HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA2575-................ ,, ,• ,.~~-·····""~--··-" ............ ..c. ..• .,.-,_, -·~· ' ...,·,-~
0
(,
' ,,
l! ~· l
. ....,......_,_, .. ,.,_,..,...._....,.
I I
l
----~---------·------------------~
I
SUSITNA TRANSMISSION SYSTEM
STATUS. SUMMARY
\/OLUJ'AE ONE
1·ECHNICAL, ECONOMIC
AND
ENVlRONN1ENT AL CONSIDERATIONS
DRAFT
DECEMBER 1983
liARZA· EBilSC®
SUSITNA JOINT VENTURE
-·· ...... _.ALASKA POWER AUTHORI
• TABLE OF CODTEBTS
HCIDIICAL, ECOIIOMIC AliD EIIVIIO.IDBTAL COliS IDKiATIOBS
Section/Title ..;;.__------·-
SUMMARY
1.0 INtRGDUCTIOH
1.1 Purpose
1.2 13ackground
1 .. 3-Organization of the Status Summary
1.4 Data Sources and :Limitations
2 ~ 0 EHGINE.ERIBG COHSIDEIATIOKS
2.1 Electric Power System Studies
2.2 Review of Technical Adequacy of Previous Work
2.3 Potential SF6 Switching at Watana and Devil Canyon
2.4 Power Sales Agreement
3. 0 STUDY ~LPPROACB
3.1 St:udy Area
3.2 Evaluation Process
4.0 ALTEIBA~IVE ROUTE DESCRIPTIONS
,. 0 .) .
6.0
7.0
4.1 South Study Area Alternatives
4.2 North Stu1y Area Alternatives
TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS
5.1 General Approach
5.2 Factors Considered/Significance
5.3 South Study Area
5.4 North Study Area
ECONOMIC CONSIDEKATIOH:S
6.1 General Approach
6.2 Ec:onomic Criteria
6.3 Factors Considered and Significance
6.4 South Study Area
6.5 North Study Area
EBVIROIIIIERTAL CONSIDEI.il.TIOHS
7.1 General Approach
7.2 Selection of Resource Categories and Criteria
7.3 Resource Categories and Criteria Considered in Detail
7.4 Ranking of Categories and Criteria
7.5 Summary of Findings
7.6 Potential for Mitigation
7.7 Permits
7.8 Agency, Native and Public Comments
7.9 Environmental Conclusions
References
i
Page
.
Vl..
1-1
1-1
l-2
1-5
1-6
2-1
2-1
2-1
2-3
2-4
3-1
3-1
3-1
4-1
4-1
4-13
5-1
5-l
5-l
5-4
5-17
6-1
6-1
6-2
6-2
6-3
6-3
7-1
7-1
7-2
7-5
7-15
7-20
7-42
7-43
7-45
7-46
7-51
• TABLE OF CORTENTS (cont'd)
Section/Titl:!:. Page
8.0 s~; AND CONCLUSIONS
8.1 General Approach 8-1
8.2 South Study Area 8-1
8.3 North Study Area 8-3
8a4 Issues for Consideration 8-4
8.5 RE~commendations for Final Route Selection of Alternatives 8-5
APPENDICES
M-Agency Comments M-1 to M-12
N-Utility Comments N-1
p -Public Participation P-1 to P-24
R-Environmental Resource Descriptions for R-1 to R-44
T1~ansmission Route Alternatives
s -Environmental Inventory Support Data S-1 to s-6
•
ii
• CHAPTER
3
•
•
FIGURE NO.!
3-1
3-2
FIGURES
TITLE
Study Area
Route Evaluation Process
iii
•
.\ ...
CHAPTER
4
5
7
410052/LOT
TABLE NO.
4-1
4-2
4-3
4-4
5-l
5-2
5-3
7-1
7-2
7-3
7-4
7-5
7-6
7-7
TABLES
TITLE
South Study Area Route Segments and
Alternatives
Summary of Requirements -South
North Study Area Route Segments and
Alternatives
Summary o.f Requirements -North
South Study Area Alternatives
Evaluation Inventory Summary
Technical and Economic
North Study Area -230 kV
North Study Area -345 kV (FERC)
Initial List of Resource Categories
Considered for Route Evaluation
Ranking of Environmental Resource
Categories/Criteria Inventoried or
Alternatives Evaluation
South Study Area Alternatives Evaluation
Inventory Summar) -Environmental
North Study Area Alternatives Evaluation
Inventory Summary -Environmental
South Study Area Summary of Impacts
North Study Area Summary of Impacts
En'lironmental Resources Preliminary
Recommendations By Resource Category
.
1V
VOLUME 2 of 3
TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC APPENDICES
APPENDIX A -Review of Established Meterological Design Parameters
APPENDIX B -Review of Established Structure and Foundation Design
Parameters
APPENDIX C -230 kV Environmental Effects and Performance
APPENDIX D 345 kV Environmental Effects and Performance
APPENDIX E 230 kV and 345 kV Right-of-Way and Clearing Diagrams
APPENDIX F -Potential Tranmission System Refinements
APPENDIX G -Land Field Services Report on Direct and Indirect Land
Acquisition Costs
APPENDIX H -Summary of Susitna Transmission System Costs for FERC
Application Scheme
APPENDIX I -Power Sales Agreeu.i~nt -Letter of Intent
South Study
South Study
South Study
South Study
North Study
North Study
410051/TOC
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
VOLUME 3 Oif 3
RESOURCE l!<ltAPS
-Willow Subarea
-Anchorage Subarea
-Palmer Subarea
-Healy Subarea
-Fairbanks Subarea
v
' J,
H 1 ' l I
• '
SUMMARY
STATUS
The Susitna Transmission System Statu$' Summary, consisting of three
volumes designated Volumes A, B, and C, is an assembly of engineering,
technical, economic and environmental data and studies. Although final
conclusions are not drawn, it does provide a compendium of information
covering the large and c~~plex task performed. Upon direction from the
Alaska Power Authority in October, 1983, work on this study was sus-
pended and subsequent efforts focused on documenting l:he evaluations
made to that time. This status summary will be used as a reference
document during the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) licens-
. . 1.ng process~ng.
STUDY DESCRIPTION
The task consisted of reviewing existing studies and assumptions to
determine adequacy and to identify preferred transmission line routes
and substation locations associated with the Susitna Hydroelectric
Project. Additional studies were also done as necessary.
The study area included three separate geographical locations:
1. An area from Willow south to Anchorage, termed the South
Study Area.
2. An area from Healy north to Fairbanks, termed the North Study
Area.
3. An area from Gold Creek east to the hydroelectric sites at
Devil Canyon and Watana, termed the Central Study Area.
vi
"·-~ j·-~·--· .._,._.,-~,-. ·~·-..
L). ..
,. >'
• The transmission system used for elevation and comparison purposes was
as follows:
South Study Area
0 Two single circuit 345 kV transmission lines ....
o Evaluation of both circuits routed in parallel.
0 Evaluation of splitting the two circuits and routing them
separately.
Nine alternatives were compared for the South Study Area.
North Study Area
o Two single circuit 345 or 230 kV transmission lines.
o Evaluation of routing both circuits to Ester) seven miles
west of Fairbanks. Evaluation of routing both circuits to
Fort Wainwright, two miles east of Fairbanks.
Five alternatives were compared for the North Study Area.
SllliMARY OF FINDINGS
The findings and conclusions of the Susitna Transmission System Status
Summary is covered in Chapter 8. They are briefly summarized as
follows:
o South Study Area
From a reliability standpoint, two separate and independent
Susitna transmission line routes to the Anchorage area are
preferred and addressed in the studies. One transmission
line would be routed south to the west side of Knik A:-m as
proposed in the FERC 1icense Application. A second
transmission line route would be routed from Willow east
-~~ around t<nik Arm. The devel1:>pment of the
410052/vii vii
• transmission system in Anchorage should be a joint effort
between the Power Authority and the Anchorage area
utilities.
o North Study Area
The most suitable transmission line route from Healy to Fair-
banks, considering technic,tl, economic, and environmental
perspectives collectively, is the one shown in the FERC
Application. The development of the transmission system into
Fairbanks should be a joint effort between the Power
Authority and the Fairbanks area utilities.
o Central Study Area
The transmission line routes from Gold Creek to the Watana
and Devil Canyon hydroelectric sites were the subject of an
extensive investigation by Acres and is suitable as shown in
the FERC License Application. Therefore, this area was not
discussed in this study.
viii
\ -o
... !~~!<' ..
~,.
':·a:
,:;;,··..,._,_,
' ; .. .{~~
~--~-----~-~ .... -...... --....... "·--~ .. ...;">-'
•
1.0 IRT.RODUCTION
•
•
• 1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE
The purpose of this study was to evaluate and recommend preferred
transmission line routes and subs tat ion locations ass.ociated with the
Susitna Hydroelectric Project. The project was considered as presented
in the Alaska Power Authority's ~license application to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).
To meet the above goal, Task 41, entitled "Susi tna Transmiss.ion System
Siting and Licensing", was designed to achieve the following major
objectives:
o To review existing studies to establish technical adequacy
and identify a preferred transmission line route and
substation locations with participation of the serviced
utilities;
o To assure that appropriate agencies were contacted in the
route selection process;
o To assure that concerns of tbe general public were considered
and documented;
o To evaluate environmental effects of the proposed trans
mission line;
o To assure that environmental and technical aspects of the
study would enable compliance with statutory and regulatory
requirements, and
o To manage the work plan with respect to sch!!dule, budget and
staffing and to assure close coordination and integration
with the rest of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project Work
Tasks.
410052/1 1-1
·.,...,-----·--,.,·---···-·-·····-~-·"·-···-···· .. ··"-·•··-~ ............................................. _____________ ~----·· ........................ . .............................. ..
.. ~
• The approach of the transmission system study team was to utilize, or
extend existing feasibility studies to confirm or determine preferred
routes. Emphasis was placed on documenting the route selection process
and recording agency, public and utility consultation and comments.
General work activities related to each subtask were as follows:
o Collect data;
o Review data and determine adequacy;
o Determine and resolve issues (technical, agencies and
utilities};
.
o Evaluate routes according to technical requirements and
environmental constraints, maintainability, reliability and
costs;
o Develop an evaluation matrix for comparing alternative
routes;
o Obtain Alaska Power Authority comments and approval;
o Present findings to agencies, utilities and communities, and
o Prepare report outlining the results.
1.2 BACKGROUND
The initial work effort for Task 41 was to evaluate the transmission
line routes and substation locations, as follows:
41.1 Two and three 345 kV transmission lines fr.om Gold Creek to
Willow to Knik Arm (West).
410052/1 1-2
' . l'· . • .,
;.-·:!·.: · ... :
• '!. > '
•
•
41.2 Two 345 kV transmission lines from Gold Creek to Ester
(Fairbanks).
41.3 Two 345 kV transmission lines from Watana to Gold Creek and
two 345 kV transmission lines from Devil Canyon to Gold
Creek.
Studies of each segment were to include evaluation of technical
adequacy, economic feasibility, assessment of potential impacts to
environmental resources, consultation with utilities and agencies, and
public participation.
From discussions with area utilities, the Alaska Power Authority and
Har.za-Ebasco discussions, new substation terminus locations and
additional routes materialized. These included the following:
For the South (Anchorage) Study Area:
1. Identification of an alternative overland route from Willow
around Knik Arm into Anchorage.
2. Ana!Jsis of establishing substation locations at Fossil Creek
and Lorraine.
3. Analysis of alternative substations between Willow and
Tee land.
For the North (Fairbanks) Study Area:
1. T~ review moving the Ester Substation from its present
lo~~ation west o.f Fairbanks to the east side of Fairbanks at
For\. Wainwright •
410052/1 1-3
•
•
2 .. Identification of alternativ~ routes to the new Fairbanks
Substation location.
3. Potentially changing the transmission line voltage from Healy
to Fairbanks and possibly from Gold Creek to Healy.
As a result of these discussions, a potential new system configuration
evolved for the South Study Area. This used the FERC License Applica-
tion rout~ for one initial transmission line (Watana) from Willow to
Anchorage via the west side of Knik Arm, with an underwater crossing
into Anchorage.
routed overland
A second route
around Knik Arm
for one transn.:i.ssion line would be
into Anchorage¢ The reason for
investigating two independent routes into Anchorage was the utilities'
concern with a common failure of the submarine cables under Knik Arm.
During the course of the study., different power requirement scenarios
developed. One of these scenarios is documented in Table B.117 of the
FERC License Application Volume 2A, Exhibit B, Chapters !> and 6, dated
July, 1983. In addition, consideration was given to redut;ed generation
from the two Susi tna powerplants. As a result, it was net:;~ssary to
reevaluate the transmission system configuration by means c>f an
electric power system load flow study. The results of this work are
discussed in the report entitled "Electric Power System Study, Task 7,
Volume One, System Development and Steady State Analysis", dated
October, 1983 as well as a supplemental study dated December, 1983 and
titled "Electric Power System Study, Task 7, Volume II, Steady State
A 1 . II ana.ys~s •
Task 41 supported the efforts of Task 8, Public Participation; Task 40,
Need for Power; and Task 3, Review of Prior Studies. Supplemental in-
formation was also requested by FERC relating to the transmission
system. Specifically> this involved the need to prepare 1993 and 2002
Interconnected System One Line Diagrams, a response to Electrical
Environmental Effects and requests for revision to "G'* plates in the
license application •
410052/1 1-4
•' 1
····,. /
In October, 1983, the Alaska Powe.r Authority redirected the efforts on
the Susitna Project. The redirection essentially involved limiting all
work to that which supported the FERC licensing process. As a result
it became necessary to stop and summarize the study portion of the Task
41 work. The Task 41 budget was revised to meet this objective.
1.3 ORGANIZATION OF THE STATUS SUMMARY
The organization of the Susitna Transmission System Status Summary ~s
divided into three volumes as follows.
0 Volume One
0 Volume Two
Technical, Economic and Environmental
Considerations
Appendices covering supporting technical
reports
o Volume Three -Resource Maps
Each volume has a complete index. This volume contains eight
chapters as well as five appendicies and references all the data
contained in both Volume II and Volume III.
o Chapter 1 covers the Introduction which includes the Purpose
and Background.
o Chapter 2 covers Engineering Considerations and studies which
were undertaken in parallel with the transmission line
routing work.
o Chapter 3 covers the transmission line routi~g Study
Approach.
o Chapter 4 graphically shows and describes each of the
alternative transmission U.ne rou~~s and the segments com-
prising the r~ute.
410052/1 1-5
. \\
'I
•
•
0 Chapter 5 covers Technical Considerations.
0 Chapter 6 covers Econc,mic Considerations.
0 Chapter 7 covers Environmental Considerations.
0 Chapter 8 covers Suunntary and Conclusions as well as relevant
issues and Future Study Recommendations
o Appendices M, N, P, R and S covers Agency and Utility
Comments, Public Participation, and Environmental Resources
Description and Support Data.
1.4 DATA SOURCES AND LIMITATIONS
Data Sources
Data gathering efforts for this study included a review of relevant
technical, economic and environmental information obtained from prev-
ious studies as well as federatl, state, and local agencies, and limited
field reconnaissance.
Literature reviewed, primarily focused on appropriate sections of the
FERC License Application, Acres support studies and Commonwealth
studies related to the Intertie Project.
included:
Specifically, these
o Susitna Hydroelectric Project, Transmission Line Corridor
Screening Closeout Report, Task 8 ~ Final Report, March 1982,
by Acres American ..
o Susitna Hydroelectric Project, FERC License Application,
Exhibit A, B, and E, F and G February 1983 by Acres American.
o Anchorage-Fairbanks Transmission Intertie Route Selection
• Report, January 1982, by Commonwealth Associates, Inc.
410052/1 1-6
•
•
These studies were the primary available reference base related to
transmission studies in the project vicinity. A complete listing of
documents consulted is presented in the list of References.
Extensive data was obtained firom agencies regarding the environmental
study effort. Sources included:
Federal
o Fort Wainwright, Fort Richardson and Elmendorf military
bases
0 Corps of Engineers
0 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
State
0
0
Local
0
0
0
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
Department of Natural Resources
Municipality of Anchorage
Matanuska/SUtsitna Borough
Fairbanks/North Star Borough
Much of the data obtained from the above sources were used to develop
the resource maps listed in Volume 3 of this summary and as analysis
support.
Data Limitations
While detailed information E~xisted in some disciplines for the FERC
License Application route, information on the alternative routes
essentially did not exist and data had to be collected, mapped and
inventoried before analysis c;ould begin. Due to time and budget con-
straints, the followiD:g limitations with respect to the analysis effort
are noted:
o Analysis was based on data obtained from agencies, and
literature;
410052/1 1-7
• 0 Detailed field investigations were not conducted;
0 Discussion and analysis of access is limited because of the
need for current aerial photo coverage and knowledge of the
general growth, particularly in the South Study Area;
0 Detailed USFWS National Wetlands Inventory data for the North
Study Area was not available and therefore, potential
wetlands were estimated from DNR vegetation maps; and
o The most recent aerial photos referenced alternatives was
1978 coverage.
410052/1 1-8
/.
'·
''.\
·.·~tl. -
2. 0 ENGINEERING (~ONSIDERATIONS
2.0 ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS
• 2.0 ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS
2.1 ELECTRIC POWER SYSTEM STUDIES
The Electric Power System Study for Susitna Hydrolectric Project was
covered under Task 7. A report entitled "Electric Power System Study,
Volume One, System Development and Steady State Analysis" was prepared
in October, 1983. The purpose of the report was to identify possible
refinements to the transmission system described ~n the FERC license
application based upon the load forecast shown in Table B.ll7 of Volume
2A, Exnibit B, Chapters 5 and 6, dated July, 1983 as well as
correspondingly lower electric power generation.
A supplement to the Electric Power System Study, Volume One document
was issued in December, 1983. It was designated as Volume Two entitled
"Supplemental Study". It covers staging of the Susitna Transmission
System from the Table B.li 7 level to the total Susitna development
potential of 1886 MW with the ability to ultimately transmit 85% and
25% of that capacity to Anchorage and Fairbanks, respectively. There
was insufficient time for a detailed evaluation of the alternatives
presented, therefore the results of the electric
supplemental study should be considered conceptual
purposes.
2.2 REVIEW OF TECHNICAL ADEQUACY OF PREVIOUS WO&~
pow«~r sys tern
for planning
One of the purposes of the Task 41 effort was to establish the techni-
cal adequacy of the previous work on the Susitna Transmission System.
In order to do so, a series of reports were prepared which are included
in Volume Two entitled uTechnical and Economic Appendices". Appendix A
i.s entitled "Review of Established Meterological Design P~1rameters 11 •
The recommendations on meterological design parameters are covered
u1.1.der "Conclusions" on pages A-7 and A-8, and cover de~.ign criteria for
t~~mperature variation, heavy and extra heavy wind loading, ice and
410052/2 2-1
combinations of wind and ice. The results are in agreement with those
used on the Intertie Project.
Appendix B is entitled "Review of Established Structure and Foundation
Design Parameters". The first section of the report discusses struc-
ture loading and structure types with specific reference to design
considerations.. Section Two covers geologic conditions and foundation
materials, slope stability considel .... =ions and permafrost. Section
Three outlines the requirements for preliminary and detailed soil in-
vestigation. Section Four discusses the four types of foundations that
may be used for the transmission line structures. These are pile foun-
dations, rock ancnors, grillages, and pole foundations. Section Five
discusses construction considerations. Appendix D covers 345 kV trans-
miHsion line environmental effects and performance for the guyed "X"
tangent structure utilizing twin 954 Kc mil conductors. Conductor sur-
face gradients are calculated. Radio noise and television interference
is evaluated and audible noise is discussed. In Section Five electric
and magnetic field effects are calculated and analyzed. The results of
this appendix are covered under "Conclusions" on pages D-18 and D-19 ..
Appendix C, entitled "230 kV Environmental Effects and PerformancE~",
was prepared in support of evaluating the potential of using 230 kV
instead of 345 kV for the transmission lines from Healy to Fairbanks.
The electrical effects and performance data ~s covered in the same
sequence as in Appendix D.
page C-10.
The conclusions are covered in Appendix C
Appendix E was prepared for two reasons. First, to analyze the poss~
bility of failure of one structure causing failure of an adjacent
structure where two separate transmission lines are on the same right-
of-way • This is the predominant case for the entire Susitna Trans-
mis sian Sys tern. The conclusions, as indicated on pages E-4 and E-5,
are that such a failure is highly unlikely but needs to be recognized
410052/2 2-2
• during the design phase of the project, depending upon specific condi-·
tions of span length and terrain configuration.
The s:.:cond purpose for Appendix E was to investigate the required
transmission line right-of-way (ROW) widths. During the course of the
Task 41 work it was noted that the ROW widths shown in the FERC License
Applicatipn were not in agreement with those being used on the Int:ertie
Project. The ROW widths recommended for various 230 kV and 345 kV
structure types are tabulated on page E-6, as well as the associated
acres/mile. This information needs to be incorporated into the ~"ERC
License Application "G" Plates and Exhibits.
Appendix H covers the summary of Susitna 345 kV Transmission System
costs for the 2002 FERC license application scheme. Also shown are the
basic cost estimates used for the transmission system.
Appendix G covers the Land Field Services Reports en Direct and Indir-
ect Land Acquisition Costs for the North and South Study Area. These
costs are i:or 200 feet of right-of-way. Where other right-of-way
widths were required a direct ratio was used to obtain the estimated
costs.
While reviewing the Susitna Transmission System, potential refinements
to the system were identified in both the North and South Study Areas.
The cost of these potential refinements are shown in Appendix F.
2.3 POTENTIAL SF6 SWITCHING AT WATANA AND DEVIL CANYON
In parallel with the study of the Susitna Transmission System, studies
are in process on the Watana Hydroe lee tric Plant. As o.f the time of
preparation of this report, a study was in process of incorporating the
Watana switchyard into the Watana Hydroelectric Plant by means of a gas
insulaterl (SF6) bus and switching system. If the gas-insulated switch-
ing system is incorporated into the plant, the outdoor air-insulated
switchyards at Watana and probably Devil Canyon would be deleted.
410052/2 2-3
2.4 POWER SALES AGREEMENT
In April, 1983 the subtask of the Power Sales Agreement was added to
Task 41. In subsequent discussion with the Alaska Power Authority, it
was agreed that the preparation of the Power Sales Agreement should be
a two-step process. The first step was to be the preparation of a
Power Sales Agreement -Letter of Intent. This item is included in
Appendi4 I. To establish a clear set of objectives and scope, an
Investigation Memorandum was prepared on development of a Power Sales
agreement contract be.tween the Alaska Power Authority and the Railbelt
utilities for Susitna Power and Related Facilities. This Investigation
Memorandum is being utilized as ... he plan leading to the consummation of
a Power Sales Agreement.
410052/2 2-4
3·.0 STUDY APPROACH
t-
r
I
\
:ft,
' '"t:. .•..... ·
3.0 STUDY APPROACH
3.1 STUDY AREA
The Susitna Transmission System as envisioned for the Susitna
Hydroelectric Project is shown in attached Figure 3-1. The ...
transmission line route shown in the FERC License Application runs 34
miles from the Watana damsite to Gold Creek, where the system splits
with lines running north 183 miles to Fairbanks and south 134 miles to
Anchorage. In general, Harza-Ebasco agrees with the concept of the
proposed route from Watana to Gold Creek. In addition, Harza-Ebasco
finds the route between willow and Healy acceptable since the Susitna
transmission lines will parallel the Intertie route.
Study efforts focused on the north and south ends of the transmission
system. The South Study Area includes the area from Willow to Palmer
to accommodate an evaluation of an overland route into Anchorage. The
North Study Area is north of the proposed FERC route to accommodate the
Department of Natural Resource's request to evaluate an alternative in
the Goldstream Valley. It also includes part of the city of Fairbanks
in order to evaluate routes to the Fort Wainwright Substation location
preferred by the utilities. Boundaries and details of both study areas
are referenced in the Exhibits.
3.2 EVALUATION PROCESS
In orde:t: to achieve the study objectives~ a route selection process
consisting of eight steps was developed. These are graphically
depicted in attached Figure 3-2.
410052/3 3-1
3.2.1 Determine Study Procedure and Method
The first s.tep of the route selection process was to develop a
procedure that would accommodate the needs of the Project. In this
respect, the process needed to: 1) allow for input from agenc1es,
utilities and the public; 2) obtain adequate data within given time and
budget constraints; 3) provide variables that would be amenable to
quantification or comparative measurement of impacts of each
alternative to the others; 4) be defensible in its methodology, and 5)
be understandable by the public and agencies in the method used and
conclusions reached.
Based on defined routing objectives, a network of corridor segments
were identified and then evaluated by specific criteria. The
objectives emphasized selection of corridor(s) which balance impacts to
environmental re:sources with technical and economic suitability, and
also reflect agency, public and utility concerns. The specific
criteria for evaluation of alternatives were based on both quantitative
measurements and qualitative judgments as determined by various
disciplines and through group discussions. Resource map overlays and
impact matrices were prepared to help evaluate the relative
significance of each consideration.
3o2.2 Define System Needs
Tht: requirements of the transmission system were established early in
the process. Voltages, tower designs, and construction and maintenance
operations were determined. Substation locations were identified
through review of load flow studies and discussions with area
utilities. Mo1~e information on the transmission system needs is
presented in the next chapter.
410052/3 3-2
,,
3.2.3 Define Routing Objectives
The next step of the process was to define t:'Outing objectives. The
objectives identified were based on the Intertie route selection
process with which the Alaska Power Authority had developed a bigh
level of confidence:
0 Minimize impacts on land use;
0 Minimize impacts to private ownership;
0 Minimize visual impacts;
0 Minimize impacts on natural systems;
0 Optimize construction and operating costs, and
0 Maximize sharing of existing utility corridors.
These objectives guided the identification and evaluation of
alternative corridors. Final recommended corridors are those which
best meet these objectives.
3.2.4 Collect Data
Topographic maps, air photos, and data from previous studies wer~ used
to identify and screen corridors. These sources, alo~g with field
reconnaissance and existing data from agencies, were used to evaluate
the corrid·ors on the bas is of technical, ~~co nomic., and environmental
factors.
Agency, public and native group contacts were also an important aspect
of the data collection effort.. Many of the concerns and issues listed
in Appendix M were factored into the evaluation.
410052/3 3-3
3.2.5 Identify Corridors
defined transmission system, established objectives, Based on the
agency/utility
undertaken to
input, and collected data,
identify potential corridors
a regional screening was
for further evaluation.
General criteria based on physiographic characteristics and existing
facilities were used as the screening tool.. These criteria focused on:
(1) gengral areas to avoid, and (2) areas generally desirable in which
to locate a transmission line.
Avoid
Residential clusters
Large bodies of water
Mountainous terrain
Desired Locations
Existing transmission lines
Existing or proposed utility
corridors
The application of these criteria to the South and North Study Areas
identified several potential corridors for further investigation. In
addition, certain other corridors were identified through discussions
with agencies and utilities. Where alternatives parallel existing .
transmission lines, the corridor width is ~~ell defined; in less well
defined locations, the corridor width varied.
These corridors were broken into segments and numbered to aid in the
evaluation. The final result was a segment network in which the
various segments were combined to form system alternatives. These are
described in detail in Chapter 4 of this report.
3.2.6 Evaluate Corridor Alternatives
To reduce the number of corridors to be examined in detail> an
inventory of the environmental, technical and economic considerations
of each corridor was initiated and comparisons were made. Data
consistent with the screening criteria were then tabulated for each
410052/3 3-4
'; ·;:·
segment to use in quantifying impacts and comparing alternatives. For
purposes of evaluation and comparison, corridor centerlines were
established and appropriate right-of-way widths referenced.
Quantification of potential impacts was done by overlaying a
transparency of the alternative segments onto inventoried resource and
topographic maps. Each inventl':>ried resource variable that the segment
crossed was recorded, lengths and acreages measured~ a ... ,nd point
occurrences counted. These tabulations are listed in Appendix S.
The criteria used for evaluating and compar~ng corridor alternatives
were divided into the three categories of technical, econom1c and
t
environmental considerations:
Technical
o Reliability
o Constructability
o Maintainability
Economic
o Construction/Operation
o Materials
o Land Acquisition
Environmental
o Land Use/Ownership
o Fisheries/Wildlife Resources
o Terrestrial Resources
o Cultural/Recreational Resources
o Aesthetic Resources
Details of these evaluation factors are discussed 1n. Chapters 5, 6 and
7 of this report.
410052/3 3-5
3.2.7 Preferred Corridor(s)
The alternative corridors were compared based on the evaluations of
the technical, economic, and environmental categories mentioned
previously. Judgements based on intangibles such as cultural values
and environmeutal diversity were considered in the evaluation process,
which provided a more satisfactory representation of interest group
concerns and qualitative data. It should be noted that due to budget
constraints and changes to the project direction, the alternatives
study was stopped before completion of the route selection process.
The selection process has compared the alternative corridors based on:
quantitative and qualitative judgemE.~nts for each of the 11 evaluation.
factors listed in data Section 3.2.6. This evaluation resulted in.
determination of the preferred corridors for each of the factors. The
final step of the selection procedure would be to determine the
relative importance of each of the factors. This will provide a basis
for selecting a preferred corridor. Comments from agencies and groups
may require that additional data and e~valuation take place before a
final recommendation is made. Summaries of technical, environmental,
and economic suitability for each alternative were prepared to help
focus the discussion of trade-offs to a final selection.
3.2.8 Route Refinement
Tne final step of the route selection process will be to conduct
detailed studies on ~e selected corridor in order to refine the align-
ment for regulatory, acquisition and cons true tion requirements.
Det•ailed studies would include exploratory borings for foundation suit-·
ability, cultural resource investigations, and other field and environ-·
mental investigations determined during the selection process and
agency correlation period. Tne route refinement step would culminate
in a document det.ailing the centerline alignment, s pe..cific mi 'tigation
measures and othE~r aspects to be submitted to various permitting
agencies for approval.
410052/3 3-6
r··-··· i " ,j -·'. . .
J :,_.:_~--~:·~-~----·--·····--· -----·-----· ·--· . . -
,~;--
~
FIGURES
I
I
' NENANA.
/"""'
/ \ FAIRBANKS
10 0 20 40
.-r 1
SCALE f.N MILES
CANTWELl
J'
~DEVIL
CANYON ---.. ,_/ ~fATANA
GOLD
CREEK
I NT ERTlE
SUSITNA FtOUTE
ANCHC~RAGE
LOCATION MAP
KEY:
---INTERTIE ROUTE
PROPOSED L!CENSE
APPLICAT\ON ROUTE
---· ALTERNATIVE CORRIDORS
UNDER STUDY
-----------!;:11.>---·
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
TRANSMISSION SYSTEM
STUDY AREA
0&1'( •Oitl•••JIPO
FIGURE 3-1
1 Determine
Study Procedure
and Method
4 Collect and
Artalyze Existing
Data
~ • • • • • •
ROUTE SELECTION PROCESS
2 Define System ~eeds
o System Configuration
o System End Point
o D~sign Requirements
~~····'· r;' 11 I'L:, __ ~~--------------~ Define Routing Objectives
It
II
II
i
5 Identify Corridors for F.~uationl
o Regj,onal Screening
o Select Alternative Corridor~
I
II ~~-·~·---··-· ~ ,..--------
6 Evaluate Identified Alternatives
o Technical Evaluation
o Economic Evaluation
o Environmental Evaluation
I Additiota.L
Info~tion fo!(teded 7 Recommend Preferred Corridor(s) ..... .~~ ..... . o Rank Criteria
o Comp&re Alternatives
o Recommend Preferred
?o;;e1· ~~ Authorit:: ,._ _________ _
.._.;.A..,.,pp-.ro._v ... a .. l....,
Begin Acquisition
Procedures
8 Route Refinement
o Detailed Studies
o Centerline Alignment
o Sp~cial Mitigation
~~ecommendations
o Submittal to Permitting
Agencies
CONSTRUCTION
PREPARAtiON
Permits Approval
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
SUSITNA ._.~OAOELEC TAlC PROJECT
ROUTE SELECTION PROCESS
.-... o
:lAIC ~ Figure 3-2
•
•
I
':i
4.0 ALTERNATIVE ROUTE DESCRIPTIONS
•
•
4. 0 AL'!'ERNATIVES ROUTE DESCRIPTION
4.1 SOUTH STUDY AREA ALTERNATIVES
For comparison purposes, two 345 kV circuits were evaluated under two
system configurations; one routi·,,g both ciruci ts toge.ther to the Point
MacKenzie area (termed parallel alternatives); and the other routing
one line to Point MacKenzie and the other line overland around Knik Arm
(termed split alte.rnatives). Two circuits were evaluctd, instead of
three as proposed in the License Application, in order to be compatible
with the different system configurations evaluated as part of this
study. These system configurations, described in more detail in
Appendix F, were based on lower generation and forecast demand figures
being reviewed at thE time.
Based upon the preliminary regional screening efforts and basic system
requirements, 19 corridor segments were identified. These segments,
defined and diagrammatically shown in Table 4-1, were grouped into dif-
ferent combinations to form 9 alternatives, including the FERC License
Application route. Three options were identified for one of the alter-
natives. These three options were evaluated first so that the pre-
ferred option could be analyzed with the other alternatives.
Table 4·-2 presents a summary of requirements for each alternative and
option. These requirements served as the basis for the comparison.
The alternatives are described in terms of the total system instead of
by individual corridor segments even though some redundancy occurs.
This is done so that a complete picture can be obtained of line
lengths, paralleling of existing lines, and various design
differences.
Each alternative and option is described below.
410052/4 4-1
•
•
ALTERNATI'lE A.
FERC ROUTE
Segments 1, 5, 8, 18, 19
The FERC LicenEm Application route
"\ ~~'j '~
.0 ~,-, '"·-
•:'
WILLOW SUBSTATION
. .
env~s~ons two and eventually three
345 kV transmis·sion. lines from the Wi:t.low substation westward across
the Parks Highway for about two miles before turning south ..
rider then transverses relatively flat lowland with limited access be-
fore turning southeast where it encounters some agricultural and scat-
tered residential developments. At Segment 8, the corridor crosses the
existing Chugach Electric Association {CEA) 138 kV transmission line
and parallels it for a short distance and then goes east to the west
shore of Knik Arm. The 345 kV transmission lines (Segment 18) woul9.
parallel the existing CEA line through the Fort Richardson Military
Reservation until it reaches the location shown by Segment 19. At this
point, the transmission lines parallel an existing double circuit steel
pole transmission line to University substation ..
C/41/7-4 4-2
•
•
•
ALTERNATIVE B.
LITTLE SUSITNA -Parallel
Segments 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 18, 19
The Little Susitna parallel route begins at Willow Substation and runs
southeast; parallel to and about one mile east of the Parks Highway and
Alaska Railroad. In this sef.::tion (Segment 2) the right-of-way is
shared with existing transmission facilities (MEA 115 kV line). At
Segment 3 the corridor turns due south, again following the existing
transmission line, crosses the Parks Highway and then turns southwest
paralleling the Little Susitna River about one mile distane3., The
route then turns southeast, then due south along the border of the
Goose l>ay State Game Refuge. South of the refuge this. route joins the
FERC route {A.lternativ~ A), ~haring Segments 5, 8, 18, and 19 •
C/41/7-4 4-3
•
•
ALTERNATIVE C.
MEA/CEA -Parallel
Segments 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 18, 19
WIL.LOW SUBSTATION
The MEA/CEA Parallel route begins at Y,Jillow Substation and shares
Segments 2 and 3, described previously for the Little Susitna route
(Alternative B). Segment 6 follows the existing MEA transmission line
southeastward through an area of flat terrain, wetlands, and lakes. At
Willow/Teeland, Segment 7 runs south for 3.5 miles then turl_s southwest
and picks up the existing Chugach transmission lins route. It
parallels this route across the Goose Bay State Game Refuge. At .a
poiu.t south of the 1:efuge, this route joins Alternatives. A and B,
sharing Segments 5, 8, 18, and 19 •
C/41/7-4 4-4
•
•
•
ALTERNATIVE D.
FERC/NORTH PJ..LMER -Split
Segments 1, 5, 8, 18, 19
2, 9, option, 17, 19
...... , ,_-,,
The FERC/North Palmer Alternative i~ a split route. One line follows
the FERC ?:o·ctte described in Alternative A. The s~cond line also begins
at Willow. ~h·Jstation but then heads south paralleling the existing MEA
tranami.ssion line (Segment 2). One mile east of the Parks Highway and
Nancy Lakes, Segment 9 turns east toward Palmer. The first 16 miles of
Se;_i~-ant 9 are through rolling terrain, while the last foul." and one-half
m~ ·.es tra,Jerse lowlands associated with the Little Susitna River. Seg ....
ment 9 ends northwest of Palmer, at ~nich point one of the three North
Palmer Options described above can be selected to connect Segment 9 to
Segment 17 at Eklutna Flats. Segment 17 runs parallel to Glenn Highway
and the Alaska Railroad along the eastern side of Knik Arm. It uses
the existing ROW of the deactivated MEA 115 kV line except in the
vicinity of Birchwood. Thert~ the route leaves the MEA right-of-way
which runs through Birchwood ~nd runs to the west of the town. The
route picks up the MEA right-of-way again south of Birchwood and fol-
lows it to the Fossil Creek area (see Existing Features, Map 1). At
the Fossil Creek Ar~a 1 the North Palmer line rejoins the FERC route
line and th~ two parallel the existing Chugach line in Segment 19 •
C/41/7-4 4-5
•
SPLIT ALTERNATIVES
NORTH PALMER OPTIONS
Option 1: East Palmer (Segment 12, 16)
WILLOW SUBS! 1\ TION
Segment 12. of the East Palmer Option first runs east then south, then
southwest through level to rollig terrain. The corridor eros ses the
Glenn Highway north of Palmer before it drops down in the Matanuska
Valley and crosses the Matanuska River and Bodenberg Creek. The cctr-
ridor parallels the Glenn Highway for five miles near the .end of the
segment, about three-fourths of a mile from the highway. At Segment 16
the route turns south and then southwest. It runs through wetlands a.nd
floodplains the first half and through mountainous terrain the last
half, sharing a right-of-way with the existing Alaska Power Adminis-
tration 115 kV transmission line. This s.egment also crosses two Knik
River channels before joining Segment 17 at the eastern end of Knik
Arm.
Option 2: Trunk Road/Kepler Lake (Segments 11, 14, 16)
The Trunk Road/Kepler Lakes Option turns south and parallels part of
the Trunk Road to the east before it turns southeast. Here (Segment 4)
it traverses wooded, rolling terrain and is routed just to the east of
C/41/7-4
()
SPLIT ALTERNATIVES
NORTH PALMER OPTIONS
the currently proposed state recreation area in the Kepler /Bradley
Lakes system. Segment 14 continues southeast, crossing the Glenn High-
way and railroad before it crosses the Matanuska River. After crossing
the ri·v:er, the route turns south through an area of vegetation, small
streams, lakes and floodplain.
route and Segment 16.
Segment 14 then joins the Option 1
Option 3: Trunk Road/Glenn Highway (Segments 11, 13, 15)
The Trunk Road/ Glenn Highway Option shares Segment 11 with Opt ion 2.
Segment 13 then runs south, crossing through the Matanuska Valley
Experimental Farm before crossing the Glenn Highway near the Glenn and
Parks Highway interesection. It then continues south; crossing Spring
Creek and the Alaska Railroad within the last one-half mile of the seg-
ment. The route continues south through wetlands and floodplains (Seg-
ment 15) using the ROW of the deactivated MEA 115 kV line. The entire
length o:E Segment 15 parallels the Alaska Railroad and the Glenn High-
way located one-quarter to one-half mile to the west.
Before it connects with Segment 17, Segment 15 crosses the Matanuska
and Knik River channels and routes behind a ridge at the intersection
of the Old Glenn and Glenn Highways.
C/41/7-4 4-7
•
•
ALTERNATIVE E.
FERC/SOUTH WASILLA -Split
Segments 1, 5, 8, 18, 19 &
2, 3, 6, 10, 15, 17, 19
The FERC/South Wasilla Alternative is a split route. One line follows
the FERC route (Alternative A). Tbe second transmission line begins at
Willow Substation and heads southeast along the existing MEA right-of-
way (Segments 2, 3; and 6). From Willow/Teeland the route runs north-
ea$t briefly and then east through Lucille Creek Valley. Southwest of
Lake Lucille the route leaves Lucille C1:eek Valley, crosses Knik Goose
Bay Road and continues eastward crossii1g the Glenn Highway and ending
at Segment 15 acij acent to the Alaska Railroad. The route then runs
south, crossing the Matanuska and Knik Rivers and traversing the Palmer
Hay Flats State Game Refuge (Segment 15). The route then heads south-
west on the abandoned MEA right-of-way to Fossil Creek (Segment 17).
At that point, the second line rejoins the FERC l~ne along Segment 19
to University Substation •
C/41/7-4 4-8
•
ALTERNATIVE F.
LITTLE SUSITNA/NORTH PALMER
Segments 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 18, 19 &
2, 9, option, 17, 19
;'.-., •• ·,<. +"
'
WILLOW SUSST AT ION
The Little Susitna/North Palmer Alternative is a split route. Both
transmission lines run parallel from the Willow Substation along the
existing MEA transmission ROW (Segments 2 and 3), then east of Nancy
Laka the tvJO lines diverge .. One follows the Little Su.sitna route
(Alternative B) southwestward to a point south of the Goose Bay State
Gam~ Refuge, then east under Knik Arm, and then south to University
Subatation (Segment ~' 4, 5, 8, J.8 and 19).
·rhe second ~oute runs around. Knik Arm along the North Palmer route
de-scribed un.der Alternati~.re D. Segment 9 traverses the ridge north of
the .i:J ttle Susitna River. The route then follmqs one of the North
Palmer Options to Eklutn.a Fl11ts at the eastern end of Knik Ann. At
Segment li the corridor heads southwest on the abandoned ¥~A right-of-
way to Fossil Cre-ek, at which point the second line rejoins the first
along Se~ment 19 to the University Substation •
C/41/7-4 4-9
•
ALTERNATIVE G.
LITTLE SUSITNA/SOUTH WASILLA
Segments 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 18, 19 &
2, 3, 6, 10, 15, 17, 19
cJ .:
"' ...
WILLOW SUBSTAOION
The Little Susitna/South Wa.silla Alternative is a split route. Both
lines run parallel from Willow Substation along the existing MEA trans-
mission ROW. At the end of Segment 3 one line then follo,;.;rs the Little
Susitna route (Alternative B) described previously.
The second transmission line continues to follow the existing MEA
right-of-way (Segment 6) to Willow/Teeland. The route then runs east
through Lucille Creek Valley as described for Alternative E .
C/41/7-4 4-10
ALTERNATIVE H.
MEA-CEA/NORTH PALMER
Segments 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 18, 19 &
2, 9, option, 17, 19
WILLOW SUBSTATION
The MEA-CEA/North Palmer Alternative is a split alternative combining
trae Alternative C route with the North Palmer route.. Both transmission
lines run southE!ast from Willow Substation along the existing l~IEA
right-of-way (Segment 2). East of Nancy Lake one route heads south
(Segmen.t 3), following the route outlined for Alternative C. At Little
Susitna. it goes southeast to the Wasilla area and along Knik Arm (Seg-
ments 6 and 7) before crossing Knik Arm and going into Anchorage
(Segments 18 and 19).
The second line runs east along Segment 9 through gently sloped, wooded
lands north of the Little Susi tna River. At the end of Segment 9,
northwest of Pa1mer, there is a choice of three North Palmer Opt ions
fo1r reaching the end point of Segment 17. These were described pre·-
vi<:>usly. Segment 17 follows the abandoned MEA transmission ROW south·-
west to Fossil Creek. At that point the two lines rejoin as a double
ci-r•cuit pole and parallel the existing CEA line to University Sub-·
sta~tion (Segment 19).
C/41/7-4 4-11
Q ..
ALTERNATIVE Io
MEA-CEA/SOUTH WASILLA
Segments 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 18~ 19 &
2, 3, 6, 10$' 15, 17, 19
WILLOW SUBSTATION
The MEA-CEA/South Wasilla Alternative is a split alternative combining
the Alternative C route with the South Wasilla route. The distinction
of Alternative I is the extent they parallel one another. Both lines
in this alternative are parallel through Segments 2, 3 and 6, and adja-
cent to th~ existing MEA right-of-way. At Willow/Teeland, the two
lines split and follow routes previously described in Alternatives C
and E.
C/41/7-4 4-12
4.2 NORTH STUDY AREA ALTERNATIVES
Alternatives identified in the North Study Area between Healy and
Fairbanks had one basic routing requirement, which was to connect a
substation located at Healy to a substation located at Ester, seven
miles west of Fairbanks, or to a subs tat ion located at Fort Wain't'lright,
two miles southeast of Fairbanks.
Through review wi~:h agencies and utilities, and preliminary . screen1.ng
based on the routing objectives discussed earli•=r, 28 route segments
were identified. These segments are defined and diagr~1ruatically shown
in Table 4-3.
As 1.n the South Study Area, some of these segments were combined to
form alternatives, essentially two alternatives to Ester Substation and
three alternatives to Wainwright Substation.
In order to compare potential impacts between segments which share
common geographical characteristics or have different existing
conditions, the alternatives were broken into four subsections as
follows:
o Healy to Anderson
o Anderson to Little Goldstream
o Little Goldstream to Ester
o Anderson to Wainwright
C/41/7-4 4-13
t'
i ' ,·
Evaluation of the alternatives by subsections allowed for potential
crossovers between segments in the event that impacts of one segment
were severe enough to eliminate it from further consideration.
Alternatives within each subsection were compared and the preferred
alternative ic:entified. Th1': preferred alternative to eac.h substation
location was then compared and a final rrc~commendation made f-rom
technical, ~~conomic and environmental perspectives. The license
application (J}'ERC) route is included as one of the alternatives. One
opt ion to the l;'ERC Alternative, termed Healy East, was identified in
the Healy to Anderson section. Table 4-4 summarizes the transmission
line requirement~: for the alternatives and option.
As with the South Study Area, these requirements served as the basis
for comparisons ar.\d are based on preliminary engineering studies to
date. Following ar,~ brief descriptions of the alternatives.
C/41/7-4 4-14
~e ' '
\ .. :.;-·")·;/
:tj
HEALY TO ANDERSON
ALTERNATIVES A, B, Option A1
Alternative A: FERC Route (Segments 1, 2, 5, 8, 9)
Alternative A traverses the Healy to Anderson portion of
1 le HEAL..Y
the North
Study Area. It begins at Healy then runs one mile north parallel with
the Nenana River c;:-ossin.g it and the Alaska Railroad to the west. Pro-·
ceeding northtvest, the route crosses Dry Creek and Panguingue Creek and
parallels the GVEA line for most of the Segment 2. It then shifts to a
more northerly dirf.:~ction, crossing Little Panguingue Creek and Slate
Creek.. It parallel~: the Nenana River, crossing it about one mile north
of Ferry (Segment 5). It then crosses the Alaska Railroad and con-
tinues nort.hwest in parallel with the Nenana River and the railroad.
About Mile 380 on the railroad, the route turns to the northeast and
parallels the Parks U.ighway located one to three miles to the west un-
til it passes the Cl·l~ar M.E.W.S. faci~ity and approaches the Anderson
area.
Healy East _Option (Segme~ts 1, ~~ 7)
'"··
The Healy Ea.st Option runs due north frGlll Healy, running on a plateau
above the Nenana River. The roo.te runs north-nol;'thwest for 24 miles,
crossing several small strearo..s before it joins Segment 9 about two
miles east of the Nenana River and continues to Anderson on the FERC
route.
C/ 4·1/7·-4 4-15
Ln t
I
I
I ... ' .. ',J~
HEALY TO ANDERSON
ALTERNATIVES A, B, Option Al
Alternative B: GVEA Parallel (Segments 1, 2, lOS)
1 le HEALY
Alternative B follows the FERC route (Alternative A) until it s.plits
off at the end of Segment 2 to parallel the existing GVEA line and the
Parks Highway directly for about two miles. It then turns west,
crosses Rock Creek and the highway, and proceeds northwest about one-
quarter to one-half mile from the Parks Highway, crossing Bear Creek
and Birch Creek. About three miles north of Birch Creek it turns due
east and crosses the highway again, the Nenana River, and the railroad.
It then parallels the highway to the east until just north of the Clear
M.E.W.S. boundary, where it crosses the highway a third time and par-
allels it on the west side until it reaches Anderson.
Alternative B is adjacent to the existing GVEA line and the Parks High-
way for almost its entire length.
C/41/7-4 4-16
0
ANDERSON TO LITTLE GOLDSTREAM
ALTERNATIVES C, D
Alternative C: FERC Route (St~gments 12, 15,.L_l_U.
Alternative C is the FERC route transversing the Anderson to Little
Goldstream portion, beginning about .
s~x miles northeast of Anderson.,
paralleling the Parks Highway located one and one-half to three and
one-half miles west of the route. It routes due north to just south of
the Tanana River, which it crosses a!: a northwest angle. It then
proceeds northeast (Segment: 17) for about seven miles and terminates
near Little Goldstream Creek.
Alternative D: GVEA Parallel (Segments lON!t 14, 18)
Alternative D parallels the GVEA line and the Parks r-~ighway north of
Anderson. About six milef north of Anderson, it also ;?aral1els the
Alaska Railroad and continues th~ough the confluence area of the Tanana
and Nenana Rivers. It crosses the Tt1nana River at Nenana and continues
to parallel the highway, railroad, and GVEA line to the northeast to
Little Goldstream Creek.
C/41/7-4 4-17
LITTtE GOLDSTREAM TO ESTER
ALTERNATIVES E, F.
Alternative E: FERC Route (Segments 20, 22, 25)
-._., ,... .,., r'------' I
Alternative E begins at the termination of Segment H3 and parallels the
GVEA line eastward about 11 miles. The route in this area (Selgment 20)
traverses the Little Goldstream Creek valley and i~s paralle~l to the
]:'arks Highway, wh::,ch is located on the Tanana Ridge one to one and
Cine-half miles north. One mile west of Bonanza C::e,ek ( neaJ:' Segment
22), the route turns due north for one mile, leaves the GVEA 1 ine and
crosses the Parks Highway. From there it turns rtortheas t and runs
parallel to the highway on the north side of thE~ Ridge. At the
beginning of Segment 25 the route turns to the east and runs about
three miles before it again parallels the GVEA line on into the Ester
Substation. West of the substation, the route crosses the Parks High-
way for a second time in this section.
Alternative F: Goldstream Vallex (Segments 6, 19s 24)
This route crosses the Parks Highway and traverse the north slope of
the Tanana Ridge. At the base of the slope the corridor turns north-
east paralleling the base of Tanana Ridge, Goldstream Creek and the
railroad. The rail and the corridor are separated by Goldstream
C/41/7-4 4-18
0
LITTLE GOLDSTREAM TO EJTER
ALT.ERNATIVES E, F.
• I
Creek. At its northernmost point, the corridor turns east-southeast
running along the northe.rn and eastern base of Ester Dome. Along the
eastern base of Este1r DtOrne the lines would run south paralleling small
distribution lines and cross the Parks Highway into E~t~r Substation.
C/41/7-4 4-19
io
···-·:. r~~l'-;_:::::::.~':c~ .,-.. ""•.r't .•· .y· .
!;.~M, $',~''I
. : 7~~.
:c-:.,"-··-·--·-'"'·"-~--·; ... :!..~"''''.£::: ..... ·-·--· ·"·~---~ ··--··---9_ .. ---~ _________ :·---·----··-
ANDERSON TO WAINWRIGHT
ALTERNATIVES G, H, I
., ... , .. ----r--
I
I
Alternative G: Tanana Ridge (Segments 12, 16, 26, 27)
Alternative G begins as the FERC route (Segment 12) about six miles
northeast of Anderson. After crossing the Tanana River it he.ads north-
east, paralleling the river and traversing the base of the south slope
of the Tana~1a Ridge. The line then traverses wet lov7land areas,
crosses Salc.haket; Slough and the Tanana River for a third time near
Goose Island, before terminating at the substation location.
Alternative H: Tanana Flats (Segments 11, 27)
Alternative H begins at the same point as Alternative G,
directly northeast through the Tanana Flats, south of the
but .
r~ver.
runs
It
parallels the Tanana River on the south side, cross~ng the Totatlanika
River, Tattanika Creek, and Wood River (where it enters military land).
The line is the same as Alternative G at Segment 27, where it crosses
the Salchaket Slough, and Tanana River before reaching the substation
site.
C/41/7-4 4-2.0
•' .··· .. \ ·· •.. ···.
~ '!!1!'·-~··--4
--~-~:;:r-::-~~~~---~--···-:· ...
L......-'-<-<o~<, ,_, ·'• ., ,_,.' '
ANDERSON TO WAINWRIGHT
ALTERNATIVES G, H, I
., .... __ ,,
r.._--.-
' '
Alternative I: Segment 28 (Alternative E or F plus 28)
Alternative I repeats either Alternatives E or F from Anderson to
Ester. It adds a segment from the Ester Substation about one and one-
half miles east, then runs southeast through southwer.~ Fairbanks for
about two miles. The route parallels the rece11tly proposed South
Fairbanks Expressway. It would cross the Alaska Railroad, Chena River,
and run close to the Fairbanks International Airport. It then runs due
east for four miles across south Fairbanks before terminating at the
Fort Wainwright Substation.
C/41/7-4 4-21
\
TABLES
0
\,J . ' ... -~
TABLE 4-1
SOUTH STUDY AREA
ROUTE SEGMENTS
AND ALTERNATIVES
No. Alternative
Parallel Alternatives
1 . A FERC Route
2. .B Little Susitna
3. c MEA/CEA Parallel
s:elit Alternatives -North Palmer
Option 1 East Palmer
Option 2 Trunk Road/Kepler
Option 3 Trunk Road/Glenn
S:elit Alternatives
4. D . FERC -North Palmer •
5. E FERC -South Wasilla
6. F Little Susitna
North Palmer
7. G Little Susitna
South Wasilla
8. H MEA/CEA -North Palmer
9. I MEA/CEA -South Wasilla
C/41/7-4
WILLOW SUBSTATION
Segments
1' 5, 8 ' 18, 19
2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 18, 19
2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 18, 19
Option
12~ 16
Lake 11, 14, 16
Hwy. 11' 13, 1.5
1, 5, 8, 19 + 2 ' 9,
Option, 17, 19
1' 5, 8, 18, 19 + 2,
3, 6, 10: 15, 17' 19
2, ..), 4, 5, 8, 18, 19
+ 2, 9, Option, 17, 1 ~
2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 18, 19
+ 2, 3, 6, 10, 15, 17 •'
19
2, 3, 6, 7' 8, 18, 19
+ 2, 9, Option, 17, 1S
2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 18, 19
+ 2, 3, 6, 10, 15, 17'
19
TABLE 4-2
SOUTH STUDY AREA
SUMY~RY OF ROUTE REQUIREMENTS
Route Existin~ New ROW R<Y:J ROW Tower No.
Lengthl/ Parallel Rout~/ Width (Seg) Total Veg. Cleared Type Ckts
(Mi) (Mi) (Mi)..... (Ft) (Acres/' (Acres)
PARALLEL ALTERNATIVES
A-FERC 65.3 39.0 2.75 (1302) x-frame(2)
Segment 8, 18 11.7 255 (362) :.: f=ame(2}
Segment 19 11.1 130 (175) 1839 1029 pole (2)
B -Llttle Susitna 59.6 22.8 275 (761) x-frame(2)
Segment 2, 3, 8, 18 22..2 255 (687) :t-frame(2)
s~gment: 13 11.1 1.30 (175) 1623 914 pole (2)
C-H£A/CEA 63.5 3.5 275 (117) x-frame(2)
Segment 2, 3, 6, 7~ 8, 18 45.4 255 (llt06) x-frame(2)
Se'{lllent 19 lL.l 130 (175) 1698 113 pole (2)
NORTH PALMER OPTIONS
Option 1 -E. Palmer 28.8 24.8 170 (512) x-frame(2)
SegmE?. .d: 16 4.0 150 (73) 585 x-frame(2)
Option 2-Kepler Lks. 21.5 17.6 170 (361) x-frame(2)
Segment 16 4.0 150 (73) 434 321
Option 3 -Glenn Highway 15.5 9.9 170 (204) x-frame(2)
Segment 15 5.6 170 (116) 320 225 x-frame(2)
SPLIT ALTERNATIVES
D -FERC/N. Palmer 112.s.Y 59.6 170 (1230) x-frame(l)
Segments 2, 8, 18 18.1 150 (329) x-frame(l)
SP-rynent 17 20.5 170 (423) 2157~./ 1524~/ x-frame(l)
S;z:~" ···t: 1'"· 11.1 130 (175) pole (2)
E -FERrC/6. Wasilla 129.2 62.0 170 (1279)
Segmertts 2, 3 3 6, 8, 18 32.1 150 (584) x-frame(l)
Segment 17 20.5 170 (423) x-frame(l)
Segment 19 11.1 130 (175) 2461 1601 pole (2)
F -Little Susitna/N. Palmer 1oo.1.Y 45.8 170 ( 895)
Segment 2 6.4 255 (325) x-frame(2)
Segment 3, 8, 18 15.8 150 (288) x-frame(l)
Segment 17 20.5 170 (423),
19791/ 1146~/ x-frame(l)
Segment 19 11.1 130 (175) pole (2)
G -Little Susitna/S. Wasilla 113.0 43.4 170 (945)
Segments 2, 3 10.5 255 (198) x-frame(2)
Segments 6, 8, 18 21.6 150 (393) x-frame(l)
Segment 17 20.5 170 (423) x-frame(l)
Segment 19 ~ 11.1 13G (175) 2261 1515 pole (2)
FOOTNOTES:
1/ I! Parallel segments counted only once.
J/ Includes parallel to existing 115 kV lines or above, and assumed use of deactivated MEA 115 kV.
-Add option for total length.
-f • ~"' t •
Notes
Plus 3. 5 mile underwater
Dou.ble circuit
Plus 3.5 mile underwater
Double circuit
Plus 3.5 mile underwater and
3.5 miles Segment 7 no parallel
MEA ROW
Plus 3. 5 mile underwater
MEA ROW
Double circuit
Plus 3. 5 mile underwater
MEA ROW
Double circuit
Plus 3.5 mil.e underwater
HEA ROW
Double circuit
Plus 3.5 miles underwater
UEA ROW
Double circuit
,•
!.
' l
!
l
l:
l"
pt. w•% • J'U·' ••.. ··a· ... •· . ·..,.,....." •:J.III·.-.·~-· •··' •·-·~•·• t r:w•e*'"tNW' tea, ....... ;; .. ,._ ....... ·~·---rJ -;·;;·::--:--· -' l .
"
~
TA5LE 4-2
SOUTH STUDY AREA
SUMMARY OF ROUTE REQUIREMENTS
Route Existing New ROW ROW ROW Tower No.
Length!/ Parallel Route/ Width (Seg) Total Veg. cleared Type Ckts
(Mi) (Mi) (Mi)! (Ft) (Acres) (Acres)·
SPLIT ALTERNATIVES (cont.)
H -MEA/CEA-N. Palmer 104.f2/ 24.3 170 (501)
Segment 2 6.4 255 (198) x-£rame(2)
Segments 3, 6~. 7, 8, 18 38.8 150 (706) x-£rame(1)
Segment 17 20.5 170 (423)
2ooJll 1578~/ x-frame(l)
Segment 19 11.1 130 075) pole (2)
I -MEA/CEA-S. Wasilla 107.0 26.5 170 (547)
Segments 2, 3, 6 20.4 255 (632) x-frame(2)
Segments 7, 8, 18 25.0 150 (455) x-frame(l)
Segment 19 11.1 130 075) 2232 1598 pole (2)
FOOTNOTES:
l~ Parallel segments counted only once.
l
1
Includes parallel to existing 115 kV lines or above, and assumed use of deactivated MEA 115 kV.
~ Add option for total length.
..
(SaEET 2 of 2)
Notes
Plus 3.5 miles underwater
MEA ROW
Double circuit
See notes under Alternative c
Double circuit
..
TABLE .4-3
NORTH STUDY AREA
ROUTE SEGMENTS
AND ALTERNATIVES
Alternative
Healy to Anderson
A : FERC
Healy East Op~ion
B : GVEA Parallel
Anderson to Little Goldstream
c
D
FERC
GVEA Parallel
Little Goldstream to Ester
E : FERC
F Goldstream Valley
Anderson to Wainwright
G Tanana Ridge
H : Tanana Flats
I Segment 28
Segments
1, 2, 5, 8,
1, 3, 7
1, 2, lOS
12, 15, 17
lON, 14, 18
20, 22, 25
6, 19, 24
9
12, 16, 26, 27
11, 27
28
~-l c
\ r ,, ,,
0 :~
'1-3
'tr:i ~~
iU'l
__,......,... _______ ·~----,···---~~~~.:~-,..L.:,._".;..~.._-__ ..;.._.;:!._,__:_. .. __ .:_ ________ ~-··
TABLE 4-4
NORTH STUDY AREA
SUMMARY OF ROUTE REQUIREMENTS
aoute Existing New ROW ROW ROW Tower No. Notes
0 ALTERNATIVES Lengtbl/ Parallel Route/ Width (Seg)Total Veg. cleared Type Ckts
(Two 230 KV Circuits) (Mi) (Mi) (Mi)1 (Ft) (Acres) (Acres)
HEALY TO ANDERSON
A-FERC 42 •. 6 32.8 210 ( 836) x-frame(2)
Segment 2 ~i.-8 180 (214) 1050 636 x-frame(2)
Healy .East Option 4L5 1+1.5 210 1058 406 x-frame(2)
B -CVEA Parall~l 45.3 2.4 210 (61) x-frame(2) Segment 1 and 1 mile of
Segments 2, lOS 42.9 180 (937) 998 365 x-frame(2) Segment 2 no parallel
ANDERSON TO LITTLE GOLDSTREAM
G -FERC 20.5 20.5 210 523 418 x-frame(2)
D -GVEA Parallel 24.7 24.7 180 539 159 x-frame(2)
LITTLE GOLDSTREAM TO ESTER
E -FERC 31.1 14.1 210 (359) x-frame(2)
Segment 20, 25 17.0 180 (371) 730 682 x-frame(2)
F -Goldstream Valley 38.0 38.0 210 969 911 x-frame(2)
ANDERSON TO WAINWRIGHT
iD G -Tanana Ridge 54.7 54.7 210 1394 1141 x-·frame(2)
H -Tanana Flaj] 49.1 49.1 210 1252 908 x-frame(2)
I -Segment 2~ 8.8 8.8 100 (107) 81 pole (2) Double circuit
FOOTNOTES:
!/ Parallel segments counted only once. ~/ Existing parallel mileage figures approximate.
11 Add preferred routes from Anderson to Ester for total mileage.
tj)
-··~~-·. :,·:····j
..... :l ..
~..;_-~·----'--<·----· .. l..-••••. ,-~-,-~, .. --_..,.._!..-,~--------~i~j ;
~ •.
•
5.0 TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS
• 5.0 TECHBICAL OOBSIDIIATIOIS
5 .. 1 GENERAL METHOD
From, a technical point of view, reliability is the main objective. The
technical factors, reviewed from a routing standpoint, were determined
based upon their significance in p:r.oviding a reliable transmission
system.
5.2 FACTORS CONSIDERED AND SIGNIFICANCE
The most significant factors which affect reliability are access and
topography:
o Lines located in reasonable proximity to transportation
corridors will be more quickly accessible and, therefore,
more quickly repaired if any failures occur.
o Lines located in areas with gentle relief will be easier to
construct and repair.
Although reliability is a technical factor, many of the criteria uti-
lized for economic and environmental reasons also relate to the selec-
tion of a corridor within which a line can be operated with minimum
interruption of power.
The parameters required for the technical analyses were extracted from
the environmental inventory tables, topographic maps, aerial photos and
existing published materials. The parameters used in the analysis
were: length of the line, accessibility, approximate number of
river/creek crossings, approximate number of highway/road crossings,
topography, soils, and existing rights-of-way. The main factors con-
tributing to the technical and economic analyses are combined as listed
in Tables 5-l and 5-2.
410052/5 5-1
.,"'
It should be noted tthat the parameters are in miles of line length,
exc'~pt towers and cre>ssings. In this analysis, it was determined that
4.5 X-frames and 6.5 pole structures per mile of the line were repre-
sentative nwiiberso The number of pole structures were estimated based
on the length of narrow ROW. The following technical factors oirec tly
determine the comp,lexity of engineering and design, the cost of
construction and the ability to operate and maintain the system:
1. Line length -miles
A shorte1r line in general will be easier to maintain and will
have fewer technical problems due to materials and workman-
ship than the longer one. For the same environmental condi-
tions, the shorter line is a preferred one.
2. Accessibility -miles
Accessibility shown in the tables is evaluated based on rea-
sonable proximity of the route to existing major roads or
parallel transmission line ROW's. Also, ROW in the perimeter
or close vicinity of populated areas were considered as
ac.cessible.
3. Parallel right-of-way or right-of-way available -miles
This parameter is considered as a major factor for accessi-
bility to the route.
4. River and streams crossed -number
410052/5
The number of river and streams to be crossed is a contri-
buting factor to reduced accessibility. The large.r the num-
ber of waterways to cross, the less accessible a particular
location is to reach.. Where a river or stream is located
between a road and the transmission line, this was evaluated
on the basis of no access.
5-2
..,_
5. Wetland, swampy areas -miles
A major factor are the areas of wet and swampy soils.
Because all routes studied cross these areas, particularly in
the-South Study Area, the emphasis was placed on those routes
which have the least amount of these conditions. In addition
to uncertainties and high cost of foundation cons true tion in
swampy areas, the inspection and maintenance are more diffi-
cult. The evaluation was based on USGS quad maps and
existing reports~
6. Problems and difficult areas -miles
Topography plays a key role since it affects construction,
operation and maintenance. Areas of broken or steep terrain
add to access difficulties and, therefore, reduce relia-
bility. Also, conditions ln which the slope of the· terrain
exceeds the angle of repose of the soil increases the chances
of land, rock, or mud slides. Snow, rock, or mud slides.are
an additional hazard on steep slopes. Significant advantages
of reliability and cost are expected if the lines are routed
at low elevations with gentle topography. Highway, power-
line, and river crossings should always be minimized where
possibleo These crossings may require special high struc-
tures, and if combined with flat, low surrounding profiles
and swampy soil conditions (as along the river banks), create
a formidable engineering problem. River crossing structures
not properly protected from flooding can directly affect the
reliability of the line. Hazards due to steep slopes, flood-
plains, long span crossings, and ROW congestion have been
evaluated and combined in the table under this item.
7. Highways, railroad and power lines crossed -number
410052/5
The number of crossings were determined, however not all of
them are significant.
5-3
0
8 .. Cable link -miles
Submarine cable links are evaluated as a reliability reduc-
tion particularly if directed factor, all flow . 1.8 power
through them.
9. Vegetation and clearing
Heavily forested areas must be cleared prior to construction
of the transmission line. This clearing will be minimized as
shown in Appendix E, Figures E-2, E-3 and E-4. This factor
was not used for evaluation purposes because it can and
should be properly managed.
10. Others
Extremely low temperatures, avalanches, snow depth, and
severe winds are very important parameters in transmission
design, operation and r1:liability. These climatic factors
become more severe 1.n the mountains, where severe winds are
expected for both expose!d areas and mountain passes. The
routes located through narrow valleys and on north slopes are
less reliable from this point of view.
5 • 3 SOUTH STUDY AREA
o Alternative A: FERC Route
410052/5
Se~ent 1 -37.1 Miles
The line route . this segment through flat l.n passes
terrain with extensive wetlands and swampy areas.
Because more than one half of this segment crosses
wetlands, the major technical problems envisioned will
be found~tion engineering and construction. A
considerable effort of soil exploration will be
required. A part of .
l.S the route a forested area -especially the second half. Two crossings of Willow
5-4
' '
•
410052/5
·:"
,',~
Creek, the Alaska Railroad and the Parks Highway occur
near Willow and Little Susitna River is crossed at the
end of this segment. Some tall structures and probably
deep foundations will be necessary for these crossings
because of wet soils and flat topography. Some minor
changes of alignment will probably be required in the
small lake areas. Regular spans of 1100 feet are
required for this segment. A longer average span should
be investigated for construction and economic reasons.
Although the route in some areas is close to a "tractor
trail " it is not considered as accessible and ~ ~ )
construction and maintenance will be difficult from
spring to fall. Winter construction should be
considered.
The line constructed in this segment should be rated as
having a lower reliability due to access for maineenance
and a route with better access would be preferable.
Segment 5-1.9 Miles
This segment is a continuation of Segment 1 and general
characteristics previously described apply. Exc-ept as
noted above, no major technical problems are
anticipated.
Ending at Lorraine -Segment 8 -2.2 Miles
Flat topography with elevations up to 150 feet. Wet-
lands at low elevations with standing water
throughout. Small creeks and trails can be crossed with
normal span structures. Available winter trails can be
developed for construction. Route parallels 138 kV
Chugach transmission line therefore this section is
accessible for maintenance. Winter construction should
be considered.
5-5
• Lorraine to Fossil Creek -Segment 18 -13.0 Miles
This segment includes Knik Arm crossing by submarine
cable. The segment is evaluated as accessible for all
of its length. Topography is flat with some areas of
extemely wet lands. No major technical problem is
anticipated in this segment.. Technical evaluation of
Knik Arm submarine cable link is excluded from this
evaluation.
Fossil Creek to Unive'::sity Substation -Segment 19 -
11.1 Miles
The route parallels existing 230 kV pole line ROW,
transversing Anchorage metropolitan area. Double
circuit pole construction is assumed for this section.
The major problems anticipated are congested construc-
tion, narrow ROW and closeness to air field.
o Alternative B: Little Susitna -Parallel
410052/5
Willow to Nancy Lake -Segment 2 -6.4 miles
The topography shows a gentle profile with elevations up
to 350 feet. There are some wetlands. The line route
crosses the Castle Mountain fault as well as some other
faults. Only small streams are crossed which can be
done with regular 1000 to 1200 feet spans. The route
parallels existing 138 kV MEA transmission line and also
runs parallel to the Parks Highway and Alaska Railroad
about a mile away. The route is accessible for
maintenance. Roads on the route and improved trails can
be used for line con$truction. Conventional
construction is visualized. Some wetlands are crossed.
5-6
•
410052/5
Nancy Lake to Little Susitna -Se~ent 3 ·ft 4.1 miles
.Rolling to flat terrain with gentle profiles and eleva-
tiona around 200 feet with some wetlands. The route
crosses the Lake Creek channels, Alaska Railroad and
Parks Highway, with steep profile between railroad and
highway. The route is parallel to MEA 138 kV trans-
mission line. In general, no major engineering or con-
struction problems are expected however, alignment
adjustment will be necessary and crossings will require
proper engineering attention.
using 1000-1200 feet average
Conventional construction
spans is expected. The
route is close to recreation areas.
considered accessible.
This segment is
Little Susitna to Lorraine -Segment 4 -20.9 miles
Flat topography with elevations up to 350 feet, with
extensive wetlands and standing water. Special
foundations may be required for swampy areas and longer
spans may be desirable. Little Susitna River, streams,
and numerous lakes need to be crossed. Foundation
engineering and construction will pose the major
problems. Some areas are accessible through existing
trails and secondary roads, but particular sites can be
inaccessible. Winter and helicopter assisted construc-
tion and material deliveries to the sites require care-
ful consideration. For general evaluation purposes this
segm~nt is rated as not accessible.
Segments 5, 8, 18 and 19
See pages 5-5 and 5-6 for descriptions of these
segments.
5-7
o Alte~native C: MEA/Chugach Parallel
410052/5
Segments 2 a~d 3, total length 10.5 miles
The segments are described under Alternative B: Little
Susitna Parallel. The route parallels Matanuska
Electric Association (MEA) 138 kV transmission line and
is considered accessible for maintenance. Presently,
only moderate technical and construction problems ar1~
expected.
Little Susitna to Wainwright -Se~ent 6 -9.9 miles
Forested flat terrain, numerous lakes and wetlands.
Right-of-way parallels existing MEA 138 kV
transmission line for its entire length. The Alaska
Railroad and Parks Highway are about one mile away and
Big Lake Road is crossed by the route. The area is
evaluated as accessible for construction ·and
maintenance. No major technical problems are
anticipated.
Segment 7 -16.8 miles
Flat topography with gentle profiles and elevations
ranging between 100 and 300 feet with wetlands and
standing water at lower elevations. Right-of-way
parallels CEA/MEA 230/138 kV transmission line for
entire length except the first two miles. Goose
Bay/Wasilla Road runs parallel to route within a mile or
two, providing good access. Difficulties are
anticipated with foundation construction limited in the
line section crossing Goose· Bay tidal marshes. To
reduce the number of structures, longer spans than
average shoul~ be considered. Special deep pile
foundations may be required. Winter construction
probably will also be required. Although construction
5-8
:: ~)
C.·.,
~--~ ·-C-~
"'
limitations and complicated (difficult) engineering
considerations can be expected, accessibility is
considered acceptable.
Segments 8, 18 and 19 -total length 26.3 m~
The segments are described under Alternative B: Little
Susitna -Parallel.
o Option 1
410052/5
Se~ent 12 -21.1 miles
In the most part, the topography is level covered by
vegetation with floodplains at the Matanuska River
crossing. The route crosses Wasilla/Fishhook Road,
Glenn Highway, some secondary roads, Matanuska River and
Bodenberg Creek, as well as the Matanuska Valley fault.
Long spans and high structures probably will be needed
for Matanuska River crossing which includes floodplains.
Deep pile foundations will probably be necessary. Road
crossing can be handled with regular spans. After the
river crossing the topography changes to rolling with
elevations up to 500 feet with gentle slopes of not more
than 10%. The crossing of the Alaska Power
Administration (APA) 115 kV line will be necessary and
may require somewhat higher structures. Access to route
is ccnsidered to be satisfactory.
Segment 16 -7.7 miles
The topography is level with wetlands and floodplains
around Knik River crossing in the first half of the
segment and mountainous terrain in the second half. The
major engineering problem is the crossing of two Knik
River channels and floodplains. Depending on final
route selection, more than one crossing of the Old Glenn
5-9
Highway may be required. Sharing a congested ROW with
existing Alaska Power Administration (APA) 115 kV
transmission line on mountainous terrain will require
extra engineering and construction time and cost. Side
profiles are estimated up to 20-25 degrees. Meandering
Knik River channels and floodplains ~1ill require long
spans with associated engineering and construction
considerations. Single pole structures may be required.
Hazards due to mud and rock slides can be anticipated.
Accessibility will be difficult.
o Option 2
410052/5
Segment 11 -6.8 miles
The topography of terrain is gentle with elevation
around 400 feet and covered by dense vegetation.
Three hard surface secondary roads are crossed.
Conventional construction using 1100-1200 feet span
structures is anticipated. The area is accessible
through highway and secondary roads. No major technical
or construction problems are visualized.
Segment 14-1.0 miles
Topograpy is level around the Matanuska River cross1ng
and rolling with elevations up to 250 feet for the
rest of this segment. The route is covered by dense
vegetation with numerous lakes and floodplains, and the
Matanuska River crossing about one mile wide. The route
also crosses the Glenn Highway and Alaska Railroad.
Long spans will be required for river crossing, with
access to floodplain probably only during winter. River
scour needs to be determined and foundations designed
accordingly. Also, about seven small streams need to be
crossed between the Matanuska River and Knik River.
This segment is considered less reliable from a
5-10
~ : ' '
maintenance point of view, and engineering
construction difficulties are anticipated.
§~gment 16-7.7 miles
'£he segment is described under Option 1. This
difficult segment from engineering, construction
maintenance viewpoints.
and
. 1.s a
and
o Option 3
410052/5
~ent 11 -6.8 miles
The segment is described under Option 2. No technical
or r~onstruction problems are anticipated in this
Sf.:;gment.
Segment 13-3.1 miles
The route traverses rolling terrain with dense
vegetation and elevation up to 250 feet, with some
wetland areas and crossing of the Glenn Highway and
Alaska Railroad. Because of flat terrain around the
cross1.ngs, structures somewhat higher than normal may be
required. In general the route is easily accessible for
maintenance.
Segment 15 -5.6 miles
l'his segment is described under Alternative E: South
Wasilla -Split. It is a difficult segment from an
engineering and construction viewpoint due to river
crossings.
5-11
:~ l
,j !
·~ I
!
l
~ l
! !
I
I !.
' L:
I i
i I i i
'i :!
I
i • I
• i
\ i
i
! ! .
I
l
!
0
')'
kf~~rnative D: FERC -North Palmer -Spli~
The FERC route is discussed under Alternative A above,
and the North Palmer route is discussed below.
Segment 2 -6.4 miles
The segment is described under Alternative B: Little
Susitna ·-Parallel. The route parallels existing MEA
138 kV transmission line and is considered accessible
for maintenance.
Segment 9 -20.6 miles
The route crosses the foothills and south slopes of the
Talkeetna Mountains. The first 16 miles of the
segment has rolling topography with elevations from 300
to 600 feet and slopes not more than 10%. The rest of
the segment is flat with lowlands and some wet soils.
The terrain is covered by mixed forest throughout its
length. Coal Creek, Little Susitna River and numerous
small streams are crossed. Most of the segment has no
established access and is far away from major roads.
Crossing of the Little Susitna River, which parallels
the route and screens it, is necessary to approach the
route. Therefore, it may be necessary to rely on
helicopters for maintenance or additional access roads
need to be constructed. The maintainability of the
sect9r will be more difficult than Alternative C.
Engineering aspects are normal and no hazards were
found.
o Option 3 -15.5 miles
410052/5
Option 3, consisting of Segments 11, 13 and 15 is the pre-
ferred route in conjunction with Segment 9. This selection
is based on a technical evaluation of the three options.
5-12
Segment 17 -20.5 miles
.... = The first two miles of route parallels existing Alaska
Power Administration (APA) 115 kV line and crosses
-mountainous terrain with steep side slopes. It can .be
anticipated that this portion of the route will present
technical problems related to alignments, congestion and
difficult construction. The rest of the segment has
flat to rolling topography covered by mixed forest.
Several crossings of the Alaska Railroad and Glenn
Highway will be necessary and may require higher than
normal structures. Because of numerous developed areas
crossed by the route, steel pole line sections may. be
required.
attention.
The entire section will require careful
Easy access for maintenance makes this
section very reliable.
Segment 19 -11.1 miles
The segment is described under Alternative A: FERC
Route. The route is in the greater Anchorage area.
o Alternative E: FERC -South Wasilla -Split
410052/5
The FERC route is discussed under Alternative A above,
and the South Wasilla route is discussed below.
Segment 2 and 3 -total length 10.5 miles
The route is described under Alternative B: Little
Susitna -Parallel. The route follows MEA 138 kV
transmission line ROW and is considered accessible for
maintenance, without major technical problems.
Segment 6-9.9·miles
The route is described under Alternative C: MEA/Chugach
Parallel. The route follows MEA 138 kV transmission
5-13
i'
!
j'
l
i
I ,
I
Segment 17 -20.5 miles
..
p'
-• The first two miles of route parallels existing Alaska
Power Administration (APA) 115 kV line and crosses
mountainous terrain with steep side slopes. It can be
anticipated that this portion of the route will present
technical problems related to alignments, congestion and
difficult construction. The rest of the segment has
flat to rolling topography covered by mixed forest.
Several crossings of the Alaska Railroad and Glenn
Highway will be necessary and may require higher than
normal structures. Because of numerous developed areas
crossed by the route, steel pole line sections may be
The entire section will . requ1re careful required.
attention. Easy access for maintenance makes this
section very reliable.
Segment 19 -11.1 miles
The segment is described under Alternative A: FERC
Route. The route is in the greater Anchorage area.
o Alternative E: FERC -South Wasilla -Split
410052/5
The FERC route is discussed under Alternative A above,
and the South Wasilla route is discussed below.
Segment 2 and 3 -total length 10.5 miles
The route is described under Alternative B: Little
Susitna Parallele The route follows MEA 138 kV
transmission line ROW and is considered accessible for
maintenance, without major technical problems.
Segment 6-9.9·miles
The route is described under Alternative C: MEA/Chugach
Parallel. The route follows MEA 138 kV transmission
5-13
'
1 !
11 ff
1 !.I
!1
' il
~ I . n " il
II
: ol
•,j ,,
" ,,
i]
I
) ~ q
!
i
! i •.
! r ~
i'
f r ~
(.,,
410052/5
line route and is considered accessible for maintenance,
without major technical problems.
Segment 10 -17.4 miles
This segment has flat and rolling topography with
elevations up to 400 feet, vegetation and wooded
areas. Lucille, Cottonwood, Wasilla Creeks, Big Lake
Road, Glenn Highway, Alaska Railroad and secondary roads
are crossed. Route runs parallel to the Parks Highway
at about a mile distance and mostly through developed
areas. Very good access is available. Normal spans can
be used in this section. Longer than normal spans up to
1600 feet may be required for crossing Wasilla Creek and
adjacent area due to floodplain, wet soils and
foundation requirements. Wasilla Creek area, due to
anticipated engineering and technical problems, 1s
considered difficult. Based on generally good access,
this segment is considered as a reliable line section.
Segment 15 -5.6 miles
This segment consists of mostly level wetlands and
floodplains. The section is considered to be
difficult from engineering and construction viewpoints.
Five major crossings will be required. All crossings
are associated with floodplains, wet soils and flat
terrain. Long spans up to 1600 feet and high structures
with difficult foundations will probably be required.
Right-of-way parallels the Alaska Railroad and Glenn
Highway for full lenth of the segment and crossing of
railroad and highway will be necessary. Winter
construction has to be considered. The segment is
readily accessible by major highway.
5-1/f
I
l
!
i,
l
!
L
I l'
1 i '\
Segment 17 -20.5 miles
This segment is described under Alternative D: North
Palmer -Split.
Segment 19 -11.1 miles
This segment is described under Alternative B: Little
Susitna -Parallel.
o Alternative F: Little Susitna -North Palmer
The Little Susitna route of this split alternative is
discussed under B above. The characteristics of this
route in the most part (Segments 4, 5, 8, 18, -48 miles)
are similar to those of the original FERC route, i.e.,
wet/swampy areas and limited access. The North Palmer
route is described under Alternative D above. For some
length along the Talkeetna Foothills (Segment 9-20.6
miles) it also has limited access. The two lines share
the same ROW starting at Willow for 6.4 miles (Segment
2) before splitting.
Engineering and line construction aspects will not
present special problems. However, five major
river/floodplain crossings in Segment 15 of North Palmer
route and foundations for
areas in Little Susitna
considerations. Winter
quite extensive wet/swampy
route will require careful
and helicopter assisted
construction is anticipated for some areas.
o Alternative G: Little Susitna -South Wasilla
410052/5
The Little Susitna route of this split alternative is
discussed under Alternative B, and the South Wasilla
route is discussed under Alternative E above.
5-15
.
' .!
\\ ;
lbe overall access to the lines is somewhat better than
in Alternative F because the South Wasilla route is
accessible along its total length. The two lines share
the same ROW for 20.4 miles starting at Willow Sub-
station (Segments 2, 3 and 6) b~fore splitting. Engi-
neering and line construction aspects are considered to
be quite similar to those of Alternative F above, since
Segment 15 with major river crossings is also a part of
the South Wasilla rvute, and the rest of the route is
little different from other sections of Alternative F.
o Alternative H: MEA/CEA -North Palmer
410052/5
One leg of this split alternative, the MEA/CEA route is
discussed under Alternative C and the other, the North
Palmer route, under Alternative D above. Starting at
Willow the two lines share the same ROW for 6.4 miles
(Segment 2) before splitting.
The to MEA/CEA route .
l.S considered to be access
adequate; however, the part of North Palmer route along
the Talkeetna Foothills (segment 9-20.6 miles) has
li~ited access.
Engineering and line construction aspects are similar to
Alternative F above with the only difference that
~et/swampy areas crossed are less extensive than in the
Little Susitna Alternative. However, MEA/CEA route
crosses Bay Goose tidal marshes with little or no access
and winter and helicopter assisted construction is
anticipated.
5-16
i
• \__,_ '
~--
0
I: MEA/CEA -South Wasilla
One leg of this split alte·rnative, the MEA/CEA route is
-discussed under Alternative C and the South Wasilla
route is discussed under Alternative E above. Starting
at Willow, the two lines shares the same ROW for a total
length of 20.4 miles (Segments 2, 3 and 6).
The South Wasilla route crosses developed areas and,
therefore, has the major advantage of being accessible
for all its length through existing roads. The line
routes of this alternative, as a whol'e, are the most
accessible, compared to all other alternatives. Easy
access for maintenance makes this alternative very
reliable.
Engineering aspects of line construction are similar to
Alternative H above.
5.4 NORTH STUDY AREA
HEALY TO ANDERSON
o Alternative A: FERC Route
410052/5
Segments 1, 2, 5, 8, 9 -Total Length 42.6 Miles
The beginning of the route, which includes one mile of
mountainous terrain and crossing of the Nanana River and
Alaska Railroad, will require special attention because tall
structures and special foundations will be required. After
the river crossing, the route parallels the GVEA 138 kV line • .
The terrain is rolling to flat topography. Although the
route crosses several creeks and streams, no problems are
visualized. Tile route crosses the river and railroad once
more as well as 138 kV GVEA line in Section 5 over flat
5-17
i '
' I
. -~
'~ .~
0
.. tj~#~ll•.,.. Tbia will require the use of tall structures and
~·· ." ' . . , <.f-bab.lJ-long spans. '!'he following 3 miles, the route is in
,..:-4".,..;_ ...... ·JiOUDtainoua terrain with line located on slopes. This
.-~ ~: --
sec"tion is not considered to be a problem because of the
gradual rise in elevation from 1000 to 1500 feet.
Wetlands are crossed in Section 9. Regular spans of
1100-1200 feet and conventional construction is visualized
for the entire section from Healy to Anderson. The accessi-
bility for construction is evaluated for 80% of the total
route because of the proximity to the Parks Highway, existing
ferries for river crossing, and relatively flat terrain for
the most part where access roads can easily be develop o
Wetland areas crossed by the route are in Segment 8 and
mostly 9, and around river crossings. Helicopter assisted
construction and material delivery should be considered in
these areas.
Alternative: Healy
Segments 1, 3, 7) 9
The beginning of
East Option '
Total Length 41.5 Miles
the route follows the foothill slopes
along the Nenana River to Liqunite Creek for about 3 miles.
After crossing the creek, the routes continues directly over
mountainous terrain approximately 20 miles with elevations
from 1200 to 2000 feet. Although this section eliminates two
river crossings it introduces less desirable mountain route
segments with potential engineering, construction and
maintenance problems. Access is poor and the possibility
exists for slides and avalanches.
Based upon a study of topographical maps and technical evalu-
ation, 4.5 miles of this route is considered to be difficult.
Special structures and foudations may be required o Because
Segment 9 is less accessible due to wetlands as discussed
41005~/5 5-18
uaier Alter~~tive ~ above! and co~bined with Se~~ots 3 and
...:·.: ··~,.-."~~~, A .... ,i_.;·'~kdt~· the Healy-Anderson option ro!!te mush less reliable
·. .... ':'" -~ ~
~""" ...... ,::;: .. th~a the FERC Alternative. 'lberefore, this alternstive
di-...... -t-d ----·--a~=t= East es1pa e_ as tn~ .ea_y
a technical standpoint.
Option, is leas attractive from
o Altern.a.t:ive 1}: GVEA Parallel
Segments 1, z, iOS -Tot:al Length 45.,3 Miles
AlteTnative B differs f~om the FERC Alternative after Segment
2, and follows tb~ GVEA 138 kV line. Two additional
crossings of ffie P~rit~ It~gnw~Y ~re i."~quired as well as
crossing of the Nenana River and Alaska Railroad, the same as
in the FERC route. The tapography is generally the same as
the FERC Alternative. Regular 1ioo·foot spans are visualized
for this route. Technical problems due to tower spotting in
congested areas can be expgcted. The major advantage of this
alternative is eomplete access to the route due to close
proximity to the highway and GvEA 138 kV line. Because the
compared to the FERC
Alternative is counte~bal~nc~d by t;ne need for a~ditional
highw,ay and potential
tow~~ spotting problems, this alternative is less desirable
than Alternative A from a technical standpoint.
ANDERSON TO LITTLE GOLDSTF-RA}I{
o Alternative C: FERC Route
410052/5
Segments 12, 15, 17 -Total Length 20.5 Miles
Segment 12 of ·the route, although it parallels the Parks
Highway within distances of one to 3. 5 miles, is considered
not accessible. This assessment is due to wet soil with
standing water and numerous stream crossings. Construction
will be a problem due to poor soil and limited access. The
5·-19
' " ..
~
'""-,
-~
>•"" ~~--~.,..._.,.,--, ,----~-"-·---!-...-.. ... ~-~-__,.-"~..--.~~-·-"<-··---···-··--__,_ __ _......,..,_.,. -~--~~···--··-·~
,~~.;:" !lana· · aiyer crossing is expected to be made by the
. -~.;;.w •• >:·
, ·•.:.:~--sc.turea· placed on islands. Protection of the structures
. ,' ":,~~-flood· and ice will be a problem. Winter construction of
~;,·;~::-'-~
tlita 'section should be considered. Segment 17 is rout;.C\d
through a valley with mountainous terrain and elevations
climbing to 800 feet. "nle profiles are not considered too
steep to be a problem. Regular structures of 1000-1200 foot
spans appear satisfactory. 'Ibis segment is considered as not
accessible, therefore the reliability is rated as low.
o Alternative D: GVEA Parallel
Segments ION, 14, 18-Total Length 24.7 Miles
Because the route follows the highway closely, accessibility
is good for most of the length. Difficult construe tion is
likely to be encountered around Nenana Village and the Tanana
River crossing. This is a congested area limited by
mountainous terrain on one side and river on the other side.
The area is shared by the Parks Highway~ railroad, and GVEA .
line. Crossing of highway, railroad, and GVEA line 1S
anticipated. The route to Goldstream is considered to be
fully accessible. Regular construction is envisioned.
Depending upon the final line routing, another crossing of
GVEA line may be required. Alternative D, the GVEA Parallel
route is the most reliable and should be the easiest to con-
struct. This alternative may be preferred if the engineering
of the route around Nenana Village can be satisfactorily
resolved.
LITTLE GOLDS~~ TO ESTER
o Alternative E: FERC Route
410052/5
Segments 20, 22, 25 -Total Length 31.1 Miles
The line route parallels the existing GVEA 138 kV line and
Fairbanks -Nenana Road 1 to 1.5 miles away and c+osses the
5-20
twice •. The line route is considered accessible for moat
~ . ,.·~ ........ t~>ien&th. Tbe route crosses 110untainous terrain and is
·---t~d '·c,;; forested slopes with ~levations ranging from 500
to~a lUximum of 1300 feet. Topography is basically rolling,
crossing streams, ~alleys, and slopes up to 15%. Wetlands
are located near the streams. Line construction is expected
to be average in this section. Accessibility is evaluated as
good. Regular construction using 1000 to 1200 span struc-
tures is envisioned. Difficult areas are associated with
road, GVEA line and ridge crossings. The line sector is con-
sidered to be reliable and moderately difficult to construct
with not all sites accessibleo
o Alternative F: Goldstream Valley
Segments 6, 19, 24 -Total Length 38.0 Miles
The topography of the entire route is mountainous with char-
acteristics which are similar to Alternate E: FERC.
Initially, the route crosses the GVEA line and Fairbanks--
Nenana Road. The route is located in Goldstream Creek Valley
on the northern slopes of the ridge. It parallels the Alaska
Railroad but is screened from it by Goldstream Creek. The
route, except the portion close to Fairbanks, is consid~red
as not accessible.
. requ1re development of It may
construction roads or utilize helicopter construction. The
route ct-osses elevations from 500 to 900 feet and at lower
elevations it crosses wetlands. The line is longer there
than Alternative E and the route is considered marginal •
. ANDERSON TO WAINWRIGHT
o Alternative G: Tanana Flats
410052/5
Segments 11, 27 -Totgl Length 49.1 Miles
The areas traversed by Segments 11 and 27 are flat terrain
with standing water in many locations. lbe basic technical
5-21
~-.
. -
'' ' '
... -.... ~,~-:c:.:••ics have severe limitations to off-road traffic
a\iliiller .:because of wet soils and lack of roads. '11le route
' '.~ ,-~-
•ated aa not accessible. Construction and maintenance
w£il be troublesome due to wet soils and numerous rivers and
streams. The area is underlined by continuous permafrost and
technical difficulties are anticipated with foundation engi-
nee~ing and construction. Extensive soil exploration will be
required. Regular spans of about 1100 feet are anticipated,
however an economic span length should be determined. Winter
and helicopter assisted construction and material delivery is
essential and should be expected. Two miles southwest of
Fort Wainwright Substation, the route crosses the Tanana
River which includes a floodplain and several river channels.
This area is characterized by wetlands with standing water.
Tall structures, long spans and deep pile foundations will be
required. In addition, the structures will be subject to
dynamic loads from ice and debris carried by the river.
Engineering and construction problems associated with this
crossing are rated as difficult. In comparison to other
alternatives, this one is considered to be the least
desirable and is rated low from the standpoint of
reliability.
o Alternative H: Tanana Ridge
410052/5
Segments 12, 16, 26, and 27 -Total Length 54.7 miles
This alternative diverges from the original FERC Alternative
at a point south of the Tanana River and before crossing
it. After the river crossing, which is approximately 3/4
mile wide, the route runs along the southern slopes of a
mountain ridge and eventually crosses it at about 700 foot
elevation. The route crosses the Tanana River (consisting of
two channels) once more and converges with -Segment 27 which
is the same as in Alternative G.
5-22
...
0
~-
.:t"A'·· " ;}. !.',·
<'. ··~".·;, pa.r,t ;~l· 110untain terrain transversed by the route baa
• -·· ."1 ~~~.r. t:~~·~ tbposraphy with slopes no more than 15 percent. No
'~u.i..t-adou& area is expected. Three crossings of the Tanana
River are required in this alternative to reach Fort Wain-
wright Substation. All of the crossings are considered to be
difficult from both a technical and construction point of
view as described under Alternative G. Spans of 800 to 1200
feet depending on terrain are envisioned. The main tanana
River channels are crossed by spans up to 1600 feet.
The route is rated as not readily accessible for its entire
length, although in aome part it parallels the GVEA line at a
distance of 1 to 1-1/2 miles. Three Tanana River crossings
are required which makes this alternative not desirable from
a reliability viewpoint. This alternative is not recom-
mended.
Alternative I: Segment 28 -8.8 Miles
Segment 28 is a connection between Estel' Substation and Fort
Wainwright Substation. The line is routed in some part
through the Fairbanks metropolitan artea which is considered
to be a difficult area. The routing has not been studied in
detail. The route, as indicated, will require special
construction around the airport area. A double circuit pole
line with an 800 feet average span was assumed for the
metropolitan area. Technical and construction problems are
evaluated as moderate because of congested ROW and· Chena
River crossing. The segment is considered to be reliable.
This alternative approach to Wainwright Substation is
recommended over Alternatives G and H from a technical
standpoint.
410052/5 5-23
TABLES
. . ..
~ f
1
\(
fl)
•
TABLE 5-l
SOUTH STUDY AREA ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
l'ECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC SUMMARY .
NORTH PALMER OPTIONS PARALLEL ALTERNA'!IVES SPLIT ALTERNATIVES
ALTERNATIVES OPT OPT OPT A B c D E F
1 2 3 l?ERC LITTLE MEA/CEA FERC-FERC-LITTLE
su NORTH SOUTH SU/SOU'fH
PALMER vlASILLA PALMER
TECHNICAL FACTORS
Line Length (Ckt Mi) 28.8 21.5 15.5 65 .3x2~ 59. 6x2 63.5x2 139.4 140.3 133.3
Accessibility (}li) 25 .o !8.5 11}.0 24.2 34.6 61.5 77.7 95.4 ·92. 7
Parallel ROW (Mi) 4.0 4.0 --24.2 34.6 61.5 30.6 44.2 34.6
River & Stream Xings Ufo) 25.0 25.0 11.0 11.0 12.0 18.0 29.0 42.0 31.0
Wetland/Swampy Areas (Mi) 3.0 3.5 3.0 26.0 17 .o 12~0 33.5 3L5 24.5
Problem ~ Difficult Areas (Mi) 5.0 5.5 3.0 ------6.0 6.5 6.0
X-Frame Structures (#)140.0 100.0 75.0 480.0 lr30 .0 465.0 540.0 545.0 510.0
Pole Structures (#) 75.0 75.0 iS .0 75.0 75.0 75.0
~~' Hwy & Power Line Xings (Mi) 5.0 5.0 5.0 1.0 8.0 8.0 18.0 21.0 22.0
Submarine Cable Link (Mi) -----3.5x2 3.5x2 3.5x2 3.5 3.5 3.5
ECONOMIC FACTORS INSTALLED COST ($xl0 6)
Regular Construction ------20.30 23.02 30.33 32.35 30.78 33.79
Wet/Swampy Areas -----26.73 17.48 12.34 18.26 20.44 13.35
Problems & Difficult Areas -----------4.58 4.96 4.58
Pole Ser:.::-cmt -----10.42 10.42 10.42 10.42 10.42 10.42
Submarine Cable Link ------69.10 69.10 69.10 38.60 38.60 38.60
Land Acquisition -----2.92 2.92 4.95 9.04 13.40 9.04
TOTAL 129.50 122.90 127.10 113.30 118.60 109.80
FOOTNOTES:
Notes: 1. Double circuit pol•e structures in Segment 19 (11.1 circuit miles) are common for all alternatives.
2. Alternatives F & H were developed using Option 3 •
G
LITTLE
SU/SOUTH
WASILLA
134.6
110.4
44.5
44.0
28.5
6.5
520.0
75.0
23.0
3.5
32.22
15.53
4.96
10.42
38.60
13.40
115.10
H I
Wl.A/ CBA MEA/ CBA
NORTH SOUTH
PALMER WASILLA
137.6 138.5
114.7 132.4
61.5 61.5
37.0 40.0
19.5 23.5
6.5 7.0
530.0 540.0
75.0 75.0
22.0 23.0
3.5 3.5
37.45 35.88
10.63 12.81
4.96 5.34
10.42 10.42
38.60 38,,60
11.60 15.90
113.70 119.00
-~~ ' t:$1@lWil'+ !*"*" iliij& ···~':"'¢~1Jt.::<""'!'"'' ' ------~ --. · r cac:z::W.II!t · · · ,.· · ,·, . . . . . ,,.,.
TABLE 5-2
NORTH STUDY AREA ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION ~ .
TECHNICAL .AND ECONOMIC SUMMARY
"!
() ANDERSON TO .LITTLE LITTLE GOLDSTREAM ANDERSON TO WAINWRIGHT
ALTERNATIVES HEALY TO ANDERSON GOLDSTREAM TO ESTER SUB. SUBSTATION
A B c D E F G H I
EAST GOLD TANANA TANANA SEG!oiENT
FERC OPTION GVEA FERC GVEA FERC STREAM BRIDGE FLATS 28
TECHNICAL FACTORS
Line Length (Mi) 42.6x2 41.5x2 45.3x2 20.5x2 24. 7x2 31.bc2 38.0x2 49.1x2 54. 7x2 8.8x2
Accessibility (Mi) 38.0 25.0 45.3 2.0 24.7 22.0 15.0 2.0 2.0 8.8
Parallel ROW (Mi) 9.5 0 45.3 0 24.7 21.0 3.0 0 0 0
River & Stream Xings (4F) 22.0 21.0 15.0 16.0 8.0 22.0 24.0 25.0 34.0 7.0
Wetland/Swampy Areas (Mi) 5.5 3.5 4.0 4.0 2.0 0 0 12.5 20.0 0
Problem & Difficult Areas (Mi) 3.5 4.5 3.5 2.5 4.0 3.0 4.5 8.0 2.0 3.5
Number of Structures (#) 405.0 395.0 430.0 195.0 235.0 295.0 360.0 470.0 520.0 60.0
RR,Hwy & Power Line Xings (#) 4.0 3.0 8.0 -10.0 6.0
ECONOMIC FACTORS
INSTALLED COST ($x10 6 )
Regular Construction 21.10 21.04 23.74 8.79 11.74 17.65 21.04 17.96 20.54 6.90
Wet/Swampy Areas 4.44 2.82 3.23 3.61 1.61 --10.09 16.14
Problems & Difficulties 3.85 4.95 3.85 2. 75 4.40 3.30 4.95 8.80 2.20
t» Land Acquisition 0.68 0.66 0.73 0.33 0.40 0.50 2.30 0.79 0 0.45
TOTAL 30.10 29.50 31.60 15.50 18.20 21.50 28.30 37.60 38.90 7.40
r
-
.. ..
"~ .·w·~• ~ .. a • ad&j!JXI._.*"*",.. .. ' a"" , ......,.._ ~·:. .. ~~-: -s&_ . .. "··
6.0 ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
11
6.0 ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
6.1 GENERAL APPROACH
Table H-2 in Appendix H entitled "Transmission Line -Cost per Mile",
revised November 30, 1983 is the basis for all cost. estimates. The
cost data for the x-frame, single circuit overhead transmission lines
were arrived at by averaging the bid prices of the three lowest bidders
on the Intertie Project~ This estimated cost was adjusted for all
other overhead transmission line estimates. The cost data for the
submarine cable was estimated based upon the actual installed cost of a
230 kV installation under Knik Arm in 1981, at the same location as the
proposed Susitna submarine cable crossings~
The costs of land acquisition was obtained from two letter type reports
from Land Field Services, one for the South Study Area and one for the
North Study Area. The land acquisition cost shown in the Land Field
Services reports are included in Appendix G. The direct cost repre-
sents the payment to land owners and the indirect cost represents the
payment for title work, surveying, application preparation, appraisal
and eminent domain procedures. The third item included in each of the
Land Field Services report is their recommendations on alternative
corridors from a land acquisition perspective. Adjustments had to be
made in the land acquisition costs to account for the differences in
right-of-way widths used by Land Field Services and those actually
required. The right-of-way widths required are shown on page E-6 of
Appendix E. The cost of access roads was not evaluated because of
insufficient data but should be included in the final evaluation.
Appendix H includes a Summary of Susitna Transmission System Costs for
the FERC License Application Scheme. This summary is shown as Table
H-1 dated October 29, 1983. A modified version of Table H-1 will have
to be prepared to include potential transmission line refinements as
discussed in Volume Two, Appendix F. This needs to be incorporated
into FERC Exhibit .B, Table B-37.
410052/6 6-1
' •..
6.2 ECONOMIC CRITERIA
The economic factors are shown at the bottom of Tables 5-l and 5-2.
The basic economic evaluation factor
Construction". Adjustment factors were
was designated "Regular
applied to differentiate
between regular construction costs and cons truc.tion costs for
wet/swampy areas as well as problem and difficult areas.
The costs for all alternates were obtained starting from the base costs
shown in Appendix H, Table H-2 and then modified to reflect probable
variationso The variation factor were basically related to the
construction portion of the cost. The total cost of different designs
reflects material costs as well" Included under the "Problem &
Difficult Areas 11 heading are river, road, railroad and power line
crossings as well as congested ROW's and rough mountain terrain.
6.3 FACTORS CONSIDERED AND SIGNIFICANCE
During the latter part of August, 1983 a potential list of transmission
sys tern refinements were identified. To coordinate with other Susi tna
Project work these potential refinements were designated as Category I
and Category II refinements. The Category I refinements were those
where sufficient work had been done so that they could be incorporated
int -~ the FERC licensing process. There was only one Category I
refinement for the transmission system, it was designated as CIT and
c-overed the proposed change in transmission system voltage from 345 kV
to 230 kV from Gold Creek to Fairbankso
In addition to one Category I refinement, five Category II refinements
were identified. Tne definition of Category II refinements were those
which required further study before it could be determined whether or
not they could be incorporated into the FERC licensing process. These
were designated as C2Tl, C2T2, C2T3, C2T4 and C2T5. A complete des-
cription and cost evaluation of these potential transmission refine-
ments are included in Appendix F.
410052/6 6-2
6.4 SOUTH STUDY AREA
Recognition of the significant cost items in the Susitna Transmission
System is an important consideration. As previously indicated, the
estimated installed cost for the submarine cables under Knik Arm are in
the order of 100 million doll&rs. This item requires. thorough rev1.ew
and analysis from several viewpoints. First, if an alternate route
around Knik Arm is obtained and if the Anchorage area load forecast 1.s
in the range of the Department of Revenue (DOR) Mean, it may be
possible to defer the installation of submarine cables under Knik Arm
until the late 1990's. If the proposed Knik Arm bridge were constructd
1.n the late 1990's, it would be advisable to support the Sus tina
Transmission System cables from the Knik Arm bridge instead of
installing them underwater.
If the submarine cables are required with the initial Watana installa-
tion, it may be desirable to design them for the maximum capability and
plan for an arrangement which allows switching of the spare cable to
any of the permanent positions. This may permit installation of 7
cables (2 circuits plus a spare) instead of 3 circuits. In addition, a
complete analysis needs to be made of how the cables are to be
installed in order to optimize the cost.
6.5 NORTH STUDY AREA
The alternative transmission line routes to Ester Substation presertts
no significant cost variation from that shown in the FERC license
application. However, terminating the transmission lines at Fort
Wainwright needs to be evaluated against the cost of routing
transmission lines from Ester Substation to Fort Wainwright. Another
possibility to be reviewed would be to deliver Susitna Power directly
to the Chena Plant in Fairbanks. Because of time and budget restraints
these possibilities were not studied to a conclusion.
410052/6 6-3
J11f'~lt~·---·~---~--~-=:·--·-----··-······~ ·---·-········· .. ~-. ·-· ·--· .. ··;: .......... _ .... -......... -· ........................... ~ .............. , .... .---.--.............. __________ ~-.................. _. ____ ..... " .. '"-····· ........... -............ .
~, I: .~,, . .,.l'ffi!Y ~~ .
7. 0 EHVIRONMKRTAL CORSIDERATIORS
7.0 EHVIKOHMEITAL CONSIDEIATIONS
7.1 GENERAL APPROACH
Alternative transmission line corridors were identified us1.ng the
general objectives and screening procedures described in Chapter 3.
More detailed environmental evaluations of these alternatives were then
carried out as described below.
A set of environmental resource categories, each subdivided into speci-
fic suitability criteria, was developed (Table 7-2). Next, data specJ.-
fic to the suitability criteria were then obtained for each of the
alternative corridor segments. Data sources consisted primarily of
secondary sources and included resurce maps for such parameters as
vegetation, habitat, land ownership, land use and topographic maps,
supplemented by published and unpublished literature and limited field
reconna1.ssance. Finally, the resultant data were tabulated for each
alternative in order to assess relative environmental suitability.
As a part of the selection process, resource categories and criteria
were assigned relative importance rankings vis ~ vis transmission line
corridor suitability. However, no formalized, numerical ranking on
importance weighing was done at this time. Rather, results of the
ranking and general importance weighing are refelected qualitatively in
the discussions of alternatives and recommendations.
The objectives of this environmental analysis were: to provide an
appropriate level of suitability evaluation for each of the selected
alternative corridors; to provide sufficient information on .
~nv1ron-
mental resource trade offs between the selected alternatives; to make
e uvironmental recommendations on preferred and/ or acceptable al terna-
tives, and to allow this environmental evaluation to be factored into
the final process of corridor selection.
410051/7 7-1
i , I
:i. ,.,
7. 2 SELECTION OF RESOURCE CATEGORIES A:Nll CRITERIA
7.2.1 Initial Selection
The initial selection of resource categories was based on those cate-
gor1es utilized in previous Susitna transmission line studies (Acres,
1982), FERC licensing regulations (18CFR 4.40; 4:41), consultations
with state and federal resource specialists (Appendix S), the pre-
viously established general objectives, and selected screening proce-
dures (Chapter 3). This list of categories is presented in Table 7-1.
Following selection of categories, a number were eliminated as unsuit-
able and/or unnecessary for the present level of detail for this study.
Reasons for elimination include:
1.
2.
3.
Category or criterion can only be meaningfully applied during
design when final alignments of transmission line within a
corridor are selected (see Historic/Archaeolcgy, below).
Inclusion of category or criterion would result in effec
tively double counting of a resource (i.e., inclusion of both
specific types of habitats and total vegetation lost as
criteria).
Inclusion of a category or criterion would
meaningful discrimination be tween al terna ti ves
economics, below).
provide no
(see Socio-
7.2.2 Final Selection
A final list of categories and criteria as utilized in this analysis is
given in Table 7-2. Section 7. 3 discusses these resource categories
410051/7 7-2
).
(.
t
f
f·
f i . l
,j.
and criteria in detail while those eliminated from the study 7 along
with the rationale for their elimination, are briefly de~~ribed below ..
7.2.3 Resource Categories and Criteria Eliminated from the Evaluation
Process
o Geology and Soils
Geology and soils, as related to the potential for soil ero-
sion and mass movement due to hazards, has limited environ-
mental influence. The reasons are:
Tower construction is very localized and the "X"-
structure design minimizes ground disturbances;
Most construction will occur during winter, minimizing
potential for erosion;
Maintenance access will be minimal, reducing soil-
related impacts, and
Most structures and routes can be designed to avoid
hazards, (e.g., routing away from steep terrain or span-
ning avalanche zones).
Furthermore, both soils and topography were included in the
evaluation criteria applied in the technical analysis of the
alternatives (Chapter 5)! and topography as it pertains to
potential for erosion is utilized in fisheries so that inclu-
sion herein would be, in effect, double counting. Thus, the
entire category was eliminated.
o ~ater Use and Water Quality
410051/7
Water use and water quality, aside from that related to fish-
eries, was not considered to directly affect the route selec-
tion. None of the routing decisions would have any signifi-
cant effect on consumptive or nonsconsumptive water uses
7-3
,
'· ..
0
other than fisheries. Therefore, to avoid double counting,
this category was eliminated. Water quality as related to
fisheries is discussed in a subsequent section of this
chapter.
Socioeconomics
Socioeconomic parameters include demographic, economic
population, . and facilities and fiscal serv1.ces
characteristics. The impacts of transmission lines on these
factors relate more to construction in general than to the
route selection.
Socioeconomic factors were not ther~fore, important in the
selection of preferred cqrridors, althnugh general public
concerns regarding the transmission line locations are very
important. Those concerns are discussed in Appendix Ae
Agaifi, this entire category has been eliminated.
o Historic and Archaeological Resources
410051/7
Historic and archaeological resources tend to be site specJ.-
fic and localize, and routes can generally be refined during
design to avoid such sites. This factor, along with lack of
a detailed data base on occurrance of such sites make mean-
ingful differen ;iation between alternatives impractical at
present. Although not particularly useful in dis1crimina ting
between alternatives at this level of detail, historic and
archaeological considerations are important, particularly in
terms of regulatory compliance.
Therefore, available data on high and moderate potential for
occurrance was inventoried by alternative and presented in
Tables 7-3 and 7=4, even though ~e category, in general, was
not fully evaluated.
7-4
"
0 Recreational Resources
Recreational resources were not considered as a separate
resource category in this evaluation. Impacts to recrea-
tional opportunities which might be associated with the pro-
posed corridors relate specifically to the issue of access
and the opportunities for increased use of areas for recrea-
tion. Such opportunities will exist in some degree for all
the alternatives.
However, the more significant aspect of this increased access
issue is the effect increased use may have on wildlife and
fisheries resources. For this reason, recreational resources
were not considered as a separate category, but the
significant issue is subsumed under land use, terrestrial
resources, and fisheries.
7.3 RESOURCE CATEGORIES AND CRITERIA CONSIDERED IN DETAIL
7.3.1 Terrestrial Resources
Potential impacts to botanical and wildlife resources had a primary
influence on alternative selection. Botanical resources were consi-
dered important primarily because of their interrelationship with other
resource categories. Vegetation, a major component of wildlife habi-
tat, also has a primary influence on visual impacts, and affects con-
struction costs and accessibilityo
Wildlife resources were considex-ed as very important in transmission
line routing. Modification of h~bitat, disturbance of specific
species, avian collision mortality, and access into relatively inac-
cessible areas were all coneidered as important routing criteria.
The specific terrestrial evaluation criteria selected for this analysis
were:
t~l0051/7 7 .. 1:.
-..;o
·-.---.. c:· •••••--·.·-M«•• ,.,,,, ___ ,,_,~-·•-••·•~-"''''''" •••
. ",;:·'~ : i\ ,.
"" c "' "''''
•• 0
410051/7
,. ~-~:::· .t •'
Wetlands
Wetlands are biologically productive habitats which are sus-
ceptible to damage from vehicles, filling for road or con-
s true tion pad development, and sedimentation (USFWS, 19 79).
Development in wetlands is subject to environmental
regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. In
interior Alaska,
rich permafrost.
cause thawing,
erosion, and
wetlands are generally underlain by 1ce-
Disruption of this insulating layer may
followed by slumping, ponding, thermal
severe habitat changes (Pewe', 1982)o
Most of the proposed transmission line corridor lies within
the zone of discontimJous permafrost. However, it is
anticipated that the frequency at which permafrost will be
encountered will be greater between Healy and Fairbanks.
The occurrence of permafrost and the thaw stability of the
i~e rich soil is largely dependent on soil type. Of
particular concern . 1n the Tanana River lowlands is the
presence of ice rich organic silt which generally becomes
unstable upon thawing.
For these reasons, avoidance of wetlands is highly desirable
in routing of transmission line corridors. Therefore, acres
of wetlands within the rights-of-way of each alternative
were calculated from vegetation and wetland maps (Appendix S
Environmental Inventory Support Data), and used as a
specific criterion against which corridor suitability was
judged. No differentiation was made based on the size of
individual wetlands or wetland complexes. Future, more
detailed assessments of the preferred corridors may require
such differentiatio.n, however, as small, s_9attered wetland
parcels can be easily avoided or spanned in final alignment,
while extensive wetland complexes are difficult or impossible
to avoid.
7-6
•
0
,.
Forest Habitat
Acres of forest habitat within the rights-of-way was used as
an evaluation criterion because, in a well-constructed trans-
mission line, the most extensive unavoidable habitat modifi-
cation impact is removal of forest habitat. As one type of
native vegetation replaces another on most ··of the right-of-
way (ROW), loss of total habitat is minimized. However,
habitat for forest birds and mammals is lost, while there is
a habitat gain for species such as moose which use early
successional stages and edge habitats. Routing through areas
of earlier successional stages and/or nonforested areas has
less se.vere habitat modification-related impacts because the
areas will require little to no cutting of vegetation. In
addition,. the early successional-adapted animal communities
that exist 1n these areas at present would not be greatly
impacted by Row-related habitat modifications •
New Corridor Access
410051/7
The number of miles of new corridor associated with each
alternative was considered as one of the most important ter-
restrial resources evaluation criteria. New corridors maxi-
mize habitat modification and, more importantly, create new
access routes into relatively inac cess ib le areas for
four-wheel drive and all-terrain vehicles, as well as snow
machines. This increased access may result in higher
hunting, poaching, and trapping pressure, (greater potential
for damage to wetlands and upland vegetation due to erosion
and sedimentation), and a greater level of harassment and
general disturbance of wildlife. A major concern of both the
Alaska Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service is that the Susitna transmission lines be
confined as much as possible to existing utility or
7-7
i •
•
transportation corridors (Appendix M). In addition to the
length of new corridor associated with each alternative, the
existing accessibility of new corridor areas was also
considered in a qualitative sense. A new corridor through an
area near existing development or existing access would have
less impact than one through an area distaQt from existing
developments or points of access.
o Bird Collision Potential
Bird collisions with transmission lines is a problem that has
been studied in many areas outside Alaska (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 1978). The conclusion of these studies
generally is that bird collisi9n mortalities occur, but the
numbers involved are not biologically significant. However,
exceptions do occur and waterfowl, other aquatic birds and
raptors are often found to be particularly susceptible •
Therefore, it was considered desirable t.o avoid waterbird
concentration areas to the extent practical with the trans--
mission liue routes.
o Raptor and Swan Nest Sites
410051/7
Bald eagle, peregrine falcon, and trumpeter swan nest sites
were considered as areas to avoid with transmission line
routing. Interference with nest sites
alternatives can be reduced somewhat
right-of-way centerline.
along the proposed
by modifying the
Other factors, such as the presence of moose calving areas,
bear denning areas, and high quality furbearer habitat were
also considered. However, consid,eration of acres of wet
lands, acres of forest habitat, and miles of new corridor as
evaluation criteria accounts for these factors to a large
extent.
7-8
' ·; "\'-~:f't·? .~; "7-·~'
• l ; "' "' ~ ,., ·,..
' ..... i..t'' -;. . " . . ~ .,. '::: ~ >
·-
•
7.3.2 Fisheries Resources
Fisheries resources in the study area include both the salmonid spec1.es
(salmon, trout and char) which have significant sport and commercial
value, as well as other species such as grayling and burbot.
Both direct and indirect impacts to these resources could occur along
any of thf! alternative corridors. Direct impacts would result from
adverse changes in w;.tter quality due to erosion, increased turbidity
and disturbance of streambeds. Indirect effects could include
increased public access and increased fishing.
With proper mitigation fisheriee impacts related to transmission line
construction would be very limited. Relative comparisons of the alter-
natives considered the potential for impact and known information on
aquatic resources •
Fisheries criteria for evaluation of the alternative corridors were!
o Number of streams or r1.vers crossed
The higher the number of crossings the higher the potential
for aquatic impacts. Although mitigative measures can pre-
vent or reduce impacts, each stream crossing presents a risk
to the aquatic resources in the vicinity of the crossing.
o Potential for accesg to inaccessible fishing areas
410051/7
Increased access by fishermen to otherwise inaccessible
fishing areas will impact some fish populations. Less risk
7-9
•
• ' i '\,,_., .. '
G
for increased fishing pressure is associated with those
alternative routes which have smaller proportions of new cor-
ridor length versus those with large proportions of new cor-
ridor length.
o Potential for increased eros1.on into streams·.
During construction, disturbance of vegetation and other
excavation will increase the potential for erosion. The con-
tribution of suspended sediments due to erosion could affect
the water quality of streams and, therefore, impact fish hab-
itats. Relatively more disturbance of soils is associated
with new-corridors than with existing corridors because with
new corridors, additional soil disturbance will occur due to
the need for access roads. Existing access may be used along
existing corridors, thereby minimizing the potential for
increased erosion and contribution of suspended sediments in
the streams. Therefore, less risk for impact to fish habitat
1.s associated with smaller proportion of new corridor
relative to the total corridor length.
o Type of terrain
Runoff potential and resulting eros1.on increases on steeper
slopes. Steeper slopes are assumed to present a higher risk
for impact than level terrain.
o Length of stream paralleled
410051/7
If a proposed line closely parallels or crosses a stream,
there is increased potential for erosion. Therefor~, it was
assumed that the risk of impact increases as the distance
betY!Teen the corridor and a stream decreases. It was also
assumed that the risk . 1.ncreases as the distance ~arallel
to a stream increases •
7-10
' •
••
··,
0 Presence of anadromous fish species
Alternative corridors that cross or parallel streams which
are inhabited by adult or juvenile anadromous fish species
are con~;idered to be more important than streams which are
not inhabited by anadromous fish species, (Resident fish such
as rainbow trout and grayling are also very ~mportant in many
of the streams. However, because little or no information 1.s
available on the resident species in many of the streams, it
was assumed that all streams have resident fish). Primary
emphasis in this evaluation however, is placed on anadromous
species because of their high connnercial and sport value.
Three categories of streams were considered, based on the
available data. These are those streams known to be
inhabitated by anadromous . spec1.es, those known not to be
inhabited by anadromous . spec1.es, and those for which the
presense of anadromous species has not been determined •
Alternative corridors
anadromous . spec1.es were
which could potentially affect
assum~d to be less suitable than
those which affected streams either not inhabited by
anadromous species or the status is currently not known.
7.3.3 Land Ownership
Certain types of ownership, such as native and private, generally pre-
sent more restrictions and higher acquisition costs than others. In
addition, private aad native landowners often object to transmission
lines on their property because they may limit future development and
usee Land use classifications used to evaluate potential land owner-
ship impacts include:
0 Private
0 Native
0 Borough/Municipal
0 Federal
0 State
410051/7 7-11
• The criterion used to evaluat€ land owners~dp impacts was:
o Mites crossed by ownership
The number of miles of transmission line corridor crossr1g
each land ownership classification was inventoried for each
altern 'iti ve corridor. Proposed or planned'--land conveyances
include state land becoming private, as with state land dis-
posals; ~ederal land transferring to state, as with the rail-
road; and sc~te vr federal land transferring to native owner-
ship (see maps).
7.3.4 Land Use
Land use considerations were of particular importance in the South
Study Area because of the extent of existing developments and rapid
growth occurring relative to other areas.
The criterion used to evaluate land use impacts was:
o Miles crossed by land use
410051/7
Land uses are important to corridor selection in terms of the
compatibility with neighboring uses. Existing and proposed
land uses were identified and alternative corridors evaluated
for compatibilityo Only existing land uses were inventoried,
planned or proposed uses were discussed qualitatively in
comparing the alternatives.
7-12
• The land use classifications utilized for this analysis
were:
Residential
Recreation/Wildlife
Agricultural
Commercial/Industrial
Public
Vacant
7.3.5 Aesthetic Resources
A~sthetic resources were important in comparLng alternative trans-
mission line corridors. The linear nature of the proposed line 1 s
design~ tower height and right-of-way clearing requirements can result
in visual impacts.
impacts evaluated ..
These areas were noted and the potential for
Specific criteria used in evaluating the c:.lter-
natives were scen~c quality, visual sensitivity and visual compata-~
bility. For additional detail see the Visual Resouce Assessment Report
done for this study (Jones and Jones, 1983).
o Visual Quality
410051/7
Visual quality 1s a measure of the inherent attractiveness of
a given landscape character type. Values generally range as
high, moderate or low and are classified based on a number of
visual characteristics (see Jones and Jones, October, 1983
and FERC License Application, Exhibit E, Chapter 8). In
general, the classification .
1S based on the premise that
those landscapes with the most variety or diversity have the
greatest potential for high scenic value.
7-13
0
•
•
410051/7
Visual Sensitivity
Viewer sensitivity is the level of awareness of different
viewer groups to the visual environment. Viewer response to
visual resource change is a function of viewer exposure to
the landscape and viewer sensitivity to its characteristics.
Project visibility or viewer exposure result~ from the number
of viewers, their location and distance from the project, the
topographic position of the viewpointJ the frequency of view,
and speed of viewer travel (Jones and Jones, 1983).
Viewers engaged in activities that requ1re visual amenity, or
that are enhanced by it such as recreational pursuits, will
be far more sensitive to visual impacts than persons involved
in activities that are unrelated to the visual quality of an
area.
The principal v1ewer groups in the project study are resl.-
dents, recreationists, and highway and railroad travelers.
Where possible, the numbers of people within each group was
estimated.
The visibility of the transmission lir::e and right-of-way
plays a major role in viewer sensitivity. If facility V1S1-
bility is reduced or blocked due to vegetation and topo-
graphic screening, viewer response to the landscape change
will be neutral. In addition 3 viewing distance is a key
parameter in determining visual impact. Earlier studies have
indicated that transmission facility prominence declines with
distance. At a distance beyond three miles, transmission
facility visibility is quite low for 345 k./ steel towers
(Jones and Jones, 1983)c
7-14
• 0 Visual Compat~~ility
The visual compatibility of a proposed transmission facility
is the degree to which the facility appears to blend into its
landscape setting, independent of the visual quality of that
setting. Landform and landcover (water, vegetation, and land
use) characteristics affect the ability of a-given setting to
visually absorb a transmission facility (Jones and Jones,
1983).
Visual compatibility also depends upon the characteristics of
the proposed transmission facility: tower design, color and
height, spacing, conductor sag, right-of-way width, and vege-
tation management within the right-of-way. The visual compa-
tibility of the proposed towers and right-of-way design with
combinations of these landscape elements was evaluated.
Details on the criteria used for evaluation ar~ described in
thP Visual Resource Report (Jones and Jones, 1983).
7.4 RANKING OF CATEGORIES AND CRITERIA
To aid in future resolution of conflicts between alternatives with
respect to resource categories and criteria, ranking of both resource
categories and the criteria within categories has been done by the
environmental study team. These rankings were developed based on: the
general levels of concern expressed by the public and agencies for the
var1ous resource values treated; Alaska Power Authority policies;
potential significance of specific impacts; and, presently perceived
likelihood of occurrence of impacts.. Rankings and the ratiol).ale used
in establishing them are briefly discussed below.
410051/7 7-15
fJ
,~:
II ' .
I '·,
• 7.4.1 Ranking by Resource Categorz
Amoung the resource categories, land ownership and land use were esta-
blished jointly as the most important factors to be considered in eval-
uating the alternative corrirlors. This reflects concerns expressed by
the public and by resource agency pe=sonnel regarding potential impacts
to private landowners, residential property, recreational areas and
wildlife refuges. It fyrthe= reflects Power Authority concerns, parti-
cularly in regard to avoiding routes through private and native owner-
ships and land conveyances due to the complicated and time-consuming
procedures involved in acquiring such land.
Terrestrial resources were ranked second in importance due primarily to
the relatively high likelihood of occurrence of terrestrial habitat
impacts and high potential for significance of impacts when compaLred to
the remaining two categories.
Aesthetic resources were ranked third in importancea Although of rela-
tively high significance, both in terms of public/ agency conc,ern and
potential for occurrence, aesthetic impacts are generally easier to
mitigate and less direct or irreversible than are land ownership and
vegetation/wildlife impacts~
Finally, fisheries resources were ranked fourth. Assuming appropriate
design and construction practices are followed, in consideration of
identified mitigation measured (FERC Susitna License Application,
Exhibit E, 1983), impacts to fisheries are considered to be the least
potentially significant and to have the relatively lowe:st likelihood
for occurrence.
410051/7 7-16
•
••• ·'
7.4.2 Rankings Within Categories
As presented below, the criteria within .each category are ranked in
order of highest importance (least suitable .for siting of a transmis-
sion line or highest potential for impact) to lowest importance (most
suitable or lowest impact potential).
o Land Ownership
0
410051/7
Criteria, in order of most to least important are as shown
below. This ordering is in keeping with Power Authority
policy and generally reflects differences in levels of diffi-
culty in procurement of rights-of-way by ownership:
Native/Private
Borough/Municipal
Federal
State
Land Use
Criteria rankings reflect differences in suitability/compati-
bility of transmission lines to existing uses. Thus, heavily
populated, developed residential land would be considered
least suitable while vacant or industrial lands would be con-
sidered most suitable ..
Residential
Recreation/wildlife
Public
The selected preliminary ranking
Agricultural
Commercial/Industrial
Vacant
7-17
.
~s:
0
•
410051/7
Terrestrial Resources
The most important criterion in evaluating the environmental
suitability of the various alternatives in terms of terres-
trial resources is miles of new corridor/access. In addition
to the fact that a completely new corridor development will
impact previously undisturbed habitat, the .o.pening up of new
areas to access can often result in secondary problems such
as increased hunting and poaching, habitat destruction, and
disturbance of sensitive wildlife species during critical
life cycle periods.
Wetlands,
wildlife,
because of their importance to many spec1.es of
fragile nature and special regulatory status are
ranked second among the terrestrial resource criteria.
Bird collision potential, and raptor and swan nest sites are
ranked equally below the two previously discussed critet"ia •
While either of these two could potentially be serious,
opportunities for minimization or avoidance of impacts
through careful final selection of alignments within a cor--
ridor is high.
Forest habitat is considered fifth most important criterion
in this category but close to the latter two in importance.
Thii:J is Jue to the previously discussed impacts to these
plant communi~ieso
7-18
,,,
.'~
•
•
0
'·'
Fisheries Resources
In considering the suitability of alternative transmission
line corridors from the perspective of potential effects to
fishery resources, the most important criteria are those with
the greatest risk of increased erosion. With this as the
main consideration, the proportion of corridor length, the
number of streams crossed, the types of terrain traversed,
and the length of streams paralleled in proximity to the
corridors were given equal and highest consideration.
The potential for increased fishing pressure due to increased
access to areas afforded by the corridors was given somewhat
less importance than the criteria associated with the poten-
tial for ir~creased erosion o This potential effect is asso-
ciated only with those areas for which new access to the
areas is anticipated. This was given somewhat less impor-
tance because this criterion is associated with only portions
of the alternatives 1 whereas, the potential for increased
erosion is associated with the entire length of all altet"-
native corridors.
o Aesthetic Resources
410051/7
The most importan'i:: aesthetic resource criterion is visual
sensitivity. This s·peGifically relates to viewer number~ and
vi ewe~ contact (facility -visibilit}i and "i/ie.wpoints). ::'he
magnitud-e :..£ the visual itnt-<2\:! t is dependent on the line (;e..:.ng
visible and on how many people v1.ew it. Other factors
related to visual sensitivity are the duration of view,
viewing position, and the activity people are engaged in.
7-19
•
•
Visual quality is considered second . importance closely :tn
behind visual sensitivity. Trade 1Jffs between moderate
levels of visual sensitivity and visual quality . often sub-1S
ject to discussion. Generally, the area of lower sensitivity
and visual quality is often subject to discussion. However,
the area of lower visual sensitivity gener~lly will be pre-
ferred.
Visual compatibility defined previously relates to how great
the potential for visual change may be. Thi5 ~elates to the
degree of significance of impact :-ather than t;he impact
itself, and ~~u cieen be mitigated. Therefcre, visu&l compa-
tibility was ranked third among the th;:o~e criteria.
7_~ 5 _ j~kY OF FINDINGS
The .J.~~rt;;"J number of alternative corridor segments and combination:s of
~€'\foments into alternative routes, along with the number of resource
categories and criteria against which these alternatives have been
ev.~luated, makes a comprehensive presentation of findings both volum-
inous and cumbersome to read. Therefore, detailed environmental
descriptions of each alternative route are presented as Appendix R to
this volume and the following summary describes only the major findings
of t:he environmental ev~luation of alternatives. Tables 7-3 and 7-4
present the tabulated results of the suitability criteria analysis as a
convenient reference for this summary. The alternatives and sections
referred to below have been described in Chapter 4.
410051/7 7-20
-
•
•
•
:;
7.5.1 South Study Alternatives
Land Ownership Comparison
o Parallel Alternatives
0
410051/7
The FERC route (Alternative A) crosses only 2.0 miles of
private land, compared to 5.1 miles and 11.5 miles for the
Little Susitna (Alternative B) and MEA/CEA routes (Alterna-
tive C), respectively. The FERC route does not cross native
lands, whereas the Little Susitna route crosses 2.6 miles of
n{ltive land, and the MEA/CEA route crosses 4.4 miles of
~""·=aj;j,ve lands. Given these relatively large diff(!renaes for
the most sensitive owp.ership categories, the preferred !Jar-
allel alternative from a land ownership pergpee~ive is the
FERC route (Alternative A).
North Palmer Options
The East Palmer Option crosses 8.5 more miles of private land
than the Trunk Road/Kepler Lakes Option, and 9. 6 more miles
than the Trunk Road/Glenn Highway Option. It also crosses
4.6 miles of native land, compared to the same figure for
Trunk Road/Kepler Lakes and 1. 3 miles for Trunk Road/Glenn
Highway. The East Palmer Option is clearly the least pre-
ferred route from a land ownership perspective based on
private/native lands as the least suitable land ownership
criteria.
In comparing land ownership between the other two North
Palmer Options, the Kepler Lakes route affects 1.1 miles more
of private land, 3.3 miles more of native iand, and 3.6 more
miles of highly developable borough land than the Glenn High-
way route • While some of the state land along the latter
7-21
•
•
(j
route is within the Palmer Hay Flats State Game Refuge, from
a land ownership perspective the Trunk Road/Glenn Highway
route is preferred due to the private and native land differ-
ential.
o ~pl it Alternativ~
Summaries of potential land ownership impacts for the six
split alternatives are listed in Table 7-3o The North
Palmer Option used for all land ownership comparisons was the
Trunk Road/Glenn Highway route which was judged to be the
preferable option. The FERC/North Palmer route (Alternative
D) crosses the least amount of private and native lands and
is therefore the preferred split alternative from a land own-
ership perspective.
o Parallel/Split Comparison
410051/7
Overall, the FERC Parallel route (Alternative A) is most
preferable. This alternative crosses 3.1 miles less private
land than the Little Susitna route (Alternative B), and
16.5 miles less private land tnan the FERC North/Palmer route
(Alternative D). The FERC Alternative does not cross any
native land, whereas the Little Susitna route crosses 2.6
miles of native land. The FERC/North Palmer route crosses
8.9 miles of native lands in total. Therefore, from a land
ownership perspective, the development of two parallel cir-
cuits along the FERC route is the preferred system alter-
native for the South Study Area.
7-22
•
.• ,
\ '
Land Use Comparison
o Parallel Alternatives
410051/7
The FERtD Alternative does not cross residential land but does
travers4~ recreational land (the Susitna Flats State Game
Refuge and Willow State Recreation Area), and agricultural
land (Point MacKenzie Agricultural Project). The MEA/CEI.
route (Alternative C) traverses some residential land and
some re!creational land (Goose Bay ftate Game Refuge). Th1~
Little Susitna Alternative also crosses residential ani
recreational land. These impacts, however, are peripheral
effects and are not considered as significant as if they were
crossed directly.
Of the three routes, the FERC route minimizes residential
effects while crossing the most recreational and agriculturill
lands. The Little Susitna route presents nearly the reverse
situation, wit.!:l the greatest residential effects, and minimum
effect on recreaticnal and agricultural lands. The MEA/CEA
route is essentially a compromise involving moderate resid€i:n-
tial and recreational effects and minimum agricultural
effects (see Table 7-3).
In the absence of known agency policy positions, the three
routes could be considered neJ,')r ly equal and uniformly accep ~
able from a land use perspective. There are existing oil and
gas explorations and the Enstar gas pipeline ~-oute on Susitna
Flats, as well as ex{sting transmission lines across both tte
Susitna Flats and Goose Bay Refuges. Based on the esta-
blished ranking fot.' this study, the FERC route should pro-
bably be regarded t.ts the preferr )d ~nik Arm alternative
because fLt impacts the least resid~ntal land. Some route
modifications nea~ Point MacKenzie might be required t'
reduce agriculturat and residental impacts.
7-23
••
• ·· .. .-'.'ft
o North. P~~mer,Options
The East Palmer Option crosses 2.3 more miles of residential
land than either the Trunk Road/Kepler Lakes Option or the
Trunk Road/Glenn Highway Option. For this reason, it was not
considered further, even though it crosses less agricultural
lands than the other two. The Kepler Lakes and Glenn High-
way Options are similar in land use except for the latter's
recreation/wildlife lands. The Glenn Highway Option crosses
r:>re of these than the Kepler Lakes Option (see Table 7-3).
Therefore, from a land use perspective, the Trunk Road/Kepler
Lakes Option is preferred.
o Split Alternatives
410051/7
The FERC/North Palmer Alternative, with the Kepler Lakes
Option, crosses less residential land than the FERC/South
Wasilla route, the next lowest with respect to residential
impacts. From the inventoried tabulations listed in Table
7-3, the MEA/CEA split alternattves (Alternative H and Alter-
native I) appear to be the best compromise if land uses were
considered equal in importance. However, based on the deter-
mination that residential land use is the most important
criteria, the FERC/North Palmer Alternative was selected as
the preferred split alternative. Future residential develop-
ment based on the rapid growth occurring in the Teeland and
Wasilla qreas was also a consideration in selecting the
FERC/North Palmer Alternat:ive •
7-'l.l+
il \\
•
0 Parallel/Split Comparison
Overall, there is little mileage difference within the
various parallel alternatives and within the split alterna-
tives making selections difficult. However, there is signi-
ficant difference between the parallel alternatives and the
split alternatives.
The North Palmer route affects 3.6 more miles of residential
land, and a small portion of commercial land and other public
land than the FERC route. The FERC route crosses more agri-
cultural and recreational land. While these factors are sig-
nificant, the mileage of existing and probable future resi-
dential developiP.ent along the North Palmer route in the
Wasilla-Palmer area and from Eklutna to Eagle River indicates
that this route would have an overall greater impact on land
uses •
Based primarily on the rationale of avoiding residential
lands, all three of the parallel alternatives would be pre-
ferred over the FERC/North Palmer split alternative.
Terrestrial Resources Comparison
o Parallel Alternatives
410051/7
The FERC Alternative includes about 900 acres of wetlands
within its ROW. The Little Susitna and MEA/CEA Alternatives,
because of their shorter lengths, have about half as much
wetland acreage. The acreage of altered forest habitat is
similar for the three alternatives.
7-25
""~•-'"""""-'"''"''"-"-·--·~.-....~··" ...... ~~-·~-,--·---~------------.. ""~~.~£.
~
••
•
The FERC Alternative creates 39 miles of new corridor~ while
the Little Susitna Alternative creates 23 miles, and the
MEA/CEA Alternative has only 4 miles. The new corridors
within the FERC and Little Susitna Alternatives pass through
areas and would increase access to these areas. The
MEAiChugach Alternative creates almost no new access.
All three alternatives traverse good waterfowl and other
water bird habitats. Collision potential is somewhat propor-
tional to the length of line that traverses wetlands. Also
the net increase in collision potential is higher where a new
corridor is established compared with placing a circuit
parallel to an existing onec The FERC Alternative includes
the greatest number of miles in both categories. However,
the MEA/CEA Alternative crosses, and the Little Susitna
borders, the Goose Bay Wildlife Refuge which contains
seasonal waterbird concentrations; this-area is avoided by
the FERC alternative.
The MEAiCEA Alternative clearly has the least potential for
terrestrial impacts because it crosses the smallest area of
wetlands and parallels existing corridors, limiting distur-
bance and access to less developed areas. Although it crosses
the Goose Bay Refuge, it parallels the 138 kV Chugach trans-
mission line in this segment minimizing the incremental col-
lision potential.
o North Palmer Options
410051/7
The acreage of wetlands is very similar in all three routes,
but the Trunk Road/Glenn Highway Option crosses valuable
palustrine emergent, riverine, and estuarine wetlands ~n
the Palmer Hay Flats Wild~ife Refl.,ge. Compared to the Trunk
Road/Glenn Highway Option, the East Palmer route has twice as
much altered forest habitat (466 vs. 225 acres) and total
vegetation acreage (593 vs 319) (Table 7-3). The Trunk
Road/Kepler Lakes Option is intermediate with 321 acres of
altered forest habitat and 443 acres of total vegetation.
7-26
•
•
• ;
410051/7
The North Palmer Option would create 25 miles of new cor-
ridor, the Trunk Road/Kepler Lake Option 18 miles, .:-!.nd the
Trunk Road/Glenn Highway Option only 10 miles. Since the
areas are developed, none of the options would produce a sig-
nificant increase in access. The Trunk Road/Glenn Highway
Option has a greater potential for bird collisions since it
crosses the Palmer Hay Flats Wildlife Refuge, an area of con-
centrated waterfowl use during migration.
The Trunk Road/Kepler Lakes Option is preferred because it
has less wetlands, forest habitat, and new corridor acreage
in the ROW than the East Palmer Option, and it avoids the
Palmer Hay Flats Wildlife Refuge and the more valuable wet-
lands crossed by the Truck Road/Glenn Highway Option. This
option will be used in comparison with overland Knik Arm
alternatives •
Split Alternatives
The extent of wetlands crossed by the split alternatives is
highest for the two corridor alternatives incorporating the
FERC route (659 and 753 acres). The alternatives with the
smallest amount of wetland acreages are the combinations of
t .1e Little Susitna or MEA/CEA routes with the North Palmer
corridor (413 and 368 acres). Acreage of forest habitat
within the ROW is highest for the split alternatives
including the North Palmer route (1769 to 1899 acres) and
lowest for those alternatives that include the South Wasilla
route (1515 to 1601 acres) •
7-27
G.,~
••
•
•
410051/7
Afternatives differ considerably in the lengths of new cor-
ridor they contain. The FERC/North Palmer Alternative con-
tains the greatest length of new corridor -about 80 miles -
while the MEA/CEA-South Wasilla Alternative contains only
about one-quarter of this length, most of which is relatively
accessible. The Little Susitna-South Was.i.lla and MEA/CEA-
North Palmer Alternatives contain only about half the new
corridor contained by the FERC-North Palmer Alternatives.
With the exception of the North Palmer route, much of the
area in which the alternatives are located contain waterfowl
nesting and molting habitat, and the danger of bird colli-
sions is somewnat proportional to the length of line and num-
ber of lines in these areas, The greatest potential for bird
collisions is in the Goose Bay and Palm.er Hay Flats State
Game Refuges, which are not only nesting areas, but attract
concentrations of birds during migration. Alternatives with
the South Wasilla corridor cross the Palmer Hay Flats State
Game Refuge. The Little Susitna transmission corridor
alternative crosses one edge of the Goose Bay State Game
Refuge, and the MEA/Chugach Parallel goes directly across the
middle of the Goose Bay State Game Refuge. Alternatives
combining these corridors have potential for bird collisions
in both areas.
Among the split alternatives the MEA/CEA-North Palmer and
MEA/CEA-South Wasilla Alternatives have the lowest potential
for terrestrial impacts. The former has the lowest acreage
of wetlands and the latter has the smallest length of new
corridor. Both alternatives are low in both categories.
Because the MEA/CEA-North Palmer Altern9tive has a lower
potential for waterfowl mort ali ties than the MEA/CEA-South
Wasilla Alternative, it is slightly favored •
-7-28
{' \\ -
•
•
•
However, extending ~he South Wasilla to the north and further
to the east in the vicinity of the Palmer Hay Flats would
probably result in this alternative being favored.
o Parallel/Split Comparison
The parallel circuit MEA/CEA Alternative i.s preferred over
any of the other parallel or split alternatives, primarily
because it has the fe~rest miles of new corridor and would
result in almost no increase in access and is low in terms of
wetland and forest habitat modifications.
Fisheries Resources Comparison
o Parallel Alternatives
410051/7
The FERC Alternative has the least number of crossings
(approximately 11) of water bodies with the MEA/CEA Alterna-
tive having the most (approximately 18). All alternatives
make a maJOr crossing of Knik Arm. The terrain for all
alternatives is relatively flat, and therefore, potential for
erosion and sedimentation for all alternatives would be simi-
lar. No stream is paralleled within 500 feet for any signi-
ficant distance for any alternative. New access would be
created for the FERC and Little Susitna Alternatives, whereas
existing access would be used for a major portion of the
MEA/CEA Alternative. Although the number of streams crossed
with the MEA/CEA Alternative is somewhat greater, any problem
areas should be more readily identifiable for the existing
route than for new routes and mitigative measures should thus
be more readily anticipated and applied than in areas where
no construction has previously taken place. Therefore, the
MEA/CEA Parallel is preferred •
7-29
•
•
0 North Palmer Options
The East Palmer and Trunk Road/Kepler Lake Options are simi-
lar and either could be used. The Trunk Road/Glenn Highway
Option has a slightly higher preference because the number of
streams crossed is slightly less.
o Split Alternatives
410051/7
J} ·I
When making this comparison, the differences are the
type of terrain encountered, the number of streams crossed,
resources involved, risks involved, and access. The number
of streams or water bodies crossed range from approximately
29 with the FERC/North Palmer (Trunk Road/Glenn Highway
Option) to 44 for the Little Susitna/South Wasilla Alterna-
l:ive. Most of the terrain is relatively flat for all alter-
natives except those that include Segment 9, which passes
through a sloped area with numerous small streams and creeks
nearby • Segment 9 could require more cut-and-fill construe-
tion compared to work in more level terrain. For this rea-
son, the North Palmer Alternatives are least preferred.
Between the remaining alternatives, the MEA/CEA-South Wasilla
Alternative 1s preferred because it makes use of existing
ROW's.. Thus, any existing ~roblem areas should be more
recognizable and mitigative techniques more readily antici-
pated and applied than in areas where no construction has
previously taken place.
7-30
•
•
.• ,
.... ::/
0 Parallei/Split_ Comparison
In generdl, a parallel circuit would be preferred because
fewer strea"tls would be crossed. Also, any route that fcllmis
an existing corridor is preferred because access is already
established .1nd any potential problem areas are more readily
identified and mitigative measures applied_,_ Therefore, the
MEA/CEA Par3llel is preferred over other alternatives because
it uses an existing route for a major portion of. its length
and is a parallel circuit.
Aesthetic Resources Comparison
(Reference Jones and Jones report: Susitna Transmission Line Visual
Resource Assessment October, 1983.)
410051/7 7-31
•
•
7.5.2 North Study Alternatives
Route mileage across private and native land is used as the pr.imary
evaluation criterion in this assessment. Crossing private/native land
would potentially create direct effects on landow·ners, hence would
involve the greatest negotiation requirements in ... ROW acquisition.
Federal and state lands that are not to be transferred to non-public
ownership generally represent the most favorable condition, although
unresolved issues or problems with such lands do exist in certain
cases (See maps 15 and 21).
o Healy to Anderson Alternatives
0
In the Healy-Anderson subarea, the Healy East Option has a
distinct advantage over the FERC Route (Alternative A) and
the GVEA Route (Alternative B) because it crosses no existing
private or native lands. A remote parcel, however, proposed
by the state is crossed by Segment 7 of the Healy East
Option.
Anderson to Little Goldstream Alternatives
The GVEA route Alternative fr.om Anderson to Little Goldstream
crosses significan:= amounts of both private and nntive
lands (table 7-4), thus the FERC route (Alternative C) is the
best alternative in this area. The extent of state lands
designated for disposal along the GVEA route further rel.n-
forces the advantages of the FERC route.
o Little Goldstream t~ Ester Alternatives
410051/7
·~· --
In the Little Goldstream-Ester subarea, the FERC route
(Al.ternativf~ E) has a clear advantage on the basis of pri-
vate land mileage and number of pr.ivate parcels crossed.
This is offset somewhat by native land crossings. Overall,
7-32
f
f
I
t
1
l
~
.;
•
the FERC route would have to be considered somewhat better
from a land ownership perspective.
o Anderson to Wainwright Alternativ~
0
410051/7
The South Tanana Ridge route (Alternative G) crosses fewer
miles of private and native land compared .. with the Tanana
Flats route (Alternative H). \Y'hile the mileage f1gures and
private parce 1 counts are sm.-all f both cases, . :1e Tanana
Flats Alternative is preferable. Alternative I, which
routes into Wainwright from Ester, 1s the least preferred
because it crosses private land in addition to alternatives
in the Anderson-Little Goldstream and Little Goldstream-Ester
subarea.
Ester/Wainwright Compariso~
Either of the southerly routes (South Tanana Ridge or Tanana
Flats) to Wainwright would be preferable to the FERC or
Goldstream routes based solely on land ownership figures pre-
sented in Table 7-4. A southerly approach directly to Wain-
wright would involve relatively little private and native
land, compared to the FERC and Goldstream routes. The latter
two routes would :;till cross more than three times as much
private and nativE~ land even if these routes terminated at
Ester.
One unresolved issue concerns military ownership south of the
Tanana River.. C:c()ssing public land is generally preferable
to crossing private lC!,nds~ but a right-of-way request across
the U.S. Air Force land could be refused, particularly across
the B!air Lake Air Foret~ Bombing Range. In an informal
meeting held with military representatives on the subject,
no objections were made regarding the alternatives across
military land. However, in the absence of knowing the
•
. I)
military's formal position, it is concluded that the South
Tanana Ridge or Tanana Flats route would be best from a land
ownership, perspective.
Ovsrall, the best complete alternatiYe from a land ownership
perspective would appear to con$ist oE the ·Healy East Option
a~d Segment 9 of the FERC route, plus fhe Tanana Flats route
frow ~·i:&det"~on to Wainwright.
Land Use Comparisons
The low level of development between Healy and Fairbanks makes it
rather difficult to distinguish advantages on the basis of existing
land use, as none of the alternatives would involve very lengthy
crossings of developed areas. One or more of the alternatives would
have some disadvantages in certain portions of the study area, but
these differences are generally small.
o Healy to Anderson Alternatives
The Healy East Option is preferable to the other two alter-
natives in this area, as it would a".roid the agricultural area
near Healy and have considerably less effect on land dispo-
sals. In the absence of access controls, construction and
maintenance access would potentially increase development
pressures.
o Anderson to Little Goldstream Alternatives
410051/7
The FERC route (Alternative C) is clearly the most advan-
tageous routing from Anderson to Little Goldstream, as it
would cross no existing or planned development. Access would
not: significantly affect development pressures because the
route is still relatively close to the Parks Highway
(existing access) •
7-34
•
.;
•
0 Little Goldstream to Ester Alternatives
Virtually no existing land use related distinction can be
made between the FERC (Alternative E) and Goldstream
(Alternative F) Alternatives to Ester, as neither cross
developed land but do cross several miles of proposed dispo-
sal areas. The FERC route may be slightly less favorable, on
the bas is of more mileage through planned industrial and
agricultural areas and greater proximity to residential area.
However, the Goldstream Valley route is expected to see more
residential growth in the future~
o ~nderson to Wainwright Alternatives
0
410051/7
The Tanana Flats route (Alternative H) appears to be the best
southerly alternative to Wainwright by a very small margin.
The South 1'anana Ridge route (Alternative G) would cross an
industrial site, two small agricultural parcels, and come in
closer proximity to existing and planned residential uses in
the Chena Ridge area southwest of Ester (Map 22).
Es~er/Wainwright Comparison
Overall, the Healy East Option combined with the Tanana Flats
route to Wainwright (Alternative H), would appear to repre-
sent the best complete alternative. This would only affect
the existing commercial tract south of Wainwright and three
planned disposals south of Anderson (Map 22). The possible
bomb contamination o.f the Blair Lake Air Force Range along
this route, however, is a significant issue. If this route
is eliminated as a result, the South Tanana Ridge route
(Alternative G) appears to be the second-best alternative
from a land use perspective. The South Tanana Ridge Alterna-
tive is preferable to either route through Ester because
7-35
the latter alternatives would have much more significant land
use effects within the Fairbanks area and on planned develop-
ments to the west.
Terrestrial .~esourc.es Compariso~
o ~ealy to Anderson ~lternatives
C/41/7-7
The GVEA Parallel (Alternative B) and the Healy East Option
are similar in acreage of potential wetlands within the ROW
(593 and 614 acres, respectively), but the FERC route (Alter-
native A) has more potential wetlands (766 acres), (see Table
7-4). The GVEA Parallel also has the lowest acreage of
forest habitat.
Miles of new corridor are similar for the .FERC Alternative
and the Healy East Option (34 and 42 miles, respectively).
The GVEA Alternative parallels existing transmission lines
and the highway for most of its length, and provides only 2
miles of new corridor. The FERC route parallels the GVEA
line, the highway and the railroad, and provide3 new access
only in the area of the Tanana Flats. The Healy East Option
provides new access to 'i.'elatively undeveloped areas for the
entire 42 miles.
7-36
•
•
.
l.S Potential for bird collisions similar for all three
routes, but the FERC route passes near a bald eagle nest
(Map 19).
The GVEA Parallel is preferred primarily because it parallels
existing routes and does not disturb or .provide access to
undeveloped areas. It would also minimize wetland rlisturb-
ance among the alternatives. The FERC route is a second
choice but would also be acceptable.
o Anderson to Litt.le Goldstream Alternatives
C/41/7-7
The GVEA Parallel (Alternative D) crosses about 200 acres of
potential wetlands; the FERC route (Alternative C) crosses
over 700 acres. Altered forest habitat is also highest for
the FERC Alternative (see Table 7-4)~
The FERC route (Alternative C) has 24 miles of new corridor,
while the GVEA Parallel has no new corridor and is close to
the highway. The FERC route crosses relatively undisturbed
a=~as and provides new access.
The potential for waterfowl collisions is about the same for
all routes, but the FERC route (Alternative C) passes within
1-2 miles of a peregrine falcon) bald and golden eagle
nesting area.
The GVEA Parallel is preferable as it crosses less potential
wetland, follows existing development corridors, does not
provide new access, and avoids the peregrine falcon and eagle
nesting area •
•··.~ .. '·~:[~, .. ,4~~-----~~----~-s-~·-"G ...... ~----.. -·-:·------·"• ........... ···-----~,~ ...... -.............. '-'. ·. '-"'·~···--.. --····, ..... ,-.,.-..,.
~ r:.
• 0
0
•
I
"··
c/41/7-7
Little Goldstream to Ester Alternatives
The FERC Alternative and the Goldstream Alternative both
include approximately 36 acres of potential wetlands :, n
this subarea, but the Goldstream Alternative would alter 9.0
acres of forest vegetation as compared to 681 acres on t:te
PERC route.
The Goldstream Alternative has 38 miles of new corridor C:,[td
provides new access to a relatively undisturbed area, wh1, le
the FERC route has only 14 miles of new corridor and largrily
parallels existing transmission lines and the Parks Highwai'.
The FERC route is strongly preferred because it has less 11ew
corridor, parallels existing development corridors, does :1ot
provide significant new access to undisturbed areas, and nas
less potential for impacts to forest habitat.
Anderson to Wainw_right Alternatives
The Tanana Flats Alternative has more potential wet1.and
acreage in the ROW (985) more than the Tanana Ridge Al :er-
native (820), but less forest habitat (908 vs. 1140 act1!s).
For U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulatory pur.poses) the
entire Tanana Flats area is considered wetlands.
The length of new corridor is almost the s<\me for the two
routes, and both provide new access. However, the Tanana
Ridge route is in an area which is being logged and wt: ere
logging, :esidential, and possibly industrial development are
ex:;~cted to increase. The Tanana Flats, on the other hct::td,
7-38
,.
-:Jt
• i·,
0
is managed as an undeveloped area and is likely to remain so.
The potential for bird collisions is higher on , se. Tanana
Flats route, but the Tanana Ridge route 1.s close to two
. peregr1.ne falcon nest sites. The Tanana Flats line may
interfere with prescribed burning for moose habitat enhance-
ment ..
Both routes are less desirable from the viewpoint of
vegetation and wildlife, but the Tanana Ridge route would be
preferable if the l.'Oute could be shifted away from the
peregrine nest sites.
o b~ter /Haim-1right Comparison
41004J/7
·,j
Th.e most desirable, complete alternative with respect to
minimizing irupac ts on terrestrial resources would be the
GVEA Parallel to Little Goldstream (Alternative Band D), and
the FERC route to Ester (Alternative E), with or without the
Fairbanks segment to Fort Wainwright.
7-39
,, '
• Fisheries Resource Comparison~
0 Healy -Anderson Alternatives
Among these routes, the GVEA Parallel (Alternative B) .
1S
recommended because access is already established, and less
streams/rivers are crossed than the FERC route or Healy East
Option. Also the terrain is relatively level, therefore
decreasing the need for cut and fills that could increase the
risk for erosion and sedimentation.
o Anderson -Little Goldstream Alternatives
0
c/41/7-7
----......
The GVEA Parallel (Alternative D) is preferred because fewer
streams are crossed, the terrain is relatively level and
access is already established. Also, any problem areas
(such as areas of potential erosion) are more readily identi-
fiable and thus, planning and implementation of mitigative
measures should be easier.
Little Goldstream -Ester Alternatives
The incremental increase in potential impacts due to placement
of the corridor would be expected to be less with an existing
corridor than with an entirely new corridor. Therefore,
because the FERC route parallels an existing route for a con-
siderable portion of its length, this alternative is pre-
ferred.
7-40
~;;;~~.'
~ttl" ::
•
' ...... ~ t;
0
. oi> .
Ande~~on -Wainw!ight Alternatives
The Tanana Ridge Alternative would be somewhat longer in dis-
tance but would traverse fewer streams than the Tanana Flats
Alternative. Between the two alternatives, there is no clear
preference. However, because fewer streams are cros.sed, the
Tanana ridge route would present less risk thai;. the Tanana
Flats Alternative.
o Ester/W~inwright Comparison
Overall, the preferred total alternative with respect to
least impact to fisheries resources would appear to be the
GVEA Parallel to Little Golds trea.m, and continuing with the
FERC route into Ester (Alternatives B, D, and E). Following
an existing route would tend to decrease potential risks
associated with access, compared to new access to streams
that could occur with the Wainwight Alternatives.
Aesthetic Resource Comparisons
Reference Jones & Jones Report, Susitna Transmission Line Visual
Resource Assessment, October 1983.
C/41/7-7 7-41
• 7.6 POTENTIAL FOR MITIGATION
The intent of the discussion of mitigtion measures in this report was
to identify such measures that could change the resource evalua-
tion/comparison results previously addressed. In the absense of
detailed field investigations, general mitigation measures identified
in the Susitna License Application were reviewed. The result of this
was that except for avoidance or route refinement measures, the appli-
cation of these mitigation measures would not affect the routes signi-
ficantly enough to change the outcome of the resource evaluations.
Avoidance and route refinements were considered in the resource evalua-
tion/ comparison analysis. The general mitigation measures which are
applicable to the transmission line alternatives being evaluated in
this report can be referenced in the Susitna License Application under
the appropriate resource sections in Exhibit E, and in the Visual
Assessment Report completed for this study.
Specific mitigation measures would be developed after the preferred
route is identified, and detailed design and resource field studies are
completed.
C/41/7-7 7-42
•
•
,,
/) 0
7.7 PERMITS
Permits are discuss~d here in general terms, based upon experience with
similar projects. The potential applicability and requirements for
each permit are described. Many of the permits required are common to
most of the altneratives, such as the U.S. Army Cor·ps of Engineers,
Section 404 Dredge and Fill Permit regarding construction in wetlands.
Other permits are more specific tn the alternatives, such as the Alaska
Statute (AS) Title 16 Permit required for those altnernatives that
cross state game refuges. A more detailed description of specific
permit requirments will be prepared following final route refinements.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Section 404 Dredge and Fill Permit
Pursuant to Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States
must be authorized by a Section 404 permit issued by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers. These waters include navigable waters, lakes,
rivers, streams, tributaries, adjacent wetlands, isolated wetlands and
lakes, intermittent streams, and other waters. Some of the project may
be covered by a nationwide permit for buried cable and for repair or
maintenance of an existing transmission line. However, if the design
calls for new access roads or pads for support structures in wetlands,
a Section 404 permit will be required.
The permit application must include a detailed description of the pro-
ject, includng cross-section drawings, quantities of fill to be used,
locations, soils data, wetlands, etc. Names and addresses of adjoining
property owners must also be provided •
410041/7 7-43
u.s. Army Corps of Engineers, Section 10 Navigable Waters Permit
Pursuant to Section 10 of the River and Harbor Act of 1899, construc-
tion of any structure in or over any navigable water of the United
States, or dredge and fill activities in such waters, requ1res a Sec-
tion 10 permit.
Alaska Department of Natural Resources, State Lands Right-of-Way
Permit
According to Section 38.05.330 of tht! Alaska Statutes when crossing
state lands, whether to gain access for construction, maintenance or
for a permanent structure, requires a right-of-way or easement permit
from the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR). A permit
application must be filed with DNR and include a description of the
width, length, and nature of the right-of-way needed. Separate permit
applications will be required for: 1) temporary rights-of-way for
construction; 2) permanent access for line maintenance; and 3)
permanent transmission line structures. It will also be necessary to
define the use restrictions. This permitting process includes an
inter-agency review that usually establishes the restrictions.
Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Utility
Permit
Pursuant to T_ .... le 17, Chapter 15 of the Alaska Administrative Code, the
placement, construction, or maintenance of a transmission line within
or across a state highway right-of-way requires a utility permit from
the Alaska Department of Transportation and Pub.lic Facilities (DOT).
An application must be filed with the Division of Highways and include
detailed plans showing where the line will be within the highway
right-of-way.
410041/7 7-44
•
The permit process is initiated by wr.iting to the Railroad Engineering
Department and providing project construction plans, including typical
cross-sections for crossings, amount of power, total number of lines,
total voltage, and slack between the plans. The Alaska Railroad is
being sold by the federal government to the State of Alaska 1 but
requirements for the permit will not change.
Other Permits
Other permits and approvals may be necessary, depending upon the exact
location of the line, construction plans, and mitigation measures~ The
U.S. Federal Aviation Administration for example, must approve any
structures that exceed a g~ven height if the structures are within the
approach area of an airport. The Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation (ADEC) issues activities related to construction camps,
such as permits for solid waste and waste water disposal. DEC also has
jurisdiction for a~r pollution control, and must approve plans for
prescribed burning if burning is used to dispose of materials resulting
from clearing the right-of-way. The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) requires a Spill Prevention and Countermeasure Plan for
any project involving a given level of oil storage. Additional permits
and approvals may also be necessary.
after the final route selection.
7.8 AGENCY, NATIVE AND PUBLIC COMMENTS
That determination will be made
As a part of ~he initial planning process, preliminary corridors iden-
tified for the South and North Study Areas were presented to agencies
and groups in informal and open public meetings. The focus of these
meetings was basically on gathering information and discussing the
intent of the study, since at the time little data on the alternative
routes had been analyzed with respect to evaluation and findings •
410041/7 7-45
. • "
· .. '
Few comments on the routes from agenc1.es and groups were received.
Public comments on the alternatives were also few.
Despite sufficient notice, the six public meetings were not well
attended. The notification process included public service announce-
ments, press releases, display advertising, and direct mailing. Com-
ments received were summarized and considered by specialists involved
in the analysis of each resource category and in the overall decision-
making process.
Agency and native group comments have been summarized in Appendix M.
Information g1.ven includes: agency, dates, and the relevant co~uent or
issue. The public participation effort is summarized in Appendix P.
7.9 ENVIRONMENTAL CONCLUSIONS
Evaluation and comparison of the environmental data collected identi-
fied numerous trade offs within resource categories. This is indicated
in general terms by Tables 7-5 and 7-6, which summarize the al terna-
tives with respect to high, moderate or low potential impact.
The impact ratings were applied based on the inventoried data in Tables
7-3 and 7-4, and on qualitative evaluations of the relative signifi-
cance of the potential impacts. The impact ~atings indicate that in
certain situations, potential impacts may be moderate or high for all
the alternatives for a given resource, even though a preferred alter-
native was selected •
410041/7 7-46
(J
~ .... .,..,. a : f'•. . ·.. ' ~ ~ . .. ~
With many trade offs possible, and in the absence of a final weighting
and scaling step, preferred alternatives have been identified from
each environmental resource category. These preferred alternatives are
presented in Table 7-7.
Based on the resource evaluations and comparisons di'scussed, the fo 1-
lowing conclusions can be made.
7e9.1 South Study Area
Parallel Alternatives
0 The parallel alternatives present significantly less overall
environmental impact than the split alternatives. However,
the parallel alternatives do not address the reliability
issue of a common mode failure of the subm~rine cables under
Knik Arm.
o Land ownership impacts on private/native land is least with
the FERC route (Alternative A).
o Land use impacts present a number of trade offs between
alternatives; depending on the approach or preference taken,
any of the three could be suitable.
o Terrestrial impacts appear to be more significant with the
410041/7
FERC route and least with the l·1EA/CEA Parallel (Alternative
C).
7-47
North Palmer Option
o !~pacts were considered less for the Trunk Road/Kepler Lakes
Option (Option 2) for all resource categories except land
o~~ership. The Trunk Road/Glenn Highway Option was preferred
from a land ownership perspective.
o The Trunk Road/Glenn Highway Option (Option ~) was not signi-
ficantly different from the Trunk Raod/Kepler Lakes Option
with respect to land use.
o The Trunk Road/Glenn Highway Option (particularly Segment 15)
presents the most significant potential impact to aesthetic
resources.
Split Alterna~ives
0 The FERC/North Palmer route is the preferred split alter-
native with respect to land ownership but it presents over
nine times the impact to private lands than the FERC Parallel
route. Some of this impact can be reduced through route
refinement, but not significantly.
o As with the parallel alternatives, land use impacts present
trade offs. Assuming residential use is the most important
factor, the FERC/ North Palmer Alternative is preferred.
Based on the inventory of existing land uses alone,
FERC/South Wasilla and MEA/CEA-South Wasilla are not signifi-
cantly different, although they impact other land uses.
C/41/7-7 7-48
•.) ./ 0 Terrestrial resource impacts related to new corridor and
altered forest habitat are greater with the North Palmer
Alternative while impacts to wetlands and waterfowl are
greater with the South Wasilla Alternative. The South
Wasilla Alternative (in conjunction with the MEA/CEA route)
is the preferred alternative.
o The FERC/North Palmer route presents the least visual impact
for the same reasons that the FERC route is the preferred
parallel alternative, (i.e., because of its more remote loca-
tion).
o Fishery impacts are considered least with the MEA/CEA-South
Wasilla split alternative, because it . requ1.res the least
amount of new route and access.
7.9.2 North_Study Area
Alternatives to Ester
o Overall, impa~ts to land ownership, land use and visual
resources are least following the Healy East Option and then
the FERC route into Ester.
o Visual resour~e impacts within the Little Goldstream to Ester
subarea are considered less with the Goldstream route but not
significantly.
c/41/7-7 7-49
't
0 Biological resource impacts are minimized with the GVEA Par-
allel to Little Goldstream and then the FERC route from
Little Goldstream to Ester.
Alternatives to Wainwright
o Impacts to land use, land ownership and visual resources are
minimized by the Tanana Flats Alternative; however, impacts
from the Tanana Ridge Alternative are not significantly
greater.
o Impacts to fish, wildlife, and botanical resources are mini-
0
mized by following the License Application route to Ester
plus Segment 28.
Private and native land ownership impacts are 11-13 times
greater with the GVEA Parallel Alternative to Ester than the
Healy East and Tanana Flats Alternative to Wainwright.
As noted earlier, final. route selections combining all the resource
categories were not made at this time. While this is the case, suffi-
cient data has been analyzed to enable certain overall conclusions to
be made. These are presented in Chapter 8.
410041/7 7-50
),
i ....
Acres American, Inc. "Before The~Fed~ral Ener_gl_ Regulatory Commission
Application For License For Major Project -Susitna Hydroelectric
R_roject." Exhibit E. February 1983.
Acres American, Inc. "S~sitna Hydroelectric Project" FERC License
~lication. Exhibit E, Chapter 10, Final Draft. Prepared for Alaska
Power Authority. January 15, 1983.
Acres American, Inc. "Su~itna Hydroelectric Project Transmissign Line
Corridor Screening,_Qloseout Report. H Task a-Transmission Final Report.
Prepared for Alaska Power Authority. March 1982.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game. A fish and wildlife inventory of the
Cook Inlet -Kodiak area. 1976.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Waterbird use of and management
considerations for Cook Inlet State game refuges. Draft report. 1979.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Alaska's wildlife and habitat. 1980.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Habitat Division. Draft Habitat
Capability Maps. 1983.
Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Matanuska-Susitna Borough, Alaska
Department of Fish and Game, with the assistance of: Soil Conservation
Service, United States Department of Agriculture. uwillow Sub-Basin
Area. Plan." A land use plan for public lands. October 1982.
C/41/7REF 7-51
Alaska Department of Natural Resources in cooperation with:
Matanuska-Susitna Borough, Alaska Departments of Fish and Game, and
Transportation & Public Facilities, and the Kenai Peninsula. Borough.
"Matanuska-Susi~_na Borough Cooperative Planning Program Land Use Issues
& Prelimi~.~ry Resources Inventory." Volume 1 of 2, Planning Background
Report. May 1982.
Alaska Department of Natural Resources. Draft Tanana Basin area study plan,
wildlife element paper. 1983.
Alaska Department of Natural Resources. Resource inventory maps: Primary
and secondary vegetation types, Anchorage, Tyonek, Healy, and Fairbanks
(draft) Quads; landforms, Fairbanks quad. 1982.
Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Survey -U.S. Bureau of Mines,
Information Fairbanks Quadrangle 58. "Min_~..!!&_-=-Claim A£tJ:vity 1900 -
1979."
Commonwealth Associates, Inc. "Anchorage-Fairbanks Transmission Intertie
~out!:._Selection Report." Alaska Power Authority. January 1982.
Commonwealth Associates, Inc. "Envir~nmental Assessment Re_port_-Anchorage-
Fairbanks Transmission Intertie." With assistance from DOWL -.
Engineeers, Anchorage, Alaska, Kevin Waring Associates, Anchorage,
Alaska. Alaska Power Authority. March 1982.
Department of Natural Resources, Division of Land & Water Management,
"Land For Alaskan=s, State Land Disposal." Brochure, Lottery No. 12,
Home~ite No. 10, Remote Parcel No. 8. Spring 1983.
C/41/7REF 7-52
j,,l.
~
EMPS-Sverdrup, Principal Associates, DeLeuw, Cather and Company, Tryck,
Nyman and Hayes. "Knik Arm Crosst~g, Scoping Report." U.S. Department
of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Alaska Department oJ:
Transportation and Public Facilities. March 8, 1983.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Susitna Hydroel'e·ctric Project License
Application, Exhibit ., , February 1983.
Galea, J., J.D. Arayle, J. c. Zasada. "Opportunities and Limitations of
Northern Forest Types in Interior Alaska." The Ma:i. ne Forest Review.
10:10-11. 1976.
Howard, Needles, Tammen & Bergendof£. "Matanuska-Susitna Borough
Comprehensive Plan." Section IV, Transportation Plan. November 198:·.
Hadley H. Jenner, Vicki Connard~ "Utility Corrida~ Plan." Draft -
Municipality of Anchorage Planning Deptment. March 1982.
Harza-Ebasco Joint Venture. "Preliminary Working_ Draft _!ccess Plan Repo1· t
Susitna_!!ydroelectric Project." Alaska Power Authority. 1983
Jones & Jones and Land Tech-Alaska, Inc. "Final Draft -Susitna
Transmission Line Visual Resource Assessment." For Harza-Ebasco
Susitna Joint Venture. Alaska Power Authority9 October 1983.
Matanuska-Susitna Borough, Anthracite Ridge -Plat Maps. Revised 1/1/82.
Matanuska-Susitna Borough Planning Department. Matanuska-Susit~ Bor~ugh
Coasta!. Management Plan." Public Hearing Draft. 1983.
C/41/7REF 7-53
tlf).
~j
0
; :·. -·~J. -. --· . ..,:_ : ~'~~-::;._;~-.;:· __ ;::_:~· ';:.:. ~ .. ::"·
The ORB o·rganization, Anchorage, Alaska. Excerpts from the Final Draft of
"F!_irb~nks-North_Star Boro'!8_h -C~mprehensive _Parks & Rec~eation Pl~n."
Prepared for the Parks & Recre&tion Department, Richard McCarthy,
Director. April E 83.
Peirce, T.L. "Geological Hazards of the Fairbanks Area." State of Alaska
Geological and Geophysical Special Report, NoQ 15, p. 109. 1982.
Park Planning Section, Alaska Division of Parks, Department of Natural
Resourct~s. "Alaska State Park Syst~~ Southcentral Region Plan."
February 1982.
Physical Planning Division, Anchorage Planning Department. "Eagle River -
Chugi~k, Eklutna Comprehensive Plan." Adopted September 18, 1979.
Res.:>urce Consultants, Inc., E.B. Jones. "Snawpack Ground-~r~th Ma,!lual." ·
Prepare~ for Goddard Space Flight Center -Contract NAS-5-26802. May
1983.
State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources. ~i~ing-Claim Location
Ma_Es, Fairbanks Quadrangle -58." Published by the Division of
Geological and Geophysical Surveys. December 1982.
State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources. "Tanana Basin Area Plan."
Draft Mineral Element Paper Tanana Basin. January 3, 1983.
State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources. "Tanana Basin Area Plan."
Draft Agriculture Element Paper. January 3, 1983.
C/41/7REF 7-54
State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources. "Tanana Basin Area Plan."
Draft Settlement Paper -Tanana Basin. January 3, 1983.
State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources. "Tan~na Basin Area Plan."
Phase 1 Resource Inventory, Draft Forestry Element Paper -Tanana
Basin. January 3, 1983.
State of Alaska, U.S. Department of Transportation; Federal Highway
Administration; and Alaska Department of Transportation & Public
Facilities, Interior Region-Environmental Section. "South Fairbanks
Expressway_Environmen~al Impact Statement." Autumn 1980.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Economic Research
Service, Forest Service, Edward Grey, Hydraulic Engineer S.C.S. In
cooperation with the State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources
and Department of Fish and Game. "Flood Plan Management Study."
Kashwitna River, Wasilla, Cottonwood, and Lucille Creeks, Matanuska-
Susitna Borough, Alaska. May 1982.
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District. "Expanded Flood2!_ain
Information Study -Willo':", Alaska." Matanuska-Susitna Borough,
General Report. June 1980.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. ~Imp~cts of Transmission Lines onBiEds in
Flight." Proceedings of a workshop. FWS/OBS -78/48. Office of
Biological Service, Washington, D.C, p. 150. 1978.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. "Management o~ Transmission Line
~ights-of-Way _for Fish and \<lildlife." FWS/OBS -79 I 22. Office of
Biological Service, Washington, DaC. p. 168. 1979.
C/41/7REF 7-55
UoS. Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wetlands Inventory Maps -
Anchorage and Tyonek Quads. 1983o
u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service. Potential trumpeter swan nests, data on
file. 1983.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Bald eagle nests, data on file. 1983.
U.S. Forest Service. Maps, Photographs, data on fileG 1983.
Wilsey & Ham. ".Fairbanks-North Star Borough Dra!t C()mprehensive Land Use
Plan." Prepared for Fairbanks-North Star Borough, Department of
Community Planning & Development. August 1983.
Wilsey & Ham. ~Fairban~s-North Star Borough_Qraft Comp~ehensive Plan."
Map prepared for the Fairbanks-North Star Borough and the
Fairbanks-North Star Borough Planning Dept. August 1983.
Wilsey & Ham. "Fairbanks-North Star Borough Draft_. Comprehensive Plan."
Prepared for Fairbanks-North Star Borough, Department of Community
Planinng & Department. August 1983.
Wilsey & Ham. "Fairbanks-North Star Boroug!!_Comprehensive_Rlan -Working
Paper 2 -Land Use." Prepared for Fairbanks-North Star Borough
Planning Department. August 1983.
Wilsey & Ham. "Fairbanks-NoEth .. ~tar Boro3l!_Comprehe~~ve Plan .-Working
Paper 4 .:_Tra~o.;-tation." Prepared for Fairbanks-North Star Borough
Planning Department. August 1983.
C/41/7F:EF 7-56
' ...
! 1
Wilsey & Ham. "Fair~anks-North. Star Borough_ Comprehens.i_ve Plan -Draft
Working Paper~7 -Juri~~iction Plans." Prepared for Fairbanks-North
Star Borough Planning Department. August 1983.
Woiff, J.O. and J.C. Zasada. "Moose Habitat and Forest Succession on the
Yukon -Tanana Uplan~~ Proceedings of the Nort:l:l American Moose
Conference and Workshop. 15:213-244. 1979.
C/41/7REF 7-57
;
l
l :::
1
I
# (\
~·
t.· ')\
"
TABLES
v
j
•••
.
TABLE 7-1
INITIAL LIST OF RESOURCE CATEGORIES
CONSIDERED FOR ROUTE EVALUATION
Geology/Soils
.
Water Use/Quality
Socioeconomics
Recreational Resources
Historic & Archeological Resources
Terrestrial Resources
Fisheries Resources
Land Ownership
Land Use
Aesthetic Resources
• TABLE 7-2
RANKING OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE CATEGORIES/CRITERIA
INVENTORIED FOR
TRANSMISSION ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
Resource/Criteria Ranking (order indicates relative rank)
Land Ownership
Native/Private
-Borough/Municipal
Federal
State
Land Use1
Residential
Recreation
Public
-Agricultural
Commercial/Industrial
Vacant
Terrestrial Resource·s
-New Corridor/Access
-Wetlands
Bird Collision Potential
Raptor and Swan Nest Site.s
Forested Habitat
Aesthetic Resources
-Visual Sensitivity
Visual Quality
Visual Compatibility
Fisheries
Significant Streams (anadromous species)
Streams & Rivers
Cultural Resources
Existing Sites
-High Potential
-Moderate Potential
1 Ranked equally with
Landownership
t
@
~
~ c
Landownership (miles)~'
Private
Native
Borough
Federal
State
Land Use (miles)4/
Residential
Recreation/Wildlife
Agricultural
Commercial/Industrial
Public
Vacant
Terrestrial Resources
New Corridor (mi)
Wetlands (ac) 2/ Bird Collision Potential_
Raptor/Swan Nesting Ar~s~/
Forest :Habitat (a c)
Aesthetic Resources (miles)
Mod. High/High Visual
Quality
NORTH PAL~ER OPTIONS
Opt Opt Opt
1 2 3
EAST KEPLER GLENN
PAL'iER LAKES HWY
-
17.9 9.4 8.3
4.6 4.6 1.3
2.3 3.9 0.3
0 0 1.0
4.1 2.1 5.3
3.9 1.6 1.6
0.0 0.0 1.6
0.8 2.9 2.9
0.3 0.2 0.2
o.o 0.0 0.0
22.4 15.9 9.5
25 18 10
59 48 50
L L M
VL VL VL
TABLE 7-3
SOUTH STUDY AREA ALTERNATIVES EVAWATION
RESOURCE INVENTORY S~~y •.
PARALLEL ALTERNATIVES SPLIT ALTERNATIVES ----·-------
A B c D E F
FERC LITTLE MEA/CEA FERC-FERC-LITTLE
su NORTH SOUTH SU/NORTH
PAU!ER WASILLA PAlMER
----------------1--------~----·----
2.0 5.1 11.5 18.5]/ 22.5 21.22/
0 2.6 4.4 8.9 12.1 11.5
14.9 13.1 12.4 18.9 22.4 60.4
16.4 16.4 16.4 27.1 26.5 27.1
35.7 25.7 20.6 60.1 49.9 43.9
0 1.5 1.0 3.6 4.0 5.1
7.4 1.8 2.3 9.2 10.5 3.2
4.6 1.7 0 7.6 5.2 4.6
0.9 0.9 0.9 2.2 1.2 1.3
0 0 0 0.5 0.5 0.5
53.8 55.9 60.3 123.9 109.7 108.7
39 23 4 nll 62 631/
909 518 458 659}1 763 413!:./
L L M L M L
L VL VL L L VL
466 321 225 1029 914 1133 1845.!/ 1601 l76iJ)
17.2 9.1 4.8 0 0 0 10. 3!1 10.9 10. J!/
----r-·
G
LITTLJ!; . Ml
SU/SOJJTH N(
WASILLA PJ
-·
'::
TABLE 7-3
SOUTH STUDY AREA ALTERNATIVES EVAUJATION
, ENVIROmtENTAL RESOURCE INVENTORY SUHMARY
_ ... ---·-----------~
A/CEA
RTH
.UiER
I
MEA/CEA
SOUTH
WASILLA
--------------------~
23.6
14.8
19.5
26.5
32.4
5.5
4.9
2.3
1.2
0.5
100.7
43
507
M
VL
1515
10.9
:
lJ
4~ 3 68.:!
M
VI
1899.1
]
7 .6]/
3.3
5 .. 9
7.1
8.9
4.6
3.7
2.9
1.3
0.5
3.1
~
I
0.3.!1
26.9
13.4
16.8
26.5
24.9
4.3
5.4
0.6
1.2
0.5
105.1
26
450
M
VL
1598
10.9
Potential Visibility~/ 10(-) 6.4(-) 10(5.6) 8.1(2. 8) 8.1(5.4) 13.3(6.8) 30.7(2.8) 34.2(37.5) 29.5(25.9) 33(37.5) ~ 4. 7( 27 .. 3) 34. 2(37 .5)
Potential Resource
Problem Areas 4 5 6.0 4.5 2 4 14.5 18.5 12
Low Visual Compatibility 4.8 4.8 1.1 0 0 0 2 9.0 6.8
Fisheries Resources
Streams Rivers Crossed 25 25 19 n 12 18 36!/ 42 371.1
Significant Streams Crossed 12 11 12 5 11 15 30 30 31
Cultural Resources (miles)
6];1 Existing Sites~~--1 1 2 1 1 1 7 fd/
High Potential Archeo-
logical Sites 0.5 2.3 1.8 1.2 1.6 2.4 4.0 2.0 4.4
Mod. Potential Archeo-
logical Sites 33.4 29.6 26.9 7.8 14.2 16.8 72.7 48.6 75.8
l---·------------------1--------.-------'-----------·------------------...
11 includes option 2 (Kepler Lakes)
2/ Potential For Impact
-VL=Very low, L=low, M=mouerate, H=high
]/ includes option 3 (Glenn Highway)
!:I
~I
Mileages do not sum to route
length due to double-counting
where different categories occur on
either side of the reference centerline.
includes only parallel situation to
road and rail. Number in parenthesis is
rail miles.
.:
14.5 ]
3.1
44 431:
28 3
7 61
2.4
51.7 7
--------
4
6.8
I
5
5.2
8.4
14.5
3.1
40
29
I
3.2
49.1
-------------------------
2_/ Sites within 1/2 mile of
reference centerline were
inventoried.
f
1
[
(
~. -·-·--·---··-~~· I,
-----'
r ' "'< .
~--¥:..,
~·
~ ~-
GATE GJRY /CRITERIA
LailcfOwnership
Private
Native
Borough
Federal
State
ALTERNATIVES
Land Use (miles)~/
Residential
Recreation/Wildlife.
Agricultural
Commercial/Indus .trial
Public
Vacant
terrestrial Resources
New Corridors (mi)
Wetlands (ac)
Bird Collision Potential!/
Raptor/Swan Nesting Areas!/
Forest Habitat (ac)
Aesthetic Resources (miles)
Mod. High/High Visual
Quality
Potential Visibility~/
Potential Resource
Problem Areas
V/L/Low Visual Compatibility
Fisheries Resources
Stream~ Rivers Crossed
Significant Streams Crossed
!''~ . !fl. CJ _»;
TABLE 7-4
NORTH STUDY AREA ALTERNATIVES EVAWATION
. RESOURCE INVENTORY SUMMARY __________ _.,__
ANfiER56Nro ___ l
HEALY TO ANDERSON t LITTLE GOLDSTREAM ___ -----A HEALY B c D ' :
EAST
FERC OFriON GVEA FERC GVEA
----------_________________ __.
2.7 0
0 0
0 0
12.0 11.7
27.9 29.8
0 0
0 0
5.1 0
0 0
0 0
37.5 41.5
33 42
766 614
VL VL
L VI.
636 406
0 0
13.8(20. 4) 0(1.4)
19
0.6
22
2
3
0
0
21
6
3.0
0.4
0
11.7
30.6
1.6
0
5.1
0
0
39.0
2
593
VL
L
365
0 I
50.1(23.9)
40.5
2.1
15
2
3
0 3.0
1.7 2.1
0 0
4.2 7. '•
14.5 11.8
0 0.6
0 0
0 1.7
0 0
0 0
20.4 22.0
20 0
418 198
L L
M VL
418 159
0 0
0( 0) 17. 9( 21)
1 20
4.0 2.8
16 8
1 1
0 1
(
LITTf.E---c;Qf.ng-TREAM-
TO ESTER SUB. --E F
GQIJ)-
FERC STREAM
--------------
3.8 9.5
5.6 1.0
0 0
0 4.3
21.7 23.0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
31.1 37.8
14 38
367 356
VL VL
VL VL
682 911
0 28.9 I
17 .6( 0) 5.9(19.3)
27 12.5
12.0 5.3
22 24
0 0
0 0
.,
TABLE 7-4 /-~=i:o;:oy .AREA ALTERNATIVES EVAUJAT .
" . : NTAL RESOURCE INVENTORY SUMMARY.
~ .
--ANDERSON TO WAiNWifiGH.:r----
SUBSTATION
G H I
TANANA TANANA SEGMENT
RIDGE FLATS 28 --------
2.0 1.5 7.4
1.3 0 0
0.4 0 0
20.9 36.7 0
29.2 10.9 0
0 0 1.8
0 0 0
0.9 0 0
2.0 2.0 2.7
0 0 0
51.2 47.1 2.9
55 49 9
820 985 58
L M VL
M M VL
1141 908 81
0 0 0
0( 0) 0( 0) (0)
3.5 3 0
4.0 0 2.8
25 34 7
3 1 1
0 0 0
Cultural Resources .(miles)
Existing Si tes!!l ·
High Potential Archeo-
logical Sites
}fud. Potential Archeo-
logical Sites
2.1 11.2 1.9
9.5 4.7 16.7
.--1 ------------
1.0
1.5
0
1.7
0.4 0 ~-5 0 0
11.8 15.8 ~---~----~~0 ... ---
1/ Potential For Impact
-VL=very low, L=low, 1-i=moderate, H=high, VH=very high
1385B
3/ includes only parallel situation to
road and rail. Number in parenthesis is
ra.il miles.
~:.:-
2/ Mileages do not sum to route
-length due to double-count~ng
where different categories occut on
either side of the r~ference centerline.
4/ sites within the 1/2 mile of reference center line
-were inventoried.
---·---""-J -··*......-"'" -" ·--. _:_j
'r·k~,7-
; ~ ..
TABLE 7-5
ALTERNATIVES COMPARISON -SUMMARY OF ENVIROID1ENTAL IMPACT POTENTIAL
N. PALHER
ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS
RESOURCE
CATEGORY 1 2 3
• • ct Land Ownership
Land Usa • () (J
Terrestrial • () • Resources
~:as • () • ~-. thetic
Resources
Fi~ih.ery ct () ()
Resources
Cultural () ct ()
Resources
SOUTH STUDY AREA
PARALLEL
ALTERNATIVES SPLIT ALTERNATIVES
FERC
Route Alt. Alt. Alt. Alt. Alt. Alt. Alt. Alt.
A B
0 ct
() C)
• Cl
0 (I
() ()
0 0
KEY:
c D E F G H I
() ct • C) • C)" •
() () • () • () • • • • () () () ()
() () • () • () •
() • () • () • ()
r-"5 • () • () • () v ,.,.
NOTE: Ratings reflect the potential
for impact relative to the
other alternatives within
the same category (N. Palmer,
Parallal, or Split Alterna-
tives),
CO}~ARATIVE RATING
·-Highe.st rotential_ Impact
(t-Hoderate Potential Impact
o-Lowest Potential Impact
~[-... -:---·---·----~----w··--------~-·-·---··-···-·-···~---~"--·· .. --~~·-··········-··· .. ·······--·--··-.. ·· .......... .
o.i· \¢4,.,_.$.. ·''~"
• TABLE 7-6
ALTERNATIVES COMPARISON -SUHMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT POTENTIAL
HEALY TO
ALTERNATIVE ANDERSON
I Healy
RESOURCE Alt. East Alt.
CATEGORY A IOPtior B
Land Ownership
C) 0 C)
Land Use 0 0 ()
Terrestrial C) () ()
Resources
~~sthetic () 0 • Resources
Fishery CJ () 0 Resources
Cultural CJ • ()
Resources
NORTH STUDY AREA
ANDERSON TO LITTLE GOLDSTREAM ANDERSON TO
LITTLE GOLDSTREAM TO ESTER WAINWRIGHT
Alt. Alt. Alt. Alt. Alt. Alt. Alt.
c D R 'F g H I
0 • • • () o· •
0 () 0 0 0 0 ()
() 0 () () • • 0
0 • • • C) 0 •
() 0 () () ct • 0
0 0 () () () 0 0
NOTE: Ratings reflect the potential
for impact relative to the
other alternatives within
the same category (N. Palmer,
Parallel, or Split alterna-
tives).
COMPARATIVE RATING
KEY: • Highest Jkltential Impact
C) Moderate Potential Impact
0 Lowest Potential Impact
·-· . v ~ ~ r
~ . ~-
-·~ , -~--,;;-·-= =---.;;-;;;..F;;,o;:,.-;j~~~-~.«::..+•~ ~:...:.: .--k:~' .--..·:;:::-...;:;:_:~_;:_;~::; __ ~,;:.._~~~-~:::..:~-:..:.. ... ._,i .. L:_~.,:·
~
RESOURCE CATEGORY
------~~, :__:_~_:-~ .. ~-...... '7~·:· ."~--~~-~~--" -~+~~·~_;::· ~-~-,~-· ;z, ~.~"~;z~..;:~:·~··;~:.-~ ..... ;.,~-!J~-·--.. --__.__. ...... _ _.-........,.. ... ~~--.. .,_---...,....~ .. ,..,........._,_,.~
l
ii) TAB~1 7-7
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS
BY RESOURCE CATEGORY
SOUTH STUDY AREA
•
Parallel Alternatives Options. Split Alternatives
Landownership
Land Use
FERC (Alt A)
FERC (Alt A)
Terrestrial Resources MEA/CEA (Alt C)
Visual Resources FERC (Alt A)
Fisheries MEA/CEA (Alt C)
Healy-Anderson
Landownership Healy East Option
Land Use Healy East Option
TerrestrialrResources GVEA Parallel (Alt B)
Visual Resouices Healy East Option
Fisheries GVEA Parallel (Alt B)
.,;;J .,
-~·
Glenn (Opt 3)
Kepler (Opt 2)
Kepler (Opt 2)
Kepler (Opt 2)
Kepler (Opt 2)
NORTH STUDY AREA
Andrsn-L. Goldstream
FERC (Alt C)
FERC (Alt C)
GVEA Parallel (Alt D)
FERC (Alt C)
GVEA (Alt D)
,,
I?
;t.,;
FERC -North Palmer (Alt D)
FERC -North Palmer (Alt D)
MEA/CEA -North Palmer (Alt H)
FERC -North Palmer (Alt D)
MEA/CEA -South Wasilla (Alt I) . .
L.Coldstream-Ester Andrsn-Wainwright
FERC (Alt E) Tanana Flats (Alt H)
FERC (Alt E) Tanana Flats (Alt H)
FERC (Alt E) Tanana Ridge (Alt G)
Goldstream (Alt F) Tanana Flats (Alt H)
FERC (Alt E) Tanana Ridge (Alt G)
N XIaN:Ia:ciV
,_-J
~~£
•
8.0 SUMMARY .AND RECOMMENDATIONS
I
''
• 8.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
8.1 GENERAL APPROACH
The conclusions that follow were based on the findings in Chapters 5,
6, and 7. They were made in consideration of the quantified data pre-
sented in the tables, experience factors where the quantified data did
not clearly distinguish differences, such as the cost of access, and in
consideration of compromising impacts between resource categories where
no clear preference prevailed. The conclusions are based upon
engineering, technical, economic, and environmental perspectives
collective,ly at the time of preparation of this status summary.
8.2 SOUTH STUDY AREA
Assuming reliability of the Susitna Transmission System as the most
important overall factor, the preferred alternatives are those in which
one transmission line is routed overland around Knik Arm (the split
alternatives). This would preclude total interruption of Susitna power
to Anchorage because of a common mode failure of the submarine cables
under Knik Arm. All the split alternatives (Alternatives D, E, F, G,
H, and I) meet this requirement. All of these alternatives also permit
utilizing the existing transmission system to a much greater extent
than the parallel alternatives. They better permit staging of the
transmission system in st~p§ responding to load growth. Finally, they
provide flexibility in the event significant changes occur to
demography, load patterns and transmission system requirements as
discussed in more detail in the Task 7 report, "Sys tern Development and
Steady State Analysis", Volumes I and II.
The conclusion at this point in the study regarding the split
alternatives is that the MEA/CEA-North Palmer route (Alternative H)
using the Glenn Highway Option (Option 3) is preferable • Reasons for
this conclusion are:
410052/8 8-1
I,
'
r,.•'t
~~
• 0 Environmentally, the North Palmer route appears to have the
least overall impact, particularly with respect to impact on
land use and consideration of the rapid growth occurring in
the Wasilla area.
o Technically, both overland routes (South ·wasilla or North
Palmer) are acceptable. North Palmer has less existing
access, but South Wasilla has more wetland area and requ1res
more structures.
o Economically, North Palmer is less costly.
o The Glenn Highway Option (Option 3) was preferred primarily
because technically, the Kepler Lakes Option (Option 2)
presents significant problems due to wide river crossings,
floodplains, and steep topography. However, environmentally
and for the reason explained in Chapter 7 the Kepler Lakes
Option appears to be preferable. These two options should be
investigated in greater detail.
Recognizing the status of tht?, FISRC licensing process, Alternative D
FERC-North Palmer is an acceptable alternative. It is recommended that
the process outlined in Chapter 8, Section 8.5 be used to establish the
preferred overland route around Knik Arm.
Regarding the parallel alternatives to Point MacKenzie, the FERC route
(Alternative A) and the MEA/CEA route (Alternative C) appear prefer-
able. The MEA/CEA route overall, appears to have a slight advantage.
This is due to the following reasons:
o Technically, the MEA/CEA is preferred.
o Economically, the FERC route ia more costly.-
0
410052/8
Environmentally, only land ownership had a strong preference
for the FERC route.
8-2
• 8.3 NORTH STUDY AREA
Findings to date favor the FERC route to Ester (Alternatives A, C, and
E) •
The Healy East Option route between Healy and Anderson was not
considered preferable to the FERC route, as it is technically less
reliable due to lack of access and remoteness. Furthermore, it is more
costly when the cost of access roads is considered. However, since
this route presents minimal impact to land ownership, land use, and
visual resources and it is known that remote parcels are proposed for
the area (i.e., future development), this option may have merit in the
future.
The route sharing the right-of-way with GVEA Healy-Fairbanks 138 kV
line which closely follows Parks Highway has been considered in the
sector Healy-Anderson-Little Goldstream (Alternatives B and D).
However, these alternatives necessitate a greater number of road
crossings, longer line length and potentially utilizing a significant
amount of highway-abutting land. Engineering the Tandna River crossing
at Nenana Village on a 11ery congested ROW shared by highway, railroad,
and GVEA transmission line, and limited by mountains and river from
both sides, may prove to be extremely difficult and possibly not
feasible. In general, the GVEA route l·.;as considered to be too
congested and restrictive on existing land use development and
private/native ownership. These unfavorable features.,. in combination,
make this route as a whole less advantageous when comparing it to the
FERC route.
The alternative route between Little Goldstream and Ester (Alternative
F) is the route along Goldstream Valley. Ho~1ever, while the original
FERC route is relatively accessible, ac~ess to this alternate route is
very limited. In addition, there are no other raal a4vantages such as
better topography or shorter length. Also, because the lines are
410052/8 8-3
•
\)
routed on north mountain slopes
severe meteorological conditions.
preferred.
they will be exposed to much more
For these reasons the FERC route is
The alternatives to Wainwright (Alternatives G and H) may present
significant fish and wildlife impacts, are technicatly very difficult
because of several Tanana River crossings with flood plains and
extensive swampy areas, do not have reliable access and likely will not
present an economic advantage over the alternative connecting Ester to
Wainwright Substation in the Fairbanks metropolitan area, Alternative
I. Although a detailed study of Alternative I route was not made-» a
combination of compact type double circuit pole line sections and
underground cable section, if required, appears to be a feasible
solution for this segment. Crossing of the Chena River, line sections
in the vicinity of the airport area and congested right-of-way are the
major engineering problems to be resolved in this segment. Another
possibility, which was not studied because of time and budget
restraints, 1s to terminate Susitna power at the Chena Plant of
Fairbanks Municipal Utility System.
For all the above reasons, the FERC route, as a whole, ~s preferred.
It is preferred technically and economically, and is environmentally
acceptable.
8.4 ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Listed below are a number of issues that could affect the Susitna
Transmission System route or substantially effect the impacts related
to the route in the future.
410052/8 8-4
. '··
••
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
410052/8
Issue
Knik Arm Bridge Crossing and
road corridor.
Rapid growth in the Point
MacKenzie and Matanuska Valley
areas increasing development,
regulations, zoning, ordi-
nances, etc.
Railroad transferred to state.
Long term road development
plans by the Matanuska Borough.
Redirection of proposed dis-
posals and remote parcels.
Use of access created by line.
Military acceptance of MEA ROW
use in Segment 17.
8-5
Remarks
Defer/Delete need for
underwater crossing of
Knik Arm.
Increase in acquisition
difficulties and land use/
ownership impacts.
Possible use of ROW in
areas.
Increase in accessibility
and reduction in overall
impacts related to line
construction.
Increased impacts to land
use/ownership.
Potential impact to
fish/wildlife resources,
benefit as recreation
opportunity.
Denial would create
significant problem for
finding acceptable
alternative.
I
r
I
I
I
I
l
l
f
!
!
l
• 8.5 RECOMMENDATION FOR FINAL ROUTE SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES
In the event that this study is continued ~n order to complete the
final steps of the route selection process, the following steps are
recommended.
Workshops
Workshops should be conducted with agencies to discuss
determine rela tive rankings of all criteria and discuss
between alternatives.
findings,
tradeoffs
Based on agency comments during these workshops, additional data may
need to be collected on specific problem areas in order to help select
between areas of conflict. Such data could include photosimulations to
ascertain visual impacts, waterfowl collision/ mortality studies or
detailed technical investigations of specific construction problem
areas.
The workshops should include representatives from the following
agencies and organizations:
o Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Division of Parks
Division of Lands
Division of Forestry
o Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
o U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
o National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
410052/8 8-6
• 0 Local Government Representatives
o Area Utilities
o Alaska Power Authority Staff
o Harza-Ebasco Representatives
Because of the geographical distance and resource differences between
the two study areas, two workshops would be held; one in Anchorage for
the South Study Area and one in Fairbanks for the North Study Areao
The content of the workshops would focus on the following:
o Reliability issue regarding the routing of all lines under
Knik Arm.
0 Significance and ranking of evaluation criteria.
o Conflict areas and trade-offs.
o Route refinements and design changes to avoid or reduce
impacts.
The workshops would conclude with a general consensus on the preferred
system and a route for future detailed studies and refinement.
Public 1-ieetings
The public presentations would serve to inform the public of the
alternatives under consideration, record their responses, and
incorporate preferences into the route selection process. The meetings
would be held in the same locations as the previous-public meetings.
410052/8 8-7
•
(j
,: ..
An additional meeting would likely be held in Anchorage. The
presentations would focus on the evaluation process, findings of the
study and results of the workshops.
Upon completion of the workshops and public meetings, route refinement
studies discussed in Chapter 3 can be initiated.
Area for Additional Investigation
Based on the findings and conclusions of this study effort to date,
certain route segments were identified as being particularly signifi-
cant with respect to making a decision.
These route segments are listed below and should be investigated in
greater detail to help resolve trade-offs in the final selection:
0 South Study Area
MEA/CEA route (Segments 2, 3, 6, 7, 8)
Kepler Lakes Option (Segments lL• an 16)
Glen Highway Option (Segments 13, 15)
o North Study Area
Healy East Option (Segments 3, 7)
410052/8 8-8
APPENDIX M
AGENCY COMMENTS
l I
I
1
1
I
I
I
l
l
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
.J
4
~-.--..~----~~~--_,-. .. ~_~...:_:~:
:r:
t-'
••
AGENCY
FEDERAL
U.S. Air Force,
Elmendorf Air Force Base,
Alaskan Air Command
U.S. Army, Fort Richardson
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Alaska District
Real Estate
Floodplain Management
Services
13508/0raft
._l,_,......_,~----...-\~Jii1L':::._. _ _.,~--~--~~--~-~-·~--'? ~~-~-~---~=-·-~~---·--'---·-··-·-"··--·--~--·-···--··---------•r•:, ., ...... §\_ .. :,•··,, ... ,;,··:··~·:-;·c--·.·--_, ..... ~.:..,.-;-....,:--~~--~'"7:,:.:··~·;:--j :.:,:·j··-·: • ..;.:..,.P,,-.:·---··: .... , ..... ( .... @. ·:--·····: J.,._-····:--. =
DATE
April 21, 1983
April 5, 1983
April 7, 1983
May 3, 1983
April 22, 1983
July 11, 1983
Hay 9, 1983
•
AGENCY/ORGANIZATION CONTACTS
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
Task 41 Susltna Transmission
SOURCE
Meeting
Meeting
Meeting
Correspondence
Correspondence
Correspondence
Telephone
South Study Area
COHMENT/ISSUE
Use of an existing Matanuska
Electric Association (MEA) right-of-way
for Susitna Transmission facilities
Use of the MEA right-of-way is not
transferable
Impacts on air navigation (helicopter and
and fixed-wing) would be sustained at Fort
Richardson's Bryant Airfield
Additional rights-of-way would adversely effect
maneuver areas for ground exercises
Eklutna, Inc. has filed on all Fort Richardson
lands north of the Davis Highway. If land were
declared excess, Eklutna would have first option.
Grant of right-of-way on Fort Richardson
to MEA is not transferable
Sent drawings of transmission line route
Request to occupy the MEA right-of-way by
Alaska Power Authority
Request to occupy the MEA right-of-way by
Alaska Power Authority denied (conflicts with
Fort Richardson Ammunition Storage Area)
•
14 November 1983
Page 1 of 8
INFORMATION RECEIVED
Elmendorf A.F.B. Master Plan
and detailed drawings received
Eklutna water project may be
utilizing portions of the Alaska
Power Administration and Glenn
Highway rights-of-way; investi-
gate status of project
Fort Richardson boundary and
topographic maps were reviewed
Fort Richardson Environmental
Assessment Reports and site
drawings, new master plans
available Fall 1983
Flood hazard boundary
maps for Matanuska Susitna
Borough
1 . . . -........... -·--·--····· ... ... ... . . . . . .. . .. --·---· -.... --··-------·····-------------~··------·~··· t.
_.,..-,~<--~""'"'--~-·~--~,..,. ..... --..,---~~~-.,.,£!..--.. ~~:--·=~~~-"-·--"-;-..;..,..., b i:Jt:"t::"--·~~;.....:..l;;.,._~.::: ··:·. ·~..=..~.~,_.....:2,_.;;.~-Jhi.':>a .:;,:~-·~ ... -h_,_.!"~.-~-..... -··---~· -· ---~--··"'-"
tf
N
.,
AGENCY
U.S. Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management,
Anchorage District Office
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Western Alaska Ecological
Services
U.S. Department of Transportation
DATE
April 12, 1983
April 26, 1983
Alaska Railroad Hay 12, 1983
Federal Aviation
Administration
13 50B/Dra f t
April 7 • 1983
SOURCE
Meeting
Meeting
Meeting
Meeting
.•.. ~
\ t
AG£NCY/0Rl>. • .J'ION CONTACTS
ALASKA POWER AU1'110Rrl"Y
Task 41 Susitna Transmission
South Study Area
• 14 Nov, .1983
Page _2_ of 8
COMMENT/ISSUE INFORMATION RECEIVED
BLH will administer military lands and native
lands not conveyed for grant of right-of-way
No use of existing MEA right-of-way other than
that use originally specified
Examine more than one alternative routing on
Elmendorf AFB
Alternative routes being evaluated by the Hunici·
pality of Anchorage's Eklutna Water Project should be
considered
Routes crossing the Matanuska and Knik Rivers will
impact migratory birds • trumpeter swans near
Cottonwood Creek would also be affected
Migratory bird and trumpeter
swan nesting sites
t~S expects new alignments to be evaluated at
a level of study similar to those currently proposed
MEA right-of-way crosses ARR property boundary information
2 tracts of Alaska Railroad (ARR) property:
1) Powder Reserve and 2) Birchwood Reserve.
The Powder Reserve provides the only storage of
munitions for private enterprise in Alaska; the
Birchwood Reserve is presently being leased for
industrial growth. If these lands are crossed,
a new right-of-vay should be selected on the perimeter
of each property
MEA o~oo~ns only surface rights. ARR owns subsistance
rights. 1l1e Eklutna Rock Quarry (owned by ARR), should
be avoided entirely
Eklutna, Inc, has filed on the Powder Reserve
Sharing ii ARR right-of-way (nominally 200 feet) is not
considered likely; crossings should not be a problem
No plans at present to expand the Birchwood Airport
VORTAC facilities should be avoided
City of Wasilla ts considering location of its
airport, cootoct USKH
Airport master records
VORTAC location maps
Eklutna range facility at
Eklutna
D
·~~-~----~--~---· ---· -·~~~~~~~~~~~:.::__~--__ :~~~~:~~~-.. ;:.-~~~;-~~;::~i:;;~.:..:.~-~~-;f*·~w;;-:§i;'.,~-:L~:-:~~~-. --~~ ··::~=~~:-=---~=~.=:~=~~=~~--~~_::~ __ _:_:~:.::_~_-
:r w
•
AGENCY
STATE OF ALASKA
Department of Fish and Game
Habitat Divisions
Department of Natural Resources
Division of Land and Resource
DATE
April 14, 1983
Planning April 22, 1983
June 22, 1983
Division of Land. and 'Water
Management, Southcentral District April 11. 1983
135011/Dra f t
SOURCE
Meeting
Meeting
-·
ACENCY/ORGANIZA'l'l ON CON'fACTS
ALASKA POI.JER AUTHORITY
Task 41 Susitna Transmission
South Study Area
COMMENT/ISSUE
Chugach originally proposed an overland route
around Knik Arm and was opposed in its crossing
of thP. Palmer Hay Flats State Game Refuge
Impacts to anadromous streams will be addressed
in the permit stipulations
An overland route wlll result: in bird collisions
along the Knik and Hatanuska Rivers
Visual impact will be a major concern, as well as
future land use
Preference expre~sed for paralleling the Little
Susitna Rlver
Impacts on agriculture would not be significant
Correspondence
Overland routes around Knik Arm would create
varying frequency of visual impacts from Glenn
Highway and Alaska Railroad (see T. Arminski for
letter from Bill Beatty) ·
.Meeting Little state land would be crossed by an overland
route around Knik Arm, except at the Palmer llay
Flats State Game Refuge. Considerable private
land would be encountered with opposition to be
expected
Willa~ to Pt. MacKenzie segment may cross agri-
cultural parcels. Division of Agriculture has not
expressed any opposition, ho~e.ver DNR planning is
opposed. There may be local support on this matter.
Agricultural rights are leased; the state permits
all such lands crossed
--~ --· < " ______ _._.. ....... ~-·----
•
14 November 1983
Page 3 of 8
INFORMATION RECEIVED
State Game Area boundary maps
ADF&G and USFW have trumpeter
swan and eagle nesting site
IDeation information
Fish Creek Management Plan
and Willow Sub-Basin Area
Plan
l'
1 , i 1.-
~-
l
~-,
T .p.
•
AGENCY
Division of Parks
Department of Transportation
and Public Facilities
13508/0raft
DATE SOURCE
May 10, 1983 Meeting
April 12, 1983 Meeting
•
AGENCY/ORGANIZATION CONTACTS
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
Task 41 Susitna Transmission
South Study Area
COMMENT/ISSUE
Little Susitna River :ls pr1op()sed for nominat.ion
as a des:ignated state public recreation area and
w.ill be managed by the Di vlls\lon of Parks,
An alternative 1route paralleling the Li:tt1e
Susitna River ~1ould offer 1soane benefits (imp;rovedl
access), if rem01ved from the! immediate 1river
corridor
Avoidance of the WiJllow Crt~elk State Recreation
Area is preferred b}1 D!lvisJlo!l of Parks. If a crossing
is required, it should be Jlot:aned further easlt., close.r
to the P:arks High1o1ayr
•
l4•November 1983
Paget _4_ of 8
INFOIRHATll:ON RECEIVED
Pr1e.limina1ry Haste1r Plan
for Willow C~eek State
Re1c::r:ea tian Auea and Susitna
Ba:&in La neil Use .Atlas.
Nanc:y LaiC.f~ M.aster Flan is nearing
c~mpletio~, add~tional lands may
have: been \incorporated into. it
Co111:cept of jo!n1t use! o:f Knjlk .rurm crossin,g for utilities
has bee~ considered~ however~ each proposal should be
evwluated on it:s own1 merits;
Knik Arm crossing
scoplng report
~IS for Knik Arm
Crossing to be
completed in 1983 Co~cern~; were e:Xpressed for .. n.aring of right-of-way
andl crossing of highways'
c::-
' ~;b
!")
I •
i
:r
ln
•
AGENCY
MATANUSKA -SUSITNA BOROUGH
Planning Department
1350::1/Draft
DATE SOURCE
April 12, 1983 Meeting
•
AGENCY/ORGANIZATION CONTACTS
ALASKA POW£R AUTHORITY
Task 4~ Susitna Transmission
South Study Area
CONMENT/ISSUE
Palmer Hay Flats State Came Refuge is a designated
special land use district and will be subject to
specific permitting requirements, if a right-of-way
is required
•
14 November 1983
Page _5_ of _8_
INFORMATION RECEIVED
Borough will be initiating
"Industrial Port" planning;
concept is contingent on spur
from Alaska Railroad
Pt. MacKenzie Road is proposed
for extension to planned port
site
Considerable land speculation
is occurring near Big Lake and
Pt. MacKenzie
Borough awaiting development of
F:l.sh Creek Management Plan,
access from Burma Road
Borough Comprehensive Develop-
ment Plan (draft) and Transpor·
tation Plan received
. ''i fl·~~l ... ~~. . ~· ;I
' .
:.,r'
I
I
t
I
I
I
:r
0'\
~~ ••
AGENCY
MUlliCIPALITY OF ANCllORAGE
Eklutna Water Project
DATE
April 14, 1983
Physical Planning Department April 8, 1983
May 3, 1983
1350B/Draft
SOURCE
Neeting
Meeting
Meeting
•
AGENCY/ORGANIZATION CON'l'ACTS
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
Task 41 Susitna Transmission
South Study Area
COMMENT/ISSUE
Municipality generally endorsed concept of
utilizing existing right-of-way, communities
north of Fort Richardson would likely be opposed
Other routing concepts should be examined;
work session ro be arranged
Planning staff not able to become actively involved
due to current workload
•
14 November 1983
Page _6_ of _8_
INFORMATION RECEIVED
Crossing of Fort Richardson
was dictated to parallel the
Alaska Power Administration
right:-of-\lay
Construction right-of-way is
100 feet; 40 feet for operations
and maintenance
Alaska Railroad has expressed a
preference for avoidance of their
right-of-way; Department of
Transportation will consider a
parallel of the highway
Public meetings have been held
in several communities. Response
has been mixed, but favorable
overall
Task 7, Facility Evaluation,
Eklutna Water Project revie~ed
First phase of project is
scheduled for bids by January
1984; current routing preference
for Eklutna Water Project is the
Power Administration right-of-way
Planning Department now using
computer assisted data process-
ing, system not sufficiently ad
vanced for Susitna application
Eagle R1.ver -Chugiak -Eklutna
Comprehensive Plan obtained
Additional planning will focus on
designated "Special Study Areas"
(potential for high density resi-
dential growth)
l•
'\
]:
1
~..
__ ,~ .. _n_ ... ______ -~ ~ --=-.....;:;.,_:__~--~·----·~--"
••
:r ......
~GENCY
OTiiER CONTACTS
Eklutna, Inc.
EN STAR
crossings which are used
1350B/Draft
DATE SOURCE
6\. \.
AGENCY/ORGANIZATION CONTACTS
ALASKA PO~ER AUTHORITY
Task 41 Susitna Transmission
South Study Area
COMMENT/ISSUE
Comments on the MEA right-of-way include:
1) impacts on Birchwood community. 2) crossing of
Alaska Railroad's Powder Reserve; 3) crossing of
Beach Lake Regional Park and 4) displacement of
undeveloped lands along Knik Arm {where few remain)
Two issues will need to be carefully addressed:
location of right-of-way {address alterm-.tives) and
tower design
•
14 November 1983
Page 7 of 8
INFORMATION RECEIVED
Acquire additional data from the
Coastal Zone Management Program
Municipality would also like to comment on routes before
finalized
April 14. 1983 Meeting
April 21, 1983
ENSTAR has al.ready obtained
,.
CO!liSideration should be given to overbuild of Alaska
Po~ter Admi nis tra tion right-of-way
Preference for paralleling the Glenn Highway was
stated to avoid further segmenting of Eklutna, Inc.
lands
Eklutna, Inc. would be interested in substation or
equivalent house of local power
Eklutna, Inc. will want to review any finalized
proposals which would cross their lands
Meeting
as reference points by pilots during lnclimate
weather; parallel. existing facilities at river
Alaska Power Administration
right-of-way file number
A 022452, reserves 37.5 feet
either side of centerline
Concern expressed for river
~asements from U.S. Department
of Transportation, State
Department of Transportation
and Public Facilities and the
Alaska Railroad
~' '· p
p r r
l l
l
I
I !;
I
!
!" r
l
.,
AGENCY CAT£
USKH April 11, .1983 Telephone
Septemter 20, 1983 Telephone
tf co
l)SOBln.-.,rt
SQURCE
••
AGENCY/ORGANIZATION CONTACTS
ALASKA POWER AUTUORUY
Task 41 Susitna Transmission
South Study Area
COMMENT/ISSUE
ENSTAR had little problems during routing studies since
the facility will be buried and ENSTAR is providing taps at
various locations
Difficulty should be expected in crossing Palmer Hay Flats
State Game Refuge and when diverging from existing corridors
•
14 November 1983
Page _8_ of _8_
INFORMATION RECEIVED
60 foot construction right-of-
way, 20 foot permanent right-of·
way
Pipeline route location map
received
USKH undertaking relocation st:udy
for the Wasilla Airport; study
area is defined as a 5 mile
radius from the existing airport
site
Tentative location of new
airport site is T17N, RlW, Sec-
tion 7.5.M; south of Parks
Highway and Jacobson Lake. Fia1al
Report -October 1983
H to,
.A:,.
. "
. ,. . ..... . ~ . ~.._: --• !Jfft" .• .. .. _ -· , • b ) • • • ~...... p _, ~.. , o·· Cl. o . 2 /. 5... .,. 70 . -.•• ' , • f ~ • .. ' • ~ . ·r. . . ~ ~ ' .. ~ .., "" , ':\'" ~ f ' • • " . , . .. ' 0 ~
' • ·-~ -.. &... ' .. Q ~-a.,
,. ' ... ) Q '-· ' t't: ' ".,., '. ~ ~ ~ ··. • ~ ct.. "t., ..... , -·.,..__....... 1 • • • _.. ,0 . ., ~ c;.,. 4 '<-...' .... ., ..... ~h --..... '--.....;...
&. • • ~ ·-., • ... • • ' f . ~ . ' r. ~ r
4!> j.. 7 '\ f:l ~ • ,. ~ ~ .. • --1 '
~0
···~i .
~
I
1
I
1
1
i
I
l
I
' !
Ci ~ ~-1~1 t .
~'.·'·
I :ii: I . ;'i(,ff . -
!3: I
\0
'· .. ,. . ·~ ~ f'l' ~ ,...._ '.:t •· ~
ti·
AGENCY DATE
FEDERAL
U.S. Army, Fort Wainwright May 6, 1.983
May 9, 1.983
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Real Estate May 6, 1983
Floodplain Management May 6, 1983
Clear MetJs May 10, 1983
U.S. Department of the
Interior
Bureau of .Land Manage-
ment, Anchorage District
Office April 27, 1983
Fish and Wildlife April 29, 1983
Service, North
Alaska Ecological
Service
1355~}0R.AI-7
SOURCE
Meeting
Telephone
11eeting
Meeting
•
,,loJ::Nt.~/OKGANlZATION CO!I!TACTS
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
Task 41 Susitna Trans~f ..,·;ion
North Study Area
Cot-fl1ENT/ ISSUE
rroposed substation site conflicts with a new
controlled firing range at Fort Wainwright
Military Reservation
No transmission structures can be placed on the
Tanana River Levy
Substation site is located within the 100
year floodplain
Correspondence Mailed FERC plates G47, G48, & G49
Telephone
Meeting Routing south of the Tanana River would Jmva~t
aircraft use, peregrine falcon, trumpeter swan and
sandhlll crane nesting sites
Effects of USACE flood contr.ol project on Tanana
River are uncertain ·
•
14 Nov~mber 1983
Page _1_ of _4_
INFORMJ.TION RECEIVED
Fort Wainwright Airspace Docket
75-AL,.96NR and res.~rvation map,
number 18-02-1.19
B1~s for Port Wainwright's
Range "A" Firing Range to .be
issued on September 30, 1.983
Status of Chana River Relocation
of Project
Flood insurance maps for
Tanana River
BLM-, Anchorage District Office
will coordinate review of trans-
mission studies
Contact Endangered Species
for more detailed species infor-
mation and Department of Trans
portation and Public Facilities
for status of Parks Highway
Bypass
}~
-~~ ,;;
. Cf.:
f
ll
;,~\
,,
-~.~
;-;-_-~,
tf
f-1
0
•
AGENCY
STATE OF .ALASKA
Department of Fish and Game
Habit~t, Game and Sport
DATE SOURCE
•
AGENCY/ORGANIZATION CONTACTS
ALASKA POWER AU'l'IIORITY
Task 41 Susitna Transmission
North Study Area
COMMENT/ISSUE
Fisheries Divisions April 29, 1983 Meeting Concerns expressed for alignments crossing near
the Tanana River bluffs (peregrine falcons sighted
in v~cinity)
Department of Natural Resouces
Division of Land and
Water Management,
North Central District
Office
13558/URAFT
January 28, 1983 Correspondence
February 14, 1983 Correspondence
Lack of parallel with existing GVEA transmission
line should be addressed
A northerly entrance into Fairbanks substation site
would impact residential development near Musk, Dog
Patch and Chena Hot Springs Roads; avoid south facing
slopes
Concerns for impacts of proposed right-of-way
on the Northcentral District's land disposals
Need consideration of paralleling existing GVEA
transmision line
Evaluation of possible alternative. transmission
line routes, route ll (east of Healy), not econom
ically feasible, route 02 (east of Alaska Railroad)
excessive visual impacts; route #3 best alternative
with reroute through Goldstream Creek Valley
, •.
Ill Novemb1:r 1983
Page 2 of 4
lNFORMATiot~ RECEIVED
Salchaket Slough is popular
for picnicking and hunting (not
authorized by military)
Clear water tributaries to Tanana
River of Bear, McDonald and Clear
Creeks provide good grayling
habitat
Forest management west of Fort
Wainwright may include a burn
policy
Few comments on the effects on
the existing GVEA transmission
line
Existing or planned disposals in
vicinity of the pro'j)osed right-
of-way were described and illus-
trated (agricultural sales,
remotes and subdivisions)
First draft of Nenana River
Management report received
').
!,:
~" j;
:i:
}
;~
·A~,i»:l -~ r,t-~71
~ -~
• ''l t
' l
I
l
I
l
I
I
t
I
I
l
' '
:r
1-"
1-"
,11' --J'<;-• -. .
--...,.., ..;;,., ' ____ .:;___..~-~ ... ~ ~--~----~~~-.-· ';:...._:_:-.:..lJiirJI£~:.....-•. --~~--..:.:~11\...-.-...-..-. -~----------~~---~---·----~----~~-----.•. ,
(j
AGENCY DATE
April 29, 1983
Hay 13, 1983
Divisior ,f Parks May 17, 1983
Department of Transportation
and fublic Facilities,
Interior Region May 11, 1983
l3~~B/DRAFT
SOURCE
Meeting
Meeting
Meeting
Meeting
••
AGENCY/OitGANlZAT !ON CONTACTS
ALASKA POWER AUTIIORITY
Task 41 Susitna Transmission
North Study Area
COMMENT/ISSUE
Crossing of Tanana River (south of Fairbanks) should
be evaluated with respect to erosion and slope
stability problems
A northerly approach to the Fairbanks substation
wo~ld be opposed by the public
An existing GVEA right-of-way north of the Tanana
River should be discussed with the Depart~ent
of Transportation and Public Utilities
Routing near Northstar Borough industrial sites would
be canpatible
GVEA is relocating an existing 69KV line parallel
to the south Fairbanks Expressway. A portion of
the line will be underground to comply ~ith the
Fairbanks International Airport airspace requirements
•
14 November 1983
Page 3 of 4
INFORMATION RECEIVED
Additional information received
on agricultural disposals
Division of Research and Develop·
ment is preparing alternative
land management plans for the
Tanana River basin
Resource information obtained
for Tanana River basin
Recreational data obtained
for Tanana River basin
South Fairbanks Expressway
location data and project
description acquired
(right-of-way width:
200-270 feet)
i'
:
i'c
: ~~
;]:.
i! ~',{
~t~·
;~
:!i ,,
(I
"
-:''·
T
1-'
N
(j
AGENCY
FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH
Planning Department
Parks and Recreation
Department
13558/DRAI-7
DATE
May 11, 1983
May 13, 1983
SOURCE
Meeting
Meeting
•
AGENCY/OHGANIZATlON CONTACTS
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
Task 41 Susitna Transmission
North Study Area
COMMENT/ISSUE
Alternative routing south of Tanana River was
preferred in order to avoid residential growth near
Rosie Creek, Ester and Chena Ridge
A parallel of the GVEA transmission line should be
avoided to reduce visual impacts
Alternatives in the Goldstream Creek Valley should
avoid the Alaska Railroad; such alignment would also
impact Spinach Creek, north of Ester Dome
Alignment near Ester or alternative substation si.tes
and routes should not affect existing recreational
facilities
•
14 November 1983
Page _4_ of 4
INFORMATION RECEIVED
Borough currently preparing a
comprel1ensive plnn; draft avail-
able by August 1983
Resource data obtained for land
use and mineral leases, most
data obtained from state DNR
Park i.nventory and survey and
draft of parks and recreation
plan obtained
t' ;; ()
I 1, p
j ,.
' 1~ ()
~:
I: j.
'•
!
\
L
~ :i: ~:
" _.,....,,._......, -------~~~~·~---~·-··-· --·-·-'--..--~-.
•
APPENDIX N
UTILITY COMMENTS
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY • TASK 41 -SUSITNA TRANSMISSION SYSTEM
UTILITY CONTACTS
UTILITY DATE
Anchorage Municipal Light & Power 3/17/83
Anchorage Municipal Light & Power 5/11/83
Chugach Electric Association 5/11/83
Matanuska Electric Association 5/13/83
Golden Valley Electric Association 5/23/83
F4!Jbanks Municipal Utility System
Matanuska Electric Association 6/01/83
Anchorage Municipal
Light & Power
Anchorage Municipal
Light & Power
Matanuska Electric Association
• C/41/7-F
R2
6/06/83
6/13/83
7/26/83
SOURCE
Meeting
Meeting
Meeting -
Meeting -
Meeting
Meeting
Meeting
Letter
Letter
N-1
COMMENT/ISSUE INFORMATION RECEIVED
Two separate See Meeting Notes
and independent
routes into
Anchorage. One
over land.
Separate over-
land route into
Anchorage. Tee-
land as possible
transition sub-
station location.
FERC request for
integrated sys-
tern diagram.
Power Sales
Agreement
Willow not re-
quired. Sub-
station north-
west of TE=!eland
desireaole.
See }1eeting Notes
II II "
II " II
See Meeting Notes
See Meeting Notes
No circuits See Meeting Notes
required between
Plant 1 and 2 for
Susitna Power
delivery. Two 230
KV circuits re-
quired from Plant
2 to Fossil Creek~
Transmitted Inter-
connected System
One Line Diagram
Preferred site or
Susitna Power
delivery •
N/A
N/A
-
APPENDIX P
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
,. ,,
f ~ ' ..
.'.~ · . .
•
•
PUBI,IC PARTICIPATION
To encourage public comment on the transmission line study) the
atta. ;hed public information materials were developed and a series of
public meetings held (May 16-25, 1983). Following the materials are
description~ of public comments received at the meetings .
C/41/7-5
R4
P-1
ALA.§KA POWIER AUTHORiTY
.... 334 WEST 5th AVENUE· ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 Phone: (907) 277-7641
(907) 276-0001
•
PRESS RELEASE
CONTACT: Pat Serie
Har~a-Ebasco Public
Participation Coordinator
349-8581
or
George Gleason
Alaska Power Authority
Public Information Officer
276-0001
The Alaska Power Authority applied to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC) in February of this year for a license to construct the Susitna
Hydroelectric Project. Si nee that time the Power Authority has conducted
refinement studies to further evaluate and confirm the transmission line
corridor which was recommended in the License Application.
The Power Authority realizes that the public may have ideas and concerns
regarding selection of transmission line corridors, and is continuing to seek
public input during the licensing process. A number of public meetings have
been scheduled from May 16 to May 25~ They will be held from 7:00 -10:00 pmc
The ideas and concerns of the public are an important part of the decision
process, and the Alaska Power Authority invites you to come and discuss your
concerns during the public meetin9 held in your area. The schedu1e is:
Palmer Palmer Jr. High School Hay 16
Willow Willow Elementary School May 17
Birchwood Birchwood Elementary S~~oo1 May 18
Fairbanks Borough Assembly Chambers May 23
Nenana Council Chambers May 24
Healy Healy Community Center May 25
The goal of this study is to evaluate the various aspects of transmission line
construction and operation, including technical, environmental, economic, and
public concerns. One alternative that quickly emerged is a potential
opportunity to share rights-of-way which presently exist around the Knik Arm
from the Palmer area as shown in the accompanying map. Utilizing an existing
right-of-way would reduce the level of impact that would result from acquiring
a new right-of-way. The Alaska Power Authority is studying the overland,
sha·red-corri dor route around Kni k Ann as a complement to the submerged cable
route presented to FERC in the License Application. Other alternatives are
also being reviewed to provide more infonnation to confirm the proposed
corri dar.
P-2
' !
I
I
}
l
f.
t
f
i
ALA§I-i.A POWlER AUTJI-!fORITY
. -334 WEST 5th AVENUE· ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501
Phone: (907) 277-7641
(907) 276-0001
,
PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCH~ENT
The Alaska Power Authority invites you to participate in planning for the
Susitna Hydroelectric Project's transmission line route. Issues and concerns
of tlhe public are important in the decision process. Attend a community
workshop in your area to discuss your concerns with the Alaska Power
Authority, Community workshops will be held in Palmer at Palmer Jr. High
Schor) 1 on May 16th; in Wi 11 ow at Will ow Elementary Schoo 1 on f·1ay 17th; in
Birchwood at Birchwood Elementary School on Hay 18th; in Fairbanks at the
Borough Assembly Chambe.rs on May 23; at the Nenilna Counci 1 Chambers on May
24th:; and in Healy at the Corrununity Center on May 25.
Be sure and attend -your comments are welcome.
P-3
,.
ALA§KA POWER AUTHORITY
334 WEST 5th AVENUE· ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501
Dear Community Leader:
May 5, 1983
Phone: (907) 277-7641
(907) 276-0001
We wrote to you recently about an ongoing Susitna Hydroelectric Project
transmission line routing study. The Alaska Power Authority applied to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission {FERC) in February of this year for a
license to construct the Susitna Hydroelectric Project. Since that time the
Power Authority has conducted refinement studies to further· eva 1 ua te and
confirm the transmission line corridor which was recommended in the License Application.
The Power Authority realizes that the public may have ideas and concerns
regarding selection of transmission line corridors, and is continuing to seek
public input during the licensing process. A number of public meetings have
been scheduled from May 16 to May 25. They will be held from 7:00 -10:00 pm.
The ideas and concerns of the public are an important part of the decision
process, and the Alaska Power Authority invites you to come and discuss your
concerns during the public meeting held in your area. The schedule is:
Palmer Palmer Jr .. High School Hay 16
Willow Wi 11 ow Elementary School r~ay 17
Birchwood Birchwood Elementary School ·May 18
Fairbanks Borough Assembly Chambers May 23
Nenana Co unci 1 ~tambers M~y 24
Healy He a 1y Comr.:~ni ty Cent-:-r May 25
The goal of this study tS to evaluate t.he various aspects of transmission • .ne
construction and oper~tion, including technical, environmental, economic, and
public concerns. One alternative that quickly emerged is a potential
opportunity to share rights-of-way which presently exist around the Knik Arm
from the Palmer area as shown in the accompanying map. Utilizing an existing
right-of-way would reduce the level of impact that would result from acquiring
a new right of.:oway. The Alaska Powc:r Authority is studying the overland,
shared-corridor route around Kni k Arm as a complement to the submerged cable
route presented to FERC in the License Application. Other alternatives are
also being reviewed t-, provide more infonnation to confinn the proposed corridor.
P-4
.•. ,-,'
. '
j
!
•
L
ALA§KA POWJER AUTHORiTY
334 WEST 5th AVENUE· ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501
Dear Citizen Group Leader:
May 5, 1983
Phone: (907) 277-7641
(907) 276-0001
We wrote to you recently about an ongoing Susitna Hydroelectric Project
transmission 1 i ne routing study. The Alaska Power' Author'[ i;~ applied to the
federal Energy Regula tory Commi ssl on (FERC) in February of this year for a
license to construct the Susitna Hydroelectric Pr\.ject, Since that time the
Power Authority has conducted refinement studies to f:Jrther ~valui!te and
confirm the transmission li r.l! corridor whi ciJ was recotmner;ded In the License Appl i cation.
The Power Authority realfzes that the public may have ideas and concerns
regarding selection of transmissfo~ line corridors, and is continuing to seek
public inp~t during the licensing process. A number of public meetings have
been schedui€4 from May 16 to May 25. They will be held from 7:00 -10:00 pm.
The ideas and concerns ~f the public are an important part of the decision
proces:«, <"n( the A 1 ask a Power Authority invites you to come and discuss your
concerns dur:ng the public meeting held in your area. The schedule is:
Palmer Palmer Jr. High School Hay 16 . ' . ., ,
Willow Elementary School May 17
w ll .ow
Birchwood Birchwood Elementary School May 18
Fairbanks Borough Assembly Chambers May 23
Nenana. Council Chambers May 24
Healy Healy Community Center May 25
The goal of this study is to evaluate the various aspects of transmission line
construction and operation, including technical, environmental, economic, and
public concerns. One alternative that quickly emerged is a potential
opportunity to share rights-of-way which presently exist around the Knik Arm
from the Palmer are<1 as shown in the accompanying map. Utilizing <In existing
right-of-way would reduce the level of impact that would result from acquiring
a new right-of-way, The Alaska Power Authority is studying the overland,
shared-corridor route around Knik Ann as a complement to the submerged cable
route presented to FERC in the License Application. Other alternatives are
also being reviewed to provide more information to confirm the proposed corridor •
P-5
I
l
t•
I
I 1
1
{
!
j
J
l ,( ,_ l
•
""L
l ~ ..
l
l .]
..
FAIRBANKS
~c:ao ~?~..,-
NENANA f]
1!1\
ll
11
\
~ HEALY
INTERTIE
DEVIL
~CANYON
Q ~ t:::::H::::;, r<:l c::::J ~qs.,~ W AT AN A
GOLD CREEK ~~ t} .
O~ILLOW
a--.~
_./ ~ I ' . 0 PALMER
'I:·S·\¥-I Q ~ ~t~ / Jl '-.ALTERNATE
~~ ROUTE
oANCHORAGE
P-6
I
I
''""'-"'-..-~~· ,., ... ~,..~~.~· "'"-""·"'·--.--........... ----..-------~
(!
-' " • '.~. ' • ...._., ...._., .. e ' ~ • . r ~ ---· . ! r I
!
I •
c...--.--=-'~-;:;;;..---,-.;;";;;.:ifcE':.,;,;;;_ ~·~>-. .,. .. , .. _ ... _ -·--· . ____ ..........,~....:;... .... "'--·-·-· --··
•
,. i ,
I
I
f
l ..... . . .. . . . ........ "' .. ' .......................... · ~
• ... <t •• ' ... <I : ....... ~ ......... .
.... . . ... _ .. ltJr't=3-*'&tla~#··e ... WJ•M'4 ,~ ..... lQ!dQ .c.!J ~ .. __
j .. .. • .... ~ I. .
I
4
1-d
I
"
I
lrl.
~~
I! '• ttj': )~~~:~ ~"·.J~, ..
! ~. "··! ! • ~~ • I ~~ r ••• ,
I ~~ 1 ...
I .J~
t •.I~ [ . . .... !' ·~ ..•
t~i~
1
1 ~ i":
• ... :~. l: ..
TOPICS:
iltf!i. ttli~, W:bt»
DATES
& PLACES:
A COMI\r1UN;Ty WORitS:iO? on
Susitna Transmission Line
Routing
• description of corridor rouling process, Including environmenlal consideralions
• workshops lo idenllfy issues
• general maps of lhe roules under consideration
• quoslion and an!lwer period
Palmer•
Willow-
7:00 p.m., Monday, May 16 • Palmer Junior High School
7:00 p.m., Tuesday, May 17 • Willow Elomenlary School
Birchwood· 7:00 p.m., Wednesday, May 18 • Birchwood Elementary School
Fairbank• • 7:00 p.m., Monday, May 23 • Borough Assembly Chambors
Nenana • 7:00 p.m., Tuoaday, May 24 • Nonanu Council Chambers
Healy • 7:00 p.m., Wednesday, May 26 • Healy Communlly Center
! ,,
I
Alaska Power Authority
l
I
.: ~"' • L'"' J Ji 1 wp •
1 :;c · ~ I "".._ i •-•¥+>¥ '
f:
~ ·-Joi¥ w ........... ,..,.., .
., '"-·.. 1 ".._._... *f ~-l~ ....... :tliriC 'if·l~-'lt*'lso~•,;;.;-~...-_z;;-'-'~""'·-=--·-··
I
I
I
'!'
J
·1
: 1
···I
~ f
·:l .. ·
. '
• ~ r ,_,.
l~ ' l' !;
i
!-' } -~
I.
I
I
j
;::--.
f'rf
j
I
•• NEWSPAPER
ALL ALASK~ WEEKLY -FAIRBANKS
THE FRONTIERSMAN -PALMER
VALLEY SUN -PALMER
FAIRBANKS DAILY NEWS MINER
CHUGIAK -EAGLE RIVER STAR
ANCHORAGE TIMES
ANCHO~~GE DAILY NEWS
P-8
RUN -DATES
5/13 -5/20
5/12
5/10
5/20, 5/23/5/24
5/25
5/12
5/13, 5/15, 5/~.4
5/17, 5/18
5/13, 5/15, 5/: .. 6
5/17 5/18
' .~r'':~·~
!,'-,.'
NEWSPAPER
ALL ALASKA WEEKLY -FAIRBANKS
THE FRONTIERSMAN -PALMER
VALLEY SUN -PALMER
FAIRBANKS DAILY NEWS MINER
CHUGIP~ -EAGLE RIVER STAR
ANCHORAGE TIMES
ANCHORAGE DAILY NEWS
"
P-8
RUN -DATES
5/13 -5/20
5/12
5/10
5/20, 5/23/5/24
5/25
5/12
5/13, 5/15, 5/24
5/17, 5/18
5/13, 5/15, 5/16
5/17 5/18
_ ...
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
l • 334 WEST 5th AVENUE-ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501
~I Phone: (907) 277-7641
(907) 276-0001
'! 'I
l
I
! 1
> I
I
J
Jl
J
j
!
I
!
f
I
I
f
J
)
i
I
j
Dear Citizen:
Public concerns and comments continue to be important to the Alaska
Power Authority as we move toward the licensing of the Susitna Hydro-
electric Project. Governor Sheffield submitted the license application
for Susitna to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) on
February 28 of this year. The Power Authority is now conducting further
investigations that will provide the supplementary data needed by FERC to make their licensing decision.
One of the supplementary tasks is to further evaluate transmission
line routing. Local community preferences and concerns are key elements
in the route evaluation process. The enclosed brochure describes the
transmission line evaluation and the opportunities for public participation.
I encourage you to complete the form on the brochure, indicating
your feelings on the important issues in transmission 1ine routing.
Please fee 1 free to a 1 so give us more deta i 1 ed comments and to be
involved in the community workshops to be held in May. Workshop times
and dates will be announced locally in the next few weeks.
If you would like more detailed information on transmission line
routing or other aspects of the Sus i tna Project, copies of both the
April 1982 Feasibility Report and the FERC License Application are
available in the following libraries:
0 Noel Wien Library -Fairbanks 0 Talkeetna Public Library
0 Rasmussen Library-Fairbanks
0 Trapper Creek Elementary School Library 0 Cantwell School Library
0 Palmer Public Library
0 Alaska Power Authority Library -Anchorag~: 0 Loussac Library-Anchorage
Again, we invite your involvement in this process and welcome your comments.
?cerely,
~~~~~
Ex~cutive Director
P-9
~l
l
!
[
l
l
I
0!
! ''-. i
l
1
' l
!
l
0
1!
00
J i
I
ALASKA POW~R AUTHORITY
334 WEST 5th AVENUE· ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501
Dear Citizen Group Leader:
Phone: (907) 277-7641
(907) .276·0001
Public concerns and comments continue to be important to the Alaska
Power Authority as we move toward the licensing of the Susitna Hydro-
electric Project. Governor Sheffield submitted the license application
for Susitna to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) on
February 28 of this year. The Power Authority is now conducting further
investigations that will provide the supplementary data needed by FERC
to make their licensing decision.
One of the supplementary tasks is to further evaluate transmission
line routing. Local community preferences and concerns are key elements
in the route evaluation process. The enclosed brochure describes the
transmission line evaluation and the opportunities for public participa-
tion.
I encourage you to discuss this information with your membership
and to give us your individual or group opinions on the important issues
in transmission line routing. You can complete and return the form on
the brochure or write us with more detailed comments. We also invite
you to participate in the community workshops to be held in May, and '
would be happy to discuss the study with you or your member.s. Workshop
times and dates will be announced locally in the next few weeks.
If you would like more· detailed information on transmission line
routing or other aspects of the Susitna Project, copies of both the
April 1982 Feasibility Report and the FERC License Application are
available in the following libraries:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Noel Wien Library -Fairbanks
Talkeetna Public Library
Rasmussen Library-Fairbanks
Trapper Creek Elementary School Library
Cantwell School Library
Palmer Public Library
Alaska Power Authority Library -Anchorage
Loussac Library -Anchorage
Again, we invite your involvement in this process and welcome your comments.
P-10
erelh
-\· \ \ ...Jv-l
Eric P. Yould -\
Executive Director
l
I
I"
!
l
! . I
!
i
'I .
,, ._;,
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
334 WEST 5th AVENUE· ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 Phone: (907) 277-7641
(907) 276-0001
Dear Community Council Leader:
Public concerns and comments continue to be important to the Alaska
Power Authority as we move toward the licensing of the Susitna Hydro-
electric Project. Governor Sheffield submitted the license application
for Susitna to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) on
February 28 of this year. The Power Authority is now conducting further
investigations that will provide the supplementary data needed by FERC
·to make their licensing decision.
One of the supplementary tasks is to further evaluate transmission
line routing. Local community preferences and concerns are key elements
in the route evaluation process. We see the Community Council structure
as a key part of providing information to the public and receiving their
input. The enclosed brochure describes the transmission line evaluation
and the opportunities for public participation.
I encourage you to discuss this information with your membership ·'
and give us your opinions on the important issues in transmission line
routing. You can complete and return the form on the brochure or write
us with more detailed comments. We also invite you to participate in
the community workshops to be held in May, and would be happy to discuss
the st~dy with you or your members. Workshop times and dates will be
announced locally in the next few weeks.
If you would like more detailed information on transmission line
routing or other aspects of the Susitna Project, copies of both the
April 1982 Feasibility Report and the FERC License Application are
available in the following libraries:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Noel Wien Library-Fairbanks
Talkeetna Public Library
Rasmussen Library-Fairbanks
Trapper Creek Elementary School Library
Cantwell School Library
Palmer Public Library
Alaska Power Authority Library -Anchorage
Loussac Library -Anchorage
Again, we invite your involvement in this process and welcome your
comments.
P-11
cere ly,
~· Y.U~
Eric P. Yould \
Executive Director
,.._._.,.,_,. ... ~~~--..--......... ~--~-.~-··~"'--"..._.._,._..,..,.,_,_.._._ ..... ~--... -
(:1
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
I
.e 334 WEST 5th AVENUE· ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 Phone: (907) 277-7641
(907) 276-0001
l
)
i
I
!
J
f ~-
1
J
i ,_.
I·
I
I
l
PRESS RELEASE Apri 1 20, 1983
Contact: Pat Serie
Harza-Ebasco Public
Participation
Coordinator 349-8581
George Gleason
Alaska Power Authority
277-7641
The Alaska Power Authority is seeking public ideas and comments for
use in a transmisr.ion line routi~g study currently underway as part of
the Susitna Hydroelectric Project. Local community preferences and
concerns are key elements in the route evaluation process.
Community workshops regarding the tra.nsmi ss ion 1 i ne routing study
will be held May 16-25, 1983, in Birchwood, Palmer, Willow, Fairbanks,
Nenana, Healy, and Gold Creek. Local announcements of specific meeting
times and places will be made in May.
A transmission line corridor was selected in last year•s Susitna
Feasibility Study as suitable from both economic and environmental
standpoints. The selected corridor was one of serveral potential
transmission corridors identified in the study that could connect the
Susitna Hydroelectric Project to the proposed Willow-Healy Intertie and
extend the Intertie to carry Susitna power to Anchorage and Fairbanks.
The selected transmission corridor will initially be a half-mile
strip of land that will be further refined in the future to a
right-of-way varying from 100 to 400 feet wide. The right-of-way will
contain towers and conductors (wires) required to bring power from the
Susitna site to the transmission line between Anchorage and Fairbanks.
Depending on the width of right-of-way available, one of several tower
designs will be used. They may be of single pole or guyed 11 X11 design,
for example. Where appropriate, the selected design wi11 be built from
11 Weathering 11 steel, which turns a rust brown color within a year.
Further refinement of the t~outing study will enable the Alaska
Power Authority to minimize impacts on land use, visual resources, and
natural systems while optimizing construction and operating costs.
P-12
Design Offici'!: 400-112th A'l'tmu,, NE Bel/ttiiUt!, Washington 98004 T~J. (206} 451·4500
Main Offici: 8740 H•rue/1 Road Anchorage, Alaskll 99507 Tel. (907) .149-8581
Judy St.anek
Federation of Community Councils
801 W~ Fireweed Lane, Suite 103
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Dear Judy:
April 20, 1983
Attached is the article on Susitna transmission li.l1.~ routing
that ·we discussed for inclusion in the Federation's April
Neighbor to Neighbor. Please call me (349-8581) if you would
like to discuss it.
We are also making direct mailings to each of the member coun-
cils.
I appreciate your help in this and look forward to work£ng fur-
ther within the community council structure.
PJS/ml
Attachment
cc: Ramon S. LaRusso -H-E
Tom Arminski -APA
George Gleason -APA
Rick Suttle -H-E
Bill Rom ... H-E
Steve Ott -Commonwealth Assoc.
Ver~,,ruly yours,
itt~~ . .... t_-i
Patricia J. Serie
Public Participation
Coordinator
J
1 ;j
!
·l
"'-. .._ ·~ _ ___,, __ ,__w __ .,...._...,~ ____ .....,.._•
ARTICLE FOR NEIGHBOR TO NEIGHBOR
COMMUNITY COUNCIL NEWSLETTER
The Alaska Power Authority is seeking public ideas and comments for
use in a trensmission line routing study currently underway as par~
of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project. Public concerns are an
important consideration in the overall route decision processr and
the Power Authority invites community councils and their members to
participate.
A preferred transmission line corridor was selected in last year's
Susitna feasibility study as suitable from both economic and
environmental standpoints. This study identified pofential
transmission corridors to connect the Susitna Hydroelectric Project
to the proposed Willow-Healy Intertie and extend the Intertie to
carry Susitna power to Anchorage and Fairbanks.
The selected transmission corridor will initially be a half-mile
strip of land that will be further refined in the future to a
right-of-way varying from 100 to 400 feet wide. That right-of-way
will contain towers and conductors (wires) req~Jired to bring power
from the Susitna site to the transmission line between Anchorage and
Fairbankse Depending on the width of right-of-way available, one of
several tower designs will be used. They may be of single pole or
guyed 11 X" design, for example. Where appropriate, the selected
design will be built from .. weathering" steel, which turns a rust
brown color within a year.
In order to build the lines and maintain the right-of-way, it will
be necessary to have year-round access. One of the goals is to
select areas that are already served by access roads to minimize ne::w
construction and disturbance. Where necessary, however, access
trails will be developed and maintained.
A great deal of information exists from previous work on these
corridors. Earlier data from the Int~rtie and Susitna projects
include aerial photos, USGS maps, land status reports, and field
observations. Input is bei~g sought from agencies, interest groups
community councils, and the public.
Further refinement of the routing study will enable the Alaska Power
Authority to minimize impacts on land use, visual resources, and
natural systems while optimizing construction and operating costs.
The Alaska Power Authority will be seeking the public's ideas and
comments regarding the transmission line routing study. Your
concerns can be considered in the decision process in the following
ways:
P-14
I
I
l
,I
.1>
--..,.....,.....,_.,.,..__~~..._._:._____..__,,____::...:;..__r~ ,_,~·L~~~-~--~~----~-.~-·-~...:.~~-----.... -.. ~~ ___ ,/-.. .. _:._..::.!.. .:.~. __ ,...._lL_~--
0 Write the Alaska Power Authority with your comments:
Alaska Power Authority, Susitna Project Office, 334
West 5th Avenue, Anchorage, Alaska 99501.
o Attend community workshops to express your opinions.
They will be held May 16-25 in the following
communities. Local announcements of specific meeting,
times and places will be made in May.
o Birchwood, Palmerr Willow, Fairbanks,
Nenana, Healy, Gold Creek
P-15
. .
TRANEMISSION LINE PUBLIC MEETIN3
PAlMER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOI.., PAlMER, MAY 16, 1983
Questions from Attendees:
1. ~fuose idea was it to explore the overland route around Palmer and
what is the rationale?
2. Wnat will be the cost of the overland route?
3. ~·Jhich utilities exprf;ssed concern about reliability sufficient to
trigger the addi tion.::tl study?
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
~~at are the maximum miles underground beneath Knik Arm? Will you
use cable?
vfuat is the capacity of a 345 KV line?
How far apart will the towers be? \'Vhat is the ROW width?
Why are three 1 ines neederl?
What would be the initial construction cost difference between the
four-mile underwater crossing and overlanj lines? What is the
combined cost?
Why is the overland routing around Knik Arm, a new option not in
the FERC application, being entertained?
P-16
'£l
..... ~ .. ~
I
!
1
l , I
1
l
1
;:;.•
TRANSMISSION LINE PUBLIC MEETING
PALMER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL, PAL}ffiR, MAY 16, 1983
Issues/Concerns
1.
2.
3 ..
Because of safety aspects of flying in fc:ggy weather, proliferation
o~ routes is unwise in this area. Use the salhe corridor for more
than one application if possible.
T'ne southernmost route through the Palmer Hay F'lats is relatively
undeveloped. A lot of sheeting goes on there, which may be trouble
for maintenance.
Leak at where future industrial growth ... , ::. likely to ap:p..:.:ar and
target those areas. Homeowners will not ee the major consumers.
4. Stress environmental factors -avoiding scenic parks, view areas,
natural habitat.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
The northern route seems to parallel the Castle Mountain Fault, a
prominent sesimic hazard.
Ensure compatibility with residential areas.
Keep costs low.
Visibility 1s a concern near the railroad.
Investigate sharing or paralleling the ~1at-Su 13orough' s 600-foot
ROW down to Point Mackenzie.
The corridor north of the Susitna River would probably be the
easies·t to get through.
Try to coordinate with other co~?Stible utility and road corridors
wherever possible. There are several planned (e.g. Knik Arm
Crossing). This avoids wasting land, lessens costs of easements
and ROW acquisition, and minimizes visual impact.
Emphasize natural environmental compatibility. Transmission towers
and lines are unnatural intrusions on long views:. A.lso assess
natural hazards such a.s seismic effects or landslides.
Stress land use compatibility, avoiding intrusion into concentrated
settlenent (residential) areas. This has cost/benefit advantages
but requires anticipating future demands.
Routing needs to effectively serve future growth areas and
industrial growth. Industrial growth is needed to maintain overall
growth and use the Susitna Power capability.
Routing should use corridors which avoid scenic areas (parks and
views) and populated areas.
Avoid route through Hay Flats because of low-flying aircraft and
hunters• impacts on maintenance. Other corridors are available.
In ge~eral, the northern corridor is preferable, as southern routes
have heavy recreation and aircraft use.
P-17
'i
~_...,tr.'"""'""".--. -·~ .~"~·"·'-':,•• ,,
•.:J
.NAME
Guy Wooding~
Marvin F&ris
Jac!t. Doull ·
Noel W. Lood
E. J. Voight
N.obert Mohn
Rodney Schulling
PALMER ATTENDEES
P-18
MAILING ADDRESS
Box 13865, Palmer
Sfu\ ~~x 6631, Palmer
Box 518, Palmer
Box 827, Palmer
228 Eagl·~ River
4740 Newcastle Way, Anchorage
Box B, Palmer (Mat-Su Borough)
:a
~
I
1.
2.
3.
4.
TRAN91ISSION LINE PUBLIC MEEI'IN3
WILIDW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, \•liLIDW -MA.Y 17, 1983
ISSUES/CONCERNS
I'm concerned aoout the impact of the rover line corridors through
what is now wilderness (FERC route) because of access via
3-wheelers, etc, disturbances to wildlife and vegetation and
strea..ms.
Any possible disturbcLnce from power lines to water fowl or other
migratory birds?
I'm not convinced we need the Susitna Hydro Project as it is
proposed. I'm opposed to fcx:>ting the bill for a teo-big project
and also very opposed to inviting in any types of polluting or
habitat impacting industries to pay for this power. I think it
should be scaled down -wi ·1 some serious attention paid to this
issue by planners and designers.
In general, I~d prefer to see the power lines go through already
existing corridors rather than impact such a large off-road area
(the FERC route).
J ~ ~ t
' ..
P-19
'
··~,
d :
!
·!
!
l
' i i
' l
I
I
l
!
I
I
' !
11 \i
~ II
t • ' • I;
' . .
Ann Dixon
Mark Harris
vli!.J...OW ATrENDESS
P-20
MAILIOO ADDRESS
P. 0. Box 1161, Willow 99688
Frontiersman
0
l ;
I
,J
~
'l i
~
,.
I
~
TRANSv1ISSICN LINE PUBLIC MEEriN3
BI~D ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, BI~D, MAY 18, 1983
Questions from Attendees:
1. Why do we need two routes? Why is reliability (backup) so
important?
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9 ..
10.
11.
12 ..
If you can justify overland route, why develop two ROW's?
What is ROW requireoent for one circuit?
With loss of lli'1derwater system, only one line would be supporting
Anchorage. If one will do it, why do we need additional lines?
What amount of electricity does Anchorage need? Use?
vmat is format method for evaluating impacts?
How can people participate in the impact evaluation process?
Will the public see the evaluation information and recommendation
'before it goes to Board? ~
How will the evaluation matrix be quantified? How will people know?
What 1s relationship to Interie? What is Intertie's pu~se
without Susitna?
Does MEA RC!il go all the way into Anchorage? How wide is it? Is it
de-energized now?
Does MEA ROW abut private land? What will we recommend for width
and number of circuits?
13.. Does Fruc appli0ation address cost of acquiring additional ROil on
optional routes?
14.. Aren't ecc>nomics (land cost) the primary factor?
15. How muCh private land is along the alternative corridors?
16. vfuy not consider an all-overland reute?
17. Who is the Power Authority?
18. Will access to ROW's be controlled?
'::~~. r-~,~-·-~.~-.:---·o··--·--~,,,_-·-c :' '. \) -;-....... ,
' .
t-:•---~~ . .,.....~1-\~--~·t_.~"": "'"') $"~0~:-··~---· --· __ __,., -·~--"_,.._. -·•·--·-'· '"'-'"'"'"··--:~--~'7"~--~~., . ......._..,. "* ""c'""-~.,.~,....,,_,_.,_,_.., _ _,..._,,, •. ,..,, ... ~---"_..,.,_,_ __ ~,."~~,..,~,.,..,_._~~....--...-__..,""""'-_ __, _, -''
0
0
'I
I
I
l
!
I
\
J
~, !0
, I
I
L
l'RANSMISSION LINE PUBLIC MEETING
BIRCHWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, BIRCHWOOD, MAY 18, 1983
Issues/Concerns
1. Not enough specific data is available at the meeting regarding tne
impacts and the evaluation of alternative corridors. Please
provide specific data at a future meeting in Anchorage.
2. Detailed environmental data should be presented on the proposed
corridor (FERC Application) as is available in the feasibility
study.
3.. Cost coinparisons should be provided between alternative corridoJ:s.
4. The community of Anchorage has substantial interest in the finai
selection of transmission line corridors. This justifies and
warrants a public meeting in Anchorage prior to a decision by Ai~
on corridors. Anchorage residents own land in the corridors; tney
hunt, fish and recreate there; and they will be paying for the
lines through power costs.
5.
6.
7.
a.
9.,
10.
Nildlife habitat is a very imEXJrtant resource which should be s).ven
substantial weight in assessing potential impacts of the
transmission lines. Several of the alternatives would impact large
areas of wildlife habitat and open those areas up to public
access/pressure on the resources.
The three circuits should be aligned (if all three are indeed
justified by the revised Anchorage Power projection) together ·;oing
over land to AnC".horage. Already impacted developed areas are rn >re
desirable locations for transmission line i.IIlF· cts and allow fa''
greater stability in the overall system.
I'm concerned about the impact of the additional circuits add~i to
the Intertie. I have land near the Intertie north of Talkeetnc; and
I want as little impact on my wilderness land as possible, so J'd
like the work on the Intertie to be done in as narrow a time fr.:une
as possible, so that as few people and machines w~ll litter,
vandalize, and otherwise destroy the nature of the area.
Concerning the corrioors from v7illov.· to Anchorage, I would pre£! lr a
corridor that follows as closely as possible to existing rights of
way, so that as little wilderness as possible is impacted. In
other words, use areas that already have power lines.
Avoid existing residential/recreation uses where possible (highe~t
priority than planned uses).
Coordinate wit..h other agency planning (e.g. DNR land use).
P-22
1,--~,-----:---
NAME
Grady E. Taylor.
Gail M. Heineman
Judy Zumicki
Bob Schutte
Beau Bassett
Mikt.l Varrone
Marttn Chetleu
P-23
MAILING ADDRESS
2732 W. ,67th, Anchorage, AK.
2732 W. 67th, Anchorage, AK.
SRA 4007-A, Anchorage, AK.
431 Little Diomede Cir.,
Eagle River
1329 East 15th, Anchorage, AK.
1718 Russian Jack Dr.,
Anchorage, Alaska
4108 Reka Drive, Anchorage, AK.
' . '
' l
i
:l
, I
--.......;.,....._. -· --~-~___;-L ___ "_ . ..,., ..
1
I
t
I
\
l
I
I
l
1
I
I
i
I
1
I
I
J
I
l
I
I
!
Q.
0
TRANSMISSION LINf PUBLIC MEETING
FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH CH.A}IBERS, FAIRBANKS, MAY 23, 1983
ISSUES/CONCERNS
1. Concern that power was not needed.
2. Concern over Intertie was expressed. One family reported problems
with drilling on/near their land, contractors leaving waste and not
filling holes. They wondered how the Power Authority would control
contractors.
3. A local lineman with many years of T-line experience supported the
project.
4. Questions on width of ROW, clearing and maiutenance questionse
5. Questions on relationship to Intertie, whether Intertie would be
built without Susitna.
6. Use existing ROW's wherever possible, impacting minimum of untouched
areas.
7. Concern over increased access for recreation.
8. Visual impact~ land compatibility were key issues.
Twelve· people attended this meeting and participated in issues development
session and discussions.
P-24
<·
!
l
{
1
! ;? . l
!
I
~
~··
t
,.
l'
;
v
,,
·~
~,. •<<"->' _.;-J "-, l-.~~~.-~k l •.. ~~l_ ... , ... ~-~-~:=:_~~#~!· --------~~~~~------~--~~--'--~! '~. _.:~.~~--}, .....;;,.~ .. ' .t~t\·-' ·\...~--~---l~<-...,.../~~~~.--r"--,_..,.....p ....
(j)
<I> D
::J --· <I> ;:, "Q.
ii3 nl -::J
(') -0 0
3
3
<I> ::J .-+
~
§:
<I> ::J c.
m
(')
0
3
3 c ::J ;:::;:
'<
~ -.
@
::::r
0
"0
ODD DODD ;i
)> 0 m 0 m r < r ro
o o ::J o :r ::::;; -· m -O::J<-.m<t>en::J o "' -· -. en c -"' en -. -· ..., '" c. o en~ 0 c.::r.::< ~ < en c ::J o co - -C :s. o3-. <t>3en ::J :o -en m 0 ro co 0 -· <I> X "0 mO::J -·om -· c.. ::J -~ ::J o en
en n..m -·--en ~--::J=en c
S::3 cog_ m m"O cen
-· n• .-+ m ::J ..., -· -. r-+0 = <I>
<I> -.::< 0 ::Jen __.,
m ::J
0
<I>
0
0
~ en
oo§
00 ~
::; <I> 0
<I> ~-0 ..., co ::J
-::J 0 = ([I enl!-. e ro ::J
m -c 0
<D 3 en ~
g]
til
~ -ro ~
z s:.
3
0"
CD ...
Q -<
g]
I»
(ij
~
'0
z
I»
3
CD
0
cO
I»
::J
~
5'
:::J
-u m m en
CD
en
<I> ::J c.
3
<I> -c .-+ c -.
<I>
3
e:?.
s· co en
0 ::J
.-+ :r
<I>
(/) c en ;:::;:
::J m
.-+ a ::J en
3
(i)" en cr
::J
s·
<I>
a c
.-+ s· co
c
~ :::c
)> z c
::D
!!l c:
::JJ z ..
TRANSMISSION LINE FEATURES
The selected transmission corridor will initially be a
half-mile wide strip of land that will be further re·
fined in the future to a right-of-way varying from 100
to 400 feet wide. That right-of-way will contain
towers and conductors (wires) required to bring
power from the Susitna site to the transmission line
between Anchorage and Fairbanks. Depending on
the width of right-of-way available, one of several
tower designs will be used. They may be of single
pole or guyed "x" design, for example. Where ap·
propriate, the selected design will be built from
"weathering" steel, which turns a rust brown color
within a year.
In order to build the lines and m~intain the right-of·
way, it will be necessary to have year-round access.
One of the goals is to select areas that are already
served by access roads to minimize new construc-
tion and disturbance. Where necessary, however,
access trails will be developed and maintained.
A great deal of information exists from previous
work on these corridors. Earlier data from the Inter-
tie and Susitna projects include aerial photos, USGS
maps, land status reports, and field observations.
Input is being sought from agencies, interest groups
and community councils.
ALASKA
POWER AUTHORITY
PUBLIC PARTICiPATION
PROGRAM
··-.. ,.;. .... , -·~ • -·~~-·~-o·-· c•,.,-, ....... >•-!...;,""' ..... --.......... ~Jkillt.':~ ..... : .. ; ., .. ,_,
!_..~_....__,.._.:'... ;:;;;,~.~
SUSITNA
HYDROELECTRIC
PROJECT
TRANSMISSION
LINE
ROUTING
""""''
1
R ii
I
1 r
),
[
}:
t
l:
;,
1:
h ~~
/,:: ~~
6: , ... ..
l _,,,1-n f
'
J
I
1:
1 "\ ,, j ; •
' \ ;! ~. I I' I • • '' ) ' ...... ~ ~ ~ ·---) •.
'~~~~~c
\ f-~ ~;-· , ·ac,, I , ' .· -~~,1\~'
----·---·-·--.. -.,..._..._ __ ~.,.~---· ----.. ,..,..,.. ... ...,._ .. /~:=.=:.-.~------~:_.-., ~--~-~. ~~ ~ ~~·~:~~~~-~~ --~~::_ :~~~-~-------~-~~-._·~--~~~-~--~_; ~~~~:~-rl--~-~· _· ~~ ~~~:_:_:~.~:~~~:.:._,=~~::,~' \ ~-~~----r------~ ·---
INTRODUCTION
The Alaska Power Authority has applied to the Fed-
eral Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for a
license to construct the Susitna Hydroelectric Pro-
ject. One aspect of the project that is being further
evaluated is transmission line routing. Additional
information on routing will be considered by FERC
as part of the overall license review. The ideas and
concerns of the public are an important part of
the decision process.
Timeline
Feasibility studies
on Susitna ............... Jan. '80 · Feb. '83
FERC application
submitted .......•................ Feb. '83
Transmission
routing studies ........ March '83 · June '83
Community
workshops ............ May 16 · May 28, '83
Incorporation
of comments ......... May 29 · June 30, '83
Draft EIS available
for review (probable) ........ Feb. · June '84
Public comment period
ends (probable) ........... April · August '84
Susitna license
approval (probable) ............. 1985 · 1987
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The Alaska Power Authority will be seeking your
ideas and comments between now and June 30,
1983. We want to consider all the issues that con-
cern community members and incorporate them in
the decision process. Here is how you can be
involved:
• Send in the attached response form with
specific comments or suggested issues of
concern.
• Write us at the address below with more de·
tailed comments.
• Check your local library for information on the
Susitna project.
a Attend community workshops and comment
on the routing. They will be held May 16-25 in
the communities below. Meeting times and
places will be announced in May.
• Birchwood
• Palmer
• Willow
• Fairbanks
• Nenana
• Healy
• Gold Creek
ALASKA POWER AUlHORITY
Susitna Project Office
334 West 5th Avenue
Anchorage, AK 99501
THE PROJECT
The Power Authority
has contracted with
Harza-Ebasco to con-
duct the supplemen-
tary evaluation of the
transmission line rout-
ing. Last year's feasi-
bility study identified
corridors to connect
the Susitna Hydro-
electric Project to the
Willow-Healy lntertie,
and to upgrade and
extend the lntertie to
carry Susitna power
to Anchorage and
Fairbanks. The map
on the right shows the
general study area
and the dashed lines
e WILLOW
I 1_....-e PALMER
'(-11\'1-1 (>.1(1\
~ANCHORAGE
show the corridors which are being considered.
The recommended transmission line route was the
result of an evaluation of potential transmission line
corr:idors. It considered requirements for technical
and economic feasibility, environmental suitability,
land availability, and existing land use patterns.
The Power Authority is now further evaluating that
route selection. Specific objectives for the supple-
mentary work are:
• Minimize impacts on land use
avoid agricultural lands, recreation areas,
parks
avoid currently or potentially developed
areas
• Minimize visual impacts
assess scenic resources and visibility of
lines
reduce visual impacts
• Minimize impacts on natural systems
evaluate wildlife, vegetation, fisheries for
potential impacts
plan to avoid or mitigate negative effects
• Optimize construction and operating costs
provide reliable and maintai.nable power
required for distribution throughout utility
systems
balance economics against technica.l, en~
vironmental, and public factors
8 Maximize sharing of existing utility corridors
share rights-of-way where practical
--reduce need for new access
,.
.L
:h:, .. _
. -~p·~~~~> .. ( ·:i
iJ,, . · .. -~
;:f> •ii· jl: .'J
:1,
"
~
•
APPENDIX R
ERVI!.ONKINTAL RESOURCZ DESCRIPTIONS
POB. TRANSMISSION ROUTE ALTERNATIVES
Ll
l
1 ~ h t
J
t•
t t: ;
r
'
1
.
I·'
1:
i
Ji l•
l
I
I I.
! I
.-
•
•
1. 0 ERVIB.ORMEBl'AL RESOURCE DESCRIPTIONS
Following are descriptions of the various alternatives with respect to
the five ~esource categories considered. Summaries of inventoried data
are listed in Tables 7-3 and 7-4 of the report.
C/41/7R
R-1
1 \1
' !
•• ,, ·-;~
•
1.1 SOUTH STUDY AREA ALTERNATIVES
The alternative routes studied are listed in Table 4-2 1n the report
for the South Study Area. Detailed descriptions of each alternative
by resource area, are given below. The descriptions include evalua-
tions of each alternative, according to the criteria listed in Chapter
7, 7 .2 •. The parallel alternatives to Knik Arm are discussed first,
followed by the North Palmer Options and the split al tern ... a tives. These
alternatives are described in Chapter 4.
1.1.1 Alternatives Description
Land Ownership
Existing land ownership within the! South Study Area is shown on Maps 6,
9, and 12. Private land dominates the central and eastern part of
the study area. Native lands are scattered throughout, with the
largest contiguous area occurring near Eklutna Flats, south of Knik
Arm/Knik River. Borough and municipal lands are similarily scattered,
with the greatest concentration in the western third of the area.
State lands are concentrated in the western and northcentral parts of
the study area, federal lands are primarily located in the area bounded
by Anchorage, Knik Ann and Eagle Ri\'eY.
Route segments and alternatives were measured to determine linear mile-
age across the various types of land ownership. Mileage summaries are
presented in ;:'able 7-3. (The mileage entries in the table do not sum
to the length of each alternative as a result of double-counting where
different land ownerships occur on either side of the reference center-
C/41/7R R-2
. lr~,~·";";:··-·-··---..,.·--cn--~---··--~··-· .. ------··---·----~--·--:--··---::~-·--···----~~ ..... _.~-------·---------~·---·--·--~01)--~~-~~· _j
• line). The following paragraphs provide a general description of land
ownership encountered along each of the alternatives •
o Parallel Alternatives
C/41/7R
Alternative A: FERC Route
The FERC route crosses primarily state land, including
the proposed Willow State Recreation Area, the Susitna
Flats State Game Refuge and the Point MacKenzie
Agricultural Project~ Important federal lands crossed
inc! ude Elmendorf Air Force Base and Fort Richardson
Military Reservation .. No native lands are crossed by
this route, and private lands constitute a minor amount
of the total.
Alternative B: Little Susitna -
The Little Susitna route also affects primarily state
land. This route skirts the edge of the Goose Bay State
Game Refuge and the Point MacKenzie Agricultural
Project. The route crosses all five of the land
categories, including crossing Elmendorf Air Force Base
and Fort Richardson Hili tary Reservation. On the bas is
of land ownership, private lands affected by this route
account for less than 10 percent, and native land use is
minor in terms of total mileagee The private lands are
located along the Parks Highway southeast of Nancy Lake,
in the Finger Lake-Papoose Twins area, and near the
southwest corner of the Goose Bay State Refuge.
Alternative C: MEA/CEA
The MEA/CEA Alternative includes a significant amount of
state land, and considerably more mileage
R-3
.. 1 •
'/''
across private and native lands than the FERC route or
Little Susitna Alternative. The Goose Bay State Game
Refuge 1s the most significant state tract crossed •
All other land ownership categories are affected,
including federal, borough, private, and native. As
with the other two alternatives, all federal land is
within Elmendorf Air Force Base and Fort Richardson.
The private and native lands affected by this route
account for a significant amount of the total land
ow11ership mileage of this alternative. Most of the
private lands are concentrated between Goose Bay and
Willow/Teeland. Native parcels are located both north
and south of Willow/Teeland, and south of the Little
Susitna River (see Map 6).
o Split Alternatives -North Palmer Options
C/41/7R
As shown in Map 12, three options exist for routing south
from Segment 9 near the Little Susitna River to the south
bank of the Knik River.
East Palmer Option (Segments 12 and 16)
The East Palmer Option affects priv~te lands almost con-
tinually from the junction with Segment 9 to the Knik
River and Segment 16. This option also crosses the Knik
River into priv;~te lands. Much of the remainder lies
across native land near the Knik River.
also crosses some borough and state land.
Trunk Road/Ke:eler Lakes Option (Se~ents
16)
This option primarily crosses private
includes significant amounts of borough
R:-L~
This option
11 2 14, and
land, but
and state
I
I
r··--~·'":'~~rrc--.,--_,....---·--·~-~--·-··------~--··----·--·---l~~·------·-·--~--~----------··-·-----··-···----:--·---:-·...,..,...,~~~~.,..~~lii!f'iilllfii-IJ]f,' _j
C/41/7R
land, as well as the native land in Segment 16. Amounts
of land crossed can be referenced in Table 7-3.
Trunk Road/Glenn Highway Option (Segments 11, 13, and
15)
The ownership pattern for this option is generally
similar to the other two North Palmer Options, but it
affects more state land and fewer borough and native
lands. Private lands along the route are located north
of the Palmer Hay Flats, and slightly over a mile of
native land is located immediately south of the Knik
Rivera It crosses less than half a mile of borough land
and covers five miles of state land, including a portion
of the Palmer Hay Flats State Game Refuge. This option
also passes along the edge of the Alaska Railroad
reserve at Matanuska.
Any of these three options would be combined with Segments 2,
9, 17, and 19 to complete the North Palmer route. Segments 2
and 9 lie primarily across state lands, with private lands
primarily only in the easternmost portion of Segment 9.
Federal and native lands are the dominate ownerships in Seg-
ments 17 and 19 in the route from Eklutna Flats to University
Substation. The federal land lies mostly within Fort Rich-
ardson, but also includes parts of three Alqska Railroad pro-
perties that may soon be transferred to state or native own-
ership.. (The area north of Eagle River between Chugach State
Park and Knik Arm is subject to the North Anchorage Land
Agreement, a complex land claims settlement involving the
Eklutna Native Corporation and federal, state, and municipal
governments. Details of this agreement have not been com-
R-5
l
I
I
r
I
. t
~·
~~: ~·
pletely settled, making land ownership determinations
for this area somewhat tentative). Most of the native
land along this segment is situated on either side of
Eklutna. Private lands occupy over one mile of the
route north of Birchwood. About three miles of state
land are crossed 1n the vicinity of University
Substation south of Tudor Road.
o Split Alternatives
C/41/7R
Alternative D: FERC/North Palmer
The combination of the two routes previously described
(FERC and North Palmer) would affect from 18.5 to 28
miles of private land, 9 to 12 miles of native land, 19
to 22.6 miles of borough land, 27 to 28 miles of federal
land, and 56 to 60 miles of state land. The range of
miles reflects the options possible for the North Palmer
route. Important state lands crossed include 4 miles of
the Susitna Flats Game Refuge and possibly 1.2 miles of
the Palmer Hay Flats if the Trunk Road/Glenn Highway
Option is selected.
Alternative E: FERC/South ~vasilla
The South Wasilla route lies almost entirely across pri-
vate land from Willow/Teeland to Matanuska. All other
land ownership categories would also be significantly
affected. The Palmer Hay Flats State Game Refuge is the
most important state land crossed, while almost all of
the federal land crossed is within Fort Richardson.
This al terna ti ve shares Segments 17 and 19 with the
North Palmer route, so land ownership effects from
Eklutna Flats south would be the same. The combined
R-6
C/41/7R
FERC route, previously described, and the South Wasilla
overland route collectively affect 22 miles of private
land, 12 miles of native ownership, 22 miles of borough
lands, 27 miles of federal land, and 50 miles of state
land. Important state lands crossed include the Susitna
Flats and Palmer Hay Flats Game Refuge.
Alternative F: Little Susitna/North Palmer
Both of these routes have been described previously.
The combined potential impact on land ownership
categories is important; state lands potentially
affected include the Palmer Hay Flats, depending on the
North Palmer Option selected.
Alternative G: Little Susitna/South Wasilla
Land ownership effects for the two routes have been
described above. As was the case with Alternative F,
some of Alternntive G is a parallel situation. This
occurs also in Segments 2 and 3. Important state lands
affected under this alternative include the Palmer Hay
Flats (Segment 15).
Alternative H: MEA/CEA -North Palmer
Land ownership effects based on a combination of these
two routes were described previously. This alternative
has parallel areas (Segment 2), which reduce the over-
all impact on land ownership. Important state lands
affected under this alternative include the Goose Bay
Refuge and the Palmer Hay Flats if the Trunk Road/Glenn
Highway Option is selected.
R-7
f
f. ii";
f
,.
::-~-' c
r
Land Use
Alternative I: MEA/CEA -South Wasilla
This alternative has the most parallel area of all the
'
split alternatives. The ~NO routes parallel each
other between Willow and Willow/Teeland. Important
state lands impacted include the Goose Bay Refuge
(Segment 7), and the Palmer Hay Flats (Segment 15).
Summaries of the inventoried land ownership categories
potentially impacted by
depicted in Table 7-3.
the . n1ne alternatives are
A land use inventory was conducted for the South Study Area, and the
results are depicted in Maps 7, 10, and 13. Six types of land use
' were investigated: residential, commercial/industrial, agricultural,
recreational, public, and vacant. Higher density residential develop-
ment is concentrated in the vicinity of Anchorage. Principal areas of
low-density residential development occur in a broad band from Big Lake
through Wasilla to Palmer; in a band between the town of Eagle River
and Mirror Lake; and in the vicinity of Willow.
developing subdivisions are located throughout
Numerous planned or
the study area, .
pr~-
marily in the western half. The Big Lake, Wasilla, and Palmer areas in
particular are undergoing substantial growth and d~velopment.
Commercial/industrial land occurs in a few concentrated locations, but
also is scattered in small parcels throughout many of the areas men-
tioned above for residential lands. Largest concentrations are found
in the Anchorage area, in the vicinity of Wasilla, and around Palmero
The primary concentration of privately owned agricultural land occurs
in the vicinity of Palmer, north of the Knik River and sou.th of the
C/41/7R R-8
•'
. ,,
I,
~~l<ilt~·~~-:----"~.,.............·--~-."'·-------~---··"··--,'!'"'·-·--·-~ .... ____ c:<·-··-··-----·---.. --·---·-· .. ·--·---··-"-···~---·---------~-----~---~ .. ~....-......,_-.~-~~:_1·-" I
.. . • .. I
I
Little Susitna River. The Point MacKenzie Agricultural Project,
situated in the western part of the study area, is being developed for
agricultural use through lease to private farmers. Agricultural
disposal lands are also located between Big Lake and the Little Susitna
River, in the Delta Island area southwest of Willow, and north of
Willow Creek.
Large areas of recreation/wildlife/cultural (termed recreation, for
short), lands are located in the western portion of the study area.
These recreation lands include the Susitna Flats State Game Refuge, the
Goose Bay State Game Refuge, and the Nancy Lake Recreation Area. The
Palmer Hay Flats State Game Refuge is another large area of
recreational land. Other small isolated tracts of recreational land
are scattered throughout the study area, including lands around Mirror
Lake and Big Lake, and various parcels located near Palmer.
There are also lands other than recreation areas that have some desig-
nated public use. The largest contiguous . area ~s
Reserve, s.i tuated about 4 miles northwest of Palmer.
the Moose Creek
Other isolated
tracts occur near Palmer, in the Anchorage area, and in the corridor
between Eagle River and Mirror Lake at various distances from the Glenn
Highway.
Vacant land which is land not designated a specific use 1s the most
prevalent land type in the study area. Virtually all of the land
between Willow and Point MacKenzie is vacant. The Wasilla-Palmer area
has the least amount of vacant land, compared to the western portion of
the study area.
The following paragraphs provide a description of the land uses
encountered along each of the alternatives.
C/41/7R R-9
... lii!IJI''
o Parallel Alternatives
C/41/7R
Alternative A: FERC Route
The FERC route runs north from Willow Substation across
Willow Creek, then west until it intercepts the north
boundary of the proposed Willow State Recreation Area.
The route follows the boundary of this area for 1 mile,
with vacant land on the north side of this boundary.
The route crosses a portion of the proposed recreation
area, then turns south across Willow Creek again and
runs south through vacant J.and. This alignment passes
within approximately 1.5 miles of the low-density
residential/recreation development along Red Shirt Lake,
but does not actually encounter any developed land north
of the Little Susitna River. Near John Lake the route
enters the Susitna Flats State Game Refuge, and goes
through the Point MacKenzie Agricultural Project. The
route heads east at Lorraine across Knik Arm
(underwater) and through vacant military land to Fossil
Creeh~ From this point, the route heads southwest and
west to University Substation, then passes through
recreation land (Fort Richardson golf course),
commercial/industrial land along the south side of Tudor
Road in Anchorage, ~nd vacant land.
To suttnnarize, the FERC route crosses primarily vacant,
undeveloped land over most of the route. Other land use
categories affected include recreational, agricultural,
and commercial/industrial.
R-10
•. \
C/41/7R
Alternative B: Little Susitna
The Little Susitna route begins at Willow Substation,
runs southeast to Nancy Lake (Segment 2), and then due
south to the point labelled Little Susitna (Segment 3).
Ou J.Y vacant !.hnd is crossed although the route passes
~ear the planned Willow subdivision and across the
planned Lilly Aliquot subdivision. From Little Susitna, . the route runs southwest for about 9 miles, turns
southeast for about 7 miles, and then south to a point
one mile south of Goose Bay State Game Refuge. In this
segment, equal portions of residential land,
recreational land, and agricultural land lie along the
route. The route also crosses the LeRoux View Remote
Parcel, which is currently open for staking. Segment 4
also traverses the northern portion of the Point
MacKenzie Agricultural Project and later follows a m1.nor
portion of its border. This route also follows the
border of the Goose Bay State Game Refuge for 1.5 miles,
and then the boundary of the Holstein Heights
subdivision for 1.5 miles. At this poiTit the Little
Susi tna route joins the FERC route, sharing Segments 5,
8 , 18 , and 19 •
From the southern tip of Holstein nci5hts to Lorraine
and on to the western shore of Knik Arm, this route
crosses no developed land. However, most of this sec-
tion is within the Point MacKenzie Industrial Park/Port
site, planned for development by the Matanuska-SQsitna
Borough. Vacant military land is present in Segment 18
east of Knik Arm to Fossil Creek. From Fossil Creek to
University Substation the route crosses 10.5 miles of
vacant land, about one mile of commercial/ indus trial
land and less thdn half a mile of recreational land.
R-11
Alternative C: ~mA/CEA Parallel
The MEA/CEA Parallel route begins at Willow Substation
and shares Segments 2 and 3 with the Little Susitna
route. As described above, most of the land use :tn
these segments are vacant. From Little Sus i tna, the
route runs 10 miles southeast to Willow/Teeland,
crossing about a mile of residential land and nine miles
of vacant land. From Willow/Teeland, the route runs 3.5
miles south through vacant land and then heads southwest
for 8.5 miles to a point just south of Goose Bay State
Game Refuge. This segment crosses two miles of the
refuge, in addition to several scattered residential
parcels. The route then heads due south across 5 miles
of vacant land to Lorraine. From the game refuge to
Knik Arm the route is primarily within the Point Mac-
Kenzie Indus trial Park/Port site, although no develop-
ment of this area has yet occurred.
It runs east across Knik Arm and vacant land to Fossil
Creek, and from there southwest to University Sub-sta-
tion. The land use mileage figures between Lorraine and
University Substation are the same as for the. FERC and
Little Susitna routes (see Table 7-3).
o Split Alternatives -North Palmer Options
C/41/7R
East Palmer Option (Segment 12 and 16)
The East Palmer Option crosses 3.9 miles of residential
land, primarily in the valley bottom land east of the
Matanuska River. It also crosses some commercial and
agricultural land, most of which
vicinity of Bodenburg Butte.
R-12
is . J.n the general
;t
Alternative C: ~lliA/CEA Parallel
The MEA/ CEA Parallel route begins at Willow Subs tat ion
and shares Segments 2 and 3 with the Little Susitna
route. As described above, most of the land use 1n
these segments are vacant. From Little Susitna, the
route runs 10 miles southeast to Willow/Teeland,
crossing about a mile of residential lartd and nine miles
of vacant land. From Willow/Teeland, the route runs 3.5
miles south through vacant land and then heads southwest
for 8.5 miles to a point just south of Goose Bay State
Game Refuge. This segment crosses two miles of the
refuge, in addition to several scattered residential
parcels. The route then heads due south across 5 miles
of vacant land to Lorraine • From the game refuge to
Knik Arm the route is primarily within the Point Mac-
Kenzie Indus trial Park/Port site, although no develop-
ment of this area has yet occurred.
It runs east across Knik Arm and vacant land to Fossil
Creek, and from there southwest to University Sub-sta-
tion. The land use mileage figures between Lorraine and
University Substation are the same as for the. FERC and
Little Susitna routes (see Table 7-3).
o Split Alternatives -North Palmer Options
C/41/7R
East Palmer Option (Segment 12 and 16)
The East Falmer Option crosses 3.9 miles of residential
land, primarily in the valley bottom land east of the
Matanuska River. It also crosses some commercial and
agricultural land, most of which is in the general
vicinity of Bodenburg Butte.
R-12
Trunk Road/Kepler Lakes Option (Segments 11, 14, and
16)
Yhis option would affect about 3 miles of agricultural
land, including the Gooding Lake area within Segment
11. In addition, 146 miles of residential uses would be
crossed. This option is routed just to the east of the
currently proposed state recreation area ~n the Kepler-
Bradley Lakes system (Segment 14).
Trunk Road/Glenn Hi~hwaz Option (Se~ents 11 ' 13' and
15
This option . similar . impact to the Trunk ~s 1n
Road/Kepler Lakes Option. It would affect the same
amount of agricultural land, and residential and
commercial uses. However, it also crosses one half mile
of the Matanuska Valley Experimental Farm (Segment 13),
and 1.6 miles of recreation/wildlife lands within the
Palmer Hay Flats State Game Refuge.
o Split Alternatives
C/41/7R
Alternative D: FERC/North .?almer
"
The North Palmer route also begins at Willow Subs tat ion
and heads south, diverging to the east from the
existing MEA corridor near Nancy Lake. All lands along
Segment 2 are vacant, while Segment 9 crosses resi-
dential land in several parcels within the general vici-
nity of the Little Susitna River. From the end of Seg-
ment 9, one of the three options discussed above would
be selected to a common point near Eklutna Flats, at the
intersection of Segments 15, 16, and 17.
R-13
C/41/7R
Depending upon which option was selected for the Palmer
area, the North Palmer route would affect from 3.6 miles
to 5.9 miles of residential land, 0.8 to 2.9 miles of
agricultural land, and 1.7 to 3.3 miles of recreational
lands.
The North Palmer route beyond Eklutna Flats would affect
all land uses except agricultural. This route crosses
less than half a mile of residential land ~n two parcels
near Birchwood. Affected commercial lands ( 1.1 miles)
are primarily along Tudor Road in Anchorage, while some
public Alaska Railroad lands are crossed. Segment 19,
which is common to all routes, crosses recreational land
on Fort Richardson; Segment 17 also crosses 1.4 miles of
undeveloped park land near Psalm Lake.
Results of the total land use impacts combining the FERC
route with the North Palmer route are indicated in Table
7-3.
Alternative E: FERC/South Wasilla
The South Wasilla route follows
MEA/Chugach route (Segment 2, 3 and 6).
part of the
Affected land
uses in this area have been described in the previous
discussion. From Willow/Teeland, the route runs
northeast briefly and then east through the Lucille
Creek Valley to a point near Matanuska along the Alaska
Railroad. Within this ., segment about three miles of
residential land is crossed, with some agricultural
land. The route then runs south and crosses the
Matanuska and Knik Rivers, as does the Glenn Highway
Option; in this segment the route traverses the Palmer
R-14
C/41/7R
Hay Flats State Game Refuge. The route then runs
s.outhwest using the deactivated MEA ROW to Fossil Creek
and University Substation along Segments 17 and 19, for
which affected land uses ~tave already been described.
Overall, the South Wasi~la route crosses 4 miles of
residential land, 1.2 miles of commercial land, and 3.4
miles of recrea tiona! land. Figures for the
agricultural and public/semi-public land categories are
0.6 and 0.5 miles, respectively.
Results of the total land use impacts combining the
South Wasilla route with the FERC route are indicated in
Table 7-3.
Alterative F: Little Susitna/North Palmer
Both of these routes have been described above .
l.n
terms of land use. The combination of the two routes
would result in total potential effects as indicated in
Table 7-3.
Alternative G: Little Susitna/South Wasilla
Segments 2 and. 3 are commonly shared in this split
alternative, and therefore impacts to land use are
generally reduced. Land usc: within these two segments
is mostly vacant. Beyond s~gment 3, the effects on land
use would be the same as those described previously.
The total potential effects on land use related to this
alternative are indicated in Table 7-3.
Alternative H: MEA/Chugach -North Palmer
This alternative has one common segment (Segment 2)
before the routes split and follow routes previously
R-15
described. The miles of land use that would potentially
be affected are indicated in Table 7-3.
Alternative I: MEA/Chugach -South Wasilla
Alternative I has the most parellel area (Segments 2, 3,
and 6). Potential effects on land use for those
segments have been described previously. The combined
potential land use impact as related to miles crossed is
indicated in Table 7-3.
Terrestrial Resources
Mucn of the South Study Area is characterized by drumlins and ridges
covered with birch and spruce forest, and depressions with lakes,
ponds, and wetlands. Flat, glaciolacustrine deposits in the southern
portion of Cook Inlet create extensive areas of wetlands. The large
number ·of water bodies create "t-7aterfowl habitat throughout the entire
area. Waterfowl concentration during migration in the wetlands include
the Susitna Flats, Goose Bay, and Palmer Hayflats Wildlife Refuges
(ADF&G 1979). With the exception of the central Matanuska Valley, most
of the area is important moose habitat and black bear spring habitat
(ADF&G 1976, 1980).
A vegetation map of the South Study Area was prepared based on existing
vegetation maps (ADNR 1983) and is provided ~s Map 2. Tables depicting
the acreage of each vegetation type within the right-of-way for each
segment and alternative are provided as Tables 5-3 and 5-4 in Appendix
S, respectively. In addition, acres of forest habitat were totalled
and are summarized by alternative in Table 7-3.
Wetland data for the South Studyb Area were summarized from National
Wetland Inventory Maps (USFWS 1983). The acreage of each wetland type
C/41/7R R-16
0
-within the right-of-way is provided for each segment l.n Table 5-1 of
Appendix s. Table 7-3 . sum.nar1zes total wetlan,d acreage by
alternative.
Informa~ion on wildlife habitats and special use areas within the South
Study Area was also summarized from existing data (ADF&G 1976, 1980;
ADNR 1982, USTIIS 1983b) and is provided in Map 4. The habitat and
other wildlife evaluation criteria are quantified, to the extent
possible, by alternative in Table 7-3.
The following paragraphs provide a d~scription of the terrestrial
resources encountered along each alternative.
o Parallel Alternatives
C/41/7R
Alternative A: FERC Route
The FERC Alternative runs west from Willow, turns south
near the Delta Islands area of the Susitna River,
traverses relatively flat lowland with limited access to
Knik Arm (Segments 1,5 and 8) crosses Knik Arm and tra-
vels through Fort Richardson (Segment 18), and then
turns south and enters Anchorage.
The alternative crosses extensive wetlands mostly clas-
sified as palustrine scrub-shrub. Most of the wetlands
are located on Segments 1, 5, and 8, between Willow and
Knik Arm. Wetlands comprise 60% of the ROW . these l.n
segments. Wetlands . only compr1se 10% of the ROW where
it crosses Knik Arm and continues into Anchorag7 (Seg-'
ments 18 and 19). The remaining. vegetation is largely
closed conifer, closed deciduous, closed mixed and open
mixed forests. The total area of altered forest habitat
R-17
C/41/7R
would be 1029 acres. The FERC Alternative has 39 miles
of new corridor irt a relati 'l{e ly undisturbed area and
would improve access into thia area.
Most of the whole area crossed by the route,
particularly the portion between Willow and Knik Arm,
contains waterfowl nesting and molting habitat. Sites
where bald eagle nests have been observed are located
along the Susitna River near the northern portion of the
FERC Alternative, but are more than a mile from the
route.
Also, two potential nest sites where trumpeter swan
broods have been observed are located in the vicinity of
the lower segment of the line, but are also more than a
mile from the proposed route (Map 4).
Alternative B: Little Susitna
The ~ittle Susitna Alternative originates at Willow and
travels generally south (Segments 2; 3, 4, 5, and 8),
before crossing Knik Arm and going into Anchorage
(Segments 18 and 19).
The tittle Susitna Alternative crosses ~ large amount of
wetlands, mostly clas~:i,.fied as palustrine scrub-shrub.
The majority of the non-wetland vegetation is closed
mixed forest, but closed conifer, open conifer, and open
mixed forest areas are also important vegetation types
crossed. Forest habitat alteration would. be slightly
less and the acreage of we~lands potentially affected
would be substantially less under Alternative B compared
with Alternative A.
R-18
0
C/41/7R
About 23 miles of Alternative B (primarily in Segment 4)
follow a new corridor through a relatively undisturbed
area and would improve access to this area. The remain-
der of the route parallels existing transmission lines.
Most of the area contains waterfowl nesting and molting
habitat, and the ROW also borders the western edge of
the Goose Bay Wildlife Refuge, an area of concentrated
use by water birds for about 1-1/2 miles (Map 4).
Alternative C: MEA/CEA Parallel
The MEA/ CEA route originates in Willow following the
same route as the Little Susitna route along Segments
2 and 3, and then goes southeast on the eastside of Big
Lake and southwest along Knik Arm (Segments 6 and 7)
before crossing Knik Arm and going into Anchorage (Seg-
ments 18 and 19).
The area from Willow to Knik Arm 1s about 30% wetlands,
mostly classified as palustrine scrub-shrub. Closed
mixed forest is the dominant vegetation type on this
al terna ti ve, with smaller amounts of closed conifer,
closed deciduous, open mixed and dwarf tree forest.
Only about 4 miles of the route is new corridor; the
rest parallels existing transmission lines which already
provide access. About 2-1/2 miles of the route cross
the Goose Bay Wildlife Refuge, an area of concentrated
use for waterfowl. The route parallels an existing 138
kV transmission line along this segment. Much of ·,:he
route includes waterfowl nesting and molting habitat.
R-19
0
C/41/7R
North Palmer Options
The North.Palmer route runs from Willow south along Seg-
ment 2, as in the Little Susitna and MEA/CEA Parallel
routes. From the Nancy Lake area, it turns east to the
' Palmer area (Segment 9), where three options are pos-
sible to connect with Segments 17 and 19 down the east
side of Knik Arm into Anchorage.
East Palmer Option (Segments 12 and 16)
The East Palmer Option is about 15% wetlands including
a portion of riverine wetlands associated with the
Matanuska and Knik Rivers. l~e most common forest vege-
tation is closed mixed (whi t:e spruce and birch), fol-
lowed by closed conifer, with smaller areas of other
forest types. Tall willow and alder stands along the
Knik and Matanuska Rivers, which are also crossed.
The East Palmer Option has about 25 miles of new cor-
ridor, but the route is mostly located in or near areas
which are relatively developed and accessible. The
Palmer area includes waterf'owl nesting and molting habi-
tat, and the agricultural fields in the area are used by
geese and sandhill cranes during migration.
Trunk Road/Kepler Lakes Option (Segments 11, 14, and
16)
The Trunk Road/Kepler Lakes Option has some wetlands
in the ROW, including riverine wetlands of the
Matanuska and Knik. Rivers·. Vegetation is similar to the
East Pal.mer Option, including tall scrub-shrub stands .
along the rivers.
R-20
/1 )
0
C/41/7R
This option would have 18 miles of new corridor, all
through a relatively developed area with existing
access. Waterfowl are discussed under the East Palmer
Option.
Trunk Road/Glenn Highway Option (Segments 11, 13 and
15)
The Trunk Road/Glenn Highway Option has 50 acres of
wetlands within the ROW, but these wetlands include
valuable palustrine emergent, . . and estuarine r~ver~ne,
wetlands associated with the Matanuska-Knik estuary area
in and near the Palmer Hay Flats Wildlife Refuge.
This option contains about 10 miles of new corridor
through relatively developed areas. About 1-1/2 miles
of this route crosses the eastern portion of the Palmer
Hay Flats Wildlife Refuge, an important concentration
area for resting and feeding water birds.
Split Alternatives
Alternative D: FERC/North Palmer
The entire North Palmer portion of this alternative
(Willow to University Substation) would include only 115
to 126 acres of wetlands, s~nce much of the area
crossed .
~s on well-drained slopes with closed mixed
forest and closed deciduous forest.
Alternative D would be 659 to 670
the North Palmer Option selected.
habitat would be 1990 to 1749 acres.
Total wetlands for
acres, depending on
Total altered £ores t
Segment 2 to Nancy
· Lake parallels an existing transmission line, but Seg-
ment 9 from the Nancy Lake Substation to the Palmer area
R-21
r·~~.~~~--~·------------·~-------·------~---~·----~··-·----.. ·--------~~~.~-···-"-----·--··-·~·--··-·----·----~~--·"~-·---~~-·--~------~--~-~~~~~"-~~
·'
''
•
C/41/7R
would create about 21 miles of new corridor through a
relatively undisturbed area •
Segment 17, down to Anchorage, largely follows an
existing transmission line ROW through developed areas.
Total length of new corridor for the :FERC/North Palmer
Alternative would be 69 to 84 miles, with approximately
62 miles of corridor providing new access to relatively
undisturbed areas. For discussions of waterfowl and
raptors, see Alternative A and the North Palmer Options,
above.
Alternative E: FERC/South Wasilla
The South Wasilla portion of Alternative E goes from
Willow along segments included in the MEA/Chugach
Parallel route (2, 3, and 6), before heading east to the
Glenn Highway (Segment 10), crossing the .Matanuska and
Knik Rivers along the Glenn Highway and continuing on
into Anchorage along the same corridor as the North
Palmer route (Segments 15, 17 and 19). Segment 10 has
46 acres of ~"etlands in the ROW, mostly palustrine
scrub-shrub. Total wetlands in the ROW for this split
alternative would be 763 acres.
habitat would be 1601 acres.
Total altered fares t
The only new corridor along the South Wasilla portion
of the alternative is 17 miles of Segment 10, which
passes through a relatively developed area. The
r~m~inder of the South Wasilla portion mostly follows
existing transmission line ROW's. The FERC portion
includes 39 miles of new corridor, providing new access
to relatively undisturbed areas. The South Wasilla
R-22
. i
C/41/7R
,,
portion of this alternative crosses within a mile of the
north boundary of the Palmer Hay Flats Wildlife Refuge
and then crosses the eastern portion of the refuge for
1-1/2 miles.
Resources of the FERC route were discussed above under
Alternative A.
Alternative F: Little Susitna/North Palmer
The two routes that comprise Alternative F have b~en
discussed previously. The combined potential impact
of the ROW includes 413 to 424 acres of wetlands and
1671 to 1912 acres of altered forest habitat depending
on the North Palmer Option selected. The total route
has 56 to 71 miles of new corridor, with about 44 miles
providing new access to relatively undisturbed areas.
Alternative G: Little Susitna/South Wasilla
Both of the individual routes that comprise Alternative
G have been discussed previously. The combined
potential impact of the ROW includes 507 acres of
wetlands and 1515 acres of altered forest habitat. The
total route has 40 miles of new corridor, of which about
23 miles is through a relatively undisturbed area.
This alternative crosses the Palmer Hay Flats Wildlife
Refuge.
Alternative H: MEA/CEA-North Palmer
Both of these routes have been discussed previously.
The combined potential impact of the ROW includes 368
to .381 acres of wetlands and 1808 to 2044 acres of
altered fores.t habitat. This alternative would have 34
R-23
to 51 miles of new corridor, with almost all of the new
corridor in the North Palmer route. Approximately 25
miles of new corridor would be in relatively undeveloped
areas.
Alternative I: MEA/CEA-South Wasilla
Both of these routes have been previously described.
The total ROW would include 450 acres of wetlands and
1598 areas of altered forest habitat. Total new
corridor would be 26 miles, with about 5 miles in
relatively undeveloped areas. Both the Goose Bay and
Palmer Hay Flats Wildlife Refuges would be crossed.
Fisheries Resources
Map 3 shows the streams within the South Study Area that are known to
have anadromous salmon: These species could include chinook, coho,
pink, chum, and sockeye salmon, depending on the specific river or
stream. Table 7-3 shows the approximate number of rivers and streams
crossed for each alternative. The underwater crossing of Knik Arm will
require the most activity in a water body. Other major rivers crossed
will be the Knik, Matanuska, and Little Susitna Rivers.
C/41/7R
Parallel Alternatives
Alternative A: FERC Route
The FERC route makes approximately 11 river or stream
crossings. These include Willow Creek, Little Susitna
River, Knik Arm, and upper Ship Creek, which have be.en
identified as having anadromous runs of fish. The most
extensive crossing in terms of distance and time
required to complete the crossing will be of Knik Arm.
R-24
I
.1;
Most of the terrain appears to be relatively flat. New
access would potentially occur to streams within this
route. No streams are closely paralleled (withi:.r. 500 1 )
with this route although Willow Creek is paralleled at a
somewhat greater distance for approximately four mfles.
Alternative B: Little Susitna
The Little Susitna Alternative crosses approximately 12
bodies of ~1ater, including the Little Susi tna River,
Willow Creek, Knit Arm and Ship Creek, all of which have
anadromous fish runs. Most of this route crosses
relatively flat terrain, with no streams closely paral-
leled (within 500'). Segment 4 provides potential new
land access to lakes and streams.
Alternative C: MEA/CEA Parallel
Access exists for a major portion of this alternative.
Impacts to aquatic resources should potentially be
less than those in new ar:eas. This alternative crosses
approxima tey 18 water bodies, including Willow· Creek,
Lake Creek, Little Susitna, Lucille Creek, Knik Arm,
Ship Creek and others that have identified runs of
anadromous salmonids.
o North Palmer Options
C/41/7R
East Palmer Option
This option makes approximately 25 crossings, including
major .
r~vers such as the Matanuska, Little Susi tna,
and Knik that have anadromous fish runs. This option
parallels the Little Susitna (along Segment 9), with
construction on or near sloped areas with nearby streams
and creeks, This is the longest option of the three.
R-25
tf
'i I!
• i
•
Trunk Road/Kepler Lakes Option
This option has characteristics similar to the East
Palmer Option but the route is shorter.
numbers of streams crossed are
approximately 25 crossings.
Trunk Road/Glenn Highway Option
The types and
similar, with
This option has characteristics that are similar to the
other options. It is the shortest option and makes
fewer stream crossings (approximately 17) than the other
options.
o Split Alternatives
C/41/7R
Alternative D: FERC/North Palmer
New access would potentially be created to streams and
lakes, particularly along Segment 1. This crosses the
Matanuska, Little Sus i tna, and Knik Rivers and other
smaller rivers and streams (approximately 29 to 36
depending on the North Palmer Option selected). Along
Segment 9 it would parallel the Little Susitna River in
a sloped area with nearby creeks and streams. There
would be an underwater crossing of Knik Arm that would
cause disruption of the substratum. With all segments
combined, this could be the longest alternative.
Alternative E: ~~RC/South Wasilla
Characteristics of this route are similar to the FERC
and North Palmer route, except that Segment 9, which
parallels the Little Susitna River, is not incorporated.
The route crossea numerous small streams along Segment
10 that have anadromous fish runs (Map 3) and there is a
potential to add addi tiona! access to these streams •
R-26
...... , ..
'::.' ~-~~'t'i•.~
• C/41/7R
Alternative F: Little Susitna/North Palmer
This alternative would make 31 -37 crossings. Most of
the route would potentially allow new access to
streams and lakes along the corridors. Most of the ter-
rain along these routes is relatively flat except along
Segment 9 which is a sloped area with nearby streams and
creeks.
Alternative G: Little Susitna/South Wasilla
Characteristics of both portions of this alternative
have been previously described. The combined to tal of
water bodies crossed would be approximately 44. Most of
the terrain along these routes is relatively flat.
Alternative H: MEA/CEA -North Palmer
The North Palmer portion has been previously discussed.
Access presently exists along the MEA/CEA lines and
the potential for impact to fisheries resources or water
quality may not be as great as with a new line. Segment
7 crosses several anadromous streams in addition to
crossings previously described for other segments. The
combined total number of crossings is 37 -43, depending
on which North Palmer Option is selected.
Alternative I: }ffiA/CEA -South Wasilla
Characteristics of both portions of this route have been
previously described. The combined total of crossings
for this alternative would be approximately 40.
R-27
I
j
I ;l
I
f
c
•
Aesthetic Resources
(Reference Jones & Jones Report: Susitna Transmission Line Visual
Resource Assessmente))
7.6 NORTH STUDY AREA ALTERNATIVES
The alternative routes studied are listed in Table 7-4 in the report
for the North Study Area.. Detailed descriptions of each alternative,
by resource category, aJre described below. The descriptions include
evaluations of each alternative according to the criteria listed in
Chapter 7, Section 7.2.
736.1 Alternative Description
Land Ownership
Land ownership in the North Study Area is dominated by the state and
federal governments, except for lands close to Fairbanks. As shmvn
in Maps 15 and 21, almost all land within 10 miles of Fairbanks is
privately owned, with mixed ownership along the Tanana River near
Nenana. Large state and federal tracts occur be tween Fairbanks and
Nenana and south from Nenana, broken primarily by scattered small pri-
vate parcels. Four large and several smaller native parcels are
located within this study area, including three 5,000-10,000 acre
tracts near Nenana and nearly an entire township about midway between
Healy and Anderson, west of the Nenana River. Few borough or municipal
land exists within the study area.
o Healy to Anderson Alternatives
C/41/7R
Land ownership from Healy to Anderson conforms to the overall
north pattern, with 65 percent or more of each alternative
crossing state owned land. A significant factor in this sub-
R-28
i'
e
0
area is the relatively large number of private parcels,
virtually all of which are concentrated within one or two
miles of the Nenana River and the Parks Highway. The FERC
and GVEA Parallel routes (Alternatives A and B) both cross
many of these private parcels. The GVEA route would cross
between 40 and 50 private parcels, however, compared to about
15 private parcels along the FERC route ~n this area.
Because it follows a course that is well removed from the
river valley, the Healy East Option does not cross any of
these private lands, although there are a number of mining
claims in the vicinity. The FERC and GVEA routes would also
have much longer crossings of state lands de signa ted for
private disposal. All three routes would cross the large
Alaska Railroad reserve west and northwest of Healy, while
the GVEA route would also have a short crossing of a similar
reserve just south of the Clear M.E.W.S.
Anderson to Little Goldstream Alternatives
The majority of the FERC route (Alternative C) from Anderson
to Little Goldstream crosses state or federal land. The only
non-public land in this case is native land, located on the
south bank of the Tanana River and at the north end of Seg-
ment 17. The GVEA Parallel route (Alternative D) affects a
long transect of native land, as well as significant amounts
of private land in the vicinity of Nenana. Segments 14 and
18 of the GVEA Parallel route include some state disposals
(the Two Mile Lake agricultural project) s and crosses the
Nenana South subdivision which is currently up for sale.
o Little Goldstream to Ester Alternatives
C/4l/7R
The FERC and Goldstream routes to Ester (Alternatives E and
F) have similar proportions of land in public ownership, but
R-29
the Golds trearu route would have a greater effect on
non-public ownershipso The latter crosses 3 times as much
private land, virtually all in the eastern end of Segment 24,
as the FERC route • The Goldstream route would affect 70-75
private parcels, versus about 25 for the FERC route. The
FERC route makes a long axial cross1.ng of a large block of
native land along Little Goldstream Creek, however, and also
crosses approximately four miles of planned private
selections within the Goldstream agricultural disposal. The
Goldstream route traverses a portion of agricultural disposal
land near Martin.
o Anderson to Wainwright Alternatives
C/4I/7R
Both routes from Anderson directly to Wainwright cross signi-
ficant amounts of federal land, and both cross private land
immediately before entering Wainwright Substation. The South
Tanana Ridge route (Alternative G) has higher mileage figures
for state, native, and private land, while the Tanana Flats
route (Alternative H) crosses predominantly military land.
The Tanana Flats route crosses the Blair Lake Air Force Range
and Fort Wainwright Substation; and the South Tanana Ridge
route crosses private parcels at three locations near the
Tanana River, plus some native land ~outh of the Tanana River
near Nenana • It would directly affect 8 private parcels,
compared to 2 parcels for the Tanana Flats route.
The third alternative to Wainwright (Alternative I) involves
adding Segment 28 to the preferred Little Goldstream to Ester
Al terna'ti ve. The route indicated by Segment 28 would par-
allel the proposed South Fairbanks Expressway to the Wain-
wright Substation.
private lands.
The route lies almost entirely across
R-30
' .
{ )~~t!~~~-"'"'
'
•
•
•
-' ~--"~"-~ .. '·
Land Use
Land use in the North Study Area can be characterized as primarily
undeveloped, as indicated in 11aps 16 and 22. Medium to low density
urban, suburban, and rural residential development exists within
approximately 10 miles of the center of Fairbanks, except to the south
of the Tanana River. Existing development elsewhere in the study area
occurs only in small clusters, primarily at or near Nenana, Anderson
and Healy. Scattered development also occr.:·rs in a linear pattern along
and near Healy, Nenana, and Ester. Large tracts of land throughout the
study area have been planned for residential, agricultural, and
industrial development, but as yet little activity has taken place.
The North Study Area also includes portions of three major federal
military reservations, of which the lands are predominantly
undeveloped.
0
C/41/7R
Healy to Anderson Alternatives
The Healy East Option does not cross any of the developed
lands between Healy and And€rson, but it does include roughly
15 route miles through remote parcels (Windy Creek and
Southwind), and about 3 miles through the Windy agricultural
disposal. The FERC route (Alternative A) also crosses these
three disposals, as well as the Healy Agricultural disposal,
several existing and planned agricultural areas, plus the
Spruce Hills, June Creek, Quota, and Brown's Court
subdivisions. The total distance across those four
subdivisions would be approximately 9 miles.
relatively
(shown on
Both Healy-Anderson Alternatives would make
lengthy transection of the Clear M.E.W.S. site
Map 16). The FERC route would cross 6o4 miles of this
military reservation within the shared Segment 9, compared
R-31
' ..
'~
•
•
•
0
to 7 miles for the GVEA Parallel route •
The presence of the existing GVEA line would indicate,
however, that this would not be a particularly sensitive . 1.ssue.
Anderson to Little Goldstream Alternatives
The intensity of existing development is somewhat higher in
the portion of the study area between Anderson and Little
Goldstream Creek, for instance the town of Nenana. Compared
to the. South Study Area however, planned developments are
small in both number and size.
The GVEA Parallel route (Alternative D) is the only route in
this area that would directly affect any existing developed
land usesc This route would cross a small portion of
residential and existing agricultural land north of Nenana.
This route would also pass through a corner of the Nenana
South subdivision, between the airport and camping area south
of Nenana, near the western edge of Nenana itself, and
through the Two Mile Lake agricultural parcels. The FERC
route (Alternative C) crosses approximate.ly 6.3 miles of the
Tanana State Forest, but this should have little adverse
effect upon future multiple use management.
o Little Goldstream To Ester Alternatives
C/4l/7R
Little existing development occurs between Little Goldstream
Creek and Ester, except for the eastern part of the main
Goldstream Valley and near the Parks Highway southwest of
.Ester • Present development is limited to less than 10
R-32
I l
I
I
t
•
0
•
C/41/7R
seat tered, small commercial or residential sites along the
Parks Highway; eorumercial sites on Ester Dome and Murphy
Dome; a few farming areas north and northwest of Ester; and
several residential tracts in the Chena Ridge areae However,
there are several proposed residential, agricultural and
industrial developments in the Goldstream Valley, and between
the Parks Highway and the Tanana River located south of
Ester~
Although extensive development has been planned throughout
this portion of the North Study Area, neither the FERC route
(Alternative E) nor the Goldstream route (Alternative F)
cross any developed land uses e The FERC route crosses 9. 5
miles of the Tanana State Forest, plus a portion of the
planned Tanana industrial site and the Goldstream ·agricul-
tural disposal. The Goldstream route travels a.cross state
forest lands for a similar distance, but does not cross any
of the indus trial sites and only 1. 7 miles of s.gricul tural
disposal parcels.
Anderson to Wainwright Alternatives
The Anderson-Waimvright area, including the lower-elevation
lands on either side of the Tanana River, is almost com-
pletely undeveloped. The only existing land uses are two
small agricultural parcels just south of the Bonanza Creek
Experimental Forest, the southwestern extremities of the
Chena Ridge residential areas, and low-density commercial
lanci.s immediately south of Wainwright. Tanana State Forest
lands also are . this subarea. The tmdeveloped lands of two l.n
military reservations represent a potentially significant
•
• C/41/7R
land use factor. The Mar. tin indus trial site is thE: only
planned disposal in this areao
Both of the direct alternative routes to Wainwright cross
commercial land at the terminal end of Segment .27 near the
Wainwright Substation location. This should not be a
particularly significant routing
lands are not highly developed
consideration, as these
and commercial/industrial
lands are less incompatible with transmission lines. The
South Tanana Ridge route (Alternative G) also crosses
agricultural lands, the Tanana industrial site and the Tanana
State Forest. This route may potentially conflict with
low-flying aircraft due to two c:rossings of the Tanana River.
The Tanana Flats route (Alternative H) would not cross any of
these latter land types, but would cross a significant amount
of military land compared with the South Tanana Ridge route.
Theee lands are undeveloped and are at least partially open
for hunting and trapping. The military denied a recent
request to declare some of this land excess property, because
the land was used for a bombing practice area and ~s
contaminated with unexploded bombs (Wilsey and Ham~ Inc.,
1983). This contamination would appear to affect the Tanana
Flats route within Segment 11, but would have to be confirmed
with the military~
The third alternative to Wainwright (Alternative I) focuses
on Segment 28 from Ester to Wainwright, crossing developed
lands in the south and south,ves tern portions of the Fairbanks
urban area. The. development density in much of this area is
rather low1 however, particularly in the commercial/
R-34
r
I
[
I I,
I
(
r
•
•
•
' industrial area bet~~een Fairbanks International Airport and
Wainwright. Segment 28 crosses 2. 7 miles of
commercial/industrial and 1.8 miles of residential land.
Almost all of this residential land lies in a tract of
ridge-slope land just east of Ester and a mobile home
development adjacent to the Wainwright Substation site.
Terrestrial Resources ,.
The terrestrial setting in the North Study Area includes the foothills
of the Alaska Range, the Tanana Flats, the edge of the Tanana-Yukon
Uplands, and the floodplains of two major rivers, the Nenana and the
Tanana. The foothills of the Alaska Range rise to 2000 feet in eleva-
tion on a proposed route, with low shrub tundra at higher elevations,
and forests in valleys and on lower slopes. This area is part of the
range. of the Delta caribou herd, which sometimes migrates across the
Nenana River Valley (ADNR 1983). Moose are present in the foothills
during summer and the fallJ but concentrate on the Tanana Flats during
winter. The Tanana Flats is a broad, almost level glacial outwash
plain with an intricate mosaic of shrub wetlands and dwarf black spruce
stands on poorly drained, ice-rich areas (ADNR, 1983). It is cons~
dered important moose winter babita t, and also contains waterfowl
nesting and molting habitat throughout (USFWS 1983B Map 25). Consi-
derable trumpeter swan nesting also occurs in the flats.
The Nenana and Tanana Rivers are braided and split channel glacial
rivers, with actively shifting channels. Islands and terraces support
successive stands of willow, alder, and poplar with merchantable stands
of mature white spruce¥ These riparian areas are important winter
moose habitats (Wolff and Zasanda 1979).
C/41/7R R-35
t
I
l
I
I
•
•
(l ,_
; " • .Ja.<,~o• .. w..;-..~4 ,.,,. ,, ,.
The Tanana-Yukon uplands in the project area include one to three
major ridges parallel to the Tanana River. These uplands have layers
of loess up to 100-feet thick. This material is highly erodible when
exposed. South slopes support paper birch, aspen, and white spruce
forests and have the best site potential for commercial timber of any
area in the Interior. This area supports a large population of black
bears.
Vegetation maps (17 and 23) were based on existing vegetation inventory
maps (~~NR 1983). Acreage of each vegetation type within the
right-of-way by segment is presented in Table 5-5 in Appendix S, and
acres of forest habitat by alternative are presented in Table 7-4.
National Wetland Inventory Map~ are in preparation but not completed
for this area, so potential wetlands were estimated from vegetation
maps, aerial reconnaissance, and field experience. Acreage of each
wetland type within the right-of-way segment is presented in Table 5-2
of Appendix S. Table 7-4 summarizes total wetland acreage by
alternative •
Information on wildlife hatitats was summa,rized from meetings with
resource agency personnel (Appendix M) and existing data (ADF&G 1983,
ADNR 1983, USFWS 1983). Maps 19 and 25 present some of this data.
The following paragraphs provide a description of the terrestrial
resources encountered along each alternative~
o Healy to Anderson Alternatives
C/41/7R
All routes originate at the Healy Substation and travel for
1.4 miles " aLong the east side of the Nenana River in
floodplain shrub plant <::omhluni ties between the r~ver and
the bluffs. The FERC route (Alternative A) and the GVEA
Parallel (Al terna ti ve B) cross tall alder and willow stands
along the river, and then run between the Parks Highway and
R-36
.::.\;
i
!
l i
I
i
; t:
•
•• C/41/7R
the . r1ver This area slopes for about 8 miles (Segment 2).
gently to the river and is poorly drained. Most of the area
is low shrub and dwarf black spruce wetlands. Near Ferry,
the GVEA Parallel crosses the highway and runs to the Nenana
River on the west side of the highway (part of Segment lOS).
The GVEA ROW is partly on well-drained slopes with pape.r
birch and white spruce forest, but also on wetland areas of
black spruce and low shrub. The FERC route crosses over the
Nenana River at Ferry (Segme!tt 5) and parallels the railroad
on poorly drained gentle slopes between the river and the
uplands, before rising over an upland area and dropping into
the Tanana Flats (Segments 8 and 9). The river floodplain
has tall shrub communi ties of willow and alder, and the
better drained areas support birch forest and some white
spruce, but about half the route is poorly drained wetlands
area with dwarf black spruce and low shrub. The Healy East
Option travels across the slopes of the uplands on the east
side of the Nenana River to join the FERC route near the
Tanana Flats (Segments 3 and 7). Much of the upland area is
alpine shrub, some sites are tall alder shrub, and large
areas of slopes with cold ice-rich soils are covered .with
dwarf black spruce. A few well-drained warmer slopes have
paper birch forest.
The GVEA Parallel (Segment lOS) and the FERC route (Segment
9) both cross the Tanana Flats to the Anderson area.
Miles of new corridor would be 33 for the FERC route, 42
miles for the Healy East Option, and 2 miles for the GVEA
Parallel. The GVEA Parallel would provide no new access.
The FERC route would provide an access corridor about 17
miles in length within and near the Tanana Flats. Most of
the rest of the route parallels the highway or railroad. The
R-37
•
•
Healy East Option would provide new access along the entire
route.
All routes pass through the Tanana Flats, which contain
extensive areas of waterfowl nesting habitat~ A bald eagle
nest has been documented on the Nenana River within about 1
mile of the FERC route and approximately 2 miles from the
GVEA Parallel.
o Anderson To Little Goldstream Alternatives
C/41/7R
Up to the Tanana River, the FERC and GVEA Parallel
Alternatives continue to cross the Tanana Flats, described
above.. Near the Tanana River, the FERC route crosses white
spruce and balsam poplar forest, and willow and alder stands.
Across the river the FERC route (Segment 17) crosses a
wetland permafrost area of dwarf black spruce before
passing through mixed white spruce, birch and aspen forest on
the slopes above the Tanana River and Little Goldstream Creek
Valleys •
The FERC route would consist of 20 miles of new corridor,
while the GVEA Parallel rate contains no new corridor. The
FERC Alternative would provide new access to relatively
undisturbed areas.
Both routes cross waterfowl habitat of the Tanana Flats. The
FERC 't-~tJte passes with in one to two miles of a bluff above
the Tanana River with previously docume~ted peregrine falcon
and bald eagle nests.
R-38
-'
I
!
I
1
I
I
l
1
' I
I
l
I
l I
f I
j
•
•
0 Little Goldstream to Ester Alternatives
The FERC route (Segments 20,22,25) crosses some p~orly
drained permafrost valley bottoms with 63 acres of wetland
shrub. These areas and north slopes have approximately 275
acres of dwarf black spruce. The remainder of the route
consists of warmer slopes dominated by birch/aspen/white
spruce forest.. The Goldstream route (Segments 6, 19 and 24)
crosses approximately the same acreages of low shrub wetland
and dwarf black spruce in permafrost a.reas. The remainder of
the route is birch forest, mixed birch and spruce, and spruce
(probably black spruce).
~
The FERC route parallels the GVEA R.OW for 14.1 miles and has
17 miles of new corridor, mostly . l.n areas with some
disturbance. The Goldstream route creates new corridor for
all 38 miles in an undisturbed area. The FERC route is close
to existing transmission lines and the highway and would
provide relatively little new access. The Goldstream route
would provide new access to a relatively undeveloped area •
Both routes are against slopes and do not cross waterfowl
habitat.
o Anderson to Wainwright Alternatives
C/41/7R
The initial segment of the South Tanana Ridge Al terna ti ve
(Alternative G) is described above under the Anderson to
Little Goldstream section. After crossing the Tanana River,
the route travels 5.9 miles along level poorly drained
permafrost terrain with dwarf black spruce. The remainder of
the route crosses the forested south-facing slopes above the
Tanana, mostly birch and aspen forest. The route passes
through areas burned by the May, 1983 Rosie Creek fire,
R-39
I
'l i ,,
J
I ! I ! I ,, I
I I
f I
I
I
•
•
C/41/7R
':."'.'
including sites in Bonauza Creek Experimenta 1 Forest which
are scheduled for logging and intensive reforestation efforts
(USFS 1983). Segments 26 and 27 cross low lying areas north
of the Tanana River and then cross the river into the Tanana
Flats. These segments cross approximately 82 acres of shrub
and wet herbaceous "tietland, and most of the remainder of the
route crosses dwarf black spruce. Tall shrub and forested
areas are crossed at the Tanana River.
Alternative H, the Tanana Flats route (Segments 11 and 27),
crosses approximately 28 acres of shrub and herbaceous
wetland, and approximately 738 miles of dwarf black spruce in
wet permafrost areas. The remainding one-fifth of the route
is paper birch, balsam poplar 3 and spruce forest in better
drained, more deeply thawed sites, particularly along rivers
and streams.
Both routes have approximately 50 miles of new corridor ana
provide Hew access. On level terrain, the Tanana Ridge route
(Alternative G) crosses or is adjacent to numerous lakes and
ponds used by waterfowl.· The entire area throli;gh which the
Tanana Flats route passes is extensively used by waterfowl
habitat. Several potential trumpeter swan nesting sites have
been observed in the vicinity of the ROW.
The Tanana Ridge route is adjacent to a peregrine falcon,
bald eagle and golden eagle nesting area. In addition, the
route is within one mile of another nesting site which has
been previously used by peregrine falcons. Segment 27 of
both routes pass within one mile of a bald eagle nest on the
Tanana River •
R-40
"'
\ ,.
I
f
l
l II
I
s ~
i
i -,
l
l
I
..,
I
r
!.
I
•
•
The Tanana Flats is prime moose habitat (Map 25) and
prescribed burning is planned by the State of Alaska as a
habitat enhancement technique in the area of this route.
Segment 28
(Alternative
from Ester to
I) passes through
the
2.1
Wainwright Substation
miles of urban areas.
The remainder of the route is mostly dwarf black spruce, with
birch/poplar/white spruce forest around the Chena River.
Segment 28 would create no new corridor if the proposed South
Fairban}:ts Expressway is built. No new access would be
required as the area is well developed.
Fishery Resources
o Healy To Anderson Alternatives
C/41/7R
Alternative A: FERC Route
This. route crosses approximately 22 streams and rivers
including 2 crossings of the Nenana River, which is
designated as having anadromous runs of salmon (Map 19) •
. Many of the other streams that it crosses probably also
contain anadromous and resident fish species at certain
times of the year. This route generally follows level
terrain. New access. would be required along this
route.
Healy East Option
This route crosses somewhat steeper slopes than other
routes, thus adding potential for increased risk due to
sedimentation and erosion. It also · makes a similar
number of stream crossings ( 21) compared to the FERC
route. New access would be required along this route •
R-41
•
•
Alternative B: GVEA Parallel
Most of this route follows relative1y level terrain. It
follows an existing corridor and thus, the incremental
impacts due to access would be less. Also, potential
problem areas may be more readily identified and either
avoided or mitigated. The number of streams crossed is
approximately 15, including 2 crossings of the Nenana
River.
o Anderson To Little Goldstream Alternatives
'
Alternative C: FERC Route
This route crosses approximately 16 streams including a
crossing of the
level terrain.
increased.
Tanana River. It generally follows
Access to new areas will potentially be
Alternative D: GVEA Parallel
This route parallels the existing GVEA line. It makes
crossings of (J.pproximately 8 streams including the
.Tanana River. The terrain crossed is relatively level.
Access along this route is mostly established.
o Little Goldstream -Ester Alternatives
FERC Route
This route follows an existing
considerable distance along Segment
from the GVEA line
Forest. However,
near, Bonanza
this deviation
GVEA
20.
Cre.ek
avoids
line for a
It deviates
Experimental
some sloped
areas that could otherwise provide increased risk for
erosion. This route crosses approximately 22 streams •
C/41/7R R-42
,.,
0
•
• C/41/7R
Goldstream Route
TI1is route generally follows level terrain. It crosses
approximately 24
Segment 24.
small streams
Anderson -Wainwright Alternative
Tanana Ridge
particularly along
This alternative makes several crossings of the Tanana
River and crosses Salchaket Slough, both of which have
documented runs of anadromous fish (Map 25). The route
is generally level, thus decreasing the risk for runoff
and sedimentation. This route would result .
~n new
access. The approximate total number of streams crossed
is 25.
Tanana Flats
This al terna ti ve traverses relatively flat terrain and
crosses the Tanana River and Salchaket Slough • This
route would result in new access. However, this might
be mitigated by restrictions imposed by the military in
areas where the line crosses the Blair Lake Air Force
Range. Approximately 34 streams are crossed with this
alternativeo
Ester -Wainwright Segment 28
Segment 28 crosses the Chena River. This additional
segment should not cause any significant risk to water
quality or aquatic resources because the line traverses
inhabitated areas and thus, known problem areas should
be identifiable and avoidable. A total of approximately
seven streams would be crossed •
R-43
i
I
f ~
f I
1
l
I
f
!
L
'
f I I I
Aesthetic Resources
(Reference Jones and Jones Report:
Visual Resource Assessment.
Susitna Transmission !. _ne
I
!
f
I
I
I
t:-'
f'
l ' I
C/41/7R R-44
APPENDIX S
ENVIRONMENTAL INVENTORY SUPPORT DATA
4~ \~?J
S-1 CULTURAL RESOURCE SENSITIVITY
MAPPING OF PRELIMINARY TRANSMISSION
CORRIDORS AND ALTERNATIVES
Following is a copy of the memorandum sent to Harza-Ebasco from the
University of Alaska, Fairbanks Museum staff regarding the cultural
resource sensitivity mapping efforts. Described are the following:
o Approach
o Data Referenced
o Method
o Listing of Knmvn Sites Within Corridors
o References Cited
S-1
~s-~-~-/.~.!-~/ii-"t f ,. ~~~~~~-:-,.--._., .... _ ... ~-~--
c .. }·~ ,
It ,,,
, I
t
!
r
!
t
I
l
J·
j
l
r
S-1 CULTURAL RESOURCE SENSITIVITY
MAPPING OF PRELIMINARY TRANSMISSION
CORRIDORS Jti1D ALTERNATIVES
Following is a copy of the memorandum sent to Harza-Ebasco from the
University of Alaska, Fairbanks Museum staff regarding the cultural
resource sensitivity mapping efforts. Described are the following:
o Approach
o Data Referenced
o Method
o Listing of Known Sites Within Corridors
o References Cited
S-1
CULTURAL RESOURCE SENSITIVITY MAPPING OF PRELIMINARY ..
TRANSMISSION CORRIDORS AND ALTERNATIVES
September 15, 1983
Proposed transmission corridors from Anchorage to Willow, Healy to Fairbanks
and from the proposed Watana Dam site to the Intertie were examined during
the 1983 field season at the preliminary reconnaissance level. Aerial recon-
naissance was conducted on the 0.5 mile wide corridors centered on proposed
transmission line routes. The transmission corridors were flown at a height
·ot approximately 1000 feet above the ground level and preliminary assessments
of the archeological potential of the regions were noted on U.S.G.S. 1:63,360
scale maps (see enclosed maps). In addition to aerial reconnaissance, archeo-
logical and historic sites listed on the Alaska Heritage Resource Survey, \t/ith-
in 1 mile of the proposed routes, were plotted on the same scale maps.
The half mile wide corridors are based on transmission lines routes transferred
from APA plans to U.S.G.S. 1:63,360 scale maps. The transmission corridor seg-
ments from the Watana dam site to the Intertie were transferred from the
F.E.R.C. license application, Exhibit G, plates G38, G39, and G40, dated Feb-
ruary, 1983. The Fairbanks to Healy and Willow to Anchorage segments appeared
on Preliminary Corridor Alternatives -Transmission Lines .drawing T-5, T-6, and
T-1 dated 8/19/83, produced by Harza~Ebasco
The archeological and historical site notential of the area within the trans-
mission corridors is based upon the research design developed for this project
(Dixon et al. 1982a, l982b) and data derived as a result of the field work~·
Features characteristically associated with site occurrence are overlooks (areas
Of higher topographic relief than the surrounding terrain), lake margins, stream
margins, lake outlets and inlets, stream junctions, mineral licks, and natural·
constrictions, which.may funnel game animals. These features can be recognized
as paleogeographic features based on geomorphic charaiteristics. When such re-
cognition was possible, the paleogeographic features were also evaluated for
site potential. In contrast, areas that have little or no site potential, or
which.are not surveyable include steep canyon wall~, areas of stanpjng water,
active stream channels and h~~vily altered landscapes.
A tripartite classification scheme is used in assigning archeological potential.
High potential areas (denoted 'by hor'izontal .1 ines) consist of geomorphic fea-
tures known to contain sites in.other regions based upon archeological, histor-
ical, and ethnographical data. 'Moderate potential areas {denoted by diagonal
lines) are those areas which.display less topographic relief than the high
potential areas, but contain areas suitable for the occurrence of sites. Exam-
ples of moderate potential areas are well-drained, gentle slopes and planes.
low potential areas (unmarked areas) are regions which are either uninhabitable
(e.g. steep slopes) or cannot be tested using current testing techniques (areas
of standing water).
Preliminary analysis of site locational data indicates that 9 sites are known
(!J.. to fall within the Willow to Anchc.rage segment, 12 sites within the Healy to
~ p Fairbanks segment, and 3 sites within the Watana Dam to Jntertie segment
(Table 1). On-the-ground reconnaissance and subsurface testing of the trans-
·mission corridorsis.scheduled to take place during the anticipated 1984 field
seasqn. The extent of this program will depend on the length of the 1984
field sea~on and the level of funding.
S-2
-0
. I
r I ..
I
!
l
I
'
1
i
. i
,
•·
TABLE 1
KNOWN SITES WITHIN PROPOSED TRANSMISSION CORRIDORS
_Willow to Anchorage
Segment.
1 TYO 014
3 ANC 245
4 ANC 245
6 ANC 245
7 ANC 052
10 ANC 082
11 ANC 082
15 ANC 082, ANC 096
16 ANC 118
17 ANC 077, ANC 079, ANC 099
Healy to Fairbanks
Segment
2 HEA 012, HEA 038
3 HEA 128, HEA 139, HEA 141, HEA 142, FAI 141, FAI 142
4 HEA 143, FAI 144 1 FAI 145
10 FAI 214
Watana to Intertie
TLM 018, TLM ll2, TLM 115
S-3
If.
REFERENCES CITED
Dixon, E.J., G.S. Smith, R.C. Betts and R.M. Thorson
1982a Final Report, Subtask 7.06 Cultural Resources Investigations for the
Susitna Hydorelectric Project: A Preliminary Cultural Resource Survey
in the Upper Susitna River Valley. Report submitted to the Alaska
Power Authority through Acres American Inc, April 1982
Dixon, E.J.3 G.S. Smith, M.L. King and J.D. Romick
1982b Final Report 1982 Field Season, Subtask 7.05 Cultural Resources Inves-
tigation for the Susitna Hydroelectric Project: Cultural Resources in
the Middle Susitna River Valley. Report submitted to the Alaska Power
Authority through Acres American, Inc, December 1982
S-4
TABLES
o ....
S-2 VEGETATION INVENTORY SUPPORT
Following are tables which inventory vegetation types by alternatives
and individual route segments. Tables include the following:
S-1 South Study Area
Wetland Types By Segment (2 sheets)
S-2 North Study Area
Wetland Types By Segment (2 sheets)
S-3 Snt1th Study Area
Acres of Vegetation Types By Alternatives
S~4 South Study Area
Vegetation Types By Segments
S-5 North Study Area
~~) Vegetation Types By Segments
S-5
. .
·-· 8' ~ ~ .. ~:. ~ '. ~ ~ " • ~ g ,_
• , ~ J --. .
--· ~~-~'~"·____,:~,,_<.._~ .. -""""-~--~----·-~--~ ·.._,....;;..,:._ __ --··~~--·-~--..,..:__ _ ... ::;,..,..,.;(._ ---~-H0. ,,\}.\.-'"~ ,...._...)t-_ __ --~ '-L·-··•--· __ ..__. ~
"'r"'\ ~ ,_ ~~~;-,:1J! / Table ~--1
South Study Area -Miles and Acreage of
Wetland Types in Transmission Line ROW per Segment
River:lne Riverine Riverine
Upper Upper Upper No. of Palustrine Palustrine Palustrine P< lustrine River Perennial Perennial Perennial ~Segment Circuits Emergent Scrub-Shrub Forested Open Water Tidal Flat Streambed Open liater TOTAL
1 Miles 0.5 18.9 3.9 0.1 23.3 Acres .1 9.8 384.0 78.5 2.0 474.6 Acres 2 16.0 630.0 128.7 3.3 778.0 .
2 Miles 0.9 0.7 0.1 1.7 Acres 1 16.4 11.8 1.5 29.7 Acres 2 27.8 20.0 2.5 50.3
3 Miles 1.4 0.6 0.1 2~1 Acres 1 25.0 11.2 0.9 37~1 Acres 2 42.6 19.1 1.5 63.2
. } 4 Miles 0.7 6.8 0.8 0.1 8.4 I Acres 1 13.4 140.7 15.8 1.0 170.9 I
I Acres 2 21.4 225.1 25.2 1.6 273.4 l l l i
) 5 .Miles 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 ~ I 1 Acres 1 3.1 1.0 1.0 5.1 1 Acres 2 5.0 1.6 1.6 8.2
6 }files 2.0 J~. 0 Acres 1 37.7 37.7 Acres 2 64.1 64.1
7 Miles 0.1 4.7 0.4 5.1 Acres 1 1.3 84.9 6.4 92.6 ! 0 Acres 2 2.2 144.4 10.8 157.4
8 Miles 0.2 0.1 0.3 Acres 1 2.9 17.8 20.7 Acres 2 4.9 30.2 35.1
9 Miles 0.3 0.2 0.5 Acres 1 6.8 3.7 10.5
,.... 'tt te;,-
M II 1£Q-~.~·~;:"':':: · ' .. ~·, .. ,;~ ~~~:-
,n, ~ ,~· ,, . .,.,. l\ -~ ,_.,.. ,~ .. , -·· Table S-1 Cont. -x" .•
South Study Area -Miles and Acreage of
Wetland Types in Transmission Line ROW p~r Segment
Riverine Riverine Riverine
Upper Upper Upper No. of Palustrine Palustrine Palustrine Palustrine River Perennial Perennial Perennial Estaurine
:::) t Segment Circuits Emergent Scrub-Shrub Forested Open Water Tidal Flat Streambed Open Water Intertidal TOTAL -
10 Miles 0.1 2.1 0.1
2.3
Acres 1 1.0 43.8 1.0
45.8 11 Miles 0.3
0.3
Acres 1 5.2
5.2 12 Hiles 1.3 0.2 0.6 2.1
Acres 1 26.7 5.2 11.3 43.2 13 Miles 0.1
0.1
Acres 1 2.1
2.1 14 Miles 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.6 1.4
Acres 1 1.0 11.3 1.0 1.0 13.4 27.7 r ·0 15 Miles 0.6 1.2 0.4 0.1 2.4
Acres 1 10.0 ?,.2.7 7.2 0.9 42.6 16 Miles 1.5
0.6 0.1 0.1 2.2
Acres 1 2.7
10.9 1.8 1.8 15.4 17 ~tiles 0.3 0.1
0.4
Acres 1 6.2 2.1
8.3 18 Miles 1.8 0.2 0.1
2.1 Acres 1 37.1 4.2 2.1
43.4
Acres 2 59.4 6.7 3.4
69.5 19 Miles 0.1 0.5
0.6
Acres 1 3.4 15.2
18.6
t't;, ' :~ ~\:'?;;t Table g .... ·:...".Y"
C' -il
-North Study Area -Niles and Acreage of
\.Jet] and Types in Transmission Line ROt.J pL~r Segment
r ·" Riverine Riverine Riverine '\' ~' .. ".:,;';"
_;;:t Upper Upper Upper l c,,
No. of Palustrine Palustrine Palustrine Palustrine River Perennial Perennial Perennial t
~~gment Circuits Emergent Scrub-Shrub Forested Open Water Tidal FIat Streambed Open \.Jater i TOTAL l •. ---r
t
0.4 H
1 Miles 0,4
r -Acres 2 !0.2
10.2 f '---
! 2 Miles 5.3 1.2
6.5 Acres 2 134.9 30.5
165.4 3 Miles 1.5 0.5 2.0
!
12.7 50.9
Acres 2 38.2
5 Miles 3.2 0.2 3.4 Acres 2 81.4 5.1 86.5
~ (;'
\ ,. 6 Miles 0.1
0.1 l AcrP.s 2 2.5
2.5 l
1
l i ' 7 Miles 3.3 4.6
~ 7.9 f
i'
Acres 2 84.0 117.1
201.1 8 Miles 6.0
6.0
r Acres 2 152.7
152.7
9 Miles 7.2 6.6
13.8
() f
2 183.3 168.0 Acres
351.3
l
10 Miles 6.5 13.0 0.1 19.6 Acres 2 165.4 330.1 ~: ~; l
495.5
11 Miles 3.2 25.4
28.6 Acres 2 81.4 646.5
727.9
2.7 7.2
9.9 l ~--,,
12 Miles
Acres 2 68.7 183.3
252.0
l:rl Miles 3.0 0.7 3.7
0 '!. Acres 2 76.4 17.8 :: . 94.2
~.\
>c'l!i')" "'' C:
'1 ~-_ •Otl"' -••r•lnn••••t•w ..... _ .. ~~·i-'>~ ~··· .,, .... '.?'
9. ..... ..... .. . ~ ~
' . " .;. ..--. !!'l .. -, " 4 -,. .... ~ ...
~~ j
·~ .\ '\ .,
\,~"::£
§egment
15 Miles
Acres
16 Miles
Acres
17 .Miles
Acres
18 Miles
Acres
19 Miles
Acres
20 Miles
Acres
22 Mil~s
Acres
24 Miles
Acres
I) 1
25 Miles
Acres
26 Miles
Acres
27 Miles
Acres
28 Miles
Acres
..
·~-~"'-_, ___ .....,._,.....~---.--~---· •,.-,...,.. "''!.., ..::.=-~.
'•-.--. -~~ . , --·-"· ........... -·~, ·-" .__ ........
~ '
Table s:..."z' Con' t.
North Study Area -Miles and Acreage of
Wetland Types in Transmission Line ROW per Segment
Riverine Riverine
Upper Upper No. of Palustrine Palustrine Palustrine Palustrine River Perennial Perennial Circuits Emergent Scrub-Shrub Forested Open Watet:_ Tidal Flat Streambed ·-0.2 0.6 0.6 2 5.1 15.3 15.3
0.3 S.9 0.2 2 7.6 150.2 5.1
5.1 2 129.8
1.0 2 25.4
0.8 4.4 2 20 .. 4 112.0
2.9 5.2 2 73.8 132.7
2.7 2 68.7
1.5 7.2 2 38.2 183.3
3.6 2
91.6
0.9 0.2 7.0 0 'J •.J 2 22.9 2:2.9 178.2 7.6
1.4 4.3 1.1 2 35.6 109.4 28.0
4.8 2 122t.2
~-~:~)."!"""""i •• -~
1'-·c ... f"'!:?f·~·--· ... -<" .. "' ... ~::: .,..--... '"'"""'
\::,
.. -~·'·'
()
Riverine
Upper
Perennial
Open Water TOTAL --
1.4
35.7
6.4
162.9
5.1
129.8
1.0
25.4
5.2
132.4
8.1
206.5
2.7
68.7
8.7
221.5
3.6
91.6
9.1
231.6
6.8
173.0
4.8
122.2
I
I
l
!
I l ,.
!
1.:1
,,
t
I
'
S-3 ROUTE LENGTHS BY SEGMENTS
The following table lists the route lengths (in miles) for each North
and South Study Area route segment identified. These lengths were used
in evaluating the different alternatives.
S-6
!
I
I -·-·~ --1
,,·a,.
~z-
tf:,i
e'
D
ALTERNATIVES
VEGETATION TYPE
Closed conifer
Open conifer
Closed Deciduous
Closed Mixed
Open Mixed
Closed Dwarf Tree
Open Dra\>;f Tree
Open ',!'all scrub
Open Low scrub
Brackish Water/
Aquatic Herbaceous
Byrophytes
Freshwater Wet Herb.
Dry to Mesic Herb.
Barren
Water
Urban/Built-up
Total Acres
Total Miles
1395B
A
FERC
142
17
297
256
252
65
7
88
37
448
161
58
104
47
1979
65
TABLE. ~-J
SOUTH STUDY AREA ACRES OF VEGETATION TYPES
WITHIN ROW ..
PARALLEL ALTERNATIVES SPLIT ALTERNATIVES
.B
LIT.TLE
su
62
45
236
368
161
42
7
37
157
499
104
47
1765
C D* E
MEA/ FERC- FERC-
CHUGACH NORTH SOUTH
PALMER WASILLA
88 127 77
25 42
320 507 469
479 922 907
172 202 144
32
42 62 48
7 55 55
9 55
37 23 23
125 295 lOB
366 191 368
36
13 13
104 82 82
47 115 115
1828 2710 2531
60 63 134 12.2
~·· ""' .
F4 G H*
LITTLE LITTLE MEA/
SU NORTH SU SOUTH CHUGACH
PALMER WASILLA PALMER
93 210 161
14 10 28
520 630 592
1053 503 559
151 200 141
20
.
48 48 34
55 7 7
5 68 12
23 31 31
88 322 130
285 329 49~
36
13
82 72 72
115 107 10'1
2565 2573 2366
126 12.9 113
I
MEA/
SOUTH
WASILLA
157
62~
616
142
20
34
7
16
31
llO
391
72
l!H
2332
107
REMARKS
*North Palmer Alternatives; Include
Trunk Road/Kepler Lakes Option
L '·sa a on u •
0
cow ~ ·•• • • " •=14 e ; 010 ''* 01 '* -·---=,.. o ••. ', _ _...(/ "'\l~:.,....,.,.;w;;x:tiUQIJiiiAIJii!W!'Ijliii42$~·'"-• ""'7'"' ·:;f~·-:··· .. '
~-,,i.' ,.~ ;.111
i
·~
,, l
I
{~-=·l~§.&ft}--~hii~.Ji
e
()
t1/lifl',
&''
No. o\"
Segment Circuits
!Miles
Acres
2Hil{Z:S
Acres
3 Miles
Acres
4Miles
Acres
SMiles
Acres
6 Hiles
Acres
7 Hiles
Acres
8 Hiles
Acres
9Hiles
Acres
10 tU1es
Acres
11 Hiles
Acres
12 Hiles
Acres
lJ Miles
Acres
l4 Hiles
Acres
15 Hiles
Acres
16 Miles
A~es
17 Hiles
Acres
18 Hiles
Acres
19· Hiles
Acl"es
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
Closed
Conifsr
Forest
4.2
BE.!.O
14.2
1.8
38.0
62.0
2.8
54.0
88.0
1.4
30.0
4.2
88.0
1.9
3.9
'...:_.
C·;:
Open
Conifer
forest
0.5
10.0
17.0
1.4
28.0
45.0
0.7
14.0
1.1
23.0
(l
Closed
Deciduous
Forest
Z.l
43.0
70.0
o.z
5.0
8.0
2.0
38.0
62.0
1.0
19.0
31.0
0.4
84.0
0.5
10.0
1.6
33.0
z.a
55'.0
1.0
18.0
11.7
%41.0
4..8
92.0
150.0
4.1
65.0
-··~
Tllble.5-4
South Study Area
Mil• 31'1d Acrnge of Yeget:aticn Typ• by S~~g~~t~nt ·
Closed Open Closed Open Open Tall Open Low Brackish
Mixed Mixed Dwarf Tree Dwarf Tree Shrub Sllrub Water Aquatic Wet Mesic
Forest Forest Scrub Scrub Scrub Scrub Herbaceous Bryophytes Herb~ceous Herbaceous Barren Wal ;er
4.6
96.0
150.0
0.6
12 .• 0
20.0
1.2
23.0
37.0
6.3
130.0
2.10.0
1.9
39.0
63.0
1.4
26.0
42.0
11.0
210.0
343.0
0.8
14.0
23.0
18.0
365.0
o.a
16.5
11.0
22.7
2.0
41.0
3.0
63.0
4.4
80.0
5.7
117 .o
0.2
5.0
8.0
0.4
5.0
3.6
73.0
118.0
.3
60.0
90.0
0.1
2.0
3.0
.4
9.0
15.0
0.9
18.0
2.6
48.0
79.0
2.9
46.0
0.1
20.0
32.0
0.7
14.0
23.0
o.a
14.0
~~.c
0.7
14.0
0.4
8.0
0.6
11.0
18.0
0.4
93.0
1.9
34.0
0.4
5.0
2.6
55.0 a8.o
0.3
6.0
9.0
0.4
7~0
0.4
9.0
l.Z
23.0
37.0
12.8
264.U
426.0
1.0
181.0
291.0
O.B
16.0
26.0
2.4
49.0
80.0
1.6
29.0
48.0
0.7
13.0
22.0
0.6
12.0
4.2
86.0
.U8.D
4.5
.85.0
139.0
2.0
37.0
60.0
8.3
J..11.0
276.0
2.6
48.0
79.0
2.0
40.0
65.0
1.4
29.0
1.2
25.0
0.2'
4.tl
6.0
.9
1.4
1.8
36.0
58.0
.~
13,0
.5
1.1
.5
10.0
0.4
9.0
0.4
7.0
3.4
63.0
1(14.0
0.5
10.0
2.1
43.0
1.3
26.0
3.3
68.0
0.6 n.o
.a
16.0
0.8
16.0
2.5
39.0
._,,". 4 ... ~.a J&C4 ' ;~"·"'~ ---"" ,/-. 1llW4,..iiilfl& .. '¥K .. c;w AM.AIW; JJI"''~n* ~~MM ....... ~-.-.~--~~----~~, .... _.~_._..--jj JW #4 LQI! . .... ·-., __ ...., ..... __ __,_·~.~ .. ...........,._ _____ ... ____ _, _ __,""".,.,..'"'"".-,"""""''!IIP-,""'---:{J :,........ ,..,,._ -//:? .. ,... ·'"k~ .... ·!'l':vrt~
1-'"« ... __ .._...__....,.J~~-----...-c-............... c•:--•---.•.,...,..,..._.,._._._~--
"'
.. • 1'-
Q
·.~ '·
-~--· i' .... ·~~.,:>J~t;i: .. ~~~...;,,.;~----------~'--·--~_,.~~-----~-
. .......,'£ .. 0 .... str:.tl<W;.} • ..d..:.:;::_:.,t .. .-.,..:-'iin· ... ~·--............... __ .,...,2
Closed Open Closed Closed Open Closed Open Closed Tall Upen iall Closed Law Open Low Dry to . Recent/
No. of Conifer Conifer Deciduous Mixed Hixed Dwarf Tree Dwarf Tree Shrub Shrub Shrub Shrub Mesic Wet "Burn
Segment Circuits Forest Forest Forest Forest Forest Scrub Scrub Scrub Scrub Scrub Scrub Herbaceous Herbaceous Barren Logged Area Weter Urban t1
1 Miles 0.4 1.0
Acres 2 10.0 26.0
2 Hiles 4.3 1.2 5.3
Acres 2 94.0 27.0 116.0
3 Miles 1.4 1.8 .a 1.1 5.1 0.5
Acres 2 36.0 46.0 20.0 26.0 130.0 13.0
4 Hiles . 0.3 1.8 1.3
Acres 2 8.0 46.0 33.0
5 Hiles . 3.2 0.2
Acres 2 82.0 5.0
6 Miles 0.2 0.6 1.2 0.1
Acres 2 5.0 15.0 31.0 3.0
6A Miles 0.2 1.0 3.0 0.2
Act:es 2 5.0 26.0 76.0 5.0
7 Miles 0.6 4.4 0.2 1.8 0.2 2.7 0.6
Acres 2 15.0 112.0 5.0 46.0 51.0 69.0 15.0
8 Hiles 1.7 1.1 4.9 1.5 0.7
Acres 2 43.0 28.0 125.0 38.0 18.0
9 Hiles 0.5 .a 0.8 2.5 4.7 1.2 6.6
Acres 2 13.0 20.0 20.0 64.0 120.0 31.0 168.0
10 Miles 1.1 1.7 1.1 0.4 4.7 8.3 6.5 6.5 0.1
Acres 2 24.0 37.0 242.0 9.0 102.0 181.0 142.0 142.0 2.0
(: 11 Hiles 0.7 1.9 1.2 16.4 9.0 3.1 3.2 3.1
Acres 2 18.0 48.0 31.0 418.0 230.0 79.0 82.0 79.(1
12 Hiles 4.7 2.5 0.6 2.7
Acres 2 120.0 64.0 15.0 69.0
n Miles 0.8 0.5 .5 1.0 3.7 0.4
Acres 2 20.0 13.0 13.0 26.0 94.0 1.0
14 Miles 1.5 B 3 0.7
Acres 2 33.0 174.0 65.0 15.0
15 Miles 0.2 0.6 0.6 0.2 0.6
Acres 2 5.0 15.0 15.0 5.0 15.0
16 Hiles 1.9 12.7 0.5 0.7 3.9 2.0 0.3 0.2
Acres 2 48.0 324.0 13.0 18.0 100.0 51.0 8.0 5.0
17 Miles 2.7 1.3 3.8
Acres 2 69.0 33.0 97.0
18 Hiles 3.0 1.0 0.2
Acres 2 65.0 22.0 4.0
19 Hiles 5.3 3.5 4.4 0.8
Acres 2 135.0 89.0 112.0 20.0
20 1-liles . 2.9 1.3 3.9 2.9
Acres 2 . 63.0 28.0 85.0 63.0
e
t*·::"W*'!IfA -(~WU44 ,.. ---~··-~ _,_,,_ --~ --··--· .. ----~-------. -___.._...,____~----.............. -""~---..._~.,-~------.............. -~--~r~-..-.;.-:-··-., ...
I
t
1
l
I
I
I
1 I -,,
i
1
I
l
I
I
l
l !
l
!
Segment
1
2
3
4
5
6
6A
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
....... , ... -~~ ·' ,. ~ --,.·~
Table 8-6
ROUTE LENGTHS BY SEGMENTS
Route I~ength (miles)
South Study Area North Study Area
37.1 1e4
6.4 10.8
4.1 10.7
20.9 3.4
1.9 3.4
9.9 2.1
4.4
16.8 12.3
2.2 9.9
20.6 17.1
17.4 40.4
6.8 38.6
2141 10.5
3.1 6.9
7.0 13,.2
5.6 2.2
7,.7 22.2
20.5 7.8
13 .. 0 4.2
11.1 14.0
11.0
4.5
7.7
;
4.2 I
!
l
21.9
-12.4
11.5
10.5
8.8