HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA1211I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I·
I
I
I
I
I
' t
I
., Prepared b!f:
r· l
I A~~~ I
---.-----.l
SUSITNA HYDROEt .. ECTRIC PROJECT
ACCESS ROUTE SELECTION
REPORT
TASK 2 -SURVEYS A~~O SI"i"E
FACILiiiES
SU8TASt~ 2.10 -ACCESS RO.l\OS
'i-'iRST !:RA~T
PECE~iBER 1981
I
l
I
(
I I
I t
I
I . I
I
---! "---·--ALASKA PO'vVER J\UTl-iORIT'{-___ J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I-
I
I·
I
I
I
·I:
I
I
I·
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
ACCESS ROUTE SELECTION
REPORT,
TASK 2 -SURVEYS AND SITE
FACILITIES
SUBTASK 2.10 -ACCESS ROADS
CLOSEOUT REPORT
FIRST DRAF1
DECEMBER 1981
ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED
1000 Liberty Bank Building
Main at Court
Buffalo~ New York 14202
Telephone:. (716) 853-7525
I
I
I"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I·
I
I
I •
I
I
-·
ALASKA PO~IER AUTHORITY
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
ACCESS ROAD SELECTION
SUMMARY REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
1 -INTRODUCTION •••• c •••••• o ••• " •• , •••.•••••••• 6 ••••••••••••••••••• ,.
1.1 ,-Background ... ~ •••••••••••••••••• ~~~ •••••••••••••••••• , ••••••
1.2-Organization of Report ·~····•••&••·····~~~················· 1.3 Plan Formulation and Selection Process ••••••••••••••••••
\
SUMMARY ............................. CI •• ~ •••••••••••••••••••••••
2.1 Scope of Work. ......... , •• ·~· ............ '"' • _ •••• '0 .......... " .... .
2.2 Selection of Alternative Plans ...................... ~····
2.3 Evaluation of Plans •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
2.4-Plan Recormnendation •••••••••a•••••"'••••"•••••••••••••.,••
3 -SCOPE OF WORK ············~··~································· 3.1 Objectives ............................................... ~
3.2-Approach ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
4 -SELECTION OF PLANS ............... o ••••••••••• " ••••••••••••••• •-•
4.1 -Overview~~ Studieg Prior to Plan Selection •••••••••••••
4.2 .. -Description of Basic Plans ··························e.•• 4~3-Additional Plans ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
5 -EVALUATION OF. PLANS ..................... · ....................... .
5.1 Objectives and Evaluation Criteria ........................ .
5.2 -Evaluation of Plans ··························~··········
Page
1
1-1
1-1
1-1
2
2-1
2-1
2-2
2-3
3
3-1
3-1
4
4-1
4-5
4-6
5
5-1
5-6
6 -IDENTIFICATION OF CONFLICTS ................. aa.................. 6
7 PLAN RECOMMENDJ\TION •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
7.1 Comparisons ·····~·······························••a•••••
7. 2 -Recommendation ••••••••••••••• " •••••••.• '! .................. .
7.3-Assumptions Affecting Selection Process .................. .
7.4 -Assumptions Affecting Recommendation •••'•••····---···~ .. ~··
7.5 ~ossible Consequences •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
8 -MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS ············~~······················
7
7-1
7-3
7-4
7-5
7-5
8
I
I
I
I
.I
I
I
••
.I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
••
I
I
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
ACCESS ROAD SELECTION
SUMMARY REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont 1 d)
Page
9 -TRADEOFFS IN THE SELECTION PROCESS ....... ., • • • • .. • • • • • • • .• • • • • • • • • 9
9.1 -Basi~ of the Selection Process ............................. 9-1
9.2 -Tradeoffs Ma,de in the Selection Process ..... "................ 9-1
10-RECOMMENDATIONS FCIR CONTINUING WORK ................................. 10
APPENDIX A -CORRESPONDENCE
APPENDIX B -.REPORT -PROJECT CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS SCHEDULING
APPt:NOIX C -PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
APPENDIX D -CONTINGENCY RISK METHODOLOGY
I
I
I
·I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
LIST OF TABLES -------
Title -Number
5.1
6.1
Access Road Plans
Access Road Plans -Identification of Conflicts ,,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I"
I
I
I
LIST OF FIGURES ....,... _ __.
Number
1 .. 1
1.2
'"' 1 4C ..
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
7.1
Title
Generic Selection Methodology
Access Plan Selection Methodology
Alternative Access Corridors
Alternative Access Routes
Access Plan Recommended Route
Schematic of Access Plans 1 and 2
Schematic of Access Plans 3 and 4
Schematic of Access Plans 5 and 6
Schematic of Access Plans 7 and 8
Schematic of Access Plans 9 and 10
Schematic of Access Plan 11
Detail~d Design and Permitting Schedule
_,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1 -INTRODUCl!ON
1.1 ... Background and Purpose of Report.
The Acres American Incorporated (Acres) Plan of Study {POS) for the Susitna
Hydroe 1 ectri c Pro,ject was issued by the Alaska Power Authority (APA) for pub 1 i c
review and corm~ent in 1980. Task 2 of the POS deals with surveys and site
facilities including, under Subtask 2.10, consideration of access to the pro-
posed Susitna hydroelectric development. The Objective of Subtask 2.10 is to
define alternative access routes which will be required for construction and
operation of the power developments at the Watana and Devil Canyon Dam sites,
to evaluate the re 1 ated economical, environmenta 1 and engineering factors
i nvo 1 ved and to select a preferred route.
The original POS proposed that a single route \vould be selected by May 1981 to
be fo 11 owed by deta i 1 ed environment a 1 i nvesti gat ions of this route. Ear 1y in
the study three main access corridors were developed. Consideration of these
plans on the basis of information received, comment and concerns from various
state agencies and a recommendation from the Susitna Steering Committee, led to
a decision to assess three alternative routes in more detail throughout 1981 and
recoiTITlend one selected route late in the year. This assessment will include
environmental studies., engineet"ing studies, aerial photography~ drilling, and
geologic mapping of all three alternatives, rather than ,just one. ·
This report presents the results of studies conducted to,date by Acres to deter-
mine the optimum location of the access route. Subcontractors and others con-
tributing to this report and their respective contributing areas are:
-Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, Inc .. -Environmental Analyses;
-R&M Consultants, Inc. -Engineering, Capital Construction and Logistics Costs;
-Stephen Braund Associates -Local/Public Preferences; and
-APA-local/Public Preferences.
1e2 -Organization of Report·
This report is organized to describe sequentially the process by which the
recommendation for an access plan was reached. Section 2 is a summary of the
report. Section 3 discusses the objectives and approach. Section 4 describes
the 11 basic plans evaluated; Section 5 presents the evaluation of each plan~
considering schedules costs, biological impacts, and social impacts. Conflicts
in trying to meet all selection criteria are presented in Section 6. Acres 1
recommendation js discussed in Section 7, and mitigation recommendations to
reduce impacts associated with the recommended p1an appear in Section 8. Trade-
offs in the selection process, including objectives that were not fully met) are
discussed in Section 9. Section 10 contains the conclusions and recommenda-
tions.
1.3 -Plan Formulation and Selection Process
The selection process used to arrive at an acce.ss recommendat~on is described
generically in Figure 1.1. It consists basically of a 11 narrowing down'' process,
with steps provided for adjUStments of the alternative routes and for feedback.
This generic process has been applied to all Susitna Hydroelectric Proje9t
decisions which requi~ed an evaluation of a1t~!"nrttives.
1-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The methodology as specifically applied to the access road selection is
described in Section 3.2 and prese·nted graphically in Figure 1.2 ..
l-2
- --~ - ---· -.• - - - - - - ---·-·
OEf'INE
OBJECTIVES
•
INPUT FROM AVAILABLE SOURCES ·PREVIOUS ANO CURRENT STUDIES
SELECT
CANDIDATES SCREEN
fEEDBACK
FEEDBACK
PLAN .
FORMULATION
PLAN FORMULATION AND SELECTION METHODOLO.GY
. f
. I
FIGORE 1.1 \ uia \,
-------------------
I.
B~~CIIVES I-cc\~ss
H\~ROPOWER
AT A\,LOWS
TlON AND
NWH!lE J TING
CRITER\A
NrnJ
OEFINE 0
SELECT A
ROUTE TO
SiTES TH
CON$TRUC
OPERATtO
BEST MEE
OVERALL
STATED I
.
• ~
DESIGN PARAMETERS
ROADWAY AND RAIL
ENGINEERING CRITERIA
I w
ES!ABUSH CANDIDATES
~TOTAL OF 33
ROUTES ARE
ESTABLISHED AN
THE 3 CORRIDORS
~
2A
fUBLIC fAHIICifAIK>N
PRESENT THE OPTIONS
TO THE PUBLIC AND
INVITE COMMENT
~.; w W. -,
-= SCREENING PROCESS PLAN FORMULATION EVALUATION
~ TECHNlCAL 1--3 ROUTEs· ONE 'IN A(}IJIIIQt!lAL SIUJliE§ r"' II ALTERNAT\\'E PLANS
ECONOM~C EACH CORRIDOR SOILS DATA A~E EVALUAtED TO
ENVIRONMENTAL AS A RESULT Of ·~ ENGINEERING THE FOLL~
PUBLIC P~EFERENCES THE SCREENING CONSTRUCTIO~ COSTS ~ CfUTERIA
TRANSMISSION IMPACT PROCESS IN fiD LOGISTICS COSTS ENGINEER\NQ ARE ESTABLISHED TRANSMISSION IMPACT ECONOMIC
j ENVIRONMEtlliAL ~
r--< H ENVIRONMENTAL: 1-SCHEOUUNt;:
PORT fACILITIES DESIRED LE~ 0~
'·
ROADWAY OPTIONS H LABOR ORGANIZATION 1-ACCESS
RAIL OPTIONS ~ONCERNS AGE~C~ C~NS
LOGISTIC REQUIREMENTS SOCIAL.PREf£REt~S
TRANSMISS~ ' AG~HQ:! ~Qt:U~~BHS
AS A RESULT OF .
.. 8 PLANS, WHlCH ~ AGENC'I( CONC~RNS, t-f-UTILIZED THE 3 ADDITIONAL PLANS
3 ROUTES ARE 1--ARE ESTABLISHED
ESTABLISHED H NATIVE lANDOWNEi1S
PREFERENCES ~
4-1 LOCAL COMMUNITY t-PREFERENCES
ACCESS .PLAN SELECTION METHODOLOGY
~IGUREl.2.
-I I
I
••
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2 -SUMMARY -.;...;.,;...;...oo..;.;..o,._
2.1 -Scope of Work
The scope of work for the Access ·Road Selection task is to def1ne and evaluate
alternative access routes required for construction and subsequent operation of
the power devel op111ents at the Watana and De vi 1 Canyon Dam sites, and select one
route. The evaluation is carried out considering engineering, economic, envi-
ronme.nta1, and social criter1a.
Engineering studies conducted on the alternative routes consisted of development
of design criteria, layouts of the alternative routes, ·preliminary field inves-
tigations, cost estimates of constructing the alternative routes and logistics
costs in transporting supplies and ma~:erials to the dam sites. Environmental
studies included identification and evaluation of biological impacts for each of
the alternative routes., The environmental studies included field investigations
and assessments for all the alternative routes. Social or socioeconomic studies
included a public participatioil program among the various studies. Public
concerns and preferencesSI ··particularly thosr: of the sector that would be
impacted the most directly9 were solicited and fully considered in the
evaluation.
The evaluation of the a1ternative plans included cevelopment of selection cri-
teria, compartsons of the alternative plans, identi.ficatio.J of conflicts among
the alternatives in the evaluation criter·ia, comparison of ti1e conflicts in the
criteria3 and the tradeoffs made in the evaluation. ·
2.2 -Selection of Alternative Plans
Early i.n the study three broad corridors to the dam sites were identified (see
Figure 2.1). These were comprised of the following: -
- A corridor running east-west from the Parks Hi ghv1ay to the dam -sites on the
north side of the Susitna;
.... A corridor running east-west from the Parks Highway to the durn sites on the
south side of the Susitna River; and
-A corridor running north-south from the Denali Highway to the dam sites.
Within the three broad corridors a. total of 30 alternative routes were estab-
lished. The·establishment of the 30 routes v1as accomplished by laying out
alternative routes on topographic maps in accor .. dance with road and rail design
criteria developed for the routes. Through the selection process a short list
of 3 routes, the preferred route in each corridor, was established. The
·selection process included engineering, economic~ biological, and social
·criteria in narro'11ing down the alternatives from 3~ to 3.
From the 3 routes selected~ slight modifications to the alignments were made to
<iimini.sh as much as practicable, potential adverse biological impacts (see
Figure 2. 2).
0
2-1
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Eleven access plans were eventually developed from the 3 selected routes. The
ll plans estab 1 i shed the 1 ogi sti cs that would accompany the transport of sup-
plies and material$1;0 The logistics defined the origin of the materials and
zupplies, entering ports, mode of transport~ rail or truck and location of rail-
heads. The 11 plans are presented schemat·ica11y in Figures 2.4 t.hrough 2.9.
2.3 -Evaluation of Plans
To meet the prime objective of allowing the orderly development of the dam
sites, the following criteria was used to evaluate the 11 3lternative access
plans;
-minimize constructiQn costs and logistics costs;
-faci1itate operation and maintenance;
-· ensure adequate flexibility in construction logistics anti transportation;
-minimize adverse biological impacts;
-address social impacts;
-address agency concerns;
-address transmission requirements; and
-address recreation requirements ..
An important constraint affecting the Alternative Access Plans evaluation is the
overall pl"oject scheduling requirements~ This constraint resulted from the
obje~tive of meeting the power on-line date of 1993( ). The requirement of
having the Susitna power on line in 1993 resulted from extensive studies an
energy demand forecasts and alternative sources and developments to meet the
demand. The delay of the on-line date by one year would have the following neg-
ative impacts: a cost penalty in the order of $50 million in long-term present
worth costs; another source of fossil fuel generation would have to be
constructed to meet the demand, combined with a year later an early retirement
of some fossil fuel generating sources into the reserve category; and exploita-
tion of land and other resources required for the construction of the additional
fossil fuel generating sources.
This constraint was given prime consideration during the initial evaluation of
the plans due to the fact that any alternative other than the Denali Highway
route requires approximately three years to construct while the Dena 1 i route can
meet the construction access requirements in one year(_). Reviewing the con-
struction schedule for the dam, the powerhouse, and the overall power develop-
ment necessitated continual access is required by mid-1986 to meet the on-line
date of 1993 (refer to Appendix B). ·
The estimated issuance of the FERC license is 1985 and hence the commencement of
construction activities is scheduled to co·incide with the license issuance in
1985. To meet all the aforementioned requirements, the only alternative is the
Denali. route. This waul~ eliminate a11 the other alternatives.
A method was developed utilizing a 11pioneet 11 road concept and commencing con-
struction in 1983 whereby the other· alternatives from the Parks Highway and Gold
Creek. can meet the overall projeet scheduling requirements. This retair.an the
alternatives for further evaluation.
2-2
•• I I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The 11 plans established varied to the criteria and the degree to which they satisfied the criteria. The 11 plans are grouped into the following broad categories for this summary.
(a) Access from the Parks Highwa.l_
The access from the Parks Highway satisfies·the cost criterion and the ease
of operation and maintenance criterion. The access from the Parks Highway
has a definite advantage over all the other plans in the construction
logistics and transportation flexjbility criterion, and it also avoids many
potential biological impacts and also par'tia11y satisfies the agency
concerns. The only criteria the access does not fully meet is the local
community preference. Although there is some local comrr1mity preference
for the Parks Highway access, the major·ity of the popul~tion of the "local
communities did not favor the access. The access basically satisfies the
native landowner preferences.
(b) Access from the Denali Highway
The access from the Denali Highway satisfies the cost criterion, the ease
of operation and maintenance criterion, and the construction logistics and
transportation flexibility criterion. This access has a definite ·
disadvantage in the minimizing biological impacts criterion, in the agency
concerns, and in the native 1 and owner preferences. The access from the
Dena 1 i Highway has an advantage in 1 oca 1 community preferences.
(c) Access from Gold Creek
The access frt)ffi Gold Creek involves a rai 1 access only to the dam sites or
a road from Gold Creek to the dam sites which involves having a rail link
'Jnly service, and no connection to a major highway. This access satisfies
the cost criterion, the minimizing biological impacts criteria~ and local
community preference. The access from Gold Creek was also preferred by the
agencies. It has a definite disadvantage in constructi_on logi sties and
transportation flexibility and does not fully meet the"ease of operation
and maintenance criteria. The access also does not meet the native
1 and owner preferences.
In the evaluation of the alternative routes, there was no single alternative
that satisfied all the criteria better than the others.
2.4 -Plan Recommendation
Access alternatives from Gold Creek has a definite disadvantage in constrh~tion
logistics and transportation flexibility. This disadvantage is considered :great
enough to e 1 imi nate these a 1 ternati ves from further consideration.
The access from the Parks Highway has the advantage over the access from th>e
Dena 1 i Highway in every category except 1 oca 1 cormtuni ty preference. Through the
ado!)tion of appropriate mitigation measures such as management, the concerns of
the local communities can be minimized ..
For the reasons presented, it is Acres' recommendation that the access plan from
the Parks Highway be adopted. The access plan, designated Access Plan 5 in this
and referenced reports, is comprised of the following:
2-3
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-An access road commencing on the Parks Highway near Hurricane and traversing
southeast along the Indian River to Gold Creek;
-From Gold Creek the road, will continue east to the Devil Canyon dam site~
south of the Susitna River; and
-At the Devil Cunyon dam site, the road will cross a low level bridge and con ...
tinue east to the Watana dam site on the north side of the Susitna River;
After completion of .. the Devil Canyon Power DevelopmE!nt, the route will use the
top of the dam as the road !See Figure 2.3).
It is Acres• further recommendation to not commence construction of the section
of road between the Parks Highway and Go 1 d Creek until after issuance of the
FERC license. It is believed this wil1 substantially reduce the p_.ime public
and agency concern of introducing access to previously unaccessible areas in the
event the FERC license is denied or the project is cancelled.
The Access Plan 5 reconmendation also carries with it the recommendation of mit-
igation measures to reduce potent·ial impacts to the local communities along the
Parks Highway •. These measures include, but are not limited to, control of the
road as a private road during construct ion of the two dam sites not a1l OlfJi ng any
public traffic, incentives to the construction work force to remain at the work
site for the longest period of time thus reducing commuter travel, development
and maintenance of a.dual status camp which will reduce the potential for
worker's to relocate their families to nearby communities, and establish manage-
ment policies for the road after construction of the power development is com-
plete.
G
2-4
------------------~------------------------1.~· --------------------------------------------------------
li ... ·-
fiGURE a.t [i] Al TEANATIVE ACCESS · CORRIDORS . -
-. ·-·-..
1
.. ----._ -
LEGEND
---M:CI!M AUIRHAT& •
-.-.ccu• u.n:llOu.n: 11.
-·----ACCU'-~--'a.
0 .. 10 ..... t..u.
ALTERNATIVE ACCESS ROUTES flGOOE -~~-------------------------------------------------------~
---.. ------· - -.. - -I "-.c.w. l ..... "' I .,.,...,, l "~w. I 11 ''"" I IU'W• l "'"'1 • I a.a.a I "·"'
•.
Yat.
"" 'U~. -t>W4
"" .. T ...
:1tCM
u;;t;e~
Dtt --RECO~MEN~Ij! «<UT(
1 . \ .
J { {, ...
......... ·~-----... +--··-""~ .---· t----.;..·"'---*--------1-----· ---~-----·-· ·---~-----·+-•
la.tw louw lUi> I. I
ACCESS PLAN -RECOMMENDED ROUTE FIGURE
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I·
I
I
• II
I
I
I
I
I
I
'
ANT WELL
HURRICANE
' '
DENALI HWY.
PROPOSED
ROAD
GO~D~---~~ .._-
CREEK SITE ·
ANTWELL
URRICANE
GOLD
CREEK
PLAN I
DENALI HWY.
PLAN 2
-.--'-WAIANA
SITE
FlGURE 2.4 Ii1
I
I ®
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
·I
I
I
CANTWELL. DENALI HWY.
-
I
I
I
l
HURRICANE
PROPC"~ED ROADS
GOLDY----j
D.C. tWATANA
CREEK SITE SITE
PLAN 3
~~--~A-N:WELt ~~DE_N_~_L_I_H_w_v._. -------------r-----
HURRICANE
GOLD
CREEl<
PLAN 4
I
I
I
PROPOSED~ !
ROAD ~
I
I
I
tWATANA
" SITE
FIGURE 2.5
I ,.
I
I
I
-·
I
10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
@
'
PARKS,
HWY.
ANTWELL DENALI HWY.
HURRICANE
' '
PROPOSE:D ROA~l---
-~
---::c.f tWATANA
SlTE SiTE
CANTWELL
HURRICANE
GOLD
CREEK
0
PLAN 5
DENALI HWY. .
I
I
I
I
I
I ~~~;osEoN
__.. ....... ---i.. t
. .· WATA~A
S!TE
PLAN 6
F1GURE 2.6 [j)
I
I~-
I
I
I
I
I
I
1-
I
I
·I
I
I •
I
I
I'
I·
I
@
'
ANTWELL
HURRICANE
' ' 'fl--
GOLo-1
CREEK
I
ANTWELL
DENALI HWY.
PROPOSEO ROADS .
---r-
D.C.
SITE
PLAN 7
--·
DENALI HWY.
PROPOSE1_ ROAD --.
o I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GOLD_j---
CREEK
. ----.........
D.C) t. WATANA
SITE SITE
PLAN 8 .
FIGURE 2.7
--------~~~"----~------------------------~------~--------~ ......
I
1-'@
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I·
I
I
I
-I
t-CANTWfiLL /DENALI HWY.
ORRICANE
GOLD
CREEK
ANTWELL
URRICANE
GOLD·
CREEK
]
PROPOSED
ROAD
--_., ---.......
PLAN 9
DENALI HWY.
(
PROPOSED
ROAD
tt
'-WATANA
SITE
-1 . -t
- ----·WATANA
SITE
PLAN 10
\
FIGURE 2.8 [j]
I
-I
I
I
I
I
I
,-I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
3 -SCOPE OF WORK
3.1 -Qbjectiv~
The primary objective of the access route is to allow for the orderly develop-
ment and maintena·nce of site facilities and construction activities in order
that the Susitna power developments can be constructed and electric power be
reliably and continuously provided to the Railbelt Area of Alaska.
In meeting the primary objective stated above, several specific objectives were
developed as a basi~ of evaluation of the alternative access route. These
objectives are:
(a) To allow the construction of the Susitna project to proceed on a schedule
that would supply the necessary power to th'e Railbelt Area of Alaska when
needed;
(b) To minimize cost including capital construction costs, logistics costs of
supporting construction activities and the logistics costs of operation of
the project;
(c) To allow for ease of operation and maintenance to ensure reliability in the
power supply;
(d) To minimize adverse biological impacts;
(e) To accommodate the preferences of local communities; and
(f) To accommodate the preferences of Native landowners.
3~2 .... Approach
The approach utilized to arrive at an access recommendation was basically an
adaptation of the generic plan formulation and selection methodology described
previously in Section 1.3.
To aid in understanding the selection process and the various studies conducted,
the following definitions are provided:
-Corridor -On a plan view or surface, a wide path~ generally 2 miles wide or
greater, indicating direction between two points or areas.
a
-Route -On a plan view or surface, a path~ generally 1/2 mile wide or less~
indicating direction between two points.
-Segment -Portions of a route which \'lhen combined constitute one alternate
t~oute between two points.
-Alternate Route-One of several routes which will be evaluated between two
points.
Plan-An access plan which wi 11 involve one or more or a combination of
existing and new alternate routes. The plan will also define the logistics
involved in the transportation of supplies and materials.
3-1
I! < ..... ·
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The first step of the salection process das the $~tab1~shment of baric corridors
leading from existing transportation routes to the darnsites. Alternative routes
which met engineering desig_n parameters were then e~tab 1 ished and eva 1 uated
against technical~ economic, and e'<'tvironmental crit<~ria. A short list of the
preferred three routes~ one in each corri dar, was then comp 11 ed. Access p·l ans
for each route were developed, and these plans evaluated in-detail, leading to a
final-recorrmendation of a routa within a corridor and a plan to utilize this
.route. Fi.gure 1.2. depicts this process fn more detail and illustrates how other
concerns, including those of agencies and the public~ were incorporated into the
decision-making process.
3-2
'I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4 -SELECTION OF PLANS
4.1 -Overview of Studies Prior to Plan Selection
(a) Corridor Selection and Evaluation
The first step in the selection process involved tne identification of
general corridors. These .:orrida·rs were selected based upon the existing
· transportation network in reasonab-le proximity to the damsites and the fact
that the purpose of the access route \'/Ould be to provide access to the dam-
sites. The transportation network consists of the Parks Highway and the
Alaska Railroad to the west and the Dena 1 i Highway to ~he north of the dam-
sites. Based upon this, the following three general corridors were identi-
fied.
-Corridor 1 -.From the Parks Highway to the Watana Dam site via the north
side of the Susitna River.
-Corridor 2 -From the Parks Highway to the Watana Dam site via the south
side of the Susitna River.
-Cori"i dor 3 -From the Dena 1 i Highway to tt :• Watana Dam site.
A general environmental analysis was conducted on the three corridors( ).
The results of this analysis are presented below. The major environmental
constrcLints identified within· each corridor are potential impacts on the
follow.:ing:
-Corri dar 1: ---
~ -F·ishery resources in the Susitna and In·:~...: .• Rivers;
-Cliff-nesting raptors near Portage Creek and Devil Canyon;
.. Furbearer habitat near Portage Creek anct High Lake;
-l'4oose habitat on the Susitna River; and
-Caribou habitat between Devil Creek and Deadman Creek ..
-CrJrridor 2:
··Fishery re•sources in the Susitna and Indian River;
··Cliff-nesting raptors near south side of the Susitna River;
-Waterfowl habitat in the Stephan Lake-Fog Lake areas; and
-Furbe.arer habitat in the Stephan Lake-Fog Lake areas ..
-· Corri dar 3:
-Caribou calving area near Butte Lake;
-Furbearer habitat; and
-Some waterfowl habitat.
In addition~ increased access will cause various impacts which are common
to all corridors. Archaeol ogi ca 1 resources caul d pose a. constraint; at
this time, location of these resources are unknown.
4-1 ~
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I·
I
I
I
I
Finally~ socioeconomic impacts will vary both in magnitude and area~ of ccHcentration, depending upon which access route or combi.nation of access
routes is selected, and whether a road or railroad is used.. With the
socioeconomic assessment of access schemes, there is more concern with the
origin and type of access than with the actua1 route, because these wi 11
affect communities throughout the south-central part of the stateit
With a road from the Par~~~s Highway to the damsites (C1lrridors 1 and 2),
effects ·generally ~ctt1<i be concentrated on the western side of the project
area. An easily accessible road corridor would provide for transportation
of construction materia 1 s, equipr!~ent, and 1 abor as well as post-~...onstruc
ti on uses of the upper Susitna basin (such as recreation). The impact of <'.
railroad from the same side would likewise be concentrated on the western
side. Ho\'lever~ in every socioeconomic category, impacts would be the same
or less than with the road. The single exception would be in rail industry
activities, which would experience major changes.
With a. road construt~ted from the Denai i Highway to the damsites (Corr·idor
3), impacts a·long the Parks Highway-A 1 aska Railroad corridor would depend
upon whether materials were to be shipped by road or rail to Cantwell
before being transported along the Denali Highway to the access r"oad.
Impacts would occur in the Cantwell area~ however, regardless of transpor-
tation modeo
(b) Route Selection and Evaluation
Following identification of major corridors, access routes were selected
and evaluated based on engineering and economic criteria. Environmental
analysis was then utilized to (llodify the selected routes.
(i) ~ngineering Criteria
A major concern in deve 1 oping access road a 1 i gnments is the. uti 1 i ty
of the route for transportation of large heavy pieces of equipment
during construction of the project. Bend curvature and grade are
thus prime factors in road layout. Generally a maximum grade of 6
percent and a curvature of 5° caul d correspond to the criteria for a
55 mph design speed.
The engin~eri ng criteria adopted for design of the access road were:
-Maximum Grade of 6 percent;
-Maximum curvature of 5°;
-Design loading of aok axle and 200k total during construction;
and;
-Design loading of HS-20 after construction.
It should be noted that speeds of 55 mph are not necessarily typi ca 1
for vehicles using t;;j ;s roado In fact, a design criterion of 30 mph
with associated gra,.:tes and curvatures was originally considered.
This was rejected because a 30 mph road would prove uneconomical in
the long run due to the increased logistics costs associated with
transporting equipment and materials to the site. Transportation
costs in ton/mile are greater for a 30-mph road C:esign than for a
55-mph designs
•• I
I
I
I
I
-I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1:
Railroad design parameters utilized were as follows:
-Maximum Grade of 2.5 percent;
-Maximum Curvature of 10°; and
-Loading of E-50.
Following corridor definitions various segments that met engineering
criteria were mapped. These segments were then joined to form vari-
ous alternative routes which were compared on the basis of:
-Overall length;
-Average grade per mile; and
-Average deflection per mile.
(ii) Economic Criteria
In the early screening stages of corridor and route selection, the
only economic criteria applied were total centerline length of the
road with minor adjustments for average grade and curvature. Pre-
liminary capital costs for construction were estimated to be 1.25
million dollars per mile, in 1981 dollars.
( i i i ) Res u 1 t s
The mountainous terrain, combined with the criteria adopted regard-
ing maximum grades and degree of curvature, strictly 1 imits the
number of available segments and routes. The 16 segments and 30
routes identified witPin the three corridors are about the only
practicable routes available .. All the routes are technically feasi-
ble, cvmplete within themselves, and insure safe operation. The
routes have been plotted on USGS maps at a 1 inch = 1 mile seale( ) • -
The altt:rnatives identified as being most favorable based on length,
alignment~ and grade are as follows:
-forridor 1 -Parks Highway to Watana Dam site-North side
Overall Length
Average Grade
Deflection Per Mile
64.9 miles
2.4 percent
7°06'+
-Corri dar 2 .. Parks Highway to Watana Dam site -South side
Over a 11 Length
Average Grade
Deflection Per Mile
66.5 miles
2. 2 percent
4°50°+
-Corridor 3 -Watana Dam to Denali Highway
Over a 11 Length
Average Grade
Deflection Per Mile
4-3
39.1 miles
1.3 percent
1°30'+
I I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(i v)
-Ra-Ilroad -The south side of the river from Gold Ct--eek to \vatana Dam site. This cl ose]y follows the preferred rt)ad
a~ igm·1ent for Corridor 2.
Overall Length
Average Grade
Deflection Per Mile
58 miles
0.5% percent
5°11 1+
Environmental Influences on Alternative Routes
Aft.er the engineering and economic assessment identified 3 road
routes and 1 rail route, an initial screening was made Which result-
ed in several refinements to the alternative routes under considera-
tion. A major r.efinement involved the deletion of a large portion
of the road access corridor to the Parks Highway on the north side
of the river (Corridor 1)~ The segment connecting the Highway and
Devil Canyon Dam site routed around Portage. Creek was deleted mainly
on the basis of potentially severe environmental impacts on
anadromous fish, fur bearers, and raptors. The topography in the
Portage Creek area is furthermore such that the alignment necessary
to meet the .established criteria is inordinately long. In addition
the construction of the segment wou1d be extremely difficult due to
the predominance of steep sidehill excavation required.
Another major refinement to the corridors was the routing to the
west of the northern portion of the Denali route (Corridor 3). This
routing \-Jas ·advocated on environment a 1 grounds in an attempt to
reduce potential impacts on the caribou subherd calving area near
Butte Lake. A final refinement consisted of realignment of the por-
tion of the Corridor on the south side of the river (Corridor 2) in
the Stephen Lake-Fog Lake area to reduce potentia 1 environmental
impacts to furbearers and waterfowl.
The main routes within the corridors remaining after the initial
screening were as follows:
-Parks Highway to Devi 1 Canyon -This route encompasses the exist-
ing rail route between Gold Creek and the intersection of the
railroad with the Parks-Highway just south of Hurricane. The
route passes through Chulitna Pass from the Parks Highway a.nd then
parallels the Indian River to Gold Creek. The existing river
channel periphery provides for a natural passage\'lay for a road.
From Gold Creek to De vi 1 Canyon the route 1 i es south of the
Susitna River, paralleling the river on a high ridge.
-Devil Canyon to Watana, SoHth Side of Susitna River: -This route
generally parallels the Susitna River and traverses east-west from
Devi1 Canyon to Watana. The topography is mountinous and the
route contains the most difficult construction of the three
routes as there are considerable sidehi11 alignments, in rr.~ck and
soi 14> This route also includes the environmentally sens.it·l ve
Stephan Lake and Fog Lake areas.
"""""'
4-4
I' I
I
I
I
I
I·
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
••
I
I
I
I
-Devil Canyon to Watana North Side of Susitna River -This route
generally parallels the Susitna River and traverses east-west from
Devil Canyon to Watana. This route is mountainous and includes
terrain at the highest elevations of all routes, however, con-
struction of the road would not be as difficult as the route
between the damsites, south of the Susitna River.
-Dena 1 i Hi ghtfay .:to Watana -This route connects the Dena 1 i Highway
with the Watana Damsite and runs in a north-south direction. This
· route is the easiest to construct of the alternative routes. Tne
terrain is relatively flat with a few wetlands involved. This
route would not require any major bridges.
4.2 -Description of Basic Plans
From the three routes remaining after the initia·f screening, eight plans were
developed. These pians were studieds investigated, and evaluated in more detail
then originally planned in the original POS. The additional investigations and
evaluations resulted from information and assessments conducted to date, con-
cerns of state agencies,_ and also fo 11 owing recommendation by the Susi tna Steer-
i-ng Committee~ Refer to Appendix A -Correspondence~ The additional investiga-
tion and evaluations, consisting mainly of environmental fieldwork~ and geologi-
cal mapping and drilling, provided a better data base upon which to make a
selection. -:
The plans are presented below and are also shown schematically in Figures 2.4
through 2.8.
(a) Plan 1
This plan utilizes roadway from the Parks Highway to Watana Dam along the
South side of the River. Current construction planning using this access
plan is based on materials such as cement and steel being btought with the
State through Whittier on rail cars. Food and other camp supplies would
be imported through Anchorage vi a container, and fuel directly from Kenai
to Anchorage via existing pipeline. All materials and supplies would be
carried by rail to a rail head and stora~ge area at Gold Creek. At Gold
Creek materia 1 s wou1 d be transfered to trucks for transport to the site.
The remainder of materials and supplies l/lould be transported by truck from
the Parks Highway. An alternative for fuel would be rail haul from the
refinery at North Pole, Alaska.
(b) Plan 2 -All Rail
"
This plan would serve both damsites by a rail line. This alternative would
preclude public access. Construction planning for this mode of access
would be based on trains being broken down and cars dropped on the siding
at Gold Creek. An engine and train crew would be stationed at Gold Creek.
This crew would shuttle cars from Gold creek to the project site daily.
Passenger rail service would be required daily~~ If public access is
desired after construction the rails could be removed and the road bed
graded into a one lane road with turnouts.
4-5
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(c) Plan 3
This plan envisages use of a combinat·ion of rail and truck. Construction
of Watana Dam would be served from a rail head at Cantwell, by truck across
the Denali highway and along a newly constructed road from the Denali H~gh
way. Construction of Devil Canyon dam would be served by truck from a rail
head at Gold Creek and a road access to the Parks Highway is included.
This plan does not include a connection _between the two dams.
(d) Plan 4
This plan serves Watana by truck from a rail head at Cantwell and Devil
Canyon by rail fr.om Gold Creek. In the plan there is no connection between
dams.
(e) Plan 5
This plan serves both dams by truck from a rail head at Gold Creek. The
south side of the river is used to Devil Canyon with a major bridge down-
stream from the damsite, then following the north side of the river to
Watana. There is a road connection to the Parks Highway.
(f) Plan 6
This plan is identical to Plan 4 except that a service road for maintenance
purpose is included on the north side of the river bet\tleen the two dams.
(g) Plan 7
This plan is the same as Plan 3 except that a service road would be
provided along the north side of the river as in Plan 7.
(h) Plan 8
This plan is the same as Plan 5 except there is no road connection to the
Parks Highway. A newly constructed road would service Devil Canyon from
Gold Creek on the south side of the river. A m~jor bridge would be
required downstream of Devil Canyon and a new road on the north side of the
river would connect the two dams. This alternative plan precludes public
access.
4.3 -Additional Plans
Following selection and evaluation of the eight plans described above~ presenta-
tions were made to the Alaska Power Authority and the Susitna Hydroelectric
Project Steering Committee. These presentations and subsequent discussions
resulted in the addition of three plans as follows. ·
(a) Plan 9
This plan is the same as Plan 8 except the road between Gold Creek and
Devil Canyon is changed to rail and the railhead is at Devil Canyon.
4-6
I, I.
I.
I
I
I
I
I
1:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(b) Plan 10 . ' -This plan is identical to Plan 9 except that the road connecting Devil Can-
yo~ and Watana is on the south side of the Susitna River.
(c) Plan 11
This plan utilizes a railhead at Cantwell, the Denali H·ighway, a road from
the Dena 1 i Highway to Watana and a road ·from Watana to Devi 1 Canyon on the
north side of the River.
These plans are s.hown schematically in Figures 2.8 and 2.9.
Plans 9 and 10 were added as a suggestion by the Steering Corrmittee as a
means to reduce accessibility and thus adverse environmental impacts into
the Susitna basin by having no road available until Devil Canyon.
P 1 an 11 was added as a pass i b 1 e way to pro vi de access from only one area
while also alleviating the socioeconomic impacts the westside communities
would feel from any access road from the westQI
4-7
I
I
.~
I;
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1:
I
I.
I
I
I
5 -EVALUATION OF PLANS
5.1 -Objectives and Evaluation Criteria
The objectives for the access route are presented previously in Section 3.2.
The criteria used to assess the degree to which these objectives can be met are
as follows: ·
..
·(a) Minimize Construction Costs and Logistics Costs
The construction costs are the associated capital costs to construct the
project while the logistics costs are the capital costs associated with
transporting labor, fuels, equipment, materials, and supplies to construct
the power devel~pments.
(b) Ease of Operation and Maintenance
This criterion addresses the ease of operation of the developments after
construction is completea This criterion reduces to the effects of having
a road connecting the two damsites directly. It is planned to operate and
maintain both damsites initially from the Watana damsite. Subsequent oper-
ation will occur from a remote operating station, however, maintenance will
continue to originate from one central location, which is currently pro-
posed to be at Watana. The Watana location was selected for the plant
operation and maintenance facility and the permanent village since Watana
will be constructed before Devil Canyon. The concept of having one opera-
tion and maintenance facility, and one permanent village serving both dam-
sites is superior to that with separate operation and maintenance facili-
ties, and permanent villages a~ each site. Efficiency and economies dic-
tate one location. In this respect the ease of operatio.n and maintenance
criterion addresses a road-directly connecting the two damsites.
(c) Construction Logisti.cs and Transportation Flexibility
This criter·fon addresses the ease of construction and the flexibility
involved in c:onstruction and the associated risks.
This criterion for the Susitna Project narrows down to effects of having a
road connection to a major highway or not having a road connection to. a
major highway. In this case comparison of a rail access only link is made
versus a road connection to the Parks or Denali Highway. The concept here
is to ensure that as much flexibility as possible is built into the access
plan. The increaSE!d flexibility lessens the risks associated with stop-
pages and delays resulting from unforeseen, adverse events.
A road access from a major highway is more flexible to adapt to different
situations, than an all rail or rail link accessv A road access to a major
highw~y allows more control over the project by the contractors themselves.
Rail access or access link plans have higher risks of project delay and
subse.quent c1ost increases. With rail access only, the operation of all
ground transportation to the site is removed from the contractorsf control.
5-1
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I. .
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(d)
Any breakdown in the rail system would result in a loss of all ground transportation to the site and the likelihood of project delays and con-
tractors• claims. Although project d~1ay risks are inherent in any trans-
portation system, they are higher with rail than with road.
The increased risk of delays have cost penalties associated with it. The
cost penalties are extremely difficult to quantify for evaluation, however,
an analysis was carried out and a dollar amount has been arrived at. Refer
to Appendix D. These costs have been incorporated into the flexibility
criterion, and the criterion addresses minimizing the costs.
In addition to the quantifiable flexibility a road access offers associated
with risk, there is the additional flexibility with a road for ease of
supply which does not have a cost penalty associated with it. With a road
access the task of supply is made much easier from the planning and
scheduling viewpoint.
The existing Alaska railroad paralleling the Parks Highway, the majority of
the distance to the project site, combined with having road access to a
major highway lends itself ideally to comp·etitive bidding and obtaining the
minimum capital cost to maintain the construction of the developments.
Although it has been shown and preliminarily planned to ship the majority
of materials and supplies by rail, without competition from trucking., price
gouging caul d occur.
Road access to a major highway also offers flexibility in personnel trans-
portation and the use of private transportation~
Environmental (Excluding Sociall
The biological objective is to develop an access plan that minimizes
changes to the natural environment. The criteria used to assess the degree
to which this objective can be met were:
(i) Effects on Big Game
(ii)
A primary concern associated with the selection of an access plan is
the potential effect on the Nelchina caribou herd and specifically
the subpopulation of approximately 1,000 animals that inhabit the
nor·thwestern section of the Upper Sus itna Basin. The impacts of
hunters on moose and bear are also considered but as secondary con-
cerns. These impacts can be greatly lessened by selecting a route
other than the access from the Denali Highway.
Effects on Fisheries -
In the case of resident fisheries, there are relatively isolated
lakes (Butte Lake, Big Lake) and streams in the northwestern section
of the Upper Susitna Basin, and the Fog Lakes area that would
receive additional angling pressure if road-access was provided.
These impacts can be. lessened by avoiding access from the Denali
Highway and the route on the south side of the Sus i tna River between
the dam sites.
5-2
I I
I:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
·~
I
I
I
I
For anadromous fisheries and si nee De vi 1 Canyon ~cts as a natura 1
baY"rier to anadromous fish migration, there is no concern regarding
the effect of improved access on this resource upstream of Devil
Canyon. However, Indian River, and the Susitna Rivet up to Portage
Creek, are important for salmon •. Any access plans that follow or
cross these rivers caul d affect salmon directly through habitat dis-
ruption (i.e. sedimentation) or indirectly througW increased fishing
pressure. These. impacts cau·t d be 1 essened by avoiding road access
paralleling the Indian River.,
(iii) Effe!cts on Fur bearers
Wetlands, important to furbearers, have been identified between the
Parks Highway and Gold Creek, near Deadman Mountain, near Deadman
and Big Lakes and th~e Upper Deadman Creek. In addition, the Fog
Lake -Stephan Lakes wetlands complex is a valuable furbearer habi-
tat. A red fox denning complex has also been identified sout!l of
Deadman Mountain. Any access road crossing through these areas has
the potential for negative impacts on furbearers. Impacts on fur-
bearers would be 1 east by selecting access from Gal d Creek to Devil
Canyon on the south side of the Susitna River and on the north side
of the River between the dam sites.
(iv}" Effects on Birds
Heavily forested areas between the Parks Highway and De vi 1 Canyon
along riverbanks are productive avian habitat. Construction through
these areas would disturb this habitat.
(v) Effects on Wilderness Setting
The Upper Susitna Basin is presently 1 n a state of wilderness to
semi-wilderness. Although ~ontinued.intrusion with ATV's from
Denali Highway~ potential development of~ native lands and the estabw
lishment of the Indian River remote land disposal site have the
potential of changing the character of sections of the basin~
imr;-roved public access and construction of the Susitna Hydroelectric
P'f'oject will produce a major alteration in the remoteness of the
area. Natural resource agencies and the local public have expressed
a desire to mimic the status quo to the maximum extent possible.
People from the urban centers of Anchorage and Fairbanks have
expressed a stronger des if'e· to pro vi de road access and open the area
for recreation development. The status quo of the area would be
retained to the greatest extent by providing only rai 1 access to the
dam sites.
(vi) Effects on Archeological Resources -.
Archeological resources are likely present a]ong all access routes.
The route from·Denali crosses substantial area of high archeological
potential. The thin soil and lack of vegetation result in a high
potential for impacts to resources along this route. The other
access routes are believed to be less sensitive., Avoidance of the
Denali access link lessens the probability of the disturbance of
archeological sites.
5-3
I I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(e) Social
(i) Native Landowners
Native organizations have presently selected lands surrounding the
impoundment areas and south of the Susitna River between Devil
Canyon and Watana dam sites. To aTl ow for· increased opportunity to
develop their lands on the south side of the river, the native
landowners have expressed a strong desire to have a Susitna access
road along the south side of the river from Watana to Gold Creek,
ultimately connecting tC'J the Parks Highway. It is considered that
the basic native pref,rences would be met by providing road access
to both dam sites.
(ii) Local Community Preferences
Since the local communities are likely to receive the disbenefits
with few of the benefits of a Susitna development, the objective to
accommodate local community preferences has been included in our
access plan selection process. The criteria used in assessing the
degree to which this objective is met is divided into four areas due
to the differences in community preferences {refer to Appendix C) ..
-Cantwell: The conmunity of Cantwell desires economic stimulus and
is in favor of the economic changes that could result from having
a major construction project in the area~ This desired stimulus
would be met by providing road access to the Denali Highway with a
ra i 1 head at Cantwell.
-North of Talkeetna: The communities along the railroad north of
Talkeetna are opposed to development in tne area and strongly
prefer a maintenance of the status quoo These communities have
expressed a desire for rail access only although the direct :effect
on these communities would be the best with road access only from
the Denali Highway.
It has been concluded there would probably. be more of a change in
these communities if a rail access only is provided. The reason-
ing is that with· a rail access only the practicality of providing
a self-contained!) family-status camp diminishes and a single-
status camp becomes more practical. If this were to be the case,
workers would tend to locate their families in the nearest commun-
ities, thus the impacts would be greater.
-Talkeetna/Trapper Creek: Although attitudes are sometlhat divided
the majority of residents of the communities of Talkeetna and
Trapper Creek prefer a maintenance of the status quo. This status
quo in these communities can be most easily maintained by
providing access via Denali Highwayo
-Willow/Wasila Area: The residents in this area are more in favor
Of economic development~
5-4
I I
••
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
=
I
I
I
-Indian River Land Disposal Sites: In 19&1 a total of 75 remote
state 1 and parcels were awarded by 1 ottery in the Indian River ·
area. Of these, 35 were staked in the summer of 1981. The 35
land holders were contacted by letter through the APA public
participation offi'ce. Of the 12 responses received to date, 11
favored retention of the remote status of the area and one favored
road access to the area. This area waul d be most affected by road
access from the Parks Highway and 1 east affected by access from
the Denali Highway •
. (f) Agency Concerns
This criteria addresses the concerns.of the various agencies involved.
Correspondence, meetings and interaction with the agencies and with the
Susitna Hydroelectric Project Steering Committe has occured throughout the
study~ Agency comments have b_een consicared in the evaluation. The con-
cerns of the agencies have been environmental, with the emphasis on biolog-
ical and land use impacts. Therefore, evaluation by the envi.ronmental
criteria discussed previously is considered to basically include agency
concerns. It is considered that the resource agencies favor a rai 1 only
access plan with a major opposition towards road access from the Denali
Highway.
(g) Transmission
Access plan selection has been coord7nated with the transmission line
studies. The transmission line studies to date have identified two cor-
ridors, one north of the Susitna River and one south of the Susitna River
from Watana to Gold Creek. Although corridors run along the river, there
is flexibility to expand the corridor to include the access road when the
decision on which access route will be constructed is made. Due to more
stringent engineering criteria of lines and grad~s for road.alignments, it
was decided that the selection of a transmission line rou1:e would oc~ut""'
subsequent to the access road selection.
The other decision that has been made in the transmission studies is if the
northern Denali access route is selected, the transmission line would not
fall ow that route due to excessive cost and visual impacts.
In addition to coordinating with the transmission studies, minor adjust·-
ments in route alignment have been made to allow efficient access to borrow
areas and the construction camp.
(h) Recreation
This criterion of coordination of the access plan with recreation studie~
has been adopted to the following. In meetings, discussions, and evalua-
tion of recreation plans, it has emerged the recreation plans are flexible
enough to adopt to any access route selected. No one route was i denti fi ed
which had superior recreational potential associated with it. Therefore
compatability with recreational aspects was essentially eliminated as an
evaluation criteria.
5-5
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5.2 -Evaluation of Plans
----~----------
Specific concern for each of the 11 access plans under consideration are dis-
cussed below. In addition to these, a major concern for all access plans is the
creation of access to areas previously inaccessible or relatively inaccessibleo
Such access could lead to impacts to furbearers through increased trapping pres-
sure and to big game through hunting pressure. In addition, detrimental effects
could occur to all wildlife through disturbance and destruction of habitat by
ATVs. Cultural resourc·es would also be vulnerable to amateur collectors and ATV
traffic.
(a) Access to both Parks and Denali Highway (Plans 3 and 7)
.
(i) Cost
In the evaluation of the costs invoived, the accuracy of the esti-
mates must be considered. The construction costs could change by
$10 million very easily due to unknown geologic conditions.
Therefore, construction costs with less than $10 million difference
are considered equal. A diffet·ence of $50 million in construction
costs is a definite difference. The maintenance costs are a very
small percentage of the total costs and a large change in the
maintenance costs will have a negligible effect on the overall
costs. The 1 ogisti cs costs are about as· accurate as they can be.
The logistics costs are based on current fre.ight rates applicable at
this time. The logistics costs for all the plans vary by less than
10 percent~ however, a definite c~5t advantage of about $15 million
can be observed for any plan using the Parks Highway over any plan
using the Denali HighwaY. (Table 5.1), This is expe·cted due to the
additional 52 miles of haulage rtaquired for any pla1o using the
Dena 1 i route. The personne 1 shuttle costs and cont·i ngency risk
costs are debateab 1 e, however, they are the best estimates of thesa
costs available at this time. When comparing the total costs~ the
plans were considered equal if the total costs were within $20
million, and--a definite cost advantage was considerE~d if there was a
$50 million difference.
Access Plan 3 is comparable to the minimum cost alte~rnative. Access
Plan 7 has approximately a $60 million cost disadvantage when com-
pared to the minimum cost alternatives.
(ii) Ease of Operation, Mainte~ance and Construction Flexibility
Access Plan 3 does not meet the ease of operation and maintenance
criteria by not having a. connecting road between the two sites.
Access Plan 7 does meet the ease of operation criteria by having a
connecting road between the two sites.
Access Plans 3 and 7 satisfy the flexibility criteria by having a
road access connecting to a major highway.
5-6
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(iii} Biological
The primary bi o 1 ogi cal conerns ·for these t~t/O plans are in the
effects the road would have on furbearers, big game, and cultural
resources.
A roadway from the Parks Highway waul d cross wetland habitat between
the highway and Gold Creek. these wetland areas are productive fur-
bearer habitat. the Denali segment of both these plans also crosses
aquatic furbearer habitat near Deadman Mountain, Deadman and Big
Lakes, and Upper Deadman CreekG In addition, a red fax denning com-
plex south of Deadman Mountain is present within one mile of the
proposed road and is 1 ikely ·to be affected.
The primary big game concern for both these plans is the Denali seg-
ment, which waul d pass through an area that has frequently been used
by either major portions or all of the Nelchina herd and includes
the calving and summer ranges of the northwestern subgroups of the
Nelchina caribou herd. The route also lies across the late summer
migration route of caribou moving toward Butte Lake and Gold ·Creek
and parallels a traditional spring migration route southward to the
Susitna River. "'
The direct effects upon this group of caribou should Access Plan 3
or 7 be implemented include: a disturbance to cows and calves
during the road construction period, a disturbance and possible
impediment to caribou migration as a result of incr·eased traffic in
the area, and the possibility of direct mortality from road k.illso
However, the presence of the road should not interfere with migra--
tion, si nee caribou are known to cross roads. Moreover, inter-
ference with the ca 1 vi ng areas caul d cause a major adverse impact on
the females who show an affinity to traditional calving grounds.
Of greater importance than these factors, however, are the indirect
consequences to this group of caribou of increased access to its
range. An a.ccess road across this alpine tundra would provide the
opportunity for al'l terrain verhicl es to push a network of unplanned
trai 1 s throughout this subherd ~. s range. This new access would cause
disturbance and increased mortality to these caribou from their con-
tact with vehicles, campers, and hunters. Thus there is a chance
that this route could lead to partial abandonment of important cari-
bou habitat.
The actua 1 magnitude of impact is di ffi cult to assess si nee it
depends on the somewhat unpredictable behavior of both caribou and
man. With an increased emphasis on management of the area and
stringent hunter control~ it is technically possible to lessen the
potentia 1 extent of .impact. It is expected, however, that resource
agencies would be apprehensive about the success of any mitigratian
plans and waul d strongly resist any road access from the Dena 1 i ·
Highway. ·
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
••
(i v) Social
Without the use of mitigating measures, access plans with a roadway
originating from the Parks Highway could significantly impact the
westside colliTiuni ties in terms of demand for increase serv·i ces ,-
changes in population, housing availability, government expenditures
and revenues , 1 abor demand, and unemp i oyment. There wi 11 a 1 so be
significant effects on construction, retail tr'"ade, and tourism. ·
Many of these changes wi 11 occur as construction workers attempt to
_relocate to the communities near the construction siteQ Depending
upon commuting modes to the camp, there caul d be a 1 arge ·j ncr ease in
vehicular traffic in the areae
These access plans also include a road from the Denali Highway. As
such~ many ·of the impacts which would be felt in the west side com-
munities of Talkeetna, Trapper Creek, and Sherman would also occur
in Cantwell. With_ a road from the north~ it is expected many of the
workers \'lould settle in Fairbanks, thereby reducing some of the
impacts which the west side communities would experience.
These plans meet the preference of the public in Cantwell as some
changes will occur but will not meet the preferences expressed by
those in the westside communities \'lho desire no change.
However, road access connecting the ·Dena 1 i and Parks Highway wov.l d
create extensive public access following construction thus creating
the maximum change in the status quo of the area.
As discussed under Section 8~ it is considered that mitigation
measures can be implemented to lessen the effects on the we.stside
communities of Talkeetna and Trapper Creek. With road access from
the Parks Highway, change in the remoteness of Gold Creek and the
Indian River Land Disposal sites \'li11 occur regardless of mitiga-
tion.
{b) Access from Parks Highway Only (Plans 5 and 1)
(i) Costs
Access Plans 5 and 1 are both comparable to the minimum c:as:t. alter-
native _(Table 5.1).
(ii) Ease of Operation and Construction Flexibili~
B.oth Access Plans 5 and 1 satisfy the ease of operation criteria by
having a road directly connecting both sites. Both Acce~;s Plans 5
and 1 satisfy the flexibility criteria by having a road connection
with a major highway.
An advantage Access Plans 5 and 1 have against any alternative hav-
ing access via Denali Highway is in a least haul distance and time
savings.
5·8
I I I
I
I
I
1:
I
I
••
I
I
I
I
I
I
.I
I
I
"
Anchorage has been identified as the most viable port of entry for the majority of the materials and supplies(_). When comparing Access Plans 5 arid 1; or in broader terms access from the Parks Highway versus access from the Denali tiighway, any access from the
Parks Highway has a 1 ogi st i cs and cost advantage over any access
from the Denali Highway. With the majority of materials and
supplies coming from Anchorage~ the access route from the Denali
Highway would involve an additional haul of approximately 52 miles
to Watana when compared to an access from the Parks Highway. The
additional 52 miles of haul to Watana, for a Denali access
alternative, would be a disadvantage in long-term operation and
maintenanceo
(iii) Biological
The primary concerns with access from only the Parks Highway were
discussed in (a) above. Briefly, the concerns are the potential
impact to furbearer habitat between the highway and Gold Creek and
potential degradation of fisher·ies habitat in the Indian and Susitna
rivers. Of lesser concern is the disturbance of moose and hear pop-
ulations and removal of their habitat caused by the northside con-
necting road in Plan 5.
In addition to these, Plan 1 inc 1 udes a connecti·on on the southside
of the Susitna River between the t\'/O damsites. This road would pass
near and through extensive wetland areas in the Stephan Lake-fog
Lake area~ These wetlands provide habitat .for furbearers and water-
fowl and support a 1arge, year-round concentration of moose •
Because this area is current1y·relatively inaccessible~ pote~tia1
impacts include removal of habitat and increased mortality through
hunting and trapping.
(iv) Social
Evaluation of these ·p.lans from a socioeconomic aspect reveals this
access origin will result in the greatest impact to the westside
communities. Because access is provided from the west only~ the
majority of the impacts would be felt in the westside communities.
There would be more tendency for people to relocate in the canmuni•
ties and perhaps in Anchorage ahd less tendency to live in the Fair-
banks ·area. Th_ere waul d be some impacts to the Cantwell area~ but
fewer than with a road from Dena 1 i. Impacts would be the same as
discussed in (a) above.
In terms of public preference, these plans least meet the desires of
people living in the project areae The plans would cause the great-
est change in the Talkeetna-Trapper Creek area (where reside.nts have
expressed negative attitudes toward social change) and would mini-
mize impacts to the Cantwell area (where residents have expressed a
desire for change). The Indian River land disposal site. and Gold
Creetc would experience the greatest change with the selection of
this plan.
5-9
I I
I
I
I -I
I
·I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1: ,,
(c) Access from Denali Highway (Plans 6, 4 and 11) (i) · Cost_!
Accese. Pl;:ans 6 and 11 have approximately a $30 mill ion disadvantage
in costs compared to the least cost alternative. This additional
cost in Plan 6 is due to the const-ruction cost. This plan requires
a.pproximately 40 miles of additional new road over the least cost
alternative. The additional cost of Plan 11 is due to the logistics
cost. This plan requires an additional haul distance to Watana and
especially Devil Canyon.wher:e the additional haul distance is
approximately 110 miles greater than any other alternative. Access
Plan 4 is comparable in cost to the least cost alternative (Table
5.1).
(ii) Ease of Operation and Construction Flexibility
Acce~s Plan 4 does ·not satisfy the ease of operation criteria due to
the absence of a road directly connecting the two dam sites. Access
Plans 6 and 11 both have a road directly connecting the dam sites,
th~refore both plans satisfy the ease of operation criteria.
Access Plan 4 partially does not meet the flexibility criteria. In
this plan there is a road connection to a major highway for the
\~atana deve 1 opment, however, for the Devi 1 Canyon deve1 opment there
is no road connection to a major highway. Access Plans 6 and 11
both satisfy the flexibility criteria by having a connection to a
major highway.
(iii) Biological
These three plans all involve road access from Denali Highway tiJ
Watana damsite. The potential biological and cultural impacts
associ a ted with this route were. discussed under (a) above. Bas,ica 1-
ly impacts could occur to portions of the Nelchina caribou herrJ
through increased hunting mortality and potential interference with
migration and calving. Increased access and trapping pressur£1 could
also impact furbearerso In addition, because of the treeless topo-
graphy and shallow soil disturbance and removal of any cultur·al
resources could result.
Plans 4 and 6 also involve construction of rail from Gold Creek to
Devil Canyon. No major environmental problems are preser,t along
this portion" The connection road on the north side of the Susitna
River between the two dams was discussed under {b) abole, the only
environmental concern was the crossing of moose habit~t.
( iv) Social
These plans move the major access or1g1n from the f£ailbelt Corridor
to the Denali Highway. As such, workers • families would tend to
locate to more communities, including Cantwell and Fairbanks. Due to
the rai 1 access from Gal d Creek, there would sti 11 be chanQ(!S in the
5-10
•• I
I
I
I
·I
I
·I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
westside communities, but fewer than with a road originating from the Parks Highway. Plan 11, involving access from Denali Highway
only, waul d cause the greatest number of changes in the Cant\'le ll and
Fairbanks area and fewer changes to the westside communities. These
changes would be the same as described in (a) above.
Access Plans 4, 6, and 11 all meet the public preference expressed
by those in Cantwell, as change would occur, with the greatest
change occurring with Plan 11. Plan.s 4 and 6 do not· meet the pref-
erence of those in the westside communities completely, as changes
would still occur. These c-hanges would be fewer, however, than for
Plans 1, 3, 5, and 7.
(d) Access from Gold Creek Only (Plans 2, 8, 9 and 10)
(i) Cost
Access Plans 8 and 9 are comparable to the minimum cost alternative
in total costs. Access Plans 2 and 10 have approximately a $40
million disadvantage when compared to the miniiWm cost alternative
in total costs. Access Plans 2 and 10 are comparable in construc-
tion and logistics costs to the minimum cost alternatives, f}nwever=
the additional personnel shuttle and contingency risk costs account
for the disadvantage. Access Plans 8 and 9 have approximately a $40
miilion advantage aver the minimum cost alternative in construction
costs. These are offset by the personnel shuttle and contingency
ris~ costs (Table 5~1).
(ii} Ease of Operation and Construction Flexibility
Access Plan 2 does not meet the ease of operation criteria. The
dams are directly connected with a rail route, however, this would
cr·eate operational problems trying to maintain both damsites vith
one rail car. If two rail cars are used, this would necess-itate
additional manpower in the form of dispatch, controls and monitoring
personnel for the rail cars. Acces~ Plans 8, 9!J and 10 partially
satisfy the ease of operation and maintenance criteria. These plans
have a road directly connecting the two dam sites, however, tlbey do
not have a connection to a major highway. This reduces the "flexi-
bility in operation and maintenance of the sites. This is discussed.
in Section 5.l(c) as it .pertains to construction~ however, the flex-
ibility carries on into the operations and maintenance phase cf the
developments.
Access Plans 2~ 8, 9, and 10 do not satisfy the flexibility criteria
for cons 'ruction as they do not have a road connection to a major
highway.
(iii) Biological
These plans all preclude access from the Parks Highway or Denali
· Highway; . therefore, the impa~ts associated with increased access are
substantially reduced.
5-11
I I'
I·
I
I
I
*I
I
I
I
I:
I
1:
I
I
I
I
I
I
Plans 2 and 10, which involve connections between the two dams on the south side of the Susitna River, have as the major potential environmental impacts the disturbance of wetland areas near Stephan
and Fog Lakes, as discussed under (b) above. Plans 8 and 9 have the
connecting road on the north side of the river. Concerns with this
route include impacts to moose habitat as discussed in (a) above.
The reduction in access and the fact there is. no access connecting
with the Denali Highway to the north indicates these plans would
result in the least number of impacts to biological and cultural
resources.
(iv) Social
These plans all involve access from the west only, the only differ-
ence being road or rail, and if rail, the distance into the basin
the railroad extends. As such, impacts would again be concentrated
on the westside corrmunities. these impacts would likely be concen-
trated in the Gold Creek area as we1'1 as Talkeetna and Hurricane
because of their location at rail-highway intersections. The Cant-
well and Fairbanks areas would be less affected as there would be no
northe~ly access.
. .
The public has expressed a preference for a rail access and a main-
tenance of the status quo. Although rail access would best maintain
the status quo of the Upper Susitna Basin in general with the rail
access, significant changes could occur in the Talkeetna/Trapper
Creek area as discussed in Section S.l(e)~
These plans would not meet the public preferences expressed by Cant-
well residents.
5-12
---- - ------- ---·---fADl£ 5.1 -SUSliiUl ACcESS fUNS I'LRI'f 1 2 ~ 4 ~ () I a I ':1 ~-u ~ DESCRIPfllJh R!WiiAYa PARI(S RAil; r.ut.D RDAIJfAYa WUU.l OOAiliAYr KHAU RDAI*A'h PAAlS ROADfAYa KNAU ROAaiA'I't DrnAU ......... """ I ,,.... .... RAIL: GOl.ll ~'fl lX!W.l Hl~Y 10 DEVIL CREEK JO lOll HletllfAY 10 HIGHICA 1' 10 fiiGtiiAY tO DEVIL IIICHMAY tO HlQIIAY 10 CREEK 10 rt.VIL titmc 10 tEYIL CR£EK lO DEVIl Jlt~V lO *lM!\ CAIMit A VAlAHA W'tfllt t WAIAtiA iiAIAHA, PARKS VAIAHA, AAll, COlD CAIO'~ ON SWIH WAfAWI, RAIL 1 COlD VAl~, PAAKS CAHYOff ON SOOtH fAHYOH Ill SOUlH CA!ffill ~ 50Ullt :a:H.lttl~ ~GAt)
~SOOtH SlOC ON SOUIH SIOC HICIII~Y 10 CREEK 10 OCVIi.. SiDE IT SUSUfUl, Cll(£1( 10 ll:Vll HlGIIItlY TO OCYJl SIDE or SWiUNA~ ~IDE IT SUSUHA, stoc a: susu~ .art•ttt le.\tMA:
tr SUSHNA or susnm D£V ll t:NCYtJt CANYON ~ SOUTH flEV:L tAHYllf 10 CANYON ON SOOlH CANYON OH 5ll1Jllf ££¥It tAHYD« lli -IIOAi*AY lEVIt ROA1lliA Y OCY IL ;~ tt'tll CANmf
ell SOUUl SIDE SIDE Of SUSlfNA. lilA f AHA ON mRfH SID£ Dr SUSlfiUl. Slot or SUSIINA. NAIAHA lJi mRm CANY!Ji 10 \IATAHA CAHYIJI '10 WAf~ 1M ~•ntt stoc
tr SUSUHA. Ill Nl CfHIECIJHC SID£ IT SUS lltiA. caH:CUHC ROAD WKCillll ROAD SIC£ or SUS~iHA. ON IOUH SJOC oo soum sux ~ sustnlll.
Ctltf£CfU£ flllAD ROAD IJf tiP.UH SID£ lr ON fllRUI SIOC or susniUl. IT Sl1.:UNA. susnNA. Of' SUSUHA.
HU£AGE Of M:W ROAD 62 58 10 60 68 102 111 54 se 5} v .
CONS I r.uc llfl4
COSI (S x 1.000,000) 153 14B 151 119 1U 179 209 9) 108 12} \4$
KAlNTEIWU
CUST {$ 1t t,IJOO,OOO) 5 4 ' 5 8 8 ' '1 5 5 tl
lOG1SliCS COSf
($ x-1 000 000) 215 210 2)1 ZlO 214 2l0 2Jt 214 116 214 lS8
S~li.liAl <s 11 1 ooo.oool )78 ]54 JU JS4 J65 <\17 o\49 314 JZ' Jo\2. <\14
PEIISOIH:l SI«Jlflt
COSI ($-X 1 000,001)} 0 25 8 10 0 0 0 25 25 2S 0
CONUNC£NCY RJSJ<,
($ x 1_.000 000) 0 @ 0 1S 0 0 0 40 40 40 0 .
TOtAl COSIS l
($ X 1,000.000) 178 UJ }i8 319 ~5 ,.,_ 4t1 449 )79 )94 407 411\
t:nriS1ROCilDN SCI£llUl£ )-4 J-4 1 1 J-4 1 1 J } J 1
.IA.:Dt 6Rl DC£ s 2 2 0/1 0 2 0 0/1 1 1 1 0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6 -IDENTIFICATION OF CONFLICTS
From the evaluations in the previous section it can be seen no one plan or route
meets all the objectives or satisfies all the criteria. The basic conflicts
identified were:
(a) Social and Biological Vs .. Construction and Operation Logistics
Rail or road access from a rai 1 head at Gal d Creek only would eliminate. road
accessfrom a major highway thus limiting social and biological changes in
the imnedi ate project area and retaining the status quo to the greates.t
extent possibleo This option is in direct conflict with providing flexi-
bility in construction logistics/transportation and for providing ease of
operation and maintenance. The selection of such an option would increase
the risk of high costs, schedule delays, safety problems and decreased
re 1 i ab i 1 i ty • ·
(b) Social Vs. Biological
Social and biological objectives are not in conflict in the sense limited
access to the project area is most desirable in both casess If however the
assumption i ~ 1nade that road access to a major highway wi 11 be provided,
then a conflict arises. From the socia1/loca1 public preference perspec-
tive, access from the Denali Highway is preferred. This plan would create
the economic stimulus desired in Cantwell, reduce the potential for change
in the Trapper Creek/Talkeetna area while retaining the remoteness of the
Indian River land disposal site and the railroad communities north of Tal-
keetna. The Denali access, however, is in conflict with biological objec.,
tives since·it 'IJould allow access by hunters and ATV's to a iarge portion
of the Upper Susitna Basin and create potential impacts on the Nelchina
Car·ibou, other big game species including moos-e and bear, the fisheries in
isolated lakes and streams and furbearer habitat" In addition, the poten-
tial for disturbance of archaeological sites in this area is greatest ...
Although technically mitigation measures can be employed to reduce these
potential biological impacts, it is considered likely that government
resource agencies would be apprehensive about the success of any contn-Dl
programs and would thus be opposed to any access from the Denali Highway.
The selection of a Denali access plan could result in ~.macceptable delays
in license approval or a subsequent re.jectioa of this plan necessitating a·
reassessment of access plans from the west~
Table 6.1 broadly surrmarizes the conflicts in the evaluat·ion ..
6-1
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 6.1 -IDENTIFICATION OF CONFLICTS
Criteria
Costs
Minimize Costs
Ease of Operation and
~onstruction FlexibilJty
Ease of Operation and
Maintenance
Construction Flexibility
Biological
Minimize Biological Impacts
Social
Acconmodate Preference of
Native Landowners
Accommodate Local
Community Preference
1 -Does not Satisfy Criteria
2 -Intermediate
3 -Satisfies Criteria
1 2
3 3
3 2
3 1
.2 3
3 1 . .,
1 2
3 4 5 6 7
3 3 3 1 1
1 1 3 3 3
3 2 3 2 3
1 1 2 1 1
2 2 2 2 2
2 3 1 . 3 2
8 9 10 11
3 3 3 1
2 2 2 3
1 1 1 3
3 3 3 1
1 1 1 l!
..
'
2 2 2. 3'
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7 -COMPARISON AND SELECTION OF RECOMI"1ENDED PLAN ----~----~----------~--------------~-
7, 1 -Coi!!Qari sons
(a) Access from Railhead at Gold Creek (P1ans 2, 8, 9, 10) Versus
Access From Major Highway (Plans 1, 31 4, 5, 6, 7, 11)
Considerable cost~ schedule, safety and reliability risks are associated
with construction of an important, major project without road access: ~o a
rnajor high\'/ay. On the other hand road access to· a major highway will
create additional change in the status quo of the Upper Susitna Basin. If
the decision is made to develop a large scale hydroelectric facility in the
Upper Susitna Basin~ it is considered essential that the orderly develop-
ment and maintenance of the facility should be afforded a higher priority
than maintenance of the status quo. Thus, access plans originating at a
railhead at Gold Creek only are not recommended.
This conclusion results in the rejection of plans not providing road access
to a major highway.
Plans eliminated in this comparison: 2, 8' 9' 10
Plans remaining:. 1~ 3~ 4, 5, 6, 7, 11
(b) Access from Both Parks Highway and Denali Highway
(Plans 3, 7) Vs. Access From Only One Highway
(Plans 1,2,4,5,6,7,8,10!11)
The plans which optimize transportation flexibility and ease of operation
involve the initial constt"uction of a road from Denali Highway to Watana
dam site. To allow for improved logistics during. the peak constructilf at
Watana and throughout the construction of Devil Canyon, r-oad access MUld
also be cr-eated to the Parks Highway. The problems with these plans is
that they would create the maximum change in the status quo producing both
the biological impacts associated with the Denali link and the social
impacts associated with tf·ie Parks Highway 1 ink. These lfillacts are further
augmented with both roads since the connection of the Parks and the Dena1i
Highway would encourage hunters and tourists to drive the complete loop.
These plans are also more costly than the minimum cost alternatives. It is
considered that the social and biological impacts that would result from
these plans cannot be justified by the added transportation fle> ibility and
ease of operation benefits associated with road access to both the Parks
and Denali Highways.
This conclusion results in the rejection of plans providing road access to
both ~he Parks and Dena 1 i Highway.
Plans eliminated in this comparison: 3, 7
Plans remai n·i ng: 1, 4, 5:~ 6' 11
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(c)
(d)
Roadway Ccnnecting the Dam Sites Directly
(Plans 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11) Versus
No Roadway Connecting the Dam Sites Directl:i (3,4)._
Plans incorporating a road connecting the dam sites directly are clearly
superior in terms of ease of operation and maintenance to plans which do
not directly connect the dam sites. The access-plans which do not connect
the dam sites directly do not have advantages in any of the other, or com ..
bined criteria to warrant not eliminating these alternatives from further
consideration ..
This conclusion results in the rejection of plans not connecting the dam
sites directly.
Plans eliminated this compirison: . 3, 4
Plans remaining: 1, 5, 6, 11
Access to Denali Highwar (Plans 3, 4, 6, 7, 11)
Versus. Access to Parks Hi qJ,way (Plans 1, 5)
The m(.~n concerns as;,ociated with the Denali access are the potential
effects on the Nelchina caribou herd, ·increased access to a largt::1 area of
a 1 pine tundra with the associated effects of disturbance. by ATVs :J and dis-
turbance of potential cultural resources.
Although there are some fisheries and furbearer concerns in the Indian
River area associated with a Park~ High\'tay access, from the b·lological per-
spective, Parks Highway access is preferred to a Denali Hi ghw~y access.
From a s.oci a 1 perspective, the Denali route is clearly supet'i or to the
Parks Highway r·oute. The Denali route would promote the economic stimulus
des ired in Cant we 11 whi 1 e reducing the influence on the community of
Trapper Creek and Talkeetna which has expressed a desire to maintain the
sta~us quo. lt is consider~1, however, that even with a Parks Highway
access, mitigation in the form o .... f self-contained construction camp facili-
ties, regulation of commuter ;;chedules and control of transportation modes
can reduce or avoid many of the potenti at changes in Talkeetna and Trapper
Creek ..
With any access plan from the west, a major railhead would be located at
Gold Creek creating significant local changes. With road access from the
Parks Hi gh\~ay to Gold Creek, changes will also occur at Indian River and
disposal sites. •
Based on the above discu$Sion, it is concluded that the Parks Highway
acce~s is preferable to the Denali access plan. This conclusion is based
on the assumption that:
-if a Denali route were selected, it would be Plan 6 which would still
result in significant social changes in the Gold Creek area;
-government resource agencies will be opposed to the Denali route with a
1 ike ly 1-to-2 year de 1 ay in schedule or deni a 1 of permit resulting;
7-2
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-changes in local communities can!! to a large degree~ be mitigated through
controls imposed on contr·actor and construction workers; and
I
-controls wouid be very difficult to impose upon hJJnters and ATV operators
who would utilize the Denali's route after construction.
The resulting conclusion is the alimination of plans involving access from
the Denali Highway*
Plans eliminated in this comparison:
Plans remaining:
(e) Comparison of Plan 1 Versus Plan 5
3, 4, 6, 7' 11
1, 5
Access Plans 1 and 5 both commence on the Parks Highway near Hurricane and
proceed through Chulitna Pass and along the Indian River to Gold Creek.
From Gold Cr.eek both Plans proceed east on the south side of the Susitna
River to the Devil Canyon site. At Devil Canyon, Plan 1 proceed east on
the south si.de of the Susitna River to the Watana site. Plan 5 crosses the
Susitna River at Devi 1 Canyon and proceeds east on the north side of the
Susitna River to the Watana Site. Access Plan 1 has potential for greater
environmental impacts than Plan 5. Access Plan 5 has a slight cost
advantage over. Plan 1, also Plan 5 is slightly easier to construct due to
the difficult terrain in the segment between Devil Canyon and Watana south
of the Susitna River.· The only advantage Plan 1 has over Plan 5 is in
Native landowner preference. It is therefore concluded that the
et'wironmenta1 cost and construction considerations ·outvleigh the Native
landowner preference and, therefor"e, Plan 1 is eliminated from further
consideration. ·
7.2 -Recommendations
.. Based on the above discussion, it is Acres' recommendation that:
(a) APA select as an access plan for the construction and operation of the
Susitna Hydroelectric Pr·oject, a road commencing near MP156 on the Parks
Highw~~ proceeding southeast crossing the Susitna River at Gold Creek)
turning northeast to Devil Canyon Dam site along the southern side of the
Susitna River, crossing the Susitna River at Devil Canyon, and proceeding
along the north side of the Susitna River to Watana Dam situ (Figure 2 .. 3).
(b) To &llow for continued access for project e:.t1Struction by mid-1986, a
pioneer road (1 imited acce-~ ~ J b·etween Go 1 d ... t'·~ek and Watana Dam site be
c~nstr~;cted commencing in 1t.~d 1983. The application for permits to
cc~~strtf~~:t this pioneer rc;~d be submitted t~ the State of A 1 ask a and the
Uureau of Land Management ~~.; August 1982, independent of the FERC 1 icense
application.
(c) To mitigate against agency concerns in regard to the pioneer ro . .ld concept
and to avoid the possib·ility of public access to the project a~ea in the
t=vent that the project is not built~: road access between.the Parks Highway
and Gold Creek not commence until dfter FERC license aporoval. If the pro-
ject does not proceed a'fter the pioneer road is constructed, the road as
such should be rendered impassable to future. vehicular traffic.
7-3
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I·
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
{d) To minimize potential impacts to furbearers and fisheries resources in the
Indian River and Susitna River areas special construction techniques be
utilized (including adequate bank stabilization, revegetation and restora-
tion) when crossing wetland areas or when constructing in proximity to the
Indian or Susitna Rivers.
(e) To minimize the effects of public access during the operation phase of the
project consideration be given to controlling public access across Devil
Canyon Dam. If access is provided east of Devil Canyon damsite, restric-
tions should be placed on the use of ATVs and hunting.
(f) To assist in minimizing changes in the local communities of Talkeetna,
Trapper Creek, Sherman and Curry it is strongly recomnended that subsequent
decisions on construction camp facilities, commuter modes, work incentives,
and general policies incorporate a special effort to minimize the effects
of construction on these local communities. Specific mitigation recommen-
dations are included in Section 8.
7.3-Assumption.s Affecting Selection·Process
An important constraint affecting the Alternative Access Plans eval uat1on is the:
overall project scheduling requirements. This constraint resulted from the
objective of meeting the power on-line date of 1993(_). The requirement of
having the Susitna power on line in 1993 resulted from extensiv1: studies on
energy demand forecasts, and alternative sources and developments to meet the
demand .. The delay of the on-line date by one year ~~tould have the following neg-
ative impacts; a cost pen a 1 ty in the order of $50 mi 11 ion in 1 ong-term present
worth costs, another source of fossil fuel generation would havE~ to be
constructed to meet the demand, combi nt:!d with a year 1 ater an ea1rly retirement
of some fossil fuel qenerating sources into the reserve category, and exploita-
tion of 1 and and c: ,;~!" resources required for the construction of the additi anal
foss i 1 fue 1 generating sources.
Th·is constraint was given prime. consideration during the initial evaluation of
the p 1 ans due to the fact that any a 1 tern at i ve other than the Dena 1 i Highway
route re.quires approximately three years to construct while the Denali Route can
meet the cc.nstructi en access requirements in one year(_). Reviewing the con-
struction schedule for the darn, the powerhouse, and the overall power develop-
ment necessitating continual access is required by mid-1986 to meet the on-line
date of 1993. A detailed discussion of this aspect is presented in Appendix B.
The estimated issuance of the FERC license is 1985 and hence the corrmencement of
construction activities is scheduled to coincide with the license issuance in
1985., To meet all the aforementioned requirementst the only alternative is the
Denali route~ This would eliminate all the other alternatives.
A method was developed utilizing a t•pioneer" road concept and commencing con-
struction in 1983 whereby the other alternatives from the Parks High\'lay and Gold
Creek can meet the over a 11 project scheduling requirements. This retained all
the alternatives for further evaluation ftom which Access Plan 5 was considered
the best in meeting the evaluation criteria.,
7-4
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Resource agencies are most 1 ike ly to strongly oppose access from the Dena 1 i.
Highway due to environmental problems to the extent that 1 icensing would be _
delayed by at least a year or the route totally rejected. Although the concept
of commencing construction prior to the. issuance of a FERC license was not
r-eceived favorably by a few state and federal agencies, the idea was not re,iect-
ed altogether. The proposed permitting schedule with the recorrmended Access
Plan 5 is such that applications will be filed for all permits in Augu~t 1982
for the ·pioneer access road from Go 1 d Creek to Watana. The segment between the
Parks Highway and Gold Creek will be applied for in late 1983. Deferring the
start of construction of the segment from the Parks Highway to Gold Creek unti 1
after issuance of the FERC permit is believed to be prudent at this time. This
approach inevitably requires construction during the first two years be support-
ed w~th a rail only link. This is not cons1dered to be an insurmountable
problem. A graphical presentation of the detailed design and permitting
schedule is shown in Figure 7.1.
7e4 -Assumptions Affecting Recommendation
(a) The pioneer road concept wi 11 be approved by government regulatory agencies
since the pioneer road \'lould not connect to any existing road before the
issuing of a FERC license, thus not making the prior commitment to allowing
public access to the Upper Susitna Basin.
(b) Although the native landowners have expressed a strong preference for road
access from Parks Highway to both damsites along the south side of the
Susitna River, their basic desires would be met by providing road access,
from any direction, to their existing land holdings.
(c) Public access will be prohibited during the construction phase of the pro-
ject. Also, the selection of Plan 5 offers some flexibility in regards to
the degree and type of public access subsequent to 1993.
(d) Biological and social impacts will be mitigated tnrough adoption of the
recomendations presented in Section 8.
7.5 -Possible Consequences
(a) If permits to commence construction of the pioneer road are not obtain-aed by
mid .. l983, it may be necessary to accept a 12-to 18-month delay in time on
line schedule or possibly revert to one of the less acceptable access plans
not requiring a pioneer road.
7-5
------------------·-1982 1983 1984 1985 . l986 JAN JULY JAN JULY JAN -JULY JAN JULY JAN JlA.Y
PREUM!tl ~~_f~ f rb.A:LOMT-I PEfiUfr57 COMPL~_l ~ AWAR~
PRE PAR ANO SUBMI~ L SUBMIT ~RMIT,; OF PER T PERMIT PMl ~j~Y A~L :r&ONS NJPLICAT PNS PEf MITTlNG &r IES
•"\ .... .
l
~l.DW PIONEER ROAD oESIGU PREPA.qf 81, CAU ;.:~ CONSTRUCT PlQNEER ROAD A
a LOW ,,p;va BRIDGE orJMENTS fM -l LEV L BRIDGE AT DEVIl CANYON
.
AT OEVt CANYON
BIDS L
()----~---~~ 1--COMI TE t\
<
PERM N INV S IGATIONS ROAD lNVSTGS.
(1)---t LAND Alcauasmc INGOLD !cREEK '( TO -i [AT ANA
I .. ! I I i
PERMAJENT ROAI I ~REPA RE_ CAl ~~.n CONSTRl fCT PER tAANENT ROAD
..., FO II I DESIGN tqo ~ •
I Dot·iMl NTS BID ~
I
I .
L~-< LAND ACOUIS TlON PA RKS HlGI WAY
TO GOI.,.D C JiEEK
SCHEDULE FOR FlNAL DESIGN AND PERMITTING
FIGURE 7.1 til . ,... ... ~
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
,I
I
8 .. MITIGATION RECOMMENDATJ.ONS -
The plan recommended by Acres does not satisfy all the evaluation criteria out-
lined in Section 4~ In order to reduce potential impacts to biological and cul-
tural resources and to alleviate socioeconomic impacts to the comnmities of
Talkeetna, Tl"apper Creek, Sherman, and Curry, the following mitigation measures
are recommended:
(a) Permit unly construction workers while on duty to have -access to both the
pioneer road and access road.
(b) After construction of the power developments is complete, maintain ff con-
trolled access beyond the Devil Canyon Dam. It is anticipated a coopera-
tive agreement could be reached with BLM and ADF&G concerning the number of
people permitted·access to the areas and responsibility for funding opera-
tion of any control measures.
(c) The construction camp should be as self-contained as possible, thus limit-
ing the number of workers who could otherwise bring their families to a
nearby colliTlUnity and commute daily.
(d) Provide incentives to encourage workers to work the longest time possible
between leaves. Although the final schedule will not be known until labor
agreements are made and construction commences, longer work ·periods between
breaks can be advocated. In addition such measures as not guaranteeing the
11 Same 11 job if t. worker takes a le-ave. A worket .. electing to take a leave
wi 11 be guaranteed a job when they return, however, it may not be the.
"same 11 job they were previously working on. This incentive has been used
successfully on previous projects.
(e) Provide planning assistance if requested to the communities of Talkeetna,
Trapper Creek, Sherman~ and Curry to aid them in preparing for the effects
of increased populations.
(f) Evaluate various corrmuter management policies and select the one which
reduces impacts to the local communities. Socioeconomic impact assessment
studies currently under way for the Susitna Project w·n 1 provide impor. tant
input data fo~ evaluating possible commutt~r management policies.
(g) Utilize excavated cuts and other construction techniques to prohibit utili-
zation of the pioneer road after construction of the access road. Areas
used for the pioneer road which do not follow final road alignment shou'fd
be reclaimed ..
8-1
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
9 -TRADEOFFS MADE IN THE SELECTION PROCESS
. ~----------~
9.1 -Basis of Selection Process
From the natural resource and local public preference perspective, maintenance
of the status quo is probably ideal. However, to construct a project the size
of Susitna without changing the existing character of sections of the Upper
Susitna Valley is unrealistic~
Access to the dam sites is a complex and controversial issue. As such, it has
received cons·iderable attention from the Acres • study team~ APA, resource agen-
cies and the public. Although the studies have det~rmined that there is no
single access plan that satisfies all the project objectives and evaluation
criteria~ it has been possible to develop an access plan which provides a
reasonable tradeoff of preferences. These tradeoffs are essentially based on
the following compromises:
(a) All disciplines must present a degre.e of flexibility, otherwise a satisfac-
tory compromise is i mpossi b 1 es
(b) WhenPver a specific objective is p3rtia11y compromised, considerable effort
is made during subsequent decisions to compensate.
(c) Any compromises made are clearly outlined such that decision makers review-
ing the final recorrmendation are aware of negotiations to date.
9.2 -Tradeoffs Made in the Selection Process
(a) Engineering
Concessions made include:
-no road access f~"'om Dena 1 i Highway which waul d include a complete loop
connecting PJrks Highway with Denali Highway;
-no pioneer· road to Parks Highway prior to the issurance of a FERC
license;
-commitment to be prepared to make the Pioneer Road impassible if FERC
license not granted;
.,. restrictions to be placed on worker commuting schedules and mode; worker
incentives to be provided to minimize effects on local corrmunities;
Objectives retained include:
-road access to both dam sites to allow for ease of construction, opera-
tion and maintenance of the project;
-maintenance of schedule through retention of the basics of the Pioneer
Road concept.
9-1
I I
II I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
••
I
I
I
I
I
(b) Biological
Concessions made include:
-r·oad access from Parks Highway affecting .,. dian River area and pro vi ding
partial public access to the upper basin
Objectives retained include:
-no access from Denali Highway which was considered to have the greatest
potential for environmental impact;
-no route· on the south side of the Susitna River between the dam sites,
thus avoiding the sensitive Stephan Lake and Fog Lakes area;
-emphasis on construction mitigation when developing road link between
Parks Highway anu Gold Creek;
-retention of a degree of control on future. public acc€~ss by accepting the
Parks Highway plan where, due to the terrain, private vehicles are basic-
ally restricted to the access co"-ridor between Parks Highway and the
Devi 1 Canyon dam site. The degr~e and type of access· east of Devi 1 Can-
yon can be somewhat controlled by regulation of access acrcss the Devil
Canyon dam.
The alternative of not connecting to a major highway was considered to have
the least net adverse biological impact. The ease of operation and main-
tenance and the construction flexibility criteria, as explained previously,
was considered to outweigh this advarcage. The mitigation measures and
road management will reduce the adverse biological impacts associated with
an access connection to a m~jor highway, to a minimum.
(c) Social
Concessions made inc 1 ude·:
-road access to the Upper Susitna Basin
-road access from Parks Highway which creates greatest potential for
change in t.he Indian River land disposal site.
Cbjectives retained include:
-Through the implementation of a relatively self-ccntained construction
camp~ restriction of private vehicles from the construction site, imple-
mentation raf mass transit modes for comnuting workdrs, incentives to
encourage workers to remain on site and controlled public access east of
Devil Canyon following construction, it is considered that changes in the
local communities of Trapper Creek/Talkeetna area will be minimized;
-Although the western communities·favored a rail access, they also favored
maintaining the status quo. It is our opinion that the reconmended plan
with its associated mitigation should produce less change in the
Talkeetna/Trapper Creek atea than an a11-rail access plan.
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Overall consensus of the local community preference favor-ed access.from the
Denali Highway. The advantages of the Parks Highway access over the Denali
access in reducing the biological impacts is considered to outweigh the
local community preference.. In addition to th~ lessened biological
impacts, the recommended plan better meets the preferences of N~iive land-
owners.
The recommended rlan does not fully meet the preferences of the Native
landowners. They would prefer the access road between Devil Canyon and
Watana be 1ocatad on the south side of the Susitna River. The advantages
of the road being located on the north side of the Susitna River include,
reduced biological impacts, the actual construction of the road is easier
than if located on the south side, and the construction cost of the road is
less. These advantages are considered to outweigh the Native landowner
preference of having the road located on the south side of the Susitna
River. ·
9-3
I I,
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
••
I
I
I
I
I
1:
I
I
•
10 -RECOMr~ENDATION:5 FOR CONTINUING WORK
This report is intended to serve as a summary report··of all the. various studies,
evaluations and reports that contributed to the selection of the rt.acommended
plan. Tha reconmendation of Access Plan 5 carries with it the following
schedule anticipated for implementation.
Additional final design of the road and permitting would be carried out
.between Me.rch 1982 and June 1984. Refer to Figure 7.1 for anticipated
scheduling of the design and permitting.
-As can be seen from Figure 7 .. 1, the critical activities of prepar·ing and sub-
mitting the permit app.iications to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and
the Corps of Engineers (COE) will be carried out between March 1982 and
August 1982 \'lith submission in eat~1y August') It is believed these activities
can be co'!lpleted in the time frame due tc the preliminary engineering work
that w~ill have been carried out for the FERC license. This preparation and
submittal is definately for the section of road between Gold Creek and
Watana. The preparatjQn and submictal of the permits for the section bstween
the Parks Highway and Gold Creek could be carried out in 1983.
10-1
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I;
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
••
I
LIST OF REFERENCES
(1} Acres Amer·ican Incorporated, Task C -Design Development Final Report!)
October 1981.
(2) Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, Environmental and Socioeconomic and
Land Use Analysis of Alternative A_scess Plans, October 198lo
(3) R&M Consultants, Subtask 2.10 -Interim Report, No .. 1, December 1980.
( 4) R&M Consultants, Subtask. 2 .. 1 0 -~ccess P 1 anni ng Study_, September 1981..
I I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:I
I.
I.
I
••
I
I
APPENDIX A
CORRESPONDENCE
I .:: I I
I
••
I
I ~·
I.
,,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DIVISION OF RESEARCH & DEVELOPME/Iff
March 26, 1981
E'.ric Yould
Execut.ive Director.
Alaska Power Au~hority
333 Wes·~ 4th, S,!Jite 31
Anchorage, 1K 99501
Dear Mr .. You+d:
I
JAr S. HAMMOIIO. 'OYflltDi
323 P. 4TH AVENUE
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501
279-5577
The purpose of this let\:.ar is to transmit· to you the findings and
recommendations of the Susitna. Hydro Steering Committee in response to
APA' s request· for input and recornm~ndations on the selection of an
access road to the Susitna Hydro Dam sites. On March 6, 1981, Alaska
' Pow~r Authority staff, contractors and subcontraC"tors provided several
age11cy "''epresentatives wi.th a .briefing and a request for comments in
order to make a determination for surface access to the dam sites. It
was requested that our comments be provided to APA by March 23, 19&1,.
As a result of com:nents and concerns expressed by agency representatives
at the March 6 meeting, I agreed to convene the Susitna. Hydro Steex-i.ng
Committee in order t.o identify and coordinate the concerns of those
agency representatives regarding access .to the Susitna Hydro sites ...
The Susitna Hydro Steering Committee met on Friday, March 20, 1981 ...
We spent the afternoon discussing various issues and concerns surrounding
access to the dam sites with. the subcontractors to Acres American. As
a result of these di.scussions and review of the pertinent documents,
report st~.Jdies, etc., the Susitna Hydro S,teering Committee makes the
.follolrlng ·comments and re~ommendatio~s:
1. The Steering Comndttee representatives recommend coordination
bett:e~n the decision about access road routes and translllission
line routes. Until this issue was raised by,a Steering Committee
member at the furch 20 meeting there had been little discussion.
The documents reviewed indicate that this was not a criteria~ for
establishing pote.ntial access routes.
2. There needs to be a syste.ruatic decision-making process explicitly
laid out for determining an access route for the Susit,na dams.
This'decision-making process should be straight forward so that
agency participants can understand and effectively participate in
establishing proposed access routes.. There needs to he a broad
range of criteria gstablished for determining the acceptability
or nonacceptibility of various route al·ternatives. Information
provided by Acres and their subcontractors to date indicates that
A-1
-.-~: I I
·I
ll
I
I
I
I .... ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
Eric Yould Ma-rch 26, 1981
the criteria used to determine access roads were eight in number
and are roadway and railroad technical design parameters exclusively.
It is the. recommendation of the Steering Committee members· that
there are numerous other criteria which are critical and need
consideration along with the technical road and railroad design
parameters. I would refer you to an attached document entitled
"Suitability fer Haul Roads 11 to give you an example of a more
comprehensive lists of criteria that need to be incorporated in
any decision with respect to access to the dam sites.
3. There needs to be a cleare'.c explanation: and understanding of the
decisions regarding the timing of building access roads vs. FERC
approval for. the ·project.. We were advised by subcontractors that
the timing depends.on which access mode-and route is determined.
The_ time of construction and design of these routes varies from
one to three years. The agencies on the Steering Committee need
to have a better understanding of how these facts and assumptions
interrelate to each other in order to make infonned recommendations
' to APA.
4. There are numerous specific decisions that will be required
regardless of which access mode and route is ultimately detenuined
the most appropriate. The location and development of these
facilities could significantly affect the preference and -cecomme:ndations
from agencies. For example, identification of gravel sites,
sp?il sites, stream crossings, construc.tion camp sertice and
tnaintenance facilities will be needed. The members ,,£ the Suslt:na
Hydro Steering Committee unanimously felt that it was' impor·tant
and necessary for APA to provide an understanding of how these.
decisions will be made and how a quality control systeM will be
in effect to ensure that tasks are accomplished in accordance
with·approvals and designs.
5. The Susitna Hydro Steering Committee members in r~".viewing the
l-1arch 6 and 20 meetings and discussing with subcontractors have
determined that data gathering planned for this summer should be
car.ried out on several access routes in order to make the final
decision as to whicb one is most acceptable. To make a detenniuation
on a specifi<: route with the lack of data/information that we are
currently dealing with and then send researchers and .:!ata gatherers
into the fi~ld this summer to gather site ~':1ecific data on .only
one route is of questionable utili.ty and logic. The primary
reason why this is questionable is because unless comparable-data
on several of the prime .routes is provided., the agencies will be
unable to provide comments as to which route is most acceptable.
In summary,. we see the gathering and analysis of data on several
prop?sed routes as the rational basis for making a determination
as to which access route should be ultimately chosen.
In summary, the Steering Committee wishes tb emphasize that it is
willing and anxious to ~ork cooperatively and expeditiously with APA
in identifying and resolving the nume.rous ques tlons which need to be
A-2
~· I
I r
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Eric Yould March 26~ 1981
answered in order to make rational decisions with respect to access to
Susitna Hydra sites. Once you and your staff have had an opportunity
to review this letter, I ~.vould appreciate an opportunity to sit down
and discuss the specifics of these comments in further detail.
Sincerely yours,
Al Carsca, Chairman
Susitn.~ Hydro Steering Committee
cc: Susitna Hydro Steering Committee Hembers
R. ·E. L~Resc.he
Reed Stoops
A-3 i)
-·----.., .... [.;..;..RO~A.;.;..O_S ---~---ft---r .PROX I Hl TY ------ - -- -PR EC I PI TAT I O!'t---------
VIEW
. TOI?.OGRAPHY CONSTRUCTION . ,,
ASPECT ~L I HI TAT IONS
SLOPE
SOILS
ROCK OUTCROPS J\ I
= \.
I
SHRINK SWELL
FROST H EAV 1 N G t----:--:---r~--=...;.._,----....;_;....;.,_--_.f ~OAD MA I N TE-.__ __ -\. SUITABILITY
FOREST STANDS
PROXIMITY
SOURCE FIRST LEVEL . MPS INTERPREtiVE MAPS
SECOND LEVEL
I~TERPRETIVE MA?S
NANCE CON-
STRAINTS
1 SSUE.
MAPS
fOR
1 HAUL ROADS
SUITABILITY FOR
HAUL ROADS
SUITABiLITY
•
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
·-
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
UEI·.~BT~IE"NT OF NATURAl.. RESOURCES I
DIVISION OF RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
November 5, 1981
Mr. Eric Yould, Executive Director
Alaska Power Authority
333 West Fourth Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Dear Mr. Yould:
JAYS. HAMMOND, GOYERNOR
323 E, 4TH A Vf5NU5
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 276-2653
RECEIVED
L\LASKA PGVif:R AUTHORITY,
The purpose of this letter. is to transmit to the Alaska Power Authority
(APA) comments from the Susitna Hydroelectric Steering Comnittee (SHSC) con-
cerning APA's proposals for c.ccess to the proposed Susitna River dam sites.
These comments are in response to information p~:-ovided the SHSC from two acce::s
route meetings with APA and their· contractors and the documents prepared by APA
contractors and distributed during these meetings. At the October 20, 1981
meeting APA requested SHSC corrments by November 6, 19810 The SHSC appreciates
the fact that APA continued detailed consideration and studies of several access
route options this year r~ther than focusing on a single route.
The SHSC review identified four areas of concern that merited corllnent .. Those four are:
1. A critique of the_studies of access routes which provide for construc-
tion of the dams~
2. The relationship between timing of access route construction and
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approval for dams ..
3. The relationship of access route decision and modes of access to
regional land use management.po1icies.
4. The issues resultant from land status and land ownership affected by
the proposed project.
The assessment of corridor route alternatives should more adequately weigh
the potential impacts of borrow sites and access to these sites, and trans~
mission line(s) routing. Access corridors which serve a dual, or triple, purpose
in regard to these other project access needs would be highly desirable from all
decision-making criteria. ·
A-4
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~1r. Eric Yould November 5, 1981 -The access preferences expressed below pertain to the general locations cited for the corridors and are based upon the environmental data and conclu-·
sionscontained within the environmental document~ prepared for Subtask 2.10.
Access Road Assessment. It does not represent our endorsement of a particular
1-mile-wide corridor, as presented.
The SHSC ~grees with the Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, Inc. posi-
tion that access via the Alaska Railroad co Gold Creek is environmentally pre-
ferable. Railroad access to at least Devil Canyon vJould alleviate the need for
a staging area at Gold Creek and the consequent human activity, land use, fuel
spill~, and other impacts on the Gold Creek area. We recognized that a staging
area at Devil Canyon would be required in any case.. The use of this area as the
terminus of a rai1road appears to make a great deal of sense.. Additionally, we
feel that the south side route from Gold Creek to Devil Canyon is preferable
since a trail already exists there. From Devil Canyon -to-Watana, we prefer a
route on the north side of the Susitna River. At the October 20, 1981 meeting
the SHSC was informed by Mr. David Wozniak of APA that there were t\'IO (2)
additional railroad route/mode options.(a total of 10) . If feasible we gen-
erally prefer a rail mode of access to and within the project site.
The SHSC identified three (3) environmentally sensitive areas that should
be avoided. Those are:
1. The routes from the Denali Highway.
2. The route crossing the Indian River and through wetlands to the Parks
Highv1ay.
3. The route on the south side of the Susitna River from Devils Canyon to
the proposed Watana dam site ..
In evaluating the access route se1ection process undertaJ\en by the APA and
its contractors, the Steering Committee questions the validity of the power-on-
line in 1993 assumption/mandate~ The nwe•ve got to hurry up and put in a r-nad
to meet the 1993 deadline" approach appears, from currently available reports
and the br"iefings received by the Susitna Hydroelectric Steering Conmittee on
October 20,. 1981, to point· toward the necessity of a pioneer road constructed
before a FERC 1 i cense is granted, ot .. se 1 ecti Or,t of an apparently environmentally
unacceptable Denali Highway access route.
Local utilities are not approaching construction of a project the mag~itude
of Susitna in 1993 as a foregone conclusion and are making contingency plans to
meet projected power needs. Gas and coal generated power options are being
examined. In addition, feasibility studies are currently being undr:rtaken by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the APA at numerous potential hydroelectric
generating sites. The Battelle Railbelt E:1ectric Power Alternative Study should
proyide insight into additional power generation options. As such., we believe
that the 1993 11 deadlineu for power-on~line from Susitna may not be that firm and
imperative. Thus the SHSC does not believe the 1993 deadline should constrain·
the overall decision-making process and the orderly progress of various studies
on project feasibility and environmental impacts. Permitting and resource
agencies, including FERC, should be expected to link a pioneer road to the
overall project.
A-5
I I
I
I·
I
·-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I·
I
I
I
Mrw Eric Yould November 5, 1981 P4blic access to the dam sites and through the Upper Susitna Valley' is
complex and a controversial subject and we believe this issue should be given
thorough evaluation in the route selection process. How construction-related
access is obtained to a great extent determines the project-related wildlife and
socioeconomic impacts. The APA has been soliciting the views of local residents
(Talkeetna, Trapper Creek, etc.) in regard to the access question. The majority
of residents want to minimize impacts to both their community and the Upper
Susitna Valley. The APA has solicited the views of the state and federal resource
agencies. It has been the predominant view of these agencies,. which rept"esent
public interests 0n a state or national level, that project-related wildlif~
impacts should be 1i~ited to the maximum extent practicable. In addition, the
APA has expressed the desire to maximize the options for future pu~lic access.
We believe that these v~ews mesh. Minimizing impacts and maximizing options for
future public access can be achieved by mimicking, to theextent possible, the
status quo. For example, to provide full public access through a road system,
foreclosns the future option of maintaining the existing character of the Upper
Susitna \J'a 11 ey.
Use of rail as the access mode increases the potential for management and
control of socioeconomic and environmental impacts. Maximized rail use.provides
for the following advantages over road access: ~
1. Maintains a maximum range of future decision options~
2. Provides for control of worker impacts on local conmunities and \vild-
1 ife.
3. Decreases the potential of hazardous material· spills due to adverse
weather conditions and multiple handling. ·
4. Disturbance to \vi 1 dl ife adjacent to the route can be more easily
controlled.
5. Direct access right-of-way related habitat losses can be significantly
limited.
Bri'efly the land status of the project area has not changed significantly
within the last year. There are several complex problems concerning land status
that have been brought to your attention by BLM.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Access Road
Assessment documents. We look forward to receiving the final version of th,ese
documents after November 15, 1981, and anticipate providing additional recom-
mendations into this decision-making process.
Sincerely,
A1 Carson, Chairman
Susitna Hydroelectric
Steering Committee
cc: D. Wozniak, APA
Steering Committee Members
R. Stoops
"
A-6
I I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
••
I
•I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX B
PROJECT CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS SCHEDIJl-ING
I I . I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
PROJECT CONSTRUCTION REQUIRE~1ENJS
SCHEDULING
TASK 2 -SURVEYS AND SITE
FACILITIES
OCTOBER 1981
ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED
1000 Liberty Bank Building
Main at Court
Buffalo, New York 14202
Telephone: (716) 853-7525
•• I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I"
I
I
I
I
I
I
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
ACCESS ROAD STUDIES
~ PROJECT CONSTRUCTION ~EQUIREMENTS -SCHEDULING
1 -GENERAL
The access road studies currently being undertaken are evaluated against various
criteria. The methodology of the access road selection is shown in Figure 1. . . The evaluation is shown as step 5 of the methodology, along with the various
criteria for evaluation. The one criteria this paper addresses is scheduling.
2 -SCHEDULING CONSIUERATIONS
Access to site must allow for the orderly development and maintenance of site
facilities and construction activities in order that first power can be brought
on line in 1993 ..
The various scheduling requirements to be considered are:
(a) Schedule of Access Development
This has been shown graphically on Figures 2 ana 3 as schedule Plans A and
B. Both schedule plans allow for an orderly development from limited
access conditions through improved to full continuous access.
(b) Flexibility of Supply System
The system of supply to the site should be flexible to accommodate the
various requi.rements of work.-The flexibility should allow for alternative
means of resupply ·in the event of strikes, delays, and unforeseen circum-
stances. Movement of people quickly to and from site in case of strikes,
• civil disruption and emergencies must also be allowed for.
B-1
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I •
I
I
I
I
••
I
The Schedu)e Plans A and B show different types of access: limited? improvea, continuous, and complete. The "complete" access is the final product. The
"limited" access would be extremely rou3h and allow only a limited number and
type of vehicle travel. The ucpntinuousu road wouid have all subgrade work com-
pleted and would allow reasonable truck traffic continuously. A requirement of
the project is that "continuous 11 access is necessary by mid-1986 to support the
construction activities. The "improved 11 access is better than "1imited 11 and not
as good as "continuous".
Schedule Plan A requires a 11 pioneer road 11 to be constructed. A "pioneer road",
for definition, is a road which would allow limited access to several points
along the permanent access road, to allow a rapid start and accelerated con~
struction of the permanent road. The pioneer .... oad would typically be a gravel
surfaced road witn turnouts; would be on existing ground, unless conditions made
it absolutely necessary to place subgrade material or require excavation; and
would have about 10 percent maximum grades and small radius curves. The pioneer
road would generally have the same alignment as the permanent access road.. How-
ever, in many places it would have to follow anott.er alignment to avoid any
major excavation or fill work.
A pioneer road at major
These bridges
built.
river crossings would have temporary floating Bailey
would have to be removed in winter and temporary ice · Bridges.
crossings
Schedule Plans A and B have the following as key dates:
JANUARY 1~ 1985, LIMITED ACCESS REQUIREMENTS
A.
B.
c.
Mobilization of construction equipment and materials to build main
access road.
Mobilization of camp buildings and facilities to support diversion con-
struction.
Mobilization construction equipment and materials to construct diver-
sion tunnels .
B-2
I I I
I
I
I
.I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
••
2. JANUARY 1, 1986., IMPROVED ACCESS REQUIREMENTS
A. Supply of cement for diversion tunnel construction.
B.. Expansion of camp and facilities to support main dam contractor.
3. JULY 1, 1986, CONTINUOUS ACCESS REQUIREMENTS
A.. Support of main dam contractor 1 s activities.
B. Development of camp and facilities to support other contractors.
The preceding Schedule Plans A and B were developed during evaluation of the
overall access plans.. The schedule plans allow the orderly development and
maintenance of site facilities and construction activities in order that first
power be brought on line in 1993.
One small aavantage of a pioneer roaa is it could pro~ide some support in the
Phase II investigation and design of the project.
3 -ACCESS PLANS AND SCHEDULING
The overall access plans are presented in Figure 4. Figure 4 also presents a
slJllmary of plans and technical points of the studies. Access plans 1, 2,
1
5 and .
8, all of which originate from the east, the Parks Highway or Gold Creek, all
require three to four years for cr.inplete construction.. Access plans 3, 4, 6 and
7, all of which originate from the north and the Denali Highway, require one
year to have an access to Watana.
As stated above access plans 3., 4., 6 and 7, all of which ori9inate from the
Denali Highway, can meet this requirement. Access plans land 2, 5 and 8 cannot
meet this requirement unless a pioneer road is constructed prior" to 1985. This
can be accommodated in the alotted time frame. For access plans 1 and 2~ 5 and
8 the pioneer road would be constructed during 1983 and 1984. Detailed design
and obtaining the necessary permits would have to be carried out during the last
half of 1982 and the first haif of 1983.. This would allow the construction
B-3
I I. I
I
I
I
I
•••
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
of the full access road to be commenceCi in 1985 and the first half of 1986, 'tJith completion in 1987. The major bridge at Gold Creek would be constr.ucted in 1985 and 1986, with access during this period being accommodated by a floating Bailey
Bridge. A floating bridge would also be required at Watana or Devil Canyon dur-
ing 1985 and 1986 depending on the road location.
Access plans 5 and 8 would require construction of the permanent bridge at Devil
Canyon to commence at the same time the pioneer road is started. For the bridge
at Devil Canyon all necessary site work and the foundations would.be complete by
January 1985 to allow erection of the bridge in 1985 and completion in 1986.
Access plans 2 and 8, which do not have a. connection to a major highway, would
have to bear an additional expense of transporting personnel in and out of the
sites. By not having a connection to a major highway the option .of having a
portion of the personnel bear the cost of transportation to and from the .site by
private vehicle is eliminated. This shuttle expense is estimated to be in the
order of $25,000,000 by air. Shuttle train service would be less expensive ..
For these purpose.s~ it has been established that 50 perc_nt of the personnel
will have their transportation costs paid by the project ..
Rail access. plans 2 and 8 have a higher contingency risk than a road\vay access.
The risk is the possible loss of all ground transport and supply to the. site
associated with a· breakdown of the rail system. Rail access does not provide
the fl exi bi 1 ity provided by a road access. A road access allows more contra 1
over the project by the contractors themselves. A road access from.a major
highway is more flexible to adapt to different situations, thus lessening the
risk of work delays, stoppages, and contractor's claims. It has a 11 Safety
valve 11 the rail access options do not have.
B-4
- ----------------~ DEFINE OBJECTIVES ~ DESIGN PARAMETEP.S JLj SCREENING PROCESS ~ PlM fOR:.lJt.ATIOO ~ EVAllJATIOft SElECT Actess ROADWAY AND RAil TECHNICAl 3 ROUTES Ok£ hi EHGIHEERlttA.-ROUTE TO HYOOOP(l.IER ENGINEERING CRITE~IA r-ECOOOHlC EACH CORRIDOR ECOHOKIC: SHES lHAT AllOWS EHYIROtlKENTAl ~ AS A RESULT OF EHVIROH~~l~ • . ,-COHSTRIJCTlOH· AND PUBLIC PREFERENCES THE SCREENING SOILS DATA SCHEDUll~
OPERATION WhilE lb-1 ESTABLISH CANDIDATES TRAHSMISSIOH IMPACT PROCESS IN g) EHGIHEERIHG DESIRED LE~\ ·~ ACCESS
BEST K£EHtm A TOTAL OF 33 ARE ESlABL I SHED ;• COHSTRUCTIOH COST f--AGENCY c~a_M
OVERAll ~RiTERIA kOUTESAAE f--J lOGISTICS COST TRI\NSMISSl~
I STATED lH fiD ESTABliSHED TRANSMISSION lWACl . ·-
lN TME 3 tORRlCORS
,J PORT FACILITIES f-1 EHVJROHKENTAl r ROADWAY OPTIONS
2A PUBLIC PARTICIPATION RAIL OPTIONS
PRESENT fR£ OPJIOOS :--LOGISTIC REQUIREMENTS H lABOR ORGAt~llATH)ft J-.
TO THE PUBll C AAO 1 COHCERHS
INVITE COJK:fH. '
8 PLANS. WIUCH . I.J AGENCY COOCERNS . 1-UTiliZED THE
J.ROUTES ARE
ESTABLlSHED H INDIAN COMMUHITY I--INPUT
. .
l.J PUBliC INPUT r-
ACCESS PlAN SELECTION fof:TUODOlOGY -
.
c
..
. [i] f flGURE 1 -
-- ----------------T 1983 1984 ~ 1985 ~ 1966 1987 -® AtC£SS T~ UMITfD 1-'----~-------I~ lnl---~ -UlNTI\lOUS t;CY ~EO
.
SITE ACCESS PIONEER ROAD ...•..•.. IHITlAL ACCESS INf'ROIIE CONPLETEO
I ' • ' • ' • ' I • I I
' ' • 1
I I • •
EXISTNi STARTER l •
CAI.IPS 4t······················· START STAGE ll GOMPLETE I ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••e•••••• ' ' • • I ' \ I ' ' • • ' ' ' • ' • • • • •
' ' I .
' • I ' • I I ' I • ' t ' SIT£ DEVELOPMENT ROADS TO DIVERSIOO PORTAlS ' I I I • • ' t . • • I
COOCRETE PLANT • I I CONSTRUCT10U FACLITIES •
' \ ; • • • • ' . • • I I • I • t I • • • . , t • ! • f I I
I, START . , ., jj,'TlHIEL ,, '• DIVERSIOI. -TUNNELS C0NCR£TE NO. I '• CONCilET N0.2 ' -J: T • I' i .. £!-.!~~---••••••··~~ET£ -COFFERDAMS I PR{P. . • ' • START I . F~, •
MAitl DAM
,
ST.t.RT ••••••••••,...EXCAVATE fOOtft)A.TW ·~•··~••,.•••• ... ····• DEVELOP BORROV(
'
SCHEDULE PLAN A SUSITNA HYDROELECTRlC PROJECT
CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
ACCESS FROM PARKS HIGHWAY lil
FIGURE 2 'AIIR
---1983
ACCESS TYPE
SITE ACCESS
SITE DEVaOPMENT
COHSTR'tlCTIClH FACIUTES
DIVERSION ~ TUNNELS
-ctlffERDANS
MAIN DAM
- --- -1984
INITIAL ACCESS
.. -...
• ' '. " ~
\ ' ' \
' ' \ .
' ' \ . . '
-... ---i986 1987 ~~
COMPLETE
EXISTIH!l. STNITEft STAAT STAGE II ', COMPlETE ' ... . ................................................ .....;;;.;;.;;;.;...-.-;;.;...:.;.. ___ _,r---..... -T-+..;;,;;-.;:=;.:;...._...;.• .... +------...t
\ . ~
~ \ '
• ' Q \ I • ' ' \ ..
'
• ' ' ' • • • • J,:RO:.::;:::ADS::;::.,TO~::,:DI,::VERSKIN:::;:::;::..:.PORTo.:;:::,::At.=S~_, ~ \ : ,. \ ~ :
~------~~~~ET~E~PLA~N~T---'~·+' •--~~ \ 1
t I ~ :
SCHEDULE
' ' . . :. ~ • I'
I! ' ' t 1 J I
'' STADT • ' ' I I ,...,. f. I I li~Ml it-1
CONCfiETE 00. I ~ caiCRETE NO. 2
PLAN B
;r..f_,:_..,PR~EPA.._R.::E:.-..,I.z..• ···-···· PJ.«l~ ... Js:~~ • t
' • I
r.,f_..;S;,zJ.;;:AR;:,;T:.-.---$oo-••••
START
fl.Ll.
.......... ..,....I>CCA\1\TE f~· ~••••••• ........ DEVElDP 80RRO'N
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRlC PROJECT
CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
ACCESS FROM DENALI HIGHW. ~y h-).
FiGURE 3-
----.. ------.. ------. SUSITHA ACCESS PlANS PLAN 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 :a OESCRIPHON: ROADWAY:-PARKS RAIL: GOCD ROAIIlAY: OErfAll ROADWAY: DEMAI.l ROADWAY: PARKS ROADWAY: DENALI ROADWAY: OENAU ROAWA't:: SOli} HIGUWAY TO DE~Il CREEK TO DEVIL HIGHWAY TO HIGHWAY TO HIGHWAY TO DEVIl HIGHWAY TO UIGHWAY TO CREn W tall
CANYON & WATMA CAHYON & WATANA WATAHA. PARKS WATAHA 9 RAll~ GOLD CANYON ON SOUTh WATANA,RAIL, GOlO WATANA, PARKS CANYf.lt tJl SOUllt
Of! SOUTH SIDE 00 SOUTH SIDE HIGHWAY TO CREEK TO DEVIL SIDE Of SUSITNA, CREEK TO DEVIl il!GlfWAY TO D£Vll SIDE Of SllSllllA.
OF SUSITM OF SUSITNA DEVIl CANVOH CAHYOH oo soum DEVIL CAHYOO TO CAHYOH ON SOUTU CM)'Ot~ Off SOUTH DEVIl ~ lO
O!i SOUTH SIDE SIDE OF SUSITHA. WATAMA ON HORTH SIDE OF SUSTIHA. SIDE OFSUSITHA. WATAHA-QlU
OF SUSITNA. NO i!O COffNECTlrtG SIDE Of SUSITHA. CmutECTir{G ROAD COO~ECTIHG ROAD SIDE ~ SUSllNA. . CONNECTING ROAD ROAD ON NORTH SlOt OF ON HORTH SIDE
SUSITMA. OF SUSITHA. ---
MILEAGE Of HEW ROAD 62 56 70 . 60 68 102 111 $4
COt,STRUCT ION
COST ($ x 1.000.000) 158 140 151 119 143 179 209 '9l
MJ\IMTENANCE
COST ($ x 1.000.000) 5 4 6 s 8 8 9 "l
lOGISTICS COSft) .
(S x t.ooo.ooo 215 210 231 ZJO 214 230 231 at~
TOTAL COST -
{.$ X 1,000,000) 378 354 388 354 365 417 449 lU
PERS~NEl SHUTTlE I)
COST $ x 1.000.000 0 25 0 10 0 0 0 5
CONSTROCTIOH .
SCHEDUlE {YEARSt 3-4 3-4 1 1 3-4 1 1 l_._
MAJOR BRIDGES 2 2 0/1 0 2 0 0/1 l
SCHEDULE PLAN A A 8 8 A B B ~
ADDED CONTIHGENCY RISK NO YES NO NO -WATANA NO NO NO 'ftS
YES -DEVIl CANYON , .
• lil . FIGURE 4
. "
I I I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I-
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
·_ . . . . . . . . : .. ·" .. . . t ,;-·~; : t • ..... • ; ••• • t. . . : ~.... I
APPENDIX C
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
..
I -I· I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
DRAFT SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT
TASK 2 -SURVEYS AND SITE
FACILITIES
OCTOBER 1981
ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED
1000 Liberty Bank Building
Main at Court
Buffalo, New York 14202
Telephone: (716) 853-7525
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DRAFT
Access Road·Environmenta1 Analysis Summary
An environmental analysis was conducted of.,the eight access plans under
consideration. Each plan was evaluated in terms of its potential input to
vegetation, wild1ife(furbearers, big game, birds and small mammals), fish
and culture resources. Each access plan involves construction of a road or
railroad in two or more of the following segments:
Parks Highway to Gold Creek
Gold Creek to Devil Canyon Damsite
Devil Canyon Oamsite to Watana Damsite via the north side of the
Susitna River
Devil Canyon Damsite to Watana Damsite via the south side of the Susitna
River
Denali Highway to Watana Damsite
Table I indicates the access plans studied.
The major potential environmental impacts identified for each of the access
segments VJere as fo 1'1 ows :
Parks Highway to Gold Crsek: Remova.1 of wetland areas, disruption of
furbearer habitat, disturbance of anadl"Omous fisheries habitat in the
Susitna and Indian river and disturbance of archaeological resour-ees.
Gold Creek to Oevil Canyon Damsite: disturbance of forested area. along
the Susna River.
Devil Canyon Damsite to Watana Damsite via north side of Susitna
River; potential restoration difficulties, disturbance of cultural
resources.
Devil Canyon Damsite to Watana Darnsite via south side of Susitna
River: disturbance of we~land area and furbearer habitat near
Stephan Lake, J:'og Lake and Fog Creek, disturbance of moose and
caribou habitat, increased fishing pressure to resident fishes~
C-1
I I I
I
I
I
I.
I
I.
I
••
•••
I
••
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE I. SUSITNA ACCESS PLANS .
Plan Description
1. Road from the Parks Highway ·to Devil Canyon, conttnutng to
Watana on the south side of the Susitna River~
2. Railroad from Go1d Creek to Devi1 Canyon, continuing to
Watana on south side of the Susitna River,
3.. · Road from the Parks Highway terminating at Devil Canyon.
A second road from the Denali Highway to Watana ..
4e Road from Gold Cv·e~k Tenninatin9 at Devil Canyon. A second
road from the Denali Highway to Watana.
5. · Road from the Parks Highway to Devil Canyon on the south side
of the Susitna river~ crossing the Susitna and continuing to
Watana on the north side •
6. Road from Gold Creek to Devil Canyon ·on south side of Susitna
River; connecting road between two dams on north side Susitna
River.
Road from Denali Highway to Watana
7. Road from Gold Creek to Devil Canyon south side of Susitna
River; connecting road between two· dams on north side of
Susitna River.
Road from Denali Highway to Watana.
8. Road from Gold Creek to Devil Canyon on south side of Susitna
River, crossing Susitna and continuing to·Watana on north side.
I I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Dena1i Highway to Watana Damsite: _ dis··JJrbance of fox denning sites
near Deadman Mountain, interference with migration and calving of ,,
portions of the Nelchina caribou herd, ~~~~ urbance to cultural
resources.
In addition to th;ese specific concerns, a major concern for all access
plans was the creation of access to areas previously inaccessible or
relatively inaccessible. This increased access could 1ead to impacts to furbearers
(through trapping) and to big game through hunting. In addition, detrimental
effects could occur to all wildlife through disturbance and destruction
of habitat by ATV's. Cultural resources would also be vulnerable to
amateur collectors and ATV traffico
Considering the potential of these impacts to occur in each plan resulted in
the conclusion that plan 8 would cause the least environmental disturbance.
This was because the utilization of roadway beginning at Gold Creek and
continuing to Watana will preclude public access into the area. Furthe~
more, the road from Devil Canyon to Watana on the north side of the Susitna
River covers areas that are not of great impo't~tance to wildlife or fisheries.
Plans 1,3,5,'and 7 would provide increased. access into the area. This is
because the roadways would begin at the Parks Highway which is accessible
to all outside traffic.. For this reason, there plans were found not to
have the potential for greater impacts than Plan 8.
Plans 1 and 2 connect the Watana and Devil Canyon dam sites via a road
on the south side of the Susitna river. Because these plans would cross
wetlands and furbearer habitat near Stephan and Fog lakes and open this
are;~ to increased fishing pressure, the plans were considered to be less
desirable than Plan 8 ..
Plans 3:i 4, 6 and 7 all involve a road from Watana dam north to the
Denali highway. Because of the increased access this road would provide and
the potential for impacts to portions of the Ne1china caribou herd, to
furbearers (particularly fox tienning areas) and to cultural resources~
C-2
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.these plans were also considered less desirabie than Plan 8.
The above evaluations were conducted witho~t consideration of mitigation
plans. Certain mitigation techniques could be utilized to substantially
reduce the potential for impacts and pennit utilization of plans other
than plan 8. For instance, timing restrictions for stream crossings and
utilization of siltation control devices could reduce impacts to
anadromous fish; final alignment of the road bed above wetland areas
would reduce impact to aquatic furbearers; strict patrols and control
of access may reduce impacts to caribou.
Final plan selection will incorporate engineering, economic and environmental
. considerations, including utilization of mitigation, techniques.
C-3
I I· I
••
I
••
I·.
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I;
I
I
Access Roads
SocioeconGmic and Land Use Analysis Summary
Each of the access plans under consideration originates at one or two of
the following points: the Parks Highway at Hurricane,. the Alaska
Railroad at Gold Creek and the Denali Highway near Denali~ For purposes of
socioeconomic and land use analysis, the point of origination is the
dominant variable, with mode (road or railroad} an important variable
and actual alignment a minor variable.
Each of the access plans was evaluated in terms of its effect on socio-
economic conditions and land use in the area. Socioeconomic parameters
evaluated included effects on population levels, cultural activities,
corrmunity, political and social organizations, housing, public service,
government finance, labor and economic base. Land use parameters evaluated
included land uses and associated site-specific activities, dispersed and
isolated activities, 1and management activities, and related concerns
and natural aesthetics.
Impacts were evaluated for three general geographic areas:
-Parks Highway-Railroad corridor on Westside, containing the
communities of Healy, Cantwell, Chulitna, Talkeetna, Willow and
Wasi11a
-Richardson Highway corridor on eastside containing the cormnunities
of Glennallen, Gulkana, Paxson and others along the Richardson Highway
-Anchorage, Whittier and Fairbanks
Evaluations showed effects on Fairbanks to be the same for each access
plan and therefore-was not included in the comparisons.
Acres plans (lands) with a roadway originating at Hurricaine will . .
significantly impact the westside communities in tenns of demand for
C-4
I I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
increased services, changes in population~ housing availability,
governr.~ent expenditures and revenues, labor demand and unemployment ..
There will also be significant effects on construction, retail trade
and tourism. Many of the changes will occur as crynstl''Uction workers
attempt to relocate to the corrmunities near the construction site.
Significant land use changes would occur in the vlestside comunities,
particularly in residential and commercial uses.
Except for a possible significant increase in wholesale trade, roads from
the west should have only slight socioeconomic and land use effect on
Anchorage, Whittier and· the eastside communities.
Access plans 2 and 8 originate at Gold Creek. As such, impacts would be
concentrated on the Westside communities as described for plans 1 and 5.
However, the effects would be magnified in Talkeetna and Hurricane because
of their location at rail-highway intersections.
The Anchorage/Whittier area would be significantly or moderately effected
in construction, port and rail transportation, wholesale and retail trade
-and servi9e industries. In addition, Whittier \<Jould experience mod'arate
effects on employment.
On1y negligible effects would be felt on eastside comnunities.
Land· use impacts are expected to be minor in the interior of the project
area, because access to the site would require utilizing the Alaskan
Railroad to Gold Creek. Significant land use change would occur· in the
westside communities, particularly in residential and corrmerc:ial uses
in Talkeetna and Hurricane.
0 C-5
,.
" •• I I
I
I
I·
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
Access plans 4 and 6 move the access origin from the Railbelt corridor to
the Dena'ii Highway in the north. Workers• families would tend to locat(~ in
more communities and possibly concentrate in Anchorage.. Significant or
major effects would likely be felt in Cantwell in terms of population,
culture/way-of-life, communitys political and social organization, housing
availability, government expenditures and revenues, labor.demand,
unemployed labor, public services, construction, public utilities,
-;
communications and retail trade and services.
Anchorage would experience a significant effect on wholesale trade and
Whittier would feel moderate effects on employment, retail trade and
service.
The eastside communities would experience moderate changes, due permanently
to spillover effects of increased tourism from access on the Denali
Highway.
Land use changes would occur in Cantwell, primarily in residential and.
corrmercial use. There would also be changes in land use in the area between
Denali Highway and Watana, due to increased access.
Access Plans 3 and 7
These effects will be essentially the same as plans 4 and 6.. Westsi'd.e
cormnunities would be eff~ctad as workers• families move further up the
corridor. Significant changes would occur in many of the communities
as· road access would begin at both Hurricane and Cantwell.
Evvects to Anchorage, Whittier and the Eastside communitie" would be the
same as for plans 1 and 5.
Land use changes in the interior may be great, as road access is provided
at two places. In addition, commercia1 and ri"Sidential 1and use changes
would occur in the westside communities.
C-6
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.. I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DRAFT Acc:,_ess Road Environmental Summary
Public Preference
Public preference regarding the access and recreation development plans
was acquired through mail-in questionnairess workshop questionnaires,
personal interviews and other forms of written and verbal communication.
As different groups were reached through these various media the results
acquired from each are not directly com1larable.
Mail-In Questionnaires -Recreation
As a compo11ent of the recreation planning program a mail-fn questionnaire
was forwarded to 2145 residents, 715 t.c each of the Fairbanks, Anchorage
and Rai1belt (excluding Fairbanks and Anchorage) areas. 502 or 23
percent of the questionnaires were completed and returned. As shown
on Table I the general concensus from all three regtons was that 15-20%
of the respondents favored no or restrtcted access and no recreation development
21-26% favored access with little or no recreation development and 56-60%
favored access \'lith rnoderat.e to high development. It must be noted that
when this questionnaire was distributed the option of providing access to
the site by rail was not offered as an alter-native and thus the results of
this survey do not take the option of a rail access into accaunt. In addi-
tion, this questionnaire was distributed for the purpose of accessing the,
degree and type of recreation development preferred. Thus the responses
,may have differed somewhat had the primary questions been directed towards
the degree, mode and point o·f origin for access roads.
Public Workshop Questionnaire -Recreation
The results of the recreation questionY\.aire as received through the March
1981 public wo~kshop differed significantly from the mail-in responses. The
exact reasons for this difference is unknown although speculation is pre-
sented. A total of 82 responses were received with 18, 35 and 29 from
Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Railbelt (excluding Anchorage and Fairbanks)
respectively. As shown on Table Z the results from these sectors varied
C-7
I ·I
I
I
I
1:
I
I·
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
greatly. In Fairbank~ 72% of the. respondents favored no or restricted
access with no recr·eation development,. and 8% favo·red access with moderate
to high recreation development. Anchorage was almost the reverse with ,
6%, 9% and 71% favoring no or restricted access., access with minimum develop-
ment and access with moderate to high development, respectively. The results
of the central Railbe1t ~F reflected by the responses from the Ta 1 keetna
workshop were more evenly divided with 45% favo.r·ing no or restricted access,
17% favoring access with mi-nimal recreation development and 38% favoring
access. \\tith moderate to high development.
It is speculated that the results from the Fairbanks workshop tend to
represent the views of concernea interest groups that had a large
representation at the ·Fairbanks workshop. The di cotomy of the responses
from the Talkeetna workshop. are probably a reflection of the attitudes
that exist in this cormnunity as indicated by the results of the socio-
cul.:ura1 studies. In Anchorage the very hi(• level prefe.rence for access
\vith moderate to high recreation development differs in degree from the
mail-in results although both surveys demonstrate a preference in Anchorage
far access with development.
'I~ I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE I! RESPONSE FROM t~AIL-IN QUESTIONNAIRES ON RECREATION
Fairbanks Rai1be1t Anchorage
% % ~
A) ~o road acc~$S or restricted 15 19 20
access
B) Access but little or ro 26 26 21
recreation development
C) Access with moderate ~o 59 56 59
high development
~ABLE II:~ RESPONSE FROM THE PUBLIC WORKSHOP QUESTIONNAIRE ON RECREATION
Fairbanks aailbelt Anchorage
Of % ei
10 JO
A) No road access or restricted 72 45 6
access
B) Access but little or no 0 17 9
recreation development
C) Access with moderate to 8 38 n
high development
C-9
I I I
I
I
I·
I
I
••
I
I
I
I
I
I
·I
I
Public Workshop Questionnaire -Access>
The results ·Of the access questionnaire as received through the March 1981
public workshop are presented in Table 3 below ..
Ro.ute Fairbanks Talkeetna Anchorage* Total
%. c( % % 10
A) Road access from 6 17 7 10
Parks Hwy to
both dam sites
B) Rail access from 72 67 40 59
Gold Creek to both
dam sites
C) Road from Denali Hwy 17 11 20 16
to Watana rail from
both Creek to Devil
Canyon
D) Road from Oenal i Hwy 0 0 33 10
and Parks Hwy
No Preference 6 6 0 -4
* Mail responses were mostly from the· Anchorage area, reflecting the
thinking of that area, a.1d were thus included in the Anchorage results •
A total of 51 responses were received with 18·, 15, and 18 from the Fairbanks~
Anchorage and Talkeetna areas respectively.
In Fairbanks 72% of the respondents favored a rail only access, 17% favored
a combination of road rail and 6% favored road only access. None of the
respondents favored road access from both the Denali and Parks Highway.
In T~lkeetna a similar trend emerged with 67, 11, 17 and 0% favoring rail
access only, road and rail access, road only and road access to both Denali
and Parks Highways, respectively.
In Anchorage 40% of the respondents favored rail access only, 20% favored
road/rail access, and 41% favored road on1 y. 33% of the total respondents
favored road access from both the Dena1 t and Parks Highways
C-10
I I. ••
I
I
I
I.
I
I
••
.I.
I
·I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Those trends demonstrated by these results are comparable with th~ results of the· public. workshop recreation questionnaire although the degree of pre-
ferences vary. The Fairbanks respondents, which favored no or restri ced
access with no recreation· development also. favored rail access on1y (72%).
In Talkeetna the dicotomy expressed in the public workshop recreation
questionnaire response is also reflected in the access questionnaire results,
however, a definite pre ?erence ( 67%) was shown for the rail only access ( 40%}
and higher preference for some type of road access (60%) is again comparable
to the results of the workshop recreation questionnaire. The greatest
difference between the Anchorage and the Fairbanks/Talkeetna results in the
33% for no preference for road access from both the Parks and Denali highway.
Questionnaire Interpretation
Interpretation of the results from the public preference questionnaires
must be made with caution. The largest sample size with 502 responses was
associated with the recreation· mail-in questionnaire. In addition, the
fact that the questionnaire had a random distribution, improvesthe proba-
bility that it more accurately reflects the attitudes of the general public ..
Its main drawback was that it was directed mainly towards the question of
recreation development with access being a secondary issue. The problem
in interpreting the results of the workshop questionnaires is a comfirmation
of sample size (Recreation questionnaire -82 responses; Access question-
naire -51 responses) and an evaluation as to what component of the com-
munities are actually represented.
Sociocultural Studies -Access Report
Railroad Communities north of Talkeetna
These communities prefer the access system which allows the minimum amount
of public access and least amount of po.pulation and industrial growth.
They feel that the rail access only would lead to the minimal disruption
to existing residential and recreational patterns.
c-11
I I
I
I
••
I
I
I
I
I
I
••
I·
I
I
I
I
I
Talkeetna
Two factions were identified:
1) The first group desires minimum impact on the community as we11
as the wi1 d1 ife and general environme·nt IJf the surrounding area.
If the dam is constr.ucted they perceive the rail r.oad as the best
means to limit access and change in the study area •
2) The second group ten-ds to be pro-economic deve.1 opment and was
divided into two subgroups.
\:!
a) This group is in favor· of the dam although they still value
the rural, small-town atmosphere in which they have chosen
to live. As such, to limit the impact on the community an~
surrounding wilderness they prefer a railroad access only to
the dam sites.
b) The second subgroup of Talkeetna residents which favor economic
·development in general are also in favor of roads to ppen the
country. Views in this category represent the minority
opinion of those interviewed.
Trapper Creek
As wi.th Talkeetna two factions emerged.
1) This group is against the Sus·itna project as well as other 1 arge
scale development in the area. This group expressed concern
about road access from the Parks Highway or Denali Highway •
As the alternative that would have the least impact on their
community as well as the environment in general they preferred ·
the railroad only plan.
2) The second group although in favor of Susttna was divided on
the issue of access modes and routes.
a) The first subgroup preferred not to see the area opened up
with roads. They preferred the railroad only p1an and were
opposed to highway access from Hurricane to Gold Creek.
C-12
I I
I
••
I.
I
.I
I
I
I
••••
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Cantwell
b) Members of the second subgroup preferred road access in order
to provide the maximum public accgss to otherwise inaccessible
areas. This subgroup is comprised mainly of o1der resic!t,~Hts ..
who have already experi'enced considerable change in th(: area •
In regards to access the following groups emerged:
1 ) Pro. the Dena 1 i Spur:
a) Many Cantwell residents~ _especially local businessmen and
those in search of a job, are strongly in favor of the dam,
l railhead at Cantwell, the Denali Spur and any additional
development which would enhance economic progress of the
community. Thi-s group was a 1 so in favor of up.grading of the
Denali Highway. People in this category had a strong voice
but did not repr~sent the majority opinion in Cantwell.
b) Members of this subgroup acknowledge that Cantwell needs
the· economic stimulation and appreciate the logic and eng-
ineering compatability of the Denali Spur. However, they
are very concerned about the potential adverse impacts on
\"'il d1 ife in th·e area and would only be ir.r favor of the Oena1 i
Spur. if stringent hunting regulations were implemented and
enforced. This group represented the majority opinion in
Cantwell ..
2) This group has considerable concern regarding the potential
impact on the fish and wildlife of ths area. This group, which
represented the minority of those interviewed; was comprised
mainly of loctll trappers, non-locals with recrea·Aonal cabins
and locals who felt the potential adverse impact on wildlife
outweighed the use of this corridor.
Native· Preference
The CIRI Corporation has stated that it is their intent, with or without
the project, to develop the lands surrourrding the Devil Canyon and Watana
•
C-13
I; I
I
I
I
I
I
I
••
I
I
I
I
I
••
I
I
I
I
proposed damsites. mainly far its mineral potential. As such they are
strongly in favor of a permanent road to the damsite and ha-ve stated
th!=i r preferen·ce for the Southern Road from the-Parks Highway. They do
not favor a railroad but if a railroad is built they feel the railroad
bed should be· converted into a permanent road with access to the Parks
Highway. It is also their contentio~ that since much of the 1and in
question is private 1 and, belongfng to CIRI, access should be subject
to their wishes.
C-14
I I I
I
I.
I
••
I
I,
I
••
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
... ' .
0
ALASKA PO\~ER AUTHORITY
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION OFFiCE
ACCESS REPORT
October 9, 1 gel
I I I'
12
I
I,
I'
I
I,
I
I
I
••
••
I
I
I
.....
Section I
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
,March 1981 Workshop Results
The r·esults of three workshops held and questionnaires sent out by
the Public Participation Office concerning the question of access to the
proposed Watana and Devil Canyon hydroelectric sites show a preference
for a rail only alternative. Sixty (60) percent of the participants in
the workshops held in Fairbanks,_Talkeetna, and Anchorage preferred raii
access. Almost 80% of the Talkeetna respondents and more than 80% of the
Fah·banks participants favored the rail only alternative. Likewise, a·
si;!eable portion of the game guides registered in Unit 13 (Upper Susitna
Basin) \vho responded to a questionnaire favored the_ rail access.
The reasons for this preference varied somewhat among communities
and interest groups. Nevertheless, a pattern did e~rge~ The partici-
pants at the Talkeetna meeting felt that their way of life would be al-
tered if road access through any nearby community was selected. The
workshop participants• choice of rail only access reflects their concern
for the potentia 1 .amount of change that could occur if such an access
road were selected.
A second factor in the choice of the rail only route was the desire
to limit the impact on wildlife and the ecology of the Upper Susitna
Basin that increased recreational opportunity would cause. This was es-
pecially true of the participants in rairbanks and the responses of the·
game guides. Both these groups did not respond to limiting impacts on
the co111nunities along the Parks Highway, but tended to focus on the po-
tential impacts on game and the environment. Of primary concern was the
Helchina caribou herd and also the moose and bear populations. All three
groups mentioned potential impacts from all terrain vehicles (ATV 1 s) and
increased hunting and fishing opportunities.·
C-1.5
1-I I
1:
I
I
I
I
I
1:
I
I
I ,,
I
I
I
I
I .:>
In analyzing these re~ponses and in recent discussions with Robert
Anderson of Terrestial Environmental Specialists (TES), Peter Rogers of
Frank Orth & Associates, and !tephen ~raunrl who is conducti~g the socio-
cuitura.l study., severalvariables need tiJ be considered in respect to a
rail only alternative. It is our thinking that several potential im-
pacts cou1d result from a rail only access that wer~not consi~ered by
these conmunities. One would be the size and location of a staging or
stockpiling area for construction materials (and its possible visual
impact or the size of the work force needed to operate it). A second
would be the regularity that workers would be allowed to ride the train
to the construction site.· If workers could ride in either dai1y, week-
ly, or bi-weekly, impacts in the southern conmunities could be nearly as
great as with a road access. This would include the need for park.ing
faci~1ities in Talkeetna or Hurricane, and the result of workers and their
families relocating in the southern communities.. The increased demanj
in service could potentially impact a broad range of activities t~at the
Talkeetna participants expressed an interest in limiting.
The Public Participation Office (PPO) intends to point out these
things to the communities when we hold our next workshop sessions the
week of October' 19. As the resuit of recent discussions among the PPO staff
Step~en Braund, Peter Rogers, and Robert Anderson, one possible
way to reduce impacts on the southern communities is a northern access
from tne Denali Highway, with a full service constructiQn camp, com-
muter schedules, and clearly defined state policies, in ·combination
with no access from the west (either rail or road). Although a north-
ern route onl_y was originally considered, it was not among the options
presented at the community workshops in March 1981. Another option to
reduce impacts would be all rail or rail to Gold Creek with workers
commuting to and from Anchorage by airplane. This option was not pre-
sented either. We suggest that these access options and the explana-
ti.on of the possib 1 e impacts of the rai 1 on 1y access need to be present-
ed to the southern corrmunities in order that a more informed decision
can be made. Especial1y because the thinking of these communities tena-
ed to reflect the idea that the rail only access would have the least
C-16
I I. I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I.
I
I.
I
I
I
impact on t~i"r corrmuntti'es, rt ts possi o 1 e that the full range of
impacts, 5otn· primary· and s:econdary-, ftave not 15een understood or con-
sidered. Tne primary consideratton appeared to be the long term im ...
plications of public access after construction. Nevertheless, construc-
tion related impacts may be of greatest concern to these communities
given the 10 to 15 year-time span of construction.
In addition, the results of the recreational development question-.
naire that was also distributed at the comnunity worl<shops also showed a ..
preference for limiting development and access. More than 60% of those
who responded to the recreation questionnaire favored a minimally devel-
oped and managed wilderness. This choice demonstrated a desire to either
limit or permit no access to the project area. Rail access was men-
tioned several times as the best method of access.
Communj ties Where No Workshops Were He 1 d
Willow, Houston, Wasilla, and Palmer;
It should be pointed out that community workshops were not held in
the communities south of Talkeetna (Willow, Houston, Wasi11a, and Palmer)
and no one from these areas attended the March 1981 workshop in Talkeetna.
Generally, the Mat-Su area has been economically slow in recent years
(the capital move to Willow J. • .as not occurred) and people in some of
these communities may well perceive changes and impacts brought about by
the Susitna project as beNeficial if economic development is stimulated ..
Data from a study conducted in the Mat-Su Borough by the Overall Economic
Develop~ent Program, Inc. (Ec9nomic Conditions, Development Options and
froje._ctions, JIJ.ly 1980) indicate~ that people in Willow, Houston, Wasilla.]!
and Palmer tend to favor a higher rate of development than the corrmuni-
ties north of Willow. Additional information fnn planners at the Mat-Su
Borough, the Borough ~1anager, Assembly, Planning and Zoning Commission,
and local residents might be useful.
Trapper Creek:
The 1 ack of representation from Trapper" Creek at the March ~tlorkshop
at Ta1keetna also limits the information from that meetigg· .. The community
C-17
I I I
••
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ,
I
I
I
I'
I
I
••
I
.... of Trapper Creek did not seem to perceive the Susitna projects as having a potentia 1 impact on their comn:uni ty. One member of the community coun-
cil later expressed the perception that Trapper Creek would be less af-
fected than Talkeetna would be by Susitna. In addition, the workshop
was held in Talkeetna which is a 60 mile round trip for Trapper Creek
residents and, given the public sentiment as reflected by the above state-
ment, it doesn•t seem likely that people would make the trip. Stephen
Braund has recently spent some time in the Trapper Creek area and his in-
formation should h~lp in assessing the preference of .. that community. A
joint meeting with Trapper Creek and Talkeetna is being planned for Wed~
nesdayll October-21. It will be held at Susitna Valley High School, lo-
cated half way between Trapper Cr-eek and Talkeetna, and we hope to get
representation from both these cmmnunities.
People living along the railroad north of Talkeetna: ·
The small clusters of people north of Talkeetna along the railroad
were also not well represented at the Talkeetna workshop. Some people
from the Chase area atten~ed the workshop, but people further north a-
long the railroad (Lane Creek, Sherman, and Gold Cree~~) did not attend.
The PPO did conmunicate with people living or owning land at Lane Creek
·and Shennan during the public participation work on the intertie project.
The general feeling in these ~reas was one of strong opposition to the
transmission lines because people had moved to the area to get away from
development. \~e would expect strong resistance to any access choice
which would cause changes along the railroad in these areaso .
Cantwell and ~1cKiniey Park areas:
Another area where the PPO had no contact concerning access is the
Cantwell and McKinley Park areas. In communications with both these
areas on the in terti e issue, Cantwe 11 has been genera 11y pro .. deve 1 opment
and pro-intertie. Community sentiment indicated the desire for a sub-
station at Cantwell (along with distribution lines) so the corrmunity
would not have to rely on diesel generation for electricity~ Discussions
~o~ith Stephen Braund and Tom Lonner have indicated that the McKi n 1 ey
C-18
I I I
I
•• .
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
••
I
I
I
... Park area. would not be affected by access plans, but Cantwa11 would,
especially if the Denali Highway access is selected. To better under-
stand the concerns of the Cantwell community, a community workshop is
being p 1 anned for Thursday, October 22.
Indian River Subdivision and Indian River Remote lands:
A final group of people whose preference was not obtained was the
Indian River Subdivision owners and the Indian niver remote parcel O\'mers.
The subdivision contains about 140 parcels on or near the Parks Highway
in the area of the proposed road access to Devil Canyon. The Department
of Natural Resources estimates that 90 of these sites have been awarded
since July 1981. Conseq<Uent.1y the people who are now m·mers have not
been contacted concerning their views on either Susitna in general or on
the question of access. ONR also reports that demand was not great for
the subdivision lands except along the highway. This was not the case
for the Indian River remote parcels. Because these remote parcels had
ra1lroad access and most remote parcels have no access at all, DNR re-
ports that it was one of the more popular remote parcel offerings the
state has had. Se_venty-five person were given authorization to stake
in this area.
Conclusions
1. What emerges from the responses received in the COO'iilunity work-·
shops, both on access and recreation, is the desire to limit growth and
development that could occur should the Susitna project b£! constructed,
especially in the Talkeetna area and the railroad communities north of
Talkeetna. One of the drivers of the type and magnitude of the impacts
on the southern communities is the location of the access route and the .
mode of transportation used op the rout~. Although the clear preference
stated is for a rail only access, more in-fo+mation needs to be presented
to the potentially impacted communities concerning the nature of impa·cts
during the construction phase if a rail only route is selected.
C-19
I ' I I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1:
I·
2. In rece.nt d\scu~s iJ;JOS w.t th. Stephen P.raund, Ro!lert J'nderson, and Peter Rogers, tt fias oecome clear that tfie question of access and mode .
alone are not the. only constderati'ons tnat need to be present~!'! to tr.e
potenti-ally impacted corrmuni'ti'es. An equally important consideration is,
the si"ze and nature of the construction facility. Various options are
available and depending on what is selected the impacts on the surround-
ing comillunities will varyo A full service, planned community providing
the widest range of services for the workers and their families would
have a much different impact than a 1ow service) construction camp with
no family facilities. This type of decision, as well as the policies
that the State of Alaska (through the Power Authority) would adapt or
not adopt concerning the nature of the construction site, access to the
site, and the scheduling of commuting workers to and from the site wi11
be the primary factor in determining the impacts on local communities.
3. PPO :;uggests the follm~ring method for looking at how various
options would either decrease or encourage the amount of change that
could potentiallY occur in local communities., Six possible objectives
are given below. We recogni.ze that some of these objectives appear
mutually exclusive. They do, however, reflett the range of preferences
that have been heard in the corrmunities so far. PPO would like more
community input to determine which prefer~nce reflects the majority of
a given community. :
The six objectives are:
l. To encourage changes in the Willow, Houston, ~·!asi11a and
Palmer areas.
2. io limit changes in the railroad communities north of Talkeetna.
3. To 1 im{t changes in the Ta 1 keetna and Trapper Creek areas.
4. To encourage changes in the the Talkeetna and Trapper Creek
areas.
5. To encourage changes in the Cantwell area.
6. To limit. changes in the Cantwell area.
C-20
--
I I I
I
I
1:
I
I '
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
The next four pages are a preliminary discussion of how decisions
could be made to implement either one or a combination of these objec-
tives. The 1nfonnation on these pages was written in a work session
with Robert Anderson, Peter Roge-rs, Stephen Braund, anc PPO staff. ~!ore
time could be spent in refining this. In addition, the thinking of
several other disciplines is needed to make ·the picture more complete.
Based on what we know now, the Power Authority•s '*access/recreation/
construction facilities/construction policies" objectives would be to:
l) encourage change in the Willow, Houstonf Wasilla, and Palmer areas;
and 2) to limit changes in the railroad corrmunities north of Talkeetna.
We do not yet have enough infonnation to establish clear planning ob-
jectives for the Trapper Creek, Talkeetna~ and Cantwell areas. ***
The remainder of the report {Section II) is the back-up data that
supports the sunmary and conclusions from the workshops and question-
naires. Included as exhibits are copies of the various questionnair~s
used to solicit responses~
***
..
PPO is relying on the sociocultural study being conducted by Stephen
Braund and Associates to supply additional information in order to better
articulate these objectives~ In addition, we intend to check 9ur perceptions
of community preferences one more time with the communities the week of
October 1:9th.
C-21
...
---------------
("")
I
N
N
,, OBJECTIVE I: To encourage changes in Willow, Houston, Wasilla, and Palmer areas. PlAN A:
1. Access Corridor: access from the west; no access at all from the Denali Highway.
2 . t·1ode: road.
3. Nature of construction camp facilities: Minimal construction camp: trailers, mess hall,
recreation hall, some family facilities for supervisory personnel.
4. Policies:
a. Individuals drive their own private vehicles to the sites.
b. No policies about when workers come and go, from where, or use of private vehicles.
5. Conl!tuter Schedules:
' '
a. None.
b. No policy on public access.
c. No policy on use of fish and game.
-
n
. 1
N w
Objective 1: To encourage changes in \Hllow, HOuston, l~asilla, and Palmer areas. PlAN B: 1. Access Corridor:
2. Mode: rail
rail access, either through Gold Creek with road to site or rail directly to Devil Canyon.
3. Nature of construction camp facilities: Minimal construction camp: trailers. mess hall,
recreation hall, some family facilities for supervisory personnel.
4 . Po 1 i c i es :
a. Policy reagarding use of personal vehicles by \'ICJrkers.
b. Policy to control public access to area.
5. Commuter Schedules: Organized commuter schedule using aircraft from the ~lasilla
Pa lmer area .
Or organized rail commuter schedule with workers getting on and off the train
in the Palmer and Wasilla areas.
----~---~--~------
("")
l
N
~
OBJECTIVE II: To limit changes in railroad conmunities north of Talkeetna. PLAN A:
1. Access Corridor: Road from Denali Highway to Watanq; service road from Watana to Devil
Canyon; no access at all from the west {neither rail nor road).
2 . ~1ode : road.
3. Nature of construction camp facilities:
The larger the camp, and the more services, the less the impacts on surrounding local
conlll~nities. Services that would help reduce impacts include: stor'es, post office~ schools.
Proposal: to construct a .. mixed camp", meaning a camp where workers live with theh" families
if desiredr or where workers live in trailers or barracks without families.if desired.
Part of the construction camp could/would become a permanent city for the operating phase.
The ternpor·a ry camp cou 1 d be sited and 1 oca ted so that i t would be inundated by water 1 a ter.
The siting of a permanent camp for families would be important so that the experience is as
pleasant as possible; meaning, it was sited on dry land so people could get out and walk,
and near trees anq sun exposure if possible. The. n~ore pleasant the place is to live, the
more families will enjoy living there and impact existing local communities less.
Limited r & r would be available at camp; workers or families v10uld periodically get out to
other areas (larger areas like Anchorage and Fairbanks) for more extended r & r and cultural
activities, etc.
4~ Policies:
a. str-tct regulations where people can go in the upper basin to protect resources, especially
hunting and fishing.
b. No private planes flying in and out.
c. Policy regarding use of personal vehi·cles.
~· -Policy to control public access off corridor.
--
0 ("") • N
01
-\Jill -~--.• --·-.• ' -..• OBJECTIVE II: Plan A cont. 5. Comnutt!r Schedules: ·a. ORGANIZED commuter schedule for those who don't live with families. Could be busing from fairbanks. Anchorage, or Cantwell.
b~ ORGANIZED ai," commuting from Anchorage, or fom Palmer and t·:asilla. ··-
-
(""')
l
N
0'\
---------. ~ .. -OBJECTIVE IV; To limit changes in the Talkeetna and Trapper Creek areas. PLAN A:
1. Access Corridor: Road from Denali Highway to Watana (this would spread the impacts to
include Cantwell). Service road from Watana to Oevil Canyon; no access at all from the west {neither rail nor road).
2. 11ode: road.**
3. Nature of construction camp facilities: The larger the camp, and th~ more services, the
less the impacts on surrounding local col11llunities. Services that would help reduce impacts include: stores, post office11 schools.
Proposal: to construct a 11 mixed campn, meaning a camp where workers live with their families
·if desired, or wher-e workers live in trailers or barracks without families if desired.
Part of the construction camp could/v10uld become a permanent city for the operating p_hase .
.
The temporary camp could be sited and located so that it v1ould be inundated by water later.
' The siting of a permanent camp for families \'JOuld be important so that the experience is as
pleasant as possible: r.teaning, it was sitect on dry lancl so people could ge't out and walk,
and near trees and sun exposure if possible. The more pleasant the place is to live, the
more families will enjoy living there and impact existing local communities less.
Limited r &·r would be available at camp; workers or families·would periodically get ~ut to
other areas (larger areas like Anchorage and Fairbanks) for more extended r & r and cultural activities, etc.
4. Policies:
a. strict regulations \vhere people .can go in the upper basin to protect resources, especially hung1~ and fishing.
b. ilo private planes flying in ctnd out.
c. Policy regarding ose of personal vehicles,
•d. Policy to control public access off corridor.
·-·-
f
l
5. Conmuter Schedules: a~ ORGANIZED commuter scedu1e for those who don•t live with families. Could be busing from Fairbanks, Anchorage, or Cantwell. b. Assumption was made that air corrrnuter would not be reliable enough because of weather. **Rail on this route could be feasible, but was not considered.
----~-----~--(} OBJECTIVE IV: To limit changes in the Talkeetna and Trapper Creek areas. PLAN B: 1. Access Corridor: Either rail to Pevil Canyon orGold Creek, or all rail. No direct road access from the west or north. 2. Mode: rail. 3. Nature of construction camg facilities: Something less than a full service camp would appropriate if the wor.kers can commute in and out to be with their families on a weekly or bi-weekly basis.
4. Policies: the same policies would apply as in Plan A.
5. Commuter Schedules:
a. ORGAiHZED commuter air and rail schedules from the Anchorage and Wasilla-Palmer areas.
~------------------OBJECTIVE V: To encourage changes ]n the Cantwell ~rea, 1. Access Corridor: access from the Denali Highway ttly, with a ra11head at Cantwell. No access from the we~t~ 2. Mode: ra i 1 to t:arrt~<~e ~ ~ and road from Can twe 11 to the l4a tan a site. 3. Nature of construction o1mp facilities: f.1inimal facilities: trailers to sleep in (or
barracks), mess hall, recreation hall, some family housing for supervisor.v personnel.
4. Policies:
a. Individuals dri-ve their own private vehicles to the sites.
b. No policies about wnen workers come and go, from where, or use of private vehicles.
Again, the same as in Objective III: the absence of policies by the state of Alaska {through
the Power Authority) might result in the most changes in Cantwell.
Another kind of policy would be the lack of assertive action: for instance, a state policy to
upgrade only the west side of the Denali Highway (and not the entire route} would encourage
users to come from Cantwell and go back out to Cantwell, rather than driving on through to the
Richa.rdson Highway.
5. Commuter Sch~dules:
.
'
a. None.
b. No policy on public access.
c. No policy on use of fish and game along corridor.
..
--.. -------<-.. ----------n
1 w
0
• OBJECTIVE VI·: To ltmit changes in the Cantwell ar·ea. 1. Access Corridor: access from the Parks Highway on the west; no access at all from the Denali Highway. 2. Mode: either road or railroad. 3. Uature of construction camp facilities: full serv~ce camp, with complete services for all who wish to bring their families. Same description that limits changes in the southern comnunities would also help to limit changes in Cantwell. See Objective IVa. 4. Pol ices:
Same policies that limit changes in the southern con1nunities would help to limit changes in
Cant\'lell also. See Objective IVa.
5. COimlUter Schedules:
ORGANIZED con1nuter schedules <"n some regul a• .. basis (weekly or bi-weekly.)
J
I • I I ·.
I
I
I
I·
I
I
I
-.
I
I ' '
IJ
I
I
I
I
SECT!C~ 2 BACK-UP OAT . .;
CJHMUNITY WORKSHOPS
Corr:munity workshot)s were held ir. Fairbanks, Talkeetna, and Anchora9e
in Harch 1921. in an attempt to detenr.ine what concerns the peoo1e of
these areas had relating to recreation and access planning on the Susitna
hydroe.iectric feasioility study. Information vo~as presented at ~ach
workshop concerning sevet·ai access ana recreation plans and cornents
recorded that could be used to help in access and rec~eation planning.
In all, more than 300 comments were received in response to printed
questionnaires. Of these SO pertained directly to the quest~on of access.
Questionnaires wera also received relating to recreation, but tnese
comments also often related to access.
Parti.ci pants in the \·JOrkshops were present:.:d \vi t.h four a'l ternati ve
access plans w,1ich used various combinations of r·oad and rail a.ccsss in
combination with existing routes (Figure 1). They werr=: 1) Access
Route A -construction of a new road from Hurr"i cane to the Devil Canyon
and Watana sites; 2) Access Route B -construction of a railroad t~ bath
dam sites from Gold Creetc; 3) Access Route.C-construction of a road
from the Dena 1 i Highway to the ~~atana site~ construction of a service
road from Watana to Devi1 Canyon, and construction of a rail~oad spur
0
from Go 1 d Ct·eek to De vi 1 Canyon; and 4) Access Route D -the same as
Route C except that a new road from the Parks Highway wou1d replace the
rail spur.
The following table shows the response of the workshop oarticipants.
C-31
•• I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I·
·I
I
I
••
I
Route • Fa i r·ban s ., a r.eetn~ I nc crage r "·"'1* I I !'~a' l I 1 ' I l • Route A 1 1 . 0 . .. : ! "" ·~~~
k T 1' A h
qoute g 13 i 12 I 1 -I ~ ' ---Route c I 3 I ,. I 0 I 3 ~ I -Route D I 0 0 I ... .,
,J -
:·lo Preference I 1 1 T 0 c I
*t,1a i 1 responses were most 1 y fr=:)m the Anchorage are~ and ref1 ect the
thinking of that area.
C-32
~·ota 1 ,-.,
..;
30
8
5
2
I I I
••
I
I·
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I·
I
I
I
I
This table sh,jws tha":. most of the oeople at:ending ":he workshops in Fairbanks and Ta1keetna favor rail access during and after construction,
Additionally, almost half the peop1e in .~nchot~age favor~d the rail oniy
altertative. Some o~ the reasons given were: 1) fewer environmen~al
impacts; 2) easier to iimit the number of people and types of activity
in surrounding areas; 3) less exo~nsive; and 4) more energy effici~nt.
;~bout ~lf the ?eo~1e in ;\ncnorage and one-thircl of the peopl;:: in
Fairbanks and Talkeetna favored some type of read access because they
cou1d gain access to areas they feel are currently inaccessible~ The
· A1'1chorage peop 1 e tended to favor the Dena 1 i route, btJ~ i r. Fairbanks
several people 3poke out against it because of the po ential adv~rse
effects on cari!Jou calving grounds near that route.
In addition, some people at each workshop indicated the.!' favored no
access or· very 1imited access. Suggestions rar.ged from brining in
supplies duri~g the winter on snow roads to access by air. Those in
favor of air access suggested it as a way to bring workers to the con~truction
s1te that would lessen impacts on other railbelt co1m1unities.
The following is a detailed breakdown of the reasons behind the
preferences expressed in the Fairbanks, Talkeetna, and Anchorage workshops ..
C-33
I I I·
I
I
I.
••
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
••
I
I
I
=AIRSAHKS ( 36 attended, 17 responded)
One who preferred access Route A gave thi~ reason:
1. As a land owner (lottery winner ~ 20 acres in •H·ea east of Indian
River and north of Susitna) I'm in favor of access Route A for ac-
c~ssibi1ity into my property. Thare are a total of iS people who
wi11 be staking up to 20 acres each in the are I 1 ve mentioned ...
Narilyn Stark
Those who preferred access Route B gave these reasons:
L Less environmenta1 damage; less public access the better. Also
iower cost. I dcn 1 t want any access.
2. Route B would give the least acc9ss and thus cause the least human
impact onto land a~d wildl~fe. This is the only hope for preserving
any of the Nelchina caribou herd.
3. I prefer the all rail alternative because it curtails unlimited
public road access. If a road is built, I donlt think there 1 S any
doub't that pressure \>Ji 11 be exerted eventually to open i: to the
public (as with the haul road). The me~e presence of the reservoir(s~
will greatly increase boat and f1oat (and ski) p1ane access, and I
think that's enough (too much, in fact). A railroad is the best
approach to controlling unlimited access. If alternative route A-2
is feasible, then a rail link from Gold Creek to Devil Canyon
should be included, and a road on the north side to ~·latana, jus_L$1L_
the:"..,e i sn • t road access a 11 the way in .
4. a) lowest S cost to build and operate
b) possib1e interruotions in impor~ed oii supo1y make more fuel-
efficient railroads desirable
C-34
I I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11
" IJ
I~
I,.
1 ..
c) I 'n concerned about impac:: on D.:nal i Higtn·1ay 5. Hinimal cost; minimal impact on fish and wildlife, wetlands; :Jinima1
access; minimal fue1 consumption; r:iinima1 other energy waste.
1~ short RAIL ONLY IS THE NEXT ROUTE TO ~tO:·IE AT ALL.
6. This choice minimizes impact if I m~st choose an access.
r also see th~s es a way to control access as ~fit is a puolic
project spcnsoreo by publicS and tne public can legally demanc
access (i.e. tne haul road). But if A, could be fully control1ed
I'd go with that because as reads it causes minimal imoact.
7. I would prefer no access from the Denali Highway and I think this i~
the vn1y access route that prevents this. Also, I think maybe a
railroad line could be built to Devil Canyon then a service road
could be b~ilt on the north Side of the river to Watana. The
engineering con~erns might put construction back two or three years,
out this v1ou1a save 100 years effect on wildiife and environmental
concerns.
8. Since feasibility studies on· the whole nydro studies are inccmplete
and inconclusive, as we11 as studies on access routes, one cannot
make a we11 informed decis.ion at this time. Ther-efore, I canr,o~
find any particular route acceptable. However, since a rail access
route would be most limiting to private vehicu1al~ traffic,. i favor
it over others, since l value the existinc recreational and scenic
potential, and hope for a minimal change i~ those potentials.
9. a} railroad right-of-way has less impact than a road or high\tJay.
b) access of the generai public ·fs better controlled into the area.
c) construction of the railroad appears to be less costly way to
go. You can haul more material o~ freignt on one train than what
60 trucks could do.
C-35
I I ••
I
I
I
I
I
• B.
·~
I
I
••
I
I
I
I
-··
I
1~. ·to licit the access tc recreationa~ists~ no recreational vehicles: I"O speed boats ..
11. no road; cositS less; costs less to maintain road.
12. Rai! cnly has the ieast iong ~erm impact. l feel this should oe
considered even if it puts ycrur start~ng date for cons-tr-uction back
1-3 years. The added time (i.e. setback) will be the best for the
long ter·m. I favor as little impact. (I prefer !!2. Susitna dam).
I~ the dam was built --rail should be the on1r access.
13. With a railroad spur which will be needed to move ~n the big
turbines and other pieces of equipment yru will not need a road
system and it is a.1 so the less costiy of a 11 of the access r·outes
and it will keeR the area wilderness and limit public access .
ihose who favored access Rout~ S qave tnese rea~ons:
1. The highway access via the Denali should be eliminated if ucu is
considered (environmental concerns and mainstream development to
the south are prime reasons for this cnoice. I would ~iY.e to see
interccnstruction development at rail nodes kept to a ;nir.imum and
a consistent awareness for the local habitants kept as a forerunninc ...
concern .
2. Most expedient, hence lowest cost esoecially as regards Watana.
3. Apparently 1owest impact on wildlife habitat a1on~ Dena1i Highway.
Watana route, depending on recreational plan decided on.
4. The least environmental impact.
No reason for favoring Route D.
One cominent with no choice:
' -
L I don r t fee 1 I have enough i nfor·ma ti on as to the pros and cons of
I •• . . c
••
I
I.
I·
I
I
I
••
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
••
route . . Eacn one interferes wi~h wilclife habitat and migration routes .;n
about equal ways, it seems.
Using a railroad seems a 1ess disturbing way --it can control
access --but a road cannot. Even the railroad will allow off roa~
vehicles to get in there.
T.4LKE~NA (38 attended, 17 responded)
These who favored access Route A did so for these reasons:
1. Keep the countryside as much 1 ike it is as pass ible.
2. a) Retain the wilderness status of this ared as much as possible.
b) I do not accept the assumption that there will be public access.
c) Ra i 1 acce~s from Goi d Cre~k vii th tourists riding in and out
may be acceptable .
d) I especially don't want to se~ boats on the take and their c.s-
e)
sociated hunting and fishing, camping, etc. pose a great threat
to th~ wilderness.
Large buffer zones of no access on the 1ake and power line.s.
3~ Minimum road access.
Those wh~ favored access Route B did so for these reaso~s;
1. a) restrict private and commercial vehicles to the sites.
b) environmental impact of railroad (after construction) wouid
ap~ear to be much less severe than a road.
1) no stopping, parking, shooting, etc. from the side of the
road.
2) no 4 x 4 1 S or ATVls .ririving off into the wilderness.
C-37
I I I
I
I
I
I
••
I
I
••
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
c) cheaoes: alternative d) least impact o~ communities.
1) waul d 1 imi-;; the manoO\'Jer· to a it transoor:.
2. Least pub,ic impact, ye: allowing those that are willing to go
through the trouble to get there, the.ways and the means tc do so.
Also, once complet~d possibly would bi 1es~ problem maintain1ng.
3. Least adverse effect on environmen: over long te!in.
4~ The railroad ;·,auld at least minimize impact on the area.
5. Limit access for construction and ma~ntf\nance only~ no public road
needed; railroad easiest to regulate in ~:11is manner couid be removed
after construction is finished .
o .. Rai1belt area already handles population. Expancing this""service is
easier thart devEtloping new population centers ~r areas. ?uo';ic
access is cor.ta·ined to ~ertain places (designated by train stops).
7. Railroad only gives greater central over access. Americans must and
can learn tc divorce themselves from their· vehicles. With railroad
or.iy, you gain granter co~trcl over total numbers ?01ng to the site
and also contrc11 over· develooments along t!1P. route.
8. Would get the project completed with the least amount of ---
9. The ra. i 1 road w<)U 1 d be far more economi ca 1 way to move materia 1 s 'fli th
the least lcn;-lasting impact.
10. Lea,$t impact on area and future generations wi1 i get to sc:e and enjoy
it as 1t was. People donlt bring their ATV with them on the train,
nc;' do they have the ability to stop ~~ery\·Jhere. 7n.: area a1on~ rail-
roads is less impacted than areas along Foads. And oeopie in the
future will travel via public transportation no~ private cars.
11. limits access by the masses by train or air. I am 10m. oppcsed to any
road use especia'1ly as it applies to vehicular {private autosj.
C-38
I I .. ,, One favored C over A for this reason:
I
1. The reaso~ for·'1Tly choice bet\•leen A or C is co3t. I 1 i ve c1cse to
~ile 99~ Parks Highway. l'm not n~cessarily excited abau~ more reads
I but there ~s u need. If a road is put in hopefully the wildlife wcu1d be
protected for all to see and enjoy. No hunting permitted close to the
I highway. Perhaps park rangers would teach ;Jeople h0\'1 to appreciate and
care for their state. • l d . .. 1 .,, 1 ' JUS 1.. 1 r,€ to see people enjoy Alaska as we did
I 16 years ago before it becama overcrowded.
I No one favored-D.
I One didn't mark a choice~ but noted this comment:
I This meeting is supJ=osed to be part of a feasibi:ity study so you shouldn't
be giving just four options to choose from. I resent the fee1ing you give
I me 4 that you are trying to sell me a plan with a few opti~ns to choose f~~m.
If I must accept this dam then I favor access routes that anew the least
I amount of public access and the least amount of human popu1ation growth.
The social and economic aspects of the dam will have the grea~est impact
I on the natur~l environment, and they should be minimiz~d. The haphazard
I way you gather cor.1ments is not good. It favors people who .are most vocal
and doesn't give a true consensus of opinion. The less people that e"ter
I the area the b~tter. H. C. Schwab
I a
ANCHORAGE (40 attended, 4 responded)
I No one oreferred access Route A.
I
I
I C-39
I I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
••
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
One creferred access Route 8 for this reason: 1. Access E wi11 lim~t impacts.
ls it possi:,le to mail materia1s ahead of time so pub1i~ can study"?
~~hy hasn't Corps study been read:?
Has effect oi overail population on r~ci~ction been considered?
~·Jhy isn't more hard data available to public?
No one preferred C.
Three ~referred D for these reasons: -
l. This alternative wi11 provide auick access for construction· \>Jith
.. ... . t" 1 b ... ,. 1 at.er max1mum recrea 1 ona ener1 ... . C is second choice, A is third,
B is fourth.
2. ?rovides ma~imum public access to otherNise inaccessible areas.
3.
Provides better acc~~s from Anchorage to Denali Highway area. The
greater length of highway system decreases hunting pressure on any
segm~nt of i"Oad or nearby fly in lar:es.
Additional routas allow for '1exibility and diverstiy in hauling in
materials, equipm•nt and supplies.
The serv'ce road between the dam MUST be open for the pub1ic as public
funds will be used for ---This access t~ tnis area is required
regard)ess of dam constructton~
Prefer 0 with modifications·
Road mode is most flexible during construction phase and mas~ useable
by the public after construction --I am very familiar witn the country
and favor a road from Rurricane to Devi1 Canycn, then cross the ~iver
and on to Watana on the north side --this segment will have south
slope aspect (much better than south side of ~ver), a lot Jf wincl
C-40
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
' I
I
I
I
I
I
I
posure so wi11 be ~asier to keep snow free --! do no: fa~or cor-
struction from ~enali Hignway south to Watana that is ~nnecessa~
;f .the abcve scheme were followed --oer-'11afrost, wetlands impacts and
deep snow problems abound on this route --the prefer't~d "Watana
cons:ruction· fir·st 11 can be accompiished w·ith this proposal as you
v1ill have to cross at Devi1 Canyon anyway--this routing v16uld also
avoid some very difficult construction along 30llth side of Su east of
Devil Canyon.
t-1AIL (11 responded, most1.>' from the Anchorage area)
One who E;eferred access Route A aave this reason:
1. Felt a road to both dam s~tes would be of benefit to all parties,
both during e.nd after construction.
2. No practical reason to build road from Denali~ the majori~y of workers
will be coming from Anchorage and Fairbanks and for the few worke-rs
from Delta, Glennallen, and Paxon the extra distance wouldnlt justify
the cost. Tourists will come frorn Anchoraga also.
Those who favored access Route B gave these reasons.
1. a)
2 ..
b)
c)
a)
b)
minimal disruption to existing recreation patterns
minimal tax dollar waste to accommodate governmentally contr4 ived
recreation programs~ frivo1ity in a time of serious national needs.
minimal imposed detriments to the habitat .
.
ra i1 access sufficient for construction and mai ntCstance:
delay is a plus -more time to study environmental implications
such as impact on Cook Inlet fisheries.
c) rail access least expensive.
C-41
•
I I ~'
I•
I·
I
1:
1:.
I
••
I
. I··
••
••
I
I
I
I
I
I
3. ra i1 access 1 ess~r evi 1 as access cou1 d be more effectively 1 imi ted.
The potentia 1 loss of wetl ar.cs and i·ap:c~r nesting hao; tat is par-
ticularly disturbing.
4. a) cheapest (don't v1aste money}
b) disturbs the vii I derness 1 east; can be t'emov~d v1hen !:oth dams
<1re built.
c) access for maintenance by float p1ane or helicopter.
a) hard to maintain either a railroad Jr highway in heavy snow or
co1d winters.
5. restricts or limits access and has minimal effect to the area.
One who favored C or D crave these reasons .
1. G~ts away from the scheduling problems of A and B.
2. Economically best afta-B.
3. Opens up large new area for recreation .
4. Preserves the environ~ntal integrity of the roe:dless south siae of
the river .
iwo •~Jho favored access Route C oave these ,..easons .
1. !~aving worked fer the Dept. of H1ghways ~n the area. for 2.0 year.s,
observation that a road from the Denali would be easie~t to build
and maintain; less hills, less wetlands, and is more suited to road ..... ..
construction.
2. A) provides easy access for construction and opens up beautiful
areas for recreational purposes.
C-42
I I
I
I
I
·~
I;
I
I
••
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
b) highway access is importan~ not only for construction but for
continued public access net de~endent ~f train scnedules cr
passenger services limitations.
Two who favor-ed al~cess Rou-:e 0 oave these reasons:
1. Wou 1 d 1 et mast a 11 highway tra ve 11 e-rs see one dam a rea while keeping
2.
the Watana area under less pressure by peopie.
Don't want to see State and Federal governments involved in rai1road
unless the State purchases the railroad before the dams are cons:ructed.
a) no service road between dams.
b) construct and service power lines between dams with helicooters. . . .
c) boat access to reservoirs; road access would make it lock like .
Bi; Lake.
MINERS AND GAME GUIDE QUESTIONNAIRES
T'.'iO separate questi anna ires were distributed: ·one to game guides
registered in Unit 13 of the Upper Susitna Basin~ the other to members
of the Alaska t~iners Association in Fairbanks and Anchoraoe. The came .. .,
guide questionnaire was mailed to 200 guides and 29 responses wer-e
received, a return of 15~. The miners' questionnaires were given to
'"'':'embers of the t~iners A~' iation in Fairbanks and the Beare of Directors
in Anchorage. It is not known how many were aist:ributed. Eighteen were
returned.
Fifty-six (56) pe~cent of the game guides were tn favor of public
access while 315; were opposed. Responses on what game habitats should
not be disturbed were varied, but tended to indicate several areas of
conce:n. One was the Deadman's Creek drainage and the area south of the
C-43
I I
I
I
I"
I
J:
I
I
I
I
••
I
I
I
I
·-
1
Denali Highway that is 'Jti1ized by the Ne1china caribou here. ·Jti1er
areas mentioned were the Susitna River proper and several of i~s majcr
tributary areas. Tha project area in general was seen to be a };rime game
and fishing area. Over 40% of ~he guides favored rail only access and
this was often mentioned as first cnoice. with others iisted second or
third.
The questionnaire ·included a map (Fi0ure 2) that showed four access
routes. These were not the s~me routes that were presented at the com-
munity work~f'tops. The reason for this is the route north of the Susitna
was eliminated from consiceration due to environmental and engineering
problems around the Port~ge Creek area.
Almost a 11 the mi ~ers ( 90;'~} favored some type of public access,
but the questionnaire did not present a~ ternati ve routa.s. t4ost of this
group used the general project ar·ea far same type of minera1 re1ated
activity and use was limited to_summer months.
C-44
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
GA~1E GUIDE QUESTIONNAIRE .. February and i"arch 1981
L ~_w_ha_t .... , -n .. ~as __ cf the Susitna River basin do vou use?
2.
3.
General answers included Upper Susitna, Tsusena Valley, Clark Creek~
Talkeetna River to Kosina Creek, Denali Creek area, Clarence Lake,
Lake Louise, Watana CreeK~
8 said they used ·a11 or most of it. 5 said they used none of it.
What kind of usa?
25 considered themselves primarily game guides. Of these~ 19 included
the words "hunt_ing and fishing 11 as ~art of their ~ccupaticn, such as
in "guiding hunting and f1shing tri-ps". A· total of 22 included 11 hur:ting
or '*fi shingu p 1 us some other use~ such as "mining, prospecti ng 11
, "rock-
hounding:!, 11 trappiogu, "rafting 11 , or "phc'tography".
What level of use do you give these areas?
The wcrds uheavy··, "moder.ate 11
, and 11 1ight 11 wer·e used in similar pro-
portion. The seasons listed most were spring th~ougn fall. Three
persons respondeo that they use the area frow eight months to a11 year.
Specificajly:
May .. October:
June -October:
July .. August: . s • .June ~ ep~... :
August -Sep.t.:
3
2
1
l
2
Ju11' -Sept. :
Hay -Dec.:
10 mo./!year:
Apr.-May/Aug.-Sept.
\-lhat_9,..ame habitats should not be di sturbeq]_
1
1
i .
I ...
Snecific locations mentioned included Watana Creek, Kosina Creek,
Jay Creek, the area along the Susitna River, Fog Creek~ north and
southwest of Mocsehorn Lake, Stephan Lake~ Clarence Lake. Big Lake,
a~ong the Alaska Railroad proposed, Portage Creek, Butte ~ake, Otter
Lake. One person expressed concern about the possible disturbance
of swan ana salmon spawning grounds. Several expressed concern for
the habitats of moose, grizzly and black bear, and caribou. Some
specific statements were:
Impossible to list, Big Su is a key game habitat; effort
should be made to stay near water with all travel.
Caribou migration routes, winter moose areas, black and
grizzly bear denning areas.
The area bounded bJ Portage Creek to the west, the Susitna
River to the south and east and the Dena 1 i Hi gh\'1ay to
the north is the best game country left in the Talkeetna
Hountains.
Wintering areas in all major drainages should not be disturbed.
Those who saw no problems if game habitats are disturbed: 9 .
Those who mentioned concern about the disturbance in specific locations,
or of specific animals, or disturbance of the wilderness in general: 16.
C-45
•• I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
5.
6.
7.
0 v.
}ibich access co you orefer?
The guides wc:re g~ven four choices: Corridor 1 -.No""th sice of
Susitna River from Taikeetna: Corridor 2 -South side of Susitna
River from Talkeetna; Corridor 3 ,... :·~orth from Denali highway; and
Railroad-South side cf Susitna Ri'ler. They \-Jere a1so. aliowed to
check a11 the boxes they felt were acceptab1e.
Corridor 1
Corridor 2
CorridO':"' 3
6
11
10
Rai1road · 18
Left it blank a
Answered ··none of the above" 1
Answered l;whutever is cneapest and best 11 1
Reasons for the above choice:
Comments supporting the railroad inc1uded: "less vehicle access
means 1ess impact on the animal population and the environment"; OR
''It would be more direct.u When specific corridors were chosen,
the comments tended to be ger,eral about the possible distrubance
-·
of one or another animai popul;tion4 Occasionally thet~e v1as a specific
individual comment, such as, ur supposd it's j~st selfishness b~.rt
Corridor 1 come c1osest to the access I use."
Would you like to see public access to the o!'"oject area by Privately-
owned vehicles after· construction :s comoleted?
Yes:
No:
18
10
Hot sute:
Limited access only:
N.o response:
Reason, for position on oublic access:
..
l
1
? -
Those vtho said ves: I'm paying for it so I • 11 use it; I support hydro
power; all Americans have the right to all of America with the ex-
ception of land that is privately owned; we need tourist development
and recreationa1 development.
Those who said no: There will be an innundation of people; business
will suffer; ariimal habitats will be destroyed along the river; would
prefer tne ar~a be left a wilderness; what will haopen to the fish;
this is a power project, not a recreational facility.
Respondents to this questionnaire reside in:
Anchorage 9 Haines 1
Eagle River 1 Chugiak 2
Palmer· 3 Homer 1
Cantwell 1 Ketchikan 1
l.·li 11 ow 3 Juneau l
Gustavus 1 Kasi 1 of 1
Fairbanks 1 Wasilla 1
Tok Highway 1 No name or address 1
C-46
•• I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
••
I.
I
I
I
I
i>UNERS QUESTIONNAIRE ·-Februar·y and :·1arcn 1931
, -·
2.
...
.;:).
4-
~1ember of what group or groupt:,
Fairbanks Alaska Miners 11
Anchorage A1aska Miners 6
Nome A las~. a r~; ners 1
Interior ~1aska Trappers 0
Southcentral ~rappers 0
Registered guide 1
Other~ Fur Taker~ of America 1
Wha~.; nart of the Uooer Sus i tna
-I
basin is
Almost every respondent had a different
Watana Creek 1
Coal Creek 1
Portage Creek·
Tsusena Creek 1
Valdez Creek 1
Oshetna and
Black Rivers 1
Oevi1 Canyon 1
11iners reside in~
Fairbanks 10
Anchorage c
Macl~ren River 1
Palmer 1
.
of oarticul ar interest
anS\ver. Spec! fica 11y
Butte Creek 1
Clear11a'te-r Htns. 1 .
Fog Lakes 1
Gold Creek 1
Chu1itna 1
r·~ .. .. ·1ac 1 aren .!.
A11 parts 4
No parts 1 • Upper Susitna Basi~ 1
to you:
they were:
One resoondent who answered the form in detai1 said, H.Qf course,
the i•taciaren is of major interest to me since that is my home base.
However, 1 would ~e violently opposed to using ~he Oena1i Highway as
as dam access. Aside from the esthetic reasons, it v1ocld be an
economic disaster for me, as a major portion of my trao1ine runs
from Nile 7 Denali Highway to ~1i1e 71."
What area of ~he river basin do you currently use:
Answers mirrored those above. Specifically;
Watana Creek 2 Butte Creek 1
Co a 1 Creek . 1 C 1 ea rwa ter t1tns . 1
Chu1 i tna Canyon 1 Lov~er Susi tna 1
Chulitna Cre~k 1 Upper Susitna 1
Stephan-Fog Lakes 1 Upper + Middle 1
South side-Susitna Upper Tsusena Creek 1
drainage of Devil Canyon 1
Fhunilma Creek 1 N/A 1
None
\4hat kind "f use?
Minerals exploration 2 Recreation/rest 2
irapping wolves that Mining .. ...
"" prey on wintering 1 Hunti ng/fi shin; 4
moose Hardrock minerals 1
Hineral development 1 None. l Trapping 1 N/A '1
C-47
-•• . ••
I "'.,....,-
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
· 5 ~ ~~hat 1 ev~ 1 cf use d,o you gi ~e the areas :
Licht use wa3 listed most frequen:ly, though moderate and heavy
use were also pu: down. Specific aates:
June -· September 7
Oct. 15 -April 1
plus Sept. deer hunt 1
None 1
N/A 1
Fall and Winter 2
Year-round 1
September -October 1
6. Would you like to see public acces~ via orivatelv-owned vehicle
after constrtJction is comoleted?
Yes 16
No 2
7. What is the orincipal reason for your position an access?
Yes answers·:
Access to potentially productive mineral deposits
Pubiic funds, pub1ic use
Recreation use
Hunting and flshing
...
~
10
3
1
One respondent who answered yes, added, ·•1 strongly feel ~e should
extract all minerals from this area before we compl~te the darn and
begin flooding the area."
No answers:
The area is undisturbed now, don'~ want to lose that 1
The game population will be driven down 1
•
C-48
I I
I
I
I
I
I _.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-I
"
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
t~ORKSHOP # 3
. March 1981
A C C E S S R 0 U T E S E L E C T I 0 N Q U E S T I 0 N N A I R E
1. Which Access routes do you find acceptable?
A --__ B __ c D --
2. Please give the reasons for your choices.
--------------------~-... ·--------
C-49
•• • I
I
••
I
I , ..
I ..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•••
I
I
I
I
QUESTIONHtd.P.E FOH GA~1E GUlilES, UiHT 13 i· . ..:; r~ll , 1 981
Pase 37
~\ 1#.:\.SU"'\ J»c ~lVI·:I( .\ ~ nl'.llt ,!: I't"r
ACCESS TG PROPOSED SU~iTN.A :IYDROELECiRtC Pf.!O~ECT
2. What kind of use? -----------------
3. ~hat level of use do you give those ~r~as? {Be dS specific as pcssib~e: motttns
Oi y~ut? every year-'! heavy, mod~ra te o1· 1 i gh t'! ~ tc. ?}
4 . Pllase 1 ist t-he location of significant game habitats that you feel should not be
oisturbed. ~ae as specific as possible. Efforts · .. ;ill be made to avoi~ kt:!y game
habitats.
• r
f
Look. at the rnap on the back of the yr: 11 ow
Che<;l, ~l.l l~ ones_ X£'!. fir!£ ~c~pp_Labl~.
--Corridor one Cor~idor twu -
flyer. ~·Jh i ch acce5s do you ~-Jrt: f·:r·~
Corr-idor three Ra i 1l .. oac ---·----
5. 0 lease give your r~asons for your choices in =5. (Your reasons give tne ~lanners
im()ortunt information to use in UIJ~:ing tneir· recolumendations for an access clan.}
7. :!auld you like to set! publh: ,1c~e~s to the ~usitnd hydroelectric uroject area by
privately owned venicle aftc:r lht~ conslruction is completed?
---·-=:---------·--------------------·------
&. .~hat is the pr-inciple reason ftir you,· po~ition Otl public access tc tn·e projec~ area?
;iAHE · PHONE
--------~--------------------------------,;QQRE:S
----------------------------------------------------~
ZIP ---
Thank ,~uu for yout· assistance: Please retur·n this f()nn before t·tarch 15th to:
Alasku Po\·l(:t· Authority
Public Participation Office
333 ~a~t 4th Avenue, Suite 31
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
C-50
I I
I
I
I
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
••
I
I
I
1.
UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA. FAIRBANKS
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 .
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
RECREATION PLAN
Public Forum Questionnaire
The development approach I most prefer is ·
(1etter) • (List only one.) -
2. Do you have any suggested modification to the above selected approach?
P·1ease number each suggestion.
3. Why did you chose your particular approach?
4. a. In which region of the state do you 11ve:
Anchorage
Fairbanks
Railbelt.(between Anchorage and Fairbanks)
b. How would you classify the place where you live?
Urban Small town --
Rural Rural remote
Other .•• list
c. Do you r-epresent a particular interest group? If so, please list.
You may use the back side for a.ny additional corrments.
Thank you.
C-51
I I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I·
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPEN&IX D
CONTINGENCY RISK METHODOLOGY
,
I I '
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
••
••
I
I·
I
ACCESS ROAD
METHODOLOGY FOR QUANTITATIVE RISK ANALYSIS FOR ROAD VS. RAIL LINK ACCESS ONLY.
1 -Background and Definition
The 11 risk 11 that is addressed here is the increased risk associated with
stoppages and delays involved with a rail link access only. A road access
is more flexible to adapt to different adverse situations than a rail is.
2 -Approach
(a) Identify and list possible adverse events which could occur for a
rail access that could result in stoppages and delays. Examples
are as follows.
-Rail Strike by the rail workers.
-There is a possibility (a 1ow probability of occurance) that
the teamsters would tie up the job if a rail link access only is
;·mplemented. This would occur in rebellion of a plan to utilize
rail and not truck, thus eliminating, some teamster jobs. This
probabi.lity would be greater if an all rail route were planned
however the combination truck/rail reduces this probability
considerably.
-Earthquake, mudslide, flood. In these occurances,.which are low
probability occurances, the risk in delays is associated with
longer delays for putting a rail line back in service than a
roadway. Jn other words the risks of an· earthquake, mudslide,
etc. are· equal when comparing a road ver.sus rai 1 however a roadway
is more flexible and could be put back into service in a shorter
period of time.
-Derailments -The risk and resulting damaqe in derailments involves
not only delays in putting the line back in service, but in lost
cargo also.
D-1
I I
I·
••
I
I
I
I
I
I·
I
I
I
-Breakdown:s -The risk in breakdowns is the same as derailments
however the duration of the delays is very small (in order of hours,
not days or weeks) and the cargo generally is not lost •
(b) For each event determ.ine the length of delay and any consequences
other than ct1s ts of the de 1 ay.
(c) For each event determine the probability that the event could
occur. This will entail review of historical records to determine
the occurance of such events in the past.
(d) For each event determine the cost penalties associaten with each
event or delay.
(e) To arrive at a cost figure associ a ted with each event, or the "cost
of i.nsurance 11 for each event, multiply the total damages of each
event X the probabi'lity of that event occuring over the life of the
projecti
cost of insurance = damage X probability
tf) Sum the "cost of insurance" for each event to arrive at a total:
"cost of insurance" figure.
3 -Alternattve Approach
An alternattve approach i.s the multiple probability approach. In this
approach the road ts estimated to have some multiple of the probability
of adverse events than a rail i.s. This is to say a multiple of events
would have to occur with a road to cause the: same delays or damages one
si:ng1e. e.vent would wtth a rail.
Cal De.te.rmtne. the multiple of probabtlities the road is in comparison to
a ratl.
Chl De.termtne the overall total number of days and costs that could be
lost due. to adverse events ..
D-2
I I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"'
{.c) Determine a ·probabi'lity of occurance which would include all events
and d~termine the total 11 cost of insurance" ..
{d) Due to the multiple probability of a road, multiply the probabilities
of the road and determine the ucost of insuranceu for the road. {For
example if it is determined there is a 1% {$01) probability of delays
which is used to determine the cost of insurance, and it is determined .,
the road has twice the probability or twice the number of events,
which would have to occur, the probability associated with the road
is (.01) X (.01) = .0001}.
D-3