HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA287' ,...
-
-
Prepared by:
•
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
ARLIS
ACCESS PLAN
RECOMMENDATION REPORT
AUGUST 1982
Alaska Resources
Library & Information SerVices
Anchorage, Alaska
II<
! <12-S . s ~
A-2-3
UD, 1_9,7
~--ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY_~__,
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
ACCES~ PLAN RECOMMENDATION -August 1982
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 -Introduction
2 -Summary and Recommendations
3 -Identification of Access Alternatives
4 -Cost of Access Alternatives
5 -Risk to Project Schedule
6 -Environmental Issues
7 -Preferences of Native Organizations
8 -Relationship to Current Land Stewardship, Uses and Plans
9 -Public Preferences
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF APPENDICES
LIST OF TABLES
Table
2.1
3.1
4.1
6.1
6.2
6.3
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
8.6
Title
Summary of Alternative Plan Evaluation
Selection of Access Alternatives
Access Plan Costs (Initial Access Within
One Year)
Summary of Wildlife Habitat Issues Associated
with Access Alternatives
Fishery Impacts for Various Access Alternatives
Comparison of Socioeconomic Impacts under Various
Access Alternatives
Summary of Land Status/OV!nership in Study Area
Use Infonnation for Existing Structures in the
Up pe r Sus i t n a R i ve r Basi n
Major Trails in the Upper Susitna River Basin
List of Critical Management Agency Interviewees
Summary of Present and Future Land Management
Activities
Approximate Distances through Land Ownership
Classifications.
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
3.1
3.2
3.3
5.1
6.1
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
Title
Access Plan 13-North
Access Plan 16 -South
Access Plan 17 -Denali
Schedule for Access and Diversion
Nelchina Caribou Range with Basic
Geographic Features
Land Ownership Patterns -North Route
Land Ownership Patterns -South Route
Land Ownership Patterns -Oenal i Route
BLM Mineral Entry Recanmendations -Oenali Block
LIST OF APPENDICES
A-IDENTIFICATION OF ACCESS ALTERNATIVES
B -ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
C -PREFERENCES OF NATIVE ORGANIZATIONS
D-RELATIONSHIP TO CURRENT LAND STEWARDSHIP, USES AND PLANS
1 -INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose of Project Access
The prime purpose of access is to allow the flow of materials and
personnel to the project site to ensure an orderly construction program.
Access must support the goals of the construction program and be sufficiently
flex·ible to adjust to varying demands. Access must allow the Project Manager
the greatest possible operating scope in order to control schedule and costs.
1.2 Purpose of Report
The selection of the access plan for the Susitna Project requires a
rational assessment of the tradeoffs bet\'reen the major environmental concerns
of impacts on the sometimes conflicting fish, wildlife, socioeconoolic, land
use and recreational needs on the one hand, with project cost, schedule,
construct ion risk and management needs on the other. The selected plan will
have important significance, both during project construction and operation.
A consensus could not be reached on one preferred alternative which ssatisfied
all concerns. A number of alternatives have therefore been considered in some
detail. These alternatives were subjected to a multi-disciplinary assessment
to identify in each case those attributes \<lhich influence the selection of a
preferred plan.
This report presents the results of this assessment and describes the
process used in arriving at a recOOJmendation for a preferred plan.
I
1.3 Organization of Report
The report has been organized into nine sections. Tables and Figures
directly related to the text are at the end of each section. A rrore detailed
review of some subjects along with statements and letters are included in the
Ap pe n d i c e s •
1-1
2 -SUMMARY ANn RECOMMENDATIONS
2.1 Plan Selection and Evaluation
Detailed access studies resulted in the development of seventeen possible
access plans within three corridors. The criteria used to evaluate these
plans were also developed.
An initial evaluation was made to detennine the plan in each corridor
that was most responsive to project objectives as well as inputs from the
community and agencies. The project objectives of cost and schedule control
along with the need to have maximum flexibility of access were given prime
consideration. Initial access to support construction activities at site
will be required within one year in order to maintain project schedule and
minimize the construction period. A flexible support system utilizing both
road and rail was considered a necessity to reduce risks and control costs.
Access plans that could not provide access within one year of receipt of the
FERC license or imposed a restraint on construction activities v.ere therefore
eliminated. Plans that did not provide access between sites for the operation
and maintenance phase of the project were also eliminated. In addition a
number of plans were eliminated because more recently developed plans were
superior to similar plans with·in the sallE corridor and reduced community and
agency concerns. The initial evaluation reduced the acceptable options to
the following three alternative access plans:
No rt h -P l a n 1 3
South -Plan 16
Denali -Plan 17
Following the identification of these three plans a more detailed
evaluation and comparison was undertaken. The highlights of this evaluation
are as fo 11 ows :
2-1
( 1) Costs/Schedule
The elimination of prelicense construction of a pioneer access road
increased the criticality of construction activities leading up to
scheduled river diversion in 1987. The evaluation indicated that the
Denali Plan has the shortest schedule and least cost in provid1ng
initial access to Watana and hence the least risk of schedule delay and
project cost increases. The North Plan was rated second and the South
Plan third in the evaluation.
( 2) Environmental Issues
Each of the selected alternatives will have environmental impacts.
Wildlife and Habitat: The North Plan is the best for minimizing
adverse impacts to wildlife, because it traverses or approaches the
fewest areas of productive habitat and zones of species concentration or
movement. The llenali Plan is the least advantageous from this
standpoint because it would create the potential for disturbances and
public access to caribou, broW"! bear, and black bear concentrations and
movement zones. The South Plan occupies an intennediate position: the
advantages of the Gold Creek to Devil Canyon segment are offset by the
potential for adverse impacts to the Prairie Creek, Stephan Lake, and
Tsusena Creek areas created by the Devil Canyon to Watana (South Side)
segment.
Fisheries: All three alternatives will have direct and indirect
i m p a ct s on t h e f i s h e r i e s • T h e N o r t h P 1 a n i s 1 i k e 1 y t o h a v e a
significant impact on the salmon in Portage Creek and Indian River. The
Denali Plan is likely have both direct and indirect impacts on the
grayling fisheries along the Denali Highway to Watana segment and
indirect impacts in the Stephan Lake area. The South Plan is likely to
effect salmon spawning in the Indian River and also have indirect
impacts in the Stephan Lake area.
2-2
Socioeconomics= If the workers travel to the construct ion site by
personal vehicle, or organized ground transportation, socioeconomic
impacts on the Mat-Su Borough as a whole will be relatively minor and
similar in magnitude regardless of which access plan is implemented.
Based on public input to date, it appears that of the three plans, the
Denali Plan will come closest to creating socioeconomic changes that are
acceptable to or desired by landholders and residents in potentially
impacted areas and communities such as Cantwell, Trapper Creek and
Talkeetna. More important than route selection in determining the
socioeconomic impacts in the neighboring communities will be the
policies adopted for commuting to and from the contruction camp and
hours of wo r k.
( 3) Preferences of Native Organizations
The Tyonek Native Corporation, Cook Inlet Region, Inc. (CIRI) and
the CIRI Village residents all prefer the South Plan. They would accept
the Denali Plan if access is provided to the south side of the Susitna
River across the Watana dam.
The Ahtna Native Region Corporation and the Cantwell v·i11age
Corporation support the Denali Plan.
None of the Native Organizatons have supported the North Plan,
although it appears that their need for access to the south side of the
Susitna can be met by providing access across the Watana dam and the
bridge downstream of Devil Canyon.
(4) Relationship to Current Land Stewardships. Uses and Plans
Much of the land required for project development has been or may be
conveyed to Native Organizations. The remaining lands are generally
under State and Federal control.
Present land uses pertaining to recreation, subsistance activities
and mining are low in density.
2-3
The land management plans that have the largest bearing on access
development are RLM's recent decision to open the Denali Planning Block
to mineral exploration, the nenali Scenic Highway study being initiated
by the Alaska Land llse Council and the general planning of the Native
Organizations to develop their lands for recreation and mineral
extraction.
The development of the Susitna Project will have a significant
effect on future land use planning in the northern portion of the Mat-Su
Rorough. Access by any of the three alternative plans studied, provided
it is properly managed, does not appear to be in conflict with any
present Federal, Borough or Native management plans.
2.2 Plan Recommendation
The results of the alternative plan evaluation are summarized on Table
2.1. No one plan satisfied all the criteria nor accommodated all the concerns
of the resource agencies, native organizations and public. The final
selection of a plan requires trade-offs of objectives. Moreover many of the
potential impacts of access cannot be quantified and hence ccmparisons are
qualitative and to some extent subjective.
The final recommendation is the result of a multi disciplinary
evaluation and comparison. The order of rec001mendation is given bel ow along
with the primary justifications:
(1) Denali or Plan 17 is the best choice for access because:
It is the shortest, least costly and most easily constructed route
for initial access to the Watana site.
It has the lowest potential for schedule delays and project cost
impacts.
The initial route crosses State and Federal lands and does not
conflict with land use planning.
It does not conflict with the interests of local c001munities and
Native Organizations.
2-4
Di sad vantages
It has been assessed to have the highest potentia1 for
. e n vi r o n me n t a l i m pact s an d t he r e f o r e w o u 1 d r e q u i r e t h e m o s t
extensive mitigation program.
It has the highest overall cost when the Devil Canyon phase is
included.
It is the longest transport route.
(2) North or Plan 13 is the second choice for access because:
It has the lowest overall cost.
It has been assessed to have the least potential environmental
impacts.
Oi sadvantages
It requires a longer construction period for initial road access
and hence has a greater potential for schedule delays and project
cost increases.
It does not accommodate the reported preferences of the Native
Organizations, but it does meet their apparent need for access to
the south side of the Susitna.
(3) South or Plan 16 is not considered an acceptable alternative
because:
It imposes too high a risk of schedule delay and hence increased
project costs.
Requires a very high investment for access to Watana.
In summary the Denali Plan permits, rapid and economical development of
access for construction. It permits the greatest flexibility in total access
development to blend with the needs and objectives of other interests. It
essentially permits a more orderly, progressive development by allowing the
necessary time to test and implement changes in on-going access development,
in order to achieve the best development for all concerned.
2-5
2.3 Recommendations
It is recommended that;
(I) The Denali Plan ( 17) be adopted for access to develop the Susitna
Project.
(2) The Power Authority reaffirms its commitment to the concerns of
resource agencies and its policy to support mitigation of
envi romental impacts throughout the life of the project.
(3) The Power Authority reaffirms its commitment to take reasonable
steps to mitigate adverse socioeconomic impacts on local
communities by adoption of appropriate project management policies
and practices.
(4) The Power Authority, in cooperation with resource agencies,
conducts a public participation program designed to determine an
appropriate policy regarding the degree and nature of public
access subsequent to the completion of the construction phase of
the project.
2-6
( 1)
( 2)
( 3)
{ 4)
( 5)
( 6)
(7)
( 8)
( 9)
( 10)
( 11)
( 12)
(13)
Notes:
TABLE 2.1
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE PLAN EVALUATION
CRITERIA
No prelicense construction
Minimize construction duration and
maximize net project benefits
Provide access between sites during
project operation phase
Provide access flexibility to ensure
project is brought on-line within
budget and schedule
Accommodate preferences of Gold Creek
a n d I n di an R i ve r c cmm un i t i e s •
Minimize total cost of access
Minimize initial investment required
to provide access to Watana
Minimize risks to project schedule
Minimize environmental impacts
Acconmoda te Agency preferences
Accommodate preferences of Native
Organizations
Acccmodate present land uses and plans
Accommodate public concerns
( i ) M = Meets criteria
OENAL I
( 17)
M
M( 1)
M
M
M
3
1
1
3
3
2
M
*
NORTH
( 13)
M
M( 2)
M
M
M
1
2
2
1
1
3
M
**
( i i ) ( 1)
( i i i ) *
=
=
Ranking where (1) is best and three (3) is worst
Cantwell prefers the Oenali Plan
( i v) ** Talkeetna and Trapper Creek are more concerned
with the camp and commuting policies than with
the actual access selection.
SOUTH
{ 16)
M
M( 3)
M
M
M
2
3
3
2
2
1
M
**
3 -IDENTIFICATION OF ACCESS ALTERNATIVES
3.1 General
Three broad corridors to the damsites have been identified:
A corridor running west to east from the Parks Highway to the
damsites on the north side of the Susitna (the North route);
A corridor running west to east from the Parks Highway to the
damsites on the south side of the Susitna River (the South route);
and
A corridor running north to south from the Denali Highway to the
damsites (the Denali route).
During the past 2 1/2 years a total of seventeen alternative plans have
been identified within the three corridors. These alternatives were developed
by laying out routes on topographic maps in accordance with acceptable road
and rail design criteria. Field investigations resulted in minor adjustments
to reduce impacts or improve alignment.
Each route linked the Watana and nevil Canyon sites with the existing
road or rail transport system.
A study of these plans has dete'1Tlined the "best" plan for each corridor
which meets project objectives and selection criteria.
3.2 Development of Plans
During 1980 and 1981 eight alternative access plans were developed. A
plan fonnulation and selection process vJas developed and the criteria that
most significantly affected the selection of the preferred access plan were
identified.
During the access plan evaluation and selection process input from the
3-1
public, agencies and native organizations resulted in the expansion of the
original list of eight alternative plans to eleven plans. In late 1981 use of
the selection process resulted in the selection of Plan 5 as the route which
most closely satisfied the selection criteria contained in the Access Route
Selection Report (1). Plan 5 was an access road from the Parks Highway
through Gold Creek to nevil Canyon and Watana. It was based on construction
of a pioneer road prior to obtaining the FERC license for the project, in
order to ensure completion of the project on schedule.
In March of 1982 the Power Authority presented the results of the Susitna
Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Report (2) to the public, agencies and
organizations. During April canment was obtained relative to the Feasibility
Study from these groups. As a result of these comments the evaluation
criteria were refined, the pioneer road concept was eliminated, and stx
additional access alternatives were developed, thus increasing the total under
evaluation to seventeen plans.
3.3 Evaluation of Plans:
Ouring the final evaluations of the alternative access plans the
following criteria were employed:
(1) No prelicense construction
(2) Minimize the construction duration and maximize net project
benefits
(3) Provide access between sites during project operation phase
(4) Provide access flexibility to ensure project is brought
on-line within budget and schedule
(5) Accommodate preferences of Gold Creek and Indian River
canmuniti es
( 6) Minimize total cost of access
(7) Minimize initial investment required to provide access to
Watana
(8) Minimize risks to project schedule
( 9) Minimize environmental impacts
( 10) Accanmodate Agency preferences
3-2
( 11) Accanmodate preferences of Native Organizations
( 12) Accanmodate present land uses and plans
(13) Accanmodate public concerns
In order to arrive at a recommended access plan a two staged evaluation
process was established. First, all plans were evaluated and the most
responsive plan for each corridor was identified. This part of the evaluation
process is reviewed in Section 3.3.1 below and summarized in Table 3.1.
Second, the three selected alternatives were evaluated and compared. This
part of the evaluation process is reviewed in the following sections of the
report.
3.3.1 Evaluation to Identify Most Responsive Plan for Each Corridor
The various developed plans were evaluated in accordance with the
established criteria. Emphasis was placed on project objectives as well as
the general concerns of communities and agencies.
(1) No Prelicense Construction
The access plan submitted in the Susitna Feasibility Report (Plan 5) was
withdrawn in response to the concerns of the agencies and pub 1 i c with regard
to prelicense construction of a pioneer road.
( 2) Minimize Construction Duration and Maximize Net Project Benefits
These criteria have two aspects. First and foremost is the objective to
minimize the construction period. Once construction is initiated and costs
incurred, those expended funds have an opportunity cost but are returning no
dividends until the project is complete and power is being produced.
Therefore, completing construction as rapidly as possible is an important
goal •
The second factor arguing for an early power on-line date is the set of
findings from the generation planning studies conducted as part of the
feasibility analysis. These studies show that, under the mid-range load
3-3
forecasts~ maximum net benefits are realized when the Watana Project comes on
line in 1993. While the assumptions underlying these resu1ts are subject to
uncertainty, there is no better basis for planning.
To minimize interest during construction and maximize net benefits an
eight year construction period has been adopted as a goal. Achieving this
goal necessitates initial access within one year. Of the seventeen plans
considered, five were eliminated because initial access could not be completed
within one year.
(3) Access Between Sites
It has been planned that both power stations would be operated and
maintained from Watana, hence the eventual need for access between sites.
This criterion eliminated two plans.
(4) Access Flexibility
Access flexibility is required to ensure that the project is brought
on-line within budget and schedule.
In developing an access plan for the Susitna Project two essential
elements of access must be considered. The first element is the public
transportation system of highways and rail roads. The second element is
project access from the existing public highways and railroad systems.
Project management can generally control the latter, but has little or no
control over public systems. Access plans which have been considered flexible
are those utilizing both public road and railroad to a marshalling yard (or
project gateway) with a project road from that point to the project site.
The ability to make full use of both rail and road systems from
Southcentral ports of entry to the marshalling yard provides project
management with far greater flexibility to meet contingencies, and control
costs and schedule. Limited access would not provide this flexibility and
could result in both financial, administrative and schedule impacts. The
interruption of service and/or lack of flexibility generally results in
3-4
increased costs. Short delays of critical materials can often have
significant cost impacts.
Limited access would result in a greater degree of site isolation and
restrictions on personnel travel. This situation is usually reflected in
workers desiring to work longer hours while at the site and to make more
frequent trips home. Construction experience generally indicates that longer
work hours along with lower productivity and more frequent trips would result
in increased costs to the project. Limited access would also limit the
options contractors have for personnel and material transport. Econanies
expected from bid competition among transporters and personnel providing their
own transportation to the site would not be realized.
Several resource agencies have expressed a strong preference for a plan
that relies on railroad transport as the sole gateway to the project area.
The agencies prefer the rail-only plan for two primary reasons. (Reference
Steering Committee letter dated November 5, 1981 in Appendix A.1) First, it
is believed that disturbance to wildlife adjacent to the railroad can be more
easily controlled, and, second, it is believed that access by rail will make
it easier to limit public access after construction.
Hith regard to the Agency concerns of disturbance to wildlife and the
ecology several comments can be made:
(a) Disturbance of Habitat Resulting from Construction of Access:
Whether road or rail, this disturbance can be mitigated by proper
design and careful advance planning of construction, particularly
relative to stream crossings and extraction of borrow materials.
Generally a road alignment is rrore flexible than rail and can be
more easily route~ to avoid sensitive areas.
(b) ni stur ba nee of Wildlife: Impact on wildlife along access routes
can be controlled by mitigation measures. With road access some
of these measures will have to be restrictive. In order to be
effective, control measures will have to be developed by the
Agencies and the Power Authority, and jointly implemented. Monies
3-5
will have to be allocated to carry out agreed mitigation programs
in co-operation with appropriate agencies.
(c) Control of Access: The Agency concerns of control of access after
construction should be given special consideration. Throughout
the construction life of the project it is in the interest of the
Power Authority and Agencies to control access. nuring the
construction period a public participation program should be
undertaken to develop a long term policy relative to controlled or
open access subsequent to completion of the construction phase of
t he pr oj e ct •
(d) Hazardous Material Spills: The Agencies feel that rail transport
decreases the potential of hazardous material spills due to
adverse weather conditions and multiple handling. Limited or open
access involves both rail and truck transport as well as the
transfer of materials. The potential for spills and the control
of them is similar for all the access plans. The reduction of
spill hazard will result from the effective impl ernentat ion of safe
transfer and transport practices.
The Bureau of Land Management notes that both road and rail modes may be
required for construction. (Reference BLM letter dated August 11, 1982 in
Appendix A. 2).
Recently the Power Authority requested conment on the issue of limited
access from seven firms submitting proposals for Phase II of the Project. The
firms reflect significant experience in the construction of large projects.
Six firms replied. Five supported the need for road access to provide the
necessary flexibility to control costs and schedule. The sixth firm indicated
that the project could be developed with rail access only. Copies of the
replies are in Appendix A.3.
The fol1owing excerpts from the response by the firm of R.W. Beck and
Associates are indicative of the arguments presented by five of the six
respondents. According to Reck,
3-6
" none [of our experienced construction people] can recall a
project close to the size of Susitna that did not utilize every
form of transportation available, and in addition none recall a
site that did not have some available truck haul. If the highway
did not exist, we doubt that it would be built just for this
project. With only the short access and the fact that the highway
leads to both Anchorage and Fairbanks, however, it is logical and
prudent to make the [road] connection. Limiting the access to the
project would in fact be putting a restraint on all operations of
the prime contractors, supply contractors, project managers, camp
o p e rat o r s a n d e s p e c i a 1 1 y o n t h e 1 o c a 1 con t r acto r s who a r e
accustomed to using their OWl hauling equipment. This restraint
would add millions of dollars to the cost, and could poss·ibly
delay the on-line dates of the units."
In conclusion, limited access would impose a restraint on project
operations that could result in delays and increased costs. Four limited
access plans were consequently eliminated from further study.
(5) Preferences of Gold Creek and Indian River Communities
One plan was eliminated because two similar plans achieved the same
objectives and did not impact the (£lld Creek and Indian River areas.
( 6) Final Selection of Alternatives
Of the seven remaining plans, three more were eliminated because the most
recently developed plan was an improvement of previous plans for that same
corridor. Another plan was eliminated because it included a circuit route
connecting to both the Parks and Denali highways which was not considered
acceptable. This circuit route is not required for project purposes, and it
aggravates the control of public access.
The "best" route in each of the three corridors was retained for further
analysis. These are:
3-7
North -Plan 13
Access from the Parks Highway at Hurricane to Watana vi a the North side
of the Susitna River (Figure 3.1}
South-Plan 16
Access from the Parks Highway at Hurricane through Devil Canyon with the
road bet~teen Devil Canyon and Watana on the South side of the Susitna
River. The main access road is connected to a railhead at Gold Creek by
a road extension (Figure 3.2}.
De n a 1 i -P 1 a n 1 7
Access from the Denali Highway to Watana with construction of a
I
connecting link from Watana to Devil Canyon on the south side of the
Susitna River when the development of Devil Canyon proceeds. A rail
extension from Gold Creek to Devil Canyon would be added for
construction of Devil Canyon facilities {Figure 3.3}.
The locations of the three selected plans are shown in more detail on
plans attached in Appendix A.
3.3.2 Evaluation and Comparison of Selected Alternative Access Plans
The three selected alternatives have been evaluated and coopared in the
fa 11 owi ng Sections :
Sect ion 4 -Cost of Access Alternatives
Section 5 -Risk to Project Schedule
Section 6 -Environmental Issues
Section 7 -Preferences of Native Organizations
Section R -Relationship to Current Land Stewardship, Uses and Plans
Sect ion 9 -Public Preferences
3-8
PLAN 1
1
2
3
4
5 X
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Notes
TABLE 3.1
SELECTION OF ACCESS ALTERNATIVES
PLANS ELIMINATED BY
EVALUATION CRITERIA
2 3 4
X
X
X
X
X X
X X
X X
X
X
5 *
X
X
X
X
X
SELECTED
ALTERNATIVES
13 -North
16 -South
17 -Oena 1 i
(1) X means plan eliminated based on evaluation criteria.
(2) Routes are described in Table A.l of Appendix A.
(3) *is not a specific criteria, but final screening based on
p·lan rationalization
PROPOSED ROAD
DEVIL CANYON SITE
GOLD CREEK
LEGEND
•12 ACCESS FOR WATANA
ADDITIONAL ACCESS FOR DEVIL CANYON
ACCESS PLAN 13
NORTH FIGURE 3.1
LEGEND
PROPOSED ROAD
DEVIL CANYON SITE
PROPOS ED ROAD
ACCESS FOR WATANA
ADDITIONAL ACCESS FOR DEVIL CANYON
ACCESS PLAN 16
SOUTH FIGURE 3.2
HURRICANE
UPGRADE
DENALI
DEVIL CANYON SITE
r•--PROPOSED
RAILROAD
LEGEND
ACCESS FOR WATANA
--PROPOSED
ROAD
ADDITIONAL ACCESS FOR DEVIL CANYON
ACCESS PLAN 17
DENALI
PROPOSED------"..-
ROAD
FIGURE 3.3
4 -COST OF ACCESS ALTERNATIVES
4.1 -General
The relative cost of the three access alternatives is presented in Table
4.1. This table outlines the total costs of the three plans with a schedule
constraint that initial access must be canpleted within one year of receipt of
FERC license. Costs to complete the access requirement for the ~.latana
development only are also shown. The costs of the three alternative plans can
be summarized as fallows:
Estimated Total Costs ($X 106)
Plan Watana Devil Canyon Total Discounted Total
North (13) $241 $127 $368 $287
South ( 16) 312 104 416 335
Denali ( 17) 222 228 450 339
Costs have been calculated in 1982 dollars, and include all costs
described in section 4.2 below. Discounted total costs (present worth as of
1982) have been shown here for comparison purposes to account for the
differences in timing of the expenditure. Land acquisition costs associated
with the development of access have not been included for any of the plans.
4.2 Composition of Costs
The estimated costs given for each plan are canposed of the following
items:
(a) nesign and Construction Costs
This includes all design, field supervision and construction costs
as well as an allowance for contingency.
(b) Logi sties Costs
4-1
This includes the cost of transport of materials, equipment and
supplies necessary for construction of the dams and related
facilities fran the port of entry to site.
(c) Ma·intenance Costs
This includes the cost of road maintenance and snow removal during
the construction life of the project. For the J)enali Plan an
allowance has been made for maintenance of the upgraded section of
the Denali Highway.
(d) Impact of Accelerated Schedule Costs
This represents the additional costs resulting fran an accelerated
schedule to complete initial access within one year. Additional
costs include increased road lengths, increased or redundant fill,
and increased 1 abor and equipment costs.
4.3 Evaluation of Costs
The Denali Plan has the lowest cost for the Watana development. The
Denali Plan includes approximately $10 million to upgrade 21 miles of the
Denali Highway. The North Plan has the second lowest cost for access to
Watana.
The North access plan has the lowest overall cost while Denali has the
highest. However, a higher portion of the cost of the nenali Plan would be
1ncurred more than a decade in the future. Therefore, a valid cost comparison
requires a consideration of the time value of !TDney. Converting all costs to
equivalent present value results in the overall costs of the Denali and South
Plans being approximately equal.
The Denali Plan has the greatest potential for cost savings as much of
the work is deferred until a decision to build Devil Canyon is made. This
allows the greatest opportunity to optimize the type of access, and the access
4-2
route used to build Devil Canyon in the future. In addition, the section from
Watana to the river crossing would probably be completed as a site road during
the Watana development.
The Denali Plan has the lowest potential for cost increases due to
changes and unforeseen conditions owing to the relative uniformity of
topography and the absence of major river crossings.
Cost Ranking of Alternatives
Oenal i North South
Lowest Cost for Watana 1 2 3
Development
Lowest Overall Cost 3 1 2
Lowest Probability
for Increased Costs 1 2 3
Highest Potentia 1 for
Cost Savings 1 2 3
4.4-SuiTIITiary
For the development of access for the Watana site, the nenali Plan offers
the lowest cost as well as the lowest probability of increased costs resulting
fran unforeseen conditions. The North Plan is ranked as a second choice.
In terms of development of access for both Watana and nevil Canyon the
North Plan has the lowest cost. Although the nenali Plan has the highest
overall cost it is expected that, because of higher potential cost savings and
lower probability for increased costs, the differential between the final
costs for the Denali and South Plans would not be significant.
4-3
DESCRIPTION
f1i 1 eage Road
Rail
Construction Cost
($ X 1,000,000)
Logistics Cost
($ X 1,000,000)
Maintenance
($X 1,000,000)
Subtotal
($ X 1,000,000)
Impact of Accelerated Schedule
($ X 1,000,000)
Total
.'($X 1,000,000)
Construction Schedule for
Initial Access (Years)
Construction Schedule for
Full Access (Years)
*
NORTH PLAN 13 .
WATANA DEVIL
CANYON
52 7
0 0
95 20
118 105
5 2
218 127
23 0
241 127
1
3
TABLE 4.1: ACCESS PLAN COSTS
INITIAL ACCESS WITHIN ONE YEAR
SOUTH PLAN 16
COMBINED WATANA DEVIL
CANYON
59 69 0
0 0 0
115 156 0
223 115 101
7 7 3
345 278 104
23 34 0
368 312 104
1
3
Includes upgrading 21 miles of the'Denali Highway
DENALI PLAN 17
COMBINED WATANA DEVIL COMBINED CANYON
69 * * 61 41 102
0 0 14 14
156 80 120 200
216 127 100 227
10 4 8 12
382 211 228 439
34 11 0 11
416 222 228 450
l
3-4
Revision: C
5 -RISK TO PROJECT SCHEDULE
5.1 General
The project construction schedule has two major constraints. Work cannot
start until issuance of the FERC license, and power output is scheduled for
1993e Within this time interval the construction of the main dam is controlled
by the diversion of the Susitna River which must be completed by spring of
1987 to maintain the overall project schedule.
Issuance of the FERC license cannot be accurately determined at this
time. Issuance has been forecasted during the first nine months of 1985.
Owing to this fact the interval bet~t~een licensing and the required date of
diversion can vary significantly. Therefore, the time available for
construction cannot be stated with assurance. If delays in the licensing
occur there is the risk of delay to project schedule to the extent that 1987
diversion is missed. Project delay would increase costs because of the
extended construction schedule. Risk of delay increases:
(a) The later the FERC license is issued
(b) The longer the schedule required for construction of initial
access.
5.2 Initial Access Schedule
Initial access can be completed on any of the three selected access plans
within twelve months of receipt of FERC license. The forecasted construction
period including mobilization and float time for normal problems for the three
plans is as fallows:
Denali
North
South
6 months
9 months
12 months
The determination of jnitial access schedules is based on:
5-1
a. Ease of mobilization to starting point and provision of continued
support to construction work
b. Quantities of work to be completed including number and location
of potential borrow areas
c. Number of stream crossings
d. Susitna River crossings
e. Unforeseen problems
Neither the Denali nor North routes pose serious construction problems.
Both can be supported from highway access.
The South route has two serious drawbacks. The construct ion work must be
supported off a railhead without road access which may present limitations to
mobilization and support flexibility. In addition the South route must cross
the Susitna River. This involves the construction of a floating or fixed
temporary bridge which will have to be removed prio'r to breakup, each spring
resulting in an interruption of the flow of transport to the site. Floating
bridges require continual maintenance and are generally more subject to weight
and dimensional limitations than permanent structures.
The quantity of work required to complete initial access is least for the
Denali Plan, with the North ranked second.
Owing to the variable schedule time available for initial access
construction the Denali route offers greatest fl exi bi 1 i ty and hence 1 owest
risk of delay to the project while the South route offers the least
flexibility. This situation has been demonstrated on the attached Schedule
for Access and Diversion, Figure 5.1. This illustrates the latest start date
for construction of each of the access routes in order to support diversion
work. If diversion is not accomplished prior to spring runoff in 1987, dam
foundation preparation work will be delayed one year, and hence cause a delay
to the overall project of one year.
5.3 Cost Impacts
Failure to meet river diversion by spring of 1987 would have the
5-2
following estimated cost impacts on the project.
a. Financial cost of investment
by spring '87
$800 X 106 @ 10% for one year
b. Financial costs of rE~scheduling
work for one year de 'I ay
c. Replacement power costs
$ 80 X 106
$ 30 X 106
$ 43 X 106
$153 X 106
It is recognized that sonE cost impacts would be mitigated by delaying
certain work if the uncertainty of meeting diversion is very high. On the
other hand delays quite often result in unforeseen costs and claims.
Therefore, it is expected that a delay to the project could result in
additional costs in the range of $100-200 million.
These costs are in 198:2 dollars and do not include inflation which will
also increase with any delay of the project.
5.4 Summary
Owing to the variable schedule time available for access construction and
the fact that on-site construction activities will be severely compressed in
the 1985-86 period, the access route that assures the quickest completion and
hence the earliest delivery of equipment and material to the site has a
distinct advantage.
Using the Denali Plan, it is expected that site activities can be
supported at an earlier date than by either of the other routes.
Therefore, Oenal i offers the highest probability of meeting schedule and
hence least risk of project delay and increase in project cost.
5-3
The North Plan has a medium level of probability of meeting the schedule
to provide on-site support for diversion construction and hence, a medium
level of risks of project delay and increased costs.
The South Plan has the lowest probability of meeting schedule along with
the highest risk of delay and cost increases.
5-4
TIME FRAME FOR EXPECT ED
ISSUE OF FERC LICENCE
DIVERSION CONSTRUCTION
NORTH
SOUTH
NOTES:
FIGURE 5.1
SCHEDULE FOR ACCESS AND DIVERSION
1985 1986
11111111
( I )
( I)
111111111111111111
( I)
11111111• ·. .
( I )
111111! llllllll ACTIVITY START COULD BE DELAYED AN 0 DIVERSION STILL MET.
(I) LATEST START DATE OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY.
RIVER
DIVERSION v
6 -ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
6.1 Introduction
In granting a license for the Susitna Hydroelectric Project, the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) will be required by the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Section 102(2)(3} to document adverse project
related impacts and to ensure that specific mitigation measures necessary to
avoid, minimize, or compensate for such impacts are clearly delineated.
Access route, its design, construction, and use may significantly contribute
to avoiding or minimizing adverse impacts produced by the project. It is
important, therefore, that impact identification and mitigation be included as
a necessary and influential component of access route planning. The single
greatest opportunity to achieve impact mitigation is through selection of the
route itself.
on:
This section discusses briefly the potential impacts of the various plans
~Jildlife and their habitats
Fisheries
Cultural resources
So ci oecon ami cs
Environmental issues have played a major role in access planning to date.
The major issue that has arisen is that a road will permit human entry into an
area which is relatively inaccessible at present.
The issue of impacts to caribou is discussed in this section. A more
detailed discussion is presented in Appendix R.l, as well as a report prepared
by A.W.F~ Banfield of Rangif(~r Associates Environmental Consultants and a
summary of the issue by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Letters from
resource agencies are included in Appendix B.
6.2 Wildlife and Habitat
The following discussion surrnnarizes the proposed access alternatives fron
6-1
the standpoint of potential effects on wi 1 dl i fe and terrestrial habitats. The
evaluation assumes no basis of quantitative analysis beyond that of previous
studies by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, the University of Alaska,
and private consultants, and of review comments provided by representatives of
State and Federal resource agencies. Professional judgements supporting the
recommendations presented herE! are docurrented in the references cited.
The three proposed acc(~ss plan alternatives incorporate canbi nations of
five access route segments:
A -Hurricane to Devi"l Canyon;
B -Go 1 d Creek to Devn Canyon;
C -Devi 1 Canyon to Watana (North Side);
D -Devi 1 Canyon to Watana (South Side); and
E -Denali Highway to Watana.
A. Hurricane to Oevi 1 Canyon: This segment is can posed almost entirely
of productive mixed forest, riparian, and wetlands habitats important to
moose, furbearers, and birds (9, 10, 11, 12). It includes three areas
where slopes of over 30 percent will require side-hill cuts, all above
wetland zones vulnerable to erosion-related impacts ( 1).
B. Gold Creek to Devil Canyon: This segment is composed of mixed
forest and wetland habitats, but includes less wetland habitat and fewer
wetland habitat types than the Hurricane to Oevil Canyon segment ( 9).
A 1t h o u gh i t c o n t a i n s h a b i t a t s u i t a b 1 e f o r m o o s e , b 1 a c k b e a r s ,
furbearers, and birds, this route is generally favored as having the
least potential for adverse impacts to wildlife among the five segments
(5, 8).
C. Devil Canyon to Watana (North Side): This segment traverses a
varied mixture of forest, shrub, and tundra habitat types, generally of
medium to low productivity as wildlife habitat (9). It crosses the
Portage, nevi 1 , and Tsusena Creek drainages and tributary streams, and
includes three areas above Portage and Devil Creeks where major
side-hill cuts will be required, creating a high probability of
6-2
erosion-related impacts to these streams. The Portage Creek drainage is
productive furbearer habitat (8, 12).
n. Devil Canyon to Watana (South Side): This segment is highly varied
with respect to habitat types, containing canplex mixtures of forest,
shrub, tundra, wetlands, and riparian vegetation. The western portion
of the route is mostly tundra and shrub, with .forest and wetlands
occurring along the eastern portion in the vicinity of Prairie Creek,
Stephan Lake, and Tsus,2na and Deadman Creeks. A major wildlife concern
of the route is that it will provide access to these productive habitat
areas and provide a greater opportunity for hunting on the lands which
this segment crosses. Prairie Creek supports a high concentration of
brown bears which cong>regate to feed on salmon. Increased access could
disturb these bears and lead to their avoiding the creek, which is a
major food source for the large brown bear population of the Upper
Susitna Basin (5). The lower Tsusena and Deadman Creek areas support
lightly hunted concentrations of moose and black bears (5). The Stephan
Lake area supports high densities of moose and bears, currently
protected by relatively restricted human access. Access-related
recreational development and all-terrain-vehicle use would result in
habitat loss or ~teration, increased hunting, and human-bear conflicts
( 5).
E. Denali Highway to Watana: This route is primarily composed of shrub
and tundra vegetation types, with little productive forest habitat
present (10). Although habitat diversity is~relatively low along this
segment, the southern portion along Deadman Creek is an important brown
bear concentration area (5), and the large quantity of available willow
shrub provides excellent browse for moose (9). A major concern of this
route is that it crosses a peripheral portion of the range of the
Nelchina caribou herd (Figure 1). There is evidence that as herd size
increases, caribou are likely to migrate across the route in large
numbers and calve in the vicinity (2, 4, 5, 8, 9). Although it is not
possible to predict with any certainty how the physical presence of the
road itself or vehicular traffic will affect caribou movements,
population size, or productivity, two points should be noted:
6-3
The route crosses level, open terrain and, if constructed, will
afford improved access for all types of off-road vehicle into an
area which at times may be important to the Nelchina herd.
The ease of access provided by this segment may require a variety
of site-specific mitigation measures less likely to be necessary
for the other route alternatives.
Our current understandi nq of the effects of roads and traffic on caribou,
and the implications for consideration of the Denali Highway to Watana
segment, are discussed in Appf~ndix B.l.
Table 6.1 summarizes th1=: three alternatives access plans with respect to
potential adverse impacts on wildlife and their supporting habitats. Of the
proposed alternative access routes, the North Plan is the best for minimizing
adverse impacts to wildlife, because it traverses or approaches the fewest
areas of productive habitat and zones of species concentration or movement.
The Denali Plan is the least advantageous from this standpoint because it
would create the potential for public access and disturbances to caribou,
brown bear, and black bear concentration and movement zones. The South Plan
occupies an intermediate position: the advantages of the Gold Creek to Devil
Canyon segment are offset by the potential for adverse impacts to the Prairie
Creek and Stephan Lake areas created by the Devil Canyon to Watana (South
Side) segment.
6.3 Fisheries
Construction of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project access route will have
fishery impacts regardless of which plan is selected. The potential impacts
will be of both a direct and indirect nature. The direct impacts will be the
affects on water quality and aquatic habitat and the indirect impacts will be
the increased angling pressure.
Information concerning fisheries population and habitat suitability is
insufficient to provide a quantitative assessment. Hence this discussion
provides only a qualitative comparison of the fishery impacts for the
6-4
alternative access plans based on existing knowledge. Information concerning
the presence of fish in the streams crossed was obtained fran discussion with
personnel of ADF&G. No new data were collected.
The three proposed access plan alternatives incorporated combinations of
six access route segments:
A -Hurricane to Devil Canyon;
B-Gold Creek to Devil Canyon;
C-Devil Canyon to Watana (North Side);
IJ -Devil Canyon to Watana (South Side);
E -Denali Highway to Wa.tana; and
F -nenali Highway
The relative parameters to assess impacts along each segment include the
number of streams crossed, thE! number and length of lateral transits (i.e.
where the roadway parallels the stream and runoff fran the roadway can run
directly in to the stream), the, number of distinctive watersheds affected, and
the presence of resident and anadranous fish along the access route. Table
6.2 depicts the comparison of the parameters for each segment and combinations
of segments to form each plan ..
Speci fie comments re~Jardi ng each segment of the access plans are
presented as fo 11 ows:
A -Hurricane to Devil Canyor:: Seven stream crossings will be required along
the route from Hurricane to Devil Canyon, including Indian River which is an
important salmon spawning river. Both the Chulitna River watershed and the
Susitna River watershed are affected by this route. The increased access to
Indian River will be an important indirect impact of this plan. Approximately
1.8 miles of cuts into banks greater than 30 degrees occur along this portion.
R-Gold Creek to Devil Canyon: This 16 mile long segment which crosses six
streams is expected to have minimal direct and ind·irect impacts. Anadranous
fish spawning is likely in some streams but impacts are expected to be
minimal. Approximately 2.5 miles of cuts into banks greater than 30 degrees
6-5
occur in this section. In the Denali plan, this segment will be railroad
whereas in the South plan it will be road.
C-Devil Canyon to Watana (North Side): This 41 mile segment crosses 20
streams and laterally transits four rivers for a total distance of
approximately 12 miles. Seven miles of lateral transit are along Portage
Creek which is an important salmon spawning area.
0-Devil Canyon to Watana (South Side): The portion of this segment fran
Watana to the Susitna River is not expected to have any major direct effects.
The portion between the Susitna River crossing and Devil Canyon requires nine
stream crossings but these may not contain significant fish populations.
However, increased angling pressure in the vicinity of Stephan Lake may result
from the proximity of the access road to Stephan Lake. This segment crosses
both the Susitna and the Talke,:!tna watershed. Seven miles of cut into banks
of greater than 30 degrees occur in this section.
E -Denali Highway to Watana: The 40 mile segment fran Oenal i Highway to
Watana has 22 stream crossings and passes fran the Nenana into the Susitna
watershed. Much of the route crosses or is in proximity to seasonal grayling
habitat. Recruitment and growth rates may be low along this segment. If the
area were open to angling it is unlikely that resident populations could
sustain heavy fishing pressure. Hence this route has a high potential for
impacting the local grayling population. The route transits Deadman Creek for
nearly eleven miles.
F -Denali Highway: The Denali Highway from Cantwell to the Watana turnoff
will require upgrading. Stream crossings will be modified during
reconstruction of the highway.
The evaluation and comparison of fishery impacts for the alternative
access plans can be summarized as follows:
The Denali Plan (segments B, D, E and F) is likely to have a significant
direct and indirect impact on grayling fisheries given the number of stream
crossings, lateral transits, and watersheds affected. Anadranous fisheries
6-6
impacts will be minimal and will only occur along the railroad spur between
Gold Creek and Devil Canyon.
The South Plan (segments A, B, and n) may impact salmon spawning activity
in Indian River both directly and indirectly.
The North Plan (segments A and C) may impact salmon spawning activity in
Indian River and is likely to have a significant impact along Portage Creek
due to water quality impacts through increased erosion and due to increased
angling if the route is open to the public.
Regardless of the plan selected, direct and indirect affects can be
minimized through proper engineering design and prudent management. Culverts
and bridges must be appropriately sized and constructed to maintain velocities
below four feet per second, to minimize erosion and to maintain fish passages.
Where lateral transits occu1", erosion control measures must be undertaken.
This is especially true alonq Deadman Creek (segment E, nenali Plan) and
Portage Creek (segment C, North Plan).
Through careful management, secondary impacts can be minimized although
restrictive management polici•~s may be necessary. Restrictive management
policies may be necessary a·long segment E (Denali Plan) to protect grayling
population from over fishing, at Indian River (segment A, North and South
Plans) and along Portage Creek (segment C, North Plan) to protect king salmon
populations. Nonetheless, it may be possible to provide additional sport
fishery opportunities along the selected access corridor.
As each plan will require borrow material, care will be taken to ensure
that fishery habitats are left undisturbed.
6.4 Cultural Resources
A level one cultural resources survey has been conducted along a large
part of the three access plans. The portion of the Oenali Plan between the
Watana dam site and the Denali Highway crosses an area of high potential for
c u 1 t u r a l r e sour c e s • Th e t r e e ~ e s s a r e a s 1 a c k a p p r e c i a b 1 e s o il d e p os i t i o n ,
6-7
making cultural resources visible and more vulnerable to secondary impacts. A
portion of the South Plan crosses areas of high to moderate potential for
cultural resources.
Prior to construction, a. detailed cultural resources survey will have to
be conducted along the selected access route. If necessary, minor road
realignments will be required to avoid discovered sites. In addition,
construction monitoring will include an archaeological team to determine the
significance of any new sites discovered. Therefore, impacts to cultural
resources can be fully mitigated by avoidance, protection or salvage and this
issue is not critical to the decision making process.
6.5 Canparison of Socioeconoo1ic Impacts under Various Access Route Plans
Socioeconomic impacts on the Mat-Su Borough as a whole will be similar in
magnitude regardless of which of the three access plans under consideration is
implemented. This will be the case so 1 ong as workers travel to and from the
construction sites using their own vehicles~ organized ground
transportation. However~, each of the three plans will affect future
socioeconomic conditions in d"ifferi ng degrees in certain areas and communities
within and near the Borough.
Cantwell: As illustrated in Table 6.3, the Denali Plan could create
significantly larger population, support sector employment, business activity,
housing, and transportation (traffic) impacts on Cantwell, together with a
larger schools (education) impact, than would the North and South ~ans. This
is because a railhead would b(~ located at Cantwell, and because Cantwell would
be the nearest community to the dam site. This would create an incentive for
workers to settle in Cantwell and purchase goods and services there.
Settlement by workers, however, could be limited by available land in
Cantwell. Availability of land will be determined in large part by future
land use policies of the AHTNA Corporation. When more is known about these
policies, the magnitude of ·impacts on Cantwell can be forecast with more
certainty.
Hurricane: Significant changes are also anticipated in Hurricane (primarily
6-8
in and around the Indian River Subdivision), especially with the North Plan.
The Hurricane area currently has very little population, employment, business
activity, and housing. Therefore, any change in the levels of these
indicators would be a large relative change. With a railhead and road access
to the dam sites at Hurricane, large changes would occur. Workers and others
would settle on the subdivided land available. There would be employment
opportunities at the rail head, and at lodges, restaurants, etc., that could
develop here. Additional how;ing would be required and the need for education
services at Trapper Creek and elsewhere would increase. As Table 6.3 shows,
changes in these socioeconomic indicators would be less under the South Plan
and considerably less under the Denali Plan.
Trapper Creek and Talkeetna: In contrast, Trapper Creek, Talkeetna, Palmer,
Wasilla and Houston; and oth(~r areas of the Mat-Su Borough (except Hurricane)
will experience about the sa1111~ amount of changes in socioeconomic indicators
regardless of which Plan i~; implemented. In general, Trapper Creek will
experience about a doubling in population, support sector employment, and
other socioeconomic indicators with the North Plan. The South and Denali
Plans will tend to slightly reduce these impacts. Talkeetna will experience a
10-50 percent increase in socioeconanic indicators with the North Plan. With
the South Plan, changes in socioeconomic indicators will be mJre than with the
North, yet still well withiln the 10-50 percent range. Changes in Talkeetna
under the Denali Plan would b1:! essentially the same as those under the North
Plan.
Palmer, Wasilla, and Houston: Palmer, Wasilla, and Houston will experience
slight changes in population, housing, and schools regardless of which Access
Plan is implemented (less than 2.5 percent increase in those socioeconomic
indicators over 1990, base case). There will be slightly larger changes in
service sector employment, business activity and transportation {between 2.5
percent and 10 percent inc1·eases in these indicators over 1990, base case).
The choice of access plan will not influence the magnitude of these changes.
Public Preferences: The public's responses to these potential changes are
mixed. Cantwell, and Palm1~r, Wasilla and Houston are generally in favor of
the changes discussed above. These communities would even welcome more
6-9
econani c development. Residents of Trapper Creek and Talkeetna have indicated
that rapid, uncontrolled chanqe is not desired. SorTE of the residents of each
community would like to preserve the status quo and others of each community
would like to have controlled economic development. These latter groups want
to proceed with caution and learn more about what could happen to their
communities as a result of the Project before committing to a growth plan.
Landholders in Hurricane (Indian River Subdivision) have not expressed their
attitudes toward change.
The South and Denali P'l ans would have implications for Gold Creek. A
railhead would be located herE! at the outset of Watana construction in the
South Plan, and at the outset of !levil Canyon construction in the nenali Plan.
Under the South Plan, this ra·ilhead would create employment opportunities and
cause population to rise during the mid to late 1980 1 s. Additional housing
and education services would be needed and rail traffic in this area would
increase. Under the Denali Plan these changes would occur during 1993-1995.
Landholders in Gold Creek currently have differing opinions concerning
development of a railhead at Gold Creek.
In summary the socioeconomic impacts on the Mat-Su Borough as a whole
will be relatively minor and similar in magnitude regardless of which access
plan is implemented. However, each of the three plans under consideration
will affect future socioeconomic conditions in differing degrees in certain
areas and communities within and near the Borough. Based on public input to
date, it appears that of the three plans, the Denali Plan will come closest to
creating socioeconomic changes that are acceptable to or desired by
landholders and residents in the potentia'lly impacted areas and c001munities.
This is because economic deve·loprrent in Cantwell would be relatively large
with the Denali Plan, and socioecononic changes in Trapper Creek and Talkeetna
would, in most cases, be rather similar under each of the three plans being
considered.
6-10
REFERENCES CITED (Section 6.2)
1. Acres American Incorporated, 1982. Preliminary Analysis of Potential
Erosion Areas of Proposed Access Routes.
2. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 1980. Letter toN. Gutcher, R&M
Consultants, Inc., from K. Schneider. November 26.
3. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 1982. Susitna Hydroelectric Project
Brown Bear and B 1 ack Bear Studies. Phase I Report.
4. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 1982. Susitna Hydroelectric Project
Caribou Studies. Phase I Report.
5. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 1982. memorandum on Susitna
Hydroelectric Project Access Routes. K. Schneider to C. Yanagawa.
August 4. Attachment by K. Pitcher.
6. Gipson, P., 1982. Personal Communication to S. Fancy.
7 • L G L A 1 a s k a R e s e a r c h A s so c i a t e s , I n c • , 1 9 8 2 • Let t e r to W • B a 11 a rd ,
Alaska Departrrent of Fish and Game, from S. Fancy. July 30.
8. Susitna Hydroelectric Steering Committee, 1981. Letter to E. Yould,
Alaska Power Authority, from A. Carson. November 5.
9. Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, Inc., 1981. Environmental,
Socioeconomic, and Land Use Analysis of Alternative Access Plans for the
susitna Hyd~oelectric Project.
10. University of Alaska, 1981. Letter to C. Baumgastnes, Terrestrial
Environmental Specialists, Inc., from B. Kessel, August 16.
11. University of Alaska, 1982. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Bird and
Non-Game Mammal Studies. Phase I Report.
12. University of Alaska, 1982. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Furbearer
Studies. Phase I Report.
6-11
~
Waterfowl
'Raptor nests
Breeding birds
Aquatic Fur-
bearers
Red fox den:
concentration
are, as
Brown bears
TABLE 6.1
SUMMARY OF WILDLIFE HABITAT
ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH
ACCESS ALTERNATIVES
North (13)
No water bodies of high relative
importance along route.
Avoids known nest sites.
Least amount of productive
forest habitat removed.
. Avoids Fog Lakes-Stephan Lake
wetlands.
. Crosses highly productive hab-
itat in Chulitna Pass area.
. Near productive habitat along
Portage Creek.
.Within 1/4 mile of Swimming Bear
Lake den sites.
. Avoids Deadman Creek and Deadman
Lake den areas.
.Avoids Prairie Creek concentration
area .
. Avoids Deadman Creek concentration
area.
South (16) Denali (17)
Stephan Lake is of high relative Stephan Lake is of high relative
importance to waterfowl.
Avoids known nest sites.
Greatest amount of productive
forest habitat removed.
.Near Fog Lakes-Stephan Lake
wetlands.
importance to waterfow.l.
Near bald eagle nest on Deadman
Creek.
Amount of forest removed less
than South Route but greater
than North Route .
.Near Fog Lakes-Stephan Lake
wet 1 ands.
.Crosses highly productive hab{tat .Avoids Chulitna Pass area .
in Chulitna Pass area .
.Avoids Portage Creek area. ,
.Avoids Portage Creek area.
.Avoids red fox den concentration .Avoids Swimming Bear Lake denning
areas. area .
.Near Deadman Creek and Deadman
Lake den concentration areas .
. Near Prairie Creek concentration .Near Prairie Creek concentration
area; crosses movement corridor area; crosses movement corridor
between Prairie Creek and Susitna between Prairie Creek and Susitna
River.
.Avoids Deadman Creek area.
River.
.Crosses Deadman Creek concentra-
tion area.
Sheet 1 of 2
Issue
Black bears
Caribou
Moose
Transmission
1 i ne impacts
Secondary
effects:
TABLE 6.1 (cont'd)
North ('13) ·
.Avoids den sites.
. Traverses important south-facing
slopes .
. Least amount of forest is removed.
. Avoids caribou r~nge and movement
corridor between Denali Highway
and Sus ita River.
. Avoids Fog Lakes-Stephan Lake
caribou range.
.Traverses important south-facing
slopes.
. Least amount of forest is
removed .
. Avoids Fog Lakes-Stephan Lake
area
.Can use same corridor.
.Least potential for secondary
effects through public access
and recreational development.
South (16)
.Near several den sites west of
Tsusena Creek.
.Fewer south-facing slopes are
traversed .
Denali (17)
.Ned•· several den sites, west of
Tsusena Creek .
. Fewer south-facing slopes are
traversed.
. Removes greatest amount of forest. .Removes less forest than South
Route but more than North Route .
.Avoids caribou range and moveme
between Deanli Highway and
Susitna River .
.Near Fog Lakes-Stephan Lake
caribou ranges.
.Fewer south-facing slopes are
traversed.
.Removes greatest amount of
forest.
.Near Fog Lakes-Stephan Lake
wetlands.
.Can use same corridor.
.Crosses caribou range and
movement corridor between Denn1:
Hi 9hway and Sus itna ·River.
.Near Fog Lakes-Stephan Lake
caribou range.
.Fewer south-facing slopes are
traversed .
.Removes less forest than South
Route but more than North Route.
.Near Fog Lakes-Stephan Lake
wetlands.
.Can use same corridor
.Potential for secondary effects .Highest potential for secondary
through public access less than effects through public access
Denali Route but greater than
North Route. High potential
for secondary effects throuoh
recreational development of
land~ south of Susitna Rivet.
and recreational development.
Sheet 2 of 2
TABLE 6.2
FISHERY IMPACTS FOR VARIOUS ACCESS ALTERNATIVES
SEGMENT MILEAGE CROSSINGS
SUSITNA MAJOR(4) MINOR U\TERAL(S) WATERSHED ANADROMOUS
RIVER STREA~lS STREAMS TOTAL TRANSECTS IMPACTED FISH
A Hurricane to
Devi 1 Canyon 16 1 1 6 8 1 ( 3) 2 yes
B Gold Creek to
Devil Canyon 12 0 2 4 6 1 ( 3) 1 minimal
c De vi 1 Canyon
to Watana 41 0 4 16 20 4 (12) 1 yes
(l~orth side)
D De vi 1 Canyon
to Watana
(South side) 41 1 6 9 16 2 '( 2) 2 none
E Denali to
Watana 40 0 7 15 22 2 ( 11) 2 none
F Denali Hwy.
(Upgraded) 21 0 5 6 11 2 (5) 1 none
DENALI Total 61 0 12 21 33 4 (16) 2 none
(r~o. 17) to Wat-
ana (E,F)
Total · 116 ( 3) 1 Watana/ 20 34 55 7 ( 21) 3 minimal
Devi 1 Can-·
yon (B, D,
E, F)
SOUTH Total to 69 2 9 19 30 4 { 8) 3 yes
(No. 16) Watana
(A, B, D)
Total 69 2 9 19 30 4 { 8) 3 yes
Watana/
Devil Can-
yon (A, B,
D)
NORTH (1~ Total to 2 0 5 20 25 5 ( 15} 2 yes
{No. 13) Watana
(A,C)(Z)
Total 59 1 5
Watana/
21 27 5 ( 15) 2 yes
Devil Can-
yon (A,C)
Footnotes:
1. Total to Watana does not include segment from the Devil Canyon
cutoff to Devil Canyon.
2. Mileage is 2 miles longer than the additions of segments A and C.
Total number of streams is actually 1 less than the addition of
streams along segment A and C due to difference in alignment.
3. Mileage is 2 miles longer than the sums of segments B, D, E, F
because the railroad option is two miles longer'than the road
option along segment B
4. A major stream is arbitrarily selected as a stream with a
drainage area greater than 5 square miles.
5. Lateral transits are parellel to the river bed. The first number
represents the number of transits and the second the total
distance in miles.
TABLE 6.3
COMPARISON OF SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS UNDER
VARIOUS ACCESS ALTERNATIVES
SocIoeconomIc IndIcator .a.ru1. j,ocat I on
Population
Cantwell
Hurricane2
Trapper Creek
Talkeetna
Palmer, Was! I Ia & Houston
Support Sector Employment
Cantwell
Hurricane
Trapper Creek
Talkeetna
Palmer, Wasilla & Houston
Business Activity
Cantwell
Hurricane
Trapper Creek
Talkeetna
Palmer, Wasil Ia & Houston
Housing
Cantwell
Hurricane
Trapper Creek
Talkeetna
Palmer. Was! I Ia & Houston
Schools
Cantwell
Trapper Creek
Talkeetna
Palmer, Wasilla & Houston
Transportation (Traffic)
Cantwel I
Hurricane
Trapper Creek
Talkeetna
Palmer, Wasil Ia & Houston
Access Elan Number
ll 16. 1I
North South Denali
Al
F
E
c
A
A
F
E
c
B
A
F
E
c
B
A
F
E
c
A
A
D
c
A
A
F
z
c
c
A
(-)f
(-)0
(+)C
( ) A
A
. (-) F
(-)0
(+)C
( )8
A
(-)F
(-)0
(+)C
( )8
A
(-)F
(-)0
(+)C
( )A
A
(-)0
(+)C
( )A
A
(-)F
(-)Z
(+)C
( )C
(+)Z
(-)8
(-)0
(-)C
( }A
(+}Z
(-}8
(-)0
( )C
( )8
(+)Z
(-)Z
(-)D
( )C
( )8
(+)Z
(-)Z
(-)D
( )C
( )A
(+)Z
(-)0
( )C
( ) A
(+)F
(-)Z
( )Z
< )C
( )C
COMPARISON OF SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS UNDER
VARIOUS ACCESS ROUTE PLANS (continued)
1The letters In each row and column refer to relative levels of changes tn
socioeconomic indicators. In each column these letters represent the percent
change In an Indicator relative to the base (without Susltna Project) case
for 1990. Minus(-) and plus {+)symbols in the second and third columns
(Access Plans 16 and 17, rt3:spectively) refer to changes In Indicators
relative to the first column (Access Plan 13). The refatlonship between
letters and magnitudes of changes are defined below.
Z-Size of Impact uncertain. There could be a significant increase over
1990, base case.
A-Less than 2.5% increase over 1990, base case.
B -Less than 10% Increase, but greater than 2.5% Increase over 1990, base
case.
C -Less than 50% Increase, btJt greater than 1 O% Increase over 1990, base
case.
D -Less than 100% Increase, but greater than 50% Increase over 1990~ base
case.
E-Less than 200% Increase, but greater than 100% increase over 1990, base
case.
F-Size of Impact relatlve tc> 1982 level is very uncertain. Impact could
be very substantial (greater than 200% Increase over 1990, base case).
Note: The percentage changes for a I I communIties except for Cantwe I I and
Hurricane are based on baseline and Impact projections and analysis conducted
in Subtask 7.05: Socioeconomic Analysis, Phase I Report, April 1982. The
percentage changes for Cantwell and Hurricane were estimated after the Phase
I Report was completed.
2Prlmarfly In and around the Indian River Subdivision.
A L• A S .K A .R A N .. G. E ~
. NORTH
. l
. .:
'
z
/ a:
,.•
F I o u r e 1. N e 1 c h 1 n a c a· r I b o u r a n g e w I t h tJ a • I o g 11 o g r a P. hI o · f e at u r e a.
FIGURE 6.1
7 -PREFERENCES OF NATIVE ORGANIZATIONS
This sect ion reviews the preferences of Native Organizations. Letters
received froo1 landowners are attached in Appendix c.
7.1 Tyonek Native Corporation
The Corporation fully supports the South Plan. The Denali Plan would
probab 1 y receive their acceptance if provision for access to the south side of
the river was made prior to the start of construct ion of Devil Canyon.
7.2 Cook Inlet Region Inc. (CIRI)
CIRI fully supports the CIRI Village Presidents position for the South
Plan as the best alternative.
CIRI could support the Denali Plan with a realignment of the road so that
it crosses over the Watana dam, after the dam is completed. The North Plan is
considered unacceptable.
7.3 CIRI Village Presidents
The CIRI Village Presidents fully support the South Plan as this plan
meets their criteria for the highest and best use of their lands on the South
side of the Susitna River.
This use has been identified as follows:
A -Recreation
B-Residential
C -Timber Harvesting
D -Mining
The Oenal i Plan as presented might possibly be accepted with some
modifications. These modifications should assure access to the lands south of
the Susitna River across the completed Watana dam.
7-1
The North Plan is not an acceptable route to the villages.
7.4 Ahtna Native Regional Corporation ( AHTNA)
Ahtna fully supports the Denali Plan. This access is within 3 miles of
Ahtna selected lands on both sides of the Oenali Highway.
Ahtna Development Corp. a subsidiary of Ahtna fully supports the Denali
Plan.
7.5 Cantwell Village Corporation
Cantwell Village Corp .. fully supports the Denali Plan. Village land
selections begin at the East side of Mt. McKinley National Park bordering with
the Regional selections adjacent to the Denali Plan.
7-2
8 -RELATIONSHIP TO CURRENT LAND STEWARDSHIP, USES AND PLANS
8.1 Introduction
The purpose of this section of the report is to identify current
land stewardship, land uses and land management plans in the project
study area. The relationship of the alternative access plans is then
discussed in respect of these current uses and management plans.
8.2 Land Stewardship and Preservations
Prior to statehood and the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, the
entire Susitna drainage area was mostly federally owned. There were no
agency resource management p 1 ans for the area and, except for minima 1
m1mng and timbering, very little resource exploitation. A major limit-
ing factor to development of the area has been access; inaccessibility
has rendered it economically impractical, except for hunting and fishing,
to utilize the area 1 s resource base.
8.2.1 Ownership Patterns
The Susitna River proper, the lands immediately adjacent, and lands
along the bench country around Stephan and Fog lakes extending eastward
to the Kosina Creek drainage have been selected by Cook Inlet Region,
Inc. (CIRI) 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 (Figures 8.1,
8.2, 8.3). In the areas designated for the Cook Inlet land trade, the
State wi 11 be conveyed all those lands that are not conveyed to the
Natives. Matanuska-Susitna Borough owns no lands in the project area.
Two state land disposal sites (Figure 8.1) 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 Highh'ay, northwest of Chulitna Butte, and contains
8-1
approximately 518 ha (1,280 a) of land. The disposal area has been
subdivided into roads and also some 139 lots averaging about two hectares
(five acres) per lot. South of this subdivision is the Indian River
remote parce 1, located northeast of the confluence of the Sus itna and
Indian rivers. This remote parcel (T31-32N, R2W S.M.) is located just
east of and, at some places, adjacent to 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 disposed of.
These land disposals, along with scattered private parcels of land,
represent the only real dedication of a given piece of land to a parti-
cular use. Table 8.1 sumnaries various land holdings in the vicinity of
the proposed project, by status/ownership category.
8.2.2 Preservations
a) Mining Claims
Several mining claims exist within the study area as shown in
Figures 8.1, 8.2, 8.3.
b) Power Site Classification
The U. S. Department of the Interior has preserved part of the
area within the proposed impoundment zones as a Power Site
Classification (No. 443)
c) Railroad Withdrawal Lands
The Alaska Railroad is contained within federal Railroad With-
drawal Lands which includes an enlarged zone in the vicinity of
Hurricane. (Fig. 8.1).
8-2
d) Others
During the past decade of systematic studies, the Upper Susitna
did not match criteria standards required for recommendation as
units within:
1. National Park-Preserve System
2. Wild and Scenic River System
3. Natural or Historic Landmark Status
4. Wilderness Preservation System
5. National Trail System
6. National Forest System
However, even as lower priority lands, the Susitna Basin does
offer much potential for recreation and resource development.
8.3 Present Land Use in the Project Area
The combined factors of the size of the Susitna project area, its
isolation, and its location
extremely low-density land use.
in a subarctic environment result in
This use is still tied to the values of
the area people, for whom the land is still 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 remnants of past uses shape
present patterns. Information for existing structures in the project
area are shown on Table :3.2. The major trails into the project area,
although not structures, represent substantial environmental
modifications and reflect general use patterns; they are presented in
Table 8. 3.
The greatest concentrations of physical developments are in the
Stephan Lake area {13 cabins and one lodge with outbuildings and
airstrip) and the Portage Creek mining area and SUilTTler cabins {19 cabins
and related buildings). Chulitna Creek and Gold Creek also have some
mining developments. Three commercial lodge operations are located at
High, Tsusena, and Stephan lakes.
8-3
8.4 Land Use Management
Personnel employed by responsible land managing agencies were
interviewed initially and throughout the study to gain information about
present and future programs. See Table 8. 4. The results of the
interviews are surrmarized in Table 8.5.
Entities with land management concerns in the area are the Bureau of
Land Management (U.S. Department of Interior), the Alaska Department of
Natural Resources, Matanuska-Susitna Borough, and the Cook Inlet Region,
Inc. and associated village groups.
Federal
Federal lands to the north of the project area. are managed by the
Bureau of Land Mangement (BLM). These lands are included in the Denali
Planning Block, for which a land use plan has been approved.
Management in the Denali Unit and those areas not yet conveyed
either to the Natives or the State is essentially passive. Very few
mananagement activities are taking place. However BLM has in the past
expressed a desire to open the lands to entry to meet public demands for
recreational and commercial uses. (BLM Docket No~ DA-74-Alaska, 1961)
In BLM 1 s Draft Amendment to the Southcentral Alaska Land Use plan for the
Denali/Tiekel planning bloc:<s (May 1982) the following preferred alterna-
tives as relating to the Denali block were expressed.
a) Mineral Leasing
Open all lands in the Denali planning block to
mineral leasing.
8-4
b) Mineral Entry
Open the areas in the Denali block shown in Figure
8.4 to both metalliferous and nonmetalliferous
locations in response to indications of interest.
c) Settlement
Take No Action
Fire control is also a current management consideration; BLM has a
cooperative fire control agreement with the State of Alaska that covers
the project area.
BLM is 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 public lands immediately east of
Portage Creek; a state site easement and trai 1 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.
BLM is also developing a wildlife habitat management plan in cooper-
ation with Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) for the Alphabet
Hills between the Tyone and Mac 1 aren rivers CTll-12 N, R2-9 W, Copper
River Meridian). This plan will involve moose habitat manipulation to
improve winter range. ThE' study has been approved and could be imp 1 e-
mented in the late sumner of 1982.
State
The State•s general policy is to "encourage the settlement of its
land and the development of its resources by making them available for
8-5
maximum use and development consistent with the public interest. 11
Article VIII Section 1 of the State Constitution.
Most state lands fall under the jurisdiction of the Alaska Depart-
ment 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 disposal areas (located north and south of Chulitna)
are west of the project area and in the vicinity of the proposed access
route.
In the project area, the State had, until recently, done only a
resource assessment for those lands it is proposing to select. DNR's
Division of Research and Development in cooperation with the Matanuska-
Susitna Borough recently published its report on 'Land Use Leases and
Preliminary Resource Inventory' as proposed as part of the Matanuska-
Susitna-Beluga Cooperative Planning Program {May 1982). Planning for
state lands in this area will be based in part on this assessment.
The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
(DOT-PF) has proposed to upgrade the Denali Highway between the
Richardson and the Parks Highways. However future plans relating to this
proposal will be somewhat dependent on the outcome of the Denali Scenic
Highway Study presently being initiated by the Alaska Land Use Council.
According to the Environmental Assessment prepared by DOT -PF, agencies,
organizations and individuals have indicated a strong base of suppot for
the upgrading of the Denali Highway. (DOT-PF, Environmental Assessment,
Denali Highway Cantwell to Paxson, Fall 1981)
The Denali Scenic Hi~Jhway Study has been initiated by the Alaska
Land Use Council as requlred by Section 1311 of the Alaska National
Interest Lands Conservation Act. (ANILCA) The purpose of the study is to
determine the feasibility/desirability of establishing a scenic highway
in the areas of -Parks Highway from Ta-lkeetna Junction to Denali Park,
Denali Highway from Cantwen to Paxson and the Richardson Highway and the
Edgerton Highwway between Paxson and Chitina.
8-6
-------------------
Borough
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 District,
and the 111at-Su Borough Coastal Management Program. The current Mat-Su
Borough Comprehensive Plan (1970) contains very little discussion of the
Susitna area lands. The borough has already selected more than its
entitlement of land and is concentrating its selections in the lower
Susitna basin near existin!] highways. Thus, it is unlikely that the
borough will select any land in the project area.
The borough, by ordinance, has created the Talkeetna Mountains
Special Use District, through which the borough can exercise planning and
zoning authority over all lands within the district•s boundaries. The
Special Use District includes the project area. The ordinance provides
for multiple 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 currently being performed. The project area is considered a
mixed-use zone, which would permit hydro development. Management objec-
tives for the project area will probably not be refined until the current
hydro studies are complete.
Through a cooperative arrangement with the Office of Coast a 1 Zone
Management (National Oceanic 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 Mangement Program. Pre 1 imi nary
studies were completed in May, 1981; the Susitna River through Devil
Canyon was designated to be within the biophysical boundaries of the
program. Program results to date provide for a preliminary determination
of uses subject to the program guidelines including, specifically, hydro-
electric development in Devil Canyon. The appropriateness of this use is
8-7
to be reviewed as resource analysis continues in subsequent phases of the
program.
Natives
The Cook Inlet Region, Inc. has been transferred selected Native
lands to hold in trust until these lands are conveyed to the appropriate
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 ownerships will create a checkerboard
pattern. Immediate land problems and 1 and reconveyance to villages are
being handled by the Village Deficiency Management Association, a group
made up of representatives from each of the concerned vi 11 ages. Because
of the checkerboard pattern of ownership described above, any management
of Native lands may be undertaken by this association.
The CIRI corporation and its villages have, however, expressed an
interest in potentially developing their lands for mining, recreation,
forest harvesting, or residential use.
8.5 Relationship to Current Land Uses and Land Use Planning
'8.5.1 General
All three plans presently being asssessed include road access
connecting to an existing road system. As a consequence all three plans
have the potential of providing public access to a now relatively
·inaccessible, semi-wildernE~ss area. The plans are thus compatible, to
varying degrees, with the development of future recreation and mining
activities but may pose conflicts with wildlife habitats and necessitq.te
an increased level of wildlife and people management. Access by means of
any of the three plans, provided it is properly managed, does not appear
to be in conflict with any present Federal, Borough or Native land
management plans, or State policy. The approximate distances in miles of
each access plan through the various land ownership classifications is
shown on Table 8.6
8-8
Although the transmission line corridor alignment wi1l have to be
reassessed following an access plan selection, coordination with any of
the three access plans is possible. However, since the transmission
corridor will be routed in an east-west direction from Watana to the
intertie, the selection of the Denali Plan could result in the
construction of the transm·ission line prior to the construction of the
east-west access as needed for Devil Canyon.
8.5.2 North Plan
The North Plan does not cross federal land, with the exception of
the Federal Railroad Lands, hence it is not directly affected by BLM•s
recent decision to open the area under its jurisdiction for mineral entry
and mineral leasing. However, state lands could also be open to mineral
entry at some future time. The route does offer a mainstream opportunity
to prospect northern parallel sectors if State lands are opened.
The North Plan does cross-cut through areas that are now relatively
inaccessible. Increased accessibility due to road construction and
bridging is compatible with the possible future land uses of recreation
and mining but may pose conflicts with wildlife habitat and some Native
lands. If public access to the project is provided, the control
of access, enforcement of state game laws and regulations and the
development of an access management plan could be used to control the
potential impacts of increased access.
The development of a railhead in the vicinity of Hurricane, as would
be required with the North Plan, could be in conflict with the management
recommendations of the DNR•s 11 Scenic Resources along the Parks Highway
Study .. and could be in conflict with the future findings of the Denali
Scenic Highway Study. However, such a railhead would be compatable with
the Federal Railroad Withdrawal land designation at Hurricane.
8-9
8.5.3 South Plan
The South Plan does not cross any fed era 1 land, hence it is only
indirect1y affected by BLM's recent decision to open the area under its
jurisdiction for mineral ent~ry and mineral leasing. It could be affected
by future remote state land selections and related offerings.
As with the North Plan, the South Plan does cross lands that are
currently relatively inaccessible. Increased accessibility due to road
construction is compatible \~ith recreation uses and with mining but may
pose conflicts with wildlife habitat and private land ownership patterns.
As with the North Plan, this conflict may be manageable through
development of a comprehensive plan to regulate hunting and access to the
area.
The South Plan is also compatible with the economic goals of Native
landowners. It will provide for access to their lands on the south side
of the river which Natives may wish to develop for mineral and recrea-
tional, residential or timber purposes.
The South Plan could have the same aesthetic conflicts with the DNR
management recommendation for the Hurricane area as identified for the
North Plan.
8.5.4 Denali Plan
The Denali Plan crosses BLM, state selected, and Native selected
land north of the Susitna River. State and Native lands are used south
of the river. The northern section of the Denali Plan, from Denali
Highway to Deadman Lake is compatible with the BLM's decision to open
much of their land this year to mineral leasing and mineral entry. The
southern portion of the Denali route is identical to the South Plan.
The rail line from Gold Creek to Devils Canyon in the Denali Plan
reduces the ease of pub 1 i c access to the area from the west. It is not
as compatible with CIRI Native requests for access to the southern region
as found in the South Plan.
8-10
The Denali access plan cou1d create conflicts, during the construc-
tion phase of the project, with the development of a Denali Scenic
Highway. Following construction the access road and project facilities
could be incorporated into the overall Scenic Highway planning.
8-11
TABLE 8.1 SUMMARY OF LAND STATUS/OWNERSHIP IN STUDY AREA
Land Status/Ownership Category
Feder a 1
Federal (State Selection Suspended)
Federal (Railroad Withdrawal)
State Selection
State Selection Patented or TA 1 d
Denali State Park (within study area)
Regional Selection
Native Group Selection
Native Selection
Village Selections (included in Native selection total)
Chickaloon
Tyonek
Knik
Private
Tot a 1
Hectares
122,899
150,121
1,912
230,632
70,515
10,360
12 ,-562
1,554
83,970
2,072
8,288
16,058
3,996
Area
Acres
303' 680
370,945
4, 724
569,883
174,239
25,500
31,040
3,840
207,487
5,120
20,480
39,680
9,874
TABLE 8.2 USE INFORMATION FOR EXISTING STRUCTURES IN THE UPPER SUSITNA RIVER BASIN
PRESENT CONDITION OF STRUCTURE
Remains of structured foundations only (no use)
Badly weathered; partial st:ructure 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
Hunting, fishing, trapping
Hunting, fishing
Hunting only
Fishing only
Boating
Skiing
Mining
Research/exploration
Air:
Airstrip
Floats/skis
ATV
4WD
Boat
Foot, dog team
Snowmachine
Horse
Rail
Car
Footnotes
USE TYPES
ACCESS
1. Zone 1 is the impoundment zone plus a 61 m (200 ft) perimeter
2. Zone. 2 is the 10 km ( 6 mi ) peri meter a round Zone 1
3. Zone 3 is that zone ~etween 10 kw (6 mi) and 19 km (12 mi)
from the impoundments
1
2
2
2
3
3
2
1
1
3
3
2
1
1
3
6
Zone 22
5
2
7
49
9
4
7
43
7
1
21
6
4
2
26
34
20
16
3
37
6
4
1
1
Zone 3 3
1
2
1
12
3
3
1
3
2
1
6
6
5
l
1
9
1
2
2
TABLE 8.3MAJOR THAILS IN THE UPPER SUSITNA RIVER BASIN
Type Beginning Middle End Years Used
Cat, ORV Gold Creek Devil Canyon 1950's-present
Cat, ORV Gold Creek R·idge top west Confluence of 1961-present
of VABM Clear John & Chunilna
creeks
Packhorse Sherman Confluence ·of 1948
John & Chuni 1 na
creeks
Cat Alaska Railroad, Chuni 1 na Creek 1957-present
mile 232
Foot Curry Cabin 3 km (2 mi.) 1926
east of VABM Dead
Packhorse, Talkeetna North of Stephan Lake 1948
foot Disappointment
Creek
Packhorse, Chulitna Portage Creek Lake west of 1920's-present
o 1 d sled road High Lake
ATV Denali Butte Lake Tsusena Lake 1950's-present
Highway
TABLE 8.4 LIST OF CRITICAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY INTERVIEWEES
Name and Tit 1 e
Stanley H. Bronczyk, Chief
Agency
FEDERAL
BLM
Type of Interview
Meeting
Branch of Easement Identification
Lee Barkow, Planner,
Anchorage District Office
Debbie Robertson
Land Management Officer
Bi 11 Beaty
Planning Supervisor
Ron Swanson
Land Management Officer
Lee Wyatt
Planning Director
Marge Sagerser
Land Manager
BLM
STATE
DNR
Division of Forest Land
& Water Management,
Southcentral District
Division of Research &
Development,
Land Resources Planning
Telephone
Telephone
Meeting
Division of Research & Meeting
Development,
Policy Research Land Entitlement
MUNICIPALITY
Matanuska-Susitna Borough Meeting
NATIVE
Cook Inlet Native Corporation Personal
Telephone
Date
5 May 1980
25 June 1980
5 May 1980
18 June 1980
18 June 1980
4 May 1980
23 April 1980
10 July 1980
TABLE 8-5 SUMMARY OF PRESENT AND FUTURE LAND MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES IN THE PROPOSED
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT AREA
Land Management Agency
U. S. Department of Interior
Bureau of Land Management
Alaska Department of
Natural Resources
Alaska Power Authority
Matanuska-Susitna Borough
Matanuska-Susitna Borough (in
affiliation with the Federal Office
of Coastal Zone Management and the
Alaska Coastal Management Program)
Cook Inlet Region, Inc. and several
villages
Current Management
Protection of natural environment;
fire control and the issuing of
of some special use permits.
. Present land use planning includes
mineral leasing and mineral entry
Planning for the disposal of state
lands that are immediately 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 biophysical area for
the coastal Zone Management Program.
None; lands currently being trans-
-ferred to individual villages.
Future Management Direction
Future management will be guided
by Southcentral Planning Area
Management Framework Plan and an
easement management plan.
State will be conveyed lands in
project area not conveyed to the
Natives. Management planning on
iands will not begin before 1983.
Submittal of a FERC license
ap p 1 i c at i on
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 in areas downstream of
Dev i 1 Can yon .
Management planning in general is
still undergoing land conveyance.
Table 8.6 Approximate Oistances in Miles of Each Access Plan Through Various
Land Ownership C 1 ass i fi cations.
Land
Classification
FD
FS
ss
SSP
sss
vsc
pp
TOTAL
Plan 13
(North)
0
1.0
5.5
7.5
26.5
18.5
0
59.0
Note: FD = Federal 0-1
FS = Federal Small Parcel
SS = State Selected
Plan 16
(South)
0
0.5
1.0
10.0
16.2
40.5
0.8
69.0
SSP= State Selection Patented or TA 1 0
SSS = State Selection Suspended
VSC =Village Selection
PP = Private Parcel
Plan 17
(Den a 1 i )
27.0
14.3
20.2
31.5
2.0
95 *
* In addition 21 miles of the nenali Highway would be upgraded.
(probably ~thin present ROW)
r--:•,1_ DENALI STATE PARK 11-STATE LANDS §-FEDERAL SMALL PARCELS ---LIMITS OF LAND IDENTIFICATION -PROPOSED ROAD
SSP-g~At{A~'EJ-!::CTION PATENTED~
ss-STATE SELECTED ~-FEDERAL D-1
SSS -STATE SELECTION SUSPENDED
·-PRIVATE PARCELS ---PROPOSED TRANSMISSION LINE CORRIDOR
FIGURE 8.1
~-VILLAGE OR NATIVE GROUP ~~~~~~:~~ •:,:~~=.:•:,~~L ~ MINING CLAIM ..............-PROPOSED RAILROAD LAND OWNERSHIP
DL -
: I . I
.... -. . ··-.. -·. - -
ACCESS PLAN 16
BDUTH
,,.,
! '· ·:-DENALI STATE PARK
~_)
~~-PRIVATE PARCELS
~-VILLAGE OR NATIVE GROUP
STATE LANDS ~-FEDERAL SMALL PARCELS
$$p-8TATE S£Lf:CTIOM PATENTED~
SS -s~~ ... i ~~~~CT!D ~-FEDERAL D-1
SSS -STATE SEL[CTIOfll SUSP£HOED
SRP-sTATE ••ooon ••oc•c ~ A MINING CLAIM
sos-sTATE DI9P.OSAL &tT£ x· ·
--LIMITS OF LAND IDENTIFICATION -PROPOSED i'IOAD
---PROPOSED TRANSMISSION LINE CORRIDOR .FIGURE 8.2
LAND OWNERSHIP
~ PROPOSED RAILROAD
DENALI STATE PARK
·-PRIVATE PARCELS
~~-VILLAGE OR NATIVE GROUP
SS -STATE SELECTION
SSS" SlATE SELECTION SUSPENDED
SSP-5TATE SELECTION PATENTED
OR: T ,!I.' D '
SRP-STATE REMOTE PARCEL
SOS-STATE DISPOSAL SiTE
n-FEDERAL SMALL PARCELS
~-FEDERAL D-1
"X' MINING CLAIM
---LIMITS OF LAND IDENTIFICATION
-----PROPOSED TRANSMISSION LINE CORRIDOR
t-t-H-+-1 PROPOSED RAILROAD
FIGURE 8.3 SHEET 1 OF 2
LAND OWNERSHIP
;· .·--: .. DENALI STATE PAliK
"--"'
~~-PRIVATE PARCEL.S
~-VILLAGE OR NATIVE GROUP
STATE LANDS
SS -STATE SE'LECTIOH
SSS-'>TATE: SELECTIO-. SVSPEN0£0
SSP-~TArE SELECTION PAfENH:O o;; r A ·a
SFIP~ <;"fAH: REMCIE P'ARCfL
50S-S'!'.AH.: DJSP05Al SITf
DENALI
§-FEDERAL SMALL PARCELS
~-FEDERAL D~1
X MINING CLAIM
--LIMITS OF L ... ND IDE~TIFICATION
-·-PROPOSED TRANSMISSION LINE CORRIDOR
~·~~ PROPOSED RAILROAD
-PROPOSED ROAD
FIGURE 8.3
SHEET 2 OF 2
LAND OWNERSHIP
MINERAL ENTRY
RECOMMENDATIONS
Illustration 25
: AREAS TO BE OPENED
TO FULL LOCATION
: AREAS TO BE OPENED ONCE.
CONFLICTS ARE RESOLVED
~ : CORRIDORS CLOSED BY ~ ANILCA AND TAPS
FIGURE 8.4
1 Entry Recommendations -BU·1 Mi nera
Denali Block.
. 'I I
9 -PUBLIC PREFERENCES
This section summarizes what the various publics think and feel about the
three access proposals, who will agree with them, who will disagree with them,
and why.
9.1 Local Residents in the Immediate Project Area
The immediate project area includes about 14 residents in Gold Creek;
people who obtained land in 19B1 through the Indian River remote parcel land
disposal; and people who obtained land in 1981 through the Indian River
subdivision offering.
Oi vi ded Opinions in Go 1 d Creek
Landholders in Gold Creek currently have differing opinions concerning
the development of a railhead at Gold Creek. Under the South Plan, a railhead
would be developed at Gold Creek at the outset of Watana construction. One
family is strongly opposed to a railhead at Gold Creek; another family appears
interested in having 160 acres of their land used as a marshalling yard.
Indian River Remote Parcel Owners Generally Desire No Roads in Their Area
With a few exceptions, most of the Indian River remote parcel owners
expressed the desire to have no Susitna road access go near them because they
wished the only access to their land to remain as it is now: rail road.
None of the three access plans has a road actually going directly to or
through the Indian River ranote area. The two western routes, however, cane
within several miles of the area.
Indian River Subdi vision Owners
Significant changes are anticipated in the Hurricane area along the Parks
Highway (primarily in and around the Indian River Subdivision) with the North
Plan. Changes would also occur with the South Plan, and considerably less
9-1
changes with the Denali Plan. Landholders in the Hurricane area (Indian River
Subdivision) have not expressed their attitudes towards change.
9.2 Surrounding Canmunities
The three communities discussed here are Trapper Creek, Ta"lkeetna, and
Cantwell.
Concern to Minimize Community Disruption in Talkeetna and Trapper Creek:
The main community concern on access plans is in regards to substantial
changes that all three access plans could create in both communities. In
terms of minimizing these changes, a cOTimitment to control the transport of
workers is roore important than the route selected.
Econanic Stimulus in Cantwell Generally Desirable:
Cantwell had mixed feelings about the Denali access route but generally
desired economic stimulus in their area. The mixed feelings came from those
who hunt along the Denali route now, and the realization that a road in that
area would increase the hunting pressure.
Because of the current lack of land for housing in Cantwell, consultants
to the Power Authority doubt that many people could relocate in Cantwell.
This could change, depending in large part on the future land use policies of
'
the AHTNA Corporation. Cantwell would, nonetheless, still receive some
economic boost if the Oenal i route were selected and equipment and supplies
were brought into Cantwell by rail and switched over to truck.
The selection of the Denali route is not expected to diminish any of the
changes and growth that could happen in Trapper Creek and Talkeetna.
9. 3 General Pub 1 i c
Two aspects of access planning are discussed here in regards to
preferences of the general public: potential visual impacts and potential
9-2
recreation.
Concern for Visual Impact of Marshalling Yards
Marshalling yards are expected to be about 100 acres in size. This is a
recently developed figure and one of which the public is not aware. Based on
the large public concern that emerged during the intertie routing process, the
Public Participation Office anticipates that the general public would find
marshalling yards of this size quite objectionable if they were visible from
the Parks Highway, obstructed views, or \\ere located near where people lived.
The exact location of marshalling yards is not detennined yet, nor has
the visual impact been assessed; yards are being considered in Hurricane area
along the parks Highway and also in Cantwell and Gold Creek.
All Three Access Plans Provide the Low to Moderate Level of Recreation
Development Desired by the General Public
Early in the planning work, the Alaska Power Authority determined that
the access plan would be selected first and that the recreation planning would
follow.
Also early in the planning, the University of Alaska, Fairbanks conducted
two mail surveys with randomly selected residents in the Rai1belt area. The
results of these surveys, coupled with canments at public meetings, suggests
that a low to moderate level of recreational development was desired by the
general public. The overall preference was to start small and build slowly.
All three access p,lan caul d provide this.
In addition, the CIRI villages have indicated an interest in developing
the recreation potential of the area, but as of yet, have not indicated any
specifics about their thinking against which the current access plans could be
evaluated.
9-3
9.4 Concern for Environmental Impacts
The conservation community and residents in Trapper Creek and Talkeetna
expressed strong concerns for the environmental changes that the project could
bring to the Susitna basin. Generally, those concerned would prefer limiting
public access after construction, and were supportive of the 11 rai1 only"
access.
The conservation community is generally against the nenali access route
because work done to date has identified it as having the most potential
environmental impacts, especially on the Nelchina caribou herd.
9.5 Current Users of the Susitna Basin
In an attempt to assess preferences of current users of the Susitna
Basin, questionnaires were sent in 1981 to registered game guides within the
Susitna Basin and miners who use the basin. Both these groups are organized
such that it was possible to send materials to them through existing mailing
lists and to solicit a response. The results are summarized here. There is
no intention to represent these two groups as the only users of the basin, for
in fact this is not so. Private hunters use the area, as well as trappers,
recreationists, private lodge owners, and others. In order to reach these
latter groups, we relied upon general public meetings and notices that were
held in Railbelt communities in 1981.
The miner's questionnaires were given to members of the Miners
Association in Fairbanks and to the Board of Directors in Anchorage. It is
not known how many were distributed. Eighteen were returned. Almost every
respondent identified a different area of the basin of interest to them. The
use ranged from mineral development to hunting/trapping/fishing to general
rest and recreation. Most use was in summer, and most wanted to see public
access vi a privately-owned vehicles after construct ion.
The game guide questionnaire was mailed to 200 guides and 29 responses
were received, a return of 15 percent. Of the responses 5fi percent were in
9-4
favor of public access after construction while 31 percent were opposed.
Responses on what game habitats should not be disturbed were varied, but
tended to indicate several areas of concern. One was the Deadman 1 S Creek
drainage and the area south of the Denali Highway that is utilized by the
Nel china caribou herd. Other areas mentioned were the Susitna River proper
and several of its major tributary routes. Over 40 percent of the guides
favored rail only access and this was often mentioned as first choice with
others listed second or third.
9.6 Other Interest Groups
In a November 5, 19Rl letter to the Alaska Power Authority, the Alaska
Sportfishing Association Board of Directors endorsed access plans that allowed
the maxi mum access to their members. They specifically mentioned the nenal i
Plan as best responding to their desire to develop the area into a new
recreation area. The Associated noted their membership at 1300 members.
9-5
SUS ITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
ACCESS PLAN RECOMMENDATION REPORT
APPENI1IX A-D
LIST OF APPENDICES
A-IDENTIFICATION OF ACCESS ALTERNATIVES
B -ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
C -PREFERENCES OF NATIVE ORGANIZATIONS
D ~ RELATIONSHIP TO CURRENT LAND STEWARDSHIP, USES AND PLANS
APPENOIX A
IDENTIFICATION OF ACCESS ALTERNATIVES
A.1 C011ments by Phase 2 Engineering Bidders
A.2 Statement of the Susitna Hydroelectric Steering
Committee (dated November 5, 1981)
Table A.1 Access Plan Costs
Figure A.1 Route ~an: Access Plan 13-North
Figure A.2 Route Plan: Access Plan 16 -South
Figure A.3 Route ~an: Access ~an 17 -Oenali
APPEND I X A.l
July 29, 1982
Gentlemen:
The Power Authority is currently engaged in final deliberations.
leading to a selection of a preferred access route. This is the route
that will be reflected in the FERC license application. We have provid-
ed three (3) options to our Soard of Directors~ and some information
concerning those options. We will supplement that information in mid
August. and hopefully the Board w111 make a selection at their meeting
later that month.
Basically. the thre~ options presented involve access from the ~est
on the South side of the Susitna River; access from the West on the
North side of the Susitna River; and access· from the Denali Highway
directly to the Watana Dam site.
In recognition of the fact that the preferred access decision will
not be made until after the deadline for proposal submittals. do not try
to adjust your proposal to react to these three options. Instead,
continue to use the guida~ce of our RFP Amendment No. 3.
There are numerous issues associated with this decision. For the
most part. we feel we have adequate data in hand. However, we would
like to invite all proposers to comment on one particular aspect; the
question of limited versus open access to the construction sites.
A number of voices are concerned with maintaining to the maximum
degree possible the pristine wilderness character of the Susitna Basin.
They are apprehensive that free access to the project site will have
primary and secondary impacts that would be detrimental to a preserva-
tion objective. On the other side of the issue9 there is a sentiment
that maximum transportation flexibility is necessary if the project 1 s.
to successfully avoid undue logistics problems. As a result of pro-
longed evaluations and debate, the issue 1s now sunJnar1zed as a choice
between having project access from the existing road network or only via
railroad. The limited access voices view access via rai·lroad as facili-
tating access control, particularly if the objective is to have highly
restricted access. Again9 the opposing view is, the railroad is subject
to too many uncertainties to be a reliable supply gateway.
We would welcome your comments on the issue of a railroad gateway
only versus a connection to the road network.. If you choose to ctlllB!ent.
we would appreciate it if you would back up your position with examples
and other tangible information as might be suitab1e. ~e will provide
your input to our Soard of Directors for their consideration. We wculd
like to include these inputs in the briefing package ment.ioned above; in
order to do that, ~ need to bear f~ you prior to August 9. 198Z.
· Let me euphas1ze that you are under no obligation to respond to
this invitation. Further. this invitation is a matter tota11y unrelated
to the Request for Proposa h a~tivities., and wi 11 not have any 1 nfluence
an those proceedings.
FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
DOW! sf
Sfncerely,
David 0. Wozniak
Proje~t-Engineer
12110
Bechtel Civil & Minerals, Inc.
Engineers-Constructors
Fifty Beale Street
San Francisco, California
Ma1/ Address: P.O. Box 3965, San FranciSCO, CA 94119
August 4, 1982
Mr. David N. Wozniak
Project Engineer
Alaska Power Authority
334 West 5th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
RECEIY.EG
. -..
AUG 5-
AJ,N//.A POWER AUTHORI'I]
Dear Mr. Wozniak:
With reference to your July 29, 1982 letter regarding a "railroad gateway" to
the Susitna Project, we can offer the following comments:
o Construction of a railroad would probably cost in the order
of twice as much as a road ($120 million vs $60 million,
approximately).
o More significantly, a railroad would take at least one year
longer to build which would, of course, impact costs for all
of the rest of the project.
o Once the railroad is in place, we would not anticipate
significant negative impacts on project construction. The
Churchill Falls Project in Labrador was built essentially
"at the end of a railroad", although that railroad was in
place prior to project construction and all that was needed
was a relatively short connecting access road.
We can think of no reason why effective access limitations could not be
imposed during construction on a road built into Watana, restricting usage to
authorized personnel. Such limitations are in place on the James Bay Project
in Quebec, utilizing gates, guard posts, etc., and are working effectively.
This should minimize impacts on the wilderness character of the area during
the construction period. These limitations could, of course, be continued
during the period following construction completion.
For the period following construction, as a related matter, APA might wish to
consider the possibility of using single-status accommodations as an
alternative to the family village concept now planned for housing the permanent
operations staff. Under such an alternative, operators could be flown in and
out on a scheduled basis such as "10 days on, 6 days off". This would place
their families in existing metropolitan areas, would eliminate the need for
a family-status operators' village with full support infrastructure, and
would therefore eliminate the need to maintain open on a full-time basis an
access road (or railroad) to the site from Gold Creek.
12111
Mr. David N. Wozniak
August 4, 1982
Page Two
Bechtel Civil & Minerals, Inc.
There is a family-status operations village, which was originally used for
construction, in place on the Churchill Falls Project. At James Bay, the
original intent was also to use a family-status village for operations, and
some permanent village-type facilities were therefore constructed early so
that they could be used by contractors and the owner's supervisory staff.
Subsequently, after analysis, Hydro Quebec decided that it would be preferable
both from the cost and employee morale standpoints to operate this remote
project with single-status personnel only. It is now anticipated that
permanent apartment-type units will eventually be constructed. At present,
operators are flown. in and out, and are housed single-status in the family
village. This experience emphasizes the importance of considering these
alternatives early in the final developmental phase of the Susitna Project.
I hope our comments are helpful to you. We look forward to submitting our
definitive proposal for the Susitna Project Phase II engineering services on
Monday, August 16th.
JAP:yt
John A. Peterson
Business Development Manager
Hydro Projects
R. w. BECK AND AsSOCIATES, INC
P.O. BOX2400
SITKA, ALASKA
99835
FILENO. HH-0000-BD-SW
A4-2
Mr. David D. Wozniak
Project Engineer
Alaska Power Authority
334 West 5th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Gentlemen:
ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS
TOWER BUILDING
7TI1 AVENUEATOLI~~v ~ E IV e 0 SEATTLE, WASHINGTOJ::i'96Jf""
206-622-SOOO
AUG 91982
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
Subject: Limited Versus Unlimited Access to
Susitna Project Site
P.O.BOX6818
KETCHIKAN, ALASKA
99901
August 6 t 1982
We are pleased to comment on what we agree is a most important
decision that needs to be made by the Power Authority. There is no question
that the Susitna Project could be built with only the railroad· to handle all
materialst equipment and supplies but the logistics of using only the railroad
would add to scheduling problems, require load size limitations, do away with
competitive haul ratest and result in cost increases. ,..
Several of our people have long experience records in the construc-
tion field especially in work outside the lower forty-eight states. None of
them can recall a project close to the size of Susitna that did· not utilize
every form of transportation available and in addition none recall a site that
did not have some available truck haul. If the highway did not exist we doubt
that it would be built just for this project. With only the short access and
the fact that the highway leads to both Anchorage and Fairbanks, however, it
is logical and prudent to make the connection. While access from the Denali
Highway may be less expensive to construct, the all weather access from Parks
Highway is measurably shorter from the Anchorage supply base.
Limiting the access to the project would in fact be putting a
restraint on all operations of the prime cont:tactorst supply contractors,
project managers, camp operations and especially on the local contractors who
are accustomed to using their own hauling equipment. This restraint would add
millions of dollars to the cost, and could possibly delay the on-line dates of
the units. Recent construction and operation of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline
project demonstrates the desirability of road access for logistical and other
supplies.
Mr. David D. Wozniak -2-August 6, 1982
With a population at the site between 2,000 and 4,500 workers for
several years the turnover coupled with the "R and R" traffic into the cities
of Anchorage and Fairbanks will be enough to make a road mandatory. Getting
people to work and live in the camp will be more difficult if they know their
only access to the outside is by rail.
While air service by fixed wing aircraft will be supplied, there
will be a continuous need for parts and supplies on a day by day basis that
can be handled most efficiently by truck. Also air service to the site would
be limited because of inclement weather.
Even though the area is closed off after completion of the project
there is no reason that access from the highway should not be available during
the construction period. Once the project is complete the access could be
closed.
We believe that our wilderness should be preserved but we are also
of the opinion that a project such as Susitna should be made available for
every visitor and taxpayer to see. Projects such as these are monuments to
man's ingenuity and to hide them from all but a few does not seem to fit our
democratic system.
JVW/vla
Very truly yours,
R. W. BECK AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
James V. Williamson
Vice President
Gibbs SHill. Inc.
...... trtc Youl-d
&ecutive Direc'tofi
Alasta ,.._,. Authority
334 west 5th .Ave.
Ancllorage. Alaska 99501
Dear Mr. Yould:
August 8., 1982
Reference is made to your letter of daly 29. 1982. f'qarding projec-t .access
ami more specifically to tlte question of •open-versus "limited"' access.
~.access ;r tke Denali s;g~~way ~ion --is cei"timy iisire61e frem a ca-a:ctDr standpoint to have good
tritt-J access fNII. tlte coastruction s;tes an the way to tile· Parks
Jttgllw~ or the Dellil.11 H1gt.way. • Several reasoRs nay be sited:
a) Road access •ill allow tile contract~Ws and the 011mer
to tnnspart go04s independent of. the railroad ...
The railroad has not ieen particalarly reliable in the
past... . Roatl access •ill allow-tile contractors and OMJer
.-x1mum flex1b1lit.J to scftedule sllipments wttea aad as
required, and -not· wlleu tbey -~ _. sllipped. to fit the
railroaci s.chetlttle-. Rcad-aca!ss win allow sft1pment_ by
LU.. (less ttran truckload) lots of da.Y-to-day requirements-.
For example. • tawlt· truck or t1"Udcs would daily snuttel
parts,. tdnor equipment. san tools and exjltmdallles from
Anchorate to ttle· site. The greatest ueefi for this service
wulct I» earlier in tile jab before a good inventory fs
warehousecl .at tM site. but nerally sudt a s...vice continues
tlwougkout the work.
a.} If •1 imited access• wins out. APA should build a rai1/trud
depot a few mtles towat'ds tlte site from the m~dnl'kle.
This •111 enta11 cleariR9 .tlld. gradi~~g of a suhstarrtial uoea
for siding ud waNilouses-widl -will lave. some effect .Cift. the-
•,ns~iae wtl~.
e) Both 1teiiS a) and b) abeve would result. in lrigtter costs if the
Hatted access optien vins eut.
d) Ia case of _,_m:y, IdleR it _, be necessary to evacuate
iftjtwed: or ·sick JIH"'SOftS f1'Cil tbe site and weatl1r will ROt
permit f'lyi.~~g •. it. wuld be .... dator,y to bave road access. by
aliiGutance· to the ain ·reads. •
.a.) TratJsportatioR in and out af fanri1 ies uul s;ngle .--living
at t11e sita 111CH11a be asch fac11 itated lay comtectiQns to
roa4s.. *--do ,yoa handle this otbenrise? fly eveey.one in
mel ouU Transport tba by bus to the rail ~ aad. theft
by tl"a11l? lbis would ae va17 allkward and not make for a
hatJiW livi.ng sitttatiaa for either furi11es or siqle persons.
Mr. Eric You1d August a, 1982
Com:l usion! It is .we desiraille to have a conl!Kt.ion to ttte road network from the
staadpoin'tS .of flexibility. ecollQQ.lY. 1!11B'gene1 and ease of. living.. It would
·· appear tbat the APA· could achieve: tbis alld st111 limit access to tAe site.
Th1s could eastlJ IH! handled fly utablistdng manned cJteckpo;nt just off the
ma:fn higbwaJ aftd allow only autllorized vehicle access to the site. This was
4ane an tile Alyeska Pr.oject aDd on numerous other projects w;th good resalts*.
Very truly yours.
I HILL. INC.
JHJ/djc
Gibbs & Hill. Inc.
Mr. Erie Yould
Executive Director ·
Alaska Power Auttlority
334 West 5th Avenue·
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Dear Mr. Yould:
August !, 1982
Reference is made· to your-letter of July 2.9. 1982~ and our rep,ly
of August 8, 1982 •. Please tdd. the followiag as a recaiiiAindatia oa
Page, Z after tttonc.lusioa":
1.. Initially censtr.uct at tile Vatana site· 6.,000 ft .. of road ·
su~h that: this portioa of tie road. will be-lt$84. as a
landfftl strip ~-DC-lllE-t.-p:lanu.
2.. Equ1pment to constnJCt the aforementioned POadiJ'III1WaY· eaod.we ,
mobilized during. the wiater·mantfls. (eitlmr" over1ud, GJ"· by-
bel iccpter) •.. di-sass8111blea.. tis· reasSflllbltci •.
3.. Equipment. and, material$ depots for the remaiJriu9. 1'!tiiCl
. CQBS.tl'Uc:timt silau:ld be .... Hsbect at sV&te,ic paiftts.
along the future road aligalent., likewise during tte
wtnter months. ·
4.. The M~~R~ining road itself cat1 then be reatlily ccm1nlcted
during the sunmer 1111nths ..
JS/dC
bee: S.Koretsky
S.Sbevekov
J.Si1veira
P,Gafner
J. Johnston.
Harza-Ebasco
400 -ll2th Avenue NE
Bellevue, WA 98004
(206/451-4500)
August 6, 1982 BSCEIVEQ
Alaska Power Authority
334 west Fifth Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
AUG -91982
ALAsKA POWER AUTHORJ 1Y.
Attention:
Subject:
Gentlemen:
Mr. David D. Wozniak, Executive Secretary
Selection Committee
Susitna Hydroelectric Project -Acc.ess Road
The Alaska Power Authority invited comments on the issue of a railroad.
gateway only (limited access) versus an access connection to a public
highway by letter dated July 29, 1982. These comments are intended to
aid the Alaska Power Authority Board of Directors in their evaluation
of a preferred access route for construction and operation of the watana
Project.
The key points which will be given consideration in selection of the
route include:
reliability --freedom from interruptions which may have
an impact on the construction schedule;
logistics --method and comparative cost of transport of
materials and personnel; and
multiple project savings --can a savings on the combined
projects, Watana and Devil Canyon, be realized?
Limited Access
Although the limited access approach, railhead in the vicinity of Gold
creek with a restricted roadway from the railhead to the site, with no
road construction to the Parks Highway may be environmentally more
attractive, it is undersirable from a construction standpoint wherein
Page 2 -Continued August 6, 1982
Alaska Power Authority
Mr. David D. Wozniak, Executive Secretary
schedules and logistics are vulnerable to interrpution of traffic flow
on the railroad.
Advantages
o · Precludes public access.
o No major·bridge over Susitna
River.at Gold Creek.
o Connects Watana and Devil
Canyon Project~
o Most economical. construction
if both Watana and Devil
Canyon are considered.
Disadvantages
o Dependency on a single mode of
transportation for mobilization
and support of contracts can
seriously impact schedules,
which in the case of river diver-
sion or closure may result in the
loss of a full construction season.
o Lack of the flexibility of alter-
nate access routes will result in
higher bid prices for construction.
o The logistics ·of supply become
more complicated due to:
-LOnger lead time requirements.
Supply line availability is
beyond contractor's control and
dependent on the railroad-
-Special railroad equipment is not
readily available at all times.
-Possibility of railroad worker•s
strikes with resultant interrup-
tion of supply line for extended
periods.
-Dependency on train schedules.
o Emergency situations are more diffi-
cult to handle when direct access to
major highways is not possible.
Page 3 -Continued August 6, 1982
Alaska Power Authority
Mr. David D. Wozniak, Executive Secretary
A recent example is provided of the effect of disruption of traffic on a
single access corridor, although not as serious in nature:
Early access for delivery of materials to the site of the
Satsop Nuclear Power Plant in Washington was by way of a
single on~way road, wherein the breakdown of a truck
(there were as many as 40 in line) halted all travel until
it could be towed off the road. In the case of Watana, in
addition to delay indelivery of materials, a camp full of
3,000 workers would depend upon an air shuttle for support.
The unsettled future ownership of the Alaska Railroad may-also affect
the reliability of this mode of transport. The railroad (limited access)
scheme is also sul!.lject to the same restraint that affects any access from
the west --possible schedule impact because of lack of a pioneer road.
Access from Parks Highway
Whether the route from Devil Canyon to Watana is located on the north
side or the south side of' the Susitna River 1 the problems with this
access are similar~ The north side may be preferable environmentally 1
but because of the high level bridge at Devil Canyon required for that
route, the route on the south side of the river appearsless likely·to
have schedule impact on Watana construction. Lacking a pioneer road,
the massive rock excavation and high level bridge across Cheechako Creek
are the major deterrents to early access on this route.
Advantages
o Full access including rail-
head at Gold Creek for
construction supplies and
personnel.
o Connects Watana and Devil
Canyon Projects.
o Least restrictive -less
costly for logistics.
o Greater flexibility and
reliability in case of
transportation interruption
with one mode of transport.
o Lower construction and ser-
vice contract bids with
contractors' choice of
transportation.
o Transmission line location
can partially follow same
corridor.
Disadvantages
o Without early entry, project
schedule impacted by construc-
tion of major bridges.
o Potential detrimental effect to
preservation obje~tive because
public access.
Page 4 -Continued August 6, 1982
Alaska Power Authority
Mr. David D. Wozniak, Executive Secretary
Access from Denali Highway·
Access road construction to serve the Watana site is simplified if this
approach is adopted, since the length of new road construction is reduced,
the terrain is such that cost per mile will be less, and no major bridges
will be required. However, this route does not provide. access to the
Devil Canyon site.
Advantages
o Can meet Project Schedule since
access construction c~~ be com-
pleted in one construction
season.
o No major pridges.
o Full access for construction con-
tractors.
o Greater flexibility and relia-
bility in case of transportation
interrUption with one mode of trans-
port.
o Lower construction and service
contract bids with contractors'
choice of transportation.
o Access construction costs for
Watana is least expensive. How-·
ever if access to both projects
is provided, the total access
cost will be comparable to the
Parks Highway-Watana access.
cost Impact:;
Disadvantages
o Estimated 50-mile longer road haul.
o No connection to Devil canyon.
o Potential ~pact from public access:
o Impact on caribou calving area and
summer range.
The lilni ted access logist·ics expense will not be materially different from
that which will be incUrred if access is provided from the Parks Highway,
since a combined through rate (lower 48 point of shipment to delivery at
site), including rehandling costs at the railhead, can be negotiated. There
will be some added expense· of transporting more personnel by air. Large
pieces of equipment, which cannot pass through the 10' x 12' tunnel between
Whittier and Anchorage, will need to be rerouted through the port of Seward,
with a much longer rail connection to Gold Creek.
With the added 52 miles (approximate--depending on final route selection
within the corridor) in road length from Anchorage to the Watana site, the
cost of road transport will increase if the Denali Highway access is adopted.
Page 5 -Continued August 6, 1982
Alaska Power Authority
Mr. David D. Wozniak, Executive Secretary
However, this increa_se will not be proportional to length since less mile-
age will be at the off~highway rate. The added cost for all-truck trans-
port will have minimal effect on total logistics expense .far Watana since
the majority of material will move by rail to the railhead and be trans-
ferred to trucks at that point for the shorter road transport to the site.
We suggest that a marshalling yard be constructed at Broad Pass rather than
Cantwell, in the event that access from the north is adopted. Gravel is
readily available at Broad Pass, thereby minimizing the cost of construction.
Operation of the yard at this location should overcome any objections by the
residents to operation of a yard at Cantwell.
The added cost of rail transport to Broad Pass-rather than Gold Creek will
be a definite increase in the logistics expense; however, itwill be
partially offset by the lesser distance from railhead to damsite. Using
quantities of materials previously estimated by the Power Authority, and
today's railroad tariffs, we estimate that the added logistics expense for
Watana will be in the neighborhood of $8,000,000 in 1982 dollars. This
increase is far below the offsetting cost savings to be realized in access
road construction.
Potential Sc:::hedule Impact
As can be seen from the discussion above, the limited access approach has
a potential for major schedule impacts. Because of the time span required
for construction of an access road between Gold creek and Watana, the Parks
Highway access route has much greater potential, with upwards of one year
delay, for schedule impact than the Denali Highway access route.
The Denali Highway access route has very little potential for schedule im-
pact. In addition, there is less roadway to be traversed beyond the limits
of state highway maintenance.
The Harza-Ebasco Joint Venture appreciates the opportunity to provide these
observations regarding access to the Susitna Hydroelectric Project. Should
you have further questions or comments, please call.
cc~ Richard L. Meagher
i-G25804C221 ijB/09182
TLX KRISENGS OAK ~
.· . .:.: (ill 8-9-82
REFERENCE YOUR LETTER OF JULY 28l 1982, WE STRONGLY
THRT THE RRllRORD ONLY RLTERNATIUE
~OULD NOT CONSTITUTE H SUFFICIENTlY EFFICIENT ~ND FLEXI-
~ .-..~.-~:-....... ,. ______ --
LHKut ~UHNIJIJt~ U~
T-G THE
:-~:: ..
Ci..iL i
~! =~ : :-·! =-·
r~.ii ... C,·)z
,: ..., .. -::
.if~;"
':'.-... ~ .. -.~~=-tJ u ,tt::: l j t. c
::r~--~:: 7
~C.~UL.~
ACCESS
n.n:-= r:-;-.. !:-·
ri''!.!.N!:.i.:!~
HIGHER
STONE & WEBSTER · TAMS
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA
ADDRESS ALL CORAESPOICOENCE TO: SUITE 1 -BLDG. H
4791 BUSINESS PARK BLVD. ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 99603
August 6, 1982
Mr. David D. Wozniak
Project Engineer
Alaska Power Authority
334 West 5th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
RECEIVED
AUG 91982
ALASKA. POWER AUTHORilY
ACCESS ROUTES
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
Dear Mr. Wozniak:
We welcome the opportunity to reply to your July 29, 1982 letter in order· to provide you
with our comments on the question of limited versus open access to the Susitna Project
construction sites. From our experiences an construction of major power projects,. we
believe that a total highway access route is the most reliable and least costly means of
access during construction of the Susi tna Project. Also, the highway access can-be
provided with effective access control to include eliminating the access after
construction is complete. On the other hand, the limited access of a railroad gateway, as
shown in Amendment No. 3, has a number of major disadvantages which will result in
severe additional construction costs, possible schedule delays and possible adverse
environmental impacts. Some of the most serious disadvantages of the railroad-highway
access, compared to the all-highway access, are as follows:
1. The majority of material shipped to the site would have to be handled at least one
additional time. Shipments of goods originating in Alaska would have to be handled
twice except for those generated at shipping points on the railroad.
2. Shipments would be "locked" into the schedule established by the railroad.
Emergency and rush shipments would have to be made by air, if possible •.
Mr. David Wozniak
Alaska Power Authority
August 6, 1982.
Page Two
3. Special handling equipment, ie. carriers, trucks, tractors, and trailers, to be used
between the rail end and construction site would be captive to the· project and not
readily usable elsewhere. The materials and equipment ·entering the site will be
designated for-a number of different contractors, and it would be impractical and
excessively costly to have each do his own hauling. Therefore, APA would need to
award a contract that would have to provide and service this equipment.
Attachment No. 1 is our first cut estimate of the captive equipment needed for
hauling from the rail end to the site.
4. We estimate that total shipping time for materials leaving the Anchorage area to the
site will be 2 to 4 times longer over the railroad-highway access route.
5. Equipment for offloading rail cars and loading trucks, as shown on Attachment No. 1
would have to be permanently located at the rail end. Also, provisions for storage of
bulk materials, such as cement and fuel, would probably be required, and would
partially duplicate those required at the site. Facilities for maintaining this
equipment would be required at the rail terminals.
6. The activities and manpower required at the rail gateway will probably result in the
development of a small community or camp with all the facilities needed for human
habitation. This would be another center of human activity, with potential negative
impacts on the surrounding area.
7. Work stoppage or interruption of the railroad would curtail and possibly stop
construction activities.. While this is also true for the all-highway acceSS", our
experience indicates such delays are of much greater duration with rail services.
Although it was not possible to quantify all of the above disadvantages, we did look at
shipment of two key constructiCil materials, cement and structural steel, as a measure of
the imlJact of the railroad-highway access route.
Based on the present construction plans for· Watana, we estimate that it will require
200,000 tons of cement to be used in the four-year-period from 1989 through 1992. This
will require receipt of about ten railroad cars of cement per week during the four years.
One could anticipate that during peak usage, cement deliveries could be two to three
times that average. We estimate that the additional costs associated with a
railroad-highway mode for transportation of cement only is in the· order of a million
dollars, not including the capital investment in trucks, storage and transfer facilities. For
the Devil's Canyon Project, which has the concrete arch dam, the cement tonnage may be
doubled, with another 2 million dollars impact. We estimate that extra handling of
structural steel, such as tunnel supports and reinforcing steel, will cost a half million
dollars for each of the two projects; or an added million dollars just for handling the steel
items. These are only two of the many materials that will need extra handling. If we
include the special handling and off-loading for major equipment i.e. turbines, generators,
transformers, breakers, etc., we are probably talking about a total added cost of 5 to 8
million dollars.
Mr. David Wozniak
Alaska Power Authority
August 6, 1982
Page Three
We understand that much of the opposition to overall highway access to the site is based
on the concern that the highway will provide ready access to the general public to a large
area which has not been subjected to the pressures usually associated with heavy human
intrusion. We believe that during construction, use of the access road can be controlled
with only those with legitimate purposes at the site permitted on the road. The same
kinds of controls would be required on a railroad-highway access.
Upon completion of construction, there are several techniques available which can deny
use of the highway and severely limit the access of the motoring public to the area.
These are as follows:
1. Use of barriers and/rr moveable spans on bridges across major river crossings~ Bridge
locations should be selected to ensure that motor vehicles cannot by-pass them.
2.. Removal of the highway and return to natural contours and conditions of those
sections whid1 can not readily be by-passed.
Given the limited time we have had to look at this matter, we hope this information is of
assistance in providing input to your Board of Directors regarding the access issue. We
believe the proj~t can be constructed using either access mode but that the all-highway
access is the less costly and offers many advantages during construction.. In our opinion,
the highway option can be constructed and operated during and after construction to limit
access of tre general public to tre area to the same degree as the railroad-highway access ..
Very truly yours,
Bernard ~ Roth
Project Manager
STONE & WEBSTER-TAMS
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
ESTIMATE OF MAJOR CAPTIVE EQUIPMENT FOR HAULING FROM TERMINUS
OF RAIL SPUR TO WATANA
8 Bulk cement trailers (25 ton capacity) with 8 tractors
6 25 ton capacity flatbed trailers with 3 tractors
2 Heavy duty Gooseneck trailers for hauling equipment
1 Tractor for above
5 4 wheel drive snow plows
2 Rotary snow blowers
2 Road graders
2 Dozers
12 Enclosed trailers
2 Frozen food trailers
8 Gasoline tank trailers
8 Tractors for above,
ESTIMATE OF MAJOR CAPTIVE EQUIPMENT REQUIRED AT RAILHEAD FOR
OFFLOADING AND MAif\JTENANCE
1 Crane, approximately 90 ton
1 Large fork truck
1 Large cherry picker 30-40 ton
1 15 ton cherry picker
1 Road grader
1 Dozer
Pumping facility for transferring fuel
Facility for transferring cement ·
Maintenance facility including electric power
STONE & WEBSTER-TAMS.
APPtNDIX A.2
nEPAilTMENT 01<' NATURAl. RI<:SOURCES
DIVISION OF RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
November 5, 1981
Mr. Eric Yould, Executive Director
Alaska Power Authqrity
333 West Fourth Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Dear Mr. Yould:
I
JAY i HAMMOND, GO'ffftNOI
323 E. 4TH A VENUE
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501
276-2653
RECEIVED
7-! ,-..., 1. I , . ; -~ 0 . '" ''
l ·~ · ..... ·,; '.. .!-~ > .l
'f.I.IIC\l•i pn(:.IH1 bU'·J-·r'IQPiTV f.""i..:._ii.·...:~\.(' u~.~ ....... .!1'\ a •••• l 1
The purpose of this letter is to transmit to the Alaska Power Authority
(APA) comments from the Susitna Hydroelectric Steering Committee (SHSC) con-
cerning APA•s proposals for access to the proposed Susitna River dam sites.
These comments are in response to .information provided the SHSC from two access
route meetings with APA and their contractors and the documents prepared by APA
contractors and distributed during these meetings. At the October 20, 1981
meeting APA requested SHSC cotm1ents by No~ ember 6, 1981. The SHSC appreciates
the fact that APA continued detailed consideration and studies of several access
route options this year rather than focusing on a single route.
The SHSC review identified four areas of concern that merited comment.
Those four are:
1. A critique of the studies of access routes which provide for construc-
tion of the dams.
2. The relationship between timing of access route construction and
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approval for dams.
3. The relationship of access route decision and modes of access to
regional land use management policies.
4. The issues resultant from land status and land ownership affected by
the proposed project.
The assessment of corridor route alternatives should more adequately weigh
the potential impacts of borrow sites and access to these sites, and trans-
mission line(s) routing. Access corridors which serve a dual, or triple, purpose
in regard to these other project access needs would be highly desirable from all
decision-making criteria. ·
Mr. Eric Yould Page -2-November 5, 1981
The access preferences expressed below pertain to the general locations
cited for the corridors and are based upon the environmental data and conclu-
sions contained within the environmental documents prepared for Subtask 2.10.
Access Road Assessment. It does not represent our endorsement of a particular
1-mile-wide corridor, as presented.
The SHSC agrees with the Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, Inc. posi-
tion that access via the Alaska Railroad to Gold Creek is environmentally pre-
ferable. Railroad access to at least Devil Canyon would alleviate the need for
a staging area at Gold Creek and the consequent human activity, land use, fuel
spills, and other impacts on the Gold Creek area. We recognized that a staging
area at Devil Canyon would be required in any case. The use of this area as the
terminus of a railroad appears to make a great deal of sense. Additionally, we
feel that the south side route from Gold Creek to Devil Canyon is preferable
since a trail already exists there. From Devil Canyon to Watana, we prefer a
route on the north side of the Susitna River. At the October 20, 1981 meeting
the SHSC was informed by Mr. David Wozniak of APA that there were two (2)
additional railroad route/mode options (a total of 10) . If feasible we gen-
erally prefer a rail mode of access to and within the project site.
The SHSC identified three (3) environmentally sensitive areas that should
be avoided. Those are:
1. The routes from the Denali Highway.
2. The route crossing the Indian River and through wetlands to the Parks
Highway.
3. The route on the south side of the Susitna River from Devils Canyon to
the proposed Watana dam site.
In evaluating the access route selection process undertaken by the APA and
its contractors, the Steering Committee questions the validity of the power-on-
line in 1993 assumption/mandate. The 11 We•ve got to hurry up and put in a road
to meet the 1993 deadline 11 approach appears, from currently available reports
and the briefings received by the Susitna Hydroelectric Steering Committee on
October 20, 1981, to point toward the n~cessity of a pioneer road constructed
before a FERC license is granted, or selection of an apparently environmentally
unacceptable Denali Highway access route.
Local utilities are not approaching construction of a project the magnitude
of Susitna in 1993 as a foregone conclusion and are making contingency plans to
meet projected power needs. Gas and coal generated power options are being
examined. In addition, feasibility studies are currently being undertaken by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the APA at numerous potential hydroelectric
generating sites. The Battelle Railbelt Electric Power Alternative Study should
provide insight into additional power generation options. As such, we believe
that the 1993 '1deadline'1 for power-on-line from Susitna may not be that firm and
imperative. Thus the SHSC does not believe the 1993 deadline should constrain
the overall decision-making process and the orderly progress of various studies
on project feasibility and environmental impacts. Permitting and resource
agencies, including FERC, should be expected to link a pio~eer road to the
overall project ..
Mr. Eric Yould Page -3-November 5, 1981
Public access to the dam sites and through the Upper Susitna Valley is
complex and a controversial subject and we believe this issue should be given
thorough evaluation in the route selection process. How construction-related
access is obtained to a great extent determines the project-related wildlife and
socioeconomic impacts. The APA has been soliciting the views of local residents
(Talkeetna, Trapper Creek, etc.) in regard to the access question. The majority
of residents want to minimize impacts to both their community and the Upper
Susitna Valley. The APA has solicited the views of the state and federal resource
agencies. It has been the predominant view of these agencies, which represent
public interests on a state or national level, that project-related wildlife
impacts should be limited to the maximum extent practicable. In addition, the
APA has expressed the desire to maximize the options for future public access.
We believe that these vieV~rs mesh. Minimizing impacts and maximizing options for
future public access can be achieved by mimicking, to the extent possible, the
status quo. For example, to provide full public access through a road system,
forecloses the future option of maintaining the existing character of the Upper
Susitna Valley.
Use of rail as the access mode increases the potential for management and
control of socioeconomic and environmental impacts. Maximized rail use provides
for the following advantages over road access:
1. Maintains a maximum range of future decision options.
2. Provides for control of worker impacts on local communities and wild-
life.
3. Decreases the potential of hazardous material spills due to adverse
weather conditions and multiple handling.
4. Disturbance to wildlife adjacent to the route can be more easily
controlled.
5. Direct access right-of-way related habitat losses can .be significantly
1 imited.
Briefly the land status of the project area has not changed significantly
within the last year. There are several complex problems concerning land status
that have been brought to your attention by BLM.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Access Road
Assessment documents. We look forward to ~eceiving the final version of these
documents after November 15, 1981~ and anticipate providing additional recom-
mendations into this decision-making process.
Sincerely,
Al Carson, Chairman
Susitna Hydroelectric
Steering Committee
cc: D. Wozniak, APA
Steering Committee Members
R. Stoops
PLAN
DESCRIPTION
i~ileage Road
Ra i l
l
ROADWAY: PARKS
HIGHWAY TO DEVIL
CANYON & WATANA
ON SOUTH SIDE OF
SUSITNA.
62
Table: A~l Access Plan Costs
2
RAIL: GOLD CREEK
TO DEVIL CANYON &
WATANA ON SOUTH
SIDE OF SUSITNA.
58
3
ROADWAY: DENALI
HIGHWAY TO WATANA.
PARKS HIGHWAY TO
DEVI C. CANYON ON
SOUTH SIDE OF
SUSITNA. NO CONN-
ECTING ROAD.
* 91
4
ROADWAY: DENALI
HIGHWAY TO WATANA.
RAIL, GOLD CREEK TO
DEVIL CANYON ON
SOUTH SIDE OF SUS-
ITNA. NO CONNEC-
TING ROAD.
* 65
16
Design and Construction Cost
I' " 1,000,000) 170 149 157 123 \ ~
Maintenance Cost
( $ X 1,000,000) 9 5 7 5
Logistics C0s t
(S X 1,000,000) 214 214 228 228
Tot a: Cost
( <t
.~ / 1,000,000) 393 368 392 356
Construction Schedule
for Initial Access (Years) 1 3-4 1 1
Construction Schedule
for Fun Access (Years) 3-4 3-4 2-3 2-3
Sri dges Major ( >1000 ft) 3 2 1 0
Minor (< 1000 ft) 2 0 1 0
* Includes upgrading 21 miles of the Denali Highway
5
ROADWAY: PARKS
HIGHI~AY TO DEVIL
CANYON ON SOUTH
SIDE OF SUSITNA.
DEVIL CANYON TO
WATANA ON NORTH
SIDE OF SUSITNA.
81
160
8
216
384
2'-3
3-4
2
1
6
ROADWAY: DENALI
HIGHWAY TO WATANA.
RAIL: .···GOLD C~EEK
TO DEVIL CANYON
ON SOUTH SIDE OF
SUSITNA. CONNEC-
TING ROAD ON NORTH
SIDE OF SUSITNA.
* 107
16
180
12
228
420
1
3
0
0
Revision: 0
Sheet 1 of 3
PLAN
DESCRIPTION
Mileage Road
Rail
Design and Cohstruction Cost
($ X 1,000,000)
Haintenance Cost
($ X 1,000,000)
Logistics Cost
(S x 1,000,000)
Total Cost
($ X 1,000,000)
Construction Schedule
for Initial Access (Years)
Construction Schedule
for Full Access (Years)
Bridges lvJaj or ()1000 ft)
Minor (<1000 ft)
7
ROADWAY : DENALI
HIGHWAY TO WATANA.
PARKS HIGHWAY TO
DEVIL CANYON ON
SOUTH SlOE OF
SUSITNA. CONN-
ECTING ROAD ON
NORTH SIDE OF
SUSITNA.
* 132
215
9
228
452
1
3
1
1
Table: A.l (cont'd)
8
ROADWAY: GOLD
CREEK TO DEVIL
CANYON ON SOUTH
SIDE OF SUSITNA.
DEVIL CANYON TO
WATANA ON NORTH
SIDE OF SUS!TNA.
69
117
7
216
340
2-3
3
0
1
9
RAIL: GOLD
CREEK TO DEVIL
CANYON ON SOUTH
SIDE OF SUSITNA.
ROADWAY: DEVIL
CANYON TO WATANA
ON NORTH SIDE OF
SUSITNA.
56
16
126
6
216
348
3
3
0
1
10
RA! L: GOLD
CREEK TO DEVIL
CANYON ON SOUTH
SIDE OF SUSITNA.
ROADWAY: DEVIL
CANYON TO WATANA
ON SOUTH SIDE OF
SUSITNA.
36
16
136
6
214
356
2
3
2
1
* Includes upgrading 21 miles of the Denali Highwav
11
ROADWAY: DENALI
HIGHWAY TO WATANA.
CONNECT! NG ROAD
BETWEEN WATANA
AND DEVIL CANYON
ON NORTH $!DE OF
SUSITNA.
* 114
172
11
258
441
1
2-3
0
1
1:2
ROADWAY: PARKS
HIGHWAY TO DEVll
CANYON AND WATANA
ON NORTH SIDE OF
SUSITNA.
61
127
7
225
359
2
3-4
1
2
Revision: D
Sheet 2 of 3
PLAN
DESCRIPTION
~1i \eage Road
Ra i l
Design and Construction Cost
( S X l , 000 , 000)
Maintenance Cost
(S x. 1,000,000)
Logistics Cost
(S X 1,000,000)
Total Cost
($X 1,000,000)
Construction Schedule
for Initial Access (Years)
Construction Schedule
for Full Access (Years)
Bridges ~1ajor (>1000 ft)
Minor ((1000 ft)
Table: A.l (cont'd)
13
ROADWAY: PARKS
HIGHWAY TO WATANA
ON NORTH SIDE OF
SUSITNA WITH BRANCH.
ROAD TO SOUTH BANK
AT DEVIL CANYON
59
115
7
223
345
1
3
1
2
14
RAIL/ROADWAY: GOLD
CREEK RAILROAD
EXTENSION. ROADWAY:
TO DEVIL CANYON AND
WATANA ON SOUTH SIDE
OF SUSITNA. CONNEC-
TING ROAD TO PARKS
HIGHWAY.
64
7
174
9
215
398
1
3-4
2
2
15
RAIL/ROADWAY: GOLD
CREEK RAI LROAO
EXTENSION. ROADWAY:
TO DEVIL CANYON AND
WATANA ON SOUTH
SIDE OF SUSITNA.
49
7
128
6
215
349
1
3
l
1
* Includes upgrading 21 miles of the Denali Highway
16
ROADWAY: GOLD
CREEK TO WATANA
ON SOUTH SIDE OF
SUS I TNA. CONN-
ECTING ROAD TO
DEVIL CANYON AND
PARKS HIGHWAY.
69
156
10
216
382
1
3
2
2
ROADWAY: DENALI
HIGHWAY TO WATANA.
CONNECTING ROAD TO
DEVIL CANYON ON
SOUTH SIDE OF SUS-
lTNA. RAIL: GOLD
CREEK TO DEVIL
CANYON ON SOUTH
S 1 DE OF SUS I TNA.
* 102
14
200
12
227
439
1
3-4
1
1
Revision: D
Sheet 3 of 3
--_;--;--"~-
PROPOSED ROAD
--·-PROPOSED TRANSMISSION LINE CORRIDOR
FIGURE A-1
ROUTE F!L.AN
. '
D ' ::
i i ; i ... ., ' ..... ~ .. · .....
. ~-r
-.
,1'".;
''
PROPOSED RCA D
\ ~·.
• j~
~ ------=-=-------;---=~-~ ./ .. -
(/>-'
--·-PROPOSED TRANSMISSION LINE CORRIDOR
, . .rt
FIGURE A-2
ROUTE PLAN
.. ...
z < ... ..
FIGURE A-3 -SHEET 1 OF 2
ROUTE PLAN
.J
c(
z
II
D
"' "' 0
"' "' IU
"' 0
11.
0
"' ll.
-'
,,
' ... --><<?...: • ""--~B:1-~-r;-;'c-,7-,-"~-="-::-c~....l-----';~.;f---AI>--~:l-\F"'-~-=c'-:='c:;+~\--i!-:c·.""'S'--:-;--.....:....,71,!'-hi--;-:..·...!f---(-~~--
,, ·-·· ~
, ·-.~ :1-r ' <~/
' .. , '-~_.t: \4' -_ .•
;,~~-:·:~f .
PROPOSED ROAD
PROPOSED RAILROAD
-----PROPOSED TRAI\ISMISSION LINE CORRIDOR
FIGURE A-3 SHEET 20F 2
ROUTE PLAN
APPENDIX 8
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
8.1 Effects of Roads and Vehicle Traffic on Caribou
by S. Fancy, LGL Alaska, Inc.
B.2 Statement by A. W.F. Banfi e1 d (dated August 14, 1981)
B.3 Statement by State of Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game
(reiterated at APA Board meeting of July 28,1982).
B.4 Statement by State of Alaska Dept. of Envi rormental
Conservation (dated August 11, 1982)
B.5 Statement by U.S. Dept. of the Interior Geological
Survey, Water Resources Division (Dated August 4, 1982)
8.6 Statement by U.S. Dept. of the Interior Bureau of
Land Management (dated August 11, 1982}
B.7 Statement by U.S. Dept. of the Interior Fish and
Wildlife Service (dated August 17, 1982)
B.8 Statement by State of Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game (dated
August 20, 1982).
APPENDIX B.i by: S. Fancy
LGL Alaska, Inc.
E~FECTS OF ROADS AND VEHICLE TRAFFIC ON CARIBOU
The most detailed information on the effects of roads and associated
human activities {e.g., vehicle traffic, construction activity, presence of
workers) on caribou comes primarily fran four sources: (1) studies by the
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (AOF&G) along the Trans-Alaska Pipeline
(TAPS) corridor since 1974, and along the Kuparuk qilfield access road since
1978; {2) a two year study by LGL in a floodplain area used by large numbers
of caribou moving to and fran insect-relief areas.; -f-3) data from a Master's
thesis by Dan Roby, who worked with ADF&G along the TAPS corridor; and (4) a
two-year study now in its second year being conducted along the Kuparuk
Oilfield access road by Alaska Biological Research (ABR). Alyeska Pipeline
Service Company is also funding a three year study along the TAPS corridor as
a "second opinion .. to the ADF&G studies; however, no reports have been
released after two years of study. All of these studies involve the Central
Arctic Herd on Alaska's North Slope.
The results of these studies are somewhat contradictory, and as a result,
caribou biologists disagree on the severity of road effects on caribou. AI1F&G
studies {Came ron and Whitten 1979, 1980; Cameron et al. 1979) have concluded
that caribou cows and calves avoid the Prudhoe Bay oi 1 field, based on a 1 ower
percentage of calves in caribou groups observed fran the roads in their study
area as compared to aerial sightings over a larger area. However, the calf
percentage may sometimes vary independently of human developments and
activities {Fancy, unpublished manuscript), and different habitat preferences
and the latitudinal segregation of bull and cow groups make it difficult to
interpret differences in the calf percentage over a large study area. Along
the Kuparuk ~ilfield access road (oriented E-W and thus not confused by
latitudinal biases) the calf percentage has not been found to differ from that
expected in three years of study (Cameron et al. 1981). Ouring an aerial
calving survey along that road in 1980, no calves were seen within 4 km either
side of the road, but this was not the case in 1978 and 1979. Few calves have
been born within the Prudhoe Bay complex in recent years; however, equally low
numbers of neonatal calves are sighted between the Sagavanirktok and Shaviovik
Rivers (east of the oilfield), where no roads or other developments occur.
The Central Arctic Herd has been steadily increasing in size each year, and
productivity has been "excellent" (Cameron et al. 19R1), in spite of the
localized effects on caribou distribution and group composition.
Recent detailed studies by LGL and ABR i nvo 1 vi ng cont·i nuous observations
of caribou as they approach roads and pipelines have found that most caribou
will cross roads with light to moderate vehicle traffic, but that caribou will
often first try to find a way around the obstacle (paralleling movements), and
some groups (10-14% for the most detailed study) may refuse to cross at all
(Fancy, unpublished manuscript). Preliminary ·result-s by ABR (Curatolo et al.
1981) have found that the proportion of groups that crossed the Kuparuk
oilfield road and pipeline was significantly less than that expected
(control). Many groups left their study area paralleling the road and
pipeline, and thus the proportion of groups that eventually crossed could not
be detennined.
The responses of individual caribou to roads and traffic are extremely
variable; some animals appear to avoid lightly travelled roads entirely,
whereas others will cross roads during rates of traffic exceeding one vehicle
per minute with no observable response. In general, however, moving vehicles
and/or the presence of workers will alter the local movements and behavior of
caribou. Horejsi (1981) reported that 88% of the caribou he observed along
the Dempster Highway reacted to a moving pickup truck by running or trotting
away. A fleeing animal can expend eight to twenty times the cost of basal
metabolism; increased energy costs resulting from disturbance are at the
expense of body growth, development, and reproduction (Geist 1975).
The greatest concern for disturbance effects on caribou is for cows in
late pregnancy and cows with young calves. Female caribou are particularly
sensitive to disturbances during the calving period (Lent 1966, Bergerud 1974,
Calef et al. 1976, Surrendi and DeBock 1976), and disturbances at this time
are more 1ikely to result in lowered recruitment because of premature travel
by calves, disruption of cow/calf bonds, or trampling (Lent 1966, Geist 1971,
Rergerud 1974, Surrendi and DeBock 1976).
An estimated 1000 animals remain year-round in the general vicinity of
the Denali access corridor, and this area is used by some animals from the
main Nelchina Herd each suiTiller. Between 1955 and 1968, this area was used as
winter range by the main herd; however, the herd at that time numbered over
40,000 animals, about twice the current estimate. Some calving occurs in the
area, although the main traditional calving grounds are located south of the
Susitna River in the Talkeetna Mountains. As the herd increases in size, it
is likely that large numbers of caribou will again cross the area in the
vicinity of the proposed access road. During construction of the Watana Dam,
the area will most likely remain a peripheral. Rart of. the main herd's range.
Traffic levels as high as those expected during dam construction have not
been encountered in any previous studies, and therefore it is not possible to
predict with any certainty how the Denali access route would affect caribou.
Some caribou will cross the road regardless of its high traffic frequencies,
but the majority would probably cross only if 1u11s in traffic (i.e.', convoys)
were provided. Cows calving in the area can be expected to avoid the heavily
used areas, but this should not affect herd productivity.
The greatest threat the proposed Denali route would create to the
Nelchina herd is increased hunting and potential for secondary developments
resulting from the access it provides. Some animals will also be killed by
vehicles, particularly during winter.
It is likely the Denali access road can be built and operated without
detrimentally affecting the Nel china Herd, but only if several mitigation
measures are strictly implemented. These measures include traffic
restrictions at certain times of the year, low berm heights, special snow
removal methods, prohibiting ATV use from the road, and a policy of giving
caribou the right-of-way when crossing the road. It will also be necessary to
continue the hunting pennit system for the herd. These measures wil1 increase
the cost of road construction and operation and will result in occasional
delays due to traffic restrictions (i.e., convoys). However, with strict
adherence to these mitigation measures, it is unlikely that the road and
vehicle traffic will have a measurable effect on herd size or productivity.
APPENDIX B.2
Aug. 14th, 1981.
Ms Cathie A~ Baumgartner,
Environmental Study Deputy Director,
Terrestrial Environmental Spec-ialists Inc.,
R. D. 1 Box 388,
Phoenix, N. Y. 13135,
U. s. A.
Dear Cathie:
Re: Susitna Power Project
Attached you will find my comments on the various
access routes with regards to caribou protection as
requested in your letter of June 24.
FB/fb
Yours truly,
~-
A. W. F. Banfield.,
President.
SrTSITNA POWER PROJECT ACCESS PLANS
Access Plan 3
Railway from Gold Creek to Devil's Canyon and Watana Dam
sites.
This is the most desirable access plan from the point of
view of interference with the Nelchina Caribou herd. The small
Chunilna subherd (approx. 300 animals} spends the summer in the
Chunilna Hills and the migratory trails lead southward to the
Ch~ilna and Prairie Creek valleys towards the winter ranges~
We observed no caribou trails leading across the Susitna River
V.alley to the north until we reached the Fog Lakes.
Railways have the. great advantage over roads of controlled
access. Vehicles can scarcely drive on railway beds without spe-
cial modifications while passengers can't get off between railway
S'tops • This plan would greatly restrict all terrain vehicles
making new trails along the south bank of the Susitna River.
The fe.n country around the Fog Lakes and the Watana Mountain
range would also block eastward travel.
Plan 3A is slightly preferable to 3B because it is farther
from Stephan Lake which would provide a little more seclusion
for the cottagers who live there.
Access Plan 8 (in part)
North Service Road between Devil's Canyon and Watana sites.
If plan 3 were adopted. It would probably be necessary
- 2 -
to link the two Dam sites by means of a Service Road. Although
the pr0pose·d route of this road intersects ~everal caribou north-
south trails in the Devil Creek area, caribou traffic appeared
to be lig~t. Furthermore, the mountain ranges to the north would
discourage ATV penetration. This route would add only minimally
more impa-ct on caribou, in combination with access Plan 3.
Access Plan 2
An a-ccess road from the Parks Highway to Devil's canyon
and Watana Dam sites on the south side of the Susitna River.
This plan is second in preferance to Plan 3 from the point
of view of caribou disturbance. It also traverses the region
seldom visited by caribou and would therefore cause minimum
impa-ct on caribou.
Its disadvantage is that it would provide access for ATV's
to the south side of the Susitna River. ATV travel beyond the
Fog Lakes and Watana Mountain would threaten the main calving
grounds of the Nelchina Herd in the Rosina Creek and Oshetna
River drainages. Although the Fog Lakes and Watana Mountain
terrain would discourage ATV penetration, eventually the Alaskan
Government would probably have to prohibit such entry in order
to preserve the calving range.
Plan 2A is also slightly preferable to 2B because it avoids
passing close to Stephan as mentioned for 3A.
Although not mentioned in the access plan outline, I believe
- 3 -
that a combination of plans 2 and 3 might be considered, which
would obviate the need for the north service road between the
dam sites and the Denali access road.
Access Plans 4, 8, 5 and 7
These plans include a northern access road to the Denali
highway.
This proposed road would pass through the middle of the
calving and summer ranges of the northwestern sub group of the
Nelchina herd. This group of caribou is believed to number
approximately lOOO.animals. The alpine tundra area of the Deadman
and Brushkana Creek valleys is the centre of its summer distribution.
We saw three small groups of cows and calves during our reconnaissance
flight on August 8.
The proposed access road lies across the late summer migration
of caribou towards Butte Lake and Gold Creek. We saw massive
caribou trail pat~erns in this area and a few bulls. The proposed
road also parallels the traditional spring migration route
southward down Deadman Creek to the Susitna River.
Direct impacts upon this group of caribou would include:
disturbance to cows and calves during construction period,
providing disturbance and an impediment to caribou migration
caused by road traffic and a possibility of direct mortality
resulting from road kills. (This impact might be mitigated by
- 4 -
early instructional sessions for the const!uction workers.)
Of greater importance are the indirect impacts to this
caribou group by providing freer access to its range. An access
road across this alpine tundra plateau between the Nenana and
Susitna River valleys would provide the opportunity for ATV 1 s
to push a network of unplanned trails throughout the range of this
subherd. We observed the ATV trails from the Denali highway
fanning out across the tundra in the Butt Lake -Butte Creek
region. Such new access would cause disturbance and increased
mortality to this group of caribou by vehicles, campers and
hunters.
Ultimately it would be the responsibility of Alaskan Govern-
ment agencies such as the ADF and G to control this activity.
Such steps would be unpopular and require increased funds and
manpower for surveillance. Without controls, however, the survival
of this subherd would be placed in jeopardy.
I have concluded that the Denali access road would involve
moderate to severe impacts on the northwestern portion of the
Nelchina herd. These impacts could be mitigated by resolute
application of controls by the Alaskan authorities. I find these
access plans less desirable than the southern routes. The (B)
route alternative is slightly preferable to (A} route because
of drier terrain, and the availabiltiy of more grade material.
- 5 -
These factors would result in less habitat disturbance.
Rangifer Associates Environmental
Consultants Limited.
APPENDIX B.3
NELCHINA CARIBOU AND THE DENALI ACCESS ROUTE
Recent caribou use of the area: the northHestern portion of the
Nelchlna carlbou range, Whlch would be nearly bisected by the Denali
access route, is occupied by a resident subherd possibly numbering as
many as 1,000 animals. These caribou appear to live in the area year
around. Females calve in the area rather than migrating to the
Talkeetna mountains for calving as do females from the main Nelchina
herd.
In addition to this subherd, many bulls from the main Nelchina herd
spend the summer (Nay -September) in this area. Also, . small numbers
of caribou from the main Nelchina herd . migrate through the area in
transit from the Talkeetna Mountains to the Lake Louise Flat and vice
versa during both spring and fall.
Historical caribou use of the area: the area north and west of the
proposed Watana impoundment was used extensively as both summer and
winter range in the past by the main Nelchina herd and Skoog (1968)
considered some of this area as the most important habitat for year
around use in the Nelchina range. Use of the area by large numbers of
animals from the main Nelchina herd has not occurred since about 1976.
However, because of historical use patterns and the quantity of good
habitat available it seems inevitable that many animals from the main
herd will again use the area, particularly as herd size increases.
Potential impacts of the Denali access route: the proposed access
road from the Watana dam site, along Dead:rnan Creek then through either
the drainages of Butte Lake or Brushkana Creek to the Denali Highway
passes through important caribou habitat. Calving by females from the
resident subherd has been documented in drainages of Butte Lake and
Brushkana· Creek. Cameron et al (1979) documented abandonment of a
portion of the calving grounds of the Central Arctic caribou herd con-
current with development of the Prudhoe Bay oil fields. Even Bergerud
(1978) who felt that impacts of development and human harassment on
caribou have been overstated, stressed the importance of protecting
calving areas.
Reports on reactions of caribou to roads and vehicular traffic are
somewhat contradictory. Cameron et al (1979), in the most thorough
study to date, documented avoidance of the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline cor-
ridor by females and calves during summer (the Denali access route
passes through suomer range which historically has been important for
the female-calf segment of the main Nelchina herd). They also sug-
gested avoidance by large groups, group fragmentation and/or decreased
group coalescence near the pipeline corridor. Horejsi (1981) reported
that caribou exhibited signs of anxiety and fear when encountering a
fast-moving vehicle and speculated that they might avoid ~.;rell-traveled
highways. Klein (1971) reported that \>'ell-traveled high\vays have
obstructed the move~ent of wild reindeer in Norway. It has also been
suggested that roads might increase susceptibility of caribou to
predators (Robey 1978).
-1-
In another study it was concluded that mountain caribou became habitu-
ated to the presence of a highway and traffic and continued to use a
traditional movement route despite harassment and mortality (Johnson
and Todd 1977). Nelchina caribou continue to cross the Richardson
High.;·my, often in large numbers, and have done so during many years
since about 1960 (Hemming 1971).
From a caribou conservation viewpoint the Denali a.ccess route is far·
less desirable than proposed routes originating on the Alaska Railroad
and Parks Highway. The Denali route would most certainly have immedi-
ate detrimental impacts on the resident subherd and future negative
impacts on the main Nelchina herd although these impa.cts cannot be
quantified.
LITERATURE CITED
Bergerud, A. T. 1978. Caribou. Pages 83-101 In J. L. Schmidt and
D. L. Gilbert, eds. Big Game of North America (Ecology and
Management). Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, PA.
Cameron, R. D., K. R. Whitten, W. T. Smith, and D. D. Robey. 1979.
Caribou distribution and group composition associated ldth con-
struction of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. Canadian Field-
Naturalist 93:155-162.
Hemming, J. E. 1971.
caribou in Alaska.
Bull. No. 1. 60pp.
The distribution and movement
Alaska Dept. Fish and Game,
patterns of
Wildl. Tech.
Horejsi, B. L. 1981.
a moving vehicle.
Behavioral response of barren ground caribou to
Arctic 34:180-185.
Johnson, D. R. and M. C.
crossing by mountain
91:312-314.
Todd. 1977.
caribou.
Summer
Canadian
use of
Field
a highway
Naturalist
Klein, D. R. 1971. Reaction of reindeer to obstructions and
disturbances. Science 173:343-398.
Robey, D. D. 1978. Behavioral patterns of barren-ground caribou of
the Central Arctic herd adjacent to the Trans-Alaska Oil
pipeline. M Sc. Thesis, Univ. Alaska. 199pp.
Skoog, R. 0. 1968. Ecology of the caribou (Rangifer tarandus granti)
in Alaska. Ph.D. Dissertation, Univ. of California, Berkeley,
CA. 699pp.
Ken Pitcher
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
333 Raspberry Road
Anchorage, AK 99502
-2-
~ . ' .. '
I· I
; ' ~ '
'·,_, j.
·, _...."
APPENDIX B.4
DEPT. OF ENVIIlONMENTAL CONSEilVATION
SOUTHCENTRAL REGIONAL OFFICE
Mr. Eric P. Yould
Executive Director
Alaska Power Authority
334 West 5th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Dear Mr. Youl d:
August 11, 1982
RECE!Vt:O
:ALASKA PO'iltfi !<.'..;: :!OCUTY
0
0
0
0
JAY S. HAMMOND, GOVERNOR
437 E. Street
SECOND FLOOR
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501
(907) 274-2533
P.O. BOX 515
KODIAK. ALASKA 99615
(907) 486-3350
P.O. BOX 1207
SOLDOTNA, ALASKA 99669
(907) 262-5210
P.O. BOX 1709
VALDEZ, ALASKA 99686
(907) 835-4698
P.O. BOX 1064
WASILLA. ALASKA 99687
(907) 376-5038
The Alaska Department· of Environmental Conservation is pleased to respond
to the Alaska Power Authority's request for comments concerning access
routes to the Susitna Hydroelectric Project.
Although not included as one of the three access alternatives presented for
comment, it is t~is Department's opinion that in order to minimize primary
and secondary impacts associ a ted with the construction and operation of an
access route, we recommend the following alignment for and mode of access:
1. Rail access from Gold Creek to Devil Canyon along the south side
of the Susitna River with a staging area at Devil Canyon.
2. Cross to the north side of the Susitna River at Devil Canyon and
proceed to the Watana site with a road.
3. No road or rail access from the Parks Highway.
4. No road or rail access from the Denali Highway.
The above routes are recommended by this r:>epartment for the following
reasons:
1. Rail access moves project personnel and materials in the safest
manner. The potential for major fuel spi 11 s is greatly reduced
and control into the project site is easily regulated.
2. ~voidance of the environmentally sensitive wetlands in the Indian
River area.
3. Avoidance of the Portage Creek salmon spawning habitat. This
habitat is very sensitive to erosion and subsequent deterioration
of Portage Creek water quality as a result of road construction,
operation, and maintenance. Also, if a fuel tank truck were to
have an accident and discharge its load, the effect on the salmon
in Portage Creek could be catastrophic.
Mr. Eric P. Yould
Page 2
August 11, 1982
4. . Avoidance of the Stephan and Fog Lakes regions. These regions
are important for caribou, moose, brown bear, waterfowl, and fur
bearers. ·
5. Avoidance of the region between the Watana site and Denali Highway.
This entire region is historically utilized by portions of the
Nel china caribou herd. Additionally, there is the potential for
major impact to the many native grayling streams that would
be crossed by this route.
6. The route recommended above will also, we feel, decrease unnecessary
vehicular trips in the area, thus resulting in less overall
disruption of habitat during construction.
Through an evaluation of the three access alternatives presented, our
analysis reveals the following:
Plan 17
Plan
Plan
1. Denali Highway access passes through portions of the Nel china
caribou herd range and crosses many native grayling streams.
Water quality problems could occur from construction, maintenance,
and operation of the road as well as from fuel spills.
2. Access along the south side of the Susitna River could have major
impacts, both pr·imary and secondary, on the Stephan Lake region.
This region is important habitat for moose, wintering caribou,
migratory waterfowl, and fur bearers.
3.
16
1.
2.
13
1.
2.
Wetlands habitat is crossed southwest of Devil Canyon.
Glenn Highway access passes through wetlands area.
Same comments as #2 and #3 for Plan 17.
Glenn Highway access passes through wetlands area.
North of Susitna River access passes along Portage Creek and
crosses its headwaters. Portage Creek is a salmon spawning river.
This type of habitat is very sensitive to changes in water quality
from erosion or fuel spi 11 s (see comment on recommended route).
Eric P. You1d
Page 3
August 11, 1982
Reference shou1 d also be made to the Su-Hydro Steer·i ng Committee 1 etter to
you datftd November 5, 1981 concerning the access issue (copy attached).
This letter, in part, supports our current recommendations for access modes
and routes.
This Department appreciates the opportunity to comment on the access issue.
We hope our input will assist the Alaska Power Authority in selecting the
best access alternative. If you have any questions regarding these comments,
please contact Steve Zrake or myself.
BM/ccs
cc: Ernst Mueller
Steve Zrake
Sincerely,
dff~~=·--
Bob ~1arti n
Regional Supervisor
APPENDIX B. 5
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Water Resources Di vision
1515 E. 13th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
August 4 , 1 982
Mr. Eric P. Yould
Executive Director
Alaska Power Authority
334 West Fifth Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Dear Eric:
RECE!\IEU
AUG 6 1982'
AlJ.SKA POWER AUTHORilY
Our colll!1ents on the three access alternatives presented in your letter
of July 29, 1982 is that Access Plan 13 would be preferable from an
environrrental viewpoint.
The portion of the route from Hurricane on the Parks Highway through
Chulitna Pass is the best method of access to a major highway. Likewise,
the eastern segment from the head of Devil Creek to Watana Camp Site is
preferable. We prefer not to state a preference about the segment from
Chulitna Pass to the head of De vi 1 Creek, which would include access to
the Devil Canyon Camp Site.
Sincerely yours,
,; I . £ )~1. UJ t1. /y~
Phi 1 i p . Emery c/"
District Chief
APPENDIX 8.6
United States Department of the Interior
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
Anchorage District Office
4700 East 72nd Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99507
Mr. Eric Yould, Executive Director
Alaska Power Authority
334 West 5th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Dear Mr. Yould:
AUG 1 1 1982
IN REPLY REFER TO
2920 (016)
This is in response to your letter dated 29 July, 1982 in which you
requested comments concerning the access routes to the Watana and Devils
Canyon Dam sites.
The access preference expressed below pertain to the general locations
cited for the corridors and are based upon environmental data and con-
clusions contained within the environmental documents prepared by your
contractors for the project.
We agree with the position of TES, Inc., that access via the Alaska Railroad
from Gold Creek to Devils Canyon is environmentally preferable. Since
a trail exists on the south side from Gold Creek to Devils Canyon this
corridor alignment is logical. From Devils Canyon to Watana we feel
that the northern corridor alignment is probably environmentally and
economically preferable.
We feel that both rail and road access will be required foi construction
since this concept provides adequate flexibility and logistics during
construction. By the same token we are well aware that a project of this
magnitude without a road access from a major highway is improbable.
To recommend a specific routing or plan from the options presented, we
would opt for the northern corridor alignment or our second choice
would be the Denali highway corridor to Watana with rail access from
Gold Creek to Devils Canyon.
In evaluating the access route selection process taken by APA we would
appreciate clarification of the justification for establishing 1993 as
a planning objective. The routes should weigh all impacts including
borrow sites and access to these sites, as well as transmission line
routing to be serviced by one of these options as part of a single corridor
concept.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Access Road
Alignment. Should you have further questions that require elaboration
and elucidation feel free to contact me.
Sincerely yours,
Richard J. Vernimen
Acting District Manager
APPENDIX B.7
United States Department of the Interior
IN REPLY REFER TO·
WAES
Eric P. Yould
Executive Director
Alaska Potv-er Authority
FISH AND W!LDLIFL SER \'ICF
lOll F. TUDOR RD.
ANCHORAGE. ALAS/-.:<\ 9':.1.~0_;
(907) :!7(t.JIHXJ
1 7 AUG 1982
334 w. 5th Avenue, 2nd Floor
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
,";:,,_,,r-·:·"' ,.,
: ·...__ -, { ~.' ' .'·;, ;_, : ;
Dear Mr. Yould:
The Alaska Power Authority (APA), by letter dated 29 July 1982, requested
comments from the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) regarding construction
access alternatives for the proposed Susitna Hydroelectric Project. We hope,
with this letter, to convey our immediate concerns regarding this subject to
facilitate your decision-making. This letter should not be construed as
providing in ~ our concerns related to project access. We fully intend to
provide substantive comments on this, and related issues, upon receipt of the
draft Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license application Exhibit
E. (Federal Register Vol. 46, No. 219, November 13, 1981).
The Fi~S has expressed, through our participation on the Susitna Hydroelectric
Steering Committee (SHSC) (letters dated 26 Narch 1981 and 5 November 1982),
concerns as to the direction and emphasis whicl1 this issue has taken.
It is apparent that the APA has been lead to the present 3 access alternatives
by the conclusion that power must be the forthcoming in 1993. Presently, the
1993 deadline is constraining the overall decision-making process and the
orderly progress of various studies on project feasibility and environmental
impacts and alternatives. The External Review Panel, in their Report,
presented to the Board of Directors, Alaska Power Authority on 15 April 1982,
did not acknowledge the 1993 mandate, prefering to state that:
"The arrival of any opportune time to prccced with construction will
depend on cr llical issue~ of £1nanc<.! and rnurket lng of power wlticl1 cannot
now be accurately forecast. Our recommendation is that tender documents
with all supporting geotechnical investigations and design studies he
developed. We estimate that a total period of three to four years will be
required for this phase of work. The project will then be ready to be
implemented whenever the financial climate for contracting becomes
favorable. The advantages of proceeding in this manner are:
(l) The economic benefits of being ready for financing;
(2) the momentum of the ongoing study and an informed staff; and
(3) the ability to avoid a crash design program.
The disadvantage is the small risk of loss of the design costs in the
event that, for some reason, .the project is never built.
This Panel is of the opinion that the economic climate \vlll
eventually indicate that it is advisable to proceed with the construction
of the Susitna project and at that time it will be in the best interests
of the State of Alaska to develop this important natural resource," .. '
Given the above the FWS continues to endorse the views expressed in the
Steering Committee letter dated 5 November:
"The SHSC agrees with the Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, Inc.
position that access via the Al?ska Railroad to Gold Creek is
environmentally preferable. Railroad access to at least Devil Canyon
would alleviate the need for a staging area at Gold Creek and the
consequent human ·activity, land use, fuel spills, and other impacts on the
Gold Creek area. We recognize that a staging area at Devil Canyon would
be required in any case. The use of this area as the terminus of a
railroad appears to make a great deal of sense. Additionally, we feel
that the south side route from Gold Creek to Devil Canyon is preferable
since a trail already exists there. From Devil Canyon to Watana, we
prefer a route on the north side of the Susitna River • If feasible
we generally prefer a rail mode of access to and within the project site.
The SHSC identified three (3) environmentally sensitive areas that should
be.avoided. Those are;
1. The routes from the Denali Highway.
2. The route crossing the Indian River and through wetlands to the
Parks Highway.
3. The route on the south side of the Susitna River from Devil
Canyon to the proposed Watana dam site •
. . • Use of rail as the access mode increases the potential for
management and control of socioeconomic and environmental impacts.
Maximized rail use provides for the following advantages over road access:
1. Maintains a maximum range of future decision options.
2. Provides for control of worker impacts on local communities and
wildlife.
3. Decreases the potential of hazardous material spills due to
adverse weather conditions and multiple handling.
4. Disturbance to wildlife adjacent to the route can be more easily
controlled.
5. Direct access right-of-way related habitat los~es can be
significantly limited."
We believe that rail, in conjunct.ion ~>•ill1 ai.r-aC'cess, would provide depend.ahlE'
servicfc and that a redundanl system 01 rail an,! ronrl i.'; not <1 necessary pro-
je~t feature and, as stated above, is environmcnLLUy undesirable.
An assessment of corridor route alternatives rnusl we_igL the potential impacts
of borrow sites and access to these sites, and transmission line(s) routing
and maintenance. Access corridors which serve a dual, or triple, purpose in
regard to those other project access needs would be highly desirable from all
decision-making criteria.
Public access to the damsites and through the Upper Susitna Valley is a
complex and a controversial subject and we believe this issue should be given
thorough evaluation in the selection of access routes, mode of access, trans-
mission line routing, and method of maintenance access for the transmission
lines. Hbw construction and maintenance related access is obtained to a great
extent determines the project-related wildlife and socioeconomic impacts.
The following comments are provided in light of our concerns and are not an
endorsement of these routing alternatives.
Alternative 17
Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, Inc. expressed the opinion that the
Denali Highway alternatives should not be considered. The view that the risl~
of substantial negative impact to the Nelchina caribou herd from a Denali
Highway route is high has also been expressed by Karl Schneider, Research
Coordinator, Susitna Hydroelectric Big Game Studies, Alaska Department of Fish
and Game. We concur. There may be a difference of opinion amongst partici-
pants in the Susitna Hydroelectric Project Study as to the extent of the
risk. However, we must conclude that the Nelchina caribou herd could be
substantially negatively impa~ted by an access route connecting the Denali
Highway to the Watana camp; and that these risks are avoidable.
In addition to potential risk to the caribou, the Denali route cuts across
valuable moose, brmm bear, and black bear habitat between the Watana camp and
Deadman Lake. Although no major river crossings would be involved, numerous
small river and tributary crossings would need to occur along this route and
could pose extensive problems to numerous virgin grayling fisheries.
Allernalivc 1(,
A southern routing between the dam sites coulri intersect movements of large
numbers of brown bears to and from Prairie Creek. The upper Prairie Creek,
Stephan Lake, and the Fog Lakes regions Sllpport large year-round moose concen-
trations. Impacts to furbearers and waterfowl also appear to be less
avoidable in a southern routing between Watann and Devil Canyon in comparison
to a northern access route.
,\ltcrnHti VC' lJ
hie favor ;]II access route to the norLii ot Lhc Su:;i lu.l l\ivcr bctt-rcen tht' l\·JO dam
siies. However, we cannot endorse the proposed routing. Given the stated
rationale that the siting of the Devil Cilnyun dam was partially an attempt to
avoid adversely impacting the important salmoniu fishery of Portage Creek we
are highly concerned Hith any plans to place a road in close proximity to tile
creek for approximately l mile. This places tl1e fishery in a highly
vulnerable position in respect to erosion and hazardous spills.·
In summary, the FWS recommends:
1. That justification for the power-on-line in 1993 planning objective be
clarified.
2. Rail access into the project site, to the exclusion of a road connection,
with routing north of the Susitna River between the two dam sites.
3. That alternatives for borrow sites and their access, and transmission
line(s) routing be provided so that they can be considered in conjunction
with construction access routing.
4. That public access to the upper Susitna basin should be evaluated within
the context of the project's need to minimize, to the extent possible,
adverse impacts to fish and wildlife, and their habitats.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
cc: FWS-ROES,WAES~
Quentin Edson/FERC
Sincerely,
A.Jsist.u 1;r_ /Regional Director
APA, rrnr~, ~PA, NP~, VR~S, AnEC, AETnr
ADF&G, Hab. Div., Su Hydro/Aquatic Studies
Robin Sener/LGL
APA Board Hembers
APPENDIX 6.8
DEP.4.RT~E:\'T OF FISH .J\ND G·t\..liE
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER
August 20, 1982
Mr. Eric P. Yould
Alaska Power Authority
334 W. 5th Avenue 1
Anchorage, Alaska 99501 -~-~--
JAYS. HAMMOND, GOVERNOR
P.O. BOX 3·2000
JUNEAU, ALASKA 99802
PHONE: 465-4100
HECEIVt::.u
AUG 2 Li JS82
AU\SKA POWER AUTHORITY
Re: Access to the Susitna Hydroelectric Project -Request for Corrments
Dear Mr. Yould:
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has reviewed alternative Access
Plans, 13, 16, and 17 and submits the following comments for your
consideration.
PRIMARY IMPACTS
Primary impacts are those that can be directly attributed to physical
alteration of habitats as might be expected from development of material
sites, construction of the roadway prism, bridge or culvert installa-
tion, etc. Primary impacts which are disturbance-related result from
construction traffic and the presence of a work force.
In this preliminary stage of planning, there is no means of adequately
quantifying these impacts. Therefore, the following is a qualitative
evaluation of primary fish and wildlife impacts related to each route.
Access Plan 13
With respect to significant salmon streams, this route crosses
Indian Creek and Portage Creek enroute to the Watana site. Other
major Susitna tributaries crossed by the route are Devil Creek and
Tsusena Creek. While not important to salmon, they provide habitat
for resident fish. We understand that initial construction of a
route to the Watana site will require construction of two minor
bridges (less than 1000 ft.) and, we imagine, a significant number
of culverts. Later, as the Devil Canyon site is developed, a major
bridge (greater than 1000 ft.) will have to be constructed across
the Susitna River.
Although we have not had the opportunity to conduct fisheries
surveys at any of the proposed bridge or culvert sites, we feel
that with adequate review to enable development of suitable
Eric P. Yould -2-August 20, 1982
installations and mitigation measures, this route is acceptable
from a fisheries perspective.
The proposed route will impact moose habitat in the area of Portage
Creek and brown bear denning habitat in the central segment of the
route.
The area around Tsusena Creek and lower Deadman Creek support
concentrations of moose and black bear. Slightly upstream along
Deadman Creek is an important brown bear concentration area.
The D~adman-Tsusena Creeks area will be impacted by both the road
and, especially, the Watana camp site. This impact will, however,
occur regardless bf whfch access alternative is chosen.
Access Plan 16
Significant salmon streams crossed by this proposed route are the
Indian River and Susitna River. As with Route 13, several resident
fish streams, including Tsusena Creek will require crossings. The
Department feels that with adequate review, design consideration
and mitigation, significant fisheries impacts related to this route
can be minimized. In addition, it appears that the individual
number of discrete drainages crossed with adoption of Plan 16 will
be about equal to those under Access Plan 13. Plan 16, however,
require~ one additional major bridge.
Wildlife impacts can be expected to be greater for Plan 16 than
those for Plan 13 due to the proximity of the route to Prairie
Creek, Stephan Lake and Fog Lakes. The Stephan Lake-Fog Lake area
currently supports high densities of moose and bear which are
exposed to very little human disturbance. Prairie Creek supports
what may be the highest concentration of brown bears in the Susitna
Basin. Bear come from up to 50 miles away to feed on salmon in
this drainage. This route would intersect bear travel paths to
Prairie Creek and could impact bear movements and also result in
bear-human conflicts. Seasonally abundant food sources, such as
salmon at Prairie Creek, may be essential to the continued
perpetuation of high density brown bear populations in the Susitna
Basin.
The impact of this route on the Tsusena-Deadman Creeks moose and
bear populations will be comparable _to those of Plan 13.
Access Plan 17
Construction of Plan 17 will result in a route that crosses
approximately twice the number of discrete drainages as Access
Plans 13 or 16. The additional crossings are a result of the
Denali Highway-Watana Camp leg of the route and impact primarily
grayling streams. The remainder of the route wi 11 have fisheries
impacts essentially identical to Plan 16. Although this Department
Eric P. Yould -3-August 20, 1982
believes that, given ample review and design consideration, most
fisheries impact can be mitigated, there will still be some
unavoidable losses to fish. We believe Plan 17 will result in the
greatest unavoidable losses.
The Plan 17 route from the Dena1i Highway to Watana Camp bisects
one of the most historically important portions of the Nelchina
caribou herd's range. Observation of similar situations shows that
caribou cows with calves are likely to avoid roads. The impacts of
this leg of the route, when compounded with the Denali Highway and
the proposed Watana impoundment, may result in an irnpact more
severe than the sum of these individual impacts.
The wildlife impacts of this route in the Tsusena-Deadman Creeks
area will be greater than the other routes due to the alignment
along segments of Deadman Creek. The wildlife impacts of Plan 17
in the Stephan Lake, Fog Lakes, Prairie Creek area would be
virtually the same as those for Access Plan 16.
SECONDARY IMPACTS
Secondary impacts are those which are not directly related to the
project but which occur as a consequence of it. For example, increased
fishing or hunting pressure on previously pristine lands which now have
access as a result of project roads. The following is a subjective
assessment of secondary impacts resulting from each of the proposed
routes.
Access Plan 13
Secondary impacts to fisheries wi 11 result primarily from increased
fishing pressure. The Indian Creek and Portage Creek fisheries are
multi-species and can probably be managed to provide a sustained
yield fishery without great difficulty. The Tsusena and Deadman
Creek drainages would support primarily a grayling fishery which
would be somewhat more susceptible to sport fishing pressures.
Of the three proposed routes, Plan 13 is likely to have the least
secondary impacts related to wildlife. This is by virtue of the
fact that the route traverses the least sensitive habitat of the
three alternatives. The majority of wi1d.life impacts would be
disturbance related, hunting pressure could be controlled by bag
limits or permit hunts.
Access Plan 16
As with Plan 13, sport fishing impacts on Indian Creek would be
minimized with proper management. Impact to grayling streams would
be somewhat higher. We feel secondary fisheries impacts that may
be expected from Plans 13 and 16 are essentially equal.
Eric P. Yould -4-August 20, 1982
Secondary wildlife impacts related to this route will be
considerably higher than Plan 13 relative to the high density of
bear and moose in the Prairie Creek, Stephan Lake and Fog Lakes
area. While hunting pressure could be controlled, the disturbance
factor and opportunity for bear-human conflicts will be greater.
Access Plan 17
Secondary fisheries impacts for Plan 17 are the same as those for
Plan 16 with the addition of those incurred by the Dena-li-Watana
segment. The Denali-Watana segment will provide increased public
access to nearly pristine grayling habitat of the Brushkana and
Deadman Creek drainages. With respect to fisheries, we would rate
this alternative as having the overall greatest secondary impact.
We also believe that execution of Plan 17 will also result in the
greatest overall secondary wildlife impact. In addition to those
same impacts attributable to Plan 16, there will be increased
access and disturbance to habitat significant to the Nelchina
caribou herd.
SUMMARY MATRIX
The following matrix summarizes the Department•s qualitative assessment
of the impacts related to each proposed route.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Relative Impact Assessment Matrix
Scoring:
3 = High Impact
2 = Moderate Impact
1 = Low Impact
Pr·imary Fisheries Impact
Secondary Fisheries Impact
Primary Wildlife Impact
Secondar,l Wildlife Im2act
Cumulative Total
Plan 13 Plan 16
1 1
1 1
1 2
1 2
4 6
Plan 17
2
2
3
3
10
Based on our understanding of the probable impacts associated with the
proposed alternative, we favor access Plan 13.
Eric P. Yould -5-August 20, 1982
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game thanks you for the opportunity to
comment and encourage you to contact us if you have any questions or
comments.
Sincerely,
~~s&~
Corrmissioner
cc: Charles Conway -Fawcett, McDermott,
Cavanaugh, Conway, Inc.
Robert Weeden -University of Alaska
Robert Ward -Dept. of Transportation
and Public Facilities
John Schaeffer -NANA Corp.
Charles Weber -Dept. of Commerce and
Economic Development
Ronald Lehr -Div. of Budget and
Management
APPENDIX C
PREFERENCES OF NATIVE ORGANIZATIONS
C.1 Cook Inlet Region, Inc. letter (dated August 17, 19R2)
C.2 Tyonek Native Corporation letter (dated August 13, 1982)
C.3 Ahtna, Inc. letter (dated August 13, 1982)
.APPEND! X C .1
CIRI COOK INLET REGION INC.
' .
'I ~,: '-' '~-' {~ ~' ' -<. ~ ' • -• ~ <, "'• -, ."' ~: • • > ' ' ' ~ ' ' ' '' ' ~:~>~ ~ ~ -: •
August 13, 1982
Board of Directors
Alaska Power Authority
334 West Fifth Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Dear Sirs:
I would like to take this opportunity to clarify Cook Inlet Region,
Inc.'s (CIRI) position regarding access routes for the Susitna
project.
We concur with the position taken by the villages that access plan
13 is unacceptable. We would support access plan 16 as the best
alternative. We also could support access plan 17 with some modifi-
cations.
We would support any plan which provides access to the Native land
on the south side of the Susitna River. This could require some re-
design of the dam to insure that it could act as a roadway.
Thank you very much. for the opportunity to address this issue.
Sincerely,
Roland Shanks
Manager, Land Administration
RS:mw
APPEND I X C. 2
TYONEK NATIVE CORPORATION
August 13, 1982
Board of Directors
912 ~ast 15th Avenue, Suite 200
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
(907) 272-4548
Through Mr. Eric Yould, Executive Director
Alaska Power Authority
334 W. Fifth Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Sirs:
The CIRI Village Presidents fully support Access Plan 16 as described in
recent publications and maps provided by the Alaska Power Authority.
Flan 13 as outlined is not an acceptable access route.
Plan 17 as presented might possibly be acceptable with some modifications.
These modifications should assure some access to the lands south of the
Susitna River. Access to the lands south of the river will only be
provided under Plan 17 if the Devil Canyon project is actually constructed.
Perhaps another approach might be to provide a dam with a roadway
constructed on top of the dam for earlier access as has been alluded to
by Hr, John Hayden.
In summary, our Villages will support a road plan which provides <1ccess
to our lands laying south of the Susitna River.
Plan 16 as presented, or possibly a modified Plan 17 would receive our
support.
Sincerely,
~t~:~~-v
C:hainnan, CIRI Village Presidents
cc: Cook Inlet Region, Inc.
CIRI Village Presidents
AD-83-A-12 .
Mr. David Wosniak
Alaska Power Authority
334 W. 5th Ave.
Anchorage, AK 99501
Dear Mr. Wosniak:
APPENDIX C.3
Afltna, CJnc.
August 13, 1982
In response to recent discussions on access routes to Watana Dome
we wish to recommend Corridor # 3 which is the Denali Highway to
Watana route. Representatives of Cantwell village have also endorsed
this route. We have selected this route based on our analysis of
economic and environmental considerations.
LR.I\: ce
Sincerely yours,
Lee R. Adler
Land fvianager
APPENDIX 0
RELATIONSHIP TO CURRENT LAND STEWARDSHIP, USES AN!1 PLANS
0.1 Record of Telephone Conversation with Planning Director,
Mat-Su Borough (dated August 10, 1982}
I
0.2 Statement by State of Alaska Oept. of Community and Regional
Affairs, Divis ion of Community Planning (dated August 12, 19R2)
APPENDIX 0.1
Record of Telephone Call August 10, 1982
FROM: Claudio Arenas
Planning Director
Mat-Su Borough
TO: R.A. Mohn
Susitna Project Manager
A 1 as ka Power Author"i ty
The fo"llowing represents the recommendation of the Mat-Su Planning Staff
regarding access into the proposed Susitna sites:
1) The Denali Plan (Plan 17) is preferred because the cost is lower,
it is easier to build, and can be built within the one year timeframe.
2) The North Plan (Plan 13) is also acceptable.
3) The South Plan (Plan 16) is not acceptable owing to the high initial cost
and that it is not advantageous to public at large.
APPENDIX 0.2
i ,--
~ .. , .
JAYS. HAMIIOKD. GIJVERIIOR
DEPT. OF Cq.liMUNITY 4 REGIONAl~ Af~FAIRS
DfYIS/011 OF COMIIU11/TY PLA1111111G 225 COR DO VA, BUILDING 8
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501
(907) 264-2255
Mr. Eric P. Yould
Executive Director
Alaska Power Authority
334 W. 5th Ave.
Anchorage, AK 99501
Dear Mr. Yould:
August 12, 1982
HECl=!\/:=u
We are in receipt of your July 29 letter requesting this Department's
comments, ranking and rationale regarding access alternatives to the Susitna
and Watana damsites. Your letter stated that comments must be in your hands
by August 10 in order to be included in the briefing document.
It is curious to us that after approximately 2.5 years of study and
$35 million in expenditures,.we are given less than 7 working days to provide
our final recommendation regarding access alternatives. Inasmuch as we
actually had only 2 working days due to mail time from Anchorage to Juneau and
back to Anchorage, we are unable to respond to your request in a sound and
responsible manner.
The only recommendation we will make is that Access Plan 17 Denali not be
considered due to the scenic highway study mandated for the Denali Highway by
ANILCA. Fifteen years of consistent, heavy truck traffic hardly seems
compatible with a potential scenic highway.
We assume the affected local governments, particularly the Matanuska-Susitna
Borough, have also been asked their views.
In the interest of affording this Department more response time in the future,
we request that copies of all correspondence to Commissioner McAnerney be sent
to me at this address.
cc: Lee McAnerney
Commissioner
Al Carson, Chairman
c. wi toa ld.llrlro Steeri.na C.ommi t t.e.e.
Sincerely,
it:~. \(~~,Jl.k, t.
Lawrence H. Kimball, Jr.
Director
~ -;-~, .
-·.