,388 740 1,410 1,620 2,204 2,204 1,880 33,057
Impact of Project 59Z 35 18 35 42 %56 0 834
~Change 2.82 2.82 2.49 2.55 2.66 2.61 2.61 0 2.59
1999 Baseline Forecast 30,876 2,110 1,114 2,123 2,462 3,317 3,317 4,434 49,753
1999 Forecast W.Project 31,337 2,138 1,129 2,151 2,494 3,360 3,360 4,434 50,403
Impact of Project 461 28 15 28 JZ 43 43 0 650
%Change 1.49 1.33 1.35 1.32 1.30 1.30 1.30 °1.31
Forecasts in 1981 $.
Selected yeara from forecasts prepared by Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.
J ',~~~J ]J ~J --,,;),--I _I
J 1 -)1 --1 -)J 1 1 1 ----1 ]1
TABLE 5.29:SUMMARIZED FISCAL IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT ON THE MAT-SUBOROLJGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
State State Total Local
1 Foundation Trans.State Propert y Federal Total
REVENUES ($000)'Program Revenue Revenue Revenues Taxes Revenues Revenues
1981 Current 15,030 2,106 17,136 5,362 1,404 23,901
1990 Baseline Forecast 33,758 4,505 38,263 7,631 3,003 48,897
1990 Forecast W.Project 34,746 4,637 39,3B3 7,82B 3,091 50,105
Impact of Project 988 132 1,120 197 88 1,208
%Change 2.93 2.93 2.93 2.5B 2.93 2.47
1999 Baseline Forecast 55,478 7,403 62,881 10,861 4,936 78,678
1999 Forecast W.Project 56,260 7,508 63,768 11,003 5,005 79,634
Impact of Project 782 105 B87 142 fi9 956
%Change 1.41 1.42 1.41 1.32 1.40 1.22
Operations Pupil
Reqular Vocational Special Support and Trans-2 Total
EXPENDITURES ($000)Instruction Instruction Education Services Maintenance port at ion Other ~ends
1981 Current 8,726 1,058 1,587 4,760 5,024 2,115 3,173 26,442
1990 Baseline Forecast 17,819 1,188 5,940 10,691 10,691 5,940 7,127 59,395
1990 Forecast W.Project 18,340 1,223 6,113 11,004 11,004 6,113 7,336 61,134
Impact of Project 521 35 173 313 313 173 209 1,739
%Change 2.92 2.95 2.91 2.93 2.93 2.91 2.93 2.93
1999 Baseline Forecast 29,283 1,952 9,761 17,570 17,570 9,761 11,713 97,610
1999 Forecast W.Project 29,696 1,980 9,B99 17,81 B 17,818 9,899 11,878 98,986
Impact of Project 413 28 138 248 24B 138 165 1,376
%Change 1.4 1.43 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41
1.Revenues do not include State Reimbursement for School Debt Service Payments.See General Fund Table 5.28.
2.This category includes some capital improvements.
Forecasts in 1981 $.
Selected years from forecasts prepared by Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.
TABLE 5.30:SUMMARIZED IMPACT OF THE SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ON THE CITY OF PALMER,
Present Conditions Watan9 Construction Peak Devil Canyon Peak
Percent Percent
1990 Increase Increase
1981 1990 Forecast Impact Over 1999 1999 Impact Over
Socioeconomic 1981 Amount/Baseline with of Baseline Baseline Forecast of Baseline
Variable Capacity Usage_Forecast Project Project Forecast Forecast With Project Project Forecast
Population N.A.2,567 4,525 4,567 42 0.9 6,167 6,200 33 0.5
(a)N.A.(b)(b)(b)27 (b)(b)(b)13 (b)Employment ---- -
-
Housing Demand 872 783 1,551 1,563 12 0.8 2,299 2,311 12 0.5
(no.of units)
Water 1,368,000 300,000 608,000 614,000 6,000 1.a 917,650 922,626 4,976 0.5
(gallons per day)
Sewage Treatment 500,000 300,000 543,000 548,000 5,000 0.9 740,040 744,053 4,013 0.5
(gallons per day)'
Police 8 8 8 8 a a 9 9 a 0.0
Education 8oo(c)685 (c)(primary students)569 580 11 1.9 826 830 4 0.5
(c)951(c)485 1.a 704 708 4 0.6(secondary students)1,400 490 5
Hospital Beds N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A. N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.
N.A.-Not Applicable
(a)By place of employment
(b)Data not available
(c)School service areas do not-correspond exactly to city limits.1981 enrollment may include a service area
that extends beyond city boundaries,whereas projections for 1990 and 1999 refer only to school children living
in Palmer
Source:Forecasts by Frank orth &Associates,Inc.
~~-I «_~_-_,_J 'c"_"~I J ,~~~",J ,~,J J J
)1 1 ~--)J ~--1 ---1 -J --1 }--]1 --I ---']
TABLE 5.31:SUMMARIZED FISCAL IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT ON PALMER
Capital
State Total Total Total Water Total Project
Property Sales Local Intergovt.Service Misc.General Fund Fund Sewer Fund Fund
REVENUES ($000)Taxes Tax Revenues Revenue Charaes Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenues
1981 Current 256 329 585 417 336 333 1,671 249 108 2,258
1990 Baseline Forecast 452 423 875 625 610 390 2,500 440 190 3,982
1990 Forecast W.Project 457 427 B84 631 617 394 2,526 443 192 4,01B
Impact of Project 5 4 9 6 7 4 26 3 2 30
%Change 1.11 0.95 1.0 .9 1.15 1.03 1.04 0.6B 1.04 o.75
1999 Baseline Forecast 616 576 1,192 851 832 531 3,406 599 259 5,426
1999 Forecast W.Project 620 580 1,200 857 837 534 3,428 602 261 5,456
Impact of Project 4 4 8 6 5 3 22 3 2 30
%Change 0.65 0.70 0.67 0.71 0.6 0.56 0.65 0.50 0.77 0.55
Tota 1
Bonded
Parks and Public Water Total Indebted-
EXPENDITURES ($000)Admin.Police Fire Ambulance Recreation Health Librarr.Works ~Sewer ~end.ness
1981 Current 487 487 128 47 59 79 B4 641 205 103 2,320 2,692
1990 Baseline Forecast 860 886 237 90 104 140 149 1,188 362 181 4,197 3,832
1990 Forecast W.Project 868 894 240 91 105 142 151 1,199 365 183 4,238 3,832
Impact of Project 8 8 3 1 1 2 2 11 3 2 38 0
%Change 0.93 0.90 1.27 1.11 0.96 1.43 1.34 0.93 0.83 1.1 0.91 0
1999 Baseline Forecast 1 ,171 1,207 327 124 142 191 204 1,619 493 246 5,724 5,453
1999 Forecast W.Project 1,178 1,213 329 125 143 192 205 1,628 496 248 5,757 5,453
Impact of Project 7 6 2 1 1 1 1 9 3 2 21 0
%Change 0.60 0.50 0.61 0.81 O.70 0.52 0.50 0.56 0.51 0.61 0.37 0
Forecasts in 1981 $.
Selected years from forecasts prepared by Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.
TABLE 5.32:SUMMARIZED IMPACT OF THE SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ON WASILLA
Present Conditions Watana Construction Peak Devil Canyon Peak
(
Percent Percent
1990 Increase Increase
1981 1990 Forecast Impact Over 1999 1999 Impact Over
Socioeconomic 1981 Amount!Baseline with of Baseline Baseline Forecast of Baseline
Variable Capacity Usage Forecast Project Projest Forecast Forecast With Project Project Forecast
Population N.A.2,168 4,157 4,207 50 1.2 7,969 8,010 41 0.5
(a)N.A.(b) (b) (b)27 (b)(b)(b)
13
(b)
Employment ------
Housing Demand 718 670 1,404 1,421 17 1.2 2,965 2,980 15 0.5
(no.of units)
Water 864,000 (b)559,000 565,000 6,000 1.1 1,185,787 1,191,861 6,074 0.5-
(gallons per day)
Sewage Treatment N.A. N.A.N.A. N.A. N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.
(gallons per day)
Police N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A. N.A.N.A. N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.
Education 959 (c)(primary students)1,170 523 530
7 1.3 1,067 1,073 6 0.6
(secondary students)1,800-(c)1 068(c)446 452 6 1.3 909 914 5 0.6,
Hospital Beds N.A.N.A. N.A.N.A.N.A. N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.
N.A.-Not Applicable
(s)By place of employment
(b)Data not available
(c)School service areas do not correspond to city limits.1981 enrollment may include a service area that extends beyond city
boundaries,whereas projections for 1990 and 1999 refer only to school children living in Wasilla.
Source:rorecasts by Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.
c):~.....•).....1 .1 ,...._,J l..•.•1 J dLe,••)'L;L.,~J
--'--1 1 ~--~J -'-1 --,~J -"J '-j J i .'-J -~]C','-]_C)
TABLE 5.33:SUMMARIZED FISCAL IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT ON WASILLA
State Federal &Capital Library
Intergovt.Shared State Revenue Licenses Total General Project Fund
REVENUES ($000)Transfer Taxes Sharing Fines &:Mics.Fund Revenues Fund Revenues Revenues---
19B1 Current 26 314 195 22 557 3,533 102
1990 Baseline Forecast 49 603 374 41 1,067 6,776 195
1990 Forecast W.Project 50 610 379 42 1,081 6,858 198
Impact of Project 1 7 5 1 14 82 3
%Change 2.04 1.16 1.34 2.,44 1.22 1.21 1.54
1999 Baseline Forecast 95 1,156 717 79 2,047 12,989 374
1999 Forecast W.Project 96 1,161 721 80 2,058 13,056 376
Impact of Project 1 5 4 1 11 67 2
%Change 1.05 0.43 0.56 1.27 0.54 0.52 0.53
Parks &:Fire Local Government Road Mnint.Total Capital
EXPENDITURES ($000)Recreation Library Service Administration &:Repair o +M Project Expends.
1981 Current 47 102 74 264 191 679 3,794
1990 Baseline Forecast 91 195 148 507 366 1,308 7,275
1990 Forecast W.Project 93 198 150 513 370 1,324 7,362
Impact of Project 2 3 2 6 4 16 87
%ChRnge 2.20 1.54 1.35 1.18 1.09 1.22 1.20
1999 Baseline Forecast 175 375 287 972 701 2,511 13,946
1999 Forecast W.Project 176 376 289 977 7D5 2,523 14,017
Impact of Project 1 1 2 5 4 12 71
%Change 0.57 0.27 O.70 0.51 0.57 0.48 0.51
Forecasts in 1981 $.
Selected years from forecasts prepared by Frank Orth &:Associates,Inc.
TABLE 5.34:SUMMARIZED IMPACT OF THE SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ON HOUSTON
Present Conditions Watana Construction Peak Devil Canyon Peak
Percent Percent
1990 Increase Increase
1981 1990 Forecast Impact Over 1999 1999 Impact Over
Socioeconomic 1981 Amount!Baseline with of Baseline Baseline Forecast of Baseline
Variable Capacity Usage Forecast Project Project Forecast Forecast With Project Project Forecast
Population N.A.600 1,415 1,453 38 2.7 3,335 3,367 32 1.0
(8)N.A.(b)(b)(b)15 (b)(b)(b)7 (b)Employment ----- -
Housing Demahd 229 207 508 522 14 2.8 1,249 1,261 12 1.0
(no.of units)
Water N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A. N.A.N.A.N.A.
(gallons per day)
Sewage Treatment N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A. N.A.N.A.N.A. N.A.N.A.N.A.
(gallons per day)
Police N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A. N.A.N.A.N.A. N.A.N.A.N.A.
Education O(c)O(c)(primary students)178 184 6 3.4 447 451 4 0.9
(secondary students)O(c)O(c)152 156 4 2.6 380 384 4 1.1
Hospital Beds N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A. N.A.
--
N.A.-Not Applicable
(a)By place of employment
(b)Data not available
(c)School service areas do not correspond to city limits.Children in Houston currently attend schools outside of the city.
A secondary school initially accommodating 300 students is planned.
Source:rorecasts by Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.
<Ccc,c,,,J ,c,~,~3 Lie_J c..,.,)..~._-J .J J ~.J J o.,_"J
-1 --]1 ---1 1 -1 »)--1 1
TABLE 5.35:SUMMARIZED FISCAL IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT ON HOUSTON AND TALKEETNA
Total Esti-Total Local Parks &Road
mated Grant Expendi-Govt.Fire Recrea-Mainte-So I in
Houston Funding tures Admin.Service tion nance Waste
1981 Current 436,800 69,700 32,400 10,200 5,400 19,flOO 900
1990 Baseline 1,030,120 165,556 76,410 25,258 12,735 49,030 2,123
Forecast
1990 Forecast 1,058,117 170,054 7fl,487 25,944 13,081 50,362 2,180
w/Project
Impact of 27,997 4,499 2,077 6fl6 346 1,332 57
Project
%Change 2.72 2.72 2.72 2.72 2.72 2.72 2.68
1999 8ase line 2,427,880 394,230 180,090 60,130 30,015 118,993 5,003
Forecast
1999 Forecast 2,451,094 398,000 181,812 60,705 30,302 120,131 5,050
w/Project
Impact of 23,214 3,770 1,722 575 287 1,138 47
Project
%Change 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.94
Talkeetna Property State State Total Revpnues
Taxes Paid General Shared to Dorough
to Mat-Su Revenues for Revenues for from Talkeetna
Borou~Fire Service Road Repairs ~e Areas
1981 Current 20,742 4,800 45,820 71,362
1990 Base line 48,615 7,500 98,215 154,330
Forecast
1990 Forecast 61,401 9,473 98,215 169,089
w/Project
Impact of 12,786 1,973 0 14,759
Project
%Change 26.30 26.31 0 9.56
1999 Baseline 88,649 11,722 254,713 355,Ofl4
Forecast
1999 Forecast 100,560 13,298 254,713 368,571
w/Project
Impact of 11 ,911 1,576 0 13,487
Project
%Change 13.44 13.44 0 3.8
Forecasts in 1981 $.
Selected years from forecasts prepared hy Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.
TABLE 5.36:SUMMARIZED IMPACT OF THE SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ON TRAPPER CREEK
Present Conditions Watana Construction Peak Devil Canyon Peak
Percent Percent
1990 Increase Increase
1981 1990 Forecast Impact Over 1999 1999 Impact Over
Socioeconomic 1981 Amount!Baseline with of Baseline Baseline Forecast of Baseline
Variable Capacity Usage Forecast Project Project Forecast Forecast With Project Project Forecast
Population N.A.225 320 661 341 106.6 474 710 236 49.8
(a)N.A.(b)(b)(b)66 (b)(b)(b)31 (b)Employment ------
Housing Demand 69 68 107 221 114 106.5 169 261 92 54.4
(no.of unital
Water N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.
(gallons per day)
Sewage Treatment N.A.N.A.N.A. N.A.N.A.N.A. N.A.N.A.N.A. N.A.
(gallons per day)
Police N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A. N.A.N.A.N.A.
Education 30(c)40(d)(primary students)78 128-148 50-70 64.1 116 151-171 35-55 30.1
(secondary students)Oed)oed)34 74 40 117.6 52 82 30 57.7
Hoapital Beds N.A. N.A.N.A.N.A. N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.
N.A.-Not Applicable
(a)By place of employment
(b)Data not available
(c)Planned capacity of 150
(d)School service areas do not correspond exactly to community delineations.The Trapper Creek elementary school serves a wide area
outside of the community.Secondary school-aqe children from Trapper Creek attend Susitna Valley Hiqh School.
Source:Forecasts by Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.
,"0_c_c]~-_~ooJ _,I ,..J _~J <__.J _.__l J J ..J
1 J 1 ··~l -1 ~--1 J J 1 )
TABLE 5.37:SUMMARIZED IMPACT OF THE SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ON TALKEETNA
Present Conditions Watana Construction Peak Devil Canyon Peak
Percent Percent
1990 Increase increase
1981 1990 Forecast Impact Over 1999 1999 Impact Over
Socioeconomic 1981 Amount/Baseline ..ith of Baseline Baseline Forecast of Baseline
Variable Capacity Usage Forecast Project Project Forecast Forecast With Project Project Forecast
Population N.A.640 1,000 1,263 263 26.3 1,563 1,773 210 13.4
(a)N.A.(b)(b)(h)71 (b)(b)(b)34 (b)
Employment - -----
Housing Demand 196 194 334 421 87 26.0 581 658 77 13.3
(no.of units)
Water N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.
(gallons per day)
Sewage Treatment N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A. N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A. N.A.
(gallons per day)
Police N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A. N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.
Education 12o(d)ned)(primary students)126 164 38 30.2 209 240 31 14.8
(secondary students)oed)oed)107 138 31 29.0 178 204 26 14.6
Hospital Beds N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A. N.A. N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.
N.A.-Not Applicable
(a)By place of employment
(b)Data not available
(c)School service areas do not correspond exactly to community delineations.Secondary school-age children attend
Susitna Valley High School.
Source:Forecasts by Frank Orth &Associates,inc.
TABLE 5.38:SUMMARIZED IMPACT OF THE SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ON IMPACT AREA 3(a)
Watana Construction Peak Devil Canyon Peak
Percent Percent
1990 Increase Increase
1990 Forecast Impact Over 1999 1999 Impact Over
Socioeconomic 1980 Baseline with of Baseline Baseline Forecast of Baseline
Xariable Amount Forecast Project Project Forecast Forecast With Project Project Forecast
Population 284,166 397,999 400,323 2,324 0.6 473,191 474,419 1,228 0.3
Employment 114,112(b)200,112 206,477 6,365 3.2 232,311 235,668 3,357 1.4
Households 96,899 138,938 139,794 856 0.6 171,895 172,384 489 0.3
(a)Includes the following census divisions:Anchorage,Kenai Peninsula,Mat-Su Borouqh,Fairbanks-North Star Borouqh,S.E.Fairbanks and
Valdez-Chitina-Whittier.
(b)Average employment during the first nine months of 1980.
Source:Forecasts by Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.
'"~,_J J ",,_I ,"__~"J '~,C",I ,_"J ",~,J 0",J '"',_"I \.0;,.",,1 4.__J
)--)---.J .--J ....]_.,----J ')----J ----)---I 1
TABLE 5.39,SUMMARIZED FISCAL IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT ON ANCHORAGE AND FAIRBANKS
Total
Parks and Health Transpor-Sewsge Sol id Waste Water Expend-
REVENUES ($000)~Fire Ambulance Recreation Library ....!:..!!..~tation Service Disposal ~tures
19B1 Current 26,732 17,472 3,320 9,784 3,669 4,368 14,676 15,899 3,669 21,665 121,254
1990 Baseline Forecast 35,304 23,523 4,469 12,546 4,705 5,769 18,818 20,998 4,846 2B,613 159,590
1990 Forecast W.Project 35,484 23,t;42 4,492 12,609 4,728 5,798 18,914 21,105 4,870 28,75A 160,400
Impact of Project 180 119 23 63 25 29 96 107 24 145 810
%Change 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.50 0.49 0.50 0.51 0.51 0.50 0.51 0.51
1999 Baseline Forecast 39,044 26,275 4,992 13,875 5,203 6,427 20,812 23,222 5,359 31,644 176,853
1999 Forecast W.Project 39,111 26,320 5,001 13,898 5,212 6,438 20,847 23,262 5,368 31,698 177,156
Impact of Project 67 45 9 23 9 11 35 40 9 54 303
r,Change 0.17 0.17 0.18 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17
Parks and Fire Health Public Sew"r Electric Water Total
EXPENDITURES ($000)Recreation Police Service Care Works ~Ut i I it ies ~Expend it ures
1981 Curr ent 796 3,069 3,228 727 2,319 2,501 2,154 1,BA7 16,681
1990 Baseline Forecast 1,037 4,120 4,418 977 3,173 3,357 2,891 2,533 22,505
1990 Forecast W.Project 1,046 4,156 4,456 9B5 3,201 3,386 2,916 2,555 22,702
Impact of Project 9 36 38 8 28 29 25 22 198
%Change 0.88 0.87 0.86 0.82 0.88 0.B6 O.B6 0.87 0.88
1999 Baseline Forecast 1,209 4,805 5,204 1,173 3,701 3,915 3,372 2,954 26,333
1999 Forecast W.Project 1,220 4,847 5,249 1,183 3,733 3,949 3,401 2,980 26,564
Impact of Project 11 42 45 10 32 34 29 26 231
%Change 0.91 0.87 0.lJ6 0.85 0.86 0.87 0.86 0.88 0.B8
Forecasts in 1981 $.
Selected years from forecasts prepared by Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.
-.
,.....
,
.....
i
-
.....
i
~
I
Anchorage
DJIIIIIII]J Impact Area 1
I J Impact Area 2 (includes 1)
I .'....j Impact Area 3 (includes 2)·l.:.i:'~·,:·;.".~;"
:".'~':':~"'l~':/'~':
I I Impact Area 4 (State of AlasKa)
SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT AREAS
I I
FIGURE 5.1 lM~m I
PREPARED BY TES I FRANK ORTH 8&ASSOCIATES,INC.
-r
19)0 71 72 73 74 75 76 n 78 79 80
5
en
"0
C
I'Den
::>o.r=
t:..
20
15
10
POPULATION
1970 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 eo
PER CAPITA PERSONAL INCOME
en
~
I'D
oo
'0
en
"0c:
I'Den
::>o.r=
t:..
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
1\\1\\11\1....'JII/IllIII fill llll IU~\\\II\\\I\\\
§'~~
#~~
1111\11111 1\11\1111111\11\\1ft'
1970 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
(Year)
-
-r
EMPLOYMENT POPULATION AND
PER CAPITA PERSONAL INCOME IN THE
MATANUSKA -SUSITNA BOROUGH 1970-1980
PREPARED BY TES/ORTH a ASSOCIATES,INC.
FIGURE 5.2
~\\\'JIIIJ 1IIflll1lJ 1111\111111111111111111111
'125 EMPLOYMENT·~
~
100 ~~\~\~~...
75 ~\\\\~
'0
lU>.o
a.
Ew
'0
II>50
'0
C
C'D
'"5 25
.r=
C.
-1970 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
POPULATION
GJ
a.o
lU
Q.
'0
300
200
\\\\11 1\\\\\\1111ll/11 JIll/I IIl1lllllll1ll1U~\\\\\\\\#~~
1
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\1\1\\\\\\\\\\\I\l};
\\\\\\\\1\
'"uc
C'D
'"=>
2 100
t:
1970 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
r-
i
,12 PER CAPITA \\\\mllIJIIJJ1.\\\\\\t\U11
PERSONAL INCOME:I"'
~10
C'D 9
0 80
'0 7 ,
..-6
,111\\\\\11111\11\\11\1\IU\U#'"u 5c
C'D
'"4=>
0.r=3
C.2
1
1970 71 72 73 7/j 75 76 77 78 79 80
(Ye ar)
EMPLOYM ENT,POPULATION AN 0
PER CAPITA PERSONAL
INCOME IN THE RAILBELT REGION
FIGURE 5.3
PREPARED BY TES/FRAI~K ORTH 8 ASSOCIATES,INC,
-.
:200 EMPLOYMENT
~111111111l\111111111111111111111111111 lit
:c ~\\\'\
II>150 ~\\~~>
0 ~\~c.'§;>\\~\~""Ew ~\~~
'0 ~,*'\
100 ~~
II>:-~\~"0c::
III
",
j
0r:
C.50
".,..
1970 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
".,..
.ol50 POPULATION
"""1111\\IIIII\II\IIIIIIIIIIII\IUllIIIIIIIIIIIUIIIIIL
400 ~ll§:-§.
Q)~~c.~'*~0 350II>~\\\\....c..~\\1\1l\1ll1ll~
'0 ~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
",300'0c::
IIIon
j
0 250.r:::
C.
200
~
1970 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
iii
<tl
o
D
'0
on
"0c::
IIIon
ja.r:::
C.
12
11
10
PER CAPITA
PERSONAL INCOME
1970 71 72 73 74
(Year)
75 76 77 78 79 80
EMPLOYMENT,POPULATION AND
PER CAPITA PERSONAL
INCOME IN THE STATE OF ALASKA,1970-1980
FIGURE 5.4
PREPARED BY TEsf FRANK DRTH a ASSOCIATES,INC.
.']--]]
I
~l '--,--'·1 -'J '.1 .)·--1 ]
3500
3000
~
ffi 2500
;:!;w
0::
5o
W
lr 2000
I.Llo
lro
U.
~1500
lro:r:
1000
500
/
.--.
83 848586 8788699091929394959697989920000102030405
YEAR
ON-SITE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONS WORK FORCE REQUIREMENTS
FIGURE 5.5
PREPARED BY TES/FRANK ORTH Bo ASSOCIATES,INC
I~~[
,~
6 -GEOLOGY AND SOILS
This section presents a general description of the geology and soils
present ih the project area.More detailed information is available in
the Sustina Hydroelectric Project,1980-81 Geotechnical Report,Febru-
ary 1982.
6.1 -General Geology and Soils
The area of study is located within the Coastal Trough Province of
south-central Alaska,with a drainage of approximately 6,000 square
miles.The Susitna River is glacier-fed,with headwaters on the
southern slope of the Alaska Range.From its preglacial channel in the
Al aska Range,the Susitna Ri ver passes first through a broad,gl a-
ciated,intermontane valley of knob and kettle,and braided channel
topography.Swinging westward along the edge of the Copper River low-
1 ands,it enters the deep V-shaped valleys of the proposed damsites,
winding through the Talkeetna Mountains until it emerges into a broad,
glacial valley leading to Cook Inlet.
Virtually all topography within 16 kilometers of the project damsites
consists of scoured bedrock knobs and ridges,glacial sediments and
alluvium.
Soils of the Susitna Basin are typical of those found in cold,wet
climates.These soils have developed from glacial till and outwash.
In low-lying and poorly drained areas of forests and also above the
tree line,soils are acidic,saturated,and high in organic matter.
Well-drained soils of the forest zone are acidic and relatively
infertile,the result of constant leaching caused by high precipita-
tion.Sands and gravels along streams are the few neutral to alkaline
soils in the region.Volcanic ash outfalls have affected the entire
region,with soils in the lower basin and the west containing the most
ash.
The Watana damsite is located in a relatively broad,U-shaped valley
rising in steps,with the steep lower portion breaking into somewhat
flatter slopes and becoming much gentler near the higher elevations.
Access to the lower sect ions is 1i mited bec ause of vert i cal rock out-
crops.Gravel bars,which can be quite wide,are exposed in the river-
bed during low water flows.
At the Dev'j 1 Canyon site,the river enters a very narrow goy"ge about
two milesin length with steep walls up to 600 feet high.The valley
is generally asymmetrical in shape,with the north abutment sloping at
about 45°and the south abutment steeper at about 60°.The south abut-
ment displays overhanging cliffs and detached blocks of rock ..The
north abutment is somewhat less rugged in the upper half,but the lower
portion is ,very steep.Access at river level is very limited,but
6-1
narrow benches are accessible at low water levels.The canyon itself
is approximately 1,000 feet wide at the proposed dam crest elevation.
6.2 -Devil Canyon Reservoir
The topography in and around the Devil Ca nyon site and reservoir is
bedrock-controlled.Overburden is thin to absent,except in the upper
reaches of the proposed reservoir where all uvi a 1 deposits cover the
valley floor.
(a)Bedrock Geology
A large intrusive plutonic body,composed predominantly of biotite
granodiorite with local areas of quartz diorite and diorite,
underlies most of the reservoir and adjacent slopes.The rock is
light gray to pink,medium grained,and composed of quartz,fel-
spar,biotite,and hornblende.The most common mafic mineral is
biotite.Where weathered,the rock has alight yellow-gray to
pinkish yellow-gray color,except where it is highly oxidized and
iron stained.The granodiorite is generally massive,competent,
and hard with the exception of the rock exposed on the upland
north of the Susitna River where the biotite granodiorite has been
badly decomposed as a result of mechanical weathering.
The other principal rock types in the reservoir area are the
argi 11 i te and graywackes,whi ch are exposed at the Devi 1 Canyon
dams ite.The argi 11 ite has been intruded by the massi ve grano-
diorite,and as a result,large isolated roof pendants of the
argillite and graywacke are found locally throughout the reservoir
and surrounding areas.The argill ite and graywacke varies to a
phyll ite of low metamorphic grade,with possible isolated schist
outcrops.
The rock has been isoclinally folded into steeply dipping struc-
tures which generally strike northeast-southwest.The contact
between the argill ite and the biotite granodiorite crosses the
Susitna River just upstream from the Devil Canyon damsite.The
contract is nonconformable and is characterized by an aphanitic
texture with a wi de,chi 11 ed zone.The trend of the contact is
roughly northeast-southwest where it crosses the river.Several
large outcrops of the argillite completely surrounded by the bio-
tite granodiorite are found within the Devil Creek area.
(b)Slope Stability and Erosion
The Devil Canyon reservoir will be entirely confined within the
walls of the present river valley.This reservoir will be char-
acter i zed by a narrow,deep water body that wi 11 be subj ect to
only minimal seasonal drawdown.Much of the topography of this
reservoi r is bedrock -contro 11 ed.In the vi ci ni ty of Devi 1 Creek,
6-2
.....
r-'"
downstream from the damsite,the slopes of the reservoir and its
shoreline consist primarily of bedrock which,in some areas,has a
thin veneer of colluvium or till.Upstream from Devil Canyon,the
slopes of the reservoir comprise increasing amounts of unconsoli-
dated materials,especially on the south abutment.These materi-
als are principally basal till and coarse-grained floodplain and
alluvial fan deposits.
Current and previous slope failures in this area of the Susitna
River,as defined by photogrammetry and limited field reconnais-
sance,are skin and bimodal flows in soil and block slides and
rotational slides in rock.The basal tills are the primary mate-
rials susceptible to mass movement.On the south abutment and
south of the darnsite,there is a possibil ity of sporadic perma-
frost,but it is generally thought to be minimal.Upstream from
this area,the basal till is nearly continuously frozen as evi-
denced by field information along the access road corridors and in
Borrow Area "H.II
Downstream from the Devil Creek area,instability is largely re-
served to small rock falls.Beaching will be the primary process
activity upon the shoreline in this area.Although this area is
mapped as a basal till,it is coarser grained than that which is
found in the Watana Reservoir,and therefore,it is more suscepti-
ble to beaching.
In areas where the shore1i ne is in contact wi th steep bedrock
cliffs,the fluctuation of the reservoir will contribute to rock
falls.Fluctuation of the reservoir and,therefore,the ground
water tab1 e,accompani ed by seasonal freezi n9 and thawi ng,wi 11
encourage frost wedging as an erosive agent to accelerate degrada-
tion of the slope and beaching.Thes-e rock falls will be limited
in extent and will in no way have the capacity to produce a large
wave whi ch cou1 d affect dam stabil ity.In Devi 1 Creek,a poten-
tial small block slide may occur after the reservoir filling.
Beyond Devil Creek,beaching will also be the common erosive agent
up to approximately river mile 180.Present slope instability
above reservoir normal pool level will continue to occur with pri-
mary beaching occurring at the shoreline.At river mile 175,
there is a possibility that a large old landslide on the south
abutment could become mobile and slide into the river valley.
This landslide has a large ,accurate back scarp which has become
completely vegetated since its last movement.This landslide,
which has a volume of approximately 3.4 million cubic yards,has
the potential for further sl iding after impoundment because of
thawi ng and/or changes in the ground water regime.However,the
maximum pool elevation extends only to the toe of this slide.
Therefore,it is unlikely that a large catastrophic slide could
result from normal reservoir impoundment.
6-3
(c)Summary
The meandering of the river valley makes the potential of a wave
induced by a massive landslide that could affect the dam stabili-
ty very remote.
In general,the following conclusions can be drawn about the slope
conditions of the Devil Canyon reservoir after impounding:
-Minimal drawdown of the reservoir is conducive to stable slope
condit ions;
-The lack of unconsolidated materials along the lower slopes of
the reservoir and the existence of stable bedrock conditions are
indicative of stable slope conditions after reservoir impound-
ing;
A large old landslide in the upper reservoir has the potential
for instability;and
The probability of a landslide-induced wave in the reservoir
overtopping the dam is remote.
6.3 -Watana Reservoir
The Watana reservoir area is generally characterized by a variety of
rock and soil types.The lower section of the Watana reservoir and
adjacent slopes are predomi nant ly covered by a veneer of gl aci a1 till
and lacustrine deposits.
(a)Surficial Deposits
Two main types of till have been identified in the area:ablation
and basal tills.The basal till is predominantly over-consoli-
dated,has a fine grain matrix (more silt and clay),and a low
permeability.The ablation till has less fines and a some\'/hat
higher permeability.Lacustrine deposits consist primarily of
poorly graded fi ne sands and silts with 1esser amounts of gravel
and clay that exhibit a crude stratification.
On the south side of the Susitna River,the Fog Lake area is char-
acteristic of a fluted ground moraine surface.Upstream in the
Watana Creek area,glaciolacustrine material forms a broad,flat
plain which mantles the underlying glacial till and the semi-con-
solidated Tertiary sediments.Significant alluvial deposits exist
in the river valley and consist of reworked outwash and alluvium.
Gl aci at i on of the area was accompan i ed by the fill i ng in of the
Susitna River valley.Subsequent modification by alluvial pro-
cesses during deglaciation resulted in the formation of floodplain
terraces.Ice disintegration features such as kames and eskers
are adjacent to the river valley.
6-4
~,
-
-
Permafrost ex i st sin the area,as evi denced by ground ice,non-
sorted polygons,stone nets,and slumping of the glacial till
overlying permafrost.Numerous slumps have been identified in the
Watana reservoir area,especially in sediments comprising basal
till.Additional details regarding this subject will be addressed
in subsequent sections.In addition,numerous areas of frozen
alluvium and interstitial ice crystals have been observed in out-
crops and drill hole samples.
(b)Bedrock Geology
The Watana damsite is underlain by a diorite pluton.Approximate-
ly three miles upstream from the Watana damsite,a nonconformable
contact between argi 11 ite and the dioritic pl uton crosses the
Susitna River.An approximate location of this contact has also
been deli neated on Fog Creek,four mi 1es to the south of the
damsite.Just downstream from the confluence of Watana Creek and
the Susitna River,the bedrock consists of semi-consolidated,
Tertiary,sedimentary rocks (Smith 1974)and volcanics of Triassic
age.These Triassic volcanics consist of metavolcaniclastic rocks
and marble (Csejtey et al.1980).Just upstream from Watana Creek
to Jay Creek,the rock is a metavolcanogenic sequence dominantly
composed of metamorphosed flows and tuffs of basaltic to andesitic
composition.From Jay Creek to just downstream from the Oshetna
River,the reservoir is underlain by a metamorphic terrain of
amphibolite and minor amounts of greenschist and folidated dior-
ite.To the east of the Oshetna River,glacial deposits are pre-
domi nant.
The main structural feature of the Watana reservoir is the Tal-
keetna thrust fault which trends northeast-southwest (Csejtey et
al.1980).This thrust fault crosses the Susitna River approxi-
mately eight mi les upstream from the Watana damsite.The dip of
this fault is uncertain,as Csejtey and others (Csejtey,Foster,
and Nokleberg 1980)have interpreted it to have a southeast dip,
while Turner and Smith (Turner and Smith 1974)suggest a northwest
dip.At the southwest end of the fault,unfaulted Tertiary vol-
canics overlie the fault (Csejtey,Foster,and Nokleberg 1980).A
general discussion of regional geology is presented in Volume 1,
Section 7 of this report.
(c)Slope Stability and Erosion
The geology of the slopes underlying and adjacent to the reservoir
consists of uncons(lidated material.As a generalization,the
distribution of perflafrost is nearly continuous in the basal till
and is scattered to continuous in the lacustrine deposits.The
distribution of permafrost has been delineated primarily on the
flatter slopes~generally below the 2,300-foot contour.Other
areas,including inclined slopes,may be underlain by permafrost
which,when thawed,could result in slope instability.Current or
6-5
previous slope instability on the slopes above the Susitna River,
as defined by aerial photographic interpretation and limited field
reconnaissance,indicates that the types of mass movement consist
primarily of solifluction,skin flows,bimodal flows,and small
rotational slides.These types of erosion occur predominantly in
basal till or in areas where the basal till is overlain by lacus-
trine deposits.In addition,solifluction which originated in the
basal till has proceeded downslope over some of the floodplain
terraces.
Three major factors that will contribute significantly to poten-
tial slope instability in the Watana reservoir are the change in
the ground water regime,the large seasonal fluctuation of the
reservoir level (estimated at 140 feet),and the thawing of perma-
frost.The two processes affecting the shoreline of the reser-
voirs are beaching and slope stability.Models of shoreline con-
ditions were developed and applied to select reaches of the reser-
voir shoreline and evaluated for conditions at or near normal pool
levels.It should be noted that the slope stability of the Watana
reservoir was evaluated for the "worst"case which considered the
maximum and minimum pool levels for slope instabil ity.In cases
where sliding will occur,it will not be uncommon for some flows
or possibly beaching to occur over the same reach.
The filling of the reservoir to the normal pool level is estimated
to take approximately three years.Because of the rate of im-
poundment,the potential for slope instability occurring during
flooding of the reservoir will be minimal and confined to shallow
surface flows and possibly some sliding.These slopes will be
more susceptible to slope instability after impoundment when thaw-
ing of the permafrost soils will occur and the ground water regime
has reestablished itself in the frozen soils.
Assumi ng that the current contours wi 11 remai n unchanged,the
north abutment will have the potential for beaching near the dam-
site,except for possibly some small flows and slides adjacent to
Deadman Creek.On the south abutment,thawing of the frozen basal
tills will result in numerous skin and bimodal flows,and there
will be a potential for small rotational sliding to occur primar-
ily opposite Deadman Creek.
On the south abutment,between the Watana damsite and Vee Canyon,
the shoreline of the reservoirs is susceptible to a high potential
for flows and shallow rotational slides.In contrast to the north
abutment,the shoreline is almost exclusively in contact with
frozen basal tills,overburden is relatively thick,and steeper
slopes are present.Thermal erosion,resulting in the erosion and
thawing of the ice-rich,fine grained soil solids,will be the key
factor influencing their stability.On the north abutment and on
6-6
"
t-
I
r-
.1
both abutments upstream from Vee Canyon,the geological and topo-
graphic conditions are more variable and therefore have a poten-
tial for varying slope conditions.In the Watana Creek drainage
area,there is a thick sequence of lacustrine material overlying
the basal till.Unlike the till,it appears that the lacustrine
material is largely unfrozen.In addition,slope instability may
occur as a result of potential liquefaction of the lacustrine
material during earthquakes.Overall,the north abutment in con-
trast with the south abutment does not have the constant steep
slopes,and the slopes are slightly better drained,which may be
indicative of less continuous permafrost and/or slightly coarse
material at the surface with a deeper active layer.
In general,the potential for beaching is higher because the sea-
sonal drawdown zone will be in contact with a thin vaneer of col-
luvium over bedrock and,in a number of areas,low slopes.In the
Oshetna-Goose Creek areas,there is a thick sequence of lacustrine
material.Permafrost appears to be nearly continuous in this area
based on the presence of unsorted polygonal ground and potential
thermokarst activity around some of the many small ponds (thaw
1 akes/kettles).The reservoir wi 11 be confined primari ly within
the floodplain,and therefore little modification of the slopes is
expected.Where the slopes are steep,there could be some thermal
niche erosion resulting in small rotational slides.
The potential for a large blockslide occurring and generating a
wave with the likelihood of overtopping the dam is very remote.
For this condition to occur,a very high,steep slope with a
potentially unstable block of large volume would need to exist
adjacent to the reservoir.In approximately the first 16 mi les
upstream from the dam,the shoreline will be in contact with the
low slopes of the broad,U-shaped valley.Between 16 and 30 miles
upstream from the dam,no potentially large landslides were ob-
served.Beyond 30 miles upstream,the reservoir begins to meander
and narrows;therefore,any wave induced in this area by a large
landslide would,in all likelihood,dissipate prior to reaching
the dam.
(d)Summary
In general,the following conclusions can be drawn about the slope
conditions of the Watana reservoir after impoundment:
-The principal factors influencing slope instability are the
large seasonal drawdown of the reservoir and the thawing of
permafrost soils.Other factors include the change in the
ground water regime,the steepness of the slopes,coarseness of
the material,thermal toe erosion,and the fetch available to
generate wave action;
6-7
-The potential for beaching will occur primarily on the north
abutment of the reservoir;
- A large portion of the reservoir slopes are susceptible to shal-
low slides,mainly skin and bimodal flows and shallow rotational
slides;
-The potential for a large blockside that might generate a wave
that could overtop the dam is remote;and
-The period in which restabilization of the slopes adjacent to
the reservoir will occur is largely unknown.
In general,most of the reservoi r slopes wi 11 be tot ally sub-
merged.Areas where the filling is above the break in slope will
exhibit fewer stability problems than those in which the reservoir
is at an intermediate or low level.Flow slides induced by thaw-
ing permafrost can be expected to occur over very flat-lying sur-
f aces.
6.4 -Mitigation Measures
The primary method of mitigating impacts to soils will be through stan-
dard stabilization,reclamation,and revegetation techniques.
All temporary access roads will be graded,recontoured and seeded fol-
1owi ng abandonment.Areas near streams or ri vers where erosi on may
occur will be rip-rapped during the construction period and re-sealed
when construction is complete.Borrown area will be excavated only if
necessary and wi 11 either be regraded and seeded with appropri ate
species or,if excavation is deep enough,converted to ponds.
To insure success of restoration efforts,a comprehensive restoration
and revegetation plan will be decycled and implemented to prevent soil
erosion.This plan will include the use of terrain (if necessary)
mulch (hay and straw)mulch anchored with a light asphalt tack and mats
in area of high erosion potential.Seeding mixtures will be developed
to provide the most rapid recovery possible and inlcude species adapted
to all soil and light (shad,sun,etc.)conditions present at the site.
Seed mixtures may be appl ied using the hydroseeding techniques which
includes a mixture of fertilizer,lime and seeds.Restoration proce-
dures will be monitored to insure their efficiency.Any areas showing
erosi on or where restorat i on is not effect i ve wi 11 be restored wi th
modified pl ans.
Rock excavated and not utilized in construction will be used as back-
fill in borrow areas or disposed of in areas which will be inundated by
the reservoir.
6-8
•!
-
6.5 -Conclusions
Some amount of slope st ab i1i ty wi 11 be generated in the Wat ana and
Devil Canyon reservoirs as the result of reservoir filling.These
areas will be primarily in locations where the water level will be at
an intermediate level relative to the valley depth.
Slope failure will be more common in the Watana reservoir because of
the ex i stence of permafrost soi 1 throughout the reservoi r.The Devi 1
Canyon reservoir is generally in more stable rock,and the relatively
thin overburden is unfrozen in the reach of the river upstream from the
dam.
Although skin flows,minor slides,and beaching will be common in parts
of the reservoirs,they will present only a visual concern and pose no
threat to the project.Many areas in which sliding does occur wi 11
stabilize into beaches with a steep backslope.
Tree root systems left from reservoir clearing will tend to hold shal-
low surface slides and,in cases where permafrost exists,may have a
stab i 1izingin flu en ce ,sin ce the mat wi 11 hold the so i 1 in p1ace un til
excess pore pressure has dissipated.
6-9
-
7 -REPORT ON RECREATIONAL RESOURCES
7.1 -Recreational Lands Designations
Currently,there are no areas within or near the proposed project boundary that are
included or designated for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System,
the National Trails System,or a wilderness area under the Wilderness Act.
The Susitna River was among several rivers recommended for detai 1ed study as
possible additions to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System in 1978 under Sec.
;~04 (e)of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976.The allowed
three-year study period ended November 1981 without Congressional action to include
the river in this system.Currently,it is not under consideration for inclusion
under any program.
7.2 -Existing and Proposed Recreation Facilities
(a)Existing Recreation Facilities -Project Area
(i)Facil it ies
Presently,there are no publicly developed recreation facilities
within the vicinity of the project,and the only privately owned
facilities of this nature are three lodges.Access to these lodges
is primarily by air,and they are used chiefly for fishing,
hunting.boating,hiking,and skiing.The first.Stephan Lake
Lodge,is located south of the Susitna River at Stephan Lake and is
the largest of the three.It is comprised of ten structures with
add it i ona 1 outl yi ng cabi ns and offers its predomi nant ly European
clientele a variety of services on a year-round basis.High Lake
Lodge has eleven structures and is located north of the proposed
Devil Canyon dam site at High Lake.The clientele at present is
strictly seasonal and restricted to project personnel who use the
facility as an auxiliary study camp.Tsusena Lake Lodge,with
three structures,is north of the proposed Watana dam site at
Tsusena Lake.Clientele is restricted to family,friends,and
associates of the lodge owners.
In addition to the lodges,there are also numerous private cabins
in the project area utilized by individual owners.These are used
primarily on a seasonal basis for hunting,fishing,trapping,and
other recreational activities (Refer to Section 9.1).
(ii)Activities
Various types of recreational activities take place in the upper
Susitna River basin that are not necessarily associated with
formally developed facilities.The greatest concentration of use
is found at lakes within the basin that are accessible by float
plane (Refer to Section 9.1).These recreational activities are
primarily characterized by low-volume use associated with hunting,
fishing,camping,hiking,and boating.Some rafting and kayaking
takes place on the Susitna and Tyone rivers and Prairie Creek.
7-1
Various trails for dog sleds,ORVs (off-road-vehicles),and snow-
machines are present throughout the basin.Their use is primarily
for subsistence,recreation,or mineral exploration activities.
(b)Existing Recreation Facilities -Adjacent Areas
Most of the existing recreational facilities adjacent to the project area
serve the two urban centers of Anchorage and Fairbanks and,secondarily,
the population along the Parks Highway that connects the two.The
majority of the state's population lives in these areas.
While there are few formally developed recreational facilities within the
immediate vicinity of the project,many such facilities exist in the
region.These areas and fac;ilities are described in Table 7.1.The
primary attraction in the region is the Denali National Park and
Preserve.With 2.3 million ha (5.7 million a),it is the largest and
most popular recreational attraction in the region.Facilities include
several lodges,visitor centers,gas station,bus service,campgrounds,
interpretive services,and trail system.
North of the project area,the Bureau of Land IVlanagement maintains the
1.8 million ha (4.4 million a)Denali Planning Block that encompasses
most of the Denali Highway and contains within its boundaries the Tangle
Lakes Archeological District.More archeological sites lie within this
district than in any other known area of comparable size in the American
subarctic.It is of major archeological significance,with sites dating
back 12,000 to 15,000 years ago.The Bureau also maintains small camp-
ground and picnic areas along the Denali Highway,with boat launches and
canoe trails at Tangle Lakes.
Denali State Park is comprised of about 170,430 ha (421,120 a)and is
located west of the project area.The park offers a major campground at
Byers Lake,where camping,picnicking,canoeing,and a trail system are
available.
Well south of Denali State Park and located approximately 110 km (70 mi)
from Anchorage is Nancy Lake State Recreation Area.Comprised of 9180
ha (22,680 a),with more than 130 lakes and ponds,this area offers
camping,picnicking,fishing,canoeing,and boating.Canoeing occurs
through the chain of lakes that make up the 13 km (8 mi)Lynx Lake Loop,
and on the Little Susitna River downstream from the Parks Highway.
Overland trails available in the area are used in summer for hiking and
in winter for skiing and snowmachining.
Similar facilities exist at Chugach State Park,approximately 16 km
(10 mi)from Anchorage.Thi s park covers about 200,000 ha (494,000 a)
with camping,picnicking,hiking,hunting,canoeing,and fishing
facilities.Summer-and winter-use trails are also provided.Developed
campgrounds exist at Eklutna Lake,Eagle River,Peters Creek,and Bird
Creek,all within park boundaries.
Lake Louise,with adjoining Susitna Lake,is a popular fishing,boating,
and hunting area located southeast of the project area.The Lake Louise
area is primarily in private ownership,although there is also a
7-2
"""i
r
I
state-maintained Lake Louise wayside.As the source of the Tyone River,
an upper Susitna River tributary,the lake receives occasional use from
river floaters who make the trip from Lake Louise to the Susitna River.
Privately owned and operated facilities in adjacent areas provide the
public with somewhat different services.Lodges,cabins,restaurants,
airstrips and flying services,guiding services,whitewater rafting
trips,and campgrounds are the types of services and facilities provided
by private enterprises.
(c)Proposed Recreation Facilities
The fall owi ng plan for recreat ion deve lopment is tent at i ve.It is
subject to approval by the Power Authority and review by other agencies
and will likely undergo some modification and refinement.Furthermore,
the results of a planned public participation survey,which will
influence the development plans,are not yet available.
(i)Immediate Development
Recreational facilities to be provided within the project area
reflect opportunity types that will be available to the public.
The proposed opportunity settings are shown in Figure 7.1,and a
description of the management program and activities to be
emphasized is provided in Table 7.2.The recreational opportunity
settings proposed include semi-modern,semi-primitive,and
primitive.The primary emphasis will be on day-use with overnight
facilities provided near the two dam sites and road-oriented
recreation at the alpine lakes.
The two proposed reservoi rs and the dams themselves as we 11 as
scenic lakes within the project area will be prime attractions.
Along with the trails and portages to these lakes,various
waterfalls in the area will offer additional opportunities not
available at the reservoirs.
Figure 7.2 and Table 7.3 indicate recreational facilities proposed
for development within three years of commencement of project
operation.The greatest concentration of use will be near the
Devil Canyon and Watana dam sites where there will be access to the
reservoirs.Recreation facilities to be provided in the first
three years include developed auto campgrounds (designed to
accommodate vari ous types of veh i cl e users and all owi ng for future
expansion),picnic grounds,boat launches,and parking areas.
Emphasis will be on rustic facilities with a minimum level of
services and a maximum of natural aesthetic features.
Recreational development at Devil Canyon reservoir is limited by
the reservoir1s narrow gorge and steep canyon walls.While several
side canyons may offer some degree of protection from wind,
providing sheltered moorages for boats,the steep-sloped banks are
not suitable for any type of development.Farther up the
impoundment,however,there are slopes more appropriate for
development of recreational facilities.
7-3
The Devil Canyon dam will serve as a focal point for recreational
activities in the lower sections of Devil Canyon reservoir.A mix
of day-use and overnight facilities will be available to visitors
interested in both water-based and land-oriented activities ranging
from boating and picnicking to hiking and camping.Day-use
facilities available at the dam site will include picnic and rest
areas with orientation and interpretive information and a scenic
overlook of the reservoir.
Boat ramps with park i ng areas wi 11 be located at Cheechako Canyon
(east of Devi 1 Canyon dam)and downstream of Watana dam at Tsusena
Creek.Overni ght campi ng will al so be avail ab 1e near Cheechako
Canyon with a mi nima lly developed auto-or iented campground.
Locating the campground at Cheechako Canyon instead of directly at
Devil Canyon makes it accessible to all types of visitors while
removing it from the operation and maintenance activities of the
dam.The topography and natural vegetation along the canyon also
present a pleasant and secluded atmosphere for visitors.A
trailhead from a parking area near the campground will lead to a
series of waterfalls along Cheechako Creek with a short loop trail
designed specifically for the physically handicapped.To minimize
conflict with non-motorized day-use of the canyon.lower Cheechako
Canyon.above the boat ramp.would be designated as a no-wake zone.
that is.boat speed is so regulated as not to produce any wake.
Boating access at Tsusena Creek on the upper Devil Canyon reservoir
will provide for dispersion of some of the reservoir's recreational
use.while allowing immediate access to the upper portion of the
reservoir from a launch area.Overnight camping facilities located
north of this boat access point will be similar to.but slightly
smaller than.those at the Cheechako Canyon campground.All
developed sites will have conveniently located comfort stations
that are serv iced on a regu 1ar bas is.
Watana reservoir will probably receive low-volume.dispersed use.
mostly for boating.hunting.and sightseeing activities.Access to
the reservoi r wi 11 be vi a a boat ramp and parki ng area at Deadman
Creek.
Both Watana and Devi 1 Canyon reservoi rs may have hazards caused by
wi nd,wakes from pass i ng boats,depth and temperature of the water.
steep banks,and fluctuating water levels.For public safety and
the encouragement of boating courtesy,boat patrols will be
necessary.
Boat launching,docking,and roooring facilities in both reservoirs
will need to be designed to accommodate the changes in water level.
On a daily basis.these changes will be insignificant.From June
to September,however,the average water level of Devil Canyon
reservoir will rise 15 m (50 ft)and that of Watana will rise 9 m
(30 ft).When the reservoirs are not full,the aesthetics of the
exposed drawdown zone (Section 8.2)could reduce the attractiveness
of water-based recreation.
7-4
~
.1
I
'I
J
r
Other project area developments will be in the semi-primitive
opportunity setting along the access road corridor.Scenic
viewpoints.pull-outs at trail-heads.and access at Indian River.
where spawning salmon can be viewed during the summer months.are
the facilities planned for the road system.Waste containers will
be placed at the Indian River access point and at trailhead
pull-outs;waste disposal for these containers wi 11 be scheduled.
All other scenic viewpoints.for both short-term viewing and for
photography,will not have waste containers.
Between Devil Canyon and Watana dam sites,a mix of low-speed.
auto-oriented sightseeing.with scenic overlooks and trails to
accessible lakes and waterfalls within the area.will provide a
view of the alpine tundra.To protect the sensitive resource base
and to maintain a semi-primitive recreational opportunity.no
facilities are to be provided except overlooks and trails.
Di spersed camp i ng will be permitted,however,with enforcement of
"pack-in,pack-out"policy.This will involve periodic inspection
of the more popul ar camping areas to assess impact.communicate
with visitors.and enforce policies.
To avoid further confl ict and interference with existing private
lodge operations at High Lake,this area will not be developed for
recreation.Primitive portages to other alpine lakes in the area
will be cleared of brush and the wet areas stabilized.but will not
have developed trails.Some regulations will be developed to
manage specific aspects of visitors'use of the area.For example.
no off-road-vehicle use will be permitted in the project area;
enforcement of this prohibition w"ill be a normal part of the
patrolling effort.Visitors will also be informed of rules on
handl ing food within the project area to reduce their encounters
with bears.These rules will apply as well to the backcountry
and dispersed use areas along the reservoirs.
(ii)Long Range Development
After the first three years of project operation,long-term
development will focus on the expansion of the campgrounds at
Cheechako Canyon and Tsusena Creek and on the additions of two
boat-in campgrounds along the Watana reservoir,and a boat-in
picnic area at Dev"il Canyon reservoir (Figure 7.3).Boaters coming
down the Susitna River from the Denal i Highway and down the Tyone
River from Lake Louise and Lake Susitna will be accommodated at a
proposed camping area near ,the confluence of the two rivers.Delay
in the development of these boat-in facilities is necessary until
the shoreline effects are evaluated.
The semi-primitive opportunity settings will be maintained for the
reservoirs.Any plans for additional facilities will have to
incorporate trends in usage and public demand and be compatible
with resource capability to support such usage.The option of
providing commercial services such as service stations,lodging,
boat rentals,campsites,or other facilities will be considered if
such developments are shown to be both economically feasible and
7-5
suitable for the opportunity setting.If this option is desirable
it could be pursued under a concession contract.
7.3 -Plan for Public Access
(a)Shoreline Buffer Zone
Low-density,dispersed use of back country areas and reservoir shorelines
will minimize damage to areas resulting from overuse or concentrated use.
Monitoring of recreational use will be necessary,particularly in areas
of greatest use.
The shoreline buffer zone allows for public access at both reservoirs
while protecting the scenic,cultural,and other environmental values of
their shorelines.To protect and enhance these values,proposed
recreation facilities will be designed and located to have the least
impact on the landscape.Developments at the dam sites will be located
away from the reservoirs and are intended to blend into the landscape,to
be of rust ic design,and to be situated among vegetat i on with hi gher
absorption factors.Recreation development at the dam sites will also be
concentrated near areas of pri or development for construction of the
dams.
The shoreline buffer zone will constitute 61 m (200 feet)horizontal
distance from the full-pool level of the reservoirs.[The proposed
full-pool level at Devil Canyon is 444 m elevation (1455 ft.);at Watana,
666 m (2185 ft.)].A 61-meter buffer zone will also be provided around
planned recreation sites.
(b)Access Route Plan and Policy
Access from the Parks Highway to the impoundments and recreation
facilities will be provided by a gravel road,which falls within the
semi-modern classification of the opportunity spectrum (cf.Section 9.2;
a 1so see Fi gure 7.1).The road wi 11 connect with the Parks Hi ghway at
Hurricane and be constructed to Gold Creek.From Gold Creek to Devil
Canyon dam,it will follow the south side of the Susitna River.It will
cross Devi 1 Canyon and be routed on the north side of the river to the
Watana dam site (Acres 1981).
An orientation and information sign on the Parks Highway,at the entrance
to the project road,will inform visitors of the opportunities and
restrictions in the project area.This display and other signs along the
road will be of simple and rustic design.Scenic viewpoints,pull-outs
at trailheads,and access at Indian River are facilities planned to be
served by the road system.
During construction,use of the access road will be restricted to
construction personnel and to the transport of project materials and
supplies.After construction,access will be allowed;however,ORV use
could be prohibited.ORV use,particularly in the alpine zone,would
destroy the opportunities that the recreation plan and other mitigation
plans are designed to protect.Road patrols will monitor the area.and a
visitor check-point.perhaps at the Devil Canyon dam,could be
establ ished.
7-6
r
-
,....
-
-
(c)Relationship of Access to Recreation Plan
Access has a significant role in the planning of recreation facilities.
The location and types of opportunities and facilities available to the
public are determined pr·imarily by the access route that is developed.
the traffic for which the route is designed (and maintained).and the
access policy.
It is anticipated that most road-oriented use will involve driving for
pleasure and access for short hi kes.photography.and fi sh i ng.Lands
adjacent to the road will offer visitors a different opportunity.a
chance to participate in dispersed.backcountry activities such as
hiking.canoeing,and camping in an alpine-tundra environment.To
protect both this unique opportunity in the semi-primitive portion of the
opportunity spectrum and the environmental settings in which they occur,
it will be necessary to zone the road corridor against all types of ORV
use.and to enforce this restriction (as discussed in the previous
section).Recreational use of lands other than project lands will need
to comply with the policies established by the land-owners or management
agenci es.Cooperat i ve agreements may be requi red where such 1ands border
either the access corridor or recreation facilities on the reservoirs.
7.4 -Estimates of Existing and Future Recreational Use
(a)Regional Use
There are no comprehensive statistics for the amount of recreational use
the project vicinity in the upper Susitna basin receives on a yearly
basis.The type of use.however.primarily involves dispersed.
low-volume activities.such as hunting.fishing.and boating.The
predominant mode of travel to the area is by private aircraft.Lack of
ready access combined with low-volume activity make accurate data
collecting difficult and expensive.
Traffic counts for the Denali and Parks highways provide same indication
not only of the amount of use these high\'lays receive during the summer
months but also the time of year when the majority of recreational use
occurs within the region.Traffic counts taken by the Alaska Department
of Transportation and Public Facilities from 1973 to 1978 are shown on
Table 7.4 with the average daily traffic count for the entire length of
the Denali Highway and for the East Fork Maintenance Station (Mile A185)
along the Parks Highway.This station is approximately 32 km (20 m)
north of the intersect i on of the proposed project area access road and
the Parks Highway.Table 7.4 shows the average daily traffic count for
both highways from mid-May to October (this coincides with the time the
Denali Highway is open to the public)and the annual average daily
traffic count for the Parks Highway.
Results of the 1975 outdoor recreation study for the Denali Highway area
i ndi cated that for the 75-day season from 1 July -13 September 1975,
approximately 6,400 recreation groups (average size 3.2 persons)used the
Denali Highway area for a total of 20,500 recreation visits (Johnson
1975).The study determined that 90%of highway travelers interviewed
(1,088 respondents)cited recreation as the primary purpose of their
trip.The majority of the respondents (82%)were Alaska residents,with
35%from Anchorage and 27%from Fairbanks.
7-7
A summary of visitor counts taken by the Alaska Division of Parks for
sta.te recreation areas adjacent to the Parks Highway is shown in Table
7.5.These figures were compiled from data collected for the summers of
1979 and 1980.
(b)The Participation Survey
The major objective of the participation survey is to determine a gross
estimate of recreation participation rates.Knowledge of these rates
can then be used to estimate the cost effectiveness of proposed
recreational facilities and the unit cost of recreational services.
The number of people that a recreational facility will ultimately be
designed to accommodate can also be determined from the results of the
survey,when they are available.
(c)Recreational Use Resulting from Increased Access
It is obvious that recreational use of the area will increase
dramatically when road access is available.A quantitative estimate,
however,is not possible without the results of the participation survey,
which are not available at this time.
7.5 -Schedule and Cost of Recreation Facility Development
Like the details of the proposed recreation plan,the following schedule and
costs are tentative.They are subject to Power Authority approval,and will
require review by other agencies.
(a)Short Term
The majority of the proposed site developments are scheduled for
completion during the first three years of project operation.Since
most of the cost of development is road-related,however,some site
preparation could take place at the time of road construction at
little extra cost.In addition,once the type and location of
opportunities to be offered to the public have been established,it is
important to stabilize these opportunities at that level.Failing to do
so early will permit the original opportunities to be changed or lost as
additional developments are introduced.The results of such an
alteration will be to displace the established clientele,replacing them
with a group seeking a higher level of development.
Short-term costs for recreational facility development,exclusive of road
construction costs,are estimated in 1981 dollars to be $2,215,317.A
summary of these costs,with the subtota 1 for each opportunity setting
and recreation site,is shown in Table 7.6.
The estimated cost of parking areas varies with the type of area
designed.Parking areas located at boat launchings have 3.1 m x 12.2 m
(10 feet X 40 feet)spaces;in all other areas they will be 3.1 mx 9.1 m
(10 feet x 30 feet).The estimated cost of scenic overlooks and
pull-outs is based on an average size of 1,300 m2 (14,000 sq.ft)per
pull out.Actual costs will depend upon actual site conditions,
distance to nearest material site,and other factors.Cost estimates are
subject to modification once detailed site planning and construction
drawings are completed.
7-8
~
·1
r-I
-
(b)Long Term
Proposed site developments scheduled for completion after the first three
years (long-term development)include the boat-in picnic ground at Devil
Canyon reservoi r,two boat -i n campgrounds at Watana reservoi r.and the
expans i on of the two campgrounds at Cheechako Canyon and Tsusena Creek.
Long-term costs for recreational facility develop~ents.exclusive of road
construction costs,are estimated in 1981 dollars at $1.050,585.A
summary of these costs with the subtotal for each opportunity setting and
recreation site is shown in Table 7.7.The total for both phases,in
1981 dollars,is $3,265.902.
Estimated operating costs are shown in Table 7.8 and were developed by
determining normal agency operations,developing a list of possible cost
categories,and soliciting 1981 costs for these items.The projected
total operating cost in 1981 dollars would be $405,939 for the first year
and $290,280 per year after that.
7-9
'"~-"1 "J '"~l ~""l "~"l I }1 1 -")"'1 I ]
TABLE 7.1:REGIONAL RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
Site
Development
WITHIN PROJECT AREA
High Lake Lodge and
airstrip
Stephan Lake Lodge and
airstrip
Tsusena Lake
Lodge and airstrip
OUTSIDE PROJECT AREA
Location(a)
5 kilometers (3 miles)
N.E.of Devil Canyon
damsite at High Lake
16 km (10 miles)S.W.
of Watana damsite at
Stephan Lake
16 km (10 miles)N.W.
of Watana damsite at
Tsusena Lake
Managing
Agency
Private
Private
Private
Are a
45 hectares
(Ill acres)
17 hectares
(42 acres)
20 hectares
(49 acres)
Accommodations
8 units
24 units
8 units
Denali National Park
and Preserve
Brushkana River Camp-
ground
Tangle Lakes Camp-
grounds and Boat
La u n"'cc.:hc-.
Upper Tangle Lakes
Campground and Boat
Launch
Par ks Highway,National Park 2,306,790 228 units
Mile 237.7 Service (5.7 m.acres)
Denali Highway,Mile Bureau of Land 19 hectares 17
105 Manageme~t (47 acres)campsites
Denali Highway,Mile Bureau of Land 16 hectares 13
21.5 t~anagemen t (47 acres)campsites
Denali High wa y,Mile Bureau of Land 10 hectares 7
21.7 Management (25 acres)campsites
a.Locations of site developments taken from the 1980 Milepost.
Site
Development Location(a)
TABLE 7.1 (Page 2 of 6)
Managing
Agency Area Accommodations
Chugach State Park
Denali State Park
Tokositna
Byers Lake Rest Area
Byers Lake Wayside
Nancy Lake Recreation
Area
Nancy LakB Wayside
South Rolly Lake
Campground
Lake Louise
Recreation Area
Lake Louise Wayside
East of Anchorage Alaska Division of
Parks
Parks Highway,Mile Alaska Division of
132 to 169 Parks
Parks Highway,West Alaska Division of
of Mile 135 Parks
Parks High way,Mile 147.2 Alaska Division of
Parks
Parks High way,Mile 147 Alaska Division of
Parks
Parks Highway,Mile.67.2 Alaska Division of
Parks
Parks Highway,Mile 66.6 Alaska Division of
Parks
Parks Highway,Mile 67 Alaska Division of
Parks
_way,Mile 52.3 Alaska Division of
Parks
Gle nn Highway,Mile 157 Alaska Division of
Parks
Glenn Highway,West of Alaska Division of
Glennallen Parks
170,427 hectares
(421,120 acres)
17,095 hectares
(43,240 acres)
Unknown
Unknown
9,181 hectares
(22,685 acres)
14 hectares
(35 acres)
Unknown
35 hectares
(90 acres)
20 hectares
(50 acres)
Unknown
Unknown
Undeveloped
Unknown
61 campsites
15 picnic sites
136 camp si tes
30 camp sit e s
30 pic ni c site s
106 ca mp sit es
20 picnic sites
Unkno wn
6 campsites
~..J .J .__J J -.1 J J
-1 ~l '--1 f'-J 1 1 '-1 ~'-1 ---1 1 .---1 ,J i
TABLE 7.1 (Page 3 of 6)
Site
Development Location(a)
Managing
Agency Area Accommodations
Tolsona Creek Glenn Highway,Mile 172.5 Alaska Division of 243 hectares
Wayside Parks (600 acres)
5
campsites
Willow Creek
Recreation Area
Willow Creek Wayside
Sourdough Creek
Campground
East Fork Reat Area
Parks Highway,Mile 71.2
Parks Highway,Mile 71.2
Richardson Highway,Mile
147.4
Parks Highway,Mile 185.7
Alaska Division of
Parks
Alaska Division of
Parks
Alaska Division of
Parks
Alaska Division of
Parks
-97 hectares
(240 acr es)
36 hectares
(90 acres)
65 hectares
(160 acres)
Unknown
Unknown
17
campsites
20
campsites
Un k no wn
1.6 hectares 4
(4 acres)campsites
Clearwater Creek Denali Highway,Mile 55.9 Bureau of Land
camping area Ma~ement
Black Rapids picnic Richardson Highway,Mile Alaska Department of
area 225.4 Transportation
Paxson Lake Wayside,Richardaon Highway,Mile Bureau of Land
179.4 Management
8 hectares
(20 acres)
Unknown
No
development
Unkno wn
Paxson Lake Campground Richardson Highway,Mile Bureau of Land 16 hectares 20
and ~QI~_Launch 175 Management (40 acres)campsites
Little Nelchina Wayside Glenn Highway,Mile 137.4 Alaska Division of
Parks
9 hectares 6
(22 acres)campsites
TABLE 7.1 (Page 4 of 6)
19 hectares 10
l!8_acres)campsites
94 hectares 6
(231 ac~es)campsites
19 hectares 14
L47.acres)campsites
151 hectsres 8
(372 acres)campsites
32
campsites
30
campsites
Unknown
22 camp sit es
2 picnic sites
8
campsites
Unknown
8 csmp si tes
AccommodationsArea
13 hectares
{31 acres)
21 hectares
(52 acres)
16 hectares
(40 acres)
36 hectares
(90 acres)
52 hectares
(129 acres)
8 hectares
(20 acres)
194 hectares
(480 acres)
Managing
Location(a)Agency
Glenn Highway,Mile 101 Alaska Diviaion of
Parks
Glenn Highway,Mile 85 Alaska Division of
Parks
Glenn Highway,East of Alaska Division of
Palmer Parks
Gle nn Highway,Mile 82.5 Alaska Division of
Parks
Glenn Highway,Northeast Ala s ka Division of
of Palmer Parks
Glenn Highway,Mile 76.1 Alaska Division of
Parks
Glenn Highway,Mile 54.7 Alaska Division of
Parks
Parks Highway,North of Alaska Division of
Wasilla Parks
Parks Highway,Mile 52.3 Alasks Division of
Parks
Glenn Highway,Mile 23.5 Alaska Division of
Parks
Glenn Highway,Mile 21.5 Alaska Division of
Parks
Bonnie Lake Wayside
Site
Development
Long Lake Wayside
King Mountain Wayside
Bonnie Lake Recreation
Area
Long Lake Recreation
Area
Matanuska Glacier
Wayside
Moose Creek Wayside
Mirror Lake Wayside
Rocky Lake Wayside
Peters Creek Wayside
Finger Lake Wayside
J "J J "",~_J J ],.)
~J l 1 ,--)))1 -1 ),')-I '}1 l
TABLE 7.1 (Page 5 of 6)
Site
Development Location(a)
Managing
Agency Area Accommodations
Dry Creek Recreation
Area
Richardson Highway,
Mile 117.5
Alaska Division of
Parks
151 hectares
(372 acres)
Unknown
Dry Creek Wayside Richardson Highway,North-Alaska Division of 52 hectares
east of Glennallen Parks (128 acres)._--------------=-=-=--=-.:---=..~..;:;...;:'-'----_.
58 camp sit es
4-....Eicnic sites
.i!-;.:42
campsites _,
i~"·.
Community of HoustonParksHighway,Mile 57.3HoustonCampground 32 hectares
_________--->.(80 acre s)
Knik Wayside Approx.64 km (40 miles)Unknown 16 hectares
_________________~N~o~r~t~h~o~f Anchorage (40 acres)
Unknown
Talkeetna Riverside Talkeetna U.S.Coast Guard 0.8 hectares
Boat Launch (2 acres)
Unknown
UndevelopedIndependenceMine
Historic Area
Hatcher Pass Road Alaska Division of
Parks
110 hectares
(271 acr e~5.::~)'--_
Unkno wnUnknownPrivate(b)Denali Highway,Mile 100AdventuresUnlimited
.!:..Q.~&:C..::ac.:.f..=e:....-,--------------
UnknownUnknownPrivateDenaliHighway,Mile 82GraciousHousecabins,
cafe,gu i de ser v i,~c~e~s ._
Summit Lake Lodge -
motel,restaurant,
airstrip,guide service
Richardson Highway,Mile
195
Private Unknown Unknown
70
McKin~KOA Parks Highway,Mile 248 Private Unknown campsites
b.This list is not an all inclusive list of privately-run facilities,but only a representation of most types of
recreational opportunities offered by the private sector.
TABLE 7.1 (Page 6 of 6)
Are a Accommodations
Unknown Unknown
Unknown 15
campsites
Unknown Unkn 0 wn
Unkno wn Unkno wn
Managing
Agency
Private
Private
Private
Private
Mt.McKinley Park Road
Location(a)
Parks Highway,Mile 231.1
Parks Highway,Mile 156.2
Parks Highway,Mile 231.1
Site
Development
North Face Lodge
McKinley Village
Mote~8taurant
Grizzly Bear Camper Park
c amp gr 0 un~..::a:....:f~t=--..::t-=r...::i:..tp,-,s~_
Chulitna River Lodge
&Cafe cabins,fly-in
fishing,glacier trips,
raft trips-
UnknownUnknownPrivateParksHighway,Mile 96.5MontanaCreekLodge
camp gr 0 un d,c ab.:!i:.!.n.!.:s~_
Carlo Cree~Lodge Parks Highwa~Mile 223.9 Private ___________---'U:;..:..:n..;.;k no wnUnkn 0 w,.::n'--_
Mt.McKinley View Lo~Parks HighwaY...L.-Mile 134.5 Private Unknown Unknown
Mt.McKinleY-Yiew Ldoge Parks Highwa~,Mile 325.8 Private Unknown Unknown
J .J )J ~_J ,....J ,)~)
TABLE 7.2:DESCRIPTION OF OPPORTUNITY SETTINGS
(Keyed to Figure 7.1)
-f
-
-
Recreation
Opport unit y
Semi-modern
Semi-modern
Semi-primitive
Semi-primitive
Semi-primitive
Primitive
Opportun it Y
Setting
A
B
C
D
E
F
Activity
Emphasis
Day-use;auto
sightseeing;
photography
Day-use;auto
sightseeing;
photography
Day-and over-
night use;
boating;sight-
seeing;hiking;
at Devil Canyon
reservoir
Day-and over-
night-use;boat-
ing;sightseeing;
hunting;and
fishing at
Watana reservoir
Day-and over-
night-use;
hiking;canoe-
ing;fishing;
photography;
hunting
Day-and over-
night-use;
hiking;back-
packing,sight-
seeing,and
hunting
Management
Program
Pull-out and area information sign
at Parks Highway intersection.Also
a series of scenic pull-outs at
Indian River,Susitna River,and
over-look at Susitna canyon.The
assumption is that the road will be
gravel.
A series of scenic overlooks and
pUll-outs in the alpine zone along
the road connecting the two dams.
Portages and trailheads to alpine
lakes and waterfalls in the area
with limited parking areas.
Overnight use will be permitted
along the road.
Boat launch,picnic grounds and
parking area near Cheechako Creek
Primitive,auto-oriented campground
and trail at Cheekchako Creek with
no-wake zone management of the canyon
to separate motorized and non-
motorized boating.At Tsusena Creek
there will be a boat launch with
parking area and gravel road access.
A primitive,auto-oriented picnic
ground will be located nearby.
Long-term development will provide
for a boat-in picnic ground.
Gravel-road access from Watana dam
area to Deadman Cove.A boat launch,
campgrounds and parking are scheduled
for Watana reservoir.Two small,
boat-in campgrounds near shoreline of
Watana reservoir.
Trails and portages from the road
will lead to the more accessible
lakes and waterfalls on Devil,
Cheechako,and Tsusena creeks.
Emphasis will be on dispersed,
low-density use with camping
permitted and 'pack-in,pack-out'
policy enforced.Primitive portages
will not have developed trails.All
ORV use will be prohibited.
No DRV use;pack-in,pack-out policy.
TABLE 7.3:DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED RECREATION SITES AND FACILITIES
(Keyed to Figures 7.2 and 7.3)
Opportunity
Setting
A
B
C
Site
Number
2 (a)
5 (a)
8 (a)
2(a)
Site
Description
Pull-out with area information sign
Pull-out and parking area with access to Indian River
Scenic pull-out and viewing point above the Susitna
River
Scenic pull-out,with small parking area,for
waterfalls near the road
Scenic pull-out and viewing point;large,rustic
project entrance sign before reaching site 4
Scenic pull-out and small parking area below the
Devil Canyon dam near the bridge over the canyon
Scenic pull-out with panoramic view of reservoir;
trailhead and parking area with developed trail to
observation point
Trailhead and developed portage to Dawn Lake;
primitive portage to other lakes (brushed trails
only);parking area limited to five vehicles
Trailhead and developed portage to Mermaid Lake;
parking area limited to five vehicles
Pull-out with parking area and trailhead to Devil
Creek Falls;parking area limited to five vehicles
Scenic pull-out overlooking Swimming Bear Lake
Scenic pull-out
Scenic pull-out and access to Tsusena Creek;parking
area limited to five vehicles
Pull-out and trailhead for short trail to overlook of
Tsusena Creek Canyon and Tsusena Falls
Boat launch and parking area with picnic grounds and
parking nearby;trailhead for Cheechako Canyon Trail
with short loop for physically handicapped
Primitive,auto-oriented campground (100 units,60
units to be developed for first 3 years)and a
secondary trailhead to Cheechako Canyon
-I
,
j
a.Handicapped accessible.
~
I
Opportunity
Setting
D
Site
Number
3
TABLE 7.3 (Continued)
Site
Description
Primitive,boat-in picnic ground (10 units,long-term
development)
Simple boat launch,and picnic and parking area at
Tsusena Creek and gravel access road
Boat launch,and parking area,with primitive auto
campground (60 units,30 units to be developed the
first three years)with a gravel road;primary access
point for Watana reservoir
,.....2
3
f"!"
4
E
2
3
.-4
5-,6 (a)
r F
",..
I
,-
Primitive boat-in campground at Watana cove (10 units
long-term development)
Primitive boat-in campground at Jay Creek (10 units
long-term development)
Camping area for Susitna and Tyone River floaters (to
be developed in agreement with BLM)
Trail to observation point north of Devil Canyon (see
B-1)
Develop portage to alpine lakes and primitive
portages to more distant lakes (see B-2)
Develop portage to alpine lakes (see B-3)
Develop trail to Devil Creek Falls (see 8-4)
Develop trail to Tsusena Creek Falls (see B-7)
Develop trail to Cheechako Creek Falls (see C-1,
C-2)
No developed facilities
TABLE 7.4:DAILY TRAFFIC COUNT FOR THE DENALI AND PARKS HIGHWAY -}
1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978
Denali Highway(a)36 53 103 66 7Z 58
Park s Highway(a)551 588 721 619 739 735
Park s Highway (b)334 387 516 452 481 468
a.Average daily traffic count,from mid-May to October
b.Annual average daily traffic count
,
I...~
TABLE 7.5:VISITOR COUNTS FOR STATE RECREATION AREAS ADJACENT TO PARKS HIGHWAY
...-
Location
1.Byers Lake Wayside
2.Denali State Park
(excluding Byers Lake
Wayside)
3.Nancy Lake Wayside
4.Nancy Lake Recreation
Area (excluding Nancy
Lake Wayside)
5.Big Lake -East Wayside
6.Big Lake -South Wayside
Summer -1979(a)
10,238
N.A.(c)
10,487
8,976
15,075
17,883
Summer -1980(b)
13 ,327
1,337
10,035
8,179
14,776
11,887
-
a.Total for the months of July,August,and September 1979.
b.Total for the months of May,June,July,and September 1980.
c.Not Available.
TABLE 7.6:CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT COSTS -PHASE 1
Opportunity Site Total Cost(a)
Setting Number (Excluding Roadwork)....~
A 1 $1 ,216
2 2,329
3 336
4 1 ,779
5 1 ,264 ~
6 480
Subtotal $7,404
~
\1
B 1 $564
2 886
3 886 ~
4 336
5 336
6 336
""'"7 336
8 886
Subt atal $4,566
C
D
E
1
2
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
$128,705
1,083,282
128,705
Subtotal $1,340,692
$728,081
Subtotal $728,081 """l,
0
$23,482
4,548
4,548
31,811
8,443
61,742
Subtotal $134,574
Grand Total $2,215,317
a.Total
Source:
cost without the cost of roads,pull-outs and parking lots
Alaska Department of Natural Resources,Division of Parks,
Estimated Facility Costs,January 1981;U.S.Department of
the Interior,Forest Service,RIM Cost Figures For Selected
Facilities and Chugach Cost Data Guide for Engineering and
Road Construction,1981;Bob's Services Unlimited,
Anchorage;and various local building supply dealers.
-
""'"'TABLE 7 •7 :CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT COSTS -PHASE 2
Opportunity Site Total Cost(a)
Sett ing Number (Excluding Roadwork)
f"'I"A 1-6 $-0-
Subtotal $-0-
!"'"$B 1-8 -0-
Subt ot al $-o-
r-
C 1 $-0 -
2 583,748
3 50,365
Subtotal $634,113
D 1 $350,232
2 33,120
3 33,120
r-4 -0-
""'"Subtotal $416,472
E $-0-
--Subt ot al $-0-1
Gr and Total $1,050,585
f"""
a.Total cost without the cost of roads,pull-outs and parking lots
.-
t
TABLE 7.8:ESTIMATED ANNUAL OPERATING COST
-Projected First Year Operational Costs -
(Estimated in 1981 dollars)
1-Personnel $145,140
1 Park Ranger 1I I -permanent,3 months
1 Park Ranger II -permanent,12 months ,."
1 Park Ranger I -part-time,6 months
1 Park Tech.II -permanent,12 months
2 Park Tech.I -part-time,6 months
1 Ma in.Worker -part-time,6 months
1 Clerk IT yp ist -part-time,6 months
2.Travel Expenditures
3.Contractual Services
4.Commodities
5.Equipment
Shop Maint.Equip.,Tools &Supplies
2 Boats with Equip.,Tools &Supplies
4 Pick-up Trucks with Equip.,Tools &
Supplies
Office Equip.,Tools &Supplies
$19,579
38,134
34,936
8,571
7,257
72,570
12,095
101 220(a),
Subtotal
20%Contingency Factor
Tota 1
$338,282
67,657
1--±Q2..L~
a.Projected equipment costs for successive years would be less by
approximately $4,838.Total operating cost would be estimated at
$241,900 with a 20%contingency factor for a total of $290,180.
1 j .~='1 ..·1
o....'.
:::/:--
ML:]:at~~~::::p::nw~~aank\
--::::::::::::::::::::-:-(,"
.•i~I~I;J"
A.ROAD CORRIDOR
PARKS HIGHWAY TO DEVIL CANYON DAM
B.ROAD CORRIDOR
DEVIL CANYON DAM TO W AT ANA DAM
C.DEVIL CANYON RESERVOIR
D.WATANA RESERVOIR
E.ALPINE LAKES/WATERFALLS
F.ROADLESS AREA
SPECIFIC OPPORTUNITY SETTINGS
:\\(}Cl;.qO
[::::::::d Elevation over 4000 ft.
o 10 Miles
I
o 15 Kilometers
RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITY SETTING FOR THE SUSITNA AREA
PREPARED BY TES I UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA FIGURE 7.1 [i]
~l --1 -~--l _:]~l --~J -1 1
•RECREATION FACILITIES KEYED TO TABLE 7.3 o
:::/:::i:·:!:!!!!';!!!!li!!}:::\
'<::::.:.::.:<'
o
ClCJ
~haTJ Lake .....;::::}}:>::::::(::.!::,·U?..:;::/:HH/:··:.;.:::::::-:..
o 10 Miles
I
o 15 Kilometers
Elevation over 4000 ft.
'0 Iii,
Fairbanks······
(:::::::::::;:1
RECREATION FACILITIES --IMMEDIATE DEVELOPMENT
PREPARED BY TES!UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA FIGURE 7.2 [iii]
~J ,]:---=~-l ~_..,.~--~l ---J J 1 1
•RECREATION FACILITIES KEYED TO TABLE 7.3
EIJ Elevation over 4000 ft.
o 10 Miles
I
o 15 Kilometers
tole
Fairbanks·:····
SS wimmi~»
VV«;Be8 La.t'
~
c;:>
i
....;::::
RESEFlIi
.....ol;f/~
o
RECREATION FACILITIES··LONG-TERM DEVELOPMENT
PREPARED BY TES I UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA FIGURE 7.3 [i]
,-
,....,.
8 -REPORT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES
8.1 -Aesthetic Character of Lands and Water to be Affected
The upper Susitna River basin comprises a diverse landscape,1argely roadless and
relatively uninhabited.The combination of these factors creates a natural region
in which,depending upon a viewer1s location in the basin,a variety of visual
groupings exists free from the irnprints of man.In contrast to other areas in
Alaska,the aesthetic resources of the project area are generally hOt seen as out-
standing (with the one exception of Devil Canyon itself).Because the area is a
wilderness region positioned between the two major population centers of Fairbanks
and Anchorage,however,the aesthetic resources of the upper Susitna basin are an
important consideration when evaluating the impact of the proposed hYdroelectric
project.Photographs of the vicinities of the two proposed dam sites are presented
in Fig ure 1.2.
The upper Susitna basin contains a variety of aesthetically distinct landscapes.
This diversity arises from a mix of vegetation,water,and topographical features
which display many combinations of form,line 1 color,and texture.These combin-
ations are enhanced by both sub-elements and ephemeral qualities,including
atmospheric conditions;observer distance,angle,ahd position;illumination;the
presence of wildlife;and natural scents and sounds.
The landforms of the area are defined by three major elements:the deeply incised
Susitna River valley and its tributaries,the northern Talkeetna and Chulitna
Mountai ns,and the northern Talkeetna pl ateau.The area is features,textures,and
relief are dominated by the plateauis northeast trending;rounded,low mountains;
and generally rolling highlands.These areas of rolling terrain slope to meet
adjacent landforms that are moderately rugged,higher 1 and mOre mountainous.Other
1andforms in the east reflect the influence of the adjoining Copper RiVer basin.
These are characterized by lower mountains and hills widely spaced on the plateau
and by flat terrain interspersed with numerous ponds.
Vegetation is diverse and varies with elevation.Dense spruce-hardwood forests
blanket the lower drainages and slopes,while large meadows of tundra cover higher
elevations.A variety of shrub types occur between the two biomes,adding texture
and color to the setting.This diversity of vegetation enhances edge effect found
in the more scenic visual groupings.
Color also enhances the scenic composite,particularly in autumn,when the leaves
of deciduous trees turn gold or orange and create a vivid contrast to the dominant
dark spruce green.Also,in the autumn the tundra bursts into a brief period of
color,especially striking When viewed against a high lake and mountainous
backdrop.
The V-shaped valleys of the Susitna River and its tributaries are visually
promi nent as they cut a di st i nct swath of green through a predomi nant ly .tundra
landscape.The deeply cut canyon of the Susitna River is particularly striking at
Devi 1 and Vee Canyons,where turbulent rapids,rock outcroppings and cl iUs,and
enclosed walls dominate the scene.There are numerous clear,fast-flowing mountain
creeks,some of which flow over and through steep,rocky embankments to form water-
falls and flumes.Lakes in a variety of forms and settings are numerous in the
basin.They range from small,irregularly shaped lakes set in woods and against a
backdrop of mountain peaks;to lakes which reflect their glacial origin;to a
complex of five,finger-shaped lakes (Fog Lakes)set in a black spruce and shrub
wet 1and reg i on .
8-1
The higher mountain peaks,including Deadman,Devi 1,and Watana mountains,as well
as the more accessible overlooks of Tsusena and Chulitna buttes and the ridges
above Vee Canyon and at Big and Swimming Bear lakes provide viewpoints that
overlook the project and adjacent areas.Many of these sites allow extensive views
of the central Talkeetna Mountains and the Alaska Range,often focusing on Mounts
McKinley,Deborah,and Hess and on the Eldridge,West Fork,and Susitna glaciers.
Overall,the upper Susitna basin has considerable aesthetic appeal.Furthermore,
certain natural features in the area have been identified as having exceptional
aesthetic quality.These features,their locations,and their descriptions appear
on Table 8.1 and on Figure 8.1.Other noteworthy natural features are listed in
Table 8.2 and are also desi9nated on Figure 8.1.
8.2 -Impact on Aesthetic Resources
(a)Dams and Impoundments and Associated Facilities
(i)Effects Common to Both Dams
The overall impact of the project will be the modification of
existing scenic values.The two proposed dams and their associated
facilities will contrast vividly with the natural landscape in
material,color,and mass;as a result,the structures will tend
to be visually isolated from the surrounding environment.Although
the proposed dams will introduce into the landscape a significant
non-natural feature,they will al so attract vi s itors interested in
viewing them.Because of their size (Watana will be the highest
dam in North America)and the engineering accomplishment that they
will represent,the dams will be impressive structures.
The construction zones around the dam sites will necessitate topo-
graphical changes,vegetation clearing,and ground disturbance that
will introduce lines and forms unrelated to the natural scene.
Even after recontouring and revegetation,these zones will contrast
with the surrounding landscape.In addition,the dam sites will
become centers of human activity and will be highly visible in an
otherwise generally still area.
The primary effects on aesthet ic resources result i ng from
inundation by the reservoirs will be the loss of the variety and
natural character of the V-shaped valley floor,rock cl iffs and
outcroppings,river and rapids,and confluences with tributaries.
These natural features will be replaced by large lakes with draw-
down zones.The created shorelines,in most areas,will lack the
characteristic qualities of natural shorelines.Because of their
sizes,the reservoirs will be prominent features of the landscape.
While these new lakes may visually enhance the landscape by
juxtaposing land and water,this advantage may be limited by bank
slumping,the appearance of the exposed drawdown zone,and the
possible turbidity of the water.
Prior to their inundation,the impoundment zones will be cleared of
trees,thereby avoiding the visual impact of dead trees in shallow
areas and float i ng debr is in the reservo i r.A1though veget at i on
8-2
-I
-
-.
-
-
..-
r
above the full-pool level will not be cleared.water table changes
and melting of permafrost may kill trees along portions of the
reservoir shoreline.
(ii)Watana Dam and Impoundment
Watana dam and reservoir will constitute a major impact on
aesthetic resources in the basin.(The factors contributing to
this impact are discussed in the previous section.).
The reservoir.at full capacity.will be surrounded by shrub com-
munities and bl ack spruce.with a few white spruce stands in the
Vee Canyon area.The relatively steep banks will be subject to
periodic drawdowns of up to 61 m.creating mud flats devoid of
vegetation and susceptible to erosion.Average annual drawdowns
are expected to be about 27 m.with about eight meters (vertical)
of drawdown zone visible in June.diminishing to zero in September.
The majority of vi sitors to the reservoir area are expected in the
period between these two months.At the head of the reservoir and
in the present Watana Creek drainage.extensive mud flats could be
exposed when reservoir water levels are low.In other areas of the
reservoir.because of unstable soils and melting permafrost.slump-
i ng may occur.creat i ng steep slopes with a beach fl attened out to
the waterline.
The unavoidable results of creating the Watana reservoir include
the inundation of native vegetation (Section 3.5.Impacts on
Botanical Resources)and the loss of two significant natural
features.namely.Deadman Falls and the Vee Canyon rapids.In
addition.the project will cause the partial loss through
inundation of Vee Canyon gorge.
(iii)Devil Canyon Dam and Impoundment
The Devi 1 Canyon concrete dam wi 11 be an imposing structure in
relation to the adjacent rolling topography.The associated
facilities will also have considerable visual impact on an area now
aesthetically appealing (Figure 1.2).
The impoundment will be very narrow.in comparison to the Watana
reservo i r.and thus wi 11 not be as promi nent a feat ure on the
1 andscape.The water in the reservoir is expected to be cl earer
than that in the Watana impoundment.The pool level will fluctuate
about 20 m on an annual basis (somewhat less than Watana).and the
steeper slope of the canyon wi 11 further 1imit the extent of the
drawdown zone.In the summer months.however.when the majority of
vis itors are expected.the Devil Canyon impoundment will not be
full;the drawdown zone in June.about 20 m (vertical).will
diminish to about 5 In in September.
The Devil Canyon reservoir will unite the surrounding landscape and
increase viewing opportunities.although the exposed drawdown lone
will degrade its appearance.Unavoidable negative effects.however.
will include the loss of the character and diversity of the river
8-3
valley and the major loss of much of Devil Canyon,with its rapids,
rock and spruce terraces,and enclosure.Of all the natural
features in the bas in,Devil Canyon is,by far,the most
significant,the basin being known primarily for this gorge (Table
8.1,Figure 8.1).
(b)Borrow Areas
The locations of borrow sites for construction of the dams are shown in
Figure 9.8.Borrow areas,in general,create both unnatural forms and
line and color contrast and are,therefore,seen as visually disruptive
in a natural setting.Negative aesthetic impacts are caused by denuding
expansive areas of vegetation,changing the natural topography,perhaps
creating erosion,and adding spur access roads,all of which contrast
visually with the surrounding landscape.The evidence of borrow area
excavation will remain visible for many years.To reduce some of the
long-term effects of this excavation,the borrow areas will be
recontoured to resemble natural topography,and the sites will be
revegetated [Section 3.9 (b)(ii)].
Table 8.3 lists the potential impact of the borrow areas for dam
construction,Areas A-L;(Area C is no longer being considered).Of
these sites,the highest impact on the areaJs aesthetic resources will
perhaps be caused by Borrow Area D,since it is located in low-absorption
vegetation and is highly visible from both the reservoir and a portion of
the access road.A reserve area,Quarry A,is located in a scenic
region.Areas E and F will alter the appearance of the area along
Tsusena Creek,and although Tsusena Falls is not withi n either of these
borrow sites,it is likely that the setting of this exceptional natural
feature (Table 8.1)will be disturbed.Borrow Area K has the potential
for infringing on the series of falls on Cheechako Creek;a recreational
facility has been proposed in this vicinity [Section 7.2 (c)].Area E in
the upper Devil canyon reservoir will extend above the full-pool
elevation,with the result that some surface scarring and modification of
topography will occur.Borrow Area I will be developed to 15 m above the
existing river elevation,to a maximum elevation of 472 m (1550 ft).
Therefore,lower portions of the site will be inundated by the Devil
Canyon impoundment,but at the upper end,it will remain exposed.This
area will be particularly visible if a proposed recreational facility is
bui lt at Tsusena Creek for boat ing access to the Devil Canyon reservoir.
As with all the other sites,recontouring to resemble natural topography
will help reduce the permanent impacts.In some cases,borrow areas will
be used as disposal areas for waste material from dam construction,
perhaps restoring the original topography.
(c)Access Route
The proposed access route (Figure 9.7)runs from the Parks Highway along
Indian River to Gold Creek and along the south side of the river to the
Devil Canyon dam site,where it crosses to the north and connects to the
Watana site.This road into the presently roadless project area
represents a major influence on the area1s aesthetic resources.The
construction of a road is a long-term linear alteration of the landscape,
sharpl y contrast i ng with the natural background and interrupti ng the
unified sweep of the surroundings.A road will also allow public access
8-4
-
-I
..,
i.
-
.-
into a remote region --a change which has potential consequences for the
existing resources but also affords many people the opportunity to view
these aesthetic resources.
The strong horizontal line created by right-of-way clearing and by the
road itself will appear incongruous with the natural setting of the
Susitna basin.Long-lasting visual effects will result,even with
revegetat i on of the ri ght-of-way and road construct i on borrow areas not
within the right-of-way.While views from the road will be,for the most
part,attractive,with expansive views from the road segment between the
two dam sites,in most areas,the transmission line on one side of the
road will detract from the scene.
Construction of the permanent access road wi 11 be facil itated by a
pioneer road into the project area.The portions of this pioneer route
that do not coincide with the permanent access route will be visually
evident for a long time.
Table 8.3 also notes the potential effects of borrow areas (1 through 8)
proposed for the access route (Figure 9.8).The highest degree of impact
will occur in Area 1.Located in a scenic setting adjacent to the Indian
and Susitna rivers,Area 1 will be visible from the road and the river,
from the Susitna bridge crossing,and from other key viewpoints.
Development of this site will be of particular concern to future
residents,who are expected to settle in this vicinity as a result of
state land disposal.
Area 7 is on the northern edge of Mermaid Lake,a scenic area,and is set
in low-absorption shrub vegetation along the access route.Area 2,which
is also set in low-absorption shrub vegetation along the access route and
visible from key viewpoints,may adversely affect a waterfall.Area 8 is
located in a tundra region and includes a good view of the surrounding
landscape.The general discussion of the types of impact caused by
excavation of borrow areas,as given in Section 8.3 (b),also applies to
borrow sites for road construction.
Parking lots and staging areas associated with construction of the access
road,and its subsequent utilization during dam construction,will entail
clearing and grading of natural areas.This transition from essentially
natural to deve loped 1and areas will result in loss of vegetat i on and in
a reduction of aesthetic character.
Access will introduce people into previously sparsely occupied land.A
recreation plan has been developed ('Section 7)to control some of this
use and to minimize adverse effects.Nevertheless,litter and
disturbance of both vegetative cover and existing recreational sites are
inevitable.Overuse of some planned road pull-outs (including roadside
camping)and other facilities may occur.The results of easier access
may thus be incongruous with the natural setting and may have a
cumul at ive negat i ve effect on the 1andscape.The 1ake shores (where
accessible),reservoir perimeters,creeks,and areas of tundra cover will
not be able to withstand heavy traffic pressure,which wi 11 degrade the
visual quality of the setting by noticeable vegetative and shoreline
disturbances.Access will also increase fire hazard;excessive burning
would alter the landscape,creating texture and color contrasts.
8-5
Imposing increased activity on a nearly pristine landscape will
drastically reduce the peace and solitude of the area;the reduction of
both scenic quality and the potential for wilderness experience will
cause some previous users to seek these amenities elsewhere.The roads
and borrow areas seen from the river and reservoir wi 11 alter users I
visual experience.Planned foot trails,however,will allow visitors to
view the landscape in a more natural setting (refer to Section 7.2).
Where the topography is suitable for their use,off-road vehicles (DRV),
if permitted,would disturb the terrain.The area traversed by the
access route between the two dam sites,because of its topographical
make-up and fragile vegetative cover,is extremely susceptible both to
ORV use and to consequent damage.ORV use on 1ands of tundra and shrub
cover types would lead to lang-term vegetative and visual damage,
degrading the original character of the land.Documented ORV use off the
Denali Highway has led to severe soil disturbances,left areas denuded of
vegetation,and formed gullies 6-8 m wide and up to 3 m deep (Sparrow et
al.1978).If ORV use is restricted,especially in the area between tTi'e
dam sites (as discussed in Section 7.3),such degradation of the
landscape can be avoided.
(d)Transmission Line
(i)Impacts Common to All Study Areas
The major impact of the transmi ss i on 1i ne will be the creat i on of
incongruous lines across the landscape,where existing utility
corridors are not present,decreasing landscape unity and
interfering with scenic views by deflecting attention from natural
scenes.The not i ceab 1e contrast between man-made st ructures and
the landscape's natural elements is caused by irregular patterns:
the visibility of towers,because of their height above existing
vegetation and their color contrast with the surroundings;the
reflection of the conductors;sizeable clearings of vegetation;
unconcealed substations;and conspicuous access roads and staging
areas needed for construction and maintenance purposes.
Negative impacts on the aesthetic resources will occur where the
transmission line is viewed against the horizon.is routed along a
ridge,appears on level terrain with unobstructed views,or crosses
rivers and gorges.Every effort was made.however.to avoid such
areas,both in the initial corridor (5-10 km wide)selection phase
and aga°j.n at the route (0.8 km wide)selection phase of the study.
Construction activities cause both short-and long-term impact on
aesthetic resources.The creation of new access where none
previously existed will add significantly to the potential for
visual disturbance caused by the transmission line.Again,efforts
were made to parallel existing utnity corridors and to utilize
existing access whenever appropriate.Discussions of the impact of
borrow areas,roads,and construction camps appear in Sections 8.2
(b ),(c),and (e).
8-6
"""'1,
-
-
.....
!
..-
i'"""
i
-j
Maintenance activities during the operational phase of the lines
can also cause adverse impacts as a result of clearing or of
chemi cal treatment of the right-of-way.Impacts wi 11 vary
depending upon the timing and method of right-of-way maintenance
but can be minimized through careful prescription of maintenance
techniques.
(ii)Upper Basin
The major impact of the upper basin transmission line will be
degradation of the basin's wilderness quality;the line will
disrupt otherwise unobstructed views and will decrease the unity of
the natural 1andsc ape.Thi s impact wi 11 be experi enced most
severely by users of High Lake Lodge and its surrounding lands and
waters.The lines will be located within 1.6 km of High Lake and,
although in the background,will be incongruous with the otherwise
natural setting of the lodge area.For this reason,an alternative
route has been proposed,which would locate the lines beyond the
viewshed of the lodge and its environs.Map M8 in Appendix E3
graphically presents both route locations.
Another impact will result from clearing vegetation from one strip
122 m (400 ft)wide between the two dams (although tall-growing
vegetation exists only on a small portion of this segment)and from
a second strip 213 m (700 ft)wide from Devi 1 Canyon dam to the
point of intersection with the Intertie near Gold Creek.These
impacts are depicted graphically on Figures 25-36 in Appendix E3.
The 1i ne,where vi sib 1e near the access road and reservoirs,wi 11
impair the viewer's scenic experience.Background views of the
1i nes from Otter Lakes and from the access road wi 11 be present.
Foregound and middle-ground views will be evident particularly from
High Lake (unless the alternative route is selected)and again from
points along the access road.
(iii)Healy to Fairbanks and Willow to Anchorage
The Healy-to-Fairbanks route will cause aesthetic impact at the
three crossings of the Parks Highway,the three river crossings,
the two railroad crossings,and two areas where the line is visible
from and parallels the highway or railroad.Careful placement of
towers,and whenever poss ib1e.retent i on of vegetat i ve screens,
however,wi 11 great 1y reduce the degree of impact.Furthermore.by
closely paralleling the existing transmission facilities where
appropriate,incremental rather than totally new impacts will
resul t.Informat i on on aesthet i cs appears on Northern St udy Area
Figures (1-24)in Appendix E3.
The Wi 11 ow-to-Knik Arm route wi 11 cause major vi sual impacts near
Willow.Here,the line will cross the Parks Highway and the Alaska
Ra i1road and wi 11 be most evi dent to trave 1ers on these routes.
The transmission line route passing west and north of the community
of Willow could affect the visual setting of this community because
the line may also be apparent to residents as well as to recreators
on Willow Creek.The route will likewise disturb the wilderness
qual ity of the region and w"il 1 interfere with natural views,most
8-7
severely near the Iditarod Trail and the Susitna Flats Game Refuge.
Between a point southwest of Willow and Knik Arm,the line will
intrude upon the landscape,although by following existing trails,
new roads wi 11 not need to be bu i lt along much of the transmi ss i on
line right-of-way.In addition,existing recreation areas will be
avoided.Because the route is removed from travel corridors,the
visibility of the line in this area is low,with the exception of
the Little Susitna River crossing,which will be relatively notice-
able.Again,the retention of vegetative screens along the river
banks could significantly reduce the degree of visual intrusion at
this location.Information on visual quality for this study area
is presented graphically on Figures 27-48 of Appendix E3.
For that area east of Knik Arm to the proposed substation south of
Muldoon Road,visual impacts will be significant.Because of the
presence and proposed proximity of existing transmission structures
in thi s area,however,impacts wi 11 be incremental rather than
totally new.To help mitigate these impacts,tower and conductor
materials,spacing,and design could approximate closely that which
is already present.
(e)Construction Camps and Villages
The current plan is to build temporary construction camps (single worker
housing)and vi 11 ages (fami ly housing)at both Devil Canyon and Watana.
The village at Devil Canyon will be removed after construction,but the
Watana village is planned as a permanent town site.The construction
camps and village sites will be incongruous with the existing natural
landscape,and the concentrated,constant human use therein will disturb
the scene.Permanent and temporary human use will introduce waste
disposal sites,litter,and leisure activities potentially damaging to
the environment in an area now relatively free of human imprint.
Large numbers of people will be using the construction camps and villages
for considerable amounts of time;as a result of this pressure,the sites
and their immediate vicinities will undergo significant changes in
character.Site preparation will include clearing of vegetation,which
will create long-term alterations to the sites.Human activity will
create paths throughout the vicinity and,as a result of anticipated
heavy use,will affect any nearby streams or lakes.The aesthetic
resources in the area of the housing facilities will evidence visual
alteration long after the facilities are removed and the property
restored.The types of impacts associ ated with the town site at Watana
are similar in nature,but of a lesser degree because of the few people,
though longer term because of the permanency of the town.
A subjective evaluation of the visual impacts associated with the
construction camps and village sites at Watana and Devil Canyon is
included in Table 8.3.The sites at Watana will be quite visible because
of the re 1at ive ly low absorpt i on capabi 1ity of the shrub community and
because the sites are within the viewsheds of portions of the access road
and reservoir.On the other hand,the proximity of the sites to the dam
construct i on site serves to concentrate the impact in a 1imited area.
8-8
-
....
\.,'
....
.-t';
Creation of the Devil Canyon camp and vnlage will require the clearing
of trees,giving rise to contrasts of texture,color,and line between
the facility and its natural environment.Because of the higher
absorpt ion capabi1 ity of the surroundi ng spruce-hardwood forests,
however,and owing to other micro~relief factors,the Devil Canyon
facilities will likely be shielded from most viewsheds.Also,no
permanent town site is currently planned for Devil Canyon.Thus,while
the impact on aesthetic resources will be significant,it will be
lessened at the Devil Canyon site.
The sites of any temporary camps for road and transmission line
construct i on crews are presently unknown,so spec ifi c impacts cannot be
discussed.If such camps are located,bunt,and maintained in an
environmentally sensitive manner and if the sites are later restored with
the same concern,then the camps·impact will be relatively short-term.
8-9
}1 --j l <-t I 1 1
Feature
Devil
Canyon
Vee
Canyon
Clear
Valley
Deadman
Falls
Tsusena
Falls
Location
Susitna Riv,er,
west end of
project area
T.32N,R.1W.,1[.,
and T.31 N.,R.lE • ,
S.M.
Susitna River,
east end of
project area
T.30N.,R.10E.,
Sec.11 &12,S.M.
Approx.6 km
south of Fog Lake
2230 T.30N.,
R.SE.,Sec.5,8,
17,20,29,34.,
S.M.
Near mouth of
Deadman Creek
T.32N.,R.SE.,
Sec.26.,S.M.
Above mou th of
Tsusena Creek
T.32N.,R.SE.,
Sec.20,S.M.
TABLE 8.1:EXCEPTIONAL NATURAL FEATURES
De SCI'i P t i on
A steep-sided,nearly enclosed gorge"its aides alter'nating spruce-covered
terraces and rock-bound walls,constf'icts'the channel of the Susitna River,
producing an 18 km stretch of turbulent w.hitewater.Two narrow falls,flowing
through deeply incised crevasses"plumme-t a distance to the river below.Devil
Canyon combines unus,ual geo.logy,hydrology,and aesthetics with uncommon
recreational Oppof'tunities,such as kayaking,to render it a unique
natural feature in both the project area an~the state of Alaska.
Vee Canyon occupies a double hairpin bend in the deeply cut channel of the Susitna
River,creating a stretch of whitewater.The canyon walls are composed of very
steep rock ridges and are unusually colorful,the rock often interlayed with
marble and green schist.Vee Canyon,more visible than Devil Canyon and with its
walls more open,is excep·tional in its scenic beauty.
Clear Valley contains unusual flat surfaces raised off the valley floor and
surrounded by meandering streams;the valley's dominant feature is its visually
apparent geological history.Geologically,the valley is fairly young and contains
good examples of lateral moraines.Clear Valley contrasts significantly with the
surrounding viewscape;the valley is unusual for its geologic features.
Deadman Falls with an elevation of 521 m (1710 ft)is one of the largest and most
scenic waterfalls in the project area.Deadman Creek surges over loose rocks in
its incised channel,plummeting straight down over rocky slopes and outcrop.pings
into a clear boulder-dominated pool,a pool often veile~in vapor.
Clear and turbulent,Tsusena Creek drops nearly 60 m as it rushes over a steep,
rocky cliff,creating a waterfall of considerable volume,.which cascades into a
large,deep,rock-enclosed pool.The view of the waterfall;.creek;rock
outcroppings;and dense,green vegetative cover is impressive.
Feature
Devil
Creek
Falls
Big
Lake
Mt.Watana
Cirque
Lake
Tyone
River
Location
Above mouth of
Devil Creek
T.32N.,R.2E.,
Sec.20.,S.M.
N.E.of proposed
Watana dam site
T.22S.,R.3W.,
Sec.1B,19,30,
T.22S.,R.4W,
Sec.25.,F .M.
East of VABM Mt.
Watana T.30N.,
R.7E.,Sec.2.,
S.M.
East end of
project,area
confluence with
Susitna River
T.30W,R.12E.,
Sec.9.,S.M.
TABLE B.1 (Continued)
Description
Devil Creek,constricted by a narrow opening between jagged rock walls,plunges
over the steep embankment in a narrow,contained flow before fanning out and
cascading to the pool below.The irregular pattern of the waterfall,against bare
rock and surrounded by the densely vegetated,incised creek valley walls,creates a
scene of high aesthetic appeal.Elevation 579 m (1900 ft).
Big Lake,largest lake in the project area,is a prime example of a lake held in
by a terminal moraine.Big Lake's proximity to Deadman Lake and,from Big Lake,
the panoramic view of the Alaska Range and nearby Deadman Mountain combine with
the lake's observable glacial origin to create an area that is noteworthy for both
scenic and geologic features.
A cirque lake high on Mount Watana provides a scenic interpretation of the area's
glacial history.The cirque contains a pristine lake,simple in outline and
distinguished by th~natural amphitheater formed on three sides by towering scree
slopes,with a scenic view of the valley from the remaining side.
The slow-flowing,dark,and clear Tyone River,near its confluence with the
Susitna River,is flanked on its south shore by starkly contrasting chalk-colored
cliffs.These are composed of lacustrine deposits left behind by an expansive
proglacial lake,one of three such lakes of significant size recorded in Alaska.
This particular region of the Tyone River is exceptional for its prominent glacial
remains,scenic white bluffs,and dark/clear river.
_J )oj ,_a i
-1 -""--11.--l .r_1 <1 -)-~.J COl -~~'.':.---1 l 1
Feature Location
TABLE B.2:
Description
OTHER IMPORTANT NATURAL FEATURES
Fog
Lakes
St eph an
Lake
Watana
Lake
Swimming
Bear
Lake
(unnamed
lake)
Deadman
Mount ain
Sections 3,7-11,13,18,
T31N.,R.5E.,and Sections
5,7,B,1B,T.31~.,R.6E.,
S.M.
Sections 2,3,9-11,16,
1 7,2 0,21 , T•3 ON .,
R.3E.,S.M.Bet we en
Watana and Devil Canyon
dam sit~s on south side
Section 6,T.30N.,R.8E.,
S.M.Sect ion 1,T.30 N.,
R.7L,S.M.Section 36,
T.31N.,R.7E.)S.M.
Section 31,T .31N.,
R .8E.,S.M.East 0 f Mt.
Wet ana
Section 4,T.32N.,R.3E.,
S.M.Sections 32,33,
T.33N~,R.3E.,S.M.B-1o
km 'north of VAB;M Devil
near proposed access
route
Sections 6,7,1 7-20,
29 -3 2 ,1.21 5.,H.3W .,
F.M•Sections 1,2,11 -
14,23-2-6,34-36,1.21S.,
R.4W.,F.M.
Five lakes in proximity to one snother:;average surface area is 109 ha,
with no lake smaller than 56 ha.
The longest lake immediately adjacent to the project area,it measures 7 km
in length,and is the nearest lake to the project are with a run of salmon
and one of the few with relatively high recreational use.
Mount Watana,rising directly to the west of Watana Lake,prowi~e:s an
aesthetically pleasing setting f·or the high (914 m)lake.
One of the highest lakes in the proJect area"Swimming BeaT La,ke (Ms.K.
Oldham,pers.comm.)isa large alpine lake set in mat and
cushion/sedge-grass tundra surrounrlings.
Isolated Dearlman Mountain,reaching a height of 1£84 m,ov~rsharlows
Deadman Lake and Big Lake.
Tsusena
Butte and
Tsusena
Butte Lake
Sections 16,20-22,27-
29,T.33N.,R.5E.,S.M.
North of Watana dam site
A prominent butte (1341 m),Tsusena Butte rises above
one of the deepest lakes in the project area (34 m).
comprised of two irregularly shaped segments.
Tsusena Butte Lake,
~he lake is
TABLE 8.2 (Continued)
Feature
Chulitna
Butte
Cheechako
Falls
Mount Watana
Falls
Spearpoint
Falls
(unnamed
falls)
Devil's Club
Falls
(unnamed
fall s )
Location
Sections 22,27,T.33N.,
R.2W.,S.M.South of
Hurricane
Sections 4,8,9,T.31N.,
R.1E.,S.M.First
creek southeast of
Devil Canyon dam site.
Elevation:510 m.
Section 33,T.31N.,R.7E.,
S.M.On north side of
Mount Watana.Elevation
1370+m.
Section 1,T.31N.,
R• 7 E.,S.M.I n an
easterly direction,
fi rst creek past
Watana Creek and
Susitna River
confluence on the
north side.
Elevation 625+m.
Section 11,T.31N.,
R•2 W.,S.M• I n an
easterly direction,
first creek past
Gold Creek and
Susitna River
confluence on the
south side.Near
Borrow Area 2 for
access road.
Elevation:297+m.
J
Description
Chulitna Butte overlooks the Alaska Railroad's past and present communities
and provides an accessible viewpoint of part of the project area from the
Parks Highway.
A series of five waterfalls along Cheechako Creek,set in a steep gorge.
The two largest falls are approximately 8 m apart,with pools and rocky
cliffs,and surrounded by thick mats of moss and other vegetation.
A waterfall flows over a deeply incised rock gorge interlaid with black
and white marble;barren tundra surrounds the falls,and a mist hangs above
it.
Four waterfalls occur along a relatively small creek.The largest one is
below the others in a large,hollowed-out area.(Named for a spearpoint
that was discovered in one of two nearby archeological sites.)
Devil's Club Falls is a scenic waterfall,easily accessible from the
Susitna River below the Devil Canyon rapids.(Temporarily named for the
abundance of devils club that is present all the way up to the falls).
')~_oct _<h"){-?;1 ",.--~{-J -l'(-1 1 '-l -l -~-1
(a)
TABLE 8.3:POTENTIAL AESTHETIC IMPACTS OF BORROW AREAS AND HOUSING SITES
CATEGORY DAM BORROW AREAS ACCESS ROAD BORROW AREAS VILLAGE SITES CONSTRUCTION CAMPS
(b)(b)(c)(b)(b)(b)Devil Devil
A B D E F G H I J K L 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Canyon Watana Canyon Watana
Viewshed
from Access
Route 3 *5 4 5 *0 0 *2 *5 5 3 4 4 *0 4 4 5 2 5
Viewshed
from (d)(d)(d)(d)
Reservoir(s)5 *5 5 0 *3 5 *Z *5 5 4 0 0 *0 0 0 5 2 4
Vegetative
Cover 5 *4 3 4 *4 3 *2 *4 3 3 3 3 *4 5 3 5 4 5
Accessible
Viewpoints 4 *5 4 5 *3 3 *2 *5 2 2 3 3 *4 5 3 5 4 5
Visual
Setting 4 *5 5 5 *5 3 *5 *5 5 3 2 3 *5 4 2 5 4 5
a.A subjective numerical scale is used with 5 representing a great impact and 1 a small or negligible impact;0 represents no
impact at all.
b.Inundated by reservoir.
c.Most of borrow area inundated.
d.Relatively high probability would be in Susitna River viewshed below Devil Canyon dam site.
)e -J -J 1 J I ))
Elevation over 4000 ft.
0'._....~:::::iiiiiiiiii.-i1p Miles
o 15 Kilometers
o
o ---
i~~i;
D..
LEGEND
i··llI 11;r···
•WATERFALL*CANYON
•LAKE
•RIVER*VALLEYoPARTIAL/TOTAL INUNDATION',:."
p::::;:::]
EXCEPTIONAL NATURAL FEATURES (SYMBOLS)
AND OTHER IMPORTANT NATURAL FEATURES
PREPARED BY TES I UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA FIGURE 8.1 [iii]
"...
-
9 ..REPORT ON LAND USE
The land use analysiS involved an asses,;ment of the direct and indirect effects of
the proposed Susitna hydroelectric projectonland use.The analysiS was designed
to evaluate chahges in land Use that would OCCur with and without the project,
including the effects of the proposed dams,reservoirs,access transportation
system.and transmission line routes.
Three study areas (Zones 1.2,and 3)were defined for analysis (Figure 9.1).
These zones were des ignated accordi ng to gebgraph it and 1and use rel at i onsh i ps with
the prOposed project and extend to varying widths from the river betWeen Gold Creek
and the mouth of the Tyone River.
Zone 1 Was designated to include those structures ahdland useswhich would be
affected by inundation.Zone 2.extending about 10 km (6 mi)from the river.is
based upon the locations of lakes Which characteriZe aggregations of land Use.
Zone 3.Which extends approximately 20 km (12 mi)beyond Zone 2.is characterized
by fewer ag~regations of land use;existing structures and land use are sparse.
The methodology for the land use analysiS was to assess past.present;and future
lattd Use.Present developed land uses in the Susitna project area are subtle and
widely dispersed.Aerial photographs and topographic maps were used to locate
cultural features such as trails,structures;and other indications of past and
present land use.To aid in identifying present dispersed land use activities,an
oral history technique was employed!re,;idents in adjacent ahdclther areas.were
i ntervi ewed.Determi nat ions were made as to present patterns Of human 1and USe
within the project area and the forces which created different types of land use.
Aerial and ground truthing methOdS were utilized to verify many of the present land
use patterns discerned from the oral history interviews.
Additional information waS obtained from reports and interviews with federal"
state,and local agency personnel concerning past,present,and po,;sible future
land use activities in the project area.
9.1 -Existing Land Use in Project Area
HiStorically.access has been a determinant of the types and level of land
use in the upper Susitna River basin •.tarlY access to the area for trapping
Was by dog teams and showshoei ng,When the pri ce for furs dropped.'some
trappers turned to the more lucrative occupation of acting as guides to sport
hunters.Commercial bush pilots provided access to the area using lakes ahd
tundra airstrips for landing.By the early 1910'S.use of the area by
private pilots dUring hunting seasons had someWhat reduced the need for
hunting guides.
(a)General Patterns
Present land use patterns in the project area reflect the deep ties
people of the area have with the land as a source of fOOd.sfH'llter.
income.and recreation.Although land use developments ate dispersed,
present use ahd actiVity patterns can be discerned from analysis of known
historic uses in the project area and by loca~in9 actual remnants of past
activity.r
9-1
Access trails provide indications of past land uses and their influence
on present use patterns.Trai 1s provi ded access into the project area
for subsistence hunting,fishing,and trapping,and today these same
routes,undoubtedly undergoing some changes,provide access to scattered
cabins and to the region in general for recreational purposes.
Existing use patterns in the project area have been identified for
hunting,fishing,trapping,mining,and recreation.Brief descriptions
of each land use activity follow.The most intensive land use activity
is concentrated along the major highways,and in the southern part of
Mat-Su Borough well to the south of the project area.Except for
hydroelectric power studies,most activity within the project area is
related to recreation or mining and,as mentioned,is subtle and
dispersed.
(i)Hunting
Hunting within the Susitna project area became popul ar in the
1960 1 s.Two hunting lodges located within the Zone 2 study area,
one on High Lake and the other on Stephan Lake,have catered to an
international clientele.Guests at the lodges fly or hike from the
lodges to small outreach camps on lakes or streams for stays ofa
few days at a time.
Lodges typically handle 15 to 25 guests at a time and about 40
guests per season.The increasing popularity of sport hunting in
the 1960 l s caused an increase in the number of small cabins on many
of the 1akes in the project area.Both gu ided and non-gu i ded
hunting occur wi.thin the project area.particularly near Stephan.
Fog,Clarence,Watana,Deadman,Tsusena,and Big lakes in addition
to many of the area1s smaller lakes.Both lodges and cabins
provide the field bases for many hunters.
(ii)Fishing
Fishing in the project area occurs singly or in close association
with other activities,such as hunting and trapping.Fish present
in the area1s lakes and streams include burbot,grayling,rainbow
trout,Dolly Varden,lake trout.and whitefish.Salmon migrate up
Indian River and up the Susitna as far as Portage Creek.Consider-
able fishing for lake trout,grayling.and salmon occurs in the
Stephan Lake -Prairie Creek drainage.Salmon fishing occurs in
lower Portage and Chunilna (Clear)creeks and Indian River.
Fishing in Fog,Clarence,Watana,Tsusena,Deadman,Big,and High
lakes appears to be associated with other activities such as
hunting,summer cabin use.and mining.There is little stream
fishing elsewhere in the project area.
Trapping activity has decl ined over the past 30 y~ars,although
recently there has been a slight increaselr.trapping.Present
trapping in the project area occurs most"ly on the south side of the
Susitna River near Stephan and Fog lakes.Some trapping also
occurs near Tsusena Creek and Clarence and High lakes.
9-2
I 'I
!
-
(i v)Mi ni ng
Mineral exploration and mlnlng have been limited in the immediate
project area.Typical of the mining done in the upper Susitna
River basin since 1930 is a low density of claims characterized by
intermittent activity.Nevertheless,mining has played a key role
in the land development of the upper river region,particularly
along Valdez Creek.
Placer mines working alluvial deposits for minerals are found in
sites throughout Mat-Su Borough.Active mining has been more
concentrated in Gold,Chunilna (Clear),and Portage creeks than in
other areas of the upper Sus itna basin with some other act i ve
claims around Stephan and Fog lakes,Jay Creek,and the Watana
Hi 11 s east of Jay Creek.Mi ni ng at Go 1d Creek was act i ve from the
early 1950's through the late 1970's;most claims were gold,
copper,and silver placer mines.A concentration of at least six
mining claims has existed on Chunilna Creek where gold placer
claims have been worked since the late 19th century.Mining has
occurred in the Portage Creek area since the late 19th century,but
only one claim remains active (see Section 5.7).
Coal is the major mineral resource in l'v1at-Su Borough.Although
extensive deposits of varying quality are located in the river
valley areas,no coal mining activity occurs in the project area.
Most coal is mi ned to the south and west of the project area;much
of it is used for household fuel.
(v)Hydroelectric Research
Following preliminary studies,the Bureau of Reclamation proposed
in 1952 that the Susitna be considered for potential hydroelectric
development.Since then,there have been many feasibility,design,
and environmental studies of the proposed inundation zone and
adjacent areas.Comb-ined,these studies have probably contributed
more total man-days of use in the area in the past twenty years
than all other uses.
(vi)River Boating/Floating
Boating within the project area has involved research,fishing,or
recreation.There is considerable summer boating on many of the
lakes including Clarence,Watana,Fog,Stephan,Tsusena,High,
Otter,Bear,and Dawn.Individuals and riverboat services out of
Talkeetna travel up the Susitna and Talkeetna rivers.Some of the
services offered include day trips to Devil Canyon;drops at camps
for hunting,fishing,and photography;and canoe hauls to many
tributary streams.
Raft float tri ps are taken from the Denal i Hi ghway on the Sus itna
or Tyone rivers down to either just above Vee or Devi 1 canyons
where rafters portage to below Devil Canyon and float to Talkeetna.
Some canoeing and rafting takes place from just below Devil Canyon
to Talkeetna.Boating below Devil Canyon is further discussed in
Sect ion 9.1 (e).
9-3
(b)Land Use Developments
Existing land use developments are associated with hunting,fishing,
trapping,food or equipment storage,research,recreation,and mining.
Categories covering the frequency with which structures are used are 1)
no use,2)seasonal use--past,3)seasonal use--present,4)seasonal
use--past and present,5)year round use--past,6)year round use--
present,7)year round use--past and present,and 8)no use information.
Most of the developments,whether structures or discrete objects,are
assoc i ated with some means of access.Unpaved roads and trail s were or
are presently used for access to certain points in the project area.
Vehicles such as tracked vehicles (Cats).four-wheel drive vehicles,
rolligons,dog sleds,and horses have been used for freighting,for
transportation within the area,and for access to the project area.
Airstrips on gravel bars or flat ground are commonly located in proximity
to other historical artifacts such as cabins,trails,or lodges.Trails
emanate primarily from existing structures and connect them with
airstrips,lakes (on which a ski or float plane can be landed).fishing
streams,or other structures.
Geographical zones within the project area (as designated in Figure 9.1)
provide an approximate measure of development locations and types of use
in proximity to the Susitna River.Both historically and currently,
the sparsely di st ri buted developments throughout the project area have
been used predominantly on a seasonal basis.The majority of the land
use developments or artifacts have been utilized for hunting,fishing,
trapping,boating,mining,and other general recreation purposes,such as
cross-country skiing or photography.
(i)Zone 1
Types of developments located in Zone 1,the inundation zone plus
61 m (200 ft),include structures,trails,and airstrips.
Ten isolated structures are located in Zone 1 on the shores of the
river or on its steep banks (Table 9.1 and Figure 9.2).
Historically,these structures were line cabins for trapping and
structures used by transient fishermen,boaters,hunters,and for
research.Of the ten structures,only three are maintained and
then only used on a seasonal basis.Two others,though not
actively maintained,appear to be sporadically used by transient
hunters,fishermen,or boaters.The remainder are not currently
used or usable.
(i i)Zone 2
The greatest number of exi st i ng 1and use developments and hi stori-
cal artifacts are located in Zone 2,the 10 km (6 mil corridor
whi ch fl ank s Zone 1 on both shores of the Sus itna.Zone 2 is a
much smaller area than Zone 3,yet there is more evidence of use
within Zone 2 than within Zone 3.Types of developments found in
Zone 2 include structures,trails,roads,airstrips,and mines.
General types of use associated with these artifacts consist of
hunting,trapping,fishing,boating,mining,recreation,and
research.
9-4
Ii
',~
-,
Although the primary distribution of uses throughout the project
area is low in density,particul arly noteworthy in Zone 2 is the
occurrence of aggregations of existing developments and historical
artifacts.The nuclei of these aggregations are the small lakes
and lake systems located throughout Zone 2,which provide access by
air.Like the single,scattered land uses in Zone 3,the
aggregations of developments consist of cabins and related
structures,lodges,roads,trails,and airstrips.Table 9.2 and
Figure 9.2 present information on Zone 2.
(iii)Zone 3
Existing structures within Zone 3,the outlying influence zone,
are located within a 20 km (12 mi)ribbon of land which flanks the
lower and upper portions of the Zone 2 boundary.The 21 structures
in Zone 3 have historically been associated with land uses such as
hunting,fishing,trapping,mining,boating,research,and other
types of recreational use.Fourteen of the 21 structures are
currently used during some portion of the year.
Aggregat ions of use,although they exist,are much 1ess common in
Zone 3 than in Zone 2 and occur in the areas of Chun il na and
Prairie creeks south of the project area.A summary of existing
structures within the area is presented in Table 9.3 and Figure
9.2.
(iv)Summary of Land Use Patterns in the Project Area
The combined factors of the size of the Susitna project area,
its isolation,and its location in a subarctic environment result
in extremely low-density land use.The history of the project area
provides information concerning the deeply rooted values of the
peop 1e for whom th eland is st ill a source of income,food,and
related subsistence activities,and recreation.The development of
land use has been a slow,evolutionary process involving
utilization of the resource base.Many historic uses are relevant
in assessing present land use patterns,and indeed many of the
remnant s of past uses shape present patterns.Structures verifi ed
through aerial truthing are shown by land use zones in Tables 9.1 -
9.3 and are summarized in Table 9.4.The major trail access routes
into the project area,although not structures,represent
substantial environmental modifications and reflect general use
patterns;they are presented in Table 9.5.Figure 9.3 gives the
locations and types of uses of developments where these are
sufficiently clustered to be identifiable on the ground.Thus,
intensity of use might refer to a series of isolated cabins lining
a shoreline,as at Stephan Lake,or to several small mines
clustered together,as at Chunilna Creek.
(c)Wetlands and Floodlands
Within the approximate boundaries of Zone I,there are 12,579 ha (31,083
a)of wetlands of various types,including riverine.These are
summarized in Table 3.7.In the vicinity of the proposed Watana
impoundment,there are 10,913 ha (26,966 a),and in the vicinity of Devil
9-5
Canyon,there are 1,666 ha (4,117 a).The table indicates the sizes and
types of wetlands in relation to the proposed impoundments,dams,and
spillways;camps,villages,and airstrip;and borrow areas.Cover types
(including wetland types)are shown on Figures 3.2 through 3.4.A map of
wetlands alone is included in the 1980 Annual Report on Plant Ecology
Studies (APA 1981).
Floodlands have been identified for the Susitna River downstream from
Devil Canyon to Talkeetna.A map of vegetation types in this floodplain
is included in the 1980 Annual Report on Plant Ecology Studies (APA
1981).
(d)Land Stewardship
Prior to the Alaska Act,Statehood,and the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act,the entire Susitna drainage area was mostly federally
owned.There were no agency resource management pl ans for the area and
very little resource exploitation,except for some minimal mining and
timbering.A major limiting factor to development of the area has been
access.It has not been economi ca lly feas ib1e to ut i 1i ze the resource
base of the area.
(i)Ownership Patterns
The Susitna River proper and immediately adjacent lands along with
the bench country around Stephan and Fog 1akes extendi ng eastward
to the Kosina Creek drainage have been selected by Cook Inlet
Region,Inc.(CIRl)and associated Native village corporations.
The State has selected land entitlements on the north side of the
proposed reservoir between the remaining federal lands and the
Native lands (Figure 9.4).In the areas designated for the Cook
Inlet land trade,the State will select all those lands that are
not selected by the Natives.Matanuska-Susitna Borough owns no
lands in the project area.
Two state land disposal sites (Figure 9.4)exist near the Indian
River in the westernmost part of the project area just north of the
Susitna River.The Indian River Subdivision (T33N,R2W S.M.)lies
near mile 168 of the Parks Highway,northwest of Chulitna Butte and
contains approximately 518 ha (1,280 a)of land.The disposal area
has been subdivided into roads and some 139 lots averaging about 2
ha (5 a)per lot.South of this subdivision is the Indian River
remote parcel,located northeast of the confluence of the Susitna
and Indian rivers.This remote parcel (T31-32N,R2W S.M.)is
located just eat of and,at some places,adjacent ta Denali State
Park.The Indian River Remote Parcel is comprised of 2,590 ha
(6,400 a).Approximately 607 ha (1,500 a)in 75 parcels is being
di spas ed of.
These land disposals,along with scattered private parcels of land,
represent the only real dedication of a given piece of land to a
particular use.Table 9.6 displays various land holdings in the
vicinity of the proposed project and Table 9.7 summarizes those
holdings by status/ownership category.
9-6
-..
J
i
ry
.""'1.
-
(ii)Land Use Management
Personnel employed by responsible land managing agencies were
interviewed to gain information about present and future programs.
The results are summarized in Table 9.8.
One federal agency,one state agency in addition to the Alaska
Power Authority,one borough,and one regional Native corporation
have various management concerns in the project area.These
entities are the t5ureau of Land l'lJanagement (U.S.Department of
Interior),the Al aska Department of Natural Resources,Matanuska-
Susitna Borough,ana the Cook Inlet Region,Inc.and associated
v ill age groups.
Federal 1 ands to the north of the project area are managed by the
Bureau of Land Management (BLlVI).These 1 ands are inclUded in the
Denal i Planning Block,for which a land use plan has been approved.
Management in the [Jenal i Unit and those areas not yet conveyed to
the Natives or the State is essentially passive.Very few
management activities are taking place.
BU"!'s main objective is to protect the natural environment of the
area,with particular attention to caribou calving areas and river
recreat ion routes.Fire control is al so a current management
consideration;BU"!has a cooperative fire control agreement with
the State of Alaska that covers the project area.
BLM is also developing regulations for the management of public
easements across Native lands.Lands in the project area that have
been identified for conveyance to the Natives have a total of six
easements across them.These include:an access trail 15 m (50
ft)wide from the Chulitna wayside on the Alaska Railroad to publ ic
lands immediately east of Portage Creek;a state site easement and
trail easements on Fog Lake No.4;a site easement and trail
easements on Stephan Lake;and an access trail running east from
Gold Creek.Easements were only identified when it was shown that
access to public lands was not possible from any other public land
area.There are no easements immediately adjacent to the Susitna
River above Gold Creek.
Finally,13L1Y1 is also developing a wildl ife habitat management pl an
in cooperation with Al aska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G)for
the Alphabet Hills between the Tyone and i"1aclaren rivers (TlI-12 N,
R2-9 W,Copper River ]Vleridian).This plan will involve moose
habitat manipulation.As yet,however,only study plots for this
project have been mapped out.
Most State lands fall under the jurisdiction of the Alaska
Department of Natural Resources (DNR).As indicated,the State is
disposing of 607 ha (1,500 a)of remote housing parcels and 518 ha
(1280 a)in a subdivision.These aisposal areas (located north and
south of Chulitna)are west of the project area and in the vicinity
of the proposed access route.
9-7
In the project area,the State has done only a resource assessment
for those lands it is proposing to select.Planning for State
lands in this area will not occur before 1983.
Matanuska-Susitna Borough is involved in three separate management
efforts which affect the project area.These are the Mat-Su
Borough Comprehensive Plan (1970),the Talkeetna Mountains Special
Use Di stri ct,and the Mat-Su Borough Coastal Management Program.
The current Mat-Su Borough Comprehensive Plan (1970)contains very
1 itt 1e di scuss ion of the Sus itna area 1ands.The borough has
already selected more than its entitlement and is concentrating its
selections in the lower Susitna basin near existing highways.
Thus,it is unl i kely that the borough wi 11 sel ect any 1 ands in the
project area.
The borough,by ordinance,has created the Talkeetna Mountains
Special Use District,through which the borough can exercise plan-
ning and zoning authority over all lands with"in the district's
boundaries.The Special Use District includes the project area.
The ordinance provides for mult"iple resource use of the district,
and takes into account unique scenic values.Thus,lands within
the special use district are subject to permit requirements for
specified developments (roads,subdivisions,etc.).
The borough is updating its comprehensive plan and additional
studies are being performed.The project area is considered a
mixed use zone which would permit hydro development.Management
objectives for the project area will probably not be refined until
the current hydro studies are complete.
Through a cooperative arrangement with the Office of Coastal Zone
Management (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,U.S.
Department of Commerce)and the Alaska Coastal Management Program
(Division of Community Planning,Alaska Department of Community and
Regional Affairs),Mat-Su Borough is preparing a Coastal Management
Program.Preliminary studies were completed in r~ay,1981;the
Susitna River through Devil Canyon was designated to be within the
biophysical boundaries of the program (Figure 9.5).Program
results to date provi de for a pre 1imi nary determi nat i on of uses
subject to the program guidelines including,specifically,hydro-
electric development in Devil Canyon.The appropriateness of this
use is to be reviewed as resource analysis continues in subsequent
phases of the program.
The Cook Inlet Region,Inc.received conveyance of selected Native
lands to hold in trust until these lands are conveyed to the appro-
priate villages (Chickaloon-Moose Creek,Tyonek,and Knik).
Currently,no land·management activities are being carried out.
When the villages obtain their lands,the different village owner-
shi ps wi 11 create a checkerboard pattern.Immedi ate 1and probl ems
and land reconveyance to villages are being handled by the Village
Deficiency Management Association,a group made up of representa-
tives from each of the concerned villages.Because of the checker-
board nature of future land ownership,any management of Native
lands may be undertaken by this association.
9-8
The results of the interviews with BLM,DNR,Mat-Su Borough,and
the Cook Inlet Region,Inc.are meaningful within the context of
general resources management in present-day Alaska.Agencies,the
Native corporations,and the private sector have been heavily
involved in the selection and transfer of land ownership under the
Alaska Statehood Act and the Alaska Native Cla-ims Settlement Act.
Because of the uncertain outcomes of the Alaska National Interest
Lands Conservat i on Act (ANILCA)and the proposed Sus itna
hydroelectric project,1 ittle attention has been given to actual
land management.Furthermore,the area has not been exploited in
the past because it was not economically feasible to do so.It is
still not economically feasible to mine and process what minerals
exist within the project area,although improved access may improve
the economics of exploitation.Discussions with land
owners/managers and consideration of present market conditions
indicate that without the project little change is likely to occur
soon in existing land use patterns,regardless of changing
landownership.Even if the State of Alaska or the Cook Inlet
Region.Inc.and village corporations sell remote parcels
surrounding the accessible lakes,it is unlikely that there will be
any significant change until access into the area is improved.
(e)Downstream Navigation
The Susitna River.downstream of Devil Canyon,has long provided a major
means of access into the region.The Susitna is navigable from its mouth
in Cook In 1et to the area around Portage Creek.The Sus itna River has
been determined by BLM to be navigable as far upstream as Devil Canyon
based upon (1)prior use by a boat for any purpose and (2)suitability as
a highway of commerce since Alaska Statehood in 1959.Beyond Devil
Canyon no determination of navigability has been made by BLM.The U.S.
Coast Guard considers the Susitna River between Gold Creek and the Tyone
River to be non-navigable due to shifting sand and gravel bars and
shifting channels.
A variety of craft are used on the downstream portion (below Devil
Canyon)of the Susitna,including rafts,canoes,airboats,and
riverboats.In addition,floatplanes are used throughout the Susitna
drainage area.Considerable boating is done along the Susitna,
particularly near boat launches at Willow Creek,Talkeetna,Kashwitna
Landing,and Sunshine.Boats are used for fishing during the warmer
months of the year and as a means of access to hunting areas in the fall.
Riverboat services.several of which are based in Talkeetna,are
increasingly popular and provide trips up the Susitna and Talkeetna
rivers for recreationists and others wishing to reach inland areas not
otherwise easily accessible.
Most boating activity is concentrated on the Susitna and Talkeetna
rivers.The Yentna River and its tributaries,the Skwentna and Kahiltna
rivers,the Deshka River (Kroto Creek).and Willow and Pdexander creeks
all receive some use.The Yentna is used for fishing,other recreation,
and as access to hunting areas.The Deshka River receives extensive use
by sport fisherman during salmon runs.The Talkeetna River receives
heavy use for trapping,subsistence,recreation.and mineral development
purposes.Riverboats,many with jet units.utilize portions of the
9-9
Talkeetna River in the summer.From just below Devil Canyon to north of
Ta'lkeetna,the Susitna is highly regarded and utilized by rafters and
kayakers.The rapids of Dev"il Canyon are considered world c1 ass white-
water,but few kayakers have successfully negotiated the gorge.
In the winter,the Susitna River is used as an avenue of transportation
by means of dogsleds and snowmobiles.These means of transportation are
used for purposes such as trapping,recreation,and travel between
Trapper Creek and Talkeetna.
9.2 -Land Uses With the Project
(a)Project Facilities
Figure 9.7 shows the locations of proposed project facilities in the
upper Susitna basin.Locations of the dams,impoundments,access road,
construction carnps and villages,borrow areas,and related facilities are
indicated.Brief descriptions of the major facilities are presented
below,and details may be found in Volume 1 of the Feasibility Report.
(i)Watana Dam and Impoundment
The Watana dam will be a 247-meter (810 ft)high gravel filled
structure with a crest length of 1,148 m (3,765 ft).The dam wi 11
be located at Susitna River kilometer 266 (mile 165),approximately
three ki1ometers (two mi 1es)upst ream from the mouth of·Tsusena
Creek.It wi 11 impound just over 80 km (50 mi)of ri ver to 666 m
(2,185 ft)elevation and inundate over 16,000 ha (40,000 a).
An underground power plant with associated penstocks,tailrace,and
related facilities will be constructed with 1,020 megawatts
installed capacity.A spillway constructed on the north side of
the dam will be capable of passing 165,000 cfs of water.
(i i)Devi 1 Canyon Dam and Impoundment
Devil Canyon dam will be a 194-meter (635 ft)concrete th in arch
dam and a rockfilled saddle dam constructed at river kilometer 216
(mile 134)in Devil Canyon.Its crest length will be 754 m (2,475
ft).The dam will impound 45 km (28 mi)of ri ver to 444 m
(1,455 ft)elevation.Approximately 3,055 ha (7,550 a)of land
will be inundated.
The underground power p1 ant wi 11 have an installed capacity of 600
megawatts.The emergency spillway for the dam on the south side of
the river is designed to pass 222,000 cfs of water.A tailrace
tunnel will extend more than two kilometers (1.3 mi)downstream on
the north side of the river.
(iii)Access
Construction of a permanent access road will be facilitated by a
pioneer road to be constructed from Gold Creek to the Watana site.
For about 70%of the distance (discontinuous)between Gold Creek
and Devil Canyon,this pioneer road will follow an existing
9-10
II"!!'!
:1
:!
,.....
i
~
!
r
bulldozer trail (used in earlier studies by the Corps of
Engineers).Spurs will be built from the pioneer road to certain
points on the permanent access route.A temporary low-level bridge
will cross the river,with a series of switchbacks down into the
canyon just above the dam site.Between the two dam sites the
pioneer road will mostly follow the route of the permanent access
road.
Full access for const ruct i on and operat i on of the dams and access
to proposed project recreat i on faci 1 it i es wi 11 be by a grave 1 road
from the Parks Highway.There will also be a railroad yard in the
vicinity of Gold Creek,with a short road connection to the main
access road.The main access road wi 11 connect with the highway
near Hurricane and roughly parallel the alignment of the Alaska
Railroad through Chulitna Pass south to the confluence of the
Indian and Susitna rivers north of Gold Creek.The road will then
parallel the Susitna River on the south side to Devil Canyon.
Initially,a bridge will be constructed at this point over the
canyon;after const ruct i on,the Devi 1 canyon dam wi 11 serve as a
bridge.The road wi 11 extend northeasterly through the alpine
lakes area north of Devil Canyon and parallel the upper Devil
Creek drainage.From this point,the road will follow a generally
easterly direction to the Watana dam site.
The total length of the access road from Hurricane to the Watana
site will be no km (68 mi),aligned within a 60 m (200 ft)
corridor.The roadway will be 10 m (34 ft)wide,with 2 m (5 ft)
shoulders on either side.
Several pull-outs wi 11 be constructed along the access road to
permit viewing of natural areas and some of the project facilities.
Additionally,access to recreation sites from the road will be
provided as indicated in the plan for recreation (Section 7.2).
(iv)Transmission Facilities
Maps of the proposed transmission routes are included in Appendix
E3.From Watana to Devi 1 Canyon within the 0.8 km (0.5 mi)wide
route,a 122 m-wide (400 ft)transmission right-of-way will mostly
parallel the access road.Two single-circuit 345,000 volt (345 kV)
l"ines will be constructed.From Devil Canyon to the intertie near
Gold Creek,a total of five single-circuit 345 kV lines will
require a right-of-way about 213 m (700 ft)wide.
These lines (two to the north,three to the south)will parallel
the intertie to Healy and Willow.From Healy to Fairbanks and
Willow to Anchorage,the right-of-way will be approximately 122 m
(400 ft)wi de.Most of the towers are expected to be X-shaped
structures approximately 30 m (l00 ft)tall.In some pl aces,such
as near the Municipality of Anchorage,double-circuit construction
may be used,thus requiring taller towers.Double circuit towers,
while approximately 15 m (50 ft)taller than single circuit towers,
allow a narrower right-of-way.
9-11
(v)Construction Camps and Villages
Construction camps (single worker housing),villages (family
housing),and associated facilities will be located within the
immedi ate project area:there will be one camp and vil1 age at each
dam site.Construction of Watana dam is scheduled to begin in
1985,five years before the dam at Devi 1 Canyon.P1 ans call for
the building of a construction camp and village first at Watana.
When construct i on phases down at the Watana site,the camp wi 11 be
relocated to the Devil Canyon dam site.Part of the village at
Watana will remain as a permanent town to provide housing and other
commun ity f ac il it i es for workers who wi 11 operate the dams.No
such permanent village is currently planned for the Devil Canyon
site.
The proposed camp and vil1 age at the Watana site wi 11 be construct-
ed northeast of the dam site between Deadman and Tsusena creek s on
what is now BLM 1and.Approximately 1-2 km (1 mi)wi 11 separate
the construction camp from the village.Work on the village will
begi n about one year after construct i on of the camp has begun.
Structures at the camp will be of factory-built,modular design,to
facilitate their relocation to Devil Canyon.Permanent buildings
are planned for the village facilities at Watana,since the village
community will remain after the dams are built.
Facilities at the village will include family housing (for a
projected 550 families),a school,gymnasium,recreation center,
shopping center (food supermarket,department and specialty
stores),fire station,generating station,and structures for other
support activities.Facilities and services to be provided at the
construction camp include modules for housing (dormitories)for
about 5,000 workers,camp offices,food services,warehousing,fire
and security protection,banking and postal services,hospital
care,recreation,communications,and power generation.
Camp and village utilities will include a potable water supply
system,sewage system,power supply and distribution system,
communicat ions,fuel storage,and a sol id waste disposal system.
The water supply is expected to serve an estimated peak population
of 6,820 (5,070 "in the camp and 1,750 in the village)including
workers,families,and visitors.The water source will be from
Tsusena Creek (where a small "impoundment wi 11 be created)and
groundwater wells.The treatment plant,also of modular design,
will fulfill primary and secondary Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)requirements.Treated water wi 11 be stored in three tanks,
two at the camp and one at the village.Sludge,a by-product of
t he treatment p1 ant,and soli d waste from the two sites,will be
properly treated and disposed of in a landfill.
The facilities at the construction camp and village to be built at
Devil Canyon will differ only slightly from those at Watana,though
fewer workers will need to be accommodated.The camp wi 11 be
situated south of Portage Creek and just west of Devi 1 Canyon on
9-12
L,..-
the south side of the Susitna River.The village will be tempo-
rary.unl i ke the one at Watana,and wi 11 be just west of the camp.
(b)Induced Land Use Changes
Construction and operation of the dams and related facilities will cause
impacts on area resources.Prior to determining the extent of alteration
or disruption which land use patterns will experience,land uses were
assessed in terms either of man's use of the landscape for particular
purposes (many of which tend to be site-specific).or of man's dedication
of a given geographical area to preserve some specified values.In some
cases,these values and their protection are identified in agency manage-
ment programs that apply to the area.Based on available information and
agency interviews.however,it has been determined that no comprehensive
management pl ans exi st at present.The Alaska Department of Fi sh and
Game (ADF&G)has developed species-specific objectives for the region,
but it has no land management authority.Other agencies have only pre-
liminarily addressed land management concerns (see Section 9.1).The
generation of hydroelectric power will become the predominant land use in
the area,and the presence of the project wi 11 be an important factor
when agencies eventually develop comprehensive land management plans for
the surrounding areas.
With increased access,certain land use activities are expected to become
more intense than at present.In terms of displacement of existing land
uses,by both the project itself and the induced land uses,the primary
effects will be changes in the manner in which individuals (rather than
land management agencies)are presently using the area.
Figures 9.8 and 9.9 shows points and areas in the vicinity of the project
which will experience changes in land use and activity patterns.Project
facilities will create immediate,direct impacts on the landscape,as
shown on Figure 9.7;some of these impacts will be temporary,such as
those of the construction camps and construction activity itself.Other
aspects of the project wi 11 create or fac i 1 itate permanent and often
subtle changes in the type,nature,and intensity of use and activity
patterns.Chief among these aspects is the provision for automobile
access to an area currently lacking such access [Section (iii)below].
For purposes of discussing induced changes in land use and associated
activity patterns as they relate to major project components,impacts on
four general land use categories were assessed:
Land uses inherently associated with site-specific activities:
This category includes land uses that involve some form of long-
term commitment of resources (for example,structures)and the
activities associated with them.These include the following:
residences,commercial properties (primarily recreational),
mining,agriculture,and transportation.
-Dispersed and isolated non-site-specific activities:
This category includes activities that are generally non-contin-
uous and do not involve a commitment of resources at any partic-
ular site.These include consumptive recreational or subsistence
9-13
activities.such as hunting and fishing;riverine activities.
such as boating or rafting;and dispersed activities.such as
camping.hiking.and photography.
-Resource management activities and related concerns:
This category involves consideration of present or potential
future activities related to conservation or planned use of the
land and resources.and includes fish and wildlife management.
dispersed recreation management.off-road vehicle management.
Native claims.and land values.
-Natural aesthetics:
This category involves consideration of the natural land cover
type itself as opposed to the uses of the land.Considered are
the vi sual character of both 1and and water resources.ground
cover (specifically vegetation).land surface integrity.and
general natural character.Project impacts related to aesthetics
are discussed primarily in Section 8.2.
(i)Dams and Impoundments
The empl acement of the dams and impoundments wi 11 cause the direct
loss of ten structures (six by Watana.four by Devil Canyon).
These structures and their uses are described in Table 9.1.Only
three of the ten are actively maintained,being used on a seasonal
basis.but two others are used sporadically.The remaining five
are currently unused or unusable.The primary uses of the
structures to be affected are hunting.fishing.boating.and
trapping.as well as hydroelectric feas-ibility studies.
The impoundments will displace relatively low levels of riverine
boating and rafting patterns of use between the upstream end of
Watana reservoir and Devil Canyon.Kayaking (in which one must
employ considerable technical expertise to negotiate the turbulence
in Vee Canyon and world-class whitewater of Devil Canyon)will be
eliminated.In place of these activities there will be reservoir
boating.As discussed in the following section.some rafting and
kayaking downstream of Devil Canyon may continue.
There likely will be increased hunting activity,as well as
alterations to current patterns,resulting from the impoundments.
The reservoirs and access to them [see also Section 9.2 (b)(iii)]
will facilitate floatplane landing and boat travel and thus permit
easier penetration by big game hunters into areas now rarely
visited.As shown in Figures 9.8 and 9.9.an increase in moose
hunting will likely occur immediately adjacent to the proposed
impoundments.Increased hunting for caribou (to the extent that
the permit system allows)will likely occur a relatively short
distance back from the impoundments.
There is likely to be increased fishing for resident species.
primarily grayling.in tributaries in the vicinity of the
impoundments.as shown in Figures 9.8 and 9.9.A limited reservoir
9-14
-
I"'""
r
fishery may also develop (see Section 3.7).Because of the
proximity of the Devil Canyon facility,salmon fishing in Portage
Creek could increase.If necessary,further regulations can be
implemented to prevent overfishing in this area.
At present,some trapping takes place in the upper basin.The
reservoirs will cause disruption of present trapping patterns.
Project impacts on trapping,fishing,hunting,and other land uses
are further discussed in Section 5.7.
(i i)Downstream Effect s of Dam,Operat ions
A number of impact issues have been raised concerning the potential
effects of project flows on downstream navi gat i on.These concerns
include the following:(1)whether present access for fishing,
hunting,and other purposes via the Susitna and its tributaries may
be affected by reduced summer flows in certain channels;(2)
whether a reduction in flow could alter the stream bed morphology
of the various tributaries at their confluences with the Susitna,
thus hampering the ability of boats to enter the tributaries;and
(3)whether access to land disposal areas which is now acomplished
by boat and floatplane will be affected by reduced summer flows.
In addition,concern has been expressed about the loss of kayaking
and rafting opportunities,and also about potential impacts on
winter use of the river.
Future navigational use is likely to increase along the Susitna
River and other water courses in the Railbelt as the popul ation in
the region increases (see Section 5.2).Development and settlement
of state land disposal areas below Devil Canyon will also change
present navigational use.Therefore,the change in summer flow in
the Talkeetna to Devi 1 Canyon reach is a particul ar concern,
although railroad access will continue and road access will be
created by the project access road.
Review of limited aerial photographs,river cross-section data,and
simulated water surface profiles in the reach between Devil Canyon
and Talkeetna indicates that proposed project stream flows are
likely to cause periodic navigation problems during the months of
August and September.If project flows were -increased in August
and September,few areas would experience navigation problems.
One area of concern is the reach 1-5 km (1-3 mi)below Sherman
where the main channel crosses the floodplain.The water depth at
6500 cfs is approximately 0.75 m (2.5 ft)at the cross section
here,indicating the channel is navigable.However,examination of
nearby areas (for which cross-sectional data are unavailable)
indicates that they may not be navigable.Navigation problems may
be encountered in about one year out of three in August,and in
about one year out of two in September in thi s reach with the
proposed fl ows.If water is stored in the spri ng to augment flows
in August and September,navi gat ion problems may be encountered in
this reach in about one year out of ten during June.
9-15
Cross-sectional data were gathered for the main channel below
Talkeetna in sloughs and side channels used for river access near
Kashwi tna Landi ng and Wi 11 ow Creek,and at the upper access channel
to Alexander Slough.While stage-discharge data at these sites are
very limited,initial analysis indicates that operation of the dam
will have no significant negative impacts on navigation on the main
channel below Talkeetna or to access at Kashwitna Landing.Access
channels near Willow Creek should be navigable at the proposed
flows.Minor navigation problems could occur in this area during
May if water is stored to augment fl owsin August and September.
Data are insufficient to completely define the flow required at
Susitna Station in order to keep upstream access to the Alexander
Slough area,but the decrease in stage will be less than .3 m (1
ft)for the proposed flows.
If rafting and kayaking downstream of Devil Canyon are still
possible with project flows,the river will not be as appealing as
at present due to the controlled flows.The limited daily peaking
operations proposed for the Devil Canyon faci 1ity may present some
boating hazards immediately below this facility.Because these
hazards will be un 1i ke the natural hazards posed by a wil d ri ver,
this vicinity maybe unsuitable for river floating.
Ice studies have predicted that during project operation the
Susitna River below Devil Canyon dam will have open water in winter
at least as far downstream as Talkeetna.This open water will
prec 1ude the present use of snowmob il es and dogs 1eds for
transportation on this portion of the river.
(iii)Access
As indicated previously,increased access is a critical factor
with respect to land uses.Road access will cause both the
disrupt i on of present 1and use and the inducement of future 1and
uses.The most significant aspect of the access road relates not
so much to various impacts associ ated with the road per se but
rather to the concept of access itself,in any form,to the
interior of the Susitna basin.The provision of a means by which
the general public can easily and frequently venture inland to an
area which is essentially wilderness will likely cause profound
alterations in the character of the Susitna area.
Access,because it will facilitate the influx of people and
activity into the basin,will affect the following:small
population concentrations and isolated residences;peripheral
commercial and transportation systems;resource utilization and .
level of recreational activity;visual and aesthetic factors;and
the overall character of the area.These effects will have
rami fi cat ions for management:the need for it and its extent and
adequacy (for example,fish and game management,land management,
etc.).Access will influence changes in land values and
development,and may expedite the exploitation of the area's
mineral resources.
9-16
-I
Road access to the dam sites from the Parks Highway will likely
create increased traffic and related activity along the Parks
Highway and in adjacent communities.Residential and commercial
use and the values of land made more accessible by the new road
\'Ii 11 probably be affected;there is 1ike 1y to be increased demand
for these parcels (due to an increased population and markets for
commercial services).and improved access will make them more
attractive to prospective buyers.The proposed route through
Chulitna Pass and along Indian River w"ill provide road access to
state land disposal sites on Indian River.
There will likely be increased hunting for moose and bear along the
access corridor.The zone around the access road subject to
increased hunting will be much larger if off-road vehicles are
permitted.In addition to the impacts of increased hunting
act iv ity ina 1arger area due to both the road and the
impoundments.there will be disruption or disp1 acement of the
persons who currently hunt in the upper basin.Those who presently
hunt in the area wi 11 either have to adjust to 1arger numbers of
hunters or hunt in other areas.Fishing will also increase (for
example.for salmon in Indian River)with potential effects on both
the resource and those people who currently fish in the area.
The access road between the two dams on the north side of the
Susitna will disrupt current use patterns at High Lake Lodge.
Disruption might also occur to fly-in fishing and hunting around
the lakes nearer to Devil Canyon.Some recently established
trapping territories around the High Lake area would also be
altered.In addition to increased hunting and fishing.this area
will also recieve increased recreational use for hiking.
backpacking.sightseeing.and other activities.
Further details on the anticipated impacts of the road (and the
improved access it wi 11 provide)on natural resources and their
present and potential uses are found in the following sections:
3.5(e).3.6(e).3.7(e).4.4(a)(iv).5.7.7.3.and 8.2(c).
(iv)Transmission Facilities
Analysis of proposed transmission facilities for the Susitna
project involved assessment of three study areas:1)the northern
study area.containing that segment of the line between Healy and
Fairbanks;2)the central study area.containing transmission lines
from the power p1 ants at ,the dams to the intert ie;and 3)the
southern study area.covering Willow to Anchorage.
The route analysis involved mapping of selected land use features
and land ownership within a previously established 5-10 km wide
(3-6 mi)corridor.In the central study area the corridor covered
both sides of the river and thus was as wide as 23 km (14 mi)in
some places.Land use features included existing recreation
facilities;developed residential.commercial.and other uses;
significant privately owned lands.including disposal areas;and
the exi st i ng transportat i on network.These features are shown on
the maps in Appendix E3 as man-made constraints.
9-17
Features were identified as constraints if there is the potential
for physical conflicts between either existing or likely future
1 and use developments (in the absence of the project)and the
proposed transmission lines and towers.
-Northern Study Area
There are several moderate concentrations of land use
developments along or adjacent to the proposed route between
Healy and Fairbanks.Significant among these are developments at
Hea ly,Nenana,and Ester.In Healy and Ester,there wi 11 be a
direct interface between existing land uses and the proposed
transmission route.
There are several large land disposal areas (on the west side of
the Parks Highway)through which the route will pass.In
traversing these disposal areas,the lines will closely parallel
an existing transmission line.
Impacts in this study area will include the acquisition of a
122 m (400 ft)wide right-of-way and the elimination of future
land development within this strip.In addition,one dwelling
located off the Parks Highway approximately 6 km (4 mi)south of
Browne may have to be acquired.Many potential impacts,however,
were avoided during the selection of the corridor and route.
Visual impacts of this route are discussed in Section 8.2.
-Central Study Area
Between the Watana and Devi 1 Canyon dam sites,there will be
significant conflicts between the proposed route,like the access
route which it parallels,and the development at High Lake Lodge:
the proposed route will pass just northwest of High Lake and the
wilderness lodge and cabins located there.Several other alpine
lakes are also located in this area,and the transmission line
could potentially interfere with floatplane landings.A right-
of-way 122m (400 ft)wi de wi 11 be requ i red to accommod at e
transmission facilities between the dams.
Although slightly more land area would be required,locating the
line well to the west of the proposed route within the
alternative route alignment (identified on Figure 31 in Appendix
E3)would reduce the conflict with existing uses at High Lake
Lodge.The alternative route would roughly parallel the Portage
Creek drainage just below the ridge to the east of the creek,and
pass well to the west and north of High Lake.
The segment of the proposed route from the Devil Canyon facility
to the intertie near Gold Creek will conflict little with
existing uses.The lines and towers,however,will probably be
visible from areas north of the Susitna River in the Indian River
remote parcel di sposal,Otter Lakes,and from some pl aces on the
river.
9-18
r-,.
-Southern Study Area
The proposed route between Willow and Knik Arm northeast of Point
MacKenzie will traverse an area that receives dispersed but
increasing use.In this study area are land disposal areas and
private lands~most of which the proposed route avoids.Access
to these land holdings is via floatplanes,ORVs,and snow-
machines.Boating occurs along the Susitna and Little Susitna
rivers and Wi 11 ow Creek as we 11 as on many of the numerous sma 11
lakes.Potential conflicts between the proposed lines and
private lands and boating use occur wherever the lines and towers
will be visible.Floatplane flight patterns may be affected
where the lines pass near lakes used for landing and taking off.
The route crosses or parallels numerous trails including the
Iditarod Trail,seismic slJrvey clearings,tractor and pioneering
ORV trails,and several recreational trails farther north near
Willow.Trails that receive substantial ORV use are located near
Willow,Red Shirt Lake,and Knik Arm.The proposed route will
likely not affect physical use of trails,although visual con-
n i ct s may occur where the 1i nes and towers pass near var i ous
trails.
Residential use occurs in Willow,Red Shirt Lake,and on many of
the small lakes mostly to the east of the route.Scattered
cabins in the vicinity of Willow are close to the Alaska Railroad
and Parks Highway.Red Shirt Lake has approximately 25 cabins
along its shores;seven other lakes have several cabins along
their shores and a few cabins are widely scattered elsewhere.
The proposed route will not directly affect these existing struc-
tures,although the lines and towers may be visible in areas west
of Long Lake~Red Shirt Lake~and smaller lakes where topography
is not sufficient to screen them from view.
The corridor and portions of the western boundary of the route in
thi s area are located in the northeast corner of the Susitna
Flats Game Refuge.Agricultural use occurs north of the Point
MacKenzie area,and agricultural clearings occur from a region
just northeast of Middle Lake to the Little Susitna River south
of Yohn Lake.Future agricultural land sales are proposed in the
Department of Natural Resource's draft land use plan for the
Willow sub-basin along with programs for protecting wildlife
habitat and sportsmen's access.While land within a transmission
right-of-way can still be cultivated,the towers could displace
small areas of existing and potential future agricultural use~or
disrupt normal patterns of agricultural development or
cult i vat i on .
Land use in the area of the existing Chugach Electric Associ-
ati'on,Inc.Point MacKenzie-University Substation line (which
will be paralleled by project lines east of Knik Arm to a new
substation to be located south of Muldoon Road)is predominantly
military:most of the route here lies within the Fort Richardson
Military Reservation.Impacts on these lands will be limited
primarily to those associated with the area's visual quality (see
Section 8.2).
9-19
(v)Construction Camps and Villages
Construct i on camps and vi 11 ages at each dam site and the permanent
town at Watana will have a significant effect on present and future
land use.Access to and from the camp and village sites could open
up new areas in the project area to hunting,fishing,and
recreation,or at least increase the activity levels in areas now
rarely vi sited.If recreat i on by resi dents occurs to the south
of the Watana dam site,conflict could arise with existing use
patterns at Fog and Stephan lakes.
9-20
),C~JI '-t-;i 1 -,))--l 1
(a)
TABLE 9.1:ZONE 1 -EXISTING STRUCTURES
(b )
Map #Structure
2 Boat cabin
90 Hunting
lean-to
91 Cabin
Location
S.bank Susitna:on
tributary 4.8 km
S.W.of Fog Creek/
Susitna confluence
S.E.bank of Kosina/
Susitna confluence
3 km N.E.of
Watana/Susitna
confluence
(c )
Access
boat,foot
boat,foot,
float plane
floatplane
Currently
Maintained
Yes
Yes
No
Use Status
Built in 1960's for Stephan
Lake Lodge;currently used
seasonally by Stephan boating/
hunting guests
Built in late 1970's for hunting/
fis~ing purposes;fresh
supplies indicate current use
Built in 1950's;used as
seasonal hunting and fishing
cabin;supplies indicate
current use
112
119
Line cabin
Trailer;
work
shack
N.E.corner of Jay/
Susitna confluence
N.bank of Susitna:
1.6 km W.of Deadman/
Susitna confluence
foot,dog team,No
boat,floatplane
helicopter Yes
E.Simco's line (trapping)and-
and hunting cabin built in
1939;dates and game records
indicate annual use
Built in 1~7o's by Army Corps
for Susitna study
107
6
Cabin
Cabin
foundations
S.bank of Susitna
at Devil Canyon
N.shore of Susitna:
W.bank of 1st
tributary W.of
Tsusena/Susitna
can fluence
4WD
foot,
dog team
No
No
Built and used in 1950's for
Bureau of Rec.study;currently
not in use
Built in 1939 by Oscar Vogel as
a trapping line cabin;used until
late 1950's,now collapsed;no
longer used
a.Zone 1 is the impoundment zone plus a 61 m (200 ft)perimeter.
b.See Figure 9.2.
c.Almost all sites are accessible by helicopter.
(b )
Map H Structure
120 Shack
92 Cabin/
cache
111 Cabin
TABLE 9.1 (Continued)
(c)Currently
Location Access Maintained
S.bank of Susitna:helicopter No
1 .6 km W.of Deadman/
Susitna confluence
N.W•bank of dog team,No
Wat an a/Su sit na foot
con fluence
S.bank of Susitna:dog team,No
1 .6 km E.of Watana/foot
Susitna con flu en ce
Use St atus
Used and built in 1970's as a
research site;since Army
Corps study,has collapsed;
no longer used
Built in 1960's for hunting
purposes;cabin collapsed;
no longer in use
Built in 1945 as a trapping
line/hunting cabin;used for
trapping until mid 1950's,
presently covered with brush;
no longer used
Summary:Ten structures exist within this zone.Of these,five are currently being used on a seasonal
basis for purposes of fishing,boating,hunting,and research •
,.J ,_.c.",J .,.~.".;,~-.J J J
)e,_)-)-1 l -1 i·~'·1 '1 )--1
( a )
TABLE 9.2:ZONE 2 -EXISTING STRUCTURES
Map If
3
4
5
Structure
Cabin;
meat house
Cabin;shed
Cabin
Cabin
foundations
Location
Lake E.of Stephan
Lak e,5 64 m (1 8 50
ft)elevation
N.W.shore of
Stephan Lake
Tsusena Creek:
6 km from
Tsusena/Susitna
confluence
Access
floatplane,
skis
airplane
foot,dog
team
Currently
Maintained
Yes
Yes
No
Use Status
Built in 1960's and in current use
for seasonal hunting,fishing,and
boating
Built 1960's and in current USB
for seasonal hunting,fishing,and
bo at ing
Built in 1940's as a trap line
cabin and used until late 1950's;
no longer in use
7 Cabin;shed S.shore of Fog
Lake /12
floatplane Yes Built in 1960's and currently
being used as a seasonal fishing
and hunting cabin
8 Cabin;On knob of Fog airplane Yes
Lake 1/1
9 Stephan W.central shore airplane,Yes
Lodge (10 of Steph an Lake foot
structures)
Built in 1960's and currently
being used as a seasonal hunting
and fishing cabin
Built in 1960's and in current use
as hunting,fishing,and recreation
lodge;can accommodate up to 35
gUBSts;opsratss year-round
10
1 1
Cabin;
shed
Cab in;
shed
o•8 k m S.W.of
Stephan Lodge on
Stephan Lake
shore
E.shore of Stephan
Lake
airplane,
foot
airplane,
foot
Yes
Yes
Built in 1960's and in current use
seasonally as a hunting and fishing
cabin
Hunting,fishing,boating,seasonal
use;built in 1960's
a.Zone 2 is the 10-km perimeter around Zone 1 (impoundment zone plus 61 m).
TABLE 9.2:Page 2 of 7
Map #Structure Location
11 Cabin;E.shore of Stephan
shed Lake
12 Cabin;shed E.shore of Stephan
13 Cabin;shed Lake
14 Cabin;shed
15 Cabin;shed
40 Cabin;shed
16 Cabin;shed Mouth of Prairie
Creek at Stephan
Lake
Access
airplane,
foot
airplane,
foot
airplane,
foot,horse
Currently
Maintained
Yes
Yes
No
Use Status
Hunting,fishing,boating,seasonal
use;built in 1960's
Built in 1960's and in current
seasonal use as hunting,fishing,
and boating cabins
Built in 1940's and used until
late 1950's as a hunting,fishing,
and trapping base and residence;no
longer used
17
18
Cabin
Cabin
w.shore of Prairie
Creek
ai rpl ane,foot Yes Built in 1960 and 1970 respectively
and currently used as a year-round
residence from which hunting,fish-
ing,and trapping occur
19
20
21
25
Cabin;E.shore of Murder airplane,foot Yes
me athou se Lake ( S•of Stephan
Lake)
Cabin;shed S.E.shore of Daneka airplane,foot Yes
Lake
Cabin;shed
Mining Portage Creek:4 km.airplane,ATV,No
buildings N.of Portage/fo ot ,dog team,
(5)Susitna con fluence horse
Built in 1960's and used as a year-
round residence;hunting and
fishing
Built in 1960's and currently used
on a seasonal basis for hunting,
fishing,and recreation by guests
of Stephan Lodge
Mining records exist as far back as
1890's;mined 1920's and
sporadically 1930's,then
1950-70's;currently inactive
mining operations;buildings not in
use
"~I _,~J ~_"J '0",-j ,J J J ~I
TABLE 9.2:Page 3 of 7
Currently
Map /1 Structure Location Access Maintained
26 Cabins ( 2 )1.6 km N.of Portage airplane,ATV Yes
Creek mining foot,dog team
Use St at us
Mining;built in 1950's;used Creek
seasonally
27
28
Cabins (2)
Lodge,High
Lake (9
bu ildings)
N.W.shore of Dawn
Lake
S.shore of High
Lake
airplane,ATV Yes
horse,dog team
airplane,ATV Yes
horse,dog team
Built in 1960's by owners of High
Lake;used currently as a hunting
cabin on a seasonal basis
Built in 1960's for use as an
international hunting/fishing
lodge;currently in use by Acres
American Susitna project on a
seasonal basis
30 Cabin S.shore of High airplane,ATV Yes
foundations Lake horse,dog team
34 Chunilna Chunilna Creek airplane,ATV,Yes
Creek Placer 4WD,snowma ch i ne
( 7 buildings)
42 Cabin Portage Creek 3 km foot,sled Yes
N.W.of Dawn Lake ro ad,airplane,
ATV
45 Cabin 1.8 km W.of Po rt age foot,airplane,Yes
Creek mining ATV/4WD
46 Cabin 1.8 km W.of Port age foot,airplane,Yes
Creek mining,on ATV,4WD
sled road
47 Cabin Unname d lake N.of foot,airplane,Yes
48 Cabin Otter Lake ATV,4WD
49 Cabin
Building under construction as of
June 1980
Large placer mining operation in
existence since 1950 and currently
actively mined on a se~sonal basis
Built in 1960's and currently used
on a seasonal basis for hunting and
fishing
Currently used on a seasonal basis
for recreational purposes
Currently used on a seasonal basis
for recreational purposes
Currently used on a seasonal basis
for recreational purposes
TABLE 9.2:Page 4 of 7
Currently
Map IJ Structure Location Access Maintained Use Status
50 Tr ailer W.end of S.shore foot,airplane,No Currently not in use;abandoned
of unn amed lake N.ATV,4WD
of Otter Lake
51 Cabin W.end of S.shore foot,airplane,No Built in late 1960's and currently
of unnamed lake ATV,4Wd used for hunting and fishing on a
N.of Otter Lake seasonal basis
52 Cabin s.shore of unnamed foo t,airplane,Yes Bu i lt in I ate 1960's and seasonally
53 Cabin lake N.of Otter Lake ATV,4WD used since then for hunting and
fishing
55 Cabins (3)W.end of Bear Lake foot,airplane,Yes Bu i It in 1970's and currently used
ATV,4WD on a seasonal basis for hunting and
fishing
56 Cabin N.shore of Bear Lake foot,airplane,Yes Built in 1970's and currently used
AT V,4WD on a seasonal basis for hunt ing and
fishing
57 Lodge N.shore of Bear Lake foot,airplane,Yes Built in 1970's;lodge and cabi n
59 AT V,4WD used for fishing,hunting,and
skiing on a year-round basis;
seasonal boating
58 Cabin E.end of Bear Lake foot,airplane,No Built in 1950's for trapping
foundations ATV ,4WD purposes;no longer in use
64 Cabin Miami Lake rail,foot,Yes Perhaps being used as recreational
65 Cabin car,airplane cabins
65 Cabin
69 Cabin S.shore of Swimming airplane,foot,Yes Built in 1960's and currently used
Bear Lake 4WD for hunting,fishing,and swimming
.J .-J J -"'
,j ~I --J
'I -'1 -I 1 )-l 1 l 1 1 )
Map II Structure Location
TABLE 9.2:
Access
Page 5 of 7
Currently
Maintained Use Status
70 Lodge N.shore of Tsusena
Lake
airplane,ATV Yes Built in 1958;used for commercial
gUided hunts until 1976;presently
used on a seasonal basis for
private hunting,fishing,and
skiing trips
75 Cabin 6 km from Watanal airplane,ATV Yes
Susitna confluence
76 Cabin 11 km east of Big airplane,ATV Yes
Lake
77 Cabin N.end of Watana Lake airplane,dog Yes
78 Cabin team,snow-
machine
79 Cabin E.end of Watana airplane,dog Yes
80 Cabin Lake team,snow-
mach ine
81 Cabin Eo end of Gilberti foot,dog team No
Kosina confluence
82 Tent frame S.W•end of Clarence foot,dog team No
structure Lake
84 Cabins ( 2)S.E•end of Clarence airplane Yes
Lake
85 Cabin E.end of Clarence airplane Yes
Lake
Built in the 1970's;currently used
on a seasonal basis for hunting
Constructed in 1970's and currently
used on a seasonal basis for
hunting and mining
Built in 1950's and 1960's
respectively and currently used
seasonally for hunting and fishing
Bui It in 1950's an d 1960 I S
respectively and currently used
seasonally for hunting and fishing
Built in 1936 as a trapping line
cabin;used until 1955;currently
abandoned with everything intact
Built in 1950's and used until
1960's for seasonal hunting
Built in 1950's and currently used
seasonally as a hunting and fishing
cabin
Built in 1970's and currently used
on a seasonal basis for hunting,
fishing,and trapping
TABLE 9.2:Page 6 of 7
Currently
~#Structure Location Access Maintained Use Status
86 Cabin N.end of Clarence ai rpl ane Yes Built in 1960's an d currently used
Lake on a seasonal bas is for hunting,
fishing an d trapping
87 Cabin On tributary 1 .6 km foot,dog team No Built in 1930 and used until 1950
E.of Clarence Lake for trapping,hunting,and fishing
(Simco's line cab in /14 );currently
used seasonally as a hunting
shelter
88 Cabins (2)Gaging station:S.airplane No Bu i It in 1950's for research
bank of Susitna purposes;currently not used or
maintained
93 Cabin W.o f Jay/Susitna airplane Yes Built in 1960's and uSed currently
confluence on a seasonal basis for hunting and
fishing
94 Cabin Laha Lake:2.4 km floatplane,Yes Built in 1960's and used currently
W.of Jay Creek airplane on a season al basis for fishing
95 Cabin Unnamed lake:4 km airplane Yes Bui lt in 1950's and used currently
96 Cabin S.E.of Vee Can yon on a seasonal basis for fishing
gaging station
99 Cabin Tyone River/Susitna boat Yes Built in 1960's by Stephan Lodge
can fluence owner as a river cab in for Stephan
Lodge boating gue st s
103 Cabin Jay Creek:5 km ATV Yes Built in 1970's for hunting and
N.of VABM Brown currently used on a seasonal basis
105 Cabin Coal Creek ATV,airplane Yes Built in 1970's for hunting and
currently used on a seasonal basis
".'~.,.J ,..J ]~--J ._J ..•._..•~)
1 ')--,1 1 1 1
TABLE 9.2:Page 7 of 7
Map #Structure Location Access
Currently
Maint ained Use Status
110 Cabin N.endof Madman Lake airplane Yes Built in 19·60 's andcu rrent ly
used on ,a se.as,cH'lal bas is for
hunting .and fishing
115
116
112
Cabin
Cabin
Cahill
foundat i,o,ns
3 km ~.of Tsu~ena
Lake
L6km W.of VABiM
Oshetna
W.bank ·of Portage
Cr.e.ek:'6km from
P.orta.ge /5us i tn a
confliJ'Bllce
airplane
ai rpl,ane
dog t'eam,
foot
Yes
Yes
No
Built in 1970's and eu.n',enily
u'sed as a ye.ar-ro,un,d re's id'e,n.ce 'b,y
a .guidin,g outfit
Built in 1970's for hunting
puq;l.oses and is curre.ntly 'Used on a
seasonal b a sis
Built in 1940's as a mining/
prospec t ing ca'b i,n;no longer in
,tlse
117
118
.Ca:h in
Cabin
TyofteRiver/Tyone
Creek confluence
17.7 km due E.of
Tynne River/
5usitna confluence
bo at,d,og tes'm Ye s
boat~dog team No
Hu i:1 t in 196D •'S ,for :hu,nt ingan d
fistli.ngpur,p,os,es Bnd cU,rrently used
on a seasonal basis
Built i,n 1960's 'for hunting and
fis'hing purpos,es;flO longer in use
Summary:Seventy-six structures exist within Zone 2.
( a )
TABLE 9.3:ZONE 3 -EXISTING STRUCTURES
Map /I Structure Location Access
Currently
Maintained Use St atus
22
23
Cabin;shed Prairie/Talkeetna
confluence
Cabin;shed Game Lake
foot,dog
team,boat
airplane,
foot
Yes
Yes
Built in 1960's and currently
used seasonally by Stephan Lodge
for purposes of fishing and
hunting
Built in 1940's and used since
then for trophy game hunting;now
a part of Stephan Lodge's series
of outreach cabins used on a
seasonal basis
36 Mining Chunilna Creek:13 airplane,ATV,Yes
buildings km S.W.of VABM 4WD,snow-
Clear machine,dog
team,foot
37 Cabin 5 km N.E•of VABM foot,dog No
Cu r ry team
38 Cabin Grizzly Camp:8 km foot,dog Yes
E.of Daneka Lake team,airplane
Four buildings built in the
1920's,1940's and 1960's and
used seasonally for the purpose
of mining
Built in 1940's and used
seasonally for trapping until
early 1960's;no longer in use
Built by Vogel in the 1940's as a
hunting cabin;currently used on
a seasonal basis as a Stephan
outreach cabin for purposes of
hunting
39 Cabin 14 km E of Stephan
Lake:11 km s.of
Fog Lake
foot,airplane Yes Built in 1970's;current use not
known at this time
59
60
61
62
63
Cabin
Cabin
Cabin
Cabin
Cabin
Chulitna Pass:near
railroad
rail,foot,
car,airplane
Yes Exact construction dates not known;
currently used as year-round
residences
a.Zone 3 is that zone beteen 10 km and 19 km from the impoundments.
,~~'""~,,.1 ~~~J <c ~~.,~,_J "J J
'1 1 -'1 J -1 ,-1
TABLE 9.3 (Continued)
"}---1 1 }']
Map If
72
73
74
89
98
100
101
106
structure
Cabin
Cabin
Cab in
Cabin
Cab in
Tent
platform
Cabin
Cabin
Location
Deadman Lake:W.of
Big Lake
Big Lake
Unnamed lake 5 km
S.W.of Clarence
Lake (island in
middle)
Oshetna River:16
km 5.of Oshetna/
Susitna confluence
Susitna sandbar:5.
of Tyone River/
Susitna confluence
0.4 km 5.of
Maclaren/Susitna
confluence
5.end of Coal Lake
Access
airplane,
ATV
ATV
floatplane,
boat
dog team,
foot,boat
bo at,
helicopter
bo at
ATV,airplane
Currently
Maintained
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Use Status
Built in 1960's for fishing and
hunting purposes and currently
used on a seasonal basis
Built in 1960's;currently used on
a seasonal basis for hunting and
fishing
Exact construction date not known;
currently used on a seasonal basis
for fishing
Built by Simco in 1930 as a trap
line cabin and used on a seasonal
basis for hunting and fishing
Built in 1970's and used currently
for transient boaters
Built in 1960's and currently used
for boating on a seasonal basis
Built in 1960's and currently used
on a seasonal basis for mining and
fishing
113 Cabin Unnamed I a ke :10 km airplane
w.of Murder Lake
114 Cabin 11 km N.E•of VABM airplane
Disappointment
No
Yes
Built in 1960's for hunting
purposes;no longer in use
Built in 1970's for hunting use
and currently used for seasonal
hunting purposes
Summary:There are twenty-one locations in Zone 3 with existing structures.
TABLE 9.4:USE INFORMATION FOR EXISTING STRUCTURES IN THE UPPER SUSITNA RIVER BASIN
Zone
PRESENT CONDITION OF STRUCTURE
Remains of structured foundations only (no use)
Zone 2
5
Zone 3
Badly weathered;partial structure remains
-use no longer possible
Structure intact;not currently maintained
-seasonal use -past &present
-no current seasonal use
Structure intact;maintained with seasonal use
-past &present
Structure intact;maintained with year-round use
Structure intact;maintained;no current use
information
USE TYPES
Hunting,fishing,trapping
Hunting,fishing
Hunt ing only
Fishing only
Boating
Skiing
Mining
Research/exploration
ACCESS
Air:
Airstrip
Floats/skis
ATV
4WD
Boat
Foot,dog team
Snowmachine
Horse
Rail
Car
2
2
2
3
3
2
3
3
2
1
1
3
B
2
7
49
9
4
7
43
7
21
6
4
2
26
34
20
16
3
37
6
4
1
1
2
1
12
3
3
3
2
6
6
5
1
1
9
1
2
2
lI!III!'t
I
I
'"'
TABLE 9.5:MAJOR TRAILS IN THE UPPER SUSITNA RIVER BASIN
r-
Type Beginning
Cat,o RV Gold Creek
Cat,o RV Gold Creek
r-
Middle
Ridge top west
of VABM Clear
End
Devil Canyon
Confluence of
John &Chunilna
creeks
Years Used
1950's-present
1961-present
Packhorse
Cat
Fo ot
Sherman
Alaska Railroad,
mile 232
Curry
Confluence of
John &Chunilna
creeks
Chunilna Creek
Cabin 3 km east
of VABM Dead
1948
1957-present
1926
Packhorse,
foot
Talkeetna North of
Disappointment
Cre ek
Stephan Lake 1948
Packhorse,Chunilna
old sled road
Portage Creek Lake west of
High Lake
1920's-present
ATV Denali
Highway
Butte Lake Tsusena Lake 1950's-present
a.Status and ownership are subject to change through administrative and court
proceedings.
b.Seward Meridian
c.lA'd -tentatively approved
d.Fairbanks Meridian
Source:Compiled from various sources,including Land Status Maps prepared by CIRI!H&N
1980 and 1981;Alaska Department of Natural Resouces,State Land Disposal
Brochures 1979, 1980,1981;U.S.Department of Interior,Bureau of Land
Management Records,1982.
,...
TABLE 9.6:Page 2 of 4,-
USGS Talkeetna Land St atus/Areas,...Mountains Quad Ownership Category Loc at ion Hectares Acres
(d)
D-6 Federal (Railroad T22S,R11W FM
Withdrawal)Sections 22,23,-I 26,27,33,34 803 1 ,984
T33N,R2W SM 257
Sections 15 -17 104 180
(near Chulitna)T32N,R2W SM 25,600
Sections 1, 2 ,11 73 10,240
Denali St ate Park T31-33N,R2W SM 10,360 479
St ate Selection T32&33N,R2 W SM 4,144 5,120
T32&33N,R2W
Sections 6 &31 194 479
T22S,R11W FM 2,072 5,120
St at e Patented or TA'd T31N,R2W SM 3,885 9,600
T22S,R'IOW FM 1 ,295 3,200
Village Selection T31&32N,R1W SM 3,108 7,680
r-St ate Selection Suspended T31N,R1W SM 907 2,241
T33N,R1W SM 1 ,554 3,840
Private (Indian River Remote)T31&32N,R2W SM
i"""Sections 2-4,9 ,10 ,
13 ,24,25-27,33-36 2,590 6,400
(Indian River Sub o i v• )T33N,R2W SM 518 1 ,280
(near Chulitna)T32N,R2W SM
r Sections 1, 2 , 11,12 150 371
(near Gold Creek)T31N,R2W SM
Sections 17,19-21.,29 ,
r 30 388 959
(Pass Creek)T33N,R2W SM (sec.27)1 2
(Summit Lake)T33N,R2W SM (sec.34)2 5
(Chulitna Pass)T33N,R2W SM (sec.35)1 2
(near Alaska RR)T31N,R2W SM (sec.9)1 2
D-5 State Selection T32&33N,R1W,1&2E SM 24,863 61,438
State Selection TA'd T22S,R8-10W FM 11,784 29,119
Village Selection T31 - 33 N,RW,1&2E SM 8,547 21,120
Tyonek T31-33N,R1W,1&2E SM 3,755 9,279
."""Knik T31-32N,R1W,1&2E SM 7,252 17,920
Ch ick aloon T31&32N,R1W,1&2E SM 1,424 3,519
St ate Selection Suspended T31-33N,R1W,1&2E SM 13,079 32,319
Private (High Lake)T32N,R2E SM (sec.20)45 111
-~(north of Devil Canyon)T32N,R1E SM (sec.16)5 12
T23N,R1E SM (sec.30)3 7
T32N,R1W SM (sec.9 )2 5....T32N,R1W SM (sec.10 )5 12i
T32N,R1W SM (sec.23)3 7
-0-4 St ate Selection T32&33N,R3-5E SM 38,461 95,039
St ate Select ion TA'd T22S,R5-8W FM 11,914 29,440
Village Selection T31&32N,R3-5E SM 7,511 18,560
Tyonek T31&32N,R3-5E SM 2,978 7,359
Knik T31&32N,R3-5E SM 5,050 12,479
TABLE 9.6:Page 3 of 4
~
USGS Talkeetna Land Status!Areas
Mountains Quad Ownership Category Location Hectares Acres
Chickaloon T31N,R3E SM 78 193
St ate Selection Suspended T31N,R3E SM 4,921 12,160 ~Private (Tsusena Butte Area)T33N,R5E SM
Section 16,21 20 49
0-3 St ate Selection T32&33N,R5-7E SM 33,411 82,560
State Patented or TA'd T32N,R8E SM 1 ,295 3,200
T33N,R8E SM 842 2,081
T22S,R2-4W FM 8,806 21,760
T22S,R5W FM 2,331 5,760
Native Selection T32N,R8E SM 1 ,036 2,560
Village Selection T31&32N,R5-7E SM 7,511 18,560
Tyonek T32N,R5&6E SM 1,683 4,159
Knik T31&32N,R5&6E SM 2,460 6,079
St ate Selecton Suspended T31N,R5-8E SM 11,396 28,160
Private (Fog Lakes Area)T31N,R5E SM
Secti on s 13 +24 21 52
0-2 Federal 0-1 T22S,R1E FM 259 640
T22S,R2W FM 285 704
BLM T22S,R1&2W,1E fM 10,101 24,960
St ate Patented or TA'd T32N,R8E SM 1 ,813 4,480
T22S,R2W FM 1,424 3,519
Native Selection T32&:33N,R8-1 OE SM 39,109 96,640
Village Selection T31N,R8-1oE SM 17,353 42,880
~
0-1 federal 0-1 T22S,R1-3E FM 7,770 19,200
T33N,R11&:12E SM 10,101 24,960
Regional Selection T22S,R1E FM 259 640
T31&:32N, R1 2E SM 13,727 33,920
T32&:33N,R1o-12E SM 19,435 48,000
Village Selection T31N,R10-11E SM 7,252 17,920
fi sh &.Wil dli fe Service T33,R11E SM (sec.20)Unknown I!l'l\.,
State Selection Suspended T31 N, R1 DE SM 62 153
TABLE 9.6:Page 4 of 4
Land St atus/Areas
USGS Healy Quad Ownership Category Location Hectares Acres
1\-1 Federal D-1 T22S,R1&2E FM 2,460 6,079
,.,...Regional Selection T22S,R1&2E FM 1,554 3,840
Historic Site (cemetery)T22S,R1E FM (sec.1+2)Unknown
A-2 Federal D-1 T22S,R1&2W,1E FM 5,309 13,119-St at e Patented T A'd T22S,R1&2W,1Eor FM
Section 19-21,28-33 2,331 5,760
T22S,R2W FM 52 128.-Regional Selection T22S,R1&2W,H FM 5,698 14,080
Private T22S,R2W FM (sec.3)2 5
A-3 Federal D-1 T22S,R2-4W FM 9,842 24,320
St ate Patented or T A'd T22S,R2-4W FM 388 959
Regional Selection T225,R5W FM 2,409 5,953
1\-4 State Patented or T A'd T22S,R5-7W FM
Sections 19-36 4,662 11 ,520
Regional Selection T22S,R5-7W FM
Sections 1-18 4,662 11,520
A-5 St ate Patented or TA'd T22S,R8-10W FM
Sections 19-36 4,662 11,520
Regional Selection T22S,R8-10W FM
Sections 1-18 4,662 11 ,520
f'A-6 Federal RR.Wdl.T22S,R11W FM 932 2,303
St ate Selection T22S,R11W FM 4,014 9,919
St ate Patented or TA'd T22S,R10W FM 1 ,295 3,200
.-T22S,R12&13W FM 6,475 16,000,
Private T22S,R11W FM (sec.n 13 32
r
.-.
( a )
TABLE 9.7:SUMMARY OF LAND STATUS/OWNERSHIP IN PROJECT AREA
Land Status/Ownership Category
Federal D-1
Federal Railroad Withdrawal
Bureau of Land Management
State Selection
State Patented or Tentatively Approved (TA'd)
State Selection Suspended
Denali State Park (within study area)
Regional Selection
Native Group Selection
Village Selection
Tyonek
Kn ik
Chickaloon
Private
a.Summarized from Table 9.6.
Total Area
Hectares
37,321
1 ,912
10,101
107,159
67,585
139,143
10,360
204,040
41,699
69,038
8,416
14,762
1,502
3,997
Acres
92,222
4,725
24,960
264,796
167,006
343,830
25,500
504,194
103,040
170,597
20,796
36,378
3,712
9,877
""""1!
~l 1 ~]'J 1 1 ~l -1 1 J
TABLE 9.8:SUMMARY OF PRESENT AND FUTURE LAND MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES IN THE PROPOSED
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT AREA
Land Management Agency_Current Management Future Manag.ement Direction
U.S.Department of Interior
Bureau of Land Management
Alaska Department of
Natural Resources
Alaska Power Authority
Matanuska-S~sitna Borough
Matanuska-Susitna Borough
(in affiliation with the
Federal Office of Coafital
Zone Management and the
Alaska Coastal Management
Program)
Cook Inlet Region,Inc.
Bnd several villages
Protection of natural envi~onment;
no act i v it ie sot her than fir e
control and the issuing of some
special use pe~mits.Land use
planning being undertaken.
Planning for the disposal of state
lands that are immed~ately adjacent
to the west side of the project
area (north and south of Chulitna).
Performing hydroelectric development
feasibility studies.
Borough has no lands in the project
area.Project area does fall within
the borough's boundaries and is part
of the borough's Talkeetna Mountain
Special Use District.Project area
is a "mixed use"zone.
Currently has designated the Susitna
River to and including Devil Canyon
as part of a bio~hysical area for
the Coastal Zone Management Program.
None;lands currently being trans-
ferred to individual villages.
Future management will be guided
by Southcentral Planning Area
Management Framework Plan and an
e·a s em ent man ag e-m e nt pIa n•
State will select lands in ~roject
area not selected by the natives.
Management planning on these lands
will not begin before 1983.
Dependent upon outcome of
feasibility studies.
By Ordinance No.79-35 creating the
Talkeetna Mountains Special Use
District,the borough can exercise
planning and zoning authority over
private lands within its boundaries;
will commence further activities
when hydro studies are completed.
Continuing CZM studies will
determine any additional
management direction.
Management planning not yet
underway.
,-
.....
p-
!
.....
o 0
(j)
(j)
>-...J«z«
w
(j)
:::>
oz«
...J
a:o
LL
(j)«wa:«
>-o
:::>
I-
(j)
-1 -1 -1 1 I J 1 ~1 -1 -J ~---1
o
o
Miles
10
10 20
Kilometers
20
30
LEGEND
•EXISTING STRUCTURE(S)
..;).....
~;.t-~d,;~~.-'~
PREPARED BY TES
EXISTING STRUCTURES
FIGURE 9.2 [iii]
1 1 ~-J ~"-1 ~.-J 1 -J -]]~1 »
INTENSITY
LOW
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
USE
RECREATION
MINING
RECREATION
MINING/RESID.
MINING
REC./RESID.
RECREATION
RECREATION
RECREATION
RECREATION
RECREATION
.'s,~~~."~{,.~.s..:;",,',',-
.,,")~fI,t'J.\,~"'"'"/','"'J~\l~~;,-'-1 cJ,~'\'~,._I ",--.,,I',."''''",.~.:',,-.'r""''',_1".t~/!
(.'
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
NO.
20
Miles
10
o
o
PREPARED BY TES
LAND USE AGGREGATIONS:
RECREATION,MINING,RESIDENTIAL
FIGURE 9.3 [j]
o 5 10 MilesiI I
o 5 10 15
LEGEND
•PRIVATE LANDS
•FEDERAL RAILROAD WITHDRAWAL
••••STUDY AREA BOUNDARY
PREPARED BY TES
LAND OWNERSHIP I STEWARDSHIP,DEVIL CANYON PORTION
FIGURE 9.[j]
PREPARED BY TES
LAND OWNERSHIP/STEWARDSHIP,WATANA PORTION
o
u 5 10 MilesiI I
o 5 10 15 Kilometers
LEGEND
•PRIVATE LANDS
••••STUDY AREA BOUNDARY
FIGURE 9.'[i]
Miles
0 10 20
I I
,
0 30
---BOUNDARY
-
PREPARED BY TES
BIOPHYSICAL COASTAL BOUNDARY
MATANUSKA .SUSITNA BOROUGH
COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
F'IGURE 9.6 •
PREPARED BY TES
PROJECT FACILITIES
AGUR.9.7 [i]
LEGEND
•EXISTING STRUCTURES INUNDATED I DISPLACED
DISPLACEMENT OF RIVERINE BOATING/RAFTING:
REPLACEMENT BY RESERVOIR BOATING
STREAMS LIKELY TO HAVE INCREASED FISHING ACTIVITY
_ZONE OF POTENTIAL INCREASED MOOSE HUNTING
•••••ZONE OF POTENTIAL INCREASED CARIBOU I BEAR HUNTING
ACCESS ROAD
g~::;::/;51 ZONES OF INCREASED USE DUE TO PARTIAL OR COMPLETE ACCESS
o v _10 Miles
J i I
o 5 10 15 Kilometers
INDUCED LAND USE ACTIVITIES,DEVIL CANYON PORTION
PREPARED BY TES FIGURE '.8 [j]
/2W/
Z
~<iF'~~)"$';J
0«~J"\:IE ~~.~\.d-~~rmY...
0)"
W
IX:
::l
Cl
i:i:
LEGEND
•EXISTiNG STRUCTURES iNUNDATED;DiSPLACED
DISPLACEMENT OF RIVERINE BOATING/RAFTING:
REPLACEMENT BY RESERVOIR BOATING
STREAMS LIKELY TO HAVE INCREASED FISHING ACTIVITY
-ZONE OF POTENTIAL INCREASED MOOSE HUNTING
•••••ZONE OF POTENTIAL INCREASED CARIBOU I BEAR HUNTING
ACCESS ROAD
ZONES OF INCREASED USE DUE TO PARTIAL OR COMPLETE ACCESS
-~10 MilesiI I
o 5 10 15 Kilometers
PREPARED BY TES
INDUCED LAND USE ACTIVITIES,WATANA PORTION
FIGURE 9.9 [i]
10 -ALTERNATIVES TO THE SUSITNA PROJECT
This section presents the results of assessments of the environmental
impacts of alternatives to the proposed Susitna Hydroelectric Project.
Included in this assessment is a consideration of alternative hydro-
electric generating sites outside the upper Susitna basin and alterna-
tive sites within the basin.An environmental analysis of these alter-
native sites is described.
An environmental assessment of two alternative methods of generation,
coal-fired thermal and tidal,is also presented.Finally,a comparison
of hydroelectric,thermal and tidal alternatives is presented in terms
of differential environmental impact.
10.1 -Non-Susitna Hydroelectric Alternatives
The analysis of alternative sites for non-Susitna hydropower develop-
ment followed the plan formulation and selection methodology discussed
in Section 1.4 of Volume 1.The material presented in this section is
an expansion of that appearing in Section 6 of Volume I and contains
additional environmental information.
Step 1 in the plan formulation and selection process was to define the
overall object i ve of the exerci se.For Step 2 of the process,all
feasible sites were identified for inclusion in the sUbsequent screen-
ing process.The screening process (Step 3)eliminated those sites
that did not meet the screening criteria and yielded candidates which ~
could be refined to include in the formulation of Railbelt generation
plans (Step 4).
Details of each of the above planning steps are given below and pre-
sented in Fi gure 10.1.The obj ect i ve of-the process w.as to determi ne
the optimum Railbelt generation plan which incorporates the proposed
non-Susitna hydroelectric alternatives.
.....
(a)Screening of Candidate Sites
As discussed in Section 4,Volume 1,numerous studies of hydro-
electric potential in Alaska have been undertaken.A significant
amount of the identified potential is located in the Railbelt
region.Review of the above studies and in particular the various
published inventories of potential sites identified a total of 91
potential sites (Table 10.1).All of these sites are technically
feasible and,under Step 2,of the planning process,were identi-
fied for inclusion in the subsequent screening exercise.
The screening process applied to these sites for this analysis
required the application of four iterations with progressively
more stringent criteria.
10-1
(i)First Iteration
As discussed in Section 6,Volume I,the first screen or
iteration determined which sites were not economically via-
ble and rejected these sites.The standard for economic
vi abil Hy in thi s iteration was defi ned as energy produc-
tion cost less than 50 mills per kWh,based on economic
parameters.This value for energy production cost was con-
sidered to be a reasonable upper limit consistent with
Susitna Basin alternatives for this phase of the selection
process.
As a result of this screen,26 sites were eliminated from
the planning process (Table 10.1).The remaining -65 sites
were subjected to a second iteration of screening which
i ncl uded additional criteri a on envi ronmenta 1 acceptabil-
ity.
(ii)Second Iteration
The inclusion of environmental criteria into the planning
process required a significant data survey to obtain infor-
mation on the location of existing and published sources of
environmental data.A detailed review of this data and the
sources used are presented in Appendix C of the Development
Selection Report.
The basic data collected identified two levels of detail of
environmental screening.The purpose of the first level of
screening was to eliminate those sites which were least
acceptable from an environmental standpoi nt.Rejecti on of
sites occurred if:
-They would cause significant impacts within the boundar-
ies of an existing National Park,Wild and Scenic River,
National Wilderness Area,or a proclaimed National Monu-
ment area;
Or they were located on a river in which:
•Anadromous fish are known to exist;
•The annual passage of fish at the site exceeds 50,000;
and
•Upstream from the site,a confluence with a tributary
occurs in whi ch a major spawni n9 or fi shi ng area is
located.
The definition of the above exclusion criteria was made
on ly after a revi ew of the poss ib1e i mpa cts of hydropower
development on the natural environment and the effects of
land issues on particular site development.
10-2
-
,..
I
i
.,....
i
(iii)
Of the 65 sites remal nl ng after the pre 1i mi nary economi c
screening,'19 sites were eliminated on the basis of the
requirements set for the second screen.These sites appear
in Table 10.1,and the reason for their rejection in Table
10.2.The location of the remaining 46 sites appears in
Fig ur e 1 O.2.
Third Iteration
The reduction in the number of sites to 46 allowed a
reasonable reassessment of the capital and energy produc-
tion costs for each of the remaining sites to be made.
Adjustments were made to take into account transmission
line costs necessary to link each site to the proposed
Anchorage-Fairbanks intertie.This iteration resulted in
the rejection of 18 sites based on judgmental elimination
of the more obvious uneconomic or less environmentally
acceptable sites (Table 10.1).The remaining 28 sites were
subjected to a fourth iteration which entailed a more
detailed numerical environmental assessment.
(iv)Fourth Iteration
To facilitate analysis,the remalnlng 28 sites were cate-
gorized into sizes as follows:
-Less than 25 MW:5 sites;
-25 MW to 100 MW:15 sites;and
-Greater than 100 MW:8 sites.
The fourth and final screen was performed using a detailed
numerical environmental assessment which considered eight
criteria chosen to represent the sensitivity of the natural
and human environments at each of the sites.
The eight evaluation criteria are listed in Table 10.3.
For each of the evaluation criteria,a system of sensitiv-
ity scaling was used to rate the relative sensitivity of
each site.A letter (A,B,C or D)was assigned to each
site for each of the eight criteria to represent this sen-
sitivity.The scale rating system is defined in Table
10.4.
Each evaluation criterion has a definitive significance to
the Alaskan environment and degree of sensitivity to im-
pact.A discussion of each criterion,and the reference
maps used to obtain information on these criteria,is pre-
sented in Appendix C2 of the Development Selection Report.
A summary of the evaluation and comparison of each site on
the basis of these criteria is presented in the following
paragraphs.
10-3
(b)Basis of Evaluation
The criteria were initially weighted in accordance with their rel-
ative significance in comparisons.The first four criteria--big
game,agricultural potential,birds,and anadromous fisherieswere
chosen to represent the most significant features of the natural
environment.These resources require protection and careful man-
agement because of their position in the Alaskan environment,
their roles in the existing patterns of life of the state resi-
dents,and their importance in the future growth and economic
independence of the state.They were vi ewed as more important
than the following four criteria because of their quantifiable and
significant position in the lives of the Alaskan people.
The remaining four criteria--wilderness;cultural,recreation and
scientific features;restricted land use;and access--were chosen
to represent the institutional factors to be considered in deter-
mining any future land use.These are special features which have
been identified or protected by governmental laws or programs and
may have varying degrees of protected status;or the criteria
represent existing land status which may be subject to change by
the potential developments.
Data relating to each of these criteria were compiled separately
and recorded for each site,forming a data-base matrix.Then,
based on these data,a system of sensitivity scaling was developed
to represent the relative sensitivity of each environmental
resource (by criterion)at each site.A"detailed explanation of
the scale rating may be found in Table 10.5.
The scale ratings for the criteria at each site were recorded in
the evaluation matrix.Site evaluations of the 28 sites under
consideration are given in Table 10.6.Preliminary data regarding
technical factors were also recorded for each potential develop-
ment.Parameters included installed capacity,development type
(dam or diversion),dam height,and new land flooded by impound-
ment.The cornplete evaluation matrix may be found in Table 10.7.
In this manner,the environmental data were reduced to a form from
which a relative comparison of sites could be made.The compari-
son was carried out by means of a ranking process.
(c)Rank Weighting and Scoring
For the purpose of evaluating the environmental criteria,the fol-
lowing relative weights were assigned to the criteria.A higher
value indicates greater importance or sensitivity than a lower
value.
10-4
Big Game
Agricultural Potential
Birds
Anadromous Fisheries
Wilderness Values
Cultural Values
Land Use
Access
8
7
8
10
4
4
5
4
The criteria weights for the first four criteria were then adjust-
ed down,depending on related technical factors of the development
scheme.
All the sites were ranked in terms of their dam heights which were
assumed to be the factor having the greatest impact on anadromous
fisheries.
Si tes were a1so ranked in terms of thei r new reservoi r area,or
the amount of new land flooded,which was considered to be the one
factor with greatest impact on agriculture,bird habitat,and big
game habitat.The same adjustments were made for the bi g game,
agricultural potentials,and bird habitat weights based on this
flooded area impact (see Table 10.8).
The scale
B =5
~C 3
0 1
indicators were also given a weighted value as follows:
To compute the ranking score,the scale weights were multiplied by
the adjusted criteria weights for each criteria and the resulting
products were added.
Two scores were then computed.The total score is the sum of all
eight criteria.The partial score is the sum of the first four
criteria only,which gives an indication of the relative impor-
tance of the existing natural resources in comparison to the total
score.
(d)Evaluation Results
The evaluation of sites took place in the following manner:sites
were first divided into three groups in terms of their capacity.
Based on the economics,the best sites were chosen and environmen-
tally evaluated as described above.Table 10.9 lists the number
of sites evaluated in each of the capacity groups in ascending
order according to their total scores for each of the groups.The
partial score was also compared.The sites were then grouped as
better,acceptable,questionable,or unacceptable,based on the
scores.
10-5
The partial and total scores for each of the sites,grouped
according to capacity,appear in Table 10.10.
Si xteen sites were chosen for further cons i derat i on.Three con-
straints were used to identify these 16 sites.First,the most
economical sites which had passed the environmental screening were
chosen.Second,sites with a very good environmental impact rat-
ing which had passed the economic screening were chosen.And
finally,a representative number of sites in each capacity group
were to be chosen (Table 10.11).
From the list of 16 sites,10 were selected for detailed develop-
ment and cost estimates required as input to the generation plan-
ning.The ten sites chosen are underlined in Table 10.1.
Further discussion of the basis of selection of these 10 sites is
presented in Appendix C2 of the Development Selection Report.
(e)Plan Formulation and Evaluation
Steps 4 and 5 in the planning process was the formulation of the
preferred sites identified in Step 3 into Railbelt generation
scenarios.To adequately formulate these scenarios,the engineer-
ing,energy,and environmental aspects of the ten short-listed
sites were further refined (Step 4).
This resulted in formulation of the ten sites into five develop-
ment plans incorporating various combinations of these sites as
input to the Step 5 evaluations.The five development plans are
given in Table 10.12.
The essential objective of Step 5 was established as the deriva-
tion of the optimum plan for the future Railbelt generation,
incorporating non-Susitna hydro generation as well as required
thermal generation.The methodology used in the evaluation of
alternative generation scenarios for the Railbelt is discussed in
detail in Section 8 of Volume I.The criterion on which the pre-
ferred plan was finally selected in these activities was least
present-worth cost based on economi c parameters establ i shed in
Section 8,Volume I.
The selected potential non-Susitna hydro developments (Table
10.13)were ranked in terms of their economic cost of energy.
These developments were then introduced into the all-thermal gen-
erat i ng scenari 0 in groups of two or three.The most economi c
schemes were introduced first followed by the less economic
schemes.
On the basis of these evaluations,the most viable alternative to
the Susitna project was found to be the development of the Chaka-
chamna,Keetna,and Snow sites for hydroelectric power,supple-
10-6
_.
,-.
I
mented with a thermal generating facility.The potential environ-
mental impacts of hydroelectric development at these sites are
di scussed below;di scussi on of the environmental effects of ther-
mal development is in Section 10.4.
10.2 -Environmental Assessment of Selected Alternative Sites
The analysis of alternative development scenarios outside the upper
Susitna Basin showed Chakachamna,Snow and Keetna hydroelectric sites
offer the most suitable schemes for development.Because maximum total
power production from these three sites would be only 650 MW,addition-
al thermal and tidal development would also be required.The potential
environmental impacts of hydroelectric development at these three sites
are discussed below;coal-fired thermal and tidal power are discussed
in Sections 10.4 and 10.5.
The Chakachanmna area has been studied previously for hydroelectric
development and is currently under study by the Power Authority.As
such,fairly detailed information is available.Keetna and Snow,how-
ever,have not been intensively studied and information is limited pri-
marily to non-specific inventory data and resource maps.
r-
I
(a)Description of Chakachamna Site
Chakachamna Lake is located in the Al aska range approximately 80
miles west of Anchorage.The lake is drained by the Chakachatna
River which runs southeasterly out of the lake and eventually into
Cook Inlet.Three primary methods have been explored as a way to
produce power at the site;one via construction of a dam on the
Chakachatna River,one via diversion of water from the lake util-
izing a tunnel into the MacArthur River,and one via diversion
down the Chakachatna Valley.Transmission lines would run from
the site to a location near the Chugach Electric Association (CEA)
Beluga power plant and would then parallel existing lines to a
submari ne crossing of Knik Arm and then to a termi na 1 on the
eastern shore (Bechtel Civil and Minerals,Inc.,1981).
-
(i)Topography and Geology
Chakachamna Lake is located in a deep valley of the Alaska
range surrounded by gl aci ers and hi gh mountai ns.From an
elevation of approximately 1200,land elevation drops fair-
ly rapidly to sea level within 40 miles.In lower eleva-
tions,drainage is poor with numerous wetlands present.
Lake Chakachamna was formed by the Barrier Gl acier and
associated morainal deposits descending from the south side
of Mount Spurr.The area is underlain by semi-consolidated
volcanic debris of late Tertiary or Quaternary age and,
closer to Cook Inlet,by alluvial and tidal sand,silt,and
gravel of Holocene age (Cook Inlet Region,Inc,and Placer
10-7
Amex,Inc.,1981).Past movement by glaciers has resulted
in scattered boulders and glacially scattered till.Chaka-
chamna Lake,the south side of the Chakachatna River
Valley,and the MacArthur River Canyon are bordered by
granitic bedrock.The north side of the Chakachatna River
Valley is bordered by volcanic bedrock.
(ii)Surface Hydrology
Chakachamna Lake is approximately 13 miles in length and is
1.5 to 3.0 miles wide.Inflow to the lake is primarily
glacial in origin and consists of the Nagish1amina and
Chil1igan Rivers entering from the north (U.S.Fish and
Wildlife Service 1962).
The Chakachatna Ri ver ori gi nates at the outlet of Chaka-
chamna Lake and flows easterly approximately 15 miles
through a canyon and then through 1owl and areas to Cook
Inlet.Mean annual discharge at its origin is 3645 cfs
with a range from 441 cfs in April to 12,000 cfs in July;
average annual stream flow at the reservoir site is esti-
mated at 2.5 million acre feet (Bechtel Civil and Minerals,
Inc.,1981).The total length is 36 miles and the total
drainage area is 1,620 square miles.
The MacArthur Ri ver ori gi nates from the MacArthur gl aci er
and is also fed by the Blockade glacier.The river is
1ater joi ned by waters from Noaukta Slough,which carry
water from the Chakachatna River.The MacArthur River con-
tinues to the confluence with the Chakachatna and then
empties into Trading Bay.
(iii)Terrestrial Ecology
Vegetation in the project area varies with elevation and
moi sture condit ions.The major community types present
include spruce forest,bogs,and willow thickets.Dominant
species present include paper birch,black cottonwood,
alder,bog blueberry,and willow (Bechtel Civil and
Minerals,Inc.,1981).
Big game species utilizing the area include moose,caribou,
black bear,and grizzly bear.Other species present
include wolverine,mink,and various small mammals (Bechtel
Civil and Minerals,Inc.,1981).
Bi rds present in the area are typi ca 1 for the area of
Alaska,with peak numbers and species occurring during the
spring and fall migration periods.Goldeneyes were
observed nesting in the area in 1960 with other waterfowl
10-8
..
I
\
(i v)
(v)
(vi)
species present.during migration,including redheads,
greenwinged teal and mallards;bald eagles and trumpeter
swans are known to nest in the area primarily near Cook In-
let (Bechtel Civil and Minerals,Inc.,1981).
Aquatic Ecology
The water of the tributaries to Chakachamna Lake,the lake
itsel f and the Chakachatna and MacArthur Ri vers provi de a
variety of water temperatures,water quality and substrate,
resulting in various types of aquatic habitats.
Chakachamna Lake contains populations of lake trout,Dolly
Varden,whitefish and sculpins (U.S.Fish and Wildlife Ser-
vice,1962).More importantly,sockeye salmon migrate up
the Chakachatna Ri ver and spawn withi n Chakachamna Lake.
Although the lake is not heavily utilized by sport fisher-
men,these spawning salmon contribute to the commercial
fisheries of Cook Inlet.
The Chakachatna River is utilized by a wider variety of
fish species.The upper reaches are characterized by boul-
ders and swift currents and do not appear to be a spawning
area.This reach is utilized by the anadramous fish that
spawn in Chakachamna Lake (Bechtel Civil and Minerals,
Inc.,1981).Sockeye salmon,chum salmon and pink salmon
spawn in the river while chinook and coho salmon and Dolly
Varden are known to occur.
The \VlacArthur Ri ver supports a fi shery si mil ar to that of
the Chakachatna (Alaska Power Administration 1980).Dolly
Varden are present with chi nook,coho,pi nk,sockeye,and
chum salmon present as spawners in the side channels.
Pygmy whitefish occur further downstream (Bechtel Civil and
Minerals,Inc.,1981).
Cultural Resources
The Alaska Heritage Resource Survey File maintained by the
State Historic Preservation Office 1 ists no sites present
in the Chakachamna project area.The area has not been
thorougly studied and further investigations would be
necessary should the project proceed.
Socioeconomics
The Chakachamna project is located in a sparsely populated
area of the Kenai Peninsula Borough.The only community in
the vi ci nity of the project area is the nat i ve vi 11 age of
10-9
Tyonek,population 239.Commercial fishing and subsis-
tence activities are the major sources of income with some
employment provided by timber harvesting,gas and oil
exploration activities and government.
Housing consists primarily of prefabricated structures.
One school serves grades K through 12,with a current
enrollment of 146.Police protection is provided by the
Alaskan State Troopers,headed by a resident constable.
Fire protection is provided by the U.S.Bureau of Land Man-
agement.Medical services are available in a medical cen-
ter located in the village.Water is supplied from a near-
by lake and wastewater disposed via septic systems.
Transportation is limited to gravel surface roads and small
airstrips.
The Kenai Borough and City of Anchorage would likely con-
tribute to the work force for the project.The work force
in the Borough is 12,300,with 9.8 percent unemployed;
Anchorage has a work force of 91,671,with 6.9 percent
unemployment (Bechtel Civil and Minerals,Inc.,1981).
(b)Description of Snow Site
The Snow site is located on the Snow River in the Kenai Peninsula
(Figure 10.2).Power development would include a dam with diver-
sion through a tunnel approximately 7,500 to 10,000 feet in
length.A transmission line would extend from the site northward
for nine miles to Kenai Lake and then northwesterly for 16 miles
to tie in with existing lines.
The Snow Ri ver at the proposed dams ite flows ina deep narrow
gorge cut into bedrock on the floor of a glacial valley.Gray-
wacke and slate are exposed and this overburden is evident (U.S.
Department of Energy 1980).The river flows west and north into
the south end of the Kenai Lake.The average annual streamflow at
the darns He is est imated at 510,000 to 535,000 cfs.The dams ite
wou1 d be fed by 105 square mil es of the ri ver IS 166 square mil e
drainage area (U.S.Department of Energy 1980;U.S.ArlTlY Corps of
Engi neers).
Vegetation in the area is primarily a hemlock-spruce forest.
Black bear,wolf and dall sheep are known to occur in the area,
and a moose concentration area is present (Cook Inlet Region
1981).Waterfowl utilize the area both for nesting and molting.
No anadromous fish are known to occur in the Snow River,but sock-
eye and coho sa 1mon are present in the dra i nage.Ra i nbow trout
and whitefish also occur in Kenai Lake.
10-10
~
I
-
Reports consulted listed no known cultural resource sites in the
Snow area.
The Snow site is located in the Railbelt region of Alaska,as dis-
cussed in Section 5 of this volume.Socioeconomic conditions rel-
ative to the Snow site are also discussed in Section 5•
.(c)Description of Keetna Site
The Keetna site is located on the Talkeetna River,approximately
70 n,.i 1es north of Anchorage (Fi gure 10.2).Power development
would include a dam with a diversion tunnel.
The Talkeetna River,with headwaters in the Talkeetna mountains,
flows southwesterly to its confluence with the Susitna River.The
damsite has a drainage area of 1,260 square miles;stream flow
records indicate discharge at the site to be 1,690,000 acre feet
(U.S.Department of Energy 1980).
Vegetation on the lower elevations of the valley are primarily up-
land spruce-hardwood forest.The upper elevations have little
vegetation.Black bear and brown bear are present and the area is
a known moose concentration area.A caribou winter range is near-
by.
Four species of anadramous fish are present in the area (chinook,
sockeye,coho,and chum salmon).The chinook salmon is known to
spawn in tributaries upstream of the proposed site.
Reports consulted listed no known cultural resources at the site.
--!
I.
(d)Environmental Impacts of Selected Alternatives
Most environmental impacts at the Chakachamna,Snow and Keetna
sites would be those that typically occur with hydroelectric
development.Vegetation and wildl He habitat would be lost,
resulting in a reduction in carrying capacity and wildlife popula-
tions at the site.Based on the availability of habitat in sur-
rounding areas,this would likely not be a major impact.Reduc-
tions in fish populations (as discussed below)would reduce the
food source for bears,eagl es,and other fi sh-eat i ng wi 1dl i fe;
this could affect local populations.Creation of a reservoir at
the Snow and Keetna sites would provide a different habitat type
and benefit such species groups as waterfowl and furbearers.
Any archaeological or historic sites in the reservoir areas would
be flooded.On-ground surveys,salvage operations and protection
of areas outside the reservoir but within the construction area,
would mitigate most of these potential impacts.
10-11
The Keetna reservoir would inundate two scenic areas;Sentinel
Rock and Granite Gorge.
Socioeconomic impacts would be similar at each site.It is
expected there would be an increase in population in the towns
near the site and associ ated increase in demand for hous i ng.
schools and other services.Because all three sites are located
withi n 100 mil es of Anchorage.it is expected much of the 1abor
force would be drawn from this area where an adequate work force
is present.Construction camps would likely be erected to house
workers.thereby reducing demand on surrounding towns.Socioeco-
nomic impacts for the Chakachamna site would be similar to those
described in Section 10.3 for thermal development but of lesser
magnitude.
The greatest potential impact of these developments is to the
fisheries resources.particularly at the Chakachamna site.Crea-
t i on of the reservoir at the Keetna and Snow sites wou1 d flood
river areas.thereby reducing this type of habitat.At the Keetna
site.spawning areas may be affected and upstream migration of the
anadromous salmon also curtailed.unless fish ladders are con-
structed and adequate downstream flows maintained.At this time.
the detailed studies necessary to determine adequate flows for
power generation and fishery maintenance have not been conducted.
Power development at the Chakachamna site has the potential to
negatively impact anadromous fish.This impact would result from
decreased f1 owi ng or dewateri ng from the upper port ions of the
Chakachatna River.removal of access to Chakachamna Lake.altera-
tions in water quality.loss of downstream migrating fingerlings.
loss of spawning habitat.decrease in the food base.All of these
impacts.if large enough.could impact the commercial fisheries of
Cook Inlet;the magnitude of these impacts would depend upon the
design and operating scheme to produce power.
If a dam was constructed on Chakachatna Ri ver.Chakachamna Lake
and its tributary streams would be inaccessible to anadromous
fi·sh.Unless fish ladders were constructed,this would eliminate
the anadromous fish populations in Chakachamna lake.In addition,
losses of downstream migrating fingerlings would occur unless an
effective design in the dam's construction could be developed to
allow them to pass safely downstream.
If diversion into the MacArthur River via tunnels is used.in-
creased flows could result in changes in water quality and temper-
ature,perhaps affecting the ability of anadromous fish to migrate
upstream to the spawning areas.For maximum power production.no
water would be released into the upper reaches of the Chakachatna
River,thereby eliminating the anadromous fish populations in the
lake and lake tributaries.If fishery flows were maintained,this
10-12
-!Ii
""""I
_.
_.
severe impact would not occur,provided fish passage facilities
were provided at the lake outlet.
If lake water is diverted into the Chakachatna River,there will
be no i Illpact to the MacArthur Ri ver ecosystem.Above the power-
house and below the lake,impacts to the fishery will depend on
the level of flows maintained and the installation of fish passage
facilities.Again,if maximum flows are utilized for power pro-
duction,anadromous fish populations in the lake and tributaries
would also be lost.If flows were maintained in the Chakachatna
River and fish passage facilities were provided,impacts would be
substantially reduced.
10.3 -Upper Susitna Basin Hydroelectric Alternatives
A second feature of the alternatives analysis involved the considera-
tion of alternative sites within the Upper Susitna Basin.This process
involved consi deration of technical,economical,environmental,and
social aspects.
This section describes the environmental consideration involved in the
selection of Devil CanyonjWatana sites as the preferred sites within
the Upper Susitna Basin and also presents a brief comparison of the
environmental impacts associated with alternatives that proved economi-
cally feasible.This section concentrates on the environmental aspects
of the selection process.Details of the technical and economic as-
pects of this evaluation are discussed in Section 8 of Volume I,and
also in Section 8 of the Development Selection Report.
The objectives of the selection process were to determine the optimum
Susitna Basin Development Plan and to conduct a preliminary environmen-
tal assessment of the alternatives in order to compare those judged
economically feasible.The selection process followed the Generic Plan
Formulation and Selection Methodology described in Section 1.4 of Vol-
ume 1.Damsites were identified following the objectives described
above.These sites were then screened and assessed through a sequen-
tial "narrowing down"process to arrive at a recommended plan (Figure
10.4).
(a)Damsite Selection
In the previous Susitna Basin studies discussed in Section 4
(Volume I),12 damsites were identified in the upper portion of
the basin,i.e.,upstream from Gold Creek (see Figure 10.5).
These sites are listed below:
-Gol d Creek
-Olson (alternative name:Susitna II)
-Devi 1 Canyon
-High Devil Canyon (alternative name:Susitna I)
10-13
-Devi 1 Creek
-Watana
-Sus itna II I
-Vee
-Maclaren
-Denali
-Butte Creek
-Tyone
Longitudinal profiles of the Susitna River and probable typical
reservoir levels associated with the selected sites were prepared
to depict which sites were mutually exclusive,i.e.,those which
cannot be developed jointly since the downstream site would inun-
date the upstream site.All'relevant data concerning dam type,
capital cost,power,and energy output were asssembled as discus-
sed in Section 8 of Volume 1.Results appear in Table 10.14.
(b)Site Screening
The objective of this screening exercise was to eliminate sites
which would obviously not feature in the initial stages of a Sus-
itna Basin development plan and which,therefore,do not require
any further study at this stage.Three basic screening criteria
are used;these include environmental,alternative sites,and
energy contribution.
(i)Environmental Screening Criteria
The potential impact on the environment of a reservoir
located at each of the sites was assessed and catagorized
as being relatively unacceptable,significant,or moder-
ate.
-Unacceptable Sites
Sites in this category are classified as unacceptable
because either their impact on the environment woul d be
extremely severe or there are obviously better alterna-
tives available.Under the current circumstances,it is
expected that it would not be possible to obtain the
necessary agency approval,permits,and licenses to dev-
elop these sites.
The Gold Creek and Olson sites both fall into this cate-
gory.As salmon are known to migrate up Portage Creek,a
development at either of these sites would obstruct this
migration and inundate'spawning grounds.Available in-
formation indicates that salmon do not migrate through
Devil Canyon to the river reaches beyond because of the
steep fall and high flow velocities.
10-14
,'-
(i i )
Deve 1opment of the mi d-reaches of the Tyone Ri ver wou 1d
result in the inundation of sensitive big game and water-
fowl areas,provide access to a large expanse of wilder-
ness area,and contribute only a small amount of storage
and energy to any Susitna development.Since more accep-
table alternatives are obviously available,the Tyone
site is also considered unacceptable.
-Sites With Significant Impact
Between Devil Canyon and the Oshetna River,the Susitna
River is confined to a relatively steep river valley.
Upstream from the Oshetna Ri ver the surroundi ng topo-
graphy flattens,and any development in this area has the
potential of flooding large areas even for relatively low
dams.Since the Denali Highway is relatively close by,
this area is not as isolated as the Upper Tyone River
Basin.It is still very sensitive in terms of potential
impact on bi g game and waterfowl.The sites at Butte
Creek,Denali,Maclaren,and,to a lesser extent,Vee fit
into this category.
-Sites With Moderate Impact
Sites between Devil Canyon and the Oshetna Ri ver have a
lower potential environmental impact.These sites in-
c1 ude the Devil Canyon,Hi gh Devil Canyon,Devil Creek,
Watana and Susitna sites,and,to a lesser extent,the
Vee site.
Alternative Sites
Sites which are close to each other and can be regarded as
alternative dam locations can be treated as one site for
project definition study purposes.The two sites which
fall into this category are Devil Creek,which can be
regarded as an a lternat i ve to the Hi gh Devil Canyon site,
and Butte Creek,which is an alternative to the Denali
site.
'-i
(iii)Energy Contribution
The total Sus itna Bas in potent i a1 has been assessed at
6,700 GWh.As discussed in Section 5,Volume I,additional
future energy requirements for the period 1982 to 2010 are
forecast to range from 2,400 to 13,500 GWh.It was there-
fore decided to limit the minimum size of any power devel-
opment in the Sus itna Bas into an average annua 1 energy
production in the range of 500 to 1,000 GWh.The upstream
sites such as Maclaren,Denali,Butte Creek,and Tyone do
not meet this minimum energy generation criterion.
10-15
(iv)Screening Process
The screening process involved eliminating all sites fall-
ing in the unacceptable environmental impact and alterna-
tive site categories.Those failing to meet the energy
contribution criteria were also eliminated unless they had
some potential for upstream regulation.The results of
this process are as follows:
-The unacceptable site environmental category e1 iminated
the Gold Creek,Olson,and Tyone sites.
-The alternative sites category eliminated the Devil Creek
and Butte Creek sites.
-No additional sites were eliminated for failing to meet
the energy contribution criteria.The remaining sites
upstream from Vee,;'e.,Maclaren and Denali,were re-
tained to insure that further study be direc;ted toward
determining the need and viability of providing flow reg-
ulation in the headwaters of the Susitna.
(c)Formulation of Susitna Basin Development Plans
In order to obtain a more uniform and reliable data base for
studyi ng the seven sites remai ni ng,it was necessary to develop
engineering layouts for these sites and re-evaluate the costs.In
addition,it was also necessary to study staged developments at
several of the larger dams.The results of these are described in
Sections 8,10,and 11 of Volume I.These layouts were then u~ed
to assess the sites and plans from an environmental perspective.
The results of the site-screening exercise described in Section
(10.3(a))above indicate that the Susitna Basin Development Plan
should incorporate a combination of several major dams and power-
houses located at one or more of the following sites:
-Devil Canyon,
-High Devil Canyon,
-Watana,
-Susitna III,
-Vee.
In addition,the following two sites should be considered as can-
didates for supplementary upstream flow regulation:
-Maclaren,
-Denali.
10-16
-I
To establish very quickly the likely optimum combination of dams,
a computer screening model was used to directly identify the types
of plans that are most economic.Results of these runs indicate
that the Devil Canyon/Watana or the High Devil Canyon/Vee combina-
tions are the most economic.In addition to these two basic
development plans,a tunnel scheme,which provides potential envi-
ronmental advantages by replacing the Devil Canyon dam with a long
power tunnel,and a development plan involving the two most eco-
nomi c dams ites,Hi gh Devil Canyon and Watana,were also i ntro-
duced.These studies are described in more detail in Section 8 of
Volume 1 and in Table 10.15.
These studies resulted in three basic plans involving dam combina-
tions and one dam/tunnel combination.There were Plan 1 which
i nvol ved the Watana-Devil Canyon sites;Pl an 2,the Hi gh Devil
Canyon-Vee sites;Plan 3,the Watana-tunnel concept;and Plan 4,
Watana-High Devil Canyon sites.
(i)Plan 1
Three subplans were developed:
-Subplan 1.1:Stage 1 involves constructing Watana Dam to
its full height and installing 800 MW.Stage 2 involves
constructing Devil Canyon Dam and installing 600 MW.
-Subplan 1.2:For this subplan,construction of the Wat-
ana dam is staged from a crest elevation of 2,060 feet to
2,225 feet.The powerhouse is also staged from 400 MW to
800 MW.As for Subplan 1.1,the final stage involves
Dev"j 1 Canyon with an installed capacity of 600 MW.
-Subplan 1.3:This subplan is similar to Subplan 1.2
except that only the powerhouse and not the dam at Watana
is staged.
(i i )Plan 2
Three subplans were also developed under Plan 2:
-Subplan 2.1:This subplan involves constructing the High
Devil Canyon Dam first with an installed capacity of 800
MW.The second stage involves constructing the Vee Dam
with an installed capacity of 400 MW.
-SUbplan 2.2:For this subplan,the construction of High
Devil Canyon Dam is staged from a crest elevation of
1,630 to 1,775 feet.The installed capacity is also
staged from 400 to 800 MW.As for SUbplan 2.1,Vee
follows with 400 MW of installed capacity.
10-17
~Subp1an 2.3:This subp1an is similar to Subp1an 2.2 ex-
cept·thpt only the powerhouse and not the dam at Hi gh
Devil Canyon is staged.
(iii)Plan 3
This plan involves a long power tunnel to replace the Devil
Canyon dam in the WC\tana/Devil Canyon development plan.
The tunnel alternative could develop similar head as the
Deyi1 Canyon dam development and would avoid some environ-
mental impacts by avoiding inundating Devil Canyon.
Because of low winter flows in the river,a tunnel alterna-
tive was considered only as a second stage to the Watana
development.
FOllowing studies described in Section 8 of Volume I,a
plan involving a tunnel to develop the Devil Canyon dam
head and a 245-foot-hi gh re-regu1 at i on dam and reservoir
was selected with the capacity to regulate diurnal fluctua-
tions caused by the peaking operation at Watana.The plan
involves two subp1ans •
...Subplan 3.1:This subp1an involves initial construction
ofWatana and installation of 800 MW of capacity.The
next stage invol ves the construction of the downstream
re-regu1ation dam to a crest elevation of 1,500 feet and
a 15"'mile-10ng tunnel.A total of 300 MW would be in-
stalled at the end of the tunnel and a further 30 MW at
the re-regu1ation dam.An additional 50 MW of capacity
would be installed at the Watana powerhouse to facilitate
peaking operations.
-Subplan 3.2:ThiS subp1an is essentially the same as
Subp1an 3.1 except that construction of the initial 800
MW powerhouse at Watana is staged.
(iv)Plan 4
This single plan was developed to evaluate the development
of the two most economic damsites,Watana and Hi gh Devil
Canyon,jointly.Stage 1 involves constructing Watana to
its full height with an installed capacity of 400 MW.
Stage 2 involves increasing the capacity at Watana to 800
MW.Stage 3 involves constructing High Devil Canyon to a
crest e1 evation of 1470 so that the reservoir extends·to
just downf;tream from Watana.In order to develop the full
head between Watana and Portage Creek,an additional smal-
l er darn wou1 d be added downstream from Hi gh Devil Co.nyoh.
This dam would be located just upstream from Portage Creek
so as not to interfere with the anadromous fisheries,
10-18
AIIill
I
-
-
(d)
and it would have a crest elevation of 1030 and an install-
ed capacity of 150 MW.For purposes of these studies,this
site is referred to as the Portage Creek site.
Plan Evaluation Process
The overall objective of this step in the evaluation process was
to select the preferred basin development plan.A preliminary
evaluation of plans was initially undertaken to determine broad
comparisons of the available alternatives.This was followed by
appropriate adjustments to the plans and a more detailed evalua-
tion and comparison.
Table 10.14 lists pertinent details such as capital costs and
energy yields associated with the selected plans.The cost infor-
mation was obtained from the engineering layout studies described
in Sections 9 and 10.The energy yield information was developed
using a multi-reservoir computer model.
A more detailed description of the model appears in Section 8 of
Vo 1ume 1.
In the process of evaluating the schemes,it became apparent that
there would be environmental problems associated with allowing
daily peaking operations from the most downstream reservoir in
each of the plans described above.In order to avoid these poten-
tial problems while still maintaining operational flexibility to
peak on a daily basis,re-regulation facilities were incorporated
in the four basic plans.These facilities incorporate both struc-
tural measures,such as re-regulation dams,and modified opera-
tional procedures under a series of form modified plans,E1
through E4.
(i)E1 Plans
For Subplans 1.1 to 1.3,a low,temporary re-regulation dam
is constructed downstream from Watana during the stage in
which the generating capacity is increased to 800 MW.This
dam woul d re-regul ate the outfl ows from Watana and allow
daily peak i ng operat ions.It has been assumed that it
would be possible to incorporate this dam with the diver-
sion works at the Devil Canyon site,and an allowance of
$100 million has been made to cover any additional costs
associated with this approach.
In the final stage,only 400 MW of capacity is added to the
darn at Devil Canyon instead of the original 600 MW.Reser-
voir operat i ng rul es are changed so that Devi 1 Canyon dam
acts as the re-regulation dam for Watana.
10-19
(ii)E2 Plans
For Subplp.ns 2.1 to 2.3,a permane,nt re~regulation dam is
located downstream from the Hi gh Dev"j 1 Canyon site,whi 1e
at the same time,the generating capacity is increased to
800 MW.An allowance of $140 mill ion has been made to
cover the costs of such a dam.
An additional Subplan E2.4 was established.This plan is
similar to E2.3 except that the re-regulation dam is util-
ized for power production.The damsite is located at the
Portage Creek site with a crest level set to utilize the
full head.A 150 MW powerhouse is installed.As this dam
is to serve as a re-regulating facility,it is constructed
at the same time as the capacity of High Devil Canyon is
increased to 800 MW,i.e.,during Stage 2.
(iii)E3 Plan
The Watana tunnel development plan already incorporates an
adequate degree of re-regulation,and the E3.1 Plan is,
therefore,identical to the 3.1 Plan.
(iV)E4 Plans
The E4.1 Plan incorporates a re-regulation dam downstream
from Watana during Stage 2.As for the E1 Plans,it has
been assumed that it would be possible to incorporate this
dam as part of the diversion arrangements at the High Devil
Canyon site,and an allowance of $100 million has been made
to cover the costs.The energy and cost i nformat i on for
these plans is presented in Section 8.
These evaluations basically reinforce the results of the
screening model;for a total energy production capabil ity
of up to approximately 4,000 GWh,Plan E2 (High Devil Can-
yon)provides the most economic energy while for capabili~
ties in the range of 6,000 GWh,Plan E1 (Watana-Devil Can-
yon)is the most economic,
(e)Comparison of Plans
The evaluation and comparison of the various basin development
plans described above,was undertaken in a series of steps.
In the first step,for determining the optimum staging concept
associated with each basic plan (i,e q the optimum subplan)eco-
nomic criteria only are used and the least~cQst staging concept is
adopted.For assessing which plan is the most appropriate,a more
detailed evaluation process incorporating economic,environmental,
social,and energy contribution aspects is taken into account.
10-20
Ilfo!lIl,
!
~'
-
Economic evaluation of the Susitna Basin development plans was
conducted via a computer simulation planning mode"'(OGP5)of the
entire generating system.This model and the \~esults are des-
cribed in Section 8 of Volume I.
As outlined in the generic methodology (Section 1.4 and Appendix
A).the final evaluation of the development plans is to be under-
taken by a percei ved compar i son process on the bas is of appropri-
ate criteria.The following criteria are used to evaluate the
shortlisted basin development plans.They generally contain the
requi rements of the generi c process with the except i on that an
additional criterion,energy contribution,is added.The objec-
tive of including this criterion is to insure that full considera-
tion is given to the total basin energy potential that is develop-
ed by the various plans.
(i)Economic Criteria
The parameter used is the total present-worth cost of the
total Railbelt generating system for the period 1980 to
2040 listed and discussed in Section 8.
(..)\11 Environmental Criteria
A qualitative assessment of the environmental impact on the
ecological.cultural,and aesthetic resources is undertaken
for each plan.Emphasis is placed on identifying major
concerns so that these coul d be combi ned wi th the other
evaluation attributes in an overall assessment of the
pl an.
(iii)Social Criteria
This attribute includes determination of the potential non-
renewable resource displacement.the impact on the state
and local economy.and the risks and consequences of major
;-structura 1 fai 1 ures caused by sei sm;c events.Impacts on
the economy refer to the effects of an investment plan on
economic variables.
(iv)~t Contribution
The parameter used is the total amount of energy produced
from the specific oevelopment plan.An assessment of the
energy development foregone is also undertaken.This ener-
gy loss is inherent to the plan and cannot easily be recov-
ered by subsequent staged developments.
Economic and technical comparisons are discussed in Section
8 of Volume I;environmental.social.and summary compari-
sons appear in Tables 10.15 through 10.18.
10-21
(f)Results of Evaluation Process
The various attributes outlined above have been determined for
each plan.Some of the attributes are quantitative while others
are qualitative.Overall evaluation is based on a comparison of
similar types of attributes for each plan.In cases where the
attributes associated with one plan all indicate equality or
superiority with respect to another plan,the decision as to the
best plan is clear cut.In other cases where some attributes
indicate superiority and others inferiority,these differences are
highlighted and trade-off decisions are made to determine the pre-
ferred development plan.In cases where these trade-offs have had
to be made,they are relatively convincing and the decision-making
process can,therefore,be regarded as fairly robust.In addi-
tion,these trade-offs are clearly identified so the reader can
independently address the judgment decisions made.
The overall evaluation process is conducted in a series of steps.
At each step,only a pair of plans is evaluated.The superior
plan is then passed on to the next step for evaluation against an
alternative plan.
(g)Devil Canyon Dam Versus Tunnel
The first step in the process involves the evaluation of the Wat-
ana-Devil Canyon dam plan (E1.3)and the Watana tunnel plan
(E3.1).As Watana is common to both plans,the evaluation is
based on a comparison of the Devil Canyon dam and tunnel schemes.
In order to assist in the evaluation in terms of economic criter-
ia,additional information was obtained by analyzing the results
of the OGPS computer runs.This information,presented in Section
8,ill ustrates the breakdown of the total system present-worth
cost in terms of capital investment,fuel,and operation and main-
tenance costs.
(i)Economic Comparison
From an economic point of view,the Devil Canyon dam scheme
is superior.On a present worth basis,the tunnel scheme
is $680 million or about 12 percent more expensive than the
dam scheme.For a low-demand growth rate,this cost dif-
ference would be reduced slightly to $610 million.Even if
the tunnel scheme costs are halved,the total cost differ-
ence would still amount to $380 million.Consideration of
the sensitivity of the basic economic evaluation to poten-
tial changes in capital cost estimate,the period of eco-
nomic analysis,the discount rate,fuel costs,fuel cost
escalation,and economic plant lives do not change the
basic economic superiority of the dam scheme over the tun-
nel scheme.
10-22
-I
.}
(ii)Environmental Comparison
~The environmental comparison of the two schemes is summar-
i zed in Table 10.16.Overa 11,the tunnel scheme is judged
to be superior because:
It offers the potential for enhancing anadromous fish
populations downstream from the re-regu1ation dam because
of the more uniform flow distribution that will be
achieved in this reach;
-It inundates 13 miles less of resident fisheries habitat
in river and major tributaries;
-It has a lower impact on wildlife habitat because of the
smaller inundation of habitat by the re-regu1ation dam;
-It has a lower potential for inundating archaeological
sites because of the smaller reservoir involved;
-It would preserve much of the characteristics of the
Devil Canyon gorge,which is considered to be an aesthe-
tic and recreational resource.
-r
(iii)Social Comparison
Table 10.17 summarizes the evaluation in terms of the soci-
al criteria of the two schemes.In terms of impact on
state and local economics and risks resulting from seismic
exposure,the two schemes are rated equally.However,the
dam scheme has,because of its hi gher energy yi el d,more
potential for displacing nonrenewable energy resources,
and,therefore,scores a slight overall plus in terms of
the social evaluation criteria.
-
(i v)
(v)
Energy Comparison
The results show that the dam scheme has a greater poten-
tial for energy production and develops a larger portion of
the basin's potential.The dam scheme is,therefore,
judged to be superior from the energy contribution stand-
poi nt.
Overall Comparison
The overall evaluation of the two schemes is summarized in
Table 10.18.The estimated cost saving of $680 million in
favor of the dam scheme is considered to outweigh the re-
duction in the overall environmental impact of the tunnel
scheme.The dam scheme is,therefore,judged to be super-
ior overall.
10-23
(h)Watana-Devil Canyon Versus High Devil Canyon-Vee
The second step in the development selection process involves an
evaluation of the Watana-Devil Canyon (E1.3)and the High Dev"il
Canyon-Vee (E2.3)development plans.
(i)Economic Comparison
In terms of the economic criteria,the Watana-Devil Canyon
plan is less costly by $520 million.As for the dam-tunnel
evaluation discussed above,the sensitivity of this deci-
sion to potential changes in the various parameters consid-
ered (i .e.,load forecast,discount rates,etc.)does not
change the basic superiority of the Watana-Dev"il Canyon
Plan.
(ii)Environmental Comparison
The evaluation in terms of the environmental criteria is
summarized in Table 10.19.In assessing these plans,a
reach-by-reach comparison is made for the section of the
Sus itna Ri ver between Portage Creek and the Tyone Ri ver.
The Watana-Devil Canyon scheme would create more potential
environmental impacts in the Watana Creek area.However,
it is judged that the potential environmental impacts which
would occur in the upper reaches of the river with a High
Devil Canyon-Vee development are more severe in comparison
overall.
From a fisheries perspective,both schemes would have a
similar effect on the downstream anadromous fisheries,
a lthough the Hi gh Devil Canyon-Vee scheme would produce a
slightly greater impact on the resident fisheries in the
Upper Susitna Basin.
The Hi gh Devil Canyon-Vee scheme wou 1d inundate approx i-
mately 14 percent (15 miles)more critical,winter,river-
bottom moose habitat than the Watana-Devil Canyon scheme.
The Hi gh Devil Canyon-Vee scheme woul d inundate a 1arge
area upstream from the Vee site ut ili zed by three subpopu-
lation of moose that range in the northeast section of the
basi n.The Watana-Devil Canyon scheme woul d avoi d the po-
tential impacts on moose in the upper section of the river;
however,a 1arger percentage of the Watana Creek bas in
would inundated.
The condition of the subpopulation of moose utilizing this
Watana Creek Basin and the quality of the habitat a,ppears
to be decreasing.Habitat manipulation measures could be
implemented in this area to improve the moose habitat.
10-24
-
,.-
-
Neverthel ess,it is cons i dered that the upstream moose
habitat losses associ ated with the Hi gh Devil Canyon-Vee
scheme woul d probably be greater than the Watana Creek
losses associated with the Watana-Devil Canyon scheme.
A major factor to be considered in comparing the two devel-
opment plans is the potential effects on caribou in the
region.It is judged that the increased length of river
flooded,especi ally upstream from the Vee dams ite,woul d
result in the High Devil Canyon-Vee plan creating a greater
potential diversion of the Nelchina herd's range.In addi-
tion,a larger area of caribou range would be directly in-
undated by the Vee reservoir.
The area flooded by the Vee reservoir is also cons i dered
important to some key furbearers,particularly red fox.In
a comparison of this area with the Watana Creek area that
woul d be inundated with the Watana-Devil Canyon scheme,the
area upstream from Vee is judged to be more important for
furbearers.
As previously mentioned,the area between Devil Canyon and
the Oshetna River on the Susitna River is confined to a
relatively steep river valley.Along these valley slopes
are habitats important to birds and black bears.Since the
Watana reservoir would flood the river section between the
Watana damsite and the Oshetna River to a higher elevation
than would the High Devil Canyon reservoir (2200 as cOmpar-
ed to 1750),the High Devil Canyon-Vee plan would retain
the integrity of more of this river valley slope habitat.
From the archaeological studies done to date,there tends
to be an increase in site intensity as one progresses
towards the northeast section of the Upper Susitna Basi n.
The High Devil Canyon-Vee plan would result in more exten-
sive inundation and increased access to the northeasterly
section of the basin.This plan is judged to have a great-
er potential for directly or indirectly affecting archaeo-
logical sites.
Because of the wilderness nature of the Upper Susitna Bas-
in,the creation of increased access associated with pro-
ject development could have a significant influence on
future uses and management of the area.The Hi gh Dev;1
Canyon-Vee plan would involve the construction of a dam at
the Vee site and the creat i on of a reservoi r in the more
northeasterly section of the basin~This plan would thus
create inherent access to more wi 1 derness than woul d the
Watana-Devil Canyon scheme.As it is easier to extend
access than to limit it,inherent access requirements are
10-25
detrimental,and the Watana-Devil Canyon scheme is judged
to be more acceptable in this regard.
Except for the increased loss of river valley,bird,and
black bear habitat,the Watana-Devil Canyon development
plan is judged to be more environmentally acceptable than
the Hi gh Devi 1 Canyon-Vee pl an.Although the Watana-Devil
Canyon plan is considered to be the more environmentally
compatible Upper Susitna development plan,the actual
degree of acceptability is a question being addressed as
part of ongoing studies.
(iii)Energy Comparison
The evaluation of the two plans in terms of energy contri-
bution criteria shows the Watana-Devil Canyon scheme to be
superior because of its higher energy potential and the
fact that it develops a higher proportion of the basin's
potential.
Table 10.17 summarizes the evaluation in terms of the soci-
al criteria.As in the case of the dam versus tunnel com-
parison,the Watana-Devil Canyon plan is judged to have a
slight advantage over the High Devil Canyon-Vee plan
because of its greater potential for displacing nonrenew-
able resources.
(iv)Overall Comparison
The overall evaluation is summarized in Table 10.20 and
indicates that the Watana-Devil Canyon plans are generally
superior to all the other evaluation criteria.
(i)Preferred Susitna Basin Development Plan
Comparisons of the Watana-Devil Canyon plan with the Watana tunnel
plan and the High Devil Canyon-Vee plans are judged to favor the
Watana-Devil Canyon plan in each case.
The Watana-Devil Canyon plan is therefore selected as the prefer-
red Susitna Basin development plan,as a basis for continuation of
more detailed design optimization and environmental studies.
10.4 -Coal-Fired Generation Alternative
Previous studies have indicated that alternative generating resources
available to supply power to the Railbelt region include use of the
Beluga coal fields.The economic and technical feasibility of develop-
ing this resource and of the selection process utilized to conclude the
economic feasibility of Beluga coal,is discussed in Section 6 of Vol-
ume I.
10-26
,....
Informat i on presented in thi s section was extracted from previ ous
reports prepared in conjunction with studies of developing the Beluga
coal fields (Commerce and Economic Development 1980;Cook Inlet Region
1981).Because specifics of plant design and location are not avail-
able,the existing environment is described for the general area and
impacts are discussed in generic terms only.
For purposes of this evaluation,an electrical generating plant with
total capacity of 400MW was assumed.Coal wou1 d be stri p-mi ned from
the Beluga fields,transported to the plants,and burned to produce
electricity.Treatment of waste streams,including air,water,and
solid waste,would occur at the site.Approximately 1.5 million tons
of coal per year would be burned.A construction camp would be built
near the site,and a permanent village maintained for mining personnel
and plant operators.
(a)Existing Environmental Condition
The Beluga coal fields are located approximately 50 to 60 miles
southwest of Anchorage on the western side of Cook Inlet.The
coal fields are bordered by Cook Inlet on the east and south,the
Chakachatna River on the west,and the Beluga River,Beluga Lake,
and Capps Glacier on the north (Commerce and Economic Development
1980).
(i)
(i i )
Air Quality
Air quality in the Cook Inlet and Beluga coal field area
can be described as good.The Cook Inlet Air Quality Con-
trol Region is designated as a Class II Attainment area for
all criteria pollutants.The Tuxedni National Wildlife
Refuge approximately 80 miles southwest of the project area
is Class I Attainment area for all criteria pollutants.
Topography,Geology,and Soils
The topography of the western shore of Cook Inlet is domin-
ated by hi gh gl aci ated mountai ns droppi ng rapi d1y to a gl a-
cia1 moraine/outwash plateau which slopes gently to the
sea.The outwash/moraine deposits begin at an elevation of
approximately 2500 and drop to tidewater in 30 to 50 mil es
(Cook Inlet Region 1981).
The major geologic feature of the area is the Nikolai
moraine which lies in contact with sedimentary Tertiary
rocks (Commerce and Economic Development 1980).Most coals
occur in the Tyonek Format i on of the Tert i ary Kena i Gr oup
(Battell e Northwest 1978).The area is geo1 ogi cally young
with higher upland elevations consisting of slightly to
moderately modified glacial moraines and associated drifts.
10-27
The lowland areas are mantled with glacial deposits and
overlaid by silt loam.
Soils are variable in the area.Generally,soils in the
southern portion of the area are sandy but poorly drained,
and soils in the west are well drained and dark,formed in
fine volcanic ash and loam.Soils in the east and northern
areas range from poorly drained fibrous peat to well-drain-
ed loamy soils of acidic nature.
(iii)Surface Hydrology
The three major river systems in the Beluga coal field area
are the Chakachatna,Beluga,and Chuitna.The Chakachatna
is the largest,with headwaters in Chakachamna Lake and a
l,620-square-mile drainage area,and a length of 36 miles.
The Chuitna River begins near Capps Glacier,flows 27
miles,and drains approximately 150 square miles.The
Beluga River is 35 miles in length and drains 930 square
miles (Commerce and Economic Development 1980).
(iv)Terrestrial Ecosystem
-Flora
Four major vegetative communities in the region are the
upland spruce-hardwood forest,high brush,wet tundra,
and alpine tundra..
The upland spruce-hardwood forest is centered in the
southern and central portions of the Bel uga area and
covers 40 percent of the area (Commerce and Economi c
Development 1980).This forest is composed of paper
birch,quaking aspen,black cottonwood,and balsam poplar
(Cook Inlet Region 1981a).
The high brush community in the west central portion of
the Beluga district covers 15 percent of the land area.
This type occupies a wide variety of soil types and may
occur as pure thickets in low-lying areas.Principal
species include sitka sider,raspberry dogwood,and
spirea (Commerce and Economic Development 1980;Cook In-
let Region 1981a).
The wet tundra plant community occupies 7 percent of the
area in the extreme southwest portion and along the east-
ern boundary.The vegetative mat is domi nated by sedges
and cottongrass,with scattered woody and herbaceous
plants.Principal species include willow,birch,labra-
dor tea,grasses,and lichens.
10-28
:~
-
,-
(v)
(vi)
The al pi ne tundra area occupi es 1ess than 3 percent of
the land area and occurs only at the higher elevations.
This community comprises primarily low mat plants,both
woody and herbaceous.Principal species include birches,
willows,blueberry,rhododendron,and sedges.
Fauna
The area of the Beluga coal fields supports wildlife pop-
ulation typical for this area of Alaska.Big game in the
areas include moose,black bear,and brown bear.Both
species of bear den in the area and utilize the Selvon
fishery as a food source (Cook Inlet Region 1981a).A
major fall and winter concentration of moose occurs in
the high brush community in the west central portion of
the coal fields near the Chuitna River.They are also
found throughout the area during other times of the year
(Commerce and Economic Development 1980).
A hi gh di versity of bird 1ife is present in the area,
particularly during the fall and spring migration peri-
ods.Active nesting sites of bald eagles and trumpeter
swans occur on the Chuitna Ri ver and peregri ne fal cons
occur in the area (Cook Inlet Region 1981a).The coastal
areas are heavily util ized by waterfowl (Commerce and
Development 1980).Harbor seals,Beluga whales,and
other species of marine mammals occupy Cook Inlet near
the study area.
Aquatic Ecosystem
The cold,running waters of.river and streams in the area
support both resident and anadramous fisheries.The Chuit-
na River supports five species of salmon (pink,king,chum,
coho,and sockeye)pl us rai nbow trout,Dolly Varden and
round white fish (Commerce and Development 1980).Nikolai
Creek,Jo·s Creek,Pitt Creek,and Stedatana Creek are also
known to support anadramous fish populations.
Marine Ecosystem
The Cook Inlet region just south of the Beluga coal fields
is a diverse area,with both aquatic and terrestrial habi-
tats.Intertidal and shallow subtidal habitats contain
broad expanses of gravel and sand and extens i ve areas of
mud flats.These areas show varying levels of productiv-
ity,with the mud flat areas generally at low levels (Cook
Inlet Region 1981a).Dominant fauna present include pele-
cypods and polychaete worms.The area of gravel and sand
support moderate densities of amphipods and isopods.
10-29
The Cook Inlet area is also important to commercial and
sport fisheries.Four species of salmon and halibut util-
ize this area and are harvested on a commercial basis,as
are herring,shrimp,and crabs.Commercial salmon harvest-
ed in 1980 was estimated at 20.4 million pounds with a
value of $18 million.The average annual herring catch is
6.4 million pounds,worth approximately $1.3 million.The
smaller halibut fisheries yield approximately 0.6 million
pounds,worth $400,000,while the shellfish harvest of crab
and shri mp yi el ds 16 mill i on pounds annua lly,worth $8.5
million (Cook Inlet Region 1981a).
Subsistence fishing is.also conducted by local natives,
particularly by those from the Tyonek area.Species har-
vested include clams,bottomfish,salmon,and smelt.
The di verse wetland and aquatic habitats support 1arge num-
bers of birds,particularly during the migration periods.
The coast a 1 wet 1ands and mud fl ats are hea vi ly ut il i zed by
waterfowl,cranes,and shorebirds,while the offshore
waters and sea cliffs are i nhabi ted by sea birds such as
gulls,puffins,and murres.
Marine mammals present in the Cook Inlet area include
seals,whales,and dolphins.Only the harbor seal and
Beluga whale are known to occur in the upper Cook Inlet.
(vii)Cultural Resources
Historic sites occur within the modern town of Tyonek.
Other sites nearby include Californsky's fish camp,old
village sites,and cemeteries.Few archaeological sites
are believed to be in the area,primarily because the vio-
lent actions of the tide would have destroyed most of the
sites left by coastal-dwelling natives.
(viii)Socioeconomic Conditions
The only substantial settlement on the west coast of Cook
Inlet is Tyonek,inhabited by approximately 270 Tanaina
Indians.The village is typical of many small villages in
Alaska,with high unemployment.Recently,government pro-
grams have somewhat alleviated this problem.
Employment on the west side of Cook Inlet is supplied by
three commercial developments:the Chugach generating sta-
tion,Kodiak lumber mill,and crude oil processing and
transportation facilities.Commercial fishing and subsis-
tence activities are the major sources of income.
10-30
.-
Housing consists primarily of prefabricated structures.
One school,with total enrollment of 140,serves kindergar-
ten through the 12th grade.Pol ice protection is provided
by the Alaska State Troopers utilizing a resident consta-
ble.Fire protection is provided by the U.S.Bureau of
Land Management.Medical services are available in a medi-
cal center located in the village.Water is supplied from
a nearby lake and wastewater disposed of via septic systems
(Commerce and Economic Development 1980;Cook Inlet Region
1981a).
Transportation facilities in the areas are limited to
gravel logging roads and small airstrips.
(b)Environmental Impacts
(i )Air Qu a 1 ity
Coal mining and power generation will result in emissions
to the atmosphere of parti cul ate matter,nitrogen oxide,
sulfur oxide,carbon monoxide,and hydrocarbons,as well as
1esser amounts of other poll utants.Thei r impacts cannot
be quantified without detailed air monitoring and modeling;
however,some generalizations can be made.
Mining emissions would comprise primarily particulate mat-
ter from vehicular traffic,surface disturbance,and wind
across coal piles and disturbed areas.Heavy equipment
operations would also result in nitrogen oxide,carbon
monoxide,hydrocarbon,and sulfur oxide emissions.
Beluga coal is characterized as sub-bituminous (6,500 -
7,500 Btu/lb)with low sulfer (0.2 percent).high moisture
(25 to 28 percent)and high ash content (14 to 25 percent)
(Cook Inlet Region 1981a).This sulfur and heat content is
comparable to that of Powder River Basin coal in Wyoming.
but the moisture content is approximately twice the Powder
River value.Utilizing these figures and calculations from
previ ous reports yi el ds approximate daily emi ss i on rates
for a 700 MW facility (U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service
1978)•
S02
Fly ash
40 to 60 tons per day (no scrubber)
3 to 5 tons per day (with precipitators)
Exact amounts of these pollutants and of nitrogen oxides
cannot be calculated without specific design criteria and
details on pollution-control devices.
10-31
A Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)review
would be necessary prior to construction.This process
woul d require that any emi ss ions be withi n the all owab 1e
increments established in the Clear Air Act regulations.
However,because the area is currently relatively free of
air pollution,the emissions from coal mining and generat-
ing station operation would likely result in a noticeable
degradation of existing air quality.In addition,short-
term maximum concentrations could,under certain meteoro-
logical conditions,exceed the National Ambient Air Quality
standards near the power plant (Battelle Northwest 1978).
This would would be particularly true during periods of
diversion.
(ii)Topography,Geology,and Soils
Coal mining and construction of the generating facil ities
have the potent i alto impact topography and soil sin the
area.Mining operations would unavoidably change the topo-
graphy of the area,although reclamation and compliance
with regulations of the Surface Mining Control and Reclama-
tion Act would minimize these impacts.Soil erosion from
mining and plant construction activities could also occur
if proper precautions are not implemented.
(iii)Hy dr 01 091
Little is known about ground water resources in the area
(Cook Inlet Region 1981a).Strip mining has the potential
to degrade the water qual ity and interferes with ground
water flows.Regulations of the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act and the state of Alaska would require these
impacts be minimized.
Surface water could be affected from runoff from the mined
area,coal storage piles,site grading,road bUilding,and
other construction activities.Plant operation would also
result in polluted and heated water from electrical genera-
t i on.Potentia 1 sources of contami nat i on are ac id mi ne
drainage,treatment chemicals,dust,spoil-pile runoff,
fuel spillage,ash,and industrial waste.This could
impact surface water quality through changes in turbidity,
rates of photosynthesis,dissolved oxygen,temperature,pH,
and heavy metals.
It can be expected all point sources of discharge will meet
Federal New Source Performance standards and other regula-
tions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.However,
because of the high water quality of the river and streams
in the area,any impacts will be noticeable.In addition,
10-32
-I
-
-
r
(i v)
(v)
(vi)
because of the seasonal fluctuation of flows in the area,
the impacts of sedimentat i on and other water quality
effects may be increased (Battelle Northwest 1978).
Terrestrial Ecosystems
Surface mining will unavoidably result in the removal of
vegetat i on and wil dl ife habitat.If not proper ly restored
and revegetated,erosion would result and the habitat perm-
anently reduced in value.The areas of the generating fac-
ility,roads,and ancillary facilities would be permanently
removed as wildlife habitat.
In addition to the direct impacts to wildlife,secondary
effects would also occur.These include increased hunting
pressure on moose and bear because of a larger human popu-
1at i on and greater act i vi ty.New roads wi 11 add access to
the area,resulting in habitat disruption and disturbance
to the animals.This reduction in habitat and other secon-
dary effects will result in a substantial loss in carrying
capacity for most wil dl ife speci es and a subsequent dec 1i ne
in their population levels.
Aquatic and Marine Ecosystems
The impacts to aquatic and marine ecosystems would depend
primarily upon the effectiveness of siltation control
devices and degree of water treatment.Some aquatic habi~
tat would be lost because of mining activities.In addi-
tion,increase sedimentation,interuption or reduction in
flows,and degradation of water quality could all result in
negative impacts to aquatic habitats,thereby reducing fish
population in the area.The potential also exists for
changes in water quality to interfere with anadromous fish
runs and reproduct i on,thereby affect i ng mar i ne resources
in Cook Inlet.Impacts to other marine resources,unless
water qua 1 ity is severely impa ired,are not expected to
occur.
Cultural Resources
Potential impacts to cultural resources include disturbance
of sites,destruction of artifacts,and increased access to
the areas resulting in disturbances to sites previously in-
accessi bl e.A cultural resource survey waul d be required
on all areas to be mined or built upon.If significant
sites are discovered,mitigation will likely occur,utili-
zing either avoidance or salvage operations.
10-33
Thus,wi th the except i on of the di sturbance of areas out-
side the project site but not currently accessible,impacts
to cultural resources should be mitigatable.
(vii)Socioeconomic Conditions
There are many impacts which affect socioeconomic factors
in an area.These include construction camp location (if
any),commuter modes,family re 1ocat i on,worker need for
services,amount of local labor available,and construction
schedules.Thus,only generalized impacts can be predict-
ed.
Depending upon the size of the generation facility,direct
and indirect jobs will range from 400 to 1,300 (Commerce
and Economic Development 1980;Cook Inlet Region 1981a).
Most of these workers would likely come from the available
work force in Anchorage,with some from the Kenai Peninsula
and the local village of Tyonek.
If a construction camp or new village were created near the
plant site,local population would increase by several
thousand.This would require construction of new roads,
sewage and water systems,and other infrastructures neces-
sary to support these workers and their families.Some of
these services would be supplied by the Kenai Peninsula
Borough,but most would likely be supplied either by the
state of Alaska or the company building and operating the
generating facility.Thus,financial impacts to the
borough should be small (Cook Inlet Region 1981a).How-
ever,because the Beluga coal fields are only 75 miles from
Anchorage,it is not likely a large,permanent village
would be required,since most workers would prefer to live
in the construct i on camp and 1eave their famil i es in the
Anchorage area.
The generating facility could add substantially to tax
revenues in the Kenai-Soldotna area.This revenue would
1ikely expand government services in the area and thereby
create additional employment opportunities.
Fi na 11y,there woul d 1 ike ly be impacts to the vill age of
Tyonek.The 1arge generation facil ity woul d result in
increased contact with non-native people and their way of
life.There could also be conflicts with subsistence hunt-
ing and fishing activities and a potential,through sport
hunting,to reduce the resource bases utilized by the na-
t;ves.These;ncreased contacts with non-natives coul d
result in the continued erosion of native customs and cul-
tural values.
10-34
-,
I
Employment opportunities would be available for Tyonek vil-
lage residents.In addition,native business could likely
increas~to supply ggods or ~ervic:es to the construction
workers and construction site.Thus,the project would
result in positive economic benefits to the village.
In summary,socioeconomic impacts to the area of plant
development would not be great,primarily because of the
proximity of the site to the greater Anchorage area.This
area would supply most of the labor force and absorb most
of the impacts from development of goods and services to
supply the site.Population levels at the site would
increase,with the magnitude dependent on the nature of the
construction camp;however,it is likely there would not be
more relocation of families to the site.Positive economic
benefits would occur to the native village of Tyonek,but
potential negative impacts to the cultural values also
ex i st.
10.5 -Tidal Power Alternatives
The Cook Inl et area has long been recogni zed as havi ng some of the
highest tidal ranges in the world,with mean tide ranges of more than
30 feet at Sunrise on Turnagain Arm,26 feet at Anchorage,and decreas-
i ng towards the lower reaches of Cook Inlet to 15 feet or so near
Seldovia.Information concerning feasibility of tidal power generation
and environmental impacts were gathered mainly from current studies
being conducted for the Office of the Governor,State of Alaska (Acres
American Incorporated 1981a).Initial studies of Cook Inlet tidal
power development (Acres American Incorporated 1981b)have concluded
that generation from tide fluctuation is technically feasible,and
numerous conceptual schemes ranging in estimated capacity of 50 MW to
25,900 MW have been developed.
(a)Preferred Tidal Schemes
Studies conducted for the Governor's office (Acres American Incor-
,-porated 1981a)have indicated three sites are best suited for ti-
dal power development.This analysis,based on capacity,energy
generation and costs,considered sixteen sites and chose the fol-
lowing (Figure 10.6):
(i)Rainbow -This site crossed Turnagain Arm from a point near
the mouth of Rainbow Creek to a point approximately two
miles east of Resurrection Creek.
(ii)Point MacKenzie/Point Woronzof -This site crosses Knik Arm
near Anchorage •
..-
i
r
10-35
(i i i)Eagl e Bay/Goose Bay -Th iss ite crosses Kni k Arm at the
narrowing of the channel along Eagle and Goose bays.
Tidal power generation basically involves impounding water at high
tide level and converting the head difference between the corres-
ponding basin and the ebbing tide.Present technology allows for
extension of this energy by low-head hydraulic turbines to gener-
ate e 1ectri city.A t i da 1 power generat ion proj ect,therefore,
would involve construction of dams,sluice ways,powerhouses,and
transmission lines (Acres American Incorporated 1981a).
(b)Environmental Considerations
Environmental assessments of the preferred Cook Inlet tidal devel-
opment involve consideration of physical and biological character-
istics anticipated impacts,and short-and long-term effects.
(i)Physical Characteristics
Several major characteristics of Cook Inlet are relevant to
an understanding of the processes and the potential for
change in the estuarine environment.These are the tidal
regime,hydrology,sediment load,and climate.
The mean tide range in Knik and Turnagain Arms is 25 to 30
feet.This extreme tidal variation,combined with shallow
water depths,results in a high velocity current,turbu-
lence,and high levels of suspended sediments.Thus,sus-
pended sediment load is also affected by the high concen-
trat i on of silts and sediments present in gl aci a 1 runoff
that enters Cook Inlet.
Runoff from gl aci ers al so affects the sal i nity concentra-
tion in Cook Inlet.In the summer months,when freshwater
flows are high,salt concentrations drop and suspended load
increases.In the winter,as streamflows diminish,salin-
ity concentration increases.
(ii)Biological Characteristics
Cook Inlet is an estuary where freshwater and saltwater
environments meet.These areas are usually hi ghly produc-
tive partly because of high nutrient levels.
In Knik and Turnagain Arms,high turbidity and limited
light penetration result in low biological productivity.
Res i dent and she ll-fi shery popul at ions are present on ly in
low numbers;however,anadromous fi sh do use the turbi d
water for passage between the lower inlet and the natural
streams.Five species of salmon are found in the tributar-
i es to the Kn"ik and Turnagai n Arms.Comparati vely,the
10-36
-
~
1
-I
.....
Knik Arm tributaries appear to sustain a more significant
anadromous fishery than Turnagain Arm.The important sal-
mon rivers in Turnagain Arm are Chickaloon River,Bird
Creek,Indian Creek,Portage Creek,Resurrection Creek,and
Six Mile Creek.Of these,the largest salmon runs have
been identified in the Chickaloon River.In Knik Arm,the
most important salmon tributary is the Little Susitna
Ri ver.Other important streams are Fi sh Creek,Was ill a
Creek,Cottonwood Creek,Knik Ri ver and Matanuska Ri ver •
Intertidal areas,mud flats,and lowlands are extensive in
the Cook Inlet area partially because of the wide tidal
fluctuations.Mud flats are broad expanses with little
vegetation.Above these areas are marshland habitats,sup-
porting grasses,emergents,submergents,and shrub vegeta-
tion.In terms of biological productivity,these coastal
marshes are the most important areas within Cook Inlet.
They provide important nesting and staging habitat for hun-
dreds of thousands of shorebirds and waterfowl dur i ng the
spring and fall migrations.This results in extensive
recreational hunting opportunities for Alaska's most heavi-
ly populated area.Dur-ing the years from 1971 to 1976,
approximately 30 percent of the state duck harvest occurred
in Cook Inl et.
Five coastal marshes in Cook Inlet are protected as state
game refuges;four of these are in proximity to proposed
tidal power development sites.They are Potter Point,
located just south of Anchorage at the mouth of Turnagain
Arm;Palmer Hayflats,in the upper reaches of Knik Arm;
Goose Bay,on Knik Arm ten rniles north of Anchorage;and
Susitna Flats,to the west of Point MacKenzie at the mouth
of the Susitna and Little Susitna rivers.Other important
marshlands not protected as refuges are Eagle River Flats,
across Knik Arm from Goose Bay,and Chickaloon Flats,
across Turnagain Arm from Potter Point.
Although Cook Inl et is not an important habitat area for
marine mammals,a few species do occasionally migrate to
the area.Beluga whales are known to occur in the water
offshore from Anchorage.
The endangered Arctic peregrine falcon is known to nest in
the upper Cook Inl~t region and to utilize coastal areas
during the migration periods.Bald eagles,not classified
as endangered in Alaska,also are present in the region.
No endangered waterfowl species have been verified in Cook
Inlet,although habitat for the Aleutian Canadian goose may
occur in the southern reaches of the Inlet.
10-37
(iii)Anticipated Impacts
The construction and operation of a tidal power plant in
either Knik or Turnagain Arm will affect the physical pro-
cesses of Cook Inlet and cause changes that may directly or
indirectly infl uence the natural environment.These im-
pacts can be di vided into short-term and long-term
effects.
(iv)Short-Term Effects
Short-term effects are those associ ated with construct i on
activities and include:
-Site development and 'construction;
-Site access and traffic;
-Operation of equipment;
-Dredging and dredged material disposal;and
-Development of construction material sources.
These short-term activities will affect,for the most part,
only the environment in the vicinity of the site and will
extend for the construction period.Some permanent changes
will occur in the environment,such as placement of perman-
ent facilities,but the effects will be site-specific.It
should be noted that many of the negative impacts normally
associ ated with construction can be e1imi nated by proper
wastewater facil ities,erosion control methods,and other
mitigating measures.
-Dredge and Fill
The activities associated with dredging and filling may
cause the most significant construction effect,because
of the quantities of materials being moved and the neces-
sary use of remote sites for dredged material disposal
and acquisition of construction materials.
The Eagle Bay and Rainbow sites will both require dredg-
ing of 30 million cubic yards of sediments from the inlet
bottom.Most of thi s will not be suitabl e as construc-
tion material and will need to be transported from the
site for disposal.Acceptable sites for marine dumping
can be found downstream where the Inlet broadens,but
care must be taken to avoid commercial fisheries located
in the Fire Island vicinity.The dredged material itself
is not polluted or chemically contaminated.The physical
const ituents of the dredged materi a1 are 1ike ly to be
similar to the bottom sediments found further downstream.
Disposal of dredged material may temporarily disturb
10-38
-
-
~
,j
i )-I .~
-
.-
bottom organi sms,but habitats woul d soon be re-estab-
1i shed.Careful pl anni ng in the t i mi ng and choi ce of
disposal sites can insure minimal impacts.
Because little of the dredged material at either the
Eagle Bay or Rainbow sites would be suitable as construc-
tion material,upwards of seven million cubic yards of
fill material must be procured from offsite sources.
This would cause disturbance of upland habitats resulting
from the activit i es of excavat i on and transport.Un-
avoidable impact of these activities may be reduced by
avoiding development in sensitive environments.
The Poi nt MacKenzi e site is most attract i ve from the
standpoi nt of dredge/fi 11 operati ons.Less than one
quarter of the dredgi ng required for either Ra i nbow or
Eagle Bay will be necessary for Point MacKenzie.Addi-
tionally,a substantial portion of the material removed
will be rock,gravel,and sand that may be appropr i ate
for dam construction.This further diminishes the vol-
umes required for acquisition and disposal.
-Site Access and Traffic
Establishing access to the site by land and by sea and
providing for the high volume of traffic that will occur
duri ng the construction peri od will affect the environ-
ment.Roads and marine docking facilities will be con-
structed.Marine traffic for construction purposes,
delivery of equipment,and dredging operations will occur
in areas where little or no shipping or boating of any
type has occurred.Access roads will be established in
previously undeveloped areas.
To minimize these impacts,1and routes can be chosen to
avoid sensitive areas such as waterfowl habitat,and the
high volumes of traffic can be limited to construction
periods.Marine traffic is not likely to affect the few
resident species nor block the mobile anadromous species
as they migrate up and downstream.The marshlands,
waterfowl habitats,and upl and game reserves woul d be
most affected by development,noise,and traffic activi-
ties.
-Site Development and Construction
The preparation of the site for construction,as well as
the activit i es associ ated with construct ion,wi 11 have
its greatest impacts on the site itself.Alterations of
10-39
topography and exi st i ng habitats will occur.
sence of large,noise-producing equipment
activity will be disruptive to habitats.
The pre-
and human
Site development can be conducted in a manner that will
minimize impacts.Minimization of land use,implementa-
tion of plans for erosion control and landscaping,and
development of permanently useful facilities such as dry
docks will aid in reducing impacts.
More site-specific details must be reviewed to determine
the full scope of negative impacts versus the potential
for enhancement.
Noise factors are potentially most significant at the
Eagle Bay site,which is located only a few miles up-
stream from Goose Bay State Game Refuge.The noi se
levels have the potential to disrupt waterfowl,but habi-
tuation can be expected.
The marine construction activities will affect the aqua-
tic environment.Dredging,fill placement,dry dock con-
struction,caisson construction,and installation will
occur in the water.There are few resident species to be
disturbed,but migration of anadromous fish may be
affected.It is likely that measures to insure fish pas-
sage will be required during all stages of construction,
and this should reduce these impacts.
(v)Long-Term Effects
Certain aspects of plant operation may alter the physical
regime of the estuary.These will be discussed in terms of
their environmental implications:
-the altered tidal regime and estuarine hydrology;and
-the alteration of hydraulic characteristics:currents/
velocities,erosion/sedimentation.
Additionally,the following long-term impacts will be con-
sidered:
-impacts added by the causeway alternative.
-Effects of an Altered Tidal Regime
The process of capturing the tide in a basin behind the
barrier and regulating the flows through it has two im-
portant consequences.First,the mean tide level in the
newly formed basin will be raised by several feet.
Second,the mean tide range will be substantially
10-40
""'"
decreased.Mean high tide 1eve 1swill pr obab ly be
slightly lower and mean low tide levels will be higher
than what presently exist.
The result of these changes can be conceptual i zed as
follows.The extent of the mud flats will likely be
somewhat diminished.The lowest reaches of the mud flats
will remain totally submerged,since the tide will never
reach its previous low levels.At the upper limits of
the mud flats,marshland vegetation may encroach seaward.
As the frequency of inundations decreases at the edges of
the marshland,marsh grasses wi 11 grow on the former
edges of the mud flats.This will result in shifts in
locating mud flats and possible changes in acreages.
Other changes may alter the distribution of plant types
on the lands affected by the tides.A net increase in
the mean water level may alter the water table and hence
runoff and other hydro 1ogi c characteri st i cs of adj acent
marshlands.Also significant is the effect of altered
sal inities that may occur as tidal waters are stored in
the basin.There is some potential that intrusion of
sa ltwater may have harmful effects on the ground water
table.It should be noted that the Cook Inlet marshlands
are high stress environments,characterized by large sea-
sonal variation of salines.Therefore,changes in sea-
sonal variation of salinities will probably not be detri-
mental to marshland vegetation,however,further investi-
gation of these effects is necessary.
Other hydrologic characterjstics could be affected,such
as backwater and fl oodi ng.The ra i sed water table coul d
affect lowland drainage and vegetation.It appears at
this time that,although the potential for alteration is
great,it is also possible that only slight changes in
populations will occur that w"ill not greatly alter the
nature of the environment as a habi tat for waterfowl,
shorebirds,and furbearing species.
The tidal regime may also be altered downstream from the
barrier.However,the impoundment of a portion of high
tide water behi nd the barri er wi 11 not greatly alter
existing water levels or tidal fluctuation downstream.
Possible effects caused by resonance of tidal waves will
have to be studied in detail,but it appears likely that
the effects of the barrier will have much greater poten-
tial for impact upstream from the dam.
10-41
-Hydraulic Characteristics of the Basin
Regulation of flow in the basin will affect hydraulics
local to the dam itself,as well as having more wide-
spread impacts.Existing current patterns and velocities
throughout the basin would be altered.The most notice-
able change will occur near the dam where the concentra-
tion of flow velocities through turbines and sluiceways
would alter local flow patterns.These local high velo-
cities will be dissipated with increasing distance from
the dam.The decreased tidal range may result in an
overall decrease in turbulence and mixing,although the
tide range will still be substantial in relation to the
depth of water so that the regime of total mixing may not
be altered.
The effect of siltation on the environment and on the
operation of the tidal power plant cannot be fully
assessed.Investigations of sedimentation in the Bay of
Fundy,La Rance and other construct i on reported that
siltation caused by construction within the tidal flow is
a function of (1)the degree of flow reduction caused by
construction,(2)the availability of appropriate sized
sediment in the water,and (3)the combined supply of
material to the site.
Knowledge of the origin of sediments and the existing
transport mechanism is necessary to analysis of the
1atter.
Sed imentat i on and eros i on processes may be affected in
the silt-laden estuary.The mud flats and bottom condi-
t ions of the Arms are hi gh1y mobil e.Changes can result
from a net increase or a net decrease in velocities and
from redistribution of wave energy on the shoreline.
These will have the greatest potential for harmful im-
pacts to the natural environment on the shorelines of
marshlands,where erosion of the outlying mud flats could
result in eventual erosion of the marshland and loss of
habitat.It is possible,however,that a net decrease in
energy in the basin (lower tide range,decreased mixing,
decreased tide range)will result in higher sedimentation
rates.If this is the case,it may cause decreased stor-
age in the basin,and correspondingly,a buildup of mud
flats and an extension of marshlands.
The effects of sedimentation may also be significant
downstream from a barrier in Cook Inlet.Observation of
recent 1y constructed causeways at Wi ndsor,Nova Scot i a,
and on the Petitcodiac estuary in New Brunswick reveals
10-42
r
"""
(c)
the development of large,mid-channel mud flats seawards
of the barrier caused by local flow reductions.This
could result in a reduction of sediments which are nor-
mally deposited further downstream in the estuary.
Effects on navigation may be significant in the Knik Arm
where shoaling is already a problem in the approaches to
Anchorage harbor.
Another factor related to sediment load in the Inlet
waters is that of penetration of light as required for
biological productivity.At present,high turbidities
limit light penetration.This may be the limiting factor
for growth of the aquatic food chains.It is possible
that along with a decrease in sediment load,an increase
in food production could result in a habitat more amen-
able to aquatic species.
-Causeway Development
The addition of a causeway to the tidal power project
would not create any additional impacts to the upstream
and shoreline environment.The most significant impacts
would result from development of a permanent road through
previously undeveloped areas and from the residential and
commerci a1 growth that woul d occur because of the new
access.Other impacts to the Inlet include increased
traffi c noi se across the causeway and increased human
access to the wetlands for recreational purposes.
Effects on Biological Resources
Construction and operation of a tidal pO\lJer facility has the po-
tent i alto affect anadromous fi sh in Cook Inl et.Because of the
commercial and recreational importance of this resource,specific
mitigation techniques would have to be developed to minimize these
impacts.
Anadromous fish return to their natural streams to spawn.The
mechani sm by whi ch they locate these streams is not fully under-
stood,but it is believed the fish respond to changes in water
chemistry.Thus,although it is unlikely retiming of tides will
affect the hydrology and physical or chemical composition of water
upstream from the reach of tidal fluctuations,the changes in sed-
iment load and salinity of water below the power facilities could
potentially affect the migration.
The largest salmon runs in Turnagain Arm occur in the Chickaloon
River.Since the river is located approximately 10 miles down-
stream from the Rainbow site,migration should not be directly
affected.In the Knik Arm area,the most important salmon tribu-
tary is the Little Susitna River,which is 10 miles downstream
10-43
from the Poi nt MacKenzi e site;impacts there al so shoul d not be
great.However,in both cases,it shoul d be noted that as fi sh
appproach thei r natal streams,they may wander as far as 10 mi 1es
past the mouth before turning back to the ultimate goal.In this
manner,the Poi nt MacKenzi e and Ra i nbow sites coul d concei vab ly
affect migration to the Little Susitna and Chickaloon River,res-
pectively,although the damsites appear to be the limits of the
interaction zone.
(i)Wetlands and Waterfowl Habitat
There are three primary mechanisms by which the tidal plant
would directly cause impacts to marshlands:(1)inter-
action along the shores of the impounded basin;(2)inter-
action with the construction site,noise,activity,and
equipment;and (3)interaction with an altered flow regime
downstream from the dam.
Of these three primary impacts,the potentially most signi-
ficant would be the effects of the altered tidal regime on
the stability and productivity of the marshland ecosystems
within the impoundment basin.Altered sedimentation pat-
terns could result in eroded shorelines.A raised water
table could result in a more sal ine ground water table.
Altered surface hydrology may affect filtering and trans-
port of nutrients and organics within the marsh.A loss of
marsh area and a loss of vegetation types required for sup-
port of bird populations can be envisioned,thus diminish-
ing productivity and resulting in degradation of the water-
fowl habitat.
Alternatively,sedimentation may result in an enlargement
of marshlands.Effects of changes in hydrology,inunda-
tions,and nutrient supplies could produce an environment
more attractive to waterfowl and other speci es.Somewhere
between the best case and the worst case lie any number of
variations where,for example,vegetation or land areas may
be altered but have little impact on bird populations.The
conclusion,at this point,is that the interactions between
hydrology,hydraul i cs,and the wetl and ecosystem must be
better understood in order to predi ct effects with more
reliability.This should be the main focus of future envi-
ronmental studies.
The second impact of a tidal power plant on marshlands
would occur if the site is located in or near a marsh.
None of the proposed sites is located in marshlands.A few
may be close enough that effects of construction,especial-
ly noise,should be investigated.
10-44
-
-
"""l
I
-
.~
(i i )
Finally,operation of the tidal project may affect the
hydrau1 i cs of the in 1et dovmstream from the dam.These
effects should be studied in greater detail for their
impacts on coastal marshlands.Later phases of engineering
studies should include modeling the effects of the dam on
downstream hydraulics and water levels to determine ecolog-
ical impacts.
Marine Mammals
Construction of tidal-generating facilities could affect
the movement of mari ne mammal sin the area.Care must be
taken in design of intake structures and dam approaches to
prevent harm to these animals in the event of their inter-
action with the structure.Other mammals may also be in-
volved,and their movements may extend to the other dam-
sites.This question should be more thoroughly investigat-
ed in later studies,including potential effects on marine
mammal food sources.
.....
(d)Other Effects
(i)Water Quality
Present water qual ity is characteri zed by extremely hi gh
turbidity,relatively high dissolved oxygen content,vari-
able salinity and nutrient concentrations,and low levels
of primary biological productivity.Several activities
associated with the tidal project may affect water quality.
These include the excavation and construction of the dam,
increased ship traffic,and operation of marine equipment,
as well as the regulation of-flows to and from the basin.
Dredging,excavation,and placement of materials for dam
construction in the submarine and intertidal environments
may temporarily increase suspended sediment concentrations
near the dam.Given the existing turbulence and turbidity
of the water,this should not be a problem.Additionally,
the introduction of new materials (sand,rock,gravel)from
other sources may result in 1each i ng of some chemi ca 1 con-
stituents not normally found in the waters.The possibil-
ity of serious chemical problems is very small.
The presence of construction equ i pment,tugs,barges and
human activity indicates an increased possibility for such
accidents as oil spills,fires,dumping of debris,and dis-
posa 1 of untreated sewage into the water.Adherence to
health and safety plans and control of construction areas
can minimize most undesirable effects •
10-45
The presence of the dam and the resultant flow patterns may
act as a physical barrier which limits exchange of salt,
nutrients,sediments,etc.,between the freshwater inflows
and the saltwater i nfl uence from the ocean.Al though the
tota 1 flow of water may be reduced by the dam,1arge vol-
umes of water will still be exchanged.A well-mixed basin
would result,although local flow patterns and water qual-
ity may be affected.
It appears that,though there are many potentials for im-
pact to water quality,the associated risks are low.
(ii)Climatology
Short-and long-term changes in the climate of the region
may occur as a result of tidal power development.Changes
in ice formation,for example,could alter air temperatures
in the basin vicinity.The potential changes caused by
such effects should be investigated in later phases.
(iii)Rare and Endangered Species
It is not anticipated that tidal power development would
affect the endangered peregrine falcon.
(e)Socioeconomic Assessment
The socioeconomic issues of a tidal development would be similar
to those of other capital intensive developments,particularly to
those of a large hydropower project.The investment period,char-
acterized by very high levels of activity and expenditure,would
be followed by a long operational period during which these levels
would become quite low.Annual costs of operation consist mainly
of capital charges.The costs of mai ntenance and rep 1acement
would be quite small compared to these capital charges,and the
other costs of operating the facility would be negligible.
A tidal project presents,however,certain aspects and options
that are very different from more conventi ona 1 power modes and
which may yield distinctly different social and economic results.
The following examples will illustrate the characteristics in the
tidal power development that may make it unique from the socio-
economic viewpoint:
-Storage and generat i on will take pl ace in the sea.Consequent-
ly,very few,if any,relocations of people will be required and
very little reallocation of land and water resources.
-One of the more likely construction options will be the floating
in of hugh prefabricated caissons and sinking them on location
as components of the str ucture.If thi s method is adopted,a
significant amount of the work may be done off the site.
10-46
"'1
Id
..
l-I
,~
-Depending upon final design and the site selected for
development,a tidal project in the Cook Inlet will
require from 30 to 60 turb-j ne-generat i ng units.Such a
large number may be sufficient to justify establishment
of a local industry for their manufacture and overhaul.
-Tidal power will be generated in surges lasting from 4 to
6 hours followed by interruptions of approximately 8-1/2
to 6-1/2 hours duration (adding up to lunar cycle of 12
hours and 25 minutes).Energy-intensive industries that
could work on the rhythm of power availability might find
the general region of tidal power plants to be an attrac-
t i ve 1ocat ion.
(f)Impact on Adjacent Land Uses
The major impacts from tidal development in the Cook Inlet would
occur in the Greater Anchorage Area Borough located in the south-
central portion of Alaska at the head of Cook Inlet on a roughly
triangular area of land between the two estuarine drainages,Knik
and Turnagain Arms.
The areas within the boundaries of the municipality of Anchorage
suitable for urban development are to the west of Chugach State
Park,south and east including Alyeska-Girdwood,and north and
east to Eagle River-Birchwood.Potential changes in land use
would be to convert these areas into industrial use as businesses
are attracted by availability of power.
(g)Materials Origin Supply Study
The raw materials,intermediate goods,and equipment required for
a tidal project can be grouped into three main categories:
(i )Raw Materials
These materials include aggregate,rock,cement,and lum-
ber.It is expected that aggregate and rock can be supplied
1 oca lly.The fi na 1 aggregate (sand)wi 11 be transported
from the Palmer area.The coarse aggregate for concrete
will be crushed in the rock quarry areas near the selected
sites as follows:
-Rainbow:North and south side of Turnagain Arm-
-5-mile haul
-Point MacKenzie:North side of Turnagain area near Rain-
bow site--30-mile haul
-Eagle Bay:Mount Magnificant--15-mile haul
10-47
A very primary estimate of direct labor required for the
production of these items indicates that about 300 to 400
jobs may be involved during the construction period.
(ii)Steel Products
These include reinforcement and fabricated gates.It is
likely that these supplies would be from sources outside
Alaska.
(iii)Generating Equipment
This includes hydroelectric and electrical equipment,such
as the turbines,generators,transformers,and switchgear.
This equipment would be supplied from North America or
Europe depending on market conditions.
(h)Labor Supply and Limitations
A pre 1 i mi nary est i mate i nd i cates that the direct,ons He,1abor
requirements for the three sites considered would be approximately
as follows:
Site
Average man-years per year:
Over 7.5 years
10.5 years
11.5 years
Peak demand man-years per
year:
Ra i nbow
1,875
2,000
Eagle Bay
2,000
2,200
Point
MacKenzie
2,500
2,750
The peak labor requirements for any site development are not much
higher than the average requirement,and it is likely that careful
scheduling of the work will make it possible to arrange for a rel-
at i vely steady 1eve 1 of employment throughout the construct ion
period.
For each of the sites,the total demand amounts to 1ess than 3
percent of the total labor force and about 50 percent of the con-
struction labor force in the impact region (Anchorage-Matsu)as of
March 1981.It seems l"ikely,therefore,that a large part of the
1abor that woul d be required duri ng the 1990s coul d be recruited
in the surrounding region.
In 1980~the unemployment rate was about 8 percent in Anchorage-
Matsu region immediately around and north of the project sites,12
percent in the Gulf Coast region and 10 percent in the state of
10-48
"""'
~,
-I
-
-
(i)
Alaska.It is possible the rate of employment would be lower dur-
ing the 1990s than at present,but it seems unlikely it will have
become very low.Most probably,sufficient labor will be avail-
able in the region around the project sites and construction of
one of the projects would likely offer a welcome contribution to
reduct i on of unemployment in the area duri ng the years of con-
struction.
Supplementary labor requirements,in addition to the direct onsite
requirements,are of two types.The first consists of labor
employed in the production of supplies,such as cement,concrete,
lumber,aggregate,steel products,turbines,generators,and other
electrical products.Parts of these activities will not be locat-
ed in the impact region,or even in the state of Alaska.A pre-
liminary estimate indicated that possibly up to 300 or 400 addi-
tional jobs in the production of raw materials could be created in
the Anchorage regi on duri ng the construct i on peri od if in-state
manufacturing facilities are developed.
Another type of supplementary labor requirement consists of addi-
tional jobs to supply the demand for services by the labor employ-
ed onsite and in supply activities.
Community Impact
Direct,onsite employment would reach,in the peak years,about
2,000 to 2,750.The impact region would be the municipality of
Anchorage.A socioeconomic study by the Bureau of Land Management
indicates that population growth in Anchorage was responsive to
the growth in economic activities:Kenai oil,Prudhoe Lease,and
Trans-Alaska pipeline construction.The population of the munici-
pality of Anchorage was estimated tn that study at 195,654 as of
July 1,1979.It is likely that Anchorage could supply labor and
servi ces of suffi ci ent vari ety to accommodate a project of thi s
size.
The temporary construction activities may provide opportunities to
strengthen the local infrastructure and provide lasting benefits.
Transport facilities,for example,would have to be improved to
facilitate construction.For site access,new roads or upgrading
of existing roads would have to be done except at Eagle Point.
Adjustments near the military airport would be necessary at Point
MacKenzie.A viaduct off the highway over existing railroad
tracks (north side)would be built at Rainbow as well as a road to
the storage and work area ~long the shore (north side).Whenever
possible,expansion of the transport facilities as required for
construction should take into account opportunities to create
lasting beneficial effects,but at the same time should not neces-
sarily interfere with existing communities.It will be desirable,
if and when a decision is made to build one of the projects,to
10-49
initiate joint planning with municipal authorities early as pos-
sible to minimize the unavoidable strains on the communities and
to maximize the benefits that can be obtained from the temporary
increase in activity in the area.
(j)Impacts of a Causeway
As discussed earlier,construction of a tidal power project at any
site considered in this study could be planned to provide a cause-
way.At Rainbow,a crossing of Turnagain Arm could be built as an
integrated part of the tidal power project,and,therefore,its
costs would be reduced.Turnagain Arm Crossing between the Anch-
orage area and the Kenai Peni~sula has been considered in various
studies over the past 30 years.It has been recognized that a
major improvement such as a crossing of Turnagain Arm would have a
great impact on the area which it serves or through which it
passes.
Tourism plays a major role in the regional economics of the Anch-
orage-Kenai area.The opening up of territory heretofore unserved
by a highway becomes of major importance.
Alaska with its almost unlimited scenary has likewise unlimited
potential for recreation.Good transportation makes realization
of these potentials possible as well as being one of the basic
ingredients of commerce and industry.The improvement of the bas-
ic network of transportation within the Anchorage-Kenai area will
produce favorable results with all of these activities.
A crossing of Turnagain Arm would bring the city of Kenai,the
center of a rapidly growing petroleum industry,to the existing
highway system.The 1968 study by the Alaska Department of High-
ways i ndi cated that the di stance between the city of Kenai and
Anchorage through the crossing would be 94 miles by way of a low-
level highway,whereas the distance over existing roads is 154
miles over mountain roads with long grades and passes subject to
heavy snowfall.
The construction of a tidal power project at either site,Point
MacKenzie or Eagle Bay,could also be planned jointly with a Knik
Arm crossing.A causeway crossing joining the two sides of Knik
Arm near Anchorage would provide civil benefits as well as defense
benefits.The 1972 study by the state of Alaska Department of
Highways indicated that the crossing will allow future economic
development of the west side of Kn-ik Arm,which would certainly
add to the potential of the metropolitan area of Anchorage (State
of Alaska 1982).It would shorten the Anchorage-Fairbanks highway
and also would provide the necessary access for a new internation-
al airport on the west side of the arm.Such a facility presents
an interesting stimulus for the future economic development of the
10-50
-I
-
(k)
west side of Knik Arm.In addition,the causeway crossing would
provide means for development access of lands north of Knik Arm.
The geographi c positi on of Anchorage,bei ng present ly surrounded
by water,mountains,and military facilities,makes the develop-
ment of the lands north and west of Knik Arm very desirable.A
crossing of Knik Arm would give access to the Beluga area and the
Alaska Peninsula with its mineral and recreation potentials.
Summary
In summary,a large number of potential impacts are associated
with any construction project of this magnitude.Certain short-
term and local effects cannot be el iminated--such as dredgi ng,
construction activities,traffic,noise,and installation of perm-
anent facilities.In addition,some widespread changes in the
natural regime would result from operation of the plant;namely,
changes in tidal fluctuations,water levels,and sedimentation
patterns.All of these changes wi 11 affect the natural environ-
ment.Further engineering and environmental studies should iden-
t ify in greater detai 1 the impact of change on the resources of
Cook Inlet.Indeed,the environment may prove resilient enough to
assimilate long-term changes without a net deleterious effect on
resources.Enhancement potentials also exist.The State must
weigh the importance of any impact on these resources against the
need for growth and development.
-
-
10.6 -Comparison of Alternatives
The economic and energy aspects of each of the alternatives under con-
sideration are discussed in Chapters 6 and 8 of Volume I.The general
compar i son of the environmenta 1 impacts associ ated with the selected
alternatives are presented below.These selected alternatives are:
-Susitna/Devil Canyon Hydroelectric Sites;
-High Devil Canyon/Vee Hydroelectric Site;
-Devil Canyon Tunnel (replaces Devil Canyon only);
Chakachanma,Keetna,and Snow Hydroelectric Sites;
-Thermal Power Development with Beluga Coal;and
-Tidal Power Development.
The environmental impacts of these alternatives have been discussed in
previous sections of this chapter and in Volume I.In this section,
therefore,only the major environmental impacts and the comparisons are
mentioned.For more detailed discussion,the reader is referred to
other s~ctions of this chapter and to Volume I.
In this section,the Susitna/Devil Canyon proposal is compared to
others.However,because the eventual installed capacity of these two
dams is 1620 MW,construction of only one of the alternates would not
produce the same power.For instances;the proposed Chakachamna,Keet-
na,and Snow sites would together have an installed capacity of only
10-51
650 MW,requlr1ng thermal power to also be developed to meet power
demands.Therefore,these developments together may have more additive
impacts than development of the single Susitna/Devi1 Canyon complex.
This should be considered when comparing the differential impacts
discussed below.
(a)Air Quality
Impacts to air quality at the tidal power development site and all
hydroelectric sites would occur only during the construction peri-
od.These impacts,resulting from construction vehicle exhaust
emission and fugitive dust,would be minor.
Thermal power development utilizing Beluga coal would result,in
addition to fugitive dust and construction vehicle emission,in
substantial amounts of sulfur dioxide,fly ash,and nitrogen
oxides emitted to the atmosphere.Coal mining activities would
also result in additional fugitive dust and mining equipment
emissions,primarily of particulate matter,hydrocarbons and nit-
rous oxides.Although a PSD review would require emissions be
within allowable increments established by the Clean Air Act regu-
lations,the relatively pristine air quality would be noticeably
degraded.
Thus,in comparison to the other alternatives,Beluga coal devel-
opment will result in much greater negative imp~cts to air qual-
ity;tidal and hydroelectric development would have only minor
effects.
(b)Topography,Geology,and Soils
Development of tidal power or hydroelectric power would result in
minor impacts to topography,geology,and soils.These impacts
would occur due to construction of access roads and transmission
lines,and utilization of borrow areas.Degree of impact would
not differ appreciably between the various hydroelectric or tidal
power alternatives and could be mitigated through restoration and
revegetation efforts.
Power generation utilizing Beluga coal would result in impacts
over a much 1arger area.Surface mi ni ng of the coal to fuel the
generating station would result in surface disturbance of the top-
ography and soils in the mined area.Reclamation efforts would
reduce these impacts,but the overall impacts would be the great-
est of the alternatives under consideration.
10-52
~
'I
...,.
--,
(c)
(d)
Hydrology
It is difficult to predict effects of the various power develop-
ment on hydrology in the project areas.Hydroelectric development
at any of the sites would result in reduction in surface flows
below the dams during certain times of the year.Studies for this
project have indicated these changes would not impact ground water
sources or ground water or surface water users downstream of the
Devil Canyon site.Because all of the damsites are located in
areas of very low popul ati on density,it is not expected that
changes in flows would cause major impacts to water users.The
primary impact associated with alteration of flows would be to
aquatic ecosystems as discussed in Section (e)below.
Tidal power development would raise the mean tide level behind the
tidal barrier by several feed and lower the mean tide range so
that higher low tides and lower high tides occur.This may have
biological ramification as discussed in Section (d)and (e)
below.
Little is known about ground water resources in the vicinity of
the Beluga coal fields.Strip mining has the potential to inter-
fere with ground water flows and to degrade water qual ity.In
addition,surface water could be affected from runoff from coal
mining operations and from liquid discharges from the generating
station.This would also primarily effect aquatic ecosystems as
discussed in Section (e).
Thus,hydroelectric and tidal powre development will affect sur-
face hydrology while coal powered development will affect surface
and ground water hydrology and also water quality.
Terrestrial Ecosystems
Impacts on terrestrial ecosystems resulting from the Susitna/Devil
Canyon development are discussed in Section 3 of this report.The
impacts result primarily from the flooding of approximately 48,000
acres and construction of access roads and transmission facil i-
ties.Wildlife habitat,primarily for moose and furbearers,would
be inundated and caribou migration may be affected.Deciduous
forest,coni ferous forest,and shrub communities woul d be
flooded.
The Vee/High Devil Canyon development would flood approximately
9,000 fewer acres.Although this is a smaller area,it is
believed to be more important to wildlife.Key winter habitat
utilized by three subpopulations of moose would be flooded and
caribou migration routes also affected.In addition,the areas
that would be flooded is of greater value to certain furbearer
species~particularly red fox.Because of the distance traversed,
the construction of a transmission line to the intertie from Vee/
la-53
High Devil Canyon would result in greater impacts to terrestrial
ecosystem.An additional 40 miles of transmission line would be
required,resulting in a minimum of 1500 more acres of land clear-
ed.
The Devil Canyon tunnel,Keetna,and Snow sites would all result
in a reduction of available wildlife habitat.The Devil Canyon
tunnel scheme (including Watana development)would inundate less
area than the Watana/Devil Canyon complex or the Watana/Devil Can-
yon/Vee complex.Depending upon the exact specification of the
development scenario,Snow and Keetna together would permanently
flood approximately 6,000 acres.Because the Chakachanma project
involves diversion of water,land inundated and loss of habitat is
expected to be minimal.Thus,overall direct terrestrial impacts
from hydroelectric development outside the Upper Susitna Basin
will be less than for the Watana/Devil Canyon development.How-
ever,because the amount of power produced woul d be substantially
less,thermal development would also be required,resulting in
additional impacts to terrestrial ecosystems as discussed below.
Surface mining of coal for generation plan would unavoidably
result in the removal of vegetation and wildlife habitat.Mitiga-
tion efforts would partially offest this loss,but the long-term
mining would result in cumulative impacts.Furthermore,the areas
of the generating facility,roads,and ancillary facilities would
be permanently removed as wildlife habitat.
Tidal power development would also involve disturbance of terres-
trial areas.Preparation of staging sights and access roads would
remove areas of habitat from use.Alteration of the tidal regime
may also reduce wetland areas.Overall impacts to terrestrial
ecosystems would be small.
(e)Aquatic Ecosystems
The major impacts on aquatic ecosystems resulting from the Susit-
na/Devil Canyon development are di scussed in Chapter 3 of thi s
volume.These impacts include reduction of downstream flows dur-
ing spring,summer,and fall and possible loss of spawning habitat
in the side sloughs.The chum salmon is expected to be the major
species affected but mitigation efforts will likely offset any
losses and insure continuance of spawning runs.
The High Devil Canyon/Vee development would inundate apprOXimately
70 additional miles of the Susitna River.In addition,if the
Olson re-regulating dam is included as part of this complex,
access to Portage Creek,an important anadramous fi sh spawni ng
stream,would be blocked and two miles partially inundated.
10-54
-
-
-
--
(f)
(g)
The Devil Canyon tunnel scheme would result in a smaller degree of
impact to aquatic ecosystems,primarily because the number of the
river miles flooded and the reservoir area created would be
approximately half that of Devil Canyon reservoir.
Development at Keetna,Chakacharnna,and Snow woul d al so affect
fisheries habitat,particularly at Chakachamna.Dewatering of the
Chacachatna Ri ver would prevent access to Chakachamna Lake by
anadramous fish,thereby eliminating spawning runs to the lake and
its tributaries.Development at the Keetna site could also adver-
sely affect upstream migration of anadramous fish.
Impacts to aquatic ecosystems from coal-fit"ed pm-ver plants would
depend upon effectiveness of siltation control devices and treat-
ment of water di scharge.Large scal e mi ni 119 efforts has the po-
tential to negatively affect surface water quality over a large
area.
Tidal power development could also affect migration of anadramous
fish,but this is not expected to be a major impact.Possible
changes in water chemistry and tidal fluctuations may change after
components of the aquatic ecosystem.
Cultural Resources
Potential for impacts to cultural resources is present with all
development.Current studies described in Chapter 4 reveal the
presence of large numbers of archaeological sites,by far,the
majority of which were not discovered before these studies.
Therefore,although known cultural resource sites are few at all
the other development sites,it cannot be concluded that they are
not present;it is likely detailed surveys would result in the
discovery of these resources.Impacts to these resources are mit-
igatable either through avoidance or salvage operations.
Utilizing area involved as the only criteria,development at the
High Devil Canyon/Vee sites and Devil Canyon/Watana sites has the
highest potential for impacts and tidal power development the low-
est.The other development schemes would have potentially inter-
mediate levels of impact.
Socioeconomic
Impacts on·socioecorlOmic conditions depend primarily on the size
of the project,the remoteness of the area,and condition of near-
by towns.Based on this,the Watana/Devil Canyon and High Devil
Canyon/Vee projects wi 11 have simil ar soci oeconomic impacts and
the tidal power development due to its size and proximity to
Anchorage,the least.The use of Beluga coal would also result in
substantial impacts to that area,particularly to the Tyonek
Vill age.
10-55
(h)Summary
Comparison of the environmental impacts of the proposed Watana/
Devil Canyon development with the alternatives can be summarized
as follows:
(i)Hydroelectric Alternatives:
-Hi gh Devi 1 Canyon/Vee -Si mil ar impacts as Watana/Devil
Canyon in the area of air quality,topography,geology,
and soil s,hydrology,cultural resources,and soci oeco-
nomics;more severe negative impacts to aquatic and ter-
restrial ecosystems.
-Devi 1 Ca nyon Tunnel -Si m"i 1ar impacts as Watana/Devil
Canyon in all areas except terrestrial and aquatic eco-
systems.Lesser impacts to aquatic and terrestrial eco-
systems.See Volume I,Chapter 8 for discussion of
energy loss with this alternate.
Chakachamna/Keetna/Snow - Fewer impacts in all areas
except aquatic ecosystems due to smaller developments.
Potent i a1 for severe impacts to fi sheri es and Chaka-
chamna.However,low level of installed power would
require supplementing with thermal increasing impacts.
(ii)Coal-fired Thermal Alternative
Greater impacts than Watana/Devil Canyon in areas of air
quality,topography,geology,soils,and hydrogeology;po-
tential for long-term negative impacts to aquatic and ter-
restrial ecosystems;similar levels of impacts to cultural
resources and socioeconomic conditions.
(iii)Tidal Alternative
Fewer impacts than Watana/Devil Canyon in all areas,with
the possible exception of anadramous fish.However,tidal
power development of the same capacity of Watana/Devil Can-
yon (1620 MW)are not in existence anywhere in the world.
Environmental impacts are not fully understood and may be
greater than expected of speci a1 concern in effects of
tidal regime alteration on anadramous fish.Finally,tidal
power production is dependent on the tidal cycle and gener-
ation may not meet load characteristics and demands.
10-56
-
.-
.....
MAP REFERENCES
Note:File number,where present,appears to the right of the reference and is
the library file number of the source at the Alaska Resources Library of
the Department of the Interior,Anchorage .
File No.
List of Acronyms
ADF&G -Alaska Department of Fish and Game
AEIDC -Artic Environmental Information and Data Center
(of the University of Alaska)
DOl -United States Department of Interior
FLPMA -Federal Land Policy and Management Act
JFSLUPC -Joint Federal State Land Use Planning Commission
,....USGS -U.S.Geological Survey
FW8(1)"Migratory Birds:Seabirds,Raports,and Endangered Species."
Resource Planning Team,JFSLUP,1974,1977.
(2)"Birds."100
(3)"Musk-Oxen and Caribou ll adapted from data provided by ADF&G 99
and from the University of Alaska,AfIDC.
(4)IlLarge Mammalslladapted from information prepared by ADF&G
and the University of Alaska,AEIDC.-
-
-
(5)
(6)
(7)
Cultivatable Soils,Soil Conservation Service,Exploratory
Survey Resource Planning Team,JFSLUPC,1973.
IlVegetation of Alaska",Data compiled by Spetzman of USGS,
1963.Overlay prepared directly from Spetzman's map
by Resource Pl anni ng Team,JFSLUPC,1972.
"S e l ec ted Primitive Areas in Alaska for Consideration for
Wi)derness Designation",JF?LUPC,1977.
88
(8)IlBear Denning and Goat Rangel!,Resource Planning Team,
JFSLUPC,1974.
(9)"Dall Sheep,Deer and Moose Concentrations",Resource
Planning Team,JFSLUPC,1974.
FW6
FW67
MAP REFERENCES (Cont'd)
(10)"Distribution of Caribou Heards in Alaska",Resource
Planning Team,ALUPC,1974.
(11)"S cen ic,Natural and Primitive Values",Resource Planning
Team,JFSLUPC,1974.
(12)"Recreation,Cultural and Scientific Features",Resource
Planning Team,JFLUPC,1974.
(13)"Nat ionally Si gnificant Cultural Features (Known and Known
Potential)",JFSLVPC Alaska Division of Parks and
National Park Service,1977.
(14)Alaska Map E (USGS)and USGS Quad Maps (Scale 1:250,000.
(15)Administration National Monument Proclamation and FLPMA
Withdrawals,1980.
(16)"Alaska"Illustrated Land Status Subject to Verification
Department of the Interior,Bureau of Land
Management,1974.
(17)Generalized State Land Activity -current to 9/30/79.
(18)"Fisheries"JFSLUPC.
(19)"Marine Mammals and Fish",Adapted from data prepared by
the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service and University of
Alaska,Arctic Environmental Information and Data
Center.
(20)"Proposed Ecological Reserve System for Alaska"by:
University of Alaska,Arctic Environmental Information
and Data Center,1977.
(21)State of Alaska "Game refuges,Critical Habitat Areas and
Sanctuari es"prepared by ADF&G,Habit at Protecti on
Section,Office of Projects Review.
(22)"Agricultural and Range Resources,Alaska Resources Inventory,
South Central Region"prepared by the Joint Federal
State Land Use Planning Commission.
(23)Alaska Map E showing "Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act,December 2,1980,PL 96-487".
File No.
FW5
PR16
PR17
32-1
FW9
97
-
;..~
-
1 1 '}I ~l 1 1 1 1 1 1 ]
TABLE 10.1:SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF SCREENING PROCESS
EIiminatlon El imination Eliminatlon Ehmwabon
Iteration Iteration Iteration Iteration
1 1 1 1
Site 1 2 3 4 Site 1 Z 3 4 Site 1 2 3 4 Site 1 2 3 4
Allison Creek Fox *Lowe *Talachulitna River *Beluga Lower *Gakona *Lower Chulitna *Talkeetnna R.-Sheep *
Beluga Upper *Gerstle *Lucy *Talkeetna - Z
Big Delta *Granite Gorge *McClure Bay *fanana Rlver *Bradley Lake *Grant Lake *McKinley Ri ver *Tazlina *Bremmer R.-Salmon *Greenstone *McLaren River *Tebay Lake *Bremmer R.-S.F.*Gulkana River *Mi Ilion Do lIar *Teklanika *Browne Hanagita *Moose Horn *Tiekel River *Bruskasna Healy *Nellie Juan River *Tokichitna *Cache Hicks Nellie Juan R.-Upper *Totatlanika *Canyon Creek *'JaCKRiver *Ohio *Tustumena *Caribou Creek *Johnson *Power Creek *Vachon Island *Carlo *Junction Island *Power Creek - 1 *Whiskers *Cathedral Bluffs *Kanhshna Ri ver *Rampart *Wood Canyon *Chakachamna Kasilof River *Sanford *Yanert - 2 *Chuhtna f.F.*Keetna Sheep Creek *Yentna *Chulitna Hurrican *~Lake *Sheep Creek -1 *Chulitna W.F.*Kenai Lower *Silver Lake *Cleave *Killey River *Skwentna *Coal *King Mtn *Snow
Coffee *Klutina *"'SiJ1Omon Gu lch *Crescent Lake *Kotsina *Stelters Ranch *Crescent Lake - 2 *Lake Creek Lower *Strandline Lake
Deadman Creek *Lake Creek Upper *Summlt Lake *Eagle River *Lane *Talachulitna *
-
Notes:
(1)Final site selection underlined.
*Site eliminated from further consideration.
TABLE 10.2:SITES ELIMINATED IN SECOND ITERATION
Site Criterion
Carlo Denali National Park,National Park Wilderness
Yanert - 2
-i
I
Healy
Lake Creek Upper
McKinley River
Teklanika
Cleave
Wood Canyon
Tebay Lake
Hanagita
Gakona
Sanford
Cresent Lake
Kasilof River
Million Dollar
Rampart
Vachon Island
Junction Island
Power Creek
Gulkana
Denali National Park
Wrangell-St.Elias National Park &Preserve,
National Park Wilderness,Major Fishery
Wrangell-St.Elias National Park &Preserve,
National Park Wilderness
Wrangell-St.Elias National Park &Preserve
Lake Clark National Park
Major Fishery
Wild &Scenic River
-
-
-
-
TABLE 10.3:EVALUATION CRITERIA
Evaluation Criteria General Concerns
-
(1)Big Game
(2)Agricultural Potential
0)Waterfowl,Raptors &
Endangered Species
(4)Anadromous Fisheries
(5)Wilderness Consideration
(6)Cultural,Recreation
&Scientific Features
(7)Restricted Land Use
(8)Access
-Protection of wildlife resources
-Protection of existing and potential
agricultural resources
-Protection of wildlife resources
-Protection of fisheries
Protection of wilderness and unique
features
-Protection of existing and identified
potential features
-Consideration of legal restriction to
land use
-Identification of areas where the
greatest change would occur
Scale Rating
A.EXCLUSION
B.HIGH SENSITIVITY
TABLE 10.4:SENSITIVITY SCALING
Definition
The significance of one factor is great
enough to exclude a site from further
consideration.There is little or no
possibility for mitigation of extreme adverse
impacts,or development of the site is
legally prohibited.
1)The most sensitive components of the
environmental criteria would be disturbed
by development,or
2)There exists a high potential for future
conflict which should be investigated in
a more detailed assessment.
-
-
C.MODERATE SENSITIVITY
D.LOW SENSIfiVITY
Areas of concern were less important than
those in "B"above.
'1)Areas of concerns are common for most or
many of the sites.
2)Concerns are less important than those of
"c"above.
3)The available information alone is not
enough to indicate a greater
significance.
-
-
}1 J },~1 ..-I 1 1 ~···~-l j 1 ".1
TABLE 10.5:SENSITIVITY SCALING OF EVALUATION CRITERIA
EvaluatIon CrIterIa --------~CALE
ABC D
Exclusion High Moderate Low
Big Game:
Agricultural Potential
Waterfowl,Raptors and
Endangered Species
Anadromous Fisheries
Wilderness Consideration
Cultural,Recreational and
Scientific Features
-major anadromous fish
corridor for three or
more species
-more than 50,000
salmon passing site
-seasonal concentration
-are key range areas
-calving areas
upland or lowland
soils suitable for
farming
-nesting areas for:
•Peregrine Falcon
•Canada Goose
•Trumputee Swan
-year-round habitat
for neritic seabirds
and raptors
-key ~igration area
three or more species
present or spawning
identified as a major
anadromous fish area
All of the following
-good-to-high quality:
•scenic area
•natural features
•primitive values
-selected for wilderness
consideration
-existing or proposed
historic landmark
-reserve proposed for
the Ecological Reserve
System
-big game present
-bear denning area
-marginal farming soils
-high-density waterfowl
area
-waterfowl migration
and hunting area
-waterfowl migration
route
-waterfowl nesting or
molt area
less than three
species present or
spawning
-identified as an impor-
tant fish area
Two of the following
-good-to-high quality:
scenic area
•natural features
•primitive value
-site in or close to an
area selected for
wilderness consideration
-Site affects one or
more of the following:
•boating potential
•recreational potential
•historic feature
•historic trail
•archaeological site
•ecological reserve
nomination
•cultural feature
-habitat or distribu-
tion area for bear
no identified agri-
cultural potential
-medium or low density
wat erfowl areas
-waterfowl present
not identified as
a spawning or
rearing area.
One or less of the
following
-good-to-high quality:
•scenic area
•natural features
primitive value
-site near one of the
factors in B or C
fABLE 10.5 (Continued)
SCJ.U.T
1-\0 C 0
Exclusion High Moderate Low
Eva luaE ionu'l:'t:::e:::l'~l'::a-'--------......----------,K:;--
-In one of the
following:
State land
Native land
•None of A,B,C
-Significant impact to:
Existing national
park
Federal lands with-
drawn by National
Monument Proclamations
Restricted Land Use -Impact to:-Increase:
•National wildlife •National forest
range •Proposed wild and
State park scenic river
State game refuge,•National resource
range,or wilderness area
preservation area •Forest land withdrawn
___________for mineral entry
Access -no existing roads,
railroads or airports
-terrain rough and
access difficult
-increase access to
wilderness area
-existing trails
-proposed roads or
-existing airports
-close to existing
roads
-existing roads or
railroads
-existing power lines
..:.....,..•.J ],_---J ).'~J '._l J
1 J 1 .--1 -1
TABLE 10.6:SITE EVALUATIONS
-1 -1 1 J -.--1 1 1
51te Evaluation Criteria
"AgrIcultural WatBrfo~l,RepEors,Anadromous wl.lderneS5 C-uTturar~-rlecreat10nal,---Resf"fTcte"d
Big.Game Potential Endangered Species Fisheries Consideration and Scientific Features Land Use
Allison Creek -Black and Grizzly bear -None identified
present
Bradley Lake -Black and Grizzly bear -25 to 3D percent"of
present soil marginally suiL-
-Moose present able far farming
-high quality forests
BrOwne -Black and Grizzly bear -More than 50 percent
present marginally suitable
-Moose present for farming
-Caribou ~inter range
Bruskasna -Black and Grizzly bear -None identified
present
-Moose present
-Caribou ""inter range
Chakachamna -Black hear habitat -Upland spru~e,hard-
-Moose present Iorood forest
-Year-round habitat for
ner it ie seabirds and
rap tors
-Peregrine falcon
nesting area
-Waterfolorl present
-Peregrine Falcon
nesting areas
-Law density of weter-
f01or1
-Lalor density of water-
fowl
-Nesting and molting
area
-Waterfowl nesting and
molting area
-Spa\'lning area for tlorO
salmon spe~ies
-None identified
-None
-None
-Two species present
-High-to-good-quality
scenic area
-Good-to-high-quality
scenery
-None
-Good-to-high-quality
scenery
-Area under wi lderness
considerat ion
-Good-to-high-quality
scenery
-Primitive and natural
features
-None identified
-Boating area
-Boating potential
-Boating potential
-Proposed ecological
reserve site
~Boating areas
-Near Chugach
National Forest
-None identified
-None identified
-None identified
-None ident Hied
Coffee -Black and Grizzly bear
present
-Moose present
-More than 50 percent of
upper land suitable for
agriculture
-Good forests
-Key waterfowl habitat -Four species presenL,
two spawning in area
-None identified -Boating area -None identi fied
Cathedral Bluffs -Black and Griuly bear
present
-Moose present
-Dall sheep present
-Moose concentration area
-More than 50 percent of -Low density of Iorater-
land marginal for farming fOlorl
-Upland spru~e-hardwood -Nesting and molting
forest area
-One specias present -Good scenery -None identi fied -None identified
Hicks
Johnson
Keetna
Kenai Lake
-Black and Grizzly bear
present
-Caribou present
Moose winterinq area
-Black and Grizzly betu'
present
-Moose,caribou and
bison present
-Black and Grizzly bear
present
-Caribou winter area
-Moose fall/lor inter
concentration area
-'Black and Grizzly bear
present
-Dall sheep habitat
-Moose fall/Iorinter
concentration area
-None identified
-25 to 50 percent of
upland soil suitable
for farming
-Upland spruce-hardwood
forest
-None identifisd
-None identified
-Coastal hemlock-
sitka spruce forest
-Waterfolorl nesting and
molting area
-Lo"l'f density of waterfowl
-Nesting and molting area
-None ident ified
-Waterfo"l'tl nesting and
molting area
-Far downstream from
site only
Salmon spa"l'fning area,
one species present
-Four species present,
one species spa"l'fning
near site
-Four spe~ies present,
two spawning
-None i dent!fied
-None ident ified
-Good-to-high-quality
pr imit i ve lands
-High-quality scenery
-Natural features
-None Identi fied
-Boat ing potent ial
-High boat ing potent ial
-Boat ing potential
-No present
restr ict ions
-None identified
-None identified
-Chugach National
Forest
TABLE 10.6 (Continued)
Site .-------.~------------5aruan~rnerIa
Agr1cultural Waterfowl,Rapters,Anadromous Wllderness Cultural,Recreat10naI ,Restrl.CE80
Big Game Potential Endangered Species Fisherie;;;Consideration and Scientific Features Land Use
Klutina
Lane
Lowe
Lower Chulitna
-Black and Grizzly bear
present
-Caribou present
-Moose fall concentra-
tion area
-Black bear present
-Moose present
-Caribou prasent
-Black and Grizzly bear
present
-Moose present
-Black and Grizzly bear
present
-Car ibou present
-25 to 50 percent of
soils marginal for
farming
-Climate marginal for
farming upland spruce-
hard\<o-ood forest
-More than 50 percent
of the eoils in upper-
lands suitable for
farming
-Bottomland spruce-
poplar forest
-None identified
-Coastal \'vestern hemlock-
sitka spruce forest
-More than 50 percent of
the upland soils suit-
able for farming
-Low-density \<o-aterfowl
area
-Nesting and molting
area
-Low-densit y waterfowl
area
-Nesting and rna It ing
area
-Peregri ne Falcon
nest ing area
-Medium-density waterfowl
araa
-Nesting and molting
area
-Two species present,
one species spawn in
......icinity of site
-Five species present
and spawn in site
vicinity
-One species present,
others downstream of
site
-Four species present,
three spawning in
vicinity
-High-qual tty scenery
-Natural formations
-Pr imit i ve lands
-Selected for wilder-
ness considerat ion
-None identi·fied
-Good-to-high-quality
scenery
-Area selected for
wilderness consideration
-Area selected for
wildernesa consideration
-Boating potential
-Boating opportunities
identified
-Historical feature
-Proposed ecological
rese·rve site
-Boating potential
-None identi,fed
-None identified
-Located near the
border of Chugach
National Forest
-None ident ified
Silver Lake -Black and Grizzly bear -None identified -Year-round habitat for
present -Coastal \<o-estern hemlock-neritic seabirds and
-High density of seals sitka spruce forest rapt aI's
-One species present 1
more downstream
-Good-to-high-quality
scenery
-Primitive value
-Boating area potential -Chugach National
Fores
Skwentna
SnOw
-Black and Grizzly bear
present
-Moose winter concentra-
tion area
-Black bear present
-Dall sheep habitats
-Moose \<o-inter concentra-
tion area
-50 percent of upper lands
suitable for farming
-Lowland spruce -
hardwood forest
-None identi fled
-Lo\<o--density waterfo\'vl
area
-Nesting and molting
area
-Nesting and rna lt ing
area
-Three species present,
spawn1ng in area
-None
-None ident i fled
-None identified
-Boating area
-Historical trails
-Proposed ecological
reserv.e site
-None identified
-Located in Chugach
National Forest
Strandline Lake -Moose,black bear -25 to 50 percent margi--Nesting and molting
habitat nal farming soils area
-Grizzly bear present -Alpine tundra
-None present -Good-to-high-quality
scenery
-Primitive lands
-None identified -None identiFied
Talkeetna 2
Cache
Tazlina
-Black and Grizzly bear
presnt
-t-1oose fall/winter con-
centration area
-Csribou winter range
-Black and Grizzly bear
present
-Maass \'vinter concsn-
t ration area
-Caribou winter ranqe
-Black and Grizzly bear
present
-Moose winter range
-Caribou winter ranqe
-None identified
-None identified
-None identified
-Lowland spruce-hardwood
forest
-None ident i fied
-None identified
-Medium-density water~
fowl area
-Nesting and molting
area
-Four species present,
one species spawns at
site
-Four species of salmEln
present,spawning areas
identified
-Two species present
at site and upstream
-Good ...to-high-qual ity
scenery
-Primit i ve lands
-Good-to-high-quality
scenery
-Primitive lands
-None identified
-Boating potential
-Boating potential
-Boat ing potent ial
-None identified
-None ident i fled
-None identified
Tokichitna -BIsck bear present -More than 50 percent of -Medium-density waler--Four species present,~-Border primitive area
-Moose present soila aI'S usable for fowl area three species spawn in
-Caribou present farming (in upper lands)-Nesting and molting area site vicinity
J
-Boat ing potent ial -None ident i fied
",e-]
-))1
TABLE 10.6 (Continued)
1 1 ]]..1 ]1 1
Slte EvaluatIon Cnteria
"AQr1cuTtural Waterfowl,Rapters,Anadromous wilderness -CuTturaI,--RecreatTri6a-1 J Restnet ed
Biq Game Potential Endangered Species Fisheries Consideration and Scientific Features Land Use
Tustumera -Black bear habitat -None identi fied -None identified -None ident 1 fied
-Dall sheep habitat
Upper Be luge -Moose present -Hore than 50 percent of -Medium density water--Four species present,
upper lands arE!suitable fowl area two species spawn in
for farming -Nesting and molting area
-Lowland spruce-hardwood area
forest
Upper Nellie -Grizzly bear present -None identified -None identified -None identified
Juan -Moose present -Coastal 1'o8stern hemlock-
-Black bear habitat sitka spurce forest
-Selected for wilderness -None identified
consideration
-Good-to-high-quality
scenery
-Natural features
-Primitive lands
-None identified -Boating area
-Selected for wilderness -Boating potential
consideration
-High primitive,scenic,
end natural features
-Located in Kenai
National Moose Range
-Site within a
designated National
Wilderness area
-None ident i f ied
-Chugach National
Forest
Whiskers -Black ahd Grizzly bear -50 percent of upperlands
present suitable for farming
-Moose present -Bottomland spruce-
-Caribou present poplar forest
-LOW-density waterfOwl
area
-Nesting and molting
an~a
-Five species present,
two spawn in area
-None identified -Boating potential -None identified
Yentna -Black and Grizzly bear
present
-Moose,spring/summer/
winter concentration
-25 to 50 percent of
soils in lOwlands are
suitable for farming
-Bottomland spruce-poplar
forest
-Medium-density water-
fowl area
-Nesting and molting
area
-Five species spawn in
area
-None identified -Boating potential -None identified
Crescent Lake
Chakachamna
Lower Beluga
Coffee
Upper Beluga
Strand line Lake
Bradley Lake
Kasilof River
fustumena
Kenai Lo ....er
Kenai Lake
Crescent Lake-2
Grant Lake
Snow
McClure Bay
Upper Nellie Juan R
All ison Creek
Solomon Gulch
Lowe
Silver Lake
Power Creek
Million l:Xlllar
TABLE 10.7,SHE EVALUATION MATRIX
Waterfowl,Installed Land
Big Agricultural Reptars,Anadromous Wilderness Cult,Recrea,Restricted Capacity Dam Flooded
Game Potential Endg~Species Fisheries Consideration &Scientific Land Use Access (MW)Scheme Height (n)(Acres)
Reservoir <150 <5000
..../Diversion
>100 Reservoir <150 <5000
w/Di"ersion
<25 Reservoir <150 <5000
and Dam
25-100 Dam and <150 <5000
Reservoir
25-100 Dam and 150-350 5000 to
Reservoir 100,000
<25 Reservoir <150 <5000
w/Diversion
25-100 Reservoir <150 <5000
w/Ol version
Reservoir 150-350 >100,000
w/Diversion
<25 Reservoir <150 <5000
..../01 versi on
25-100 M Dam and <150 <5000
Reservoir
>100 Dam and >350 5000 to
Reservoir 100,000
<25 Reservoir <150 <5000
w/Diveraion
<25 Reservoir <150 <5000
1'1/01 version
25-100 Reservoir 150-350 5000 to
w/Diversion 100,000
<25 Reservoir <150 <5000
w/Diversion
<25 Reservoir <150 <5000
w/D1vers:i.on
D 0 0 <25 Reservoir <150 <5000
w/mversian
<25 Reservai r <150 <50DO
I'I'/Di version
25-100 Dam and 150-350 5000 to
Reservoir 100.000
<25 Reservoir <150 <5000
w/Diversion
<25 Reservoir <150 <5000
w/Di version
Dam and <150 5000 to
Reservoir 100,000
J "-~-,,J J J ,,'c),,~,J ,..,"'",)
1
TABLE 10.7 (Cont'd)
]1 1 1 1 --1 --]~J J J
waterfo .....I,Installed land
Big Agricultural Raptors,Anadromous Wilderness Cult,Recrea,Restricted Capacity Dam Flooded
Game Potential Endq.Species Fisheries Consideration &Scientific Land Use Access __.(MW)Scheme Height Cft)(Acres)
Cleave
Wood Canyon
Tebay Lake
Hanagita
Klutina
Tazlina
Gakona
Sanford
Gulkana
Yenlna
TalachulLna
Skwentna
Lake Creek Upper
Lake Creek Lo..,er
Lower Chuli tna
Tokichilna
Coal
Ohio
Chulitna
Whiskers
Lane
Sheep Creek
D
25-100
>100
25-'100
>100
25-100
25-100
25-100
>100
25-100
25-100
25-100
25-100
>100
25-100
Dam and 150-350 5000 to
Reservoir 100,000
Dam and >350 )100,000
Reservoir
Reservoir <150 <5000
w/Di v8Tsion
Reservoir <150 <5000
lot/Diversion
----
Dam and 150-350 5000 to
Reservoir 100,000
Dam and 150-350 5000 to
Reservoir 100,000
Dam and
Reservoir
Reservoir 150-350 5000 to
w/Di version 100,000
Dam and <150 )100,000
Reservoir
Dam and <150 5000 to
Reservoir 100,000
Dam and >350 5000 to
Reservoir 100,000
Reservoir <150 <5000
.,./Di version
Dam and 150-350 <5000
Reservoir
Da.m and 150-350 <5000
Reservoir
Dam and 150-350 5000 to
Reservoir 100,000
Dam and 150-350 <5000
Reservoir
Dam and 150-350 <5000
Reservoir
Dam and 150-350 <5000
Reservoir
Dam and <150 <5000
Reservoir
Dam and 150-350 <5000
Reservoi r
Dam and >350 <5000
Reservoir
TABlE 10.7 (Cont'd)
Waterfowl,.-.---------lnst-~Land
Big Agricultural Raptors,Anadramous Wilderness Cult,Recrea,Restricted CapacHy Dam Flooded
Game Potential Endg.Species Fisheries __~..Q!l~ideration~ntific _'=..~.t:LU~~Access eMW)Scheme Height Cft)(Acres)
Keetna
Granite Gorge
Telkeetns-2
Greenstone
Cache
Hicks
Rampart
Vachon Island
Junction Island
Kantishna River
McKinley River
Teklanika River
Bl'o....ne
Hesly
Carlo
Yanert-2
Bruskasna
Tanana
Gerstle
Johnson
Cathedral Bluffs
p
25-100
25·100
25-100
25-100
25-100
25-100
>100
>100
>100
25-100
>100
25-100
25-100
25-100
>100
>100
Darn and >350 5000 to
Resel"."oir 100,000
Reservoir 150-350 <5000
w/Diversion
Dam and >350 5000 to
Reservoir 100,000
Reservoir 150-350 <5000
w/Diversion
Dam and 150-350 <5000
Reservoir
Dam and 150-350 <5000
~eser"oir
Darn and >350 )100,000
Reservoir
Dam and <150 )100.000
Reservoir
Dam and 150-350 >100,000
Reservoir
Dam and <150 >100,000
Reservoir
Dam and 150-3'0 <5000
RBservoir
Dam and >350 5000 to
Reservoir 100,000
Dam and 150-350 SOOO to
RBservoir 100,000
Dam and 150-350 5000 to
Reservoir 100 1 000
Dam and 150-350 <5000
Reservoir
Dam and 150-350 SOOO to
Reservoir 100,000
Dam and 150-350 5000 to
Reservoir 100,000
Dam and <150 5000 to
Reservoir 100,000
Dam and <150 <5000
Reservoir
Dam and <150 5000 to
Reservoir 100,000
Dam and 150-350 SOOO to
Reservoir 100,000
~_J "eel '+c,__'J J J J i."_.,,••J J Le.c __.•
TABLE 10.8:CRITERIA WEIGHT ADJUSTMENTS
Adjustec Weights
[Jam Heigtt Reserv.Are~
Init ial
Weiqht ++++++++++++
Big Game 8 6 7 8
Agr icult ural
Potential 7 5 6 7
Birds 8 6 7 8
Fisheries 10 8 9 10
TABLE 10.9:SITE CAPACITY GROUPS
-
Site Group
<25 MW
25-100 MW
>100 MW
No.of Sites
Evaluated
5
15
8
No.of Sites
Accepted
3
4 - 6
4
TABLE 10.10:RANKING RESULTS -
Site Group Part ial Score Total Score -Sites:<25 MW
Strandline Lake 59 85
Nellie Juan Upper 37 96
Tustumena 37 106
Allison Creek 65 82
Silver Lake 65 111
Sites:25 -100 MW -
Hicks 62 79
Bruskasna 71 104
Bradley Lake 71 104 -Snow 71 106 :
Cache 86 127
Lowe 89 122
Keetna 89 131
Talkeetna - 2 98 134
Coffee 101 126
Whiskers 101 134
Klut ina 101 142
lower Chulit iua 106 139
Beluga Upper 117 142
Talachultna River 126 159
Skwentna 136 169
Sites >100 MW """I
Chakachamna 65 134
Browne 69 94
Tazlina B9 124
Johnson 96 121
Cathedral Bluffs 101 126
Lane 106 139
Kenai Lake 112 147
Tokichitna 117 150
I""'"
I
-
TABLE 10.11:SHORTLISTED SITES
I:..nvironmental Capacity
Ratinq o -25 MW 25 -100 MW 100 MW
Good Strandline Lake*Hicks*Browne*
Allison Creek*Snow*Johnson
Tustumena Cache*
Silver Lake Bruskasna*
Acceptable Keetna*Chakachamna*
Poor Talkeetna-2*Lane
Lower Chulitna Tokichitna
*10 selected sites
TABLE 10.12:ALTERNATIVE HYDRO DEVELOPMENT PLANS
Installed On-Line
Plan Descr ipt ion Capacity Date
A.1 Chakachamna 500 1993
Keetna 100 1997
A.2 Chakachamna 500 1993
Keetna 100 1997
Snow 50 2002
A.3 Chakachamna 500 1993
Keetna 100 1996
Snow 50 1998
Strandline 20 1998
Allison Creek 8 1998
A.4 Chakachamna 500 1993
Keetna 100 1996
Snow 50 2002
Strandline 20 2002
Allison Creek 8 2002
A.5 Chakachamna 500 1993
Keetna 100 1996
Snow 50 2002
Talkeetna - 2 50 2002
Cache 50 2002
Strandline 20 2002
Allison Creek 8 2002
-
r
-
TABLE 10.13:OPERATING AND ECONOMIC PARAMETERS FOR SELECTED HYDROELECTRIC PLANTS
Max.Average Economic
Gross Installed Annual Plant Capityl Cost of
Head Capacity Ener5y Factor Cos~Energy
No.Site River Ft.(MW)(Gwh (%)($10 )($/1000 Kwh)
1 Snow Snow 690 50 220 50 255 45
2 Bruskasna Nenana 235 30 140 53 238 113
3 Keetna Talkeetna 330 100 395 45 477 47
4 Cache Talkeetna 310 50 220 51 564 100
5 Browne Nenana 195 100 410 47 625 59
6 Talkeetna-2 Talkeetna 350 50 215 50 500 90
7 Hicks Matanuska 275 60 245 46 529 84
8 Chakachamna Chakachatna 945 500 1925 44 1480 30
9 Allison Allison Creek 1270 8 33 47 54 125
10 Strandline
Lake Beluga 810 20 85 49 126 115
NOTES:
~ncluding engineering and owner's administrative costs but excluding AFDC.
TABLE 10.14:POTENTIAL HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT
Average Econornic 1
Dam Capital Installed Annual Cost of Source
Proposed Helght Upstream Cost Capacity Energy Energy of
Site Type Ft.Regulation $million (MW)Gwh $/1000 kWh Data
Gold Creek 2 Fill 190 Yes 900'260 1,140 37 USSR 1953
Olson
(Susitna II)Concrete 160 Yes 600 200 915 31 USBR 1953
KAISER 1974
COE 1975
Devil Canyon Concrete 675 No 830 250 1,420 27 This Study
Yes 1,000 600 2,980 17 "
High Devil Canyon "(Susitna I)Fill 855 No 1,500 800 3,540 21 "
Devil Creek 2 Fill Approx No
850
Watana Fill 880 No 1,860 800 3,250 28 "
Susitna III Fill 670 No 1,390 350 1,580 41 "
Vee Fill 610 No 1,060 400 1,370 37 "
Maclaren 2 Fill 185 No 530 3 55 180 124 "
Denali Fill 230 No 480 3 60 245 81 "
But te Creek 2 Fill Approx No -40 130 4 -USSR 1953
150
Tyone 2 Fill Approx No -6 22 4 -USBR 1953
60
Notes:
(1 )Includes AFDC,Insurance,Amortization,and Operation &Maintenance Costs.
(2)No detailed engineering or energy studies undertaken as part of this study.
(3)Includes estimated costs of power generation facility.
(4)These are approximate estimates and serve only to represent the potential of these two damsites in perspective.
,),)c~_.,.J ~,cl c...•",J }:_,"".J .J ..1 '-,j ..•1
1 1 ]'J 1 ~---l -]J 1 -J .~")1
TABLE 10.15:RESULTS OF SCREENING MODEL
Total Demand First Second
Cap.Energy Site Site Site
Run MW GWh Names $Names Names
400 1750 High 1580 400 885 Devil 1450 400 970 Watana 1950 400 980
Devil Canyon
Canyon
2 800 3500 High 1750 800 1500 Watana 1900 450 1130 Watana 2200 800 1860
Devil
Canyon
Devil
Canyon 1250 350 710
TOTAL 800 1840
3 1200 5250 Watana 2110 700 1690 High 1750 800 1500 High 1750 820 1500
Devil Devil
Canyon Canyon
Devil 1350 500 800 Vee 2350 400 1060 Susitna 2300 380 1260
Canyon III
TOTAL 1200 2490 TOTAL 1200 2560 TOTAL 1200 2760
4 1400 6150 Watana 2150 740 1770
N 0 SOL UTI 0 N N 0 SOL UTI 0 N
Devil 1450 660 1000
Canyon
TABLE 10.16:ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUAIiON OF DEVIL CANYON OAM AND TUNNEL SCHEME
Enllironmental
Attribute
[col_ogieal:
Concerns
"AjiPraisaI U
--··Scneme Judged to have
(Differences in impact Identification the least potential impact
of two schemes)of difference ApPl'aisal Judqment lunne!DC
-Cownst ream Fisheries
and Wildlife
Effects resulting
from changes in
water quantity and
quality.
No significant difference
between schemes regarding
effects downstream from
Devil Canyon.
Difference in reach
between Dellil Canyon
dam and t.unne 1 re-
regUlation dam.
With the tunnel scheme con-
trolled flows between regula-
tion dam and downstream power-
house offers potential for
anadromous fisheries enhance-
ment in this 11 mi Ie reach 0f
the riller.
Not a factor in ellaluation of
scheme.
If fisheries enhancement oppor-
tunity can be realized the tun-
nel scheme offers a posit lve
mitigation measure not available
with the Devil Canyon dam
scheme.This opportunity is
considered moderate and favors
the tunnel scheme.However,
there are no current plans for
such enhancement and feasibil-
ity is uncertain.Potential
value is therefore not signi-
ficant re lat ive to additional
cost of tunnel.
Resident Fisheries:
Wildlife:
~:
~:
Loss of resident Minimal differences
fisheries habitat.between schemes.
Loss of wildlife Minimal differences
habitat.between schemes.
Inundation of Potential differences
archaeological between schemes.
sHes.
Inundation of Devil Significant difference
Cany-on.between schemes.
Dellil Canyon dam would inundate
27 miles of the Susitna River
and approximately 2 miles of
~'lIil Creek.The tunnel scheme
would inundste 16 miles of the
Susitna Riller.
The most sensitille wildlife ha-
bitat in this reach is upstream
from the tunnel re-regulation
dam whBre there is no signifi-
cant difference between the
schemes.The [Evil Canyon dam
scheme in addition inundates the
river valley b-etween the two
damsites resulting in a moderate
increase in impacls to wildlife.
ll.Je to the larger area inun-
dated.the probability of in-
undating archaeological sites
is increased.
The ~vil Canyon is considered
a unique resource,80 percent
of which would be inundated by
the [ellil Canyon dam scheme.
This would result in a loss of
both an aesthetic lIalue plus
the potential for white water
recreation.
Loss of habitat with dam scheme is
less than 5%of total for Susitna
main stem.This reach of river is
therefore not considered to be
highly significant for resident
fisheries -and thus the di fference
between the schemes is minor and
favors the tunnel scheme.
Moderate wildlifE!populations of
moose,black bear,weasel,fox,
wolllerine,other small mammals
and songbirds and some riparian
cliff habitat for ravens and
raptors,in 11 miles of river,
would be lost with the dam scheme.
Thus,the difference in loss of
Ioiildlife habitat is considered
moderate and fall-ors the tunnel
scheme.
Significant archeological
sites,if ident ified,can proba-
bly-be excavated.Additional
costs could range from selleral
hundreds to hundreds of thousands
of dollars,but are still consider-
ably less than the 'additional cost
of the tunnel schem-e.This concern
is not considered a fsetor in 9cheme
evaluation.
The aesthetic and to some extent
the recreational losses associ-
ated w'ith the development of the
Devil Canyon dam is the main
aspect falloring the tunnel scheme.
However,current recreational uses
of ~vil Canyon are low due to
limited access.Recreation develop-
ment of the srea is similar for
both schemes.
OVERALL EVALUATION:The tunnel scheme has ollerall a lOVler impact on the environment.
J J J J J
-~]-~J 1 ·-~·l J )-J 1 )1 I J
TABLE 10.17:SOCIAL EVALUATION OF SUSITNA BASIN DEVELOPMENT SCHEMES/PLANS
SocIal funnel DevIL Canyon HIgh DevIL Canyonl Watana/DevTI
Aspect Parameter Scheme Dam Scheme Vee Plan Canyon Plan Remarks
All projects would have similar impacts on the state and
local economy.
Potential
non-renewable
resource
displacement
Impact on
state economy
Impact on
local economy
Mi llion tons
Beluga coal
over 50 years
J
80 110 170 210 Devil Canyon dam scheme
potential higher than
tunnel scheme.Watana/
Devil Canyon plan higher
than High Devil Canyon/
Vee plan.
Seismic
exposure
Risk of major
structural
failure
Potential
impact of
failure on
human life.
All projects designed to similar levels of safety.
Any dam failures would affect the same downstream
population.
Essentially no difference
between plans/schemes.
Overall
Evaluation
1.Devil Canyon dam superior to tunnel.
2.Watana/Devil Canyon superior to High Devil Canyon/Vee plan.
TABLE 10.18:OVERALL EVALUATION OF TUNNEL SCHEME AND DEVIL CANYON DAM SCHEME
-
ATTRIBUTE
Economic
Energy
Contribution
Environmental
Social
Overall
Evaluation
SUPERIOR pLAN
Devil Canyon Dam
Devil Canyon Dam
Tunnel
Devil Canyon Dam (Marginal)
Devil Canyon dam scheme is superior
Tradeoffs made:
Economic advantage of dam scheme
is judged to outweigh the reduced
environmental impact associated
with the tunnel scheme.
-
~,
11IOI\I
"
-
]I 1 -1 ]~-J I 1 -1 1
En ....ironmental At tr ibute
TABLE 10.19:ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION OF WATANAlOEVIL CANYON ANO HIGH OEVIL CANYON/VEE OEVELOPMENI PLANS
Plan Comparison Apprais_al Judgment
PIa'il"Juaije~e-----ule
le A02Jv otential iwoct
ECito(iChl:.Ie erleS
2)Wildlife
e)Moose
b)Caribou
c)Fur-bearers
d)Bi rds and Bears
Cultural:
No significant differsnce in effects on downstream
anadromous fisheries.
HOC/V would inundate approximately 95 miles of the
Susitna River and 28 miles of tributary streams,in-
cluding the lyone Ri ....er.
WiDe would inundate approximately 84 miles of the
Susitna River and 24 miles of tributary streams,
including Watana Creek.
HOC/V tl"ould inundate 123 miles of critical winter
river-bottom habitat.
WiDe \liouid inundate lOB miles of this ril"er-bottom
habitat.
HOC/V would jnundafe a large araa upstream from Vee
utilized by three sub-populations of moose that range
in the northeast section of the basin.
W/OC would inundate the Watana Creek area utilized by
moOSe..The condition of this sub-population of moose
and the quality of the habitat they are using appears
to be decreasing.
The increased length of river flooded,especially up-
stream from the Vee damsite,would result in the
HDClV plan creating a greater potential division of
the Nelchina herd's range.In addition,an increase
in range would be directly inundated by the Vee res-
ervoir.
The area flooded by the Vee r-eserl"oir is considered
important to some key furbearers,particularly red fox ..
This aree is judged to be more important than the
Watana Creek area that would be inundated by the W/OC
plan.
Forest habitat,important for birds and black bears,
exists along the valley slopes.The loss of this habi-
tat \liQuId be greater with the W/OC plan.
Ther-e is 8 high potential for discQl"ery of archaeolog-
ical sites in the eatedy region of the Upper Susitna
Basin.The HOC/V plan has a greater potential of
affecting these sites..For other reaches of the river
the difference bet\lieen plans is considered minimal.
Because of the a'loidance of the lyone Ri ....er,
lesser inundation of resident fisheries
habitat,and no significant difference in the
effects on anadromous fisheries,the W/OC plan
is judged to have les8 impact.
Because of the lower potential for direct
impact on moose populations within the
Susitna,the WiDe plan is judged superior.
Because of the potential for a greater impact
on the Nelchina caribou herd,the HDC/V scheme
is considered inferior.
Because of the lesster potential for impact on
furbearers the W/OC is judged to be superior.
The HOC/V plan is judged superior.
The W/OC plan is judged to hal"e a lower po-
tential effect on archaeological sites.
TABLE TO.19 (Continued)
Environmental Attribute Plan Comparison Ap~aisal Judgment
Plan judged to llBVe the
leH~/~otenti81 i W7DC t
Aesthetic/
~With either scheme,the aesthetic quality of both
Delli!Canyon and Vee Canyon would be i"llsired.The
HDC/V plan would also inundate Tsusena Falls.
Because of construction at Vee Dam site and the size
of the Vee Reservoir,the HOC/V plan would inher'ently
create access to more wilderness area than would the
W/DC plan.
Both plans impact the valley aesthetics.The
difference is considered minimal.
As it is easier to extend access than to
limit it,inherent access requ irements were
considered detrimental and the WIDe plan is
judged superior.The ecological sensitivity
of the area opened by the HDC/V plan rein-
forces this judgment.
OVERALL EVALUATlON:The W/OC plan is judged to be superior to the HOC/V plan..
(The Jowel'impact on birds and bears associated with HDC/V plan is considered to be outweighed by all
the other impacts which favour the W/OC plan.)
Notes:
W =Watana Dam
DC =~v'i1 Canyon Dam
HOC ;;:High Dev il Canyon Dam
V ,.,Vee Dam
:I -I ~_.J ]I
TABLE 10.20:OVERALL EVALUATION OF THE HIGH DEVIL CANYON/VEE AND
WATANA/DEVIL CANYON DAM PLANS
AllRlBUIE sUpERIOR PLAN
Economic Watana/Devil Canyon
-
.....
Energy
Contribution
Environmental
Social
Overall
Evaluation
Watana/Devil Canyon
Watana/Devil Canyon
Watana/Devil Canyon (Marginal)
Plan with Watana/Devil Canyon is
superior
Tradeoffs made:None
--l --.c -1 --l ".--1 --._----.r --J''--,1 -1
PREVIOUS
STUDIES AND
FIELD
RECONNAISSANCE
SCREEN
ENGINEERING
LAYOUT AND
COST STUDIES
COMPUTER MODELS
TO DETERMINE
LEAST COST DAM
COMBINATIONS
DATA ON DIFFERENT
THERMAL GENERATING
SOURCES I
--....,1 COMPUTER MODELS I
TO EVALUATE
-POWER AND
ENERGY YIELDS
-SYSTEMWIDE
ECONOMICS
CRITERIA
ECONOMIC
ENVIRONMENTAL
SOCIAL
ENERGY
CONTRIBUTION
WATANA/DEVIL
CANYON
PLUS THERMAL
LEGEND
~STEP NUMBER IN
STANDARD PROCESS
(APPENDIX A)
ADDITIONAL SITES
PORTAGE CREEK
DiS HIGH DEVIL CANYON
DiS WATANA
OBJECTIVE
ECONOMIC
WATANA I DEVIL
CANYON
I ,HIGH DEVIL
CANYON I VEE
HIGH DEVIL
CANYON I WATANA
GOLD CREEK CRITERIA DEVIL CANYON
DEVIL CANYON ECONOMICS HIGH DEVIL
HIGH DEVIL CANYON ENVIRONMENTAL CANYON
DEVIL CREEK ALTERNATIVE WATANA
WATANA SITES SUSITNA m
SUSITNA m ENERGY VEE
VEE CONTRIBUTION MACLAREN
MACLAREN DENALI
'DENALI
BUTTE CREEK
TYONE
SUSITNA BASIN PLAN FORMULATION AND SELECTION PROCESS
FIGURE 10.1 •
r
-
154 0
@ IUKON
y G.·".'f!I'-.7'.,~~-
46
ALASKA RAILBELT REGION o 40 80
;ii2
SCALE -MILES (APPROXIMATE)
-
~G
0-25 MW 25-100 MW
I.STRANDLINE L.13.WHISKERS 26.SNOW
2.LOWER BELUGA 14,COAL 27.KENAI LOWER
3.LOWER LAK£CR.15.CHULITNA 2B.GERSTLE
4.ALLISON CR.16.OHIO 29.TANANA R.
5.CRESCENT LAKE 2 17.LOWER CHULITNA 30.BRUSKASNA
6.GRANT LAKE lB.CACHE 31.KANTISHNA R.
7.McCLURE BAY 19.GREENSTONE 32.UPPER BELUGA
8.UPPER NELLIE JUAN 20.TALKEETNA 2 33.COFFEE
9.POWER CREEK 21.GRANITE GORGE 34.GULKANA R.
10.SILVER LAKE 22.KEETNA 35.KLUTINA
II.SOLOMON GULCH 23,SHEEP CREEK 36.BRAOLEY LAKE
12.TUSTUMENA 24.SKWENTNA 37.HICK'S SITE
25.TALACHULITNA 38.LOWE
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE HYDROELECTRIC SITES
o
>100 MW
39.LANE
40.TOKICHITNA
41.YENTNA
42.CATHEDRAL BLUFFS
43.JOHNSON
44.BROWNE
45 •JUNCTION IS.
46.VACHON IS
47.TAZILNA
48.KENAI LAKE
49.CHAKACHAMNA
r-==l
FIGURE 10.2 I ~~IJ
3
F"~
~
2
0
0
0
I
>-t:PEAKU
<I I LOAD~1079
Cl.948«846u715
18910354450.:...:.:.:.:.:.......
~1980 1990I,
2000
700
1954
II
2010
10 LEGEND
0 ......----'--------------------------------'
GENERATION SCENARIO INCORPORATING THERMAL it
AND ALTERNATIVE HYDROPOWER DEVELOPMENTS APD[~\
-MEDIUM LOAD FORECAST-FIGURE 10.3 Kuma
2010
CHAKACHAMNA
2000
EXISTING AND COMMITTED
TIME
1990
GAS FIRED THERMAL
OIL FIRED "rHERMAL(NOT SHOWN ON ENERGY DIAGRAM)
COAL FIRED THERMAL
HYDROELEC-rRIC
NOTE:RESULTS OBTAINED FROM
OGPS RUN L FL 7
D•Ell•
TOTAL DISPATCHED
ENERGY~
1980
2
8
:r:
~6
ooo
-
-,
1 -}1 l ~I
DATA ON DIFFERENT
THERMAL GENERATING
SOURCES
SITE
SELECTION
PREVIOUS
STUDIES
CRITERIA
ECONOMICS
ENVIRONMENTAL
4 ITERATIONS
ENGENEERING
LAYOUTS AND
COST STUDIES
OBJECTIVE
ECONOMICS
COMPUTER MODELS TO
EVALUATE
-POWER AND
ENERGY YIELDS
-SYSTEM WIDE
ECONOMICS
CRITERIA
ECONOMICS
CH,K,S 8 THERMAL
LEGEND
FORMULATION OF PLANS INCORPORATING NON-SUSITNA HYDRO GENERATION
FIGURE
SNOW (S)
BRUSKASNA (B)
KEETNA (K)
CACHE (CA)
BROWNE (BR)
TALKEETNA - 2 (T-2)
HICKS (H)
CHAKACHAMNA (C H )
ALLISON CREEK (AC)
STRANDLINE LAKE (SL)
-CHI K
-CHI K,S
-CH,K,S,SL,AC
-CH.K,S,SL,AC
-CH,K,S,SL,AC,CA,T-2 -~STEP NUMBER
IN STANDARD
PROCESS
(APPENDIX A)
10.4-
1 l ~"li .-~.·l -.I 1 "'---'-1 '···.1 ..'"'1 .'-1 ,-1
_.
..'..1
o 15
SCALE i 30 MILES!
DAMSITES PROPOSED BY OTHERS I~i
r""J--"\,.,..././"'"'\
(~J
~~UPPER SUS/TNAC)l WATERSHED BOUNDARY
,~f~'~
/It£sr ,
(FORK\.~J
/'~~
'-""'\."'~\
_/
""..------I
J-.,J--_v
...,./FIGURE 10.5
LEGEND
TYONE '"DAMSITE
fAL.!!!!fNA RIVER
~CANXOO HIGH
ll.C..I"\..\..........,_/\.......""'--"'\
GOLD CREEK \1,
'\.......,
\.,
(,
';)
(
"\
"\
(APPROX.)
®
-l ~-~l --I.I ~·1 1 1 --1 -l )
62°N _
®
ILIAMNA LAKE
SITE LIST
I.POINT MACKENZIE
2.EAGLE BAY
3.RAINBOW
0 37 74 MILES
SCALE j
(APPROX.)
I
~
0 0
N CD •~v
POTENTIAL TIDAL POWER SITES -
FIGURE 10.6
-
-
,....
11 -LIST OF LITERATURE
The following is a list of literature used in the preparation of the Susitna
Hydroelectric Project Environmental Studies Feasibility Report.The list is
arranged by environmental report section.References which were cited in the text
are denoted with an asterisk (*).
11-1
11-2
~I
i
I~
11.1 -Preface and General Description of the Locale
*Acres American.Incorporated.1979.Susitna Hydroelectric Project Plan of Study.
Alaska Power Authority,Anchorage.Alaska.
*Acres American.Incorporated.1980.Susitna Hydroelectric Project Plan of Study.
Alaska Power Authority,Anchorage,Alaska.
~,
Acres American,Incorporated.1981.Susitna Hydroelectric Project Subtask 6.05:
Development Selection Report.Second Draft.Alaska Power Authority.
Anchorage,Alaska.
ADF&G.1981.Susitna Hydroelectric Project Environmental Studies Annual Progress
Report Subtask 7.11:Wildlife Ecology Studies.Big Game.Alaska Department
of Fish and Game for the Alaska Power Authority.Anchorage,Alaska.
*Bai ley,R.G.1976.Ecoregions of the United States.United States Department
of Agriculture,Forest Service,Ogden.Utah.
*Bailey,R.G.1978.Description of the Ecoregions of the United States.United
States Department of Agriculture,Forest Service.Ogden.Utah.
*Hartman,C.W.and P.R.Johnson.1978.Environmental Atlas of Alaska.
Institute of Water Resources,University of Alaska.Fairbanks.Alaska.
*Searby.H.W.1968.Climates of the States:Alaska.Environmental Data
~Service.ESSA.Climatology of the United States No.60-49.
USACOE.1975.Southcentral Railbelt Area.Alaska.Upper Susitna River Basin -
__Interim Feas'ibil ity Report.United States Army Corps of Engineers.Anchorage.
Alaska.
USACOE.1977.Hydroelectric Power Development.Upper Susitna River Basin -Final
Environmental Impact Statement.United States Army Corps of Engineers,
Anchorage.Alaska.
USACOE.1978.Plan of Study for Susitna Hydroelectric Feasibility Analysis.
Prepared for the State of Alaska by the Alaska District of the United States
Army Corps of Engineers,Anchorage,Alaska.
USACOE.1979.Southcentral Railbelt Area,Alaska,Upper Susitna River Basin -
Supplemental Feasibility Report and Appendices.United States Army Corps of
Engineers.Anchorage.Alaska.
*Wahrhaftig.C.1965.Physiographic Divisions of Alaska.Professional Paper 482.
United States Geological Survey.Washington.D.C.
11-3
11-4
~,
-
-
--
-
-
-
11.2 -Water Use and Quality
Bolke,E.L.,and K.M.Waddell,1975.Chemical quality and temperature
in Fl aming Gorge Reservoir,Wyoming and Utah,and the effect of
the reservoir on the Green River.U.s.Geological Survey,Water-
Supply Paper 2039-A,814 pp.
Doggett,G.,1981.Interview.October 21 and 28,1981.Water Manage-
ment Section,Division of Forest,Land and Water Management,
Al aska Department of Natural Resources,Anchorage,AK.
Drachev,S.M.,1962.The oxygen regime and the processes of self puri-
fication in reservoirs with retarded discharge.In:Advances in
Water Pollution Research,B.A.Southgate,editor,Pergamon Press,
New York.
Erickson,P.A.,and J.T.Reynolds,1969.The ecology of a reservoir.
Natural History,83:11:48-53.
Fish,F.F.,1959.Effect on impoundment on downstream water qual ity.
Journal American Water Works Association,Vol.51,pp.47-50.
Janke,P.,1981.Interview.October 21,1981.Water Management Sec-
tion,Division of Forest,Land and Water Management,Alaska
Department of Natural Resources,Anchorage,AK.
LaPerrerie,J.D.,T.Tilsworth,and L.A.Casper,1978.Nutrient chem-
istry of a large,deep lake in subartic Alaska.EPA-600!7ij-088,
U.S.Environmental Protection Agency,Environmental Research Lab-
oratory,Corvallis,Oregon,129 pp.
Love,K.S.,1961.Relationship of impoundment to water quality.Jour-
nal American Water Works Association,Vol,53,pp.559-568.
Mack,S.,1981.Interview.October 16,19tH.Northcentral District
Office,Division of Forest,Land and Water Management,Alaska
Department of Natural Resources,Fairbanks,AK.
Mackenthun,K.M.,1960.What you should know about al gal control.
Public Works,91:9:114-116.
Mortimer,C.H.,1941.The exchange of dissolved substances between mud
and water in lakes,Parts 1 and 2.Journal of Ecology,Vol.29,
pp.280-239.
1942.The exchange of dissolved substances between mud
and water in lakes,Parts 3 and 4.Journal of Ecology,Vol,30,
pp.147-201.
Neal,J.K.,1967.Reservoir eutrophication and dystrophication follow-
i ng impoundment.In:Reservoir Fi sh Resources Sympos i um,Georg ia
University,Athens,pp.322-332.
11-5
11.2 -Water Use and Quality (Cant/d)
Prokosch,G.,1981.Interview.October 28,1981.Water Management
Section,Division of Forest,Land and Water l'vlanagement,Alaska
Department of Natural Resources,Anchorage,AK.
R&M Consultants,Inc.(in )Alaska Power Authority Susitna Hydro-
electric Project:.River Morphology Studies -Uevil Canyon to Cook
Inlet,Report to Acres American,Inc.,Buffalo,NY.
Symons,J.M.,1969.Water quality behavior in reservoirs.U.S.Public
Health Service,Bureau of Water Hygiene,Cincinnati,Ohio,200 pp.
Turkheim,R.A.,1975.Biophysical impacts of artic hydroelectric
developments.In:Impacts of fl1ining and Hydroelectric Projects
and Associated Developments on Arctic Renewable Resources and the
Inuit,J.C.Day,editor,University of Western Ontario and
University of Waterloo,199 pp.
USGS,1981.Water reserouces data for Alaska.U.S.Geological Survey,
Water-Data Report AK-80-1,Water Year 1980,373 pp.
Weiss,C.M.,D.E.Francisco,and D.R.Lenat,1973.Pre impoundment
studies,Howard Mills Project.Department of Environmental
Sciences and Engineering and the University of North Carolina
Wastewater Research Center,Chapel Hill,North Carolina,190 pp.
11-6
1Rl,
-
-
11.3 -fish~W'Hdlife~and Botanical Resources
(a)Botanical!Resources
ADF&G.1980.Susitna Hydroelectric Project Environmental Studies Quartedy Report
Subtask 7.11:Wi·ldlife Ecology Studies,Big Game -Upstream Moose Studies.
Alaska Department of r;ish and Game for the Maska Power Au,UlOrity~Anchorage~
Alaska.
APA.1980 a.Sus it na Hydroe lect ric Project Environmental Studies Procedures
Manual Subtask 7.12:Plant Ecology Studies.Submitted by Terrestrial
Environmental;Specialists~Inc.and the University of Alaska to Acres
American~Inc.for the Alaska Power Auth:ority~Anchorage~Alaska.
APA.1980 b.Susitna Hydroelectric Project Environmental Studies Annual Report
Subtask 7.12:Plant Ecology Studies.Submitted by Terrestrial Environmental
Specialists~Inc.to Acres American~Inc.for the Alaska Power Authority~
Anchorage~Alaska.
APA.1980 c.Susitna Hydroe lect ric Project Envi ronmenta 1 Studi es Subtask 7.12:
Plant Ecology Studies -Preliminary Vegetation Maps of the Proposed Susitna
Hydroelectric Project Impact Area (scale I:63~360).Submitted by Terrestrial
Envi ronlTl€ntal Spec i ali sts ~Inc.and the Univers ity of Alaska to Acres
American~Inc.for the Alaska Power Authority~Anchorage~Alaska.
APA.1981 a.Susitna Hydroelectric Project Environmental Studies Summary Annual
Report.Submitted by Terrestrial Environmental Specialists,Inc.to Acres
American,Inc.for the Alaska Power Authority,.Anchorage,Alaska.
APA.1981 b.Susitna Hydroelectric Project Environmental Studies Report Subtask
7.14:Access Road Analysis -Environmental,Socioeieconomic and Land Use
Analysis of Alternative Access Plans for the Susitna Hydroelectric Project.
Submitted by Terrestrial Environmental Spectalists,Inc.,frank Orth &
Associates,and the University of Alaska to Acres American,Inc.for the
Alaska Power Authority~Anchorage,Alaska.
Argus,G.W.1973.The Genus Salix in Alaska and the Yukon.National Museum of
Natural Sciences Publications in Botany,No.2.Ottawa.
Auclair,A.N.and f.G.Goff.1975.Intraspecific Diameter Differentiation as a
Measure of Species Replacement Potential.Canadian Journal of forestry
Research 4(4):424-434.
*Bailey,R.G.1976.Ecoregions of the United States.United States Department of
Agriculture,forest Service,Ogden,Utah.,
*Bailey,R.G.1978.Descriptions of the Ecoregions of the United States.United
States Department of Agriculture~forest Service,Ogden,Utah.
Batten,A.R.~D.f.Murray and J.C.Dawe.1979.Threatened and Endangered
Plants in Selected Areas of the BLM fortymile Planning Unit,Alaska.
BLM-Alaska Technical Report 3.Anchorage,Alaska.
*Baxter,R.M.and P.Glaude.1980.Environmental Effects of Dams and Impoundments
in Canada:Experience and Prospects.Canadian Bulletin of fisheries and
Aquatic Sciences 205:34.
11-7
~Iiss,L.C.and J.E.Cantlon.1957.Succession on River Alluvium in Northern
Alaska.American Midland Naturalist 58(2):452-469.
Boelter,D.H.and E.S.Verry.1977.Peatl and and Water in the Northern Lake
States.General Technical Report NC-31.United States Department of
Agriculture,Forest Service,North Central Forest Experiment Station,St.
Paul,Minnesota.
Clements,F.E.1934.The Relict Method in Dynamic Ecology.Journal of Ecology
22:1-68.
Conrad,H.A.1979.How to Know the Mosses and Liverworts.William C.Brown
Company,Philadelphia,Pennsylvania.
*Cowardin,L.M.,V.Carter,F.C.Golet and E.1.LaRoe.1979.Classification of
Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States.FWS/BS-79/31.United
States Department of the Interior,Fish and Wildlife Service,Washington,
D.C.
*CRREL.1980.Environmental Engineering and Ecological Baseline Investigations
Along the Yukon River -Prudhoe Bay Haul Road ..United States Army Cold
Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory,Hanover,New Hampshire.
Crum,H.19/6.Mosses of the Great Lakes Forest.University Herbarium,
University of Michigan,Ann Arbor,Michigan.
Drew,J.W.and R.E.Shanks.1965.Landscape Relationships of Soils and
Vegetation in the Forest-Tundra Ecotone,Upper Firth River Valley,
Alaska-Canada.Ecological Monographs 35:285-306.
*Drury,W.H.,Jr.1956.Bog Flats and Physiographic Processes in the Upper
Kuskokwim River Regions,Alaska.Contributions to the Gray Herbarium,Harvard
University,Boston,Massachusetts.
Dyksterhuis,E.J.1958.Ecological Principles in Range Evaluation.Botanical
Review 24:253-272.
Gatto,L.W.,C.J.Merry,H.L.McKim and D.E.Lawson.1980.Environmental
Analysis of the Upper Susitna River Basin Using LANDSAT Imagery.Report CRREL
80-4.United States Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory,
Hanover,New Hampshire.
Goff,F.G.1968.Use of Size Stratification and Differential Weighting to
Measure Forest Trends.American Midland Naturalist 79(2):402-418.
*Hanson,H.C.1953.Vegetation Types in Northwestern Alaska and Comparisons with
Communities in Other Arctic Regions.Ecology 34:111-140.
Haug,P.T.and G.M.Van Dyne.1968.Secondary Succession in Abandoned
Cultivated Fields:An Annotated Bibliography.ORNL-TM-2104.Oak Ridge
National Laboratory,Oak Ridge,Tennessee.
11-8
Hegg,K.M.1970.Forest Resources of the Susitna Valley,Alaska.PNW-32.
United States Department of Agriculture,Forest Service,Pacific Northwest
Forest and Range Experiment Station,Juneau,Alaska.
Henry,J.D.and J.M.A.Swan.1974.Reconstructing Forest History from Live and
Dead Plant Material:An Approach to the Study of Forest Succession in
Southwest New Hampshire.Ecology 55(4):772-783.
*Hettinger,L.R.and A.J.Janz.1974.Vegetation and Soils of Northeastern
Alaska.Arctic Gas Biology Report Services 21.North Engineering Services,
Company,Ltd.~Edmonton~Canada.
Hironaka,M.,E.W.Tisdale and M.A.Fosberg.1976.Use of Satellite Imagery for
Classifying and Monitoring Rangelands in Southern Idaho.Forest,Wildlife,
and Range Experiment Station Bulletin No.9.University of Idaho,Moscow,
Idaho.
*Hulten,E.1968.Flora of Alaska and Neighboring Territories.Stanford Univesity
Press,Stanford,California.
Itow,S.1963.Grassland Vegetation in Uplands of Western Honshu~Japan;Part II:
Succession and Grazing Indicators.Japanese Journal of Botany 18(2):
~133-167.
*Joint Federal-State Land Use Planning Commission of Alaska.1973.Major
Ecosystems of Alaska (map.)
Krebs,P.V.~K.G.Dean and W.S.Lonn.1978.Geomorphology and Vegetation of
the Lower Susitna River Basin.United States Department of A,griculture,Soil
~Conservation Service,Anchorage,Alaska.
-
-
r
[
Kuchler,A.W.1964.Where is What?Bio-Science 14(7):39-4l.
Kuchler,A.W.1967.Vegetation Mapping.Ronald Press,New York,New York.
La Roi,G.H.1967.Ecological Studies in the Boreal Spruce-fir Forests of the
North America Taiga:I.Analysis of the Vascular Flora.Ecological
Monographs 37:229-253.
Leeuwen,G.G.1966.A Relation Theoretical Approach to Pattern and Process in
Veget at i on.Went ia 15:25-46.
McCormick,J.1978.Ecology and Regulation of Freshwater Wetlands In Freshwater
Wetlands:Ecological Processes and Management Potential.AcademTc Press,
New York,New York.
McKendrick,J.D.and P.C.Scorup.1974.A Super Bird's Eye View of Alaska.
Agroborealis 6(1):26-30.
Minore,D.,A.W:Smart and M.E.Dubrasich.1979.Huckleberry Ecology and
Management Research in the Pacific Northwest.General Technical Report
PNW-93.United States Department of Agriculture,Forest Service,Pacific
Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station,Portland,Oregon.
11-9
Mitchell,W.W.1979.Three Varieties of Native Alaskan Grasses for Revegetation
Purposes.Cir~u1ar 32.Agricultural Experiment Station,University of
Alaska,Fairbanks,Alaska.
Mueller-Dubois,D.and H.E11enberg.i974.Aims and Methods of Vegetation
Ecology.John Wiley and Sons,New York,New York.
*Murray,D.F.1980.Threatened and Endangered Plants of Alaska.United States
Department of Agriculture,Forest Service and United States Department of the
Interior,Bureau of Land Management,Anchorage,Alaska.
Nilsson,C.1978.Changes in the Aquatic Flora Along a Stretch of the River
Umea1ven,North Sweden,Following Hydro-electric Exploitation.Hydrobio1ogia
61(3):229-236.
*Ni1sson,C.1981.Dynamics of the Shore Vegetation of a North Swedish Hydro-
electric Reservoir During a Five-Year Period.Acta Phytogeographica Suecica
69.Uppsa1a,Sweden.
Payne,D.P.1975.Introduction to Aerial Photography for Natural Resource
Management.Oregon State University Press,Corvallis,Oregon.
Pichi-Sermo11i,R.E.1948.An Index for Establishing the Degree of Maturity of
Plant Communities.Journal of Ecology 36:85-90.
Rost,G.R.and J.A.Bailey.1979.Distribution of ~~u1e Deer and E"lk in Relation
to Roads.Journal of Wildlife Management 43(3):634-641.~
*Skoog,R.O.1968.Ecology of the Caribou in Alaska.Ph.D.Dissertation.
University of California,Berkeley,California.
Sochava,V.1975.The Content of Vegetation Maps and How to Enrich It.XII
International Botanical Congress,Section 8,Ecological Botany.Paper for
Presentation at Symposium:Logical Principles of Construction and Improvement
of Information Content of Vegetation Maps.
*Sparrow,S.D.,F.J.Wooding and E.H.Whiting.1978.Effects of Off-road
Vehicle Traffic on Soils and Vegetation in the Denali Highway Region of
Alaska.Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 33(1):20-27.
Spence1ey,A.P.1973.The Effect of the Stratification of Vegetation on the
Analysis of Successional Data.Journal of Ecology 61(3):767-773.
*Spetzman,L.A.1963.Terrain Study of Alaska,Part V:Vegetation.Engineer
Intelligence Study.Office,Chief of Engineers.Department of the Army,
Washington,D.C.(map).
Stanek.W.1980.Vegetation Types and Environmental Factors Associated with
Foothills Gas Pipeline Route,Yukon Territory.Environment Canada,Canadian
Forestry Service,Pacific Forest Research Centre.Victoria.British Columbia.
11-10
-
Teskey,R.O.and T.M.Hinckley.1977.Impacts of Water Level Changes on Woody
Riparian and Wetland Communities:Plant and Soil Responses to Flooding,
~Volume I.United states Department of the Interior,Fish and Wildlife
Service,Biological ServiCes Program,Washington,D.C.
Thompson,J.W.1979.Lichens of the Alaskan Arctic Slope.University of Toronto
Press,Ontario.
USACOE.1978.Plan of Study for Susitna Hydropower Feasibility Analysis.United
States Army Corps of Engineers,Alaska District,Anchorage,Alaska.
USACOE.1979.Wetlands Survey of the Watana and Devil Canyon Dam Sites.United
States Army COrps of Engineers,Anchorage.Alaska.
*USDI (FWS).1980a.Wetlands Classification System.United States Department of
the Interior,Fish and Wildlife Service.Federal Register 45:65322.
*USDI (FWS).1980b.Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Taxa for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species.
Department of the Interior,Fish and Wildlife Service.
45:82480-82569.
Plants,Review of Plant
United States
Federal Register
*Viereck,L.A.1966.Plant Succession and Soil Development on Gravel Outwash of
the Muldrow Glacier,Alaska.Ecological Monographs 36:181-199.
*Viereck,L.A.1970.Forest Succession and Soil Development Adjacent to the Chena
River in Interior Alaska.Arctic and Alpine Research 2(1):1-26.
*Viereck,L.A.1975.Forest Ecology of the Alaska Taiga In Proceedings of the
Ci rcumpo 1ar Conference on Northern Ecology,1975.-
Viereck,L.A.1979.Characteristics of Treeltne Plant Communities in Alaska.
H61arctiC Ecology 2:228-238.
*Viereck,L.A.and C.T.Dyrness.1980.A Preliminary Classification for
Veget at i on of Al aska.General Techni cal Report PNW-I06.Pac ifi c Northwest
Forest and Range Experiment Station,Portland.Oregon.
*Viereck,L.A.and E.L.Little,Jr.1972.Alaska Trees and Shrubs.Agricultural
;-Handbook No.410.United States Department of Agriculture,Forest Service,
Washington,D.C.
*Viereck,L.A.,J.Foote,C.T.
1979.Preliminary Results
Interior Alaska.PNW-332.
Service,Washington,D.C.
Dyrness,K.Van Cleve,D.Kane and R.Seifert.
of Experimental Fires in the Black Spruce Type of
United'States Department of Agriculture,Forest
Viereck,L.A.and L.A.Schandelmeier.1980.Effects of Fire in Alaska and
Adjacent Canada -A Literature Review.Alaska Technical Report 6.United
States Department of Interior.Bureau of Land Management,Anchorage,Alaska.
Walker,D.A.,P.J.Webber and V.Komarkova.1979.A Large Scale (1:6000)
Vegetation Mapping Method for Northern Taiga (Unpublished manuscript).
Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research,Boulder,Colorado.
11-11
Wallmo.O.C.•D.F.Reed and L.H.Carpenter.1976.Alteration of Mule Deer
Habitat by Wildfire,Logging.Highways.Agriculture.and Housing Developments
In Mule Deer Decline in the West - A Symposium.Utah Agricultural Experiment
station.Logan,Utah.
Ward.A.L.1979.Dispersed Recreation Impact on Big Game Resource In
Recreation and Natural Resource Management - A Syposium (in presS).
of Natural Resources.Utah State University,Logan.Utah.
Dispersed
Co 11 ege
*Welsh,S.L.1974.Anderson's Flora of Alaska and Adjacent Parts of Canada.
Brigham Young University Press.Provo.Utah.
Whitford.P.B.1949.Distribution of Woodland Plants in Relation to Succession
and Clonal Growth.Ecology 30:199-208.
Zasada.J.C.1971.Natural Regeneration of Interior Alaska Forests -Seed.
Seedbed.and Vegetative Reproduction Considerations In Fire in the Northern
Environment - A Symposium.College,Alaska.--
Zedler.P.H.and F.G.Goff.1973.Size Association Analysis of Forest
Succesisonal Trends in Wisconsin.Ecological Monographs 43(1):79-94.
11-12
-
11.3 -Fish.Wildlife and Botanical Resources
(b)Wildlife Resources
*Acres American.Inco~porated.1981.Susitna Hydroelectric Project Report Subtask
6.20:Access and Camp Facilities -Watana Construction Camp.Alaska Power
Authority.Anchbrage.Alaska.
*Allison.L.M.1971.Activity and Behavior of Red Foxes in Central Alaska.M.S.
thesis.University of Toronto.Ontario.
*Archibald.W.R.1980.Marten Progress Report No.2.(unpublished).Yukon
Wildlife Branch.
*Ballard.W.B.and K.P.Taylor.1980.Upper Susitna Valley Moose Population
Study.P-R Project Final Report.W-17-9.W-17-10.and W-17-11.Alaska
~Department of Fish and Game.Anchorage.Alaska.
-
*Ballard.W.B.•S.D.Miller and T.H.Spraker.1980.Moose Calf Mortality
Study.P-R Project Final Report.W-17-9.W-17-10. W-17-11.and W-2l-l.
Alaska'Department of Fish and Game.Anchorage.Alaska.
*Ballard.W.B.and R.W.Tobey.1981.Decreased Calf Production of Moose
Immobilized with Anectine.Wildlife Society Bulletin 9(3):207-209.
*Ballard.W.B.•T.H.Spraker and K.P.Taylor.1981a.Causes of Neo-natal Moose
Calf Mortality in South-Central Alaska.Journal of Wildlife Management 45
(2):335 -342.
*Ballard.W.B.•C.L.Gardner and S.D.Miller.1981b.Nelchina Yearling Moose
Mortality Study.Final Report Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Volume 2.
Projects W-17-11 and W-21-1.Job 1.27R.With Additional Support from the
Alaska Power Authority.Anchorage.Alaska..
*Ballard.W.B.•R.O.Stephenson and T.H.Spraker.1981c.
Studies~P~R Project Final Report W-17-9 and W-17-10.
Fish and Game.Anchorage.Alaska.
Nelchina Basin Wolf
Alaska Department of
*Ballard.W.B.•S;Miller and T.Spraker.In Press.Home Range.Daily Movements
and ReprodQctive"Biology of Brown Bears in Southcentral Alaska.Canadian
Field Naturalist.
*Beecham.J.1980.Some Population Characteristics of Two Black Bear Populations
in Idaho In Bears--Their Biology and Management (Martinka and McArthur.eds.).
Bear Biology Association Conference Series No.3:201-204.
*Bente.P.J.1981.Nesting Behavior and Hunting Activity of the Gyrfalcon.Falco
rusticolus.in the Alaska Range.Alaska.M.S.thesis.University of Alaska.
Fatrbanks.Alaska.
*Bergerud.A.T.1978.Caribou In Big Game of North American (Ecology and Manage-
ment)(J.L.Schmidt and D.-c.Gilbert.eds.).Stackpole Books.Harrisburg.
Pennsylvania.
11-13
*Bergerud,A.T.1980.A Review of the Population Dynamics of Caribou and Wild
Reindeer in North America In Reindeer/Caribou Symposium II,(E.Reimers,E.
Gaare,and S.Skjenneberg,-eds.).Roros.Norway.
*Berns,V.D.,G.C.Atwell and D.L.Boone.1977.Brown Bear Movement and Habitat
Use at Karluk Lake,Kodiak Island In Bears--Their Biology and Management.
(Martinka,C.J.and K.L.Mcarthe~eds.).Biological Association Conference
Series 3.
*Bishop,R.H.and R.A.Rausch.1974.Moose Population Fluctuations in Alaska,
1950-1972.Naturaliste Canada 101:559-593.
*Bos,G.N.1974.Nelchina and Mentasta Caribou Reports.Federal Aid in Wildlife
Restoration Project W-17-5 and W-17-6.Alaska Department of Fish and Game,
Juneau,Alaska.
*Boyce,M.S.1974.Beaver Population Ecology in Interior Alaska.M.S.thesis.
University of Alaska,Fairbanks,Alaska.
*Brown,R.N.1974.Aspects of Vocal Behavior of the Raven (Corvus corax)in
Interior Alaska.M.S.thesis,University of Alaska,Fairbanks,Alaska.
*Brown,L.and D.Amadon.1968.Eagles,Hawks and Falcons of the World,Volume 2.
Country Life Books,Hamlyn Publications,Group Limited,I~iddlesex,Great
Britain.
*Cade,T.J.1960.Ecology of the Peregrine and Gyrfalcon Populations in Alaska.
University of California Publications in Zoology 63:151-290,Berkeley,
California.
*Chatelain,E.F.1951.Winter Range Problems of Moose in the Susitna Valley.
Proceedings of the Alaska Scientific Conference 2:343-347.
*Clarke,S.1977.Report from New York In The Black Bear in Modern North America.
Proceedings of Workshop of Management Biology of North American Black Bear
(Dale Burk,ed.),Kalispell,Montana.
*Conant,B.and R.King.1981.Alaska-Yukon Breeding Pair Survey -1981 (on
press).United States Fish and Wildlife Service Pacific Waterfowl Flyway
Report 80.
*Craighead,F.C.Jr.1976.Grizzly Bear Ranges and Movement as Determined by
Radio Tracking.Pages 97-110 In M.R.Pelton,J.W.Lentfer and G.E.
Folk,eds.Bears -Their Biology and Management.IUCN Publication.New
Series #40 for Third International Conference on Bear Research and
Management.
*Davis,J.L.1978.History and Current Status of Alaska Caribou Herds In
Parameters of Caribou Population Ecology in Alaska (D.R.Klein and~.G.
White,eds.).Biological Papers of the University of Alaska Special Report
Number 3.
*Dickson,J.S.1938.Birds and Mammals of Mount McKinley National Park.Faunal
Series No.3.United States Department of the Interior,Fish and Wildlife
Service,Anchorage,Alaska.
11-14
*Dixon,W.J.and M.B.Brown (eds).Biomedical Computer Programs,P-series.
University of California Press,Berkeley,California.
*Erickson,A.and G.A.Petrides.1964.Population Structure,Movements,and
Mortality of Tagged Bears in Michigan In The Black Bear in Michigan.
Michigan State University Agricultural-rxperiment Station Research Bulletin
4.
*Etkin,W.1964.Cooperation and Competition in Social Behavior In Behavior and
Organization Among Vertebrates (Etkin,W.ed.).1964.University of Chicago
Press,Chicago,Illinois.
*Franzmann,A.W.and R.E.LeResche.1978.Alaskan Moose Blood Studies with
Emphasis on Condition Evaluation.Journal of Wildlife Management 42:
344-351.
{-*Franzmann,A.W.,C.C.Schwartz and R.O.Peterson.1980.Moose Calf Mortality
in Summer on the Kenai Peninsula,Alaska.Journal of Wildlife Management 44
(3):764-768.
*Fuller,T.K.and L.B.Keith.1981.Woodland Caribou Population Dynamics in
Northeastern Alberta.Journal of Wildlife Management 45:197-213.
*Gabrielson,I.N.and F.C.Lincoln.1959.The Birds of Alaska.Stackpole
Company and Wildlife Management Institute,Harrisburg,Pennsylv~nia.
*Glenn,L.P.,J.W.Lentfer,J.B.Faro and L.H.Miller.1976.Reproductive
Biology of Female Brown Bears (Ursus arctos),McNeil River,Alaska In M.R.
Pelton,J.W.Lentfer and G.E.Folk,eds.Bears -Their Biology and
Management.IUCN New Series Publication 40:381-390.
*Hagland,B.1966.DeStora Roudjurens Vintervenor [Winter Habits of the lynx (Lynx
lynx)and Wolverine (Gulo gulo)as Revealed by Tracking in the Snow].
(Summary in English).--vlltrevy (Stockholm).4:81-299.
*Hawley,V.D.and F.E.Newby.1957.Marten Home Ranges and Population
Fluctuations.Journal of Mammalogy 38 (2):174-184.
*Hemming,J.E.1971.The Distribution and Movement Patterns of Caribou in Alaska.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game,Wildlife Technical Bulletin No.1.60pp.
*Hensel,R.J.,W.A.Troyer and A.W.Erickson.1969.Reproduction in the Female
Brown Bear.Journal of Wildlife Management 33 (2):357-365.
*Hornocker,M.G.and H.S.Hash.1981.,Ecology of the Wolverine in Northwestern
Montana.Canadian Journal of Zoology 59:1286-1301.
*International Bird Census Committee.1970.Recommendations for an International
Standard for a Mapping Method in Bird Census Work.Audubon Field Notes 24:
727-736.
*Jonkel,C.J.and I.McT.Cowan.1971.The Black Bear in the Spruce-Fir Forest.
Wildlife Monographs No.27.
,....
I 11-15
*Kemp,G.A.1972.Black Bear Population Dynamics at Cold Lake,Alberta,1968-70.
IUCN New Series Publication 23:26-31.
*Kessel,B.1979.Avian Habitat Classification for Alaska.Murrelet 60:86-94.
*Kessel,Band D. D.Gibson.1978.Status and Distribution of Alaska Birds.
Studies in Avian Biology No.1.Cooper Ornithological Society,Department of
Biology,University of California,Los Angeles,California.
*King,J.G.and B.Conant.1980.Alaska-Yukon Breeding Pair Survey -1980.USDI
FWS.Pacific Waterfowl Flyway Report.United States Department of the
Interior,Fish and Wildlife Service.
*Krott,P.1959.Der Vielfrass.Monographier der Wildsaugetiere (Gottingen)13:
1-159.
*LeCount,A.L.1980.Some Aspects of Black Bear Ecology in the Arizona Chaparral
In Bears -Their Biology and Management.Bear Biology Association Conference
Series No.3:175-179.
*Lensink,C.J.1954.The Home Range of Marten (Martes americana actuosa Osgood)
and Its Significance in Management (unpublished report).United States
Department of the Interior,Fish and Wildlife Service.
*LeResche,R.E.1974.Moose Migrations in North America.Naturaliste Canada 101:
393-415.
,.....
I
I
~
I
*L indsey,f.G.and E.C.Mes low.
on an Island in Washington.
1977.Population Characteristics of Black Bears
Journal of Wildlife Management 41:408-412.
*Magoun,A.J.1979.Studies of Wolverines on and Adjacent to NPR-A In Studies of
Selected Wildlife and Fish and Their Use of Habitats on and Adjacent to NPR-A,
1977-78.United States Department of the Interior.
*Martinka,C.J.1974.Population Characteristics of Grizzly Bears in Glacier
National Park,Montana.Journal of Mammalogy 55:21-29.
*McIlroy,C.W.1972.Effects of Hunting on Black Bears in Prince William Sound.
Journal of Wildlife Management 36:828-837.
*McIlroy,C.1974.Moose Survey-Inventory Progress Report -1972,Game Management
Unit 13 In D.E.McKnight ed.,1974 Annual Report of Survey-Inventory
Activities,Part II:Moose,Caribou,Marine Mammals and Goats.Federal Aid
in Wildlife Restoration Report,Project W-17-5.Alaska Department of Fish and
Game,Juneau,Alaska.
*Mech,L.D.and L.L.Rogers.1977.Status,Distribution and Movements of Martens
in Northeastern Minnesota.Research Paper NC-143.United States Department
of Agriculture Forest Service,North Central Forest and Range Experiment
Station,St.Paul,Minnesota.
*Miller,S.D.and W.B.Ballard.1980.Estimates of the Density,Structure and
Biomass of an Interior Alaskan Brown Bear Population,Appendix V In Moose
Mortality Study.Final Report P-R Projects W-17-9,W-17-10,W-17~1 and
W-21-1,Job 1.23R.Alaska Department of Fish and Game,Anchorage,Alaska.
11-'6
*Modafferi,R.D.1978.Black Bear Management Techniques Development.Final P-R
Project Report W-17-S and W-17-9,Job 17.1.Alaska Department of Fish and
Game,Anchorage,Alaska.
*Mundy,K.D.,and D.R.Flook.
National Parks of Canada.
1973.Background for Managing Grizzly Bears in the
CWS Report Series No.22,Ottawa.
*Murie,A.1944.The Wolves of Mount McKinley National Park.Fauna Series No.5.
United States Government Printing Office,Washington,D.C.
*Murray,D.F.1961.Some Factors Affecting the Production and Harvest of Beaver
in the Upper Tanana River,Alaska.M.S.thesis,University of Alaska,
Fairbanks,Alaska.
*Pearson,A.M.1975.The Northern Interior Grizzly Bear (Ursus arctos L.).
Canadian Wildlife Service Report Series No.34.
*Pelton,M.R.and G.M.Burghardt.1976.Black Bears of the Smokies.Natural
History:54-63.
*Peterson,R.O.1980.Wolf-Moose Investigation on the Kenai Peninsula,Alaska.
Quarterly Report #15,Kenai National Moose Range.
*Piekielek,W.,and T.S.Burton.1975.A Black Bear Population Study in Northern
California.California Fish and Game 61 (1):4-25.
~*Pils,C.M.and M.A.Marten.1978.Population Dynamics,Predator-prey
Relationships and Management of the Red Fox in Wisconsin.Tech.Bull.No.5,
Department of Natural Resources 9 Madison,Wisconsin.
*Poelker,R.J.and H.D.Hartwell.1973.Black Bear of Washington.Washington
State Game Department Biology Bulletin No.14.
*Pulliainen,E.1968.Breeding Biology of the Wolverine (Gulo ~L.)in
Finland.Ann.Zool.Fenn.5:338-344.
*Rausch,R.A.1958.The Problem of Railroad-Moose Conflicts in the Susitna
Valley.Job Completion Report,12,(1),Project W-3-R-12.Federal Aid in
Wildlife Restoration,Alaska Game Commission.
*Rausch,R.A.1969.A Summary of Wolf Studies in Southcentral Alaska,1957-1968.
Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference.
34:117-131.
*Rausch,R.A.and A.r~.Pearson.1972.Notes on the Wolverines in Alaska and
Yukon Territory.Journal of Wildlife Management,36:249-268.
*Retzer,J.L.1955.Physical Environmental Effects on Beavers in the Colorado
Rockies.Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Western Association
of State Game and Fish Commissions.277-287.
*Reynolds,H.V.1976.North Slope Grizzly Bear Studies.Alaska Federal Aid in
Wildlife Restoration Project,W-17-6 and W-17-7.
11-17
*Reynolds,H.V.1980.North Slope Grizzly Bear Studies.Federal Aid in Wildlife
Restoration Project,W-17-11.
*Ricker,W.E.1975.Computation and Interpretation of Biological Statistics of
Fish Populations,Bulletin 191.Department of the Environment Fisheries and
Marine Service,Ottawa.
*Rockwell,S.K.,J.L.Perry,M.Heroldson and C.Jonkel.1978.Vegetation
Studies of Disturbed Grizzly Bear Habitat:Third Annual Report Border
Grizzly Project (C.Jonkel ed.).University of Montana School of Forestry,
Missoula,Montana.
*Roseneau,D.G.1972.Summer Distribution,Numbers,and Food Habits of the
Gyrfalcon (Falco rusticolus L.)on the Seward Peninsula,Alaska.M.S.
thesis,University of Alaska,Fairbanks,Alaska.
-
-
*Roseneau,D.G.,C.E.Tu11 and R.W.Nelson.
Peregrine Falcons and Other Raptors Along
Pipeline Route (unpublished).LGL Alaska
Company,Fairbanks,Alaska.
1981.Protection Strategies for
the Proposed Northwest Alaskan Gas
report to Northwest Alaskan Pipeline
*Sargent,A.B.,W.K.Pfeifer and S~H.Allen.1975.A Spring Aerial Census of
Red Foxes in North Dakota.J.Wildl.Manage.39(1):30-39.
*Schwartz,C. C.and A.W.Franzemann.1980.Black Bear Predation on Moose.
Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Progress Report,Projects W-17-11 and
W-21-1,Job No.17.3R.
*Schwartz,C.and A.Franzmann.1981.Black Bear Predation on Moose.Project
Progress Report,Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Project,W-17-2,Job
17.3R.
*Schwartz,C.and A.W.Franzemann.In Press.Effects of Habitat Manipulation on
Black Bear Predation of Moose Calves.Paper Presented at Sixth International
Conference on Bears,Their Biology and ~anagement.>Feb~uary 1980,Madison,
Wisconsin.
*Scott,T.G.and W.O.Klimstra.1955.Red Foxes and a Declining Prey
Population.Monograph Series No.1,Southern Illinois University,
Carbonda 1e,Ill.
*She1don,W.G.1950.Denning Habits and Home Range of Red Foxes in New York
State.Journal of Wildlife Management 14 (1):33-42.
*Shepherd,P.E.K.1958.Food Habits of Railbelt Moose.Federal Aid in Wildl ife
Restoration,Job Completion Report,12,(1),Project W-3-R-12.
*Shick,C.A.1952.A Study of Pheasants on the 9,000-Acre Farm,Saginaw County,
Michigan.Michigan Department of Conservation,Lansing,Michigan.
*S;niff,D.B.,and R.O.Skoog.1964.Aerial Censusing of Caribou Using Random
Stratified Sampling.Journal of Wildlife Management 28:391-401.
*Skoog,R.0.1968.Ecology of the Caribou (Rangifer tarandus granti)in Alaska.
Ph.D.dissertation,University of California,Berkeley,California.
11-18
*Spencer,D.L.and E.F.Chatelain.1953.Progress in the Management of the Moose
of Southcentral Alaska.Transactions of the American Wildlife Conference 8:
539-552.
*Spencer,H.E.,Jr.1955.The Black Bear and Its Status in Maine.Maine
Department of Inland Fisheries and Game,Game Division Bulletin 4.
*Spindler,M.A.and B.Kessel.1980.Avian Populations and Habitat Use in
Interior Alaska Taiga.Syesis 13:61-104.
*Spindler,M.A.,S.M.Murphy and B.Kessel.1981.Ground Censuses of Waterbird
Populations in the Upper Tanana Valley,Alaska In Census and Inventory Methods
for Populations and Habitat Sumposium (in press~Northwest Section Wildlife
Society,Calgary,Alberta.
*Spraker,T.H.,W.B.Ballard and S.D.Miller.1981.Brown Bear Studies,Game
Management Unit 13.Final P-R Project,Report W-17-10 and W-17-11,Job.
4.13R.Alaska Department of Fish and Game,Anchorage,Alaska.
*Storm,G.L.1972.Population Dynamics of Red Foxes in North Central United
States.Ph.D.dissertation.University of Minnesota,Minneapolis,
Mi nne sot a.
*Trent,T.T.and O.J.Rongstad.1974.
Rabbits in Southwestern Wisconsin.
459-471.
Home Range and Survival of Cottontail
Journal of Wildlife Management 38:
-
-
*Troyer,W.A.and R.J.Hensel.1964.Structure and Distribution of a Kodiak Bear
Population.Journal of Wildlife Management 28:769-772.
*USACOE.Upper Susitna River Basin Southcentral Railbelt Area,Alaska -Final
Environmental Impact Statement,Hydroelectrjc Power Development.United
States Army Corps of Engineers,Washington,D.C.
*VanBallenberghe,V.1978.Migratory Behavior of Moose in Southcentral Alaska.
Proceedings at the 13th International Conference of Bame Biologists,Atlanta,
Georgia.
*Van Zyll de Jong,C.G.1975.The Distribution an Abundance of the Wolverine
(Gulo gulo)in Canada.Canadian Field-Naturalist 89 (4):431-437.
*Viereck,L.A.and C.T.Dyrness.1980.A Preliminary Classification System for
Vegetation of Alaska.General Technical Report PNW-106.Pacific Northwest
Forest and Range Experiment Station,Portland,Oregon.
*Watson,G.W.and R.F.Scott.1956.Aerial Censusing of the Nelchina Caribou
Herd.Transactions of the North American Wildlife Conference 21:449-510.
*White,C.M.1974.Survey of the Peregrine Falcon and Other Raptors in the
Proposed Susitna River Reservoir Impoundment Areas (unpublished interim
report).United States Fish and Wildlife Service,Anchorage,Alaska.
*Wh ite,C.M.,T.D.Ray and L.W.Sowl.1977 .The 1970-1972-1974 Raptor Surveys
Along the Trans-Alaska Oil Pipeline.World Conference Birds of Prey 1:
222-229.
11-19
*Wolfe.J.O.and J.Cowling.
National Park,Alaska.
1981.Moose Browse Utilization in Mount McKinley
Canadian Field Naturalist 95(1):85-88.
11-20
-
11.3 -Fish,Wildlife and Botanical Resources
(c)Fish Resources
Acres American,Incorporated.1981a.Susitna Hydroelectric Project Closeout
Report,Subtask 3.01:Review of Available Material.Alaska Power Authority,
Anchorage,Alaska.
*Acres American,Incorporated.1981b.Susitna Hydroelectric Project Report Subtask
t.lO:Access Roads -Access Road Selection Report,First Draft.Alaska Power
Authority,Anchorage,Alaska.
Acres American,Incorporated.1981c.Susitna Hydroelectric Project -Watana Valve
Type Spillway Alternative General Arrangement (map).Plate 8.1,Drawing No.
SK-5706 -C6-218 (scale I"=200 1
).Alaska Power Authority,Anchorage,
Alaska.
Acres American,Incorporated.1981d.Susitna Hydroelectric Project Hydrology
Information:Information on the Watana Reservoir -rough draft.Alaska Power
Authority,Anchorage,Alaska.
Acres American,Incorporated.1981e.Preliminary Design Sketches of the Watana
Multilevel Intake Structure;Projected Howell-Bunger Valve Dispersion
Patterns.Alaska Power Authority,Anchorage,Alaska.
Acres American,Incorporated.1981f.Susitna Hydroelectric Project Hydrology
Information.Alaska Power Authority,Anchorage,Alaska.
*ADF&G.19/2.Cook Inlet King Salmon Status Report.Alaska Department of Fish and
Game,Juneau,Alaska.
*ADF&G.1978.Alaskals Fisheries Atlas Volumes I and II.Alaska Department of
Fish and Game,Juneau,Alaska.
ADF&G.1980a.Inventory and Cataloging of Sport Fish and Sport Fish Waters of the
Lower Susitna River and Central Cook Inlet Drainages.Alaska Department of
Fish and Game,Anchorage,Alaska.
ADF&G.1980b.Inventory and Cataloging of the Sport Fish and Sport Fish Waters in
the Upper Cook Inlet.Alaska Department of Fish and Game,Anchorage,Alaska.
ADF&G.1981a.
Fisheries.
Preliminary Forecasts and Projections for 1981 Alaska Salmon
Alaska Department of Fish and Game,Anchorage,Alaska.
ADF&G.1981b.Susitna Hydroelectric Project Environmental Studies Report Subtask
7.10:Fish Ecology Studies -Adult Anadromous Investigations,Chinook Salmon
Species/Subject Report.Prepared by Alaska Department of Fish and Game for
the Alaska Power Authority,Anchorage,Alaska.
ADF&G.1981c.Susitna Hydroelectric Project Environmental Studies Report Subtask
7.10:Fish Ecology Studies -Adult Anadromous Fisheries Project.Phase 1
-Final Draft Report.Prepared by Alaska Department of Fish and Game for the
Alaska Power Authority,Anchorage,Alaska.
11-21
r-'"
ADF&G.1981d.Susitna Hydroelectric Project Environmental Studies Report Subtask
7.10:Fish Ecology Studies -Species Reports,Juvenile Anadromous Fish.
Prepared by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game for the Alaska Power
Authority,Anchorage,Alaska.
ADF&G.1981e.Susitna Hydroelectric Project Environmental Studies Report Subtask
7.10 -Fish Ecology Studies -Juvenile Anadromous Fish Study on the Lower
Susitna River.Phase 1 Final Draft Report.Prepared by Alaska Department of
Fish and Game to the Alaska Power Authority,Anchorage,Alaska.
ADF&G.1981d.Susitna Hydroelectric Project Environmental Studies Draft Report
Subtask 7.10:Fish Ecology Studies -Resident Fish Investigations,upper
Susitna River Species/Subject Report.Prepared by Alaska Department of Fish
and Game for t~e Alaska Power Authority,Anchorage,Alaska.
ADF&G.1981e.Susitna Hydroelectric Project Environmental Studies Preliminary
Report Subtask 7.10:Fish Ecology Studies -Anadromous Fish Stock Separation
Report,Upper Cook Inlet.Prepared by Alaska Department of Fish and Game for
the Alaska Power Authority,Anchorage,Alaska.
ADF&G.1981f.Susitna Hydroelectric Project Environmental Studies ReportSubtask
7.10:Fish Ecology Studies -Investigations on the Lower Susitna River for
Juvenile Anadromous and Resident Fish.Prepared by Alaska Department of Fish
and Game for the Alaska Power Authority,Anchorage,Alaska.
ADF&G.1981g.Susitna Hydroelectric Project Environmental Studies Draft
Preliminary Status Report,Subtask 7.10:Fish Ecology Studies -Anadromous
Fish Stock Separation.Prepared by Alaska Department of Fish and Game for the
Alaska Power Authority,Anchorage,Alaska.
*APA.1981a.Susitna Hydroelectric Project Environmental Studies Report Subtask
7.10:Fish Ecology Studies -Life History and Ecology of Selected Fishes that
Occur in the Susitna River.Submitted by Terrestrial Environmental
Specialists,Incorporated to Acres American,Incorporated for the Alaska Power
Author ity.
*APA.1981b.Susitna Hydroelectric Project Environmental Studies Report Subtask
7.10:Fish Ecology Studies - A Preliminary Assessment of Natural Super-
saturation of Devil Canyon.Submitted by Terrestrial Environmental
Specialists,Incorporated to Acres American,Incorporated for the Alaska Power
Authority,Anchorage,Alaska.
APA.1981 c.Susitna Hydroelectric Project Environmental Studies Annual Report
1980 Subtask 7.10:Fish Ecology Studies.Submitted by Terrestrial
Environmental Specialists,Incorporated to Acres American,Incorporated for
the Alaska Power Authority,Anchorage,Alaska.
Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center.1981.An Assessment of
Environmental Effects of Construction and Operation of the Proposed Terror
Lake Hydroelectric Facility,Kodiak,Alaska:Instream Flow Studies Final
Report.University of Alaska,Anchorage,Alaska.
Atkinson,C.D.1980.Information on Coho Salmon and Chinook Salmon (unpublished
manuscr i pt).
11-22
Barrett,B.M.1974.An Assessment Study of the Anadromous Fish Populations in
the Upper Susitna River Watershed Between Devil Canyon and the Chulitna River.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game,Division of Commercial Fisheries,
Anchorage,Alaska.
Baxter,R.M.and P.Glaude.1980.Environmental Effects of Dams and Impoudments
in Canada:Experience and Prospects.The Canadian Bulletin of Fisheries and
Aquatic Sciences 205.
British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority.1980.Peace Site C Project
Environmental Impact Statement.BCHPA,Systems Engineering Division.
Broad,R.D.and H.A.Gangmark.1956.Establishment of a Controlled Flow Area
and Construction of King Salmon Spawning Pens at Mill Creek,California.The
Progressive Fish-Culturist 18:131-134.
Cook Inlet Regional Planning Team.
Plan 1981-2000 (review draft).
1981.Cook Inlet Regional Salmon Enhancement
Anchorage,Alaska.
-
.-.
Cooper,A.C.1977.Evaluation of the Production of Sockeye and Pink Salmon at
Spawning and Incubation Channels in the Frasier River System.International
Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission,New Westminster,British Columbia.
Dwight,L.P.and E.W.Trihey.1981a.A Survey of Questions and Concerns
Pertaining to Instream Flow Aspects of the Proposed Susitna Hydroelectric
Project -Draft.Acres American,Incorporated,Buffalo,New York.
Dwight,L.P.and E.W.Trihey.1981b.A Survey of Questions and Concerns
Pertaining to Instream Flow Aspects of the Proposed Susitna Dam Feasibility
Study with Initial Comments Toward Preparation of an Instream Flow Study Plan.
Acres American,Incorporated,Buffalo,New York.
Dwight,L.P.and E.W.Trihey.1981c.A Survey of Questions and Concerns
Pertaining to Instream Flow Aspects of the Proposed Susitna Hydroelectric
Project - A Working Document for Preparation of an Instream Flow Study Plan.
Acres American,Incorporated,Buffalo,New York.
*Friese,N.V.1975.Preauthorization Assessment of Anadromous Fish Populations
of the Upper Susitna River Watershed in the Vicinity of the Proposed Devil
Canyon Hydroelectric Project.Alaska Department of Fish and Game,Division of
Commercial Fisheries,Anchorage,Alaska.
Gangmark,H.A.1955.Experimental Hatching of King Salmon in Mill Creek,a
Tributary of the Sacramento River.Reprint from California Fish and Game 41:
233-242.
Gangmark,H.A.1956.Further Observations on Stream Survival of King Salmon
Spawn.Reprint from California Fish and Game 42:37-49.
Gangmark,H.A.1960.A Comparative Study of Unstable and Stable (artificial
channel)Spawning Streams for Incubating King Salmon in Mill Creek.Report
from California Fish and Game 46:151-164.
11-23
Gustafson,J.1977.An Evaluation of Low Water Crossings at Fish Streams Along
the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline System.Special Report 16.Joint State/Fed~ral
Fish and Wildlife Advisory Team,Anchorage,Alaska.
Institute of Marine Science.1971.
of the Northern Gulf of Alaska.
Alaska.
Bibliography of the Oceanography and Biology
Alaska Oil and Gas Associates,Anchorage,
Kinney,P.J.,J.Groves and D.K.Button.1968.Cook Inlet Environmental Data -
R/V Acona Cruise 065 -May 21-28,1968.Institute of Marine Science,
University of Alaska,College,Alaska.
Lotspeich,F.B.1971.Environmental Guidelines for Road Construction in Alaska.
United States Environmental Protection Agency,Alaska Water Laboratory,
College,Alaska.
May,B.and J.Huston.1975.Kootenai River Fisheries Investigation -Status of
Fish Populations in the Kootenai River Below Libby Dam Following Regulation of
the River,July 1,1972 thro~gh July 30,1975,Phase 2,Part 1.Montana
Department of Fish and Game and the United States Army Corps of Engineers.
May,B.and J.Huston.1979.Kootenai River Fisheries Investigations -Status of
Fish Populations in the Kootenai River Below Libby Dam Following Regulation of
the River -Final Job Report -March 1,1976 through June 30,1979.Montana
Department of Fish and Game and the United States Army Corps of Engineers.
*McPhail,J.D.and C.C.Lindsey.1970.Freshwater Fishes of Northwestern Canada
and Alaska.Bulletin of Fisheries Research Board of Canada,Ottawa,Ontario.
Morrow,J.E.1980 •.The Freshwater Fishes of Alaska.Alaska Northwest Publishing
Company,Anchorage,Alaska.
Namtvedt,T.B.1974.Cook Inlet Sockeye Forecast and Optimum Escapement Studies.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,National Marine Fisheries
Service,Washington,D.C.
Namtvedt,T.B.and N.V.Friese.1976.Investigations of Cook Inlet Sockeye
Salmon.National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,National Marine
Fisheries Service,Washington,D.C.
National Oceanographic Data Center.1980.NODC Catalog of OCSEAP Data.United
States Department of Commerce,National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
Administration,Environmental Data and Information Service,Washington,D.C.
Park,E.T.1975.Literature Review In Effect of Reservoir Impoundment on Water
Quality.Power Developments SectTOn,Engineering Division,Water Planning
and Management Branch,Inland Waters Directorate,Environment Canada,Ottawa.
Peterson,L.and R&M Consultants,Incorporated.1982.Susitna Hydroelectric
Project Hydrology Studies Draft Report.Impoundment Effects on Water Quality.
Acres American,Inc.,Buffalo,New York.
11-24
-
-
R&M Consultants,Incorporated.1980a.Susitna Hydroelectric Project Hydrology
Studies:Field Data Log Through Summer of 1981.Submitted to Acres American,
Inc.for the Alaska Power Authority,Anchorage,Alaska.
R&M Consultants,Incorporated.1980b.Susitna Hydroelectric Project Hydrology
Studies:Preliminary Hydraulic Data in the Vicinity of Gold Creek.Submitted
~to Acres American,Incorporated for the Alaska Power Authority,Anchorage,
Alaska.
-R&M Consultants,Incorporated.1980c.Susitna Hydroelectric Project Quarterly
Report Subtask 3.03:Field Data Collection and Processing -Water Quality
Data Collected (19 June 1980 -30 September 1980).Submitted to Acres
American,Incorporated for the Alaska Power Authority,Anchorage,Alaska.
R&M Consultants,Incorporated.1981a.Susitna Hydroelectric Project Annual Report
Subtask 3.03:Field Data Collection and Processing -Water Quality Data
Collection.Submitted to Acres American,Incorporated for the Alaska Power
Authority,Anchorage,Alaska.
R&M Consultants,Incorporated.1981b.Susitna Hydroelectric Project Report
Subtask 3.04:Water Resources Studies -Flow Variability.Submitted to Acres
American,Incorporated for the Alaska Power Authority,Anchorage,Alaska.
R&M Consultants,Incorporated.1981c.Susitna Hydroelectric Project Interim
Report Subtask 3.07:Sediment Yield and River Morphology Studies -Reservoir
Sedimentation.Submitted to Acres American,Incorporated for the Alaska Power
Authority,Anchorage,Alaska.
R&M Consultants,Incorporated.1981d.Susitna Hydroelectric Project Interim
Report Subtask 3.07:Serliment Yield and River Morphology Studies.Submitted
to Acres American,Incorporated for the Alaska Power Authority,Anchorage,
Alaska.
R&M Consultants,Incorporated.1981e.Susitna Hydroelectric Project Interim
Report Subtask 3.10:Lower Susitna Studies -Preliminary Open Wate.r Calcula-
tions.Submitted to Acres American,Incorporated for the Alaska Power
Authority,Anchorage,Alaska.
R&M Consultants,Incorporated.1981f.Susitna Hydroelectric Project Preliminary
Report Subtask 3.03:Field Data Collection and Processing -Review of
Existing Susitna River Basin Water Quality Data.Submitted to Acres American,
Incorporated for the Alaska Power Authority,Anchorage,Alaska.
R&M Consultants,Incorporated.1981g.Susitna Hydroelectric Project Hydrology
Studies:Set of Summarized Data from Watana Continuous Water Quality Monitor,
October 23,1980 to April 16,1981.Submitted to Acres American,Incorporated
for the Alaska Power Authority,Anchorage,Alaska.
R&M Consultants,Incorporated.1981h.Susitna Hydroelectric Project Hydrology
Studies:Streamflow Data for the Following Stations:Susitna River near
Denali,at Vee Canyon,near Watana and at Gold Creek.Submitted to Acres
American,Incorporated for the Alaska Power Authority,Anchorage,Alaska.
11-25
R&M Consultants,Incorporated.1981i.Susitna Hydroelectric Project Hydro-
graphic Studies:Preliminary Channel Geometry,Velocity,and Water Level Data
for the Susitna River at Devil Canyon.Submitted to Acres American,
Incorporated for the Alaskan Power Authority,Anchorage,Alaska.
Raymond,J.A.1981.Incubation of Fall Chum Salmon Oncorhynchus keta (Wa"lbaum)
at Clear Air Force Station,Alaska.Alaska Department of Fish~Game,
Division of Fisheries Rehabilitation,Anchorage,Alaska.
Riis,J.C.1977.Pre-authorization Assessment of the Proposed Susitna Hydro-
electric Projects:Preliminary Investigations of Water Quality and Aquatic
Species Composition.Alaska Department of Fish and Game,Anchorage,Alaska.
Robert W.Retherford Associates and International Engineering Company,
Incorporated.1980.Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project,Kodiak Island,
Alaska,Application for License,Project No.2743.Supplement to Exhibit W,
Chapter W-4:Measures to Enhance the Environment or to Avoid or Mitigate
Adverse Environmental Effects.Kodiak Electric Association,Incorporated,
Kodiak,Alaska.
Rosenberg,D.H.,D.C.Burrell,K.V.Natarjan and D.W.Hood.1967.Ocean-
ography of Cook Inlet with Special Reference to the Effluent from Collier
Carbon and Chemical Plant.Institute of Marine Science,University of
Alaska,College,Alaska.
Scully,D.R.,L.S.Leveen and R.S.George.1978.Surface Water Records of Cook
Inlet Basin,Alaska,Through September 1975.United States Geological Survey,
Anchorage,Alaska.
Smirnov,A.E.1975.The Biology Distribution,and Development of the Pacific
Salmon,Preliminary Bibliography.University of Moscow.
Smith,W.E.and R.W.Saalfeld.1955.Studies on Columbia River Smelt,
Thaleichthys pacificus (Richardson).Research Paper 1(3):3-26.Washington
Department of Fisheries,Seattle,Washington.
la Societe de developpement de la Baie James and la Societe d1energie/de Baie
James.1976.James Bay -Environment 1976 Symposium Proceedings.Sponsored
by Environment Canada,Montreal,Quebec.
Washington Department of Fisheries.1969.Spawning Channels 1969.Seattle,
Washington.
Wendling,F.L.1976.Preliminary Report on Gravel Porosity Studies Along the
Trans-Alaska Pipeline,Special Report No.5.Joint State/Federal Fish and
Wildlife Advisory Team,Anchorage,Alaska.
West,C.J.1978.Fisheries and Marine Service Technical Report Series No.812:
A Review of the Babine Lake Development Project 1961-1977.Enhancement and
Service Branch,Fisheries and Marine Service,Pacific Reqion Department of
Fisheries and Environment,Vancouver,British Columbia.-
11-26
-
-
.-
-
*Williams.F.J.1968.Inventory and Cateloging of Sport Fish and Sport Fish
Waters of the Copper ~iver and Prince William Sound Drainages.and the Upper
Susitna River.Federal Aid in Fish Restoration Study:Annual Progress Report
1967 -1968.Project F-5-R-9.Job 14-A.Alaska Department of Fish and Game,
Anchorage.Alaska.
Vee.C.S.and T.D.Reoelofs.1980.Influence of Forest and Rangeland
Management on Anadromous Fish Habitat in Western North America:Planning
Forest Roads to Protect Salmonid Habitat.General Technical Report PNW-109.
United States Department of Agriculture.Forest Service.Pacific Northwest
Forest and Range Experiment Station.Portland.Oregon.
11-27
11-28
11.4 -Historic and Archeological Resources
*Acres American,Incorporated.1980.Susitna Hydroelectric Project Plan of Study
Alaska Power Authority,Anchorage,Alaska.
I""'"
I'
I
*Acres American,Incorporated.1981.Susitna Hydroelectric Project Closeout Report
Subtask 8.01:Transmission -Transmission Line Corridor Screening.Submitted
by Acres American,Incorporated and Terrestrial Environmental Specialists,
Incorporated to the Alaska Power Authority,Anchorage,Alaska.
Ager,T.A.1975.Late Quaternary Environmental History of the Tanana Valley,
Alaska.Ohio State University Institute of Polar Studies Report 54.
Columbus,Ohio.
ADF&G.1973.Alaska1s Wildlife and Habitat.Alaska Department of Fish and Game,
Juneau,Alaska.
ADF&G.1975.Plant Community Studies in the Blair Lakes Range (map).Alaska
Department of Fish and Game,Division of Parks.
!"'""ADNR.1975.Laws and Regulations Relating to Archeology and Historic Preservation
in Alaska,Chapter 35:Alaska Historic Preservation Act.Alaska Department
of Natural Resources,Division of Parks,Juneau,Alaska.
ADNR.1978.Alaska Heritage Resource Survey Index.Alaska Department of Natural
Resources,Division of Parks,Anchorage,Alaska.
f""I""
I Alaska Native Language Center.1974.Native Peoples and Languages of Alaska
(map).Center for Northern Educational Research,University of Alaska,
Fairbanks,Alaska.
Allen,H.T.1887.Report of an Expedition to the Copper,Tanana,and Koyukuk
Rivers in the Territory of Alaska,in the Year 1885.United States Army,
Department of the Columbia,U.S.Government Printing Office,Washington,D.C.
Anderson,D.D.1968a.A Stone Age Campsite at the Gateway to America.
Scientific American 218(6):2433.
Anderson,D. D.1968b.Early Notched Point and Related Assemblages in the Western
American Arctic.Manuscript on file in the University of Alaska Museum,
Fairbanks,Alaska.
Anderson,D.D.1968c.Archeology of the Northwestern Arctic (manuscript).Brown
University,Providence,Rhode Island.
Anderson,D. D.1970.Microblade Traditions in Northwest Alaska.Arctic
Anthropology 7(2):2-16.
Andrews,E.F.1975.Salcha:An Athapaskan Band of the Tanana River and its
Culture.M.A.Thesis,Department of Anthropology,University of Alaska,
Fairbanks,Alaska.
11-29-
*APA.1980.Susitna Hydroelectric Project Environmental Studies Procedures Manual
Subtask 7.06:Cultural Resources Investigation.Submitted by Terrestrial
Environmental Specialists,Incorporated and the University of Alaska to Acres
American,Incorporated for the Alaska Power Authority,Anchorage,Alaska.
*APA.1981a.Susitna Hydroelectric Project Environmental Studies Annual Report
Subtask 7.06:Cultural Resources Investigation.Submitted by Terrestrial
Environmental Specialists,Incorporated and the University of Alaska to Acres
American,Incorporated for the Alaska Power Authority,Anchorage,Alaska.
*APA.1981b.Susitna Hydroelectric Project Environmental Studies Report Subtask
7.14:Access Road Environmental Analysis -Analysis of Access Road
Alternatives.Submitted by Terrestrial Environmental Specialists,
Incorporated to Acres American,Incorporated for the Alaska Power Authority,
Anchorage,Alaska.
Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center.1975.Alaska Regional Profiles:
Southcentral Region.University of Alaska,Anchorage,Alaska.
Arndt,K.1977 .Struct ure of Cache Pitts at GUL-077,a Late Prehi stori c
Archeological Site Near Gulkana,Alaska.M.A.Thesis,Department of
Anthropology,University of Alaska,Fairbanks,Alaska.
Bacon,G.(ed.).1975a.Heritage Resources Along the Upper Susitna River.
Miscellaneous Publications History and Archeology Series,No.14.Alaska
Department of Natural Resources,Division of Parks,Anchorage,Alaska.
Bacon,G.1975b.Preliminary Testing at the Long Lake Archeological Site.
Manuscript on file at the University of Alaska Museum,Fairbanks,Alaska.
*Bacon,G.1978a.Archeology Near the Watana Dam Site in the Upper Susitna River
Basin.Report prepared for the Alaska District,Corps of Engineers under
contract DACW85-78-C-0034.Manuscript on file at the University of Alaska
Museum,Fairbanks,Alaska.
*Bacon,G.1978b.Archeology in the Upper Susitna River Basin.Report to the
Alaska District,Corps of Engineers under contract DACQ85-78-0017.Manuscript
on file at the University of Alaska ~useum,Fairbanks,Alaska.
Bancroft,H.H.1886.History of Alaska 1730-1885.Antiquarian Press,New York,
New York (1959 reprint).
Borns,H.W.,Jr.,and R.P.Goldthwait.1966.Late-Pleistocene Fluctuations of
the Kaskawulash Glacier,Southeastern Yukon Territory,Canada.American
Journal Science 264:600-619.
""""!
:J
,
j
Bowers,P.M.1978a.Research Summary:
Archeological Site,Central Alaska.
Alaska.
1977 Investigations of the Carlo Creek
University of Alaska Museum,Fairbanks,
Bowers,P.M.1978b.Geology and Archeology of the Carlo Creek Site,an Early
Holocene Campsite in the Central Alaska Range (Abstract)In Abstracts of the
5th Biennial Meeting,American Quaternary Association.Edmonton,Canada.
11-30
Bowers,P.M.1979.Geology and Archeology of the Carlo Creek Site,an Early
Holocene Campsite in the Central Alaska Range In Abstracts of the 5th
Biannual Meeting,American Quaternary Association.Edmonton,Canada.
Brooks,A.H.1973.Blazing Alaska's Trails.University of Alaska Press,
Fairbanks,Alaska.
Carter,J.E.1978.Executive Memorandum:
Resources Management (July 12,1978).
Environmental Quality and Water
Executive Office,Washington,D.C.
-
Clark,G.H.1974.Archeological Survey and Excavation Along the Southernmost
Portion of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System:Final Report.Alyeska Pipeline
Service Company,Anchorage,Alaska.
Clark,G.H.1976.Archeological Survey and Excavations in the Copper River
Basin,1974 (MS).Paper presented at the 3rd Annual Meeting of the Alaska
Anthropological Association,March 26-27,Anchorage,Alaska.
CLIAMP.1976.The Surface of the Ice-Age Earth.Science 171:1131-1137.
Cole,T.1979.The History of the Use of the Upper Susitna River,Indian River to
the Headwaters.Alaska Department of Natural Resources,Division of Research
and Development,Anchorage,Alaska.
Cook,J.S.1785.A Voyage to the Pacific Ocean.London,England.
Cook,J.P.1969.The Early Prehistory of Healy Lake,Alaska.Ph.D.
Dissertation,University of Wisconsin,Madison,Wisconsin.
Cook,J.P.and R.A.McKennan.1970.The Village Site at Healy Lake,Alaska:an
Interim Report.Paper presented at the 35th Annual Meeting of the Society of
American Archeology,Mexico City,Mexico.
Cook,J.S.1975.A New Authentic and Complete Collection of a Voyage Round the
World Undertaken and Performed by Royal Authority.Alex Hogg at the Kings
Arms,London,England.
Coutler,H.W,D.M.Hopkins,T.N.Karlstrom,T.L.Pewe,C.Wahrhaftig and J.R.
~!illiams.1965.Map showing extent of glaciations in Alaska.United States
Geological Survey,USGS Miscellaneous Geological Investigations.Map I-415.
U.S.Government Printing Office,Washington,D.C.
Csejtey,B.,W.H.Nelson,D.J.Jones,N.J.Filberling,R.M.Dean,M.S.Morris,
M.A.Lamphere,J.G.Smith and M.L.Silberman.1978.Reconnaissance
Geological Map and Geochronology,Talkeetna Mountains Quadrangle,Northern
Part of Anchorage Quadrangle,and Southwest Corner of Healy Quadrangle,
Alaska.United States Geological Survey Open-File Report 78-588-A.U.S.
Government Printin~Office,Washington,D.C.
deLaguna,F.1975.The Archeology of Cook Inlet,Alaska,Second Edition.Alaska
Historical Society,Anchorage,Alaska.
Denton,G.H.1974.Quaternary Glaciations of the White River Valley,Alaska,with
a Regional Synthesis for the Northern St.Elias Mountains,Alaska and Yukon
Territory.Geologic Society of America Bulletin 85:871-892.
11-31
Denton,G.H.and W.Karlen.1973.Holcene Climatic Variations -Their Pattern
and Possible Cause.Quaternary Research 3:155-205.
Denton,G.H.and G.Stuiver.1967.Late Pleistocene Glacial Stratigraphy and
Chronology,Northeastern St.Elias Mountains,Yukon Territory,Canada.
Geological Society of America Bulletin 75.
Dixon,E.J.,Jr.,G.S.Smith,and D.C.Plaskett.1980.Archeological Survey
and Inventory of Cultural Resources,Ft.Wainwright,Alaska:Final Report.
Prepared for Department of the Army,Alaska District,Corps of Engineers.
Contract DACA85-78-0047.University of Alaska Museum,Fairbanks,Alaska.
Dumond,D.E.1977.The Eskimos and Aleuts.Thames and Hudson,London,England.
Dumond,D.E.1979.Eskimo-Indian Relations:A View From Prehisotry.Arctic
Anthropology 16(2):3-22.
Dumond,D.E.and R.L.A.Mace.1968.An Archeological Survey Along Knik Arm.
Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska 14(1):1-21.
Elridge,G.H.
Territory,
Geological
D.C.
1900.A Reconnaissance in the Susitna Basin and Adjacent
Alaska in 1898 In 20th Annual Report of the United States
Survey 7:1-29-,-U.S.Government Printing Office,Washington,
FERC.1981.Final Rules:Application for License for Major Unconstructed
Projects and Major Modified Projects;Application for license for Transmission
Lines Only;and Application for Amendment to License.United States Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission.Federal Register 46:55926-55954.
FERC.n.d.Statement of General Policy to Implement Procedures for Compliance
with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.United States Federal
.Regulatory Commission 81 CFR 2.80.
Fernald,A.T.1965.Glaciation in the Nabesna River Area,Upper Tanana River
Valley,Alaska.United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 525-C.
U.S.Government Printing Office,Washington,D.C.
Ferrians,O.J.,and H.R.Schmoll.1957.Extensive Proglacial Lake of
Wisconsinan Age in the Copper River Basin,Alaska (abstract),Geological
Society of America Bulletin 68:1726.
Fladmark,K.R.1978.A Guide to Basic Archaeological Field Procedures.
Department of Archaeology,Publication No.4.Simon Fraser University,
Burnaby,B.C.
Funk,J.M.1973.The late Quaternary History of Cold Bay,Alaska,and Its
Implications to the Configuration of the Bering Land Bridge (abstract).
Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 5:62.
Goldthwait,R.P.1966.Evidence from Alaskan Glaciers of Major Climatic Changes
In Proceedings of the International Symposium on World Climate,8000 to 0
~C.Royal Meteorlogical Society,London,England.
11-32
.-
1
-
.-
Guedon,M.F.1975.People of Tetlin,Why Are Your Singing?Ethnology Division
Paper No.9.National Museum of Canada,Ottawa.
Hamilton,T.D.1976.Camp Century Record vs.Dated Climatic Records from Alaska
and Siberia (abstract)In Abstracts,4th National Conference.American
Quaternary Association,-rempe,Arizona.
Hamilton,T.D.1977.Late Cenozoic Stratigraphy of the South-Central Brooks
Range.United States Geological Survey Circular 772-8:836-B38.United States
Geological Survey.U.S.Government Printing Office,Washington,D.C .
Ham i It on,T.D.,
the Central
(abstract).
109.
R.Stuckenrath,and M.Stuiver,M.1980.Itkillik Glaciation in
Brooks Range:Radiocarbon Dates and Stratigraphic Record
Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 12(3):
F"Haselton,G.M.1966.Glacial Geology of Muir Inlet,Southeast Alaska.Institute
of Polar Studies Report 18.Ohio State University,Columbus,Ohio.
Helm,J.,P.Alliband,T.Birk,V.Lawson,S.Reisner,C.Sturtevant and S.
Witowski.1975.The Contact History of the Subarctic Athapaskans:An
Overview In Proceedings:Northern Athapaskan Conference,1971.National
Museum ofIran ada,Ottawa.
Heusser,C.J.1960.Late-Pleistocene Environments of North Pacific North
America.American Geographical Society Special Publication 35.
Heusser,C.J.1965.A Pleistocene Phytogeographical Sketch of the Pacific
Northwest and Alaska In The Quaternary of the United States.Princeton
University Press,Princeton,New Jersey.
Hickey,C.G.1976.The Effects of Treeline Shifts on Human Societies:Crazy
Quilt Variability vs.Macrozonal Adaption In International Conference on the
Prehistory and Paleoecology of North American Arctic and Subarctic.
University of Calgary,Calgary,Alberta.
Hoeffecker,J.F.1978.Potential of the North Alaska Range for Archeological
Sites of of Pleistocene Age.A Report to the National Geographic Society and
the National Parks Service.Manuscript on file in the University of Alaska
Museum,Fairbanks,Alaska.
Hoeffecker,J.F.1979.The Search for Early Man in Alaska,Results and
Recommendations of the North Alaska Range Project.A Report to the National
Geographic Society and the National Park Service.
Holmes,C.E.1976.3000 Years of Prehistory at Minchumina:The Question of
Cultural Boundaries.Paper presented at the 9th Annual Conference of the
University of Calgary Archeological Association,Calgary,Alberta.
Holmes,C.E.1977.Progress Report:Archeological Research at Lake Minchumina,
Central Alaska.Manuscript on file in the University of Alaska Museum,
Fairbanks,Alaska.
11-33
Holmes.C.E.1978.Report on Archeological Research at Lake Minchumina,Alaska
During 1977.Manuscript on file in the University of Alaska Museum,
Fairbanks.Alaska.
Hopkins,D.M.1967.The Bering Land Bridge.Stanford University Press.
Stanford,California.
Hosley,E.H.1966.The Kolchan:Athapaskans of the Upper Kuskokwim.Manuscript
on file in the University of Alaska Museum.Fairbanks,Alaska.
Hosley.E.H.1967.The McGrath Ingalik Indians.Central Alaska In Yearbook of
the American Philosophical Society.
Hughes,O.L.,R.B.Campbell,J.E.Muller and J.O.Wheeler.1969.Glacial
Limits and Flow Patterns,Yukon Territory,South of 65 Degrees North Latitude.
Geological Survey of Canada Paper 68 34:1-9.
Irving,W.N.1957.An Archeological Survey of the Susitna Valley.
Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska,Fairbanks 6(1):37-52.
Irving,W.N.1957.Pleistoncene Archeology in Eastern Beringia In Early Man in
America,Occasional Paper No.1.Department of Anthropology.lITniversity of
Alberta,Edmonton,Alberta.
Joint Federal State Land Use Planning Commission for Alaska.1973.Major
Ecosystems of Alaska:Ecosystems Information.
Kachadoorian,R.,A.T.Ovenshine and S.Bartsch-Winkler.1977.Late Wisconsinan
History of the South Shore of Turnagain Arm,Alaska.United States Geological
Survey Circular 751-B:B49-850.U.S.Government Printing Office,Washington,
D.C.
Karlstrom,T.N.V.1964.Quaternary Geology of the Kenai Lowland and Glacial·~,
History of the Cook Inlet Region,Alaska.United States Geological Survey
Professional Paper 443.United States Government Printing Office,Washington.
D.C.
Langway.C.C.,Jr.,W.Dansgaard,S.J.Johnsen and H.Clausen.1973.
Fluctuations During the Late Pleistocene In The Wisconsinan Stage.
Society of America Memoir 136.--
Climatic
Geological
Lyle,W.M.1974.Newly Discovered Tertiary Sedimentary Basin Near Denali.
Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys Annual Report.1973.
Alaska Department of Natural Resources.Anchorage,Alaska.
Manville.R.H.and S.P.Young.1965.Distributions of Alaskan Mammals.
Circular 221.United States Department of the Interior,Bureau of Sports
Fisheries and Wildlife.
Matthews,J.V.,Jr.1974.Wisconsinan Environment of Interior Alaska:Pollen
and Macrofossil Analysis of a 27 Meter Core From the Isabella Basin
(Fairbanks,Alaska).Canadian Journal of Earth Science 11:828-841.
11-34
Mauger,J.E.1970.A Study of Donnelly Burins in the Campus Archaeological
Collection.M.A.Thesis.Washington State University,Pullman,Washington.
McKennan,R.A.1959.The Upper Tanana Indians.Yale University Publications in
Anthropology No.55.Yale University Press,New Haven,Connecticut.
McKenzie,G.D.and R.P.Goldthwait.1971.Glacial History of the Last Eleven
Thousand Years in Adams Inlet,Southeastern Alaska.Geological Society of
America Bulletin 82:1767-1782.
Miller,M.M.and J.H.Anderson.1974.
the Maritime and Continental Sectors
Quaternary Environments,Proceedings
Toronto,Ontario.
Out-of-Phase Holocene Climatic Trends in
of the Alaska-Canada Boundary Range In
of a Symposium.York University,-
Mi 11 er,R.D.and E.Dobrovo 1ny.1959.Surfi cia 1 Geology of Anchorage and
Vicinity,Alaska.United States Geological Survey Bulletin 1093.U.S.
Government Printing Office,Washington,D.C.
Moffit,F.H.1912.Headwater Regions of the Gulkana and Susitna Rivers.Alaska.
United States Geological Survey Bulletin 498.U.S.Government Printing
Office,Washington,D.C.
Morlan,R.E.1978.Early Man in Northern Yukon Territory:
1977 In:Early Man in America,Occasional Paper No.1.
Anthropology,University of Alberta,Edmonton,Alberta.
Perspective as of
Department of
Nelson,N.C.1935.Early Migrations of Man to North America.Natural History
35:356.
Nelson,N.C.1937.Notes on Cultural Relations Between Asia and America.
American Antiquity 2(4):267-272..
Nelson,R.K.1973.Hunters of the Northern Forest.University of Chicago Press,
Chicago,Illinois.
Nixon,R.M.1970.Executive Order 11514,Protection and Enforcement of
Environmental Quality.March 7,1970.Federal Register 35(4).
Nixon,R.M.1971.Executive Order 11593.Protection and Enhancement of the
Cultural Environment.16 CFR 470,Federal Register 36:8921.
Olson,E.A.and W.S.Broecker.1959.Lamont Natural Radiocarbon Measurements V.
American Journal of Science 257:1-28.
Osgood,C.1937.The Ethnography of the Tanaina~Yale University Publications in
Anthropology,No.16.Yale University Press,New Haven,Connecticut.
Pewe,T.L.1975.Quaternary Geology of Alaska.United States Geological Survey
Professional Paper 835.U.S.Government Printing Office,Washington,D.C.
Pewe,T.L.and R.D.Reger.1972.Modern and Wisconsinan Snowlines in Alaska In
Proceedings of the 24th International Geological Congress,Montreal,Quebec-.-
11-35
Pitts,R.S.1972.The Changing Settlement Patterns and House Types of the Upper
Tanana Indians.M.A.Thesis.Department of Anthropology,University of
Alaska,Fairbanks,Alaska.
Plaskett,D.C.1977.The Nenana River Gorge Site,a Late Prehistoric Athapaskan
Campsite in Central Alaska.M.A.Thesis.Department of Anthropology,
University of Alaska,Fairbanks,Alaska.
Plaskett,D.C.and E.J.Dixon,Jr.1978.Men Out of Southeast Asia:An
Alternative Hypothesis for the Early Peopling of the Americas.Paper
Presented at the 5th Annual Meeting,Alaska Anthropological Association,
Anchorage,Alaska.
Powers,W.R.and T.D.Hamilton.197B.Dry Creek:A Late Pleistocene Human
Occupation in Central Alaska In Early Man in America,Occasional Paper No.1.
Department of Anthropology,UnTversity of Alberta,Edmonton,Alberta.
Rainey,F.1939.Archeology in Central Alaska.Anthropological Papers of the
American Museum of Natural History 36(4):351-405.
Rainey,F.1940.Archeological Investigations in Central Alaska.American
Ant i qu ity 5(4):399-408.
Rainey,F.1953.The Significance of Recent Archeological Discoveries in Inland
Alaska.Society for American Archeology Memoir No.9.
Rampton,V.1971.Later Quaternary Vegetational and Climatic History of the
Snag-Klutlan Area,Southeastern Yukon Territory,Canada.Geological Society
of America Bulletin 82:959-978.
R&M Consultants,Incorporated.1981.Susitna Hydroelectric Project Preliminary
Report Subtask 2.10:Access Roads -Access Plan.Submitted to Acres
American,Incorporated for the Alaska Power Authority,Anchorage,Alaska.
Rampton,V.1971.The Tilted Forest;Glaciological Geologic Implications of
Vegetation Neoglacial Ice at Lituya Bay,Alaska.Quarternary Research 6:
111-117.
Reger,D.R.1977.Prehistory in the Upper Cook Inlet,Alaska In Problems in the
Prehistory of the North American Subarctic:The Athapaskan Question.
Proceedings of the 9th Annual Conference of the Archaeological Association of
the University of Calgary.Archeological Association,Department of
Archeology,University of Calgary,Alberta.
Reger,D.R.and T.L.Pewe.1969.Lichonometric Dating in the Central Alaska
Range In The Periglacial Environment:Past and Present.McGill -Queens
UniverSTty Press,Montreal,Quebec.
Reid,J.R.1970.Late Wisconsinan and Neoglacial History of the Martin River
Glacier,Alaska.Geological Society of America Bulletin 81:3593-3603.
11-36
-I
-
Schmoll,H.R.,B.J.Szabo,M.Rubin and E.Dobrovonly.1972.Radiometric Dating
of Marine Shells from the Bootlegger Cove Clay,Anchorage Area,Alaska.
Geological Society of America Bulletin 83:1107-1113.
Schweger,C.E.n.d.Notes on the Paleoecology of the Northern Archaic Tradition.
Manuscript on file in the University of Alaska Museum,Fairbanks,Alaska.
Schweger,C.E.1973.Late Quaternary History of the Tangle Lakes Region,Alaska
- A Progress Report (Unpublished Manuscript).Anthropology Department,
University of Alberta,Edmonton,Alberta.
Sellman,P.1967.Geology of the USA CRREL Permafrost Tunnel,Fairbanks,Alaska.
United States Army CRREL Technical Report 199.Cold Region Research and
Engineering Laboratory,Hanover,New Hampshire.
Shackleton,N.J.and N.D.Opdyke.1973.Oxygen Isotope and Palaeomagnetic
Stratigraphy of Equator~al Pacific C,gre_Jl2B-2-3-a~Oxygen Isotope Temperatures
and Ice Volumes on a 10 Year and 10 Year Scale.Quaternary Research
3:39-55.
-
Late Pleistocene History of
Ge.ological S{)ciety of
Shinkwin,A.D.1974.Archeological Report:Dekah De'nin's Village:An Early
Nineteenth Century Ahtna Village,Chitina,Alaska.Department of
Anthropology,University of Alaska,Fairbanks,Alaska.
Shinkwin,A.D.1975.The Dixthada Site:Results of 1971 Excavations.The
Western Canadian Journal of Anthropology 5(3-4):148-158.
Sirkin,L.A.and S.Tuthill.1971.Late Pleistocene Palynology and Stratigraphy
of Controller Bay Region,Gulf of Alaska In Etudes sur le Quaterniare .dens le
r-mode:Proceedi ngs of the VI IIth INQUA Congress,1969.Pari s,france.
Sirkin,L.A.,S.J.Tuthill and L.S.Clayton.1971.
the Lower Copper River Valley,Alaska (abstract).
America Abstracts with Programs 3(7):708.
Skarland,I.and C.Keim.1958.Archeological Discoveries on the Denali Highway,
Alaska.Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska 6(2):79-88.
Fairbanks,Alaska.
~
I
~
I
Smith,G.S.and H.M.Shields.1977.Archeological Survey of Selected Portions
of the Proposed Lake Clark National Park:Lake Clark,Lake Telaquana,
Turquoise Lake,Twin lakes,Fishtrap Lake,Lachbuna Lake,and Snipe Lake.
Occasional Paper No.7.Anthropology and Historic Preservation,Cooperative
Park Studies Unit,University of Alaska,Fairbanks,Alaska.
Swanston,D.W.1969.A Late-Pleistocene Glacial Sequence from Prince of Wales
Island,Alaska.Arctic 22:25-33.
Terasmae,J.1974.An Evaluation of Methods Used for Reconstruction of Quaternary
Environments,Quarternary Environments:Proceedings of a Symposium.York
University,Toronto.
Terasmae,J.and O.L.Hughes.1966.Late-Wisconsinan Chronology and History of
Vegetation in the Ogilvie Mountains,Yukon Territory,Canada.Paleobotanist
15:235-242.
11-37
Thorson.R.M.n.d.Quaternary Glacier Expansions from North America's Highest
Mountain:A Preliminary Chronology for the McKinley River Area.Alaska
(unpublished manuscript).
Townsend.J.B.1970.Tanaina Ethnohistory:An Example of a Method for the Study
ot Culture Change In Enthnohistory in Southwestern Alaska and the Southern
Yukon.UniversitylPress of Kentucky.Lexington.Kentucky.
Townsend.J.B.1973.Eiqhteenth and Nineteenth Century Eskimo and Indian
Movements in Southwestern Alaska.Paper presented to the Society for American
Archeology Annual Meeting.San Francisco.California.
Traganza.A.E.1964.An Archeological Survey of Mount McKinley National Park.
Manuscript on ti Ie.Mt.McKinley National Park Library.Mt.McKinley National
Park.Alaska.
United States of America.1906.-~,Antiguities Act of 1906.Public Law 59-209.34
Stat.225.16USC 431-433.
United States of America.1935.Historic Preservation Act.Public Law 74-292.
United States of America.1960.Preservation of Historical and Archeological Data
Threatened by Dam Construction or Alterations of Terrain:Reservoir Salvage
Act.Public Law 86-523.
United States of America.1966.National Historic Preservation Act of 1966.
Pub 1 i cLaw 89-665.16 USCS,A70.
United States of America.1974.Reservoir Salvage Act of 1960 as Amended by the
ArcheO'Tog'ieal and Historic Preservation Act of 1974.Publ ic Law 93-291.
United States Council on Environmental Quality.1973.Preparation of
Environmental Impact Statements:Guidelines.40 CFR 1500.
USDI.1974.Procedures for the Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties.
United states Department of the Interior.Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation.36 CFR 800.Federal Register 39:3366.
USDI.1977a.Criteria For Comprehensive Statewide Historic Survey and Plans.
United States Department of the Interior.36 CFR 61.
,.....
-
.-
-
USDI.1977b.Determinations of Eligibility for Inclusion in the National Register
of Historic Preservation.United States Department of the Interior.36 CFR
63.-:
USDI.1979.Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties:Amendments to
Existing Regulations.United States Department of the Interior.Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation.Federal Register 44 (21).36 CFR 800.
11-38
-
USDI.1980a.Executive Director's Procedures for Review of Proposals for
Treatment of Archeological Properties:Supplementary Guidance.United States
Department of the Interior,Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.
Federal Register 45:78808-78811.
*USDI.1980b.Treatment of Archeological Properties:A Handbook.United States
Department of the Interior,Advisory Council on Historic Preservation,
Washington,D.C.
USDI (BLM).1980.Alaska Native Selections:Implementation of the Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act.United States Department of the Interior,Bureau of
Land Management.Federal Register 45:30606-30608.
USDI (HCRS).1978.The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Historic
Preservation Projects.United States Department of the Interior,Heritage
Conservation and Recreation Service.36 CFR 1207,Federal Register 43:
57250.
USDI (HCRS).1980.Uniform Rules and Regulations for the Protection and
Conservation of Archeological Resources Located on Public and Indian Lands.
United States Department of the Interior,Heritage Conservation and Recreation
Service.36 CFR 1215,Federal Register 45:77755-77757.
USDI (HCRS).1981.Proposed Uniform RUlemaking and Notice of Public Hearings:
Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979.United States Department of
the Interi or,Heri tage Conservation and Recreation S€rvi ce.Federa 1 Regi ster
46:5566-5575.
USDI (NPS).1977.Proposed Guidelines for Recovery of Scientific,Prehistoric,
Historic,and Archeological Data:Methods,Standards,and Reporting Require-
ments.United States Department of the Interior,National Park Service.
Federal Register 42:5374-5377.
USDI (NPS).1981.National Register of Historic Places.United States
Department of the Interior,National Park Service,Washington,D.C.36 CFR
60.
Valdez News.July 10,1901.Valdez,Alaska.
VanStone,J.W.1955.Exploring the Copper River Country.Pacific Northwest
Quarterly 46 (4):115-123.
VanStone,J.W.1974.Athapaskan Adaptations.Aldine Publishing Company,
Chicago,Illinois.
Vitt,R.1973.Hunting Practices of the Upper Tanana Indians.M.A.Thesis.
Department of Anthropology,University of Alaska,Fairbanks,Alaska.
Wahrhaftig,C.1958.Quaternary Geology of the Nenana River Valley and Adjacent
~Parts of the Alaska Range.United States Geological Survey Professional Paper
293-A.U.S.Government Printing Office,Washington,D.C.
--i
!
-11-39
Wahrhaftig,C.and A.Cox.1959.Rock Glaciers in the Alaska Range.Geological
Society of America Bulletin 70:383-436.
Wahrhaftig,C.,J.A.Wolfe,E.B.Leopold and M.A.Lanphere.1969.The Coal-
Bearing Group in the Nanana Coal Field,Alaska.United States Geological
Survey Bulletin 1274-0.U.S.Government Printing Office.Washington,D.C.
West,C.E.1978.Archeology of the Birches Site,Lake Minchumina,Alaska.M.A.
Thesis.Department of Anthropology,University of Alaska,Fairbanks,Alaska.
West,F.H.1965.Excavation at Two Sites on the Teklanika River,Mt.McKinley
National Park,Alaska.Report to the National Park Service.
West,F.H.1967.The Donnelly Ridge Site and the Definition of an Early Core
and Blade Complex in Central Alaska.American Antiquity 32 (3):360-382.
West,F.H.1971.Archeological Reconnaissance of Denali State Park,Alaska.
Report to State of Alaska,Department of Natural Resources,Division of Parks,
Anchorage,Alaska.
West,F.H.
Lakes,
Bering
in the
1973.Old World Affinities of Archeological Complexes from Tangle
Central Alaska.Paper read at the International Conference on the
Land Bridge and Its Role for the History of Holactic Floras and Faunas
Late Cenozoic,Khabarovsk.
-
West,F.H.1975.Dating the Denali Complex.Arctic Anthropology 12(1):75-81.
Willey,G.R.and P.Phillips.1970.Method and Theory in American Archaeology.
University of Chicago Press,Chicago,Illinois.
Williams,J.R.and O.J.Ferrians,Jr.1961.Late Wisconsinan and Recent History
of the Matanuska Glacier,Alaska.Arctic 14:82-90.
Wolfe,J.A.1966.Tertiary Plants from the Cook Inlet Region,Alaska.United
States Geological Survey Professional Paper 398-B.U.S.Government Printing
Office,Washington,D.C.
Wolfe,J.A.,D.M.Hopkins and E.B.Leopold.1966.Tertiary Stratigraphy and
Paleobotany of the Cook Inlet Region,Alaska.United States Geological Survey
Professional Paper 398-A.U.S.Government Printing Office,Washington,D.C.
Wolfe,J.A.and T.Tanai.1980.The Miocene Seldovia Point Flora from the Kenai
Group,Alaska.United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 1105.U.S.
Government Printing Office,Washington,D.C.
Workman,W.B.1976.A Late Prehistoric Ahtna Site Near Gulkana,Alaska.Paper
presented at the 3rd Annual Conference of the Alaska Anthropological
Association,Anchorage,Alaska.
11-40
-,
'-
....
I
-
-
Workman,W.B.
Sequence.
Workman,W.B.
Territory.
Ontari o.
1977.New Data on the Radiocarbon Chronology of the Kachemak Bay
Anthropology Papers of the University of Alaska 18(2):31-36.
1978.Prehistory of the Aishihik-Kluane Areas,Southwest Yukon
Mercury Series No.74.National Museum of Canada,Ottawa,
11-41
11-42
-
""'If
I
-
~
i
I
-i
-
-t:,..~
!
I
-
i"""
I
I
-
11.5 -Socioeconomics
ABT Association,Incorporated.1979.Forecasts for Western Coal/Energy
Development.Western Coal Planning Assistance Project,Missouri River Basin
Commission,Omaha,Nebraska.
ADCED.1977.Visitor Census and Expenditure Survey,1977 and Winter,1976-1977.
(Prepared by Parker Research Corporation).Alaska Department of Commerce &
Economic Development,Division of Economic Enterprise,Juneau,Alaska.
ADCED.1978.Jobs and Power for Alaska,A Program for Power and Economic
Development.Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development,Juneau,
Alaska.
*ADCED.1979a.Numbers.Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development,
Division of Economic Enterprise,Juneau,Alaska.
ADCED.1979b.The Performance Report of the Alaska Economy in 1979,Volume Eight.
Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development,Division of
Economic Enterprise,Juneau,Alaska.
ADCED.1979c.An Assessment of the Domestic Market for Alaska Wood Products.
Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development,Division of
Economic Enterprise,Juneau,Alaska.
ADCED.1979d.What You Never Thought to Ask About Mining.Alaska Department of
Commerce and Economic Development,Division of Economic Enterprise,Juneau,
Alaska.
ADCED.1980a.Community Project Matrix.Alaska Department of Commerce and
Economic Development,Division of Economic Enterprise,Juneau,Alaska.
ADCED.1980b.The Alaska Statistical Review 1980.Alaska Department of Commerce
and Economic Development,Division of Economic Enterprise,Juneau,Alaska.
ADCED.1980c.Alaska Regional Energy Resources Planning Project,Phase 2,Volume
II:Hydroelectric Development.Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic
Development,Division of Energy and Power Development,Juneau,Alaska.
ADCED.1980d.State of Alaska Guide Register 1980.Alaska Department of
Commerce and Economic Development,Division of Occupational Licensing,Guide
Licensing and Control Board,Juneau,Alaska.
ADCED.n.d.State of Alaska Quarterly Econometric Model.Alaska Department of
Commerce and Economic Development"Juneau,Alaska.
ADCED.Various quarterly issues.Information and Reporting System.Alaska
Department of Commerce and Economic Development,Division of Economic
Enterprise,Juneau,Alaska.
ADCED and USDA.1977.Alaska Farm Cost of Production Survey.Alaska Department
of Commerce and Economic Development,Division of Economic Enterprise and
United States Department of Agriculture,Economic Research Service,Juneau,
Alaska.
11-43
ADF&G.1977.Annual Report of Survey-Inventory Activities,Part I:Black Bear,
Brown Bear,and Polar Bear.Alaska Department of Fish and Game,Division of
Game,Juneau,Alaska.
ADF&G.1979.Susitna Hydroelectric Project Environmental Studies Preliminary
Final Plan of Study Subtask 7.10:Fish Ecology Studies.Submitted by the
Alaska Department of Fish and Game to the Alaska Power Authority,Anchorage,
Alaska.
ADF&G.1980a.Alaska Game Management Units (map).Alaska Department of Fish and
Game,Division of Game,Alaska Board of Game,Juneau,Alaska.
ADF&G.1980b.Alaska Hunting Regulations,No.21.Alaska Department of Fish and
Game,Division of Game,Alaska Board of Game,Juneau,Alaska.
ADF&G.1980c.Alaska Trapping Regulations,No.21.Alaska Department of Fish and
Game,Division of Game,Alaska Board of Game,Juneau,Alaska.
ADF&G.1980d.Annual Report of Survey-Inventory Activities,Part II:Bison,
Caribou,Moose and Muskoxen.Alaska Department of Fish and Game,Division of
Game,Juneau,Alaska.
ADF&G.1980e.Annual Report of Survey-Inventory Activities,Part III:Deer,Elk,
Marine Mammals,Mountain Goats,and Sheep.Alaska Department of Fish and
Game,Division of Game,Juneau,Alaska.
ADF&G.1980f.Annual Report of Survey-Inventory Activities,Part IV:Furbearers,
Upland Game,Wolf,and Wolverine.Alaska Department of Fish and Game,
Division of Game,Juneau,Alaska.
ADF&G.1980g.1980 Alaska Sport Fishing Seasons and Bag Limits.Alaska
Department of Fish and Game,Division of Sport Fish,Alaska Board of
Fisheries,Juneau,Alaska.
ADF&G.1980h.Sport Fish Survey.Alaska Department of Fish and Game,Juneau,
Alaska.
ADNR.1980i.Susitna Basin Land Use/Recreation Atlas,Planning Background Report.
Alaska Department of Natural Resources,Division of Research and Development,
Land and Resource Planning Section,Anchorage,Alaska.
ADNR and USDA.Various annual issues.Alaska Agriculture Statistics.Alaska
Department of Natural Resources,Division of Agriculture and United States
Department of Agriculture,Palmer,Alaska.
Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs.1973.Pipeline Corridor
Smaller Communities Survey.Division of Community Planning,Juneau,Alaska.
Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs.1974.Selected 1970 Census
Data for Alaska Communities,Part V:Southcentral Alaska.Division of
Community Planning,Juneau,Alaska.
11-44 '
,"j
""'"
-
Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs.1976.Report of FY 75
Trans-Alaska Pipeline Impact Expenditures by State and Local Governments.
Division of Community Planning,Juneau,Alaska.
Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs.1980a.
Municipal Property Assessments and Equalized Full Value
Division of Local Government Assistance,Juneau,Alaska.
Alaska Taxable 1979
Determinations.
Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs.198Gb.City Financial
Reporting Manual,FY 1980.Division of Local Government Assistance,Juneau,
Alaska.
Alaska Department of Education.1980.1980-1981 Alaska Education Directory.
Alaska Department of Education,Juneau,Alaska.
Alaska Department of Labor.1972.Economic Analysis,Issue 10,Volume 1.
Employment Security Division,Juneau,Alaska.
Alaska Department of Labor.1975 and 1979.Civilian Labor Force Data.Research
and Analysis Section,Juneau,Alaska.
Alaska Department of Labor.1978a.Occupational Employment Statistics:Manu-
facturing Industries 1977.Alaska Department of Labo~,Juneau,Alaska.
Alaska Department of Labor.1978b.Alaska Economic Outlook to 1985.Alaska
Department of Labor,Juneau,Alaska.
Alaska Department of Labor.1979a.Occupational Employment Forecast.Alaska
Department of Labor,Juneau,Alaska.-Alaska Department of Labor.1979b.Occupational Employment Statistics:
Nonmanufacturing Industries 1978.Alaska Department of Labor,Juneau,
Alaska.
Alaska Department of Labor.1979c.Alaska Population Overview.Alaska Depart-
ment of Labor,Juneau,Alaska.
Alaska Department of Labor.1979d.Occupational Supply and Demand.Alaska
Department of Labor,Juneau,Alaska.
Alaska Department of Labor.1980a.Annual Planning Information,FY 1981.Alaska
Department of Labor,Juneau,Alaska.
~Alaska Department of Labor.1980b.Occupational Supply and Demand.Alaska
Department of Labor,Juneau,Alaska.
Alaska Department of Labor.1980c.Occupational Employment Statistics,1979.
Alaska Department of Labor,Juneau,Alaska.
1'!"'"
I
-
Alaska Department of Labor.1980d.Planning Information for Vocational
Education.Alaska Department of Labor,Juneau,Alaska.
Alaska Department of Labor.1980e.Trade and Regulated Industries Occupational
Employment Statistics,1979.Administrative Services Division,Juneau,
Alaska.
11-45
*Alaska Department of Labor.1980f.Alaska Statistical Quarterly.Office of the
Commission Research and Analysis Section,Juneau,Alaska.
*Alaska Department of Labor.1981.Alaska 1980 Population:A Preliminary
Overview.Administrative Services Division,Juneau,Alaska.
*Alaska Department of Labor.1981.Laborers'and Mechanics 'Minimum Rates of Pay.
Alaska Department of Labor,Juneau,Alaska.
Alaska Department of Labor.n.d.Labor Market Information Directory.Alaska
Department of Labor,Juneau,Alaska.
Alaska Department of Labor.n.d.Educational Institutions Occupational Employment
Statistics.Alaska Department of Labor,Juneau,Alaska.
*Alaska Department of Labor.n.d.Unemployment Insurance Records 1964-1980.
Alaska Department of Labor,Juneau,Alaska.
*Alaska Department of Labor.Various issues.Statistical Quarterly.Juneau,
Alaska.
Alaska Department of Labor.Various issues.Alaska Economic Trends.Juneau,
Alaska.
Alaska Department of Labor.Various issues.Labor Force Highlights.Juneau,
Alaska.
*Alaska Department of Labor.Various annual issues.Wage Rates for Selected
Occupations Anchorage,Fairbanks and Regional Areas.Alaska Department of
Labor,Juneau,Alaska.
Alaska Department of Revenue.1978.Petroleum Revenue Forecast.Petroleum
Revenue Division,Juneau,Alaska.
Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities.1979.Alaska Highways
Annual Traffic Report,Volume I.Transportation Planning Division,Juneau,
Alaska.
Alaska Division of Agriculture,Cooperative Extension Service.Monthly.
Alaska Farm Reporter.Agriculture Experiment Station,Palmer,Alaska.
Alaska Division of Economic Enterprise and the Municipality of Anchorage.1978.
Anchorage:An Alaskan Community Profile.Anchorage,Alaska.
Alaska Division of Policy Development and Planning.1975.Bibliography of
Community Planning Supplement.Juneau,Alaska.
Alaska Division of Policy Development and Planning.1980.State of Alaska
Railbelt Electrical Power Alternatives Study,Request for Proposals.
Juneau,Alaska.
-I
!
Alaska Miner's Association,Incorporated.
Anchorage,Alaska.
Alaska Miner's Association,Incorporated.
Anchorage,Alaska.
1980a.
1980b.
11-46
The Alaska Miner (January)
The Alaska Miner (December)
Alaska OCS Socioeconomic Studies Program.1978.Alyeska-Fairbanks Case Study.
Anchorage,Alaska.
Alaska Office of the Governor.1978.Alaska Data Inventory Catalog.Division of
Policy Development and Planning,Juneau,Alaska.
~.Alaska Office of the Governor.1980.The Alaska Economic Information and
Reporting System,Quarterly Report (November).Juneau,Alaska.
~Alaska Office of Labor,Research and Analysis.1980.Federal,State,and Local
Government Occupational Employment Statistics.Alaska Department of Labor,
Juneau,Alaska.
Alaska Pacific Bank.n.d.Alaska Business Trends:1979 Economic Forecast.
Anchorage,Alaska.
Anchorage Economic Development Commission.1976.Anchorage Economic Report.
Anchorage,Alaska.
Anderson.1970.A Note on Economic Base Studies and Regional Econometric
Forecasting Models.Journal of Regional Science 10:325-333.
Andrews,W.H.and D.C.Geertsen.1974.Social Dimensions of Urban Flood
Control Decision.Utah State University,Logan,Utah.
Andrews,W.H.,R.Burdge,H.Carpener,K.Warner,and K.Wnkinson,(ed.)1973.
The Social Well-Being and Quality of Life Dimension in Water Resources
Planning and Development.Proceedings of the Conference of the University
Council on Water Resources,July 10-12,1973.Institute for Social Science
Research on Natural Resources,Utah State University,Logan,Utah.
Andrews,W.H.,G.Legaz,and G.Madsen.1974.-Social Impacts of Water Resource
Developments and Their Implications for Urban and Rural Development:A
Post-Audit Analysis of the Weber Basin Project in Utah.Institute for Social
Science Research on Natural Resources,Utah State University,Logan,Utah.
r-Anonymous.1980.The IVl"ilepost.Alaska Northwest Publishing Company,
Anchorage,Alaska.
~
I
.-
I\PA.1980.A Report of the First Series of Community Meetings on the Feasi-
bility Studies for the Susitna Hydroelectric Project and Other Power
Alternatives.Meetings in Fairbanks,Talkeetna,Wasilla,Anchorage.
Alaska.
Arctic Environmental Engineers.1977.~olid Waste Disposal Study.Matanuska-
Susitna Borough,Anchorage,Alaska.
Arctic Environmental Engineers.1978.Solid Waste Disposal Report.Matanuska-
Susitna Borough,Anchorage,Alaska.
Arizona Office of Economic Planning and Development.1977.Description and
Technical Description of the Economic/Demographic Projection Model.Arizona
Office of Economic Planning and Development,Phoenix,Arizona.
11-47
Bantz,Don and Associates.n.d.Tribal Health Plan:Copper River Native
Association Health Department.Anchorage,Alaska.
Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories.1975.The Social and Economic
Impact of a Camp Gruber Energy Center:a Report to the Federal Energy
Administration,Volume III.Richland,Washington.
Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories.1981.Alaska Economic Scenarios
Review Document,Comment Draft Working Paper No.21.Office of the
Governor,State of Alaska,Division of Policy Development and Planning
and the Governor's Policy Review Committee,Juneau,Alaska.
Baker,J.K.,N.Dee and J.R.Finley.1974.Measuring Impacts of Water
Resource Developments on the Human Environment.American Water Resources
Association,Water Resources Bulletin 10:10-21.
Bendix,S.and H.R.Graham.1978.Environmental Assessment -Approaching
Maturity.Ann Arbor Science Publishers,Incorporated,Ann Arbor,Michigan.
Berry,B.J.1967.Geography of Market Centers and Retail Distribution.
Prentice-Hall,Incorporated,Englewood Cliffs,New Jersey.
Biswas,A.K.and R.W.Durie.n.d.Sociological Aspects of Water Develop-
ment.Water Resources Bulletin.
Booz,Allen &Hamilton,Incorporated.n.d.A Procedures Manual for Assessing
the Socioeconomic Impact of the Construction and Operation of Coal Utili-
zation Facilities in the Old West Region.Old West Regional Commission,
Washington,D.C.
Bornhoff and Associates.1973.Palmer Comprehensive Development Plan.
Matanuska-Susitna Borough,Anchorage,Alaska.
Canter,L.W.1977.Environmental Impact Assessment.McGraw Hill Book
Company,New York,New York.
Canter,L.W.1979.Water Resources Assessment -Methodology &Technology
Sourcebook.Ann Arbor Science Publishers,Incorporated,Ann Arbor,
Michigan.
Chalmers,J.A.1977.Bureau of Reclamation Construction Worker Survey.
United States Department of the Interior,Bureau of Reclamation,Engineering
and Research Center,Denver,Colorado.
-
Chalmers,J.A.and E.J.Anderson.1977.Economic/Demographic Assessment Manual:
Current Practices,Procedural Recommendations,and a Test Case.United States
Department of the Interior,Bureau of Reclamation,Engineering and Research ~
Center,Denver,Colorado.
Cheremisinoff,P.N.and A.C.Morresi.1977.Environmental Assessment and Impact
Statement Handbook.Ann Arbor Science Publishers,Incorporated,Ann Arbor,
Michigan.
11-48
CH2M Hill.1981.Socioeconomic Data Pamphlet for the Matanuska-Susitna Borough.
Prepared for Overall Economic Development Program,Incorporated.Wasilla,
Alaska.
Clonts,H.A.and L.P.Cain.1976.Implications of Watershed Development on Land
Value and Landowner Attitudes.Bulletin 479.Agricultural Experiment
Station,Auburn University,Auburn,Alabama.
Coastal Zone Management Program Development.1979.Alaska Federal Withdrawals.
(map).United States Department of Commerce,National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration.
Cole,T.1979.The History of the Use of the Upper Susitna River,Indian River to
the Headwaters.Alaska Department of Natural Resources,Division of Research
and Development,Anchorage,Alaska.
Coleman,E.1977.Personal Income:Some Observations on its Construction,Uses
and Adequacy as a Subnational Income Measure.Paper delivered at the meeting
of the American Statistical Association,Chicago,Illinois.
Community Development Services,Incorporated.1975.An Analysis of the Socio-
economic Impacts of WNP-3 and WNP-5.Washington Public Power Supply System,
~Seattle,Washington.
Community Development Services,Incorporated.1976.
WPPSS 1 and 4,Volume 1:First Progress Report.
Supply System.Seattle,Washington.
Socioeconomic Impact Study
Washington Public Power
Community Development Services,Incorporated.1978.Socioeconomic Impact Study.
Washington Public Power Supply System,Seattle,Washington.
Community Development Services,Incorporated.n.d.Socioeconomic Impact Study
WNP 1 and 4,Volume 1:Final Report.Washington Public Power Supply System,
Seattle,Washington.
Construction Engineering Research Laboratory.1976.The Economic Impact Forecast
System:Description and User Instruction.Technical Report N-2.
Coopers and Lybrand.1978.Impact of Visitor's Expenditures Upon Alaska's Economy
for the Year 1975.Anchorage,Alaska.
Corwin,R.et ale 1975.Environmental Impact Assessment.Freeman,Cooper and
Company,San Francisco,California.
Daniels,B.H.et ale 1979.The Consideration of Social and Economic Measures in
Project Evaluation -An Overview.Boston,Massachusetts.
Darbyshire and Associates.1980.Socioeconomic Community Profiles,A Background
for Planning:Delta Junction,Dot Lake,Northway,Tanacross,Tetlin,Tok.
!_Prepared for Northwest Alaskan Pipeline Company.
11-49
Dow-Shell Group.1981.Volume 7:Infrastructure and Socioeconomic Impacts.
Anchorage,Alaska.
Eakland,P.et al.1980.Western Gulf of Alaska Petroleum Development Scenarios
Transportation Systems Analysis.Technical Report No.37.Alaska OCS Socio-
economic Studies Program,Anchorage,Alaska.
Ender,R.L.
Issues.
1977.The Opinions of the Anchorage Citizen on Local Public Policy
Anchorage Urban Observatory Program,Anchorage,Alaska.
Ender,R.L.,J.Gerler,S.Gorski,and S.Harper.1978.Anchorage Socioeconomic
and Physical Baseline Executive Summary.Technical Report No.124.Alaska
OCS Socioeconomic Studies Program,Anchorage,Alaska.
Ender,R.L.,J.Gerler and S.Gorski.1980a.Gulf of Alaska and Lower Cook Inlet
Petroleum Development Scenarios,Anchorage Socioeconomic and Physical Baseline
Volume I.Alaska OCS Socioeconomic Studies Program,Anchorage,Alaska.
Ender,R.L.,J.Gerler and S.Gorski.1980b.Gulf of Alaska and Lower Cook Inlet
Petroleum Development Scenarios,Anchorage Impact Analysis,Volume II:
Technical Report No.48.Alaska OCS Socioeconomic Studies Program,Anchorage,
Alaska.
EPA.1979.Alaska Petrochemical Company,Refinery and Petrochemical Facility,
Appendix,Volume II:Environmental Impact Statement.United States
Environmental Protection Agency,Valdez,Alaska.
EPA.1980.Alaska Petrochemical Company,Refinery and Petrochemical Facility:
Final Environmental Impact Statement.United States Environmental Protection
Agency,Valdez,Alaska.
Fairbanks North Star Borough.1979.1979 Annual Report.Community Information
Center,Fairbanks,Alaska.
*Fairbanks North Star Borough.Various Issues.Community Information Quarterly.
Community Information Center,Fairbanks,Alaska.
Fairbanks North Star Borough.Various Issues.The Energy Report.Community
Information Center,Fairbanks,Alaska.
Fairbanks North Star Borouqh.Various Issues.Community Research Quarterly,A
Socioeconomic Review.-Community Research Center,Fairbanks,Alaska.
Fairbanks Town and Village Association for Development,Incorporated.1978.A
Report of the Upper Tanana Regional Forum on the Impact of Construction and
Operation of the Al-Can Gas Pipeline.Fairbanks,Alaska.
Fairbanks Town and Village Association for Development,Incorporated.1979.
Community Facilities Summaries.Fairbanks,Alaska.
Fairbanks Town and Village Association for Development,Incorporated,Interior
Development District Association.1980.The Overall Economic Development
Program for the Economic Development District of Interior Alaska.Fairbanks,
Alaska.
11-50
"""
-
-
r-
I
FERC.1978a.Solomon Gulch Project No.2742 -Alaska:Final Environmental Impact
Statement.United States Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,Washington,
D.C.
FERC.1978b.Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project,Kodiak Island,Alaska:
Application for License before Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for Kodiak
Electrical Association,Incorporated.United States Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission,Washington,D.C.
FERC.1979a.Green Lake Project No.2818 -Alaska:Final Environmental Impact
Statement.United States Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,Washington,
D.C.
FERC.1979b.North Fork Stanislaus River Project No.2049 -California:Draft
Environmental Impact Statement.United States Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission,Washington,D.C.
FERC.1980a.Sultan River Project No.2157 -Washington:Draft Environmental
Impact Statement.United States Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
Washington,D.C.
FERC.1980b.Swan Lake Project No.2911 -Alaska:Final Environmental Impact
Statement.United States Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,Washington,
D.C.
Field,R.,J.C.Barron and B.F.Long.1974.Water and Community Social and
Economic Perspectives.Ann Arbor Science Publishers,Incorporated,Ann
Arbor,Michigan.
Finsterbusch,K.and C.P.Wolf.1977.The Methodology of Social Impact
Assessment.Dowden,Hutchinson and Ross Publishing Company,Stroudsberg,
Pennsylvania.
Finsterbusch,K.1977.Methods of Evaluating Non-Market Impacts in Policy
Decisions with Special Reference to Water Resources Development Projects.
IWR Contract Report 77-78.United States Army Engineer Institute for Water
Resources,Fort Belvoir,Virginia.
Fison,S.,D.Moore and C.Quisenberry.1977.Energy Costs,Consumption and
Impacts in Fairbanks.Fairbanks North Star Borough,Fairbanks,Alaska.
Fison,S.and C.Quisenberry.1977.Impact Information Center Final Report.
Fairbanks North Star Borough,Fairbanks,Alaska.
Floyd,F.C.and C.F.Sirmans.1975.The Economic Impact of Recreational
Land-Use in an Island Environment:.A Case Study of Jekyll Island,Georgia.
Skidaway Island,Georgia.
Flynn,C.B.and J.A.Chalmers.1980.The Social and Economic Effects of the
Accident at Three Mile Island:Findings to Date.Mountain West Research,
Incorporated,Tempe,Arizona.
Foell,W.K.(ed.).1979.Management of Energy/Environmental Systems.John Wiley
&Sons,Chichester,United Kingdom.
11-51
Forrest,M.1979.Fairbanks Cost of Living Update.Fairbanks North Star Borough,
Community Information Center,Fairbanks,Alaska.
Glickman,N.J.1977.Impact Analysis with Regional Econometic Models (Draft).
University of Pennsylvania,Pennsylvania.
Goldsmith,O.S.1981a.Description of Sensitivity Analysis of MAP Model Compon-
ents for Railbelt Electrical Power Study,Draft Working Paper #2.Part 2:
The Household Formation Model.For Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories.
Institute of Social and Economic Research,Anchorage,Alaska.
Goldsmith,O.S.1981b.Description and Sensitivity Analysis of MAP Model
Components for Railbelt Electrical Power Study,Draft Working Paper #3.For
Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories,Institute of Social and Economic
Research,Anchorage,Alaska.
Goldsmith,S.and L.Huskey.1980.Electric Power Consumption for the Railbelt:
A Projection of Requirements,Technical Appendices.Institute of Social and
Economic Research for the State of Alaska House Power Alternatives Study
Committee and Alaska Power Authority,Anchorage,Alaska.
Guseman,P.K.and K.T.Dietrich.1978.Profile and Measurement of Social Well-
Being Indicators for Use in the Evaluation of Water and Related Land
Management Planning.Miscellaneous Paper Y-78-2.United States Army
Engineers Waterways Experiment Station,Vicksburg,Mississippi.
Hyman Resources Planning Institute.1974.Manpower and Employment Impact of the
Trans-Alaska Pipeline,Volume II,Technical Report.Prepared for United
States Department of Labor,Manpower Administration,Seattle,Washington.
Idaho Power Company.1980.
Hydroelectric Project.
Application for License,Project No.2848:
Idaho Power Company,Boise,Idaho.
Cascade
Information Resources Press.1977-1980.EIS-Digest of Environmental Impact
Statements,Volume 1-#1 -Volume 4-#3.Information Resources Press,
Arlington,Virginia.
International Engineering Company,Incorporated,Robert W.Retherford Associates
Division.1979.Tyee Lake Hydroelectric Project -Petersburg and Wrangell,
Alaska:Application for License Before the Federal Regulatory Commission for
the Alaska Power Authority (2 volumes).Anchorage,Alaska.
Isserman,A.1977.The Accuracy of Population Projections for Subcounty Areas.
Journal of the American Institute of Planners 43:247-257.
Jones &Jones.1975.An Inventory and Evaluation of the Environmental,Aesthetic
and Recreational Resources of the Upper Susitna River,Alaska.United States
Army Corps of Engineers,Seattle,Washington.
Jones,V.K.1978.Payments to the Public Sector for Construction of a Nuclear
Generating Station:A Case Study of Washington Public Power Supply Systems
Projects WNP-3 and WNP-5.Washington Public Power Supply System,Richland,
Washington.
11-52
Leistritz,F.L.,D.M.Senechal and L.Low.1980.Socioeconomic Effects of
Energy Development:The Role of Impact Models in Policy Making.Paper pre-
sented at National Energy Policy Conference,May 1,1980.University of West
Virginia,Morgantown,West Virginia.
Leistritz,F.L.and S.Murdock.1981.The Socioeconomic Impact of Resource
~Development:Methods for Assessment.Social Impact Assessment Series,No.
6.Westview Press,Boulder,Colorado.
Leistritz,F.L.,S.H.Murdock,N.E.Toman,and T.A.Hertsgaard.1979.A
Model for Projecting Localized Economic,Demographic,and Fiscal Impacts of
Large Scale Projects.Western Journal of Agricultural Economics Volume 4,
No.2.
11-53
-Lerner,S.C.1980.Energy Policy:A Potential Source of Positive Social
Impacts.Paper presented at National Energy Policy Conference,May 1,1980.
University of West Virginia,Morgantown,West Virginia.
Logsdon,C.,W.Thomas,J.Kruse,M.Thomas and S.Helcath.n.d.Copper
River-Wrangell Socioeconomic Overview.The Institute for Social and Economic
Research and University of Alaska,Agricultural Experiment Station,Fairbanks,
Alaska.
Logsdon,C.,K.L.Casavant and W.C.Thomas.1977.Input-Output Tables for
Alaska's Economy:A First Look.Bulletin 48.University of Alaska
Agricultural Experiment Station,Fairbanks,Alaska.
Louis Berger &Associates,Incorporated.1980.Best and Final Proposal for
Isolated Industrial Facilities Development for Alaska OCS Oil and Gas
Activities.Fairbanks,Alaska.
Louis Berger,Incorporated.1973.Methodological Improvements in Measuring Eco-
nomic Effects of Multi-Purpose Water Resource Projects.Office of Water
Resources Research,East Orange,New Jersey.
Love,C.and R.Stafford.1975.The Application of Modeling Methods to Socio-
economic Impact Analysis of Energy Development Projects.Scientific Paper
75-7C55-IPPAN-PI.Westinghouse Research Laboratories,Pittsburgh,Pennsyl-
vania.
Malone,D.W.1975.An Introduction to the Application of Interpretive
Structural Modeling in Baldwin,M.M.(ed.)Portraits of Complexity:Appli-
cations of Systems Methodologies to Societal Problems.Battelle Memorial
Institute,Columbus,Ohio.
Markusen,A.R.1978.Socioeconomic Impact Models for Boomtown Planning and
Policy Evaluation.Paper for Presentation at the Western Regional Science
Association Meeting,February 25,1978.
*Matanuska Electric Association,Incorporated.1980.Alaska 2 Matanuska Power Re-
quirements Study.Matanuska Electric Association,Incorporated,Palmer,
Alaska.
Matanuska-Susitna Borough Health Planning Council.1980.Proposed Matanuska-Sus-
itna Borough Health Systems Plan.Matanuska-Susitna Borough Health Planning
Council,Palmer,Alaska.
Matanuska-Susitna Borough Planning Department.1978a.Ten-Year Program for School
Sites.Matanuska-Susitna Borough Planning Department,Palmer,Alaska.
*Matanuska-Susitna Borough Planning Department.1978b.Phase I:Comprehensive De-
velopment Plan.Matanuska-Susitna Borough Planning Department,Palmer,
Alaska.
Matanuska-Susitna Borough Planning Department.1978c.Phase II:Comprehensive
Development Plan,Preliminary Draft.Matanuska-Susitna Borough Planning
Department,Palmer,Alaska.
Matanuska-Susitna Borough Planning Department.1979.Phase III:Comprehensive
Development Plan,Preliminary Draft.Matanuska-Susitna Borough Planning
Department,Palmer,Alaska.
Matanuska-Susitna Borough Planning Department.1981.Infrastructure Report:
Inventory Data.Prepared for the Dow-Shell Petrochemical Feasibility Study,
Palmer,A.laska.
Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District.1981.Prioritized Capital Project List.
Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District.Palmer,Alaska.
Matanuska Telephone Association,Incorporated.1980.Fill Report.Matanuska
Telephone Association,Incorporated.Palmer,Alaska.
Matanuska Telephone Association,Incorporated.n.d.Supplemental loan Proposal.
1978-1983.Matanuska Telephone Association,Incorporated.Palmer,Alaska.
Matchett,S.,M.Savela,and J.Wirth.1980.Copper Creek Project Draft
Environmental Impact Statement Support Document:Human Environment.
-
Matz,G.,B.Harding and R.Wertz.1979.1978 Fairbanks Energy Inventory.
Special Report No.4.Fairbanks North Star Borough,Community Information
Center,Fairbanks,Alaska.
Mat-Su Fire Chiefs Association.1981.
Matanuska-Susitna Borough,Alaska.
Borough,Palmer,Alaska.
A Revised Fire Protection Plan for the
Prepared for the Matanuska-Susitna
-
McEvoy,J.III and T.Dietz,(eds.).1977.Handbook for Envi ronmenta 1 Pl anni ng
and Social Consequences of Environmental Change.John Wiley &Sons,New York,
New York.
Michalson,E.et al.,(ed.)1974.Multiple Objective Planning for Water
Resources,Volume 1:Proceedings of the UCOWR Workshop on Multiple Objective
Planning and Decision-Making,Las Vegas,Nevada,July 16-18,1974.Idaho Re-
search Foundation,Incorporated,Moscow,Idaho.
Michalson,E.et al.(ed.)1975.Multiple Objective Planning for Water
Resources,Volume 2:Proceedings of the UCOWR Conference on Multiple
Objective Planning and Decision-Making,Boise,Idaho,January 14-16,1975.
Idaho Research Foundation,Incorporated,Moscow,Idaho.
Mills,M.J.1979.Annual Performance Report for Alaska Statewide Sport Fish
Harvest Studies,July 1,1978 -June 30,1979,Volume 20.Alaska Department
of Fish and Game,Sport Fish Division.Juneau,Alaska.
11-54 -
r-
I
Mills,M.J.1980.Annual Performance Report for Alaska Statewide Sport Fish
Harvest Studies,July 1,1979 -June 30,1980,Volume 21.Alaska Department
of Fish and Game,Sport Fish Division,Juneau,Alaska.
MIT.1976.Predicting the Local Impacts of Energy Development:A Critical Guide
to Forecasting Methods and Models (Draft).Massachusetts Institute of
Technology,Laboratory of Architecture and Planning,Cambridge,
Massachusetts.
Mitche 11,A.et a 1.1975.Handbook of Forecasting Techni ques.Contract Report
75-7.United States Army Engineer Institute for Water Resources,Fort
Belvoir,Virginia.
Mitchell,A.1977.Handbook of Forecasting Techniques,Part I,Supplement to IWR
Contract Report 75-7.Center for the Study of Social Policy under Contract
to United States Army Institute for Water Resources,Fort Belvoir Virginia.
Mountain West Research,Incorporated.1975.Demographic and Economic Projections
for Rosebud County,Montana.Mountain West Research,Incorporated,Tempe,
Arizona.
Mountain West Research,Incorporated.1976.Mid-Yellowstone Areawide Planning Or-
ganization:Economic Demographic Projection Model.Billings,Montana.
Mountain West Research,Incorporated.1977.Construction Worker Survey.Mountain
West Research,Incorporated.Tempe,Arizona.
Mountain West Research,Incorporated.1978.Bureau of Reclamation Economic
Assessment Model (BREAM)Technical Description.United States Department of
the Interior,Bureau of Reclamation,Tempe,Arizona.
Mountain West Research,Incorporated.1979a.~act Book for Western Coal/Energy
Development.Western Coal Planning Assistance Project,Missouri River Basin
Commission.Omaha,Nebraska.
Mountain West Research,Incorporated.1979b.A Guide to Methods for Impact
Assessment of Western Coal/Energy Development.Billings,Montana.
Mountain West Research,Incorporated.1980.Bureau of Reclamation Economic
Assessment Model (BREAM),Technical Description and User1s Guide.Water and
Power Resources Service,United States Department of the Interior,Tempe,
Ari zona.
lliluller,T.1975.Fiscal Impacts on Land Development.URI 98000.The Urban In-
stitute,Washington,D.C.
~Muller,T.1976.Economic Impacts of Land Development:Employment,Housing and
Property Values.URI 15800.The Urban Institute,Washington D.C.
Municipality of Anchorage.1978.Population Profile.Planning Department,
Anchorage,Alaska.
Municipalityof Anchorage.1979.Anchorage Recreation Facilities Committee
Reports.Municipality of Anchorage,Anchorage,Alaska.
11-55
Municipality of Anchorage.1980.Anchorage Economic Development Report.
Anchorage,Alaska.
Municipality of Anchorage.Various Undated Issues.Quarterly Economic
Indicators,1:11.Planning Department,Anchorage,Alaska.-
Murdock,S.H.and F.L.Leistritz.
Large-Scale Energy Development
metropolitan Industrial Growth
Massachusetts.
1979a.Demographic and Economic Effects of
in Rural Areas:An Assessment Model In Non-
and Community Change.Lexington,
11-56
Murdock,S.H.and F.L.Leistritz.1979b.Energy Development in the Western
United States.Praeger Publishers,New York,New York.
Nachmias,D.1979.Public Policy Evaluation.St.Martinis Press,Incorporated,
New York,New York.
National Research Council.1979.Sociopolitical Effects and Energy Use and
Policy,Supporting Paper 5:Study of Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems.
National Academy of Sciences,Washington,D.C.
North Slope Borough.n.d.Challenge to the Police Role in Rural Alaska:The
North Slope Borough Experience.Department of Public Safety,Alaska.
Northwest Alaskan P-ipeline Company,Manpower and Impact Planning Department.1981.
Gasline Planning Update.Fairbanks,Alaska.
Overall Economic Development Program,Incorporated.1980a.Annual Overall
Development Program Reports.July 1,1979 -June 30,1980.Prepared for
Farmers Home Administration and Matanuska-Susitna Borough,Wasilla,Alaska.
Overall Economic Development Program,Incorporated.1980b.Volume I:Annual
Overall Economic Development Program Report,July 1,1979 -June 30,1980.
Prepared for Farmers Home Administration and Matanuska-Susitna Borough,
Wasilla,Alaska.
*Overall Economic Development Program,Incorporated.1980c.Volume II:Economic
Conditions,Development Options and Projections.Prepared for Farmers Home
Administration and Matanuska-Susitna Borough,Wasilla,Alaska.
Overall Economic Development Program,Incorporated.1980d.Volume III:
Appendices.Prepared for Farmers Home Administration and Matanuska-Susitna
Borough,Wasilla,Alaska.
Pacific Northest Laboratory and Battelle Human Affairs Research Centers.1979.
Beluga Coal Field Development:Social Effects and Management Alternatives.
Prepared for United States Department of Energy,Washington,D.C.
*Policy Analysts,Limited and Dr.R.L.Ender.1980.IVlat-Su Housing and Economic
Development Study:Survey Findings.Anchorage,Alaska.
*Polk,R.L.1981.Survey conducted by the Municipality of Anchorage Planning
Department,Anchorage,Alaska.
Porter,E.D.1980.Alaska OCS Socioeconomic Studies Program.Bering-Norton
Petroleum Development Scenarios Economic and Demographic Analysis,Technical
Report No.50.University of Alaska,Institute of Social and Economic
Research,Anchorage,Alaska.-
Porter,E.1981.Description and Sensitivity Analysis of MAP Model Components for
Railbelt Electric Power Study,Draft Working Paper #2 for Battelle Pacific
Northwest Laboratories,Part 1:Regionalization Model.University of Alaska,
Institute of Social and Economic Research,Anchorage,Alaska.
PRC Harris Incorporated and Alaska Consultants Incorporated.1980.Summary:
Southcentral Region of Alaska Deep-Draft Navigation Study.Anchorage,
Alaska.
Reaume,D.M.
Models.
Alaska.
1980.Migration and the Dynamic Stability of Regional Econometric
Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development,Juneau,
Rivkin Associates,Incorporated.1978.
and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough:
City for Alaska.Prepared for the
Washington,D.C.
Socioeconomic Impact Analysis for Juneau
Potential Consequences of a New Capital
Capital Site Planning Commission.
-.
Rogers,G.W.and J.Kreinheder.1980.Socioeconomic Analysis for Fishery Areas
and Census Division.Limited Entry Study Committee.Prepared for Alaska
Legislative Affairs Agency.
Rosen,S.J.1976.Manual for Environmental Impact Evaluation.Prentice-Hall,
Incorporated,Englewood Cliffs,New Jersey.
Scott,M.J.1979.Southcentral Alaskals Economy and Population,1965-2025:A
Base Study and Projections.University of Alaska,Institute for Social and
Economic Research,Anchorage,Fairbanks,Juneau,Alaska.
Seattle City Light.1980.South Fork Tolt River Hydroelectric Project:Draft
SEPA Environmental Impact Statement.FERC Project 1959.Washington,D.C.
Seattle City Light.1981.Copper Creek Project:Draft and Final Environmental
Impact Statement.Seattle,Washington.
Shields,M.A.1974.Social Impact Assessment:An Analytic Bibliography.IWR
Paper 74-P6.United States Army Institute for Water Resources,Fort Belvoir,
Virginia.
Singh,R.N.and K.P.Wilkinson.1974.On the ~leasurement of Environmental
Impacts of Public Projects from a Sociological Perspective.American Water
Resources Association,Water Resources Bulletin,Volume 10,No.3.
Skagit Alaska,Incorporated.1981a.The Frontiersman (untitled).Wasilla,
Alaska.
-Skagit Alaska,Incorporated.1981b.The Frontiersman:"Palmer Proves Best
Hospital Site.II Wasilla,Alaska.
Smith,C.R.1970.Anticipation of Change:A Socioeconomic Description of a
Kentucky County Before Reservoir Construction.Kentucky Water Resources
Institute,Lexington,Kentucky.-!
11-57
Smith,C.R.et al.1973.Social and Cultural Impact of a Proposed Reservoir on a
Rural Kentucky School District.Kentucky Water Resources Institute,
Lexington,Kentucky.
Sonnen,M.B.and L.C.Davis.1979.Wild Rivers -Methods for Evaluation.
American Water Resources Association,Water Resources Bulletin 15:404-419.
South Central Health Planning and Development.1979.Health Systems Plan.
Anchorage,Alaska.
Stenehjem.E.J.and J.E.Metzger.1980.A Framework for Projecting Employment
and Population Changes Accompanying Energy Development.Argonne National
Laboratory.Argonne,Illinois.
Stinson,D.S.and M.O'Hare.1977.Predicting the Local Impacts of Energy
Development:A Critical Guide to Forecasting Methods and Models.Laboratory
of Architecture and Planning,Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge,Massachusetts.
Suchman.E.A.1967.Evaluation Research.Russell Sage Foundation,New York,
New York.
TRA/FARR.1980a.Wasilla Comprehensive Planning Study.Matanuska-Susitna Borough
Newsletter I,(April 28,1980).Seattle,Washington.
TRA/FARR.1980b.Wasilla Comprehensive Planning Study.Matanuska-Susitna Borough
Newsletter II.(August 25,1980).Seattle,Washington.
-
-
-
Tryck,Nyman &Hayes.1975.Community Development Plan,Volumes
Report for City of Delta Junction,Alaska.
and 11.
Tuck,B.H.1980.Economic Development Planning for Anchorage:A Theoretical and
Empirical Analysis.Prepared for the Municipality of Anchorage Planning De-
partment by the University of Alaska,Anchorage,Alaska.
United States Bureau of Power,Federal Power Commission.1977.Bad Creek Project
No.2740 -South Carolina:Final Environmental Impact Statement.United
States Bureau of Power,Washington,D.C.
*United States Census Bureau.1981.Census and Current Population Reports for
1970,1980 and 1981.United States Census Bureau,Washington,D.C.
United States Department of Commerce,Bureau of Economic Analysis.1975.
Evaluation of Economic and Demographic Data Useful in Water Resources
Planning.IWR Pamphlet N.3.United States Army Engineer Institute for Water
Resources,Fort Belvoir,Virginia.
United States Department of Energy,Alaska Power Administration.1979.Power
Market Analysis:Draft.United States Department of Energy,Juneau,Alaska.
United States Department of Energy,Bonneville Power Administration.1980.
Boardman Coal Plant and Associated Transmission,Adopted Rural
Electrification Administration:Final EIS (USDA-REA-EIS-77-4F).United
States Department of Energy,Washington,D.C.
11-58
-
-
-i
r-
i
\
United States Department of Transportation,Federal Highway Administration and
Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities.1980.Richardson
Highway Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
United States Department of Labor.1980.News,April 22,1980.Bureau of Labor
Statistics,San Francisco,California.
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.1980.Final Supplement No.1 to the
Final Environmental Statement for Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant,Units 1 and 2,
Proposed by Portland General Electric Company.Washington,D.C.
*United States Postal Service.n.d.United States Post Office Vacancy Rate
Surveys,1975-1981.U.S.Postal Service,Washington,D.C.
University of Alaska.1973.The Ahtna Region,Background for Regional and
Community Planning.Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center,
Anchorage,Alaska.
University of Alaska.1977.Copper River Region Community Folios,A Background
for Planning:Cantwell,Chistochina,Chitina,Copper Center,Gakona,
Gulkana,Mentasta Lake,Tazlina.Arctic Environmental Information and Data
Center,Anchorage,Alaska.
University of Alaska.1977b.Alaska Interregional Cost Differentials.Institute
of Social and Economic Research,Fairbanks,Alaska.
University of Alaska.1978. Yukon-Porcupine Regional Planning Study.School of
Agriculture and Land Resources Management and the Institute of Social and
Economic Research,Fairbanks,Alaska.
University of Alaska.1980a.Alaska Review of.Social and Economic Conditions:
Alaska's Unique Transportation System.Institute of Social and Economic
Research,Anchorage,Alaska.
University of Alaska.1980b.Current Research Profile for Alaska,1979.Arctic
Environmental Information and Data Center,Anchorage,Alaska.
*University of Alaska.1981.Man-in-the-Arctic .Model Outputs.Institute of
Social and Economic Research,Fairbanks,Alaska.
University of Alberta.1980.Computer Models for Forecasting Socioeconomic
Impacts of Growth and Development.Proceedings of Conference,April 20-23,
1980.Edmonton,Alberta.
USACOE.1975a.Handbook of Forecasting Techniques.Contract DACW 31-75-C-0027.
United States Army Corps of Engineers,Institute for Water Resources,Center
for the Study of Social Policy,Fort Belvoir,Virginia.
USACOE.1975.A Manual for Social Impact Assessment.United States Army Corps of
Engineers,Seattle,Washington.
USACOE.1977a.Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes:Environmental Impact Statement.
United States Army Corps of Engineers,Waltham,Massachusetts.
USACOE.1977b.Hydroelectric Power Development,Upper Susitna River Basin,
Southcentral Railbelt Area,Alaska:Final Environmental Impact Statement.
United States Army Corps of Engineers,Office of the Chief of Engineers,
Washington,D.C.11-59
USACOE.1977c.Marysville Lake Project,Yuba River,California:Draft
Environmental Impact Statement.United States Army Corps of Engineers,
Sacramento,California.
USACOE.1978.Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes Project at Dickey,Maine:Draft
Environmental Impact Satement.United States Army Corps of Engineers,
Waltham,Massachusetts.
USACOE.1980a.Community Impact Reports:Chief Joseph Dam.United States Army
Corps of Engineers,Seattle,Washington.
USACOE.1980b.Environmental Impact Statement,Dickey-Lincoln Schoo1s,Appendix
C:Social and Economic Assessment.United States Army Corps of Engineers,
Waltham,Massachusetts.
USACOE.1980c.Environmental Impact Statement,Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes,
Appendix C,Supplement 2:Social and Economic Assessment.United States Army
Corps of Engineers,Waltham,Massachusetts.
USACOE.1981.Report of Survey of Corps of Engineers Construction Workforce.
United States Army Corps of Engineers,Engineer Institute for Water Resources,
Fort Belvoir,Virginia.
USDA (SCS).1980.Susitna River Basin Study,Willow Subbasin.Draft Report.
United States Department of Agriculture,Soil Conservation Service,Anchorage,
Alaska.
USDI (BLM).1980a.Alaska OCS Socioeconomic Studies Program:Lower Cook Inlet
Petroleum Development Scenarios,Local Socioeconomic Systems Analysis.
Technical Report Number 46,Volume 2.United States Department of the
Interior,Bureau of Land Management,Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Office,
Anchorage,Alaska.
USDI (BLM).1980b.Proposed Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Lease Sale,Lower
Cook Inlet -Shelikof Strait:Draft Environmental Impact Statement.United
States Department of the Interior,Bureau of Land Management,Anchorage,
Alaska.
USDI (BLM).1980c.Draft Environmental Impact Statement,Lower Cook Inlet -
Shelikof Strait,Oil and Gas Lease Sale #60,Index.United States Department
of the Interior,Bureau of Land Management,Anchorage,Alaska.
Wakeland,W.
casting.
1976.QSIM2:A Low-Budget Heuristic Approach to Modeling and Fore-
Technological Forecasting and Social Change 9:213-229.
Warden,R.E.and W.Dagodag.1976.A Guide to the Preparation and Review of
Environmental Impact Reports.Security World Publishing Company,
Incorporated,Los Angeles,California.
Washington Public Power Supply System.1980a.Satsop Construction Report
Quarterly Socioeconomic Report of WNP-3/5 Volume 3,Report No.4 (October 1,
1979 -December 31,1979).Seattle,Washington.
11-60
-
-
Washington Public Power Supply System.1980b.Satsop Construction Project
Quarterly Socioeconomic Report of WNP-3/5 Vol.4,Report No.1 (January 1,
1980 -March 31,1980).Richland,Washington.
Washington State Department of Revenue.1975.Employment Needs in the
Construction Industry 1975-1985.Olympia,Washington.
Westinghouse Electric Corporation.1974.Socioeconomic Effects of Construction
and Operations of WNP-3 and WNP-5 and Alternatives to Alleviate Adverse
Effects.Environmental Systems Department,Pittsburgh,Pennsylvania.
White,W.T.,B.Malamund and J.Nixon.1976.A Model for the Socioeconomic
Analysis of Water Projects.
/
11-61
11-62
-I
-
11.6 -Geology and Soils
Csejtey,B.Jr.,H.L.Foster,and W.J.Nokleberg,1980,"Cretaceous
Accretion of the Talkeetna Superterrane and Subsequent Development
of the Denali Fault in Southcentral and Eastern Alaska,"Geologi-
cal Society of America,Abstract with Programs,page 409.
Csejtey,S.,Jr.,W.H.Nelson,D.L.Jones,N.J.Silberling,R.M.Dean,
M.S.Morri s,M.A.lamphere,J.G.Smith,and M.L.Si lberman,1980,
"Reconnaissance Geologic Map and Geochronology,Talkeetna Mountain
Qu adrangl e,Northern Part of Anchorage Qu adrangl e,and Southwest
Corner of Healy Quadrangle,Alaska";U.S.Geological Survey,Open
File Report 78-588A,page 60.
Smith,T.E.,1974,Regional Geology of The Susitna-MacLaren River Area,
Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Survey.Annual Re-
port,page 356.
Turnger,D.L.,and T.E.Smith,1974,"Geochronology and Generalized
Geology of the Central Alaska Range,Clearwater Mountains,and
Geophysical Survey,Open File Report 72,page 11.
11-63
11-64
-
,
-
I""'"
\
r
11.7 -Recreational Resources
Acres American,Incorporated.1980.Susitna Hydroelectric Project Plan of Study.
Alaska Power Authority,Anchorage,Alaska.
*ADNR.1981.Estimated Facility Costs.Alaska Department of Natural Resources,
Division of Parks,Anchorage,Alaska.
Anonymous.1980.The Milepost.Alaska Northwest Publishing Company,Anchorage,
Alaska.
APA.1980.Susitna Hydroelectric Project Environmental Studies Procedures Manual
Subtask 7.08:Analysis of Recreational Development.Submitted by Terrestrial
Environmental Specialists,Incorporated and the University of Alaska to Acres
American,Incorporated for the Alaska Power Authority,Anchorage,Alaska.
Clark,R.and G.H.Stankey.1979.The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum:A
Framework for Planning,Management and Research.General Technical Report
PNW-98.United States Department of Agriculture,Forest Service,Washington,
D.C.
Johnson,L.1976.Off-Road Vehicle Use and Its Impact on Soils and Vegetation on
Bureau of Land Management Lands Along the Denali Highway,Alaska:A Report on
the 1975 Outdoor Recreation Survey.Agricultural Experiment Station,
University of Alaska,Fairbanks,Alaska.
Jones &Jones.1975.An Inventory and Evaluation of the Environmental,Aesthetic
and Recreational Resources of the Upper Susitna River,Alaska.United States
Army Corps of Engineers,Anchorage,Alaska.
Jubenville,A.1981.Role Segregation:A Conceptual Framework for Recreation
l"1anagement Research.Recreation Research Review,Volume 9.No.1.
*USDA (FS).1980.RIM Cost Figures for Selected Facilities.United States
Department of Agriculture,Forest Service,Washington,D.C.
*USDA (FS).1981.Chugach Cost Data Guide for Engineering and Road Construction.
United States Department of Agriculture,Forest Service,Chugach National
Forest,Anchorage,Alaska.
USDI (BLM).1980.BLM Land Use Plan for Southcentral Alaska:A Summary.United
States Department of the Interior,Bureau of Land Management,Anchorage,
Alaska.
11-65
11-66
-
-
..-
11.8 -Aesthetic Resources
Acres American,Incorporated.1981.Susitna Hydroelectric Project Closeout Report
Subtask 8.01:Transmission Line Corridor Screening,Final Draft.Submitted
by Acres American,Incorporated and Terrestrial Environmental Specialists,
Incorporated to the Alaska Power Authority,Anchorage,Alaska.
ADF&G.1978.Preliminary Environmental Assessment of Hydroelectric Development on
the Susitna River.Alaska Department of Fish and Game,Anchorage,Alaska.
ADF&G.1981.Susitna Hydroelectric Project Environmental Studies Annual Report
Subtask 7.11:Wildlife Ecology Studies -Big Game.Submitted by the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game to the Alaska Power Authority,Anchorage,Alaska.
ADNR.1981.Scenic Resources along the Parks Highway,Inventory and Management
Recommendations,Susitna Basin Background Report.Alaska Department of
Natural Resources,Division of Research and Development,Anchorage,Alaska.
Alaska Rural Development Council.1977.A Revegetative Guide for Alaska.
Cooperative Extension Service,University of Alaska and the United States
Department of Agriculture,Fairbanks,Alaska.
APA.1981a.Susitna Hydroelectric Project Environmental Studies Annual Report
Subtask 7.07:Land Use Analysis.Submitted by Terrestrial Environmental
Specialists,Incorporated and the University of Alaska to Acres American,
Incorporated for the Alaska Power Authority,Anchorage,Alaska .
APA.1981b.Susitna Hydroelectric Project Environmental Studies Annual Report
Subtask 7.12:Plant Ecology Studies.Submitted by Terrestrial Environmental
Specialists,Incorporated and the University of Alaska to Acres American,
Incorporated for the Alaska Power Authority,Anchorage,Alaska.
APA.1981c.Susitna Hydroelectric Project Environmental Studies Report Subtask
7.14:Access Road Environmental Analysis -Environmental,Socioeconomic and
Land Use Analysis of Alternative Access Plans.Submitted by Terrestrial
Environmental Specialists,Incorporated,Frank Orth and Associates and the
University of Alaska to Acres American,Incorporated,for the Alaska Power
Authority,Anchorage,Alaska.
APA.1982.Susitna Hydroelectric Project Environmental Studies Report Subtask
7.09:Transmission Corridor Assessment -Environmental Assessment of
Proposed Transmission Facilities East of Knik Arm.Submitted by Terrestrial
Environmental Specialists,Incorporated to Acres American,Incorporated for
the Alaska Power Authority,Anchorage,Alaska.
Bacon,W.R.and A.D.Twombly.1980.National Forest Landscape Management,
Volume 2:Timber.Agricultural Handbook 559.United States Department of
Agriculture,Forest Service,Washington,D.C.
Binger,W.V.et al.1978.Papers presented In Environmental Effects of Large
Dams.American Society of Civil Engineer~New York,New York.
11-67
Bradshaw,A.D.and M.J.Chadwick.1980.The Restoration of Land,the Ecology
and Restoration of Derelict and Degraded Land.University of California
Press,Berkeley,California.
Cook,S.1981.An Investigation of
Gravel Pits in Interior Alaska:
University of Alaska,School of
Alaska.
the Recreational Potential of Water-filled
Preliminary Findings (unpublished).
Agriculture and Land Resources,Fairbanks,
-I
I
-1
j
Cole,T.1979.The History and Use of the Upper Susitna River,Indian River to
the Headwaters.Alaska Department of Natural Resources,Division of Research
and Development,Anchorage,Alaska.
Daniel,T.C.and R.S.Boster.1976.Measuring Landscape Esthetics:The Scenic
Beauty Estimation Method.USDA Forest Service Research Paper RM-167.United
States Department of Agriculture,Forest Service,Rocky rl10untain Forest and
Range Experiment Station,Fort Collins,Colorado.
Dean,K.G.1980.Surficial Geology of the Susitna-Chilitna River Area,Alaska,
Part 1:Susitna Basin Planning Background Report.Alaska Department of
Natural Resources,Land and Resource Planning Section,Anchorage,Alaska.
Elmiger,F.J.and B.Howlett.1969.Power Lines and Scenic Values in the Hudson
River Valley.Hudson River Valley Commission,Tarrytown,New York.
Evans,M.N.(ed).1976.Proceedings of the Surface Protection Seminar,Theme:
Travel and Transportation Practices to Prevent Surface Destruction in the
Northern Environment.United States Department of the Interior,Bureau of
Land Management,Anchorage,Alaska.
Goldman,C.R.,J.McEvoy III and P.J.Richerson.1973.Environmental Quality
and Water Development.W.H.Freeman &Company,San Francisco,California.
Gordon,R.J.1978.Alaska National Landscapes,Commission Study 33.Federal-
State Land Use Planning Commission .for Alaska,Anchorage,Alaska.
Heinzenknecht,G.B.and J.R.Paterson.1978.Effects of Large Dams and
Reservoirs on Wildlife Habitat In Environmental Effects of Large Dams.
American Society of Civil Engineers,New York,New York.
IUCN.1971.Landscape Planning Papers presented at the International Symposium on
the Relationship Between Engineering and Biology.IUCN Publication Paper No.
30.
Jones and Jones.1975.An Inventory and Evaluation of the Environmental,
Aesthetic and Recreational Resources of the Upper Susitna River,Alaska.
United States Army Corps of Engineers,Anchorage,Alaska.
Litton,R.B.,Jr.1973.Landscape Control Points:A Procedure for Predicting
and Monitoring Visual Impacts.United States Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service,Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station,
Berkeley,California.
11-68
-,j,
,~
Litton,R.B.and R.J.Tetlow.1974.Water and Landscape:An Aesthetic Overview
of the Role of Water in the Landscape.Water Information Center,
Incorporated,Port Washington,New York.
Lotspeich,F.B.1971.Environmental Guidelines for Road Construction in Alaska.
EPA Report No.1610.United States Environmental Protection Agency and the
Alaska Water Laboratory,College,Alaska.
Lotspeich,F.B.and A.E.Helmers.1974.Environmental Guidelines for
Development of Roads in the Sub-Arctic.United States Department of
Agriculture,Forest Service,Institute of Northern Forestry,Fairbanks,
Alaska.
-Matanuska-Susitna Borough.1978.Phase II Comprehensive Development Plan:Goals,
Statements.Mat-Su Borough Planning Department,Palmer,Alaska.
Orth,D.J.1967.Dictionary of Alaska Places and Names.Professional Paper
567.United States Department of the Interior,Geological Survey,Washington,
D.C.
,-.Pragnell,R.C.1969.Scenic Road:A Basis for its Planning,Design and
Management Manual.Cooperative Research Agreement PSW-62 with USDI (BLM)and
USDA (FS).United States Department of Agriculture,Forest Service,Pacific
Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station,Berkeley,California.
la Societe de developpement de la Baie James and la Societe d1energie de Baie
James.1975.James Bay Hydro-electric Project:A Statement of Environmental
Concerns and Recommendations for Protection and Enhancement Measures.
Environment Canada,Montreal,Quebec.
*Sparrow,S.D.,F.J.Wooding and E.H.Whiting.1978.Effects of Off-Road
Vehicle Traffic on Soils and Vegetation in the Denali Highway Region of
Alaska In Journal of Soil and Water Conservation,Volume 33,No.1.
Taylor,K.V.1978.Erosion Downstream of Dams In Environmental Effects of Large
Dams.American Society of Civil Engineers,New York,New York.
USACOE.1975.South Central Railbelt Area,Alaska,Upper Susitna River Basin
Interim Feasibility Report Appendix 1,Parts 1 and 2.United States Army
Corps of Engineers,Anchorage,Alaska.
USACOE.1977.Upper Susitna River Basin,South Central Railbelt Area,Alaska -
Final Environmental Impact Statement,Hydroelectric Power Development.United
States Army Corps of Engineers,Anchorage,Alaska.
USDA (FS).1973.National Forest Landscape Management,Volume 1.Agricultural
Handbook 434.United States Department of Agriculture,Forest Service,
Washington,D.C.
USDA (FS).1974a.National Forest Landscape Management Volume 2,Chapter 1 -The
Visual Management System.Agriculture Handbook 462.United States Department
of Agriculture,Forest Service,Washington,D.C.
11-69
USDA (FS).1974b.Outdoor Recreation Research:Applying the Results.Papers
presented at a workshop at Marquette.Michigan June 19-21,1973.United
States Department of Agriculture.Forest Service.North Central Forest
Experiment Station,St.Paul,Minnesota.
USDA (FS).1975.National Forest Landscape Management.Volume 2,Chapter 2 -
Utilities.Agriculture Handbook 478.United States Department of Agricul-
ture,Forest Service.Washington,D.C.
USDA (FS).1977.National Forest Landscape Management.Volume 2,Chapter 4 -
Roads,Agricultural Handbook 483.United States Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service,Washington.D.C.
USDA (FS).1979a.Our National Landscape:A Conference on Applied Techniques for
Analysis and Management of the Visual Resource.General Technical Report
PSW-35.United States Department of Agriculture,Forest Service,Pacific
Southwest Forest Experiment Station.Berkeley,California..,
USDA (FS).1979b.Visual Character Types.Series No.RI0-63.United States
Department of Agriculture,Forest Service,Division of Recreation,Soils and
Watersheds,Juneau,Alaska.
USDA (FS).1980.National Forest Landscape Management,Volume 2,Chapter 5 -
Timber.Agricultural Handbook 559.United States Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service,Washington,D.C.
USDI (BLM).1973.Influence of Man-Caused Surface Disturbance in Permafrost Areas
of Alaska.United States Department of the Interior,Bureau of Land
Management,Anchorage,Alaska.
USDI (BLM).n.d.Visual Resource Management Program.United States Department of
the Interior,Bureau of Land Management,Division of Recreation and Cultural
Resources,Washington,D.C.
USDI (NPS).1976.Final EIS:Proposed Electric Distribution Line Extension to
McKinley Park.United States Department of the Interior,National Park
Service,Pacific Northwest Region,Portland,Oregon.
Viereck,L.A.and C.T.Dyrness.1980.A Preliminary Classification System for
Vegetation of Alaska.General Technical Report PNW-I06.United States
Department of Agri culture,Forest Service,Pacifi c Northwest Forest and Range
Experiment Station,Portland,Oregon.
Wahrhaftig,C.1965.Physiographic Divisions of Alaska.Professional Paper 482.
United States Geological Survey,Washington,D.C.
Williamson,D.N.and S.W.Calder.1979.Visual Resource Management of
Victoria's Forests:A New Concept for Australia.Landscape Planning 6:
313-341.
11-70
r
...-
I
r
r
-.
I"'""
,
Woodward-Clyde Consultants.1980.Gravel Removal Studies in Arctic and Sub-Arctic
Floodplains in Alaska.United States Department of the Interior,Fish and
Wildlife Service and the United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Anchorage.Alaska.
Zube,E.H.1979.Assess i ng Amenity Resource Values.General Techni ca 1 Report
RM-68.United States Department of Agriculture,Forest Service,Rocky
Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station,Fort Collins,Colorado.
11-71
11-72
11.9 -Land Use
Acres American,Incorporated.1981a.Susitna Hydroelectric Project Final Draft
Closeout Report Task 8:Transmission -Transmission Line Corridor Screening.
Prepared by Acres American,Incorporated and Terrestrial Environmental
Specialists,Inc.for the Alaska Power Authority,Anchorage,Alaska.
Acres American,Incorporated.1981b.Susitna Hydroelectric Project Preliminary
Report Subtask 6.20:Access and Camp Facilities -Watana Construction Camp.
Alaska Power Authority,Anchorage,Alaska.
Acres American,Incorporated.1981c.Susitna Hydroelectric Project Report Subtask
~2.10:Access Roads -Access Route Selection Report.Prepared by Acres
American,Inc.for the Alaska Power Authority,Anchorage,Alaska.
ADF&G.1976-1979.Harvest Tickets.Alaska Department of Fish and Game,
Anchorage,Alaska.
ADF&G.1978-1979.Sealing Records.Alaska Department of Fish and Game,
Anchorage,Alaska.
Anchorage Daily News.1981.Uncle Sam Fulfills River Ratls Fantasy (June 1,
1981).Anchorage,Alaska.
Anchorage Daily Times.1973.Blackadar Beats Devil IS Canyon Rapids (March 29,
1973).Anchorage,Alaska.
*APA.1981.Susitna Hydroelectric Project Environmental Studies 1980 Annual Report
Subtask 7.12:Plant Ecology Studies.Submitted by Terrestrial Environmental
Specialists,Inc.and the University of Alaska to Acres American,Inc.for the
Alaska Power Authority,Anchorage,Alaska.
..-
,.,...,
I
-
APA.1982.Susitna Hydroelectric Project Environmental Studies Report Subtask
7.09:Transmission Corridor Assessment -Environmental Assessment of Proposed
Transmission Facilities East of Knik Arm.Submitted by Terrestrial
Environmental Specialists,Incorporated to Acres American,Incorporated for
the Alaska Power Authority,Anchorage,Alaska.
Bacon,G.1975.Heritage Resource Along the Upper Susitna River.United States
Army Corps of Engineers,Anchorage,Alaska.
Baum,W.K.1967.Oral History for the Local Historical Society.Conference of
California Historical Societies,Stockton,California.
Clawson,M.and C.Stewart.1965.Land Use Information:A Critical Survey of
U.S.Statistics Including Possibilities for Greater Uniformity.Resources
for the Future,Incorporated,Johns Hopkins Press,Baltimore,Maryland.
Cole,T.1979.The History of the Use of the Upper Susitna River,Indian River to
the Headwaters.Alaska Department of Natural Resources,Anchorage,Alaska.
Davis,C.1974.From Tape to Tape:An Oral History Manual and Workbook.Prager
Publishers,New York,New York.
11-73
Dietz,E.E.1950.Speedletter by Dietz concerning the Susitna Float Trip,
November 20,1950.Records of the United States Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Reclamation,Seattle,Washington.
Dohrenwend,B.S.,D.Klein and S.A.Richardson.1965.Interviewing -Its Forms
and Functions.Basic Books,Incorporated,New York,New York.
Dwight,L.and E.W.Trihey.1981.A Survey of Questions and Concerns Pertaining
to Instream Flow Aspects of the Proposed Susitna Hydroelectric Project.
Prepared for Acres American,Incorporated,Buffalo,New York.
Emleton,C.(ed).1968.Land Use and Resources:Studies in Applied Geography.
Institute of British Geographers,London,England.
Fortier,E.(ed).1960.Alaska Hunting and Fishing Guide.Rhodes and Fortier
Publishers,Anchorage,Alaska.
Greiner,J.1974.Wager with the Wind:The Don Sheldon Story.Rand McNally and
Company,Chicago,Illinois.
Henning,R.A.1976.Selected Alaska Hunting and Fishing Tales,Volume 4.Alaska
Northwest Publishing Company,Anchorage,Alaska.
Irving,W.N.1957.An Archaeological Survey of the Susitna Valley.University
of Alaska,College,Alaska.
Jones,G.R.1975.Upper Susitna River,Alaska.United States Army Corps of
Engineers,Anchorage,Alaska.
Kari,J.M.1975.Linguistic Diffusion Between Tanaina and Ahtna.International
Journal of American Linguists,New York,New York.
McHarg,1.L.1971.Design with Nature.Doubleday/Natural History Press,Garden
City,New York.
R&M Consultants,Incorporated.1981.Susitna Hydroelectric Project Preliminary
Report Subtask 2.10:Access Roads -Access Plan.Submitted to Acres
American,Incorporated for the Alaska Power Authority,Anchorage,Alaska.
Spadley,J.P.The Ethnographic Interview.Holt Rinehart and Winston,New York,
New York.
Trihey,E.W.1981.Instream Flow Study Plan for the Proposed Susitna
Hydroelectric Project.Prepared for Acres American,Incorporated,Buffalo,
New York.
USACOE.1976.Draft Susitna Hydropower Feasibility Analysis Environmental
Assessment.United States Army Corps of Engineers,Anchorage,Alaska.
USDA (FS).1960.Fishery Resource Study,Agency Report.United States Department
of Agriculture,Forest Service,Anchorage,Alaska.
USDA (FS).1975.National Forest Landscape Management,Volume 2.United States
Department of Agriculture,Forest Service,Washington,D.C.
11-74
-
-
USDI (BLM).1940-1979.Case Card File.United States Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Land Management,Anchorage,Alaska.
USDI (BLM).1952.Susitna River Basin:A Report on Potential Development of
Water Resources in the Susitna River Basin of Alaska.United States
Department of the Interior,Bureau of Land Management,Anchorage,Alaska.
USDI (BLM).1980 Navigability Reviews -State Selections for the Anchorage,
Tyonek,Talkeetna,and Talkeetna Mountains Quadrangles.United States
Department of the Interior,Bureau of Land Management,Anchorage,Alaska.
USDI (BLM).1981.Report of Historical Data in the Susitna Region.United States
Department of the Interior,Bureau of Land Management,Anchorage,Alaska.
USGS.1900-1979.
Quadrangl e.
Mining Claim Card File,Active and Inactive Claims,Talkeetna
United States Geological Survey,Fairbanks,Alaska.
r
I.
r
-
USGS.1930.Mineral Industry of Alaska in 1929.Bulletin No.824-A.United
States Geological Survey,Washington,D.C.
11-75
11-76
.,
I
1
r
,....
)
i
-
-
11.10 -Alternatives
Acres American Incorporated,1981a,Preliminary Assessment of Cook
Inlet Tidal Power,Phase 1 Report,State of Alaska,Office of the
Governor.
Acres Amer i can Incorporated,1981b,Pre 1imi nar y Assessment of Cook
Inlet Tidal Power,Task 1 Report,State of Alaska,Office of the
Governor.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game,Alaska's Fisheries Atlas,Volume
1.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game,Alaska's Wildlife Atlas,Volume I,
II.
Alaska Power Admininistration,1980,Hydroelectric Alternatives for the
Alaska Railbelt.
Battelle Northwest,1978,Natural Coal Utilization Assessment.The
Impact of Increased Coal Consumption in the Pacific Northwest,
USDOE,BNWL-RAP-21,UC-ll.
Bechtel Ci vi 1 and Mineral s,Inc.,1981,Chakachamna Hydroelectric
Project,Interim Report.
CH2M Hill,1979,Review of South Central Alaska Hydropower
Potential.
Commerce and Economic Development,Division of Energy and Power Devel-
opment,1980,Alaska Regional Energy Resources Planning Project
Phase 2,Coal,Hydroelectric,and Energy Alternatives,Volume 1 -
Beluga Coal District Analysis.
Cook Inlet Region,Inc.and Placer Amex,Inc.,1981a,Coal to Methanol
Feasibility Study,Beluga Methanol Project,Volume IV,Environmen-
tal.
Cook Inlet Region,Inc.and Pl acer Amex,Inc.,1981b,Coal to Methanol
Project,Final Report,Volume IV.
Handy-Whitman,1978,Cost Index for Hydropower Production in the
Pacific Northwest.
State of Alaska,1972,Knik Arm Highway Crossing,Department of High-
ways,Anchorage.
u.S.Army Corps of Engineers,National Hydropower Study.
11-77
U.S.Department of Energy,1980,Hydroelectric Alternatives for the
Alaska Railbelt,prepared for Alaska Power Administration,
Juneau.
U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service,1962,Unpublished letter to Bureau of
Reclamation.
U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service,1978,Impact of Coal Fired Power Plants
on Fish,Wildlife,and their Habitats,Biol,Service Program.
11-78