Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA1347~ .. r.l ., ~,J· '] i -, if ·J • ff ' ' w -. }_ ' .".]j-·ir' ij i • ··"'-"--·---.---.:C.o-2.-......... __ ,-.. .';__; ~----~------'<-----" _,_ ··~ " .. --~--~-;,I. i,\ ~\~ - [}{]&OO~& c ~00£~©@ Susitna Joint Ventur1:1 Document Number l Please Return To 1 DOCUMENTCONTROL .1 ,L---~~~------~ G;d/ SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT r::) Prepared by: . ~~~m TRANSMISSION LINE CORRIDOR SCREENING CLOSEOUT REPORT -·· TASK 8-TRANSMISSION FINAL DRAFT SEPTEMBER 1981 HAIRZA.,EBASC: Susitna Joint Venture Document Number Please Return To DOCUP-nENT ce~~1'~":"1~ L. p( •• ' I -~-... ~.h ,'j r=·l, ==· .·ALASKA POWE-R AUTHORITY~::---· .. J . ... :? // /! ;/ tf.i "1 ,, _( I; I I I "I ~. -. I I ' I I I I ,) J _I I -,. J ,J "" .. ..____~---· ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY SuSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT TRANSMISSION LINE CORRIDOR SCREENING CLOSEOUT REPORT TASK 8 -TRANSMISSION FINAL DRAFT RECEiVED MAY 0 5 1983 HARZA-EBASCO Susitna Joint Venture SEPTEMBER 1981 ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED 1000 Liberty Bank Building Main at Court Buffalo, New York 14202 Telephone: (716) 853-7525 !3 ' " :~ >: ,:~ :l ,; '~ ( t c i ·; ~ ~ f 1 • ' ~ § i' i ;I ~~ I l l ' ; ·.~I' 1 . 1 .. ~. II i ·-L 11 .J ,. ..... ..~ ... '~·­r ~-" l ''~<':.,# ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT TASK 8 -TRANSMISSION SUBTASK 8.01 -CLOSEOUT REPORT TRANSMISSION LINE CORRIDOR SCREENING TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ..................................................... . LIST OF FIGURES ................................................... . 1 -INTRODUCTION 1.1-Organization of Report ·····················~·········· 1.2-Existing Transmission Systems in the Railbelt ······w~. 1.3-Plan Formulation and Selection Process «~·~············ 2 -SUMMARY 2.1-Scope of Work {Section 3) ..................•.......... 2.2-Previous Studies (Section 4) ······················u··· 2.3-Selection of Alternative Corridors (Section 5) ....... . 2~4-Screening of Corridors (Section 6) ................... . 2.5 -Conclusions and Recommr~ndations (Section 7) .......... . 3 -SCOPE OF WORK 3.1-Objectives ..•.•........................................ 3.2-Approach ................................................ . 4 -PREVIOUS ST~DIES 4.1-The Corps of Engineers Study ......................... . 4.2-The IECO Report ···································~··· 5 -SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVE CORRIDORS 5.1-Objective .............................................. . 5. 2 -Data Base ............................................. . 5 . 3 -As s ump t i on s . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . • . . . 5.4-Selection Criteria ................................... . 5.5 ~ Identification of Corridors ....•...................... 5.6-Description of Corridors ....... 5 •••••••••••••••••••••• 6 -SCREENING OF CORRIDORS 6.1 -Objective ....•....................... 0 •••••••••••••••• 6.2-Uata Base ............................................ . 6 . 3 -Assumptions .....•.... 0 ................................ . 6 • 4 - R e 1 i ab i 1 i t y ........•........ " .......................... . 6.5-Screening Criteria ................................... . 6.6-Screening Methodology ··············~·············ft···· 6.7-Screening Results ...........•.............•........... i Page iii iv 1-1 "j -2 1-2 2'-1 2-J 2-2 2-2 2-3 3-1 3-1 4~1 4-1 5-1 5-1 5-] 5-2 5-3 5-3 6-1 6-1 6-1 6-1 6-2 6-9 6-10 : 0 I I ~ I ' ~I ·~ \4i : • 1 r I i~J I' }~ ! -') ;,1 l d I IOj . ; r . I I I I ·-·~l ·~ I. 1: ,._,:.;..~ ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT TASK 8 -TRANSMISSION SUBTASK 8.01 -CLOSEOUT REPORT TRANSMISSION LINE CORRIDOR SCREENING TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont•d) 7 -CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1-Conclusions ······················••e••················ 7.2 -Recommendations .....•.....•..•• ~ ....•...••....••.•..•. 7. 3 -Other .................................................. . 8 -BIBLIOGRAPHY AND AUTHORITIES CONTACTED APPENDIX A -GENERIC PLAN FORMULATION AND SELECTION METHODOLOGY B -SOILS INFORMATION C -REVIEW OF PREVIOUS STUDIES D -RECORD OF EVENTS ii -I 1 1 I Page I 7-1 7-5 7-6 'I 'I I I I I I I I I I I I rl L~ .J I~ I I~ I j I] 1·: --~ 1·. ~-• I, .... -:::..~- LIST OF TABLES Number 1.1 5.1 Title Utility Companies Serving the Railbelt Area Techni ca 1, Economi ca 1 ~ and En vi ronmenta 1 Criteria Used in Corridor Selection Environmental Inventory -Southern Study Area Environmental Inventory -Central Study Area Environmental Inventory -Northern Study Area 6.1 Economical and Technical Screening Southern Study Area 6.2 Economical and Technical Screening -Central Study Area 6.3 Economical and Technical Screening -Northern Study Area 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 Environmental Constraints -Southern Study Area Environmental Constraints -Cental Study Area Environmental Constraints -Northern Study Area Summary of Screening Results A.l Step 2 -Select Candidates A.2 A.3 A.4 B.l 8.2 C.l C .. 2 Step 3 -Screening Process Step 5 -Plan Evaluation and Selection Examp1es of Plan Formulation and Selection Methodology Soil Associations within the Proposed Transmission Corridors- General Description Offroad Trafficability Limitations (ORTL) and Corrmon Crop Suitability (CCS) Definitions for Offroad Trafficability Limitations and Common Crop Suitability of Soil Associations Corridor Analysis-Project Power to Anchorage/Cook Inlet Area Corridor Analysis Project Power to Fairbanks/Tanana Area . , .. . , 1 1 0 1: I LIST OF FIGURES I I I I I Number 1.1 5.1 5 .. 2 5.3 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 1 7.7 'I I I I: I I I 7.8 A.l C.l Title Anchorage to Fairbanks Proposed and Existing Transmission line Corridors Alternative Transmission Line Corridors Southern Study Area Alternative Transmission Line Corridors Central Study Area Alternative Transmission line Corridors Northern Study Area· Recommended Tr ansmi ssi on Corridor Southern Study Area Recommended Transmission Corridor Southern Study Area Reco11111ended Tr ansmi ssi on Corridor Central Study Area Recommended Transmission Corridor Central Study Area Recommended Transmission Corridor Northern Study Area Recommended Transmission Corridor Northern Study Area Recommended Tl" ansmi ssi on Corr·i dor Northern Study Area Recommended Transmission Corridor NOI"thern Study Area Plan Formulation and Selection Methodology Devil Canyon Projects, Transmission Segments iv ri t~ u [! 1 .. 1 f &' IE ILL 1 -INTRODUCTION The Acres American Incorporated (Acres) Plan of Study (POS) for the Susitna Hydroelectric Project was issued by the Alaska Power Authority (APA) for publ·ic review and corrrnEnt in 1980. The POS outlined the selection of the most environ- mentally, economically, and technically acceptable route for transmission lines which would carry power from the proposed Watana and Devil Canyon damsites to the cities of Fairbanks and Anchorage. Subsequent to February 1980, APA engaged Commonwealth Associates, Incorporated, (CAI) to study and recommend a location for a proposed transmission line inter·- tie between the Anchorage and Fairbanks electrical utility systems (see Appendix D -Record of Events). The existing Fairbanks transmiss~·11n system extended southward to Healy, and the Anchorage transmission system terminated in the vicinity of Willow. The corridor connecting Willow and Healy will be designated for the purpose of this report as the Intertie Corridor; this corridor must also contain the Susitna transmission lines. The corridor, therefore, is a north- south alignment along the Susitna/Chulitna/Tanana river valleys. See Figure 1.1 for general location of the study area. This report, therefore, contains the results of studies conducted by Acres to determine the optimum corridor locations to bring power: 1) from the damsites to the connection with the Intertie; 2) from the.northern terminus of the Inter- tie at Healy to Fairbanks; and 3) from the southern terminus of the Intertie at Willow to Anchorage. The resu.ts of this report will be used in the license ap- plication submittal to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 1.1 -Organization of Report In order to improve readability of the report, it is structured in seven sec- tions as follows: Section 1 contains the introduction. Section 2 is a summary of the work undertaken and the findings to date. Section 3 describes the scope of work and approach ·~+:ilized to meet the study objectives. Section 4 briefly summarizes previous studies of transmission line corridors conducted in the railbelt area by others. Section 5 discusses the methodology and results of the corridor selection study conducted by Acres and a brief description of alternative corridors. Figures 5.1 through 5.3 show the alternative corridors investigated. Section 6 presents the screening of corridors and the criteria established by Acres for that purpose which are hased on environmental, economical, and techni- cal aspects. The methodology of screening is also discussed. Table 6.7 shows the summary of the screened corridors, together with their ratings. 1-1 L ! .· j l '1 1 l l1 II' 'i l I I~ I .~ I . ~ 11 ..c& The findings and recommendations are discussed in Section 7. Figures 7o1 through 7. 8 show tt1e 1 ocat ion of the recommended corridor. The following appendices are also included; A -Generic Plan Formulation and Selection Methodology B -Soils Information C -Critique of Previous Reports D -Record of Events 1.2 -.£~.sting Transmission Systems in the Railbelt The railbelt area is presently served by three separate transmission systems. Each system operates independently and maintains its own reserve generation. The three areas in which the three systems operate are Anchorage-Cook Inlet, Fairbanks-Tanana Valley, and Glennallen-Valdez. The utilities serving these areas are listed in Table 1.1. The Alaska Power Administration operates the Eklutna Hydroelectric Project and markets wholesale power to Chugach Electric Association, Anchorage Municipal Light and Power, and Matanuska Electric Association. 1.3 -Plan Formulation and Selection Process (a) Plan Formulation A key element in this study is the process that was applied for selection and comparison of several alternative transmission line corridors. Empha- sis was placed on consideration of all aspects that may in·i-luence the choosing of a most likely candidate corridor. A description of a generic pla~ formulation and selection methodology is presented in Appendix A • (b) Selection Process The selection process generally follows that described in Appendix A. The POS defines the objective for Subtask 8.01 as screening of transmission line corridors from the Susitna sites to Fairbanks and Anchorage. Since then, the extent of the geographical areas has been changed by the proposed prebuild of the Intertie. The objective has been revised to define three areas which were investigated as outlined in Section 5. Alternative corridors have been identified in each area. The results of the screening of these corridors were based on technical, economical, and environmental considerations. Successful candidates are identified and recommended. 1-2 .. v ~s~-' J 1 J I I I I I I I I I :1 I 1 1 ?I -~ I J 1·.· ,. ::.1 ·1·.~. ,, ' '="" TABLE 1.1: UTILITY COMPANIES SERVING THE RAILBELT AREA Area Anchorage -Cook Inlet Fairbanks -Tanana Valley Glennallen -Valdez Utilities Anchorage Municipal Light &: Power (AML&:P) Chugach Electric Association (CEA) Matanuska Electric Association (MEA) Homer Electric Association (HEA) Seward Electric System (SES) Fairbanks Municipal Utility SysterilS (fMUS) Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA) Copper Valley Electric Associatiory (CVEA) '·· I I I I I I I I q L .. n L] I @) -o- I I I I LEG _EN 0 HIGHWAY RAILROAD ALASKA RANGE PROPOSED SUSITNA LJ NE EXISTING TRANSMISSION LINE CJ SUB-STATION * THE PROPOSED INTERTIE FROM WILLOW TO HEALY WILL BE CONSTRUCTED FOR 345KV CAPABILITY AND INITIALLY OPERATED AT 13BKV. IF SUSITNA IS PROVED FEASIBLE, THE FULL 345KV CAPACITY WILL BE UTILIZED. MT. McKINLEY NATIONAL PARK * { PROPOSED INTERTIE ( SINGLE CIRCUIT) ANCHORAGE TO FAIRBANKS TAJ_KEETNA MOUNTAINS PROPOSE) AND EXISTING TRANSMISSION LINE CORRIDORS ALASKAN RAILROAD 1 II' I\\ . ~\W~~c~~i~UCTION_} \ \ 230 ~~R PLANT) \t.' -138KV 0 12 24 e _....,. SCALE IN MILES FIGURE 1.1 'i$' . . J Fl I I I I I I I ,, I 'II I . ! ~~ . l I l; .t ~\r m .. l •'t ~ I I I I I I I! .1!1 . l . ' 2 -SUMMARY This section summarizes the studies conducted and the results of these studies. 2.1 -Scope of Work (Section 3) One of the main objectives of Task 8 -Transmission, is the recommendation of a transmission line route linking the Susitna Hydro sites with the Anchorage and Fairbanks areas and selecting intermediate station sites for switching or other system functions. Figure 1.1 shows the general transmission line configuration and related loca- tions of the stations. Subtask 8.01 is the preliminary step in carrying out tfie objective of connecting the generation with the load areas. The 8.01 subtask included the following functions which resulted in this closeout report: (a) Review previous studies and reports. (b) .1\ssemble all data from U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) maps, available aerial photography, and field investigations. (c) Obtain aerial photography. (d) Obtain land status information. (e) Obtain and utilize input from environmental sources. (f) Identify the geographical areas to be considered in the study. (g) Identify all previously selected corridors that will meet basic technical, economical, and environmental criteria established in Section 5 and select new corridors that meet the.se requirements. (h) Screen the candidate corridors and select the preferred ones. (i) Identify the selected corridors for further 1981 field investigations and aerial photogr~phy. 2.2 -?revious Studies (Section 4) A number of studies hi.ive considered an electrical interconnection from Fairbanks to the south-central and Anchorage areas.. The Susitna Hydroelectric Project In- terim feasibility Report produced by the U.S. Ar·my Corps of Engineers, hereafter called the COE report, reviewed a number of alternative transmission corridors in considerable depth. None of the studies included a specific route for a transmission line. 2-1 i! J . -~ t 1 ,' LJ ; \ t ... : .. ' _!1 L :11 I I .I International Engineering Company, Irrc .. /Robert W. Retherford Associates (IECO/RWRA) produced the Economic Feasibility Study report for the Anchorage- Fairbanks Intertie. The preferred corridor selected in the COE report was further refined and a specific route identified. The study presents a determin- ation of the economic feasibility for a transmission line interconnection be- tween the utility systems of Anchorage and Fairbanks. 2.3 -Selection of Alternative Corrido~s {Section 5) The proposed prebuilding of the Intertie has indicated three areas that wf11 re- quire study: the northern area to connect Healy with Fairbanks; the central area to connect the Watana and Devil Canyon damsites with the Intertie; and the southern study area to connect Willow with Anchorage. Utilizing existing data, previous reports, and assumptions concerning trans- mission tower configuration, corridor width, and certain key locations (tie-in ·points), twenty-two corridors were selected for screeningD This selection was based on those corridors which met certain technical, economical, and environ- mental criteria (Table 5.1). Of these twenty-two corridors, four are in the southern study area, fifteen in the central study area, and four in the northern study area. Two of the corri- dors in the southern study area run in a north-south direction, while one runs northeast to Palmer, then back northwest to Willow. Corridors in the central study area are in two general groups: those running from Watana damsite wester- ly to the proposed Intertie and those running northerly across the Denali High- way and the Chulitna Ri_ver.. Corridors to the northern study area run either westerly or easter'ly to bypass the Alaska Range, then proceed northerly to Fair- banks .. 2.4 -Screening of Corridors (Section 6) Corridors selected previously were screened utilizing technical, economic, and environmental criteria similar to but more precise than those used in the selec- tion process. Corridors were rated in terms of their acceptability from each of a technical, economical, and environmental standpoint as follows: A = recommended C = acceptaole but not recommended F = unacceptable The results of these ratings were used to form a summary rating for each corri- dor. Technical, economical, and environmental tables are presented which re- flect the criteria and rating for each corridor. Elevation, length, and extensive clearing were the primary reasons corridors were rated unacceptable from a technical or economical aspect. Potential con- flicts with land use~ visual impacts, and increased access resulted in many corridors being unacceptable from an environmental standpoint.· In each study are a, however, one carr i dor was considered accept ab 1 e for technical , economic a 1 , and environmental aspects and was therefore recommended. These corridors are described in Sectio~ 7 and 2.5 below. I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ ~~ (l A ; i ~ 1 ; , . l ;, .. \ ' , I ·' >. ~!· L . ,·j .. ~' l' \ iJ j t l . i 1' .. J I J I 2.5 -Conclusions and Recommendations (Section 7) The preferred corridor described in the COE report was also recommended by IECO/RWRA. Other alternatives have been considered in this study area and com- parisons made for the purpose of further investigation. Some of the alterna- tives appear to be feasible, and others have been rejected for economic or reli- ability reasons .. The APA decision to proceed with the Intertie has resulted in a split of this study into three separate geographical entities; namely, the southern, the cen- tral, and the northern areas. For each area, one corridor has been recommended the most feasible. The recommended corridors have attained higher ratings than any others in the selection and screening process. Any transmission lines located in these corri- dors will have the advantage of being relatively accessible via existing trans- portation corridors and being relatively short compared to other corridors under consideration. These lines can also be constructed in a manner that will mini- mize environmentally unacceptable impacts, particularly those regarding aesthet- ics, crossing of private land, and increased access to remote areas. The recommena~d corridor in the southern study area stretches from an area north of Willow Creek southward to Point MacKenzie. The corridor is located east of the lower Susitna River and crosses the Little Susitna River. It is located in a sparsely inhabited area, thereby reducing land use and visual impacts. The corridor is also accessible from the Parks Highway and Anchorage, resulting in economic and reliability advantages. The corridor recommended in the central study area connects Watana Dam to the Devil Canyon Dam and continues westward to connect with the Intertie near Gold Creek. Th~s corridor, on the south side of the Susitna River, is the shortest in the study area and has no technical constraints. Although clearing of vege- tation would be required and some wetlands crossed, the corridor's short length and potential use of a service or access road in this area result in a minimiza- tion of environmental impacts . In the northern study area, the recommended corridor's short length, low eleva- tion, and few water crossings result in a favorable technical and economical rating. This corridor, stretching from Healy to Fairbanks, is in the vicinity of the Parks Highway and is visible in the floodplain of the Tanana River. This corridor offers routing potential for the final right-of-way that will minimize any adverse visual and land use impacts. 2-3 ·, ~·· ': ll :·l·. ·.··~ .. . ' I · .. I • ~ I I I ! I _j J J 3 -SCOPE OF WORK The scope of work discussed in this section includes the objectives and the ap- proach used to achieve the obj~ctives. It also reviews events which occurred after the issuance of the POS. These events have had an impact on the corridor selection process. For purposes of this study and this report, corridors were defined as being three to five miles wide. 3.1 -Objectives The objectives of this study were to: (a) Review reports from previous studies of Susitna Hydroelectric transmission line options. {b) Choose feasible corridors from these studies. (c) Identify new corridors for consideration. (d) Screen these corridors to select the one most acceptable considering eco- nomical, technical, and enVironmental constraints. 3.2 -Approach The following approach was used to meet the objectives described above: (a) Reports prepared by COE and by IECO/RWRA were reviewed to develop an under- standing of the physical conditions in the railbelt area. (b) Alternative corridors described in the previous reports were assessed from an economical, technical, and environmental view. (c) New alternative corridors were established and assessed economically, tech-nically, and environmentally. (d) The above information was utilized to select preferred corridors for fur-ther study. (e) Selected corridors were identified on one-inch to one-mile USGS maps for use in the environmental and geotechnical studies. 3-1 I , 1: ... J J: l j '' I ' \ 4 -PREVIOUS STUDIES In this section of the closeout report, a summary is presented of studies under- taken by COE and IECO/RWRA. Critiques and review of these studies may be found in Appendix C. 4.1 -COE Studies The main element of the COE study was an evaluation of alternative corridor lo- cations to select those maximizing reliability while minimizing cost. The corridor evaluation began with map identification of all potentially feasi- ble corridors and a field reconnaissance which eliminated those for which topo- graphy, elevation, and climate factors would be unacceptable. The remaining corridors were then evaluated in more detail to determine their relative advan- tages and disadvantages. Much of the detail of the environmental evaluation is presented in the Alaska Power Administration's environmental assessment which was incorporated in the COE report. The COE concluded that Susitna I Corridor (between the damsites and Anchorage) and Nenana I Corridor (between the damsites and Fairbanks) were the preferred corridors (see Appendix C). The Susitna I and Nenana I fall within existing transportation systems and likely present the least construction impacts of all the alternatives considered. It is worth noting that the corridors' locations are general in nature and serve the purpose of demonstrating project feasibil- ity. 4. 2 -The IECO/Rt~RA Heport The IECO/RWRA study made use of the COE report as backgrouna information for both the economic feasibility and the selection of a transmission line corri- dor. The selected corridor is almost the same as that r~;~~mended by the COE report with further definition. The corridor was chosen because of its favorable length, accessibility, and environmental considerationsa The report presents a detailed economic feasibility study for the Anchorage- Fairbanks transmission system. However, it is general in nature when dealing with environmental studies. The report points out that construction and maintenance of other Alaskan trans- mission systems have shown that careful route selection and proper mitigation measures can substantially reduce environmental impacts. 4-1 m ~J I tl . .... . I I • fJ ' I II I I j I I; a.i ilp 5 -SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVE CORRIDORS This section of the report outlines the study areas, the data base, and the as- sumptions used in planning the selection process. It also describes the selec- tion criteria used in choos~ng corridors from previous reports and identifying new corridors for this study. The corridors are then described according to geographical location, topography, soils, vegetation, and stream and road cross-ings. 5.1 -Objectives The main objective of this POS subtask was to select feasible transmission line corridors from those identified in previous studies and to list new alternative corridors as candidates for consideration in the screening methodology. The proposed prebuilding of the Intertie has indicated three areas which will re-qui~e study: · (a) The northern area to connect Healy with Fairbanks . (b) The central area to connect the Watana and Devil Canyon damsites with the Intertie connecting Willow to Healy. (c) The southern area to connect Willow with Anchorage. 5.2 -Data Base The data base used for this analysis was obtained from the following sources. (a) Existing aerial photos taken in the area for previous projects. (b) USGS maps., (c) Land status maps. (d) The Interim Feasibility Report prepared by the COE for the south central railbelt area, 1975. (e) The Economic Feasibility Study Report for Anchorage-Fairbanks Transmission Intertie by IECO/RWRA in 1979. (f) Results and observations of field trips by Acres' personnel and subcontrac- tors which included aerial and ground reconnaissances of the potential corridors. 5.3 -Assumptions The following assumptions were made for the selection process. (a) The main purpose of the transmission system is to deliver electrical power from Watana and Devil Canyon to the Anchorage and Fairbanks areas. 5-1 1~' . J f1 ill . . t:1 j {b) (c) (d) (e) The transmission lines will be built on single-circuit towers (345 kV) to ensure reliability of operation. An Intertie will be built by J.9H1 between Willow and Healy to 345 kV speci- fications but will initially he operated at 138 kV. If the Susitna Hydro- electric Project is proved feasible, the full 345 kV capability will be utilized. If constructed, the Susitna lines will parallel the prebuilt Intertie and will share the same right-of-way. Access roads will be constructed to the Watana and Devil Canyon damsites in the central study area wherever possible, and the transmission line will parallel this road. The-transmission system configuration will consist of thr·ee single-circuit lines from Devil Canyon to Anchorage and two single-circuit lines from Devil Canyon to Fairbanks. The connection between Watana and Devil Canyon will consist of two single-circuit lines. (f) Corriaors will be three to five miles wide . (g) The Willow area will be the future site of the state capital. 5.4 -Selection Criteria This subsection outlines the guidelines used for establishing the criteria for selecting feasible transmission line corridors adopted in this study. The main classifications are: ... technical -economical -environmental Since the corridors being studied could range in width from three to five miles, the base criteria had to be applied in broad terms.. The study also indicated that the criteria listed for technical purposes could reappear in the economic or environmental classification. TI1e technical criteria will be defined as re- quirements for the normal and safe performance of the transmission system and its reliabi1ity. The selection criteria are: (a) Technical Criteria The criteria, listed in Table 5.1, ar·e established and evaluated to ensure that the corridors chosen are technically sound for the ultimate perform- ance of the transmission system. (b) Economical Criteria The criteria are established and evaTuated to incorporate economic consid- erations into corridor selection; they appear in Table 5.1. 5-2 I ) I I I I I I I I I 11 J ~ (c) Environmental Criteria The criteria, listed in Table 5.1, are established and evaluated to aid in selecting the corridor with the least amount of environmental impact. 5.5 -Identification of Corridors As discussed previously, the Susitna transmission line corridors studied are located in three geographical areas; namely: -The southern study ·area between Willow and Anchorage. -The central study area between Watana, Devil Canyon, and the Intertie. -The northern study area between Healy and Fairbanks. The selection process resulted in the corridors identified in Figures 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3 f0r each study area, taking into consideration the criteria established in the previous Subsection 5.4 (technical, economical, and environmental), and according to the generic plan formulation and selection methodology (Append.ix A). 5.6 -Description of Corridors Figures 5.1 through 5.3 portray the corridors under evaluation in the southern, central, and northern study areas, respectively. For purposes of simplifica- tion, only the centerline of the three-to-five-mile-wide corridors are shown in the figures. The figures have been produced as large fold-outs so the reader can more easily understand the following narratives. In each of the three figures, ~ach corridor under consideration has been identi- fied by the use of letter symbols. The various segment intersections and the various segments, where appropriate, have been designated. Thus, segments in each of the three study areas can be separately referenced. Furthermore, the segments are joined together to form corridors. For example, in the northern study area Corridor ABC is composed of Segments AB and ~C. The alternative corridors selected for each study area are described in detail in the following paragraphs. In addition, Tables 5.2, 5.3, and 5.4 contain de- tailed environmental data for each corridor segment. The data were also used in the screening process as described in Section 6. (a) ~~~hern Study Area The alternative corridors for the southern study area are identified in Figure 5.1. ( i) Cot··ridor One -Willow to Anchorage vi a Pal~ Corridor ABC', consisting of Segments AB and BC', begins at the in- tersection with the Intertie in the vicinity of Willow. From here, the corridor travels in a southeasterly direction, crossing wetlands, 5-3 1 ] 1 1 1 1 I I I I ~.'< ~ ' I ' 'I I I I I I j I Willow Creek, and Willow Creek ~oad before turning slightly to the southeast following the drainage of Deception Creek. The topography in the vicinity of this segment of the corridor is relatively flat to gently rolling with standing water and tall-growing vegetation in the vicinity of the·creek drainages. At a point northwest of Bench Lake, the corridor turns in an easterly direction crossing the southern foothills of the Talkeetna Mountains. The topography here is gently to moderately rolling with shrub-to tree-sized vegetation occurring throughout. As the corridor ap- proaches the crossing of the Little Susitna River, it turns and heads southeast again, crossing the Little Susitna River and Wasilla Fish- hook Road. Passing near Wolf Lake and Gooding Lake, the corridor then crosses a second~ry road, some agricultural lands, State Route 3, and the Glenn Highway, before intersecting existing transmission lines south of Palmer. In the vicinity of the Little Susitna River, the topography is gently rolling. As the corridor travels toward Palmer, the land flattens, more lakes are present, and some agricultural development is occurring. After crossing the Glenn Highway, the corridor passes through a residential area before crossing the broad floodplain of the Matanuska River. Just west of Bodenburg Butte, the corridor turns due south through more agricultural land before crossing the Knik River and eventually connecting with the Eklutna Power Station. All of the land south of ~-Palmer is very flat with some agricultural development. Just south of Palmer, the proposed corridor intersects existing transmission facilities and parallels or replaces them from a point just south of Palmer, across the river, and into the vicinity of the Eklutna Power House. From here into Anchorage, the corridor as proposed would parallel existing facilities, crossing near or through the communi- ties of Eklutna, Peters Cree"'r, Birchwood, and Eagle River by using one of the two existing trat.smission line rights-of-way in this area .. The land here is.flat to gently rolling with a great deal of residen- tial development. This corridor segment is the most easterly of the thrqe under consideration in the southern study area and avoids an unu,~water crossing of Knik Arm. (ii) Corridor Two -Willow to Point MacKenzie via Red Shirt Lake Corridor ADFC, consisting of Segments ADF and FC, commences again at the point of intersection with the Intertie in the vicinity of Willow; but immediately turns to the southwest, first crossing the railroad, then the Parks Highway, then Willow Creek just west of Willow. The land in the vicinity of this part of the segment is very flat~ with wetlands dominating the terrain. Southwest of Florence Lake, the proposed corridor turns, crosses Rolly Creek, and heads nearly due south, passing through extensive 5-4 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 'l ) J ' '.· ., 1 1 1 1 1 J 1 I :1 I .I 'i, a l tJ j \1. ~ I I 11 wetlands west and south of Red Shirt Lake. The corridor in this area parallels existing tractor trails crossing very flat lands with sig- nificant amounts of tall-growing vegetation in the better drained locations .. Northwest of Yohn Lake, the corridor segment turns to the southeast, passing Yohn Lake and My Lake before crossing the Little Susitna River. Just south of My Lake, the corridor turns in a generally southerly direction, passing Middle Lake, and east of Horseshoe Lake before finally intersecting the existing Beluga 230 kV transmission line at a spot just north of MacKenzie Point. From here, the corri- dor parallels MacKenzie Point•s existing transmission facilities be- fore crossing under Knik Arm to emerge on the easterly shore of Knik Arm in the vicinity of Anchorage. The land in the vicinity of this segment is extremely flat and very wet, supporting dense stands of tall-growing vegetation on any of the higher or better drained areas. (iii) Corridor Three-Willow to Point MacKenzie via Lynx Lake Corridor AEFC is very similar to and is a derivation of Corridor ADFC; it consists of Segments AEF and FC. This corridor also extends to the southwest of Willow. West of the Parks Highway, however, just north of Willow Lake, this corridor turns and travels southwest of. Willow and east of Long Lake, passing between Honeybee Lake and Crystal Lake. The corridor then turns southeastward to pass through wetlands east of Lynx Lake and Butterfly Lake before crossing the Little Susitna River. The land is well developed in this area. It is very flat and, while it is wet, also supports dense stands of tall- growing vegetation on the better drained sites. Corridor Three re- joins Corridor Two at a point south of My Lake. {b) Central Study Area The central study area encompasses a broad area in the vicinity of the dam- sites. From Watana, the study area extends to the north as far as the Denali Highway and to the south as far as Stephan Lake. From th·L:; point westward, the study area encompasses the foothills of the Alaska Range and, to the south, the foothills of the Talkeetna Mountains. Included in this study area are lands under consideration by the Intertie Project investi- gators. The alternative corridors would connect both Devil Canyon and Watana dams with the Intertie at one of four locations, which are identi- fied in Figure 5.2. As for the southern study area, individual corridor segments are listed in the text.. This is to aid the reader both in determining corridor locations in the figures and in examining the environmental inventory data listed for each segment in Tables 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3. . (i) Corridor One-Watana to Intertie via South Shore, Susitna River Corridor ABCD consists of thr8e segments: AB, BC, and CD. This 5-5 ~ ' I corridor originates at the watana Dam site and follows the southern boundary of the river at an elevation of approximately 2,000 feet from Watana to Devil Canyon. From Devil Canyon, the corridor con- tinues along the southern shore of the Susitna River at an elevation of about 1,400 feet to the point at which it connects with the Inter- tie, assuming the Intertie follows the railroad corridor. The land surface in this area is relatively flat, though incised at a number of locations by tributaries to the Susitna Rivero The relatively flat hills are covered by discontinuous stands of dense, tall-growing vegetation5 (ii) Corridor Two -Watana to Intertie via Stephan Lake ABECD, the second potential corridor, is essentially a derivation of Corridor Dne and is formed by replacing Segments BC with BEC. Origi- nating at Point 8, Corridor Segment BEC leaves the river and gen- erally parallels one of the proposed Watana Dam access road corri- dors. This corridor extends southwest from the river, passing near Stephan Lake to a point northwest of Daneka Lake. Here the route turns back to the northwest and intersects Corridor One at the Devil Canyon Dam site. The terrain in this area, again, is gently rolling hills with relatively flat bencheso Vegetation cover ranges from sparse at the higher elevations to dense along the river bottom and along gentler slopr.s of the Susitna River and its tributaries. (iii) Corridor Three -Watana to Intertie via North Shore, Susitna River Corridor Three (AJCF), located on the north side of the river, con- sists of Segments AJ and CF. Starting at the Watana Dam site, the corridor crosses Tsusena Creek and heads westerly, following a small drainage tributary to the Susitna River. Once crossing Devil Creek, the corridor passes north and west of High Lake. The corridor stays below an elevation of 3,700 feet as it crosses north of the High Lake area, east of Devil Creek, on its approach to Devil Canyon. From Devil Canyon, the corridor again extends to the west, crossing Portage Creek and intersecting the Intertie in the vicinity of Indian RiverQ In the drainages, to elevations of about 2,000 feet, tree heights range to 60 feet<> Between Devil Creek and Tsusena Creek, however, at the higher elevat1ons, very little vegeta- tion grows taller than three feet. Onc.e west of Devil Creek, discon- tinuous areas of tall-growing vegetatfon exist. (iv) Corridor Four -Watana to Intertie via Devil Creek Pass/East Fork Chulitna River · Another means of connecting the two dam schemes with the Intertie is to follow Corridor One from Watana to Devil Canyon and then exit the Devil Canyon project to the north (ABCJHI). This involves connecting Corridor Segments AB, BC, CJ, HJ, and HI. With this alternative, the 5-6 1 1 1 •• .'I ., I I I I I I I I I I I .I i .,~ j ) f ~~ ! l ~ * ' ~ .r M J i ~·· ··~· I .. I < ' j 8 ' i ~ .. I ! ,. ! ·~· ~' !l I . ' . ~n· ~~· I corridor extends northeast at Devil Canyon past High Lake to Uevil Creek drainage. From there, it ~aves northward to a point north of the south boundary of the Fairbanks Meridiano The corridor then fol- lows the Po~tage Creek drainage beyond its point of origin to a site within the Tsusena Creek drainage. Likewise, it follows the Tsusena Creek drainage to a point near Jack River, at which point it para- llels this drainage into Caribou Pas?. From Caribou Pass, the corri- dor turns to the west, following the Middle Fork Chulitna River until meeting the Intertie in the vicinity of Summit Lake. While along much of this corridor the route follows river valleys, the plan also requires crossing high mountain passes in rugged ter- rain. This is especially true in the crossing between Portage Creek and Tsusena Creek drainages, where elevations of over 4,600 feet are involved. Tall-growing vegetation is restricted to the lower eleva- tions along the river drainages with little other than low-growing forbs and shrubs present at higher elevations. (v) Corridor Five -Watana to Intertie via Stephan Lake and the East Fork Chulitna River A variation of Corridor Four, Corridor Five (ABECJHI) replaces Seg- ment BC with Corridor Segment BEC (of Corridor Two) with the previ- ously described corridor. This results in a corridor that extends from the Watana Dam site southwesterly to the vicinity of Stephan Lake, and from Stephan Lake into the Devil Canyon Dam site. From Devil Canyon to the Intertie, the corridor follows the Devil Creek, Portage Creek, and Middle Fork Chulitna drainages previously men- tionedm As before, the corridor crosses rolling terrain throughout the length of the paralleled drainages, with some confined, higher elevation passes encountered between Portage Creek and Tsusena Creeku (vi) Corridor Six -Devil Canyon to the Intertie via Tsusena Creek/Chulitna River Another option (CBAHI) for connecting the dam projects to the Inter- tie involves connecting Devil Canyon and Watana along the south shore of the Susitna River via Sorridor Segment CBA~ then exiting Watana to the north on Segments AH and HI along Tsusena Creek to follow this drainage to Caribou Passe The corridor then contains the previously described route along the Jack River and Middle Fork Chulitna until connecting with the Intertie near Summit Lake. The terrain in this corridor proposal would be of moderate elevation with some confined, higher elevation passes between the drainages of Tsusena Creek and the Jack River. (vii) Corridor Seven -Devil Canyon to Intertie via Stephan Lake and Chulitna River This alternative uses Corridor Six but replaces Segment BC with 5-7 ~ J. i 1 1 :t l :· l ' H 1 • J .] 1 1 I I I ~ ,-,~ ~ 1 l ! I 1 I ! I I I I I Segment BEC from Corridor Two. This route would thus be designated CEBAHI. Terrain features are as described in Corridors Two and Six. {viii) Corridor_ Eight -Devil Canyon to Intertie via Deadman/Brushkana Creeks and Denali Highway Yet another option to the previously described corridors is the in- terconnection of Devil Canyon with Watana via Corridor One (Segment CBA), with a segment then extending ff~m Watana northeasterly along the Deadman Creek drainage (Segment AG). The segment proceeds north of Deadman Lake and Deadman Mountain, then turns to the west and intersects the Brushkana Creek drainage. It then follows Brushkana Creek north to a point east of the Kana Bench Mark. This segment of the corridor would parallel one of the proposed access roads. From there, the corridor turns west, generally parallel to the Denali Highway, to the point of interconnection with the Inter- tie in the vicinity of Cantwelle The area encompasses rolling hills with modest elevation changes and some forest cover, espe- cially at the lower elevations. (ix) Corridor Nine -Uevil Canyon to Intertie via Stephan Lake and Denali Highway Corridor Nine (CEBAG) is exactly the same as Corridor Eight with the exception of Corridor Segment BEC, utilized to replace Segment BC. Each combination of segments has been previously described. (x) Corridor Ten -Devil Canyon to Intertie via North Shore, Susitna River, and Denali Highway Corridor Ten connects Devil Canyon-Watana with the Intertie in the vicinity of Cantwell by means of Corridor Segments CJAG. Segment CJA is part of Corridor Three and, as such, has been previously described. Segment AG has also been described above as part of Corridor Eight. As noted earlier, the Corridor Ten terrain con- sists of mountainous stretches with accompanying gently rolling to moderately rolling hills and flat plains covered in places with tall-growing vegetation. (xi) Corridor Eleven -Devil Canyon to the Intertie via Tsusena Creek/Chulitna River Another northern route connecting Devil Canyon with Watana is that created by connecting Corridor Segment CJA (part of Corridor Three) with Segment AHI of Corridor Six. (xii) Corridor Twelve -Devil Canyon-Watana to the Intertie via Uevil Creek/Chu1itna River Another route under consideration is Corridor JA-CJHI. From north to south, this involves a corridor extending from the Intertie near 5-8 'I I I I I I I I I I I I ,I I ~ ! Summit lake, heading easterly along the Middle Fork Chulitna drain- age into Caribou Pass. From here, it parallels the Jack River and connects with the Portage Creek-Devil Creek route, Segment HJ. A.t point J, located in the Devil Creek drainage east of High Lake, the corridor splits, with one segment extending westerly to Devil Canyon and the other extending east to the Watana Dam site along,, previously described Corridor Segments JC and JA, respectively. Terrain features of this route have been previously described. (xiii) Corridor Thirteen -Watana to Devil Canyon via South Shore, Devil Canyon_ to Intertie via North Shore, Susitna River ·--- Corridor Segments AB, BC, and CF are combined to form this cor"ri- dor. Descriptions of the terrain crossed by these segments appear in discussions of Corridor One (ABCD) and Corridor Three (AJCf). (xiv) Corridor Fourteen -Watana to Devil Canyon via North Shore, Oevil Canyon to Intertie via South Shore, Susitna River · This corridor would connect the damsites in the directionall.Y op- posite order of the previous corridor, and include Corridor Segment AJCD. Again, as parts of Corridors One and Three, the terrain fea- tures of this corridor have been previously described. (xv) Corridor Fifteen -Watana to Devil Canyon via Stephan Lake! Devil fanyon to Intertie via North Shore, Susitna River Corridor Two (ABEC) and Corridor Three (CF) form to create this study-area corridor. Terrain features have been presented under the discussions of each of these two corridors. I ~ (c) Northern Study Area I I In the northern study area, four transmission line corridor optio~s exist for connecting Healy and Fairbanks (Figure 5.3). (i) Corridor One -Healy to Fairbanks via Parks Highway Corridor One (ABC), consisting of Segments AB and BC, starts in the vicinity of the Healy Power Plant. From here, the corr~dor heads northwest, crossing the existing Golden Valley Electric Association Transmission Line, the railroad, and the Parks Highway before turn- ing to the north and paralleling this road to a point d.ue west of Browne. H~re, as a result of terrain features, the cor··ridor turns northeast, crossing the Parks Highway once again as well as the existing transmission line, the Nenana River, and the railroad, and continues northeasterly to a point northeast of the Clear Missile Early Warning Station (MEWS). 5-9 I J·l ~ Continuing northward, the corridor eventually crosses the Tanana River east of Nenana, then heads northeast, first crossing Little Goldstream Creek, then the Parks Highway just north of the Bonanza Creek Experimental Forest. Before reaching the drainage of Ohio Creek~ this corridor turns back to the northeast, crossing the old Parks Highway and heading into the Ester Substation west of Fair- banks. Terrain along this entire corridor segment is relatively flat, with the exception of the foothills north of the Tanana River. Much of the route, especially that portion between the Nenana and the Tanana River crossings, is very broad and flat, has standing water during the summer months and, in some places, is overgrown by dense stands of tall-growing vegetation. TI1is corridor segment crosses the foothills northeast of Nenana, also a heavily wooded area. An option to the above (and not shown in the figures), that of closely paralleling and sharing rights-of-way with the existing Healy-Fairbanks transmission line, has been considered. While it is usually attractive to parallel existing corridors wherever pos- sible, this option necessitates a great number of road crossings and an extended length of the corridor paralleling the Parks High- way. A potentially significant amount of highway-abutting land would be usurped for containment of the right-of-way. These fea- tures, in combination, preclude this corridor from further evalua- tion. (ii) Corridor Two -Healy to Fairbanks via Crossing Wood River The second corridor (ABDC) is a variation of Corridor One and con- sists of Segments AB and BDC. At point B, east of the Clear MEWS, instead of turning north, the corridor continues to the northeast, crossing Fish Creek, the Totatlanika River, Tatlanika Creek, the Wood River, and Crooked Creek before turning to the north. At a point equidistant from Crooked and Willow Creeks, the corridor turns north, crosses the Tanana River east of Hadley Slough, and extends to the Ester Substation. North of the Tanana River, this corridor segment also crosses Rose Creek and the Parks Highway. Where it diverges from the original corridor, this corridor traver- ses extensive areas of flat ground, with standing water very pre- valent throughout the summer months. Heavily wooded areas occur in the broad floodplain of the Tanana River, in the vicinity of the river crossing, and in the foothills around Rose Creek. (iii) Corridor Three -Healy to Fairbanks via Hea1y Creek and Japan Hills Corridor Three (AEDC), consisting of Segments AE and EDC, exits the Healy Power Plant in an easterly direction. Instead of ~ ~ceeding northwest~ this corridor, following its interconnection .• th the 5-10 I I I I ~· .I I I I I I I I I I I I I "' ~ • i' h. " ~ ~I ! .r ., tl ,, l f ~> ;, ~ f '1 ,\ J ·t ' ~ ,, i- fr l l• " f~ ~ ~ ~ ! ! ,g IJ ~ Intertie Project, heads east up Healy Creek, passing the Usibelli Coal Mine. Near the headwaters of Healy Creek, the corridor cuts to the east~ crossing a high pass of approximately 4,700 feet ele- vation and descending into the Cody Creek drainage. From Healy to the Cody Creek drainage, the terrain is relatively gentle but bounded by very rugged mountain peaks. The elevation gain from the Healy Power Plant to the pass between the Healy Creek-Cody Creek drainages is approximately 3,300 feet. From here, the segment turns to the northeast, following the lowlands accompanying the Wood River. The corridor next parallels the Wood River from the Anderson Mountain area, past Mystic Mountain, and out into the broad floodplain of the Tanana River east of Japan Hills~ Near the confluence of Fish Creek and the Wood River, the corridor turns north and intersects the north-south portion of Corridor Two (Seg- ment DC), after first passing through Wood River Buttes. Much of the area north of Japan Hills is flat and very wet with stands of dense, tall-growing vegetation. (iv) Corridor Four -Healy to Fair-banks via Wood River and Fort Wainwright Corridor Four (AEF) is a derivation of Corridor Three and is com- posed of Segments AE and EF. Point E is located just north of Japan Hills along the Wood River. From here, the corridor· deviates from Corridor Three by running north across the Blair Lake Air Force Range, Fort Wainwright, and several tributaries of the Tanana River, before reaching the crossing of Salchaket Slough. Corridor Four passes Clear Creek Butts on the east. A new substation would be located on the Fairbanks side of the Tanana River just north of Goose Island. From Point E to Point F, the ter~ain of the corridor is flat and very wet~ and again, dense stands of tall-growing vege- tation exist both in the better drained portions of the flat 'l~nds and in the vicinity of the river crossing. 5-11 rn t, j ~· ;. I rJ!l L ' .:(. !~ i ~~ }i! t ,, t?1 ·ji ,.r '" 'fJ ~~ 'l ; '· H j ,I il 'l rr. ;I {i tj .!J " li ,. ;ar .. " ;{ UL u,: ~\ ./ '• :1 ' m; w ar, i t. i' ~· ,.J cr W, ~! 6'11 ,, L:J. ~l d tf ::J, ~ fT· u.· ,_ .... p· ~; • J W· ,,_,~; ;t -~ J;' ~ . '.;:,; u ;:;... Type 1. Technical -Primary -Se:condary 2. Economical -Primary -Secondary 3. Environmental -Primary -Secondary TA8LE 5. 1: TECHNICAL, ECONOt4IC, AND ENVIRONt-!ENTAL CRITERIA USED IN CORRIDOR SELECTION. Criteria General Location Elevation Relief Access River Crossings Elevation Access River Crossings Timbered Areas Wetlands Development Existing Transmission Right-of-Way Land Status Topography Vegetation Selection Connect with Intertie near Gold Creek, Willow, and Healy. Connect Healy to Fairbanks. Con- nect Willow to Anchorage. Avoid mountainous areas. Select gentle relief. Locate in proximity to existing transportation corridors to facilitate maintenance and repairs. Minimize wide crossings. Avoid mountainous areas. Locate in proximity to existing transportation corridors to retiuce construction costs. Minimize wide crossings. Hinimize such areas to reduce clearing costs. Minimize crossings which require special designs. Avoid existing or proposed developed areas. Parallel. Avoid private lands, wildlife refuges, parks. Select gentle relief. Avoid heavily timbered areas. ~ c.=:~:-.t -,-" ,._ ·::::-..:_..~):.._:· ·_~:·--;-.:.;.:·_;,;;·- ~ ~ .~ ~ _C.Ii!:/llllll ~ , .ca-..,~. -~;;Bfia ·-· ~ ~ ' ··--~---···-·"''Ji!e<ra, ''''· .......... ~ ~ .~ ~. Table 5. 2 Environmental Inventory -Southern Study Area (Wf11ow to Anchorage/Point Hacl<enz fe) Corridor Approx. Segment length (HUes) --- AB 36 BC' 35 ADF 26 AEF 27 FC 12 Approx. I Road Crossings Z hwy (Rt. 3, Glenn} 6 light duty roads 1 uni~roved road 2 trans 1 railroad 4 hwy (Glenn. 4x) 3+ light duty roads 7 unimproved roads 1 trail several railroads 1 rllghway (Rt. 3) 3 tractor trails 1 highway (rarks) 1 tractor Trail 2 trci~tor trails Approx. I River/Creek Crossf11gs 1 river 17 creeks 4 rivers 11 creeks 1 river 6 creeks 1 rivet' 6 creeks 1! creeks Topography Wi How (100'), crosses Willow Ck, follows Deception Ck (1000'} along ridge of Talkeetna Hts, s.e, into Pa#rner (200') Palmer (200'). crosses Knfk River to base at Chugach Hts. 1500' ). along Knfk Ann 200'-303'). to Anchorage 200') Willow (100 1 ), s. along Susltna River plains (flat. wet area, with drier, rafsed levees, 200'-400') t to f at ISO' Willow (100'), s. along flat ~~t area (200'-400'), to f at about 150' F at 150'' aloag flats to C near sea level a. Source: United States Dep~rtment of Agriculture~ SoH Com;,ervation Service 1979. See Appendix Table B-1 for explanatt~ of sofl unit~. b. Source: CIRI/Uolmes and Narver. 1980. P'"frivat.e, :iP"it1=State Pat~nted· or Tentathe1y Approved, SP=State Patented, BAP2 Borough Approved or Patented. ~ ~ ~ -....... ~ ....... ~ ~ Soils a Willow to near Pahner-'504 Palmer £01 Palmer-EOl kn lk Ar• -EFl S. of Eklutna to n. of Anchorage -SOS Anchor age -504 Willow-S04 S. of Willow to to F-SOl Hear L. Sus itna River -SOS R·1ma fnder-504 Hear F -S04 Near C -SOl ..... Land Ownership/ b Status A to s. of Willow Ck Rd. crosstng-w~stly P~ wtth SOllie BAP at'ld some SP; ••• t~ due n. of Wasilla~alnly SPTA; ••• to 8-~stly P, with some BAP and SP 8 to Knik R. -P; ••• to Ofrchwood-mafnly VS with s~~ SPrA, P and BAP; fHrchwo~. area-P; s.w. of Birchwood to near c•-u.s. Army Military Wdl; C'-Data \'Ofd Neil;' A-P; route fafrly even 11ix of ImP and SPTA; some P near Fts~ Ck; area surrounding L Susltna R - Susttna flats Game Refuge; near F-SPTA A, s. to Rainbow L.- mostly P, small parcels BAP; State Selected Fed. Parcel w. of Willow L.; s. to L. Susitna R. -Nancy Lake State Rec. Area; to F -mix of SPTA antJ SAP F to 1 mt. s.-SPTA; ••• s. to Horseshoe l. -Pt HacKenz ie Agr. Sale; ••. s. to C- mainly SPTA, some 8AP --........ Exist fog/Proposed Existing Deve lopmer.is fli9hts-of -Wal A;J. uses rl. I, w. of Follows no known right- Palmer; ag/res. use of-way for appreciable ne~r L. Sus tfna; distance proposed capital site; Mixed res. area at Willow Clc.; Willow afr strip; c~btn near A Urban uses in Anch.; Parallels trans. line passes through/near Knik R. to Anch.; several communities: parallels Glenn Uwy fron Eagle R, Birchwood Knik R. to Birchwood; Eklutna, Chugiak, parallels RR-Eagle to Peters Ck. c• Red Shirt lake-Gener-a11y parallels a mf~ed residential tractor trail use; near residential ' recr. areas s.w. of Willow; 5usitna flats State Game Refuge Mixed res. areas; lakes used to land float planes Scattered residentfal/cab\ns on llorseshoe lake; proposed ag. uses in area --:t - No known Generally follows a tractor tra f1 ---3, ---i . 1S l. -• c ~ \:, 1o. !>-~ .. .. ...c. "' ':. If/", ~ ''1-til -~ • ' ~ • :! ... t. ' • I o • " t~''' ~orridor Segment AB ac• ADF AEf FC '"·,;ig¥'~.:::-;-.,,;.~~~---~-"''""'~ f,J,: ':: ;.,;. .. ' ·-'"'"""""'= ~~~'--~ Scenic Qual tty/ Recreation ~~ ,__,.~~ Gooding L. -bird- watching; rec. trails e. of Willow-hunting. hiking, x~~ ~kifng, dog sledding, snow- mbll lng. snowshoeing; rec. trail by Decep. Ck-snow- ~biJing. dog sledding, fishing ·Passes near 2 c&mp1ng grounds; parallels ldftarod racing trail · (x-c sk ting, sledding, snowmobiling); btrdwatchfng at £klutna Flats and Hatunuska River l-c ski & sno*K>blle trails; recreation ar~a s.wft of Willow Mixed rec. areas; HancJ lake State Rec. area; trails and multiple uses; may cross Goose Bay St. Game Refuge Hay cross Su~!tna flats State Wildlife Refuge .i~.-~ t~~ . La::::-::;1 ~.L~ ~. ): --.-·• L~ t~ Table5.2 (Cont'd) •. _(~, .... .:;....,:,. .... -1-~;..· n--~­-~ ··-r::; U-:· ~" ,,C::::" .7:,·:,_,~,,, :c.:_,~"~":c":" c:o:c":::'o-c::.'·c"- .i:Ql a;J ll;J rr-= ~ Lt;i w:. f..Zl1 Environmental Inventory -Southern Study Area (Willow to AnchorJge/Poiot tlacKenz ie) Cultural : -Resaurces !lata void Dah void Data void Data void Data void Vegetation b Upland. mixed deciduous- conifer fQre3ts {birch- spruce)-open .~nd closed ;m:~tly Tall shrub (alder}; some woodland black spruce; bogs along Deception Ck. Deciduous forest (balsam poplar) .along river, probably birch/spruce forests on uplands fn most of area Data void Higher grounds: Spruce- birch-poplar forests Wet sedge grass bogs and black spruce iorests prevalent lr lower half Upper half; mostly upland birch, spruce & aspea lower half: wet sedge-grass bogs and black spruce; some birch. spruce; aspen on higher ground Spruce forests. spruce- birch forests, sedge-grass bogs and b 1 acre spruce bogs Fish c Resources Willow Ck. -chinook salmon, grayling, burbot, lo~gnose sucker, round whlteftsh 1 Dolly Varden, slimy sculpin; lake trout & rainbow trout in lak~s; t. SusUr1~ R. -Icing salmn; Oecep. Ck. -king, pink salmon Sockeye, chinook, pink, chum, coho salmon In large rivers; grayling burbot, longnos~ sucker, round white- fish, Dolly Varden, s1i~ sculpin. lake and rainbow trout tn lakes & stream; salMOn of particular significance in the Hatanuska 3nd Knik Rivers Willow Ck.-chinook salmon; lake and rainbow trout posible in some lakes; also, fn streams are grayling, burbot, longnose sucker, round whitefish, Oo11y Yarde.~~ slimy sculpin; Red Skirt l. -lake trout, sockeye salmon lakes may contain rainbow and lake trout; possibly grayling In the region lake may contain rainbow and lake trout; possibly grayling in the region · d d Dlrd!i Furbearers Oata vofd Data void Waterfowl and Data void shore bird nesting areas around Knik Ar111 and Eagle Rtver flats Waterfowl and Data void shore bird nesting in Wfllow Creek/ Oe 1 ta Is 1 ands Same as ADF Waterfowl and shore bird migration route, feeding and nesting area Furbearer and small manma 1 surrmer I winter range d Big Game Except near Palmer-- black bear summer range, moose wtnterl summer range, •tyrating corridors and ca ving area; near A also browq bear summer range and feeding area Data void Brown and black bear feeding area, .oose winter/summer range and calving area Same as ADF Black bear summer range and feeding area; moose wtnter/ summer range, feeding and calving ar~a a. Coastal area probably has many sites, available literature not yet reviewed. d. little data available. So~rce of information In thi~ table: Alaska Department of Fish and Game 1978b. b. Ta~l shrub:aJder; low shrub=dwarf birch, and/or willow; open spruce=b1ack (wet) or white spruce, 25%-60% cover; woodland spruce=white or black spruce. 10%-25% cover, mixed forest= spruce-birch. .;• .. __ .... ~ ":1,.\o~ '- c. Little data a .. ilable. Source of tnformat ion to this table: Alaska Department of Fish and Game l978a . fl I I ~ lj i Table 5.3 ' ' f} Environmental Inventory -Central Study Area {Dam Sites to Intertie) ii ;1 Corridor Apprt3X. Approx~ ; Approx. I Topography I ~~ : g Soils a t.and Ownership/ !i ~ Segment Length Road Crossing3 River/CreeJc ij !J J!'.!l!!L Crossings Statusb AB 7 0 S creeks Moderate sloping s. rim of SOlS VS I ::l Susitna R. Valley; crosses ¥ a deep rJvine at Fog Ck. at i \ ,,J I l about 2000' contour j I { - l I l '1 D I I !I BC lS 0 8 creeJcs 2000' contour along s. rim B west~ard-SOlS; vs ;i of Susitna River~ crosses near C -SOlO j ~ i ., 3 steep gorges .. -. 1: ., i) :l g t~ r 'I lj ·1 n r d CD :LS l+ l river Moderately sloping terrain; OSlO C to. 1 1/2 mi. e. lU 4 creeks crosses Susitna R. near Gold of Susitna R. -I w1 Creek (800') VS; Susitna R. tc l dJ rr 'li 1 112 mi. e. -I ; !\ SPTA; ••• to D·P d '! g '! ,':\: I j ~~ J BEC 23 0 a creeks Crosses moderate slopes B, westward -0Sl5; VS exc:e:Jt where ~ I around Stephan Lake; w., then between 8 & C -corridor skirts n. to avoid deep r-avine at IU3; near C -SOlO Cheechaka Ck. I Cheechako Ck., then follows s. ravine. which is i ~ rim of Susitna at about 2000' classified SS f ·~ f Suspended I g r AJ 18 0 11 creeks A (about 2000'} to 3500'; A, westward -OS15; SS except at J ar crosses deep ravine at Devil remainder, except J -at A westward " Ck • ( 2000' ) ; goes· by sever a 1 0516; near J • SOlO acr.oss Tsusena 1 ponds Ck., which are VS _I ~ ~ JC a 0 1 cree~ J (2000'), s.w. through gently OSlO SS except at J an sloping High Lake area,to C at C which are VS Devil C~nyon (2000') I .t ! CF 15 0 2 creeks Devil Canyon (<2000') west SOlO C to 1 1/2 mi. e ., across' 600' deep Portage of Mlami L. mainl :} :\t Creek gorge; w. across VS with small J ~ gentle terrain to F (1200') parcel of SS; ••• I ] to F-P if AG 65 0 1 rivP.r A (2000'), n. along Deadman Near A and along A -VS; n. of A t ! 35 creeks Ck. to 3200'; crosses Denali Hwy • OS15; s.w. of Bfg L. -Brushkana drainage (at through mts.-S016 SS; ••• to s. of .I I i! 3200'); drops to Nenana River Deadman L. • SPTF (2400') and fairly flat ••• to Denali Hwl ter~ain toG (2200') -Fed. 0-l ·.and; data void ft.'(' a I I mi.; around r, -I ! Small Fed. Parce; AH 22 0 9 creeks A (2000'), along Tsusena Ck.; Near A -SOlS; l A· VS; ••• to n. j ' past Tsusena Butte; through mt. base -S016; ot Tsusena Sutte I , I f I mt. pass at 3600' mts. -RMl SS; data void ' beyond here I I' HI 21 0 15 creeks H {3400') through mts.; along Mts. -RMl; r -VS; dnta voic j Jack R. drainage and Caribou along hwy -SOlS to east j I Pass; to I at 24QOJ I l l HJ 23 0 13 creeks H (3400') through mts. along Near J -S016; J -VS; Devil Ck I Portage Ck. drainage, through mid elevations-drainage -SS; pass at 3600•; into Oevn S017; mts. -RMl data void beyond I I ~ Creek drainage; to J at 2000' here ' ! ! t f I f' a. Source: United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service l 1979. See Appendh Table 8·1 for explanation of soil units. 1 \l b. Source: CIRI/Ho ln~s and Narver. 1980. P•Private, SPTA•State Patented or Tentatively Approved, SS•State Selection, VS•V111age Selection. n I if ! •'· I' .J (.1 rn w .I g ' , .. !H [1 ~ . H~ :J m1 'i :1 . J J ml ! ~~ w :I 'l ml tj il '' j ~ j f n~ [ ! ;J !f '¥, ~ /!Jili!J!i j l 1: I ~~ ~ ll Table 5.3 (Cont'd) Environnental Inventory -Central Study Area (Dam Sites to Intertie} Corridor Segments Fish a Resources Birds AB 8C CD SEC AJ JC CF AG AH HI HJ _...,;.-..;;;,;:;,;..-:;,;::;... ______ ,_ Fog Lakes -Dolly Varden, sculpin; Stephan Lak~ contains lake and rainbow trout, sock~ye & coho salmon, whitefish, longnose sucker, grayling; bur bot Potential rapto~ nesting habitat in Fog Creek area Several small tributaries crossed, perhaps used by grayling Sann as BC Several small tributaries crossed, perhaps used by grayling, burbot Do.lly Varden; grayling in Tsusena Creek Burbot; no data for High Lake Portage Creek h&s king~ chinook, chum and pink salmon, grayling, burbot Dolly Varden; lakes e lake ~rout, grayling, white-fish; tributaries to Nenana River and Brushkana Creek n. of Deadman Mt, and Jack R. near Denali Hwy considered important fish habitat Dolly Varden; grayling Lake trout, Caribou Pass area; Jack River s. of Caribou Pass considered important fish habitat; data void Portage Creek -king, chinook, chum, and pink salmon, grayling, burbot Potential raptor nesting itabitat along Devil Canyon Potential raptor nesting habitat along Devil Canyon Potential raptor nesting habitat along Devil Canyon and along drainages upstieam; Stephan Lake are~ impo~t~nt to w~terfowl and migrating swans liata void Potential raptor hab. by Devil Canyon; golden eagle nest along Devil Ck. s. of confluence of ck. from Hig~ Lake Potential raptor habitat along lower Portage Ck. and from Portage Ck. mouth through Devil Canyon Waterfowl numerous at Deadman Lake; impor- tant bald eagle habitat by Oenal i Hwy and Nenana R. just w. of Monahan Flat; unchecked bald eagle nest along Deadman Ck, s.e. of Tsusena Butte Known active bald eagle nest s.e. of Tsusena Butte Data void Data void Furbearers Excellent fux and marten habitat; Fog Lckes support numerous beavers and muskrat; otters conmon Excellent fox and ma1·ten habit at Area around Devil Canyon has excellent fox and marten habitat Exce 11 ent fox and marten habitat, particularly around Stephan Lake Red fox denning sitesy numerous beaver, muskrat and mink, especially around High Lake Same as AJ Area between Parks Hwy and Devil Canyon supports numerous beaver, muskrat, and mink Population relativ~ly low, although ~~aver, mink, fox pr~sent; Deadman Mt. to Denali Hwy •• moderate pop. red fox Population a1ong Tsusena Ck. pro· bably relatively low; with beaver, mink, and fox probably present Data void Numerous beaver, muskrat, and mink around High Lalce a. Lfttle data available. Sources of fnfor·mation in this table: Alaska Department of Fish and Game 1978a, Frie.se 1975, and Morrow 1980. Bfq Game Supports large pop. of moose; wolves, wolverine and bear, {especially brown) conmon; caribou regularly use area Area around Stephan Lake & Prairie Ck. supports large pop. of moose; wolves, wolverines, and some bear (especially brown) comnon; caribou regular users Moose, caribou, and bear habitat Same as AB Mouth of Tsusena Ck. important moose habitat; heavily used by b 1 ack and brown bear Important moose and bear habitat; data void Probabiy important moose wintering area and black bear habitat; at least one wolf pack Probably important area for caribou, e~ecially in the north Data void Data void Data void J n f g t 'J ' I Table 5.3 (Cont'd) Environmental Inventory -Central Study Area (Dam Sftes to Intert1e) Corridor Se~nt Existing/Proposed Existing Scenic. Quality/ Reereation AB sc CD .BEC AJ JC CF AG AH HI HJ Developments Rights-of-Way Follows general No known route of proposed Susitna access rds.; cabins on Fog Lakes; planes use lakes Follows general No known route of Susitna proposed acc!ss rds.; cabins and lodge or~ Stephan L. Fog Lakes -hfgh aesthetic quality; fishing fn Fog Lues Stephan Lake -high aesthetic quality Follows proposed Susitna access rd.- Oevfl Canyon to Old Corps trail, · Scenic area; possible Gold Ck. to Devil fishing Canyon Sus itna R.; sc.attered cabins in Canyon/Gold Creek area Follows general route proposed Susitna access rd.; cabins and lodge on Stephan Lake Follows a proposed Susitna access rd. fr~m Watana westward for approx. 8 mi.; lodge at High Lake Generally follows proposed Susitna access rd.; lodge at High Lalce Follows a proposed Susitna access rd. for about 3 mi. from Devil Canyon to Portage Ck.; mining, cabins Follows a proposed Susitna access rd. - Watana to just n. of Deadman Mt • ; occasional cabins; landing strip along Denali Hwy; airport near G Cabins near Tsusena Butte Cabins near Summit Susitna access rd. along Devil Ck. for about 4 mi.; cabins along Devil Ck. drainage No known No known No known No known Parallels Denali Hwy beyond Brushkana Clc. drainage to G No known No known No known Stephan Lake -high aesthetic quality; major recreaticn area for fishing/boating/ planes High Lake and other lakes -high aesthetic quality; fishing/ hunting in High Lak~ area Same as AJ Boating in Susitn~; hunting, fishing, hiking Remote flat are~s - high visibility; Deadman L. ~nd Mt., Alaska Ra~ge-high aesthetic quality; fishing, float planes; major rec. areas by Brushkana and Nenan~ R., Orasher L. Tsusen~ Butte - aesthetic quality; major sheep hunting <lrea Major sheep hunting area; bird watching at Sunmit L. Scenic drainage; Sheep hunting in n. Cultural Resources Arch. sites identified near Watana Dam site and w. shore of Stephan Lake; potential for I!Wlre sites around Fog Lakes and Stephan Lake Arch. sites near Stephan Lake Hist. sites near Go 1 d Ck. ; data void See AB Arch. sites at Portage Ck. and Susitna R. con- fluence and near Watana Dam .site No knoMJ arch. sites Areh. sites at Portage Ck.; hist. sites near Canyon Arch. sites along Deadman Ck. Arch. site n. of Tsusena Butte along Tsusena Ck; data void Data void Data void a. Tall shrub•alder; low shrub•dwarf birch, and/or !·Jillow; open sprur:e•bl:tck (wet) or white spruce, 25l-60% cover; woodland spruce-white or black spruce, lOl-25% cover, mixed forest• spruce .. birch. Vegetation a Mostly woodland black spruce (wet); some low shrub Open and woodland spruce forests, low shrub, open and closed mixed forest in about equa 1 amounts Mostly closed mixed forests Woodland spruce and bogs around Stephan Lake; low shrub, mat & cushion and sedge-grass tundra at upper end of Cheechako Ck. drain-age; tall shrub (alder} and mixed forest along Cheechako Ck. and towards Devil Canyon Mostly low shrub, mat & cushion, sedge-gra~s tundra some ta 11 shrub (alder) Tall shrub (alder), low shrub and open mixed forest Open & closed mixed forest, tall shrub, low shrub. Mostly low shrub in southern end; northern end -data void Low shrub, tan shrub, woodland spruce Data void Mat & cushion, sedge- grass tundra, tall shrub and open mixed forest fr. southern end ·] 1 I I I I I I I I I .I I I'~!!:; __ L..~~ l~=·!!'!?l ~ r l!e!:'::llll! t___._. r~ L-....~ L~ l;~ ' ~ . ..;._-..:;u.l f =!":*':\ t_...;...__.... ~ [ E::""3 n---L..:;;;:::;..Zi G:';1 G:;~ Table 5,4 G:c.·J! ~-;) G~~~·:l r'-.... ~ r~ ~· u::J torridor Approx. EovironiiiP.nhl Inventory -Northern Study Area (Healy to Fairbanks) Approx. I Approx. I Topography Segment Length Road Cross.ings River/Creek AB BC BOC AE EDC EF {Hiles) 40 50 46 65 50 40 2 highway {Park) 3 trails (1 winter) 2 urdq1roved rds. ! railroad Parks llfghway 1 winter tra f1 1 winter trail 1 hwy. (Parks) 1 trail 7 trails Several roads in fairbanks, depending upon exact route; 3 trails Crossings 3 rivers 15 creeks 1 river 25 creeks 2 rivers 29 creek 1 rfv.:r a 50 creeks 2 rivers 22 creeks 2 rivers 10 creeks Salchaket Slough Follows Nenana River north at 1000' to Browne-crosses River; n.w. to Clear t1EWS at 500' Clear HEWS (500') north across plain {400•), n.e. across Tanana River Valley to Ester (600 1 ) Clear HEWS (500'), n.e. across plain to a point about 24 mi. due s. of Ester; n. across plain to Tanana R. (400') and n. to Ester Up Healy Ck. to pass at 4500'; down Wood R. draina9f to Japan Hills (1100'); steep mts.; valleys Japan Hills (1100') n.w. on plain along Wood R.; through Wood R. Buttes area, n. across Tanana R.; n. to Ester Japan tfilh (HOO') n. across plain to Tanana R.{SOO'); n. to Fairbanks a. AssiJ!les corridor is located on n. side of lfealy Ck. for most of its length, n. side of Cody Ck., and n.w. side of Wood R. b. Source: United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service 1979. See Appendix TableB-1 for explanation of soil units. sons b IR10 Hear B -IRlO; flawJ s. of Tanana River- IQ2; Tanana Rfver- IQJ; Tanana R. tc Ester-IR14 Near B -IR10 Remainder -IQ2 Near A -IRlO; mt. base -IQ25; mt. area -RHl; near E -iRl Near E -JRl; between E and open flats -IRlO; open flats IQ2; Tanana R. -IQJ; Ester -IR14 Hear E -IRl; s. section of flats- IRlO; flats -JQ2; Fa lrbanks -IQJ Land Ownersh§p/ Status c A to e. of Dry Ck.-sma1J Fed. Parcel; ••• to s. of Clear HHIS and at 8-111ostly SPTA, small parcels of P, small Fed. Hat. Allot. along Nenana R.; Clear foEWS area-parcel CJRI Selection, and U.S. Army Wdl. Land 8 to 1 1/2 mf n. -SPTA; ••• to s. to Tanana R. -SS; ••• to Tanana R. -P; ••• to crossing L. Goldstream Ck. -mostly SPTA; ••• to Bonanza Ck. Crossing -SS; ••• to near C-SP; remainder -data vofd 8 area -SPTA; fish Ck to Tanana R. -data void; remainder -SPTA, BAP with P at C and just n. of Tanana R. A to Nenana R. -small fed. Parcel; ... to e. of Gold Run-SPTA •.• re~afnder­ data void Same as DOC north of the Tanana River Data void fxlsting/Proposed Existing neveloP.ments Rights-of-Way Scattered Generally parallels residential and Parks Hwy, RR and other uses along · trans. 1 ine-llealy Park~ t~y; cabin to Browne near Browne; air strip at Healy Scattered reshlential and oth;;~· ~·~'!s a long Parks tlwy; cabin at Tanana R. crossing ft. Uafnwdght Hfl. Reservation Air strips -Healy and Crlpple/ltealy Cks, confluence; cabfns-C<'dy Ck/ Wood R • , Snm~ Ht . Gulch Ft. Wainwright tm. Res.; Wood R. Butte VABH Ft. Wainwright Mil. Res.; cabin -Wood R. crossing s. of Clear Butte Follows w/in several mt. Parks Hwy, RR. and trans. 1tne; more closely follows Parks Hwy. and trans. ltne and sled rd. n • of Tanana R. No known Parallels small rd. - near Healy to Coal Ck.; small RR -Healy to Suntrana; trail at pass between Healy and Cody Cks. No known Parallels Bonnifield Trail-Clear Ck. Butte to fairbanks; trans. line just s. of Fairbanks c. Source: CIRI/Ho1mes and Narver. 1980. P=Private, SPTA=State Patented or Tentatively Appro~ed; SP=State Patened, SS=State Selection, BAP=Borough Approved or Patented. '"""'<t.._'l""--··"· ~-"---....... --~~-. <-·. -~ ·.,>~:.£,. ~~~~ .. '·><:,c·\"~--~:._,_-;'\·.>~~::~~;~i~~-'\?i~~~~?,t_t~\.~~-~-?'~~f~fi'ip' ''P 'i& , MPP--. - j ~ Corridor Seg100nt AB BC BDC AE EOC EF • ., . ...,,,.,..,J~, £::·;;;; .. ~ ~ p.li2::5' ~ ...... _.. ___ ..........,.__....., .... -~~· ....... _,,_.-,~.~-_.w.. ~,.,.._,_. -..._,_.~.......__ _ _.._....._..,_~~-~"""-............ __ ,.,.,.---··-..... ~ .. ·~-> ... ,,io,i\o¥1"~__..,,.. ' ........... wi.*.k\.l<"'IJ...ioo~ I ,•, . · •. ~· ·• • Table 5.4 (Cont•d) Environmental lnventary -Northern Study Are~ (Healy to Fairbanks) Scenic Quality/ Recreation Parks tfwy-scen lc area; rafting. kayaklng on Nenana R. Parks Uwy -scenic area; hunting. ffsHng Wfde open flat-high visibility; snowmobiling In flats s. of Fairbanks Scenic qualfty data void; Heal; Ck ·-rafting area Cultural Resources Dry Ck. arch. site near Healy; 900d possibility for other sitesi data votd Good possibility for arch. s ttes; data votd Good possibility for arch. sites: data void Dry Ck. arch. site near Healy; few arch. sites in mountains; maybe near Japan Hills; data void Wide open flats -high High possibility visfbllty; snowmobiling for arch. sitesi In flets s. of Fairbanks data vol~ Wtde open f1ats -high visibility · Arch. sites have been fdentiHed for the ft. Watnwdght and Blair L'Jkes art'as a Vegetation Southern end -data void Northern end -low shrub, sedge-grass tundra S. of Tanana River -wet old river flooaplaln, low shrub and sedge-grass bogs; Tanana R. crossing- willow and alder shrub types, White spruce, bals~ poplar forests along river; n. of Tanana R. -open and closed deciduous (birch and aspen} forests on slopes, w/woodland spruce and bogs, low shrub, and wet sedge-grass on valley bnttoas Probably wet, low shrub, bogs, wet sedge-grass, alder shrubo lowland spruce; n. of Tanana- upland deciduous forests Data void Probably simtlar to BOC Probably similar to EDC; wet Fhh b Resources c Birds Grayling, burbot. longnose sucker, Important go!den Dolly Varden, round whitefish. sli111y eagle habitat sculpin near A Grayling, burbot, longnose sucker» Dolly Varden. round whitefish, slf~ sculpin; salmon (coho, king, chum , sheefish; lake chub possible Same as BC Same as AB Same as AD. lake chub possible Same as BC with the except ton of coho salmont which Is not recorded Prime peregrine habitat at Tanana R.; prime water- fowl habitat along Tanana R. s. of corridor Near Totatlanlka Ck. to Tanana R. -prime waterfowl habitat; near Wood R. - iqJortant raptor habftat; between D & C by Tanana R. - prime peregrine habitat llllJOrtant golden eagle habitat at A & along Healy Ck. s. of Us ibe HI Pk; prime peregrine habitat on Keevy Pk. From Wood R. Buttes to n. of T~nana R.-prime waterfow1 habitat; between 0 & C along the Tanana R.-prime peregrine habitat. H. af Blair lake Air force Range to the Tanana R. -prime c forbearers Prime habitat -15 Mi. from flenana to B Prtrne habitat - fro111 Clear HEWS across the Tanana PriMe nabttat from B to across Tanana River Prime habitat from E .to the s. about 15 Ali. Prtme habitat from E to just n. of Tanana River Prime habitat from E to Tanana River c Big Game From Nenana R. to B- pr I me moose and Important black bear habit at; t rom A north- ward about 10 111 i.- prime 1110ose habitat Clear •a:ws to across Tanana R -prime moose and Important black bear habitat; n. of Bonanza Ck. Exp. F~rest -pri~ black bear habitat B to across Tanana R -prime ooose, Important black bear habitat; Wood R. to just s. of the Tanana R.-pt'f&ne black bear habitat Usibe11t to Japan Hills- prime moose t caribou habitat; betHeen A & Mystic Ht.-prime sheep habitat; £ to the s. - Import. black bear hab. E to just n. of Tanana R.-prime 1110ose, Important black bear habItat; Wood tt. to just s. of Tanana R.-prime black bear habftat. a. Tall shrub=alder; low shrub=dwarf birch, and/or willow; open spruce=blact (wet) or white spruce, 25i-60i cover; w.~odland spruce=whlte or black spruce, 10%-25% cover, 111ixed forest= spruce-birch. b. Little data avatlabie. Sources of information In this table: Alaska Department of fish and Game 1970a and Morrow 1980. waterfowl habitat; s. of fairbanks along Tanana R.-prime bald f to Tanana R.-prime moose and iq,ortant black bear habttat; Clear HEWS to Tanana R. -prime black bear habitat eagle habitat . c. Source: VanBa llenberghe persona 1 conanun lcat ion. Prf111e hab ttat=t~~lnimum amount of land necessary to provide sustained yield for that species; based upon knowledge of that species• needs from experience of AOF&G personnel. Important habitat=land which the ADF&G considers not as. critical to a species as is Prtme habitat but Is valuable. fiWII -· ..... r .-., ... --il.i ~ .... ...... ~ ~ ~ r-·.·--, -~ b.J •.... ., ~ t:..!MiJ -a u \ z ...... \ .. \ ""' (II of a: 0 0 a: .. a:: 0 01 (.) Zl )- ~I 0 :::> 1- IJ) ~I ~ Q .... l ! j l I *4 .. ·· i t· ····-l ___ j I I I I ' i ... ··-·4 I t i . . i ! ~ >-'T' rJ "::. .._,.,. IY ~ ~; g ,...t... II. w < , t" ~ .. ID ~ u ILl Ci2 'e: ll: Q 0 .,; l ::J .. (9 ::J: !!! u:: .... ~ "' .,. ::;) "' ~ c .... HJ s <( .. .1! " < .:_' ~a.. m 1:111: .. a: <: <t '"" :: 2 0 w ... ~ .. 0 .. a .. .... <t u 0 " ~ s ~ I . . . \ _, l ~ .,'l .. ·-c 0 ' :E ' . I . . 'I . . ... <:, ~ ... 0 \j :1) ~ -... s; ~ "") "" 01 t "" s: 01 -: .... ® ...... ~ ~·,, ·-+-- <;' ... ... "-' -+ g i Q J J -' , 4 • • " ~ ' . . . z. 0 5 (.) 9 ~OOIH~O::> AOnls--ON3931 •nt (i(;{ 'll</.llilll• vre;lll>j ·~F::··~:?.:f. .::: -~::-:·==F-~-. ::."l'~r~·:E'! • .. --~ -,. • f1 lJt. , _I ~ lj u l ~ tJ u u ~ .~.­u u 6 -SCREENING OF CORRIDORS 6.1 -Objective The objectives of the screening process were to focus on the previously selected corridors and select those best meeting technical, economic, and environmental criteria; more specifically: To eliminate the less eligible corridors identified in the selection process; -To select initial corridors for further study; -To identify sensitive areas within the selected corridors that may require additional studies; and -To provide a basis for the 1981 field data collection. 6.2 -Data Base In addition to the data base used for the selection of alternative corridors, the following data were used in the screening process: -Additional field studies to cover the environmental aspects; -An up-to-date land status map; -Larger scale aerial photos for sensitive segments of the potential corridors; -Preliminary input from other Susitna project subtasks; -Discussions and information from public utilities personnel and agencies and their experience and comments on previous transmission lines built in Alaska; and -Input from Intertie public participation programo 6.3 -Assumptions The same assumptions as mentioned in the previous chapter for the selection of alternative corridors were used in the screening process. 6.4 -ReliabilitY. The purpose of electric transmission lines is to provide electrical power. Re- liability was introduced at this stage of the study as a critical element in the screening process, as described below. Reliability is an uncompromising factor in screening alternative transmission line cor,ridors. Many of the criteria utilized for economic, environmental, and technical reasons also relate to the selection of a corridor within which a line can be operated with minimum power interruption. Six basic factors were con- sidered in relation to reliability: 6-1 l l ' ' I.:· .. t . l 1 ,. i ,\ ' { i I , • Jl q .J j J -Elevation: -Aircraft: -Stabilitv: Existing Power Lines: Lines located at elevations below 4,000 feet will be less exposed to severe wind and ice conditions, which can interrupt service. AVoidance of areas near aircraft landing and takeoff operations will minimize risks from collisions. Avoidance of areas susceptible to land, ice, and snow slides will reduce chance of power failures. Avoidance uf crossing existing transmission lines will reduce the possibility of line~ ·Juching during failures and will facilitate repairs. Topography: Lines located in areas with gentle relief will be easier to con- struct and repair. -Access: Lines located in reasonable proximity to transportation corridors will be more quickly accessible and, therefore, more quickly re- paired if any failures occure 6.5 Screening Criteria (a) Technical Screening Criteria Corridor location objectives are to obtain an optimum combination of relia- bility and cost with the fewest environmental problems. In many cases, these objectives are mutually compatible. Throughout the corridor screening and evaluation, the question arises whether it is more desirable to place lines relatively close to existing surface transportation facilities, where an easily accessible line could assure reliability of service during the line's operating life, or to pio- neer new corridors across lands where the 1 i ne waul d be seen by few people .. In the final analysis, when choosing the final line route, there will be enough room in a three-to-five-miie corridor to adjust the centerline to meet the technical, economical, and environmental objectives. Four primary and two secondary technical factors were considered in the screening of alternative corridors. (i) Primary Aspects: -Topography Topography plays a key role in corridor selection, since it affects con- struction, operating, and maintenance. Areas of broken or steep terrain add to access difficulties and thus reduce reliability. Also, condi- tions in which the slope of the terrain exceeds the angle of repose of the soil increase the chances of land, rockj or mud slides. Snow, rock, or mud slides are an additional hazard on steep slopes. During the screening process, therefore, emphasis was placed on screening out those corridors that did not have gentle terraina 6-2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 9 j . 1 ll -__ j J -Climate and Elevation Low temperatures, snow depth, 1c1ng, ~nd severe winds are very important parameters in transmission design, Of.Jerationt and reliability. The climatic factors become more severe in the mountains, where extreme winds are expected for exposed areas and passes. Alaska Power Adminis- tration believes that elevations above 4,000 feet in the Alaska Range and Talkeetna Mountains are completely unsuitable for locating major transmission facilities. Significant advantages of reliability and cost are expected if the lines are routed below 3,000 feet in elevation. This elevation figure was used in the screening process. -Soils Although transmission lines are less affec:ted by soils and foundation limitations than railroads and pipelines, it is more reliable to build a transmission line on soil that does not appear to be underlain by seis- mically induced ground failures or on a swampy area where maintenance and inspection may create problems. These factors were utilized in the screening process. Because of the vast areas of wetlands in the study area, particularly in the southern portion, it was not possible to lo- cate a corridor that would avoid all wetland areas. -Length of Corridors The ideal distance between two load centers is the straight line joining them. In many cases, this idealistic situation cannot be achieved be- cause of geographic or environmental obstacles. A shorter line, in gen- eral, will be easier to maintain and will have fewer technical obstacles than a longer one. (ii) Secondary Aspects: -Vegetation and Clearina Heavily forested areas must be cleared prior to construction of the transmission line. Clearing the vegetation will cause some disruption of the soil. If not properly stabilized through restoration and vegeta- tion, increased erosion will result. If the vegetation is cleared up to river banks on stream crossings, it may result in additional sedimenta- tion. During the corridor screening, those corridors crossing through large expanses of heavily timbered areas were eliminated. -Other Highway and river crossings should be avoided as much as possible. These crossings may require additional temporary structures to protect the cable while permitting the vninterrupted flow of traffic.. (b) Economic Screening Criteria The purpose of this exercise is to compare the conditions under which 6-3 J J J ,;. corridors for each study area would be economicall.Y feasible. Several eco- nomic criteria a.r·e important in screening the transmission line corridors. Tt'iree primary and one secondary aspect of the economic criteria were con- sidered . . ( i) PrimsrY Aspects: -Lenoth Length of transmission line corridors has a definite influence on the capital cost of the line. A longer line will require additional right- of-way clearing, structures, foundations, electrical conductors, and har~dware. At a cost of approximately $350,000/mile (1981 dollars) for a 345 kV single-circuit line, it is economically preferable to build the shortest line possible. A shorter line will also require less mainten- ance and, hence, lower operating costs. Right-of~way is an important factor in transmission line costs. J.\1- though the shortest line is more desirable from a point of view of capi- tal cost, it may sometimes be more economical to avoid existing develop- ments, residential areas, and agricultural lands. This will result in easement purchases being kept to a minimum. Whenever possible, existing rights-of-ways should be shared or para- lelled to avoid the problems associated with pioneering a corridor in previously inaccessible areas. The transmission line corridor should also avoid areas of heavy forest to reduce the cost of clearing the right-of-way. However, this should bs carried out only if it does not add significantly to the length of the line. -Access Roads Corridor~ in relative proximity to existing surface transportation routes will require minimal access roads. This will reduce the cost of transmission Jines and make it easier for maintenance purposes. (ii) Se~ondary Aspects: In addition to the major considerations concern·ing economic screening of corridors, some other aspects were also considered. These include topo- graphy, since it is more economical to build a line on a flat corridor than on a rugged or a mountainous one; and limiting the number of stream, river, highway, road, and railroad crossings in order to minimize costs. 6-4 I I •• I I I I I I I I I I I I [ j . t J j J .J . ~ ,j J j .:.-a (c) Environmental Screening Criteria Because of the potential, adverse environmental impacts from transmission line construction and operation, environmental criteria were carefully scrutinized in the screening process. ~ast experience has shown the pri- mary environmental considerations to be: -Aesthetic and Visual (includinJ impacts to recreation) -Land Use (including ownership and presence of existing rights-Jf-way) Also of significance in the evaluation process are: -Length -Topography -Soils -Cultural Resources -Vegetation -Fishery Hesources -Wildlife Resources A description and rationale for use of these criteria are presented below: (i) Primary Aspects: -Aesthetic and Visual The presence of large transmission line structures in undeveloped areas has the potential for adverse aesthetic impacts. Furthermore, the pres- ence of these lines can conflict with recreational use, particularly those nonconsumptive recree..tional activities such as hiking and bird watching where great emphasis is placed on scenic values. The numbel' cf' road crossings encountered by transmission line corridors is also a fac- tor that needs to be inventoried because of the potential for visual im- pacts. The number of roads crossed, the manner in which they are crossed, the nature of existing vegetation at the crossing site (i.e., potential visual screening), and the number and type of motorists using the highway all influence the desirability of one corridor versus another. Therefore, when screening the previously selected corridors, consideration was focused on the presence of recreational areas, hiking trails, heavily utilized lakes, vistas, and highways where views of transmission line facilities would be undesirable. Land Use The three primary components of land use considerations are: 1) land status/ownership, 2) existing rights-of-way, and 3) existing and pro- posed development. • Land/Status/Ownership The ownership of land to be crossed by a transmission line is impor- tant because certain types of ownership present more restrictions than 6-5 H ~- .~ , ' ~ J '' 'j cJ j ' ~ '' : i ; J ,..l t' i J .~ J l :n ' 1 J J j i '• ~ :! . ~ 't : 1 ' i 1 ' ' 1 ,. l ' • J ' J .) ~ ~ ~ l I j •' i ' ~ ]· .l l : 1 ' i l I ~ < ' ~ j i \ ' j '· ij ,l i ; iJ ' J I J J, ~ 'i ~-;f .J i ~ .. J ) ~ ~ I ~ ,,j ,;; ~ ·' ,J ij . a J ~ ' J i, l j ' ' t others. For oxample, some recreation areas such as state and federal parks and areas like game refuges and military lands, among others, present possible constraints to corridor routingo Private landowners generally do not want transmission lines on their lands. This infor- mation, when known in advance~ permits corridor routing to avoid such restrictive areas and to occur in areas where land use conflicts can · be minimized. • Existing Rights-of-Way I I I I Paralleling existing rights-of-way tends to result in less environ-I mental impact than that which is associated with a new right-of-way because the creation of a new right-of-way may provide a means of ac- 1 cess to areas normally accessible only on foot. This can be a criti- cal factor if it opens sensitive, ecological areas to all terrain vehicles. Impact on soils, vegetation, stream crossings, and others of the in-I ventory categories can also be lessened through the paralleling of existing access roads and cleared rights-of-way. Some impact is still 1 felt, however, even though a right-of-way may exist in the area. For example, cultural resources may not have been identified in the origi- nal routing effort. Wetlands present under existing transmission lines may likewise be negatively influenced if ground access to the I vicinity of the tower locations is required. There are common occasions where paralleling an existing facility is I not desirable. This is particularly true in the case of highways that offer the potential for visual impact~ and in situations where para- lleling a poorly sited transmission facility would only compound an 1 existin; problem. • .. Existing and Proposed Developmen1~ This inventory identifies such things as agricultural use; planna1 urban developments, such a~ the proposed capital site; existing resi- dential and cabin aevelopments; the location of airports and of lakes used for f1oat planes; and similar types of information. Such infor- mation is essential for locating transmission line corridors appropri- ately, as it presents conflicts with these land use activities. (ii) Secondary ft~, .~ts: -Length The length of a transmission line is an environmental factor and, as such, was considered in the screening process. A longer line will re- quire more construction activity than a shorter line, will disturb more land area, and will have a greater inherent probability of encountering environmental constraints~ 6-6 I I I I I I I ' ~~ 11 ! J l ' l ' .. l l I ; ' ' " ' ' i I ~ " I \ 'l i 1 " ~ J ;:> ij !! 3 :~ :l j I l ,, i J i 'I ', ' \ ~ j ~ ;~ ij n ' J i ~ ~ I g I I J 9 I J '~ f J ~ ' 1 li ,-l J j ' 1 J j r 1 ; l ) l ' j } !, j 1 l\ 'r 1 l ' j ~ lj j j ~ I j t l ,,,~i i l;..J ij • ,J J ~ ~J -Topography The natural features of the terrain are significant from the standpoint that they offer both positiv~ and negative aspects to transmission line routing. Steep slopes, for example, present both difficult construction and soil stabilization problems with potentially long-term, negative en- vironmental consequences. Also, ridge crossings have the potential for visual impacts. At the same time, slopes and elevation changes present opportunities for routing transmission lines so as to screen them from both travel routes and existing communities. When planning corridors then, the identification of changes in relief is an important factor. -Soils Soils are important from several standpoints. First of all, scarifica- cion of the land often occurs during the construction of transmission lines. As a result~ vegetation regeneration is affected, as are there- lated features of soil stability and erosion potential. In addition, the development and installation of access roads, where necessary, are very dependent upon soil types. Tower designs and locations are dic- tated by the types of soils encountered in any particular corridor seg- ment. Consequently, the review of existing soils information is very significant. This inventory was conducted by means of a Soil Associa- tions Table, found in Appendix Table B.l, '>f this report. Appendix Table 8.2 presents the related definitions ~s they apply to the terms used in Appendix Table B.l. -Cultural Resources The avoidance of known or potential sites of cultural resources is an important ~omponent of the routing of transmission lines. In planning for Susitna Project transmission lines, however, information on the presence of cultural resources is, for the most part, unavailable at present. Identification of data-voids for this category h;ghlights the need for further evaluation of this resource, not only in the planning stage but also in the final route selection analysis. Further identifi- cation of known, as well as potential, sites will be accomplished as the routing and impact analyses continue. Vegetatio!:!_ The consideration of the presence and locatioJ of various plant communi- ties is essential in transmission line siting. The inventory of plant communities, such as those of a tall-growing nature or wetlands, is sig- nificant from the standpoint of construction, clearing, and access road development requirements. In addition, identification of locations of endangered and threatened plant species is also critical. While several Alaskan plant species are currently unde~ review by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, no plant species are presently listed under the En- dangered Species Act of 1973 as occurring in Alaska. Murray (1980) has published a state listing of endangered and threatened species. No cor- ridor currently under consideration has been identified as traversing any location known to support these identified plant species. 6-7 ,_, ' .£~ ·~ r::> ·,o_ -- I fl u 1 1 ,, .1 J ~ 'I :...1 u f j u -Fishery Resources The presence or absence of resident or anadromous fish in a stream is a significant factor in evaluating suitable transmission line corridors. The corridor's effects on a stream•s resources must be viewed from the standpoint of possible disturbance to fish species, potential loss of habitat, and possible destruction of spawning beds. In addition, cer- tain species of fish are more sensitive than others to disturbance. Closely related to this consideration is the number of stream crossings. The nature of the soils and vegetation in the vicinity of the streams and the manner in which the streams are to be crossed are also important environmental considerations when routing transmission lines. Potential stream degradation, impact on fish habitat through disturbance~ and long-term negative consequences resulting from siltation of spawning beds are all concerns that need evaluation in corridor routing. There- fore, the number of stream crossings and the presence of fish species and habitat value were considered when data were avai'lable .. -Wildlife Resources The ~hree major groups of wildlife which must be considered in trans- m1ssion corridor screening are big game, birds, and furbearers. Of all the wildlife"species to be considered in the cGurse of routing s~udies for transmission lines, big game species (together with endangered species) are most significant. Many of the big game species, including grizzly bear, caribou, and sheep, are particularly sensitive to human intrusion into relatively undisturbed areas~ Calving grounds, denning areas, and other important or unique habitat areas as identified by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game were identified and incorporated into the screening processQ Many species of birds such as raptors and swans are sensitive to human disturbance. Identifying the presence and location of nesting raptors and swans permits avoidance of traditional nesting areas. Moreover, if this category is investigated, the presence of endangered species (viz, peregrine falcon~) can be determined. Important habitat for furbearers exists along many potential transmis- sion line corridors in the railbelt area, and its loss or disruption would have a direct effect on these animal populations. Investigating habitat preferences, noting existing habitat, and identifying popula- tions through available information are important steps in addressing the selection of environmentally acceptaole alternatives. 6.6 -Screening Methodology (a) Technical and Economical Screening Met,h_odology The parame:ers requirerJ for the technical and economical analyses were ~x­ tracted from the environmental inventory tables (Tables 5.2 through 5.4). The tables, together with the topographic maps, aerial photos, and existi.ng published materials, were used to compare the alternative corridors from a .. 1 I J I I I I .I .I I .I I '··: f il ' [ l! ·~~ f l ; il , ' ' t ' ~ j IJ 1.1 _ _j L1 l ~ ... J t .~ w u (b) technical and economical point of view. The parameters used in the analy- sis were: length of corridors, approximate number of highway/road cross- ings~ approximate number of river/creek crossings, land ownership, topo- graphy, soils, and existing rights-of-way.. The main factors contributing to the economical and technical analyses are combined and listed in Tables 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3. It should be noted that most of the parameters are in miles of line length, except the tower construction. In this analysis, it was decided to assign 4.5 towers for each mile of 345-kV line. In order to screen the most qualified corridor, it was decided to rate the corridors as follows: Corridor rated A -recommended Corridor rated C -acceptable but not preferred Corridor rated F -unacceptable From the technical point of view, reliability, as discussed in Section 5, is the main objective. An environmenta1ly and economically sound trans- mission line was rejected if the line was not reliable. Thus, any line which received an F technical rating, was assigned an overa11 ~ating ofF and eliminated from further consideration. The ratings appear in each of the economical and technical screening tables {Tables 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3) and are summarized in Table 6.7~ Environmental Screening Methodology In order to compare the alternative corridors {Figures 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3) from an environmental standpoint, the environmental criteria discussed in Section 6.4 were combined into environmental constraint tables {Tables 6.4, 6.5~ and 6.6). These tables combine information for each corridor segment into the proper corridors under study. This permitted the assignment of an environmental rating, which identifies the relative rating of each corridor within each of the three study areas. The assignment of environmental rat- ings is a subjective, qualitative technique intended as an aid to corridor screening. Those corridors that are recommended are identified with and 11 A," while those corridors that are acceptable but not preferred are iden- tified with a "C." Finally, those corridors that are considered unaccept- able are identified with an "F." 6.7 -Screening Results Table 6.7 summarizes the comparisons of the 22 corridors studied in the southern, central, and northern study areas. Environmental, economical, and technical ratings are presented as well as a summary rating for each corridor. Because of the critical importance of environmental considera- tions, any corridor which received an F rating for environmental impacts was assigned a summary rating of F. Thus, a corridor which may be excel- lent from a technical and economic viewpoint was considered not acceptable if the environmental rating was unacceptable. As discussed previously, the same reasoning related to reliability was used to reject all corridors which received an F technical rating. 6-9 9 l l i~ .J ' ~ u j J 1 J Descriptions of the rationale for each corridor's rating are presented below. (a) Southern Study Area Three alternative corridors were evaluated in the southern study area. As previously identi·fied, two corridors connect Willow with Point MacKenzie. The third corridor connects Willow with Anchorage. (i) Corridor One (ABC')-Willow to Anchorage via Palmer -Technical and Economical This 73-mile corridor is the longest of the three being considered for the southern area. As a consequence, there will be more clear- ing of right-of-way required, more miles of line, and more towers. Several highway and railway crossings will also be encountered, in- cluding crossing of the Glenn Highway. The corridor is located in a well-developed, inhabited area which will require easements on private properties. There also could be a problem of radio and television interference. -Environmental Several constraints were identified in evaluating this corridor, chief among which were constraints under the land use category. A new right-of-way would be required from Willow to a point in the vicinity of. Palmer. Th1s would necessitate the development of a pioneer access road and, since this area is wooded, attendant vege- tation clearing and opening of a previously inaccessible area. The corridor also bisects lands in the vicinity of Willow that have been proposed for use as the new capital site. Between Eklutna and Anchorage, this route parallels an existing transmission line that now crosses extensively developed areas. Paralleling existing corridors usually is the most appropriate means of traversing developed areas. Because homes and associated buildings abut the right-of-way, however, additional routes through this developed area present problems, among which aesthetics is most important. In addition, this corridor alternative crosses 5 rivers and 28 creeks, potentially affecting not only the rivers and streams but also fish species inhabiting these water courses. From the standpoint of aesthetics, a transmission line in the vicinity of Gooding Lake would negatively affect an existing bird-watching area. However, because this area is not heavily utiliz~d and rout- ing variations are available within the corridor, it is considered environmentally acceptable. Ratings: Technical c Economical c 6-10 Environmental c Summary c 1 ] I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 9 J l ~ .l _j _j . a I iJ i _ _j I I~ ~j I t ' w (ii) Corridor Two (ADFC) -Willow to Point MacKenzie via Red Shirt Lake ___ __.__ -·:¢.''" ' -Technical and Economical Corridor ADFC crosses the fewest number of rivers and roads in the southern study area. It has the advantage of paralleling an exist- ing tractor trail for a good portion of its length, thereby reduc- ing the need for new access roads. Easy access will allow mainten- ance and repairs to be carried out in minimal time. This corridor also occurs at low elevations and is approximately one-half the length of Corridor One. -Environmental This corridor crosses extensive wetlands from Willow to Point Mac- Kenzie. At higher e·ievations or in the better drained sites, ex- tensive forest cover is encountered. Good agricultural soils have been identified in thr vicinity of this corridor; the state plans an Agricultural Lands Sale for areas to be traversed by this corri- dor. The corridor also crosses the Susitna Flats Game Refuge. The presence of an existing tractor trail near considerable portions of this corridor diminishes the significance of some of these con- straints. Furthermore, its short length and the fact that it crosses only one river and eight creek crossings increases its en- vironmental acceptability. Ratings: Technical A Economical A Environmental A Summary A (iii) Corridor Three (AEFC) -Willow to Point MacKenzie via Lynx Lake -Technical and Economical This corridor has the same physical features as Corridor Two. Both corridors have extensive wetlands. AEFC cuts across a developed recreational area and hence will require special routing procedures to circumvent some of the private property it will traverse. This corridor is very accessible. Technically, because of its short length and low elevation, it is a desirable corridor, but econom- ically it would be costly to obtain easements and to route the line through the severai privately owned properties. ·-Environmental As with the previous corridor, this route crosses extensive wet- lands requiring, in the better drained areas, extensive clearing of associated forest. Just south of Willow, this route passes through the Nancy Lakes recreation area. Substantial development of both residential and recreational fac.ilities has occurred in the past and is continuing. These facilities would be affected by the pres- ence of the transmission line, not only from a land use stanctpoint, 6-11 " " a ~ ~~ rl ~ :I II ! ~ ' il :j ~ ., J :I :i !] ,j ") ' ·I ·~ ,,, 1 ,j '! '. :l I t; j I I \ 'I I I i i l I I ' 1 1 l ;~ l ) I ·l l 1 ~ i ij ~ ~ " j but also from an aesthetics standpoint. Because of this unavoid- able land use conflict associated with this corridor, particularly in the Nancy Lake area, it is not considered to be environmentally acceptab 1 e. Ratings: Technical A (b) Central Study Area Economical c Environmental F Summary F Fifteen corridors utilizing different combinations of corridor segments were identified in the central study area. These corridors connect the damsites with the Intertie at four separate locations. These locations are in the vicinity of Indian River near its confluence with the Susitna River and near the communities of Chulitna, Summit, and Cantwell. I I I I .I I Because of the range in length of the corridors, those with long lengths I were assigned 1ow economic ratings. These corridors, numbers Four (ABCJHI), Five (ABECJHI), Seven (CEBAHI), Eight (CBAG), Nine (CEBAG), Ten (C,JAG), and Twelve (JACJHI), have lengths of 76 to 9/ miles. In addition I to these, Corridors Four and Six (CBAHI) were assigned an F technical rat- ing because they cross mountainous areas over 4,000 feet in elevation. Corridors Four and Six were rated unacceptable technically and therefore Jl were eliminated because reliability cannot be compr·omised .. The remaining six corridors, although unacceptable economically (F rating), were eva.lu-1 ated on an environmental basis. This was done to determine whether one of these long corridors was much more acceptable environmentally than a shorter one. Therefore, environmental information is presented for the eight above- mentioned corridors. This is followed by a discussion of the economic, technical, and environmental features of the remaining seven corridors in the central study area. Corridors Technically and/or Economically Unacceptable (i) Corridor Four (ABCJHI) -Watana to Intertie via Devil Creek Pass/East Fork Chulitna River This corridor connects Devil Canyon with Watana and exits the Devil Canyon project to the north following the drainages of Devil, Portage, and Tsusena Creeks. To route this corridor to the Intertie as required, the line crosses some mountain passes over 4,000 feet in elevation with steep slopes and shallow bedrock areas (Corridor Seg- ment CJHI). The tra~smission line would interrupt the existing viewshed of the recreation facility at High Lake. Existing patterns of la~d use in the vicinity of High Lake may also be significantly disrupted by the transmission line. Once on the north side of the river, this 6-12 'I I I I I I I I r 1 f { G.) i ~ ' ~ I ! l I 1 l l 'j ! I --1·. . I J -, ' ., j 1 J J l ' j j .J corr1aor crosses 42 creeks between Devil Canyon and the connection with the Intertie. Potential for stream degradation exists because of the lack of existing access. Sensitive wildlife species, such as caribou, wolves, and brown bear, as well as a golden eagle nest site, could be potentially harmed by this corridor. Ratings: Technical F Economical F Environment a 1 F Summary F (ii) Corridor Five (ABECJHI) -Watana to Intertie via Stephan Lake and the East Fork Chulitna River This corridor crosses areas of high elevations and shallow soils un- der~ain by bedrock. Land use constraints are encountered in the vicinity of both High Lake and Stephan L&ke, two significant recrea- tion and lodge areas. Relatively important waterfowl and m1grating swan habitat would be affected, as would habitat for some of th.: major big game species~ In addition, this corridor makes 42 creek crossings. Extensive vegetation clearing would be required, opening areas to access. Because of the visual impacts and increased access, this corridor received an F rating. Katings: Technical F Economical F En vi ronmenta 1 F Summary F (iii) Corridor Six (CBAHI) Devil Canyon to the Intertie via Tsusena Creek/Chulitna River ----~~--------- Reversing the sequence by which the damsites are connected, Corridor Six extends from Devil Canyon to Watana (Corridor Segment CBA) and from Watana north along Tsusena Creek to the point of connection with the Intertie near Summit Lake (Corridor Segment AHI). Access roads are presently absent along most of this corridor, and a pioneer route would need to be established. This corridor also traverses eleva- tions above 4,000 feet above sea level and encounters shallow soils underlain by bedrock. Wetlands, extensive forest cover, and 32 creek crossings also constrain the development of this corridor. A bald eagle nest in the vicinity of Tsusena Butte, as well as the presence of sensitive big game species such as caribou and sheep, present additional constraints to the routing of the corridor. This corridor was rated F, primarily because of increased access and potential neg- ative impact on sensitive wildlife species. Ratings: Technical F Economical c Environmental F Summary F (iv) Corridor Seven (CE~AHI) Devil Canyon to Intertie via Stephan Lake and Chulitna River The primary environmental constraints associated with this corridor 6-13 ·'j. . "• .., ' ' ~ ., if • . J !I 'I l l j I .l 1 ·l 'I ' •\ ,j 1 l "'l 1 :t i ~1 i't " ·' j l1 .! "I ,! '•l ,, are the result of visual and increased access impacts. The corridor crosses near residential and recreational facilities at Stephan Lake and is in the viewshed of the Alaska range. Access road construction would be necessary through wetlands and areas of heavy timber. In addition, the corridor crosses 45 creeks, including some with valuable spawning areas. It also crosses habitat for wolves and bears~ including Prairie Creek which is heavi1y used by brown bears during salmon runs. This offers the potential for increased bear- human contacts .. Again, because of potential for visual impacts and increased access, this corridor received an F rating. Ratings: Technical c Economical F Env i ronmenta 1 F Summary F. (v) Corridor Eight (CBAG) -Devil Canyon to Intertie via Deadman/ Brushkana Creeks and Denali Highway Constraints in the categories of lana use, aesthetics, and fish and wildlife resources are present in this corridor. Among the longest of corridors under consideration, this route passes near recreation areas, isolated cabins, lakes used by float planes, and land-based airstrips.. In traversing lands from the Watana Dam site to the point of connection with the Intertie, the route also intrudes upon some scenic areas. Along much of its length, the corridor crosses wood- lands and, since a pioneer access road probably would need to be developed, vegetation clearing would likely be extensive. Once north of the Watana Dam site, the transmission line corridor makes 35 creek crossings and traverses the habitat not only for a variety of sensi- tive big game species but also for waterfowl and raptors. In addi- tion, the line passes near the location of an active bald eagle nest on Deadman Creek. For these reasons, a rating of F was assigned. Ratings: Technical c Economical F Environmental F Summary F (vi) Corridor Nine (CEBAG) -Devil Canyon to Intertie via Stephan Lake and Denali Highway Corridor Nine is the longest under construction in the central study area and, hence, would require disturbance of the largest ·land areas. It also crosses areas of shallow bedrock, important waterfowl migra- tory habitat at Stephan Lake, and 48 creeks, including valuable spawning areas .. The corridor passes near Stephan Lakt, utilized heavily for recrea- tion, and any line constructed in this area would be visible when 6-14 1 ) ~. ] 1 I ~~ I .I .I I .I I ,I I I ' J ! i J ,.J looking towards the Alaska range. Although one of the proposed ac- cess roads to the damsites does occw· in this area offering the po- tential for parallel rights-of-way, the extreme length of this corri- dor and the potential for unavoidable adverse land use and aesthetic impacts result in its being unacceptable. Thus, an F rating was as- signed. Ratings: Technical c Economical F En vi ronmenta 1 F Summary F (vii) Corridor Ten -Devil Canyon to Intertie via North Shore, Susitna R1ver, and Denali H1ghway This is the second longest of the corridors under investigation by this study. Routing above 3~000 feet and its concomitant bedrock and steep slopes are important restrictions of this corridor. It would also encounter the land use constraints identified in Corridor Nine, as well as several other drawbacks, most notable of which are in the areas of aesthetics and fish and wildlife resources. Forty-seven creek crossings would be required by this corridor. This corridor could also parallel one of the proposed access roads. However, as with Corridor Nine, its long length, land use, and visual impacts do not make it an acceptable corridor. All of the above and particularly the aesthetic constraints rP;sult in an F rating. Ratings: Technical c Economical F Environmental F Summary F (viii) Corridor Twelve (JA-CJHI -Devil Canyon Watana to Intertie via Devil Chulitna Rive~ This corridor has a number of environmental constraints which to- gether make it environmentally unacceptable. Land use conflicts would likely occur, since much of the land crossed is privately owned. The lack of existing rights-of-way and clearing of vegetation would result in new access. In addition, aesthetic impacts would oc- cur in the High Lakes area and beca~se the corridor is in the view- shed of the Alaska Range. Finally, the corridor crasses 40 creeks, including valuable salmon-spawning grounds, and crosses near a golden eag.l e nest. This corridor, p~imarily because of impacts to access, private lands, and aesthetics, received an F rating. Ratings: Technical c Economical F 6-15 Environmental F Summary F ,., .. ' 1 ·! . I l l i J ' 1 .J Corridors Technically and Economically Acceptable Review of the environmental ratings for the eight corridors above shows all of them to be environmentally unacceptable. Therefore, the screening in the central study area process was continued with the seven r·emaining corridors with lengths or elevations that did not rule them out economically or technically. The results of this screening for technical, economical, and environmental factors follow. (i) Corridor One (ABCD) -Watana to the Intertie via South Shore of the Susitna River I I -Technical and Economical .J Corridor One is one of the shortest corridors considered, approxi- mately 40 miles long, making it economiciilly favorable. No techni-·~· cal restrictions were observed along the entire length of this . corridor. Environment a 1 ·1 Because of its short length, environmental disturbance caused by transmission line construction would be reduced.. The more note- wo~thy constraints are those identified under the categories of land use and vegetation.. Corridor One would require the develop- ment of a new right-of-way between Watana and Devil Canyon with some Ot-'POrtunity existing to utilize the COE-developed road for ac·· cess between the Intertie and Devil Canyon. The potential does exist in this corridor to use one of the proposed access roads cur- rently under consideration. Wetlands and discontinuous forest cover occur in the corridor, especially in the eastern third of the route. Access road development, if required in this area, and the associated vegetation clearing present additional constraints to this corridor. Ratings: Technical A Economical A Er.vi ronmenta 1 A (ii) Corridor Two (ABECD) -Watana to Intertie via Stephen Lake -Technical and Economical Summary A This corridor is approximately five miles longer than Corridor One and would require an additional five miles of access road for con- struction purposes. The corridor will rise to a maximum e'levation of 3,600 feet, and also crosses wetlands and extensive forest cover. This higher elevation, increased clearing, and longer length result in a lower technical and economic rating than Corri- dor One. -Environmenta1 This corridor is identical to Corridor One with the exceotion of ' 6-16 I I I I I I I I I I [~I r' \ Corridor Segment BEC. Because of this deviation, several addition- al problems arise in this corridor as compared with Corridor One. First, a.n access road about nine miles longer than that required for the construction of Corridor One would be needed. A new road may also have to be developed along most of this route, which would also cross wetland and forested areas. Residential and recrea- tional facilities at Stephan Lake and the much higher visibility of the transmission facilities to the users of this recreation area would be a major constraint posed by this corridor. The corridor would also intrude upon habitat for wolves, bear, and caribou, as well as for raptors and waterfowlft Of note, brown bears utilizing the fish resources of Prairie Creek would likely encounter this alternative corridor more frequently than they would Corridor One, thus potentially bringing bears and people into close contact. These potential impacts to aesthetics and creation of new access road result in this corridor being environmentally unacceptable. Ratings: Technical c Economical c En vi ronmenta 1 F Summary F (iii) Corridor Three (AJCF) -Watana to Intertie via North Shore of the Susitna River -Technical and Economical This corridor is similar in length to Corridor Two and shares the same technical and economical considerations. TI1ere are no exist- ing roads for nearly the en~ire length, and it does encounter some steep slopes. These 1f.lill reduce the reliability of ~he line and add to the cost of construction. -Environmental The corridor in this area would likely requit~e a pioneer e.ccess road. This route would also be impeded by the existence of recrea-"' tion facilities ~n the vicinity of High Lake and, more signifi- cantly, Otter Lake. TI1e corridor is within sight of recreation facilities at these lakes and may also interfere with the use of High Lake by planes during certain weather conditions. The route also crosses Indian River and Portage Creek; both streams support significant salmon resources. Potential damage to spawning areas could occur as a result of construction along this corridor. An active golden eagle nest exists in the Devil Creek vicinity. This species is sensitive to development activities and could be ad- versely affected by Corridor Three. Ratings: Technical c Economical c 6-:17 En vi ronmenta 1 c Summary c 1 1· ( ·~~ '-~ '11 :l •J ] 'J'' l< "" ·, ,~ • .J _· 1,- , J -~ (iv) Corridor Eleven (CJAHI -Devil Can on to the Intertie via Tsusena Creek Chulitna River -Technical and Economical This corridor has a disadvantage over the others discussed because of its 70-mile length. New access roads and vegetative clearing would be required for a considerable portion of the corridor, thereby increasing costs of construction. -Environmental Corridor Segments CJA (part of CJrridor Three) and AHI (part of Corridor Six) comprise this alternative and, as such, have been previously discussed. The long 1angth of this corridor, its cross- ing of 36 creeks, and development of a new right~of-way and land use conflicts contribute to an unacceptable envirnnmental rating. Ratings: Technical c Economical c Environmental F Summary F (v) Corridor Thirteen (ABCF)-Watana to Devil Canyon via South Shore, Devil Canyon to Intertie via North Shore, Susitna River _.; -Technical and Economical This corridor, 41 miles in length, is one of the shorter ones being considered. Although it crosses deep ravines, and forest clearing will be required over a considerable portion of its length, it is rated high technically because of its short length and low eleva- tion .. -Environmental Since this corridor combines segments from Corridor One (ABC) and Corridor Three (CF), the same constraints for those two routes apply which have been previously described. This corridor pre5ents a few environmental problems. Conflicts with recreation nec-r Otter Lake can be resolved through careful selection of one final right- of-way. Ratings: Technical A Economical c C:nvi ronmenta 1 A Summary A (vi) Corridor Fourteen (AJCD -Watara to Devil Canyon via North Shoro, 1JeV 1 anyon to ntert1 e v 1 a·=south Shore, Sus i tn a R-iver:-- . t____.o..~; -.. Technical and Economical This corridor ·is also one of the shor·test among the fifteen studied 6-18 1 1 I I 'I .I .I .I I ·-· ] ·i 4:;;~-· I' ~ , . ;:;:;~·· ' ' ; i I til ~ l l ' . I_ 1 .. 1 .. ,tl ~ 1~. in the central area. Some access roads will be required for this corridor and some clearing necessary. Advantage will be taken of the proposed project access road where possible to locate the transmission line close by. Corridor Fourteen is rated as recommended both economically and technically, because of gentle relief, sho~t length, and small amounts of clearing. -Environmental · This corridor .reverses the routing between damsites and the Inter- tie proposed by Corridor. Thirteen. Constraints are, therefore, the same as those presented for Cprridors Three and One, and are ·not great. However, the unavoidable conflict with land use at High . Lake results in a C rating. Ratings: Technical A Economi·cal A Environmental c Summary A (vii) Corridor Fifteen (ABECF)-Watana to Devil Canyon via Stephan Lak~, Devil Canyon to Intertie via North Shore, Susitna Hiver .· -Technical and Economical This corridor is approximately 45 miles--long and would require con- struction of new access roads and forest clearing for almost its entire length. These negative economical points-contribute to the low rating of this corridor. -EnvironmAntal· This corridor combines segments from Corridor Two (ABEC) and Corri- dor Three (CF). The constraints for these corridors have been pre- sented under their respective discussions. Extensive new access and detrimental visual impacts near Stephan Lake were the primary constraints along the corridor segment from .Corridor Two which re- sult~d in an unacce~table env1ronmental rating. . .Ratings: Technical c· . . . Economical ·C Environmenta 1 F Summary F (c) Northern Study Area . .. . , . . Constraints appeared in the routing of all four corridors evaluated in the northern study area. The shortest rou~e was 85 miles and the longest was· 115 miles. Topography and soils restrictions are constraints to each of the corridors· evaluated.. In addition, the t\'Jo eastern corridors. of the study area cross mo~ntain slopes. Each of the corridors would be highly visible in the floodplain of the Tanana River. Major highways skirt these floodplains~ at some distance to the north, however; and only scattered, . . . .. 6-19 • I . I I _, isolated residential areas· would be encountered by the corridors. Little information has been co 11 ected concerning the cultur a 1 resources in the vicinity o.f any of the four corridors of this study area. The Dry Creek archaeologic site near Healy has been identified; however, the pre.sence of numerous sites in the foothills of the Alaska Range and in the vicinity of the 7anana River are suspected. Additional constraints peculiar to the four separate corridors .are presented below. (i) Corridor One (ABC) -Healy to Fairbanks via Parks Highway . ' . · -Technical and Economical This corridor crosses the fewest water courses in th~ northern study area. Although it is approximately four miles longer than Corridor Two, it is technically favored because of the ex·lstence of potential access roads for almost the entire length .. -Environmental Because. it parallels an existing transportation corridor for much of its length, this corridor would permit line routing that would avoid most visually sensitive areas. ·The three proposed road· crossings for this corridor (as opposed to the 19 road crossings of the Healy-Fairbanks transmission line) could occur at points where roadside development exists, in areas of visual absorbtion capabil- ity or in areas. recommended to be opened to long-distance views (D.N.R. 1981).. · .. . ·· .. ·. ····~·!·~-~:-. . . Four rivers and 40 creeks are crossed by this corridor, with poten- tial for impacts" It crosses the fewest number .of water courses of any route under consideration in the northet"n study area... In addi- tion, the inactive nest site of a pair of peregrine falcons occurs within this proposed corridor. As with visual impacts, land use, wildlife, and fishery resource impacts can be lessened through careful route location and utiliza- tion of existing access. Impacts on forest clearing can also be lessened through the sharing of existing transmission. line corl'i-· dors. Ratings: · Technical A Economical A Environmental A Summary A (ii) Corridor Two (ABDC) -Healy to Fairbanks via Wood River Cros$in[ -Technical and Economical This is the shortest corridor {86 miles) studied in this area. Al- though comparable to Corridor One, it crosses additional wetlands, increasing the technical difficulty of transmission line construc- tion. Development of roads will also pose a major constraint .. 6-20 0 - 'l "(;' - l J· ' I -Environmental Corridor Two is the shortest under consideration in the northern study areae As it is a variation of ·corr .. idor One, many of the same . constraints apply here. The lack of existing rights-of-way is a constraint throughout much of this route. Prior to crossing the Tanana River, this cor-ridor deviates farther to the northeast than does Corridor One, thereby crossing additional wet soils; thus, access-road development poses a major constraint. · Forest clearing would be necessary in the broad floodplain of the Tanana River. While it is the shortest route, this corridor still crosses 5 rivers and 44 creeks as well as prime habitat and important habitat for peregrines and golden eagles. These constraints, .and visual and public land conflicts, result in a Crating. Ratings: Technical c Economical A Environmental ,. J Summary c (iii) Corridor Three (AEDC) -Healy to fairbanks via Healy Creek and Japan Hills Technical and Economical This 115-mile corridor is the longest in the northern study area. Its considerable length \'/ould contribute substatitially to i.ncreased costs of construction. _The ~rossing of-areas over. 4~500 feet in elevation results in the corridor's being technically unacceptable for reasons discussed in Section 6.4. -Environmental This corridor crosses a high mountain pass and, in some locations, encounters bedrock overlaid with shallow, wet soils. Access is a problem because, except for the road into the Usibelli coal fields, no rights-of-way exist along the route. Crossing the broad flood- plain of the Tanana and Wood Rivers would require extensive forest clearing and result in aesthetic impacts. In addition, this corri- dor involves 3 river and 72 creek crossings. Prime habitat for · caribou, peregrine falcons, sheep, an.d waterfowl as well as import- ant habitat for golden eagles and brown bear would be affected. The increased length and increased visual impacts result in this· corridor's being environmentally unacceptable. Ratings: Technical F Economical c 6-21 Environment a 1 f Summary F . J .I . ' ' I . ' I I, I I. I I i . : I i (iv) Corridor Four {A~F) -Healy to Fairbanks via Wood River and.Fort Wainwright -Technical anci Economical The technical und eco"nomical constraints associated with this cor- ridor are. the same as those in Corridor Three. The long distance of this corridor (105 miles) and the crossing ·of areas over 4,500 feet in elevation reduce its attractiveness from a technical and economical vi·ewpoint. -Environm~ntal · Corridor Four is very simi·l ar to Corridor· Three in that it paral- lels Healy Creek drainage north. Therefore, impacts to this moun- . tainous region would be identical to those described for this cor- ridor .~egment in Corridor Three. In the vicinity of-Japan Hills~ however, the corridor parallels an existing sled road for part of its length as it traverses the wet, heavily forested floodplain of the Tanana and Wood Rivers. Clearing requirements might, there- fore, be reduced, as would be the ne~d for access roads in this area. Important habitat or prime habitat for peregrine falcons, bald eag1es, sheep, caribou, and brown bear exists within this cor- ridor. This corridor is unacceptable from a land use standpoint because it is 'tJithin the Blair lake Air Force active bombing ranges precluding further consideration of this corridor.· . . Ratings: Technical F· .. _, ·~, ..... -· ... ~ :.,. ·~" ... Economical c 6-22 Environmental F Summary F .• I . I I I ,) J J I I :1 ' J J I" TABLE 6.1: ECONOMICAL AND TECHNICAL SCREENING SOUTHERN STUDY AREA (WILLOW TO ANCHORAGE/POINT MACKENZIE) -Length (miles) -Max. Elev. (ft) -Clearing (miles) = Medium & Light Non•· -· Access (miles) :: New Roads 4-Wheel -Tower Construction* -Rating: Economical Technical A = recomwended corridor C = acceptable but not preferred F :: unacceptable (1) (2) ABC' ADFC -· 73 38 1400 400 61 20 12 18 20 0 53 38 329 180 c A c A * Approximate number of towers required for this corridor, assuming single-circuit line. (3) AEFC 39 400 15 24 12 27 176 c A ~ ·=·· ~; \ -~ ~ iiiiE.: ~ ~ ~ ·""' ~-JIIilliliilli,~---, -~ ~ ~ -~ ~. ~-~ iielePE liitdl r.ir iif ..-.... aial.iil . ·iiiiil Jiilrlil._.. filii..,; "'.TIL~..,,· .. H .... , TABLE 6.2: ECONOMiCAL AND TECHNICAL SCREENING CENTRAL STUDY AREA {DAM SITES TO INTI::RTIE) (1) (2) (3) (4) (~) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) {11) (12) (1.1) (14) (1.S) ABCO ABE CO AJCf ABCJHl ABECJBI CBAHI CEBAH! CBAG CEBAG CJAG CJAUl JACJHl ABCf &!£Q. ABECf --- -length 40 45 '•1 71 82 68 7~ 90 95 91 69 70 41 41 45 -Max. Elevation, ft. 2.500 .l600 3500 4300 4300 4300 3500 3)00 3600 3500 3800 3900 2500 3500 3600 -Clearing t~edium & light JB 30 26 18 JU 20 ?.7 45 37 40 55 17 39 26 35 None 2 15 15 59 so 48 46 4; 60 51 14 53 2 H 10 -Access New Roads 28 JJ ll1 66 57 47 56 60 70 63 50 50 41 29 45 4-~lheel 12 12 0 0 0 0 0 28 21 28 0 15 0 12 0 -Tower Construction* 180 203 185 347 369 306 J29 405 428 410 311 315 180 185 203 -Rating: Economical A c c f f c f f f f c f c A c Technical A c c f f f c c c c c c A A c A = recommended C = acceptable but not preferred f = unacceptable * Approximate number of towers required for this corridor, assuming single-circuit line. ~~~~-~~~~~~~~~~-~~~ ;\1.· D I :1 I I I I il·. '• r.ra ~ I I TABlE 6.3: ECDNOI41CI\L AND Tt.CHNICAL SCREENING NORTHERN STUDY AREA (HEALY TO FAIRHANKS) (1) ABC -Length 90 -Max. Elevation 1600 -Clearing Medium & Light 48 None 42 -Access New Roads 0 4-Wheel 90 Tower Construction* 405 -Rating: Economical A Technical A A = recommended C = acceptable but nat preferred F = unacceptable (2) ABDC - 86 1600 50 36 0 43 387 A c ~ Approximate number of towers required far this corridor, assuming single-circuit line. (J) AEDC 115 4500 40 75 54 42 518 c F (4) AEF 105 4500 50 55 42 16 47_-s c F ~ .Jilil ~~ Corridor 1 (ABc•) 2 (ADFC) 3 (AEFC) ... IIIII. . flillli. li&t ~ .~ t~,~ ~""'"--''~""'-~.!>~·-'-'-'·"'·-~-~ .~ lilil .... < 1illill Jiillli ... iiliiiil ... ... ~ ~ ·~ ·~···~· .-'~· ~·. -··"'"'-"" • I • ,, Table 6.~ Environmental Constraints -Southern Study Area (Willow to Anchorage/Point Mackenzie) Le,.-,gth --,r- 38 39 ·ropogtaphy/Soi ls SOMe sons wtth sev~re 11~ttat1ons to off road travel; SOlie good agrt- cultur·al Slofls Host of route potentially wet, wtth severe lhA1tat1ons to off road travel; some good agrl- cultural sons Same as Corridor 2 Lan-~ lJse ~ AD i N!!iidential uses ne3r Pai.er; proposed capital site; much U.s. IUlUary Wdl. ,Private, and Vtllage Selection Land Trail ts only existing ROW; residential an( recr~a t'i onal areas ; Susttr~a Flats Garne Refuge; agricultural land sale No known existing ROW; residential and recre- ltfonal use areas, including Haney Lakes; lakes used by float planes; agricultural land sale Aesthetics fcfili'fOii'Trill; tra~1 paralleling Deception Ck.: Gooding L. bird- watching area; 5 crossings of Glenn tt.y, 1 crossing of Parks tholy Susttna Flats Game Refuge; ldtt&rcd Trail: 1 crossing of Parb Hwy lake area south of Willow; lditaro~ Tratl; 1 crossing of Parks Hwy a. Coastal area probably has many sites; available literature not yet reviewed. b. A = recommended C = acceptable but not recommended F = unacceptable --~ ... f-. --... ... Cultural Resources a Vegetation ~rcheologic sites-itt1anas along data votd Deception Ck. Archeologic sttes- data vofd and et Matanuska River crossing; extenshe clearing tn upland, forested areas needed Extensive wetlands; clearing needed fn forested 1reas Archeologfc s1tes-Extensive wetlands; data votd cleartng needed in forested areas ,, Fish Resources 5 river and 28 creek c:rossings; valuHble spawntng sites, espec1ally sal1110n: Kntk area Hatanuska area data void 1 rtver and 8 creek crossings; valuable spawning sites, espectally salmon: L. Sus ttna R. data void l river and 8 creek crossings; valuable spawning sttes. especially salmon: L. Susftna R. data void •u 1dl t fe Resources Passes thrcu9h or near waterfowl and shorebird nesttng and feeding areas, and areas used by brown bear Passes through or near waterfowl and shorebird nesting, feeding, and •fgra- tlon areas, and areas used by furbearers and brown bear Same as Corridor 2 -.... ._ -... .. ... -... Env t ron~~~ent/.11 Rating b ----c A F - a;;; ' . ~~~-@I; ~ ' I • Wle ~ c~ ~~ ~ ~ -(IE Table 6.5 ~~ ~ -.... IIIII -... - " Length Environmental Constraints -Central Study Area (Dam Sttes to Int~rtte) Corridor (HUes) Topography/Sons Land Use __ :..:;._ __ Aesthet tcs Cultural Resources 1 (ABCD) 2 (AilE CO) 3 (AJCF) 4 (ABCJIU) 40 45 <11 77 Crosses· several deep ravines; about 1000' change ht elevation; SOllie wet SO t1 S little existing ROW except Corps rd.; mostly VIllage Selection and Private Lands fog lakes; Stephan lake; proposed access road Archeologic sites near Watana dam site, Stephan Lake and fog Lakes; data vofd from Gold Creek to Devil Canyon; histodc sites near the conmmittes of Gold Creek and Canyon Crosses several deep ravines; about 2000' change in elev.; sone steep slopes; some Little existing Fog Lakes; Sa~~ as Corridor 1 ROW except Crops Stephan lake; wet sons· Crosses several deep ravfnas; about 2000' change tn elevation; some steep slopes; some wet sons Crosses several deep ravlt~es; >2000' change in elevation; routing above 4000'; steep slopes; SOllie wet sons: shallow bed- rock in 111ts. a. A ~ recommended rd. and at D; rec. proposed ~ccess and restd. areas; road; high float plane areas; country (Prairie mostly ~lllage & Chulitna Ck. Selection and drainages) and Private Lands vtewshed of Alaska Range No existing ROW except at F; rec. areas; float plane areas; MOStly Village Selection and Prtvate land; resfd. r. rec. development tn area of Otter L. and old sled rd. No existing ROW; rec. areas and isolated cabins: lakes used by float planes; IIlith Vi 11 age Selection !.and Vtewshed of Alaska Range lr High Lake; pro- posed access rd. Fog takes; Stephan lake; proposed access rd; viewshed of Alaska Range C = acceptable but not recorrrnended F = unacceptable Archeologic sites by W~tana d~ sfte, & near Portage Ck./Susltna R. confluence; possible sites along Sus1tna R.; Historic sites near communities of Gold C~. and Canyon Archeologic sites near Watana dam site, Stephan L. and fog lakes; possible sites aloog pass between drainages; data vofd between H and I Vegetation Wetlands In eastern third of corridor: extensive forest- dearing m~eded Wetlands 1n eastern half of corridoq extensive forest- clearing needed forest-clearing needed In western half Sma 11 wet land areas in JA ilrea; extensive forest-clearing needed; data void fish Resources 1 rtver and 17 creek crosstngs; valuable spawning areas, expectaliy grayling: data void 1 river and 17 creek crosstngs; valuable spawning areas, especially grayling: data votd 14 creek crossing; valuable spawning areas. especially grayling and sal~n: lndfan River Portage Creek data void 1 river and 42 creek crossings; valuable spawning -:;reas. especIally grayling Wildlife Resources Environmental Ra~lng 1 Unidentified raptor nest located on trlb. to Susltna: passes through, habitat for: raptors, furbearers, wolves, wolverine, btown bear, caribou Passes through habitat for: raptors. waterfowl. migrat- ing swans, furbearers. cartbou, wolves. wolverine, brown bear Golden eagle nest along Devil Ck. near High l.; acttve raven nest on Devil Ck.; passes throu~1 habitat for: raptors, furbearers, wolves, bru~1 bear Golden eagle nest along Pev 11 Ck. near High c • ; caribou roovement t~.• .1a; passes through habit~t for: raptors, waterfowl, furbearers. wolves, wolverine, brown bear A F ·C c ~· ~·-) ~ fif,;J. ' IICt IiliiC JaBi: ' I • Corrtdor .~ength (Mtle~}_ . ~~raehl/Sotls 5 82 Crosses several (ABECJHI) deep rovtnes; changes tn elevation >2000 1 ; routing above 4000'; steep elopes; SOllie wet soils; shallow bedrock In 11ts 6 68 Crosses several (CBAIU) deep ravines; changes In elevltt~n cf about 1600 1 ; rout tng above 4000'; steep slopes; SOllie ~t soils; shallow bedrock In mts. 7 73 Crosses several (CEBNtl) deep ravines~ chan~ In ebvat ton of about •600'; routing above 3000' i steep slopes; SOllie wet soils; sha11cw bedrock in mts. 8 90 Crosses several (CBAG) deep ravines; change in elevation of about 1600'; routing above ;,ooo • ; steep s bpes; some wet soils; sha 11Dl"l bedrock in mts. it. • .,_. 1.~~"~ .. .... ... ... tdiiiii ... ~ ... -~. . '~ --~ Jdfiiil -lillliiiii las· ·"· Table 6,5 (Cont'd) .~ ._ ...... ~ ......_ ..... ....-~llfblilllllliL, ,, Environmental Constraints-Central Study Area (Dam:Sttes to lntertte) Env tron~~~enta 1 land Use Aesthetics Cultural Resources Vegetat lon f·lsh Resources Hlld11fe Resources Rat tog Same as Corridor Fog lakes; Same as Corridor 4 Wetlands In JA 42 creek crossings; Same as Corridor 4 f 4 st;hlm lake; and Stephan lake valuable spawning wtth I1Port1nt waterfowl HI a lake; areas; extensive areas. especially and Migrating swan hablta~ proposed access forest ... .:~aarfng grayling and salmon: at Stephan la\e rd; ytewshed at ~eeded data void Alaska Range l Ho known e;ttstlng fog lakes and Archecloglc sites near Ext ens tve wet-32 creek crossings; Bald eagle nest s.e. of c ROW; rec. areas Stephan take; Natana dam site. fog lands from 8 to ~aluable spawning Tsusena Butte; area of and lsol~ted proposed access Lakes and Stephan l.; near TSusena areas, especially caribou movement; passes cabins; float rd.; Tsusena data void between H Butte; extensive gnyllng: through habitat for: plane area; Butte; vlewshed and I forest-clearing data void rap tors. waterfowl. fur- Sus ltna area and of Alaska Range needed bearers, wolves, Nolverlne, near I are VIllage nrown bear Selectton land Same as Corridor fog Lakes and Same as Corridor 6 Ext ens tve wet-45 creek crossfngi Same as Corridor 6, with f 6 Stephan ttlke; lands fn Stephan valuable spawning Important waterfowl and proposed acess Lu Fog Lakeso areas. especially migrating swan h~bltat rd.; ht!fh Tsusena Butte grayling: at Stephan lake country (Prajrie-1reas; extensive data void Chuntlna Cks); for~st-cleartng Tsusenil Butte; needed vtewshed of Alaska Range No existing ROW; Fog lakes; Archeologic sites near Wetlands between 1 river and 43 creek Important bald eagle c rec. areas and Stephan lake; Watana d~ stte, Fog B and •MOuntains; crossings; valuable habttat by Denali Hwy. jsolated cabins; access rd; lakes. Stephan Lake extensive forest-spawntn' areas, and Deadman l.; unchecked float plane scenic area of and along Deadman Ck. clearing needed expecta 1y grayling: bald eagle nest near areas; air strip De a &tan Ck. ; data vofd l'susena Butte; passes and airport; viewshed of through habitat for: RICh V lllage Alaska Range raptors, furbearers, Selection and wolves, wolverine, Federal land brown bear ..... ..., -\c_,',u·~-~ ~ ... • .,. .. ... . .... ~ .. ..... ..... ~ --: a;J 11:.: .-; illC .... -,.~.~ ~~ ~ ~ till {Sal -.... ..., 1881 .Qiiiii cal ~ {ijll . ~~.;· . . ~ '-' . l . . . t I • ,, Table 6.5 (Cont'd) Environmental Constraints -Central Study Area (Dam Sites to Jntertie) Corrfdur length jKi1t!d To.l!,o~ral!h,t/Soils land Use Aesthetics Cultural Resources Vegetation Fish Resources En•v iromental Wlldlffe Resources -~!!ttog 9 95 Crosses several Same as Corr1 dor Fog lakes; Same as Corridor 8 Wetlands In 1 river and 48 creek Same as Corridor a. F (CEBAG) deep ravines; 8 Stephan lake; Stephan l./fog crossings; valuable with ~~~rtant waterfowl chang!'.s In proposed access lakes areas, spawntny areas, and migrating swan habitat elevatton of abo~t rd; high country extensive fores~-expect a ly grayl tng: at Stephan Lake 1600•; routing (Pratrte and clearing needed data votd above 3000'; steep Chunflna Cks.); slopes; sOle wet Deadman Ck.; sons; shallow vtewshed of bedrock fn mts. Alaska Range 10 91 Sane as Corridor No existing ROW; High lakes area; Archeologic sites S.all wet Jands 1 river And 41 creek Golden eagle nest along Devil c (CJAG) 8 rec. areas and proposed access ncar Watana d-. site. In JA area; crossings; valuable Ck. near High Lake; unchecked isolated cabins; rd.; Deauman Ck. and along Dea~nan Ck. eKtenstve forest-spawntny areas, bald eagle nest near Tsusena float plane drainage; vtew-clearing needed expecia ly grayltng: Butte; area of caribou aove-areas; a.ir strip shed at Alaska data void .ent; passes through habitat and airport; Range for: raptors, waterfowl, IIIOStl.)' Vtllage furbearers, brown bear Selection and federal land 11 69 Crosses severill Ho exist tug ROW; High Lakes area; Archeologtc sites Small wetland 36 creek crossings; Golden eagle nest along c (CJNU) deep ravines; rec. areas and proposed access near Watana daM site areas in JA valuable spawning Devil Ck. near High lake; changes 1n isolated cabins; rd,; vtewshed area; SOllie areas, especially bald eagle nest s.e. of elevation tlf float plane -of Alaska Range forest-clearing grayling al'l't salmon: Tsusena Butte; passes 1000'; routing .areas; MOstly needed data void thrpugh habitat for: above 3000' ; VIllage Selection raptors, furbearers, steep slopes; some and Private Land brown bear wet sotls; sha How bedrock In mh. 12 70 Same as Corridor Ho existing ROW; High takes area; Archeoluglc sfte Snla 11 wet 1 and 40 cree.k crossings; Golden eagle nest along F (JA-CJHI) 11 rec. areas end proposed access near Watana dam site; areas fn JA valuab'ie spawning Devil Ck. near High Lake; isolated cabins; rd.; Tsusena possible sites along area; fairly areas, especially passes throu!#! habIt at float plane Butte; vfewshed p~ss betwfen drainages extensive grayling and saimon: for: raptors, furbearers, area; mstly of Alaska Range forest clearing data void wolves, brown bear Village Selectton needed and Private land '.i..···_r:i'iti'. ~ ~ ~::.: 1::: ~~~~ ' I Corridor length (Mtl~~). Topclgr~J)ItyJ~H~ ... 13 41 Crosses "5evera1 (ABCf) deep ravines; abo!at 1000' change In elevation; SOlie wet son~ 14 41 Crosses deep (AJCO) ravine at Devil Cit.; about 2000' change In elevation; routing above 3000' ; SOllie steep slopes; SOlliE! wet soils 15 45 Crosses severa 1 (ABECF) deep ravines; about 2000' change In elevation; some wet so 11 s t!@l .. .. -- ·L~; p .. ---.. ~ ~- IE-· -~ ---.,{ It'.' '"l -~~ ~----''"~._;;j Table 6.5 (Cont'd) t" •. 1 ~ ~ ~~.~ ........ EnvtronJnental Constratnts -Central Study Area (Dam Sites to lntertte) .~ .... . ~ '~ ~t .. land Use Aesthetics Cultural Resources Envfron~~~ental . ~gelation f tsh Resources Wildlife Resources __ bttng No known existing Fog Lakes, Archeologlc sites near Wetlands In 15 creek crossings; Untdentffled raptor nest A ROW exci!pt at f; Stephan l.; w~tana da.e s lte, eastern thfrd valuable spawning on tributary to Susltna; rec. area$; float proposed access Portage Ck./Susltna R. of corridor; areas, :specially passes thr•ough flab I tat for: plane areas i rd. confluence; Stephan l., extensive grayltng and SBlmon: raptors. furbearers, wolves, rf!sfd. anc! nc. and Fog lakes; historic forest-clearing Indian River wolverine, brown bear, use neat Otter sites; near comnunfttes needed Portage C1·eek caribou L. and old sled of Canyon and Gold Ck. data void rd.; Isolated cablnJ;; MOstly VIllage Selection land; soue ~rlvate Land UtU~ existing Yiewshed of Archeo logic, s ttes by forest-clearing 1 rfver and 16 creek Golden eagle nest In Devil A ROW except old Alaska Range Wit ana dMI s tte, needed fn western crossings; valuable Ck./HI9h lake area; active Corps r·d. and and High lake; possible sttes along half spawning areas, raven nest on Devil Ck.; at D; rec. areas; proposed access Susitna R.; historic especially grayling: passes through habitat for: Isolated cabins; road sites near communities data void raptors, furbearers. wolves. IIIUCh Vtlhge ~f Canyon and Gold Ck. brown bear. caribou Selectton land; some Private land No known. existing Fog lakes; Same as Corridor 13 Wet lands in 15 creek crossings; Important .waterfowl and F ROW except at F; Stephan lake; eastern half valuable spawning migrating swan habitat rec. areas~ float proposed access of corridor; areas, especially at Stephan t.; passes plane areas; road;; hi~ extensive forest-grayling and salmon: through habitat for: resfd. and rec. country Prairie clearing needed Indian River. raptors, waterfowl. use near Otter and Chunilna Cks. Portage Creek furbearers, wolves, l. and o1d sled drahages); data void wolvertne, brown bear, rd.; Isolated vfewsh~d of caribou cabins; mostly Alaska Range VIllage Selectimt land with some Private land -.. -.. -----.. ~ ... --..... ~ ~-:: •C~ c;::: L~~ 1:.:: r·-:· • .,_, ;4...--c·:_; ~ ~ r, --., ~ ~ .. ... i!' I ~-~ ~ ~ ~ -~ •-..... • •. -..... ~~-*"'I.--.... -.. -........ _ ---~ .. -.... ... '· Table.6,6 Environmental Constraints -Northern Study Area (Healy to Fairbanks) Corridor 1 (ABC} 2 {ABDC) 3 (AEDC) 4 (AEF) length (Hiles) 90 ·86 115 105 Topography/Soils some wet sons wfth severe l111itat1ons to off-road ttaffic Severe 11mttat1~ns to off-road traffic in wet soils of the flats Change 1n elevation of about 2500' ; steef slopes; sha1 ow bedrock In mts.; severe limit- atfons tn off-road traffic 1n the flats Same as Corridor 3 .. land Use A1f strtp; residential areas and isolated cabins; some U.S. Military Wlthdrawl and Hat1ve land Ho existing ROW n. of Brownei scattered residential and isolated cabins; ~irstrlp; Fort Wainwright Ht11tary Reser" vatfon No existing ROW beyond Healy/Cody Ck. confluence; isolated cabins; air!Strips; Fort Wainwright Military Reservatfon Airstrips; Isolated cnbins; fort Wain- wright Hi1itary Reservation Aesthetics 3 crossings of Parks Hwy; Nenana R.- scenic area 3 crossings of Parks flwy; high vhtbtlity In open flats 1 crossing of Parks Hwy; high vislbiHty in open flats tt1gh visibility in open flats a. Source: VanBallenbE:rghe personal c0111llUnicat1on. Prime habitat ., minimum amount of land necessary to provide a sustained yield for a species; based upon knowledge of that species 1 needs from experience of ADF&G personnel •. Important habitat = land whfch AQf&G con~lders not as crftical to a $pedes as ts Prime habitat, tiut is valuable. · b. A = recommended C = acceptable but not preferred F = unacceptable ~~ -Cultural Resources Archeologic sttes probable sfnce there is a known stte nearby; da~a void llry Creek archeologic site near Healy; possible sites along rtver crossings; data void Cry Creek archeologic sfte near Jlealy; s:oss1ble sites near J~pan Hills and ht the mts. ; data void Archeologic sites near Dry Creek and Fort Wainwright; possible s1tes near Tanana River; data void Vegetation Extensive wetlands; fGrest clearing needed mainly north of the Tanana River I Prob1bly extensive wetlands between Wood and Tanan1 Rivers; e•tenstve forest clearing needed n. of 'ranana River frobably extensive wetlands between Wood and Tanana Rivers; extensive forest clearing needed n. oCf Tanana River; data lacldng for southern part Probably extensive wetlands between Wood and Tanana Rivers ftsh Resources 4 river and 40 creek crossings; valuable spawr~ t ng s 1tes: Tanana R her data void 5 river and 44 creek crossings; valua:l>Je st~r.,omtng sites: Wood River data void 3 river and 72 creek crossings; Viluable spawning sites: Wood River data votd 3 river and 60 creek crossings; valuable spawning sites: Wood River data void Wildlife Resou1·cesa Env h::onmen~ 1 Rating Passes through or near prime habttat for: peregr·ines, waterfowl, furbearers. 110ose; pass~s through or near tn~portant habitat for: pere- grtnes, golden eagles Passes through or neat prime hab1tat for: peregrines, waterfowl, fwrbearers; passes through or near Important habitat for: golden eagles, other raptors Passes through or· near prime habitat for: ~eregrtnes, waterfowl, furbearers, caribou, sheep; . passes through or near Important habitat for: golden eagles, brown bear Passes through or near prime habitat for:peregrtnes, bald eagles, waterfowl, furbearers, caribou, sheepi passes through or near important habitat for: golden eagles, brown bear A c F c , :1 :l ~ ~ '1 :l I ~ u .CJ (if U . . TABLE 6.7: SUMMARY OF SCREENING RESULTS RA T I N G 5 Corridor E:nv. E:con. Tech. -Southern Study Area ( 1) ABC' c c c (2) AOFC A A A (3) At:FC F c A -Cental Study Area (1) ABCD A A A (2) ABE[)) F c c (3) AJCF c c c (4) ABCJHI F r F (S) ABECJHI F r r (6) CBAHI F c F (7) CEBAHI F F c (B) CBAG F r c (9) CEBAG F r c (10) CJAG F r c ( 11) CJAHI F c c (12) JACJHI r r c (13) ABCF A c A (14) AJffi c A A (15) ABECF r c c -Northern Study Area (1) ABC A A A (2) ABDC c A c (3) AEDC F c r (4) AEF F c r A = recommended C = acceptable but not preferred F = unacceptable !:iummer:t c A F A r c r r r r r r F F r c c r A c r r I ·.I I ·r I I I I I I I I rt '.] ;'l ,, 1 J .] ij·. !' ' .. ·!, u tu fJ 7 -CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1 -Conclusions (a) Previous Reports (b) The Interim Feasibility Report of the COE, together with the feasibility report prepared by IECO/RWRA, have been thoroughly reviewed. The COE dis- cussed a number of alternative transmission line corridGrs in considerable depth; however, no specific route was indicated. The IECO/RWRA report in- dicated a specific route, but gave no detailed study on how a determination had been reached. However, the report discussed in detail the economic feasibility of alternative transmission voltage and system configurations. The two reports provided excellent data and background for Acres • in it i ai studies. (i) COE 1975 Report The COE report concluded that Segments 1, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, and 16 (shown in Figure C.l) were the preferred corridors. Of these, only Segments 1, 7, 8, 9, and 16 apply to Acres• area of study. The COE preference resulted primarily from the fact that the chosen corridors fall within existing highway and rail corridors and likely present the least construction impdcts of all the alte~"natives they consid- ered. While problems of s~:enic impact exist along these corridors, these problems have the potential for mitigation because of existing terrain features and vegetation and through careful tower placement and access procedures. It should be noted that the preferred corri- dors selected by the COE are general in nature with no definitive boundaries. (ii) IECO/RWRA, 1979 Report The IECO/RWRA report presents a determination of the economic feasi- bility for the Anchorage-Fairbanks transmission line. In their re- port, IECO/RWRA stated that alternative corridors were reviewed along or near the railbelt region between Anchorage and Fairbanks. How- ever, the report gave no details on the methods of corridor evalua- tion used. In their evaluation, IECO/RWRA relied heavily on their experience and knowledge of the railbelt area and their field visits to specific sites .. The preferred corridor selected by IECO/RWRA is almost the same as the preferred corridor selected by the COE, except here it is more defined. Acres Study The APA decision to proceed with the Intertie has resulted in a split of this study into three separate geographical entities; namely, the southern, central, and northern areas. For each area. one corridor has been selected as feasible and therefore recommended. These are: 7-1 ' J 1 1 4 !I ., I j ] 1 ,1 ,,j ~~ l 4 l 1 1 •I 1 l t~ ,, t ~ ,, ·l 'I .! J ., l d j ' ' J "" ·'::0~~ ~ l J ~ ., l n ,, J t ~ ~ 1 ;iJ l 'I u ! l ' l . 1 1 \ j ; I ; 'J 1. u -· '"' ' 1 ~u· .. > 1 f. ' ~ . j!l IW ~. •, I l U-"· ~ . ~ -Southern Study Area: -Central Study Area: -Northern Study Area: Corridor ADFC Corridor ABCD Corridor ABC Specifics of these corridors and reasons for rejection of others are discussed below. (i) Southern Study Area In the southern study area, Corridor Segment AEF and) hence, Corridor 'Pflree (AEFC) were determined unacceptable. This results primarily from the routing of the segment through the relatively well-developed and heavily utili zed Nancy Lake state r·ecreation area. Adjustments to th ·is route to make it more acceptab 1 e were attempted but no a 1 ter- ations proved successful. Consequently~ it was recommended this cor- ridor be dropped from further consideration. Corridor One (ABC') was identified as acceptable but not preferred, thus given the C rating. Its great length, its traversing of resi- dential and other developed lands, and the numerous creek crossings and extensive forest clearing involved relegate this corrid0r to this environmental rating. Economically and technically, this corridor has more difficulties than the other two c0nsidered. This is a longer line and crosses areas which may require easements in the area north of Anchorage. Corridor Two (ADFC) was identified as the candidate which would sat- isfy most of the screening criteria. This corridor is shown in Fig- ures 7.1 and 7.2, and stretches from an area north of Willow Creek to Point MacKenzie in the south. The corridor is located east of the lower Susitna River and crosses the Little Susitna Kiver. The corri~ dor also crosses an existing 138 kV line owned and operated by Crug~ch Electric Association (CEA), which starts at Point MacKenzie and extends to Teeland Substation. Up to this point in the corridor selection study, Point MacKenzie has been considered a terminal point for Susitna power. It was assumed that an underwater cable crossing would be provided at this location. Upon further study and.data-gathering it has become known that tha existing crossing at f'oint MacKenzie has experienced power interr·:p- tions caused by ship's anchors snagging the submarine cables. CEA, which owns the submarine cables, required additional transmission capacity to Anchorage. After thoroughly studying the matter, it has opted for a combined submarine/overhead cable transmission across Kn i k Arm and onto Anchor age. This was the most des i r ab 1 P. option to CEA, both from the environmental and technical point of view. The CEA crossing will be located approximately eight miles northeast of Point MacKenzie on the west shore of the Knik Arm and across from Elmendorf Air Force Base in the vicinity of Six Mile Creek. This crossing is located northeast of the Anchorage Harbor, away from the heavy ship traffic, thereby reducing risk of anchor damage to the cab 1 e. 7-2 ''l .~., ~] .J "J J ~• .I I It is intended to terminate Corridor AOFC at this new crossing point and extend the transmission corridor to Elemendorf Air Force Base and beyond to Anchorage. Although the crossing is approximately eight miles northeast of Point MacKenzie, it does not influence the results of this corridor selec- tion and screening process. The best corridor has been selected and screened. During routing studies (see Section 7), minor deviations outside the corridot will have to occur in order to terminate at the revised crossing point. However, preliminary investigations indicate it will be possible to select a technically, economically, and en- vironmentally acceptable route, particularly since an existing trans- mission line can likely be paralleled from the selected corridor to the revised crossing point. Furthermore, CEA has received the neces~ sary permits and is constructing an underwater cr~ssing at Knick Arm, indicating acceptable levels of environmental impact. (b) Central Study Area In the central study area, several corridor segments and, hence, their as- sociated corridors were determined to be unacceptable. The first of these!; Corridor Segment BEC, appears as part of Corridors Two (A~ECD), Five (ABECJHI), Seven (CEJAHI), Nine (CEBAG), and Fifteen (ABECF). The reason for rejecting this segment is primarjly that the developed recreation area around Stephan Lake would be needlessly harmed--needless because viable op- tions exist to avoid intruding into this area. Again, modifying this route to something more acceptable failed. Consequently, it is recommended that these five corridors be dropped from further consideration. Corridor Segment AG was also determined not to warrant further considera- tion because of its approximate 65-mile length, two-thirds of which would possibly require a pioneer access road. Also, extensive areas of clearing would be required, opening the corridor to view in some scenic locations. Finally, the impacts on fish and wildlife habitats are potentially severe. These preliminary findings, coupled with the fact that more viable options to Segment AG exist, suggest that consideration of this corridor segment and, therefore, Corri~ors Eight (CBAG) and Ten (CJAG) should be termin- ated. Corridors Eleven (CJAHI) and Twelve (JA-CJHI) were identified as accept- able. This rating arose from the fact that, as shown in Environmental Con- straint Table 6.5, numerous constraints affect this routing. Information from recently completed field investigations suggest that these constraints cannot be overcome and the routes should be rejected. Furthermore, the technical and economical ratings preclude these corridors from further con- sideration. Corridor Segment HJ has been moved so that it no longer parallels the Devil Creek drainage; the new location HC is selected to avoid both High Lake and the Devil Creek drainage. It then follows the Portage Creek drainage to 7-3 ~ , ~· . .JJ j T J ' ~ ') ·;.J:. ;~ " i-4 II { j 4 ~J the point of intersection with Corrjdor Segment JH, near the creek•s head- waters. Subsequent investigations have confirmed that this corridor seg~ ment is not viable and, consequently, Corridors Four and Five are elimin- ated from further consideration. Corridors Six intrudes on valuable wildlife habitat and would cross numer- ous creeks, none of which are currently crossed by existing access roads. In addition, a high mountain pass and its associated shallow soils, steep slopes, and surficial bedrock constrain this routing. Finally, its cross- ing of areas over 4,000 feet in elevation makes it technically unaccept- able, so this corridor is dropped from further consideration. Corridors Three (AJCF) and Fourteen (AJCD) have been identified as accept- able but not recommended because of the CJ Corridor Segment.. This corridor segment intrudes upon an existing recreation area at High Lake and contra- venes existing views of the Alaska Range; it also crosses valuable habitat for sensitive big game species. Corridor One (ABCD), as shown in Figure 5.2, was one of the three recom- mended corridors. Constraints to this routing do exist, however, and will need to be further evaluated before modifications to this corridor are sug- gesteda This corridor is one of the shortest in length (38 miles) of all corridors considered in this are~. It is recommended, therefore, because of its technical and economical rating. Corria0r Thirteen (ABCF) is a1so an acceptable but not preferred corridor. With the presence of the developed recreation area at Otter Lake, Corridor Thirteen could require special attention in Segment CF. The technical rat- ing for this corridor is attractive because of the short length of trans- mission line and the fact that the lines could be constructed within a reasonable distance to the access roads. Because of crossings of deep ra- vines and forest clearing, this corridor is not recommended economically. Figures 7.3 and 7.4 show the location of the recommended corridor in the area from Watana to an area in the vicinity of Gold Creek, and it essen- tially straddles the Upper Sus~tna River. The area of the corridor between Watana and Devil Canyon may be extended to the north and is dependent on the route the access road may take. Every effort will be made to coordi- nate the transmission lines with the access road. (c) Northern Study Area Corridors Three (AEDC) and Four (AEF) were determined unacceptable because of many constraints, and thus, rated F. They include: the lack of an existing access road; problems in dealing with tower erection in shallow bedrock zones; the need for extensive wetland crossings and forest clear- ing; the 75 river or creek crossings involved; and the fact that prime hab- itat for waterfowl, peregrine falcons, caribou, bighorn sheep, golden eagle, and brown bear would be crossea .. In addition, Corridor Four crosses areas of significant lan~ use constraints and elevations of over 4,000 feet. 7-4 I -I I I I ·a II •• -. I .I _I J .I ! ' I I I \ I l • I ~ ~ ~~, ,J l ~"--t ,_J l !f ' j· ,_... I l ~ ,;, ,_1 ~ ' : ~ ' :..( r.A ~J I ' ,; i 'f '· f; Jj '1 ~ Corridor Two (ABDC) was identified as acceptable but not preferred, and thus, rated C. Certain constraints identified for this corridor suggest that an alternative is preferable. Compared with Corridor One, Corridor Two crosses additional wetlands and requires the development of more access roads and the clearing of additional forest lands. Corridor One (ABC), shown in Figures 7.5 to 7.8, was the only recommended corridor in the northern study area. While many constraints were identi- fied under the various categories, it appears possible to select a route within this corridor to minimize constraint influences. This corridor is attractive economically, because it is close to access roads and the Parks Highway. The visual impact can be lessened by strategic placement of the line. This line also best meets technical and economical requirements .. 7.2-Recom~endations As stated above, three general corridors were identified as the most recom- mended. These corridors will be subjected to additional st,Jdies so that a transmission line route of one-half-mile width can be identified. The fol- lowing studies will be continued under Subtask 8.03. (a) Technical (i) Performance of photo interpretation and terrain analysis of the transmission line corridors and the identification of adverse geolog- ical featur-es and geotechnical conditions thc:it sign~f~cantly affect the design or construction. (ii) Identification of the terrain and soil conditions such as wet marsh- land and soft overburden to dry, sloping-rock hillsides. (iii) The completion of surface and subsurface investigations to the extent necessary to provide adequate data to confirm project feasibility and for the submission of the FERC license application. (iv) Identification of areas along the routes that appear to be underlain by soils susceptable to seismically induced ground failure such as liquifaction or land sliding. (v) Collection of preliminary ground motion data for the transmission lines and switching stations. (b) Environmental Subtask 7.09 will continue to analyze dattt pertinent to the avoidance rout- ing scheme specified in the POS, and refine the corridor route location, based upon environmental considerations. Following this, an environmental impact assessment of the preferred route will be conducted. At the same time, techniques to mitigate identified impacts will be developed. Mitiga- tjon techniques which can diminish the construction impact are described~ below. 7-5 ~~. ':1 ··il .... q J J J. .J (i) Mitigation.of Construction Impacts 7o3 -Other Given the existence of routing-constraints in all corridors, the as- signment of a C and an A environmental rating considers the·potential environmental impact in developing corridors so designated. In fact, consideration of construction techniques as mitigative measures has been a part of the evaluation process and, in some instances, such construction methods have permitted a corridor to carry a C or an A ratinga A consideration in the development of any corridor should be the prescription of impact-mitigating construction techniques. These techniques could include the following on a prescription basis. -Use of winter construction in wetland, rather than developing road- ways that would have undesirable direct and indirect impacts; -Use of helicopter-based construction in particularly remote areas or in areas judged too wet for summer access; -Use cf existing rights-of-way, wherever possible; -Use of tech~iques that allow minimum veg~tation clearing, such as "feathering 11 of rights-of-way edges and topping rather than clear- cutting tall-growing trees; and Use of tower designs that will minimize conspicuousness in particu- larly sensitive scenic areas. -Reseeding of areas disturbed by construction equipment. By considering these and other impact mitigating measures, can- straints to routing project transmi~sion lines, regardless of the route followed by the preferred corridor, can be diminished. It is also recom~ended that appropriate state and federal agencies and the general public be permitted to review and comment on this report and the recommended corridors . 7-6 .~l ~~l . ~· ..J <:, .. t;" f .,.; ":J· .. ". ·7 r·~· " " ' ~ (l ~ ~.I.: J J\ . j, JJ I I I I ,, "! . .J ~I. I . ,1:: I I l1 I f~ ~ ~ ~ [] u L: [l L ~ ~~ ® ... \ r ~~ (J_ \ . 0 • "' --~· ... \ \ .. ... ~;(; ·~ .~ ' ~ \. ~ .. . "" . .. \ :::~ \"~\ i.. \. + ~ > + ~ •' (' \. ( i .., .,. \. + •..... ~~ til ....... s~ ~ .............. ~fli "'"""' ....... ~ 1 ... ?-'li,r : """- ,.~ .. l ,t ._._. ·,:..'(: ... f.;~~~.~: .\~v,: . .-:.- .,. t f :-• t ~;J•" f t I •(;r: t .... • • .:.~.f~ ..... ~:-:.~~~~.l. t •• -,L e~ ,-• I , •rl ~ • "i "'y~. ~ c;:~·'t~~"~;~ • .·~;J.;~t, ~~ t · .. ~ -4.t~.,;.~· ~~~'1<''=' ~ ·.r.?~,:.·::-. 1!)*'1 _.,',• .. ... ~~:rCi;·~::::~t:.l·~~\.~ l ··~~-1' ...... ,,. • . . f-."'4 t'tt:ll ·.t \•¥..\~· t '· ... ,.~. •!. •• •!' •~•J.f, • ~ ... ;; ... 1 h--,-..;-1 .._ ... ~ $"1,., •••• .... ~~~ f ll,.,tJ ,~ .. -' .. 3•,:. . 't."'-.~ f .. l;}~ .. ~:,..t"l-::;_v-t:J. ',.t Ill \·~~~.~\·J·1··*.~"~ .~ ... ~-• I* ., ~ t1l, if ··Ut ilo.";ii,; ._ -*~'\:C't) t I........-·,.--j 1 • • .f 1 pt -".: lt J ,.,·::~t. • J:-_y.•·.·.~~r:..·:"~.:.:.:. •"' -;...t._t._~~ I!_; I d• . !- ~~ <" :.::.:. .. .. • _..f -" .... ,., ....... • ,!1t~ J,.~ t'""t~ /: .. ·'.'h .. ~· .. • . ..-~4' ..... ~¢ ... ·:~·~ ... -r~· • •• ... '\J.\( , ... ~ ·.-r'l...,,ft .· .. · ·tt .. ,JI~~.~ ... l;·.,:·~,.J~"';"t~ .• ~~ ...... ,~ .. •. ~~.,.!.:-"· ~ wt-.1•.._....,._.__ ............. ~ 'y ---.. -·.----...-----.-..... ~"t~·..t.,,~--}o-_ ........ t .... ,.l-;--"rr'tt1'J"f~·-.t;~---t:·,-~•r>-'*. _,_ .. !O...-h·1 ... , • • '.•tt':.·: i ~ • , .. ,•.··~: .... ';:t-_:~ ... ~-·~·:.: .. ,••,'.~llf\ ~ I :~1._..-1 f 1-tll/,"f ~ _,_.";!('tti;\ i } ,o._:r:.~ ... i't&...::."• .. ._, .. "" .~ .. ~ ~ •• t •••• I'' ·'-·.: •••• · ,.. .··-·V .. t··~~, ......... -: .. . .. •:A O.-r~ ... ~1·(<~ ,·~j I ""·~~JJ •'·" ...... _, ... ,'.· t.., ..... ~~· ·'.~ •.·· :.·· ~ ••·,,,,\;,~}~•;• "'• -:: • ;.~•';.,,'"'t•'•':• :-.,;. 1 ·· • .. ·~, ' ,,t_,..-v..~~"'~ ... 'J~.u-:-~~ct"~· ..... ?;'-_; .. n.._ • •ll., · 4 -. •• tltt.-1 ' ....... , ~~~ t• t lft f t' '~ 11~ .... ~-::jft~\· of~• ~.--.•·•"!:£..,!,.....,_ f I lt;"lt~"',Jr_,~"tj..~lf:,.;tt,'/tf,,.l';lt~,J. ••,~: .. ~~ ....... ~~ .... · .. 1·.·.· .. \. j}f'/,··~: ... r; _ ...... !:~·!!';~.;: .... ~:4:·: -·"'' '-..:"tt~·~:·.i{~t::<-.·d •',·-.......... ~ .. {'tt., . .i··.·;' !-.... -.; J~i-":.! ... ~~· •• t!t --•r-t•.L,.._,.~j.l,. ........ t,._-~-----.,...,.-,.__~'r'T:....l~ •• -~~.1: .. .,...:_,j._..,.,..,.:r~;_~••M•J1-:.f>oft-l.-..,~..,...----~-4""-.-~'f""""~ • '"" .4,.1.,_ ~J .... /~e;-; --··-a 1 ... , .. ,Jt•rt' ,,_,•i'f .,.._1+ tt ....... *,"'t "'t 1 • t. I 11 1 t,."•,.'t t•'f 1•1 1 1-:•. ',t,t~.f'ltt ~ 1-J:\,<'!,Jolft \) 'tt~, A t•• •ltt'J = ~ 11 1 1111:'1 :.,~l.: :•!_ .. t'•"'t//.t(,•, l~l,( •' t 1 : 4 1 :• ·:~'..• 1t 1i'~ti /tt t ·~· ••• •,u:•• ~~}.,tJ;~~~~~~ i:t ~§;:1", e~: t C;"~ t 1 H 1 tt' Jt ~. t:.-~ • .;\..~ ;1 £ -"' ~1 1 t • .. .:; ,. .~ .. ~ .. J., •• ,~.--1.• ,••-.t-~t~'•••.U \.t•,~· ••L;_•:.·•~ ,• .. "•'••'-.,. -~ _.. .. /J.;e-.. Lt\t!i:!./~lt,;?.tA'• it .... •;J'!*#'J!,• .· i ~' ~;,<"".., -~·· ''· ~ ··~·· /•P·~~·;:~~ .. t·l~~vt..f,,.,. •. •., ·C"'~~./•tt;.~''••'~-t!"':...r...,. .. ·~~~~~..r,,,u,•,•·· -.. •P•!.!,}"~~:-t ""~~_..~,.. ..,!Lt.".:: ........ "...!_$i~.&'\1'~""'·~-~~·.,I!;~~·C11.::·· tk ·-.... .. .. • ·._. .t•:_l -!;l;. ,,. t"'-.t.. ""ttl"~;'\ •.:.:.""'' .. •:••• .. ;~•·f....-;...!8.l~'lJ$'\1:r~ • .; .. ! t •. i_.;•t • '!..t~~-y. _... ..-~ \..l~t'•t--'"-..:_1• li»h •,. •••If'-~u~t~ .. ~·~~ ~ ... :t.!i'•~::~-.. -....._.. f-. , •......r!-Y·:J~ ..._.:-~wt"J.:)'., .... }<;,\,.' ~ .• :--t..-_.. ,•:"~'• _.!~...a 14---lt-~i.~~J.t2he1i:~i.SI" f:i 1'\1a .. __.._. ...-:--~-,.c..->"'., .,..'.L "-tf·J',l ' -~· ,_,~ ~·?::..~~·"""\ l'irl: ,...__ ~"""'~ ~.-o. •1 , ...,. ........ ~ • ~.::: +~··:':~~t'~•i.Z(. ~~,.... ..,c-" ~-...... ~ \t'"'" .. if •• t,.,. __ . ~-~ ........... ~ "~ • • ., ,,, .-Ft .... ,. IJ~P"\i. ~ 1.1 • ...-•• ' -.......~,.," f ,_ --.l "~>;.-: •• ~:.",:! • ·.'-'~!y~~·'<>~t~1{~~.81:'4~~_. ... ill' .s·. ····~.1"\\Y'\-.'•."~t'·~~~r ~ ·r~~.z., ~-e\t~·~,:.••:·~,:, . "' ~~":::! J~~! ~-. r·~ P·.·, t tt":!..~er ,•t~ ::• :.,.-... ~ tf t ~ •:• u;.~~:~~:!t;¥~.?:~ ~ · .. r;.·~·~•:j :.~~·o·(1: r ~~("~: ) •:•~',f~{,l;~:r/ ,. l',t,i~,~~l~~11''(.t,.jt~~!fi"'*-~:\ '·~ ·. {•l .. r ~ ti, ~~Y-~ l 1 ; :::' ~': \;,~~' ~ ),. 1 ~ .,...,.;__. •••••• ~.lJ. "t'*". ~J!.·',_r;;,-;·~4l;t!=-.""b .... :..~~~;~:'t·l-.·W?·. 7~~+1~1) •• •·'·,·~·~'····•l\....•:~~··.•"•?•' ... ..:;-;-q~;)~· .• t-·;a ·... -~~:--q~~ ~··vJ' .. ~ .... ...¢'-t'·.~.~ -~.t •• , •• t .. "~~~A1sl::•• ,\1-.. .,.:~w&:...~-.t '• ''••• ~ .... _, ... , ........ ,.~.,• .... ,.•• '••-t·· .... l, ~ ... ~ '~''1 •.~ ~'·,-·~,f~,~ ~ \<~"".,--z: •••• •• •• f':.· • .~."-.t.''•. ···'··~··~~?--~~~· ... ..~?~,.. ,. ~•ri~·· ~~ ~.Jl •; •··~·· ,• .......... • .. /;; --~~-r: -~-.. • :> ~, ...... tt __ , " .. ...._,.__ ~-.1-.-...... ·.~----.: .. -~·r:+ , .~· ..... ~.;;::;;:;.:;-1 '-i~~~.....;.-1n ...... J..,.._._;t~ .. -.... =oo-·~l~ -t~,"'--(--. ... __ . ..-~.., !-. .J.+..~}~t ....... ~ ~.-t-. • ..:...,..~ .... ~"t.""'"';.,.l---!.-.-~~ ,.,~ . ..:;:.._ .. .~~,..... ... ~,..,.~ -,'r!-~ ;;..,._- -l;-'"'"""':;_~~ -t.~ J f\ i 1• tf ... :\tP"\ ·~~:lr~h,9j"')f!t ~~ o• f 4 ~ I t I ._.-t I •lt"'1 -~ " t:J II r r-,•" f~ 'J, !_. -7 -"~--,. ~·) •• i,.~~ff~·.:··.<f..__.; .. ~~~1-J.i;?t.t-a.~\.\" .~.J...:.....; ~ .... , .... r;:;, ••••• -.... ·i-:r· , ;f) , ~:.•·4 ·fJ• _....~r ,.,,:{:.~ ..... ~~~"t, ~ "'"':. t-: ~~..._ t , H:.t::,·~·--;.i'c ···!.-'\ • t$t 1 t 1 t~-';_~\...'lj._ ~.tt 1 'l 'II \..ro-~ 'C."' ... ..,. ''tlf, • •.,1 ~~""'~\" • •.._ .,'1 ,~ "", 1 1 tf•h .1~ ill • tt,.••• • ·~'likJf':'tJ.fl• ¥,•!: •'•,-"'""''~~~vJ~,·l~~·u)A...., • :t 0 'j<_ • -•.t• r.t { .,. ·~':~ t'" ~t•-.~ tt•,f { >" ~.., f" --~ ·,.~-;..•;•r,•.,:'"H•~t•rJ•'/~~-;-;!•~ ..... ,.p.H•,_,_,.~ .i,.:, )-..J ~ .~, ... ·' ......... /r:.•~'.-!a r~t•·t·., ,-::,. ~· .... "• ... ~ .. ~" ... ,t;.•••' •••• • "i_.!,,if ... p.!;'y.""JJ ···•~j "';. ' ' ~ ~,...· , ..... ~,·~~. '•t~-·'""t;.~ t;.' .. r].""i ~.,,,.;'t ;-" .. ' ...... -·-:-u .... ~~t.1 .. ~~--.-~~·--~l~!.f.fJt.-:cr:-~.kt__.. .. ~ .. ~-;..~.-..., ............ $--·-___.~.... -~ .-.. ----· ... ~-~ ..... ,4•\""·~:::---f• ... ~''t-:t• ~,;--.. •.• ... \ ~'4·•.:l·-.,.ll... ........ . ·~· .• .-.~ ..... .., .. , .. .. •.r.-...... 1 --~~· ·~ •• • •'·~ ... a. '"'" .. -.... -, 't-. ~ •• 4 ~~ .... _._ ... ·~·.,.i.c,_• ....... ---· .'P. ~ . . ·{ ~·· ~.~ "-! .• , . t.l.>~ ... •••• 1•//•*1/'"'~1/i>t,, ·········: ··-.,!.·'. l ... t:.--.t "-'....., ' ••• 'J.,_l :.~ •• ~~ ,if.tt\· • .. ·-:~~:.',.: .. -t·.~~ "'~ '4~"·~: .. ~ fil, J \ ••• ',;r.. • :.. • , .• ' ;: t ~ ~ #:! '-J t~ rl. 6 ~ .._ ;: -.,.. l ;;;: -~-~ ... .,. *-f! .. ~ . tit -·J. .• :: • '~.. -~, t .• • t • / . ... •• ~ .ll:.""· ... • ~ -:~:··· ~ l~;'r~~.·~r::•: .. r:~ ---; + } ·r;:;::: --·-~ . + .. ·; · .. ; .. · ... ·~. 'J.·'· .... :·~),:.·. ..~~~ .. (~?~·'' I ... ....... ..... ··" .... ~ • f •.t •· iit ~.. • t"'f.,~. ~ ... .:~~~~~rl+-.:.:..!.~.:..l!-........ ~~~::::..,.n..t .. ' f--..-,. .••••t...~•-t.•'••••,'.t."•'-.. ~-t9 f ~ ~.~ ··.:.,~ ... ..._SJ •~" ,;,.• • .' • -'·r_.;,....._,~ • • • • I~-...,.. f ~ t. t " ~"' I '"" '\ 4 ,... •, t I · -. \ •,, I t....;.;.'" t ,.. ~ ~ ,.....;-.~ .-t· "" . .......-~ ~ :'t• 1 •;.,~.' .. •,'1·•, .... •~' _. <:Jiif ,l•-.. <>~ 1'•, j ,_,__, t.. t ,.;J;... !"'"'.)'::·,• >-":-'t•.#"~· ·.A~,-~~~ &4:-:-........ , . ,, .. t' J;;.=o• ,· '• !!'-,.' l ~d "'"• I ,_,r,~.f'o,\ ' ~ t II' " 1 I..,;·.>~' • •. Vo E' ,._'-'.,. <::._--......_!<• '.' , . .,""-',~,_...,.""' • I • ..1' 1-t# p 11 JtfftJ,·-~~f"' ~~---~ ' "~>""'-. f,"., t '"\.., ; -..... ~;7Jj.1 ta (r;: .._...,_j ,.....-t--t.:4•• !1,• .. '.,•? ·t"~.t•'.'t-\..t"n.•~t,;...) ,. ...... 'k_\1~ .......... -tl 1 __ .. ;: /_.,..!.,:·'lo·'·~··· v fJ! "" .. "if!~ •••k1,\·~ .. : .. ,~,, r: ...... \ ll,-~~,---:~~, I! Q . ..:.~{\~ ... ~';J•.•' f '.-·.l_.., __ .._ ... :J ____ __.....-,. ..... .__.__·r·"' }~~ ... --~_., _ _.,..,: .. :tX.&. ~--'"-·---~ ·---+· ... -~~·-,-~·-·-~·.~··~-, .. ""' 'P-· "f~_.,.._,.. I ~:r •• i 11 :,•,,-..ut ~;"'"/.~ ~ J .:• ~~!_,.__""--;-; • • .; i ' '"L.,-i ~.-...-~1 •· _.,.•· l ~·("f ........... · ......... ,,.,. .. t..t'_,•. l: c. ··._ • ..... !•• t ,..., ,"t.t 't., ~ + ; "'( ! ·;:·~"' ... -:r. ...,. , .. ,.,.,,_._. -~~~ ._,_.. . ~~,.,~··· ~ 1 '".~' .. J) l.,,.,f *tl::lt~·t 4.•!!·_. ·•. ;t .t~;. ~·~~4·~~~ .. to. J: I ~ s ~·~ • ~~ ~ ')'>\1 .:..• ; , .. ·•~•••••"~••'"""•••);, ~ .. ..o4't • ..... -'••••• .. '""· •.t• '• I ___..,__-,,~ r '·l I . i " • ' ~ • jt of r-· .... --"-.. '. ; • ,., .(, •• 1 ~+.. ... v J.. ·> '•1t-.... ''to .......... •t. '.· .-... _. .. '-=---~ -;•, .. , .,.::--l•t ~ ..,::..-~ ~. ,· ~'!;J'. ~ • itt :ft'•• ,.-1 *..tr-...,;'* tf • '"".;..· ._..._,,...-,....... ...... ~(~---~ I J: -•' -~ • I ~ ~-,,. ... -l;r;'~~t-~-~~ •• -... ""''-••--..,..-.;•~ .~··r'l<....,...,::z-~ """~:;...;..•. ->-•;..----~-~-"'~----r ~ . ~-')_ , . ; -··""~ 1---"t., . .,_.:· • , •• ( •• • !'"""'....: ..... It -,6-.--..:-·--~~, . . ~ " ..... ) ... ~ :::.-:-(~ --..... lr .... ..:.~ .-~I ··~. Jfs{;~~-h-~..:.~ ... ·~' ~ _;Ji; r6;'· ff=. ~ J, --y;,_~t· ·c"''.t:•, ·y , •' · ;:./~~. ~U: ~. ~ .:.·~ · · i \ MATCH LINE A : .l_..;. .-~t_!""' ,..£._\:.-~ .. If~,~):, J.J J l ~:;;.•/ " ';""!' ~-~!~-~--:::.:::. ,+. •~• ~~ "o., .:__~.~~:r~....,_,.., L.-.:,l.......,.,..l.,..,.,._:_..-• .... : .• ·.t .~~ .. 4~··. .. . '!;. .,:. ... t· r: ........ · .... ~ ·r . ··t~\~ "' ~-~~-,., , ....... ., .. ~ !r 1: -tl :,. • ~ ~·:'if,•~":·:•' j ~·· ( >.c ltP·· *• ~~~ ~ -"":7"'""";Jsl·' ... •· • ~ "': •• 4"""'"''='·--· ·~; ... .!.,..•' ........ , .. ·1.... . . ;.f ~r-t ,\..; c· .. ;"'.~ t' . i b···~ ..l" ... -.·... .. ;t • ) ··-! t :~ ·~ . ' t> ' . .. -~~·~ ~··· "' \ -., f\:: l .. .. ,.. .. ' , . •":.., too-... -:-:".·' ~ ... go it,;- ~ * .. . ~·~·-.... '"\, •• ,.#'· .P -~: .... !'.'·..,: .. ~ .• -•.... ~·1/f} ,. .,. ~ -~~ g "~-· ·,. l ~. .~ (f ·~ ~ -~~;. . =·~-.... ,.,-J;;;.:J"~, ~1'"' ............. --· . ~l ~~"' i\ ~' ~ . RECOMMENDED TRANSMISSION CORRIDOR SOUTHERN STUDY AREA 0 -- SCALE. IN MILES '£J.i.£ .. r~ "'·-!S LOCATION MAP 2 .. .r: r r FOtD .LENI:lr) ! 'II sii ! -~-- :{' ~ l I' ·. l * T' --· l'2 ,i ~r . j~ .. '·" j --• -- z 0 ~ g - l ' • ,, !i J , P•fh :. .. ":>! C\1 (/) l.LI ...J :::E z ILl ...J <t (J 0 (/) ~· ~".~~; l\J r--: w a:: ::> C!> ll... cc: 0 0 0:: 0:: Oc::x: uw zo:: oc::t (J))- (J)O -::::> :Er- U>(f) z <CZ 0::0::: 1-W oi wl-o:::::> zO w(/) :2: :::E 0 u w 0::: J I I I I I I I I I fJ I ·~ tl ~' . ' ~ f1 ~ ~ L1 ~ ~ [ @ ·. ' ) '"_l (/,)_ . /-~( \ . \-~-; --" . ' ' \ .:t~ ., _..:·,, ,_, 7,. \' ·, ~~ .. -~. ~ I ~ .... "''\ "' .. ! ~ i ·~ ..... '-, . "-v-. .. .. ! t:. ,.. .._., ..... _,. :\ _':"_ ... --{ (. ~-~ ' -. ·---:---. ---"""~-"""-~-~··Y"*""""'. ~ . ~ ~--' 't .. ~ ~- \ ....... ~"-. t, ·~ ~~ .. .... -~*·~ --..·~~ . :. ;j~~ . CJ ~~ .._ -....,....,_..,.r ... !\..._......, ~- ,...,...._' . ..,.,_ . ~ '-·~;"" • r;-:::-.:::--'<, . c··._ . . . .. ·--~~~ ~ l v-....... , ~ > ..... 1 "···' ~ r .. ~ ·~ \ ,;; ~:~-~\::~~ <~'-~~~·:"-' -~ ~i-~ : ', \! '~ . ·~· '..~. --~ .. t \ ~ ~ ~ <;:: ~ ' '-;f.~.. . j;-" '"'-'~i_: :~~ •... ; . '. -~ ~ ~ ... ~-. ;· -~ ' ' ,· r.. !". ·. ·'" \~ -~s-·. . ·-. J..., ... r-.. ,...-..... "it'·---..... ~, _...,_ -... 1 ""'_v .. r r-"'~ .. _ .. ·.;\! ~~.--... ~~~ '-., l. -· .. -........ l -·y / "":' "",) '<" , . "' <~- !i ~ ............. #'o;l< --·· ';~ ... .... ,..'·l. .• -'L, RECOMMENDED TRANSMISSION CORRIDOR CENTRAL STUDY AREA 1 , _,_..._..,., :"-....,...""""'": .......... ....--...... -~1'_,.~....,.._,..,.,, ___ ~-----~...---"-"--·---....... ---"'-.. --~:--;:-----'~ .......... ~~--:-""--;;---~.._.."""'-::-""~-:::~~ i'~) ~· ........ . .. ._. ·, . $1 .-~~~"": ,...._.,..,~" .. _,..'l.lo..,_.r ~ . c 1· .. ~ ·~:~::·~· .,. 'I .. ,_ 7 ' ! 'I· __ .,....,.-.....,, __ ,, __ a . , c-' ,,.,... ... l'w. " '" 9· '! HSI'" ' ...t;,(~ES, , :~ f:'. ,; . ~ .. @ ~~ ...... ~· ,, ... (11.1~~-...... • ,... c 2!> !'( ~-~---- SCAU' lt. M'U:S LOCAT!r-N MAP 0 I 2 r--...-: :.aJ SCALE IN MILES FIGURE 7.3 (\J ~{! \ ~ tl) \ w _J :E m ~ w w z _J :J <X u r c (f) u 1-<X :E -- l' ., .... -.il' ;:..., 11.;\ .. ,r-.. fJ ~, ' \ < 1E 4 ' - 10 j -4-r --~~·'\. 1_.~ ~.:. -,--... > ,.., ... " - ~ , ' - ~ ll . 1. ' \ t ~ .1. ;.,; .2 l. . .I ·"" ; t I l, )J,, .. .... i t~! -- • .. :z j ~-r . ! ·~~i l· 1 I --·r~-j-· : " . ' 1 . < '" ·~ . • ~, t.l ~ ~ a ..: :.l:i <f :::; "' g !:i 0 9 c-1 1.) -~ 0 't, '(~ ~ ~ .. , ·~~ :~ "\, -~ .. :.:;" lQ r . ::E :!: w ..J <t (.) (/) .11 " _,._. 10 r--: w cr. :::> (!) u. 0:: 0 0 0:: 0::: 0<1: ow zO:: o<t (J)>- (J)Cl -:::> ~._.. (J)(j) z <l:Z 0:::0:: 1-W o:r: wl-oo:: zo wz ~ ~ 0 () w 0::: - ' \ --- t' \ ., -? "' ' - -~~q,. ' ' ' "1 ~ ""'-"-. ' '~ .. . " l ..---..--- ~ .. , .... ....--· ..--· / / / / .. , .. '\ "' •' J •'\ l" . ·' ~ ~ ' .. ·, " . ·~ ' - (\J 0 II) ~ ~ ~ w ...1 <t u II) u Ul z :I X ~ ~ - a:: 0 0 0:: 0:: 0<( Uw zO:: o<t CI))- {J) 0 -:::> ~ ..... (/)(/) z <l:Z 0::0:: 1-W oi wl-oO:: zO wz ~ ~ 0 G:1 0:: <D r.: LLl a:: ;:) t!> li: - ~'"', .. \ '!.~ ~~ \ _,. l ~1 <f,,~ r \ .-/' •' Jt ''fl' ,. it ...-; ~· -~ \~. I ... ~f) )1 -- ----- •,'I .; \ (,l;' ... ...... ,., . ..,. .- ·:··~~.~ft, . .. •. ·' f. . ... \ \ .;> \ ·. - N en UJ _J ::E ~ UJ _J <( u 0 en - r-r-: w 0::: ::::> (.!) Li: 0:: 0 0 0:: 0:: 0<! ow zo:: o<! (f)>- (f)O -::> ~l­ (f)(f) z <CZ 0::0:: l-W 0;: W' oo:: zO wz ~ ~ 0 () w 0::: - I \ !i \ ---- I I ,,..,, I , I - ' ' I -- 'I ·'· - " .~ ,1! -- , ~· I l ,, J { '•t l. t# ' ~ ·(· ., "I '/{ i ' l \ ' \: ·i) ~ i ,\ )\/q· r ' •' : :~, .. l)< :\~ ', -- f'..· ., l r'" ~. ,l ' . ; .•' .• 'l .. ,! " 0 ill .J ::E: z [JJ .J <f fA ------ .. -- 0:: 0 a 0:: 0:: o<t ow zo:: o<t cn>-(J)Cl -::J ~ .... en Cll z <(Z a:: a:: l-UJ oi wl-aa:: zO wz :E :E 0 fd 0:: -u I • I • I I I I I I I tr. PJ ~ ' ' ' 8 -BIBLIOGRAPHY AND AUTHORITIES CONTACTED Alaska Agricultural Experiment Station. 1980. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Environmental Studies, Annual Report (draft), Subtask 7.12, Plant Ecology. Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, Inc., Phoenix, New York . Alaska Department of Fish and ~ameu 1978a. Alaska's fisheries atlas~ Volumes I and II. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage, Alaska. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. l978b. Habitat essential for fish and wildlife on state landso Alaska Department of Fish and GMne, Anchorage, Alaska. Alaska Department of Fish and Gameo 1978c. Preliminary environmental assessment of hydroelectric development on the Susitna River. Alaska Department of Fish and Wildlife~ Anchorage, Alaska. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 197~~ State game refuges, critical habitat areas and game sanctuaries. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Habitat Protection Section, Anchorage, Alaska. Alaska ~epartment of Natural Resources. 1980. Susitna basin land use/recreation atlas; planning background report. Land and Resource Planning Section, Division of Research and Development, Alaska Department of Natural Resovrces in cooperation with the United States Department of Agriculture. Alaska Department of Natural Resources. 1981. Susitna basin planning back- ground report, scenic reservoirs along the Parks Highway. Inventory and Management Recommendation, Land and Resource Planning Section, Division of Hesearch and Development, Anchorage, Alaska. Alaska Power Authority. December 1979. Anchorage, Fairbanks Transmission In- tertie, Economic Feasibility Report. International Engineering Company, Inc., and Robert~-Petherford Associates. ~aeon, G. 1978a. Archeology near the Watana dam site in the Upper Susitna River basin. Alaska District Corps of Engineers, Anchorage, Alaska. Bacon, G. 1978b. Archeology in the Upper Susitna River basin. Alaska District Corps of Engineers, Anchorage, Alaska. CIRI/Holmes and Narver. 1980. Land status maps, Susitna Hydroelectric Project, Subtask 2.04. Acres American, Incorporated, Buffalo, New York. Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. Tw LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep water· habitats of the United States. United States Department of the Interior, Fish .and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services, Washington, D.C. 8-1 I ,. " l 1 I I, I I I' I 1. lj I .I ' '!!I ' I l l _u 11 Friese, N. V. 1975. Pre-authorization assessment of anadromous fish popula- tions of the Upper Susitna River watershed in the vicinity of the proposed Devil Canyon Hydroelectric Project. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Commercial Fisheries, Anchorage, Alaska. Morrow, J. E. 1980. The freshwater fishes of Alaska. Alaska Northwest Pub- lishing Co., Anchorage, Alaska. Murray, P. F. 1979. Threatened and endangered plants of Alaska. U.S. Depart- ment of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, D.C. Riis, J. C. 1975. Pre-authorization assessment of the Susitna River hydroelec- tric projects: Preliminary investigations of water quality and aquatic species composition. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Sport Fish Division, Anchorage, Alaska. · U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1979. Exploratory soil survey of Alaska. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of the Army. 1975. Hydroelectric power and related purposes: Southcentral Railbelt Area, Alaska, upper Susitna River basin -Interim Feasibility Report, Appendix 1, Part 2. Alaska District Corps of ~ngi­ neers, Anchorage, Alaska. IJ.S. Department of the Interior. 1973. The endangered species act of 1973. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. University of Alaska Museum. 1980a. Susitna Hydroelecttic Project tnviron- mental Studies, Semi-annual Report, Subtask 7.06, Cultural Resource Invest- igation. Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, Inc., Phoenix, New York. University of Alaska Museum. 198Gb. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Envh"on- menta 1 Studies, Procedures Man•!~ 1, Sub task 7. 06, Cul tura 1 Kesource Invest i- gation. Terrestrial Environme1i'ta1 Specialists, Inc., Phoenix, New York. 8-2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 • I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! ~ I t I ~ AUTHORITIES CONTACTED State Agencies Alaska Department of Fish and Game Anchorage, Alaska Dimitri Bader Received, during personal vist on January 21, 1981, maps showing habitat essential for fish and wildlife on state lands. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Fairbanks, Alaska Francis Van Ballenberghe Received information during a personal visit in January 1981, on habitat data covering an area from Fairbanks/Healy to Ester. Federal Agencies U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service Anchorage, Alaska Sterling Powell Received, during personal visit on October 28, 1980, soils information, lower Susitna basin, and a copy of an Alaska Department of Natural Resources publication, 11 Susitna Basin Land Use/Recreation Atlas Planning Background Report ... U.S. Department of Engergys Alaska Power Administration Juneau, Alaska Robert Cross Received, during personal visit on November 4, 1980, maps and information on Alaska Power Administration Susitna Project transmission line studies. Utilities Golden Valley Electri~ Association, Inc., (GVEA) Fairbanks, Alaska Fairbanks Municipal Utilities System (FMUS) Fairbanks, Alaska Anchorage Municipal Light & Power (AML&P) Anchorage, Alaska Chugach Electric Association (CEA) Anchorage, Alaska Matanuska Electric Association (MEA) Anchorage, Alaska 8-3 APPENDIX A ·GtNERIC PLAN FORMULATION AND SELECTION METHODOLOGY I I I I I .I I I I B I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX A -GENERIC PLAN FORMULATION AND SELECTION METHODOLOGY On numerous.occasions during the feasibility studies for the Susitna Hydroelec- tric Projects, it is necessary to make decisions in which a single or a small number of courses of action are selected from a larger number of possible al- ternatives. This appendix presents a generalized framework for this decision-making process that has been developed for the Susitna planning studies. It outlines, in gen- eral terms, the approach to be used in screening a large multitude of options and finally establishing the best option or plan. It is comprehensive in that it takes into account not just economic aspects but also a broad range of envi- ronmental and social factors. The application of this generalized methodology is particularly relevant to the following decisions to be made during the Susitna studies: -Selection of alternative plans involving thermal and/or non-Susitna hydroelec- tric developments in the primary assessment of the economic feasibility of the Susitna Basin development plan (Task 6). -Selection of the preferred Susitna Basin hydroelectric development plan (i.e., identification of best combination of damsites to be developed) (Task 6). -Selection of the preferred railbelt generation expansion plan (i.e., compari~ son of railbelt plans with and without Susitna). -Optimization of the selected Susitna Basin development plan (i.e., determining the best dam heights, installed capacities, and staging sequences) (Task 6). -Selection of the preferred transmission line routes (Task 8). -Selection of the preferred mode of access and access routes (Task 2). -Selection of the preferred location and size of construction and operational camp facilities (Task 2). It is recognized that the above planning activities embrace a very diverse set of decision-making processes. The generalized methodology outlined here has been carefully developed to be flexible and readily adaptable to a range of ob- jectives and data availability associated with each decision. The following sections briefly outline the overall decision-making process and discuss the guidelines to be used for establishing screening and evaluation cri- teria. A.l -Plan Formulation and Selection Methodology The methodology to be used in the decision process can generally be subdivided into five basic steps (Figure A.l): A-1 c I I I. li I I I I I I I II -I I I I I I -Step 1: -Step 2: -Step 3: -Step 4: -Step 5: Determine basic objectives of planned course of action. Identify all feasible candidate courses of action. Establish basis to be used and perform screening of candidates. Formulate plans incorporating preferred alternatives. Reestablish basis to be used, evaluate plans, and select preferred plan. Under Step 2~ the candidate courses of action are identified so that they satis- fy, either individually or in combinations, the stated objectives (Table A.l). In Step 3, the basis of screening these candidates is established in items of redefined, specific objectives; assumptions; data base criteria; and·method- ology. This process follows a subseries of seven steps as shown in Table A .. 2, to produce a short list, ideally of no more than five or six preferred alterna- tives. Plans are then formulated in Step 4 to incorporate single alternatives or appropriate combinations of alternatives. These plans are then evaluated in Step 5, using a further redefin<;d set of objectives, criteria, and methodology to arrive at a selected plan. This 6-step procedure is illustrated in Table A.3. Tables A.2 and A.3 also indicate the review process that must accompany the planning process. It is important that within the plan formulation and selection methodology, the objectives of each phase of the decision process be redefined as necessary. At the outset, the objectives will be broad and somewhat general in nature. As the process continues, there will be at least two redefinitions of objectives. The first wi 11 take ·p 1 ace during Step 3 and the second during Step 5. As an exam- ple, the basic objectives at Step 1 might be the development and application of an appropriate procedure for selection of a single preferred course of action. Step 2 might involve the selection of those candidates which are technically feasible on the basis of a defined data base and set of assumptions. The objec- tives at Step 3 might be the establishment and application of a defined set of criteria for elimination of those candidates that are less acceptable from an economical and environmental standpoint. This would be accomplished on the basis of appropriately modified data base and assumptions. Having developed under Step 4 a series of pl;ns incorporating the remaining or preferred alterna- tives, the objectives under Step 5 might be the selection of the single alterna- tive which best satisfies an appropriately redefined set of criteria for eco- nomic, environmental, and social acceptability. A., -Guidelines for Establishing Screening and Evaluation Criteria Definition of criteria for the screening and evaluation procedures will largely depend on the precise nature of the alternatives under consideration. However, in most cases comparison will be based on technical, economic, environmental and socioeconomic factors which will usually involve some degree of trade-off in making a preferred selection. It is usually not possible to adequately quantify such trade-offs. Addition a 1 criteria may also be separately considered in some cases, such as safety or conservation of natural resources.. Guidelines for consideration of the more corrmon overall factors are discussed in the following paragraphs. A-2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 'I -- I I 'I I I I I I I I ,I I • ~ ~ • ~on ·-, ,.._ .. ~ <" ~' (a) Technical Feasibility Basically all options considered must be technically feasible, complete within themselves, and ensure public safety. They must be adequately de- signed to cope with all possible conditions including flood flows, seismic events, and all other types of normal loading conditions. (b) Economic Criteria In cases where a specific economic objective can be met by various alterna- tive plans, the criteria to be used is the least present-worth cost, .. For example~ this would apply to the evaluation of the various railbelt power generation scenarios, optimizing Susitna Basin hydroe1ectric developments, and selection of the best transmission and access routes. In cases where screening of a large number of options is to be carried out, unit commodity costs can oe used as a basis of comparison. For instance, energy cost in $/kwh would apply to screening a number of hydroelectric development sites distributed throughout southern Alaska. Similarly, the screening of al- ternative access or transmission 1 ine route segments would be based on a $/mile comparison. As the Susitna Basin development is a state project, economic parameters are to be used for all analyses. This implies the use of real (inflation- adjusted) interest rates and only the differential escalation rates above or below the rate of general price inflation. Intra-state transfer pay- ments such as taxes and subsidies are excluded, and opportunity values (or shadow prices) are used to establish parameters such as fuel and transpor- tation costs. Extensive use should also be made of sensitivity analyses to ensure that the conclusions based on economics are valid for a range of the values of parameters used. For example, some of the more common parameters consid- ered in comparisons of alternative generation plans particularly lend them- selves to sensitivity analyses. These may include: -Load forecasts -Fuel costs -Fuel cost escalation rates Interest and discount rates Economic life of system components -Capital cost of system components (c) Environmental Criteria Environmental criteria to be considered in comparisons of alternatives are based on the FERC requirements for the preparation of the Exhibit E 11 Environmental Report" to be submitted as part of the license application for the project. These criteria include project impacts on: -Physical resources: air, water, and land A-3 r; ,I~ 11 1n 11 r1.· .. J .~ fl 'I'·· . I . 1 .1·'.! . ' . ..'J ·~.) IJ I; lj ~~ ~ .. 1 ~~ IJ lj l,i IJ • ' u L' ' . -Biological resources: flora, fauna, and their associated habitats -Historical and cultural resources -Land use and aesthetic values In addition to the above criteria which are used for comparing or ranking alternatives, the following economic aspects should also be incorporated into the basic alternatives being studied: -In developing the alternative concepts of plans, measures should be in- corporated to minimize or preclude the possibility of undesirable and ir- reversible changes to the natural environment. -Efforts should also be made to incorporate measures which enhance the quality aspects of water, land, and air. Care should be taken when incorporating the above aspects into the alterna- tives being screened or evaluated to ensure consistency among alternatives; i.e., that all alternatives incorporate the same degree of mitigation. As an example, these measures could include reservoir operational constraints to minimize environmental impact, incorporation of air quality control measures for thermal generating stations, and adoption of access road and transmission line design standards and construction techniques which mini- mize impact 0n terrestrial and aquatic habitat. (d) Socioeconomic Criteria Similarly, based generally on FERC requirements, the project impact assess- ment should be considered in terms of socioeconomic criteria which in- clude: -Impact on local communities and the availability of public facilities and services; -Impact of emplo}'1TJent on tax and property values; -Displacement of people, businesses, and farms; and -Disruption of desirable community and regional growth. A.3 -Plan Selection Procedure As noted above, for each successive screening exercise, the criteria can be refined or modified in order to reduce or increase the number of alterna- tives being considered. As a general rule, no attempt will be made to as- cribe numerical values to non-quantifiable attributes such as environmental and social impacts in order to arrive at an overall numerical evaluation. It is considered that such a process tends to mask the judgmental tradeoffs that are made in arriving at the oest plan. The adopted approach involves utilizing combinations of both quantifiable and qualitative parameters in the screening €Xercise without making tradeoffs. For example, the screen- ing criteria used might be: -•• ..•. alternatives will be excluded from further consideration if their unit costs exceed X and/or if they are j~dged to have a severe impact on wildlife habitat •••• " A-4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Jl . J f) ,, J t J [ ! ' ; ,, l I u ' i 1 il i • j ~ M > l ' l .I} .i I' \ ' •J ,, ' 1 I" 1 ' j 1\ J '.J IJ I) f --1 u Jt -~ ... 1 I' t . j IJ u ' IJ IJ' This approach is preferable to criteria which might state: - 11 ~··· alternatives will be excluded if the sum of their unit cost index plus the environmental impact index exceeds Y ..... 11 Nevertheless, it is recognized that under certain circumstances, particu- larly where a relatively large number of very diverse alternatives must be screened very quickly, the latter quantitative approach may have to be used. In the final plan evaluation stages, care will be taken to ensure that all tradeoffs that have to be made between the different quantitative and qual- itative parameters used are clearly highlighted. This will facilitate a rapid focus on the key aspects in the decision-making process. An example of such an evaluation result might be: - " ...• Plan A is superior to Plan B. It is $X more economical and this benefit is judged to outweigh the lower environmental impact associated with Plan B .... " Sufficient detailed information should be presented to allow a reviewer to make an independent assessment of the judgmental tradeoffs mad~. The application of this procedure in the evaluation stage is facilitated by performing the evaluations for paired alternatives only. For example, if the short-list plans are A, B, and C, then in the evaluation, Plan A is first evaluated against Plan B, and the better of these two is evaluated against C to select the best overall plan. A-5 I . I I I I I I ·I I I I I I TABLE A.1: STEP 2 ... SELECT CANDIDATES Step 2.1 -Identification of candidates: -objectives -assu~tions -data base -selection crite~ia -selection methodology Step 2.2 -List and describe candidates that will be used in Step 3. TABLE A.2: STEP 3 -SCREENING PROCESS Step ~.1 -Establish: -objectives -assu~Jlltions -data base -scre~ning criteria -screening methodology Step 3 •. 2 -Screen candidates, using methodology established in Step 3.1 to conduct screening of alternatives. Step 3.3 -Identify any remaining individual alternatives (or combinations of alternatives) that satisfy the objectives and meet the criteria established in Step 3.1 under the assumptions made. Step 3.4 -Determine whether a sufficient number of alternatives remain to formulate a limited number of plans. if not, additional screening via Steps 3.1 through 3.3 is required. Step 3.5 -Prepare interim report. Step 3.6 -Review screening process via (as appropriate): -Acres -APA -E~ternal groups Step 3.7 -Revise interim report. I 1~.' . ~ I j I I 11 I I 111 11 I TABLE A.3: STEP 5 -PLAN EVALUATION AND SELECTION Step 5~1 -Establish: -objectives -evaluation criteria -evaluation methodology Step 5. 2 -.£stab lish data requirements and develop data base. Step 5.3 -Proceed with the plan evaluation and selection process as follows: -Identify plan modifications to improve alternative plans -Based on the established data base and the selection criteria, use a paired comparison technique to rank the plans as (1) the preferred plan, (2) the second best plan, and (J) other plans; Step 5.4 -Prepare draft plan selection report. Step 5.5 -Review plan selection process via (as appropriate): -Acres -APA -External groups Step 5.6 -Prepare final plan selection report. I I I I I I I •• I I I I I I I I I I I I'!! l!'!!!· f.!!! !!@ ~ ~ ~ ---~ ~ l'-'1 riiiJ - TABLE A.4: EXAMPLES OF PLAN fORMULATION AND Sfli:.CT HJN ~t:THODOLOGY 111!1 -~ ~ Activity 1. Define 2. Select 4. Plan Objectives Alternatives 3. Screen formulation ~. Evaluation Susitna Basin Select best All alternative Screen out sites Select several Conduct detailed Development Susitna Basin dam sites in the which are too combinations of evaluation of Selection hydropower basin, e.g: snall or arc dams which have development plans development known to have the potential plan Devil Canyon severe environ-for delivering High Devil Canyon mental impacts the lowest cost ~latana energy in the Susitna UI basin, e.g.: Vee Naclaren Watana-Devil Butte Creek C~nyon dams; Tyone Denali High Devil Gold Creek Canyon-Vee dams; Olson Watana Dam - Devil Creek Tunnel Tunnel Alternative Access Route Select best AU alternative Screen out links Select several Conduct detailed Selection access route road, rail, and which are either different access evaluation of to the proposed air transport more costly or plans, e.g.: development plans hydropower component links, have higher development e.g.: environmental Gold Creek road sites within impact than access; the basin for road and rail equivalent purposes of links from Gold alternatives. Gold Creek road/ construction via north and Ensure sufficient rail access; and operation south routes; links remain to alLow formulation Denali Highway Road Links to of plans road access sites from Denali Highway; Air links to sites and associated landing facilities .... - ~ ~ ~)~~~ ~ lii...'-"'~.;, •• ~ t,;.:,-~-e ~ \...._,;..., .......... -~ ~-~ L~ .. -.. e::= ~ \......."'.-.,..' ~ k,':'~~.,.f ~. ~~---~ --· :..._~-~-' -CI ' i ~~-._..... ---'l, iJ ........... d -· -J ... ~ ... -. '1 ""'"' .. .JJ ._":"J r-~ INPUT FROM AVAILABLE SOURCES-PREVIOUS AND CURRENT STUDIES L I ·~ s----------a DEFINE OBJECTIVES .. SELECT CAND'lDATES SCREEN FEEDBACK FEEDBACK PLAN FORMULATION AND SELECTION METHODOLOGY LEGEND --'\ STt::P NUMBER IN 4 STANDARD PROCESS (APPENDIX A ) FIGURE A.l Iii f 'I 1 ; ~ j ' J } i I ~ ~ ·l I j ! ,I t j ,I I J !j l I 1 r l 1 APPENDIX B j SOiLS INFORMATION I 1 i I I <j ~} 'I i ) J t j ] ~ l J •' j I I I • I I I I II I I I I I i I" .. I I I ·~ .w APPENDIX TA~LE B.l SOIL ASSOCIATIONS WITHIN THE PROPOSED TRANSMISSION CORRIDORS - GENERAL DESCRIPTION, OFFkOAU TRAFFICA~ILITY LIMITATIONS (URTL), AND COMMON CRUP SUITABILITY (CCS)a EFl -Typic Gyofluvents -Typic Cryaquepts, loamy, nearly level -Dominant soils of this association consist of well-drained, stratified, waterlaid sediment of variable thickness over a substratum of gravel, sand, and cobblestones. Water table is high in other soils, including the scattered muskegs. ORTL: Slight -Severe (wet; subject to flood- ing); CCS: Good-Poor (low soil t~~perature throughout growing season). EOl -Typic Cryorthents, loamy, nearly level to rolling -This association occupies broad terraces and moraines; most of the bed- rock is under thick deposits of very gravelly and sandy glacial drift, capped with loess blown from barren areas of nearby floodplains. Well- drained, these soils are the most highly developed agriculturdl lands in ~laska. ORTL: Slight; CCS: Good-Poor. IQ2 Histic Pergelic Cryaquepts-loamy, nearly level to rolling -The dominant soils in this association are poorly drained~ developed in silty material of variable thi~kness over very gravelly glacial drift. Most soils have a shallow permafrost table, but in some of the very gravelly, well-drained soils, permafrost is deep or absent." OR.L: Severe -Wet; CCS: Poor · IQ3 -Histic Pergelic Cryaquepts -Typi~: Cryofluvents, loamy, nearly level Soils of this association located in low areas and meander scars of floodplains are poorly drained silt loam or sandy loam; these ar€ usually saturated above a shallow permarfrost table. Soils on the natural levees along existing and former channels are well-drained~ stratified silt loam and fine sand; permafrost may occur. ORTL: Severe (wet); CCS: Unsuit- able (low temperature during growing season; wet) -Good (but subject to flooding). IQ25 -Pergelic Cryaquepts -Pergelic tryochrepts, very gravelly, hilly to steep Soils of this association occupying broad ridgetops, hillsides, and a. Source; U~S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service 1979. See Appendix Table 8.2 for def·!nitions for Offroad Trafficability Limitations and Common Crop Suitability. --lt. I <."!;::( ij "' l 1 j l ,I ~ , I ~ ~.i j ""f i i I ~f " 1 ; "l i r::~ ' I '~ ' ~ ~· t1i ' n l ,• ~ j l l ( • u l I ~ 1 APPENDIX TABLE ~.1 {Cont'd) valley bottoms at high e 1 ev at ion are poorly drained, consisting of a few inches of organic matter, a thin layer of silt loam, under which is very gravelly silt loam; permafrost table is at a depth greater than 2 feet. In locations of hills and ridges above tree line these soils are well- drained. ORTL: Severe (wet, steep slopes); CCS: Unsuitable (wet; low soil temperature; short, frost-free period). IRl -Typic Cryochrepts, loamy, nearly level to rolling -On terraces and outwash plains, these soils are well-drained, having a thin mat of course organic matter over gray silt loam.. In slight depres- sions and former drainage ways, these are model"'ately ~~ell-drai ~d soils, having a thin organic mat over silt loam, with a sand or grave1iy sub- stratum. ORTL: Slight-Moderate; CCS: Good. "IRlO -Typic Cryochrepts, very gravelly, nearly level to rolling -Aerie Crya- quepts, loamy, nearly level to rolling -Generally well-to moderately well-drainea soils of terraces, outwash plains, and low moraines. Typically, these soils have a silt loam upper layer over gravelly soils. Pockets of poorly drained soils with a shal- low permafrost table occupy irregular depressions. ORTL: Moderate - Severe (wet); CCS: Good -Poor (wet; low soil temperature throughout j growing season; short, frost-free period). IR14 -Alfie Cryochrepts, loamy, hilly to steep -Histic Pergelic Cryaquepts, loamy, nearly level to rolling ) On mid-slopes, these soils are well drained, of micaceous loess ranging to many feet thick over shattered bedrock of mica schist. Bottomland j areas are poorly drained with a relatively thick surface of peatmoss. In ~ these soils, p~rmafrost ranges from 5-30 inches in depth. ORTL: Moderate -Severe (steep slope; wet); CCS: Poor (steep slopes; highly J susceptible to erosion). IU3 -Pergelic Cryumbrepts, very gravelly, hilly to steep -rough mountainous 1 and On high alpine slopes and ridges close to mountain peaks, these soils have a thin surface mat of organic material beneath which is an 8 to 12- inch-thick, dark brown horizon formed in very gravelly or stony loam. This association also includes areas of bare rock and stony rubble on mountain peaks. ORTL: Severe (short, frost-free period) -Very Severe (steep slope); CCS: Unsuitable (short, frost-free period; shallow bedrock). RMl -Rough Mountainous Land -Rough, mountainous land composed of steep, rocky slopes; icefields; and I _I J J .J ,J ' • i l l . l ~ I 1 ' j j !1 j ' . i r.C:"'l "I l l ' ! \ ' , f 1 i • j ' \ ~ ,;• I ' 1 • • ~ l t :,l ~1 . ' ~· l J .J ~ .j ' I J I l APPENDIX TABLE 8.1 (Cont 1 d) glaciers. Soils on lower slopes are stony and shallow over bedrock. Un- suitable for agriculture. Roads ·feasible only in major valleys. SOl -Typic Cryorthods, loamy, nearly level to rolling -Sphagnic Borofibrists, nearly level Low hills, terraces, and outwash plains have well-drained soils formed in silty loess or ash) over gravelly glacial till. Depressions have poorly drained, fibrous organic soils. UKTL: Slight -Very Severe; CCS: Good (on well-drained soils) -Unsuitable (wet organic soii). S04 -pic Cryorthods, very gravelly, nearly level to rolling -Sphagnic 505 SOlO Borofibrists, nearly level Soils of nearly level to undulating outwash plains are well-drained to excessively well-drained, formed in a mantel of silty loess over very gravelly glacial till~ Soils of the association located in depressions are very poorly drained, organic soilsa ORTL: Slight -Very Severe; CCS: Good-Unsuitable (wet, organic). -Typic Cryorthods, very gravelly, hilly to steep -Sphagnic Borofibrists, nearly level -On the hills and plains, these soils, formed in a thin metal of silty loess over very gravelly and stony glacial drift, are well drained and strongly acid. In muskegs, most of these soils consist of fibrous peat. URTL: Severe (steep slope); CCS: Unsuitable (steep slopes; stones and boulders; short, frost-free season}. -Humic Cryorthods, very gravelly, hilly to steep -Generally, these are well-drained soils of foothills and deep mountain valleys, formed in very gravelly drift with a thin mantel of silty loess or mixture of loess and volcanic ash. These soils are characteri~tically free of permafrost except in the highest elevation. ORTL: Sever~ (steep slope); CCS: Poor-Unsuitable (low soil temperature throughout growing season; steep slopes). SOlS -Pergelic Cryorthods -Histic Pergelic Cryaquepts, very gravelly, nearly level to rolling On low moraine hills, these soils are well drained, formed in 10 to 2U inches of loamy material over very gravelly glacial drifts. Un foot slopes and valleys, these soils tend to be poorly drained, with shallow permafrost table. ORTL: Slight -Severe (wet); CCS: Unsuitable (short, frost-free period; wet; stones and boulders). ~ I { 1 j l 11 " 1 'I Jj '1 1 ;; ;J ,] d ~ J! '' f t j i fl 1 ·l I l i . .t '] \ l I I I " t 'j j ~~ ! ; i '~.i ~ I ~ • _,J! ' f j .,...... ~ h ' , I ~ ~ ' "1 ~ ·1 1 ~ ~ 1 'l l . 1 i ~ .~ "' I I 4 APPENDIX TABLE . .Jh!. { Cont 'd) S016 -Pergelic Cryorthods very gravelly, hilly to steep -Histic Pergelic Cryaquepts, loamy, nearly level -On hilly moraines these soils are well-drained; beneath a thin surface of partially decomposed organic matter, the soils have spodic horizons developed in shallow silt loam over very gravelly or sandy loam. In valleys and long foot slopes, these are poorly drained soils, with a thick~ peaty layer over a frost-churned loam or silt loam. Here, depth of psrmafrost is usually less than 20 inches below surface mat. ORTL: Severe (steep slope; wet); CCS: Unsuitable (short, frost-free period) - Poor (wet; low soil temperature). . I J .I . j I i ' ~ i1 I) Jl •j '1 ' q • tj J1 \J J . ' f ~ . f ! l J I I ! { J I I j ~ i .J [ ' j ~ ~ I ' IJ :{ l l . .,., ; ' '.J ,, ~ I "' J APPENDIX TABLE B.2 DEFINITIONS FOR OFFROAD TRAFFICABILITY LIMITATIONS AND COMMON CROP SUITABILITY OF SOIL ASSOCIATIONSa OFFROAD TRAFFICABILITY LIMITATIONS (ORTL) Offroad Trafficability refers to cross-country movement of conventional wheeled and tracked vehicles, including construction equipment. Soil limitations for Offroad Trafficability (bqsed on features of undisturbed soils) were rated Slight, Moderate, Severe, and Very Severe on the following bases: -Slight Soil limitations, if any, do not restrict the movement of cross-count~y vehicles. -Moderate Soil limitations need to be recognized but can generally be overcome with careful route planning. Some special equipment may be required. -Severe Soil limitations are difficult to overcome, and special equipment and careful route planning are required. These soils should be avoided if possible. -Very Severe Soil limitations are generally too difficult to overcome. Generally, these soils are unsuitable for conventional offroad vehicles. . Common Cropb Suitability (CCS) Soils were rated as Unsuitable, Good, Fair, and Poor for the production of com- mon crops on the following bases: -Unsuitable Soil or climate limitations are generally too severe to be overcome. None of the common crops can be grown successfully in most years, or there is danger of excessive damage to soils by erosion if cultivation is attemptec • a. Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service 1979. · b. The principal crops grown in Alaska--bar.ley, oats, grasses for hay and silage, and potatoes--were considered in preparing ratings. Although only these crops were used, it is assumed that the ratings are also valid for vegetables and other crops suited to Alaskan soils. f <:::.;...· 1 f 1 f:.) f') .l -i ' \ l » .1 j \ ~ ( I A . ~ f i i ' . _, ~ ;I I ; 4 l ,, J .. : ,( APPENDIX TABLE 8.2 (Cont'd) -Good Soil or climate limitations, if any, are easily overcome, and all of the com- mon Alaskan crops can be grown under ordinary management practices. On soils of this group -- (a) Loamy texture extends to a depth of at least 18 inches (45 em). (b) Crop growth is not impeded by excessive soil moisture during the growing seasons. (c) (d) (e) (f) Damage by flooding occur·s no more frequently than 1 year in 10. Slopes are dominantly less than 7 percent . Periods of soil moisture deficiency are rare, or irrigation is econom-i c a 11 y f e as i b 1 e . Damage to crops as a result of early frost can be expected no more fre- quently than 2 years in 10. (g) The hazard of wind erosion is estimated to be slighta Fair Soils or climate 1imitations need to be recognized but can be overcome. Com- mon crops can be grown, but careful management and special practices may be required. On soi1s of this group -- (aj Loamy texture extends to a depth of at least 10 inches (25 em). (b) Periods of excessive soil moisture, which can impede crop growth during the growing season, do not exceed a total of 2 weeks. (c) Damage by flooding occurs no more frequently than 2 years in 10. (d) Slopes are dominantly less than 12 percent. (e) Periods of soil moisture aeficiency are infrequent. (f) D~~agc to crops as a result of early frost can be expected no more fre- quently than 3 years in 10. {g) There is no more than a moderate hazard of wind erosion. -Poor Soils or climate limitations are difficult to overcome and are severe enough ] ] 1 ·I I .I I ,. I I I I I I I /........._ I··~ . I I :If I' ' ' APPENDIX TABLE 8.2 (Cont'd) to make the use questionable. The choice of crops is narrow~ and special treatment or managment practices are required~ In some places, overcoming the limitations may not be feasible. On soils of this group -- (a) Loamy texture extends to a depth of at least 5 inches (12 em). (b) Periods of excessive soil moisture during the growing season do not ex-ceed a total of 3 weeks. (c) Uamage by flooding occurs no more frequently than 3 years in 10. (d) Slopes are dominantly less than 20 percent. (e) Periods of soil moisture deficiency are frequent enough to severely dam-age crops. (f) Climatic conditions permit at least one of the common crops, usually grasses, to be grown successfully in most years. -1 I j . I O)· I . I I I -~·~ I 1 ,, I • ••• • APPENDIX C REVIEW OF PREVIOUS STUDIES 1\ I i'· ~~; ,, I I I I I· I I 1', ; I I e ~I I ·I ,j· •• >.' ·-.. -. .·. ' APPENDIX C -REVI~W OF PREVIOUS STUDIES The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) Study The COE study was contained in a report entitled "South-Central Railbelt Area, Alaska Upper Susitna River Basin, Interim Feasibility Report, Hydroelectric Power and Related Purposes" dated December 1975. Section H and Section I of Appendix 1 of the COE report deal with the transmission system which would in- terconnect the communities of Anchorage and Fairbanks and transmit power from the project to these load centers. These two sections were originally pre- pared as reports to the COE by the Alaska Power Administration of the United States Department of the Interior. Each section of the following text con- sists of a brief summary of certain aspects of the COE's feasibility studies followed by a critical review of the COE's approach and conclusions. This re- view was prepared with a consideration of changes that have occurred since the COE study was performed and under the assumption that the Alaska Power Author- ity would begin construction of the Intertie program (Wiilow to Healy) prior to Susitna transmission line construction. This section was prepared in conjunction with Terrestrial Environmental Speciali~Js, Inc. (TES). (a) Methods of Evaluation The evaluation process presented in the COE report, concerning selection of a preferred corridor for the project, involved several steps. The first step required interpretation of large-scale topographic maps and aerial photo mosaics. The next step involved an aerial reconnaissance to determine which of the mountain passes could accommodate transmission line construction and to review potential corridors. During this over- flight, several corridors were found to have constraints that would pre- clude their use for transmission facilities. The corridors surviving this review process were then subjected to more detailed analysis. The result of this process was the identification of twenty-two individual corridor segm~qts located within the study area. These corridor segments were then inventoried and environmental impact analysis performed for each alternative corridor. Inventory and impact information was presented in both a tabular and textual format, and was based upon then available information. The selected corridors were Susitna 1 (comprising Corridor Segments 7, 8, and 9) and Nenana 1 (com- prising Corridor Segments 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, and 16). (See Figure C.1 which is taken directly from the COE report.) The use of inventory tables proved very workable in the COl: study. while other corridor selection methodologies could have been utilized, the in- ventory method proved to be a useful mechanism in defining transmission line corridors, as evidenced by the fact that very few letters to the COE (which were subsequently in the Environmental Impact Statement) were critical of the selected corridor. C-1 7r tl ,, ,1 I I I ' . ' I I I I \I I I I I I IJ ••• "' I I I -· The inventory seemed quite complete, considering the fact that its intended use was a preliminary feasibility study; prel~minary studies are frequently much less comprehensive. The CUE was able to categorize the existing base- line condition generally for each of the twenty-two corridor segments in nine different inventory categories. The inventory categories included: topography/geology, soils, vegetation, wildlife, climate, existing develop- ments, land ownership/status, existing rights-of-way, and scenic quality/ recreation. Cultural resources were included in the last category. These categories represent most of the resource areas of major concern in a corridor-routing and environmental impact evaluation process. However, ex- pected future development (other than potential for agriculture and for- estry, or implied under land ownership) should also have been inventoried. (b) Major Factors Considered in Evaluating Corridors The nine inventory categories mentioned above were identified by the COE to be major factors in evaluating corridors. The nine inventory categories were reduced to five impact categories for purposes of comparing the vari- ous alternative corridors. The five impact categories were: soils, vege- tation, wildlife, existing developments, and scenic quality/recreation. The objective of the corridor ~valuation process was to optimize reliabil- ity, cost, and environmental constraint factors in the selection of a pre- ferred corridor. TES found that the environmental factors considered by the CUE represent the major evaluation factors of a transmission line corridor-routing stu'dy. Although entitled a preliminary feasibility study, the study became an en- vironmental impact analysis. As a result, the major factors were utilized in the impact analysis process without the benefit of data to support the COE's conclusions about impacts. For example, vegetation is a major evalu- ation factor in corridor-routing studies, and thus was inventoried, but only in general terms and without quantification. Similarly, the other major evaluation factors were inventoried, for the most part, in broad, un- quantified terms. As a result, the depth of impact analysis accorded any of the major evaluation factors is subject to criticism as inadequate. (c) Alternative Corridors The study resulted in four feasible corridors connecting Devil Canyon to Anchorage via the Susitna Drainage. The study also identified five feasi- ble corridors connecting the Susitna Project to Fairbanks. In addition, a corridor was identified to connect the project to Fairbanks along the Delta River, and two corridors were identified to connect the project to Anchor- age through the Matanuska Valley. Following the identification of these major corridors, corridor segments, or smaller units of the corridors, were identified (see Figure C.l). A segment, as defined by the COE, is 11 that part of a corridor either between two intersections with other corridors or between an intersection and one of the endpoints near Anchorage or Fair- banks." C-2 I I I I I I ,. I I I I I I I I I I I I I l I I ~, I I I '.1 I I I ·~ I I ~ I ' I I 'I (d) The twenty-two corridor segments were the result of a fairly thorougn as- sessment of the major options available for connecting the Susitna Project to the load centers of Anchorage and Fairbanks. However, variations and alterratives to two corridor segments in particular (Segment 1 and Segment 16) should also be considered. Corridor Segment 1 connects Point MacKenzie with Talkeetna, a distance of approximately 84 miles of relatively flat terrain with some low, rolling hills. Along this segment, the transmission line would encounter the ex- pansion of population centers in the vicinity of the Anchorage-Willow areas and in the vicinity of Talkeetna. In addition, recreation areas in the Big Lake, Nancy Lake, and Rock Lake areas south of Willow would be encount- ered. Corridor Segment 16 connects Healy with Ester, paralleling an existing 138 kV transmission line for a distance of approximately 97 miles. The wide, terraced valley of the lower Nenana River and low, rolling hills in the vicinity.of the Tanana River are crossed by this corridor segment. However, the COE recognized that within this corridor there is room for other alternatives, rather than closely paralleling this existing right-of- way. In addition, a route east and north from Healy to Ester warrants further investigation. Comparison of Alternative Corridors The COE's study reviewed the environmental impacts of the twenty-two corri- dor segments through the use of the inventory and impact tables. The COE also described by category, in text form, the impacts of each of the dif- ferent alternative corridors. Then, with certain assumptions, the COE sub- jectively ranked (numerically from 1 to 4, with 1 being the least-impact option) each inventoried corridor. Tables C.1 and C.2 are taken directly from the COE report. The assumptions used by the COE in arriving at the subjective ranking were: (i) with "other factors being equal, cumulative impacts are proportional to length 11 ; (ii) "that joint use and paralleling of existing rights-of-way is prefer- able to pioneering of a new corridoru; (iii) that transmission lines 11 always cause an adverse visual impact of varying degree 11 ; (iv) that a corridor "should be located to anticipate future needs 11 ; and C-3 I ~. I I I I I • I (v) that a transmission line corridor "fulfill its requirements as eco- nomically as possible while keeping environmental impacts to a mini- mum. 11 As previously discussed, a valuable feature of this corridor comparison was that most options for connecting the project to Anchorage ard to Fairbanks were compared. Another favorable point in the impact analysis provided by the COE is t'1at direct comparisons among dissimilar inventory categories were avoided. Although the method was not elaborated in the COE report, the corridor segments were compared within specific impact categories, without attempting to weight one category against another. Of course, in the selection of a preferred corridor, trade-offs and value judgments are unavoidable, whether presented as such or not. (e) Conclusions The COE concluded that Susitna S-1 (Segments 1-3-7-8-9) and Nenana N-1 (Segments 7-8-9-10-13-16) were the preferred corridors. Of these, only Segments 1, 7, 8, Y and 16 fall under the responsibility of the Acres study team. It is our opinion that, of the options studied by the COE, the selected corridor segments represent the best options for connecting the project to the load centers, given the current assumption that an intertie connecting Willow and Healy would be under construction before the Susitna Project. This preference is the result primarily of the fact that Susitna S-1 and Nenana N-1 fall within existing highway and rail corridors and are likely to present the least construction impacts of all the alternatives considered. -The International Enginaering Company, Inc./Robert W. Retherford Associates (IECO/RWRA) Report The report produced by the joint venture of IECO and RWRA was basically an economic feasibility study for the Anchorage-Fairbanks Transmission Intertie. The report used the COE Susitna Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Re- port as background information for both the economic feasibility and selection of a transmission line corridor. IECO/RWRA selected a corridor which is al- most the the COE r·epot""t • -Method of Evaluation of Corridors (a) IECU/RWRA reviewed the COE report and concluded that the COE recom- mended corridor was preferable. IECO/RWRA went further and plotted a preliminary route on USGS maps, 1 inch - 1 mile. The route was chosen so as to: Where possible; -Avoid highways; -Avoid telephone lines; -Avoid aircraft landing and takeoff corridors; -Avoid highly subdivided land areas and levels; -Avoid crossing agricultural lands; C-4 ·I " I l ·a I I I I I I I I I I I 'I I I I I I I (I I ·I~ I I I I !' ""'" I '1./ . - I I I -Provide minimum visibility from highways and homes; Avoid heavily timbered lands; -Provide for as minimal changes in grade as the terrain will allow; -Parallel alignments with property lines (if not precluded by other considerations); -Avoid sensitive wildlife areas; and -Be in reasonable proximity to transportation corridors (to facilitate construction). {b) Preliminary Environmental Assessment (i) Description of the Environment The corridor from Willow to Healy will not be discussed, since it is discussed in the report issued by Commonwealth Associates, Inc. -Point MacKenzie to Willow The corridor travels north along the east flank of the Susitna River Valley, an extremely wide and poorly drained plain. Heavy forests of bottomland spruce and poplar, interspersed with muskeg and black spruce, at"e typical. The soils vary from deep, very poorly drained peat to well-drained soils with the latter being more abundant. Although permafrost is almost absent in this lower part of the Susitna Valley, the poorly drained areas are subject to freezing and heaving in the winter. A sizeable concentration of moose inhabits the lower Susitna River Valley. This valley also supports black and brown bear and a moderate density of waterfowl. The proposed transmission line corridor generally follows a "tractor trail 11 {USGS designation) to three miles northeast of Middle Lake. Here, at the approach to the Nancy Lake area, an a 1 ternative route may be used to avoid this area. The pro- posed route is located in marshes and wetlands, between Papoose Twins and Finger Lakes, across the Little Susitna River. The corridor then travels northward along the east side of Lynx Lake, Rainbow Lake, and Long Lake. -Gold Creek to Watana The corridor parallels the Susitna River eastward to the pro- posed Devi 1 Canyon Dam site and then to the proposed Watana Dam site. The vegetation in the canyons varies from upland spruce-hardwood to alpine tundra. Soils vary from poorly drained river bottoms to unstable talus. Permafrost occurs in this portion of the corridor. Moose populations are present. C-5 Ct , . ~· ,;._, ' ,.-}- ;I I I l • Qt ' t -Healy to Ester The corridor leaves Healy and crosses the Parks Highway near Dry Creek. It then roughly parallels the west side of the highway at an elevation of 1,500 feet, crossing several tribu .. · taries to the Nenana River. It crosses the Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA) line 1-1/2 miles north of ~ear Creek, the Alaska Railroad, and the Nenana River at A.R.R. Mile 383, and the Parks Highway. The route then parallels the GVEA line. The corridor crosses the Tanana River at the Tanana P.I. and follows the Tanana River floodplain for sever- al miles until the corridor again crosses the highway where it travels on the west side of the Bonanza Creek Experimental Fm"est. The corridor parallels the GVEA right-of-way the rest of the way to Ester. The Healy to Ester portion of the route passes through some private lands (mining claims~ homesteads, etc.), as well as n- ear the towns of Healy, Lignite, and Nenana. An archaeologi- cal site exists near Dry Creek. Portions of the corridor are heavily forested and provide habitat for moose, caribou, and bear. Poorly drained areas in this corridor are subject to potential permafrost degradation and frost heaving. (ii) Environmental Impacts The report points out that construction and maintenance of other Alaskan transmission systems have shown that the most negative environmental impacts caused by a transmission system can be minimized. Golden Valley Electric Association, Matanusak Elec- tric Association, and Chugach Electric Association have con- structed and are operating several lines on poor soils and under harsh climatic conditions. The report also points out that ex- cept for anticipated slight visual impacts, most environmental impacts caused by a transmission system would be far 1 ess than those of many transportation and communication systems. The environmental impacts discussion is general in nature. The impacts discussed are the ecosystem, recreation, cultural re- sources, scenic resJurces, and social environment . (c) Conclusions IECO/RWRA concluded that the preferred corridor was close to the one chosen by the COE with further definitions as discussed in paragraph (a). IECO/RWRA selected this route because of its favorable length, accessibility, and environmental consideration. It is our opinion that the IECO/RWRA selection is the best choice when taking into con- sideration the two load centers being served, Anchorage and Fairbanks. The route is the shortest distance between the load centers and the C-6 I I· I I I I· I I I· I • •• G ' I I j ' I I I i t I I l I l l I 'I I ,:, +1 J • ' • I} • It ll I ,! Susitna Hydroelectric sites. As stated in our evaluation of the COE report, the route falls within existing highway and railway corridors, which will afford easier access to the lines for maintenance purposes and will present the least construction impact of the other alterna- tive corridors. The report presents a detailed economic feasibilit~· study for the Anchorage-Fairoanks transmission system. However, it was general in nature when dealing with environmental studies. C-7 {J I , I ,1 :'1 .~ ·' ,::_, <'- ~ , __ ~ .. 1l' t .. (.J@W •• -• .. .. . -... -.. APPENDIX TAULI: C.1: COHHIUOH ANALYSIS-?HllJl:.CT POWEH TO ANCHOHAGl/COOK INLET AHlA .l\nalysis ractl>r: Lengt.h, miles Max. elevation, feet nanking ~nvironmenta I. lrnpacts Soils Vegetation Wildlife l:.xisting developments Scenic quality/recreation: Developed areas Remote areas Hanking Costs Construction Operation and maintenance Hanking He liability Exposure to hazards Ease of repair Hanking Summary Hanl<ing * 1 ::: lPast impact 4 = most impact ,, Susitna Corridors 5 -1 s --z:---~ . s -J 5 - 4 Mant~nuska Corridors M -1 M -2 166 170 1S~ 164 250 38~ 2,100 2,100 3,800 2,200 3,000 4,000 1* 1 2 1 3 4 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 3 1· 3 r,.. s 1 2 3 3 4 3 .~ 'r 2 1 J 3 J J 3 2 1 3 3 1 2 3 4 4 3 4 4 1 1 2 1 3 4 1 1 ~ 1 3 3 -1 3 4 1 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 2 2 3 3 1 2 .3 2 4 4 1 2 3 2 4 4 ( "1re ft•rred corridor) .. •• ..,., . t .. tltW ~--\: .. ~_.. ,,f.$1 , .. , .. . ... .. -----flll//fl1iJ - ___,..,__ ----............... APPI:.NDlX Tl\BLI:. C.2: COHIUOOH ANALYSIS -PHUJl:CT POWER TO fAlHBANKS/TANANA AHI:.A Analysis factor: Length, miles Max. elevation; feet Banking l:.nvironmental Impacts Soils Vegetation \'lildlife l:.xisting developml'nts Scenic quality/recreation: Uevelopl'd areas Remote arl'as Hanking Costs Construction Operation and maintenance Ranking Helia~bi l.it.y Exposure to hazards tasl' of repair nanking Summary H;:mking * 1 = least impact 4 = most impact. lllllllil:a ---.,_ Nenana Corridors N - 1 N -z-N -~S N - 4 N -5 ---Uelta Corridor u 228 2~0 261 22J 212 2BU 2,400 4,Juo 4,ooo 41Uoo 4,3ou 4,ooo 1• ) 3 2 J 3 1 2 1 3 .3 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 .> 2 3 1 3 1 3 3 j 2. 3 2 2 1 1 3 1 J 2 2 .3 2 1 3 ) 2 1 3 1 4 2 J ~ 6 1 4 2 3 ~ 3 1 4 4 1 4 J 2 4 4 1 4 2 3 4 3 1 2 J 1 (preferred corridor) 4 2 ................. llt!a 2 3 4 -IIIII .. .._,- ..... .... ~ . D __ 19 • Paxson I~ I' I· I I 1: 1: I I;; I l :t I I· I I I m. I 1-· I APPENDIX D RECORD OF EVENTS j ,· I I I I I I I I m I I e 0 0 I ; ; I • ~-.: . e ·• _ ... APPENDIX D -RECORD OF EVENTS A number of events took place in 1980 which had a significant impact on the sub- task activities. The major events are summarized below: (a) May 13, 1980 Acres American Incorporated (Acres) received a letter from APA informing Acres that the Alaska Legislature has appropriated $3.8 million to APA for preconstruction activities related to transmission interconnection between the Anchorage and Fairbanks systems. APA was considering a separate Architectural/Engineering (A/E) contract for the Intertie and requested Acres to identify any activity that is critical to the early route selec- -tion study. These acti•Jities were to proceed immediately but would require prior APA approval. (b) May 20, 1980 A meeting was arranged in Anchorage between APA and Acres. APA informed Acres that it has definitely been decided to engage a separate A/E firm to study the Intertie from Healy to Willow. This line will be built to Susitna Project requirements but operated initially at 138 kV. Discussions took place on the best way to coordinate efforts with the new A/E firm and to identify the activities that must be completed to meet the Intertie schedule. (c) May 19 -21, 1980 Several meetings were held with IECO/RWRA to clarify the IECO/RWRA proposal of May 8, 1980, to render engineering services to Acres for the Susitna transmission line studies. (d) June 26, 198Q Acres submitted to APA a letter recommending the following procedures for Intertie coordination: (i) Acres should proceed with authorization under Subtask 2.08 of the aerial photography of an identified corridor from Healy to Willow. Acres assumed that the aerial photography would be restricted to the corridor selected oy IECO/RWRA in their Intertie report. (ii) Acres should also proceed with authorization under SubtasV. 2.04 of the land status research for the selected corridor. (iii) Acres should proceed as soon as possible with the electrical system power studies which will be based on scenarios from 1994 onwards. The studies will determine the recommended voltage and electrical characteristics of the Susitna tranmission lines. D-1 \\ 0 (iv) Acres will also proceed with the remainder of the feasibility study of the transmission line from the project site to the Intertie from Anchorage to Wi~low and Healy to Fairbanks, in accordance with the schedule contained in the current POS. (e) June 27, 1980 . Commonwealth Associates Incorporated (CAI) contacted Acres to notify them that it has been chosen as the A/E firm for the Intertie contract. A meet- ing was scheduled at Jackson, Michigan. {f) July 10, 1980 I I I I A meeting was held with CAl. Susitna Project information was supplied, and I a coordinated approach for obtaining system data was agreed upona Other · subjects were discussed such as climatic data and Institute of Social and Economic Reserves forecast. Aerial photography was discussed, and CAI pro-I posed to notify Acr~s of the exact route at a later date. I (g) July 28, 1980 Acres received notification from APA to proceed with the recommended pro- cedure described in Acres• letter of June 26, 1980. (h) August 18, 1980 Copies of reduced quadrangle maps were received from CAI showing the area I, that required photographing for the Intertie corridor. £I (i) October, 1980 Utilities system data were received in the early part of the month, but final Chugach Electric Association data were not receivea until October 15, 1980. This information was passed on to APA for transmittal to CAI. (j) October 13, 1980 APA notified Acres via a copy of a letter from CAI that the Alaska state authorities would permit only one right-of-way for both the Intertie and the Susitna transmission lines. (k) November 18, 1980 A meeting with APA and CAI was held in Jackson, Michigan, to discuss ways of coordinating and exchanging information between CAI and Acres~ ~t was agr~~d th~ttht'Ane Int~rti edbetwteen Wi ~ dl ow and H 5 ea ~Yt wo~l d bte se 1 ecttedh N 1n cooperat1on Wl cres 1n or er o cons1 er any us1 na 1mpac s upon e ~ selected Intertie corridor. a D-2 I I -' ()