Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA500APA SrSIT~A HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ACCESS PLAN REPORT 1983 ~1m;,itnaJoint VentLlre ~;~~mumeU1t Number C·."'..'.R·.'.LOF";....•?, ,<1 ~I '.~-V"r~ :.~J ill A Joint Venture -~ ACCE "_*,.-."""'.."_,_-~_",.,.~·~-_'_~-'-""""~.·o_.... _r'-'ot'-'"",-".",,~,~.,__._~",,,,-,,,_......_.."'"'_......._~___.""""__"""""",,,,",,,,,,,,,,,,,110:_,,,","'_" ",~""'''_'''''''''_''-.~~._..._...'""'"'_~~..'W"",,"'_......-"',··:-'""',·..o\t,,_..._"'.........,""_~,_,,_~._..,_,_"".i>ot"'......".,_-'..~..,,,_._,",'_ ""--_.,-",,-~--"-",--~,-.,.."..."",,,,,-,.,"_._,~;~"~-"'."--""­.....,'"--,""--.......-.....-'--,,-"<,_..,,--""''''q''''"""""-,~-" -,"""''''"""":.",,:..._~.._._-,..,-"'..._~-..-~.'~--""""'-""- "",~,,-,---'--""'-"'-""';"'#""'-_'~-_""'~--_'­""',,,",...,,,,,"'_'__~'''"'_.._",",'"_'''''''''",""'''''"""_""",,,..=.,__r''·''''',_",",,_ SUSITNA HVDRDSl..pEC -",-'"- ALASKAPO\NEI:a AUTHOAITV <;r.-'- '""--....---- .::--...._--=---- =-=::=..: , •Wi • D by for 1983 -.,.•.:c_.·..., ACCESS PIAN REI?OR!' AIA..c;r<APOWER AurHORITY •.!•£a:U2£iMP'tMie_ •.....,:. ('~:':-. ~'" ''4,__j ...;:: "",..,.,--:,-_." .' studies are compl~te. inoorporate new or revised inforroation frOIil other studies being conducted qy the Harza-Ebisco team.Other studies which would effect This preliminary working draft is not complete arrl willbeup:lated.to findings of this report include those related to the need for pc:»ler, transportation plan,constrllcti,:,n camp,permanent tCMn and socioeconanics.Ccmm.ents on t.l?e approach,methodology,and general findings are nost appropriate,while reviewers should re,\C03llize tl"at. final conclusiOns or recommendations will not be available until.other r(!....l~!tw1ll:I:;)~C'u.tt>-Jo-I--()a:w a.."""J00 «....I 0:~co ........c..C')co r-z..............::>()«........('II -«z .....<(a:....J<z z I-lU a.<<z ()-l 0:..J -l <W c:(J)a.a.a.-l UJ ....Ja.W <C (J)-l :I::I::s 0 w<l-I--lZ0:;:)0 a:>-()<0w000..0 0czCI)a:>-I :::>«mJIJIO ««~z I-eI)I-CJj-«en-I ::len«\~ 1\ II o o ...••...J ..-,'"...._......r-8-,~~~~~co i ~,m.-,......"".--:"..D"..,.."..,....,-1.,,...,,1,"'-...l_..L_._,,--"",,,.,-,,"-"-'''..",::z.~---~..._,,-_._--~--'"'---"---11 u.·····.!! [0-j n c<0.a:1 0 (J)!<(J)I c 0 Ul:.l <a:0I00(J)(J)<I c a:(J)-lI<t Ul zI0<0 0I0:0:0 >-<Z(!l (!l <C z z <0.,!z z(;1 UJ l-I-<-l!0 (J)(J)l-I >w x x <Ul:I ..J Ul Ul ==cII1IIiI! "! 1II 1I (]I I \i I I ! S-l Report .. I A variety of access alternatives for the Susitna Hydroelectric Project have "been studied since 1980.Over 18 plans have previously been identified and formally evaluated.Denali plan (Plan 18)is the access plan.recctmnendedin previous reIX'rts and shown in the February 1983 PERC Susitna Hydroelectric Project License A];plication as the project access plan.The purp:>se and objective of this report is to review available data and studies to provide the Power Authority withan independent appraisal of the access issue and,if necessa..-y,make recO!IlIJ:\endationsfor changes in design,nroe of transportation or route from those shown or described in the February 1983 FERC License Application. stt.Xiies corrlucted.by Harza-Ebasco conclude that either the North.or Denali access plans is acceptable am that .the Denali plan is preferred.. Background and ~e This report contains an evaluation of the Denali plan and three of the most premising other candidate access plans stQClied by previous investigators.These other plans include all-rail (Plan 2),North plan (Plan 13)and South plan (Plan 16),and are shown in Figure 8-1. Studies were based primarily on review o~prior reports ,discussions with Power Authority staff,and limited field reconnaiasance.'!'he approach employed included a preliminary screening to eliminate obviously less desirable alternatives arrl a detailed comparison of the t\>.O better routes.The all-rail and South plan were eliminated from detailed consideration during the preliminary screening process after considering the effect of their adoption on project schedule,cost t and environmental impact.The Denali and North plans are the SUbject.of detailed engineering and environmental analysis presented in this report. 3l66B ~orFinding•'~'~.'..,..' .•...,...'.;~ 'l,.•........ • • •..'...•'.J ,.....". Therep:>rt is organized into five sections as follows. o section 1 -Introduction,contains background data and references along with a description of the four access plans analyzed in ~this report.It also describes the relationship of this WC)rk effort to other Harza-Ebasco Susitna.Project tasks. o Section 2 -:,Engineering Studies -Methodology and General Findings,contains a general review of roadway design and descriptions of the cost sttXiy methOdology used for route evaluation. o Section 3 -Envi~onrnental Studies -Methodology ar.rl General Issues contains a ranking of environmental issues affecting access route selection and presents access evaluation criteria ~or resource categories which affect the decision proc.::ess. Section!-Detailed Route C~isons,contains a description of the preliminary route screening process where 2 of the 4 routes were eliminated from consideration and pres~"1ts the detailed evaluation of Denali plan arrl North plans with respect to 11 resource and engmeering categories. o Section 5 -Conclusions and Recomm~ndatio~,contains H;tt'za-Etasco recamnendations ama description of the multi-objective decision analysis process eI1'!Ployed in developing these recamnendations from the results of detailed comparisons in Section 4 .. Principal findings.as a resUlt of engineering and environmental studies are described below. ;§r:gineering The access road design parameters incluc1ed in the PERC license 8-3 3166B I 8-4 application are awropriate for the access needs of the Susitna hydroelectric project.The geometric ani unit section designs of the .Propo....~roads.am railroads are generally appropriate for b"'1.e in.tende1 service.The selection of a gravel,as opp:::>sed to em asphalt,surface for the access,roads was a logical choice.With on~"exception,the 34-·foot wide I:'oad included in the present design is appropriate for the. access requirements of the Susitna project.The road segment from watana to Devil Canyon under Denali plan seems too wide for its probable future use.This road segment will only be used as an access back-up durin:I Devil Canyon construction and as a connnuting road for operators J---etween Watana and Devil Canyon a.fter construction.Width for this road segment could be reduced to 18 feet.A sa~rings of approxilIlately $10,000,000 in road construction cost would occur. 3166B W·:'·. '.....; Evaluation of the relationship of acces~~road construction to the overall project sc11edule revealed that eithet'route could be constructed without serious effect on the overall Watana construction schedule.There is little chance that either route would result in a •year I s delay in overall project construction as a result of unanticipated construction difficulty.There is less risk for such a delay,however ,for the Denali plan because i tis shorter,and easier to construct than the North plan.The compcu:atively flat terrain and fewer major stream crossir.qs along the Denali route result in generally easier construction than for the North route where the ground i~more rugged and 4 major stream crossings would be required.Construction time for the North plan could be reduced if pre-license work on pile foundations for bridges could be permitted. The construction .schedule for the overall Watana Project req..lires quiCk mobilization of diversion tunnel,airfield,construction camp and access road contractors.Use of snow roads for contractor mobilization and supply durir.g the first two years of construction could be very i!![X)rtant..The Denali plan corridor is slightly higher in elevation than the North plan and the terrain is flatter.A snow road along the Denali route hOuld'be easier to build and last somewhat longer in the •spring than a North plan snow road.Regardless of which access plan is S-5 Present Value of Total Cost Stream $150,751,000 $150,roo,000 Capital COst $98,811,ClOO $88,861,GOO WATM~AND DEVIL CANYCN PIDJECTS I _.., 1 $111,157,000 $126,600,000 Present Value of Total Cost Stream WATANA PIDJ'Ern.' $54,597,000 $79,896,000 Capital COst CCMPARATIVE ACCESS COSI'S ultimately selected for the permanent access road,the Denali corridor should be strongly considered as the route for snow road hauling am contractor mobilization.. Present worth life cycle.cost studies ware perfo:Jned for the NOrth and Denali plans usin.;J standard Power Authority procedures.Costs incltrled capital construction cost,cost for accelerated construction as defined in preVious studies,maintenance,personnel transportation,and logistics costs from the closest point to the site common to all plans.Results,using a 3",5%discount rate an:l assuming that construction of Devil Canyon begins in 1993 as scheduled are as follows. As shown above,adoption of the Denali plan would result in a savings of a1:x:>ut $15,000,000 if only watana is built.The North plan is slightly lessexpel'lsive than the Denali plan if Devil Canyon is constructed as schedUled.Studies show,however,that the small differences in costs in favor ·of the North plan is reversed if start-up of Devi-l;canyon construction is delayed 10 years.Logistics costs are a significant portion of the total costs,but differences between total logistics costs for the North ~lan ani Denali plan are small compared to the differences in capital costs for the two plans.Conclusions based on economic modeling are not sensitive to reasonable changes in logistics volumes or unit costs. Denali Plan North Plan 3l66B • Envirorunental The initial activity in analyzing environmental impacts was to review previous studies SO that potential inpacts of access road developnent could be identified and prioritized.The relative importance.of impacts.on various resource categories was developed by project team men1bers after identifying potential access related iIIq)acts.EIrq;>12sis was placed.on those factors which were most important in differentiating between the routes.For example,historic!archaeologic resources we.'(e not considered to be impoI.i.:ant in eValuating the merits of the various access alternatives.Potential inpacts to such reSOurces do not affect the decisicc because impacts to these reSOl.:lrces would be avoidei or mitigated as a result of laws am regulations .. Such laws requir:e that cultural sites 1:e avoided orapprcpriately racovered and preserved,.regardless of.the route adopted.Recognizing roth the significance of impacts am the relative importance of the. impacts for differentiating between the alternative access plans,the follaNinglist of prioritized impacts (in decreasin3'order of •iIr!POrtance)was develO'f'ed. o Wildlife; o Socioeconomic; o Fisheries; a .Land use; o Recreation;ani o Aesthetics•. Of the resource categories listed aoove,wildlife,socioeconomics,and fisheries stood out as ones most i:rnportant in the decision-making. process. Wildlife considerations were :i.mportant because development of access roads would increase accessibility to previOUSly inaccessible areas. Accessibility irrlic~sb3.sed on slope adjacent to proposed roads.were developed for the North arrlDenali plans to form a quantitative msis for evaluatin;r changes in.land accessibility attributable to road 8-6 3166B •"""", ..1,- oonst:ruction.III general,the Denali route greatly increases accessibility because it is largely wi thin an unroaded area while the North plan traverses an area which is presetnly more easily reached by humans. Qual'ltitative estimates of habitat loss ~-re also developed for canparative purposes.Results ShCM that the Denali plan will result in increased accessibility for a significantly larger area than for the North plan.Impacts to wildlife in general are comparable for,the t~ plans or slightly greater for the Denali plan.The major difference between the two plans is the potential impact to the Nelchina Carioou herd whoseran;e is crossed by the Denali Highway-Watana segment of the Denali plan.Potential impacts ioolooe reduction in numbers due to incresed hunting pressure,vehicle collisions,and loss of habitat due to road construction.Traffic On this road segment may reduce the extent of cari1:x:>u use of b~e area west of the road. Socioeconomic effects can be placed into t\\O categories.First,the economic benefits that would be created by the project can be considerai a 'benefit.Second,the social impacts which would result from unwanted cha.rges in lifestyles can be considered a negative impact. (INSERt'SOCIOazOOCXvJICS DISCUSSION HERE) Fisheries impacts relate primarily to the increased erosion fX)tential, particularly for the North plan near the vicinity of Portage Creek,am to the potential for increased pUblic access and likely associated increased fishing pressure.The latter potential is more of a concern on the Denali plan Where human access is very limited at present. oecisionAnalysis and.Recommendation Based (.~n the analysis approach used by the project team,the North and Denali plan were determined to be nearly ccmparable.Engineering fac::tors tended to favor the Denali plan,while the most inportant environmental considerations (wildlife ,socioeconomics,and fisheries) 8....7 3166B 1 ~:'...~ lNiere mixed.Wildlife considerations beca.use of the potential imr~ct on t11eNelchina Canoou herd favored the North plan,while th.eother envirOnmetltal categories suggested that illlpcJ.cts were comparable or th,at the Denali plan was preferred.Environmental investigations also revealed that li:miting access and controlling hlmting am fishing t1u:ough regulaticn or enforcement along edther corridor would reduce ixqpacts overall with greater reductionsexpecterl for the Danali plan. than for the North plan.This fact higru.ights the importance of deVeloping an effective access control policy in the access plan selection.and.implementation process. Reccmmemdation: Based on thealx:>ve considerations,the Denali plan is reconnnerrled as the preferred access plan.While laither access alternative is ac-ceptableam could,with some cc>st ar:rl e."lvironmental tradeoffs,1:'2 adopted as thepre£erred access pJ.an,there is no compelling reason to change plans at t..his time. S-8 3166B f ' ~.. " :,w'o ... 2.... 2- 2- 2- 2- 2- 2- 2-.' 2- 2- 2- 2- 2- 2- 2- 2- 2- 2- 2- 2- 2- 2- Paqe I- I- 1- 1- I- I .... I- I- •• •• •• ... • ••• ••••• • • •If} • ••••• s....... ..~......~ ... e.••• •••• •• •e • • • • • • • • •"• • • • • • •e -,.. • • • ••• ••• •••••••• ••• •••• • •••• • •••• ii •• • • .'at TABLE OF CCNI'ENTS J .'•~..• ••• •••••e ••••.• ••• • ••~..'~a 0 •0....... Railroad Rates ..• • • • • • •........• • • • Truc:kiIlg Rates • •..co • • • • • • • • • • • • Airfreight ••• • •..••..•co • •..• •co • Personnel Transportation .. Basic Construction Cost Estimates ". Bout,~Construction SchedUling • • • • Accelerated Schedul a Costs • •..•:0 co GeometriC'.al Road Design • •"• • • • •.. Unit Section Road Design .. Railroad Design Parameters ......• •.. ..• GeIleral.• • •..•.•...,•..•..•....•..• • I.D3istics Requiremf?..nts • • • • • •....,,-~..• Personnel Transportation •••••••'". 'i3.tana Construction Schedule .. General Review • • • Available Data ••• TFANSPORI'ATI~l COSTS ~ LIRE CYCLE cosr ANALYSIS MErHCD'DIroY. 2.5.1 2.5.2 2.5.3 2.5.4 2.3.1 2.:3,.2 2.3.3 ~COSTS ••••••• 2.4.1 2.4 ..2 2.4.3 2.2 ..1 2.2.2 2.2.3 2 ..2 ..4 ACCES$REYJUIREMEID'S • 1.4.1 1.4.2 '~R:X.JND ••.0 .e.e • • • • • • • • ••• • • • • OBJ:EX::'rI'V.ES 'III..",~• • • • • • • • • • • • • •"• • RCX:Jrl!S,S1"(J])IED,•a _0 • • • • •0:• • • •.'•0 •• TASK O~7A.TlOO • • •..• • •..• ~.~...s ••••es •••••I2.a •••••Q. 2.4 IDJTE DESIGN 2.6 2.7 2.3 ACCESS C<E'S1'RUCI'IOSl CosrEsr~TE ·roID 2.5 EN3INF.JmIm STUDIES -MErHOOOL03Y AND GENERAL FINDn~S INTRODIXJ!'ICN • • 2.1 2.2 1.1 1.2 1 ..3 1.4 1.4 2.0 1.0 r,·..,.tt ..•..·\.~tf TABLE OF CCNI'ENTS'(Continued) Page 3- 3- 3- 3- 3- 3- 3·· 3·- 3'- 3-· 3- 3- 4- 4- 3- 3- 4- • •• ...... • • • • • • ••• ••• eo.• • • ••• • •••• ••••••• ••• •••• • ••• • • •• ••••• •• • •••• ... .... :~ QI ••••••••fI'"••....... • • • • •e 8 ••• • • •~• • • • • General MethOOology ..•.. Resource category Ranking Wildlife and Botanical Resources ••••••• S~ioeconanic •••..• • • • • • • •..• • • Fisheries . I.ald Use •• • • • • • ••• • • • • ••.• • • ~creati()[l ..• • • •.. ..•....•....• • •..• Aestl1etics • • • • • •..•....• •..• • • • • Agency Comments . Native Organization Carnnents ....• Public Comments ..• • iii Rail Access Alternative.• • • • • • •..•••4- Soutl1 Plan (Plan 16)•....• • • • • • • • • • •4- OCOPE AND GENERAL MErHOI:XJL():;Y ..• •e ..• • •..•~.. IDENrIFICATICN ANDPRIORIT;£ZATICN OF ENVIRCEMENTAI, I-ssuES,•••a •:..••• •C"• • • • ••..e . . 3.2 ..1 3.2 ..2 RESOORCES ••• 'Water Uf~e QUality • •..• • •It •e • • • • •••3- Wildlife and Botanical Resources.• •..• • •••3- Fisheries Resources •..• • • •.. ..• •..• •3- Historic and Archaeological Resources • •..•3- SC>cioscClrlanics ..• • • •..• • •3- Geo1cgy and Soils • • • • • • • • • • • •..•••3- Recreation..•..•.... ..•.. ..• • • • • • • •...3- Aest:h.etics 3- !.and.Use • • • • • ••• • • • • •••• • •••3- St:unInary of Ra.nkiIl3'....• •..• • •..• • •..••3- 3.3.1 3.3.2 3.3.3 3.3.4 3.3.5 3 ..3.6 :RESaJR::E A.GEN:Y,.NATIVE OR3ANIZATICN,AND PUBLIC ~l'I'S •••••••••'.•••'..•••• 3 ..4.1 3.4.2 3.4.3 SC:OPE • • • • ••••• PRELIMINARY SCREENING • 4.2.1 4.2.2 3.1 3 •.2 3.3 ENVIm:NMENrAL EVAUJATICN CRITElUA FOR AFF.F.mm 3.4 ROOl'E SEL.EX)l1ICN ANALYSIS 4.1 4.2 3 ..0 ENVIRONMENTAL SI'UDIES -Mm'HODOLCGY AND GENERAL ISSUES 4.0 i-:".---'..:'\ ":,~ 4.3 NORm PJ.AN (PLAN 13)-DENALI PIAN (PIAN lE)CCMPARISCN 4- TABLE OF CCNrENrS(Ccntinued) 5- 5- 5- 5- 5- • • ••• • • • • • ••• Page 4.3.1 Wildlife and Botanical Resources • • •..•••4·· 4.3.2 Socioeconomics.~•"'• • • •..•..• • •"'.4- 4.3.3 Fisheries • •••~ 4.'3 .4 I.a.rlCi:U se-.• • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••••~ 4.3 .5 RecreatiOll.• • • • • • • • • • •..• •....e tJr 4.3.6 'Aesthetics •..• • • • • •..• • • •....~...~ 4.3.7 Agencies,Native Organization,and Public Preferences ~..• • • ••.• • • • • • • •4- 4.3.8 Constructabilityam Schedule.....•..•..4- 4.3 ..9 Impact on Overall SUsitna Proja.- Construction Schedule • • • •..e • •.. ..4- 4.3.10 Maintenance and Reliability ..• •..•..•4- 4.3.11 Costs •••..•..• •..• • • • • • • •..4- r - ~OO'p~S·a _•••• Er,iK;INEE:RI1.iJ3 EVAI1JATIClSf.• • • • •..e • • • • • • • • ENVI~AL/SOCIOECCNCM[C EVALUATICN . ~~OO ••••••ao _••~•••e _••• 5.1 5.2 5.3 5 ..4 5.0 COtO.tUSICNS AND ROCCMMENDATIQNS 2- 2- 2- 3- 3- 3- 3- 3- 4- 3- 4- 4- 4- v .-r t -'Ii" sr.M-m.RY OF AG~CQ\f.1EN1'S 00 ACCESS Title CN'SITE CCNsrmcrICN AND OPERATlc:NSMANPCMER REDUI~S BY MCNrH -1985 TO 20Q2 WATANA MOBILIZATIC:N AND INIrIAL LOOISI'ICAL RmUIREMENl'S R1\NKIN3 OF IMPORr:A,Nr RESCXJRCE CATEOORIES m mESELEX:TI~1 OF .!\.N ACCESS PU\N ANNUAL C~TST.FI'J:TICNr.roISl'ICS J,mJUIREMENTS &JSITNA PID:J'EOr -WATANA p~ ANNUM...CCNsrRUCrlOO LOOIsrICS REOUIREMENI'S SUSITN,i\P~-DE\lI.L CANYCN PR01EX::T LIST OFTABIES LErTERS Rf£EIVED E'RO.j NATIVE OroANIZATICNS CCf.f.1ENTIOO 00 ACCESS PIANS SOORCES OFPDBLIC CCI-1MENrS 00 ACCESS .RrnD ALTERNATIVES SLMw1;1.\RY OF CG1PErINJ DESIGN CCNrRACIDRS CGMm'S rn ACCESS St'.MMARY OF ESI'IMATED cosrs .FID1 PRE"VIOUS lNVESTlGATICNS ($x 1,000,000) IANDSCAPECEARACl'ER TYPES AND ASSOCIATED ABSORPT!OO CAPABILITY RATIN3sY AMCXThfT OF IAND ACCESSiBLE AS A RESULT OF .ACCESS l~DE\7Ef..l)PMENr FOR THE DENALI R<:XJ'm (ACRES) 2-4 2....3. 2-1 3-1 3-4 4--1 3-3 3-2 4-2 4-3 4-4 4-5 AMCX.Tl~OF IAND ACCESSIBLE AS A RESULT OF ACCESS RCVID DEVELOPMEN!'FOR mE NORtH RaJrE (ACRES) 4-6 CCMPARISCN OF THE m:REASE IN THE AMOUNr OF LAND ACCESSIBIE AS A RESULT OF DE:VEr.DPMENT OF THE DENALI OR NORm ACCESS PIANS NTffI'~REASEs.i='R:M maSTIN3 CCNDITICNS (ACRES)4- 4-7 CUYfPARISCN OF FISHERIES RELATED It~AC1'PARAME!'ERS 4- Table No ... , 'f"" 4-9 ESl'IMA'l'EI)NORm ACCESS (PIAN 13)CAPITAL coors!!WATANA cCNsrRucrICN ,... Table No. 4-8 4-8 4-l0 5-1 LIsr OF 'I'ABT·ffl (Continued) Title INDEX A.REA.PEAK SAI..MJN SP.MI'Ii.t\G CCUl'T'S BY ALASKA DEPARl"MENrOF FISH AND GAMI::Ct~MAJORS'l'REAM CroSSED BY 'IRE TID ACCESS ROAD RCUI'ES (EXCLUSTI7E OF SUSIrrNA RIVER ESl'~DENALI ACCE.-~(PIAN 18)CAPITAL ccsrsY WATANA CCNsrRU:'TICN C(lofi>ARATIVEACCESS cosrs ACCESS PIAN cOS!'CCMPARIs:NS vi Page 4- 4- 5- 2- Page 1- 2- 2- 2- 2- 4- 2- 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- 5- 5- 5- ~.? l). Title LIsr OF FIGURES vii NORrH ROUrE (PIAN 13)ACCESS PIAN _ ACCESSIBILITY~1.J\P STUDY AREA.MAP GE1'JERAL COOSTRtCl'ICN SQiEDULE.FOR DIVERSICN 'Jl.lNNEL coosriwJCTICN AND CCNrRACTOR MOBILIZATICN TYPICAL SIDE HIIL CROSSsrorIQN,10%Cross SLOPE TYPICAL SIDE HILL cross SEX::TICN,25%cross SIDPE ~LI ROUrE (PLAN 18)ACCESS PIAN - SIDPE MAP TYPICAL UNIT SEX.!I'I<N DESIGNS DENALI ROUrE (PLAN 18)ACCESSPLAN' DENALIRCUTE (PIAN 18)ACCES PIAN -RAIL .L:rNK NORrHROtJTE (PIAN 13)ACCESS PLAN Dm~IDJTE (PLAN 18)ACCESS PIAN - ACCESSIBILITY MAP Ttl'ICAL EXAMPLE OF TEl?~qNIT MAP PREPARED BYR&M IENALI RCUTE (P"J..AN 18)ACCESs PIAN _ PO!'ENrIAL BORRCm AREAS NORm SIDPE (PLAN 13).ACCESS PIAN - SWPE MAP NORTH .RCX1rE (PIAN 13)ACCESS PIAN - PorENTIAL BORRCWARFAS WATANA AIRSrRIP WIND ~ HYPa.rHE:rlCAL EXAMPLE ILLUSTRATOO SCAr.JN3 APProACH EM1?I.OYED FOR EVAWATIOO'OF Aa:EsS At..TERNATIVES ro!PARISON OF EOO:rNEERJ:m DESIGN FACTORS 2-6 1-1 2-5 2-3 2-2 2-4 4-1 4-2 4-3 4-5 4-6 4-8 4-7 4-9 5-1 4-10 5-3 5-2 Figm:eNo. summary --Contains the .major finds of the report and summarizes important issues affecting the access plan selection process .. Section 4 -Detailed Route CqpJ2;Cgisons,contains a description of the preliminary route screening process where 2 of the 4 rontes were eliminated from consideration and presents the detailed evaluation of Denali and North plans with reswet to 11 resource and engineering categories. o Section 5.....Conclusions and Recorranendations ,contains Ha:r:za-Ebascorecommerrlationsand a description of the multi-objective decision analysis Process employed in developing the recanmendations frc::m the results of detailed c<:mparisons in section 4. o o Section 2 -~gineeripg Studies -Methodology and General fimings,contai.ns a general review of roadway design and descriptions of the cost stuiy methodology used for route evaluation. o Section 3 -Envirornnental Studies -Methodology and General Issu~,contains a ranking of environmental issues affecting access route selection and presents access evaluation criteria for resource categories which affect the decision process. o Section 1 -Introduction,contains background data and references along with a description of the four access plans anal}~in this report.It also describes the relationship of this work effort to otrler Harza-Eb3.sco Susitna Project tasks. This rep:>rt is canprised of five sections and a summary.A brief description of the issues covered in each section is presented belOW. This description is included to enabl\~readers to identify those sections of most interest to them. ,~':.., ,., ~".t''-"""i ..:"""".0 ~ (',:.'!"'~~~~'~<; CHAPTER INTRODUCTION 1.0 I~v.r.RODUCTION leI BACKGROUND Access alternatives for the Susitna Hydroelectric Project have been studied extensively by Acres American,Inc.(Acres)(1981,1982a,1982b, 19820,and 1983a),R&M Consultants (1982a and 1982b),and others since 1980.A plan was recarrmended by Acres in August 1982 in their "Access Plan-Recommendation Report"(1982b)after a study of 18 candidate routes in 3 major route corridors in the project area.The Acres recommendation was adopted by the Alaska Power Authority Board of Directors by resolution in September,1982. The Denali plan,also known as Plan IS,was selected after a detailed engineering and environmental/socioeconomic study of the three best routes of the original 18 candidates.Each of the three general routes studied in the 1982 "Access Plan RecornmendationReport,"which provide a.ccess to both Watana and Devil Canyon Projects,are shown on Figure 1-1.In addition,railyonly access (Plan 2)is evaluated in this report because it is the acccess plan favored by many agencies. All four plans studied are described below: South (Plan 16):thi~plan consists of a gravel access road from Gold Creek on the Alaska Railroad to the area of the Devil Canyon Dam then continuing along the south bank of the Susitna niverto the Watana Dam site area. North (Plan 16):this plan consists of a gravel road frof.1 the Georgepark£Highway at a railhead to be constructed at Hurricane along the north bank of the Susitna River to Watana with provisions fora future branch road to the Devil Canyon area. Denali (Plan 18):this plan consists of a railhead at Cantwell near the intersection of the Parks and Denali Highways with a new project aCCess road leading south towards Watana from a point on the Denali Highvlay 21 miles east of Cantwell.Under this plan, construction of Devil Canyon Dam would be supported by a rail spur I~I t '. l r ! l I I b"I .! ! II -! 'r- '1 '~ If , """~ f ! ---I I I I j ! l I J IJ ~.....=~'Q.!Ar-~~-"c;I It)Ii :::)IIIOz wC\I ....cO :::l Z ~..-.0 ;.L.W ,...,.....«..;t...I .:Er;-.-.._-'~_.,.~--_..:...~.::q-~,._--;-~~..~~_.----~~-,-"twir;.~">-.,..1I~.~l-I--~,•0 /(~4 -U-.\\J -<0:w a..UJI:)I 0 -,0:Ia:0 0 «~1 'j ~\!:c a:::2 C)0 (I)1((I)c:),..l-n.Z u.w C?(Q IJ00....,..)«<a:0 ,...~<CI~-0 0 «0:-J(I)(I)<z z I--W 0-j 0 a:(I)<z....<z uI<w z ....'"0:rr.:0 ....<W CJ)I"0 '"0 a.....,l;:I a:a:0 >-a.a.....W -l «'"z a.~W Cf)0 0 -<....:t:Z 0 wIc....z z <0 '"l-I-0 0:>-Izzza:::>()r)I w l-I-'"0<....w 0 0 0..0 ()c:J (I)C/)l-e:>-8 ...j >0 z C/):c @~i tu )()(<w ::>«~,..J W W ~0 1110 «~l~f <C I-="I ~Z ~~I ~~rII(J)I-C/)~~I <C Cf)il ~~~-J ::)(J)~f«@SI~!~I j j I r \-3. construction Costs Equipment and Material Transportation Costs Effect on Qverall Construction SchedUle for the $usitna project EnVironmental Impact Socioeconomic Impact o o o o o from GOld Creek.A.road from the permanent operator 1 s town at Watana to Devil canyon Dam would eventually be constructed to permit operation of both Watana and Devil Canyon with single staff housed in one new townsite at watana. Rail Only (Plan 2):this plan consists of constructing a rail line 'from Gold Creek to the Devil Canyon project and then on to the watana Project on the south side of the susitna River. 1.2 OBJECTIVES Of the four plans considered by Acres (1982b)and shown in Figure 1-1, the North (Plan 13)and South (Plan 16)plans Were eliminated on the basis of higher cost and longer duration of construction compared to the other alternative.The rail only alternative (Plan 2)was elilldnated because of its costs effect on schedule and its lack of flexibility in undertaking construction activities.The.Denali plan was recommended by Acres as the preferred plan and is the proposed route in the Project FERC License Application,submitted in February, 1983 (Alaska Power Authority). Five of the more important factors studied as a part of the route selection review are: The purpose and objective of this report is to review available data and studies to provide the Power Authority with an independent appraisal of the access issue and,if necessary,rnake rec!Jrnmendations for changes in design,mode of transportation or route from those shown or described in the FebruakY,1983 FERC License Application. 3117B • These five major:factors were combined with investigations of other •issues to develop specific reconunendations using concepts of mu.ltiobjective decision analysis .. ;) 3117B 1.3 RQUTESSIDDIED All four routes .were stUdied equally until some compelling reason for . elimination of a particular route was identified.Once this occurred, that alternative was not stUdied on an equal basis with the remaining viable alterna;;ives. The three best plans studied by Acres in the "Access Plan RecornrnendationReport."are re-evaluated along with an all-rail access alternative from Gold Creek toWatana along the south bank of the SusitJ"1a River.Rail access to both Devil Canyon and watana was analyzed because resource agency cornnents were,in some instances, strongly in support of a rail only access plan. 1 ..4 TASK OroANIZATION The two best plans were compared in detail prior to developing recommendations.Comparison inclUded a detailed life cycle economic cost analysis,environmental analysis,and an engineering stUdy complete with sensitivity analyses in some areas to obtain a qualitative sense of the strength of the final recommendation as a function of variation in certain parameters,inclUding overall project schedUling I phasing of the Watana and Devil Canyon Dams,transportation costs,and mitigation measures involving controlled access. A special Harza-Ebasco task force was established to investigate the accesS issue as well as other related issues concerning construction camp policies ,transportation planning,and employment training.V'lor k of the task force as a Whole is described in detail in the Access, Transportation,construction Facilities,fIOdErnployment Training Task '•.....~l... ..... This is the first of five task force reports which wi.ll ultimately include the following:. J- 3ll7B As described in the Task Force Investigation Hemorandum,the Task Force was to have originally included Harza-Ebasco personnel plus a representative of the Project Construction Management FiI11l.The plan ~.. was for a close Harza-Ebasco -Constructionr~nager -Power Authority task force working relationship.Power Authority input was an important component of the overall access road evaluation process. power Authority staff with responsibi~jties for overall management, engineering,environmental stUdies,construction,public participation, licensing 1 and intergovernmental relations all providl~d guidance and views on the access question.Selection of a Construction Man.ager , however,has been deferred by the Power Authority so his input.is not included in this report • o Access Plan Report o Transportation Plan Report o Construction Camp Report o Employment Training Report o Access,Transportation,Construction Facilities and Employment Training TaskForce Summary Memorandum Work on all reports began simUltaneously in February 1983 with this report,the first in the series,submitted to the Power Authority in April,1983. Force Investigation Memorandum transmitted to the Power Authority by letter dated February 16,1983 from Dr.Ramon S ..LaRUSSO,Harza-Ebasco Susitna Project Manager (Harza-Ebasco 1983a).The task force consists of project management personnel and technical specialists from both the engineering and environmental disciplines,due to the technical complexity of the access issue. .-J\p:. ':"'."-t o "Access Recorranendation Report,If August 1982,by Acres American. (j--r o "Susitna Hydroelectric Project FERC License Application," Feburary,1983 by Acres American. o "susitna Hydroelectric P.roject Feasibility Report -Final Draft,"1982 by Acres American. o "Access Planning study Supplement,"September,1982 by R&M Consultants. o "Access Planning Study,"January,1982,by R&M Consultants. 1.5.2 Available Data o "Access Roads Closeout Reports,Access Route Selection Report,"March 1982,by Acres American. Primary data sources reviewed for this study (as referenced in the text)included: 1.5.1 General Review 1.5 DATA SOO.A:ES Taskforce activities included a thorough review of both~~e geometric and unit section designs of the proposed access road and railroad;and a z~udy of the process of selecting the best plan as described in the August,19$2 "Access Recommendation Report'."This work was limited to review of existing reports;public,resource agency,and native organization correspondence;and limited field reronnaissance. Resource agencies,native organizations,and the public were not contacted as their views on the access question have been presented in nUIilerous forums earlier in project planning activities (see sections 3.4 and 4.3.7). • While other standard references,government reports,professional papers,and project documents were consUlted,the documents listed above formed the primary reference base for task force work.A complete listing of documents consulted is presented in the list of tJJ references. ENGINEERING STUDIES METHCDDLCGV AND GENERAL FINDI.NG8 This section contains a discussion of the methods used to develop costs for access route economic comparisons,the method of economic analysis; and the need for access in the context of the overall SusitnaProject construction schedule.Review of prior engineering,scheduling,and cost estimating studies as they apply to the access issue is also included.Detailed comparison of access alternatives is presented in Sections 4 and 5. Logistics requirements for both the Wat~na and Devil Canyon developments are presented in :t&M Consultants'January,1982 "Access planning Studies."R&M developed estimates for total project logistics requirements for 13 major material and commodity types.No estimate of annual requirements during project construction was developed or presented by R&M.The R&M logistics figures seem reasonable based on experience With similar sized projects and a study of the Feasibility Report cost estimates and schedul.es. 2-1 2.2.1 General 2.lOCCPE 2 .2 ACCESS REQUIREMENTS ?o EN;INEERIN:;SI'UDIES-METHODOLOOY AND GENERAL FINDI1~S Access is required for personnel transportation and delivery of construction equipment,construction materials,supplies,and major project mechanical and electrical equipment.This section contains a discussion of overall Susitna Project"construction schedule and logistics requirements. 2.2 ..2 Logistics Requirements 3117B • The R&M total project logistics requirements for Watana and Devil Canyon have been broken out by project year by Harza-Ebasco personnel for use in ~ore sophisticated economic construction and logisitics costs modeling than vias done for the prior studies.Annual logistics breakdowns for both the Watana and Devil Canyon projects are given in Tables 2-1 and 2-2 ,respectively.While calendar year dates are given on the Tables for each construction year,it should be noted this was done only for convenience so that the logistics spreads would conform to the schedule.chronology given in the Feasibility Report ..The annual requirements for each project were developed using R&M total project logisitics data for eaCh dam and Harza-Ebasco experience with similar projects.The annual distribution of logistics requirements is not based on a rigorous examination of ~"1e construction schedule or estimate. 2.2.3 Personnel Transportation Access is required for both construction materials and personnel. Worker transportation policy for the Susitna Project has yet to be developed.The mode of worker transportation to and from the jobsite has both economic and environmental implications and is an important factor in access route selecti.on"The transportation options inclUde driving to the site by personal vehicle,or busing workers either from the head of the access road or from major population centers.The sensitivity of route selection to transportation policy from an environmental and socioeconomic point-of-view is discussed in Sections 3,4,and 5.For purpmJes of life cycle cost stUdies of candidate access routes,it was assumed that round-trip bus service from Anchorage and Fairb~uks would be provided for each Vlorker 26 times each year.This corresponds to a 10 day work,4 day off schedule at the camp.Based on data in Exhibit E of the 1983 FERC License Application,it was assumed that about 70%of the workers would travel from the direction of Anchorage and 30%would come from the direction of .Fairbanks. 2-2. 31l7B I - Const.ECJ,lip.1 2 5 8 16 Explosives 0.5 0.5 2 2 3 4 4 3 1 20 CelEnt 5 52 50 64 67 76 26 7 3 350 Reinf.Steel 0.5 5 5 6 7 7 2.5 33. J«x;k Bolts 2 1.5 4 4 1 12.5 Steel Support 1 1.5 1.1 3.6 t'ech.,£lee.,aM•Street Equip.4 5 4 2 15 Constr.Fuel 4 45 43 55 57 65 22 6 3 DJ ~Fuel 1 .7 7 8 10 11 5 1 1 51 Tires,Parts, caJ11}SUppl ies, Vi 11 age,&Misc.4 45 45 55 55 60 25 4 1.4 294.4,-- lenal 19 159.5 162.1 202 204 228 88.5 23 9.4 1005.5 '..,. ~i AtH.W.COOSlRlCTlOO LOOISTICS REQJlROOfIS SUSITNAFROJECT -WAT~FRQJECT (1()))I S IDS) TJiLE 2-1 1985 1985 1987 1900 1989 1900.1991 1992 19m TotalScheduledYear OJnst.EqJip.5 5 Explosive 1 2 3 Qment 100 120 130 130 100 70 650 lEinf ..Steel 5 5 5 5 2 22 I«k Bolts and 3 2.2 5.2 Steel Support r.Eeh.S EJ €C.,aoo 4 4 4 105 13.5•Street EcJJip. Constr.Fuel 2 10 12 13 13 10 7 1 68 CiInp Fuel 1 4 5 5 5 5 4 1 30 TireS 1 Parts, ranp SLipplies, Vi 11 age,Misc.10 39 45 50 50 45 27 .3.9 269,,9 ---',~' Tota'i 22 162.2 187 207 al7 166 109.5 5..9 1()j6.6 ,.---.......... T1BI..E 2-2 AtH.W.a:wsTRlCfION LCGISTICS REtlJlRavEN1:s SUSI"IJil\'ffiQJECT -DEVIL CJWYON PROJECT (1000'5 ms> 1993 1994 1995 ;YSS 1997 19£8 1999 2(0)TotAl~heduled Year -...,-."-------------------------------------------- •'" ,.,,'.. •'.~'".'.:\ "_I"''''~_'"'c_1 ...< ;\ "';, By including transportation costs fox.-all project personnel in the cost data base for sUbsequent economic modeling,a conservative input was made.The differences in logist.ics costs between various routes would tend to be accentuated by this appoach.Other scenarios y,]ere studied by sensitivity analyses of the life cycle cost model.Average annual worker loadings for use in the busing cost development were computed 'from data in Exhibit E IJf the February,1983 FERC License Application (see Table 2-3). 2.2.4 Watana Construc'cion Schedule Access is critical fOl:airfield,construction CCl&'TlP and diversion tunnel contractors.The diviersion plan for Watana calls for upper and lower concrete-lined tunnels.The lower tunnel has an inlet invert at EI. 1420;the upper tunnel's is at El.1490.The plan is to construct the l~Ner tunnel and a first-stage low cofferdam across the river so that initial river diversion can be accomplished through the lower tunnel at the start of the lo'~flow season on about October 1st of any given year.After initial diversion,the cofferdams are raised and the upper diver sion tunnel.iSl completed.This \vork must be completed before the onset of the next high flow season on about April 1st. A general construotion schedule for diversion tunnel construction and contractor mobiligation is given on Figure 2-I.TvlO schedules are given:Schedule "An which assumes that the tunnels are excavated sequentially,and Schedule IrB"which assumes simultaneous work in bo'ch tunnels to acceltarate,or compress,the schedule.This would add an estimated $7,000,000 to $10,000,000 to the cost of the overall project. The October 1st.date is a.fixed date.Assuming an October 1,1986 initial diversion date,it can be determined wr~n construction must start to meet that date for either schedule.For Schedule "A",tunnel excavation on the lower tunnel must begin on about June 1,1985.For schedule "B"it would be November l5~1985. 3117B r - I, 2002 •.",;' ••.~ 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1996 1999 2000 2001 ONSIlE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONS MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS BV MONTH -1985 TO 2002 • lAnlE 2-3 1965 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 Jlote:Annual manpOwer requitementsand trade mixes for peak years by Acres American,Il1c. Source:Frank Orth &Associates,Inc.and FERC License Application. 30843 • -.. •-<.~.'"f •p'"0,,....' "\•",.'.•'•'.Q..:.... CONSTRUCTION January 330 405 571 750 840 1,050 976 750 390 240 151 239 376 479 510 449 270 45Febtuary3414195907758681,085 1..006 775 402 248 156 247 388 495 527 ~64 279 47March4735818181,075 1,205 1.504 1,398 1,075 558 344 217 343 539 686 730 643 387 65April726B911,255 1,650 1,649 2.309 2,146 r,650 857 528 333 527 827 1,054 1.121 988 594 100i'...;.,.~ May 792 972 1,370 1,800 2,107 2,519 2,341 1,800 935 576 363 575 902 1,149 1,223 1,077 648 109(1 , JUM 957 1,115 1,655 2,175 2,437 3,044 2,829 2,175 l~130 696 439 694 1,090 1,389 1,478 1,302 783 131fIJulyl,OB9 1,337 l,B83 2,475 2,773 3,463 3,219 2,475 1,285 792 499 790 1,241 1,581 1,681 1,481 891 149 I I August 1,100 1,350 1,902 2,500·2,801 3,498 3,252 2,500 1,298 800 504 798 1.253 1.596 1,698 1,496 900 151Sep~ember 9901,215 1,712 2,250 2,521 3,149 2,927 2.250 1,169 720 454 718 1,128 1.437 1,529 1,347 810 136October71"0 932 1,312 1,725 1.933 2,414 2,244 1,725 896 552 34-8 551 865 1.102 1,172 1,033 621 104 J_ November 56'1 689 970 1,275 1,429 1,784 1,658 1,275 662 408 257 407 639 814 866 763 459 77December3854736668759801,224 1,138 875 454 280 117 279 439 559 594 524 315 53PEAKCOtlSr./YR 1,100 1,350 ],902 2,500 2,801 3,498 3,25i 2,500 1,298 800 504 798 1,253 J.596 1,698 1,496 900 ~51 oPERATIONS/MAINT. SUBTOT AL-YEAR 70 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 170 TOTAL 1.100 1,350 1,902 2,500 2.801 3,498 3,252 2,500 1,368 945 649 943 1,398 1,741 1,,843 1,641 1,045 321 ';';'.f~!-<~•t !, I''";."..r..,......~ .,'.,1;; 00,"';-.~~ •.~----,--'. I WATANA PROJECT.DIVEilSION TUNNEL CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE 1985 1986 1987 NOTE ACTIVITIES ~,ICHEDULE -••AI.U"IIONi TUNNEL '''READ. J F M A H J J A sro N 0 J F M A M J J A 5 0 N 0 J 'F M A M J IOHEDOLE -••AIlUMEI TWOllMOLTAHEOUI HEADING. IHl bN "l T W~!'lD'-A"'~T"AOi AWAII AT AN E8T....1ID lQtRl qoNlTRUCTlOM QOIT or 87 TO MoelllZATION 'J.C4D D -.-I .10 .....'.~o .'L ITEDIllUlI toN ....TIALDIIJE"~II t . I II rPORTALEXf';';AVA,rJOH ., LEGENDII--~1 •TONI PE"DAY I C..J CE"'~t:~URID IWI"'t 0 l'N •D Y ,I ,Q ICHIOUU -I.. Z ,.Cl~R I"•..•......,f'H.DULI.·.·CC014'.I•••D)z EXCAVATE •I:;)II ••-..-111-.... a:..fwLINE1GROUT,~. 0 I....I•I..J I IwIzEXCAVATEIz"I_L-I;:)I...I I .. a:LINE.GROUT • , w 111--........~"i11.-.:•c:L I:::a I I I I •,ICOFFERDA".INITIAL I I I COFFERDAM.RAISE I •I ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY,,\ SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT GENERAL CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE FOR DiVERSION TUNNEL CONSTRUCTION AND CONTRACTOR MOBILIZATION •Ji~~Ui~,:J.!~v~~~1 IFIGURI:a...1 < •.....o •.__.._,_~_ 1 ~:, ill 'JLl I tJ ,,1 ~(I ., "·1 •...~_..-.....~.','I , ,aw 77_r __;',".!,>0",",J ••'.···~A;;'"'" ·..·1_.tn'CW57IIlRIIIt~..",_~~:~~~~~fr~:~B;Iji;~~:~'~~~0':'"""'~--~~".•'-_"-'"",{;.;~:i;~--;'-:~.tirl~~;.'-'.~••.~~"-.--,~_,_~,".~~~ _-.1 2 .3 ACCESS CONsrROCT!ON cosr EsrIMATE AND OCHEDULE REVIEW " The initial mobilization logistical requirements are significant,but manageable.Equipnent for tunnel,airfield,and road construction would be required,along with camp facilities for 150 to 200 people. Table 2-4 is a listing of the probable equipnent required along with monthly supply needs for the first three months of work.Logistical requirements increase as construction progresses,but remain manageable until concrete is required for diVerson tunnel lining.Assuming a diverston date of October 1,1986,cement at the rate of about 115 tons per day would be required beginning on or about March 1,1986 for Scheoule "A"and at a rate of about 150 tons per day on about April 15, 1986 for Schedule "B"..When analyzing any access alternative in the cQnte~t of these scenarios,the key issue is whether or not uninterrupted ground access can be achieved in time tp support concreting operations in the diVersion tunnels or if the construction would have to be supported by air.To SOIDe extent massive airlift opera.tions could be avoided by good planning and utilization of winter snow roads for stockpiling materials. 311713 2.3.1 Basio Cor~truction Cost Estimates e Prior access studies and public agency contacts have resulted in abandoning any plans for pre-PERC license construction of access roaos or any project features..The construction scenario,then,is to begin mobilization of the diversion tunnel,airfield,camp,and access roa·] contractors on the day that the license is issued.Assqrning unlimited access,about 2 months would probably be required to mbilize to the extent:that preliminary tunnel portal work could begin,with an elapsed perio(l of up to 4-1/2 months from contract award to the beginning of tunnel excavation..For Schedule "A"this Would put the latest award date clt January I,1985 and at June 15,1985 for Schedule "B". construction cost estimates f01 the fl~ur prinoipal routes were reViewed .)by Ha.rza-Ebasco estimators.Engineer.s originally re~..nsible for preparing the estimate at Acres American and R&M Consultants were intervie\ved and back-Up data were obtained. TABLE 2-4 4-6 4-6 2 2 2 2 4 6 12 2 1 2 2 4 300 T 50 T 60 T 17 T QUANTITY 2-9 aJUIPMENr ITEM· LCGISTICAL REQUIREMENTS (Monthly for 3 Months) WATALWi mBILIZATION AND INITIAL rmIsrlCAL Rwt:'QUlREMENrS Office Trailers Shop Trailers 1200 cfm COr.lpressor 1000 kW Generator 4 Boom Hydraulic Jumbo's 966 FEL's 24 T Rear DUliTp Flat Bed Trucks Pickups Airtrac Drills D-8 D-7 480 FEL/Backhoe l2-l5~000 Gal.Fuel Tanks Diesel Fuel Camp and Miscellaneous SUpplies Explosives Repair Parts,Drill Steel,etc. 3117B • .1 • Unit prices for all the access estimates in the Acres 1982 "Access Recommendation Report"andt..'1e R&M 1982 "Access Plan Study"(both volumes)are based on Alaska Department of Transportation bid history for similar types of work;specifically from the recent Nome to Council and Taylor Highway projects 0 No site specific unit prices were developed. The routes were laid-out and the material quantities were computed using topographic maps h"ith a contour interval of 100 feet.At this scale of mapping,only the largest Gut ana fill sections would be identifiable from the route grade studies.variations in quantities among the various routes are based on the obvious cut and fill sections identifiable.on the maps,plus changes in quantities required by the side slopes across the route alignment.Figures 2-2 and 2-3 are typical side hill cross sections used by R&M for their estimating work.QUantities for a given range of side hill construction conditions Were developed and mUltiplied by the route length with the appropriate side hill cross slope and summed with other similar data to develop total quantity estimates.No attempt to adjust the unit prices for differing soil conditions along therontes was made. The estimating approach used in earlier stUdies (Acres 1982b and R&M 19~1 and 1982b)is acceptable for purposes of comparison plan.Given the scale of available maps (which are the only ones available),making new,revised quantity and cost estimates does not seem justifiable•. There is not enough data available to significantly increase the level of estimating accuracy at this time.The only change that might be worthwhile would be to vary the quantitie.s of borrow required on various routes as a function of Boil c0nditions determined from an examination of the Terrain Unit Maps in the R£~reports (see Figure 2-4).The variations in total cost that could be reasonably achieved by making adjustments in borrow quantities is SIilall,however,and can be ignored at this level of study. 2-40 311713 f --=:' .~ I FIGURE2-! • ~IOfl4----- ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY SUStTNA HYDROELECTRJC PROJECT TYPICAL SIDE H'LLCR08S SECTION 10f5CR08S SLOPE.. DO£fftnJ·f~Jl~~{jJJ $UliDiA JOlNrVINrunr .....I BORROW PIT - ~ J 44'TO" BORROW PIT SECTION 0-10 %CROSS SLOPE QUANTITY ESTIMATIN'G CROSS SECIJ..Q.N ~1o~10 20 SCALEIt4FEET ~ -BORROW PIT V7777777777777ZH'77W;;;;;];;;;;;;;-;Jtmzr~~LZZlZVJ$'5'4-- "L..__~••_.,,_.__~H ._._).'._.'•• !,t:"'~~ ,\ I I Q i•.~I,.',.,.It....w ~..I,-~(c:I . \~tl • ,".".<t:.~1 :. ••i\I i ..~0'l I 0 •-• •:,...•..~...~-J "!'8-..•,} r------I ----------.'- I I' ......""'"~.;...,-...".,.,.,.. FIGURE a-a '• SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT TVPICALSIDE HILL CROSS SECTION 25'"CROSS SLOPE ALASKA POWER AUTHOR~TV lJD~Ui~"ElBlJ~(J;t1lJ ,"-':IJ1IIIA .JOINT V6NrtJ~' "'. 44 1-0" t } SUBGRAOE r=:=:5o5lO20 SCALE 'N FEET 25 010 CROSS SLOPE QUANTITY ESTIMATI NG CROSS SECTION +)FROZEN (+)UNFROZEN -...2 1 EXCAVATION TO WASTE ....>4__••_.__,... 2 -_...._>:""'- !I I• ;~ ••".'IU:.t f f .....=t') I III I~ i.. :;;.... '<..~•t:u Il :a::~Z0a c(..a:I:~;..u I;:):c..•~u "..a::~••II:ZIII.~"II a..II:;•:1'I •z ..~c ..•!Z'":IItt5•;Cc"...~~....0 IE%IE&II-§.. - --- ---------,~------------------------------.J '~~'I J ,J !i i h i ,I!.iH.{1 i I.j ,hij.3 I!:,~!i-nEj~J I Ii l~I t-il ,-,-.'I .PJ l';J ,~1 1i jili jH nil j;!if-J'.j11_,J Ips~J !!!!•Hi llh~i ,'j.:&!:ill!"It n 'ii HI:~hj•:.s ;;:t •q-.Q it "-i ~•..~i'E u U ..~~Q.:.:........~Sci ~~je=:),...•......;;0 .:,~•...Itt U ...'"'"<:J ;;-"~JJ• 2.3.2 Route Construction Scheduling 2-\4 I 2~3 years 2-3 years 2-3 years 3-4 year$ - Denali plan North plan South plan Rail Access Acres construction scheduling backup data for the South plan was reviewed by Harza-Ebasco and se~JIlS reasonable.~Vhile detailed backup 'was not reviewed for the other routes,it seems likely that the construction schedule durations given in previous reports for the other plans are also reasonable. Construction schedule durations for the four plans studied are given in the 1982 "Access Recommendation Report"and IlAccess Route Selection Report."Estimated duration for complete construction of all permanent road features associated with access fo~the four alternatives are sUIilInarized belovl: The detailed cost estimates presented in the 1982 R&M ft Access Planning study"reports were used as a basis for comparison of the four plans discussed in this report.An adjustrnent was made to all road estimates to eliminate the asphalt road surfacing costs 571 the.R&M estimates to match the unpaved gravel design shown in the FERC License Appl ica.t ion • The R&M estimate for the recommended Denali plan is somewhat different from the estimate by Acres in the Feasibility Report and FERC License Application.Regardless,however,the R&M estimates were used for this study sir1ce they are .the only convenient source of cost estimating data for all four plans at acceptable and comparable levels of accuracy and detail. Note that the above construction period durations are for completion of all route construction activities,including the connection to the Devil Canyon site.Access can be achieved earlier,on a hasty basis, by temporary bridging (particularly on the North Route),use of redundant fill,or extra crews.On this basis,initial access to the Watana.site could be achieved in one year or less for all four alternatives except all-rail a o Place gravel fill in winter on frozen ground. Use short construction time single span military "Bailey"or panel type bridges 'over narrow stream channels. o a Construct minimum width and fill depth consistent wit-lJ. .available materials and foundation conditionD. o Develop borrow areas ~1ead of road construction.If work is to be done i.n freezing weather,open a limited face and keep work going 24 hours peI~day. o Install culverts by excavating through fill,or Use partially prefabricated Super Arch and panel box culverts which can be rapidly placed and covered. o Place fill over filter or geotextile fabric to minimize excavation and stripping. o AVoid cut and fill operations.Initial road should be constructed with gravel fill. o Provide adequate right-of-way width to give flexibility in alignment in areas ofpeor foundation conditions (bogs, permafrost,sidehill spring areas,slope.stability problem areas). o l-1inirnize stripping,both to saVE}time and to avoid many permafrostproblerns -clear and fill directly. 31l7B A number of techniques have been identified by Acres (1982b)that could.~be employed to accelerate road construction: Miles of Initial Plan'~w Road Required (Watana Phase)Access Period Duration of Construction 3 months 6 months 5 months 12 months 19 months One summer season Length of New Road Built 57 miies 14 miles 20 miles 15 miles 42 miles 360 miles Denali 40 6 months North 69 9 months South 52 12 months Z-lb The above techniques have application mainly to roads,not railroads .. The critical element in the rail only plan is a high level bridge across Chechak0'Creek..It is difficult due to grade and weight restrictions to USe tenporary bridging in rail construction.Estimated construction.schedule durations for initial access for the.three remaining plans have been estimated as follows: 31l7B Project Location ]/Extensive rock excavation required. 2/Contractor defaulted and work had to be relet. Lower Churchill Ling Spruce,Hanitoba Limestone,Manitoba Cat Arm,NewfoundlanaY Upper Salmon,Newfoundlanc¢! Trans Alaska pipeline These are the durations used by Harza-Ebasco in access scenario evaluations for this report given aCCess road construction histories compiled by Acres for several other recent hydro projects in subarctic .\areas (see below).."Initial Access'"as defined by Acres means a.road capable of supporting all-weather 30 mph truck traffic. The design data for the recommended access road as described in the'II Febtt1ary 1983 FERCLicenSe Application is as foIloY1s: Unpaved Gravel Treated 24 feet 5 feet 55.mph 6% 50 Surfacing: Width of Running Surface: Shoulder width: Design Speed: l1aximurn Grade: Maximum Curvature: 2.3.3 Accelerated Schedule Costs 2 •4ROOTE DESIGN In.addition toroads,time to build an airstrip for construction logistical support is an important part of the ov.erall access plan.An airstrip capable of handling Hercules aircraft should be able to be constructed in about 6 weeks by enlarging the strip planned for the Design Phase,as described in an R&M Report dated October,1980. 2 •.4.1 Geometrical Road Design, Acres and R&M developed costs for the extra temporary work and crews necessary to provide initial access as quickly as possible •These costs seem reasonable and were included in the cost base for this stUdy. Design Loading -Durir~Construction -SOk/axle,200k total -After Construction -HS-20 geometric design criteria are,in our opinion,stringent for a project access road,an examination of the route terrain does not reveal any areas for significant cost savings.by relaxing design criteria.. 2-\1 1~"'='~ These criteria are proposed for as much of the route lengths as is reasonably practical.According to the License Application (p.A-1-24),more .:levere grades and curvatures will be permitted in some areas to avoid excessive cost or envirornnental impact ..Minimum design speed will reportly neVer be less than 40 mph.vfuile the stated • • • •••..j ...1J 2.4~2 Unit Section Road Design The unit section designs shown in the FERC License Application are conventional designs based onAlaska Highway Department Standards and common .subarctic practice.A diagram of the typical unit section design is shown in Figure 2-5. Although the proposed unit secti09-is well designed it may be possible to save a significant amount of both time and money by building the road directly onllie unprepared subgrade,where possible,using D.on-WQvenfilter cloth as a stabilizing base.This would be most applicable on flat terrain.The present scheme calls for 2 feet of waste excavation in all areas,with filter cloth beneath the base course in areas where it is uneconomical to remove all the unsuitable foundation material.This technique may have wider applicatioI:than just in these areas. Use of filter cloth on unprepared subgrade may permit up to a 75% reduction in waste and common excavation.InclUding provisions for the filter cloth,witll tllesame amount of base and finish aggregates as originally assumed,savings could be about 20~of construction cost for most routes for total savings on the order of $lO,OOO,OOO'or more. Further investigation of this method of construction should be undertaken during future Task 38 studies.A test strip might be worthwhile. 2.4.3 Railroad Design Parameters Rail design parameters used for estimating and layout purposes in previous studies conform to Clccept(""'tactice and '\rlere not altered for purposes of re-Iayout or estimating for this report. 1..-/6 31l7B 'I ',."'",•••t _. [ .- ~.2 ..5.2 TruckingRates $38/hr 1)65 ..80/hr $19~6.9/hr $l3 ..l3/hr $136.62/hr Driver Equiprrent Fuel Parts &Tires 2-Z?- Add 4%for C.T.=$142/hr excluding overhead and profit Add 65%for O.H.&P .~$235/hr tot~1 including camp expense Rates for trucking on access roads from Cantwell,Hurricane and Gold Creek were developed u~ing estimating file data wit.h verification from quotes by local haulers.Rates independentl:l developed were based on Harza-Ebasco estimating files for prior Alaska projects and assumptions regarding speed,load and unload time,and payload..For example,the cost of operating a bulk cement truck with a 65,000 lb ..payload would be about: The tot~l cost per a-hour shift would be $1880 including camp expense for the driver.Assuming a 35 mph average speed over the Plan 13 - NOfth road from Hurricane to Watana and a.1 hour load and unload time at each end,the total cycle time pet'load would be abCJl~t 3.5 hours,or roughly Z trips per day per vehicle,at an average cost of about $~.44 per hu~di:"~dWeight.Quotes were obtainec1 for this hal11 from Big StElte Motor Frei9~lt,Inc.of Anchorage,who also estimated 2 trips per day at a cost of $1 ..30/c:wt.excluding driver ~ccortImodation.Based on Terror Lake project projections,the cost of 1 man....day in the camp should be abou.t $100,Which wouljincrease theSig State quote to about $1.38 per hendredweight,Which compares well with the Harza"':Ebasco developed rate. 3117B , --'" Airfreight rates for a fully loadedUercules aircraft with a payload of 44 fOOD pounds from Anchorage to Watana is about $6800 per trip I based on quotes from Alaska International Air. 31l7B 2105.3 Airfreight 2.5.4 Personnel Transportation A flat rate per ton-mile for all commodities of $0.2069 per ton-mile was used in previous studies.The average equivalent rate per ton-mile used in this study was about $0 ..50 per ton-mile;over twice as high as the previous rate 0 The lower rate,however,is applicable only to over--the-road trucking,where the load and unload time is a smaller proportion of the total running time,more ton-miles are produced per unit hour,and the empty return ratio is low.For comparison,Big state qUoted an over-the-·l:oad rate for cement "hauling from Anchorage to Hurricane of $1.50 per hundredWeight,or abOu.t $0.2308 per ton-mile, which compares well ~ith the previously used rates for access road logistics costing. Busing costs per passenger year were computed assuming that the buses would stop at communities enroute from Anchorage or Fairbanks to watarJa.Since exact statistics concerning the numbers of workers lik~!ly to live in various communities are not available,it was assumed that 100 percent of the passengers from Fairbanks would have been pickeu-up by the Cantwell stop,and 100 percent of the Anchorage passengers would have been picked-Up by che time the bus reached Hurricane for any of the accesS routes.By estimating costs of transport.ing all workers 26 ti.mes per yealr from these close-to-th~""site communities,we have essentiall~"adopted a policy of studying only differential costs attributable to various access routes;not total CGsts of transportation. The cost of operating buse::-,on an hourly basis with a union driver was developed based on Harza-Ebasco file esti:.mating data and input from Transportaion Services,Inc.of Anchorage.Total hourly cost of operation of n 44 passenger motor coach was estimated at $109!hr,with a union drive.:.Speed on access roads was assumed to oe 35 mph,with a ."50 mph speed on the Parks Highway. .l 3ll7B 2 ..6 Mh!NrEW~E COSTS Maintenance costs for the gravel surfaced access roads were developed using Harza-Ebasco file estimating data and experience on prior projects.R&M rail maintenance data Was used for the rail-only alternative. In the case.of busing,this approach does not permit inclusion of differential labor costs paid to passengers while en route.rr'his could be a significant figure over the life of the project if it can be assumed that a worker will actually work 3 hours productively after a 5-hour bus ride or 2 hours after a 6-hour bus ride.Experience from the Trans ~~aska Pip;line worker busing and air transportation progra~s (Frank Moolin and Assoc.1983)from Anchorage to Valdez shows that this was not the case.It was found that workers flown or bused to Valdez were not very productive the day of their arrival in camp..This potential cost for lost productivity has,therefore,not been included in the present model. It is very difficUlt to differentiate between the three road routes from a maintenance viewpoint for purpOSes of estimating.It vlas assumed that the equivalent of two rnotorgradE}r!water wagon crews would operate about 2300 hours annually on any of the roads and that about 50%of the gravel surface course on the road Would be lost each year OVer the entire surface of the road.This gravel was assumed to be spread by the graders from gravel previously stockpiled at a cost of about $20 per ton.Unit maintenance costs developed on this basis are about $48,OGDper mile per year,Qr about 2%of total construction costs,.Whic~is Q reasonable percentage.• • • 2.7 LIFE CYCLE coar ANALYSIS 11ETHODOLOOY ~- The c,;)stand logistical data described above were used fOF life ~.lcle COi '.,modeling of the two best plants (see Section 4).The approach used in the modeling ~'aS consistent with the approach used On other Power Authority planning studies as required by state l?w and regulations.Simple present worth computations were prepared using construction,maintenance,ana transportation costs as ldentified above.The material transportation coSt13 included costs irom the closest point to the site corranon to all routes;in this case Gold Creek,assuming all materials ar!d equipnelrlt arrive via the Alaska Railroad from Anchorage.This is a diffeJ:ent approach than was adopted for the previous studies,which included transportation costs all the way from Seattle in the access road cost base.The effect of the earlier assumption is to make differences between transportation cost differentials~l?pear insignificant.The approach adopted for the present work includes only those costs attributable to construction and use of a parti.cular access route with the eqUalizing effect.of total transportation costs removed from the data base. For present worth stUdies,the discount rate was assumed to be 3.5%in a non-inflationary environment with a 2.5%real escalation of the fuel consumed in transportation androaintenance operations.A second case assuming no fuel escalation was also developed.For purposes of analysis,construction of the Natana Project was assumed to begin in 1985 as described in theFERC License Application.The duration of Devil Canyon construction t.,as assumed to be as described in the license application,but the starting date was shifted to determine if the route selection conclusions were sensitive to timing of Devil Canyon with respect to Watana.For.the base case,it was assumed that Devil Canyon would be constructed beginning in 1993 as described in the Feasibility Report and License Application..sensitivity analyses were conducted for the base case tran~rtatiol1 costs • 2"25 3l17B -~t;.~....:~.....,~.~,:""~",,,,<~~':"_:"'~~'>o;,.,.•"-":: :,::..:.....;.,....,"':":....','. ';'....c·",~ :,~ :~;,:'~::r:..",,;..'"L L.,j\-':,,J'(;,. },'>'t~i-~~-'·"-',':~"", '1••··.-<.·.'\ ..,..~ CHAPTER :3 ENVIRDNMENTAL STUDIES METHODDLOGV ~o.NC GENERAL RESLJLTS ~f"_..":' .-.' " (i,'-'**=" 3-1 t --,-":'. ..••mri ,",'jrrl''' 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES METHODOLOGY AND GENERAL ISSUES Identification and prioritization of affected res?urces Definition of evaluation criteria for affected resources Analy~is agency,native organization and public comments Impact anal:y"sis and comparison of al ternati ve access routes Development of recommendations including mitigation measures - SCOPE AND GENERAL METHODOLOGY o o o o o 3 ..1 This section contains a general discussion of the methods used to evalua.te th€\various access plans from an en vironrilental ]?er specti vee Environmental considerations are defined broadly and include physical, biological,and social science considerations.General data and route evaluation criteria are presented in thi.s section,along with an examination of agency,native organization and public comments on the access question.A more detaiJ::1d impact analysis and route comparisons follow in Section 4 and recommendations in SectiJn 5. The basic steps used in environmental analysis of the access issue included: T,he objecti ve was to identify potential impacts and rate the various access route alternatives in a systematic manner vri th respect.to /:v' environmental effects of each alternative under consideration. 3.2 IDENTIFICATION ANDPR,IORITIZATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES 3.2.1 Ganeral Methodology En.vironmel1t~1.specialists in the physical,biological,and soc,;,al sciences began stUdy by reviewing potential generic impacts of access road development.Based on this review,an evaluation procedure was 3125B •"'".". ;," • esta1:?lished Whereby potent.ial impacts which had the greatest effect on selection of an access plan were identified and singled-out for detailed analysis in sUbsequent investigations. 3-2 water Use and Quality Fish,Wildlife,and Botanical Resources Historic and Archaeologic Resources Socioeconomics Geology and Soils Recreation Aesthetics Land Use o o o o a o o The initial actiVity in the identification of important environmental impact areas was to establish a systematic approach to analyze effects on all potentially affected resource categories.To achieve this end potential impacts were considered by reviewing generic impacts according to the categories defined by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)in the requirements set forth for license applications fOi:major hydroelectric projects (46FR55926)..These, categories include: Impacts in these categories have been extensively stUdied by others and are discussed in the Susitna Hydroelectric Project FERC License Application (Alaska Power Authority 1983b),Access Plan Recommendation Report (Acres 1982C),and numerous other project and resource agency documents,including those described in Section 1.5.1. 312513 r The technique used to rank the importance of impacts in these resource categories draws an the principles advanced by Linstone and Turoff \(1975),although the process employed by the team of engineers and! f scientists evaluating impacts on this project was less structured and \more informal than is typically undertaken in structured group vseSSions>Several meetings were held,during whichl?roject scientists 3.2.2 Resource Category Ranking .:,,~,~> til';' t f c f ,J1,).=:j~..~.'~""'_,...~.~..".,"•••.,••.1_,-.,',--__--'<~",",'i,', 6 """"'..'..~L,;.:' ~,-~.\'_.----------' 3-3 - .b--=+ -.'''--.- and engineers discusseJ impacts of the access plans and established criteria for distinguishing which resource categories influenced the access decision.During these meetings,the relative influence of each of these impacts in determining the overall environmental impacts was discussed. Group discussions of environmental impacts surfaced the need to consider the potential impact of access development as well as the likelihood that such impacts would occur.For example,it is known that large quantities of gravel will be needed for road construction, but it is not known how much gravel would be obtained from specific locations along the route.This can make &sizable difference in impacts,depending on the quantity and location of borrow sites.In the case of the North Plan,the development of a borrow area in the ~ Portage Creek drainage could have a significant fisheries impact, depending on the location and amount of borrow obtained.ConsequentlYi jUdgements were required in categorizing potential impacts,considering the potential tmpacts,and the likelihood they would occur. During initial impact review,it was also determined that it was appropriate to divide the Fish,Wildlife and Botanicul Resources category into two sections.The first category includes fisheries resources vlhile·the second includes wildlife and botanical resources. Wildlife and botanical resources have been grouped together because of the interrelationship of habitat types and wildli.fe impacts and because o~the importance of wetlands to wildlife as a botanical resource. Further,it was recognized that socioeconomic impacts should be divided into two categories.The first category includes impacts regarded ets positive by local communities,including economic benefits reSUlting from increased levels of economic activity in local comrounj.ties.The second effect is the undesirable ohange in lifestyle which could 17S'sult from increased settlement near or within affected communities.Sl:tch undesirable changes are a reflection of community attitudes and perceptions.Because of the distinct nature of these types of socioeconomi.c considerations,they are analyzed separately in the following analysis. • •""."'..-f .•..'.. ".__._.f ;",),;'",.,,,,,, ,. ,,./ ~lr... Group discussions of the important environmental impacts,in light of the considerations reviewed above,led to a ranking of the relative importance of potential impacts in each of the resource categories. This ranking was established so that alternative access plans could be compared.It is based on the potential impact,the likelihood that such impacts would o~cur,and the importance of the potential impacts in selecting one route as compared to another.Based on these Considerations,the environmental resource categories that are most important as they affect route selection are l~sted in Table 3-1.The categoties of Wate:c Use ana Water Quality,Historic and Archaeologic Resources,and Geology and Soils were evaluated and recognized as having a limited role in the selection of a preferred access plan.A discussion o£.the factors leading to the ranking described above,by reSOll.rce category,follows. Water Use Quality:Although access road development and use could lead to increased erosion,chemical spills,and the degradation in water quality,it ~,'jas determined by project team members that water use c~nd wate.r quali ty wa.s not an issue which directly influenced access route selection.This finding was based on the recognition that a potential degradation of water quality would occur locally and would be a concern as it affected fishery resources (see below).Therefore,it was conoluded that although water use and quality is an area of potential impact,it need not be considered as a separate issue in this report; rather it was sUbsumed in the analysis of fisheries related impacts. Wi.ldlife and Botanical Resources:Impacts to these resource categories were determined to be the most important environmental issue assocjQate'd with the selection of any of the access plans.Removal of important wildlife habitat and opening of previously inaccessible areas to human activities would significantly affect existing botanical and wildlife reSO'lrces.Alteration and removal of wetland areas was also identified as important on botanical and wildlife impact.. 312513 ":'".'...:.'.-r'\.:.--_aJi'1tr'mJ ·m"Z'-mr2tMPen·"'. RANKING OF IMPORTANT RESOURCE CATEGORIES IN THE SELECTION OF AN ACCES$PLAN '•..•.........•.. ,' .._r • TABLE 3-1 Factors Influencing Plan Selection Wi.ldlife and Botanical Resources Socioeconomics Fisheries Land Use Aesthetics Recreation Factors Not Influencing Plan Selection Water Use and Quality Historic and Archaeologic Resources Geology and Soils 3 .....5 3125B 'i~'...'-\~'. ~.- ---...-_...: 3125B (THISDISCUSS10N OF POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE SOCIOECONOMIC ISSUES IS TO BE REVISED AND UPDAT~D z\.$NECESSARY) Socioeconomics:The extent and variety of pUblic comments on the various access alternatives illustrate the public concern and potential socioeconomic impact of access route development.strong feelings, both for and against various accesS alternatives,have been expressed and there is well-founded concern regarding the level of induced changes the project would have on communities surrounding the project area.A variety of significant socioeconomic indicators could change for several communities (depending on tbeaccess plan ultim~t~ly developed).Socioeconomics are an important issue in a~~essroute selection,second only to ~ildlife and botanical resourCes in the overall comparison of environmental impacts. Historic and Archaeological Resources:Although there are historic and arcnaeologic resources along cert.ain port.ions of 1:he access routes under consideration,detailed studies o£all routes have not been conducted.Further,potential impacts to cultural resources are site-specific and should not influence which access plan should be selected.Potential impc:,cts stemming from disturbance to historic and archaeologic resources can be largely controlled or avoided through careful design and construction practices during the detailed design phase.Therefore,potential impacts to these resources are not considered in this report. Geology and Soils:The development of access roads could potentially increase soil erosion.construction activity across slopes could result in slope instability,Which could compound soil erosion concerns al~d i.ncrease the general level of distl1rbance caused by road or railroad construction.ijowever~project scientists and engineers determined that the geology elnd soils impacts were important only as 3-6 Fisheries Resources Fisheries impacts were determined to be important as several streams with importa.nt anadrorllous fish populations a.nd stre.ams wj,th substantial populations of graylings could be affected by access road construction.Fisheries impacts were identified as being the third most important impact area. •'.' • they affected the engineering design and costs of various route alternatives and potential impacts on fisheries.B'Io r example,the categorization of the access routes according to the slope of the area traversed is obviously related to geologic.and soils considerations, but the effects of the geologic and soils cond~tiors are important to other resourc~categories,not to geology and soils in themselves as an identifiable resource.Geology and soils were therefore treated in the eontext of evaluation of other categories ano were not tr,=ated separately. Recreation:Impacts to existing and future recreation opportunities are affected by the selection of either access plan.The importance of recreation in the overall decision making process,however,is less significant than other resources because there will be an abundance of new recreational opportunities in the project area,regardless of which access plan is selected.Therefore,even though the current recreation plan is basej largely or~opportuni ties for the Denali route, comparable,but different,recreational experiences can be found alotlg other candidate plans~While the selection of either one of the two access routes wou~d create recreation opportunities and,therefore, prOduce positive impacts,adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources could occur with overuse of the area.This consideration led to the finding that r~creation was a resource which could affect the access decision but that potential impacts to fish and wildlife as a result of recreation activities were the more significant concern. This finding led to the conclusion that recreation resources is of relatively low overall importance in the access route decision,and the relatively high importance of wildlife and fisheries resources. Aesthetics:Aesthetic considerations are lar:gely related to those of recreation,and were determined to have less weight in the overall decision making process than recreation.HoWever,it was d~termined that aesthe.tic considera~ions did influence the route decision..·making process as there was a difference in relative merit of the various 3-7 312513 3-0 -1'\1l_.1.ri- plans under considera'L ...on based on aesthetic factors.Sone portions of routes under study would help maintain high aesthetic quality in c:her areas while other portions of the various routes considered could lead to an overall deterioration in the aesthetic quali ty of ,the a:rea •For this reason,it was determined that aeithetics should be analyzed from the perspective of each plan 1 s potential for allowing for retention of the area's high aesthetic quality.It was determined,however,that aesthetics was implicitly considered in the recreation analyse's to some degree.Aesthetics therefore,was ranked as the least imi:'ortant resource category in the ov~call decision making process. Land Use:Land use impacts were determined to be among hhe most important in influencing the overall environmental impact:of the access alternatives.In a discussion of the nature of the lana use impacts of access road development by project scientists and engineers,however, it was concluded that land use concerns were largely reflected in other resource categories except for ownership patterns.For e>,=ample,the importance of maintenance of a high quality area for hunting and fishing land use was largely reflected in the fish and wildlife and botanical resource analyses.It was also implicitlY recognized in the discussion of recreation resources.Therefore,land use analyses need not be weighted as heavily in the overall decision making process as if they had to reflect the overall importance of lan~use to the access road decision.Consequeritly,land use was ranked as the fourth most important factor,behind botanical and wildlife resources,fisheries resources,and socioeconomics. Summary of R,anking:Environmental resource categories were divid.ed into two categories,depending on their role in determining the recommended access plan.The first category included those environmental determinants which influG~ced the route selection process.These determinants were further subdivided and prioritized according to the importance of each in selection of a preferred access 3l25B a......'~ •.•...> ".,..,,"'" • route.Table 3-1 listed these determinants and their relative importance in influencing the access plan decision.The second set of environmental attributes listed in the bottom portion of Table 3--1 are those \vhich need.not be separately considered in the decision m.aking process.They do not need to be considered be~ause they are incorporated into one of the othe~categories,can be avoided through site specific desig~mitigation measures~or are generally of lesser importance.These findings,as determined through the group process described above,serve to prioritize environmenta.l impacts and belp in defining the overall objective function used in d€termining how well each access alternative meets the goal of minimizing envirbnmental impacts. 3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR AFFECTED RESOURCES Criteria for evaluating environmental concerns were developed, recognizing impacts of two types:those cau,sed by physical construction. of the road and its use during construction,and those caused by public use of the roads and attendentpossibility of egress to adjacent land. The first of these categories is determined by construction practices and conditions along the selected route.The second category is dependent on the policy adopted for pUblic use after construction.For purposes of this stUdy,it has been assumed that regardless of the route selected,it Would be closed to pUblic use during construction, and would be left open for unres~ricted use once construction is comple.te.Other access policy options include use on a controlled or permit-type basis or the establishment of passive or active controls to limit use.Although the purpose of this report is not to perform a detailed study of pUblic use options,it is recognized that public access is an important issue.The environmental sensitivity of various impacts to pUblic access polioy is considered in Section 5,where the effect of adopting a cOI}trolled access policy is discussed. 3-9 312513, •3.3.1 Wildlife and Botanical Resources The primary wildlife and botanical resource issues of concern relativE: to proj.ect access pertain to the effects of this access on wildlife resou <"1es of the project area..Al though vegetation impacts will occu::, the primary issues of concern relate to impacts on vegetation as a component of wildlife habitat rather than as a botanical resource in itself..Therefore,in this evaluation,.impacts on vegetation are treated in the context of the impacts on wildlife resources which tl.Ley.. produce .. The direct loss of vegetation resulting from access road or railroad development will produce a major loss of wildli£e habitat as large areas will be affected and few,if any,spc;cies will benefit flom thl~ habitat provided by the access road or railroad in tbemselves.This direct loss of habitat will be the impact of greatest concern to small bird and mammal populations in the project area.Therefore,the quantities of the various vegetation types lost are considered important criteria for consideration in comparing the impacts of alternate access plans. All vegetation types represent important habitat to some wildlife species..An attempt could be made to develop an index of habitat quality for each vegetation type,considering the habitat reqUirements of all species or at least a subjectively determined important group of species..Then these indices could be multiplied by the areas of each vegetation type lost and the products summed to derive an overall index o·e hahi tat quali ty and quarlt.ity for each access plan (a form of HEP analysis)..However!as demonstrated by Terrestrial Environmental specialists (1981),the differences in the quantit.!.es of habitat.s lOlst due to the va.rious access plans overWhelm the differences in the qualities of the habitats lost within each plan.Therefore,the quality of habitats lost due to the presence of roads or railrOads i!;t not considered as a criterion for comparing the impactso~alternati~xe access plans,except,in a general sense,in terms of Wildlife concentration area.s and ,specia.l use areas. 3-10 3125B Species of concern,relative to t.hese impacts because of their.!importance and because of their abun.dance in ateas within the vicinity of the two alternate routes considered in detail in this report,are the large raptors,furbearers,blackand brown bears,moose,and caribou .. •A~other exception to the above discussion is in t.he case of \'tetlands .. Wetlands have high ecological and hydrological value and are protected by a number of federal and state o.f Alaska regulations..Therefore,the area of wetlands potent.ially impacted by each access plan is considered an important criterion .. }\.l though the habitat loss impact is of importance to the larger birds and mammals,of greater concern are:(1)the disturbance effects associated with road use:(2)increased hunting,disturbance impacts, and ~abitat degradation associated with increased human use of areas adjacent to the road;(3)the movement barrier which the road may produce for certain mammals;(4)mortalities resulting from vehicle collisions;and (5)the increased potential for natural resource and recreational development and human settlement of areas adjacent to the road .. -..\ IeAfthoughdirectquantitativemeasuresoftheimpactsdiscussedabove .ar~not available for comparing alternate routes,indirect.measures of the extent of many of these impacts on large birds and mammals are prOVided by:(1)the length of each access route and (2)the amount of area along each route that would become more accessible following road development $Thes'e meaSUres are quantified and used as criteria for alternate route evaluation$The evaluation,however,is modified by a qualitative assessment of known wildlife concentration or special use areas along each route. 3--11 3125B titi,...·":i::::UI -1 ,'; "0('\.-~A'W:tW'rW::l r"'Wttr tltilliwrte r1r:'!IeIM" 3-12 ---';. (TO BE INSERTED)Socioeconomic 3125 B' 3 ..3.2•'. ••••••• ,,:, ~.p•."'~.'."'.•'.'.'..'.~'."'.'...',~!i~f1. W,:~i'i'I"~ -.....,,'----,..,-...-..---.-..--.-.-",.-=1-,-.n' '.'--. ;..:',,<-,","':-:,'","" .",:.'.,.'., .y:;',':-;:.•",L"*,::',...~~n "'...~:~.--.'",,-"",'" 3--13 312SB • • Q 3-14 -' 'e','\, .. 3125B •',.',. • 3-15 - 3125B 3125B Mitigation Measure Erosion control during construction Avoid crossings of spawning beds,.use 10\'1 contact pressure vehicles,perform construction during periods of low potential impact' Proper design and sizing of culverts,bridges,and crossings Impact Blockage to migrating fish Disturbance of stxeambeds by equipment Construction runoff,increased sedimentation,and turbidity 3-16 With the adoption of the mitigation measures described above and favorable ccrnstruction conditions (e.g.,limited rainfall during periods when there are large areas of bare soil exposed),impacts of access road construction would b~very limited.Ideal conditions, however,do not always occur,so there is an inherent risk factor associated~ith each potential impact.Therefore,relative comparisons were made among the routes based on the potential risk of impact to fisheries resources,.assuming conditions are not always ideal.The comparisons were developed based on the following criteria,which can be a'pplied equally to all routes. 3.3.3 Fisheries Both direct and indirect impacts to fisheries resources could occur along any of the alternate routes.Direct impacts could occur as a result of adverse cha~ges in water quality due to erosion,increased turbidity,dist.urbance of streambeds,and potential spills of oil and toxic chemicals.Indirect ef£ects would include increased pUblic access,.which would increase fishing pressure.Criteria to evaluate enVironmental impacts are influenced by mitigation measures that have been identified in Exhibit E of the FERC License Application and can be summarized as follows: • •_•..'. ." • 3125B SOCIOECONOMICS TEXT TO BE INSERTED HERE 3-17 Ii 3--18 SOCIOECONOMICS TEXT TO BE INSERTED HERE 312513 •'..'..'..'.... .+.:..' SOCIOECONOMICS TEXT TO BE INSERTED HERE 3-19 3125B • .:-\.-"~m±WiillifflffltrfrnWf#tllllii/l'''(S"(l'ftim...ttlflzWt .r 'U~ 3-20 Number of streams crossed -this implies a need for instream construction work and increased access consistency with land us,,~plans and management actions;and o o o compatibility of induced land use changes with desired conditions. o Type of soils,slope and need for cut and fills -steep terrain,unconsolidated soils and need for cuts and fills can affect the extent of erosion and sedimentation o accordance with landowner preference: o Potential for indirect e.ffects through increased pUblic access increased access can alter and severely impact native fish populations o Significanc~of fisheries resources in streams adjacent to each route -streams that contain significant or important resources -~ that could be disrupted by the road access must be identified and included in the evaluation o Distance that route parallels streams -any construction or use ofa road that is just upslope from a streC74m implies a greater pote.ntial for erosion,.vli thrunoff and sediment passing into adjacent streams,and increased access 3.3.4 Land Use Because the project area is ess~ntially undeveloped,land use considerations affecting selection of an access plan relate primarily to land status and management actions rather than effectq on existing land uses.Avoidance of disruption of existing land uses Vlas an important factor in locating the alignli\E:;:!lts of therespecti ve access plans,but is a relatively minor factor in co~paring the two plans. The sUbstantive land use criteria used in the comparative evaluation of the two access plans were a~follows: •' ;,,,} 3l25B f _,.,- The importance of landowner preferences stems from the undeveloped nature of the project area,current land status,and the marked effect that,a particular access plan could have on various ownership interests.Much of the project area is in the process of being conveyed from federal ownership to state or Native ownership.Both of these ownerships,and particularly the Native organizations,can be generally classified as-favoring access to their lands for the purpose of opening them for development.An access plan that accomplished this goal would be viewed favorably by these groups,While a plan that did not provide access for development would likely be opposed. 3--21 The second criterion relates to the influence that the alternative accesS plans could have on the current or future land use plans of federal,state,or local agencies.While such plans are not likely to directly address the Susitna project or its access system,the access ~oad decision could potentially have a major bearing on the implementation on those plans . Construction of any road to -t:.he Watana and Devil Canyon Dam site areas will open additional portions of thesusitna basin for recreational deve.lopment.The extent of recreational activity will be influen.ced by the policies'adopted regarding public use of the access road during the construction and operational phases of the project and the use of personal vehicles by construction workers.Recreational Use of the 3.3.5 Re~reation The third cri terion,involving the iflduced land use changes associated with the respective access P1ans,relates to the brQader cross- disciplinary issue of introducing access to a large undeveloped area. This criterion is necessarily somewhat ambiguous,however,due to the 'subjectivity involved in evaluating increased access to a given area. The increased human use reSUlting from improved access can be estimated to some extent,but assessment of the desirability of such increased use depends upon individual or organizational preferences~ • • •project area will also be affected by the availability of other recreational resources similar to those of the Susitna basin and recreational demand within the state.Such information is important in projecting impacts but is independent of access road selection and is not analyzed in this report. In order to differentiate between the potential impacts of the proposed routes,criteria were formulated that relate to use of the project area and recreational user demand. The criteria applied to the impact asse'ssment in Section 4 are the following: o the size and extent of the project area made accessible by the access road; o the number of recreational opportunities developed;•o the diversity of recreational opportunities developed; o travel time from major population centers,e.g.Anchorage and Fairbanks,to the project area;and o willingness of.the population to travel the distance to the project area. A recreation plan was developed and is presented in the FERC License. Applicaton.The purpose of the plan is to satisfy the recreation demands created by project construction and public access to the Susitna Basin as well as to compensate for recreation opportunities foregone within the vicinity of the Watana a.nd Devil Canyon damsite and reservoir.Fbregone opportunities,such as those associated with river ....running,are also intended to be compensated for,although their use extends beyond the actual damsiteand reservoir area.While the recreation plan identifies ,site-specific recreation opportunities,the opportunities within the project area.are actually unlimited.The criteria listed above were formulated to address the potential impacts of the selected access road on all recreation resources within the Susitna Basin. 3 ....22 Criteria used to determine absorption capability rai;ings are based on the physical alteration of existing landform,waterform,and vegetative landscape featu~es as well as the effect on viewers of the landscape. 0:Generally I landscapes having a greater variety of physical features can absorb moderate landscape alterations with minimal impacts.In such cases,visual contrast with the form,line,texture,or color of the natural landscape is less evident. 3-23 3125B Using this analysis framework,the significance of impacts to visual resources depends on the absorpti.on capability ratings,effect on potential viewers,and engineering criteria employed during the design and construction phases of the roadway development. 3.3.6 Aesthetics An assessment of the existing aesthetic resources of the Susitna project landscapes is presented in Chapter 8 of ExhibitE of the License Application submitted to FERC.Landscape character types, classifications of unique physiographic landscape units,were eva'luated according to both their aesthetic value and absorption capability,the capability of the landscapes to absorb physical change. Impacts upon the viewers of the landscapes are assessed from two perspectives:impacts to the potential visual experience while traveling the access road,and visual impacts created due to the construction of the access road which,itself,may be viewed from other viewpoints.It is recognized,however,that impacts to viewers in the remote areas to be traversed by any access alternative,is largely dependent on the roads ability to be visually absorbed into the landscape~ There are roadway engineering design and construction criteria that will be significant factors in determining the degree of visual impact caused by access road construction.These include road alignment specifications,landform and vegetation modification requirements,the size and shape of man-made structures,and their degree of contrast with• 3-24 the natural environment.There is also-the positive aspect of increasing the accessibility of scenic landscapes that Were previously inaccessible due to their remote locat~ons.This consideration should,however,be given only limited importance in distinguishing between routes because this positive effect will be felt regardless of the route adopted. Futher,avoiding negative impacts of irncompatible road development will greatly affect whether users of the access road have positive visual experiences.Therefore,emphasizing thecompatability of each plan ,with the landscape.implicitly incorporates the positive and negative effects of each plan into the analysis. 3 .4 RESOURCE AGENCY,NATIVE ORGANI ZATION,AND PUBL1C COl-1MENTS 3.4.1 Agency Comments The Alaska Power Authority has actively encouraged the participation of federal,state,and local agencies in the Susitna Hydroelectric Project planning activities.As a part of this open planning process,comments 3125B • • 3-25 3.4.2 Native Organization Comments \.\ I · I 3125B Native organiz.ations currently hold,or are in the process of obtai:1ing I' land throughout theproiect area.In general,Native groups favor alccess alternatives Which provide access to their land.s so they can be devE!loped and managed in accordance with management plans.For this reason,access to the south side of the Susitna River is strongly supported by Native organizations.The south Plan is most favored in this regard because it provides access tothela:cgest amount of acreage of the four plans considered.All other plans could provide access to Native lands on the south side of the sUsi tna River,thet'eby meeting the basic objecti ve:~of have be~n solicited on virtually all aspects of the project.select~on of the project access route has received considerable attention from the agencies.Throughout the planning process,agencies have been concerned about both short term (construction)and long term (operations)impacts. that aCCeSS road development would have on the project area.The opening up of a,new access corridor into previously remote and undeveloped areas in the Susitna Basin has been a major concern of the resource agencies since project conception.Agencies have also been concerned with tt.e fact that construction access provided by·any road into the Watana project site could ultimately lead to the development of a newrecr~!ation area readily accessible from metropolitan Anchorage and,to a lesse1.: d.egre.e,Fairbanks.In light of this general concern,agencies have provided numerous comments on the various access alternatives studi~d by the Alaska Power Authority.!The number of comments received on the access alternatives is large and it \'10uld be impractical to print a 11 letters received Which pertain to the access roads.Instead,comments have been summarized and are presented in Table 3-2.This comment summary includes comments on many documents,some of which do not apply directly to this report;nevertheless,these and all other commentE in Table 3~2 provide insight into agency perspectives on the access i~sue. CornmentsreceiveC'by agencies were considered by specialists involYed in the analysis of each reSource category and by management personnel involved in the overall decision-making process. •the Native organizations.Comments of Native organizations are shown Table 3-3,which contains letters from Cook Inlet Region Inc.,Tyonek Native Corporation and Athua Inc. 3.4.3 Public C~mments Numerous public comments have also been received on the access plan. These comments have been both formally and informally presented in letters,public hearings,and informal meetings with Alaska Power Authority staff and contractors working on the project..As a part of evaluation of public comments,several SOL1rces were considered includ those listed in Table 3-4.A representative summary of these comment has been developed and is presented in Table 3-5.This summary revea that opinion is divided regarding which access route is best and that several fa~tors motivate individual responses.In general,access fr the Denali Highway is favored by individuals in the Cantwell area who would welcome the economic development that could result from such an access plan.Others in Cantwell fear that hu.nting and fishing along Denali route would be seriously affected and have misgivings about th route.The communities of Talkeetna,Trapper Creek,Gold Creek,and others along the Parks Highway appear to be less divid~d and are generally less enthusiastic about growth induced by the proposed proj and are generally opposed to any project features which would increas impacts to their commun~ties which could change local lifestyle.Whi most residents of Talkeetna,Trapper Creek,and Gold Creek appear to favor access from the Denali Highway,there are those members of the commun.ity who would favor a.Parks Highway accesS if it would contribu to local economic growth. Non-native user groups who currently enjoy the relative isolation of remote areas tend to oppose alternatives Which would increase access the susitna Basin.This feeling is most strongly expressed by certail users of areas south of the Susitna River,which would be affected by Plan south. 3 ...26 3125B f _..-,-, l - Project ma,y create comitions that wwld require chaDJes in hUlltiOJ,trappirg and fishing.n.!gUlations due to impr\)~cccess. The use of regression eCJMltions in calculations of peak am lew flONS in lieu of w:tual discharge data of the tributary stream;to be crossed by the access ro~is inappropriate. InlJroved access am attra::tion ofpeq>le to the area will 1ikely precipitate dew1qnert:and i ncreasedrecreati anal use of the area.In1Jacts of imividuals other than hunters are alrmst cCJ1l>letely igK>red. Q:les restricting unaU1:ll:>rfzed traffic IlSin that prqjectpers~l will be allae:l to fish ani ~gerEral publ ic will not be all~access t'J tre fisreries?This ~rot be anaccept.able fonn of mitigation during a cOt1stnJction phase that ~span 20 years. TJ!BlE 3-2 urientation of occess ruutes in relation to wildlife cor.centrations am molJa'lBJt patt~ms srould be cCllSidered.Sorre sWpq:ll1aticns w'ill be more I'Eavily inr,..dCted.Mlrtal ity and habitat loss fron access routes srwld be added to other inpacts affectirg the sare su1lJ~lations durirg the SaTE periods. Irrpacts of road am rail road traffic start at tidet.ater.Ircreases in unscheduled trnffic on existing roads,particularly the Parks and ~nali Hi~ysJ are 1ikely to be sLbstantial.Level s soould be estirrated am irrpacts assessed. TinTi~of rail am hi~traffic is more illlJOrtant than an average rate. Both seasonal and diurnal patterns sooul~he considered.&:heduling of traffic stnuld be coosidered as a mitigation measure. CaJi>i~d effects of access potential of trangn;ssion line corridors and access routes smul d be coosi dered .. ~aligrJISlt of 1i'e·ll:!nali access road will avoid caribou calVing a~ cmpl~lY.. .Potentialclll1Jlative effects .of the·access routesarrJ inpourUlaJts on cariboo rarge srould be discussed. Pccess routes will provide excellent access to turrlra habitats.Therefore~ tlrmn use of areas irrportant to !;.olverine during Sl.f1TOOr will increase. 2)Letter dated 13 Jaooary 1583,providing CQl'lrents on Draft Pppendix E-. SJsitna ijtdroelectric Project.Al so in:ludes apperD.!drevi€'NS l}Letter dated 15O:tOOer 1932 ftGEttY ISOORL Alaska JRpt.of Fish and GIne ~~'~I ~to be a clearer urrlerstarrlirg am eXplanation of the decisionsregardirg the timing and building of access roads V3.FERC approval for the project. Felt that it was na:essary for APA to provide an umerstaooirg of hatl decisions,such as identification of gra~l sites,spoil sites,stream crossi~s,coostru:tion carp service ani maintenarce f~ilities,wil1 be made and h>w a qJality control systall will be irleffe:t to ensure that tasks are accmpl i smd in accomarce with approval s am designs. Sane a~sare i ocrererrta1,minor irrprts 11iW\'K)rk together ·to cause al1B,j or iJ11Xict.• Recamln1.cooroi nat;on b~tiE.da:i si on alxx.rt access road mItes am transntssi on 1i ne routes. SYstaratic da:ision-makillJ process needs to be laid out for determining an aa:ess route to the Susitna dCllls.ProcessshctJld be straight forward to allow effective agercy participati 011. teed to consider additional criteria to determine routes.Refer to dcx:urent entitled IISJitability for fWl fblds Jl for an exarple of a IlDre canprerensi~ list of criteria.. Pccessvia the Alaska railroad to ~ld Creek is enviromentally preferable. South side route fran Gold Creek to cevil Garyon is preferable.. From Il:vil Carrion to Watana a route on the north side of the river is preferred. fererally prefer arai.l nxxie of access to am within the project site. Three (3)env1rotllEntally sensitive areas that soould be avoided are: 1)Routes fran tOO.I~nali Hi91WiY 2}The route crossirg the Indian Ri~r am through wetlands to the Parks Hi~ 3)lheroote on the south side of the Susitna River fran OOvil carrion to the proposed Watana llm1 site The validi1:;y of the pCTtter-on-l ine in 1993 aSSUl'ptionAnarxiate for a pioneer road ;s~stioned. Public access to the dan sites am through the uppet Susitna Va lley i sa cQJ1)lex and controversial subja:tand stxxJld beg;lRn a thorDUgh evaluation in the route sela:tion process.. NEl;y/SOO1tt Alaska (}:pt.of tatura1 Resourt:es 1)Letter dated 26 14arch 1981 &lsitna ltIdro Steeri llJ Q:mrrfttee(fi ndi ngsand recamB'ldations} 2)r{~ting 10 PPril 1981 with Mr.Al Carson, ~Dira:tor,my.of P..es.am lJ:!vel~ 3}Letter dated5tbvett>er 1981 (sr&;) • 10\Letter dated 13 'Jalliary 1983 Favor road access frool the Parks Hi ~y • If route proposed in Exhibit E is selected,the follcwing design modifications aterecarrJl?OOed : Identif.Y alternatiws which win al1()i1 the necessaty access in a mamer which prevents i rreversi b1e if1l'c1ets. kcess route decision sinuld be wade in conjuoction with surrouooing landowners,land. Cultural resource sites must be evaluated in terms of eligibility for in:lusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Every effort rust be nBde to nriti gate fl.JtJJre "adverse.effa::ts.II In the feN expected cases where very large cmplex sites will be adversely affected,it rray be toore econanical to build a barrier aroond the sites. Corcemirgraminirg archaeological work,we feel that tw:>field seasors are preferao1e to one. A final decision stwld be made ncwas to w~ther the access road to the dan sites will be publ ic or private. (b:e definite da:isions on the route access is made,those routes am material sites flIJst be exanined for cu1turalresource conflicts and reeds for miti gati 011. ftPA'S need to begin construction ofa pioneer road prior to FER;1icensing of til:dans raj ses SaTE sen ous pool ic pol icy i ssues~fIbc:k:.of access may wen be the determining factor for the extent and type of public access. -Priocipal design criteria be the enhaocarent of scenic values ard public safe1¥•The~fore,the hi gh-speed desi go is;nappropri ate. -The ;ssue of des;go standards for upgradi rg the ~na1i Hi gtrNay be~n CanbEll and the prq:>osed access road rrerits canreot because an upgrade \>lill be na:essa~to accamn:tam project related traffic. -RecamEnd rerootingrc.ads to take advantage of extraordinary vistas. -Should avoid the large wetland in the Brust1<ana drainage by re-routing to hi grerground to the vest• ~~Y/gxjra. 7)Letter dated 15 O:tcber 1982 4)letter da1:~d 4 IRcarber 1981 5)Letter dated 5 March 1982.(~) 6)TestirrDl'b'dated 16 April 1982 8)letter'dated 3 fl:carber 1982 •••. .f \ ;:\ .I ~'~-. .'. --;~, It is felt tr.at 2-3 years of data on the snaller feeder streans ilJl>c1Cted by rca:is WJUld be sufficient. Plan 17 was detennined to have greater potential for major envirorm:ntal ifJllaCtS,which are as fol1()l1S: -The Denali Hig-r...ay to ~latana Dam site portion passes through habitat of the Ne1chi na carl bou herd ~tlarrls habitat is crossed sooth of Devil Caryon. Corcem as to whether or not access roads will be open after the project is fi ni stEd and WOO will mal ntai no -The ~nal i Hi rjMay to watana secti on may affect nat;ve gray1i ng streans. Iccess along the sooth side of the Susitna River fran Watana to Devil Ca,,&,on passes through the St.ep1an Lake region,which is irrportant hC1l)itat for moose, caribou,\-.eterfo.Yl and furbearers. Coocerred if aryore has considered iflllact to Talkeetna caused by people dri vi ng trere,parki ng and taki ng the trai n. PG;N;Y/SQUOCE Alaska fRpt.of Envi ronrental Conservation ~Eeting on 9 ,April 1981 with This departnent woold like to keep access dONn because of easier managerent. Mr.Bob r·inti n,lEgiona 1 Envi romarta1 Supervi sor am fv1aY be easier to have just 000 transportati on corri dar. Mr.Steve Zrake Fi sham Wildlife service continlES to errlorse the viaoJS eXpressed in the steerirg cannitt.ee letter dated 5 ~\eTber 19B1 (see Alaska r~partm:nt of Natural Resoomes carm:mts). ~nali Hi~y altematives(Alt.17)stnu1d not b~conside1'E~d. ~lchina caritxJU herd coo1d be substantially inpacted by an access route fran ~nali Hi~y to thetvatana cCllTJo The~nali route cuts across valuable rJl(X)se,branf1 bear,am bl~k bear habitatbet\o.een the Watana Canp and O=adMn l..ake c twerous small river am triOOtary crossings could pose extensive problans to virgin grayling fisreries. 1)Letter dated 21 Jaooary 1983 Il?pt.of Camuni ~arrl Reg;OJ'.c\1 Affai rs 1)~tirx.l h?ld 7 PPril 1981 wi th Mr.Ed Busch, ~ni or PI anoor am i'ir. LaMr CDtten,Associate Planner u.S.I:ept.of Interior ... Fish and Wildlife service 1)Testirrory dated 16 ,Apri 1 With respect to the ProlXlsed pioneer road,habitat 'Josses must be justified by 1~2 the need for a project.The need is pro\en \\ten the license is issued,not before. 2)Letter dated 17 J1ugust Rail in ConjUrctiOll with air access preferred .. 1982 'I',.,.",,... .,...''~' ~ts to furbearers am waterfONl a~r to be less avoidable ina southem routi n9 hebEn Watana and revi 1 CarrYon" krj'plans to place a road in close proximit¥to Portag:Creek for approximately 1 mile is cause for careem due to the possibility 0;erosion ~ and hazardous spill s. P..sseSSlYEnt ofirrpacts should exterrl to borrow areaS. A soothem routin:J benen dan sites (Alt.16)could intersect iOOvarents of large nfJlbers of bl'UNf1 tears to and from Prairie Creek., The upper Prairie Cre~,Stephan Lake am tre Fog Lakes region support large year-round llDOSe corcentrati ons. Use of regr\~ssioo eq,aations in calculations of peak ard l~1 f1<l'JS in lieu of actual d'fscharge data stlJuld rot be a substitute for the collection of data wten sizing culverts for etlJineering integrii;y or fish passage .. kcurate di scharge i nfonnati on on the creeks is rl:eded to insure prcper culvert siZing for fish passage.Utilization of cul\'erts rather than bridges cooldresult in roore blockages to grayling migration due to beaver activity. we asslJlE that fJ.PA has da::ided on a preferred access plan to Devil Caryan. Wlateverit is should be stated. Amore carplete description stwld be provided for v~taticn north of the SUsitna River to the [Enal i Hig,...ay through which the proposed access road is to pass.. A brief description is needed to the Viereck am [htrooss hierarchical vegetation classification system f"r Alaska,levels used for this stuctY,and numer of categories mapped (note,this description stl)Uldco~r the vegetation·1;ype maps row urx:ier preparation).M explaration for the mapping of up to 16 kilrneters (Ian)fron the Susitna River a.rd .8 km fran the il11XlUndrents shwld.be provided.. A brief description smuld be given as tosarpling intensit'.Whether vegetation daninaree within the project area and/or susceptibility to project inpacts\tEre coosidered in stuctY desigl srould be eXplained.teooral infonnation on elevation,slq:>e,asp€ct,and land form srnrldbe briefly related here arx.t in subse<Jlent sections of the report to better defi~areas and tteir vegetation cover.The prevalerce of pennafrost,a det/'~nnining factor in S~project inpacts,stwld also becOOSidered. U.S..Pi sh andWn dli fe ~rvice (conted) 3)Letter dated 5 O:tober 1982 . 4)Letter dated 14 Jaroary 1933 with attacl1'rents C1 ariiY wty a\l)idarr;e of closed forests was term:d as a mitigative measure. AllEChanisrn for enforcing prohibition of off-road or all terrain vemcle use smuld be ircluded. ."'·-.~;t L.':i1 S!!ccessive descriptions of vegetation types by proja.--t area srould be clarified by defining closed,qlen,and \ttQClCiland forests,tall versus l~ shrublams,ani wetlards.The discussion woold also be aided by ircludirg an overlay of project features on the vegetation JIk1>.we n:ccmrend the license application in:looe a largers more readable vegetation maparxi that (JJiintitative data on row CamDnor ut'CamDn specific vegetation ~sare,as ~11 as the occurreoce of varioos types relative to elevation or aspa:t:t be presented in the text as \'.ell as tables.Inso cEscribing the revised ~~tion classification,it will be possible to better evaluate potential project ilTp(rts on vegetation,and ti1Js wildl ife habitats,by project feature.This recaIllEooed level of effort applies to the proposed access corridor. Con:enai that a national scenic hi~y designation for the I~nali access route \OJld stil11Jlate public access to the ircreased detrillEnt of fish am wildlife.. kcess for coostnrtion stwld be viarai1 fran ~ld Creekaloro the scuth side of the river to~vi 1 Cal'!fon and access on the north be'tw:en the 00 dans. SUg~st quantifyi!¥]current all!potential hurrter damili ard harvests,area. noosepq>olatioos and habitat (JJa1ity for access route areas.Varying ~s of wintet~severit,y am the len:Jth of e~h access 1ink stwld then be considered in conjurction with the '~nformation described above and data on vehicleAnoose collisioos in other arei.ts of the state. Project railrcnd use ITGYbe a significant irrpact to wildlife in view of present wi nter use of fwr rourrl tri ps eoch week. IlJringsevere fNinters lt noose l1BY seek cleared roadt.9ys as tra~l corridors and be stAject to collisions. The 1ikeliOOod of beavers usi~bridges ard cul~rts for diJl5ites more probably represents furl:h:r negati ve ifIlJOCts to beaver due to ramva 1 of dauc; at the wrorg tirre of the year. 1h:maxirrm desi!Jl speed of 40m)i1 smuld be assured as one means of minimizing the potential for rroose/vehicle collisions. lEcamet'KI realigmerrt of roads a\tily fl1ll1 riparian corridors am otll.:r wetlaoos valuable in nrigration and breeding of raptors. Buffer towateYWiys or wetlands stx>uld be a SOO-foot minirrun width. .u.s.Fish and Wildlife Service (coot1d) ·....J-~ ---." Coreemed that pioreer road is being construct...ad (proposed)before FOC 1icense i sissued. \t)u1 d 1ike to see a11 three access routes stud;ed. Instrean ~rk stnJld be scheduled to avoid critical spawning tines am mi nimize dCWlStreiJTl sedirrert't.ati on. Estimated recreational vehicle traffic both prior to am after 1993 stoold be presented. Mitigation for excavation of boY'l'UN areas coold irc1ude the future use of 'tJEse areas for recreation develtp1Ent. Corcerning aesthetic resources:Fish am Wildlife Service is coocemed that "avo idaoce u asa mitigation rrea~re has rot been addressed. Con:erned because the pioneer road woold deviate fran the location of the final access road,particularly on the south route from ~vi1 Carr/on and the Watar.a site. The route southerly fran ttl?Il?nali Hig.vay seens preferable fran the aspect of minimizirr~disturban:e of prodoctive habitat. Control of access,state ga1e liJIIS am project managamnt after coostruction are tools \tiich can be used to IlBnage the adverse effa.-ts of itl:reased recreati anal opportuni ties. Both rail am road access will be req.Jired for construction. It is improbable that the state can constnJ:t a project of this magnit1J:1e withem sore fonn of ~aaily available plbHc access as a residual prodoct, The ccnnerts of the Pdvisory Coura:il on Historic Preservation smu1d be sol icited witmut del ay. If nonna]operation of Watanawill minimize the darger new associated with kqyaking the unregulated ~vil Caryon whi~ter,consideration sOOuld be given to providirg public access tattle Susitna below the da:o prior to the carpletion and ~ration of the~vil Caryon dCJl1, Consideration stoo1d be given to providing publ ic access fro,a ~project transportation corridor to Portage Creek for fishing ao%r kayaki~. Status of Stephan Lake -Prairie Creek corridor soould be-elevated to Phase Ole iJT1)larentation. 2)letter dated 7 ~t1lary 1002 ~Y/Sf.lJOCE U.S.l):,Ipt.of the Interior - Bureau of Land Mafla931l=nt u.s.IRpt.of the II:terior - National Park service 1)~inJ held 9PPril 1981 with r~.Art I-bstennar,Mr.Lou Carufel,~.Gary seitz, t4r.Bob Ward~and tt-..John Regl,BlM 2)Letter dated 14 January 1933 ~"i 1)Letter dated 3 [Ecarber 1982 • PE£t£Y/SJUR:E Federa lEhergy ~latcry Coomission 1)Li st of SJppl em:ntal Infonnaticn ani Cl an fication ~eds Draft Susitna ppplication Exhibit E Pg=rcy hbri<shop coooocted by J1cres Imeri can .'1)FERC License Application Exhi bi t E presentationamdi$Cuss;00 \\()rksOOp held 29 t-bverber - 2IS:erberlOO2 &lsitna HYdroe1ectri c Pnxject kcess Pl an Recanrendati on Report, Pppendix D,Peres Amrican /Jug.1992. 1)Ppperrlix D.1 Tele,ilone Cnnversation with Pl ann;OJ Di rector, Mit-50 Borough,tated 10 Pug.1982. ProVi<i?water resources data for access routes. QJantify water qualifcYaoo quantiw cha~s associated with allaa:ess routes. Provide ack:litional detail on strean crossings in road corridors am on the habitats and fish species likely to be affected by trese crossings. Estimate thenlJTber of hectares of eoch vegetation type that will be cleared due to access road constn.ction. ProvidelOOre infonnatiort describing hew erosion will be mitigated wrere access cuts leave unvegetated slopes. [Escrfoo irrplarentation of possible managarerTt options for 1inritirg off-road vehicle use. An:haeological field Wlrl<(recomaissarr;e survey of access roads)must be undertaken dun n9 the 1~3 field season. Irrpa<;ts on private lam by irrlividualsgainirg aCi:ess via the project's access road \IilS rrentio~aSJX)ssible irrpcct that soould be roonitored Jnd mitigated. Cattem over caJ1)atabili'tY of the proposed access plan with tOO [eMI;SCenic Hi gway plan. Assessrrent was sl1ggestect on the 1eng tenn econanic val ue of havi ng a more appeali n9 access road. Recannerxl 1Cl'.er speed arrl lOr\er profile for Watana access road .. Pl an 17 preferred. P1 iln 13 a1so accept('le. Pl an 16 i s not accf:.-ptab1eo J..-.............~i, i - ·e '\PPEH,llX C.2. TYONEK NATIVE CORPORAnON 9'li ~ll6t15l.bAvenue.SUit':lWO Ancbo.-.ge.A11I6k ..U9;;01 (907)~7:!-4.~ August 13.1912 Board of Directors Through ~:r.Eric Vould,ExecutiVe Director Alilska Power Authority 334 W.Fifth Avenue Ancooralle.Alaska 99501 Sirs: nle CIRI Villallo President$fully sli>,.,lOrt kcessPlan 16 as describe::II: recent publications and .aps provided by the Alaskapqwer Auth or1tr. Fbn 13 .5 outlined is nat an accepuble access roUte. Phn 17 aspres~nted aiaht possibly be acceptable lIith some modifi.:at:;I1S, nlese lIIOdi£lcatlons should assure 1Iarll'aCCeSS to the lands south of the Sus!tna River.kcess to the lands south of the river will only be Ilrovidedunder Plan 17 if the Devil Canyon project is lIctuall)'constru;;:,,:i..Perh~ps another approach millht Ile to pro\'ide a dam wi th II roadlolar constructed On top of thl!dam for c:arlieracccs$as h:1sbeen alllld~.::: by fir.John Hayden. III swrmary.our Yillaaes will support .a road plan which provides ;I':..~" to our lands lay inll south of the Sus i tna Rh'cr. 'I<lU 10 ,,5 presented,0\'po~sibl):'I me.1i fk,!1'1.,::1-\iouh1 1'1.'1:1.'1\','.,.,. ~lIP(lc·rt. 1\incere1)'. 4~~A-!-'12 J\gne:;8m,,,,, I:h:linnan,ClRl Village President$ ~.::Cook Inlet Region,ln~. CIRI Village Presidents APPENDl X C.I August 13,1982 .,..'...... Board of Directors Alaska PowerAutho~ity 3;4 Wes~fifth Avenue Anchorage,Alaska 99501 Dear Sir:;: ~would lik~to ta~e this opportunity to clarify Cook Inlet Region, Inc.'s(CIRIl poGition regllrding access routes for the Susienaproject. We cQncur with the position tllken by the villaq,!lJ th.tt aCCQU plan 13 is unacceptable.We would&uppo~t access plan 11i as the best alternative.we nbo could suppore access p1m 17wuh sOllle modHi.-cations. We would support any plan \.Ihicn provides access to the Native land on the south side of the Susitn&R~ver.This could require seme re- deSign of the dam to insure that.it could act as a rcad"'ay. Than~you very mUch fOr the opp~~tunlty to address thlS Issue. RS:mw SJ.ncerely, ~~C. Roland Shanks Manllger,Land AdmInistration CIRI COOK INLET REGION ING. LETTERS RECEIVED FROM NATiVe;ORGANIZATIONS COMMENTING ON Access PLANS August 13,19SZ SincerelY yours. ;',,--/.C:-..-:----, Lee R,.-\dler Lantl~lanaie r APIlEN::lll(C.3 AD·93·'\·!Z Mr.U3\.'id h'osniak Alaska Power k1thorit)· 334 1\'.5th Ave. Anchorage..}J:.99501 Dear ~lr.Wosniak: I~r;syCr~c to recent diSCUSSions on a~~ess I'out~s to Watana Dome we wish toreccmmend Corridor I 3 ~t.ich is the Dena1iHich-.,to Watana route.P~presentatives of Cant_ell viilage have also endorsed this ro~te,We have selected this route baSed on our analysis of econ~~c and environmental consIderations. LIt\.c:: • TABLE 3-3 ~~;.".,Afitna,9nc.. ~.~,*·Y!.•••••~..~.a~•.f","••~"......D ••we.G ~~~--J'",o, "'f'~.:~~.~\.'=-:.--5.q~~~..CllH!iEa....."••;7.....•t ..:":'...."""..........~..~V,.~.::....:r·'F~.J "l1k';I.J~\~,,:,~·:l.~'!b.,.~·""-'~'\~·'"'1~'J~'...,~I .:O.1r,",i .~~.:-"..11......--.J'I ~L"~r.,:::.r:~it~~·llt.:.....~1.:\1.'..~...4..:::!:;o:;....~".-•.t'..~"•,,'.(i;.~,f,",'"~1~~:'i}";,l~"~J1'l·~-:~'1••~.:.~;,.=....-=t:'.:"l'...:;:.z-..~1 .o•.ea&·~···1 t;Jh"_.-"~':';t~~~~~~";-r--:#t~"I •.,.'.-,";"............:--r"'...••-'.:-,,".~-...._,~•..:il .-.....144.,....-~-r~.;'..~:""""""".". :I ..:,.-i.:.....::~.~l:">.;~it:t,<:fi:~~....,.•~..". , I I .f!~t: tabi#.t-.i'r»:eW "! ... TABLE 3-4 SOURCES OF PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ACCESS ROAD ~LTE:RNATIVES 1982 August 1982 1982 October 1981 Date 19(32 1983 November 1981 April, June 1982 Acres American Acres American Alaska Power Authority Author Acres American Stephen R.Braund &Associates Alaska Power Authority p"laska Power Authority 3-36 Title of Report Chapter 2,Access Workshops Exhibit 2,ACTION System Addendum #1 Access.Plan Recommendation Report,"public Preference" SusitnaHydroelectric Project Feasibility Report Volume 7,Appendix D Susitna Hydroelectric Project Mid Report to Governor Hammond FERC License Application EXhibitE,ChapterS Socioeconomics Susitna Hydroelectric Sociocultural Studies Access Report "Susitna Hydro Studies" ne\'lsletter s Public testimony transcript and comml'nts froln Apr il 1982 pUblic meetings 3125B •.. ........\. ~.'1 :... TA3LE 3-5 S\MtWly (f'PUILIC aMENJS ON PCCE5S PCCESS Road fran Parks Hi ~to rk1vil Caryon ani Watana sites preferred by 5 individuals. Railroad tolR.vil Caryon sites;rail spur to C?Dld Creek preferred by 8 irxiividual s. Roads fran bath Denali am Parts HirjMay with a service road be1lEen dans was preferred by 5 i rxii vidual s. T\I«)in:iividualsna-d no prefen?oce. Prefer pl an #8. In favor of rail only access ~se a road fran too Parks Hirj'Nlay. Favor extension of the Il:!nali Hig,way to the Watana Il:un site am a road on the sooth side to ~vi1 Caf1{on with a nor~.h access link ~n dcIn sites. 16 iniivi\ilals \«lild like to see public access via private vehicles. 2 individual s VEre opposed to public access via private vehicles. Indian River pecple are opposed to access fran HJmcane to Gold Creek by road. Prefer rail fran Gold Creek to t.ha Devil caryon site. 2)Mi ners Ql9sti onna;re Ilited Feb.arrl r-tlr.1981. 3}GJne.QJide ()Jestiormire AASW':!rs totheqoostion of which access do yoo prefer: dated Feb.andMlr.1981" Slsitna J-Ydroe1ectric Proj9;t Feasibilif3 Report Vol.7,App.D,Exhibit 1, AJblic Participation Office A:cess ~rt. Slsitnarydroel a:tric Feasibi1it.Y Report, Vol.7,Ppperx:1ix D,Exhibit 2,Letters fran k.tion Systan 1)Letter dated 5 ftbv.1981 ftum Alaska Sport Fi shirg AssOciation. Corn oor 1 =5 Conidor 2 =10 Corn oor 3 =9 Rail access =16 15 irdividuals W€l.lld like to see plblic access by private vehicles~ 8 iniividuals \\QIld not wmt public access by private ~hicles. 4)Letter dated 29ctt.Fi rst choice -P1 an 6,socoo:1 choice -7. 1981 fran Barbara Wrigrt. 5)Letter dated 5 tbv.1981 Oppose ~nali Hi rjway to Watana Roocf. fran Dal e L.tbrd. 6)letter dated 20 D:t. 1981 fran Bruce Benson 7)Prone call from Frank Lat.e dated 3fbv.1981. 8)Phone call·fran Cl'iff Crab~{Bted 5 l'bv. 1981. W6uld rather not have a road go near the Indian River. ACCESS In fawrof acce!;s road fron Parks Hi glWaY. A road fron Tal keetna wool d be even better-. P'r-erer no access other than rail to our property in the Irrlian River area near carrYon .. \vants no roads in tIla Indian River area. If there lTlJSt be a road ~ld prefer a route fran the Lena:.i HifJM.y south to the project. £Xl not want a road in Indian River area. Prefer rail spur on south side of river first. Secood prefererce is the third alternative. Wants no roads i.n the Indian River area. QJpose other routes. ~ SUe tt/do.Feas.IEport,Yo1 7,Ex.2 (coot'd) 9}Visit to AJblic Participation Office by Barry f~date 6 Nov" 1981. 10 )Letter dated 3t«lv.1981 fran Bonit:a Prucierl;e. 11)Letter dated 3 ft>v.1981 from OlamEe weker. 121 letter dated 1 Nov.1981 from A1 ex and Mlria Baskous. 13),Letter dated 7 Nov.1981 fron D2bra Vostry. 14)Letter dated 6 N:>v.1981 fromRorert W.Q.nicee. 15)l.etter dated 7 ~v..1981 fran Hel en .Barbara.Dalke. Prefer a rail spur fran C1>ld Creek to the site.. 16)tetter dated 3 ~bv.198l In favor of anY access road outside of the Irxiian fran Jack DiMlrchi.River ramte parcel area. 17)Letter dated 10 tbv.Would have preferred a hi~from Talkeetna. 1981 'fran Wall a::e W:1tts,carol e watts and Prefer the ~nal i Hi ~route at present. kJre Watts. -',:,"" ....~. 1) · CHAPTER 4 ROUTE SELECTION ANALYSIS 4.~SCOPE 4.2 PRELIMINARYOCREEN!NG 1 Prior to cOnducting detailed studies of.candidate access plans,a preliminary analysis was conducted of all four alternatives to determine if any of .them were clearly inferior to any of the others. This preliminaxy screening t-laS based.on a cursory review of previous access alternative studies,including the discussion provided in the Susitna Hydroelectric Project license application Exhibit B,the '·Access Reccmmendation Report"(Acres Anerican 1982c),and several environmental reports.It was determined that the rail only (Plan 2)arrl South plan (Plan 16)alternatives did not merit further detailed analysis and were therefore eliminated from furth~ consideration.Rationale for rejection of these alternatives is given in the following paragraphs. 4.0 DErAT:;,'€I)RaJTE Ca.1P.ARISCNS Rail-onlY accesS:,has received strong suppor,t from resource agencies primarily beCause of the advantages all-rail access woUld have in limiting public access to presently remote areas of the tIpper Susitna Basin..While this point is well taken,limited access to the public also results a to a degree,in limited.access for the.construction contractors.If an all"'rail access were to be constructed,the <..~nstruction contractors would lose a degree of :Elexibilityin delivery scheduling and WOuld lose the opJ.=l()rttll'li ty to solicitcompetitiVe bid!; 4.2.1 Rail Access Alternative 3230B This section contains an al'lalysis of the four candidate access plans evaluated in this study~The preliminary screening process,which eliminated two routes from consideration,and.the detailed evaluation of the two better routes (from am:>ng the four studied)are presented in this section.Conclusions and recommendations are given ...,..Section 5. Jr..' \•....•.~.\' ..,....". Concerns about an all:-rail access described aoove are important factors in the deciston to eliminate all-rail as a viable access alternative, but are not the main reasons for eliminating the rail alternative.In ~ brief,th.e main reasons for eliminating rail-Only access are schedule and constru~ability. An all-rail access would result in the need for more careful logistics plamurg..Scheduling of smaller r S}?Ot deliveries of gcxX1s to meet specific,lli"lforeseen short...t€'rm needs beccmes more difficult for all-r.ailas COlU"'"~ed to road access.Heavier reliance on airlift for spot delivery of mater;.a1s and gc:x:rls at a proportionally higher price is foreseen if a rail,,-only access is adopted. fran b:::>ththe railroad and truckers for some canrocxlities (like containerized supplies shipped fran Ancborage)that ntight be less expensive to haul up the Parks Highway by truck than on the Alaska Railroad.For example,rates quoted by "the Alaska Railroad and Big State Motor Freight for cement hauliW from Anchorage to Hurricane or Gold Creek are canparable. "'~.......(~" it: 1/ 4-23230B The preceding disCU1;sion suggests that rail only access is less desirable than road or mixed.rail and road access from a construction standpoint.This hypothesis was tested.by the Alaska Power Authority dUri~the FeasibiJ.ity StUdy process when the Power Authority sent out letters to engineering finns canpeting for the design contract on the Susitna Hydroelectric Project.These letters,sent to t.l1e seven canpeting firms (all of Whom have considerable hydroelectric and large project experience)requested an opinion on the desirability of usirYJ a rail only at::cess plan for cc.mstr\",ction of the Susitna project.Of the I firms that J:esponded,.five stated that road aCCE!S$was needed while only one finn itrlicated that the project could be developed with rail only access.fihefuIl text of these engineering firms'responses appears il1 the Access R~commendation Report (Acres 1982c)..A summary i~given on Table 4-1. "a.....:., TIBlE 4-1 SlJ+\ARY (f'CIM'ETIOO DESI~CXJ~ClM'ENlSOO A:CESS Railroad \\Qu1d cost on tM order of t'i/ice as nu:h as a react., fEcCJlJJend strorgly that mil only not be adcpted. RecamerrJ that tterebe road access. J«>OO Ca'li1eCtions will facilitate transportation ·of faniliesanisingle lOOn livi~at the site. Initially constn.ct 6(0)1 of road at 1".te Watana site SlPl that tilts portion ti"eroad will be used as a larx1irg strip forOC-3/OC-4 pla~. Railshippirg \l«X.ild take 2-4 tines lorger.<, Riil end \OJld Yeqlire pernanently located offloading e<JIilJlE!nt,provisions ,I;r for storaae of bulk materials arrl a snal1 camunitv or cam.~..~ .'"& ...•__...•-.,~ Railroad \a,Wld take at least O~year larger to bUild.O'x::e the railroad is in place,no significant negative of contnrtion \\QUId be anticipated • .\E believe that effective access limitations can be irrtJOsed durirg constnrtion on a road built into Watana,restricting usage to auttx:>rized persomel ega guant posts,gates,etc. leil only access \tWld add to s:teiuling problens,re<J.lire load si7.'.e 1imitations,do a~wit.h carpetiti\fe haul rates ani result in cost ircrease Qattin:J people to 'i«JrlcarxJlive in tie CClJll win beroore d'ifficult if ttey Icrx1N 1:l1:!ir ooly access to tie outside islrf rail. Air service coold be limited ~in:larent \\eather.Also,parts arK!supplies needed on a d&w J:rI ~basis can be harxJled nDst efficiently by trock. Iboo access all a.vs contractor am CWler to transport goods i OOepen:fent of rai 1road,wi 11 allew LTL shipmnt. Road access allcwsccntraetor ani O'tIler to transport goods irKieperdent of W;.'f;i1~ railroad,Will allew L1L stTiJl1B1t. If "limited access"wins out,a railftnJCK depot stDUld be built a few miles 't:a.t8rds the site fran the llBi n1;nee Recarm:rrl road access;if rail on1Y'nere used,then special handli~ to be used betwaen the rail ern am constrt.k:tion site ~ld be captive project. 4)Letter dated 9 IvJg 1982 fran Gi rbs &Hi 11,In:. 2)Letter dated 6ft1g.1982 fran R.W..Beck ani As..r;oci ated,Ire. SJsitna~druelectMc ProjEct kcess Plan' PJ:cCJ11JSYJati on Jeport Ppperxfix A,Peres lfrericao Pug.l!E2,. 1)Letter dated 4 PiJg •.1982 fran Bechtel Ci vi]& Minerals,111:.. 5)Telegram dated 9 ItIg. 1982 fran ~YiOOrrl Kaiser Erqineers. 6)Letter dated 6 Pug.1982 fran ~rza,lEbasco. 7)Letter dated 9 hIg.1982 fran Stone and ~ster - TlMS. 3)Letter dated 8 Pug.19j2 frr.m Gibbs arxi Hill,Ioc. ·•. ~'.'."."'"t'~i ~';, M:,.~...~;~ The all railroad route (Plan 2)is the least,a"1Jensive of the all,"'rail alternatives stooied by ~and is wholly on the south 'ban."<of the Susitna River to avoid a major bridge over the river that would probably take 3 years to build.There are,however ,still major bridges on the all railroad route studied here,most notably at Chechako Cr(~k.R&M Consultants (1982a)estimated that 18 months would 1:e required to construct a bridge at this site.Without extensive pre-:licensing construction work,it would not be possible to satisfactorily supp:>rt Watana construction during the critical pericd of diversion tunnel construction without building a major haUl road next to the railroad to haul material to the site until completion of the railroad. There could be significant haUl road deviations from the rail I:ight-of-w3.y in the areas of the bridges so that trucks could cross streams by easier temporar.y bridging further upstream.This could result in the need for two right-of-way pennita,depending on the deviation of the haul road alignment.The environmental impact of railroad construction under these conditions might be greater, particularly on fish and wildlife habitats,than if only a road were built. 4.2.2 South Plan The South Plan was rejected from consideration for roth construction schedule and cost reasons..Cost breakdowns for the four major routes sttXiied are presented on Table 4-2 ..The figures are all from prior reports.An examination of TaP?.e 4-2 reveals that the S(")uth Plan has the highest Watana Phase construction cost of any of the 3 candidate road rout:es and involves the most miles of new road construction of any of the alternatives..The South Plan route includes a high level bridge across the Snsitna River to the north bank of the river several miles downstream of Watana at the uppp.I end of Devil Canyon.This avoids an approach to Watana from th~south through the environmentally sensitive Fog Lakes/Stephan Lake area.The bridge adds significantly to both the construction cost and the duration of construction.It has been estimated that up to 3 years would.be necessary to build .apermanent 3230B .1 368 312 104 416 '241 127 Total 34 34 o Impact of Conpressed Schedule 382 278 104 Subtotal 7 3 5 218 23 2 127 0 7 345 23 10 Maintenance 115 101 216 118 106 224 Logi$tiqsCost!! 95 20 U5 156 o 156 Construction Cost o o o o o o Mileage 52 7 59 69 69 o 6J3l crl!SO •.127 4 211 II 222 41 14 120 100 8 228 0 228 10iY 14..4J •200 227 12 439 11 450 ;J~ <I J 0 58 103 112 3 218 -218 0 0 0 102 1 103 -103 f><'·-'f-t~.-.~•0 58 103 214 4 321 -.321 Road Rail Watana. Devil Ca.nyoo .. StJ-I1I\RY OF ESTIMATED COsrsFin'1 PRE\TIQJS INVESTIGATlOOS ($;<:l,OOO,OOO) .l!h.'~'!If;- Canbined Watana Devil canyon canbined Watana Pevi1Canycn canblned Watana DevilCanyat Canbined DENALI -l'IAN 19 SOOIH -PIAN 16 AIL .R1UL -PLAN 2 NORI'H -PUN 13 Y Mileage and costs taken frau Aeres "Access llecamnerxIaticn Report". Y Includes cost of transportation fran,seattle l/Includes upgrading 21 tni1es of Denali Highway-am asphalt surfaced roadways. 11 Inc1ud~s developnent within railroad proposed railroad yard at:DeviI Cayocn• •",'}"'-' ~'" 4.3 PIAN 13 NORIH -PLAN 18 DENALI CClvIPARISCN o Wildlife and Botanical Resources 4-6 -pe >1 1 '---'<;,- Socioeconanics Fisheries Land Use Agency,Native am Public Preferences Constructability and Schedule Impact on overall Susitna project Construction Schedule Maintenance and Reliability Costs o o o o o o o The elimination of the All-rail and South plans leave the North plan (Plan 13)arxi the DeI"'..ali plan (Plan 18)as the two better routes to l:e evaluated.A detailed discussion and ccmparison of these plans is presented in the follooing paragraphs.Both plans would provide access to the 'W:ltana.CiL"1d Devil Canyon project sites.Features of these plans are shown in Figures 4-1 through 4-3.Both plans would also provide access to the southside of the Susitna River following construction. However,because this analysis focuses on those issues which differentiate one plan from the other,factors or segments connnon to b::>th plans are not emphasiZed in this analysis. o Recreation o Aesthetics bridge across the Susitna at this site.Temporary access across a tempor~l~-level ot'floating bridge could be developed in aOOutl year.While a I-year construction time to initial access could be tolerated.from a construction scheduling perspecti ve,other less costly alternatives are available which provide access faster at a more attractivecost.Access over a temporary floating bridge across the Susitna River for the South Plan would probably result in pericds of limited access for up to6 weeks each year for the first two yea;rs of construction,when a floating bridge could not be used during the spring break-up. Both plans are evaluated against 11 important route selection factors in the following ~graphs,including: 323013 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY SUSITNA HYDROELECTRICPRO.JECT r-- Ii -:J FIGURE 2-6 CAM''ACILlTy---f!0 :::::-:----------OOC-:--·lC~-> ;~'c..;,;~~;~~ TYPICAL RAILHEAD FACILITY [J[JM1lK!~DJ ~IEJ1JDJ~©@J $USITNA JOINT VENTUIfE I "AAIS[O DOC. JH ~C::~:"l 0 0 0 i~~~~Of'1C1 PUll =tOllAGE:D lif;Nt:IIAL STOlt AliI "lira "STOIln 1IOIl.IHOf'"_II.~'L:::0 _Gt:Ht:IIATOIl-EJ DO 0 a-_.~._"__•.....-~•_..'>-" c.-'-m b _.....~",~r "\) IOO'IIII[A.- [HGIII(TlH!NA~HO 1'8 11.410'/ ;0." [XISilltG MAIH TflACK D£'AIlTINi"CA;;no CAIISI ~~IIIVIIlG CAIls17i call IYPICAlRAllHEAD FACILITY flY.:L TAHI([II'I50 CAII'I--'f'.(Mt:HTTAHII[II' -;EHlItAL CAllGO 190 CARSI-" ,IGeY.AelC AioO SULANO IllO t'A~1 :;:, C,\ '.:::::::.::: @ • ......--.........._--..,..,-~...~:.:..~'"~._~ I I II t1t1 FIGURE 2-5 ! 80 k aXle 200 k Total I~' ~\.'•••'V~.I...SU'IFAC£3/4-MUl!~S ,-lIAS£:-2-GR~DE:-A- NFS SUll BAS£THICKNESS VAfllIAILE "\\ - '~Il'_..._I:;. ......... 11' h~~jIKfUJ:JlEJ%jfiJ~©® SUS/TNA JOINT VENTlJH£ TYPICAL UNIT SECTION DESIGN ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY SUSiTNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DESIGN DATA CROSS SECTION SURFACING:UNPAVED GRAVEL RUNNING SURFACE:24 FEET SHOULDER WIDTH:5F~ET ~~, GEOMETRIC DESIGN SPEED:55mphMax. 40mph Min. ,MAXIMUM GRADE:6% MAXIMUM CURVATURE:5° DESIGN LOADING: (Dam Construction Phase) 2.5.1 Railroad Rates cantwell $1.45/<:."Vit. $1.97/cwt. $1.54/cwt. $7.32/cwt. $1.34/cwt. Gold Creek $1.03/(;wt. $1.97/cwt. $1.20/cwt. $5.71/cwt. $1.23/cwt:... Bulk Cement Iron/steel Equipnent &Mise.ltarns Explosives Fuel 2 ..5 TRANSPORrAT!ON cosrs 2.,10 3ll7B A proposed railhead facility,such as identified in the FERC License Application,would .be needed for any access plan because equipnent and material wouls:!need to be transferred from rail to road vehicles.The facility shown in Figure 2-6 is proposed for Cantwell,but would also be appropriate for Hurricane,if the North plan were adopted.The proposed railhead facility is adequately sized and appropriately laid out to handle the material and equipment that will be transported to the project site. ~ates to Hurricane Via existing rail for fhe North plan or to Devil Canyon or watana on new track were computed on a ton-mile basis using the qUoted rates as a base. The economic model used for subsequent analysis of all cost data includes provisions for real escalation of fuel costs.The portion of the appropriate rates above for fuel was estimated using train set data supplied by the Alaska Railroad,cost per engine mile dctta from AlaSka Railroad system averages,and fuel consumption data per gross ton-mile from General Motors Electro-Motive.Division,Which was the best source of data available. New,qp-to-date quotes were obtained from the Alaska Pailroadfor use in this stuoy",Quoted rates per hundredweight (C\'lt)from Anchorage to Gold Creek and Cantwell are summarized below: _.~ .'.•...Il~ .."...." ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY SUSITNA HYDROELECTRlC PROJECT lr~~jffl!lgj:J.~Jlj#J~©® SUSITNA JOINT VENTURE FI G.UR E 4-2 I:~ f'.~ i· I f I I fII I I I Il' 1 I I I I 1I ) II i 1 u.z«...J0-WenWo()«WI-::>oa:J:~1-0:ce-Oz.-.--+__~._~.T ,...,":"""""",,'_""_W_~_._,~·~__,..,~__.;.,..,....II(}IIL I I I I I ! I I ! ! ! I j J I I j I I It)~:;::ajcolL_J I.>-l-I--(,)a:w0J0I0::I-a.::J (,)-tf «0::I-a:(.)wUJ..J$l.!J000::00..>-I««~zC/)I--«en.....J ::::>en« ,.. 1'"'" u J ':'.I II I I I I 1 ,;;~)i (/It'.1 I I ! I j I: i "0I LJ I I I ,I 1 1.~3rOtJd ~H:ll.03130ClaAH \fNl.ISnS A..L180H.LnV CJ3MOd V>iS\flV' SGI!VIl U!GraOs I ~ u >-.-I--()0:w0...,w0Ia:l-t-0-:\~(\~.~.;.\::>:J ()~'"r.'·~_~'1 ...~'~,-0,«a:-"--col-e::Po<()T""~CCLU w Z t:Ll..J -~$w -J «,...:l0«-l t1J0a:0..0 Z -a..>-I W<t:c:(0~ZC/)I--«U) ....J :::> «(j) Denali Plan ,l• I I n 4-10 '\'_"",.~i*':' '..~ 3230B The Denali access plan would result in long-tem loss or mooification of about 720 acres of potential wetlands due to acceSs road or railroad coverage.This figure is based on the fact that certain (Viereck and Dyrness 1980)vegetation types listed in Table 4-3 represent potential wetlands as defined by Cowardin et ale (1979)and is artificially high (Acres 1983)..The figure is also probably high "because if:does not consider the detailed design of access alignments,which can be used.to avoid many wetland areas.Hc:Mever,it is useful for ccmparison purposes.Borrow material extraction along DeaQman Creek may substantially increase the amount of wetland area directly inpacted. A total of abOut 56 miles of access road and railroad would traverse potential wetlarxis under the Denali plan..This figure is important because it provides an index of the area of wetlands adjacent to the rcx"ld and railroad that would potentially be iIIp:lcted by changes .in the hydrologic regime an:i se{jmentation as a rasult of access road and railroad construction. Habitat Loss/Modification:Development of the Denali access plan would result in a lorg-term loss or mcrlification of aooutl,110 acres of wildlife habitat due to the presence of the road and railroad..This habitat ilt\P8-ct is summarized by vegetation type and route segment in Table 4-3..S1u:ubland \1~etation types represent themajority of this area followed by ttLt1dra ar..d forest type3 in decreasing order of magnitude. In general,the following sections present impact discussions for each plan and then an overall compa.risonof the two plans.For some resource categories (e.g ..,Aesthetics and Recreation),however,where resource considerations are less dependent on the alignments of the various roads foreadhaccess plan,general discussions may receive more emphsis t.han route specific discussions. 4.3 ..1 Wildlife and Botanical Resources 3018B 4.768.4 II Total ac mi 882.8 60.78.3 Devil Canyon ~ (road)P! ac mi 120.7 4.7 Hurricane towa~ (road).!:Y ac mi 68.4 762.1 52.4 Total ac mi 1114.3 92.0 14.2 1.3 90.2 6.2 11.9 0 ..8 102.1 7.0 40.8 3.7 101.8 1.0 26.3 1.8 128.1 8.a 4.4 0.3 4.8 0.7 --4.1 0.3 4 ..1 0.3 1.5 0.2 --2.9 0 ..2 2.9 0.2 2.2 0.2 0.1 0 ..1 45.1 4.7 27.6 1,"9 --21.6 1.9 16.2 10.1 10.2 0.1 47.4 3.3 51.6 4.0 190.5 21.9 229.8 15.8 92.6 6.4 322.4 22.2 19.6 L.8 40.1 .2.8 2.9 0.2 '43.6 3.0 54.5 5.0 103.3 7.1 .\5.3 1.0 118.6 8.1 305.1 23.5 158.5 10.9 1.2 0.1 159.1 11.0 215.3 15.1 24.7 1.1 --24.7 1.7 109.8 8.9 85.8 5.9 --85.8 5.9 704":3 54.3 413.0 28.4 19.4 1.3 432.4 29.7 43.4 3.4 --6.4 0.4 6.4 0.4 43.6 '3.0 18.5 1.1 24.7 1.7 - - 24.7 1.1 102.5 7.6 26.2 1.8 --26.2 1.8 2.3 0.2 2.3 0.2 208.0 15.7 -50.9 3.5 6.7 0.6 59.6 4.1 1.5 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.6 0,.2 0.1 2.3 8.3 11.5 Devil ~on to Golli Cr~k (railroad)~ ac mi 2.0 0.3 72.011.8 2.0 0.0 3.7 1.5 0.1 14.1 •50.0 70:0 Hatana to Devil Ccmvon (road).£!- ac mi 402.5 36.9 14.2 1.3 39.3 3.6- 1.1 0.1-. 2.2 0.2- 9.8 0.·9 26.2 2.4 92.8 8.5 19.6 1.8 54.5 5.0 110.2 10.1 13 ..1 1.2 58.9 5.4 256.3 23:5 10.9 1.0- 18.5 1.7 24.0 2.2- 53.4 4.9 1.5 1.9 0.1 0.3 •i" TABLE 4-3 Denali Hwy to wat~.I)a (road)!Y ac mi 1.5 4.4 21.8 27.7 629~8 43.3 194.9 13.4 202.2 13.9 50.9 3.5 448.0 30.8 30.5 2.1 43.6 3.0-- 78.5 5.4- 152.6 10.5 1.5 0.1 APPOOXIMATE ARPA OF E1\CH ,VEl3El'ATl00 TYPE 'ro BE CLEARED AND tam'fl OF EACH \7mEl'hTICN TYPE 'lOBE TRlWEFSED BY 'lHED&'D\LI AND NaRl'H ACCESS PlANS , Turdra Wet sedge-grass& sedge-gra~s sedge shrub Mat am cushioo Grassland 'lUl'AL Vegetation TyfJe!/ Shrublard Open taU Closed tall 1DW (birch)~ IDif (willa.if!:! 1DW (mixed)!! Forest WocxllarX!white f3P~ce Open white spr~ \'lcxxUaDi black aprqc.~l Open blacksproce!Y cpen birch Closed birch Closed balsam 'fOPlar!! Open mixed Clasedmixed" Rock U~ 21 Based an Viereck am Dyrness :lY~:O)W.Acreage is based on a cleariD;)"width of 120ft.01 Acreage is based an a clearin;)width of 90 ft. ~Acreage is based an a clearing Hidth Of 50 ft.~Represents potential weUarxl bas,ea an carrelatilVJ Viereck ardDyrness (1980)vegetation types with the Cawardin et a1.(1979)wetlam olasl!iificatioo system..Y Represents area where vegetation has not been Inat--pej between Hurricane am Chulitna PasS. u I' " . _•._..'_ J.~"~Mt~.., ,I Sensitive Areas:In the following paragraphs,sensitive areas along------'..-.- the access routes,where loss or mo:lification of habitat because of increased access may be significant,are discussed. :,':.-~¥~.':"••': .'. ,..",I ,....",,'" .....:.':/;'.:";:.;'.: 4-12 f,J'I.'.•1;, i - 3230B IargeRaptors:One golden eagle and two bald eagle nest sites are likely to be impacted by the Denali plan.The golden eagle nest site is located a1X>ut 0.3 mile from the access road route near the Devil Canyon dam site and a.1:out 0.5 mile upstream from the proposed high bridge across the Susitna River.One bald eagle nest site is located a.1:out 0.25 mile from the railroad route across the SL,LtnaRiver near Gold Creek.It is not feasible to realign the access routes further from these two nest sites due to topographic and engineering considerations..The other bald.eagle nest site is located 0.5 mile from the access road route along Deadmm Creek.None of these three nest sites \>;Quld be destroyed,but human disturbance--related iIIlpacts would.likely'have Sl)IIle level of impact ranging from alIrost.none to nest site desertion. Increased Access:Th~Denali plan \vould require the construction of approximately 80 miles of access road and 12 miles of access railroad (see Table 4-3).These figures can 'be used as iooices of the extent of ~ area 9ubject to increased access as a result of access plan develop.nent.However,they do not take into account theey.:isting' degree of accessibility of the areas concerned.Therefore,indices for measuring degree of accessibility of the areas concerned were developed,based on the prese:..'lce of &isting roads,railroads,sled roads,4-Wheel drive rOClds,cabins,and lodges and considering the lindtaticns on access imposed by slope and the Susitn.a River.As described in Appendix A,areas are classified as highly accessible, mcrlerately accessible,or inaccessible.The relative accessibility of areas along the Denali plan after construction of the Watana aCC€)$S road,are shown in Figure 4-4,while the net change in the accessibility of this area is shown for both b~e Watana and Devil Canyon projects in Table 4-4.Although these figures are only indices, they more accurately represent the degree of access-related wildlife impacts than simply acCess route length a.lone ..• N DENALI ROUTE (PLAN 18) ACCESSIBILITY SUS8TNA HYOAQELECTRICPAOJECT ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY IJl1I)J{fJiM1·E~A\~(j;®1 IFIGURE ..-.. JUSlr",.JOINf VI""'''' ~y) ..e (") Cantwell ~,:",~:".=",*-",. LEGEND .. ..*1.1 ..J J~jje;,dJ(MWJ;d-ce -...........-.~----'"... ~..i )',.;/t Bigblr '~"'.''~~dbe:Include.c:ontlguoull flat land (leu than 15 percent IIlope)witb1nonellUc of road., aled roadll.4-wheel driveroadll,cabins or lodgea. MODERATELY Accessible:Int:ludes -1)Cont:lguDutJ tlilt land,(less than 15 percent elope)between one and five .ilea fro.roadll,4-wbeel drive roade, sled 1:'08ds,c:abinll ot'lo~£:as;2)contiguous fhttancJ (leu than 15 percent slope)within l' mUe of railroads;and 3)rol11ng and lIIountain- (lualaDd (greater than IS percent slope)\l!thln Qne mile ofroaa.,~-whee1 4rive roads,sled roads,.cabins,or lodges ••.. INACCESIBLE:Includes all lands not def1n~d as highly or moderately accessible. .._-. o ~''''..jIl ..~:.'.!'..... . ~.' t"t'! f qj .:::. p~,,;,jj!,,~ '.''; I, ~.i<iIiI "9~ ~\!~o,,~'"'C"~ -W•.-• ,...:~ #"(]I '\.......,~,.,..~-,,'•".,.'.'_.""IlIIlII""/.. •<:'\."~0..~.~"'"..~, *""R.....•S4 11~~...•,1.I. '·.>t Devil Canyon Project e o 8.870 (8.EJ70) o Net Change Gold Creek to Devil Canyon Rai 1 road o 17,830 9,6~0 27,510 TABLE 4-4 AMOUNT OF LAUD ACCESSIBLE AS A RESULT OF ACCESS ROAD DEVELOPMENT FOR THE DENALI ROUTE (ACRES) EXisting After Constr.EXisting After Constr. Conditions of Access Road Net Change Conditions from of Railroad from Net from Watana·to fromWatana Watana to Gold Creek to from Gold Creek Change Devil Canyon to Oevil Canyon Devil Canyon Devil Canyon to Devil Canyon Existing After Constr. Conditions ~rom of Road from Degree of Denali Highway Denali Highway Accessibility to.Watan~;'.f ../~to Devi,l Canyoh $~"".".,'-'-.,;,'·-f.'~, Uatana Project Highly 6,830 38,020 31.190 2,nO 33,130 31,020 0Accessible Moderately 17 ,940 119,370 101,430 11 .130 55,450 44,320 8,960Accessible. Inaccessible 189,690 57,070 {l32,620>.!!133,190 57.850 (75.340)18.55U -)ta1 214,460 214,460 0 146.430 146,430 0 27.510 1/Val ues in parentheses are net decrease • t. •1" () -.,;ttl ..~1t ~:?t~,~~ .1 At least five other golden eagle,one gyrfalcon,and one goshawk nest site are known to occur within 1 to5 miles oftheprCYr-Osed access road.These sites are not likely to be significantly affected by htnnan disturbance impacts. 4-153230B The proposed railroad would closely parallel Jack Long Creek for several miles near the Devil Canyon railhead facility.This stream and nearby wetlands represent productive beaver habitat (Acres 1983a).• Increased trapping apd sedimentation resulting from railroad and road construction and operation in this area ~uld negatively iII1f:ii-.'K..'t local beaver p::>pulations. The middle fX)rtion of Deadman Creek currently supports a1:x:>ut 0.85 active beaver lcrlges per mile.Even higher densities are supported 1:¥ the marshy section of upper Deadman Creek (Acres 1983a).The area along the middle portion of Deadman Creek also supports a high concentration of red fox dens,relativeto m.ost of the project area (Acres 1983a).Increased trapping pressure resulting from road.access ma.y significantly affect these local pt5puJ.ations.The increased level of hmnan aetivity that would occur along the access road in conjunction with trapping would also reduce the habitat quality of the area for red fox.Extraction of borroo material from the valleybbttom may negatively i~ct many beaver colonies and sedimentation and changes in the hydrologic regime resulting from access road construction may also negatively impact beaver in this area.• Fur'bearers:Development of the Denali plan would result in habitat loss for £urbearers:however,of greatest concern would be the resultant increased trapping pressure and increased level of human disturl::ance.Marten,beaver,muskrat,and red fox are the furbearers likely to be most affected by the increased trapping pressure.Areas of high value to these species that occur along the access routes are the DeadIran Creek area,which is of high value to beaver,muskrat,and red fox,and the Jack Long Creek area,which is of high value to 1Jea.ver and muskrat. .4f..'f,,'\w· Carioou:The l'lorthwesteu:n portion of the~lelchina.caribou herd range is crossed by the Denali plan,primarily along the Denali-v<latana segment. This herd,which presently numbers aJ:x)ut 21,000 and has historically been estimated at 71,000,hc.;~been important to sport and subsistence hunters because of its size and proximity to population centers (Pitcher 1982). Although the area has not recently been used by many animals from the main Nelchina herd,it currently supports a.resident subherd of up to 2,500 caribou (Acres 1983c). o 1 4-16 Prime brown bear habitat is traversed by roth the Denali-Watana and Watana..Devil Canyon segments of the Denali access road route.Several brown bear dens,used by three different bears in 1980 and 1981,were found alon:J the slopes west of upper am middle Deadman Creek and.several dens were fourrl at high elevations \-lest of Tsusena Creek (Miller am McAllister 1982,Acres 1983a).,Access road construction and operation in these areas w::>uld decrease the amount ofaccept:1ble denning and feeding area due to human disturbance,and result in higher direct mortality £:;::011 hunting and nuisance animal control. Brown and Black Bears:Brown bear and,to a lesser extent,black bear would be i.lnp3.ctedby the Denali plan,primarily through increased hunting pressure and other forms of human disturbmce.The access routes avoid good black bear babitat except along lower Deadman Creek,at the Tsusena Creek crossing,near the Devil canyon dam site,and along the railroad route.Road or railroad construction in these areas oould cause aban:i.onment of dens and increased hunting pressure may locally reduce black bear numbers. Moose:AJxess road and railroad development under the Denali plan would resu..1.t in dire~t moose habitat loss and modification,human di sturbance and stibs~lent avoidance of the access road {effectively illcreasing the amount of habitat loss),collision mortality,atrl hunting mortality. Although no major moose concentration areas are crossed by the access routes,c~oparent concentrations of calvingindOse were observed in the vicinity of the mouths of Deadman and Tsusena Creeks,and apparent breeding.concentrations were observed.in the uplands ab::>ve the mouth of Tsusena Creek (Ballard et ale 1982,Acres 1983c). 3230B North Plan I 4-17323013 Although it is difficult to predict the effect of the Denali-Watana access route segment on caribou novements,the high volume of traffic expected during and after construction may reduce the extent of carioou use of the area west of the Denali-Watana segment.This factor,in caribination with other project-related impacts,may reduce the size of the l~.subherd a.rn limit the potential for g.cowth of the main Nelchina herd. . Studies have snown that carioou may 1:e reluctant to cross roads with light to moderate traffic levelsarrl that a proportiQIl of the caribou approachirg a road may refuse to cross at all (euratolo et al.1982). Cows in late pregncmcy or cows with calves have been shown to be especially sensitive to disturbance (Calef et al.1976). H'abitat fDss!Ivbdification:The North plan would result in a long-term loss or mcxiification of alx:>ut 830 acres of wildlife 'habitat due to the presence of the road..This habitat in:?Clct is,summarized by vegetation type and route segment in Table 4-3.Shrubland vegetation types represent about half of this acreage,While forest types represent most ofilie remainder and tundra types represent a relatively small area. Increased hunting pressure,vehicle collisions,habitat 1055,and alterations incariboUmQvements resuItingfrom access road construction aOO operation would negatively impact local carioou numbers.Although results of recent studies are somewhat contradictory, carioou appe':4.r to besensitive to road de"elopnp~t ani use • sensitive Area!:In the .following paragraphs,those areas alClngthe access routes that are sensitive because habitat loss Gr mooification impacts or impacts due to increased access may be significant alre discussed. 4-18 J _.'~ t -- Increased Access:The North access plan would result in coI;lStruction of 61 miles of access road (Table 4-5).The areas along thE~access t:oad that w::>uld be subject to increased access are f,hown in Figure 4-5, while the net charge.in the accessibility of the area is S'noWIl for roth the Watanaand Devil Canyon projects in Table 4-5.Althouqht1lese figures represent indices,they indicate the degree of acces~~related wildlife impacts and thus are useful for comparisop..s .. The North plan would result in the long-term loss or m¢ification of. aOOut 410 acres of p:>tential wetlands due to access road coverage. This figure isartificial1.y high,as discussed earlier,but is useftl1 forccmp:1rison.Extraction of rorrow materials along Portage Creek would substantially add to the level of wetland impacts. Under the North plan,aOOut 20 miles of access road would traverse potential wetlands.This figure represents an index of the ar'aa of wetlands adjacent to the road·that woUld!.,otentially be impacf:.ed by changes in the hydrologic regime and sedimentation as a result of access road construction. Large Raptors:No large raptor nest sites are known to occur wi thin a mile of the North access route.At least eix golden eagle,one bald eagle,one gyrfalcon,-a.nc1 one goshawk nest site are known to .occur within 1 to 5 miles of the access route.These sites are not likely to be significantly affected by human distur1:ance impacts. 3230B ..\.... FIGURE 4-6 ...-.. N '._·l"..""'''...<·z'"'_....;,o • NORTH ROUTE SU$ITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY ACCESSIBILITY lJOJ.ilfiU·E~l~~(fj) ltAir",...JOl.vr tlIN'1CJJ11 " LEGEND Bighly Acce88ibe:Includes contiBuousflat land (leaa than lSpe~cent slope)wit bin one~ile of roada • aled roads.4-wheel drive roads.cattns pr lodges. ~OP~~~TELY Accessible:Includes -1)Cc~tiguous flat -------18nl (les&tban IS percent Blo~e)between one stlll five l1111es from roads.4-whee3.drive roads. ded rosds,cabl!\a or 10d8es;2)contiguous flatland (less than 15 percent slope)within 1 m11e of nilrondsjand 3)rolling !lnd Illountain- "Us "',"'d (greater thl3n 15 percent slope)within one "'Ueof roads.4-wheel drive roada.sled rOllda.cabins.or lodges.I : INACCESIBLE:Inclu4e8 all landanot defined as highly of laOde rat ely accefisible.o ~ '~.;".l:J ~ .(...:/ Gold Creek "'------- .'.•...~~'I ''It ~},J .'~•":...', ..-......sa ;>I~"':-..................~•.~",l-.~_..""..•'1 ,'1-"'".••..-'".~: , "ft ,'"·1I ~,-~.'"] ~ i .'.,. 87~940 37.730 (125.670) o Total Net Change Both Projects 2,020 7,250 (9,270) o Net Change 29,930 6,150 10,300 46,380 After Construction of Spur Road to Devi 1 Canyon Devil Canyon Project 4 •'0' j;11_ 22,680 19,570 46,380Y Existing Conditions Along Spur Road to Devi 1 Canyon 35,710 80,690 Cl16,400)!! o Net P',ahge , TABLE 4-5 M10UNT OF LAND ACCESSIBLE AS A RESULT OF ACCESS ROAD DEVELOPMENT tOR THE NORTH ROUTE (ACRES) 85,850 249,470 45,790 117 ,830 After Construction of Road From Hurricane toWata.la Watana Project lO~U80 37.140 202,250 249,470 Existi.ng Conditions frOl1l Hurricane to Watana Highly Accessible Total Inaccessi bl e (~ Degree of AssessibilHy MOderately Accessible Y Value in parentheses are net decre.3se y 21~990 acres is pa.rt of Hurricahe-to-Watana Dam corridor. <!' I.I "'~~ ,...'-..0 ;1111I ~(.Q ;~.""....!>\• ••.'to /.:• /'.' •''i ~.,...'.~0 .~\\ _J:......................_ --....-----------....---....-""'----=------...---.......------....-.."_--------....~....--..-..........I'J :5 • II' Total .37.730 87.940 2,020 7,250 Devi 1 Canyon Project •.-.__.•.""-~'-.~1 ______....-,...._110;.;....._'..,.., North Plan (Plan ,_13...:,)_ Watana Project 35,710 80:\690 62~210 154,620 Total -_........""""",--.-...".---.....,. 31,020 53,190 Devil Canyon Pro~1ect 31,190 101,430 Watana Project Denal'lPlan (Plan T8)---.._---~-------~------...:.._._- TABLE 4-6 COMPARISON OF THE INCREASE IN THE AMOUNT OF lAND ACCESSIBL;; AS A RESULT OF DEVELOPMENT OF THE DENALI OR NORTH ACCESS PLANS NET INCREASES FROM EXISTING CONDITIONS (ACRES) HfghlyAccess1b1e Moderately Accessible DegreE!of Accessibility '"..~..----..~-.... I.··'.....•-~ f I II ""1.,_tl&"~.__t i ~iPf;ut¥tf~ The Watana-Devil Canyon segntent of the North plan would cross prime. brown 'bear habitat in the high country between Devil and TsUsena Creeks..Several dens were found north of the access route and west of Tsusena Creek in this area (Miller and McAllister 1982,Acres 1983c). A.ccess road construction and operation in this area would decrease the arount of acceptable denning and feeding area due to human disturhance.!t would also result in higher direct mortality from hunting.. 4-21 Brown and Black Bears:Both brown and black bear would be irnpact·.;ri by the North plan,primarily through increased hunting pressure and 1ther forms of human disturbance.The route traverses much black bear bahitat between Hurricane ar.td.Portage Creek (including the Devil Canyon spur road)and would p:lSs near a large bear den near Portage Creek. The existing level of accessibility of this area,however,together with the steep slopeS along many portions of this segment,suggfas't that the increase in human access-related impacts to black bears would not be severe.Black bears may also be impacted in the vicinity of the Tsusena Creek crossing. Furbearers:As in the case for the Denali plan,marten,beaver, muskrat,and red fox are the s,pecies most likely to be affected by the North plan.Areas.of high value to these species that occur along the access .route are theChuIitna Pass and Portage Creek areas which represent productive beaver and muskrat habi.tat.Increased trapping pressure resuItiIl3 from improved access may occur in these areas but the increase would probably be slight relative to other areas in the vicinity of the P:t:~ject due to the existing level of accessibility arrl the steep slopes encountered within much of this area.Extraction of borrow material from the l'.m.lley bottom along Indian River and Portage Creek may negatively impact many beaver and muskratl'however.Also, due to the high pote..T'ltialfor significant sedimentation impacts along Portage Creek (which is paralleled for aOOut 9 miles)due to road construction,aquatic furbearer habitat may be sgnificantly degraded along this segment. 323GB '•...".' ...:' 4.3.2 Socioeconomics 4-22 (rro BE INSERI'ED J Moose:Access road develOl:nent urXier the North plan would result in directroose bahitat loss and mcrlification,human disturbance and subsequent avoidance of the access road (effectively increasing the amount of habitat loss)"and collision mortality.r'JOOse impacts would occur along the Hurricane to Portage Creek area segment (including the Devil Canyon spur road)..Because this area is already relatively accessible arti contains many steep slopes,access-related imPacts should not be t(X)severe.Seasonal IOC>Ose concentrations in the 'rsusena. Creek drainage and lower Deadman Creek f2:'eas,which are presently relatively inaccessible,may be more sever1y impacted. Carioou:The North access plan would result in limited carioou impacts.It ge.."1erally avoids the ran:le of the subherd :potentially affected by the Denali access plan arXi passes through areas only lightly used by the main Nelchina herd. Wildlife iJI1.Pacts,in general,would be greater for the Denali plan than for the North plan.Impacts to large raptors,furbearers,bra.m bear, am.carioou \\Ould be highest under the Denal~plan,while inpacts to black bear and moose are likely to be highest under the North plan. Wetlands impacts and the tota!a:iilOunt of habitat loss would also be highest under the Denali plan.Of greatest conCFml is the increased, accessibility to sensitive areas and road traffic along the Denali route which \\UUld result from.access road construction.Table 4-6 presents a comparison of the increase in the amount of land accessible as a result of the developnent of the Denali or North access plans.As indicated in that table,the increase in the amount of land accessible to humans is considerably higher if the Denali route is adopted than if the·North route is selected.. Cgnparison 3230B t .. 3230B "sccromCNCMIcs TO BE INSERl'ED 4-23 -. t.'.'.,:1':'..:~, ;I 3230B "SCCIOEXXNCMICS TO BE INSERrED II 4-24 I ---' • 3230B IISOCIOECCN(l.fiCS TO BE INSERI'EDII 4-25 J'.j ~ 4.3.3 Fisheries Denali Plan This route crosses a total of 55 streams.(See Table 4-7)Little is known about the species present nor their relative abundances in these streams...The following brief descriptions of known and potential resourc~s along this route is based on information in Exhibit E OF THE Susistna Hydroelectric Project License Aa;>lication. Between Cantwell am theWatana Access Road,thell'ajor river basins crossed are those of the Nenana and Jack rivers.Fish species that may be present are graylirg,Ilorthern pike,burl:x.>t,whitefish,and sculpin.Tributaries to these streams that nay be crossed .-.ould p'Otentially contain grayling and sculpin. Lily C:t'eek,Seattle Creek,and Brush Kana Creek,as well as numerous unnamed streams,are c.t'ossed in the Denali High\'.'aY to Watana road segment.The species present could be the same as those for the Nenana am Jackrivers.Upper Deadman Creek will.also be crossed..This creek,a tribut~to theSusitna River,is considered important grayling habitat (ADFG 1982).These grayling are considered significant due to the relatively large size a.."'1d older age classes that are present"The vetana access road will parallel Deadman.Creek for a considerable distance (see Figure 4-1).H~ever,the road will be set back an average of 1/2 mile to reduce.accessibility and thus reduce fishing pressure~Additionally,.this set back should decrease the .r:i.sk for impacts due to erosion and sedimentation" Two major streams that will be crossed in the Wa·t:ana.to Devil Canyon segment are Tsusena and Devil creeks.Devil Creek will be paralleled. (see Figure 4-1).These streams contain grayling and may contain cottids,whitefish,longnose suckers,and Dolly Varden. A crossing of tlle SusitnaRiver will be made approximately 2 miles downstream of the Devil Canyon damsite.Speoies present in this river reach include all five species of sawn (chum,chinook,sockeye,coho, and pinksalnon)and probably grayling',whitefish,cottids and longnose suckers)• 3230B North Plan 4027 In the road segment between Devil Canyon and Hurricane,the most significant.strearli.crossed is th~Indian River which has runs of salmon. (see Table 4-8).This route~;lll require ~t and fills in approximately 918 miles of road with slop.es greater tbar1 30%.This will p:)tentially requite Sediment and erosion control.The arnolU'lt of material to be excavated on each route ranges f.rol\l 66,000 eubj.c ~rcrrds 323013 The Denali Plan will have cut and fills in aBproxima.tely 5.6 miles of cross slo.~s greater than 15%(See Table 4-7).Such areas could have a significant potential for runoffarrl.erosion...The amount of ~cavation for this route ranges from 16,700 cubic yards per mile to about 100,000 (See Table 4-7).The lcu'gest average is along the Watana to Denali Highway segment.This implies a 'jreater potential for erosion impacts.lbrrow ar(=a'..a5 which may contain potential spa:wning gravels" will l:e taken from upland sites at."iC therefore are of low concern. However ,potential OOrr0.-..1 areas near Deadman Cr'eek could remove spaWhing gravels ani impact water ql~1ality (turbidity and suspended sediments)if not prope-.rly sited. This route crosses 30 streams (See lrable 4-7).Between Watana and. Devil canyon damsi tes,the major streams crossed are Tsusena and Devil Creek.Fish species present in these creeks,as 1Tl!.:mtioned before for the Denali Plan,are grayling and potentially cclttids,whi tefish" longnose suckers al1Cl Dolly Varden.In addition,.l?ortageCreek,which lsparalledfor approximately seven miles containa significant numbers of salmon (See Table 4-8). Two streams of iIIlpJrtance in the railroad.segment between Gold Creek and Devil Canyon (See Figure 4-2)are J·ack Long and Gold creeks.Jack Long Creek has relatively small numbers of salmon (See Table 4-8)as does Gold.Creek.Other species present are not.documented..The railroad will parallel Jack IDng Creak (See Figure 4-2). Iiif;.,~: 'II ....'0-',.,:.",....~6 ~.f:,"'':;'",••"S",,JI.D t.I~''!",4 I .0\;:~'...'~1f -~.".....,.'.,....~·~.<J ·L t::.5ca.~~~,{,~9~;"'~,,,"'~tf ".#...,p -, ,~.•G''~'.4.~.\z'..'~.~~,~.~..,.".:,,'t-'~'~.:\'• \~..}."'"~.."~p""JQ ~.....t .,.""....~~,.. ..~l'"\.'"""';'.--'t?J~,16 •9'".-,---:;.'•~Q'ib °0 ,;,'"P",Ej'01.~".~.'""~••..d'..t •_\...•.#~Q l''''''II .!!...~~~O'!"\A!.4...,••.••. -9t Potential for Increased Public Access & Indirect Effects r10derate r~ost Si gnificant Fisheries Resources GraYli ng Repource.s in Deadman Lrep.k - Resident f1Shes in other streams Anadrolnous Salmon Moderate spawning areas in Indian River and Portage Creek - Resident fishes 1n other areas. Ablation Tilll ~lj:.:ed G1 ad 0- fluvial General Types o~\ Soils ~Iixed G1aci,::1/ fluvial Basal Till Basal Till BaSal Ti11/ Colluvium over Bedrock Basal Till Basal Til 1/ ColluVium oVer Bedrock 2.0 2.4 o 1.2 7.9 5.6 0.8 Miles of Slope Greater Than 15% Amount of Material Excavated cu.Yds/mi. ~]-"PJ; Hiles of Stream Paral1e1edi!1 18.3 0.9 16,700 35.3 0 100.000 20.0 1.5 29,250 6.8 3.6 78,000- 80.4 6.0 223,950 6.8 0.6 111.500 'i.'.J.7 4.3 150,000 Tft.BLE 4-7 COMPARISOU Of FISHERIES RELATED IMPACT PARAMETERS o o o o o 1 No.of Important Anadromous Stream Crussings 7 6 24 10 55 21 15 Mo.of Streams. CrossedRQtlte o Denali Highr,laj1 (upgrarte exi!iting road) o Denali Highway to Watana o Devi 1 Canyon toWatana a Gold Creek to Devil Canyor.l (Rail road) o HUrrica.'?e to Indion River o ~ndvan Rivert~Watana c Indian River to 2 1 2.7 0.3 66,001!.-1.1DevilCanyon (Spur road) 30 3 39.2 5.2 327,500 9.8 Denali Plan (Plan 18) North Plan (Plan 13) 30788 .§/first column corre$ponds to miles of stream parallel 1.0 miles on each side of the centerline of the routes. This does not include th~Susitna Riller.Second column corresponds to miles ofstreoJm parallel and greater ttlal'30'1.slope. '....cfV"~..-",. ;.::,., ~!t~-' eW.Ali)';P.'iij. 11 1982 2 3 21 1 1982 142 11 1 1982-- 1053 1346 738 101 1982 1253 153 4 169 88 o 1. o 659 o o o 22 1981__/2 o o 1981 1981 422 40 2 85 1981 4-29 II ''P ..... r,'fi .~,', Gold Creek ChilXlOk Pink Coho Jack long Creek, ChiIXX)k Chum l?ink Coho Indian R:i.ver.. Chinook Chum Pink Coho Portage Creek Chinook Chum. Socke1¥e Pink Coho 0' o o Source =FERCLICBNSE APJ?LICATICN EXHIBIT E No counts made o o Table 4-8 Denali P~an INDEOC AREA PEAK SAUm SPAW.'fiNG CCXJNTS BY AIASKA DEPARrMEl-."T OF FISH A.1\JD GAME _11 00 r-roOR STREAMS CroSSED BY '!'HE 'IW)ACCESS ROAD ROJrES (EXCUJSIVE OF SUSITNA RDlER CQUNI'S) North Plan 3230B 4-30 :1'-'''''-_·''>,. .~ 3230B Although the tradeoffs 'between the two routes amy bllance in the long tam,the overall potential for long term rishfoJ::ili'11S-Ct to fisheries resourceS'is slightly higher for the North route due to the higher p::>tential for erosion and runoff,primarily to Portage Creek.Impacts Along the Denali route,the major areas of concern associated with fisheries are the grayling of Deadman Creek and potentially the salnon resources of Jack Long a.nd Gold creeks.The salIr.:)1'l resources of Indian River and.Portage Creek are considered the major .resources of concern along the North Route. Although the Denali Plan crosses more streams rmd parallels an important fish stream (Deadman Creek)for a considerable distance,it generaly follows relatively flat terrain in which runoff could be more easily controlled than in the North Plan..Further,the number of miles wi th side slopes greater than 15%is less for the Denali route even though it i.]longer overall than the Northern route".!''I.'his fact suggest j that impacts will be less on the Denali Route~ In comparing the two routes from a fisheries pat'spective,proper construction practices under favorable conditions would avoid or minimize impacts on roth routes.In addition,access related impacts are I~ntrollable to a large extent through the imposition of stricter fishing regulations and increased enforcement activitYo Therefore,if mitigation }",s effective,the impacts to fisheries on roth routes are considered to be low to IIICX1erate.and to be comparable (See Table 4-7). per mile to 111,500.Although most of the furrow material for the route will be taken from upland sites if p::Jssible,there may be a need for removing materials from the Portage Creek flocdplain which increases rish for erosion and runoff,de,pending on the priximity of the borrow site to the creek.Increased use of the area by fishermen will occur and potential areas of impact could c::cur along Indian River and Portage Creek. to DeadIn&"'l Creek would potentially be significant if the road ran next to the stream.However,becauz~it is set reck a distance,both potential erosion problems and accessibility problents will be minimized.The resources of Jack Long and Gold creeks are smaller than Portage Creek or In::lianRiver •Therefore,the numbers of fish potentially affected is smaller in Jack Long and Gold creeks. 4-·313230B J 4.3.4 land Use Denali Plan Landowner Preferences:The Denali Plan would cross approximately 27 miles of federal land administered by the ~'.Jt"ealJ of Land Management (BIN).'!he BI.M has proposed to qpen these lands,which etre within the Denali :Planning Block,to mineral location and leasing (BIM 1982).To the extent that the Susitna access road might contrioote to such cievelopnent,the BIMwould presumably favor the Denali plan. Recreation or other management considerations,howeve"";could affect BLMls preferencesQ The State of Alaska.will be ama.jor holder of project area.land, generally north of the Susitna.River,and has a general policy favorin;} settlement and development of its 1a.'1ds.The Denali plan \tK)uld conform with this policy. As stated previously,the primary landcwner interest in the configuration of the access plan has come fran Native organizations. Large tracts of land along the Susitna River and to the south of it have lYden.or will be conveyed to ('.oak Inlet Region,Inc ..(CIRI)arrl associated Native village corporations.CIRI and the village corporations have been strong and consistent supporters of any plan providing access to their lands on the south side of the SusitnaRiver , and therefore originally favored the South plan (Plan 16).Because this plan has now been eliminated and the DP..nali plan provides access to h,.e SQuth side of the river at the Watana damsite ,the !Jet::Iclli plan is acceptable to these Native organizations .. Evaluatic~~~of landowner preferences concen-.dng the access plan m.ust also consider the }?Osi tions of Native organizations in the Cantwell area,where the Ahtna Native.Regional Corporation and the Cantwell Village Corp:>ration both have significant land selections..rlbese grou'ps favor the Denali plan,due to the positive itqpet ;t woUld provide for development of Native-cmned lands in and around.cantwell ffioI3 long the Denali:S:ighway.4--32 \ I 4-333230B The Matanuska-Susitna Borough is currently in the process of upjating its CCIllPrehensive plan (Acres 1982c).The existing plan provides Iittle discussion of tJ'leSusitna project or the surrounding lands, alt..hough the project area is a mixed-use zone consistent with the proy;osed developnent.The Mat-su Eorotlgh has also created the Talkeetna Mountains Special Use Distric.t,which ihcludes the project area,and provides for planning t ~ning,and permittingautr~rity within this district..Much of the Denali plan WOuld be throu:Jh lands Plan Consistency~The Susitna access system could conceivably influence land use planning efforts at the federal,state,and 'borough levels.Current or future plans that are relevant to the access decision include BIM plans at the federal level,plans of the Department of Natural Resources (WR)t am the Department of 'I:ransportation and Public Facilities (OOI'-PF)at the state level,am several planning efforts of the Matartuska-Susitna Borough. The Alaska r::xm bas compieted a resource assessment and a preliminary resource inventory addressing lands in the project area,but actual land use plans msed on thesE~efforts have yet to be developed (Acres 1982c)•The Denali route crosses lands selected by the state and w::>uld therefore influence planning for those lands,but any more specific effec:ts cannot be established at this time.The Denali plan would ~ fully consistent with Alaska oor-PF plans to upgrade the Denali Highway.The Denali Scenic Highway Study could also be a significant planning factor l but BtM (Wrabetz 1983)has indicated tbat the Denali Highway will not.be reconnnended for designation as a Scenic Highway. The Denali plan would appear to be consistent with BI.M plans for its Denali Planning Block,because it would .not interfere with,and would p::l3sibly contribute to,the mineral exploration and development activities interxied by BIM.However,increased recreational activity and other uses induced by this access pla1'1 would create additional future planning and managem.ent responsil:>ilities for BI.,lI.1,and would quite possibly conflict with prospecting and mining activities. 4-3.43230B Increased USe resulting from access development r::ould f?.xtend in either direction of.the proposed access roads.Accordingly,the size of the area affected.will largely be detennined by the length of the access route and ease of access into adjacent areas.The Denali plan,as indicated in the discussion of accessibility in the Wildlife section (Section 4.3.1),woUld lead to increased access and activity over a large area of undeveloped land. slated only for mineral developnent,and for which ltlOre complete planning guidelines and procedures have not bee..1'1 establisherl.In general,although the Mat-SU Borough plan provides little guidance on t.lleaccess question,the Denali plan wculd not adversely affect planning efforts and is the one preferred by the Mat-Su.Borough Plannin;Director (see Table 3-:2). Native organizations with land.selections near the Susitna River have not yet instituted any land use plans or management actions.These orgal"lizations have expressed an interest in residential,recreation, miniIl:3,and forestry developnent <::>n their lands. Induced Land-Use Changes:The Denali plan would create irrluced land use changes by providin;access to a fonnerly unroaded area.Much of the induced activity would be recreational in nature or subsistence use,but the improved access WQuldalso stimulate mineral exploratioo and demand for residential and corrnnercial recreation development.Many of the affected interests would clearly view the improved access and induced changes as a pesitive feature,am v-ould prol:a.bly favor the .greatest degree of access.Wildlife am wilderness interests and sane other groups would view such changes negatively,and would favor strict access control or a plan providing neW access to the smallest possible area.Evaluation of improved access and its associated effects is therefore not an issue wi 1:...'1 obvious right or wrong answers '"Howev~, some evaluative conclusionsca.n'be offered by focusing on the size of the area affected,the level of increase:i activityt and the effect of this activity on existing or desired conditions. fl. ··.'-·H,. •!' ;....~ The g<Xxiness or badness of this increased activity is a subjective judgment,indicating that its role in the decision procsss is unclear • HOt/ever,i tappears that the negative effects associated with access development COUld be reduced if land arXlresource management tools are devoloped and implemented. A final important consideration is the possibility of future access developnent and i tsim:Pact.lmUCed lani use changes resultin;;fran the Susitna project and development of the Native-owned lands will almost certainly create a demand for additiona!road developmene.If the Denali plan were adopted,this demand might soon make inevitable a road connection westward to Hurricane.This walld create a canplete road loop through the project area,open.the corridor of each access plan to increased use,and provide the greater accessibility to the more populus Anchorage area.Such a develofment would clearly prevent the use of t.l}e fact that access was provided via a dead-end route to control access and land use changes. North Plan Landowner Preferences:The North plan would not cross BIM land,but woUld.cross State lams.Develqpnent of thi$plan would generally be cOL"1.sistent with the State's policy favoring settlement and development .. A small amount of Native land would also 'be crossed by the North route, but the primary concern of the Native organizations is to develop access to the south side of the Susitna River.The North plan, assuming access across Watana Dam,would provide access to this area in accordance with the preferences of.the Native organizatiOhS.. 'plan ConsistencY:BI.M plans would have no affect on development of the North access route 'because it does not cross BI.M administered lands. Also as indica.ted in the earlier discussion of the Denali plans,land use pJ.an;;;for State lands have not yet been developed.so it is difficult to assess plan conSisteiCY bn State lands~ 3230B 4-35 1-·,' ,f,....... 4-36 The developme:..nt.of tr,.e North plan would also provide a reasonable degree of assurance that a lOOp from the Farks Highway to the Denali Highway would not bE.·constructed.The dead-em acess to Wata.."}a would appear to be adequate for the Devil Canyon and Watana projects and there would be no project....relatedreason to cemplet~the lOOp up to the Denali Highw-ay.Further,becal1$e of the distance#'40 mil~~s~ardcost it would appear to be unlikely that a road to tl1~:Dar~li Eignway from vatana would be ~onstrt-1ctoo in the near £uture~ 32JOa As indicated aOOve,Native organizations near the project area have also not yet adopteci any comprehensive land us~plans.The North route,however,would provide access to Native lands on the south side of the river and would be consistent with the Native organizations I interest in residential,recreation,mining,and forestry developnent on their landsoa The Mat-Su Borough,as described earlier,is currently up:jating its ccmprehensiveplan.Altb:>ugha plan bas not yet been develcped,it appears that the North access alter:nativewould provide access in areas that will be subject to the updatedcanprehensive plan and the provisions of the Talkeetna Mountains Special Use District and, consequently,would be more consistent with logical and orderly planning for developnent in the Susitna Basin than if it passed through lands slated only for mineral development and which lacked more complete planning guidelines and procedures.~ Induced Land-Use Change:Induced land-use change would result fromm development of the North plan,although a portion of the area is already partially accessible so land use'changes would not be as great .as on the Denali route.The biggest land use charge would result fran the fact that the improved access would increase the ease with which people from AnChora.ge and.nearby communities oonld reach the project area.As discussed aOOve,the desirability o£increased access is a subjective judgment with no clettr role in the decision process.It is, however,impOrtant toreco:Jrlize that the area the Nort'h plan crosses is already affected by human activity (especially as compared to the Denali route)oa ~....'.:'~ Gan,parison;l~either the Denali or North plan can be consistently rated as more favorable on the basis of the previously identified land.use criteria.The Denali plan appears to be more in accordance with the preferences of project area land CMlerS,while the two plans are comparable,in terms of influence upon existing and future l?m use plans.The relative merits of the two aCCess plans in regard to their irrluced land l..1Se changes are difficult to establish,but it appears :that the ~_assqs!atedW!th the North plan \«)uld_~.mo~ "-".'........._..-~-...... CQDpatib~:with desired conditi0!}S_On balanceff it must be concluded that neither plan is clearly preferrable from a land use stand!X'int. 4-37 ,...~..' 3230B 1-...,II. i - 4-38 Currently,recreation use of the Susitna Basin is inhibited by limited access.The existing lodges and cabins are very dispersed and activity is at a lCM level of intensity.Current use of the area is tied closely to the needs of the local population for subsistence use. Access to the area by recre,tlon hunters an:i fishermen is .largely by air..Through questionnaires and workshops"the public has indicate:1 a \ preferEmce £or low to moderate recreationaL developmept in re"ponse to . the Susitna project (Acres 1982b) Impacts on recreation resources will occur in three phases:during the construction of Witana Dam when the area will be used by project workers;during the constructi.on of Devil canyon Dam when the Watana access road may '.be open to thep.1blic,and during cperations when the complete access road ani Devil canyon railroad spur fran Gold Creek may be open to the public.'This impact assessment will address the!latter two pnases'because it ca.'1-be assumed t.hat recreation use of the Susitna Basin by construction workers would be comparable :cegardless of which access route is selectedo The recreation pla..'"l,which is included in the FERC License ~-pplication, is a proposal to exp:md existing resources am develop ~w trails, campsites,primitive campingJ shelters,'tdat ramps and boat storage, and parking areas at the traiL.~eads.The urrlerlying as~umption of the recreation plan is that the Oena1i plan rather than the North'plan route,would be selected..SbmE!of the proposed recreational activities could be developed for the North plan,however.The intent of the recreation plan is to maintain the low to IrPderate intensity of recreational USe for a variety of activities that will appeal toa large population.Proposed.recreation developments would occur in pbases corresponding to the const:cuction and operation phases of the two dams.,The results of five methCrls used.to esti~te future recreation demand are that 43,000-50,000 recreation user days/year can beexpectedq.t the CQ!npletion of 1:beproject.Assumptions used in forecasting demand and a discussion of the uncertainties associated '2~:wI th the project are presented i1'1 the ~License Application,Exhibit ~rison 4-39323lB Impacts of recreation use on the loss or degradation of scenic quality, wildernessd1araeter,and fish am wildlife babitatsare difficult,if not iInI:X>ssible,to predict at b,is tirre.By applying the criteria listed in Section 3 f a corqparison of the relative impacts of the DeI".a.li and North plans can be made.The major differences between the two plans in terms of recreational resources is the size and extent of the... area that would beccme accessible upon the completion of the project and the travel time from population centers.Wi th the railroad spur from Gold Creek to Devil CC41yon site arrl accsss road that cOunects the Devil Canyon to vatana dam sites,the Der.to.li plan will form a lc::x:>p arrl will openupnore of the TJpper Susitna Basin.T'ne loop it~,el:E will not be driveable ~a car,however,because there will only be rail access from the west.Constructicn of the North plan will open up asma.ller area to the public unless another road were built to connect t.he access road to the Denali Highway.Access to the project area via the North route 'will be easier for residents of Anchorage..howevel;'. The recreation plan identifies planned recreation resources to meet the needs of the estimated demand and can be counted asp:>sitive impacts. Development associated with the tourist industry could occur outsidE.. the scope of the recreation plan and result in unanticipated impacts. This type of unplanned develop1Ilent could include second home developnent,ledges f motels and eati~establishments..The extent to which this development occurs depends on changes in land ownership and status within the project area,pnticularly lanqs presently owned .1:¥ the Native corporations.The type and intensity of this resUlting developnentwill detennine whether these impacts are construed as positive or adverse. The difference in travel time from Anchorage between the t\\Q access p.lan$.is awro.lC.ima.tely l-1/2.to 2 hours 1.0ng.er for.th~Pe.nali Pl.an../. '!he number of people who would l:e willing to travel 4 f rot not 6,hours . one way is difficult to predict.The travel time plan from Jfairbanks to the recreation areas is approximately the sarne for each plan and is 4.3.6 Aesthetics The major aesthetic consideration related to access road development is the mere fact that a road will be constructed into the highly scenic project area.The Cievelopment of an access would have both positive ani negative effects,regardless of the route selected.Positive effects result from the increased opportunity individuals \\QuId have to view this highly scenic landscape.Negative effects result from the fact that the con~truction of man-made facilities in urrlevelqf?ed areas could be incompatible with the natural landscape and therefore create high visual impacts themselves. 4-40 ,',,.,./'"' "-,..:~' {.,,'~'- 323lB In general,both the positive and negative impacts can 1:le considered simulanteously 1:y evaluating whether the proJ;Osed facilities will be Cornp:ltible with the existing landscape the ability of the natural landscape to a1:?sorbthe proposed.access development plans will strongly affect the compatibility.Emphasizing p::>tential compatibility'is • appropriate because it is recognized that the scenic quality in the study area is high along all access routas am that significant views would occur for any route developed.Consequently..the major factor to• consider in analyzing eaCh route I spotential for taking advantage of positive aspects ofrcad developnent is whether or not the road or other facil:i,ty ,can be absorbs.d into the landscape wi tbminimal impact..'l11.±s is the same concernassooiate:i hd thminimizing potential negative impacts Of access road develor.;;-;nent..Thus,potential fa}.' absorption is important in analyzing both positive and negative aspects of access development. less important than the recreational demands of the more heavily populated And1drage area..As a result of the easier accessibility fran Anc."'lorage to the project area via the North plan,it is expected that the stre3:mS crossed by the road and the back country would be more heavily used.Existing loCigesand.facilities could be expanded and new· ones developed in response to the recreation use.A recreation plan for this area would need to reflect more intensive use.The factor of traveltime,hcMever,could balance out tl1e differences in the size of the project area.madeaccessi'j;)le. Denali Plan The following discussi on presentsinforna.tion on how the facilities end road segments of m:North and Denali plans differ in their effect on aesthetic resources..The compatibility of the features of each plan with the larrlscape they will be affecting is considered. 4-41 In flat areas,the road can be absor.bed IrDre readily provided obvious man-made features,such as a long straight sectic1'l of road ,are not introduced.A straight road surface across the flat terrain cf these landscapes would introduce a significant contra~t in form,textur(~,am color of the natural landscapes due to vegetation removal and soil dis-i::~ba.nce• 323lB The Denali Plan,as proposed,is the 10I"}(Jer transportation route of the two alternatives OOi11g considered.Thi~access alternative bas the potential for visual impacts to occur more frequently than.&long the North plan.The first phase of developm€l.nt for the Denali alternative involves providing access from the proposed railhead nec2r Cantwell to watana.This includes upgrading approximately 21 miles of the Denali Highway and construction of a 42-rnile segment of two-lane gravel roadway from the Denali Highway to the 'Watana carrp.This WOtlld.be follCMed by a rail and :t'oad link to Devil Canyon When that pr()ject is constructed..The aesthetic impacts are analyzed by considering il!'@acts of the railhead facility,the Denali Highway upgrad.e,and the construction of the road from the Denali Highway to Watana .. Absorption cfroads by landscapes can generally be achieved more readily in flat arrl rolling terrain tban in steep terrain..Road work in mountainous areas will require a greater degree of landscape mdh....ication.Specifically because larger cuts and fills will re required..Visual impacts associated with exposed cut and fill sections along a .roodwayinclude contrasts in the natural landform,potential contrast wit.1t the natural landscape color and texture d.ue to soil disturbance or vegetation 1:"eJl1Oval,and the intrcduction of man-made structures (e.g.,retaining walls,binwalls,culverts,guardrails)into a natural environment .. 1:\.••..t~ The pro.lX'sed railheadfacility site \'wtill be appro:~imately one mile sout.:h of Cantwell.It will be constructed inunediately adjacent to the east side of the railroad tracks behind a snail ridge Which exists between the railroad and the Parks Highway. 4-42 1t ··It ".~" '!!----. 323lB De..'1a.li Highway Upgrad;~:The relationship of the Denali Scenic Highway stUdy to the proposed Denali plan ms been identified as an important concern in evaluating the access alternatives.The Bureau of Land Management,in cooperation wi thother federal and state agencies,has recently assessed i:hemerit of designatirl/3'the Denali Highway as a Federal Scenic Highway...The ~E~(:lhdation of the Denali Scenic Highway Visibility of the railhead facility site is anticipated to be minimal, although much of the topography along the Parks Highway i.n the Cantwell area is rela.tively flat.Ffue site located behind the rid9;e is approximately one mile west of the highway..Views of travele.t.s from.the highway will be most frequa'ltly directed tCMard the s~eni~mountains on ei therside of the highway or for short--term periods toward Cantwell Creek or along the highway corridor.The most si.gni.ficant aesthetic iwpact which.may result from the developnent of cbe railhead facility site will be the heavy t ...'Ucks crossir'lg the Park!;Highway enroute to the damsite location and the associated increased noise levels.The location oft.lle reailhead away from Town and the Parl;;;:!:Highway wil keep these impacts to a minimum..Impaots will result from trucks crossing the Parks Highway,but beCause truCks will cross,rather thar..travel along the Parks Highway,aesthetic impacts will le limited. Cantwell Railhead Facility:A railhead facility will be required near the Cantwell i::cwnsite to facilitat.e unloading and storags of construction equipment 'being shipped via the Alaska Railrcad.A several acre,fenced are will be develqped to hous~fuel storage tanks,a maintenance workshop,unloading dc:x:k,mdular office and miscellaneous facility structures required to fuel and maintain transport and construction equipment as previously presenteci in Figure 2-6.Equipment will b~ transported from the !'ailhead site to the damsite by heavy trucks traveling the access road. Denali Highway to Wat~:The majority of the proposed new road would traverse the 'boundary between two distinct larrlscape character types t the Chulitna Mount5.ins to the west and the Wet Upland Turrlra to the east. Feasibility Study,scheduled for release in April 1983 ,will be that the Denali Highway should not be included as a Federal Scenic Highway under fe:leral .regulation (Wrabetz 1983). u'ii 4-433231B Views of the Chulitna Mountain landscapesa:ce quite scenic and are generally composed of rugged glacially carved mountain peaks·rising to elevations over 6,000 feet g a number of river drainages and tundra and shrub vegetation species daninating the steep mountain slopes while scattered stands of spruce and deciduous trees line tlie river drainages. It is planned that approximately 21 miles of the Denali HighwaY,from the Parks Highway to the Watana turnoff,will require up:rradirg.Aesthetic impacts associated with this construction activity,as well as during construction of the Susitna project,will be primarily related to increased nl.lIIlbers of construction vehicles as well as increases in noise and dust (susperrled particulate)levels.During peak perioos of construction,there will be an increas:a in use of the Denali Highway several times a1X:>ve the existing levels.The uwrading of this highway will be coordinated with the Alaska Department of Trcmsportation .and Public Fac!lities and the scenic quaJ.ity of the 21 miles of upgraded road will be maintained or enhanced. The Wet Upland Tundra is characterizedby'flat to rolling topographic l:'elief with .frequent 009 and wetland areas and low-growing vegetation, typical of tundra environments.Extended.openpanaromic views of these landscapes are :possible due to the absence of vegetation and nnuntainous Consequently,federal regulation governing 'the construction or uwrading for future use of Federa]~Scenic Highways will not apply to the Denali Highway.Despite the fact tha the Denak ..~bighway will not be a federally designated scenic Highway,aesthetic impacts to it are important because of the Highway·s high scenic quality. terrain.AFProximately the southern one-third of the Phase 1 Denali HighwaY-Vhtal'la segment will tr~verse the Wet Upland Tundra landscapes. Big and Deadman Lakes,identified as exceptional natural features in Exhibit E of.the PERC License Application,are within two to three miles of the proposed road alignr~lent (see Figure 4-1). __,'i< ~1 323lB This landscape type can be characterized as having a mcderate absorption capability.A moderate absorption capability rating reflects the pc:>tential for the diverse physical larrlscapefeatures to absorb and integrate man-made elements with minimal visual inpacts. Providing that the access road alignment is compatible with the existing landform configuration,the most significant visual impacts are likely to result from cut and fill construction tecbniques and. subseqUent erosion-related visual impacts.This segment ofroa.d will I 445 ]-,.,.,,, 323lB \A6tana.to Devil Canyon and the Railroad from Go.1.d Creek to Devil Canyon:The second phase of the Denali access plan,which supports construction of the Devil Canyon project,involves approximately 41 miles of additional roadway construction from Watana to ~vilCanyon as well as a 12-rnile railroad segment connecting Gold Creek and the Devil canyon damsii.:e. The Chulitna Mountains and Wet Upland TurXira landscape character types have "been evaluated as having lCM absorption cap3.bility ratings (Exhibit E).The steep and essentially treeless slopes of the Chulit.l1a Mountains and the open extended viewing of the Wet Upland Tundra landscapes increase the potential for visual irrp3.cts resulting from roadway construction.The exact nature of the visual impacts,however, will not be as significant as ~Uld be expected for a route crossing an are3.with low absorption because of the location of the route.The alignment chosen largely avoids steep slopes (eliminating the need for large cuts and fills)and contains no long straight sections (reducing the .POtential for views of incompatible linear features). The access road in this phass will traverse the ChUlitna Moist Tundra Uplands landscape character type.These landscapes have been evalua·ted as having high aesthetic qualities due to their diversity of physical larrlscapefeatures.Views of small and large scale topographic relief and a number of streams and.lakes are possible tbroughout this landscape character type.Vegetation varies from tundra.to scattered, sparse stands of spruce which occur primarily ~'/est of Porta.ge Creek. ~~.'~~. cross thO major creek drainages (Devil am Tsusena Creek~)which intrcduces man-made eleme~ts into the lamscape as a result of bridge construction,which Could create visual impacts.Although positive viewing axperiences of the Chulitna Mountains to the north are possible,views o£tbe immediate foreground distance zones may be dominated by man-made elements.If.bridges,culverts or other structural features are not designed properly,the result m"lff be significant visual intrusions up:>n the natural landscapes. For the Gold Creek t?Devil Canyon railrr:ad,a river valley,2 to 6 miles wide,is the dominant landscape feature.The river is braided, creating a number of islands and sandl::a:rs throughout its primary drainage course.Mixed forests of spruce and deciduous species are canmon while tundra species dominate the valley's steep sloped banks. Vie\olS throughout the Mid Susitna River Valley are generally directed within the river channel oordered by the valley slopes.Views of the frequently SnaN'-capped ChulitnaMountainsto the north are p::>ssible. Presently,some man-made elements (e.g.,railroad related structures) are evident in sections of this landscape character type.The method of integrating additional railroad structures with those which were previously constructed will partially determine the visual iIqpacts associated.with additional railroad construction between Gold Creek and Devil Canyon.Otherwise the development of a railroad in the otherwise undeveloped area shnuld be corrq;atible with the existing landscape. North Plan .The North plan access alternative consists,during the fir~t phase of road construction,an approximate 50-mile long gravel roadway eJCtendin; from a turnoff point at the Hurricane tC1tmSite to the Watana damsite. AraiThead facility,auch as described for the Denali plan,~JOuld also be required at Hurricane.Aesthetic concerns are not as irrportantwith this facility,however,as the rail facility would be located east ano out of view of the Parks Highway aIXiwould not be visible from any residences.An additional segment of road from aturno££point alorg the first access roadway to the Devil Canyon damsite will be ~~nructed during the second P1F46 of road developn,ent. The western segment of this route (from the Hurricane t.urnoff to the Chultina townsite)may introduce additional visual impacts.These impacts are related to increased visibility of the a.ccess route fran the the Chulitna.and Hurricane townsites,and the Parks Highway near Hurricane .. As proposed,this access road will l::e routed nearer to the base of the Chulitna Hountains than the correspOnding segrnen1.of the Denali plan alternative.Again,the extent of cut arxl fill construction that is required for this roadway alignment will be a signific~t dete~.ining factor of the degree of visual imp.,~ct. 4-47323lB These larrlscapes have been assigned a low absorption capability rating.The steep slopes bordering the creek are particularly sensitive to erosion.Therefore,a significant visual impact could result from construction of the North plan access alternative crossing of Portage Creek. The Portage IoNlands are &"l additiona!larXiscape character type inpacted by the North plan,however I that is not impacted by the Denali plan.The Portage IDwlandsare characterized by a distinctively deep and winding tributary canyon of the Susitna River and.are bordered by steep slopes..A variety of vegetation types and river oottom terrain contribute to its high aesthetic value. Larxlscape character types traversed by this route are the ChulitJ.'1a Moist Tundra Uplands,Portage IDwlands,am the southwest 1:oundary of the Chulitna Mountains.The majority of the visual iIrq?acts which are likely to result from the construction of the North plan.are simil<:rr to the impacts decribed above for the Denali Watana to Devil Canyon road segment..The Denali plan and the North plan share a canmon route corridor fo:c:a.portion of this segment .. ('ID BE INSERrED) a I 4-48323lB According to Acres'estimates,initial access for the Denali plan could be achieved in 6 months.This is a reasonable and perhaps somewhat conservative estimate.The route traversed by this plan is compa.ratively flat,as can 'be seen from an examination of the slope maps on Figure 4-6 •While the route crosses 45 streams,there are no major stream crossings that would require expensive structures for bridging.FromR&M Terrain Analysis maps,1x>rrow material is well dist:i:ibuted along the proposed route and the bearing capacity of the soils is generally good ,even when thawed.Of bAe approximately 40 4.3.8 Constructability and Schedule Denali Plan (Plan 18) 4.3.7 Agencies,Native Organizations and Public Preferences Therefore,in spite of the relative differences in the t~access .plans,they are ccmparable overall from an aesthetic perspective and is difficult to detennine Which route is preferred frcm an aeathetic perspectivee !t is expected that the Denali plan would have greater impacts than the North plan during construction 1::lecauseof increased traffic volumes on currently lightly traveled Denali Highway.During operations,the fact that the Denali Plan traverses more open,rolling terrain of high scenic:quality than.the North plan suggests that Denali plan roads may be more.readily absorbed into the land.scape than those of the North plan.The North plan,although within an area of high scenic quality, has a gr~ter potential for mare inco~tible landscape mcdification, including larger cut and fill slopes and crossings of major or deeply incised stream channels such as Portage Creek and Indian River,than the Denali plan. Cc?1t1ptri$on Pre-construction soils investigations to identi~areas of low summer bearing capacity \\Ouldhelp in identifying those areas of the route that must be completed before any surrnnertime vehicular access could be expected.If these low bearing capacity areas and the stream crossings are finished quickly,using SOme of the methcds for accelerated construction identified in Chapter 2,reduced slow speed traffic, cr-oss--country along the permanent route right-of-way betweencornpleted sections of the permanent road should be possible for this route due to the open and canparatively flat terrain. Regardless ofwhidh access route is selected,initial general construction nobilization for watana will probably have to be by snow road to keep within schedule.The Denali High\\.'ayto the Watana access corridor is the route presently used for winter haul operations to support the Watana Design Phase field exploration praJram.A heavy duty snCM road could probably be built very quickly along the prop:lsed Denali route.Since most of the route is above El.3000,the snow road season should extend from Dece.mber or January to mid-April or later .. While this means a somewhat shorter conventional road building season than at lower elevations,the longer snow road seaSOn is important for overall early access. 4-49323lB miles of new road from the Denali Highway to W::cana proposed for this plan,borrow would Figure 4-6 goes here have to 1:e obtained from excavations away -from the immediate site of construction on afuut 30% of the route length,or a total of al:out 12 miles.The areas of low bearing capacity soils (,.men thawed)are a comparable portion of the route.Borrow from upland terrace deposits,alluvial fans,eskers an:i ablation morraine is well distributed along the Denali Highway to ve.tana and Watana to Devil Canyon road segments proposed under this plan.Areas of low thawed bearing capacity soils are well defined and not scattered rarrlomlyalong the route.There.should be little need to develop 1:x:>rrowcu-eas in active flcodplain areas.Areas of potentially usable furrow for the Dena1 ~plan are mapped on Figure 4-7. J T -=.....;r--.~--.ClI-O III ~III CI..JC)It)l-::I W,....-N T-eO ~..Z W.~.....,.=cou..w ......~~u..0 ..J I I I :!E[7",A.i t -..~I"·>-(/'n Il-I-"t.'-t -0.,.','~0:W-,!W1"JI0 ex:!0 W ::>j :c a:CJ)l-e...~U.;:-,~1 I ::::>tI):J 0 r;i-~'"«a:0 P:::'1 -<:I-Cl)0 a:or-~0::0WP:::W ...J Z P:::c 0swc:x:tt:l0I--I ~0 0:a.H00:-~0...z>-f,J:1 §...0 ~I 0 ~~«p.,«Z @,?l~~~~Z ~~(f)I--~...«C/)"~:::>~§....I (f)~..«@S~as ,...,... L r-E)-,u t-o ~<:;;11II 0-J(!J U)!-.....WOZN;::cO CO :::l II z WLLW,..~<:LL- 0 ..J I I I :!:'tid>-l-I--(,)0:w0""')0 W:r:a:.....I--0-:J 0 =>-0«a:-I-('t)~CC 0 0:,...wW....I Z ~::I:p.,S w «00..J ...:lI-tI)0 a:a..0 c:-a..>-0::.c«<t:Z~zenI--«C/)-J :::> C/)« v toI"'tLUc::::>C)u..i!1!•II,1iiI.tI \\):I d 1lj, -; (;l \'~';o " .:---,.,'I *."4 I'll l :) <\ o·..J t 1 I 1 I ! I ! i I II ,i~~-~:>~-~-~~''''''~~i~~~ II I f f ~ -----_.~-------_._-~,-,---~ According to Acres estimates,initial access along this route should be able to 00 achieved in 9 months.This means that an all-weather road Capable.of accanmodating conventional 30 mph truck traffic could be built in this period of time.The reason that this route.l\1Qt:lld probably require 3 months longer.to construct t11an Denali plan is that 12 more miles of new road are required for the Nortll plan tbanfor the Denali plan,there are four major stream crossings,and there is more sidehill-type construction.A.slope map of the North plan is shown in Figure 4-8.While the North plan crosses 30 streams in all,there are COtT1paratively major crossings at Indian River,Portage Creek,Devil Creek and Tsusena Creek.The largest of the four is at Portage Creek, where the permanent bridge would be a low level structure with perhaps 2-200 foot spans supported on piles.Temporary bridging would be required for croHS-COuntry access. North Plan (Plan 13) /) '""'*-.-~--' The access scenario for the North plan is similar to that for the Denali plan:mobilize the general contractor on a snow road;stockpile materials at Watana:and begin constJ:uction of a pennanent access road immediately after .spring breakup.Because the North plan route is at a generally lower t~levation than the Denali plan,the spring breah-up should be slightly earlier.The nature of the terrain,the length of the road,and the vegebtion may make it sc:mewhat more difficult to build a snow road along the.North plan route even though there tray be more snow in this area than along the Denali plan corridor.'!'here is an existing 4-wheel drive road to Portage Creek,however,that could be utilized. After breakup,there will be a period of very limited access while the first.part of the new .road is built.Mobilizing temporary bridging increases the length of this limited access period.This could be largely mitigated,however,if some pre-license bridge foundation \'lOrk were pennitte:i.Work would include only winter pile adving for'bridge four:rlations,using a snow road or helicopter to mobilize the equipment.A pioneer road would not be required.The permanent disturbance cause:i by'this activity shOuld be minimal.If necessary, ~3JEiles could be removed and $Slarea could be restore:i. ;~."\""Ii.?' t , if l' f ;iiil.I!'.-'---JI t #-%Y"~4'J:~ L I f J L L I -,~'. \. .I. FOLD LE~IGT I 1 ® oj r II" c,· .2J 4-S3 Borrow and general soil conditions for the North plan are not quite as favorable as they are for the Denali plan.Of the S2 miles n-F ~on the North plan,slightly more than 50%of the length will pass over ground identified as low thawed bearing capacity material onllie E&M Unit Terrain Aro.alysis maps •Most of the 27 miles of route on pOOr soil is west of Portage Creek ar~in particular between Hurricane and the Indian River where road construction could be difficult due to wet grOUnd conditions.Figure 4-9 is a map of potentially usable sources of granular borrow for the North plan.From the figure,there isa poor distribution of,potentially usable borrCM convenient to the route west of Portage Creek in general and between Hurricane and the Indian River in particular.While ample borrow should be available in fan and terrace deposits,there is a chance that borrow pits may have to be dev~loped in the upland p::>rtions of the Indian River and Portage Creek floodplains.East of Portage Creek the route traverses better soil and borrow availability improves.This is the portion of the North plan route that is nearly identical to the east half of the Denali plan Of>€'.i.:ator's road from Watana to Devil Canyon. The Denali plan is preferred from thestandp::>int of constructability and construction schedule because it should be easier and raster to corlStruct than the North plan.BorrCMmaterial is more readily available and there is less likelihood of encountering troublesane soil conditions.The Denali route is gen~ally flatter and morecOndusive to cross-country IlOvement of conventiOnal and UncOnventional tra:nsp.)rtation equipm~t.The four major bridges and the rougher tt::::L'"rd~n around Portage Creek are the principal causes of the long~ construction schedule for the North plan.The terrain along the Denali pla'1 is g~era1ly morecondusive to the use of unconventional schedule accelerating techniques than the North plan,with a higher probability of finishing work on schedule or earlier than the North plan.For the North plan,conv~selyt there appears to be a greater probability of schedUle overruns because of the nature of the terrain and the number of major stream crossings. -~----"'''''''''''~~~-' 3231B :':X"".:;;"'_';;£';;'~":_.z<.:"'~~;_~~_'~'._""'.-:-,~,Ii'''''''''''d''""":,.~",,,",~C-,~_""R-~'~~"m'I''''5s""fMIit••:rml._........r-z...,..,.m;••mette>"di·m ~' (;\') r. r'f: .-""""~----------------.~....~------_.".....................---_.........-- L I ' I I II III I I t I II"COnclusions L L .A- I\) ..... '""'" ;1! ."...... j 1nII11j ..-J '\ I I jI.!.•.•--.J.I •..... 1 II .. ('1.." SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY oL-EJ---Ir- m"T(:z'oG>r--{o ~co::t;:.-;c.n .- III..~II =io .-','.......~;'.';'$'...':.-~~'~'..•~.....:'.·,;·.t.6~·","''';.;·:'''--'. :-'-.-4" ~ :0:: C l> ......."mmo I'II o 5 !b 'J :!d \Scale in Miles DENALI ROUTE I (PLAN 18) f ACCESS PLAN !M1\wW1\~~~1\@rU(fj1l'.,....1~lJ1J!i\l~,,J,.!:~t~t1~:"FI au RE 4-' ......,0-"~.__._,••~_.~....."_.___ 4-55 Denali Plan (Plan 18)-Initial nobilization under this plan would be by sr<»:'road or air if a suitable airstrip is constructed during the Watana besign Phase as is presently being considered. The snow road would prolJa.bly not be USable past aoout mido-April, after which there would be a period of aoout 4 to 6 weeks during the breakup when .00 access road work would be started.The only access to the project during this period would be by air. Assuming that it would take at least 2 additional months before limited cross-country access along the rigbt-of-waY could be established,there would be aOOut a 3-ronth periOd of interrupte1 access in the late spring and summer.I.c9istics requirements for this pericd are manageable,hCl~'ever,and needs could 1::>e met by either airlift or by pre-del:i.very and stockpiling via the snow road.Cost studies in this report are b:ised on stockpiling,which is considered a reasonable asstnnption.For Schedule "A",the end of ~s perioo would be in about mid~uly,after which time lindted cross country access should be possible..A passable all-weather II initial accesS II road should be complete during the Schedule IIA'I 3231B Thf;re does not appear to be any great risk of unforeseen difficulties during construction of either access road alternative that might delay ccnstruction of the entire Watana Project.Because of its longer period of construction,the North plan increases the probi3.bility that construction might have to be supported by airlift.Access scenarios for the t\\O ca:t'l9idate routes for general construction schedules =IA"am. "BII discussed in Section 2.0 are described 'below. A Jan~1st mobilization date has been assumed for this schedule (see Figure 2-1). General 4.3.9 Impact on Overall Susitna Project Construction Schedule • - North Plan (Plan 13)-Utilizat:ion of snCM roads and stockpiling for the North plan is similar to the scenario for the Denali plan for Schedule "A ..II Itm:ight not be possible,however,to finish the pennanent all-weather road before the start of the second winter season.One to two months of no or very limited ground access mght develop in the secorrl spring (1986).Proper planning,pre-deliva.ry and stockpiling practice should be sufficient to avoid the need for extended airlift. follcwing 4 months before the beginning of the next winter season..If,for some reason,the all weather road is not finished before 't.,.""1e end of the construction season,a snow road could be built again in the second winter to support concreting in the diversion tunnels.Gocd.planning,stockpiling,.and uS(~of snow roads should avoid heaV'Y'dependence on airlift for Denali plan Schedule nAil. Denali Plan (Plan 18)-Assuming that the first 3 months of supplies and equ.ipmentare airlifted,the access problem for the Denali plan under Schedule 'IB u is manageable.The Contractor has nearly 6mbnths to \t.Qrk on the access road before the onset of the next winter season,When snow road techniques.could 'be used to bridge the gaps between completed sections o£the all-weather access road.At worst ,in the absence of gc::x:xl planning and stockpiling ,there might be a need for 1 month of airlifting 32SlBduring the second season SItE~gg breakup. Sc...,edule "B" Schedule "B"is a much more ambitious diversion schedule than Schedule uA"with mor~imp::>rtance placed on timely access.For Schedule nB"to be feasible .£017 either access alternative,there must either be &"1 airstrip suitable for Hercules aircraft built dUl."ing Watana Design Phase,or some pre-license equipment mobilization and supply stockpiling off a winter snow road must be permitted.The Schedule "13" contract award date is just after the spring breakup in mid-June at the start of the sununer construction season.pre-'~IOObilizationof equipment for roadbuilding off a pre-license snow road would be desirable .. • .'~~.. 4-57 Discussion North Plan (Plan 13)-The access scenario for trllS plan is similar to that for the Denali plan except that.there would be at least a three-nonth period in the second season when l:i.mited cross-country access would.pre'Vail due to the longer construction schedule duration for the North plan.Sane airlifting might "be required dw;ing the spring breakup.. Either the North plan or the Denali plan is acceptable from a Susitna. Project overall construc~,:ion scheduling perspective for the Schedule IIAII scenario al::x:>ve.For the Schedule "B"scenario 'both plans are marginally feasible.Since the North plan re<:.lUires a longer construction pericd and the Schedule IIBI'case is marginal for either plan,the Denali plan appears to offer more flexibility \'lith less risk.While the risk is small and unquantifiable,there is generally more risk of delay and logistical problems with the North plan.Since the North plan takes 3IOC>nths longer to construct than the Denali plan, the worst that could happen in the seeond construction season while the road is being finished is tbat 3 nonths more airlifting would be required for the North plan than for the Denali plan.The cost of this effort is considerably less tban the cost of delaying the project for a year. Regardless of which plan is selected,however,there will be a high dependence on winter snow road hauling.Whichever all-weather access road route is ultimately selected,the Denali plan corridor should be strongly considered as the route for the first season winter road.If Schedule "Btl is to be feasible for either access plan,an airfield shoUld b!=built during design phase,or arrangements should be made for pre-mobilizing on a winter road 'before receipt.of th~FERC liCense. 323lB 4.3.10 Maintenance and Reliability 4-$8 .-.-.._.~, 323lB There should be little difference in the extraordinary maintenance required for either :toute.The main difference in maintenan6e costs is related to the length of road to be maintained.There may,however,00 some slight intrinsic differences in Il1.3.intenance needs that srould be considered as qualitative evalua.tion factors.In their 1982 "Access Planning Study,~I R&.1\f Consultants estimated that the North plan should be aoout 25%more expensive to maintain on a unit-mile basis than the Denali plan.While no rationale is given in theR&M report,the R&\1 estimate of relative differences between maintenance for the two routes is probably based on terrain a~;l;1 meteorological conditions. The Denali plan route generally traverses flatter ground than the North plan with less side-hill construction in cuts..While the North plan route is 'b'.1 no means mountaj.nous in an absolute sanse,it is more rugged than the Denali plan route.Sidshill cut construction in areas of discontinuow gennafrost increases the probability of slmnpin:r and sliding of uphill materials onto the road,and increases the prObability of lateral instwility of the road\'1aY itself.The amount of differen:':'ial arm~'l3.1 mainteqancethat might 'be required to repair slumps am slidc=s that might cause temporary road closure on the North plan is difficult to quantify and would probably be a small percc=ntage of total route maintemmce.The possibility that the North plan would require more of this type of extra work,however,is a qualitative factor in favor of the Denali plan. Differences in the degree of difficulty of snow removal.operations 'between the two routes is a factor£,like small-scale landslide repair, that is difficult to qL1antify.It appears,however,that the Denali plan may be easier to keep free of snow than the North plan.The Denali plan road surface will be sligh;~y elevated above the general level of the surrounding,predominantly flat,ground.Wind will terrl to help kec=p snow off the road.Because of the greater preporrlerance of sidehill construction for the North plan,snow ma.y accumulate in 4-59323lB Denali Plan (Plan 18) Estimated capital costs (1983 dollars)for the Denali plan access road construction are presented on Table 4-9.Two major changes in the estimate have been made by Harza-Ebasco in the capital cost estimate for the Denali plan Devil Canyon phase construction.First,the Acres estimat.e contail1ed provision for a $15,000,000 high level bridge over the Susitna River just downstream from the Devil Canyon Dam.This figure was subtracted from.the Acres estimate to prepare the figures in Table 4-9.No provision for a similar bridge was included in the Acres North plan estimates even though a high bridge W2'.$also envisioned for the North plan (Acres,1983a Draft Supplement to Feasibility Report,p. 4-6).If a bridge is to be built across the Susitnafor both plans, both plans should either be charged fo~it or neither should be charged..The latta!'was adopted here since this is a comparative cost study..The.Devil Canyon layoqt will require access to ooth sides of the river regardless of which access road is built.The emergency spillway,saddle dam and diversion.works are On the south bank;the .J?CMerhouse and service spillway aze on the north.The contractor will require ready access to both ba..t'lks of the riv3r regardless of which access route is built to facilitate the general construction described above and to install a cableway system for construotion of the arch daltl. drifts on the uphill side of the roadway,where it could be difficult to remove.Avalanches,howev~,do not seem to 00 a majorconcem. The natural reroval of sr.:HI from the benali plan roadway will probably also be aided by routealigx:nnent,which is generally parallel toths prevailing winds in the area (see wind rose diagram,Figure 4-10).The North route also receives more precipation than the Denali route because it is located further south in an area which raceives :m::tt'e of the precipation which moves into the area froltt the south.Therefore, difficulties in maintinaing reliable access resulting from rain and snow will be more pronounced on the North route tban on the Denali route. Note that the present value Devil.canyon plus Watana cost assumes that Devil canyon construction \\\:."u1d be!gin in 1993. $54,597,000 $44,214,000 $111,157,000 $150,751,000 4-60 tiririS capital Cost (Watana including accelerated scheciulecosts); Capital Cost (Devil canyon); watana Phase Present Value of Construction and LOgistics Costs: Wata!'..aplus Devil Canyon Present Value of Construction and Logistics COsts: 323lB capital cost estirnatesfrom Table 4-9 were combined \"/1 th maintenance and logistics cost data to coIIpute the present worth of the cc.st streams for the Denali plan Watana,and Watana plus Devil Cc~on scenarios.Costs are briefly summarized 'below .. The second major c.l1ange i $in the cost estimate for the construction of the ~tana to Devil Canyon Operator I s access road.This road is designed the same as the main construction access roads in the Acres and R&M reports.The the Denali plan.Permanent Operator's Road, however,will only be used for daily permanent worker con:unuting an:I Figure 4-10 periodic supply of the Devil canyon Project after construction.The need for atYK>-lane highway 34 feet wide sea1lS excessive for this pm;pose.Fram EXhibit E of theFERC License AB?lication,the permanent workforce for Devil eanyon operations is projected at a total of 25.A roadway 18 feet wide should be more than adequa.teto suax>rt this type of traffic.The prOpOsed IS-foot width is wide enough to permit two vehicles to pciss each other framopposite directions,yet narrow enough to result in a significant construction cost savings on the order of aoout $10,000,000.w:>rker transportation to am from Anchorage and Fairl:anks for this plan could be by rail or 'bus.Supervisory staff housed in theWatana Pennanent Town during Devil canyon construction could be bused to Devil Canyon.A narrower road might also make it easier to justify public access restrictions durir:g cperation phase to prevent the formation of a Denali Highway/parks Highway traffic circulation loop .. ,. • ,I ~,•,~, ~ .E _...,,<;;' s N 1.OBSERVATIONS ARE 3D-MIN.AVERAGES,RECORDEDONTHEHOUR. 2.PERIOD OF RECORD =APRIL 8 -MAY 29,1980. 3.MAX.IS-SEC.GUST RECORDED =16.5 M/SEC.(36.9 MPH.)-5/18/80 (FROM EAST). .4.COMPASS BEARINGS GIVEN 'ARE DEGREES TRUE. FIGURE 4-10 WATANA AIRSTRIP WIND ROSE •.'."., t' .' Amount $97,920.00 316,800.00 11'108,800.00 0.00 120,(1;0.00 115,080.00 857,203 ..00 1,265,846.00 129,600.00 115,200.00 55,560.00 0.00 4,320.00 36,000.00 378,000.00 306,000.00 $4,906,329.00 $4,308,480.00 9,985,410.00 8,767,080.00 601,920.00 0.00 3,659,460.00 3,992,688.00 . 2,142,072.00 302,400.00 758,880 ..00 373,680.00 38,721.00 1,242,000.00 1,764,000.00 756,000.00 0,,00 $38,692,821.00 $43,599,150.00 $5,760.00 4.80 4.20 14.40 6.00 8.40 16.80 21.60 43.20 28.80 373,680.00 3.00 43.20 3,600.00 18,000.00 180.00 TOl'AL AC $5,760 ..00 CY 4,,80 cr 4.20 CY 14.40 cv:6.00 CY 8.40 CY 16.80 lJX)N 21.60 LF 43.20 LF 28.80 IS 55,560.00 SY 3 ..00 LF 43.20 AC 3,600.00 MI 18,000.00 SF 180.00 Units Price/Unit AC CY CY CY cr CY CY 'I'CN LF LF LS SY IF AC MI SF 12,907 28,750 490 42 o o 100 10 21 1,700 TOrAL rroI'AL WATAN"AY 17 66,000 264,000 o 20,000 13,700 51,024 58,604 3,000 4,000 Quantity 748 2,080,300 2,087,400 41,800 o 435,650 237,660 99,170 7,000 26,350 TABLE 4-9 ESTIMATED DENALI ACCF.8S (PIAN 18)C,~ITAL coors!! WATANA CCNSTRlCTICN Description upgrade Existing Road Denali Highway -from Cantwell to New Road (21 Mile) Clearing Waste Excavaticn COnnnonExcavation Rock Excavation Borrow NFS Submse Material Grade lIA"Base Material ])-1 Base Material Guardrail 18 11 Culverts 36"+Culverts Fabric Thaw Pipes Topsoil &See:i Traffic Control Devices Bridges Road Facilities Permanent Road Denali Highway to Watana (42 Mile) Clearing waste Excavation COnnnon Excavation Rock Excavation Borrow NFS Sub1:ase Mate:t'ial Grade "A"Base Material D-1 Base Material Guardrail 18Ie Culverts 36"-I-Culverts Fabric 'lbaw Pipes Topsoil &Seed Traffic Control Devices Bridges MBF-Thousan:l board FeetSY-Square Yard MI-Mile LS-Lump Sum TABLE 4-9 (Continued) ESTIMATED DmALI ACCESS (PIAN 18)CAPITAL COSTs!! WATANA COOS'r.Rt:CI'ICN AC-Acre CY-eubic Yard LF-Linear Foot Y All base price data from R ~M Consultants,Inc.Estimates changed as described in.text. Y Excluding accelerated schedule costs,estimated at$ll,000.00 .. 6..;9' I~~l··' ",I, , t, f~~ f: r $2,914,560.00 4,144,502000 3,785,687.00 1,350,389.00 528,342.00 2,004,794.00 2,187,780.00 1,1'73,787.00 261,360.00 663,552.00 294,000.00 149,460.00 1,055,592.00 1,029,600.00 648,000.00 2,000,QOO.OO $933,120.00 1,955,616.00 3,353,301.00 31,680.00 651,000.00 1,476,052.00 82,320.00 51,840.00 174,240.00 9,280.00 139,680.00 46,080.00 9,363.00 436,320.00 374,400.00 720.00 0.00 10,,348 ,000.00 $24,191,405.00 $20,073,012.00 $44,214,448.00 $5,760.00 4.80 4.20 14.40 6.00 8 ..60 16.80 21.60 79.20 580.00 28.80 46,080.00 '3.00 43.20 3,600.00 720.00 360.00 140 ..00 Total Units Price/Unit Amount AC C':l CY CY 'C'f c::l C':l TCN TCN MEE' LF IS SY L6' AD LS SF LF AC $5,760.00 CY 4.80 CY 4.20 cr 14.40 CY 6.00 CY 8.40 C'i 16.80 CY 21.60 LF 43.20 LF 28.80 IS 294,000.00 SY 3.00 LF 43.20 AC 3,600.00 MI 18,000.00 LS 2,000,000.00 QUantity o 73,920 3,121 l Otl00 104 49,820 24,435 286 36 506 863,438 901,354 93,777 88,057 238,666 130,225 54,342 6,050 23,040 162 407,420 798,405 2,200 108,500 171,634 4,900 2,400 2,200 16 4,850 TABLE 4-9 (continued) FSrIMA.TED DENALI ACCESS (PLAN 18)CAPITAL coorJl DEVIL.CANYCN CONSTRUCI'ICN Service RtJads (Permanent) Devil canyon to Watana (36mi) Clearin; ~Yaste Excavation Common Excavation Rock Excavation Borrow NFS Subbase Material Grade IIAn Base MateL'ial D-l Base Material Guardrail 181 'Culverts 36 11 +Culverts Fabric Thaw Pipes Topsoil &Seed Traffic Control Devices Bridges Description -_C'. IDrAL Pennanent Railroad (Including Railhead) Gold Creek to Devil Canyon Clearing waste Excavation Connnon Excavation Rock Excavation Borrow SUbba11ast Grade IIAII Base Material D-1Ease Material AC Surfl::4cing Dock Lumber 18"Culverts 36 11 +Culverts Fabric ThaW Pipes Topsoil &Seed Rail Yard Control ~vices Bridges Trackage ------------------------------------------,-- $1,059,£340.00 2,430,960.00 1,942,!500.00 0.00 1,551,600.00 951,350.00 1,038,190.00 278,510.00 466,560.00 183,600.00 70,800.00 80,670.00 309,960.00 421,200.00 198,000.00 l,101~600.00 $3,916,BOO.00 8,998,~560.00 7,809,900.00 1,188,000.00 2,894,400,.00 3,545,942.00 3,869,628.00 1,038,074.Cn 1,110,2:40.00 702,576.00 448 r 360 ..00 117,300.00 1,148,904.00 1,555,200.00 738,000.00 6,732,qOO.OO $12,085,340.00 $45,814,0::34.00 57,899,424.00 Price/Unit Amount $5,760.00 4.80 4.20 14.40 6.00 8.40 IJ.80 21.60 43.20 28.80 448,560.00 3.00 43.20 3,600.00 18,000 ..00 180.00 Total AC $5,760~OO CY 4.80 CY 4.20 CY 14.40 CY 6.00 cr 8.40 CY 16.80 'IW"21.60 LF 43.20 LF 28.80 LS 70,800.00 Sf 3.00 LF 43.20 AC 3,600.00 MI 18,000.00 SF 180 ..00 NJ. CY cr CY CY . cy' aY: TCN IF LF LS Sf IF AC MI SF Units 26,890 7,175 117 11 6,120 Quantity 184 506,450 462,500 o 258,600 113,256 61,797 12,894 10,800 6,375 39,100 26,595 432 41 37,400 680 1,874,700 1,859,500 82,500 482,400 422,136 230,335 48,059 25,700 21",395 TABLE 4-10 ESTIMATED NORm ACCESS (PIAN 13)CAPITAL CCS'f!g!/ WATA.T\JA CONS'I'RI.CrICN All Da.se price data from Acres American,Inc"Estimateschatlged as described in text. Clearing Waste Excavation Common Excavation Rock Excavation Borrow NFS Subbase Matel7ial Grade I~AfI Base Material D-lBase Material Guardrail 18"Culverts 36"+Culverts Fabric Thaw Pipes Topsoil &Seed Traffic Control Devices Bridges rorAL TOrALWAT/JiNAY t ..-~' .' Permanent Road Hurricane to Indian River (11 Mi) Clearing Waste Excavation Connnon Excavation Rock Excavation Borrow NFS Subb:1se Material Grade /lAII Base Material D-1 Base Material Guardrail 18"Culverts 36 11 +Culverts E'1abric Thaw Pipes TOpsoil &Seed Traffic Control Devices Bridges Irrlian River to Wata.P.a Via Upper Portage (41 Mi) Description 11 Y Excluding accelerated schedule costs estimated at $23,000,000. • I I $576,000.00 1,300,752.00 1,062,810.00 756,000.00 939,600.00 605,404.00 660,660.00 177,228 ..00 155,520.00 144,432.00 6,600 .•00 21,!!990.oo 220,968000 212,400.00 126,000.00 $2,000,000.00 $8,966,364 ..00 Price/Unit Amount Total AC $5,760.QO CY 4.80 cr 4.20 CY 14.40 CY 6.00 CY 8.40 CY 16.80 TON 21.60 LF 43.20 LF 28.80 LS 6,600.00 SY 3.00 LF 43.20 AC 3,600.00 MI 18,000.00 LS 2,000,000.00 UnitsQuantity 7 ,330 5 t 115 59 7 100 .270,990 253,.050 52,500 156,600 72,072 39,325 8,205 3,600 5,015 TABLE 4-10 (continued) 1/ESTIMAs:J.:El)NOR1'H ACCESS (PLAN 13)'CAPITAL cosr~ DEVIL CANYCN COOSTRUCrICN Clearing W:.tste Exca.vation Common Excavation Rock Excavation Borrow NFS SUbbase Material Grade "Au Base Material D-1 Base Material Guardrail ~~8"CuIverts 36"+Culverts Fabric Thaw Pipes Topsoil &Seal Traffic Control Devic€s Bridges Indian Ri.ver to Devil canyon-South (41 Mi) Description • • •....')'~... ....' - 4-66 ·......'''__T·.'.("i; Capital cost estimates for the North plan construction are presented on Table 4-10 for both Watana and Devil Canyon construction.Capital cost estimates on Table 4-10 were used along with maintenance und lOCJistics costs developed as des:cribed in section 2.0 to determine the present value (1983 dollars)0):the cost stream for Watana Phase only and Watana plus Devil canyon. The capital cost in Table 4-10 was slightly mcxiified to account for a transmission line construction cost savings that was treated as a CQst credit to the NOlth plan.The present plan with the Denali plan access road is to consti=uct the Watana Project and its transmission line and then,if need be,build the operations road from Watana to Devil canyon.Under the present plan,the transmission line w:>uld be built by helicopter an::l the operations road,when built,would help to reduce annual transmission line maintenance costs..The North plan road, however 11 would be built before the WC1'\:ana transmission line because if the transmission line were then built.along the North plan access road, less costly construction methOds could be used for the transmission line.Using bid data for the Anchorage-Fairbanks Int:..Xtie and Harza-Ebasco experience,the total project savings,accounting for 1:x:>th unit cost savings for construction offa.road and the slightly longer transmission line length parallel to the North plan road,would be about $1,000,000. No...rth Plan (Plan 13) This overall project savings is made possible by the presence.of the North plan road and the amount,therefore,was credited to the North plan capital cost.The savings in transmission line annual maintenance cost,'bec1.use of tl"l(3 presence of the road,is small ($1500/yr)and was not considered .. 323lB •..-.. .-i ""·"t".."-"'-'"......- .......... 4-67 Table 4-10,page.1 goes here 323lB • 4...68 Table 4-10 r page 2 goes here 323lB • Costs are briefly surranarized below: capital COst (watana including accelerated scherlule costs): Capital Cost (Devil Canyon): Watana Phase Present Value of Construction and Logistics costs: watanaplus Devil canyon Present Value of Construction and Logistics Costs: $80,896,000 $9,000,bOO $126 6 600,000 $150,500,000 Note that the present value Devil canyon plus Watana cost assumes that Devil carlyOn construction would begin in 1993. Comparison A comparative cost table is presented in Table 4-11. TABLE 4-11 CCMPARATIVE ACCESS COSTS Watana Total Present Value of eapital Tc'tal Cost Stream Denali $54,597,000 $111,157,000 (Plan 18) North $80,896,000 $126,600,000 (Plan 13) Watana Plus Devil CaI1Y2n Present Value of Capital Total Total Cost Stream $98,811,000 $150,751,000 $88,861,000 $150,500,000 ---------------------........_------------------------------ 323lB 4-69 lj $145,500 ,000 $139,20(;,000 4-70 North (Plan 13): Denali (Plan 18): The extra $14,400,000 construction cost for North plan Watana only as compared to Denali plan is not co\mterb3.1anced by the extra lcX]istics costs for the Denali plan. T"'he North plan is slightly less expensive when the combined watana/Devil canyon projects are considered together..There is a savin:rs of a few hurrlred thousand dollars for the North plan over the Denali plan.This is a srna.ll sum in view of the accuracy of the estimating data used to develop costs. For the combined W3,tana plus Devil Canyon case,roth plans are essentially identical..The Denali plan could be economically preferred if the concept of a single permanent Operator's town for Watana and Devil canyon were abandoned and the Denali plan operator road could be eliminated. o o The North plan is aOOut $15,450,000 more expensive to construct am operate for Watana Phase alone.Note that tJrl s figure could nearly dOUble,however ,if extensive airlifting is required in the spring of 1986 (second construction season)for the Schedule "BI!North access s\,.'-."lario.The Denali plan is preferred ..neglecting Devil Canyon. o 'r'ne fl)llowing facts are evident from the preceding table: The conclusions that can be dra.wn from the a1:x:>ve roan be slightly altered by considering the.effect of a deferred construction of Devil Cat'¥On.If Dsvil Canyon is deff.trred to a la.ter date,the present value of the Devil Canyon expenditures decreases.If the start of Devil canyon construction is delayed by 10 years to 2003 ,the present values of the two accesS plan cost st17eams for Watana plUS Devil canyon are: 3231B •. ..f..->.•..~. Combining this with previous data: I \ r I I"I =:)1,,-----"'---_"~.I ' ;.'::-:._..':. ol_ 4-71323lB o The Denali plan is preferred over the North plan from 3.Il economic perr.;pective if only watana is built. o If construction of Devil canyon beginning in 1993 is reasonably certain,the North plan is preferred. o If delays in Devil canyon construction startup on the order of 10 years are likely,the Denali plan is preferred. These conClusions are unlikely to cbange as a result of reasonable variations in the coz:1struction cost estimates,unit logistics costs per ton...mile;fuel escalation or project size for a potentially smaller Watana phase.If adjus·t:ments are t.o be made to the capital cost estimates,the North plan would pror~bly increase more t1:l..an the Denali plan oocause the generally poorer soil conditions and .lack of well distri1:Qted 'borrow .along the North plan route have n.ot been included in the cost estimating base..There are also more bridges and culvert st:r,eam crossings which are more difficult to estimate with the data a.vailable.This ~vould make the Denali plan more attractive. Sensitivity analyses of unit logistics costs fOb the Watana-only scenario itrlicate that the prOdUct of unit cost and tonnage shipperl \\fQuld have to l£ore than triple for the North plan to be equivalent to the Denali plan.The insensitivity of the results to logistics costs is primaxily +-,l1eresult of the lOW cost of rail shipment beyond Hurricane to Garicwell and the small difference in ~oad trucking miles (61 for the Denali plan,S3 for the Norh'l plan)from the rail.heads for the two routes..l"JC>st of the cost of road transportation is for loading and unlaadingt:ime il which is the same£or either alternative.There is not much difference in the travel times,am hence Only a small difference in the logistics cost. Therefore,if Devil Canyon is deferred by 10 years (±>,the Denali plan becomes the favoreda.ccess plan for b::>thWatana only and Watana plus Devil canyon construction.Again,.however,the cost difference between the two plans is a small percentage of the total cost estimate.The only way that-the North plan WOuld be preferred is if it is nearly certaintbat Devil canyon will be constructed beginning in 1993. I) CHAPTER.5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENCA.TICJNS ... L UGoals,in addition to bei~oc41£licting and inccmrnensur~ble are 'fuzzy·...biological impact,for example" 5-1 Diffiet,.uties in identi:fyinga preferred access alternative in previous sttrlies suggested that a more formal decision analysis approach be employed in the access evaluation process.Asa::esult,Harza-Eb3.sco investigators considered several approaches forre-evaluating access studies prior to adoptiP3'the approach described below.Approaches considered ranged from holding workshops involving engineers and $cientists,to completion cfa highly·quantified analysis where the various objectives and constraints affecting the decision would be quantifie:1 and mathematically analyzed..The decision analysis approach selected by the Harza-Ebasco team draws on underlying principals tlsed in multi-objective and goal programrnil1£'as described by Cohen (1978), Moskowi tz and Wright (1979),and other authors.As repjrt8d by Moskowitz and Wright (1979),goal prograrmning I a type of multi- objective programmil'l9,is best suited for ~ecisions where: 5.0 CCi.,GWSICNS AND RECCMMENmTIOOS 5.1 SELE:TICN PROCESS Previous investigators (Gill 1983 and Grestinger 1983)described the aceessroute selection process as long,ccmplicated,and controversial.Further,they acknowledge that there are.a number of factors Which affected the route selection prcx:essam mad~::it difficult to identify a preferred route. 3126B ft)", .-'~-;- ,-. J _.!"",""-~ nprovides the decision maker with the opportunity to include in problem fonnulation objectives or goals tbat arer...ot reducible to a sir.gle dimension.n 5-2 In a fU,llYand fonnal multi-objective prCX]ranuning application, Objectives and constraints are quantified and the objectives are compared and evaluated by fonnal weighting or ranking approaches .. Description of investigations involving more rigorous mathematical analysis are presented by Bruie (1974)and HOt!Ck and Cohon (1978).In the present analysis,IOona!mathematical techniq:les were not employerl because of the canplexities and non-quanti£iable characteristics of the objectives under consideration.Nevertheless,principals of multi- objective programming were followed in evaluating alternatives. The central prem.se of multiple objective decision analysis is that a set of separate and distinct objectives 'be defined to facilitate analysis of project alte..rna.tive development schemes.Each separate object ."e provides the yardstick by which alternatives are measured. For example,One project objective is to minimize costs;this objective is met to varying degrees by a1 ternatives under study depending on the relative cost of each alternative.The ~ctent to which 'the Objective is achieved by one of the alternatives becanes the ba.sis of comparison.Determining and quantifying the extent to which an alternative achieves a specified objective,however,is difficult..On this project,based on the analysis in Sections 3 and 4,nine major objectives were defined.They include: 312613 Thus,it is possible to consider goals with disparate units (e ..g., dollars and environmental impacts)simultaneously.The IIta.!'..ner in which incommensurTlble goals and .objectives can be considered is provided below. Further,Moskowitz and Wright state that goal prograrmn:ing: -\0.,. {) Minimize cost of access to Watana project; Minimize cost of access to Watana and Devil canyon project; Minimize construction difficulties; Minimize'impacts on project sche:iule;and Minimize maintenance to increase reliability o o o o o 5-3 Evaluation of project alternatives will be undertaken examihing the extent to which each of these objectives are met. 1@gineering o Minimize wildlife impacts o Minimize negative socioeconomic iTIY?acts in regard to unwanted Changes in lifestyle o Maximize healthy economic grCMth o Mip.imize fisheries impacts Environmental In order to address the relative achievement of project objectives,a scaling process was established.The process was largely qualitative, although quantification \'VaS used to define the extent to whiCh individual goals were achieved whenever possible.The scaling process devised for this analysis was designed to provide the decision maker with greater insight than \vould have occurre:i if an ordinal ranking system were .employed.:For example,under an ordinal ranking approach, no atteIIY?t is made to cOll'I.p:lIe the relative degree to \"lhich (41 objective is achieved.Thus,it would be impossible to determine relatively how much better one alternative is than another.Under an ordinal approach,one alternative is either better or worse than another;no attempt is made to irrlicate hOW much better or worse one alternative is than the other.To remedy that deficiency a scaling process was employed where1::¥the alternative which best satisfied the stated objective,defined the scaliIlg'1:enchmark.This benchmark was also assigned to a score of 10 on a scale uf 0 to 10..Eased on this benchmark,the extent to which an alternat.ive meets a particular objeotiYe can 00 evaluated.For example,if an alternative is far inferior to the 'benchmark,it would likely be assigned a score of anywhere fran 0 to 4 and ~uld be obviously inferior to the bencbmark. This can be shown graphically usiIlg'a bar chart as illustrated in Figure 5-1. 3126B OBJECTIVE:MINIMIZEENVIROMENTALIMPAC.T OTHER ..AL lERNA riVE ....-----t--------BENCHMARk·FOR COMPARISON -.." .'t 1 ALTERNATIVE WHICH BeST ACHIEVES OBJECTIVE FIGURE 5-1 HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE ILLUSTRATING. SCALING APPROACH EMPLOYED FOR EVALATION OF ACCESSAL TERNATIVES •-;::," -'.._.'.' ,,-,.j ,OJ 5.2 ENGINEE:RlN3 EVAIIJATICN --". 312GB 5-5 Information in Figure 5-2 supports the finding that unless.it is nearly certain that Devil canyon will be constructed immediately-following completion of watana,the Denali plan is the preferred aCCess route from an engineering per&1?8ctive.Project construction could be satisfactorily supported by either route.Plan 18-Denali should be less costly to wild,less costly to maintain,and result in the lowest net cost of construction and opera,tion combined.AdditiOnal scheduling flexibility with regard ~o general Watana Project construction start-up is provided 'by Plan 18 due to its shorter constJ:'uction periOd. Problems with this sca1ir¥3 system arise becauf::,8 it is difficult to quantify the thresholds which distinguish the different values on tbe scale.Conseqt;lentlyt it is recr~ized frat qualitatiVa criteria are used to define thresholds on the conprrative sC5.1e when quantitative critiera are not applicable.Comparative criteria were established by the scientistfell3ineer wi~""expertise in each resource category within an established scale of zero to ten.As described above,ten is assigned to the best alternative while zero is defined.as the worst of the set of reasonable alternatives.In this case reasonable alternatives inclu1e all access alternatives studied earlier as reported in Acres (1981)and identified by Gill (1983)and Gretzinger (1983)• The relative achievement of the engineering objectives listed in Section 5 Q 1 is presented in Figure 5-2.The scaling process employed in aT'lalyzing the level to which objectives were achieved is based on quantative measures for cost (dollars)and schedule (months). objectives.11he scaling used for the schedule and maintenance objective functions was based on engineering judgement,considering the factors discussed in Sections 2 and 4. I ~ ..""'"."'..."......~.,,"l.."""~.,.."'...-..;.....~.,~.....,.,...j,.'Y"c;;...·:,"'-'i-,t .",.,;~.~~:;::~~O=-":':':;.'.~-,;:-..",.;o..'- 6,515,000 23,923,000 17,408,000 52,718,000 73.863,000 150,504,000 126,581,000 36f 495,OOO 8,965,000 Plan 13 -North 27,530,000 15,838,000 10,200,000 1,492,000 37 ,641,000 21 ,330,000 4,481,000 23,000,000 63,452,000 57,896,000 80,896,000 100,843,000 144,348,000 1983 Dollars t?resent Value!! ~ :¥;,,/ 39,594,000 7,703.000 31,891,000 60,477.000 50,600,000 150,751,000 111,157,000 7.445,000 3,960,000 700,000 44,214,QO() 56,319,000 12,105,000 70-,121.000 44,871,000 26,150,000 5,100,000 54,597,000 11,000,000 43,597,000 187,037,000 198~Dol1ars Present ValueY 130,718,DOO ___..:P;.;:I==an::::~l::::B=-::~·.::Dena.l~==i:-.-_ 1D;Jistics Maint~ Foo1E COnstruction -Norma1 SChedule Constructic:n -ConpJ:esslCln Schedule,Extra O::>st Ia]istics Main~~ FueL:! Total Cost Total LDgistics and Maintel'l<iOCE! Total 1D;Jistics am Maintenance "'. WatanaPlus DeVil Canyon Total TABlE 5-1 ~PIAN 00Sl'<XMPARISOOS Devil Canyc:nPhase (1985-1993) TQta1Capital (Construction) 3078B Total Cost !I 3.5%Discount Rate Y Fuel costs escalated at 2.5t per year for cOIlStruction pericXl l!htaIlaPhase (1995-1993) ToW capita1 Phase ~-......... ...r".,":>..0 .,_ .0.1/4>~.'."..~. o I~•••~.._~.l'2 ~. I t: '. I, j /.( ''>!, I Ul,!,I .:..\ OBJECTIVE: MINIMIZE MAINTENANCE NEEDS . ..............;,-,~'Y7~~' MAINTENANCE AND .RELIABILITY SCHEDULE OBJECTIVE: MINIMIZE EFFECT ON OVERALL CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE lt~.-"" OBJECTIVE: MINIMIZE CONSTRUCTION PROBLEMS ~ CONSTRUCTiON OBJECTIVE: MINIMIZE COST OF WATANA AND DEVIL CANYON COST WATANA AND DEVil CANYON fj ,'J t:'l FIGURE 5-2 COMPARISOt~OF ENGINEERING DECISION FACTORS OB,JECTIVE: MINIMIZE COST OF WATANA COSJ WATANA ONLY 1!''.rA~ r'rt~;]QENALI ..:::':.~~:,'~..:,::;~.... DNOIITH ~j ta (j••~ H~ ~•.t5 0< E-iCl) H H~.•~E-i~ f'j t~ ~..., gj -::::1 ,.ll . \") ,i fl·1 ~"~'" t _...t _i.e. 312GB 5-7 The review of environmental considerations in Section 3 identified wildlife and botanical resources,socioeconomics,fisheries,land use, recreation,am aesthetics as the most important factors potentially affecting the access decision.Th(a discussion in Section 4 canpared the access alterIlatives on the ~is of considerations related tc these resource categories.An analysis of the Section 4 discussions indicates that there is little in the categories of land use, recreation,and aesthetics to distinguish a preferred access alternative from other alternatives.Father,the analysis of those considerations reveals the importance of wildlife ar:d botanical, socioeconomics,and fisheries in the decision-making as the fonner set of categories is strongly affected by the wildlife and ootanical resources,socioeconomics,a.n.:J fisheries concerns.Environmental analysis also revealed the importance of controlling or limiting access during construction and operations.For this reason,the following is an analysis of wildlife and botanical resources,socioeconomics,and. fisheries considerations and the chanJes in impacts resulting from adoption of measures to control or limit access.Environmental iIf!Pacts would be less if J;X)licies are adcpted which limit access to the project area during and after construction.O...trrent plans call for nO public 5.3 ENVIRCNMENrALjSCX:IOECCNCMlC EVAIlJATICN It is reccx.:JIrlzed,however ,that other considerations may out-weig:h engineering as the prime access route selection factor..If other factors are fou:rrl to be more important,access via Plan l3-North would be acceptable..Depending on the economic scenario consideredt the , decision to adopt Plan 13 in favor of Plan 18-Denali would result in increased project expenditures of from a to aoout $15,OOO~OOO.If Plan 13....~Torth is adopted,the construction schedule could be eased if some preliminary bridge piling work could be penni~ted before receipt of the FERC License.Whichever route is selected,permission to construct a pre-license snCM road along Plan 18-Denali corridor would be desirable. 5-8 Wildlife am Botanical Resources __t.~'1 it 1 An alternatiVE!to the access policy described above would be for use of the access road to be limited during and after construction.During construction,workers would be transported to the site in buses and use of environmentally sensitive areas along the route would be restricted.Further,construction vehicle travel could be scheduled to Ininimize wildlife impacts.Once construction is complete,public use would still occur I but careful steps would be taken to make certain that it cccurs in designated areas and at acceptable levels. Alternatives for controlling human access might involve the establishment of a pennit system for use of the area and the development of regulations and enforcement procedures to control environmentally degrading activities.The effect that the adoption of these measures would have on environmental considerations related to the access road selection process is included in the following discussion and influenced detennination of the alteDlative which was assigned a score of 10 and best a~~ieved the stated objective.The level to which objectives in the categories of wildlife, socioecooomics,and fisheries are achieved is presented in Figure 5-3 while supporting text for thesefindir:gs is provided below. Development of Plan 13-North includir:g incoq::oration of access control mitigation measures (discussed ab::>ve)durir:g construction ani oper?:<:'ion oould result in the least.overall impacts to wildlife and botanical resources both in terms of habitat loss and access....related iIqpacts .. This option is therefore rated.a 10.Plari l3-North without access control mitigation measures is the second best option,of the four considered (Plan 13 and 18 both with and without mitigation)in terms of minimizing habitat loss and access....related wildlife and botanical resource impacts.Because of the existing level of accessibility access to the site during eonstruction and ut~estricted access thereafter.During construction,workers will drive to and from the site in personal vehicles. 3126B o 1" ,:~-l~:t .'~""'~~~,--~...,r"'''...!...'t,~:··,,: D NORTH PLAN PLAN 13 DENALI PLAN PLAN 18 ...,,·~.>·..-;·t_.·-·~,·",...":,;,-·:.~·:~.",:"",·,,~~·.·-::,;;,,,~;,:....··,·.Jf"c;~-'_,'~~;··-:~:;·.:".-.·-;:",~~::::-:Ti-...."'-';;-~'~- FISHERIES OBJECTIVE: MINIMIZE FISHERIES IMPACTS OBJECTIVE: MINIMIZE FISHERIES IMPACTS ", ~~ OBJECTIVE: MAX nl1 ZE ECONOMIC GROWTH IN COMMUNITIES SEEKING GROWTH I OBJECTIVE: Jotl\XIMIZE ECONOMIC GROWTH IN COMMUNITIES SEEKING GROWTH ~ SOCIOECONOMICS 'y~ OBJECTIVE: MINIMIZE IMPACTS ON TALKEETNAI TRAPPER CREEK OBJECTIVE: MINmIZE IMPACTS ON TALKEETNA TRAPPER CREEK SOCIOECONOMICSWILDLIFE OBJECTIVE: MINIMIZE WILDLIFE ntPACTS G ~t· OBJECTIVE: MINIMIZE WILDLIFE IMPACTS Rf.:;U~TIVE ACHEIVEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL OBJECTIVES liMITING ACCESS AND CONTROLLING HUNTING AND FISHING - . WILDUFE SOCWECONOMICS SO.CIOECONOMICS FISHERIES I .RELATIVE ACHEIVEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL OBJECTIVES WITHOUT LIMITING ACCESS OR CONTROLLING'HUNTING AND FISHING' o 10 10 FIGURE 5-3 RELATIVE ACHIEVEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL Ol'JECTIVES '-0 fa B~ t-4W ~Bo~ E-4(1) t-4 E-4ffiwE~w.., ~ aEl~ t-4~~B 0< E-4rJl1 t-4 U ~.., ~ 'r!. ,'.:'----.1>i \...-..'.-.'~.'~.-.....:'...----'-_~-_~_._.-------_.~.. . I I ~'~M~ ..."..~-".""-'-'-'----=:J'"~_.,~._.:,"..'.":'".':..~:1 . :~.n. >t·):.~;;""','" ;'i"...,...:.....,.....• SOCioeconomics (Ne;ative IIII2acts)...to be completed by W.Hutchinson rL - 5--10 Fisheries Socioeconomics (Healthy Economic Impacts)-to.be completed by W.Hutchinson If no acceSs control .mitigation was incorp::>rated,the North plan was assigned a relative value of 5.The rationale for this relatively 100/ nUIIlber is that the route \'lillrequire a largea.rcount of excavation per mile,has steep slopes paralleling Portage Creek,and crosses important anadromousfish streams which woUld be subject to erosion irn.p:4cts and increased access.This could result in significant impacts to the resom:ces tbrough erosiol1 run-off,sedimentation,and fishing pressure (roth legal and illegal).':r.le Denali plan is assigned a value of 8 3126B .along nn.1ch of the Plan 13 route,aCcess control mitigation measUt'es would not reduce access-related impacts as much as access control along other feasible access routes.Plan IS-Denali without access mitigation measures would maximize roth babitat loss and access-related impacts a~ng the four options considered.The significant differences in existing levels of accessibility and the amounts of inaccessible areas subject to increased access between the t~routes,suggests that this option should berated low relative to both Plan 13-North options. However,this option is considered significantly better from a wildlife and J:::otanical resource standpoint than the access alternative that includes access roads between the Denali Highway and Watana and along the South side of the SUsitna River between Watanaand Devil Canyon without access mitigation measures..Therefore,this opotion was given the rating of 4.Finally,Plan IS-Denali with access mitigation measures was rated a 7 because the mitigation measures would substantially reduce access-reiated impacts,=.\1 though these impacts could still be high relative to Plan 13-North and habitat loss iIIg?acts would still be significantly higher than for Plan 13-North. without mitigation.This route may require significant amounts of excavation in some sectiolliS,but the slopes are generally much less steep,implying a lower potential for run--off roth during construction and use.Similarly,spills would be easier to contain.Public access would create irrlirect impacts by causing additional fishing pressure on resident fishes (particularly grayling in Deadman Creek). With mitigation"a relative value of 7 was assigned to the North route..Even though mitigation.measures such as.controlled access to relieve fishing pressure,stricter fishing regulations,and increased enforcement can be incorporated,the risk of erosion impacts arrl the potential severity of these impacts is higher for the North route as compared to the Denali route.Also,soil types along the North route do not appear to be entirely stable,thus potentially enhancing such risks. The Denali plan was assigned a relative value of 10 with mitigation measures because such measures should be able to minimize access- related impacts along this route and erosion impact pota'itial is low relative to the North route. Based on the infonnation presented arovePlan IS-Denali is preferred and is recommended.The two plans are roth about equally acceptable when considering all factors.There is no canpelling reaSon to change access plans at this time. 5-11 312GB r ..---...._,:, t' I j Lrr I 'I: .',', l,~ ~'Jr' ",... Acres American,Inc.1983a.SUsitan hydroelectric project draft supplement to the fE!asibility report..Prepared for Alaska Pa.ver Authority,February 1983. Acres American,Inc.1983b.Susitna hydroelectric.project application for license for major project,Appendix 5.0.'Traffic volume assumptions..prepared.for Alaska PCNler Authority. Acres American,Inc.1983c.Susitna hydroelectric project -Federal Energy Regulatory Conunission -a.pplication for license.Volume 6A (Exhibi.t E,Chapter 3)eli Prepared for Alaska Power Authority. Anchorage,Alaska. Acres American,Inc.1982a.Susitna hydroelectric project feasibility report.Prepared for Alaska Power Authority..Final draft. Acres American~Inc.1982b.Susitna hydroelectric project,task 2, surveys and site facilities.Prepared.for Alaska Power Authority. Final draft.March 1982. Acres American,Inc.1982c.Susitna hydroelectric project,access plan reconunendation report. Alaska Power Authority•1983.Susitna.hydroelectric project, application for license for major project.,VoL.8,ExhibitEe Chapter 8.Aesthetic Resources. Ballard,W.B.,et.ale 1982.Susitna hydroelectric project -Phase I final report -big game studies:moose -upstream.Vol. III..Alaska Department of Fish and Game.Prepared for Alaska power Authority.Anchorage,Alaska. Buie,E..1974.Implp..mentation of multiple objective planning by the soil conservation service.In:E.Michalson,E.Englebert,and We Andrews (ed.s).Multiple objectives planning water resources. Vol.1,pp.20-23.Idaho Research Fourrlation,Moscow,Idaho .. Bureau of Land r.1anagement.1982.An amendment to the southcentral .Alaska land-use plan for the Denali-Tiekel planning blocks.Draft. Calef,C.W",..E.DeEock,and Go Lortie.1976.The reaction .~f barren- ground carioou to aircraft.Arctic 29:201-212. Cohon,J .L.1978.Multiobjective progrannning and planning'..Academic Press,New York.333 pp. Cowardin,L ..M.(v.,carter ,F.C.Galet,arrl.E.T •LaRoe..1979. Classification of wetlands and deep.rJater babitats of the tJnitai States.USD!Fish and Wildlife Service Em/OBS-79 ....31. Washirqton,D.C. 1 3164B Jame,G.1983.Acres American.Personal Communication,February 28, 1983. I I, I 1 t -..-. 3164B Moskowitz,HcIi,and G.P.Wright.1979.Operations research techniques for management.Prentice-Hall,Inc...Englewood.Cliffs,New Jersey.793pp. Pitcher,K.W.1982.Susitna hydroelectric project -Phase I final report ....big game stUdies;caribOu.Vol ..W.Alaska Department of Fish and Game.prepared for Alaska Power Autbority.Anchorage, Alaska .. Linstone,.H ..A.,am M.Turoff (eds).1975.The delphi methoo techniques and applications.Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Massachusetts.620 pp. Miller,S.D.,and D.Mc.ZUlister.1982.Susitna hydroelectric project Phase I final report -big game studies:black bear and brown bear.Vol.VI.Alaska Dep:u:tment of Fish and Game.Prepared for Alaska Power Authority.Anchorage,Alaska. Gretzin:Jet",V.1983.R&M Consultants Inc.,Senior Engineer.Personal Communication,March 3,1983. Harza-Ebasco JV'.1983a..General investigationrnemorandum,Susitna project investigations 'by the access,transportation,construction camp,and employment training task force.February,1983. Gill,J ..1983.Resident'Manager,Acres American,Inc.Personal Caltmunication,February 28,1983. Frank M<x:>lin and Associates.1983.Personal Communication with several members of Frank Mcx:>lin I s Anchorage Office,February arrl March 1983. Fancy,S.G"Movements and activities of caribou near oil drilling sites in the Sagavanirktok River floodplain,Alaska.Accepted by Arctic.(In press). Dort~"'1,B.A.1983.Vice President,R&M COnsultants,Inc.Personal Camnunication,March. Houck,M.H.,a.."ld J .L.COhon.1978.Sequential explicitly stochastic linear programming models:a proposed method for design a.rrl management of multipurp:::>se reservoir systems.Water Resourcss Research 14(2.):161-169. CuI.':i'Colo,J .A.S oM.Murphy,and 1-1.A.Rebus.1982.Caribou responses to the pipeline/road complex in the Kuparuk oil fields,Alaska, 1981.Unpublished report.Alaska BiolO:;Jical Research.Prepared forAOCO Alaska,Inc. • Plummer,J.1983"Acres American,Inc.Personal Conununicatian,March. R&M COnsultants,Inc.1982a.Susitna hydroelectric project access planning stooy..Prepared for Acres Amexican,Inc.January,1982. R&M COnsUltants,Inc.1982b.Susitna hydroelectrir..:project,task :2 - surveys and.site facilities.Prepared for Acres American,Ino. September,1982. R&M Consultants,Inc.1981.Susitna hydroelectric project.plan of study,task 2 project access.Prepared for Alaska Power Authority ani Acres American,Incorporated.February,1981. Stephen R*Braund and Associates.1982..Susitna.hydroelectric project, task 7 ...environmental.Prepared for Acres American Incorporated. Final draft Mardh1982. u.s.Department of Agricl,;l.lture,Forest Service.,1979.National forest landsca.pe management,Vol.2,Chapter 4.Roads Agriculture Handlxx:>k No.483. Terrestrial Environmental specialists,Inc.1981.Subtask 7.14: Environmental analysis of alternative access plans.Susitna Hydroelectric Project Envi~0nmental Studies.Prepared for Acres American(I Inc.for Alaska Power Authority.Anchorage.,Alaska•. Viereck,LcaA.,and C.T ..Dyrness.1980.A prelirninary classification system for vegetation of Alaska.USD.1\Forest Service General Technical ReJ:X>rt PNW-I06.Portland,Oregon.38 p. Wrabetz,Mike,1983 Bureau of Land ManageInent Personal Communication, March I 3 3164B ..APPENDIX A -ACCESSIBILITY INDICIES The accessibility of areas was mapped and acreages calcultated according to the criteria described below. Highly Accessibe:Includes contiguous flat land (less than 15 percent slope)within one mile of roads, sled roads,4-wheel drivE:roads,cabins or lodges .. MODERATELY Accessible:Includes -1)Contiguous flat laIld,(less than 15 percent slope)between one and five miles from roads,4-wheel drive roads, sled roads~cabins or lodges;;2)contiguous . flatland (less than 15 percen '.slope)within I mile of railroads;and 3)rolling and mountain- ous land (greater than 15 percent slope)within one mile of roads,4-whee1 drive roads,sled roads 7 cabins,orlodges. INACCESIBLE:Includes all lands not defined as highly or moderately accessible. f I",_..,_,t: ..~. Q I o