HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA132613 ~
'I'K
1425
. S8
A23
no.1326
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS OF
ACCESS ROAD ALTERNATIVES
Tettelttial
E nvironmentc.l
Speciali1t1, Inc •
-
-
-I
-'
lO .....
00
CD
CD
M
0
0
0
lO
lO
I'-
M
M
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS OF
ACCESS ROAD ALTERNATIVES
By:
Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, Inc.
Phoenix, New York 13135
For:
Acres American, Inc.
Buffalo, New York 14202
February 1981
-
.''""
....
-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
1 -INTRODUCTION
2 -METHODS . .
3 -ASSESS~IENT
3.1 -Land Use Analysis ...... .
3.1.1 -Introduction ..... .
3.1.2 -Methods and Assessment
3.1.3 -Discussion of Findings ~ .
3.1.3.1 -Corridor 1 -Northside, Road
3.1.3.2 -Corridor 2a -Southside, Road
3.1.3.3 -Corridor 2b -Southside, Railroad
3.1.3.4-Corridor 3-Denali, Road.
3.1.4 -Conclusion
3.2 -Cultural Resources
3.2.1 -Introduction
3.2.2 -Corridor 1
3.2.3 -Corridor 2
3.2.4 -Corridor 3
3.3 -Biological Resources
3.3.1 -Plant Ecology
3.3.2 -Fish Ecology •
3.3.3 -Birds and Non-game Mammals
3.3.4 -Furbearers
3.3.S -Big Game
3.4 -Socioeconomic Analysis
1
3
4
4
4
5
7
7
10
11
12
13
15
15
15
15
16
17
17
18
19
20
21
23
-
' F"'
-
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1. Potential Impacts and Magnitude of Impacts
of Access Route Plans on Land Use Variables
TABLE 2. Summary of Cab·ins and Lodges Located in Each
Segment Area, Associated with Access Routes
TABLE 3. Potential Socioeconomic Impacts of Alternative
5
8
Access Route Schemes, by Socioecnomic Impact Category 27
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. -socioeconomic Analysis of Access. Scheme 25
-
-
-
-
-
1 -INTRODUCTION
Work on the access road for the Susitna Hydroelectric Project is a
coordination of effort by Acres American, Inc., R&M Consultants, Inc,
(R&M), and Terrestrial Environmental Specialists; Inc. (TES). R&M is
responsible for with providing the routing, engineering, and design
information for the access route. The role of TES is to provide
environmental input into the selection of a preferred route, and then
an impact analysis and, if possible, procedures for mitigation of
impacts resulting from the selected route.
The objectives of the environmental analysis of alternative access
corridors for the Susitna Hydroelectric Project are twofold: (1) to
provide input into the selection of an access route that will be
environmentally sound, and (2) to provide an impact assessment of the
selected route. This report constitutes an analysis of three
alternative corridors as provided to the environmental team by R&M
Consultants, Inc., thus fulfilling the first of the objectives. The
second objective will be met by the information and analysis contained
in the Federal Energy Regula tory Commission (FERC) 1 i cense app 1 i cat ion
for this pJ~oject. The various analyses will be contained in
subsections of the license application dealing with specific
environmental disciplines. It is the understanding of the
environmental team that the routing of the selected route will be
fine-tuned as the impact analysis continues after license application.
Analyses in most environmental disciplines, i.e. cultural resources and
biological resources, are based upon literature, general knowledge of
the study area, and some information obtained during the 1980 field
efforts. Other disciplines, i.e. land use analysis and socioeconomic
analysis incorporate a greater amount of current information and
therefore c~nalys is is in more detail than that of the other
disciplines. Road or rail access {Parks Highway or Gold Creek,
respectively, to Devil Canyon) are not separated except where there
appear to be significant differences in impact between the modes of
transportation or where there are differences in the routes.
1
,_
i
....
In some instances, levels of detail of analysis are not equal
concerning different portions of the corridors. Some sections of the
routes, for example, are outside of intensive study areas in various
disciplines; therefore, less was known about these sections than
others. For cultural resources and biological resources,.only those
locations known to have a relatively high probability of impact or
conflicts are mentioned. Therefore, the brevity of discussion of
impacts in these disciplines reflects the amount of information
available, rather than the probability or severity of impacts.
When more details are known and available to the environmental group
concerning, for instance, policy regarding public use of the access
road during and after dam construct ion, then feasibility of impact
mitigation or avoidance can be assessed. Likewise, when more details
are available concerning construction practices, particularly at
stream crossings (type and size of bridges, foundations, or size of
culverts), impacts and mitigation of these impacts can be discussed in
relation to anadromous and resident fisheries, furbearers, other
wildlife species, and vegetation .
2
,~
2 -METHODS
Initially, numerous alternative routes were screened by a coordinated
effort among R&M Consultants, Inc., Acres American, Inc., and TES and
its subcontractors. After initial screening~ three corridors emerged
as likely candidates for further study-both engineering and
environmental. The environmental analysis was based upon avail~ble
literature concerning the study area or similar areas, data collected
during on-9oing field studies within the first year of the Susitna
Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study, and general knowledge of the
study area or similar areas by the environmental team. This report
contains the results of this initial environmental analysis of the
three candidate corridors.
Corridor 1 is a road access north of the Susitna River from the Parks
Highway to Devil Canyon and Watana. Corridor 2 is access to Devil
Canyon and Watana on the south side of the Susitna River, either by
road from the Parks Highway or by rail from the Alaska Railroad.
Corridor 3 is a road access route to Watana from the Denali Highway.
Further breakdowns or combinations of these corridors are discussed and
defined in the Land Use Analysis section and the Socioeconomic section
of this report. Map references or "Sheets" refer to companion
topographic: maps (1:24,000 scale) indicating access corridors.
3
-
-
-
-
3 -ASSES5r~ENT
3.1 -Land Use Analysis
3.1.1 -Introduction
Impacts on current 1 and use and related activities resulting from
emplacement and use of an access route will vary depending upon the
location of route and transportation mode selected. This
preliminary assessment involved consideration of three routes and
two modes which are defined as follows:
(a) Northside: a new road from the west (Corridor 1), from the
Parks Highway through Chulitna and north of the Susitna River
to Devil Canyon and Watana; (designated 1 on Tables 1 and 2);
(b) Southside: a new road from the west (Corridor 2), from the
Parks Highway through Chulitna and Gold Creek and south of the
Susitna River to Devil Canyon and Watana; (designated 2a on
Tables 1 and 2);
(c) Southside: a new railroad from the Alaska Rail~oad at Gold
Creek, south of the Susitna River to Devil Canyon and Watana
{essentially the same route as 2a}; (designated 2b on Tables
1 and 2);
(d) Denali: a new road from the Denali Highway to Watana and
Devil Canyon; (designated 3 on Tables 1 and 2).
The land use analysis involves assessment of the potential impacts
on four general land use considerations, each comprised of several
land use variables. These general considerations are defined as
follows:
4
-
{a) Land uses and associated site-specific activities._ This
category includes land uses that involve som~ form of
long-term commitment of man's resources (e.g. structures), and
the concomitant activities associated with them; these include
residential uses, either isolated and remote or within a
community; lodges; commercial developments and enterprises;
agriculture; transportation; and mining.
{b) Scattered and isolated activities; non-site-specific. This
category includes activities which, generally, are
non-continuous, and do not involve a commitment of man's
resources at any particular site; these include consumptive
recreational or subsistence activities, such as hunting and
fishing, not related to a particular site; riverine activities
such as boating or rafting; and scattered non-consumptive
activities such as camping, hiking, and photography.
(c) Surface resources and aesthetics. This category involves
consideration of the natural land cover type itself as opposed
to man's uses or activities; these include visual character
of both land and water resources; ground cover, specifically
flora; land surface integrity; and the overall natural
character of the landscape.
(d) Land management activities and related concerns. This
category involves consideration of present or potential
activities related to conservation or use of the land, and the
effects on social or political policies; these include game
management, general land management, off-road vehicle
management, native claims, and economic land values.
3.1.2 -Methods and Assessment
The above categories and variables are listed in Table 1, which -
depicts the potential magnitude of impacts on the various land use
concE~rns according to the access route being considered. A
subjective numerical scale of 1 to 5 has been used, with 5
representing a great impact and 1 a small or negligible impact.
5
-
-
-
Table 1
(a)
Potential Impacts and Magnitude of Impacts
of Access Route Plans on Land Use Variables
LAND USE ANALYSIS CA'fEGORIES ACCESS PLANS
' I
Northside Southside Southside Denali
Rail
1 2a 2b 3 --------------------------------------------~--
Land uses and associated site-
specific activities
-Residential: remote, isolated
-Residential: community(b)
-Residential lodges (concentrated
tourism & recreation)
-Commercial: community(b)
-Agriculture
-Transportation:·Highway
Rail
-Mining
Scattered and isolated activities;
non-site-specific
-Consumptive: hunting & fishing
-Riverine: boating
-Camping, hiking, photography, etc~
Surface resources and aesthetics
-Visual characteristics: land
Visual characteristics: water
-Ground cover: flora
-Land surface integrity
-General character of landscape
Land management activities & related
. concerns
-Game management: hunting, fishing,
trapping
-General land management
-Off-road vehicle management
-Native claims
-Economic land values(b)
5
5
5
5
1
5
1
3
5
3
3
4
5
3
3
5
5
3
1
1
4
5
5
5
5
1
5
1
1
5
3
3
4
3
5
5
3
5
5
5
5
4
5
3
4
3
1
2
4
1
5
3
3
4
3
4
2
2
1
2
1
5
4
3
5
2
5
1
5
1
1
5
3
3
4
2
5
5
3
5
5
5
1
4
(a) A subj1ect1Ve numerical scale in which 5 represents a great impact and 1
represents a small or negligible impact.
{b) The Socioeconomic Analysis deals with more discrete factors relating to
communities located near the project area.
....
-
The numerical scale is a pteliminary score used to delineate
potential relative magnitudes of impacts, and does not represent
a quantitative measure. It is emphasized that this assessment is
preliminary. Its purpose is to identify only possible impacts, and
estimate relative magnitudes, to enable a rudimentary comparison of
the access schemes. This information, in combination with analyses
provided in other environmental disciplines, can be used by those
responsible for making the decision as to which access scheme will
be implemented should the Susitna Project be constructed. A more
definitive assessment will be performed on the selected route once
that decision is made.
3.1.3 -Discussion of Findings
The previous section generally depicts the land use factors that
would be affected, and to what degree, by each of the optional
access plans currently under consideration. The following
discussion pertains to each of the access plans by segment. For
consistency, segments are simply delineated in accordance with the
maps that accompany this report. That is, each map sheet depicts a
segment (a portion of a corridor) whose number corresponds to the
numbered maps. To further assist the reviewer, Table 2 summarizes
structures that would be affected by each route.
3.1.3.1 -Corridor 1 -Northside, Road
General -There will be increased traffic and activity affecting
the IParks Highway and communities situated on it. There is a
likelihood that commercial and residential uses will be affected
with corresponding effects on economic land values.
Segment Sheet 1
entails several stream crossings, including Pass Creek and a
major bridge over Indian River;
7
,....,
r
i
!"""
I
-
-
Table 2
Summary of Cabins and Lodges Located in (a)
Each Segment Area, Associated with Access Routes
(b)
CABINS & RESIDENCES BY ROVTE LODGES BY ROUTE
SHEET SEGMENT
NUMBER 1 2a,b 3 1 2a,b 3
1 11 2 1
> > 7 1(9)
2 5
3
4 1 1 1
6
7
14 2
15 8 1(10}
8 3
9 2
18
17
16 3
Totals 24 17 4 2( 10) 1(10) 1
(a) This table summarizes only residences and lodges which are located in
proximity to .alternate routes outside of communities; it does not include
residences or other structures which may be affected within communities.
(b) Numbers in parentheses indicate number of buildings associated with each
lodge.
8
.-
r
-
-
-
-
-requires crossing Alaska Railroad;
-route would pass close to Summit Lake;
-significant impact can be expected at Chulitna~ presently not
served by road; commercia 1 and resident i a 1 activities as we 11 as
land values affected;
-at least 11 cabins and 1lodge affected; 7 other cabins lie on
or near border between Sheets 1 & 2.
Segment Sheet 2
-crossing and bridge over unnamed tributary to Portage Creek;
.-significant crossing and bridge over Portage Creek;
-road would rim the canyon of Portage Creek;
"" several minor stream crossings of tributaries to Portage Creek;
-would come within a half mile of High Lake and High Lake Lodge
(nine buildings); -at least five cabins affected, in addition to
the seven others lying on border between Sheets 1 & 2.
Segment Sheet 7
-road would follow rim of Devil Canyon, within 1/4 mile of Susitna
River.
Segment Sheet 3
-portion of corridor parallels several-mile length of Devil Creek;
-passes within 1/4 mile of unnamed lake.
Segment Sheet 4
parallels and involves significant crossing and bridge over
Tsusena Creek;
-at least one cabin nearby.
9
-
-
-
3.1.3.2 -Corridor 2a -Southside, Road
Genef·al -Impacts on Parks Highway and communities there are
similar to those of Corridor 1. Residential and commercial uses
as well as land values would be affected.
Segment Sheet -1
-minor crossing of Pass Creek;
crossing of Alaska Railroad;
-significant stream crossing of Indian River;
-si9nificant impact on Chulitna, presently not served by road;
wi"ll affect land values and commercial and residential uses;
-road will come close to an unnamed lake;
two cab ins are in area of this route in this segment.
Segment Sheet - 6
-would significantly affect the settlements of Canyon (passing
essentially through it) and Gold Creek (within 1 1/2 miles of
it), providing road access where none existed previously;
there will likely be impacts on land values, and residential
and corrmercia1 uses;
-involves stream crossing and bridge over Indian River;
significant crossing and bridge over Susitna River
Segment Sheet - 7
parallels south rim of Devil Canyon;
involves stream crossing of unnamed tributary to Susitna; this
also involves a sizeable gorge.
Segment Sheet -14
-route crosses through the plateau area of the Upper Prairie
Creek drainage, affecting an additional drainage; also, off-road
vehicle use problem is possible in this area;
-route will pass near two cabins.
10
-
-
-
-
-
Segment Sheet -15
-passes close to Stephan Lake and Lodge, consisting of 10
structures;
-there are at least eight cabins in this area;
-might create some off-road vehicle use in area.
Segment Sheet - 8
involves crossing unnamed tributary to Susitna River;
-three cabins would be affected.
Segment Sheet - 9
-significant crossing and bridge over Fog Creek;
-possible off-road vehicle use;
-comes very close to Fog Lakes;-
-there are two cabins in area.
3.1.3.3 -Corridor 2b -Southside, Railroad
General -There will be some increase in activity in communities
near the Alaska Railroad, but probably less than with a road
corridor. Rail would tend to restrict public access to less than
what would be possible with a road. However, as a rail-head, the
general area of communities of Sherman, Gold Creek, and Canyon may
be affected in terms of residential and commercial uses.
Segment Sheet - 6
-sig~ificant impact likely at Gold Creek as it becomes a rail-head;
impact on land values, and on commercial and residential uses;
-some impacts at Canyon of a simi 1 ar nature to those expected at
Gold Cr-eek, but of a lesser magnitude;
-some minor stream crossings.
11
-
-
-
Segment Sheet - 7
involves significant stream and gorge crossing, with bridge, over
unnamed tributary to Susitna.
Segment Sheet -14
-route passes through the plateau area of the Upper Prairie
Creek drainage, affecting additional drainage, off-road vehicle
use would probably be less of a problem than with a road.
-there are two cab·ins in this area.
Segment Sheet -15
-passes close to Stephan Lake and Lodge; a significant impact on
the Lodge is possible;
-also, there are at least eight cabins nearby.
Segment Sheet - 8
-stream crossings of two small tributaries;
-three cabins in this area.
Segment Sheet - 9
-would rim Fog Lake drainage;
-passes close to Fog Lake and two cabins.
3.1.3.4 -Corridor 3-Denali, Road
.I
Genera'l -This route would cause significant impacts to communities
on the east side of the project area, including Denali, Glennallen,
and others along Richardson Highway, because Valdez would likely be
the por·t-of-entry for some project materials. Po~entially major
impacts on land values, residential and corrmercial uses, and the
existing transportation system could occur. An important concern
regarding the existing transportation system is the fact that
12
....,
I
-I
....
-
-~
-
either the eastern or western {or both) parts of the Denali Highway
would need to be improved or upgraded to accommodate project
traffic. Such improvements would involve the road surface and
bridges.·
Segment Sheet -18
-would affect traffic flow on Denali Highway;
-traverses flat, marshy area;
potential for additional off-road vehicle use in area which
already has problems with such use;
-passes very close to Butte Lake, presently used for recreation
purposes;
-ground cover disturbance of tundra.
Segment Sheet -17
-impacts are similar to those in Segment 18;
-crossing of Butte Creek;
-would allow deeper access into this area by off-road vehicles;
-within view of scenic mountain area .
Segment Sheet -16
-parallels Deadman Creek drainage;
-passes very close to Deadman Lake;
-there are three cabins in this area.
Segment Sheet - 4
-passes within a mile or so of lake adjacent to Tsusena Butte;
-there is one cabin which could be affected in this area.
3.1.4 -Conclusion
The most significant aspect of the analysis of access route schemes
relates not so much to various impacts associated with a given
indi1 vidual scheme, but with the concept of access itself, in any form,
13
-
-
to the interior of the Susitna Basin. The provision of a means by
which the general public can easily and frequently venture inland to
an essentially pristine wilderness area potentially will induce
profound alterations to the character of the Susitna area. Such
alterations relating to access may be assessed quite distinctly
from the emplacement of Susitna Hydroelectric facilities themselves.
Access will facilitate the influx of people and activity within the
basin, affecting both small concentrations and isolated residences,
peripheral commercial and transportation systems, resource
utilization and level of recreational activity, visual and aesthetic
factors, and the overall natural character of the area. In
addition, these effects will produce ramifications concerning the
extent, adequacy, and need for management activity (e.g., fish and
game, land, etc.), as well as changes in land values and
development.
14
-
3.2 -Cultural Resources
3.2.1 -Introduction
It 1is 1 ikely that cultural resources will be encountered by any of
the proposed access corridors. Unfortunately~ little intensive field
reconnaissance has been conducted along the three proposed corridors
to identify cultural resources. However~ pre 1 iminary evaluations of
the corridors can be made based upon the existing literature and the
cultural resource research design that indicates areas having a high
probability of containing cultural resources. A brief air survey~
over the Denali corridor only, was conducted.
3.2.2 -Corridor 1
No archeological reconnaissance has been conducted on Corridor 1 to
date!~ with the except ion of a 1 imited survey at the mouth of Portage
Creek. The purpose of this survey was to locate and document a
reported inscription made by W. M. Dickey ·in 1897. This inscription
was located on the west shore near the mouth of the creek. It
appears that several sites in the Watana base camp area are either on
or very close to Corridor 1.
It is anticipated that cultur~l resources occur along this route
based on archeological reconnaissance conducted during the 1980 field
season in areas of similar t~rrain. Areas that probably have the
highest potential for cultural resources are the confluences of major
drainages, the banks of streams and rivers~ mountain passes, and the
mar~1ins of the numerous lakes located along the proposed route. In
~ addH ion, areas of high topographic relief which afford a commanding
view of the surrounding terrain also hold potential for the discovery
of cultural resources.
3.2.3 -Corridor 2
Although no archeological survey was conducted along the proposed
route of Corridor 2~ archeological reconnaissance was conducted
near Stephan and Fog Lakes during the 1980 field season. In
15
-
-
-
-
addition, several archeological sites have previously been documented
in the areas of Stephan and Fog Lakes. Based on these data, it is
possible to document 10 sites that are in proximity to Corridor 2.
Depending on where the corridor crosses the Susitna to the north,
several additional sites may be impacted.
3.2.4 -Corridor 3
It is expected that the route leading north from Watana base camp
will contain cultural resources because the access route follows a
natural pass leading from the upper Susitna River to the upper Nenana
River Valley. Passes such as these would likely have been utilized
by past animal and human populations moving between the two areas.
A brief archeological reconnaissance has been conducted along
portions of this proposed route. During this survey, four
archeological sites were located: one on the south shore of Butte
Lake, two on the north shore of Deadman Lake and one on Big Lake.
Two of the four sites are quite close to the route. Unlike Corridors
1 and 2, Corridor 3 is largely unforested. Therefore secondary
impa.ct may be of greater magnitude than along the forested routes
beca.use of higher visibility of archeological sites and off-road
vehicle traffic.
16
-
-
r
-
3.3 -Biological Resources
3.3.1 -Plant Ecology
The prime consideration regarding access routes from a vegetation
standpoint is the question of wetlands. This consideration
involves engineering or construction problems, and also the legal
aspects of wetland disturbance in addition to the intrinsic
importance of the plants and associated wildlife in wetlands.
Corri dar 1 between the Parks Highway and Summit Lake crosses the
most extensive wetland area encountered by any of the access
routes. Although the two wettest areas in this vicinity are
avoided by the corridor, some potential impacts may be further
reduced by rerouting the corridor on the south side of these wet
areas.
Corridor 2 passes through a marsh at the north end of Miami Lake.
This marsh might be avoided by rerouting the line to follow a ridge
between the marshes. Corridor 2 passes between or very close to
several other wet sedge-grass marshes and black spruce woodlands.
Corridor 3 passes through several areas associated· with willow
shrub and birch shrub types along Deadman Creek. These areas may
indicate drainage problems. The area on the west bank of Deadman
Lake is covered with sedge-shrub tundra. The high water table and
sand.Y conditions here may present construction problems. Corridor
3 also passes across the upper sides of several wet sedge-grass
marshes southwest of Butte Lake. Placement of the road a little
further uphill may avoid these wet areas entirely.
The other major consideration from a vegetation standpoint is the
possible disturbance of threatened or endangered plant species.
None of the proposed corridors crosses known locations or likely
habitats for threatened or endangered plant species.
17
-
-
r
3.3.2 -Fish Ecology
Impacts on fish resources of any access road construction and
subsequent use may include effects on anadromous and resident fish
at stream crossings or in any of the bodies of water in the
vicinity. Although little is known at present concerning the
anadromous and resident fish resources of the upper Susitna Basin,
generalizations can be made and relative impacts on fish resources
can be assessed relative to potential fish habitat disturbance.
Main impacts resulting from construction in and near water bodies
probably include siltation which will influence spawning success of
both anadromous, and resident species, especially grayling.
Indirect impacts on fish resources will result from increased
access by anglers, and perhaps from impacts on water resources by
other human activities.
All three access corridors involve numerous stream crossings;
notable crossings are mentioned in the land use section of this
report. Corridor 1, however, appears to have approximately twice
as many stream crossings (that are identifiable on topographic
maps) as the other two corridors. Corridor 1 also has major
crossings of the Indian River and the upper end of Portage Creek.
These two water bodies appear to be important to salmon.
Corridor 2 (road) has major crossings at the Indian River and the
Susitna River just above Gold Creek. In addition, there are major
stream crossings near Devil Canyon and at Fog Creek. Both road and
railroad corridors pass very close to Stephan and Fog Lakes. These
lakes are inhabited by various species of resident fish including
Dolly Varden, lake trout, rainbow trout, and grayling.
Corridor 3 parallels a section of Deadman Creek and passes quite
close to Deadman Lake. Deadman Creek and most streams above Devil
Canyon probably contain grayling. Near the Denali Highway, this
corridor passes very close to Butte Lake, the area around which is
already heavily used by recreationists for various purposes.
18
-
-
-
3.3.3 -Birds and Non-game Mammals
Any access road corridor chosen as the selected route will impact
some birds and non-game mammals due to habitat removal or
disturbance due to construct ion. · Major potential impacts, however,
are be 1 i eved to be re 1 at ed to raptors, both during and after
construction, and waterfowl. Particular attention will be given to
these groups of birds during impact assessment and fine-tuning of
the selected route.
Corridor 1 passes very close to potential raptor nesting habitat.
This habitat occurs particularly in the lower Portage Creek area
and along the Susitna River from the mouth of Portage Creek through
much of Devil Canyon.
Corridor 2 passes very close to potential raptor nesting habitat
along Devil Canyon and along the drainages upstream of Devil
Canyon, where the route turns south and away from the Susitna.
This corridor also comes very close to the upper end of Stephan
Lake, an area important to waterfowl and migrant swans. The
Corridor 2 (road} crossing of Fog Creek is very close to potential
raptor habitat. Several old stick nests were found approximately
1,500 feet downstream from this proposed crossing.
The section of Corridor 3 southeast of Tsusena Butte passes
approximately 1,000 feet west-northwest of a known active bald
eagle nest. In addition, this corridor passes very close to
Deadman Lake, a body of water that supported numerous waterfowl
throughout September, 1980.
19
r
F"
i
I
3.3.4 -Furbearers
As vdth birds and non-game mammals, and other biological resources,
furbearers will be impacted directly due to habit at destruct ion.
Indirect impacts, possibly greater than direct impacts, will result
due to increased access and associated human activity.
Corridor 1 between the Parks Highway and Devil Canyon passes
through an area which supports numerous beaver, muskrat and mink,
especially around the High Lake area and the Portage Creek
drainage. The High Lake area also contains traditional denning
sites for foxes.
The section of Corridor 2 between Devil Canyon and the Watana dam
site contains some of the finest fox and marten habitat in the
region, particularly around Stephan Lake. The Fog Lakes and
Prairie Creek area support numerous beavers and muskrats, and
otters are common there.
Corridor 3 along Deadman Creek between the Watana dam-site and
Deadman Mountain is likely to have fewer conflicts with furbearer
populations than many of the other sections of the various
corridors. The furbearer populations in this area are relatively
low, although there are beaver, mink, and fox present. The portion
of this corridor from Deadman Mountain to the Dena 1 i Highway has a
moderate population of red foxes; but almost no sign of beaver,
mink, or otter were found when this area was surveyed during 1980.
Impacts from human use for activities such as trapping could be
minimal since established traplines already exist along this
route.
20
-
·-
3. 3. !5 -Big Game
Big game species in the Susitna Basin vary in their sensitivity to
disturbance. Besides direct impacts due to location of a selected
access route, other potential impacts on big game will result from
traffic disturbance and collision potential, and possible effects
due to increased hunting pressure.
Corridor 1 between the Parks Highway and Devil Canyon is largely
confined to south-facing slopes. These are probably important
moose wintering areas and are probably important black bear
habitats as well. South-facing slopes are particularly important
to b1ears in early spring, because these slopes are the first to
become clear of snow and provide early vegetable foods for bears
after they emerge from their dens. At least one wolf pack is known
to inhabit the area.
Between Devil Canyon and the Watana dam site, several portions of
this corridor (Devils Mountain and the mouth of Tsusena Creek) are
important moose habitat. This route also goes through areas that
appear to be heavily used by wolverine and bears. This portion of
the route is higher than the most heavily used black bear habitat
except in the vicinity of Tsusena Creek and the Watana dam-site,
and is lower than most of the known brown bear dens~ From a big
game standpoint, concerns about this portion of the route are
relatively low except in the Tsusena Creek area.
The Parks Highway or Gold Creek to Devil Canyon portion of Corridor.
2 follows mainly north-facing slopes and is therefore probably less
threatening to moose and bears than is Corridor 1. However, it is
more likely to impact caribou, which may be more vulnerable to
disturbance than other big game species. This impact can be
minimized if the route is kept at the lowest altitude possible.
The portion of Corridor 2 between Devil Canyon and Watana dam-site
is an area of major concern, particularly in the upper Prairie
Creelk, Stephan Lake and Fog Lakes area. This area supports one of
the 1argest year-round moose concentrations in the area. At least
21
r
!
.....
....
-
two wolf packs, substantial numbers of wolverine, and some bears
(especially brown bears) inhabit the area. Caribou also regularly
use the area, particularly around Fog Lakes. This route also
crosses a mid-summer migratory route for bears moving from the
Susitna River to Prairie Creek to feed on salmon.
Corridor 3 passes through one of the most important caribou
concentration areas in the Nelchina Basin. Historically,
virtually the entire Nelchina caribou herd has spent portions of
the summer, fall and late winter in the area around Butte Lake and
the hills to the south. In recent years the herd has used the area
less than in the past, but there is good reason to believe they
will again use this area more heavily in the future. ADF&G
recently documented some calving along the northern part of the
route, but it is too early to tell if a significant new calving
area is developing. As previously mentioned, caribou appear to be
more sensitive to disturbance than other big game species, such as
moose.· Roads, particularly those in open areas, tend to be avoided
by caribou. Therefore, there is a chance that this route could
lead to at least partial abandonment of important habitat. For
other species of big game, this route is of less concern, although
conflicts could occur.
22
-
F'""'
'
""" i
-
r
I
3.4 -Socioeconomic Analysis
Impacts on socioeconomic conditions will vary in both magnitude and
area of concentration depending upon which corridor or combination of
corridors is chosen. The socioeconomic evaluation of access routes
involves a somewhat broader perspective than some of the other
environmental disciplines, as it is concerned more with the origin,
mode, and destination of access and less with the site-specific
emplacement. Exceptions to this might include, for example, the
proximity to an active mining operation, but generally, socioeconomic
considerations involve broader concerns and are
specific or region-specific than site-specific.
different approach to analysis is required than
other environmental disciplines.
more community-
Therefore, a somewhat
was performed in the
To facilitate the preliminary socioeconomic assessment, Corridors 1, 2,
and 3 have been defined in terms of -access route combinations.
Analysis is based upon the impacts of access schemes related to the
entire project and not solely on a particular access route regarded in
isolation. Access route combinations have been defined based upon the
mode of transportation to be used and connection with existing
transportation facilities. The different access route combinations
(schemes} are defined as:
(a) Access routes by a new road from the west: (Corridor 1) Chulitna
north of Susitna River to Devil Canyon and north of the Susitna
River to Watana, or (Corridor 2) Chulitna, south of Susitna River
to Devil Canyon, and south of Susitna River to Watana. (Scheme A)
(b) Access route utilizing existing railroad connecting with a new
railroad to Devil Canyon and Watana (Corridor 2). (Scheme B)
(c) Access route by a new road from the North, Denali Highway, to
Watana and possibly Devil Canyon (Corridor 3). (Scheme C)
(d) Access route from the west to Devil Canyon (Corridor 2) and by a
new road from the north to Watana (Corridor 3). (Scheme D)
23
-
-
-
....
I""'
I
I
I""'
I
-
The analysis is predicated on several assumptions, one of which is that
there will not be an enclave with a broad range of services at the project
site, and that labor commuting patterns will develop as a function of
accessibility to the dam sites (n.b., see note below). It is also assumed
that if access is from the west, whether via a road connecting with the
Parks Highway or a rail spur off the Alaska Railroad, the port-of-entry
for project materials would be Anchorage, and impacts would be
concentrated on the west side. If access were from the Denali Highway, it
is assumed that Valdez would be the port-of-entry. In this scheme,
impacts would be concentrated on the east side.
The socioeconomic analysis for the feasibility study in general will be
based upon geographic aggregations of political units and/or census
divisions, as socioeconomic data is available in such formats. At this
point in the analysis of access route corridors, however, it is possible
to perform qualitative determinations regarding which socioeconomic
variables will likely be affected, by general area, given one or more
discrete access schemes. Geographic impact areas have been delineated for
purposes of this preliminary qualitative assessment (Figure 1) as
follows:
(a) West: The west side is comprised of two subareas, 1) the r4atanuska-
Susitna and Yukon-Koyukuk census divisions and 2) the Anchorage and
Kenai Peninsula census divisions.
(b) East: The east side includes the Valdez-Cordova census division.
*Note: Unofficial information was received byTES concerning the
pass ibil ity thott a fairly well-developed construct ion enclave would be
provided, with a significant level of services and housing for mid-and
upper-level management and their families. This information was received
too late to consider in this analysis. However, it is possible that, with
such an enclave, there could be potential reduced magnitudes of impacts in
certain categories. These would include ethnicity, culture, corrmunity,
housing type and availability, and possibly a slight decrease in magnitude
on public: services. Although absolute impacts may decline somewhat in the
aforementioned categories, or relative magnitudes, likely would remain the
same.
24
-
....
LEGEND ,--
Geographic Impact Areas
WfEST
-Matanuska-Susitna/Yukon-Koyukuk
Anchorage/Kenai Peninsula
EAST
-Valdez-Cordova
Census Divisions
130, 232
020, 090 (091, 092)
200 (201, 202, 203)
Figure 1. Socioeconomic Analysis of Access Schemes.
-
-
-
The Socioeconomic Analysis involved consideration of several impact
categories, as listed in Table 3. These include a range of social,
community, and economic factors as well as economic base elements. For
purposes of the preliminary access route analysis, and given the data
base currently available, only broad impact categories are considered at
this time. As the study progresses, it will be possible to provide a
somewhat more detailed assessment involving the discrete socioeconomic
variables that comprise the impact categories.
As mentioned, the socioeconomic assessment involves a qualitative
examination of impacts for each access route Scheme (A, B, C, or D).
This was done for the geographic impact areas discussed above. Table 3
provides a listing of potential socioeconomic impacts for each category
by geographic impact area. A subjective numerical scale of 1 to 5 was
used, with 5 representing a great impact and 1 a small or negligible
impact. The numerical scale does not correspond to a quantitative
measure, but rather is a scoring system used to delineate the relative
magnitudes of impacts. Relative refers here to the socioeconomic base
upon which the impact will occur. Thus, for Mat-Su/Yukon-Koyukuk and the
east side, the impacts are rated fairly high because of their relatively
less developed socioeconomic base. This analysis is a process by which
to examine the direct and indirect impacts on existing facilities and
demand on those facilities, not induced impacts. For instance, the
attractiveness of an increased and, perhaps, less expensive power supply
for industry, and the impact associated with such changes have not been
considered in the impact analysis.
Examination of the table reveals certain patterns that have developed as
a result of the socioeconomic categories of variables being analyzed in
this manlier. Generally, if access scheme "A" is chosen, then the impacts
will be concentrated on the west side, and few impacts of any significant
magnitude will occur on the east side. This is viewed as the result of
an easily accessible corridor {a road connection to the Parks Highway)
for construction materials, equipment, and labor sources, and for
post-construction alternative uses of the Susitna Basin.
26
-
.....,
I
I
....
!
-'
(a)
TABLE 3
POTENTIAL SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE ACCESS ROUTE
SCHEMES, BY SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT CATEGORY
------------------~
Impact Category
Population Levels
Ethnicity, Religion
Cultural, \\fay-of-Life
Community, Social,
Political
Housing -Type
Housing-Availability
Public Services
Government Revenues
Total Labor Demand
Unemployed Labor
Construction
Vl
Mining
Agriculture
Forestry ·
Manufacturing
Commercial Fisheries
~ Oi 1 & Gas
0::::
0 . ~ Transport at 1on
~ Motor
u Rai 1
w Port
Vl
· ~ Public Utilities·
(_)
:E Communi cat ions
0 z 8 Wh.olesale~ Trade
lJ.J
Retail Tr·ade
Services
Tourism/Recreation
GEOGRAPHIC IMPACT AREAS
WEST EAST
Mat-Su/ Anchorage/
Yukon-Koyukuk Kenai Valdez-Cordova
Access Schem Access Access Scheme
A B C 0 A B A B C 0
5 5 2 3
2 2 1 2
3 2 1 2
3 2 1 2
3 2 1 2
5 4 1 2
5 4 2 2
5 4 1 2
5 5 2 3
5 4 3 3
5 5 2 3
3 2 1 2
1 1 1 1
3 2 1 2
3 3 1 2
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
5 2 1 2
2 5 1 3
1 1 1 1
5 3 1 3
5 4 2 3
5 4 2 3
5 4 2 3
5 4 2 3
5 3 2 3
2 2 1 1
1 1 1 1
2 1 1 1
2 2 1 2
1 1 1 1
2 2 1 1
2 2 1 2
2 2 1 2
2 2 1 2
3 2 1 2
3 3 2 2
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
2 2 1 2
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
4 1 1 1
1 5 1 3
4 4 1 3
2 2 1 2
2 2 1 2
5 5 1 4
4 4 1 3
4 3 1 2
3 2 1 1
1 1 5 4
1 1 3 2
1 1 5 4
1 1 5 5
1 1 5 4
1 1 5 5
1 1 5 5
1 1 5 4
2 2 5 4
2 2 5 4
2 2 5 5
1 1 3 2
1 1 1 1
1 1 2 2
1 1 3 3
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 5 4
1 1 1 1
1 1 5 5
1 1 5 4
1 1 5 4
1 1 5 5
1 1 5 5
1 1 5 5
2 2 5 5
a.· A subjective. numerical scale in which 5 represents a great impact and 1
a small or negligible impact. See text for further details.
27
-
-
Access Scheme "B" represents an access route that is similar to "A" from
a socioeconomic standpoint, except that impacts wi 11 be somewhat 1 ess due
to utilization of the railroad instead of the Parks Highway. This is
due to the more restrictive access associated with rail.
Access scheme 11 C" shifts the impacts from the west side to the east side,
which is displayed by a substantial decrease in relative magnitudes under
column C (Table 3) on the west side, and a dramatic increase in relative
magnitudes on the east side. As mentioned before, this is due to the
assumption that marine, and perhaps, air access will be through Valdez
and that the Richardson and Denali Highways will be the haul road. Even
with such a shift, impacts are still witnessed on the west side because
it is believed that industry and labor pools along the Parks Highway will
continue to be utilized.
Access scheme "D" will create impacts that will be dispersed over a greater
area than with the other schemes.-Impacts to the west side will vary in
magnitude by a value of one or possibly'two, depending on whether the route
from the west is a road or railroad connection.
Some categories will be impacted or not impacted regardless of which access
corridor is chosen. For example, categories such as housing availab·ility,
total labor demand, unemployed labor, construction, wholesale and retail
trade, and services will all be greatly impacted on the west side,
independent of which access corridor is chosen. On the other hand,
categories such as· ethnicity/religion, agriculture, fisheries (commercial)
and oil and gas will be impacted neglig'ibly regardless of the access
route.
-Generally, impacts will be comparatively less in the Anchorage-Kenai
area than in other areas due simply to its relatively more developed
socioeconomic base. The table reveals that relative magnitudes of impacts
are somewhat 11 tempered" because of the capacity of the socioeconomic
infrastructure to absorb anticipated project-related activity~
This analysis does not conclude with a recommendation regarding a
preferred scheme. Rather, it is intended to provide an indication of the
relative magnitude of impacts by area. Regardless of the scheme
28
p-.
I
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
selected, impacts can be termed considerable for either the west or east
areas as defined above, with somewhat greater relative magnitudes of
impacts on the east side with an eastern scheme than on the west with a
western scheme.
29