HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA1510SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECT/170,TASK2-SURVEYSANDSITEFACILITIESSUBTASK2.10ACCESSROADSCLOSEOUTREPORTSACCESSROUTESELECTIONREPORTFINALDRAFTMARCH1982Preparedby:•
ALASKAPOWERAUTHORITYSUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTACCESSROADSELECTIONSUMMARYREPORTTABLEOFCONTENTSLISTOFTABLESLISTOFFIGURESPage1 -INTRODUCTION1·_.11.1-Background1-11.2-OrganizationofReport1-11.3-PlanFormulationandSelectionProcess1-22 -SUMMARY2_~2.1-ScopeofWork2-12.2-SelectionofAlternativePlans2-12.3-EvaluationofPlans2-22.4-PlanRecommendation~2-33 -SCOPEOFWORK3-13.1-Objectives..............................................3-13.2-Approach3-14 -SELECTIONOFPLANS4-14.1-OverviewofStudiesPriortoPlanSelection4-14.2 -DescriptionofBasicPlans4-54.3-AdditionalPlans4-65 -EVALUATIONOFPLANS5~15.1-ObjectivesandEvaluationCriteria5-15.2-EvaluationofPlans.....................................5-96 -IDENTIFICATIONOFCONFLICTS6-17 -PLANRECOMMENDATION7-17.1-Comparisons7-17.2-Recommendation7-47.3-AssumptionsAffectingSelectionProcess7-57.4-AssumptionsAffectingRecommendation7-67.5-PossibleConsequences7-68 -MITIGATIONRECOMMENDATIONS8..1
ALASKAPOWERAUTHORITYSUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTACCESSROADSELECTIONSUMMARYREPORTTABLEOFCONTENTS(Cont1d)Page9 -TRADEOFFSINTHESELECTIONPROCESS9-19.1-BasisoftheSelectionProcess9-19.2-TradeoffsMadeintheSelectionProcess9-110-RECOMMENDATIONSFORCONTINUINGWORKREFERENCEDREPORTSAPPENDIXA-CORRESPONDENCEAPPENDIXB -REPORT-PROJECTCONSTRUCTIONREQUIREMENTS-SCHEDULINGAPPENDIXC -PUBLICPARTICIPATIONAPPENDIXD-CONTINGENCYRISKMETHODOLOGY10..·.]
LISTOFTABLESNumber5.16.1TitleAccessRoadPlansAccessRoadPlans-IdentificationofConflicts
LISTOFFIGURESNumber1.11.22.12.22.32.42.52.62.72.82.92.102.117.1TitleGenericSelectionMethodologyAccessPlanSelectionMethodologyAlternativeAccessCorridorsAlternativeAccessRoutesAccessPlanRecommendedRouteAccessPlan-RecommendedRouteSheet1of2AccessPlan-RecommendedRouteSheet2of2SchematicofAccessPlans1and2SchematicofAccessPlans3and4SchematicofAccessPlans5and6SchematicofAccessPlans7and8SchematicofAccessPlans9and10SchematicofAccessPlan11DetailedDesignandPermittingSchedule
1 -INTRODUCTION1.1-BackgroundandPurposeofReportTheAcresAmericanIncorporated(Acres)PlanofStudy(POS)fortheSusitnaHydroelectricProjectwasissuedbytheAlaskaPowerAuthority(PowerAuthority)forpublicreviewandcommentin1980.Task2ofthePOSdealswithsurveysandsitefacilitiesincluding,underSubtask2.10,considerationofaccesstotheproposedSusitnahydroelectricdevelopment.TheobjectiveofSubtask2.10istodefinealternativeaccessrouteswhichwillberequiredforconstructionandoperationofthepowerdevelopmentsattheWatanaandDevilCanyondamsites,toevaluatetherelatedeconomical,environmentalandengineeringfactorsinvolvedandtoselectapreferredroute.TheoriginalPOSproposedthatasingleroutewouldbeselectedbyMay1981tobefollowedbydetailedenvironmentalinvestigationsofthisroute.Earlyinthestudythreemainaccesscorridorsweredeveloped.Considerationoftheseplansonthebasisofavailableinformation,commentandconcernsfromvariousstateagenciesandarecommendationfromtheSusitnaSteeringCommittee,ledtoadecisiontoassessthreealternativeroutesinmoredetailthroughout1981andrecommendoneselectedroutelateintheyear.Accordingly,thisassessmentin-cludedenvironmentalstudies,engineeringstudies,aerialphotography,drilling,andgeologicmappingofallthreealternatives,ratherthanthesinglerouteinitiallyenvisaged.ThisreportpresentstheresultsofstudiesconductedtodatebyAcrestodeter-minetheoptimumlocationoftheaccessroute.Subcontractorsandotherscon-tributingtothisreportandtheirrespectivecontributingareasare:-TerrestrialEnvironmentalSpecialists,Inc.-EnvironmentalAnalyses;-R&MConsultants,Inc.-Engineering,CapitalConstructionandLogisticsCosts;-StephenBraundAssociates-Local/PublicPreferences;and-AlaskaPowerAuthority-Local/PublicPreferences.AppendixCcontainstheresultsoftheLocal/PublicPreferenceStudies.Theen-vironmentalandengineeringreportsareavailablefromthePowerAuthorityintheirentiretyandarereferencedattheendofthisreport.1.2-OrganizationofReportThisreportisorganizedtodescribesequentiallytheprocessbywhichtherec-ommendationforanaccessplanwasreached.Section2isasummaryofthere-port.Section3discussestheobjectivesandapproach.Section4describesthe11basicplansevaluated;Section5presentstheevaluationofeachplan,con-sideringschedule,costs,biologicalimpacts,andsocialimpacts.ConflictsintryingtomeetallselectioncriteriaarepresentedinSection6.Acreslrecom-mendationisdiscussedinSection7,andmitigationrecommendationstoreduceimpactsassociatedwiththerecommendedplanappearinSection8.Tradeoffsintheselectionprocess,includingobjectivesthatwerenotfullymet,aredis-cussedinSection9.Section10containstheconclusionsandrecommendations.1-1
1.3-PlanFormulationandSelectionProcessTheselectionprocessusedtoarriveatanaccessrecommendationisdescribedgenericallyinFigure1.1.ItconsistsbasicallyofaIInarrowingdownllprocess,withstepsprovidedforadjustmentsofthealternativeroutesandforfeedback.ThisgenericprocesshasbeenappliedtoallSusitnaHydroelectricProjectdecisionswhichrequiredanevaluationofalternatives.Themethodologyasspecificallyappliedtotheaccessroadselectionisdes-cribedinSection3.2andpresentedgraphicallyinFigure1.2.1-2
INPUT FROM AVAILABLE SOURCES -PREVIOUS AND CURRENT STUDIES
......
I
W
DEfiNE
OBJECTIVES
SELECT
CANDIDATES
FEEDBACK
FEEDBACK
PLAN
FORMULATION
PLAN FORMULATION AND SELECTION METHODOLOGY
FIGURE 1.1 \iii
.......
I.p.
.
W LJ W ~J WDEFINEOBJECTIVESr-pESIGN PARAMETERS SCREENING PROCESS PLAN fORMULATION EVALUATION
SELECT ACCESS ROADWAY AND RAIL .....TECHNICAL !--3 ROUTES·ONE IN ADDITIONAL STUDIES ~II ALTERNATIVE PLANS
ROUTE TO HYDROPOWER ENGINEERING CRITERIA ECONOMIC EACH CORRIDOR SOILS DATA ARE EVALUATED TO
SITES THAT ALLOWS I ENVIRONMENTAL AS A RESULT OF ENGINEERING THE fOLLOWING
CONSTRUCTION AND PUBLIC PREfERENCES THE SCREENING ~CONSTRUCTION COSTS -CRITERIA
OPERATION WHILE LJ TRANSMISSION IMPACT PROCESS IN rn LOGISTICS COSTS ENGINEERINGBESTMEETINGAREESTABLISHEDTRANSMISSiONIMPACTECONOMICOVERALLCRITERIAESTABLISHCANDIDATES~ENVIRONMENTALSTATEDIN[[J A TOTAL OF 33 ~ENVIRONMENTAL:~SCHEDULING
ROUTES ARE PORT FACILITIES DESIRED LEVEL OF
ESTABLISHED IN ROADWAY OPTIONS -f LABOR.ORGANIZATION I-ACCESS
THE 3 CORRIDORS BAIL OPTIONS CONCERNS AGENCY CONCERNS
I LOGISTIC REQUIREMENTS SOCIAL PREFERENCES
TRANSMISSIONIAGENCYCONCERNS
2A AS A RESULT OF
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 6 PLANS.WHICH -..AGENCY CONCERNS,c-
PRESENT THE OPTIONS I-UTILIZED THE f--3 ADDITIONAL PLANS
TO THE PUBLIC AND 3 ROUTES ARE ARE ESTABLISHED
INVITE COMMENT ESTABLISHED HNATIVE LANDOWNERS ~PREFERENCES
LOCAL COMMUNITY
PREFERENCES
ACCESS PLAN SELECTION METHODOLOGY
FIGURE 1.2 [i]
2 -SUMMARY2.1-ScopeofWorkThescopeofworkfortheAccessRoadSelectiontaskistodefineandevaluatealternativeaccessroutesrequiredforconstructionandsubsequentoperationofthepowerdevelopmentsattheWatanaandDevilCanyondamsites,andselectoneroute.Theevaluationiscarriedoutconsideringengineering,economic,envi-ronmental,andsocialcriteria.Engineeringstudiesconductedonthealternativeroutesconsistedofdevelopmentofdesigncriteria,layoutsofthealternativeroutes,preliminaryfieldinves-tigations,estimatedcostofconstructingthealternativeroutesandcostsintransportingsuppliesandmaterialstothedamsites.Environmentalstudiesin-cludedidentification,fieldinvestigationandevaluationofbiologicalimpactsforeachofthealternativeroutes.Social,cultural,socioeconomic,andapub-licparticipationprogramwereincludedamongthestudies.Publicconcernsandpreferences,particularlythoseofthesectorthatwouldbeimpactedthemostdirectly,weresolicitedandfullyconsideredintheevaluation.Theevaluationofthealternativeplansincludeddevelopmentofevaluationcri-teria,comparisonsofthealternativeplans,identificationofconflictsamongthealternativeplansrelativetotheevaluationcriteria,resolutionoftheconflictsintheevaluationcriteria,andthetradeoffsmadeintheevaluationprocess.2.2-SelectionofAlternativePlansEarlyinthestudythreebroadcorridorstothedamsiteswereidentified(seeFigure2.1).Thesewerecomprisedofthefollowing:- AcorridorrunningwesttoeastfromtheParksHighwaytothedamsitesonthenorthsideoftheSusitna;- AcorridorrunningwesttoeastfromtheParksHighwaytothedamsitesonthesouthsideoftheSusitnaRiver;and- AcorridorrunningnorthtosouthfromtheDenaliHighwaytothedamsites.Withinthethreebroadcorridorsatotalof30alternativerouteswereestab-lished.Theestablishmentofthe30routeswasaccomplishedbylayingoutal-ternativeroutesontopographicmapsinaccordancewithroadandraildesigncriteriadevelopedfortheroutes.Throughtheselectionprocessashortlistof3routes,thepreferredrouteineachcorridor,wasestablished.Theselec-tionprocessincludedengineering,economic,biological,andsocialcriteriainnarrowingdownthealternativesfrom30to3.Fromthe3routesselected,slightmodifications tothealignmentsweremadetodiminishasmuchaspracticable,potentialadversebiologicalimpacts(seeFigure2.2).2-1
Elevenaccessplanswereeventuallydevelopedfromthe3selectedroutes.The11plansestablishedthelogisticsthatwouldaccompanythetransportofsup-pliesandmaterials.Thelogisticsdefinedtheoriginofthematerialsandsup-plies,enteringports,modeoftransport,railortruckandlocationofrail-heads.The11plansarepresentedschematicallyinFigures2.6through2.11.2.3-EvaluationofPlansTomeettheprimeobjectiveofallowingtheorderlydevelopmentofthedamsites,thefollowingcriteriawasusedtoevaluatethe11alternativeaccessplans:-minimizeconstructioncostsandlogisticscosts;-facilitateoperationandmaintenance;-ensureadequateflexibilityinconstructionlogisticsandtransportation;-minimizeadversebiologicalimpacts;-addresssocialimpacts;-addressresourceagencyconcerns;-addresstransmissionrequirements;and-addressrecreationrequirements.AnimportantconstraintaffectingtheAlternativeAccessPlansevaluationistheoverallprojectschedulingrequirements.Thisconstraintresultedfromtheob-jectiveofmeetingthepoweron-linedateof1993(1).TherequirementofhavingtheSusitnapoweronlinein1993resultedfromextensivestudiesonenergydemandforecastsandalternativesourcesanddevelopmentstomeetthedemand.Thedelayoftheon-linedatebyoneyearwouldhavethefollowingnegativeim-pacts:acostpenaltyintheorderof$50millioninlong-termpresentworthcosts;anothersourceoffossilfuelgenerationwouldhavetobeconstructedtomeetthedemandorthelossofloadprobabilitymustbeviolated;andexploita-tionoflandandotherresourcesrequiredfortheconstructionoftheadditionalfossilfuelgeneratingsources.ThisconstraintwasgivenprimeconsiderationduringtheinitialevaluationoftheplansduetothefactthatanyalternativeotherthantheDenaliHighwayrouterequiresapproximatelythreeyearstoconstructwhiletheDenaliroutecanmeettheconstructionaccessrequirementsinoneyear(3).Reviewingthecon-structionscheduleforthedam,thepowerhouse,andtheoverallpowerdevelop-mentnecessitatedcontinualaccessisrequiredbymid-1986tomeettheon-linedateof1993(refertoAppendixB).TheestimatedissuanceoftheFERClicenseis1985andhencethecommencementofconstructionactivitiesisscheduledtocoincidewiththelicenseissuancein1985.Tomeetalltheaforementionedrequirements,theonlyalternativeistheDenaliroute.Thiswouldeliminatealltheotheralternatives.Amethodwasdevelopedutilizinga"pioneerllroadconceptandcommencingcon-structionin1983wherebytheotheralternativesfromtheParksHighwayandGoldCreekcanmeettheoverallprojectschedulingrequirements.Thisretainedthealternativesforfurtherevaluation.2-2
The11plansestablishedvariedtothecriteriaandthedegreetowhichtheysatisfiedthecriteria.The11plansaregroupedintothefollowingbroadcate-goriesforthissummary.(a)AccessfromtheParksHighwayTheaccessfromtheParksHighwaysatisfiesthecostcriterionandtheeaseofoperationandmaintenancecriterion.TheaccessfromtheParksHighwayhasadefiniteadvantageoveralltheotherplansintheconstructionlogisticsandtransportationflexibilitycriterion,anditalsoavoidsmanypotentialbiologicalimpactsandalsopartiallysatisfiestheagencycon-cerns.Theonlycriteriatheaccessdoesnotfullymeetisthelocalcom-munitypreference.AlthoughthereissomelocalcommunitypreferencefortheParksHighwayaccess,themajorityofthepopulationofthelocalcom-munitiesdidnotfavortheaccess.Theaccessbasicallysatisfiesthenativelandownerpreferences.(b)AccessfromtheDenaliHighwayTheaccessfromtheDenaliHighwaysatisfiesthecostcriterion,theeaseofoperationandmaintenancecriterion,andtheconstructionlogisticsandtransportationflexibilitycriterion.Thisaccesshasadefinitedisadvan-tageintheminimizingbiologicalimpactscriterion,intheagencycon-cerns,andinthenativelandownerpreferences.TheaccessfromtheDenaliHighwayhasanadvantageinlocalcommunitypreferences.(c)AccessfromGoldCreekTheaccessfromGoldCreekinvolvesarailaccessonlytothedamsitesoraroadfromGoldCreektothedamsiteswhichinvolveshavingaraillinkonlyservice,andnoconnectiontoamajorhighway.Thisaccesssatisfiesthecostcriterion,theminimizingbiologicalimpactscriteria,andlocalcom-munitypreference.TheaccessfromGoldCreekwasalsopreferredbytheagencies.Ithasadefinitedisadvantageinconstructionlogisticsandtransportationflexibilityanddoesnotfullymeettheeaseofoperationandmaintenancecriteria.Theaccessbasicallymeetsthenativelandownerpreferences.Intheevaluationofthealternativeroutes,therewasnosinglealternativethatsatisfiedallthecriteriabetterthantheothers.2.4-PlanRecommendationAccessalternativesfromGoldCreekhasadefinitedisadvantageinconstructionlogisticsandtransportationflexibility.Thisdisadvantageisconsideredgreatenoughtoeliminatethesealternativesfromfurtherconsideration.TheaccessfromtheParksHighwayhastheadvantageovertheaccessDenaliHighwayineverycategoryexceptlocalcommunitypreference.adoptionofappropriatemitigationmeasuressuchasmanagement,thethelocalcommunitiescanbeminimized.2-3fromtheThroughtheconcernsof
Forthereasonspresented,itisAcres'recommendationthattheaccessplanfromtheParksHighwaybeadopted.Theaccessplan,designatedAccessPlan5inthisandreferencedreports,iscomprisedofthefollowing:-AnaccessroadcommencingontheParksHighwaynearHurricaneandtraversingsoutheastalongtheIndianRivertoGoldCreek;-FromGoldCreektheroadwillcontinueeasttotheDevilCanyondamsite,southoftheSusitnaRiver;and-AttheDevilCanyondamsite,theroadwillcrossalowlevelbridgeandcon-tinueeasttotheWatanadamsiteonthenorthsideoftheSusitnaRiver;AftercompletionoftheDevilCanyonPowerDevelopment,theroutewillusethetopofthedamastheroad(SeeFigure2.3).ItisAcres'furtherrecommendationtonotcommenceconstructionofthesectionofroadbetweentheParksHighwayandGoldCreekuntilafterissuanceoftheFERClicense.ItisbelievedthiswillsubstantiallyreducetheprimepublicandagencyconcernofintroducingaccesstopreviouslyunaccessibleareasintheeventtheFERClicenseisdeniedortheprojectiscancelled.TheAccessPlan5recommendationalsocarrieswithittherecommendationofmit-igationmeasurestoreducepotentialimpactstothelocalcommunitiesalongtheParksHighway.Thesemeasuresinclude,butarenotlimitedto,controloftheroadasaprivateroadduringconstructionofthetwodamsitesnotallowinganypublictraffic,incentivestotheconstructionworkforcetoremainattheworksiteforthelongestperiodoftimethusreducingcommutertravel,developmentandmaintenanceofadualstatuscampwhichwillreducethepotentialforworkerstorelocatetheirfamiliestonearbycommunities,andestablishmanage-mentpoliciesfortheroadafterconstructionofthepowerdevelopmentiscom-plete.2-4
O~~~~4iiiiii__~~MILESSCALE,=,REFERENCE:BASEMAPFROMUSGS,I:250,OOOHEALY,ALASKATALKEETNAMOUNTAINS,ALASKAALTERNATIVEACCESSCORRIDORSFIGURE2.1
LEGEND-----ACCESSALTERNATEACCESSALTERNATE2----ACCESSALTERNATE30~~~4§;;__;;/~MILESSCALE1=,REFERENCE:BASEMAPFROMUSGS,1:250,000HEALY,ALASKATALKEETNAMOUNTMNS,ALASKAALTERNATIVEACCESSROUTESFIGURE2.2
T15S.T16S.T.31REFERENCE:BASEMAPFROMUSGS,I:250,000HEALY,ALASKATALKEETNAMOUNTAINS,ALASKARlOW.ACCESSPLANRECOMMENDEDROUTET\5ST.20S1:21$.1:22S.T.14N.1:13N._tllN.TIONT.9~~.LEGEND-----RECOMMENDEDROUTE0~~~~4__iIiiiil~MILESSCALEi:,FIGURE2.3
T.22ST33N;32NT31NT3lNT30Nc;3500?(;002~OO2000R3WR2W,R2W.R.IW.R.lW.RIE.RIE.RZE.oill~~tiiiB_~TMILESSCALEL.REFERENCE'BASEMAPFROMUSGS1'63,360ALASKAQUADRANGLES,TALKEETNAMOUNTAINS,C-5,0-5,C-6,0-6ACCESSPLAN-RECOMMENDEDROUTESHEETIOF2FIGURE2.4
RIE.RZE.RZE.R3E.T.3ZN.T3IN.T.3IN.T.30N.o2MILESSCALEiIREFERENCE'BASEMAPFROMUSGS1'63,360ALASKAQUADRANGLE,TALKEETNAMOUNTAINS,C-3,0-3,C-4,0-4,C-5,0-5ACCESSPLAN-RECOMMENDEDROUTESHEET20F2FIGURE2.5
3 -SCOPEOFWORK3.1-ObjectivesTheprimaryobjectiveoftheaccessrouteistoallowfortheorderlydevelop-mentandmaintenanceofsitefacilitiesandconstructionactivitiesinorderthattheSusitnapowerdevelopmentscanbeconstructedandelectricpowerbereliablyandcontinuouslyprovidedtotheRailbeltAreaofAlaska.Inmeetingtheprimaryobjectivestatedabove,severalspecificobjectivesweredevelopedasabasisofevaluationofthealternativeaccessroute.Theseobjectivesare:(a)ToallowtheconstructionoftheSusitnaprojecttoproceedonaschedulethatwouldsupplythenecessarypowertotheRailbeltAreaofAlaskawhenneeded;(b)Tominimizecostincludingcapitalconstructioncosts,logisticscostsofsupportingconstructionactivitiesandthelogisticscostsofoperationoftheproject;(c)Toallowforeaseofoperationandmaintenancetoensurereliabilityinthepowersupply;(d)Tominimizeadversebiologicalimpacts;(e)Toaccommodatethepreferencesoflocalcommunities;and(f)ToaccommodatethepreferencesofNativelandowners.3.2-ApproachTheapproachutilizedtoarriveatanaccessrecommendationwasbasicallyanadaptationofthegenericplanformulationandselectionmethodologydescribedpreviouslyinSection1.3.Toaidinunderstandingtheselectionprocessandthevariousstudiesconducted,thefollowingdefinitionsareprovided:Corridor-Onaplanvieworsurface,awidepath,generally2mileswideorgreater,indicatingdirectionbetweentwopointsorareas.Route-Onaplanvieworsurface,apath,generally1/2milewideorless,indicatingdirectionbetweentwopoints.Segment-Portionsofaroutewhichwhencombinedconstituteonealternateroutebetweentwopoints.AlternativeRoute-Oneofseveralrouteswhichwillbeevaluatedbetweentwopoints.3-1
-Plan-Anaccessplanincludesasingleoracombinationofexistingandnewalternativeroutes.Theplanwillalsodefinethelogisticsinvolvedinthetransportationofsuppliesandmaterials.Thefirststepoftheselectionprocesswastheestablishmentofbasiccorridorsleadingfromexistingtransportationroutestothedamsites.Alternativerouteswhichmetengineeringdesignparameterswerethenestablishedandevaluatedagainsttechnical,economic,andenvironmentalcriteria.Ashortlistofthepreferredthreeroutes,oneineachcorridor,wasthencompiled.Accessplansforeachrouteweredeveloped,andtheseplansevaluatedindetail,leadingtoafinalrecommendationofaroutewithinacorridorandaplantoutilizethisroute.Figure1.2depictsthisprocessinmoredetailandillustrateshowotherconcerns,includingthoseofagenciesandthepublic,wereincorporatedintothedecision-makingprocess.3-2
ANTWELLHURRICANEALASKARAILROADDENALIHWY.PLAN5FIGURE2.8[iiiDENALIHWY.PLAN6CANTWELLIIII,HURRICANEPROPOSEDTi,ROAD~PROPOSEDRAILI-----o11111\'1\\G(;LDD~tWATANA-CREEKSITESITE
IIIIIIIDENALIHWY.PLAN7PROPOSEDROADSCANTWELLHURRICANEALASKARAILROADLPROPOSED~ROAD_\...------------t:L~-D.C)--lWATANACREEKSITESITEHURRICANEDENALIHWY.PLAN8FIGURE2.9•
OENALIHWY.PLAN9HURRICANE.JPROPOSEDROAD.",.,...--........-'-WATANASITEHURRICANEDENALIHWY.FIGURE2.10111mI[PROPOSEDROAD--t- - -WATANASITEPLAN10ANTWELLALASKARAILROADPARKSHWY.
CANTWELLHURRICANEllGOLDCREEKALASKARAILROADDENALIHWY.,,,I,PROPOSEDIi'ROADI---'-..............DoC/WATANASITESITEPLANIIFIGURE2.1111~lffiI
4 -SELECTIONOFPLANS4.1-OverviewofStudiesPriortoPlanSelection(a)CorridorSelectionandEvaluationThefirststepintheselectionprocessinvolvedtheidentificationofgen-eralcorridors.Thesecorridorswereselectedbasedupontheexistingtransportationnetworkinreasonableproximitytothedamsitesandthefactthatthepurposeoftheaccessroutewouldbetoprovideaccesstothedam-sites.ThetransportationnetworkconsistsoftheParksHighwayandtheAlaskaRailroadtothewestandtheDenaliHighwaytothenorthofthedam-sites.Baseduponthis,thefollowingthreegeneralcorridorswereidenti-fied.-Corridor1 -FromtheParksHighwaytotheWatanadamsiteviathenorthsideoftheSusitnaRiver.-Corridor2 -FromtheParksHighwaytotheWatanadamsiteviathesouthsideoftheSusitnaRiver.-Corridor3 -FromtheDenaliHighwaytotheWatanadamsite.Ageneralenvironmentalanalysiswasconductedonthethreecorridors(2).Theresultsofthisanalysisarepresentedbelow.Themajorenvironmentalconstraintsidentifiedwithineachcorridorarepotentialimpactsonthefollowing:-Corridor1:FisheryresourcesintheSusitnaandIndianRivers;-Cliff-nestingraptorsnearPortageCreekandDevilCanyon;-FurbearerhabitatnearPortageCreekandHighLake;-MoosehabitatontheSusitnaRiver;and-CaribouhabitatbetweenDevilCreekandDeadmanCreek.-Corridor2:FisheryresourcesintheSusitnaandIndianRiver;-Cliff-nestingraptorsnearsouthsideoftheSusitnaRiver;WaterfowlhabitatintheStephanLake-FogLakeareas;and-FurbearerhabitatintheStephanLake-FogLakeareas.-Corridor3:-CariboucalvingareanearButteLake;-Furbearerhabitat;and-Somewaterfowlhabitat.Inaddition,increasedaccesswillcausevariousimpactswhicharecommontoallcorridors.Archaeologicalresourcescouldposeaconstraint;atthistime,locationoftheseresourcesareunknown.4-1
Finally,socioeconomicimpactswillvarybothinmagnitudeandareasofconcentration,dependinguponwhichaccessrouteorcombinationofaccessroutesisselected,andwhetheraroadorrailroadisused.Withthesocioeconomicassessmentofaccessschemes,thereismoreconcernwiththeoriginandtypeofaccessthanwiththeactualroute,becausethesewillaffectthecommunitiesmorethantheactualroute.WitharoadfromtheParksHighwaytothedamsites(Corridors1and2),effectsgenerallywouldbeconcentratedonthewesternsideoftheprojectarea.Aneasilyaccessibleroadcorridorwouldprovidefortransportationofconstructionmaterials,equipment,andlaboraswellaspost-construc-tionusesoftheUpperSusitnaBasin(suchasrecreation).Theimpactofarailroadfromthesamesidewouldlikewisebeconcentratedonthewesternside.However,ineverysocioeconomiccategory,impactswouldbethesameorlessthanwiththeroad.Thesingleexceptionwouldbeinrailindustryactivities,whichwouldexperiencemajorchanges.WitharoadconstructedfromtheDenaliHighwaytothedamsites(Corridor3),impactsalongtheParksHighway-AlaskaRailroadcorridorwoulddependuponwhethermaterialsweretobeshippedbyroadorrailtoCantwellbeforebeingtransportedalongtheDenaliHighwaytotheaccessroad.Im-pactswouldoccurintheCantwellarea,however,regardlessoftransporta-tionmode.(b)RouteSelectionandEvaluationFollowingidentificationofmajorcorridors,accessrouteswereselectedandevaluatedbasedonengineeringandeconomiccriteria.Environmentalanalysiswasthenutilizedtomodifytheselectedroutes.(i)EngineeringCriteriaConstructionoftheSusitnaprojectwillrequireadependable,safe,andefficientaccessroutesuitablefortransportingpersonnel,consumablesupplies,andlargepiecesofequipmentforanextendedperiodinadverseweatherconditions.Thepreliminarydesigncriteriaadoptedforaccessroadandrailalternativeswereselectedonthebasisofsimilarfacilitiespro-videdforotherremoteprojectsofthisnature.Basicparameterswereasfollows:-MaximumGradeof6percent;-Maximumcurvatureof5°;-DesignloadingofSOkaxleand200ktotalduringconstruction;and;-DesignloadingofHS-20afterconstruction.4-2
Railroaddesignparametersutilizedwereasfollows:-MaximumGradeof2.5percent;-MaximumCurvatureof10°;and-LoadingofE-50.Followingcorridordefinition,varioussegmentsthatmetengineeringcriteriaweremapped.Thesesegmentswerethenjoinedtoformvari-ousalternativerouteswhichwerecomparedonthebasisof:-Overalllength;-Averagegradepermile;and-Averagedeflectionpermile.(ii)EconomicCriteriaIntheearlyscreeningstagesofcorridorandrouteselection,theonlyeconomiccriteriaappliedweretotalcenterlinelengthoftheroadwithminoradjustmentsforaveragegradeandcurvature.Pre-liminarycapitalcostsforconstructionwereestimatedtobe1.25milliondollarspermile,in1981dollars.(iii)ResultsThemountainousterrain,combinedwiththecriteriaadoptedregard-ingmaximumgradesanddegreeofcurvature,strictlylimitsthenum-berofavailablesegmentsandroutes.The16segmentsand30routesidentifiedwithinthethreecorridorsareabouttheonlypracticableroutesavailable.Alltheroutesaretechnicallyfeasible,completewithinthemselves,andinsuresafeoperation.TherouteshavebeenplottedonUSGSmapsata 1inch=1milescale(3).Thealternativesidentifiedasbeingmostfavorablebasedonlength,alignment,andgradeareasfollows:Corridor1 -ParksHighwaytoWatanadamsite-NorthsideOverallLengthAverageGradeDeflectionPerMile64.9miles2.4percent7°061+Corridor2 -ParksHighwaytoWatanadamsite-SouthsideOverallLengthAverageGradeDeflectionPerMile66.5miles2.2percent4°50°+Corridor3 -WatanaDamtoDenaliHighwayOverallLengthAverageGradeDeflectionPerMile4-339.1miles1.3percent1°301+
Railroad-ThesouthsideoftheriverfromGoldCreektoWatanadamsite.ThiscloselyfollowsthepreferredroadalignmentforCorridor2.OverallLengthAverageGradeDeflectionPerMile58miles0.5%percent5°11'+(iv)EnvironmentalInfluencesonAlternativeRoutesAftertheengineeringandeconomicassessmentidentified3roadroutesand1railroute,aninitialscreeningwasmadewhichresult-edinseveralrefinementstothealternativeroutesunderconsidera-tion.AmajorrefinementinvolvedthedeletionofalargeportionoftheroadaccesscorridorfromtheParksHighwayonthenorthsideoftheriver(Corridor1).ThesegmentconnectingtheHighwayandDevilCanyondamsiteroutedaroundPortageCreekwasdeletedmainlyonthebasisofpotentiallysevereenvironmentalimpactsonanad-romousfish,furbearers,andraptors.ThetopographyinthePortageCreekareaisfurthermoresuchthatthealignmentnecessarytomeettheestablishedcriteriaisinordinatelylong.Inadditionthecon-structionofthesegmentwouldbeextremelydifficultduetothepredominanceofsteepsidehillexcavationrequired.AnothermajorrefinementtothecorridorswastheroutingtothewestofthenorthernportionoftheDenaliroute(Corridor3).Thisroutingwasadvocatedonenvironmentalgroundsinanattempttore-ducepotentialimpactsonthecaribousubherdcalvingareanearButteLake.Afinalrefinementconsistedofrealignmentofthepor-tionoftheCorridoronthesouthsideoftheriver(Corridor2)intheStephenLake-FogLakeareatoreducepotentialenvironmentalim-pactstofurbearersandwaterfowl.Themainrouteswithinthecorridorsremainingaftertheinitialscreeningwereasfollows:-ParksHighwaytoDevilCanyon-Thisrouteencompassestheexist-ingrailroutebetweenGoldCreekandtheintersectionoftherailroadwiththeParksHighwayjustsouthofHurricane.Travel-ingsoutheastfromHurricane,thisroutepassesthroughChulitnaPassandthenparallelstheIndianRivertoGoldCreek.Theexistingriverchannelperipheryprovidesforanaturalpassagewayforaroad.FromGoldCreektoDevilCanyontherouteliessouthoftheSusitnaRiver,parallelingtheriveronahighridge.-DevilCanyontoWatana,SouthSideofSusitnaRiver-ThisroutegenerallyparallelstheSu~itnaRiverandtraverseswesttoeastfromDevilCanyontoWatana.Theinitialtopographyismountain-ousandtheroutecontainsthemostdifficultconstructionofthethreeroutesasthereareconsiderablesidehillalignments,inrockandsoil.ThisroutealsoincludestheenvironmentallysensitiveStephanLakeandFogLakeareas.4-4
-DevilCanyontoWatanaNorthSideofSusitnaRiver-ThisroutegenerallyparallelstheSusitnaRiverandtraverseswesttoeastfromDevilCanyontoWatana.Thisrouteismountainousandin-cludesterrainatthehighestelevationsofallroutes,however,constructionoftheroadwouldnotbeasdifficultastheroutebetweenthedamsites,onthesouthsideoftheSusitnaRiver.-DenaliHighwaytoWatana-ThisrouteconnectstheDenaliHighwaywiththeWatanadamsiteandrunsinanorth-southdirection.Thisrouteistheeasiesttoconstructofthealternativeroutes.Theterrainisrelativelyflatwithafewwetlandsinvolved.Thisroutewouldnotrequireanymajorbridges.4.2-DescriptionofBasicPlansFromthethreeroutesremainingaftertheinitialscreening,eightplansweredeveloped.Theseplanswerestudied,investigated,andevaluatedinmoredetailthenoriginallyplannedintheoriginalPOS.Theadditionalinvestigationsandevaluationsresultedfrominformationandassessmentsconductedtodate,con-cernsofstateagencies,andalsofollowingrecommendationbytheSusitnaSteer-ingCommittee,refertoAppendixA -Correspondence.Theadditionalinvestiga-tionandevaluations,consistingmainlyofenvironmentalfieldwork,andgeologi-calandtopographicalmappingandsubsurfaceborings,providedabetterdatabaseuponwhichtomakeaselection.TheplansarepresentedbelowandarealsoshownschematicallyinFigures2.6through2.9.(a)Plan1ThisplanutilizesaroadwayfromtheParksHighwaytoWatanadamalongthesouthsideoftheriver.Currentconstructionplanningusingthisaccessplanisbasedonmaterialssuchascementandsteelbeingbroughtinto thestatethroughWhittieronrailcars.FoodandothercampsupplieswouldbeimportedthroughAnchorageviacontainer,andfueldirectlyfromKenaitoAnchorageviaexistingpipeline.Allmaterialsandsupplieswouldbecar-riedbyrailtoarailheadandstorageareaatGoldCreek.AtGoldCreekmaterialswouldbetransferredtotrucksfortransporttothesite.TheremainderofmaterialsandsupplieswouldbetransportedbytruckfromtheParksHighway.AnalternativeforfuelwouldberailhaulfromtherefineryatNorthPole,Alaska.(b)Plan2 -AllRailThisplanwouldservebothdamsitesbyarailline.Thisalternativewouldprecludepublicaccess.ConstructionplanningforthismodeofaccesswouldbebasedontrainsbeingbrokendownandcarsdroppedonthesidingatGoldCreek.AnengineandtraincrewwouldbestationedatGoldCreek.ThiscrewwouldshuttlecarsfromGoldcreektotheprojectsitedaily.Passengerrailservicewouldberequireddaily.Ifpublicaccessisde-siredafterconstructiontherailscouldberemovedandtheroadbedgradedintoaonelaneroadwithturnouts.4-5
(c)Plan3Thisplanenvisagesuseofacombinationofrailandtruck.ConstructionofWatanadamwouldbeservedfromarailheadatCantwell,bytruckacrosstheDenalihighwayandalonganewlyconstructedroadfromtheDenaliHigh-way.ConstructionofDevilCanyondamwouldbeservedbytruckfromarailheadatGoldCreekandaroadaccesstotheParksHighwayisincluded.Thisplandoesnotincludeaconnectionbetweenthetwodams.(d)Plan4ThisplanservesWatanabytruckfromarailheadatCantwellandDevilCanyonbyrailfromGoldCreek.Intheplanthereisnoconnectionbetweendams.(e)Plan5ThisplanservesbothdamsbytruckfromarailheadatGoldCreek.ThesouthsideoftheriverisusedtoDevilCanyonwithamajorbridgedown-streamfromthedamsite,thenfollowingthenorthsideoftherivertoWatana.ThereisaroadconnectiontotheParksHighway.(f)Plan6ThisplanisidenticaltoPlan4exceptthataserviceroadformaintenancepurposeisincludedonthenorthsideoftheriverbetweenthetwodams.(g)Plan7ThisplanisthesameasPlan3exceptthataserviceroadwouldbepro-videdalongthenorthsideoftheriverasinPlan7.(h)Plan8ThisplanisthesameasPlan5exceptthereisnoroadconnectiontotheParksHighway.AnewlyconstructedroadwouldserviceDevilCanyonfromGoldCreekonthesouthsideoftheriver.Amajorbridgewouldbere-quireddownstreamofDevilCanyonandanewroadonthenorthsideoftheriverwouldconnectthetwodams.Thisalternativeplanprecludespublicaccess.4.3-AdditionalPlansFollowingselectionandevaluationoftheeightplansdescribedabove,presenta-tionsweremadetothePowerAuthorityandtheSusitnaHydroelectricProjectSteeringCommittee.ThesepresentationsandsubsequentdiscussionsresultedintheadditionofthreeplansasfollowsandasshownonFigures2.10and2.11.(a)Plan9ThisplanisthesameasPlan8excepttheroadbetweenGoldCreekandDevilCanyonischangedtorailandtherailheadisatDevilCanyon.4-6
(b)Plan10ThisplanisidenticaltoPlan9exceptthattheroadconnectingDevilCan-yonandWatanaisonthesouthsideoftheSusitnaRiver.(c)Plan11ThisplanutilizesarailheadatCantwell,theDenaliHighway,aroadfromtheDenaliHighwaytoWatanaandaroadfromWatanatoDevilCanyononthenorthsideoftheRiver.Plans9and10wereaddedasasuggestionbytheSteeringCommitteeasameanstoreduceaccessibilityandthusadverseenvironmentalimpactsintotheSusitnaBasinbyhavingnoroadavailableuntilDevilCanyon.Plan11wasaddedasapossiblewaytoprovideaccessfromonlyoneareawhilealsoalleviatingthesocioeconomicimpactsthewestsidecommunitieswouldfeelasaresultofanaccessroadfromthewest.4-7
5 -EVALUATIONOFPLANS5.1-ObjectivesandEvaluationCriteriaTheobjectivesfortheaccessroutearepresentedpreviouslyinSection3.2.Thecriteriausedtoassessthedegreetowhichtheseobjectivescanbemetareasfollows:(a)MinimizeConstructionCostsandLogisticsCostsTheconstructioncostsaretheassociatedcapitalcoststoconstructtheprojectwhilethelogisticscostsarethecapitalcostsassociatedwithtransportinglabor,fuels,equipment,materials,andsuppliestoconstructthepowerdevelopments.(b)EaseofOperationandMaintenanceThiscriterionaddressestheeaseofoperationofthedevelopmentsafterconstructioniscomplete.Thiscriterionreducestotheeffectsofhavingaroadconnectingthetwodamsitesdirectly.ItisplannedtooperateandmaintainbothdamsitesinitiallyfromtheWatanadamsite.Subsequentoper-ationwilloccurfromaremoteoperatingstation,however,maintenancewillcontinuetooriginatefromonecentrallocation,whichiscurrentlypro-posedtobeatWatana.TheWatanalocationwasselectedfortheplantop-erationandmaintenancefacilityandthepermanentvillagesinceWatanawillbeconstructedbeforeDevilCanyon.Theconceptofhavingoneopera-tionandmaintenancefacility,andonepermanentvillageservingbothdam-sitesissuperiortothatwithseparateoperationandmaintenancefacili-ties,andpermanentvillagesateachsite.Efficiencyandeconomiesdictateonelocation.Inthisrespectaccessplanswitharoadconnectionbetweenthetwositeshavebeenevaluatedasbeingsuperiorintermsofeaseofoperationandmaintenancethanplanswithoutaroadconnection.(c)ConstructionLogisticsandTransportationFlexibilityThiscriterionaddressestheeaseofconstructionandtheflexibilityin-volvedinconstructionandtheassociatedrisks.ThiscriterionfortheSusitnaProjectnarrowsdowntoeffectsofhavingaroadconnectiontoamajorhighwayornothavingaroadconnectiontoamajorhighway.InthiscasecomparisonofarailaccessonlylinkismadeversusaroadconnectiontotheParksorDenaliHighway.Theconcepthereistoensurethatasmuchflexibilityaspossibleisbuiltintotheaccessplan.Theincreasedflexibilitylessenstherisksassociatedwithstop-pagesanddelaysresultingfromunforeseen,adverseevents.Aroadaccessfromamajorhighwayismoreflexibletoadapttodifferentsituations,thananallrailorraillinkaccess.Aroadaccesstoamajorhighwayallowsmorecontrolovertheprojectbythecontractorsthemselves.Railaccessoraccesslinkplanshavehigherrisksofprojectdelayandsubsequentcostincreases.Withrailaccessonly,theoperationofallgroundtransportationtothesiteisremovedfromthecontractorsIcontrol.5-1
Anybreakdownintherailsystemwouldresultinalossofallgroundtran-sportationtothesiteandthelikelihoodofprojectdelaysandcontrac-tors'claims.Althoughprojectdelayrisksareinherentinanytransporta-tionsystem,theyarehigherwithrailthanwithroad.Theincreasedriskofdelayshavecostpenaltiesassociatedwithit.Thecostpenaltiesareextremelydifficulttoquantifyforevaluation,however,ananalysiswascarriedoutandadollaramounthasbeenarrivedat.RefertoAppendixD.Thesecostshavebeenincorporatedintotheflexibilitycriterion,andthecriterionaddressesminimizingthecosts.Inadditiontothequantifiableflexibilityaroadaccessoffersassociatedwithrisk,thereistheadditionalflexibilitywitharoadforeaseofsupplywhichdoesnothaveacostpenaltyassociatedwithit.Witharoadaccessthetaskofsupplyismademucheasierfromtheplanningandsche-dulingviewpoint.TheexistingAlaskarailroadparallelingtheParksHighway,themajorityofthedistancetotheprojectsite,combinedwithhavingroadaccesstoamajorhighwaylendsitselfideallytocompetitivebiddingandobtainingtheminimumcapitalcosttomaintaintheconstructionofthedevelopments.Al-thoughithasbeenshownandpreliminarilyplannedtoshipthemajorityofmaterialsandsuppliesbyrail,withoutcompetitionfromtrucking,pricegougingcouldoccur.Roadaccesstoamajorhighwayalsooffersflexibilityinpersonneltrans-portationandtheuseofprivatetransportation.(d)Environmental(ExcludingSocial)Thebiologicalobjectiveistodevelopanaccessplanthatminimizeschangestothenaturalenvironment.Thecriteriausedtoassessthedegreetowhichthisobjectivecanbemetwere:(i)EffectsonBigGameAprimaryconcernassociatedwiththeselectionofanaccessplanisthepotentialeffectontheNelchinacaribouherdandspecificallythesubpopulationofapproximately1,000animalsthatinhabitthenorthwesternsectionoftheUpperSusitnaBasin.Theimpactsofhuntersonmooseandbeararealsoconsideredbutassecondarycon-cerns.TheseimpactscanbegreatlylessenedbyselectingarouteotherthantheaccessfromtheDenaliHighway.Theaspectsusedtodeterminethepotentialeffectsofaproposedrouteonresidentandmigratorybiggamespecieswere:-Theincreasedpublicaccessaffordedbytheroutetobiggamehab-itatandtheresultantdisturbanceofanimalsusingthoseareas.5-2
-Theeffectofaproposedrouteoncaribou,inparticular,aspecieswhichmaybemorevulnerabletodisturbancethanotherbiggamespecies.-Theproximityoftheroutetodenningsitesofwolvesandbears.(ii)EffectsonFisheriesInthecaseofresidentfisheries,therearerelativelyisolatedlakes(ButteLake,BigLake)andstreamsinthenorthwesternsectionoftheUpperSusitnaBasin,andtheFogLakesareathatwouldre-ceiveadditionalanglingpressureifroadaccesswasprovided.TheseimpactscanbelessenedbyavoidingaccessfromtheDenaliHighwayandtherouteonthesouthsideoftheSusitnaRiverbetweenthedamsites.ForanadromousfisheriesandsinceDevilCanyonactsasanaturalbarriertoanadromousfishmigration,thereisnoconcernregardingtheeffectofimprovedaccessonthisresourceupstreamofDevilCanyon.However,IndianRiver,andtheSusitnaRiveruptoPortageCreek,areimportantforsalmon.Anyaccessplansthatfolloworcrosstheseriverscouldaffectsalmondirectlythroughhabitatdis-ruption(i.e.sedimentation)orindirectlythroughincreasedfishingpressure.TheseimpactscouldbelessenedbyavoidingroadaccessparallelingtheIndianRiver.Theaspectsusedtodeterminethepotentialeffectsofaproposedrouteonfisherieswere:Thenumberofstreamorlakecrossingstherouterequired.-Thefisherypotentialofthewaterbeingcrossed.-Thepotentialforincreasedpublicaccesscreatedbytheparticu-larplan.Theeffects,inparticular,onanadromousfishhabitat.(iii)EffectsonFurbearersWetlands,importanttofurbearers,havebeenidentifiedbetweentheParksHighwayandGoldCreek,nearDeadmanMountain,nearDeadmanandBigLakesandtheUpperDeadmanCreek.Inaddition,theFogLake-StephanLakeswetlandscomplexisavaluablefurbearerhabi-tat.AredfoxdenningcomplexhasalsobeenidentifiedsouthofDeadmanMountain.Anyaccessroadcrossingthroughtheseareashasthepotentialfornegativeimpactsonfurbearers.Impactsonfur-bearerswouldbeleastbyselectingaccessfromGoldCreektoDevilCanyononthesouthsideoftheSusitnaRiverandonthenorthsideoftheriverbetweenthedamsites.5-3
Evaluationaspectsforfurbearereffectswere:-Thedegreetowhichtheroutewillincreasepublicaccesstoim-portantfurbearerhabitat.-Thesensitivityofthehabitatinvolved.-Thetypeoffurbearsthatcouldbeaffected.-Theproximityofaproposedroutetowaterwaysandlakes.(iv)EffectsonBirdsandSmallMammalsHeavilyforestedareasbetweentheParksHighwayandDevilCanyonalongriverbanksareproductiveavianhabitat.Constructionthroughtheseareaswoulddisturbthishabitat.Theaspectsusedtodeterminethepotentialeffectsofaproposedrouteonbirdsandsmallmammalswere:-Numbersofspeciesaffectedandtheirdensityalonganaccessrouteorinanarea.Typesofhabitatencountered.-Existenceofraptorhabitats.-Existenceofwetlands.-Degreetowhicharoutewillfacilitatepublicaccesstoasensi-tivearea.(v)EffectsonWildernessSettingTheUpperSusitnaBasinispresentlyinastateofwildernesstosemi-wilderness.AlthoughcontinuedintrusionwithATVsfromDenaliHighway,potentialdevelopmentofnativelandsandtheestablishmentoftheIndianRiverremotelanddisposalsiteshavethepotentialofchangingthecharacterofsectionsofthebasin.Theimprovedpub-licaccessassociatedwithconstructionoftheSusitnaHydroelectricProjectwillproduceamajoralterationintheremotenessofthearea.Naturalresourceagenciesandthelocalpublichaveexpressedadesiretomimicthestatusquotothemaximumextentpossible.PeoplefromtheurbancentersofAnchorageandFairbankshaveex-presseddesiretoprovideroadaccessandopentheareaforrecrea-tiondevelopment.Thefactorusedtoassessthepotentialeffectofaproposedrouteonthewildernesssettingwastheeasebywhichthepublicwouldhaveaccesstothearea.(vi)EffectsonArcheologicalResourcesArchaeologicalresourcesarelikelypresentalongallaccessroutes.Thesegmentwiththeleastpotentialforaffectingarchaeological5-4
sitesisbetweenGoldCreekandDevilCanyon.Allothersegmentshaveamoderatetohighpotentialofdisturbingculturalresourcesites.ThesegmentsfromtheDenaliHighwaytoWatanaandfromtheDevilCanyonsitetoWatananorthoftheSusitnaRiverhaveahigherpotentialforarchaeologicaldisturbanceduetothetreelesstopographyandthinsoils.(e)Social(i)PreferencesExpressedbyNativeLandowners-CIRITheCIRIorganizationhasselectedlandssurroundingtheimpound-mentareasandsouthoftheSusitnaRiverbetweenthedamsites.CIRIhasofficiallyexpressedapreferenceforaplanprovidingroadaccessfromParksHighwaytobothdamsitesalongthesouthsideoftheSusitnaRiver(Plan1).Unofficiallytheyhaveindi-catedthatonlyPlan1isfullyacceptabletothem(refertoAppendixA).-AHTNATheAHTNAnativecorporationpresentlyownslandsboarderingtheDenaliHighway.AtapublicmeetinginCantwellinOctober1981,anumberofAHTNAmembersexpressedapreferenceforaroutein-volvingtheDenaliHighway;however,noofficialpositionfromtheAHTNACorporationhasbeendocumented.Inevaluatingthecompatibilityofaproposedroutewithnativelandownerpreference,itwasconsideredthatonlyPlan1metthepreferenceexpressedbyCIRIandthatPlans3,4,6,7,or11wouldmeetthepreferenceofAHTNA.SinceCIRIisthelargestnativelandownerintheareaandsincetheyhaveofficiallyex-pressedtheirpreference,greaterimportancewasgiventotheirpreference.(ii)EffectsonNativeLandownersForthepurposesofplanevaluation,distinctionhasbeenmadebe-tweenthenativepreferencesasexpressedandAcresevaluationastohowthevariousaccessplanswouldaffecttheopportunityforthenativestodeveloptheirlandsonthesouthsideoftheriver.TheaspectsusedtoassesstheeffectofaproposedrouteontheopportunityforCIRItodeveloptheirlandswere:-Thedegreeofaccessprovidedfromamajortransportationcorridortonativelands.-Thedegreeofaccessprovidedonnativelands.-Thetypeofaccessprovided.5-5
(iii)PreferencesExpressedbyLocalCommunitiesThelocalcommunitieshaveexpressedopinionsrelatingto:-Theaccessplantheyprefer;-Thegeneralcommunitylifestylepatternstheyprefer;and-Thegeneralsettinginthesurroundingareatheyprefer.Sincethelocalcommunitiesarelikelytoreceivemoreadverseim-pactsthandirectprojectbenefitsofaSusitnadevelopment,theob-jectivetoaccommodatelocalcommunitypreferenceshasbeenincludedinouraccessplanselectionprocess.Thesepreferencesaredis-cussedbyeachcommunity.Thissummaryrefersmainlytotheopinionexpressedbythemajorityofresidentswithineachcommunity.CompletedocumentationofcommunitypreferencesispresentedinthereportsubmittedbyS.Braund(refertoAppendixC).Thecriteriausedinassessingthedegreetowhichthisobjectiveismetisdividedintofourareasduetothedifferencesincommunitypreferences.-CantwellThemajorityofresidentsinCantwellpreferredtheDenaliaccessrouteprovidedstringenthuntercontrolwasenforced.Thecommunitydesiredeconomicstimulusandwereinfavoroftheeconomicchangesthatcouldresultfromhavingamajorconstruc-tionprojectinthearea.TheypreferredthesemiwildernesssettingoftheUpperSusitnaBasinandexpressedconcernoverthepotentialeffectsofaDenaliaccessonthefishandwildliferesourcesofthearea.-RailroadCommunitiesNorthofTalkeetnaTheresidentsofthesecommunitieswereunanimousintheirprefer-encefornoincreaseinaccessordevelopmentofthearea.Ifaccesswasrequired,theypreferredtheall-railalternative.Thesecommunitiesalsoexpressedastrongpreferenceformainten-anceofthestatusquowithintheircommunitiesandthesurround-ingarea.-TalkeetnaAttitudesweresomewhatdividedwithinthiscommunity(seeS.Braundreport,AppendixC).However,themajorityofresidents:Preferredtomaintaintheirgenerallifestylepatterns.Preferredtheall-railaccessplan.Preferredtomaintainsemiwilderness-wildernesssettingintheUpperSusitnaBasinarea.5-6
-TrapperCreekAlthoughalternativeaccessplansconsideredcouldaffectTrapperCreekdifferentlythanTalkeetna,thepreferencesexpressedbythiscommunityweresimilartothoseoutlinedforTalkeetna.-Willow/WasilaAreaThesecommunitieswerenotcontactedthroughSusitnacommunityworkshopsorthesocioculturalstudy.DatafromastudyconductedintheMat-SuBoroughbytheOverallEconomicDevelopmentProgram,Inc.(EconomicConditions,DevelopmentOptions,andProjections,July1980)indicatethatpeopleintheWillow,Houston,Wasila,andPalmertendtofavorahigherrateofdevelopmentthanthecommunitiesnorthofWillow.-IndianRiverLandDisposalSitesIn1981atotalof75remotestatelandparcelswereawardedbylotteryintheIndianRiverarea.Ofthese,35werestakedinthesummerof1981.The35landholderswerecontactedbyletterthroughthePowerAuthoritypublicparticipationoffice.Ofthe12responsesreceivedtodate,11favoredretentionoftheremotestatusoftheareaandonefavoredroadaccesstothearea.ThisareawouldbemostaffectedbyroadaccessfromtheParksHighwayandleastaffectedbyaccessfromtheDenaliHighway.(iv)EffectonLocalCommunitiesForthepurposesofplanevaluation,distinctionhasbeenmadebetweenthelocalcommunitypreferencesasexpressedandAcresevaluationastohowthevariousaccessplanswouldaffectthelocalcommunities.-Preferencesinregardstogenerallifestylepatternswereusedtoassesswhetherornotthecommunitieswouldviewprojectedsocioeconomicchangesasbeingpositiveornegative.-Preferencesinregardstothegeneralsettinginthesurroundingareawereusedtoassesswhetherornotprojectchangestothissettingwouldbeconsideredpositiveornegative.-ItwasAcresevaluationthattheDenaliroute,withstringenthuntingregulationsimplementedandenforced,wouldbestmeetthepreferencesexpressedbythemajorityoftheresidentsinCantwe11.-ItwasAcresassessmentthatforthecommunitiesnorthofTalkeetna,TalkeetnaandTrapperCreek,theall-railaccessandtheroadaccesswouldbeequalinmeetingtheirpreferencesforlithegeneralcommunitylifestylepatterns."Thecommunities5-7
expressedpreferencefortheall-railaccessassumingitwouldbettermaintainthestatusquo.Acresassessmentindicatesthatifrailaccessonlyisprovided,thepracticalityofaself-containedfamilystatuscommunityateitherofthesiteswouldbegreatlydiminishedandasingle-status-onlycampfacilitywouldlikelybeestablished.Ifthisweretobethe case,workerswouldtendtolocatetheirfamiliesinthenearestcom-munities,thusincreasingtheimpactsonthesecommunities.(f)AgencyConcernsThesecriteriaaddresstheconcernsofthevariousagenciesinvolved.Correspondence,meetingsandinteractionwiththeagenciesandwiththeSusitnaHydroelectricProjectSteeringCommitteehaveoccurredthroughoutthestudy.Agencycommentshavebeenconsideredintheevaluation.Theconcernsoftheagencieshavebeenenvironmental,withtheemphasisonbiologicalandlanduseimpacts.Therefore,evaluationbytheenvironmentalcriteriadiscussedpreviouslyisconsideredtobasicallyincludeagencyconcerns.TheSusitnaHydroelectricSteeringCommitteehasexpressedthefollowing:-Accesscorridorswhichserveadual,ortriple,purposewouldbehighlydesirable.-Iffeasible,theygenerallypreferarailmodeofaccesstoandwithintheprojectsite.Threeenvironmentallysensitiveareasthatshouldbeavoidedare:-RoutesfromDenaliHighway;-TheroutecrossingtheIndianRiveranathroughwetlandstotheParksHighway;andTherouteonthesouthSlaeoftheSusitnaRiverfromDevilCanyontotheproposedWatanadamsite.ApioneerroadshouldnotbebuiltbeforeFERClicensing.(g)TransmissionAccessplanselectionhasbeencoordinatedwiththetransmissionlinestudies.Thetransmissionlinestudiestodatehaveidentifiedtwocor-ridors,onenorth oftheSusitnaRiverandonesouthoftheSusitnaRiverfromWatanatoGOldCreek.Althoughcorridorsrunalongtheriver,thereisflexibilitytoexpandthecorridortoincludetheaccessroadwhenthedecisiononwhichaccessroutewillbeconstructedismade.Duetomorestringentengineeringcriteriaoflinesandgradesforroadalignments,itwasdecidedthattheselectionofatransmissionlineroutewouldoccursubsequenttotheaccessroadselection.5-8
TheotherdecisionthathasbeenmadeinthetransmissionstudiesisifthenorthernDenaliaccessrouteisselected,thetransmissionlinewouldnotfollowthatrouteduetoexcessivecostandvisualimpacts.Inadditiontocoordinatingwiththetransmissionstudies,minoradjust-mentsinroutealignmenthavebeenmadetoallowefficientaccesstoborrowareasandtheconstructioncamp.(h)RecreationThiscriterionofcoordinationoftheaccessplanwithrecreationstudieshasbeenadoptedtothefollowing.Inmeetings,discussions,andevalua-tionofrecreationplans,ithasemergedtherecreationplansareflexibleenoughtoadopttoanyaccessrouteselected.Nooneroutewasidentifiedwhichhadsuperiorrecreationalpotentialassociatedwithit.Thereforecompatabilitywithrecreationalaspectswasessentiallyeliminatedasanevaluationcriteria.5.2-EvaluationofPlansSpecificconcernforeachofthe11accessplansunderconsiderationaredis-cussedbelow.Inadditiontothese,amajorconcernforallaccessplansisthecreationofaccesstoareaspreviouslyinaccessibleorrelativelyinaccessible.Suchaccesscouldleadtoimpactstofurbearersthroughincreasedtrappingpres-sureandtobiggamethroughhuntingpressure.Inaddition,detrimentaleffectscouldoccurtoallwildlifethroughdisturbanceanddestructionofhabitatDyATVs.CulturalresourceswouldalsobevulnerabletoamateurcollectorsandATVtraffic.(a)AccesstobothParksandDenaliHighway(Plans3and7)(i)CostIntheevaluationofthecostsinvolved,theaccuracyoftheesti-matesmustbeconsidered.Theconstructioncostscouldchangeby$10millionveryeasilyduetounknowngeologicconditions.There-fore,constructioncostswithlessthan$10milliondifferenceareconsideredequal.Adifferenceof$50millioninconstructioncostsisadefinitedifference.Themaintenancecostsareaverysmallpercentageofthetotalcostsandalargechangeinthemaintenancecostswillhaveanegligibleeffectontheoverallcosts.Thelogisticscostsareaboutasaccurateastheycanbe.Thelogisticscostsarebasedoncurrentfreightratesapplicableatthistime.Thelogisticscostsforalltheplansvarybylessthan10percent,however,adefinitecostadvantageofabout$15millioncanbeob-servedforanyplanusingtheParksHighwayoveranyplanusingtheDenaliHighway(Table5.1).Thisisexpectedduetotheadditional52milesofhaulagerequiredforanyplanusingtheDenaliroute.Thepersonnelshuttlecostsandcontingencyriskcostsaredebat-able,however,theyarethebestestimatesofthesecostsavailableatthistime.Whencomparingthetotalcosts,theplanswerecon-sideredequalifthetotalcostswerewithin$20million,anda5-9
definitecostadvantagewasconsiderediftherewasa$50milliondifference.AccessPlan3iscomparabletothemlnlmumcostalternative.AccessPlan7hasapproximatelya$60millioncostdisadvantagewhencom-paredtotheminimumcostalternatives.(ii)EaseofOperation,MaintenanceandConstructionFlexibilityAccessPlan3doesnotmeettheeaseofoperationandmaintenancecriteriabynothavingaconnectingroadbetweenthetwosites.AccessPlan7doesmeettheeaseofoperationcriteriabyhavingaconnectingroadbetweenthetwosites.AccessPlans3and7satisfytheflexibilitycriteriabyhavingaroadaccessconnectingtoamajorhighway.(iii)BiologicalTheprimarybiologicalconernsforthesetwoplansareintheeffectstheroadwouldhaveonfurbearers,biggame,andculturalresources.AroadwayfromtheParksHighwaywouldcrosswetlandhabitatbetweenthehighwayandGoldCreek.thesewetlandareasareproductivefur-bearerhabitat.theDenalisegmentofboththeseplansalsocrossesaquaticfurbearerhabitatnearDeadmanMountain,DeadmanandBigLakes,andUpperDeadmanCreek.Inaddition,aredfoxdenningcom-plexsouthofDeadmanMountainispresentwithinonemileoftheproposedroadandislikelytobeaffected.TheprimarybiggameconcernforboththeseplansistheDenaliseg-ment,whichwouldpassthroughanareathathasfrequentlybeenusedbyeithermajorportionsoralloftheNelchinaherdandincludesthecalvingandsummerrangesofthenorthwesternsubgroupsoftheNelchinacaribouherd.TheroutealsoliesacrossthelatesummermigrationrouteofcariboumovingtowardButteLakeandGoldCreekandparallelsatraditionalspringmigrationroutesouthwardtotheSusitnaRiver.ThedirecteffectsuponthisgroupofcariboushouldAccessPlan3or7beimplementedinclude:adisturbancetocowsandcalvesdur-ingtheroadconstructionperiod,adisturbanceandpossibleimpedi-menttocariboumigrationasaresultofincreasedtrafficinthearea,andthepossibilityofdirectmortalityfromroadkills.How-ever,thepresenceoftheroadshouldnotinterferewithmigration,sincecaribouareknowntocrossroads.Moreover,interferencewiththecalvingareascouldcauseamajoradverseimpactonthefemaleswhoshowanaffinitytotraditionalcalvinggrounds.Ofgreaterimportancethanthesefactors,however,aretheindirectconsequencestothisgroupofcaribouofincreasedaccesstoits5-10
range.Anaccessroadacrossthisalpinetundrawouldprovidetheopportunityforallterrainverhiclestopushanetworkofunplannedtrailsthroughoutthissubherd'srange.Thisnewaccesswouldcausedisturbanceandincreasedmortalitytothesecariboufromtheircon-tactwithvehicles,campers,andhunters.Thus,thereisachancethatthisroutecouldleadtopartialabandonmentofimportantcari-bouhabitat.Sincethecaribouhuntiscontrolledthroughpermit-ting,increasedhuntingmortalityduetoimprovedaccessshouldbeminimalalthoughadditionalcontrolsmayberequired.Theactualmagnitudeofimpactisdifficulttoassesssinceitde-pendsonthesomewhatunpredictablebehaviorofbothcaribouandman.Withanincreasedemphasisonmanagementoftheareaandstringenthuntercontrol,itistechnicallypossibletolessenthepotentialextentofimpact.Itisnoted,however,thatresourceagenciesareapprehensiveaboutthesuccessofanymitigationplansandwouldresistanyroadaccessfromtheDenaliHighway.(iv)SocialWithouttheuseofmitigatingmeasures,accessplanswitharoadwayoriginatingfromtheParksHighwaycouldsignificantlyimpactthewestsidecommunitiesintermsofdemandforincreaseservices,changesinpopulation,housingavailability,governmentexpendituresandrevenues,labordemand,andunemployment.Therewillalsobesignificanteffectsonconstruction,retailtrade,andtourism.Manyofthesechangeswilloccurasconstructionworkersattempttorelocatetothecommunitiesneartheconstructionsite.Dependinguponcommutingmodestothecamp,therecouldbealargeincreaseinvehiculartrafficinthearea.TheseaccessplansalsoincludearoadfromtheDenaliHighway.Assuch,manyoftheimpactswhichwouldbefeltinthewestsidecom-munitiesofTalkeetna,TrapperCreek,andrailcommunitiesnorthofTalkeetnawouldalsooccurinCantwell.Witharoadfromthenorth,itisexpectedmanyoftheworkerswouldsettleinFairbanks,there-byreducingsomeoftheimpactswhichthewestsidecommunitieswouldexperience.TheseplanswouldcreateeconomicstimulusinCantwellbutwillnotmeetthepreferencesexpressedbythoseinthewestsidecommunitieswhodesirenochange.However,roadaccessconnectingtheDenaliandParksHighwaywoulacreateextensivepublicaccessfollowingconstructionthuscreatingthemaximumchangeinthestatusquoofthearea.AsdiscussedunderSection8,itisconsideredthatmitigationmeas-urescanbeimplementedtolessentheeffectsontnewestsidecom-munitiesofTalkeetnaandTrapperCreek.WithroadaccessfromtheParksHighway,changeintheremotenessofGoldCreekandtheIndianRiverLandDisposalsiteswilloccurregardlessofmitigation.5-11
(b)AccessfromParksHighwayOnly(Plans5and1)(i)CostsAccessPlans5and1arebothcomparabletotheminimumcostalter-native(Table5.1).(ii)EaseofOperationandConstructionFlexibilityBothAccessPlans5and1satisfytheeaseofoperationcriteriabyhavingaroaddirectlyconnectingbothsites.BothAccessPlans5and1satisfytheflexibilitycriteriabyhavingaroadconnectionwithamajorhighway.AnadvantageAccessPlans5and1haveagainstanyalternativehav-ingaccessviaDenaliHighwayisinaleasthauldistanceandtimesavings.Anchoragehasbeenidentifiedasthemostviableportofentryforthemajorityofthematerialsandsupplies(3).WhencomparingAccessPlans5and1,orinbroadertermsaccessfromtheParksHighwayversusaccessfromtheDenaliHighway,anyaccessfromtheParksHighwayhasalogisticsandcostadvantageoveranyaccessfromtheDenaliHighway.Withthemajorityofmaterialsandsup-pliescomingfromAnchorage,theaccessroutefromtheDenaliHigh-waywouldinvolveanadditionalhaulofapproximately52milestoWatanawhencomparedtoanaccessfromtheParksHighway.Theaddi-tional52milesofhaultoWatana,foraDenaliaccessalternative,wouldbeadisadvantageinlong-termoperationandmaintenance.(iii)BiologicalTheprimaryconcernswithaccessfromonlytheParksHighwaywerediscussedin(a)above.Briefly,theconcernsarethepotentialimpacttofurbearerhabitatbetweenthehighwayandGoldCreekandpotentialdegradationoffisherieshabitatintheIndianandSusitnarivers.Oflesserconcernisthedisturbanceofmooseandbearpop-ulationsandremovaloftheirhabitatcausedbythenorthsidecon-nectingroadinPlan5.Inadditiontothese,Plan1includesaconnectiononthesouthsideoftheSusitnaRiverbetweenthetwodamsites.ThisroadwouldpassnearandthroughextensivewetlandareasintheStephanLake-FogLakearea.Thesewetlandsprovidehabitatforfurbearersandwater-fowlandsupportalarge,year-roundconcentrationofmoose.~ecausethisareaiscurrentlyrelativelyinaccessible,potentialim-pactsincluderemovalofhabit~tandincreasedmortalitythroughhuntingandtrapping.5-12
(iv)SocialEvaluationoftheseplansfromasocioeconomicaspectrevealsthisaccessoriginwillresultinthegreatestimpacttothewestsidecommunities.Becauseaccessisprovidedfromthewestonly,themajorityoftheimpactswouldbefeltinthewestsidecommunities.Therewouldbemoretendencyforpeopletorelocateinthecommuni-tiesandperhapsinAnchorageandlesstendencytoliveintheFair-banksarea.TherewouldbesomeimpactstotheCantwellarea,butfewerthanwitharoadfromDenali.Impactswouldbethesameasdiscussedin(a)above.Intermsofpublicpreference,theseplansleastmeetthedesiresofpeoplelivingintheprojectarea.Theplanswouldcausethegreat-estchangeintheTalkeetna-TrapperCreekarea(whereresidentshaveexpressednegativeattitudestowardsocialchange)andwouldmini-mizeimpactstotheCantwellarea(whereresidentshaveexpressedadesireforchange).TheIndianRiverlanddisposalsiteandGoldCreekwouldexperiencethegreatestchangewiththeselectionofoneoftheseplans.(c)AccessfromDenaliHighway(Plans6,4and11)(i)CostsAccessPlans6and11haveapproximatelya$30milliondisadvantageincostscomparedtotheleastcostalternative.ThisadditionalcostinPlan6isduetotheconstructioncost.Thisplanrequiresapproximately40milesofadditionalnewroadovertheleastcostalternative.TheadditionalcostofPlan11isduetothelogisticscost.ThisplanrequiresanadditionalhauldistancetoWatanaandespeciallyDevilCanyonwheretheadditionalhauldistanceisap-proximately110milesgreaterthananyotheralternative.AccessPlan4iscomparableincosttotheleastcostalternative(Table5.1).(ii)EaseofOperationandConstructionFlexibilityAccessPlan4doesnotsatisfytheeaseofoperationcriteriaduetotheabsenceofaroaddirectlyconnectingthetwodamsites.AccessPlans6and11bothhavearoaddirectlyconnectingthedamsites,thereforebothplanssatisfytheeaseofoperationcriteria.AccessPlan4partiallydoesnotmeettheflexibilitycriteria.InthisplanthereisaroadconnectiontoamajorhighwayfortheWatanadevelopment,however,fortheDevilCanyondevelopmentthereisnoroadconnectiontoamajorhighway.AccessPlans6and11bothsatisfytheflexibilitycriteriabyhavingaconnectiontoamajorhighway.5-13
(iii)BiologicalThesethreeplansallinvolveroadaccessfromDenaliHighwaytoWatanadamsite.Thepotentialbiologicalandculturalimpactsasso-ciatedwiththisroutewerediscussedunder(a)above.BasicallyimpactscouldoccurtoportionsoftheNelchinacaribouherdthroughincreasedhuntingmortalityandpotentialinterferencewithmigra-tionandcalving.Increasedaccessandtrappingpressurecouldalsoimpactfurbearers.Inaddition,becauseofthetreelesstopographyandshallowsoildisturbanceandremovalofanyculturalresourcescouldresult.Plans4and6DevilCanyon.thisportion.Riverbetweenenvironmental(iv)SocialalsoinvolveconstructionofrailfromGOldCreektoNomajorenvironmentalproblemsarepresentalongTheconnectionroadonthenorthsideoftheSusitnathetwodamswasdiscussedunder (b)above,theonlyconcernwasthecrossingofmoosehabitat.TheseplansmovethemajoraccessoriginfromtheRailbeltCorridortotheDenaliHighway.Assuch,workersIfamilieswouldtendtolocatetomorecommunities,includingCantwellandFairbanks.DuetotherailaccessfromGoldCreek,therewouldstillbesomeimpactonthewestsidecommunities,butfewerthanwitharoadoriginatingfromtheParksHighway.Plan11,involvingaccessfromDenaliHighwayonly,wouldcausethegreatestnumberofchangesintheCantwellandFairbanksareaandfewerchangestothewestsidecommunities.Thesechangeswouldbethesameasdescribedin(a)above.AccessPlans4,6,and11allmeetthepublicpreferenceexpressedbythoseinCantwell,aschangewouldoccur,withthegreatestchangeoccurringwithPlan11.Plans4and6donotmeetthepref-erenceofthoseinthewestsidecommunitiescompletely,aschangeswouldstill.occur.Thesechangeswouldbefewer,however,thanforPlans1,3,5,and7.(d)AccessfromGoldCreekOnly(Plans2,8,9and10)(i)CostAccessPlans8and9arecomparabletothemlnlmumcostalternativeintotalcosts.AccessPlans2and10haveapproximatelya$40milliondisadvantagewhencomparedtotheminimumcostalternativeintotalcosts.AccessPlans2and10arecomparableinconstruc-tionandlogisticscoststotheminimumcostalternatives,however,theadditionalpersonnelshuttleandcontingencyriskcostsaccountforthedisadvantage.AccessPlans8and9haveapproximatelya$40millionadvantage overtheminimumcostalternativeinconstructioncosts.Theseareoffsetbythepersonnelshuttleandcontingencyriskcosts(Table5.1).5-14
(ii)EaseofOperationandConstructionFlexibilityAccessPlan2doesnotmeettheeaseofoperationcriteria.Thedamsaredirectlyconnectedwitharailroute,however,thiswouldcreateoperationalproblemstryingtomaintainbothdamsiteswithonerailcar.Iftworailcarsareused,thiswouldnecessitateadditionalmanpowerintheformofdispatch,control,andmonitoringpersonnelfortherailcars.AccessPlans8,9,and10partiallysatisfytheeaseofoperationandmaintenancecriteria.Theseplanshavearoaddirectlyconnectingthetwodamsites,however,theydonothaveaconnectiontoamajorhighway.Thisreducestheflexi-bilityinoperationandmaintenanceofthesites.ThisisdiscussedinSection5.1(c)asitpertainstoconstruction,however,theflex-ibilitycarriesonintotheoperationsandmaintenancephaseofthedevelopments.AccessPlans2,8,9,and10donotsatisfytheflexibilitycriteriaforconstructionastheydonothavearoadconnectiontoamajorhighway.(iii)BiologicalTheseplansallprecludeaccessfromtheParksHighwayorDenaliHighway;therefore,theimpactsassociatedwithincreasedaccessaresubstantiallyreduced.Plans2and10,whichinvolveconnectionsbetweenthetwodamsonthesouthsideoftheSusitnaRiver,haveasthemajorpotentialenvironmentalimpactsthedisturoanceofwetlandareasnearStephanandFogLakes,asdiscussedunder (b)above.Plans8and9havetheconnectingroadonthenorthsideoftheriver.Concernswiththisrouteincludeimpactstomoosehabitatasdiscussedin(a)above.ThereductioninaccessandthefactthereisnoaccessconnectingwiththeDenaliHighwaytothenorthindicatestheseplanswouldresultintheleastnumberofimpactstobiologicalandculturalresources.(iv)SocialTheseplansallinvolveaccessfromthewestonly,theonlydiffer-encebeingroadorrail,andifrail,thedistanceintothebasintherailroadextends.Assuch,impactswouldagainbeconcentratedonthewestsidecommunities.theseimpactswouldlikelybeconcen-tratedintheGoldCreekareaaswellasTalkeetnaandHurricanebecauseoftheirlocationatrail-highwayintersections.TheCant-wellandFairbanksareaswouldbelessaffectedastherewouldbenonortherlyaccess.ThepUblichasexpressedapreferenceforarailaccessandamain-tenanceofthestatusquo.Althoughrailaccesswouldbestmaintain5-15
thestatusquooftheUpperSusitnaBasiningeneralwiththerailaccess,significantchangescouldoccurintheTalkeetna/TrapperCreekareaasdiscussedinSection5.1(e).TheseplanswouldnotmeetthepublicpreferencesexpressedbyCant-wellresidents.5-16
U1
I
~.........
lADLE 5.I -SUSIINA ACceSS PLANS
0 9 1U
OCSCRIPIION.ROAIMAY.PARKS RAIl..GOLD ROAWAY.OCNAll ROAWAY:OCNALI ROAWAY:PARKS RDAWAY.OCNALI RDAWAY,OCNAlI ROAWAY:GOlO RAIl.:GOLO RAIl..GOUl ROAWAY,DENALI
llIGHWAY 10 DEVIl.CllEEK 10 DEVil 11IGIllIAY JO IIIGlllIAY 10 llIGlllIAY JO DEVil.IIIGlllIAY JO llIG1ll1AY 10 CREEK JO DEVIL CREEK JO DEVil CREEK 10 DEVil IIIGlllIAY 10 WAf ANA
CANYON &WAf ANA CANYON &WAf ANA WAf ANA.PAllKS WAIANA.RAIl.,r.oLD CANYON ON SCUIll WAIANA.RAIl..GOI.O WAf ANA.PAnKS CANYON ON SOUlII CANYON ON SOUlII CANYON ON SOUIII CONNf.C IJNG ROAD
ON SOUIIl SIDE ON SOUIIl SIDE IIiGlllIAY 10 CREf.K 10 DEVil SleE or SUSJlNA,CREEK 10 DEVil IIIGIIIIAY 10 DEVil.SllJE or SUSJlNA,SllJE or StJSJlNA.SllJE or SUSIINA.OOWEEN WAiANA
or SUSJlNA or SUSIINA lJEVIL CANYON CANYON ON SOUIII lJEYII.CANYON 10 CANYON ON SOUIII CANYON UN SOUIII lJEVII.CANYON TO ROAOOAY DEVil ROAOOAY lJEV11.AND lJEV11.CANYON
ON SOUIIl SllJE SllJE or SUSJlNA.WAIANA ON NORIII SllJE or SUSIINA.SlOE or SUSJlNA.WAf ANA lIN NORIIl CANYON 10 WA I ANA CANYON 10 WA I ANA ON NORIIl SllJE
or SUSJlNA.NO NO CONNECIING SIOC or SUS I INA.CONNECIING ROAD CONNEC liNG ROAD SIOC or StJSJlNA.ON NORlIl SllJE ON SOUW SIIJE or SUSIINA.
CONNECIING ROAD ROAD ON NOR"1 SIIJE Of ON NOR III SllJE or SUSIINA.or SUSI INA.
SUSITNA.or SUSITNA.
HILEAGE or NEW ROAO 62 58 70 60 68 102 111 54 ~8 ~)86
CIINSIRUCIION
COS I ($x 1 000 000)1~0 140 1~1 119 14)179 209 9)100 In 14~
ttAINIENANC(
COSJ ($x I,OOO,OIlO)5 4 6 5 0 0 9 7 5 5 11
lOGISllCS COSI
($x 1.0000,OIlO)21~210 nl no 214 no nl 214 216 214 250
Sl.IIlOIAl
($x I,OIlO,OOO))70 )54 )00 )54 )65 417 449 )14 )29 )42 414
PEIlSONNEl SllIlIllE
COSI ($x 1,000,000)0 25 0 10 0 0 0 25 25 25 0
CONIINGENCY RISK
($x 1 000 000)0 40 0 15 0 0 0 40 40 40 0
IOIAl COSIS
($x 1.000,000)J70 419 )00 )79 )65 417 449 J79 )94 ,,07 414
CONSIRUCIION SCIlEllUlE )-4 )-4 1 1 J-4 1 1 )))I
HAJOR OR I OGES 2 2 0/1 0 2 0 0/1 1 1 1 0
6 -IDENTIFICATIONOFCONFLICTSFromtheevaluationsintheprevioussectionitcanbeseennooneplanorroutemeetsalltheobjectivesorsatisfiesallthecriteria.Thebasicconflictsidentifiedwere:(a)SocialandBiologicalvsConstructionandOperationLogisticsRailorroadaccessfromarailheadatGoldCreekonlywouldeliminateroadaccessfromamajorhighwaythuslimitingsocialandbiologicalchangesintheimmediateprojectareaandretainingthestatusquotothegreatestextentpossible.Thisoptionisindirectconflictwithprovidingflexi-bilityinconstructionlogistics/transportationandforprovidingeaseofoperationandmaintenance.Theselectionofsuchanoptionwouldincreasetheriskofhighcosts,scheduledelays,safetyproblemsanddecreasedreliability.(b)SocialvsBiologicalSocialandbiologicalobjectivesarenotinconflictinthesenselimitedaccesstotheprojectareaismostdesirableinbothcases.Ifhowevertheassumptionismadethatroadaccesstoamajorhighwaywillbeprovided,thenaconflictarises.Fromthesocial/localpublicpreferenceperspec-tive,accessfromtheDenaliHighwayispreferred.ThisplanwouldcreatetheeconomicstimulusdesiredinCantwell,reducethepotentialforchangeintheTrapperCreek/TalkeetnaareawhileretainingtheremotenessoftheIndianRiverlanddisposalsiteandtherailroadcommunitiesnorthofTal-keetna.TheDenaliaccess,however,isinconflictwithbiologicalobjec-tivessinceitwouldallowaccessbyhuntersandATVstoalargeportionoftheUpperSusitnaBasinandcreatepotentialimpactsontheNelchinacari-bou,otherbiggamespeciesincludingmooseandbear,thefisheriesiniso-latedlakesandstreamsandfurbearerhabitat.Inaddition,thepotentialfordisturbanceofarchaeologicalsitesinthisareaisgreatest.Althoughtechnicallymitigationmeasurescanbeemployedtoreducethesepotentialbiologicalimpacts,itisnotedthatgovernmentresourceagenciesareapprehensiveaboutthesuccessofanycontrolprogramsandwouldthusbeopposedtoanyaccessfromtheDenaliHighway.TheselectionofaUenaliaccessplancouldresultinunacceptabledelaysinlicenseapprovalorasubsequentrejectionofthisplannecessitatingareassessmentofaccessplansfromthewest.Table6.1broadlysummarizestheconflictsintheevaluation.6-1
TABLE6.1-IDENTIFICATIONOFCONFLICTSlrlterla1Zj4::>67891011CostsMinimizeCosts3 3 3 3 31 13 3 31EaseofOperationandConstructionFlexibilityEaseofOperationandMaintenance32113332 2 23ConstructionFlexibility31323231 1 13BiologicalMinimizeBiologicalImpacts231 121 13 3 31SocialAccommodatePreferenceofNativeLandowners3211 11 1 1 121AccommodateLocalCommunitvPreference12 2 2122 22 221 -DoesnotSatisfyCriteria2 -Intermediate3 -SatisfiesCriteria6-2
7 -COMPARISONANDSELECTIONOFRECOMMENDEDPLAN7.1-Comparisons(a)AccessfromRailheadatGoldCreek(Plans2,8,9,10)vsAccessfromMajorHighway(Plans1,3,4,5,6,7,11)Considerablecost,schedule,safetyandreliabilityrisksareassociatedwithconstructionofanimportant,majorprojectwithoutroadaccesstoamajorhighway.OntheotherhandroadaccesstoamajorhighwaywillcreateadditionalchangeinthestatusquooftheUpperSusitnaBasin.IfthedecisionismadetodevelopalargescalehydroelectricfacilityintheUpperSusitnaBasin,itisconsideredessentialthattheorderlydevelop-mentandmaintenanceofthefacilityshouldbeaffordedahigherprioritythanmaintenanceofthestatusquo.Thus,accessplansoriginatingatarailheadatGoldCreekonlyarenotrecommended.Thisconclusionresultsintherejectionofplansnotprovidingroadaccesstoamajorhighway.Plansrejectedinthiscomparison:Plansremaining:2,8,9,101,3,4,5,6,7,11(b)AccessfromBothParksHighwayandDenaliHighway(Plans3,7)vsAccessfromOnlyOneHighway(Plans1,2,4,5,6,8,9,10,11)TheplanswhichoptimizetransportationflexibilityandeaseofoperationinvolvetheinitialconstructionofaroadfromDenaliHighwaytoWatanadamsite.ToallowforimprovedlogisticsduringthepeakconstructionatWatanaandthroughouttheconstructionofDevilCanyon,roadaccesswouldalsobecreatedtotheParksHighway.TheproblemswiththeseplansisthattheywouldcreatethemaximumchangeinthestatusquoproducingboththebiologicalimpactsassociatedwiththeDenalilinkandthesocialim-pactsassociatedwiththeParksHighwaylink.TheseimpactsarefurtheraugmentedwithbothroadssincetheconnectionoftheParksandtheDenaliHighwaywouldencouragehuntersandtouriststodrivethecompleteloop.Theseplansarealsomorecostlythantheminimumcostalternatives.ItisconsideredthatthesocialandbiologicalimpactsthatwouldresultfromtheseplanscannotbejustifiedbytheaddedtransportationflexibilityandeaseofoperationbenefitsassociatedwithroadaccesstoboththeParksandDenaliHighways.ThisconclusionresultsintherejectionofplansprovidingroadaccesstoboththeParksandDenaliHighway.Plansrejectedinthiscomparison:Plansremaining:7-13,71,4,5,6,11
(c)RoadwayConnectingtheDamsitesDirectly(Plans1,2,5,6,7,8,9,10,11)vsNoRoadwayConnectingtheDamsitesDirectly(3,4)Plansincorporatingaroadconnectingthedamsitesdirectlyareclearlysuperiorintermsofeaseofoperationandmaintenancetoplanswhichdonotdirectlyconnectthedamsites.Theaccessplanswhichdonotconnectthedamsitesdirectlydonothaveadvantagesinanyoftheother,orcom-binedcriteriatowarrantnoteliminatingthesealternativesfromfurtherconsideration.Thisconclusionresultsintherejectionofplansnotconnectingthedam-sitesdirectly.Plansrejectedthiscomparison:Plansremaining:3,41,5,6,11(d)AccesstoDenaliHighway(Plans3,4,6,7,11)vsAccesstoParksHighway(Plans1,5)ThemainconcernsassociatedwiththeDenaliaccessarethepotentialeffectsontheNelchinacaribouherd,increasedaccesstoalargeareaofalpinetundrawiththeassociatedeffectsofdisturbancebyATVs,anddis-turbanceofpotentialculturalresources.AlthoughtherearesomefisheriesandfurbearerconcernsintheIndianRiverareaassociatedwithaParksHighwayaccess,fromthebiologicalper-spective,ParksHighwayaccessispreferredtoaDenaliHighwayaccess.Intermsofconstructionlogisticsandlong-termoperation,theaccessfromtheParksHighwayispreferred.AnyaccessplanwhichutilizestheDenalihasanadditionalhauldistanceof52milesforthemajorityofconstruc-tionequipmentandsuppliesandlong-termmaintenanceandresupply.WithaDenaliroadaccessitisstillpreferabletotransportequipmentandsuppliestoDevilCanyonfromGoldCreek,thuscreatingaccesstotheareafromboththenorthviaDenaliandthewestfromGoldCreek.Intermsofinitialprojectscheduling,theDenalirouteortheParksHighwayroutewiththepioneerroadareconsideredsimilar.Fromaperspectiveofsocialchange,theDenalirouteisconsideredtohavetheadvantagecomparedtotheParksHighwayroute.TheDenaliroutewouldpromotetheeconomicstimulusdesiredinCantwellwhilereducingtheinflu-enceonthecommunitiesofTrapperCreek,Talkeetna,andnorthofTalkeetnawhichhaveexpressedadesiretomaintaintheirgenerallifestylepatterns.Itisconsidered,however,thatevenwithaParksHighwayaccess,mitiga-tionintheformofself-containedconstructioncampfacilities,regulationofcommuterschedulesandcontroloftransportationmodescanreduceoravoidmanyofthepotentialchangesinTalkeetnaandTrapperCreek.Itisalsoconsideredthat,withtheParksHighwayaccess,changestothesecommunitieswouldbegreaterthanchangesthatwouldoccurwithaDenaliaccess.Thesechanges,however,arenotconsideredsignificantlygreater,andtherefore,forcomparisonpurposestheDenalirouteisconsideredtohaveaslightadvantage.7-2
AParksHighwayroutealsoallowsthetransmission1ineandaccessroadtobeconstructedinacommoncorridor.Consideringnativelandownerpreferences,theParksHighwayrouteiscon-sideredtohavetheadvantageovertheDenaliroute.Withanyaccessplanfromthewest,amajorrailhead'MJuldbelocatedatGoldCreekcreatingsignificantlocalchanges.WithroadaccessfromtheParksHighwaytoGoldCreek,changeswillalsooccuratIndianRiverlanddisposalsites.Basedontheabovediscussion,itisconcludedthattheParksHighwayaccessispreferabletotheDenaliaccessplan.Thisconclusionisbasedontheassumptionthat:-IfaDenaliroutewereselected,itwouldbePlan6whichwouldstillresultinsignificantsocialchangesintheGoldCreekarea;-Changesinlocalcommunitiescan,toalargedegree,bemitigatedthroughcontrolsimposedoncontractorandconstructionworkers;and-ControlswouldbeverydifficulttoimposeuponhuntersandATVoperatorswhowouldutilizetheDenali'srouteafterconstruction.SincethereareanumberofsignificantenvironmentalconcernswiththeDenalirouteexpressedbyresourceagencies,mitigationplanning,prepara-tionofenvironmentalimpactstatements,andthepermittingprocessitselfcouldcausedelaysof1to2yearsiftheDenalirouteisselected.TheresultingconclusionistheeliminationofplansinvolvingaccessfromtheDenaliHighway.Plansrejectedinthiscomparison:Plansremaining:(e)ComparisonofPlan1vsPlan53,4,6,7,111,5AccessPlans1and5bothcommenceontheParksHighwaynearHurricaneandproceedthroughChulitnaPassandalongtheIndianRivertoGoldCreek.FromGoldCreekbothPlansproceedeastonthesouthsideoftheSusitnaRivertotheDevilCanyonsite.AtDevilCanyon,Plan1proceedeastonthesouthsideoftheSusitnaRivertotheWatanasite.Plan5crossestheSusitnaRiveratDevilCanyonandproceedseastonthenorthsideoftheSusitnaRivertotheWatanasite.AccessPlan1haspotentialforgreaterenvironmentalimpactsthanAccessPlan5.ThisisduetotheextensivewetlandareasintheStephanLake-FogLakeareawhichprovidehabitatforfurbearersandwaterfowlandsupporta 1arge,year-roundconcentrationofmoose.Providingroadaccessintothisareaincreasesthepotentialforadverseimpactsbyremovalofhabitatandincreasedmortalitythroughhuntingandtrapping.7-3
AccessPlan1ismoredifficulttoconstructthenAccessPlan5duetothemoredifficultterraininthesegmentbetweenDevilCanyonandWatana,southoftheSusitnaRiver.Thedifficultterrainwouldrequireconsider-ablesteepsidehillconstructionandalargebridgeoverCheechackoCreek,justeastoftheDevilCanyondamsite.AccessPlan1hasanadvantageoverAccessPlan5innativelandowner(CIRI)preference.AlthoughPlan5doesnottotallymeetthepreferenceexpressedbyCIRI,itdoescreateroadaccesstonativelands,thusprovid-ingamajortransportation1inkwhichwouldallowthenative1andownersincreasedopportunitytodeveloptheirlandsthanispresentlypossible.BasedontheaboveconsiderationsitisconcludedthatAccessPlan5wouldbettermeettheoverallprojectobjectivesthenAccessPlan1.Plansrejectedthiscomparison:1Plansremaining:57.2-RecommendationsBasedontheabovediscussion,itisJ.lcres'recommendationthat:(a)ThePowerAuthorityselectasanaccessplanfortheconstructionandoperationoftheSusitnaHydroelectricProject,aroadcommencingnearMP156ontheParksHighway,proceedingsoutheastcrossingtheSusitnaRiveratGoldCreek,turningnortheasttoDevilCanyondamsitealongthesouthernsideoftheSusitnaRiver,crossingtheSusitnaRiveratDevilCanyon,andproceedingalongthenorthsideoftheSusitnaRivertoWatanadamsite(Figure2.3, 2.4,2.5).(b)Toallowforcontinuedaccessforprojectconstructionbymid-1986,apioneerroad(limitedaccess)betweenGoldCreekandWatanadamsitebecon-structedcommencinginmid-1983.TheapplicationforpermitstoconstructthispioneerroadbesubmittedtotheStateofAlaskaandtheBureauofLandManagementbyAugust1982,independentoftheFERC1icenseapplica-tiona(c)Tomitigateagainstthepossibilityofunrestrictedpublicaccesstotheareaintheeventthattheprojectisnotbuilt,roadaccessbetweentheParksHighwayandGoldCreeknotcommenceuntilafterFERClicenseapproval.Iftheprojectdoesnotproceedafterthepioneerroadisconstructed,theroadassuchshouldberenderedimpassabletofuturevehiculartraffic.(d)TominimizepotentialimpactstofurbearersandfisheriesresourcesintheIndianRiverandSusitnaRiverareasspecialconstructiontechniquesbeutilized(includingadequatebankstabilization,revegetationandrestora-tion)whencrossingwetlandareasorwhenconstructinginproximitytoanyimportantstream,riverorwaterbody.(e)Tominimizetheeffectsofpublicaccessduringtheoperationphaseoftheproject,considerationbegiventocantrallingpublicaccessacrossDevil7-4
Canyondam.IfaccessisprovidedeastofDevilCanyondamsite,restric-tionsshouldbeplacedontheuseofATVsandhunting.(f)ToassistinminimizingchangesinthelocalcommunitiesofTalkeetna,TrapperCreek,ShermanandCurryitisstronglyrecommendedthatsubsequentdecisionsonconstructioncampfacilities,commutermodes,workincentives,andgeneralpoliciesincorporateaspecialefforttominimizetheeffectsofconstructionontheselocalcommunities.Specificmitigationrecommen-dationsareincludedinSection8.7.3-AssumptionsAffectingSelectionProcessAnimportantconstraintaffectingtheAlternativeAccessPlansevaluationistheoverallprojectschedulingrequirements.Thisconstraintresultedfromtheob-jectiveofmeetingthepoweron-linedateof1993(1).TherequirementofhavingtheSusitnapoweron-linein1993resultedfromextensivestudiesonenergyde-mandforecasts,andalternativesourcesanddevelopmentstomeetthedemand.Thedelayoftheon-linedatebyoneyearwouldhavethefollowingnegativeim-pacts:acostpenaltyintheorderof$50millioninlong-termpresentworthcosts;anothersourceoffossilfuelgenerationwouldhavetobeconstructedtomeetthedemandorthelossofloadprobabilitymustbeviolated;andexploitationoflandandotherresourcesrequiredfortheconstructionoftheadditionalfossilfuelgeneratingsources.TheestimatedcostpenaltyisbasedontheincrementalcostofthermalenergyreplacingSusitnapowerforoneyear.Thecostisdevelopedfromloadforecasts,incrementalinterestrates,andvariousfuelescalationrates.ThisconstraintwasgivenprimeconsiderationduringtheinitialevaluationoftheplansduetothefactthatanyalternativeotherthantheDenaliHighwayrouterequiresapproximatelythreeyearstoconstructwhiletheDenaliroutecanmeettheconstructionaccessrequirementsinoneyear.Reviewingtheconstruc-tionscheduleforthedam,thepowerhouse,andtheoverallpowerdevelopmentnecessitatingcontinualaccessisrequiredbymid-1986tomeettheon-linedateof1993.AdetaileddiscussionofthisaspectispresentedinAppendixB.TheestimatedissuanceoftheFERClicenseis1985andhencethecommencementofconstructionactivitiesisscheduledtocoincidewiththelicenseissuancein1985.Tomeetalltheaforementionedrequirements,theonlyalternativeistheDenaliroute.Thiswouldeliminatealltheotheralternatives.Amethodwasdevelopedutilizinga"pioneer"roadconceptandcommencingcon-structionin1983,wherebytheotheralternativesfromtheParksHighwayandGoldCreekcanmeettheoverallprojectschedulingrequirements.ThisretainedallthealternativesforfurtherevaluationfromwhichAccessPlan5wasconsid-eredthebestinmeetingtheevaluationcriteria.The"pioneer"roadwillconsistofagravelbasedroadwithperiodicpassingturnoutsandwillbeconstructedonexistinggroundinsofaraspossibletoavoidsignificantcutsorfills.TemporaryBaileybridgeswillbeusedatrivercrossings.7-5
Thepioneerroadwilladdcapitalcoststoanyschemewhichutilizesthecon-cept.Thisadditionalcostisduetoclearing,excavation,andfillworkforthepioneerroadinlocationswhereitdoesnotfollowthepermanentroadalignment.Thiscostisestimatedat$8,000,000.Thiscost,althoughsignificant,doesnotaffecttheevaluationandhasnotbeenincludedinTable5.l.Asstatedpreviouslysincethereareanumberofsignificantenvironmentalcon-cernswiththeDenalirouteexpressedbytheresourceagencies,theplanningandpermittingprocessitselfcouldcausedelaysof1to2yearsiftheDenalirouteisselected.Althoughtheconceptofcommencingconstructionpriortotheissu-anceofaFERClicensewasnotreceivedfavorablybyafewstateandfederalagencies,theideawasnotrejectedaltogether.Theproposedpermittingsche-dulewiththerecommendedAccessPlan5issuchthatapplicationswillbefiledforallpermitsinAugust1982forthepioneeraccessroadfromGoldCreektoWatana.ThesegmentbetweentheParksHighwayandGoldCreekwillbeappliedforinlate1983.DeferringthestartofconstructionofthesegmentfromtheParksHighwaytoGoldCreekuntilafterissuanceoftheFERCpermitisbelievedtobeprudentatthistime.Thisapproachinevitablyrequiresconstructiondur-ingthefirsttwoyearsbesupportedwitharailonlylink.Thisisnotconsid-eredtobeaninsurmountableproblem.AgraphicalpresentationofthedetaileddesignandpermittingscheduleisshowninFigure7.1.7.4-AssumptionsAffectingRecommendation(a)ThepioneerroadconceptwillbeapprovedbygovernmentregulatoryagenciessincethepioneerroadwouldnotconnecttoanyexistingroadbeforetheissuingofaFERC1icense,thusnotmakingthepriorcommitmenttoallowingpublicaccesstotheUpperSusitnaBasin.(b)Althoughthenativelandowners(CIRI)haveexpressedastrongpreferenceforroadaccessfromParksHighwaytobothdamsitesalongthesouthsideoftheSusitnaRiver,theywouldreceivesignificantbenefitsfromtherecommendedroutetotheirexistinglandholdings.(c)Publicaccesswillbeprohibitedduringtheconstructionphaseofthepro-ject.Also,theselectionofPlan5offerssomeflexibilityinregardstothedegreeandtypeofpublicaccesssubsequentto1993.(d)fvbstbiologicalandsocialimpacts~"illbemitigatedthroughadoptionoftherecommendationspresentedinSection8.7.5-PossibleConsequencesIfthepioneerroadconceptreceivesinstitutionaloppositionfromagenciesfromwhichpermitsmustbereceived,thenaDenaliroutealternative(preferablyPlan6)istheonlymeansbywhichtheoverallprojectschedulecanberetained.Iftherequiredpermitsarenotobtainedbymid-1983itwillbenecessarytore-evaluatetheoptions,andpossiblyamendtheFERCLicenseApplicationtoincludeanaccessplanthatretainstheoverallprojectschedule.7-6
'-J
I
'-J
1982 1963 1964 1965 1966
JAN JULY JAN JULY JAN JULY JAN JULY JAN JULY
PRELIMIN ~RY
j::~AYOUT_FORJ~I
/PER"IM]COMPLE:T E AWARDE
PREPAR AND SUBMITTJ L
SUBMIT f,ERMIT OF PERM T PERMIT PRO ESS BY
AI;f'L1 ATIONS APPLICAT PNS PERMITTING GENCIES
PIONEER ROAD DE SIGN ~PREPARE Ilil CA"'-LAwt RO CON STRUCT PIONEER ROAD A NO LOW
a LOW LEVEL BRI pGI:DOCUMENTS FOR LEV LBRIDGE AT DEVI CANYON
AT DEVI CANYON BIDS
(1)---f-OPIONEER~f:J-f-_~COMFLETE---PERMAN N INV TnON
'
ROAD INVSTGS.
()---LAND A ~QUISITIC N GOLD CREEK
TO WATANA
I
I
I
PERMAII l'REPA CAl l:::~WARD CONSTRl f,1ANENTIENTROAECTPER ROAD
I DESIGN BID fO ""
I DOCUM NTS BID)
I
I
L_LANO ACQUIS TION PA RKS HIGI WAY
TO GOLD C REEK
SCHEDULE FOR FINAL DESIGN AND PERMITTING
F'GURE 7.'Ii]
8 -MITIGATIONRECOMMENDATIONSTheplanrecommendedbyAcresdoesnotsatisfyalltheevaluationcriteriaout-linedinSection4.Inordertoreducepotentialimpactstobiologicalandcul-turalresourcesandtoalleviatesocioeconomicimpactstothecommunitiesofTalkeetna,TrapperCreek,andrailcommunitiesnorthofTalkeetna,thefollowingmitigationmeasuresarerecommended:(a)Permitonlyconstructionworkerswhileondutytohaveaccesstoboththepioneerroadandaccessroad.(b)Afterconstructionofthepowerdevelopnentsiscomplete,maintainacon-trolledaccessbeyondtheDevilCanyondem.Itisanticipatedacoopera-tiveagreementcouldbereachedwiththeresponsibleagenciesconcerningthenumberofpeoplepermittedaccesstotheareas.Controlmeasurescouldbeimplementedbymaintenanceandsecuritypersonnel.(c)Theconstructioncampshouldbeasself-containedaspossible,thuslimit-ingthenumberofworkerswhomightotherwisebringtheirfamiliestoanearbycommunityandcommutedaily.(d)Provideincentivestoencourageworkerstoworkthelongesttimepossiblebetweenleaves.Althoughthefinalschedulewillnotbeknownuntillaboragreementsaremadeandconstructioncommences,longerworkperiodsbetweenbreakscanbeadvocated.Inadditionsuchmeasuresasnotguaranteeingthe"same"jobifaworkertakesa 1eave.Aworkerelectingtotakea 1eavewillbeguaranteedajobwhentheyreturn,however,itmaynotbethe"same"jobtheywerepreviouslyworkingon.Thisincentivehasbeenusedsuccessfullyonpreviousprojects.(e)ProvideplanningassistanceifrequestedtothecommunitiesofTalkeetna,TrapperCreek,andrailcommunitiesnorthofTalkeetnatoaidtheminpre-paringfortheeffectsofincreasedpopulations.(f)Evaluatevariouscommutermanagementpoliciesandselecttheonewhichre-ducesimpactstothelocalcommunities.SocioeconomicimpactassessmentstudiescurrentlyunderwayfortheSusitnaprojectwillprovideimportantinputdataforevaluatingpossiblecommutermanagementpolicies.(g)Utilizeexcavatedcutsandotherconstructiontechniquestoprohibitutili-zationofthepioneerroadafterconstructionoftheaccessroad.Areasusedforthepioneerroadwhichdonotfollowfinalroadalignmentshouldberec1aimed.Thetotalcostsforthemitigationmeasuresareestimatedtocostapproximately$3.5milliondollars.Thesecapitalcostsarenotconsideredtoinfluencetheevaluationandcomparisonofalternatives.8-1
9 -TRADEOFFSMADEINTHESELECTIONPROCESS9.1-BasisofSelectionProcessFromthenaturalresourceandlocalpublicpreferenceperspective,maintenanceoftheirgenerallifestylepatternsisprobablyideal.However,toconstructaprojectthesizeofSusitnawithoutchangingtheexistingcharacterofsectionsoftheUpperSusitnaValleyisunrealistic.Accesstothedamsitesisacomplexandcontroversialissue.Assuch,ithasreceivedconsiderableattentionfromtheAcres·studyteam,PowerAuthority,resourceagenciesandthepublic.Althoughthestudieshavedeterminedthatthereisnosingleaccessplanthatsatisfiesalltheprojectobjectivesandevaluationcriteria,ithasbeenpossibletodevelopanaccessplanwhichpro-videsareasonabletradeoffofpreferences.Thesetradeoffsareessentiallybasedonthefollowingcompromises:(a)Alldisciplinesmustpresentadegreeofflexibility,otherwiseasatisfac-torycompromiseisimpossible.(b)Wheneveraspecificobjectiveispartiallycompromised,considerableeffortismadeduringsubsequentdecisionstocompensate.(c)Anycompromisesmadeareclearlyoutlinedsuchthatdecisionmakersreview-ingthefinalrecommendationareawareofnegotiationstodate.9.2-TradeoffsMadeintheSelectionProcess(a)EngineeringConcessionsmadeinclude:-NoroadaccessfromDenaliHighwaywhichwouldincludeacompleteloopconnectingParksHighwaywithDenaliHighway;NopioneerroadtoParksHighwaypriortotheissuanceofaFERClicense;CommitmenttobepreparedtomakethepioneerroadimpassibleifFERClicensenotgranted;and-Restrictionstobeplacedonworkercommutingschedulesandmode;workerincentivestobeprovidedtominimizeeffectsonlocalcommunities.Objectivesretainedinclude:-Roadaccesstobothdamsitestoallowforeaseofconstruction,operationandmaintenanceoftheproject;Maintenanceofschedulethroughretentionofthepioneerroadconcept.9-1
(b)BiologicalConcessionsmadeinclude:-RoadaccessfromParksHighwayaffectingIndianRiverareaandprovidingpartialpublicaccesstotheUpperSusitnaBasin.Objectivesretainedinclude:-NoaccessfromDenaliHighwaywhichwasconsideredtohavethegreatestpotentialforenvironmentalimpact;-NorouteonthesouthsideoftheSusitnaRiverbetweenthedamsites,thusavoidingthesensitiveStephanLakeandFogLakesarea;-EmphasisonconstructionmitigationwhendevelopingroadlinkbetweenParksHighwayandGoldCreek;and-RetentionofadegreeofcontrolonfuturepublicaccessbyacceptingtheParksHighwayplanwhere,duetotheterrain,privatevehiclesarebasic-allyrestrictedtotheaccesscorridorbetweenParksHighwayandtheDevilCanyondamsite.ThedegreeandtypeofaccesseastofDevilCanyoncanbesomewhatcontrolledbyregulationofaccessacrosstheDevilCanyondam.Thealternativeofnotconnectingtoamajorhighwaywasconsideredtohavetheleastnetadversebiologicalimpact.Theeaseofoperationandmain-tenanceandtheconstructionflexibilitycriteria,asexplainedpreviously,wasconsideredtooutweighthisadvantage.Themitigationmeasuresandroadmanagementwillreducetheadversebiologicalimpactsassociatedwithanaccessconnectiontoamajorhighway,toaminimum.(c)SocialConcessionsmadeinclude:-RoadaccesstotheUpperSusitnaBasin;and-RoadaccessfromParksHighwaywhichcreatesgreatestpotentialforchangeintheIndianRiverlanddisposalsite.Objectivesretainedinclude:-Throughtheimplementationofarelativelyself-containedconstructioncamp,restrictionofprivatevehiclesfromtheconstructionsite,imple-mentationofmasstransitmodesforcommutingworkers,incentivestoen-courageworkerstoremainonsiteandcontrolledpublicaccesseastofDevilCanyonfollowingconstruction,itisconsideredthatchangesinthelocalcommunitiesofTrapperCreek/Talkeetnaareawillbeminimized;-Althoughthewesterncommunitiesfavoredarailaccess,theyalsofavoredmaintainingtheirgenerallifestylepatterns.TherecommendedplanwithitsassociatedmitigationshouldproducelesschangeintheTalkeetna/TrapperCreekareathananall-railaccessplan.9-2
OverallconsensusofthelocalcommunitypreferencefavoredaccessfromtheDenaliHighway.TheadvantagesoftheParksHighwayaccessovertheDenaliaccessinreducingthebiologicalimpactsisconsideredtooutweighthelocalcommunitypreference.Inadditiontothelessenedbiologicalim-pacts,therecommendedplanbettermeetsthepreferencesofnativeland-owners.Therecommendedplandoesnotfullymeetthepreferencesofthenativelandowners.TheywouldprefertheaccessroadbetweenDevilCanyonandWatanabelocatedonthesouthsideoftheSusitnaRiver.TheadvantagesoftheroadbeinglocatedonthenorthsideoftheSusitnaRiverinclude,reducedbiologicalimpacts,theactualconstructionoftheroadiseasierthaniflocatedonthesouthside.Therecommendedplanwouldhoweverpro-videamajortransportationlinkwhichwouldallowthenativelandownerstodeveloptheirlandsthanispresentlypossible.Theseadvantagesarecon-sideredtooutweighthenativelandownerpreferenceofhavingtheroadlocatedonthesouthsideoftheSusitnaRiver.9-3
10-RECOMMENDATIONSFORCONTINUINGWORKThisreportisintendedtoserveasasummaryreportofallthevariousstudies,evaluationsandreportsthatcontributedtotheselectionoftherecommendedplan.TherecommendationofAccessPlan5carrieswithitthefollowingsche-duleanticipatedforimplementation.Additionalfinaldesignoftheroadandpermittingwouldbecarriedoutbe-tweenMarch1982andJune1984.RefertoFigure7.1foranticipatedschedul-ingofthedesignandpermitting.AscanbeseenfromFigure7.1,thecriticalactivitiesofpreparingandsub-mittingthepermitapplicationstotheBureauofLandManagement(BLM)andtheCorpsofEngineers(COE)willbecarriedoutbetweenMarch1982andAugust1982withsubmissioninearlyAugust.ItisbelievedtheseactivitiescanbecompletedinthetimeframeduetothepreliminaryengineeringworkthatwillhavebeencarriedoutfortheFERClicense.ThispreparationandsubmittalisdefinitelyforthesectionofroadbetweenGoldCreekandWatana.ThepreparationandsubmittalofthepermitsforthesectionbetweentheParksHighwayandGoldCreekcouldbecarriedoutin1983.10-1
LISTOFREFERENCES(1)AcresAmericanIncorporated,TaskC -DesignDevelopmentFinalReport,October1981.(2)TerrestrialEnvironmentalSpecialists,EnvironmentalandSocioeconomicandLandUseAnalysisofAlternativeAccessPlans,October1981.(3)R&MConsultants,Subtask2.10-AccessPlanningStudy,March,1982.
APPENDIXACORRESPONDENCE
DIVISIONOFRESEARCH&DEVELOPMENTHarch26,1981EricYouldExecutiveDirectorAlaskaPowerAuthority333West4th,S~ite31Anchorage,AK99501DearMr.You~d:JArs.HAJlIiIOItD.SO'rUNGI323E.4THAVENUEANCHORAGE,ALASKA99501279-5577ThepurposeofthisletteristotransmittoyouthefindingsandrecommendationsoftheSusitnaHydroSteeringCommitteeinresponsetoAPA'srequestforinputandrecommendationsontheselectionofanaccessFoadtotheSusitnaHydroDamsites.OnMarch6,1981,AlaskaPowerAuthoritystaff,contractorsandsubcontractorsprovidedseveralagencyrepresentativeswitha_briefingandarequestforcommentsinordertomakeadeterminationforsurfaceaccesstothedamsites.ItwasrequestedthatourcommentsbeprovidedtoAPAbyMarch23,1981.AsaresultofcommentsandconcernsexpressedbyagencyrepresentativesattheMarch6meeting,IagreedtoconvenetheSusitnaHydroSteeringCommitteeinordertoidentifyandcoordinatetheconcernsofthoseagencyrepresentativesregardingaccesstotheSusitnaHydrosites.TheSusitnaHydroSteeringCommitteemetonFriday,March20,1981.Wespenttheafternoondiscussingvarious_issuesandconcernssurroundingaccesstothedamsiteswiththesubcontractorstoAcresAmerican.Asaresultofthesediscussionsandreviewofthepertinentdocuments,reportstudies,etc.,theSusitnaHydroS~eeringCommitteemakesthefollowingcommentsandrecommendations:1.TheSteeringCommitteerepresentativesrecommendcoordinationbetweenthedecisionaboutaccessroadroutesandtransmissionlineroutes.UntilthisissuewasraisedbyaSteeringCommitteememberattheMarch20meetingtherehadbeenlittlediscussion.Thedocumentsreviewedindicatethatthiswasnotacriterionforestablishingpotentialaccessroutes.2.Thereneedstobeasystematicdecision-makingprocessexplicitlylaidoutfordetermininganaccessroutefortheSusitnadams.This'decision-makingprocessshouldbestraightforwardsothatagencyparticipantscanunderstandandeffectivelyparticipateinestablishingproposedaccessroutes.Thereneedstobeabroadrangeofcriteriaestablishedfordeterminingtheacceptabilityornonacceptibilityofvariousroutealternatives.InformationprovidedbyAcresandtheirsubcontractorstodateindicatesthatA-l
EricYouldMarch26,1981thecriteriausedtodetermineaccessroadswereeightinnumberandareroadwayandrailroadtechnicaldesignparametersexclusively.ItistherecommendationoftheSteeringCommitteemembersthattherearenumerousothercriteriawhicharecriticalandneedconsiderationalongwiththetechnicalroadandrailroaddesignparameters.Iwouldreferyoutoanattacheddocumententitled"SuitabilityforHaulRoads"togiveyouanexampleofamorecomprehensivelistsofcriteriathatneedtobeincorporatedinanydecisionwithrespecttoaccesstothedarnsites.3.'l.'1ereneedstobeaclearerexplanationandunderstandingofthedecisionsregardingthetimingofbuildingaccessroadsvs.FERCapprovalfor.theproject.Wewereadvisedbysubcontractorsthatthetimingdependsonwhichaccessmodeandrouteisdetermined.Thetimeofconstructionanddesignoftheseroutesvariesfromonetothreeyears.TheagenciesontheSteeringCommitteeneedtohaveabetterunderstandingofhowthesefactsandassumptionsinterrelatetoeachotherinordertomakeinformedrecommendationstoAPA.4.Therearenumerousspecificdecisionsthatwillberequiredregardlessofwhichaccessmodeandrouteisultimatelydeterminedthemostappropriate.Thelocationanddevelopmentofthesefacilitiescouldsignificantlyaffectthepreferenceandrecommendationsfromagencies.Forexample,identificationofgravelsites,spoilsites,streamcrossings,constructioncampserviceandmaintenancefacilitieswillbeneeded.ThemembersoftheSusitnaHydroSteeringCommitteeunanimouslyfeltthatitwasimportantandnecessaryforAPAtoprovideanunderstandingofhowthesedecisionswillbemadeandhowaqualitycontrolsystemwillbeineffecttoensurethattasksareaccomplishedinaccordancewithapprovalsanddesigns.5.TheSusitnaHydroSteeringCommitteemembersinreviewingtheMarch6and20meetingsanddiscussingwithsubcontractorshavedeterminedthatdatagatheringplannedforthissummershouldbecarriedoutonseveralaccessroutesinordertomakethefinaldecisionastowhichoneismostacceptable.Tomakeadeterminationonaspecificroutewiththelackofdata/informationthatwearecurrentlydealingwithandthensendresearchersanddatagatherersintothefieldthissummertogathersitespecificdataononlyonerouteisofquestionableutilityandlogic.Theprimaryreasonwhythisisquestionableisbecauseunlesscomparabledataonseveraloftheprimeroutesisprovided,theagencieswillbeunabletoprovidecommentsastowhichrouteismostacceptable.Insummary,weseethegatheringandanalysisofdataonseveralproposedroutesastherationalbasisformakingadeterminationastowhichaccessrouteshouldbeultimatelychosen.Insummary,theSteeringCommitteewishestoemphasizethatitiswillingandanxioustoworkcooperativelyandexpeditiouslywithAPAinidentifyingandresolvingthenumerousquestionswhichneedtobeA-2
EricYouldMarch26,1981answeredinordertomakerationaldecisionswithrespecttoaccesstoSusitnaHydrosites.Onceyouandyourstaffhavehadanopportunitytoreviewthisletter,Iwouldappreciateanopportunitytositdownanddiscussthespecificsofthesecommentsinfurtherdetail.Sincerelyyours,AlCarson,ChairmanSusitnaHydroSteeringCommitteecc:SusitnaHydroSteeringCommitteeMembersR•.E.LeRescheReedStoopsA-3
SUITABILITY FOR
HAUL ROADS
I \SUITABILITY
FOR
HAUL ROADS
C9~STRUCT ION
!LII'IITATIONS,
VI EW
FROST HEAVING
ASPECT
ROCK OUTCROPS
PROXIMITY
SHR I NK SWELL
SLOPE
,..,, , I I ROAD MA I NTE-I I I \9 /'/I \NANCE CON-
STRAINTS
TOP'OGRAPHY
FOREST STANDS
SURFAC~WATER f======::====~~
SOILS
IPR EC I P r TA T I O~------------.
I ENV I RONMENTAL,..._.""I ~l CONSTRAINTS
SOURCE FIRST LEVEL SECOND LEVEL ISSUE.SUITABILITY
HAPS INTERPRETIVE HAPS I~TERPRETIVE HAPS MAPS
fArs.HAMMOND,GOVERNORIUU-/\Uy",tENTO~'l"ATIJRAILRg.:SOIJlt(~ES/01VISIONOFRESEARCH&DEVELOPMENTNovember5,1981Mr.EricYould,ExecutiveDirectorAlaskaPowerAuthority333WestFourthAvenueAnchorage,Alaska99501DearMr.Yould:323E.4THAVENUEANCHORAGE.ALASKA99501276-2653RECEIVEDThepurposeofthisletteristotransmittotheAlaskaPowerAuthority(APA)commentsfromtheSusitnaHydroelectricSteeringCommittee(SHSC)con-cerningAPA'sproposalsforaccesstotheproposedSusitnaRiverdamsites.ThesecommentsareinresponsetoinformationprovidedtheSHSCfromtwoaccessroutemeetingswithAPAandtheircontractorsandthedocumentspreparedbyAPAcontractorsanddistributedduringthesemeetings.AttheOctober20,1981meetingAPArequestedSHSCcommentsbyNovember6,1981.TheSHSCappreciatesthefactthatAPAcontinueddetailedconsiderationandstudiesofseveralaccessrouteoptionsthisyearratherthanfocusingonasingleroute.TheSHSCreviewidentifiedfourareas·ofconcernthatmeritedconmlent.Thosefourare:1.Acritiqueofthestudiesofaccessrouteswhichprovideforconstruc-tionofthedams.2.TherelationshipbetweentimingofaccessrouteconstructionandFederalEnergyRegulatoryCommission(FERC)approvalfordams.3.Therelationshipofaccessroutedecisionandmodesofaccesstoregionallandusemanagementpolicies.4.Theissuesresultantfromlandstatusandlandownershipaffectedbytheproposedproject.Theassessmentofcorridorroutealternativesshouldmoreadequatelyweighthepotentialimpactsofborrowsitesandaccesstothese.sites,andtrans-missionline(s)routing.Accesscorridorswhichserveadual,ortriple,purposeinregardtotheseotherprojectaccessneedswouldbehighlydesirablefromalldecision-makingcriteria.A-4
Mr.EricYouldNovember5,1981Theaccesspreferencesexpressedbelowpertaintothegenerallocationscitedforthecorridorsandarebasedupontheenvironmentaldataandconclu-sionscontainedwithintheenvironmentaldocumentspreparedforSubtask2.10.AccessRoadAssessment.Itdoesnotrepresentourendorsementofaparticular1-mile-widecorridor,aspresented.TheSHSCagreeswiththeTerrestrialEnvironmentalSpecialists,Inc.posi-tionthataccessviatheAlaskaRailroadtoGoldCreekisenvironmentallypre-ferable.RailroadaccesstoatleastDevilCanyonwouldalleviatetheneedforastagingareaatGoldCreekandtheconsequenthumanactivity,landuse,fuelspills,andotherimpactsontheGoldCreekarea.WerecognizedthatastagingareaatDevilCanyonwouldberequiredinanycase.Theuseofthisareaastheterminusofarailroadappearstomakeagreatdealofsense.Additionally,wefeelthatthesouthsideroutefromGoldCreektoDevilCanyonispreferablesinceatrailalreadyexiststhere.FromDevilCanyontoWatana,wepreferarouteonthenorthsideoftheSusitnaRiver.AttheOctober20,1981meetingtheSHSCwasinformedbyMr.DavidWozniakofAPAthatthereweretwo(2)additionalrailroadroute/modeoptions(a~otalof10).Iffeasiblewegen-erallypreferarailmodeofaccesstoandwithintheprojectsite.TheSHSCidentifiedthree(3)environmentallysensitiveareasthatshouldbeavoided.Thoseare:1.TheroutesfromtheDenaliHighway.2.TheroutecrossingtheIndianRiverandthroughwetlandstotheParksHighway.3.TherouteonthesouthsideoftheSusitnaRiverfromDevilsCanyontotheproposedWatanadamsite.InevaluatingtheaccessrouteselectionprocessundertakenbytheAPAanditscontractors,theSteeringCommitteequestionsthevalidityofthepower-on-linein1993assumption/mandate.The"We'vegottohurryupandputinaroadtomeetthe1993deadline"approachappears,fromcurrentlyavailablereportsandthebriefingsreceivedbytheSusitnaHydroelectricSteeringCommitteeonOctober20,1981,topointtowardthenecessityofapioneerroadconstructedbeforeaFERClicenseisgranted,orselectioDofanapparentlyenvironmentallyunacceptableDenaliHighwayaccessroute.LocalutilitiesarenotapproachingconstructionofaprojectthemagnitudeofSusitnain1993asaforegoneconclusionandaremakingcontingencyplanstomeetprojectedpowerneeds.Gasandcoalgeneratedpoweroptionsarebeingexamined.Inaddition,feasibilitystudiesarecurrentlybeingundertakenbytheU.S.ArmyCorpsofEngineersandtheAPAatnumerouspotentialhydroelectricgeneratingsites.TheBattelleRailbeltElectricPowerAlternativeStudyshouldprovideinsightintoadditionalpowergenerationoptions.Assuch,webelievethatthe1993"deadline"forpower-on-linefromSusitnamaynotbethatfirmandimperative.ThustheSHSCdoesnotbelievethe1993deadlineshouldconstraintheoveralldecision-makingprocessandtheorderlyprogressofvariousstudiesonprojectfeasibilityandenvironmentalimpacts.Permittingandresourceagencies,includingFERC,shouldbeexpectedtolinkapioneerroadtotheoverallproject.A-5
Mr.EricYouldNovember5,1981PublicaccesstothedamsitesandthroughtheUpperSusitnaValleyiscomplexandacontroversialsubjectandwebelievethisissueshouldbegiventhoroughevaluationintherouteselectionprocess.Howconstruction-relatedaccessisobtainedtoagreatextentdeterminestheproject-relatedwildlifeandsocioeconomicimpacts.TheAPAhasbeensolicitingtheviewsoflocalresidents(Talkeetna,TrapperCreek,etc.)inregardtotheaccessquestion.ThemajorityofresidentswanttominimizeimpactstoboththeircommunityandtheUpperSusitnaValley.TheAPAhassolicitedtheviewsofthestateandfederalresourceagencies.Ithasbeenthepredominantviewoftheseagencies,whichrepresentpublicinterestsonastateornationallevel,thatproject-relatedwildlifeimpactsshouldbelimitedtothemaximumextentpracticable.Inaddition,theAPAhasexpressedthedesiretomaximizetheoptionsforfuturepublicaccess.Webelievethattheseviewsmesh.Minimizingimpactsandmaximizingoptionsforfuturepublicaccesscanbeachievedbymimicking,totheextentpossible,thestatusquo.Forexample,toprovidefullpublicaccessthrougharoadsystem,foreclosesthefutureoptionofmaintainingtheexistingcharacteroftheUpperSusitnaValley.Useofrailastheaccessmodeincreasesthepotentialformanagementandcontrolofsocioeconomicandenvironmentalimpacts.Maximizedrailuseprovidesforthefollowingadvantagesoverroadaccess:1.Maintainsamaximumrangeoffuturedecisionoptions.2.Providesforcontrolofworkerimpactsonlocalcommunitiesandwild-1ife.3.Decreasesthepotentialofhazardousmaterialspillsduetoadverseweatherconditionsandmultiplehandling.4.Disturbancetowildlifeadjacenttotheroutecanbemoreeasilycontrolled.5.Directaccessright-of-wayrelatedhabitatlossescanbesignificantly1imited.Brieflythelandstatusoftheprojectareahasnotchangedsignificantlywithinthelastyear.ThereareseveralcomplexproblemsconcerninglandstatusthathavebeenbroughttoyourattentionbyBLM.ThankyoufortheopportunitytoreviewandcommentontheAccessRoadAssessmentdocuments.WelookforwardtoreceivingthefinalversionofthesedocumentsafterNovember15,1981,andanticipateprovidingadditionalrecom-mendationsintothisdecision-makingprocess.Sincerely,AlCarson,ChairmanSusitnaHydroelectricSteeringCommitteecc:D.Wozniak,APASteeringCommitteeMembersR.StoopsA-6
TYONEKNATIVECORPORATION912East15thAvenue,Suite200Anchorage,Alaska99501(907)272- 4548April6,1981Mr.EricYould,ExecutiveDirectorAlaskaPowerAuthority333West4thAve•.,Suite31Anchorage,Alaska99501DearMr.Yould:WefullysupporttheSouthernRoad(AccessRouteA)aspreferabletoouraffectedvillages.Thereis,asweunderstand,s:ome-::possibilityofarailroadfromGoldCreektoWatanabeingapartoftheconstructionactivity.Ourfeelingsarethatpermanentaccesstothedamsitesshouldbebyroad.If,then,therailroadisbuilttosupportcon-structionactivitieswefeeltheroadbedshouldbeconvertedafterconstructionintoapermanentroadaccesstotheParksHighway.EmploymentofAlaskansinmaintenanceandoperationpo-sitionsontheSusitnaDamProjectsisalsoofimportancetoourvillages.WefeelthePowerAuthorityshouldestablishatrainingprogramtoallowourshareholders,aswellasAlaskansingeneral,tobetrainedforoperationspositons.Thistrainingshouldcommenceearlyenoughsothatnewlytrainedtechnicianswouldbeavailableforinitialstartupofthefacility.Wewouldbepleasedtomeetwithyoutorecommendproceduresandassistinestablishmentoftrainingguidelines.Sincerely,B.AgnesBrownChairman,eIRIVillagePresidentsNOTE:THISISAREPRINTOFTHEORIGINALLETTER.
APPENDIXBPROJECTCONSTRUCTIONREQUIREMENTSSCHEDULING
ALASKAPOWERAUTHORITYSUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTPROJECTCONSTRUCTIONREQUIREMENTSSCHEDULINGTASK2 -SURVEYSANDSITEFACILITIESOCTOBER1981ACRESAMERICANINCORPORATED1000LibertyBankBuildingMainatCourtBuffalo,NewYork14202Telephone:(716)853-7525
SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTACCESSROADSTUDIESPROJECTCONSTRUCTIONREQUIREMENTS-SCHEDULING1 -GENERALTheaccessroadstudiescurrentlybeingundertakenareevaluatedagainstvariouscriteria.ThemethodologyoftheaccessroadselectionisshowninFigure1.Theevaluationisshownasstep5ofthemethodology,alongwiththevariouscriteriaforevaluation.Theonecriteriathispaperaddressesisscheduling.2 -SCHEDULINGCONSIUERATIONSAccesstositemustallowfortheorderlydevelopmentandmaintenanceofsitefacilitiesandconstructionactivitiesinorderthatfirstpowercanbebroughtonlinein1993.Thevariousschedulingrequirementstobeconsideredare:(a)ScheduleofAccessDevelopmentThishasbeenshowngraphically.onFigures2and3asschedulePlansAandB.Bothscheduleplansallowforanorderlydevelopmentfromlimitedaccessconditionsthroughimprovedtofullcontinuousaccess.(b)FlexibilityofSupplySystemThesystemofsupplytothesiteshouldbeflexibletoaccommodatethevariousrequirementsofwork.Theflexibilityshouldallowforalternativemeansofresupplyintheeventofstrikes,delays,andunforeseencircum-stances.Movementofpeoplequicklytoandfromsiteincase ofstrikes,civildisruptionandemergenciesmustalsobeallowedfor.B-1
TheSchedulePlansAandBshowdifferenttypesofaccess:limited,improved,continuous,andcomplete.The"completellaccessisthefinalproduct.TheIIlimited"accesswouldbeextremelyroughandallowonlyalimitednumberandtypeofvehicletravel.The"continuousllroadwouldhaveallsubgradeworkcom-pletedandwouldallowreasonabletrucktrafficcontinuously.Arequirementoftheprojectisthat"continuous"accessisnecessarybymid-1986tosupporttheconstructionactivities.The"improved"accessisbetterthan"limitedllandnotasgoodas"continuousll•SchedulePlanArequiresa"pioneerroad"tobeconstructed.A"pioneerroadll,fordefinition,isaroadwhichwouldallowlimitedaccesstoseveralpointsalongthepermanentaccessroad,toallowarapidstartandacceleratedcon-structionofthepermanentroad.Thepioneerroadwouldtypicallybeagravelsurfacedroadwithturnouts;wouldbeonexistingground,unlessconditionsmadeitabsolutelynecessarytoplacesubgradematerialorrequireexcavation;andwouldhaveabout10percentmaximumgradesandsmallradiuscurves.Thepioneerroadwouldgenerallyhavethesamealignmentasthepermanentaccessroad.How-ever,inmanyplacesitwouldhavetofollowanotheralignmenttoavoidanymajorexcavationorfillwork.ApioneerroadatmajorrivercrossingswouldhavetemporaryfloatingBaileyBridges.Thesebridgeswouldhavetoberemovedinwinterandtemporaryicecrossingsbuilt.SchedulePlansAandBhavethefollowingaskeydates:1.JANUARY1,1985,LIMITEDACCESSREQUIREMENTSA.Mobilizationofconstructionequipmentandmaterialstobuildmainaccessroad.B.Mobilizationofcampbuildingsandfacilitiestosupportdiversioncon-struction.C.Mobilizationconstructionequipmentandmaterialstoconstructdiver-siontunnels.B-2
2.JANUARY1,1986,IMPROVEDACCESSREQUIREMENTSA.Supplyofcementfordiversiontunnelconstruction.B.Expansionofcampandfacilitiestosupportmaindamcontractor.3.JULY1,1986,CONTINUOUSACCESSREQUIREMENTSA.Supportofmaindamcontractor1sactivities.B.Developmentofcampandfacilitiestosupportothercontractors.TheprecedingSchedulePlansAandBweredevelopedduringevaluationoftheoverallaccessplans.Thescheduleplansallowtheorderlydevelopmentandmaintenanceofsitefacilitiesandconstructionactivitiesinorderthatfirstpowerbebroughtonlinein1993.OnesmalladvantageofapioneerroadisitcouldprovidesomesupportinthePhaseIIinvestigationanddesignoftheproject.3 -ACCESSPLANSANDSCHEDULINGTheoverallaccessplansarepresentedinFigure4.Figure4alsopresentsasummaryofplansandtechnicalpointsofthestudies.Accessplans1,2,5and8,allofwhichoriginatefromtheeast,theParksHighwayorGoldCreek,allrequirethreetofouryearsforcompleteconstruction.Accessplans3,4,6and7,allofwhichoriginatefromthenorthandtheDenaliHighway,requireoneyeartohaveanaccesstoWatana.Asstatedaboveaccessplans3,4,6and7,allofwhichoriginatefromtheDenaliHighway,canmeetthisrequirement.Accessplans1and2,5and8cannotmeetthisrequirementunlessapioneerroadisconstructedpriorto1985.Thiscanbeaccommodatedinthealottedtimeframe.Foraccessplans1and2,5and8thepioneerroadwouldbeconstructedduring1983and1984.Detaileddesignandobtainingthenecessarypermitswouldhavetobecarriedoutduringthelasthalfof1982andthefirsthalfof1983.ThiswouldallowtheconstructionB-3
ofthefullaccessroadtobecommencedin1985andthefirsthalfof1986,withcompletionin1987.ThemajorbridgeatGoldCreekwouldbeconstructedin1985and1986,withaccessduringthisperiodbeingaccommodatedbyafloatingBaileyBridge.AfloatingbridgewouldalsoberequiredatWatanaorDevilCanyondur-ing1985and1986dependingontheroadlocation.Accessplans5and8wouldrequireconstructionofthepermanentbridgeatDevilCanyontocommenceatthesametimethepioneerroadisstarted.ForthebridgeatDevilCanyonallnecessarysiteworkandthefoundationswouldbecompletebyJanuary1985toallowerectionofthebridgein1985andcompletionin1986.Accessplans2and8,whichdonothaveaconnectiontoamajorhighway,wouldhavetobearanadditionalexpenseoftransportingpersonnelinandoutofthesites.Bynothavingaconnectiontoamajorhighwaytheoptionofhavingaportionofthepersonnelbearthecostoftransportationtoandfromthesitebyprivatevehicleiseliminated.Thisshuttleexpenseisestimatedtobeintheorderof$25,000,000byair.Shuttletrainservicewouldbelessexpensive.Forthesepurposes,ithasbeenestablishedthat50percentofthepersonnelwillhavetheirtransportationcostspaidbytheproject.Railaccessplans2and8haveahighercontingencyriskthanaroadwayaccess.Theriskisthepossiblelossofallgroundtransportandsupplytothesiteassociatedwithabreakdownoftherailsystem.Railaccessdoesnotprovidetheflexibilityprovidedbyaroadaccess.Aroadaccessallowsmorecontrolovertheprojectbythecontractorsthemselves.Aroadaccessfromamajorhighwayismoreflexibletoadapttodifferentsituations,thuslesseningtheriskofworkdelays,stoppages,andcontractorIsclaims.Ithasa"safetyvalve"therailaccessoptionsdonothave.B-4
DENALIHWY.PLANIPROPOSED\ROADt---7--~D.C.- - -LWATANAGOLDSITESITECREEKCANTWELLHURRICANEANTWELLHURRICANEALASKA--.fRAILROADDENALIHWY.PLAN2WATANASITEFIGURE2.61~lmI
DENALIHWY.CANTWELL.HURRICANEALASKARAILROADPLAN3PROPOSED-jD.C.SITEIIIIROADS~IItWATANASITEDENALIHWY.HURRICANELGOLDCREEKALASKARAILROADPLAN4IIIPROPOSED~IROAD~IIItWATANASITEFIGURE2.7[i]
~DEFINE OBJECTIVES I~DESIGN PARAMETERS lLJ SCREENING PROCESS ~PLAN FORMULATION kJ £V AUl/l TI ONSELECTACCESSROAOWAYANDRAillTIffiITcAl3ROUTESONEIN£NGINEERING
ROUTE TO IIYDROPOWER ENGINEERING CRITEIHA r-"ECONOMIC t---->-E/ICII CORR IOOR ECONOMIC
SITES TIlAT ALLOWS I ENVIRONMENTAL AS A RESULT OF
r-"
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSTRUCTION AND
2,J ESTABlISIl CANDIDATES
PUBLIC PREFERENCES THE SCREENING SOILS DATA SCllfDUlING
OPERATION WHILE TRANSMISSION IMPACT PROCESS IN rn ENGINEERING DESIRED LEVEL OF ACCESS
BEST MEETING -A TOTAL Of 33 ARE ESTABLI SilEO ,..CONSTRUCTI ON COST I-AGENCY CONCERNS
OVERALL CRITERIA ROUTES ARE f-
J
LOGISTICS COST TRANSMISSION
STATED IN ffi]ESTABLI SilEO TRANSMISSION IMPACT
IN TIlE 3 CORR lOons
!PORT FACILITIES ~ENVIRONMENTAL l-ROADWAY OPTIONS
2/1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION RAIL OPTIONS
PJrr"StN T TIlE oPT!OIl S f-LOGISTIC REQUIREMENTS LABOR ORGANIZATION t--
TO TIlE PUBLI C AND 1 CONCERNS
INV ITE COMMENT.
B PLANS,WIIiCH ~.rAGENCY CONCERNS I-UTILI ZED TIlE
3 ROUTES ARE
ESTABLISHED ~INDIAN COMMUNITY r-INPUT
YPUBLIC INPUT .-
ACCESS PL/IN SELECT!ON METliODDLOGY
fiGURE 1 iU
1983 1984 ~1985 et 1986
@
1981
ACCESS TYPE ...,............."........J;.~~.......~....................IMPROYED COIHINOUS COM LETED.................
SITE ACCESS PIONEER ROAD INITIAL ACCESS IMPlIDVE COMPLETED..............~
\,
I ,.I.,
I I
I ,
\I
I.I
I ·EXISTING STARTER START STAGE n ,,
CAMPS •.......................COMPLETE ·...........................................................~.,··,,·,,····,I I
\··.··•I ·I ,,
I I I
I ·I
ROADS TO lltVERSIOO PORTALS
,I •
SITE DEVELOPMENT
I •I••I I
CONCRETE PLANT ,·I ,
CONSTRUCTION FACILITIES
I
,
.\ I
,!·I •
,,,,.,· ·• I
.··,.I ,!·.I I
"START ~,'Y~J.fi.,:'
DIVERSION -TUNNELS
CONCRETE NO.I .':CONCRET NO.2
" I
,
-COFFERDAMS ..:PREP.••H-.!!~L ..........!COMP,l-ETE
:
I.START,
FIL)
MAIN DAM
START ............EXCAVATE fOUNDATION J;,R~'::......................•
DEVELOP BORROW
SCHEDULE PLAN A SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
ACCESS FROM PARKS HIGHWAYlAiil
FIGURE 2 j~I(1
1983 1984 ~1985
@
1986
@
1987
ACCESS TYPE LIMITED JIMPROVED!CONTINUOUS COMPl.ETED~....,...,.,~...."............I I
rr--I··--i j -i
t i prEPARE .L fJ.Q~t~£t:!~TE
CONCRETE I NO.2
fAPROVE I COMPLETE
"--
\•.I.I...I.I•..·.••,.•
"COMPLETE :
INITIAL ACCESS
..................~J<!~!!~..i'!A~r~!t··..··......·...1 START STAGE •I I I '·1"I••I',,,,
"II
I
•I
\\I
•I I
I \I,•I
•IIROADSTOIJIVERSIONPORTALS• , .\\!
",.
CONCRETE PLANT ~i ~I
t ",•".,.',.• ,,I ,
::::j
I,START ' ,,"TUNNa",
lJEXCIMIT ",,'CONCRETE NO.1 A
-COF FERDAMS
CAMPS
SITE DEVELOPMENT
DIVERSION -TUNNELS
SITE ACCESS
CONSTRUCTlON FACILITES
MAIN DAM
,
I,,
t SYART ••••••
START
FLL1
..........EXCAVATE FOUNDATION ~R1i:!l ~.....
DEVELOP BORROW
SCHEDULE PLAN B SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
ACCESS FROM DENALI HIGHWAY lli~'
f IGUA E 3 l~mlJ
-
SUSITNA ACCESS PLANS
PLAN 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6
DESCRIPTION:ROADWAY:PARKS RAIL:GOLD ROADWAY:DENALI ROADWAY:DENALI ROADWAY:PARKS ROADWAY:DENALI ROADWAY:DENALI ROADWAY:GOLD
IlIGUWAY TO DEVIL CREEK TO DEVIL IIIGHWAY TO IIIGUWAY TO IHGHWAY TO DEVIL IIIGHWAY TO IlIGHWAY TO CREEK TO DEVIL
CANYON &WATANA CANYON &WATANA WATANA,PARKS WATANA,RAIL,GOLD CANYON ON SOUlH WATANA,RAIL,GOLD WATANA,PARKS CANYON ON SOUTIl
ON SOUTIl SlOE ON SOUTlI SlOE HIGHWAY TO CREEK TO DEVIL SIDE Of SUSITNA,CREEK TO DEVIL 11iGHWAY TO DEVIL SlOE Of SUS ITNA,
Of SUSITNA Of SUSITNA DEV II.CANYON CANYON ON SOUTIl DEVIL CANYON TO CANYON ON SOUTlI CANYON ON SOUTH DEVIL CANYON TO
ON SOUTII SlOE SlOE Of SUS ITNA •WATANA ON NOR Til SlOE Of SUSTINA.SIDE Of SUSITNA.WATANA ON NORTII
Of SUSITNA.NO NO CONNECTING SIDE Of SUS ITNA.CONNECTING ROAD CONNECTING ROAD SlOE Of SUS ITNA.
CONNECTING ROAD ROAD ON NORTH SIDE Of ON NORTII SlOE
SUSITNII.Of SUSITNA.
MILEAGE Of NEW ROAD 62 56 70 60 66 102 111 54
CONSTRUCTION
COST U x 1 000,000)156 140 151 119 143 179 209 93
MAINTENANCE
COST ($x 1,000,000)5 4 6 5 6 6 9 7
i~OGJSTlCS COS;)$xlOOOOOO 215 210 231 230 214 230 231 214
TOTAL COST
($x 1 000 000)376 354 366 354 365 417 449 314
PEIlSO~NEL SHUTTLE Jl
COST $x 1 000 000 0 25 0 10 0 0 0 25
COtISTlWCTI ON
SCHEDULE (YEARS)3-4 3-4 1 1 3-4 1 1 3-4
MAJOIl BRIDGES 2 2 0/1 0 2 0 0/1 1
SCIlEDULE PLAN A A B B A B B A
ADDEO CONTINGENCY RISK NO YES NO NO -WATANA NO NO NO YES
YES -DEVIL CANYON
.WifiGURE4
APPENDIXCPUBLICPARTICIPATION
ALASKAPOWERAUTHORITYSUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTDRAFTSUMMARYOFENVIRONMENTALREPORTTASK2 -SURVEYSANDSITEFACILITIESOCTOBER1981ACRESAMERICANINCORPORATED1000LibertyBankBuildingMainatCourtBUffalo,NewYork14202Telephone:(716)853-7525
AccessRoadEnvironmentalAnalysisSummaryAnenvironmentalanalysiswasconductedoftheeightaccessplansunderconsideration.Eachplanwasevaluatedintermsofitspotentialinputtovegetation,wildlife(furbearers,biggame,birdsandsmallmammals),fishandcultureresources.Eachaccessplaninvolvesconstructionofaroadorrailroadintwoormoreofthefollowingsegments:ParksHighwaytoGoldCreekGoldCreektoDevilCanyonDamsiteDevilCanyonDamsitetoWatanaDamsiteviathenorthsideoftheSusitnaRiverDevilCanyonDamsitetoWatanaDamsiteviathesouthsideoftheSusitnaRiverDenaliHighwaytoWatanaDamsiteTableIindicatestheaccessplansstudied.Themajorpotentialenvironmentalimpactsidentifiedforeachoftheaccesssegmentswereasfollows:ParksHighwaytoGoldCreek:Removalofwetlandareas,disruptionoffurbearer'habitat,disturbanceofanadromousfisherieshabitatintheSusitnaandIndianriveranddisturbanceofarchaeologicalresources.GoldCreektoDevilCanyonDamsite:disturbanceofforestedareaalongtheSusnaRiver.DevilCanyonDamsitetoWatanaDamsitevianorthsideofSusitnaRiver;potentialrestorationdifficulties,disturbanceofculturalresources.DevilCanyonDamsitetoWatanaDamsiteviasouthsideofSusitnaRiver:disturbanceofwetlandareaandfurbearerhabitatnearStephanLake,FogLakeandFogCreek,disturbanceofmooseandcaribouhabitat,increasedfishingpressuretoresidentfishes.C-l
TABLET.SUSTTNAACCESSPLANSPlanDescription1.RoadfromtheParksHighwaytoDevilCanyon,continuingtoWatanaonthesouthsideoftheSusitnaRiver.2.RailroadfromGoldCreektoDevilCanyon,continuingtoWatanaonsouthsideoftheSusitnaRiver.3.RoadfromtheParksHigh\'IayterminatingatDevilCanyon.AsecondroadfromtheDenaliHighwaytoWatana.4.RoadfromGoldCreekTerminatingatDevilCanyon.AsecondroadfromtheDenaliHighwaytoWatana.5.'Roadfrom'theParksHighwaytoDevilCanyononthesouthsideoftheSusitnariver,crossingtheSusitnaandcontinuingtoWatanaonthenorthside.6.7.8.RoadfromGoldCreektoDevilCanyononsouthsideofSusitnaRiver;connectingroadbetweentwodamsonnorthsideSusitnaRiver.RoadfromDenaliHighwaytoWatanaRoadfromGoldCreektoDevilCanyonsouthsideofSusitnaRiver;connectingroadbetweentwodamsonnorthsideofSusitnaRiver.RoadfromDenaliHighwaytoWatana.RoadfromGoldCreektoDevilCanyononsouthsideofSusitnaRiver,crossingSusitnaandcontinuingto'Watanaonnorthside.
DenaliHighwaytoWatanaDamsite:disturbanceoffoxdenningsitesnearDeadmanMountain,interferencewithmigrationandcalvingofportionsoftheNelchinacaribouherd,disturbancetoculturalresources.Inadditiontoth~sespecificconcerns,amajorconcernforallaccessplanswasthecreationofaccesstoareaspreviouslyinaccessibleorrelativelyinaccessible.Thisincreasedaccesscouldleadtoimpactstofurbearers(throughtrapping)andtobiggamethroughhunting.Inaddition,detrimentaleffectscouldoccurtoallwildlifethroughdisturbanceanddestructionofhabitatbyATVls.CulturalresourceswouldalsobevulnerabletoamateurcollectorsandATVtraffic.Consideringthepotentialoftheseimpactstooccurineachplanresultedintheconclusionthatplan8wouldcausetheleastenvironmentaldisturbance.ThiswasbecausetheutilizationofroadwaybeginningatGoldCreekandcontinuingtoWatanawillprecludepublicaccessintothearea.Further-more,theroadfromDevilCanyontoWatanaonthenorthsideoftheSusitnaRivercoversareasthatarenotofgreatimportancetowildlifeorfisheries.Plans1,3,5,and7wouldprovideincreasedaccessintothearea.ThisisbecausetheroadwayswouldbeginattheParksHighwaywhichisaccessibletoalloutsidetraffic.Forthisreason,thereplanswerefoundnottohavethepotentialforgreaterimpactsthanPlan8.Plans1and2connecttheWatanaandDevilCanyondamsitesviaaroadonthesouthsideoftheSusitnariver.BecausetheseplanswouldcrosswetlandsandfurbearerhabitatnearStephanandFogLakesandopenthisareatoincreasedfishingpressure,theplanswereconsideredtobelessdesirablethanPlan8.Plans3,4,6and7allinvolvearoadfromWatanadamnorthtotheDenalihighway.BecauseoftheincreasedaccessthisroadwouldprovideandthepotentialforimpactstoportionsoftheNelchinacaribouherd,tofurbearers(particularlyfoxdenningareas)andtoculturalresources,C-2
-,,-~-theseplanswerealsoconsideredlessdesirablethanPlan8.Theaboveevaluationswereconductedwithoutconsiderationofmitigationplans.Certainmitigationtechniquescouldbeutilizedtosubstantiallyreducethepotentialforimpactsandpermitutilizationofplansotherthanplan8.Forinstance,timingrestrictionsforstreamcrossingsandutilizationofsiltationcontroldevicescouldreduceimpactstoanadromousfish;finalalignmentoftheroadbedabovewetlandareaswouldreduceimpacttoaquaticfurbearers;strictpatrolsandcontrolofaccessmayreduceimpactstocaribou.Finalplanselectionwillincorporateengineering,economicandenvironmentalconsiderations,includingutilizationofmitigationtechniques.C-3
AccessRoadsSocioeconomicandLandUseAnalysisSummaryEachoftheaccessplansunderconsiderationoriginatesatoneortwoofthefollowingpoints:theParksHighwayat~urricane,~theAlaskaRailroadatGoldCreekandtheDenaliHighwaynearDenali.Forpurposesofsocioeconomicandlanduseanalysis,thepointoforiginationisthedominantvariable,withmode(roadorrailroad)animportantvariableandactualalignmentaminorvariable.Eachoftheaccessplanswasevaluatedintermsofitseffectonsocio-economicconditionsandlanduseinthearea.Socioeconomicparametersevaluatedincludedeffectsonpopulationlevels,culturalactivities,community,politicalandsocialorganizations,housing,publicservice,governmentfinance,laborandeconomicbase.Landuseparametersevaluatedincludedlandusesandassociatedsite-specificactivities,dispersedandisolatedactivities,landmanagementactivities,andrelatedconcernsandnaturalaesthetics.Impactswereevaluated.forthreegeneralgeographicareas:-ParksHighway-RailroadcorridoronWestside,containingthecommunitiesofHealy,Cantwell,Chulitna,Talkeetna,WillowandWasilla-RichardsonHighwaycorridoroneastsidecontainingthecommunitiesofGlennallen,Gulkana,PaxsonandothersalongtheRichardsonHighway-Anchorage,WhittierandFairbanksEvaluationsshowedeffectsonFairbankstobethesameforeachaccessplanandthereforewasnotincludedinthecomparisons.Acresplans(lands)witharoadwayoriginatingatHurricainewillsignificantlyimpactthewestsidecommunitiesintermsofdemandforC-4
increasedservices,changesinpopulation,housingavailability,governmentexpendituresandrevenues,labordemandandunemployment.Therewillalsobesignificanteffectsonconstruction,retailtradeandtourism.Manyofthechangeswilloccurasconstructionworkersattempttorelocatetothecommunitiesneartheconstructionsite.SignificantlandusechangeswouldoccurintheWestsidecommunities9particularlyinresidentialandcommercialuses.Exceptforapossiblesignificantincreaseinwholesaletrade,roadsfromthewestshouldhaveonlyslightsocioeconomicandlanduseeffectonAnchorage,Whittierand"theeastsidecommunities.Accessplans2and8originateatGoldCreek.Assuch,impactswouldbeconcentratedontheWestsidecommunitiesasdescribedforplans1and5.However,theeffectswouldbemagnifiedinTalkeetnaandHurricanebecauseoftheirlocationatrail-highwayintersections.TheAnchorage/Whittierareawouldbesignificantlyormoderatelyeffectedinconstruction,portandrailtransportation,wholesaleandretailtradeandserviceindustries.Inaddition,Whittierwouldexperiencemoderateeffectsonemployment.Onlynegligibleeffectswouldbefeltoneastsidecommunities.Land"useimpactsareexpectedtobeminorintheinterioroftheprojectarea,becauseaccesstothesitewouldrequireutilizingtheAlaskanRailroadtoGoldCreek.Significantlandusechangewouldoccurinthewestsidecommunities,particularlyinresidentialandcommercialusesinTalkeetnaandHurricane.C-5
Accessplans4and6movetheaccessorlglnfromtheRailbeltcorridortotheDenaliHighwayinthenorth.WorkersIfamilieswouldtendtolocateinmorecommunitiesandpossibly concentrateinAnchorage.SignificantormajoreffectswouldlikelybefeltinCantwellintermsofpopulation,culturejway-of-life,community,politicalandsocialorganization,housingavailability,governmentexpendituresandrevenues,labordemand,unemployedlabor,publicservices,construction,publicutilities,communicationsandretailtradeandservices.AnchoragewouldexperienceasignificanteffectonwholesaletradeandWhittierwouldfeelmoderateeffectsonemployment,retailtradeandservice.Theeastsidecommunitieswouldexperiencemoderatechanges,duepermanentlytospillovereffectsofincreasedtourismfromaccessontheDenaliHighway.LandusechangeswouldoccurinCantwell,primarilyinresidentialandcommercialuse.TherewouldalsobechangesinlanduseintheareabetweenDenaliHighwayandWatana,duetoincreasedaccess.AccessPlans3and7Theseeffectswillbeessentiallythesameasplans4and6.WestsirlecommunitieswouldbeeffectedasworkersIfamiliesmovefurtherupthecorridor.SignificantchangeswouldoccurinmanyofthecommunitiesasroadaccesswouldbeginatbothHurricaneandCantwell.EvvectstoAnchorage,WhittierandtheEastsidecommunitieswouldbethesameasforplans1and5.Landusechangesintheinteriormaybegreat,asroadaccessisprovidedattwoplaces.Inaddition,commercialandresidentiallandusechangeswouldoccurinthewestsidecommunities.C-6
AccessRoadEnvironmentalSummaryPublicPreferencePublicpreferencaregardingtheaccessandrecreationdevelopmentplanswasacquiredthroughmail-inquestionnaires,workshopquestionnaires,personalinterviewsandotherformsofwrittenandverbalcommunication.Asdifferentgroupswerereachedthroughthesevariousmediatheresultsacquiredfromeacharenotdirectlycomparable.Mail-InQuestionnaires-RecreationAsacomponentoftherecreationplanningprogramamail-inquestionnairewasforwardedto2145residents,715toeachoftheFairbanks,AnchorageandRailbelt(excludingFairbanksandAnchorage)areas.502or23percentofthequestionnaireswerecompletedandreturned.AsshownonTableIIthegeneralconcensusfromallthreeregionswasthat15-20%oftherespondentsfavorednoorrestrictedaccessandnorecreationdevelopment21-26%favoredaccesswithlittleornorecreationdevelopmentand56-60%favoredaccesswithmoderatetohighdevelopment.Itmustbenotedthatwhenthisquestionnairewasdistributedtheoptionofprovidingaccesstothesitebyrailwasnotofferedasanalternativeandthustheresultsofthissurveydonottaketheoptionofarailaccessintoaccount.Inaddi-tion,thisquestionnairewasdistributedforthepurposeofaccessingthedegreeandtypeofrecreationdevelopmentpreferred.Thustheresponsesmayhavedifferedsomewhathadtheprimaryquestionsbeendirectedtowardsthe degree,modeandpointoforiginforaccessroads.PublicWorkshopQuestionnaire-RecreationTheresultsoftherecreationquestionnaireasreceivedthroughtheMarch1981publicworkshopdifferedsignificantlyfromthemail-inresponses.Theexactreasonsforthisdifferenceisunknownalthoughspeculationispre-sented.Atotalof82responseswerereceivedwith18,35and29fromFairbanks,AnchorageandtheRailbelt(excludingAnchorageandFairbanks)respectively.AsshownonTable{II'theresultsfromthese-sectorsvariedC-7
greatly.InFairbanks72%ofthe.respondentsfavorednoorrestrictedaccesswithnorecreationdevelopment~and8%favoredaccesswithmoderatetohighrecreationdevelopment.Anchoragewasalmostthereversewith6%,9%and71%favoringnoorrestrictedaccess,accesswithminimumdevelop~mentandaccesswithmoderatetohighdevelopment,respectively.TheresultsofthecentralRailbeltasreflectedbytheresponsesfromtheTalkeetnaworkshopweremoreevenlydividedwith45%favoringnoorrestrictedaccess,17%favoringaccesswithminimalrecreationdevelopmentand38%favoringaccesswithmoderatetohighdevelopment.ItisspeculatedthattheresultsfromtheFairbanksworkshoptendtorepresenttheviewsofconcernedinterestgroupsthathadalargerepresentationattheFairbanksworkshop.ThedicotomyoftheresponsesfromtheTalkeetnaworkshopareprobablyareflectionoftheattitudesthatexistinthiscommunityasindicatedbytheresultsofthesocio-culturalstudies.InAnchoragetheveryhighlevelpreferenceforaccesswithmoderatetohighrecreationdevelopmentdiffersindegreefromthemail-inresultsalthoughbothsurveysdemonstrateapreferenceinAnchoragefaraccesswithdevelopment.C-8
TABLEII:RESPONSEFROMMAIL-INQUESTIONNAIRESONRECREATIONFairbanksRailbeltAnchorage%0/%/0A)Noroadaccessorrestricted151920accessB)Accessbutlittleorno262621recreationdevelopmentC)Accesswithmoderateto595659highdevelopmentTABLEIII:RESPONSEFROMTHEPUBLICWORKSHOPQUESTlONNAIREONRECREATIONFairbanksRailbeltAnchorage%%%A)Noroadaccessorrestricted72456accessB)Accessbutlittleorno0179recreationdevelopmentC)Accesswithmoderateto83871highdevelopmentC-9
PublicWorkshopQuestionnaire-AccessTheresultsoftheaccessquestionnaireasreceivedthroughtheMarch1981publicworkshoparepresentedinTable3below.RouteFairbanksTalkeetnaAnchorage*Total%0/%%/0A)Roadaccessfrom617710ParksHwytobothdamsitesB)Railaccessfrom72674059GoldCreektobothdamsitesC)RoadfromDenaliHwy17112016toWatanarai1frombothCreektoDevilCanyonD)RoadfromDenaliHwy003310andParksHwyNoPreference6604*Mailresponsesweremostlyfromthe·Anchoragearea,reflectingthethinkingofthatarea,andwerethusincludedintheAnchorageresults.Atotalof51responseswerereceivedwith18.,15,and18fromtheFairbanks,AnchorageandTalkeetnaareasrespectively.InFairbanks72%oftherespondentsfavoredarailonlyaccess,17%favoredacombinationofroadrailand6%favoredroadonlyaccess.NoneoftherespondentsfavoredroadaccessfromboththeDena1iandParksHighway.InTalkeetnaasimi1artrendemergedwith67,11,17and0%favoringrai1accessonly,roadandrailaccess,roadonlyandroadaccesstobothDenaliandParksHighways,respectively.InAnchorage40%oftherespondentsfavoredrailaccessonly,20%favoredroad/railaccess,and41%favoredroadon1y.33%ofthetotalrespondentsfavoredroadaccessfromboththeDenaliandParksHighwaysC-10
Thosetrendsdemonstratedbytheseresultsarecomparablewiththeresultsofth~publicworkshoprecreationquestionnairealthoughthedegreeofpre-ferencesvary.TheFairbanksrespondents,whichfavorednoorrestricedaccesswithnorecreationdevelopmentalsofavoredrailaccessonly(72%).InTalkeetnathedicotomyexpressedinthepublicworkshoprecreationquestionnaireresponseisalsorefiectedintheaccessquestionnaireresults,however,adefinitepreference(67%)wasshownfortherailonlyaccess(40%)andhigherpreferenceforsometypeofroadaccess(60%)isagaincomparabletotheresultsoftheworkshoprecreationquestionnaire~ThegreatestdifferencebetweentheAnchorageandtheFairbanks/Talkeetnaresultsinthe33%fornopreferenceforroadaccessfromboththeParksandDenali highway.QuestionnaireInterpretationInterpretationoftheresu1tsfromthepublicpreferencequestionnairesmustbemadewithcaution.Thelargestsamplesizewith502responseswasassociatedwiththerecreationrnail-inquestionnaire.Inaddition,thefactthatthequestionnairehadarandomdistribution,improvestheproba-bilitythatitmoreaccuratelyreflectstheattitudesofthegeneralpublic.Itsmaindrawbackwasthatitwasdirectedmainlytowardsthequestionofrecreationdevelopmentwithaccessbeingasecondaryissue.Theproblemininterpretingtheresultsoftheworkshopquestionnairesisacomfirmationofsamplesize(Recreationquestionnaire-82responses;Accessquestion-naire-51responses)andanevaluationastowhatcomponentofthecom-munitiesareactuallyrepresented.SocioculturalStudies-AccessReportRailroadCommunitiesnorthofTalkeetnaThesecommunitiesprefertheaccesssystemwhichallowstheminimumamountofpublicaccessandleastamountofpo~ulationandindustrialgrowth.Theyfeelthattherailaccessonlywouldleadtotheminimaldisruptiontoexistingresidentialandrecreationalpatterns.C-11
f'iTalkeetnaTwofactionswereidentified:1)Thefirstgroupdesiresminimumimpactonthecommunityaswellasthewildlifeandgeneralenvironmentofthesurroundingarea.Ifthedamisconstructedtheyperceivetherailroadasthebestmeanstolimitaccessandchangeinthestudyarea.2)Thesecondgrouptendstobepro-economicdevelopmentandwasdividedintotwosubgroups.a)Thisgroupisinfavo~ofthedamalthoughtheystillvaluetherural,small-townatmosphereinwhichtheyhavechosentolive.Assuch,to1imittheimpactonthecommunityandsurroundingwildernesstheypreferarailroadaccessonlytothedamsites.b)ThesecondsubgroupofTalkeetnaresidentswhichfavoreconomicdevelopmentingeneralarealsoinfavorofroadstoopenthecountry.Viewsinthiscategoryrepresenttheminorityopinionofthoseinterviewed.TrapperCreekAswithTalkeetnatwofactionsemerged.1)ThisgroupisagainsttheSusitnaprojectaswellasother1argescaledevelopmentinthearea.ThisgroupexpressedconcernaboutroadaccessfromtheParksHighwayorDenaliHighway.Asthealternativethatwouldhavetheleastimpactontheircommunityaswellastheenvironmentingeneraltheypreferredtherailroadonlyplan.2)ThesecondgroupalthoughinfavorofSusttnawasdividedontheissueofaccessmodesandroutes.a)Thefirstsubgrouppreferrednottoseetheareaopenedupwithroads.TheypreferredtherailroadonlyplanandwereopposedtohighwayaccessfromHurricanetoGoldCreek.C-12
b)Membersofthesecondsubgrouppreferredroadaccessinordertoprovidethemaximumpublicaccesstootherwiseinaccessibleareas.Thissubgroupiscomprisedmainlyofolderresidentswhohavealreadyexperiencedconsiderablechangeinthearea.CantwellInregardstoaccessthefollowinggroupsemerged:1)Pro.theDenaliSpur:a)ManyCantwellresidents,especiallylocalbusinessmenandthoseinsearchofajob,arestronglyinfavorofthedam,arailheadatCantwell,theDenaliSpurandanyadditionaldevelopmentwhichwouldenhanceeconomicprogressofthecommunity.ThisgroupwasalsoinfavorofupgradingoftheDenaliHighway.PeopleinthiscategoryhadastrongvoicebutdidnotrepresentthemajorityopinioninCantwell.b)MembersofthissubgroupacknowledgethatCantwellneedstheeconomicstimulationandappreciatethelogicandeng-ineeringcompatabilityoftheDenaliSpur.However,theyareveryconcernedaboutthepotentialadverseimpactsonwildlifeintheareaandwouldonlybeinfavoroftheDenaliSpur.ifstringenthuntingregulationswereimplementedandenforced.ThisgrouprepresentedthemajorityopinioninCantwell.2)Thisgrouphasconsiderableconcernregardingthepotentialimpact.onthefishandwildlifeofthearea.Thisgroup,whichrepresentedtheminorityofthoseinterviewed,wascomprisedmainlyoflocaltrappers,non-localswithrecreationalcabinsandlocalswhofeltthepotentialadverseimpactonwildlifeoutweighedtheuseofthiscorridor.NativePreferenceTheCIRlCorporationhasstatedthatitistheirintent,withorwithouttheproject,todevelopthelandssurroundingtheDevilCanyonandWatanaC-13
proposeddamsites.mainlyforitsmineralpotential.AssuchtheyarestronglyinfavorofapermanentroadtothedamsiteandhavestatedtheirpreferencefortheSouthernRoadfromtheParksHighway.Theydonotfavorarailroadbutifarailroadisbuilttheyfeeltherailroadbedshouldbe'convertedintoapermanentroadwithaccessto theParksHighway.Itisalsotheircontentionthatsincemuchofthelandinquestionisprivateland,belongingtoGIRI,accessshouldbesubjecttotheirwishes.C-14
ALASKAPOWERAUTHORITYPUBLICPARTICIPATIONOFFICEACCESSREPORTOctober9,1~21
SectionISUMMARYANDCONCLUSIONSMarch1981WorkshopResultsTheresultsofthreeworkshopsheldandquestionnairessentoutbythePublicParticipationOfficeconcerningthequestionofaccesstotheproposedWatanaandDevilCanyonhydroelectricsitesshowapreferenceforarailonlyalternative.Sixty(60)percentoftheparticipantsintheworkshopsheldinFairbanks,Talkeetna,andAnchoragepreferredrailaccess.Almost80%oftheTalkeetnarespondentsandmorethan80%oftheFairbanksparticipantsfavoredtherailonlyalternative.Likewise,asizeableportionofthegameguidesregisteredinUnit13(UpperSusitnaBasin)whorespondedtoaquestionnairefavoredtherailaccess.Thereasonsforthispreferencevariedsomewhatamongcommunitiesandinterestgroups.Nevertheless,apatterndidemerge.Thepartici-pantsattheTalkeetnameetingfeltthattheirwayoflifewouldbeal-teredifroadaccessthroughanynearbycommunitywasselected.Theworkshopparticipantslchoiceofrailonlyaccessreflectstheirconcernforthepotentialamountofchangethatcouldoccurifsuchanaccessroadwereselected.AsecondfactorinthechoiceoftherailonlyroutewasthedesiretolimittheimpactonwildlifeandtheecologyoftheUpperSusitnaBasinthatincreasedrecreationalopportunitywouldcause.Thiswases-peciallytrueoftheparticipantsinPairbanksandtheresponsesofthegameguides.BoththesegroupsdidnotrespondtolimitingimpactsonthecommunitiesalongtheParksHighway,buttendedtofocusonthepo-tentialimpactsongameandtheenvironment.OfprimaryconcernwastheNelchinacaribouherdandalsothemooseandbearpopulations.Allthreegroupsmentionedpotentialimpactsfromallterrainvehicles(ATV's)andincreasedhuntingandfishingopportunities.C-15
t..(II./I{..InanalyzingtheseresponsesandinrecentdiscussionswithRobertAndersonofTerrestia1EnvironmentalSpecialists(TES),PeterRogersofFrankOrth&Associates,and~tephenP.raur.ctwhoisconctuctirgtbesocio-culturalstudy,severalvariablesneedt~beconsideredinrespecttoarailonlyalternative.Itisourthinkingthatseveralpotentialim-pactscouldresultfromarailonlyaccessthatwerenotconsideredbythesecommunities.Onewouldbethesizeandlocationofastagingorstockpilingareaforconstructionmaterials(anditspossiblevisualimpactorthesizeoftheworkforceneededtooperateit).Asecondwouldbetheregularitythatworkerswouldbeallowedtoridethetraintotheconstructionsite.Ifworkerscouldrideineitherdaily,week-ly,orbi-weekly,impactsinthesoutherncommunitiescouldbenearlyasgreataswitharoadaccess.ThiswouldincludetheneedforparkingfacilitiesinTalkeetnaor Hurricane,andtheresultofworkersandtheirfamiliesrelocatinginthesoutherncommunities.Theincreaseddeman~inservicecouldpotentiallyimpactabroadrangeofactivitiesthattheTalkeetnaparticipantsexpressedaninterestinlimiting.ThePublicParticipationOffice(PPO)intendstopointoutthesethingstothecommunitieswhenweholdournextworkshopsessionstheweekofOctober19.AstheresultofrecentdiscussionsamongthePPOstaffStep~enBraund,PeterRogers,andRobertAnderson,onepossiblewaytoreduceimpactsonthesoutherncommunitiesisanorthernaccessfromtheDenaliHighway,withafullserviceconstructioncamp,com-muterschedules,andclearlydefinedstatepolicies,incombinationwithnoaccessfromthewest(eitherrailorroad).Althoughanorth-ernroute~wasoriginallyconsidered,itwasnotamongtheoptionspresentedatthecommunityworkshopsinMarch1981.AnotheroptiontoreduceimpactswouldbeallrailorrailtoGoldCreekwithworkerscommutingtoandfromAnchoragebyairplane.Thisoptionwasnotpre-sentedeither.Wesuggest·thattheseaccessoptionsandtheexplana-tionofthepossibleimpactsoftherailonlyaccessneedtobepresent-edtothesoutherncommunitiesinorderthatamoreinformeddecisioncanbemade.Especiallybecausethethinkingofthesecommunitiestend-edtoreflecttheideathattherailonlyaccesswouldhavetheleastC-16
I'impactontfl..e:fTCOITmuntti'es.fti'spossiblethatthefullrangeofimpacts,50th"primary'ands"econdary,navenotBeenunderstoodorcon-sidered.Theprimaryconsiderahonappearedtobethelongtermim-plicationsofpublicaccessafterconstruction.Nevertheless,construc-tionrelatedimpactsmaybeofgreatestconcerntothesecommunitiesgiventhe10to15yeartimespanofconstruction.Inaddition,theresultsoftherecreationaldevelopmentquestion-nairethatwasalsodistributedatthecommunityworkshopsalsoshowedapreferenceforlimitingdevelopmentandaccess.Morethan60%ofthosewhorespondedtotherecreationquestionnairefavoredaminimallydevel-opedandmanagedwilderness.Thischoicedemonstratedadesiretoeitherlimitorpermitnoaccesstotheprojectarea.Railaccesswasmen-tionedseveraltimesasthebestmethodofaccess.CommunitiesWhereNoWorkshopsWereHeldWillow,Houston,Wasilla,andPalmer:ItshouldbepointedoutthatcommunityworkshopswerenotheldinthecommunitiessouthofTalkeetna(Willow,Houston,Wasilla,andPalmer)andnoonefromtheseareasattendedtheMarch1981workshopinTalkeetna.Generally,theMat-Suareahasbeeneconomicallyslowinrecentyears(thecapitalmovetoWillowhasnotoccurred)andpeopleinsomeofthese~ommunitiesmaywellperceivechangesandimpactsbroughtaboutbytheSusitnaprojectasbeneficialifeconomicdevelopmentisstimulated.DatafromastudyconductedintheMat-SuBoroughbytheOverallEconomicDevelopmentProgram,Inc.(EconomicConditions,DevelopmentOptionsandProjections,July1980)indicatesthatpeopleinWillow,Houston,Wasilla,andPalmertendtofavorahigherrateofdevelopmentthanthecommuni-tiesnorthofWillow.AdditionalinformationfrmplannersattheMat-SuBorough,theBoroughManager,Assembly,PlanningandZoningCommission,andlocalresidentsmightbeuseful.TrapperCreek:ThelackofrepresentationfromTrapperCreekattheMarchworkshopatTalkeetnaalsolimitstheinformationfromthatmeetin9.ThecommunityC-17
"ofTrapperCreekdidnotseemtoperceivetheSusitnaprojectsashavingapotentialimpactontheircommunity.Onememberofthecommunitycoun-cillaterexpressedtheperceptionthatTrapperCreekwouldbelessaf-fectedthanTalkeetnawouldbebySusitna.Inaddition,theworkshopwasheldinTalkeetnawhichisa60mileroundtripforTrapperCreekresidentsand,giventhepublicsentimentasreflectedbytheabovestate-ment,itdoesn'tseemlikelythatpeoplewouldmakethetrip.StephenBraundhasrecentlyspentsometimeintheTrapperCreekareaandhisin-formationshouldhelpinassessingthepreferenceofthatcommunity.AjointmeetingwithTrapperCreekandTalkeetnaisbeingplannedforWed-nesday,October21.ItwillbeheldatSusitnaValleyHighSchool,lo-catedhalfwaybetweenTrapperCreekandTalkeetna,andwehopetogetrepresentationfromboththesecommunities.PeoplelivingalongtherailroadnorthofTalkeetna:ThesmallclustersofpeoplenorthofTalkeetnaalongtherailroadwerealsonotwellrepresentedattheTalkeetnaworkshop.SomepeoplefromtheChaseareaattendedtheworkshop,butpeoplefurthernortha-longtherailroad(LaneCreek,Sherman,andGoldCreek)didnotattend.ThePPOdidcommunicatewithpeoplelivingorowninglandatLaneCreekandShermanduringthepublicparticipationworkontheintertieproject.Thegeneralfeelingintheseareaswasoneofstrongoppositiontothetransmissionlinesbecausepeoplehadmovedtotheareatogetawayfromdeve1opment.\'Jewouldexpectstrongresistancetoanyaccesschoicewhichwouldcausechangesalongtherailroadintheseareas.CantwellandNcKinleyParkareas:AnotherareawherethePPOhadnocontactconcerningaccessistheCantwellandMcKinleyParkareas.Incommunicationswithboththeseareasontheintertieissue,Cantwellhasbeengenerallypro-developmentandpro-intertie.Communitysentimentindicatedthedesireforasub-stationatCantwell(alongwithdistributionlines)sothecommunitywouldnothavetorelyondieselgenerationforelectricity.Discussions~it~StephenBraundandTomLonnerhaveindicatedthattheMcKinleyC-18
!I.Parkareawouldnotbeaffectedbyaccessplans,butCantwellwould,especiallyiftheDenaliHighwayaccessisselected.Tobetterunder-standtheconcernsoftheCantwellcommunity,acommunityworkshopisbeingplannedforThursday,October22.IndianRiverSubdivisionandIndianRiverRemotelands:AfinalgroupofpeoplewhosepreferencewasnotobtainedwastheIndianRiverSubdivisionownersandtheIndianRiverremoteparcelowners.Thesubdivisioncontainsabout140parcelsonorneartheParksHighwayintheareaoftheproposedroadaccesstoDevilCanyon.TheDepartmentofNaturalResourcesestimatesthat90ofthesesiteshavebeenawardedsinceJuly1981.ConsequentlythepeoplewhoarenowownershavenotbeencontactedconcerningtheirviewsoneitherSusitnaingeneraloronthequestionofaccess.DNRalsoreportsthatdemandwasnotgreatforthesubdivisionlandsexceptalongthehighway.ThiswasnotthecasefortheIndianRiverremoteparcels.Becausetheseremoteparcelshadrailroadaccessandmostremoteparcelshavenoaccessatall,DNRre-portsthatitwasoneofthemorepopularremoteparcelofferingsthestatehashad.Seventy-fivepersonweregivenauthorizationtostakeinthisarea.Conclusions1.Whatemergesfromtheresponsesreceivedinthecommunitywork-shops,bothonaccessandrecreation,isthedesiretolimitgrowthanddevelopmentthatcouldoccurshouldtheSusitnaprojectbeconstructed,especiallyintheTalkeetnaareaandtherailroadcommunitiesnorthofTalkeetna.Oneofthedriversofthetypeandmagnitudeoftheimpactsonthesoutherncommunitiesisthelocationoftheaccessrouteandthemodeoftransportationusedontheroute.Althoughtheclearpreferencestatedisforarailonlyaccess,moreinformationneedstobepresentedtothepotentiallyimpactedcommunitiesconcerningthenatureofimpactsduringtheconstructionphaseifarailonlyrouteisselected.C-19
2,Inrecent91Scu~s\vnswtth.StephenP.raund,ROJertfncterson,andPeterRogers,itRas5ecomeclearthattftequestionofaccessandmodealonearenottheonlycons'i'derati'onstnatneedtobepresent-:;r:'::0trot:potenti'allyimpactedcommunHi"es,Anequallyimportantconsiderationisthesi'zeandnatureoftheconstructionfacility.Variousoptionsareavailableanddependingonwhatisselectedtheimpactsonthesurround-ingcommunitieswillvary.Afullservice,plannedcommunityprovidingthewidestrangeofservicesfortheworkersandtheirfamilieswouldhaveamuchdifferentimpactthanalowservice,constructioncampwithnofamilyfacilities.Thistypeofdecision,aswellasthepoliciesthattheStateofAlaska(throughthePowerAuthority)wouldadoptornotadoptconcerningthenatureoftheconstructionsite,accesstothesite,andtheschedulingofcommutingworkerstoandfromthesitewillbetheprimaryfactorindeterminingtheimpactsonlocalcommunities.3.PPOsuggests thefollowingmethodforlookingathowvariousoptionswouldeitherdecreaseorencouragetheamountofchangethatcouldpotentiallyoccurinlocalcommunities.Sixpossibleobjectivesaregivenbelow.Werecognizethatsomeoftheseobjectivesappearmutuallyexclusive.Theydo,however,reflecttherangeofpreferencesthathavebeenheardinthecommunitiessofar.PPOwouldlikemorecommunityinputtodeterminewhichpreferencereflectsthemajorityofagivencommunity.Thesixobjectivesare:1.ToencouragechangesintheWillow,Houston,~'!a5illaandPalmerareas.2.TolimitchangesintherailroadcommunitiesnorthofTalkeetna.3.TolimitchangesintheTalkeetnaandTrapperCreekareas.4.ToencouragechangesinthetheTalkeetnaandTrapperCreekareas.5.ToencouragechangesintheCantwellarea.6.Tolimit.changesintheCantwellarea.C-20VI
~_..~;*-;;~.;;:z;.;.""-_..'".Thenextfourpagesareapreliminarydiscussionofhowdecisionscouldbemadeto·implementeitheroneoracombinationoftheseobjec-tives.TheinformationonthesepageswaswritteninaworksessionwithRobertAnderson,PeterRogers,StephenBraund,anc.PPOstaff.Moretimecouldbespentinrefiningthis.Inaddition,thethinkingofseveralotherdisciplinesisneededtomakethepicturemorecomplete.Basedonwhatweknownow,thePowerAuthority's"access/recreation/constructionfacilities/constructionpolicies"objectiveswouldbeto:1)encouragechangeintheWillow,Houston,Wasilla,andPalmerareas;and2)tolimitchangesintherailroadcommunitiesnorthofTalkeetna.Wedonotyethaveenoughinformationtoestablishclearplanningob-jectivesfortheTrapperCreek,Talkeetna,andCantwellareas.***Theremainderofthereport(SectionII)istheback-updatathatsupportsthesummaryandconclusionsfromtheworkshopsandquestion-naires.Includedasexhibitsarecopiesofthevariousquestionnairesusedtosolicitresponses.***PPOisrelyingonthesocioculturalstudybeingconductedbyStephenBraundandAssociatestosupplyadditionalinformationinordertobetterarticulatetheseobjectives.Inaddition,weintendtocheckourperceptionsofcommunitypreferencesonemoretimewiththecommunitiestheweekofOctoberl.9th.C-2l
(")
I
N
N
OBJECTIVE I:To encourage changes in Willow,Houston,Wasilla,and Palmer areas.
PLAN A:
1.Access Corridor:access from the west;no access at all from the Denali lIighway.
2.t·10de:road.
3.Nature of construction camp facilities:Minimal construction camp;trailers,mess hall,
recreation hall,some family facilities for supervisory personnel.
4.Policies:
a.Individuals drive their own private vehicles to the sites.
b.No policies about when workers come and go,from where,or use of private vehicles.
5.Conmwter Schedules:
a.None.
b.No policy on public access.
c.No policy on use of fish and game.
f~
f
r
I
f
I
I
!
I·
I
t
RS
"I
f
(")
I
N
W
Objective I:To encourage changes in Willow,HOuston,Wasilla,and Palmer areas.
PLAN B:
1.Access Corridor:
rail access,either through Gold Creek with road to site or
rail directly to Devil Canyon.
2.Mode:rail
3.Nature of construction camp facilities:Minimal construction camp:trailers,mess hall,
recreation hall,some family facilities for supervisory personnel.
4.Policies:
~J5Oficy reagarding use of personal vehicles by workers.
b.Policy to control public access to area.
5.Commuter Schedules:Organized co~"uter schedule using aircraft from the Wasilla-
Palmer area.
Or organized rail commuter schedule with workers getting on and off the train
in the Palmer and Wasilla areas.
,
OBJECTIVE II:To limit changes in railroad cOIiUllunities north of Talkeetna.
PLAN A:
1.Access Corridor:Road from Denali Highway to Watana;service road from Watana to Devil
Canyon;no access at all from the west (neither rail nor road).
2.~10de :road.
("')
I
N
+::0
3.Nature of construction camp facilities:
The larger the camp,and the more services,the less the impacts on surrounding local
comnunities.Services that would help reduce impacts include:stores,post office,schools.
Proposal:to construct a I'mixed camp", meaning a camp where workers live with their families
if desired,or where workers live in trailers or barracks withQutfamilies.if desired.
Part of the construction camp could/would become a permanent city for the operating phase.
The temporary camp could be sited and located so that it would be inundated by water later.
The siting of a permanent camp for famil ies would be important so that the experience is as
pleasant as possible:meaning,it was sited on dry land so people could get out and walk,
and near trees and sun exposure if possible.The more pleasant the place is to live,the
more families will enjoy living there and impact existing local comnunities less.
limited r &r would be available at camp;workers or families would periodically get out to
other areas (larger areas like Anchorage and Fairbanks)for more extended r &r and cultural
activities,etc.
4.Policies:
a.strict regulatinns where people can go in the upper basin to protect resources,especially
hunting and fishing.
b.No private planes flying in and out.
c.Policy regarding use of personal vehicles.
~.Policy to control public access off corridor.
n
I
N
U1
OBJECTIVE II:Plan A cant.
5.Commuter Schedules:
a.ORGANIZED co~nuter schedule for those who don't live with families.Could be busing
from Fairbanks.Anchorage.or Cantwell.
b.ORGM!I~ED air commuting from Anchorage,or fOOl Palmer and !·~asilla.
OBJECT!VE I.I.l:__To 1imit changes in t~e Ta 1keetna and Trapper Creek areas.
PLAN A:
1.Access Corridor:Road from Denali Highway to Watana (this would spread the impacts to
TnclUde CantweTl).Service road from Watana to Devil Canyon;no access at all from the
west (neither rail nor road).
2.Mode:road.**
n
I
N
0\
3.Nature of construction camp facilities:The larger the camp.and the more services.the
less the impacts on surrounding local connunities.Services that would help reduce impacts
include:stores.post office.schools.
Proposal:to construct a "mixed campu.meaning a camp where workers live with their families
if desired.or where workers live in trailers or barracks without families if desired.
Part of the construction camp could/would become a permanent city for the operating phase.
The temporary camp could be sited and located so that it would be inundated by water later.
The siting of a permanent camp for families would be important so that the experience is as
pleasant as possible:I,leaning.it was sited on dry lanci so people could get out and walk.
and near trees and sun exposure if possible.The more pleasant the place is to live.the
more families will enjoy living there and impact existing local communities less.
Limited r &r would be available at camp;workers or families would periodically get out to
other areas (larger areas like Anchorage and Fairbanks)for more extended r &r and cultural
activities.etc.
4.Policies:
a.strict regulations where people can go in the upper basin to protect resources.especially
hunii~and fishing.
b.no private planes flying in and out.
c.Policy regarding use of personal vehicles.
,d.Policy to control public access off corridor.
("")
I
N
-......I
()I?Jc!(-h((,~III:··P/d.n A ~.i5)\i::.
5.Commuter Schedules:
a.ORGANIZED conmwter scedule for those who don1t live with families.Could be busingfromFairbanks,Anchorage.or Cantwell.
b.Assumption was made that air COnIDluter would not be reliable enough because of weather.
**Rail on this route could be feasible.but was not considered.
OBJECTIVE II):To limit changes in the Talkeetna and Trapper Creek areas.
PLAN B:
1.Access Corridor:Either rail to revil Canyon orGold Creek.or all rail.No direct road access from the west or north.
n
I
N
(X)
2.Mode:ra 11 .
3.Nature of construction camp facilities:Something less than a full service camp wouldappropriateiftheworkerscancommuteinandouttobewiththeirfamiliesonaweeklyorbi-weekly basis.
4.Policies:the same policies would apply as in Plan A.
5.Commuter Schedules:
a.ORGANIZED commuter air and rail schedules from the Anchorage and Wasilla-Palmer areas.
OBJECTIVE JV:To encourage changes in the Cantwell area,
1.Access C9rridor:access from the Denali Highway only,with a railhead at Cantwell.No
access from the wes 1.
2.Mode:rail to Cantwell and road from Cantwell to the 14atana site.
n
I
N
1.O
3.
4.
Nature Qf construction camp facilities:Minimal facilities:trailers to sleep in (or
barracksr;nless hall.recreation hall,some family housing for supervisory personnel.
Policies:----
a.Individuals drive their own private vehicles to the sites.
b.No policies about when workers come and go.from where,or use of private vehicles.
Again.the same as in Objective III:the absence of policies by the state of Alaska (through
the Power Authority)might result in the most changes in Cantwell.
Another kind of policy would be the lack of assertive action:for instance.a state policy to
upgrade only the west side of the Denali Highway (and not the entire route)would encourage
users to come from Cantwell and go back out to Cantwell,rather than driving on through to the
Richardson Highway.
5.Corrunuter Schedules:
a.None.
b.No policy on public access.
c.No policy on use of fish and game along corridor.
n
I
Wa
9BJECTIVE V:To limit changes!n the Cantwell_area.
1.Access Corridor:access from the Parks Highway on the west;no access at all from
the Denali Highway.
2.Mode:either road or railroad.
3.Nature of construction camp facilities:Full service camp,with complete services for
all who wish to bring their families.Same description that limits changes in the southern
comllunities would also help to limit changes in Cantwell.See Objective IVa.
4.Polices:
Same policies that limit changes in the southern communities would help to limit changes in
Cantwell also.See Objective IVa.
5.COlllmuter Schedules:
ORGANIZED comnuter schedules on some regular basis (weekly or bi-weekly.)
SECTI0N2SACK-UPDP\i.~C:Jr.l~~UNITYWORKSHOPSCommunityworkshopswereheldinFairbanks,Talkeet~a,andAnchorageinHarer.1921inanattempttodeterrr.inewhatconcernsthepeooleoftheseareashadrelatingtorecreationandaccessplanningontheSusitnahydroelectricfeasicilitystudy.Informationwaspresentedat~achworkshopconcerni:1gseveralaccessandrecreationplansandCOr:1l11entsrecordedthatcouldbeusedtohelpinaccessandrec~eationplanning.Inall,morethan300com~entswerereceivedinresponsetoprintedquestionnaires.Ofthese50pertaineddirectlytothequestionofaccess.Questionnaireswerealsoreceivedrelatingtorecreation,buttoesecommentsalsoeftenrelatedtoaccess.Parti.cipantsinthe,,.,orkshops""erepreser.t'=dI'lithfoura1ternativeaccessplanswhichusedvariouscombinationsofroadandrailaccessincombinationwithexistingroutes(Figure1).Theywere:1)AccessRouteA-constructionofanewroadfromHurricanetotheDevilCanyonand~atanasites;2)AccessRouteB-constructionofarailroadtobothdamsitesfromGoldCreek;3)AccessRouteC-constructionofaroadfromtheDenaliHighwaytotheWatanasite,constructionofaserviceroadfromWatanatoDevilCanyon,andconstructionofarail~oadspurfromGoldCreektoDevilCanyon;and4)AccessRoute0-thesameasRouteCexceptthatanewroadfromtheParksHighwaywouldreplacetherailspur.Thefollowingtableshowstheresponseoftheworkshoppartic~pants.C-31
RouteFairbanksTalkeetnaAnchcrage":a~1*TotalRouteA1i3!0l,r-'"'I:)IRouteg13~2I1I30I:JIIRou-:eC32i0i38IRoute0,0aI....I2I5.)I;'JoPreferenceI11I0IcI2I*MailresponsesweremostlyfromtheAnchorageareaandreflectthethinkingofthatarea.C-32
This~ableshowstha:~ostoftheoeopleattendingtheworkshopsinFairbanksandTalkeetnafavor~ailcccessduringandafterconstruction.Additionally,almosthalfthepeopleinAnchoragefavoredtherailonlyalter~ative.Some07thereasonsgivenwere:1)fewerenvironmen~alimpacts;2)easiertolimitthenumberofpeopleandtypesofactivityinsurroundingareas;3)lessexp~nsive;and4)moreenergyefficient.'"'-bouth.uHthe;Jeo;Jlein,'\nchorageandone-thirc1ofthepeopleinFairbanksandTalkeetnafavoredsometypeofreadaccessbecausethey:ouldgainaccesstoareastheyfeelarecurrentlyinaccessible.TheAnchoragepeopletendedtofavortheDenaliroute,butinFairbanksseveralpeoplespokeoutagainstitbecauseofthepotentialadverseeffectsoncariboucalvinggroundsnearthatroute.Inaddition,somepeopleateachworkshopindicatedtheyfavorednoaccessorverylimitedaccess.Suggestionsrangedfrombrininginsuppliesdurir.gthewinteronsnowroadstoaccessbyair.Thoseinfavorofairaccesssuggesteditasawaytobringworkerstotheconstructionsitethatwouldlessenimpactsonotherrailbeltcommunities.ThefollowingisadetailedbreakdownofthereasonsbehindthepreferencesexpressedintheFairbanks,Talkeetna,andAnchorageworkshops.C-33
;AIRBANKS(36attended,17responded)Onewhoar~ferredaccessRouteAgavethi3reason:1.Asalandowner(lotterywinner20acresin~l'eaeastofIndianRiverandnorthofSusitna)l"minfavorofaccessRouteAforac-c~ssibilityintomyproperty.Thereareatotalof75peoplewhowi1ibestakingupto20acreseachintheareI'vementioned...MarilynStarkThosewhoarererredaccessRoute6gavetnesereasons:1.Lessenvironmentaldamage;lesspublicaccessthebetter.Alsolowercost.Idon'twantanyaccess.2.RouteGwouldgivetheleastaccessandthuscausetheleas~humanimpactontolandandwildl~fe.ThisistheonlyhopeforpreservinganyoftheNelchinacaribouherd.3.Iprefertheallrailalternativebecauseitcurtailsunlimitedpublicroadaccess.Ifaroadisbuilt,Idon'tthinkthere'sanydoubtthatpressurewillbeexertedeventuallytoopenittothepublic(aswiththehaulroad).Themerepresenceofthereservoir(s)willQreatlyincreaseboatandfloat(andski)p1aneaccess,andthinKthat'senough(toomuch,infact).Arailroadisthebestapproachtocontrollingunlimitedaccess.IfalternativerouteA-2isfeasible,thenaraillinkfromGoldCreektoDevilCanyonshouldbeincluded,andaroadonthenorthsidetoWatana,justsothereisn'troadaccessallthewayin.4.a)lowestScosttobuildandoperateb)possibleinterruptionsinimportedoilsupolymakemorefuel-efficientrailroadsdesirableC-34
c)I'oconcernedaboutimpactonDenaliHighway5.Minimalcost;~inimalimpactonfishandwildlife,wetlands;~inimalaccess;minimalfuelconsumption;~inimalotherenergywaste.Ir.shortRAILONLYISTHENEXTROUTETOi-IO:IEATALL.6.ThischoiceminimizesimpactifIm~stchooseanaccess.ialsoseethisasawayto:ontrolaccessas;,itisapublicprojectsponsoreabypublicSandthepubliccar.legallydemancaccess(i.e.thehaulroad).GutI'dgowiththatbecauseasreadsifA,couldbefUllycon~rolleditcausesminimalimoact.7.IwouldprefernoaccessfromtheDenaliHighwayandIthi~kthisistheonlyaccessroutethatpreventsthis.Also,IthinkmaybearailroadlinecouldbebuilttoDevilCanyonthenaserviceroadcouldbebuiltonthenorthsideoftherivertoWatana.The,,3.engineeringcon:ernsmightputconstructior.backtwOorthreeyears,Dutthiswouldsave100yearseffectonwildlifeandenvironmentalconcerns.Sincefeasibilitystudiesonthewholehydrostudiesareincomoleteandinconclusive,aswellasstudiesonaccessroutes,onecannotmakeawellinformeddecisionatthistime.Therefore,Icannotfindanyparticularrouteacceptable.However,sincearailaccessroutewouldbemostlimitingtoprivatevehiculartraffic,Ifavoritoverothers,sinceIvaluetheexistinGrecreationalandscenicpotential,andhopeforaminimalchangeinthosepotentials.9.a)railroadright-of-wayhaslessimpactthanaroadorhighway.b)accessofthegeneralpublicisbettercontrolledintothearea.c)constructionoftherailroadappearstobelesscostlywaytogo.Youcanhaulmorematerialorfreigntononetrainthanwhat60truckscoulddo.C-35
1~.tolioittheaccesstorecreationalists;~orecreatio~alvehicles;110speedbeats.11.noroad;costsless;costslesstomaintainroad.12.Rai!2.!lll.hastheleastlong::ermimpact.IfeelthisshouldDeconsideredevenifitputsyourstart~ngdateforcons:ructionback1-3years.Theaddedtime(i.e.setback)willbethebestforthelongterT:1.Ifavoraslittleir:ipact.(IprefernoSusitnadam).Ifthedamwasbuilt--railshouldbethe~access.13.Witharailroadspurwhi:hwillbeneededto~oveinthebigturbinesandotherpiecesofequipmentyou~illnotneeda'roadsystemanditisalsothelesscostlyofallof:heaccess)"outesanditwillkeeptheareawildernessandlimitpublicaccess.ThosewhofavoredaccessRoute~aavethesereasons:1.ThehighwayaccessviatheDenalishouldbeeliminatedif"e"isconsidered(environmentalconcernsandmainstreamdevelopmenttothesouthareprimereasonsforthischoice.Iwouldliketoseeinterconstructiondevelopmentatrailnodeskepttoaminimumandaconsistentawarenessforthelocalhabitantskeptasaforerunningconcern.2.Mostexpedient,hencelowestcostespeciallyasregardsWatana.3.ApparentlylowestimpactonwildlifehabitatalongDenaliHighway.Watanaroute,dependingonrecreationalplandecidedon.4.Theleastenvironmentalimpact.NoreasonforfavoringRouteD.Onecommentwithnochoice:1.IdonItfeelIhaveenoughinformationastotheprosandconsofC-36
route.Eacnoneinterfereswi:hwildlifehabitatandmigrationroutes'naboutequalways,itsee~$.Usingarailroadseemsaiessdisturbingway--itcancon~rolaccess--butaroadcannot.Eventherailroadwillallowoffroadvehiclestogetinthere.TALKE~TMA(38attended,17responded)ThesewhofavoredaccessRouteAdidsoforthesereasons:1.Keepthecountrysideasmuchlikeitisaspossible.2.a)Retainthewildernessstatus07thisareaasmuchaspossible.b)Idonotaccepttheassumptionthattherewillbepublicaccess.c)RailaccessfromGOldCreekwithtouristsridinginandoutmaybeacceptable.d)Iespeciallydon'twanttoseeboatsonthelakeandtheiras-sociatedhuntingandfishing,camping,etc.poseagreatthreattothewilderness.e)Largebufferzonesofnoaccessonthelakeandpowerlines.3.Minimumroadaccess.ThosewhofavoredaccessRouteBdidsoforthesereasons:1.a)restrictprivateandcommercialvehiclestothesites.b)environmentalimpactofrailroad(afterconstruction)wouldappeartobemuchlessseverethanaroad.1)nostopping,parking,shooting,etc.fromthesideoftheroad.2)no4 x 41sorATVlsdrivingoffintothewilderness.C-37
c)cheaoestalternatived)leastimpactoncommunities.1)wouldli~itthemanoowertoairtranSDor:.2.Leastpubliciw:pact,yetallowingthosethatarewillingtogothroughthetroubletogetthere,thewaysandthemeanstodoso.Also,oncecompletedpossiblywouldbelessproblemmaintaining.3.Leastadverseeffector.environmentoverlongtenn.4.Therailroadwouldatleastminimizeimpactonthearea.5.Limitaccessforconstructionandma~ntenanceonly~nopublicroadneeded;railroadeasiesttoregulateinthismannercouldberew.ovedafterconstructionisfinishec.o.Railbeltareaalreadyhandlespopulation.Expancingthis-serviceiseasierthandevelopingnewpopulationcentersorareas.Publicaccessiscontainedtocertainplaces(designatedbytrainstops).7.Railroadonlygivesgreatel'centraloveraccess.Americansmustandcanlearntodivorcethemselvesfromtheirvehicles.Withrailroadoniy,yougaingreatercontrolovertotalnumbersgoingtothesiteandalsocontrolovel~develOlJinentsalongt!lP.route.8.Wouldgetthepiojectcompletedwiththeleastamountof9.Therailroadwouldbefarmoreeconomicalwaytomovematerialswiththeleastlong-lastingimpact.10.Leastimpactonareaandfuturegenerationswiligettoseeandenjoyitasitwas.Peopledon'tbringtheirATVwiththemonthetrain,nordotheyhavetheabilitytostopeverywhere.Iheareaalongrail-roadsislessimpactedthanareasalongroads.Andpeopleinthefuturewilltravelviapublictransportationnotprivatecars.11.Limitsaccessbythemassesbytrainorair.am100~opposedtoanyroaduseespeciallyasitappliestovehicular(privateautos).C-38
·-\-.OnefevoredCoverAforthisreason:1.Thereasonfor-illychoicebet\'/eenAorCiscost.I1ivecioseto~ile99~ParksHighway.I'mnotnecessarilyexcited:boutmoreroadsbutthereisaneed.Ifaroadisputinhopefullythewildiifewouidbeprotectedforalltoseeandenjoy.Nohuntingpermittedciosetothehighway.Perhapsparkrangerswouldteach~eoplehowtoappreciateandcarefortheirstate.lIdjustliketoseepeopleenjoyAlaskaaswedid16yearsagobeforeitbecameovercrowded.NoonefavoredD.Onedidn'tmarkachoice,butnotedthiscomment:Thismeetingissup~osedtobepartofafeasibilitystudysoyoushouldn'tbegivingjustfouroptionstochoosefrom.Iresentthefeelingyougiveme-'"thatyouaretry;ngtose11meaplanwithafeltloptionstochoosef'om.IfImustacceptth-isdamthenIfavoraccessroutesthata110wtheleastamountofpublicaccessandtheleastamountofhumanpopulationgrowth.Thesocialandeconomicaspectsofthedamwillhavethegreatestimpactonthenaturalenvironment,andtheyshouldbeminimized.Thehaphazardwayyougathercommentsisnotgood.Itfavorspeoplewhoaremostvocalanddoesn'tgiveatrueconsensusofopinion.Thelesspeoplethatentertheareathebetter.M.\..SchwabANCHORAGE(40attended,4responded)NooneoreferredaccessRouteA.C-39
OnepreferredaccessRoutaBforthisreason:1.AccessGwililim~timpacts.Isitpossijletomailmaterialsaheadoftimesopubliccanstudy?Whyhasn'tCorpsstudybeenread?Maseffectofoverallpeputationonreciea~ionbeenconsidered?Ahyisn'tmoreharddataavailabletopublic?NoonepreferredC.ThreeJreferred0forthesereasons:1.Thisalternativewillprovideauickaccessforconstructionwithlatermaximumrecreationalbenefit.Cissecondchoice,Aisthird,8isfourth.2.Providesma~imumpublicaccesstootherwiseinaccessibleareas.ProvidesbetteraccessfromAnchoragetoDenali~ighwayarea.Thegreaterlengthofhighwaysystemdecr'easeshuntingpressureonanysegmentofroadornearbyflyinlakes.Additionalroutesallowforflexibilityanddiverstiyinhaulinginmaterials,equipmentandsupplies.TheserviceroadbetweenthedamMUSTbeopenforthepublicaspublic\fundswillbeusedforThisaccesstothisareaisrequiredregardJessofdamconstructton.3.PreferDwithmodifications'Roadmodeismostflexibleduringconstructionphaseandmostuseablebythepublicafterconstruction--IamveryfamiliarwiththecountryandfavoraroadfromRurricanetoDevilCanyon,thencrosstherivGrandontoWatanaonthenorthside--thissegmentwillhavesouthslopeaspect(muchbetterthansouthsideofriver),alotofwindex-C-40
3.railaccessless~revilasaccesscou1dbe::1oreeffectivelylimited.Thepotentiallossofwetlancsandrap:ornestinghabitatispar-ticularlydisturbing.4.a)cheapest(don'twastemoneYib)disturbsthewildernessleast;canberemovedwhenbothdamsarebuilt.c)accessformaintenancebyfloatplaneorhelicopter.d)hardtomaintaineitherarailroadorhighwayinheavysnoworcoldwinters.5.restrictsorlimitsaccessandhasminimaleffecttothearea.OnewhofavoredCor0Gavethesereasons.1.GetsawayfromtheschedulingproblemsofAandB.2.EconomicallybestafterB.3.Opensuplargenewareaforrecreation.~.Preservestheenvironmentalintegrityoftheroadlesssouthsideoftheriver.TwowhofavoredaccessRouteCgavethesereasons.1.HavingworkedfertheDept.ofHighwaysinthear'eafor20years,observationthataroadfromtheDenaliwouldbeeasiesttobuildandmaintain;lesshills,lesswetlands,andismoresuitedtoroadconstruction.2.a)provideseasyaccessforconstructionandopensupbeautifulareasforrecreationalpurposes.C-42
posurasowillbeeasiertokeepsnowfree--!donctfavorcor-stiuctionfromDenaliHighwaysoutht::>i'Jac:anathatisunnecessary~ftheabovescneme...'erefollowed--oei'l1afrost,wetlandsimpactsanddeepsnowproblemsaboundonthisroute--thepreferred"wata.nacons:ructionfirst"canbeaccomplishedwiththisproposalasyouwillhavetocrossatDevilCanyonanyway--thisroutingwouldalsoavoidsomeverydifficultconstructionalongsouthsideofSueastofDevilCanyon.MAIL(11responded,mostlyfromtheAnchoragearea)Onewhop,eferredaccessRouteAgavethisreason:1.Feltaroadtobothdarns~teswouldbeofbenefittoallparties,bothduringandafterconstruction.2.NopracticalreasontobuildroadfromDenali;themajori~yofworkerswillbecomingfromAnchorageandFairbanksandforthefewworkersf~omDelta,Glennallen,andPaxontheextradistancewouldn'tjustifythecost.iouristswillcornefro~Anchoragealso.ihosewhofavoredaccessRouteBgavethesereasons.1.2.a)minimaldisruptiontoexistingrecreationpat!ernsb)minimaltaxdollarwastetoaccommodategovernmentallycontrivedrecreationprograms,frivoiityinatimeofseriousnationalneeds.c)minimalimposeddetrimentstothehabitat.a)railaccesssufficientforconstructionandmaintenanceb)deiayisaplus-moretir.letostudyenvironmentalimplicationssuchasimpactonCookInletfisheries.c)railaccessieastexpensive.C-41
b)highwayaccessisimportan~notonlyforconstructionbutforcontinuedpublicaccessnetdependentJftrainscnedulesorpassengerserviceslimitations.Twowhofavoredaccess?ou:e0gavethesereasons:1.WouldletmostallhighwaytravellersseeonedamareawhilekeepingtheWatanaareaunderlesspressurebypeople.Don'twanttoseeStateandFederalgovernmentsinvolvedinrailroadunlesstheStatepurchasestherailroadbeforethedamsareconstructed.2.a)noserviceroadbetweendams.b)constructandservicepowerlinesbetweendamswithhelicopters.c)boataccesstoreservoirs;roadaccesswouldmakeitlooklike8igLake.t·HNERSANDGAMEGUIDEQUESTIONNAIRESTwoseparatequestionnairesweredistributed:'onetogameguidesregistefedinUnit13oftheUpperSusitnaBasin:theothertomembersoftheAlaskaMinersAssociationinFairbanksandAnchorage.Thegameguidequestionnairewasmailedto200guidesand29responseswerereceived,areturnof15~.Theminers'questionnairesweregiventomembersoftheMinersAssociationi~FairbanksandtheBoardofDirectorsinAnchorage.Itisnotknownhowmanyweredistributed.Eighteenwerereturned.Fifty-six(56)percentofthegameguideswerefnfavorofpublicaccesswhile31%wereopposed.Responsesonwhatgamehabitatsshouldnotbedisturbedwerevaried,buttendedtoindicateseveralareasofconce~n.OnewastheDeadman'sCreekdrainageandtheareasouthoftheC-43
DenaliHighwaythatisJtilizedbytheNelcninacaribouherd.Ot~erareasmentionedweretheSusitnaRiverproperandseveralofitsmajortributaryareas.Theprojectareaingeneralwasseentobeaprimegameandfishingarea.Over4(%oftheguidesfavoredrailonlyaccessandthiswasoftenmentionedasfirstchoicewithotherslistedsecondorthird.Thequestionnaireincludedamap(Figure2)thatshowedfouraccessroutes.Thesewerenotthesameroutesthatwerepresentedatthecom-munityworkshops.ThereasonforthisistheroutenorthoftheSusitnawaseliminatedfromconsiderationduetoenvironmentalandengineeringproblemsaroundthePortageCreekarea.Almostallthemi~ers(90~)favoredsometypeofpublicaccess,butthequestionnairedidnotpresenta:ternativeroutes.Mostofthisgroupusedthegeneralprojectareaforsametypeofmineralrelatedactivityandusewaslimitedtosummermonths.C-44
GA~1EGUIDEQUESTIONNAIRE-Februaryandi'tarch19811.-WhatareasoftheSusitnaRiverbasindoyouuse?GeneralanswersincludedUpperSusitna,TsusenaValley,ClarkCreek,TalkeetnaRivertoKosinaCreek,DenaliCreekarea,ClarenceLake,LakeLouise,WatanaCreek.8saidtheyusedallormostofit.5saidtheyusednoneofit.2.Whatkindofusa?25co~sideredthemselvesprimarilygameguides.Ofthese,19i~cludedthewords"huntingandfishing"aspil.rtoftheir(lccupation,suchasin"guidinghuntingandfishingtrips".r~totalof22included"huntingorHfishtng"plussomeotheruse,suchas"rn;ning,prospecting","rock-hounding","trapping","rafting",or"photography".3.Whatlevelofusedoyougivetheseareas?Thewords"heavy","moderate",and"light"wereusea1nsimilarpro-portion.Theseasonsl~stedmostwerespringthrougnfall.!nr!!personsrespondeathattheyusetheareafro~eightmonthstoallyear.Specifically:May-October:3June-October:2July-August:1June-Sept.:1August-Sept.:2July-Sept.:t·lay-Dec.:10mO./year:Apr.-MayjAug.-Sept.1114Whatgamehabitatsshouldnotbedisturbed?SpecificlocationsmentionedincludedWatanaCreek,KosinaCreek,J~yCreek,theareaalongtheSusitnaRiver,FogCreek,northandsouthwestofMoosehornLake,StephanLake,ClarenceLake.BigLake,alongtheAlaskaRailroadproposed,PortageCreek,ButteLake,OtterLake.Onepersonexpressedconcernaboutthepossibledisturbanceofswanandsalmonspawninggrounds.Severalexpressedconcernforthehabitatsofmoose,grizzlyandblackbear,andcaribou.Somespecificstatementswere:Impossibletolist,BigSuisakeygamehabi~at;effortshouldbemadetostaynearwaterwithalltravel.Cariboumigrationroutes,wintermooseareas,blackandgrizzlybeardenningareas.TheareaboundedbyPortageCreektothewest,theSusitnaRivertothesouthandeastandtheDenaliHighwaytothenorthisthebestgamecountryleftintheTalkeetna~1ountai11S•Winteringareasinallmajordrainagesshouldnotbedisturbed.Thosewhosawnoproblemsifgamehabitatsaredisturbed:9.Thosewhomentionedconcernaboutthedisturbanceinspecificlocations,orofspecificanimals,ordisturbanceofthewiidernessingeneral:16.C-45
5.WhichaccessCDyouprefer?Theguideswaregivenfourchoices:Corr~dor1 -No~thsideofSwsitna~iverfromTa:keetna:Corridor2-SouthsideofSus~tnaRiverfromTalkeetna;Corridor3-NorthfromDenalihighway;andRailroad-SouthsideofSusitnaRiver.Theywereaisoallowedtocheckal1theboxestheyfeltwereacceptable.6.Reasonsfortheabovechoice:Commentssupportingtherai,lroadincluded:"lessvehicleaccessmeanslessimpactontheanimalpopulationandtheenvironment";OR"Itwouldbemoredirect."Whenspecificcorridors'Nerechosen,thecor.mentstendedtobeger.eralaboutthepossibledistrubanceofoneoranotheranimalpopulation.Occasionallytherewasaspecificindividualcomment,suchas,"Isupposeit'sj'Jstselfishnessb'JtCorridor1comeclosesttotheaccessIuse."Corridor1Corridor2Corridol'"361110RailroadLeftitblankAnswered"noneoftheabove"AnsI,'Jered"whuteverisCheapestandbest"18<11...7.Wouldyouliketoseepublicaccesstotheprojectareabyprivatelv-ownedvehiclesafterconstruction~scomoleted?Yes:No:1810riotsure:1Limitedaccessonly:1NoresjJonse:28.Reasonforpositiononcublicaccess:Thosewhosaidyes:I'mpayingforitso1:11useit;Isupporthydropower;allAmericanshavetherighttoallofAmericawiththeex-ceptionoflandthatisprivatelyowned;weneedtouristdevelopmentandrecreationaldevelopment.9Haines11Chugiak23Homer11Ketchikan13Juneau11Kasilof1~1Wasilla11Nonameoraddress1Thosewhosaidno:Therewillbeaninnundationofpeoplewillsuffer;animalhabitatswillbedestroyedalongtherpreferthear~abeleftawilderness;whatwillhaopentothisisapowerproject,netarecreationalfacility.Respondentstothisquestionnaireresidein:AnchorageEagleRiverPalmerCantwellHi11owGustavusFairbanksTokHighwayC-46businessver;wouldhefish;
i'iIf~ERSQUESTIONN,a.IRE--Februal"Yand>1arch1981Memberofwhatgrouporgroups:FairbanksAl~skaMiners11AnchorageA:askaMiners0NomeAlaskaMiners1InteriorAlaskaTrappers0SouthcentralTrappersaRegisteredguide1Other:FurTakersofAmerica1Minersresidein:Fairbanks10Ancho~age6MaclarenRiver1Palmer12.WhatDartoftheUpoerSusitnabasinis::;fparticularinteres;:toyou:AlmosteveryrespondenthadadifferentanSl,'Ier.Specificallytheywere:WatanaCreek1ButteCl"eek1CoalCreek1ClearHa~erMtns.1PortageCreek-FogLakes1TsusenaCreek1GoldCreek1'fa1dezCreek1Chulitna1Oshetnaandi·lac1aren,BlackRivers,Anparts4"-DevilCanyor:1NoDarts1"-UpperSusitnaBasir.1Onerespondentwhoansweredtheformindeta11said,"Ofcourse,theMaclarenisofmajorinteresttomesincethatismyhomebase.However,IwouldbeviolentlyopposedtousingtheDena:iHighwayasasdamaccess.Asidefromtheestheticreasons,itwou1dbeaneconomicdisasterforme,asamajorportionofmytraplinerunsfromNile7DenaliHighwayto~1i1e71.".,\~hatareaoftheriverbasindoyOllcurrentlyuse:..LAnswersmirroredthoseabove.Specifically:WatanaCreek2ButteCreek1CoalCreek1ClearHater~~tns.1ChulitnaCanyon1LowerSusitna1ChulitnaCreek1UpperSusitna1Stephan-FogLakes1Upper+Middle1Southside-SusitnaUpperTsusenaCreek1drainageofDevilCanyon1FhunilmaCreek1N/A1None.1.,.AHhatkindofuse?'-;Mineralsexploration2Recreation/rest2irappingwolvesthatMining5preyonwintering1Hunting/fishing4mooseHardrockminerals1t1inera1development1None1irapping1N/A1C-47
5.WhatlevelcfUSEdoyouqivethear~a5:Lichtusewa~listedmostfrequen~ly,thoughmoderateandheavyus~werealsopu~down.Specificdates:june-SeptemberOct.IS-April1plusSeyt.deernuntNone~/A::"a11and\·JinterYear-roundSeptember-October7111216.Wouldyouliketoseepublicacces~viaprivatelv-ownedvehicleafterconstructioniscompleted?Yes16No27.Whatistheorincioalreasonforyourpositiononaccess?Yesanswers:Accesstopotent~allyproductivemineraldeposits5Publicfunds,publicuse10Recreationuse3Huntingandfishing1Onerespondentwhoansweredyes,added,"Istronglyfeelweshouldextractallmineralsfromthisareabeforewecompletethedamandbeginfloodingthearea.IINoanswers:Theareaisundisturbednow,don'twanttolosethat1Thegamepopulationwillbedrivendown1C-48
March1981ALASliAI·O\\TI~nAUTIIOi:ITYSUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECT\40RKSHOP#3ACCESSR 0UTES E L E C T I 0NQUESTIONNAIRE1.WhichAccessroutesdoyoufindacceptable?___ABC2.Pleasegivethereasonsforyourchoices.C-49___0
QUESTlO~:r;;dEEFor;GAr·1EGUlJES,U;/[T13Page37ALASiL\PHWEH4\~'TUOHITi"ACCESSie,PI<QPOSEDSUSITN,A.:IYOROELECTRICPRO-':ECT1.\·Ihatan?ilSoftheSusitnuP~verbc::;inuuyoucurl·en:;.!use?2.\-Jhatkindofuse?3.Whatlevelofusedoyougivethose,1n:as?(80asspecltlcaspossibie:;il()lIths01jbll?everyyear')heavy,illoderateai'1ighUetc;.?)gamehilbitatsthatyoufeelshouldnotbeEffortswillbemadetoavoidkeygamett,I,-r.PHr'aselistthelocationofsignificantdisturbed.;Beasspecific15possible.ha'Ditats.,4 .f..:':!..00k(!tthemapont!1Cbac.koftileye11owCheck~l.l.l"eQne~XS!..~findQ.c~SjJ_Labl_e...CorridoroneCor,idortwuCOl'ridol'"three---Rai1road6.Dleasegi'!eyourreasonsforyourchoicesin=5.(Yourreasonsgivetheplannersimrol~tantinformation;:0useinIllJkingtheifrecolliOlendationsforanaccessalan.)7...lr,wldyouliketoseepulJl;cdCCl!~5cothe~l:Sitl1dhydroelectrici)rojectareabyprivutelyovlJ1edveniclcafterUleconSLl'IJctioniscompleted?8...Hlatistilepl-inciplen~asonfUI"you,'po:.itiononpublicaccesstotheprojeCtarea?PHONE,\OORC:,SZIPThank'lUllforyOW"assistill1t:e:rlcuseretUl'Titilisformbeforet·iarch15thto:AluskdPowerAuthorityPublicParticipationOffice333WestqthAvenue,Suite31Anchorage,Alaska99501C-50
UNIVERSITYOFALASKA.FAIRBANKSFairbanks,Alaska99701SUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTRECREATIONPLANPublicForumQuestionnaire1.ThedevelopmentapproachImostpreferis~~__~(1etter)(listonlyone.).2.Doyouhaveanysuggestedmodificationtotheaboveselectedapproach?Pleasenumbereachsuggestion.3.Whydidyouchoseyourparticularapproach?4.a.Inwhichregionofthestatedoyoul~ve:AnchorageFairbanksRailbelt,(betweenAnchorageandFairbanks)b.Howwouldyouclassifytheplacewhereyoulive?UrbanSmalltownRuralRuralremoteOther..•listc.Doyourepresentaparticularinterestgroup?Ifso,pleaselist.Youmayusethebacksideforanyadditionalcomments.Thankyou.C-51
APPENDIXDCONTINGENCYRISKMETHODOLOGY
ACCESSROADMETHODOLOGYFORQUANTITATIVERISKANALYSISFORROADVS.RAILLINKACCESSONLY.1 -BackgroundandDefinitionThe"risk"thatisaddressedhereistheincreasedriskassociatedwithstoppagesanddelaysinvolvedwitharaillinkaccessonly.Aroadaccessismoreflexibletoadapttodifferentadversesituationsthanarailis.2-Approach(a)Identifyandlistpossibleadverseeventswhichcouldoccurforarailaccessthatcouldresultinstoppagesanddelays.Examplesareasfollows.-RailStrikebytherailworkers.-Thereisapossibility(alowprobabilityofoccurance)thattheteamsterswouldtieupthejobifaraillinkaccessonlyisimplemented.Thiswouldoccurinrebellionofaplantoutilizerailandnottruck,thuseliminating,someteamsterjobs.Thisprobabilitywouldbegreaterifanallrailroutewereplannedhoweverthecombinationtruck/railreducesthisprobabilityconsiderably.-Earthquake,mudslide,flood.Intheseoccurances,whicharelowprobabilityoccurances,theriskindelaysisassociatedwithlongerdelaysforputtingaraillinebackinservicethanaroadway.Inotherwordstherisksofanearthquake,mudslide,etc.areequalwhencomparingaroadver.susrailhoweveraroadwayismoreflexibleandcouldbeputbackintoserviceinashorterperiodoftime.Derailments-Theriskandresultingdamaqeinderailmentsinvolvesnotonlydelaysinputtingthelinebackinservice,butinlostcargoalso.0-1
-Breakdowns-Theriskinbreakdownsisthesameasderailmentshoweverthedurationofthedelaysisverysmall(inorc!.erofhours,notdaysorweeks)andthecargogenerallyisnotlost.(b)Foreacheventdeterminethelengthofdelayandanyconsequencesotherthancostsofthedelay.(c)Foreacheventdeterminetheprobabilitythattheeventcouldoccur.Thiswillentailreviewofhistoricalrecordstodeterminetheoccuranceofsucheventsinthepast.(d)Foreacheventdeterminethecostpenaltiesassociatedwitheacheventordelay.(e)Toarriveatacostfigureassociatedwitheachevent,orthe"costofinsurance"foreachevent,multiplythetotaldamagesofeacheventXtheprobabi:1ityofthateventoccuringoverthelifeoftheproject.costofinsurance=damageXprobability-enSumthe"costofinsurance"foreacheventtoarriveatatotal"costofinsurance"figure.3 -AlternativeApproachAnalternativeapproachisthemultipleprobabilityapproach.Inthisapproachtheroadtsesttmatedtohavesomemultipleoftheprobabilityofadverseeventsthanaraili.s.Thisistosayamultipleofeventswouldhave.tooccurwitharoadto.causethesamedelaysordamaqesonesingleeventwouldwitharail.C91Determinethemultipleofprobabilitiestheroadisincomparisontoaran.Cb)_Determtnetheoveralltotalnumberofdaysandcoststhatcouldbelostduetoadverseevents.D-2
(c)Determinea'probabilityofoccurancewhichwouldincludealleventsanddeterminethetotal"costofinsurance".(d)Duetothemultipleprobabilityofaroad,multiplytheprobabilitiesoftheroadanddeterminethe"costofinsurance"fortheroad.(Forexampleifitisdeterminedthereisa1%(.01)probabilityofdelayswhichisusedtodeterminethecostofinsurance,anditisdeterminedtheroadhastwicetheprobabilityortwicethenumberofevents,whichwouldhavetooccur,theprobabilityassociatedwiththeroadis(.01)X(.01)=.0001).0-3