HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA2974')\<
1~'Zs
,':/6
p\2?
~-,J.'2.4:t"l
SOUTHCENTRAL RAILBELT AREA ALASI(li--_....,....
, .UPPER SUSITNA RIVER BASIN
·.INTERIM FEASIBIliTY·REPORr
.APfP>EINJD~11·
,!PART :2
SECTION GI
SECTION H.
SECTION II
MARKETABILITY ANALYSES
TRANSMISSION SYSTEM
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR
TRANSMISSION SYSTEMS
1/.>.~
/
/l
;
ARLIS
(
Alask3 Resources
Library [i.J InfofmatlOll Ser.-vi_ce_s.....--.......
Anchorage,Aiask ~.CORPS OF £10-
.~G"l
HYDROELECTRIC POWER .a II :\1 §I
!!!I J II :i I~I ~'
AN"D RELATED P1[[RJPOSES,5\i 00 .-~.
tfll'NiAL'177 5 ~
SECTION G
MARKETABILITY ANALYSES
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Alaska Power Administration
Upper Susitna River Hydroelectric Studies
Report on Markets for Project Power
December 1975
Contents
Title
Part I -INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Purpose and Scope .
Alternative Plans for Upper Susitna Hydroelectic
Development
Previous Studies .
Part II -SUMMARY
Part III -POWER MARKET AREAS
Anchorage -Cook Inlet Area
Fairbanks -Tanana Valley Area
Valdez -Glennallen Area.. . .
Part IV -EXISTING POWER SYSTEMS
Utility Systems and Service Areas
National Defense Power Systems
Industrial Power Systems
Existing and Planned Generation
Part V -POWER REQUIREMENTS
Power Requirements Data
Annual Requirements
Load Distribution Data.
Studies for Alaska Power Survey
Factors Influencing Power Demands
Population Change . . . . . .
Economic Growth .
Changes in Use of Electric Energy
1975 Estimates of Future Power Requirements
Copper Valley Power Requirements
Existing Situations .
Future Utility Loads . . . . .
Industrial Loads . . . . . . .
Criteria for Capacity and Energy Distribution
Energy Distribution
Capacity Requirements . . . . . . . . .
i
Page No.
G-l
G-l
G-l
G-S
G-7
G-7
G-8
G-9
G-IO
G-IO
G-12
G-13
G-13
G-17
G-17
G-17
G-23
G-30
G-36
G-36
G-37
G-39
G-41
G-52
G-52
G-52
G-53
G-54
G-54
G-56
Part VI -ALTERNATIVE POWER SOURCES
Power Survey Studies . . . . . . .
Energy and Power Cost Trends . . .
Review of Fuel Costs and Availability .
Review of Available Alternatives
Coal-fired Steamplants
Hydro .
Nuclear .
Other Alternatives
Part VII -FINANCIAL ANALYSES
Market for Project Power . . .
Scoping Analysis . . . . . .
Comparison with May 1974 Status Report
Revised Cost Estimates . . . . . . . . .
Average Rate Determination for Proposed Plan
Power Marketing Considerations
Market Aspects of Other Transmission
Alterna ti ves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Anchorage-Cook Inlet Area . . . . . . . . . . .
Glennallen and Other Points on the Richardson
Highway .
Exhibit ]:Partial Bibliography of Related Studies
Exhibit 2:Report on Operation,Maintenance,and
Replacements
i i
G-59
G-59
G-62
G-63
G-65
G-65
G-72
G-72
G-73
G-74
G-74
G-77
G-85
G-87
G-87
G-89
G-90
G-90
G-90
List of Tables
Page No.
I.Alternative System Plans --Installed Capacity
and Firm Energy .G-3
2.Summary of Existing Generating Capacity G-14
3.Anchorage and Fairbanks Area Load data,1964-1974 G-18
4.Utility Sales and Customers -Railbelt Area,1965-1973 G-21
5.Energy Use per Customer,J.965-1973 G-22
6.Monthly Peak Loads,1971 to 1974 G-25
7.Monthly Load Factors,1972 and 1973 G-29
8.Utility System Requirements,1960-1972 G-32
9.Regional Utility Load Estimates,1972-2000,
(Alaska Power Survey).G-34
10.Regional Total Load Estimates,1972-2000,
(Alaska Power Survey)G-35
II.Estimated Utility,National Defense,and
Industrial Power Requirements,1974-2000 .G-42
12.Assumed Industrial Development G-49
13.Estimated Industrial Power Requirements G-51
14.Monthly Energy Requirements as Percent of Annual
Requirements .G-55
15.Future Generation Cost Estimates
(Alaska Power Survey)G-60
16.Alternative Generation Costs for Conventional
Coal-fired Steamplants G-f,7
17.Assumed Market for Upper Susitna Power G-76
18.Average Rates for Repayment for Alternative
Development Plans..G-78
19.Cost Summaries for Alternative Systems G-79
20.Comparison with May 1974 Status Report G-86
21.Average Rate Determination -System #5 G-88
List of Figures
1.Location Map -Upper Susitna Project and Railbelt
Power Markets G-2
2.Areas Presently Served by Railbelt Utilities G-ll
3.Monthly Peak Loads,1963 to 1974 G-24
4.System Daily Generation Curves G-26
5.Alaska Planning Regions . . . .G-31
6.Estimated Utility,National Defense,and
Industrial Power Requirements,1974 to 2000 G-45
; i i
Part I INTRODUCTION
Purpose and Scope
This study will analyze the power market of an Upper Susitna hydroelectric
development.Two major areas of concern will be investigated.These are:
1.Project design in relation to the use of the project power;and
2.Financial feasibility under existing repayment criteria.
Study elements include:
1.estimates of future power requirements
a.timing
b .magnitude
c.load characteristics
2.estimates of future power sales and rates required for repayment
3.analysis of costs of alternative sources of power
The level of detail is that required for demonstration of project feasibility
for purposes of consideration by the Congress for project authorization.
Alternative Plans for Upper Susitna Hydroelectric Development
Figure 1 shows general locations of the potential units of the Upper Susitna
Project in relationship to the Alaska Railbelt.The four key Upper Susitna
damsites are Devil Canyon,Watana,Vee,and Denali.
Several alternative systems for developing the Upper Susitna Project were
evaluated.Table 1 summarizes data on energy and power capability for
these alternative systems.
The Corps of Engineers proposes an initial development including the
Devil Canyon and Watana sites.(System #5)
System #1 (Devil Canyon and Denali)is analogous to the intitial development
plan advanced in earlier studies by the Bureau of Reclamation and APA.
System #4 is the four-dam ultimate development plan identified in previous
USBR-APA studies.
Appendix I
G-l
U.S.DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
A LA SKA POWE R ADM IN I STRAT ION
UPPER SUSITNA BASIN
LOCATION MAP
!
/
")
I
)
Appendix I
FIGUREG-l
G-2
SCALE
~-----o 50
2
IOOMile5
APA 2-74
_..
-
Table1.AlternativeSystemPlansInstalledCapacity&FirmEnergyW.S.el.P.O.L.DevilSystem.M.S.L.DateCanyonWatanaVeeSystemTotalInstalledFirmInstalledFirmInstalledFirmInstalledFirmSecondaryCapacityEnergyCapacityEnergyCapacityEnergyCapacityEnergyEnergy1000Million1000Million1000Million1000MillionMillionkwkwhkwkwhkwkwhkwkwhkwhSystem#1DevilCanyon145019855802497Denali253519905802497701System#2DevilCanyon14501985--6002628Watana20501990470205910704687946System#3DevilCanyon145019857003066Watana205019906702935Denali2535199513706001350System#4DevilCanyon145019857133119Denali25351990Vee230019953001314.Watana19052000421184014346273640System#5.Watana220019867923101DevilCanyon145019907763048G)---j:t>15686149701I:t>-ow0::1-01mrT1::lNo~:s:System#5istheproposedinitialdevelopmentplan.Cl..G)-'.IXDataisfromCorpsofEngineersstudies.-.l.......
Previous Studies
There is a fairly substantial backlog of power system and project studies
relevant to the current evaluation of the Upper Susitna River Project.
A partial bibliography is appended.The previous studies most relevant
to power market considerations include:
1.Advisory Committee studies completed in 1974 for the Federal Power
Commission's (FPC)new Alaska Power Survey.The studies include
evaluation of existing power systems and future ,needs through the
year 2000,and the main generation and transmission alternatives
available to meet the needs.The power requirement studies and
alternative generation system studies for the new power survey were
used extensively in the current study.The FPC summary report
for its new survey is not yet available.
2.A series of utility system studies for Railbelt area utilities include
assessments of loads,power costs,and generation and transmission
alternatives.
3.Previous work by the Alaska Power Administration,the Bureau of
Reclamation,the utility systems,and industry on studies 'of various
plans for Railbelt transmission interconnections and the Upper Susitna
hydroelectric potential.The most recent of these are the May 1974!
Status Report ~,the Devil Canyon Project by APA and the September 1974,
Reassessment Report on Upper 'Susitna River Hydroelectric Development
prepared for the State of Alaska by the Henry J.Kaiser Company.
It should be noted that many of the studies listed in the bibliography represent
a period in history when there was very little concern about energy conserva-
tion,growth,and needs for conserving oil and natural gas resources.
Similarly,many of these studies reflected anticipation of long term,very
low cost energy supplies.In this regard,the studies for the new power
survey are considered particularly significant in that they provide a first
assessment of Alaska power system needs reflecting the current concerns
for energy and fuels conservation and the environment,and the rapidly
increasing costs of energy ih the economy.
Appendix I
G-4
Part II SUMMARY
1.Studies of future power requirements prepared for the FPC Alaska
Power Survey were reviewed in light of new data for the years 1973
and 1974.New estimates of power requirements through the year
2000 were prepared reflecting the best current estimates of loads
that would actually be served from an interconnected Railbelt power
system serving the Fairbanks-Tanana Valley area and the Anchorage-
Cook Inlet area.These new estimates are summarized on Table 11.
2.Additional data was compiled for potential loads in the Copper
Valley area,and a preliminary analysis of electric service from
the Upper Susitna Project to this area was made.It does not
appear feasible to include service to this area during initial
stages of the project.
3.Available data on area load characteristics were examined in light
of future system operation;estimates of monthly energy distri-
bution were prepared for sizing project reservoirs;and an annual
plant factor of 50 percent was selected for sizing project power
plants.
4.Studies of alternative power sources prepared for the FPC Alaska
Power Survey were reviewed in light of recent studies and trends in
energy.It was concluded that oil and natural gas fired generation
is not a desirable alternative for major new power supplies in the
Alaska Railbelt in 1985 and later years.It is considered that
coal-fired steanlplants would be the most likely alternative in lieu
of Susitna hydro.The power survey steamplant cost estimates were
updated for comparison purposes.
5.A set of preliminary rate studies was made for use in the scoping
analysis of alternative Susitna hydro development plans.These
studies are premised on September 1975 plans and cost estimates do
not reflect latest estimates for the final project report.The
studies indicated an average rate of 19.7 mills per kilowatt hour
for the Corps proposed plan of development (System #5)and average
rates ranging from 20.9 to 24.5 mills for the alternative systems.
The studies also indicated that alternative staging assumptions utilizing
the same designs and cost estimates would narrow the range to 20.9
to 22.8 mills per kilowatthour,a difference of less than ten percent.
These rates are substantially higher than present natural gas-fired
generation in the Cook Inlet area,but significantly lower than current
estimates for new coal-fired plants.
Appendix I
G-5
6.The above values were reviewed in light of the final plans and cost
estimates,with the indication that the proposed plan (System #5)
would have approxin'.ately a 10 percent advantage over the alternative
hydro systems from the viewpoint of cost of power to the consumer.
7.APP.estin:.ates that an average rate for firm energy of 21.1 mills
per kilowatthour would be required to repay costs of the project
under current Federal repayment criteria.This is premised on cost
estimates using January 1975 price levels a.nd includes amorti7.ation
of the investment and annual costs for operation,maintenance,and
replacements.The compilations for the average firm energy rate
appear on Table 21.
8.The studies reflect very rapidly changing values in energy and
costs of doing business.It is estirrated that increase iI')costs
and Federal interest rate for repayment amount to over a 40 percent
increase in rates for repayment as compared with conditions reported
in AP A IsMay 1974 status report on Devil Canyon.If the pres en t
costs are escalated at 5 percent per year,average rates for Upper
Susitna power would likely exceed 40 mills per kilowatthour when
the project is actually brought on line.
9.The changing costs for hydro development must be considered in
light of the rapid changes in costs for other power producing
facilities and fuels.It appears reasonable to assume that future
cost escalation for hydro construction will be at a slower rate
than for average energy costs in the economy.After completion,
any increases in costs for the hydro power would likely be very
small.
10.With the prevailing intersts rates,power rates are very sensitive
to any stretch-out of construction period and the si2'e of invest-
ment accumulated prior to start of revenues.Careful attention
to staging opportunities will be needed in final design of the
project.
11.,1..2 A also prepared estimates of annual costs for operation,mainte-
nance,power markets,and interim replacements for use in the
project economic and financial analysis.This date is summarized
in Exhibit 2 of this report.
Appendix
G-6
Part III POWER MARKET AREAS
Throughout its history of investigations,the Upper Susitna River Project
has been of interest for its central location to the Fairbanks and Anchorage
areas which have Alaska 1 s largest concentrations of population,economic
activity,services,and industry.Under any plan of development,major
portions of the project power would be utilized in these two areas.Additionally,
the basic project transmission system servicing Anchorage and Fairbanks
could provide electric service to present and future developments between
the two points.Electrification of the Alaska Railroad is another possibility.
These major market areas are referred to as the Anchorage-Cook Inlet area
and the Fairbanks-Tanana Valley area.
Additional potential markets are utility and industrial loads along the
pipeline corridor between Delta Junction and Valdez.
Anchorage-Cook Inlet Area
Generally,this has reference to the developed areas around Upper Cook
Inlet including the Anchorage area,the Kenai Peninsula,and the Matanuska
and Susitna valleys.This includes most of the population and economic
activity in the Matanuska-Susitna,Greater Anchorage Area,and Kenai
Peninsula Boroughs.
This general area has been the focal point for most of the State's growth
in terms of population,business,services,and industry since World War II.
Major building of defense installations,expansion of government services,
discovery and development of natural gas and oil in the Cook Inlet area,
and emergence of Anchorage as the State's center of government,finance,
travel,and tourism are major elements in the history of this area.
Because of its central role in business,commerce,and government,the
Anchorage area is directly influenced by economic activity elsewhere in
the State.Much of the buildup in anticipation of the Alyeska pipeline,
much of growth related to Cook Inlet oil development,and much of the
growth in State and local government services since Statehood have occurred
in the immediate Anchorage vicinity.The Greater Anchorage Area Borough
estimated its July 1,1974,population at 162,500,or an increase of nearly
30%since the 1970 census.This is over 45 percent of total estimated State
population in 1974.
Appendix I
G-7
The Matanuska-Susitna Borough includes several small cities (Palmer,
Wasilla,Talkeetna)and the state's largest agricultural community.Other
economic activities include a recreation industry and some light manufacturing.
Much recent growth in the Borough has been in residential and recreation
homes for workers in the Anchorage area.Estimated 1974 population
was 9,787.
The Kenai Peninsula Borough includes the cities of Kenai,Soldatna,Homer,
Seldovia,and Seward with important fisheries,oil and gas,and recreation
industries.Estimated 1974 population was 13,962.
Both the Matanuska-Susitna and Kenai Peninsula Boroughs will have some
urban expansion over the next few decades.Pressures for urban development
would be substantially increased if the proposed surface crossings of
the Knik and Turnagain Arms were constructed.
Present and proposed activities indicate likelihood of rapid growth in this
general Cook Inlet area for the foreseeable future.Much of this activity
is related to oil and natural gas including expansion of the refineries at
Kenai,proposals for major LNG exports to the south"48"and probable
additional offshore oil and gas development.The State's Capital Site Selection
Committee has narrowed their search to four sites for the new capital city,
of which three locations are in the Susitna Valley.The area will continue
to serve as the transportation hub of westward Alaska,and tourism demands
will likely continue to increase rapidly.Major local development seems
probable.
Fairbanks-Tanana Valley Area
Fairbanks is Alaska's second largest city,the trade center for much of
Alaska's Interior,service center for two major military bases,and site
of the U ni versity of Alaska and its associated research center.Several
outlying communities including Nenana,Clear,North Pole,and Delta Junction
are loosely included in the "Fairbanks-Tanana Valley"area.Historically,
the area is famous for its gold.Currently,it is in a major boom connected
with the construction of Alyeska pipeline.
The Fairbanks-North Star Borough had an estimated 1974 population of
50,762 and the outlying communities within the power market area probably
totaled about 10,000 population at that time.
Appendix I
G-8
-
,..-It is generally felt that post-pipeline growth in the Fairbanks area will
be at a slower pace than the Anchorage-Cook Inlet area.However,major
future resource developments in the Interior and the North Slope would
have direct impact on the Fairbanks economy.
Valdez-Glennallen
Like Fairbanks,the two communities are heavily impacted by pipeline
construction,especially Valdez because of the concentration of work on
the pipeline terminal.Longer range prospects probably include a more
stable economy associated with the pipeline and terminal operations and
the immensely valuable recreation resources of this area.
Appendix I
G-9
Part IV EXISTING POWER SYSTEMS
Utility Systems and Service Areas
-
The electric utilities in the power market area are listed below and
areas presently receiving electric service are indicated on Figure 2.
An chorage Area -
Anchorage Municipal Light and Power (AML&P)
Chugach Electric Association (CEA)
Matanuska Electric Association (MEA)
Homer Electric Association (HEA)
Seward Electric System (SES)
Fairbanks Area -
Fairbanks Iv1unicipal Utility System (FMUS)
Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA)
Valdez and Glennallen Area -
Copper Valley Electric Association (CVEA)
Alaska Power Administration operates the Eklutna Hydroelectric Project
and markets wholesale power to CEA,AML&P,and MEA.
AML&P serves the Anchorage Municipal area.CEA supplies power to the
Anchorage suburban and surrounding rural areas and provides power at
wholesale rates to HEA,SES,and MEA.The HEA service area covers
the western portion of the Kenai Peninsula including Seldovia,across
the bay from Homer.r-.fEA serves the town of Palmer,the surrounding
rural area in the Matanuska and Susitna Valleys.
The utilities serving the Anchorage-Cook Inlet area are presently
loosely interconnected through facilities of APA and CEA.An emergency
tie is available between the AML&P and Anchorage area military installations.
For this study it is assumed that Upper Susitna power would be delivered
at a new substation on the CEA system in the vicinity of Point HacKenzie
on the north side of Knik Arm,and that project power would be wheeled
over the CEA system to other utilities in the general Cook Inlet area.
Appendix I
G-10
'00 MiI.s
---2
Appendix I
FIGURE G-2
G-ll
--_./
SCALE
~-----......--.-o 50
U.S.DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
ALASKA POWER ADMINISTRATION
UPPER SUSITNA RIVER PROJECT
AREAS PRESENTLY SERVED
BY RAILBELT UTILITIES
,,-..
FMlfS serves the Fairbanks municipal area,while GVEA provides
service to the rural areas.The Fairbanks area power suppliers have
the most complete power pooling agreement in the State.FMUS,GVEA,
the University of Alaska and the military bases have an arrangement
which includes provisions for sharing reserves and energy interchange
In addition,GVEA operates the Fort Wainwright steamplant under
an agreement with the army.
The delivery point for Upper Susitna power to the GVEA and FMUS
systems is assumed at the existing Gold Hill substation of GVEA near
Fairbanks.
The Copper Valley Electric Association serves both Glennallen and
Valdez.Radial distribution lines of CVEA extend from Glennallen 30
miles north on the Copper River,55 miles south on the Copper River
to Lower Tonsina and 70 miles west on Glenn Highway.For this study,
it is assuwed that project power would be delivered to the CVEA system
at Glenallen.
National Defense Power Systems
The six major national defense installations in the power market area are:
(there are numerous smaller installations)
Anchorage area -
Elmendorf Air Force Base
Fort Richardson
Fairbanks area -
Clear Air Force Base
Eielson Air Force Base
Fort Greeley
Fort Wainwright
Each of the major bases has its own steamplant used for power and for
central space heating source.Except for Clear Air Force Base,each is
interconnected to provide power to or receive power from the local
utilities.
In the past,national defense electric generation has been a major portion
of the total installed capacity.With the projected stability of military
sites and the growth of the utilities,the national defense installation
will become a less significant part of the total generation
capacity.
Appendix I
G-12
-
Industrial Power Systems
Three industrial plants on the Kenai Peninsula maintain their own
powerplants,but are interconnected with the HEA system.Colliers
chemical plant generates its basic power and energy needs receiving
only standby capacity from HEA.Kenai Liquified Natural Gas plant
buys energy from HEA,but has its own standby .generation.Tesoro
Refinery does both;buys from HEA and furnishes part of its own needs.
Other self-supplied industrial generators include oil platform and
pipeline terminal facilities in the Cook Inlet area.The Valdez pipeline
terminal will have a sizable powerplant,and most of the pumping
stations on the Alyeska pipeline will have small powerplants.
Existing and Planned Generation
Table 2 provides a summary of existing generating capacity.The
table was generally current as of mid-1974.The Anchorage-Cook
Inlet area had a total installed capacity of 414.8 MW in 1974.Natural
gas fired turbines were the predominant energy source with 341.7 MW
of installed capacity.Hydroelectric capacity of 45 MW was available
from two projects,Eklutna and Cooper Lake.Steam turbines comprised
14.5 MW of capacity and diesel generation,mostly in standby service
accounted for the remaining 13.5 MW.
The Fairbanks-Tanana Valley area utilities had a total installed capacity
of 127.7 MW in 1974.Steam turbines provided the largest block of
power in the area with an installed capacity of 53.5 MW.Gas turbine
generation Coil-fired)provided 42.1 MW of power and diesel generators
contributed 32.1 MW to the area.
Appendix I
G-13
Table 2.Summary of Existing Generating Capacity -,
Installed Capacity -1000 kw
Diesel Gas Steam
Hydro IC Turbine Turbine Total
Anchorage-Cook Inlet Area:
Utility System 45.0 13.5 341.7 14.5 414.8
National Defense 9.3 49.5 58.8
Industrial System 10.1 2.3 12.4
Subtotal 45.0 32.9 344.0 64.0 486.0
Fairbanks-Tanana Valley Area:
Utility System 32.1 42.I 53.5 127.7
National Defense 14.9 63.0 77 .9
Subtotal
Valdez and Glennallen
47.0
6.2
42.1 116.5 205.6
6.2
Notes:The majority of the diesel generation is in standby status except
at Valdez and Glennallen.
Source:1974 Alaska Power Survey,Technical Advisory Report,Resources
and Electric Power Generation,Appendix A and Alaska Electric
Power Statistics,1960-1973,APA.
Appendix I
TABLE G-2
G-14
-
Generation facili ties will need to be ins taIled to meet requirements
between 1975 and 1985 when the first Susitna River hydro unit could
be on the line.Current plans of the utilities include the following
units:
Planned Capaci ty,MW
Utilities
Anchorage Area:
1975 1976 1977
Chugach Electric Association (CEA)
Unit 4 10
Units 5 & 6 53 53
Anchorage Municipal Light
&Power (AML&P)
Units 8 & 9
Unit 10
Fairbanks Area:
Golden Valley Electric Association
(GVEA)
North Pole
15
78
15
40
53
161
53
53
--
Source:Environmental impact statements.public meetings and APA
personal contacts.
The AML&P 15 MW units are steam turbine heat recovery units.
The remainder of the units are gas turbines.The 53 MW ratings
are baseload ratings.Winter peak load ratings are 70 MW.The Anchorage
area units are natural gas fired,while the Fairbanks units are oil
fired.
Estimates of future power requirements indicate substantial additional
capacity needs by 1985 over and above the present plans.Studies
of other generation,mainly coal fired steamplants,have been made
by the utilities but commitments to longer range generation with coal
have not been made.
Append;x I .
G-15
Natural gas supply contracts have been secured by Chugach Electric
Association through 1998 in the Beluga area.The natural gas available
under present contracts could meet the expected 1982 CEA generation
needs of approximately 536 !\'fW.1/
CVEA recently installed 1,000 kw and 2,624 kw diesel generators
at Valdez and ordered two 2,624 kw diesel electric generators for
Glennallen.Studies are undenvay on a 6,000 kw Solomon Gulch hydrc
project near Valdez.
In addition to the utility plans,some new self-supplif'd industrial
plants art'planned or under construction.These include power supplies
for the Alyeska pipeline terminal (oil-fired steam)and for pumping
stations (small diesel plants).Electric service requirements for the
pumping stations in the immediate vicinity of Glennallen and Fairbanks
are to be supplied by CVEA and GVEA,respectively.
There also may be new industrial powerplants in connection with refinery
e>.-pansion and the proposed new LNG plants on the Kenai Peninsula.
Generally,industry has shown a willingness to purchase power from
the utilities if adequate reliable supplies can be guaranteed.
1/CEA Environmental Analysis of Proposed 230 kv Transmission
Line from Teeland substation to Reed substation,page 8.
Appendix I
G-16
-
-
Part V.POWER REQUIREMENTS
Power requirement studies for this report included:a review of the
regional power requirement studies for the new FPC Alaska Power
Survey and other recent load estimates;analyses of recent trends
in power consumption;and preparation of a new set of load estimates
reflecting the present best estimates of future area requirements through
the year 2000.
The studies also included analysis of load characteristics as needed
to develop criteria for installed capacity and reservoir regulation
for power production from the proposed hydroelectric development.
Power Requirements Data
This section summarizes data used in estimating future power requirements
and determining criteria for energy distribution and peaking capacity
for the Susitna hydroelectric development.The estimates of future
requirements are premised on assumed data and annual future growth
trends.Energy distribution and peaking capacity criteria are estimated
from load distribution data.
Annual Requirements
Table 3 summarizes annual power requirement data for the Anchorage-
Cook Inlet and Fairbanks-Tanana Valley areas for the years 1964 to
1974.The table includes:utility system annual energy requirements,
annual peak load,annual load factor,and rates of increase in energy
requirements;similar data for representative years for the national
defense installations in the two areas;and 1972 requirements for the
self-supplied industrial plants on the Kenai Peninsula.
Table 3 also includes a summation of these loads for the years 1964,
1972,and 1974 (assuming industrial loads in 1972 and 1974 are equal).
The total area electrical energy requirements increased by a factor
of 2.63 during the 1964-1974 period,for an average increase of just
nine percent per year.The utility requirements increased at an average
rate of 14.2 percent per year and exceeded 12 percent growth in all
but two years of that period.Average growth was 14.5 percent and
13.2 percent for Anchorage and Fairbanks,respectively.
Appendix I
G-17
Table 3.Anchorage and Fairbanks Area
Load Data,1964 -1974
-
Energy Peak Load
1 f illion Load Factor Annual Increase
Year Kwh 1v1W Percent Million-kwh %
Utility Requiremen ts -Anchorage Area
1964 338.2 83.6 46.1
1965 401.0 91.9 49.8 62.8 18.6
1966 450.3 103.0 49.9 49.8 12.3
1967 497.1 112.1 50.6 46.8 10.4
1968 563.6 129.9 49.4 66.5 13.4
1969 630.5 139.6 51.6 66.9 11.9
1970 741.2 165.3 51.2 110.7 17.6
1971 887.1 189.3 53.5 145.9 19.7
1972 984.3 223.9 50.2 97.2 11.0
1973 1134.2 252.0 51.4 149.9 15.2
1974 1305.3 284.0 52.5 171.1 15.1
Utility Requirements -Fairbanks Area
1964 95.7 23.6 46.2
1965 103.7 26.5 44.7 8.0 8.4
1966 115.9 27.8 47.6 12.2 11.8
1967 128,6 31.8 46.2 12.7 11.0
1968 158.2 42.7 42.2 29.6 23.0
1969 186.0 45.6 46.6 27.8 17 .6
1970 231.0 57.0 46.3 45.0 24.2
1971 267.3 71.2 43.1 36.3 15.7
1972 305.5 71.9 48.4 38.2 14.3
1973 315.0 71.5 50.2 9.5 3.1
1974 330.0 82.9 45.4 15.0 4.8
Utility Requirements -Anchorage &Fairbanks Area
1964 433.9 107.2 64.1
1965 504.7 118.4 48.7 70.8 16.3
1966 566.2 130.8 49.4 61.5 12.2
1967 625.7 143.9 49.6 59.5 10.5
1968 721.8 172 .6 47.6 96.1 15.4
1969 816.5 185.2 50.3 94.7 13.1
1970 972.2 272.3 49.9 155.7 19 .1
1971 1156.4 260.5 50.7 184.2 18.9
1972 1289.8 295.8 49.6 133.4 11.5
1973 1449.2 323.5 51.1 159.4 12.4
1974 1635.3 366.9 50.9 186.1 12.8 -
Appendix I
TABLE G-3
G-18
Table 3.Anchorage and Fairbanks Area
Load Data,1964 -1974 (corit.)
Net Peak Load
Million Load Factor
Year Kwh MW .Percent
Self-Supplied Industry -Kenai Peninsula
1972 54.3 9.7 53.2
National Defense -Anchorage
1964 141 32 50.2
1972 166.5 33.9 55.9
1974 155.1 32.6 '54.3
National Defense -Fairbanks
1964 197 37 60.6
1972 203.3 41.4 55.9
1974 197 .0 40.8 55.1
Total Requirements -Utility,Industrial and National Defense
1964 772 176 50.1
1972 1,705 381 51.0
1974 1/2,033 450 51.6
1/Assumes Industrial loads in 1974 same as 1972.
Notes:II Anchorage ll utility data reflects requirements of CEA,AML&P,
MEA,HEA,and SES.
IIFairbanks li utility date reflects sum of GVEA and FMUS.
Appendix I
G-19
The data in Table 3 indicates that National Defense requirements have
been quite stable over the period.National Defense requirements
totaled 44 percent of total area requirements in 1964,but only 17 percent
in 1974.
With the exception of the self-supplied industry in the Kenai Peninsula,
area industrial loads are supplied by the utilities and included in
the utility statistics.
Tables 4 and 5 illustrate the major components of growth in the utility
requirements increase in customers and increase in use per customer.
Number of customers is generally analogous to increase in area population
and economic activities.Use per customer will reflect a variety of factors
such as additional appliances,a general trend towards better housing
and expanding business in the new suburban areas.
Table 5 shows energy use per customer and annual increased use for
the period 1965 through 1973.The main observation is that the use
per customer has increased significantly,and is still increasing.The
Anchorage area customer averaged 5.2 percent annual increase while
the Fairbanks area averaged 9.8 percent annual increase.The combined
weighted annual growth was 6.2 percent.
Estimates of future power requirements presented subsequently assume
this large rate of growth will not continue indefinitely,and that saturation
of home appliances and conservation efforts will stabilize the per customer
use.
The peak load data on Table 3 represents the sum of annual peaks from
the various systems.Area total peak load would be somewhat smaller
in most cases due to diversity.
The data shown on Table 3 indicated that both area load centers have
a fluctuating annual utility load factor very close to 50 percent.The
industry on the Kenai Peninsula has been slightly higher at 53 percent.
National Defense has the highest at 55 percent.Area total load factor
would be somewhat higher due to diversity.
The data in Table 3 indicates that for 1974,approximately 74 percent
of the total system energy is used in the Anchorage area and 26 percent
in the Fairbanks area.Comparable figures for the utility portion was
80 percent in the Anchorage area and 20 percent in the Fairbanks area.
Appendix I
G-20
-
-
\\JJTable4.Utility-SalesandCustomers-RallbeltArea,1965-1973ResidentialCommercial/IndustrialTotal1965197019731965ill.Q..!lli.1965.!2lQ..!ill.AnchorageArea(e)(e)(e)AHl&P1000KWH34,65654.51884.000( )92.889159,538231•OOO( )133.083222,200325.200(e)Customers6,6648,86011,400e2,0712,2212,540e8.74211.23314.100CEA1000KWH111.587 198.856287.87949.74799.387174,187 164.507-309.049483.029Customers15.44923.35829.0771.0281,7912.46516.55925.26331.665MEA1000KWH17.11529.70252.30516.70819.68129.50133.95249.56482.018Customers2.6383.6645,0294115467303.0504.2135.765HEA1000KWH6.17619.29031.84816.74953.84573,94323.85575.000108.407Customers1.4132.7073.8913585428301.8323.3294.822TOTAL1000KWH169.534302.366456.032176.093332.451508,631355,397655.813998.65"Customers26.16438.58949,3973.8685.1006.56530.18344.03856.352FairbanksArea._-FMU1000KWH16.17223.61927.300(e)41.500(e)43.96271.408(e)22.10937.94183.000( )Customers4.1474.4434.500(e)7958749004.9985.4925.600eGVEA1000KWH23,14267.123106.8822).85069.06498.74449.357136.486206.108Customers3.9085.8467,3825238179734.478.6,6718.363TOTAL1000KWH39.31490.742134.18247.959107.005140.24493.319207.894289.108Customers8.05510,28911.8821.318I,6911.8739.47612.16313.963Rai1beItArea~.Q-!:PTOTAL1000KWH208,848393.108590.214224.052439.456648.875448.716863.707'.287.762I;:P"OCustomers34.21948.87861.2795.1866.7918.43839.65956.20170.315NOJ"O-'r(1)-fTl::3Cl..Q-I.I'x(e)Estimated+::>I-l
Source:REAandAPAdata.})
Load Distribution Data
Figure 3 shows monthly peak utility loads,1963 to 1974,for the Anchoragt'-
Cook Inlet and Fairbanks-Tanana Valley areas.Table 6 summarizes monthly peak
data for the 1971 to 1974 period.The prominent aspect is that summer peaks
are running about 60 percent of annual peak.This indicates that summer
peaking requirements will not be very influential in determining capacity
requirements.Winter peaks shown in the table probably reflect a combination
of growth and climate differences.It is of interest that the 1973-]974 peaks
in November,December,January,and February were of about the same
magnitude,while January peaks the preceding two winters were very
prominent.
Figure 4 shows representative weekly load curves for Anchorage area
utilities.Summer and winter load shapes appear similar except that
the winter show a more pronounced evening peak.The daily peaks in
both summer and winter tend to be broad.
Data on Figure 4 indicates the minimum hourly load during summer ranging
from 29 to 31 percent of the winter peak.
Table 7 shows representative monthly load factors.These are uniformly
high throughout the year,in the range of 70 to 76 percent.It is anticipated
that similar data on a weekly basis would show weekly load factors are
frequently above 80 percent.
Appendix I
G-23
r---~---~--~-~-~-~-~-------------------~-----------,-
N....
0>
o....
0>
....
0>
oo
N
o
of"
I n.~«
:>;W
!~
, U
<tl
-'-.'"
%L9~
%00<;
o
Q
o 0:!N
%8<;L
Ul..oz
I
%Lt>6
ii:
Il3
...J <i.~ii:
~-I.i Il3
-:>:.J~<i.::i~W...
~loJ ~c:<i._
d?~U;O ~::i..,:~Gi~
c:c:~:li00..u
:.=:~.-0 Q..-~U'J_Ul ..,Ul""u :'::<x c:.~:.J 0 ::l u O:~Ul -:-=Ul -~
&.<x 0-..c:_
o.U ""::l
:~.~.-..:.JU-U·-loJc:_c:U-
::>U ::>>-.-£I
::lE~::E~£0:
..loJ Ul 0 ..
""W c:o..c:...>0
~U c:C~0 0 0 c:
£I".....c:..c:""~..,Ul UU::>0-C:..c:·00 -..<xu u..c><x~
U >:~0 W
0 ~en..<x~0
(;..
~.~~
c:.!:iii..I
0
U ..
-=c:..c:0 -;::>...
0 ::>0
"---en >-en
I
%£~01_==:::::=-:-
(/)
Cl«o
-l
:ll::«
I.LIa.
~
:I:
I-
Zo
~
%6L9
o
N
N
9/oc;1£1
M>I .:lO SONVSnOHl
Append;x I
FIGU,RE G-3
G-24
Table 6 .
Monthly Peak Loads,1971 to 1974...-
1971 -1972 1972 -1973 1973 -1974
Peak %Annual Peak %Annual Peak %Annual
Month MW Peak MW Peak MW Peak
July 143.6 56 146.8 52 162.8 59
Aug.143.3 56 154.5 54 175.9 64
Sept.161.7 63 179.6 64 194.5 71
Oct.185.8 73 209.2 74 224.3 82
Nov.222.8 88 236.3 83 269.6 98
Dec.236.2 93 260.7 92 266.9 97
Jan.254.5 100 283.0 100 274.5 100
Feb.224.5 88 259.6 92 264.2 96
Mar.222.8 87 225.1 80 249.4 91
Apr.176.7 69 196.4 69 201.6 73
May 157.9 62 176.7 62 180.4 66
June 152.1 60 165.2 58 176.2 64
Note:Represents sum of loads for AML&P,CEA,FMUS,and GVEA as
published in Alaska Electric Power Statistics,1960-1973,APA,
December 1974.Peaks within individual systems may have
occurred at different times during the months.
~-
Appendix I
TABLE G-6
G-25
SYSTEMDAILYGENERATIONCURVEANCHORAGEAREAo36A9N36P9 I36A9N3609 I3EA9N36P9 I36A9N3EP9 I36A9N36P936A9N3EO936~9N36''lSUNDAYMONDAYnJESDAYWEDNESDAYTHURSDAYFRIDAYSATU,qDt.Y250IIIIIiI1II1II!II!III~!i·iII'I';IIIiI;II:I,;.;I'IIIIiiiilTTiIIII'IIIIiITIIII.i'':I.,i.,I,I.'IIIiI~iTIiTI!:1I ,:IJ,I,iI I140'i:iIIIIii!:~iIIiII!ii,i'I:ii',:i::1"I,iIIIi:IIiIII11111,:IiII!IIII:IiiI,!I:'I:iii:I:IiiIIi1II1!Ii!I;IIII'IIi!II1I11IIIIIiIIIiIII;III:II:I,i!'I.j.;;I~I.:_11'!111II1U.L:l!i'1111I[IIIIII11j,11::II,iiiiii1111II:III::I'.I1IIIInol.!.IITII!f!II IIIillI':I'!=R:''IliT--;TIi1i1I,~'~~,r-r-;II!;I~llIlrll~JlW'-'-I-;:-~--r---:1,~iD~·-r~~liq:,:;llIi':11Ii:'Irllld~I!,t:!:iIii'I1mI~~'I,11"iI I~I,I'I220Ii.II.II!U.l':r-T-"-r':-I ,',-, "~:~ttH~mrl:III:~I'~':!,III1III,I'"ii,i1'II11'111IiI1,.,11-•.1.:__..-....•III.Lp__"It'LIII,:II iI'II",,I'I'I11I ";-rIIIII'IIIIIII'II~-,r~•II,,-1I'IIII"1 :IIiii",III1'\111111111";--1I"-+-t'I"""'~I;'hn,11!':lr41~lt~,11,,1',dc!;11I,II'I,','II,,,"11III.Ir1UIULlIn.PJ(-j-·':JI'·i-~·-~h,~Hti~hT1TI:~:HLf~ltI11~~'llU+1ili',II)Ih,'11'1,-:,':1100111lJj~lD11.lit!"II-'"r-I--~L\4";1,~j··tll+II:IU1~~~~I'Ii1~1',1'1,,1"1UI~IIjlLl~l~H'~f"-~~J~IL-1~jIHfM'l!)1i!L~iI1~LLllj.~.1H-:4~.'liIIICLgtfbfili:,'111:1;1II~rI IIltl"i~ri'~i;i-1:n-iJ"jI:"I'~'l~I'IIIIIH'u.uw..11:1,IfITlll1IIIt'II,Iri~i:~1'.VIII III~II II Il'!1I"mu"IIII+'' ,rlI'III,III,'II'11II"I'"I+"W...+~'I...1'iiiIII-1,~,,IIIII'~",~~i'ttd:;::_.~J.liIJlliitfttth'7[trjUf[1tIllli'~jqJ1\il!IiIiIIIii,,1111:'1;;',:-rIIIJ'n'II11iII,IfL14JII+-114+1I;~1l.IiII"ii"Ir1:I~'I~.~~.'.I'I",~III I ''-tJ...:~_~..J:::EI'1I'Ull~.,-'u.u~L :III 'I:D.cember2-8.1913Iitii"TI'illii'.II I '[L""--'iI11I~110~L1•__lII...JJ.U::iiiIIiII!IIT~I ''I,II" 'I'2:I11rt;1.•I-:II'·I]'III II'I!IIIiIIIII,iIIi,'I'~I._•••--.-1.-1'1iIII'I'•I-r150•,IIiII'l'"l,;r,III'I I II ;,II',I!'I,IITII'i:I " ,\;.iIt:'L'~ill----_.ll...IIIIIII'~, " I IIIJ.,,;it!I!!ii'ii,I~iI'ii"I'III",I'ii"::Ii'II,,~,II''-n••Z,L,,'........,I~~~_~'' ,'IJ'L",IH~14li.J-rTLLLlill~lj±''I:'I"'I',I II~IJII(LI_~Ilill,il.1.1I.'1'11:11IiIIIit,:,I'I!I.I~P],IIIiT!II...~nf.--Ll._•I II IJ~._-.lI,i,':;,If,I!:'I"~-1-W~.Lci-'~~.;II,l-L~IIIi!iI:'"IIIITIL "'",-T-,~-l,"',l!;lhF,1I1::'II11+''~.lE,I:",'IU"h:!1bi'm12~HIIlif1ti';li~ij1+11H~!~:~~-~:I~·>;:r-LlH~~~~Jl'!I[11'mo;,~~it~rru';TIwr~~lJm'~:~~,i::II::j~.-l.:tLhU!,I1:1'iUiI~III.....8:--+-~Fl·'IIillHH~~W'I'II'It-··.!-+....L...-:,r'IiI-+--_,,_._.--l--..'_~-i..:...i:lw'jT!I,"I,jj;li:'~:-:++t7~ll..,~_.-T-,',.1l~I~~('7rnIIJ'IIL.I._~_~..~:-i.LL~}:_1Willil!ti.',I:'jj':~il-.L~lJ.,L.:.I1.-.-i--l----...L"L-!-1.IIii'."II,I,'Tl'I•+-II-.""lJ'I,1~I.l)'~~I1-'1-;,,;:'lc4,'::-1:18J''i,,:-,)I::"',o-t•.""I:H,jIlllLLlt;,.J,I1~~lD~kl~t.......L-..-t--+---+.d.L10,.'1+L.L'_L........IIJ.l)Iij~111~I+.J-lJflIiIIIIjI-.l..".illlI~+It=H1I.m:~~4Idjl~..l.:~~l'~Q;j::~::Lt.Uij~t11'1IIji.Iil.]t:-;;J'i+~U1~"--t:~l~rj=+-_-t=.J=r'.0,~_~.1.:L,._I.....d~~j,1',l 'I,j~'II••'I"1',ILLl.Ut"~~-'1-I:./,..:.+IIII!;,L'"I'Irr,-I:~,i'I·-~il;.JI!.'~l~.,[tWillI,"--.-II':-I••J,L•u".';,I,I','..L••_-I--I-_~L-10J!J.,II~L!!L~11_u,IIi!'i[:hIIJI:I"ii.,I'",:IIlLL.,•."~", , I-I.G'lxI+::>........IG'l")::>.p-----------------------------......---:-:-:......-=-=:-:-==-=--=:-:-:-:-:-=~:::~:::----------iI........"0NG'l"O(J)cro;O~fTl0.DAYSOFTHEWEEK})
))SYSTEMDAILYGENERATIONCURVElANCHORAGEAREA., IliT11'11111::111111111,,1,I,1:1'1::1:,1,11,,1'11!!II!'ill!:;II:IIII!!lllilll:i1li!iIliill'l,i!',II!:;II!I,I,11::11111111:!1,1:11:11I~-4--+'-'-t--+---'--,-+-I'III!,hIiIi!l::ITiTiTITTTITTTTl~I;!!:~~TTiTiTi7ITTfT!lTTTTITTTlTiTlTTi,I,1;-"i~SATURDAYFRIDAYTHURSDAYWEllNESD~,YDAYSOFTHEWEEKTUESDAYMONDAY6P9 I36A,N36P'9I36A9N36P9,36A9N!6P9I36A9N36P9I36A9N36P9I3€.A9N36P9~:~m'Jl''iIi'.I'1;1'.IiiI~iij~1~l11~j:~J~'11~'lit~l'il11'lll~f']I"IIJLlII":',~L~---4~.l.d.-J.._-6_._111.tiJ'I1-.o.-.:w~,-..-4---f---l-IuILII,III,1ill11II[IIII:,Jil~Ii!II:L",~•II..'tttL1"_HL;..J-~----t4-IUI"mUl_""11~II~IH~:'#~IjIIIii.II••.I..JI!IIif~<lJl~~Fth=rf+jEhilileOc'~~"~1$0,IAII:EH~l~140:I,III~IiI I~cI!ORHffi:Z,I~"IIII'"';'.HIH10,I"IHllf.0;Ih70GJ-n:t:>I10I......-0NGJ-o-...,Jc:ro::0:::lI50rrlCl-!6A,N!--'.SUNDAYGJX,~......,N
H-r--~I r f-I 1
-
I-
--
t=-f----.-=tI"-
-----....'-
--
-
C>-
OD
...=
...>-<o"on......~
-e--..
'"-f----.-...
-~
-
=
--
-
-
-
--
f--.--~'"I-
L-...
-
C>-
OD
-~I-...'">-..
-
,.~
-c--+=::>",en
----=-~..I-'"-
0
--j'"-
•0 0
I
...0 -'
•..0 0....~,...
-
,...
--
-
-
-
-
-f--.-
----
I--
o·
--+
---.:...
-
--1-
--=-1=,=----,t::r -
---
---i=--
.=
.----I--~'-
--
---f--------~,-f----
~I--I-
-t="--
~
W
l-
(/)
~
Table 7.Monthly Load Factors,1972 and 1973"""-
1972 1973
Energy Monthly Energy Monthly
Peak Million Load Peak Million Load
Month MW kwh Factor MW kwh Factor
Jan.254.5 135.3 72 283.0 153.6 72
Feb.224.5 115.3 76 259.6 127.5 73
Mar.222.8 119.2 70 225.1 125.5 75
Apr.176.7 96.6 76 196.4 105.4 75
May 157.9 87.8 75 176.7 98.5 75
June 152.1 78.5 72 165.2 87.6 74
July 146.8 76.6 70 162.8 89.8 74
Aug.154.5 86.9 75 175.9 96.2 73
Sept.176.9 92.9 72 194.5 100.8 72
Oct.209.2 108.8 70 224.3 122.7 73
Nov.236.3 124.4 73 269.6 144.6 74
Dec.260.7 143.3 74 266.9 147.0 74
Note:Represents sum of loads for AML&P,CEA,FMUS,and GVEA
as published in Alaska Electric Power Statistics,1960-1973,
APA,December 1974.
Appendix I
TABLE G-7
G-29
Studies for Alaska Power Survey
The power requirement studies for the new FPC Alaska Power Survey
are summarized in the May 1974 report of the Technical Advisory
Committee on Economic Analysis and Load Projection.These studies
included review of previous reports and recent load estimates prepared
for the power system in the state,analysis of present and future
trends in power consumption,and regional estimates of future power
requirements through the year 2000.These regional estimates were
developed as a range of future requirements depending upon assumed
levels of change in the Alaska population and economy.All of the
estimates assumed substantial reduction in growth rates for power
demands after 1980 would be achieved through conservation measures.
The power survey regional estimates included Railbelt area loads
in the regional totals for the Southcentral and Yukon regions.Figure 5
shows the regional boundaries.For 1972,utility requirements immediately
accessible to an interconnected Railbelt system amounted to about 96
percent of total utility loads for the two regions.Thus the regional
totals are reasonably representative of Railbelt system requirements.
The regional estimates also included evaluations of likely new industrial
power requirements --timber,mineral,oil and gas,etc.--many of
which would be remote from a Railbelt system,for the foreseeable future.
Table 8 summarizes regional utility system requirements for the 1960
to 1972 period as presented in the power survey.This analyses indicated
Railbelt utility requirements were increasing at an average rate of 14
percent annually.In 1972,Railbelt utility loads totaled 1.3 billion kilowatthours,
or about 80 percent of statewide requirements for the year.
Total 1972 Railbelt loads,including utility,national defense,and self-
supplied industrial loads,were about 2 billion kilowatthours,or 77
percent of statewide total requirements for the year.
Tables 9 and 10 summarize the regional estimates from the power survey
through the year 2000 for utility system requirements,and for total
requirements including national defense systems and industrial requirements.
The power survey studies reflect future assumptions ranging from fairly
limited to rather rapid development of the Alaska resources and economy.
On the basis of the power survey mid-range estimates,expected increments
in regional utility and total requirements are as follows:
Appendix I
G-30 -
))400~200ScaleinmillS50100I,ALASKAPLANNINGREGIONSUNITEDSTATESDEPARTMENTOFTHEINTERIOR,ALASKAPOWERADMINISTRATIONGULF!OFALASKA.--------------l---------(J-'..;---..~///~--.I---i180"/I~"1JUA../.>3..../,...:/-~~__;i_//;~~--~~_/~"I0-~...~~~/G'l"T1)::>I........"<..oJG'l"-,cCl>;;CJ~rr10-.....G'l><&,........1164"160"1!l8'152"148"144"./-140"136"132"I
Table 8.Utility System Requirements,1960-1972 -
Year
Southeast
Alaska
Southcentra1
Alaska
Yukon
(In terior)
Remainder
of State Y
State
Total 2/
Annual Gross Generation,Million kwh
1960 104 234 86 7 431
1961 111 264 89 11 475
1962 120 294 93 12 520
1963 129 329 102 14 573
1964 141 362 110 15 628
1965 148 452 117 17 735
1966 160 510 132 20 821
1967 165 560 145 22 891
1968 177 633 171 25 1,007
1969 185 708 198 29 1,120
1970 202 831 243 35 1,311
1971 217 990 276 43 1,526
1972 3/229 1,037 307 46 1,620
Portion of StateV':ide Requirements,(%)
1960 24 54 20 2 100
1966 19 62 16 2 100
1972 14 64 19 3 100
Rates of Growth,(%per year)
1960-1966
1966-1972
7.5
6.2
13 .9
12.5
7.5
15.1
19.1
14.9
11.4
12.0
1/Arctic,Northwest,and Southwest Regions.
2/Totals may not balance due to rounding.
3/1972 data preliminary.
Appendix I
TABLE G-8
G-32
Table 8.Utility System Requirements,1960-1972 (Cont'd)
Other Growth Indications
Factor
Population growth,1960-1972:
1.Statewide
Total residential population
Total civilian population
2.Railbelt
Total residential population
Total civilian population
Annual Growth Rate
3.0%
3.7%
3.6%
4.5~>
Railbelt area utility power requirements,1960-1971 growth:
1.Total requirements
Kwh sales
Number of customers
Kwh/customer
2.Residential sales
Kwh sales
Number of customers
Kwh/customer
14.0%
6 .O~.
7.3%
13.8%
6.5%
7.0%
Source:Alaska Power Survey,Technical Advisory Committee on
Economic Analysis and Load Projection.
/-Append i x I
G-33
Gl-l):>IJ::>-owco-o.j:::>,rorTl::::lTable9.RegionalUtili!yLoadEstimates,1972-20000..Gl-->.I><1..0.......ActualRequirementsEstimatedFutureRequirements1972.198019902000PeakAnnualPeakAnnualPeakAnnualPeakAnnualDemandEnergyDemandEnergyDemandEnergyDemandEnergyRegion1000KWMillionKWH1000KWMillionKWH1000K\\'MillionKWH1000KWMillionKWHHigherRateof'GrowthSouthcentral2241,0376802,990.1,6407,1903,59015,740Yukon(Interior)693072008704602,020970~230---------Total2931,3448803,8602,1009,2104,56019,970LikelyMidRangeofGrowthSouthcentral6102,6701,2205,3502,2209,710~--Yukon(Interior)1807803401,5006002,610-----Total7903,4501,5606,8502.82012,320LowerRateofGrowthSouthcentral5302,3409804,2901,4706,430Yukon(Interior)1606802701,2003901,730-------Total6903,0201,2505,4901,8608,160Note:Estimatedfuturepeakdemandbasedon50percentannualloadfactor.Source:AlaskaPowerSurvey,TechnicalAdvisoryCommitteeonEconomicAnalysisandLoadProjection.)~
)Table10.RegionalTotalLoadEstimate,1972-2000)RegionSouthcentralYukon(Interior)TotalSouthcentralYukon(InteriorTotalActualRequirements~stimatedFutureRequi.rements1972198019902000PeakAnnualPeakAnnualPeakAnnualPeakAnnualDemandEnergyDemandEnergyDemandEnergyDemandEnergy1000KWMillionKWH1000KWMillionKWH1000KWMillionKWH1000KWMillionKWHHigherRateof-Growth•3171,4659905,0205,02030,7607,19040.8101155423301,6107603,9801,3907,000--4322,0071,3206,6305,78034,7408,58047.810-~LikelyMidRangeofGrowth7903,7901,5307,4003,04015,3002801.3104702,2709104,6101,0705,1002,0009,6703,95019,910.LowerRateofGrowthSouthcentralYukon(Interior)Total6502509003,0401,1404,1801,1603701,5305,4301,7607,1901,7905302,3208,5102,54011,050Ci>--l~I)::>"'0wc:o"'OUlrrof'Tl~0-Ci>......I><......0.......Note:Assume80percentannualloadfactorforindustrialrequirements;50percentforutilityrequirements.Higherestimateincludesnuclearenrichmentfacilityin1980'swithrequirementsof2.5millionkilowatts.Source:AlaskaPowerSurvey,TechnicalAdvisoryCommitteeonE<.:onomicAnalysisandLoadProjection.
Period
1972-1980
1980-1990
1990-2000
Period
1972-1980
1980-1990
1990-2000
South central and Yukon
Utility Load Increments
Peak Demand
MW
497
770
1,260
Southcentral and Yukon
Total Load Increments
Peak Demand
MW
638
930
1,950
Factors Influencing Power Demands
Annual Energy
Million Kwh
2,106
3,400
5,470
Ann ual Energy
Million Kwh
3,093
4,570
10,240
This section will discuss some of the factors that will influence future
power demands in the Railbelt area.In many cases,direct impact
on power demands cannot be quantified with any degree of accuracy,
but all of the factors will be considered in the assumptions for future
requirements.
Population Change
During the 1950-60 decade Alaska 1 s population increased some 76
percent.Th e following decade,although adding over 76,000 persons,
the net increase was 34 percent.l/Increases for the South central
and Interior regions were 117 and 50 percent;and 114 and 16 percent
respecti vely .
1/This may be compared with a net increase of the far West region
of 14.7 percent,the Mountain Region with 15.9 percent and the
United States with 13.8 percent,Review of Business and
Economic Conditions.-
Appendix I
G-36
~-Alaska Population 1950 -1970 a/and 1974 b/
Change Change Change
Year Alaska No.%So.Central No.%Interior No.%
1950 128,643 50,909 23,008
1960 226,167 97,524 75.8 108,851 58,758 117.3 49,128 26,120 113.5
1970 302,647 76,480 33.8 163,758 54,907 50.4 56,799 7,671 15.6
1974 351,159 48,986 16.2 194,569 31,777 19.4 67,315 10,516 18.5
Each year from 1960 to 1970,Alaska and the Southcentral and the Interior
regions added an average of some 7,600;5,500;and 750 persons respectively.
Since 1970,these same areas are estimated to have annually averaged
an increase over 12,200;7,900;and 2,600.
These figures predate start of construction of the Alyeska pipeline.
Discounting direct employment on pipeline construction,Railbelt population
has been increasing at a compound rate of around 3.5 percent per year.
Most planners expect continued rapid increase for at least the next few
years.
Economic Growth
Population change is of course related to economic activity and employment
opportunities.Historically Alaska's economy was based on furs,gold
and copper.Its modern economy has relied on fisheries,forestry and
government services.Presently Alaska's growth economy is being driven
by the exploration and development of the northern,(primarily Arctic
Slope)oil and gas fields,the construction of the Alyeska oil pipeline
and transhipment facilities at Valdez;and the accompanying growth in
support services and facilities at Anchorage,Fairbanks and other towns
along the pipeline route.Additional impetus is coming from state
a/Review of Business and Economic Conditions,University of Alaska.
Institute of Social.Economic and Government Research,Dec.1971,
Vol.VII,No.5.
~/Derived from Current Population Estimates ~Census Divisions,
July 1,1974,Alaska Department of Labor,Research Division.
,--
Appendix I
G-37
expendi tures,construction of local infrastructure,expansion of Alaska IS
service industry,and activities associated with the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act (ANCSA).
Some of these activities such as the construction of the oil pipeline and
transhipment facilities have a limited time in which their effect will
continue to provide economy expansion.For example,the huge pipeline
construction force is expected to decline very rapidly on completion
of the actual pipe laying in late 1976,and longer term employment for
operating the line will involve relatively few jobs.
Other factors such as ANCSA can be expected to have very long term
effects as the regional and village corporations use their capital,land
and resources to economic advantage.
There are very strong pressures for expanding oil and gas exploration
and development in Alaska,representing a very complex set of interests
at the national,state,and local levels.Several areas on the Alaska Outer
Continental Shelf and Naval Petroleum Reserve #4 are very high priorities
in the national programs directed to energy self sufficiency.State interest
and involvement includes possible additional leasing (Beaufort Sea and
others),recognition that leasing and royalty revenues will likely be the
major source of state income for the foreseeable future,and decisions on
state royalty oil and gas.Some of the Native Corporations have oil and
gas exploration programs underway.If reserves are found,there will
be strong pressures for development for these lands too.
Generally,it must be assumed that the oil and gas developments will
continue to be a major factor in the Railbelt and state economy for the
foreseeable future,and that additional major oil and gas developments
impacting the Railbelt are probable within the next few years,including
substantial expansion of the present petrochemical industry.
Other factors which will continue to support economic growth in the
Railbelt include the Capi tal relocation I and any further developments in
other industries including tourism,forestry,mining,and agriculture.
No one is suggesting that all of the above will occur in the short term.
Each,however,has a possibility and any combination of the above events
must increase the population of Alaska and the energy requirements.
AppendiX I
G-38 -
Changes in Use of Electric Energy
Nationally,electric energy consumption has been expanding at a compound
rate of around seven percent per year.This compares with around
a four percent increase in total energy USe.These increases correlate
with or exceed trends in national gross product and substantially
exceed rates of population growth.
:Many factors can be cited in at least partial explanation of these trends
high productivity of electric energy in industry,increasing affluence,
low cost of energy,and so forth.
Preliminary statistics indicate that total U.S.energy consumption
during 1974 declined by about two percent and that electric energy
production for the year showed no growth over 1973.This was the
first full year of widespread concern for energy conservation,and
results of the conservation programs are reflected in the changes.
However,the changes also reflect a large increase in relative cost
of energy,a deep economic recession with high unemployment and
large amounts of idle industrial capacity,and generally mild winters.
For Alaska,1974 was not a recession year.Energy consumption continued
to increase rapidly in the state,including increases exceeding 12
percent in electric energy requirements for the major Railbelt utilities.
Data presented previously showed that increases in electric demands
for the Railbelt reflect both increases in numbers of customers and
increases in use per customer.
It is reasonable to assume that electric energy will be substituted for
many direct uses of oil and gas in the future.This substitution is
one of the few major options available for reducing dependency on
oil and natural gas.
Only very rough estimates are available on the extent to which such
substitutions may be desirable.Data presented in the power survey
showed electric energy accounted for only 13 percen t total energy
used in Alaska in 1971,and that as of 1972,over 60 percent of the
state's electric requirements were derived from oil and gas.In contrast,
the Pacific Northwest derives over 90 percent of its electric energy
from hydro power,and electrici ty accounts for about 40 percent of
Appendix I
G-39
total regional energy use.It is APA's judgement that in the long term,
electric energy will provide a similarly large share of total energy
requirements in the Railbelt area,if alternative power sources of
coal,hydro,and nuclear are developed.Assuming no growth in overall
energy use,this would involve a three-fold increase in electric energy
requirements.
The cold climates,especially in the Interior,provide additional incenti ve
to substitute electric energy for direct use of fossil fuels.For example,
an all electric economy for the Fairbanks area would substantially
reduce future problems with air pollution,fog,and ice fog.
Appendix I
G-40
-
-
1975 Estimates of Future Power Requirements
This section presents future power requirement estimates developed
for the current evaluation of the Upper Susitna Project.Work for
the new estimates consisted of:(1)a review of the previous data
and data from the power survey in light of new data for the years
1973 and 1974;(2)consideration of current regional and sectional
trends in energy and power use;and (3)preparation of a new set
of load estimates reflecting this most recent data.
The new analyses generally indicate that major premises for the power
survey load estimates remain valid.Changes include the update for
the most recent estimates and reducing the regional estimates from the
power survey to reflect areas that could be served directly from an inter-
connected Railbelt system.This latter step eliminated loads for remote
cities and villages as well as potential industrial loads for these remote
areas.
For 1973 and 1974,the Anchorage area utilities energy demand increased
15.2 percent per year and peaking requirements increased 12.6 percent
per year.The Fairbanks'utilities energy demand increased only 3.9
percent while the peaking requirement increased 7.4 percent.The
smaller increase in the Fairbanks area is assumed due to the large
buildup in anticipation of the oil pipeline construction,and then a
subsequent delay of construction start until late 1974.
The new estimates are summarized in Table 11 and Figure 6.Indicated
load increments,by decade,are:
Increments of Utility Power Requirements,1,000 KW
Higher Estimate
Mid-Range
Lower Estimate
1974-1980
440
370
320
1980-1990
1,140
740
560
1990-2000
2,280
1,180
600
1974-2000
2,280
2,290
1,480
Increments of Total Power Requirements,1,000 KW
1974-1980 1980-1990 1990-2000 1974-2000
Higher Estimate 540 3,960 2,300 6,800
Mid-Range 420 800 1,500 2,720
Lower Estimate 340 600 660 1,600
Appendix I
G-41
Table11.EstimatedUtility.NationalDefense,andIndustrialPowerRequirements(j)-j~I~\:l~cx;J-ON'(Drt1:::la..(j)......IX................TypeofLoadAreaActualRequirementsEstimatedFutureRequirements1974198019902000--PeakAnnualPeakAnnualPeakAnnualPeakAnnualDemandEnergyDemandEnergyDemandEnergyDemandEnergy1000kwMillion/kwh1000kwMillion/kwh1000kwMillion/kwh1000kwMillion/kwhNationalDefenseAnchorageFairbanksTotalIndustrialAnchorageFairbanks1/AnchorageFairbanks1/AnchorageFairbanks1/33155351704019045220.41197452205024055260--------743528039090430100480~-.HighRateofDevelopmentAssumed10451007102,91020,3902,92020,460---------Mid-RangeDevelopmentAssumed50350100.7104102,870----------LowDevelopmentAssumed20140503501007101/Roundstolessthan10MWNote:Industrialdevelopmentdoesnotassumepipelinepumping.)~
)Table11.EstimatedUtility,NationalDefense,andIndustrialPowerRequirements(Cant))G>)::>I-0~-oWCD~0.......x.......TypeofLoadAreaUtilitiesAnchorageFairbanksTotalAnchorageFairbanksTotalAnchorageFairbanksTotalActualRequirementsEstimatedFutureRequirements1974198019902000PeakAnnualPeakAnnualPeakAnnualPeakAnnualDemandEnergyDemandEnergyDemandEnergyDemandEnergy1000kwMillion/kwh1000kwMillion/kwh1000kwMillion/kwh1000kwMillion/kwh-HighRateofGrowth2841,3056502,8501,5706,8803,43015,020833301607003801,6608003,500-----------3671,6358103,5501,9508,5404,23018,520LikelyMid-RangeGrowth5902,5801,1905,2102,1509,4201506602901,2705102,230-----7403,2401,4806,4802,66011,650LowerRateofGrowth-5502,4101,0104,4201,5006,5701406102401,0503501,530-- ------6903,0201,2505,4701,8508,100
G)::>I"'0~"'O~ro:::::l0.......x.......Table11.EstimatedUtility,NationalDefense,andIndustrialPowerRequirements(Cant)TypeofLoadAreaActualRequirementsEstimatedFutureRequirerr.ents1974198019902000PeakAnnualPeakAnnualPeakAnnualPeakAnnualDemandEnergyDemandEnergyDemandEnergyDemandEnergy1000kwMillion/kwh1000kwMillion/kwh1000kwMillion/kwh1000kwMillion/kwhCombinedUtility,NationalDefense,andIndustrialPowerRequirementsHigherGrowthRateAnchorageFairbanksTotal3271244511,5055272,3027852059903,7309204,6504,5204304,95027,4601,90029,3606,3958557,25035,7003,76039,460AnchorageFairbanksTotalAnchorageFairbanksTotal)LikelyMid-RangeGrowthRate6753,1001,330195880340---8703,9801,670LowerGrowthRate--6052,7201,100185830290-----7903,5501,3906,1101,5107,6204,9601,2906,2502,6055653,1701,6454052,05012,5102,49015,0007,5001,7909,290)
)ESTIMATEDFUTUREPOWERREQUIREMENTS1974-2000I.PEAKLOADREQUIREMENTS40,00030,00020,00010,000)100'IA.PA.-September1975I19657075808590952000YEARGJ"T])::>I--0..".G"J-oU1Cro;:0::::::1rrl0..-'.G"JXI0"\_,-'3:5000:E4000Io3000~32000~~W1000a.500400300200Note:Includesestimatedpeakloadrequirementsforutility,nationaldefense,andindustrialpowersystemsintheAnchorage-CookInletandFairbanks-TananaValleyareas.
Note:Includesestimatedannualenergyrequirementsforutility,nationaldefense,andindustrialpowersystemsintheAnchorage-CookInletandFairbanks-TananaValleyareas.ESTIMATEDFUTUREPOWERREQUIREMENTS1974-20002.ANNUALENERGYREQUIREMENTS40,000\:=-]30,00020,000i10,000~Zo5000:J4000~3000,b2000a::WZW...J<X:::::>Z~OOZ400<X:IN~xI0".......IG:l,,:t:>Io-l"'Cl.."~"'ClO"cro;;o~me........300200,952000908085YEAR75701001I1965A.P.A.-September1975I~
---
With allowances for reserves and plant retirements.the indicated new
capacity requirements by the year 2000 range from about two to eight
million kilowatts with a mid-range estimate of over three million kilowatts.
Rates of increase in utility power requirements assumed for the future
estimates are shown below:
Estimate 1974-1980 1980-1900 1990-2000
Higher Range 14.1%9%8%
Likely Mid-Range 12.4%7%6%
Lower Range 11.1%6%4%
It bears repeating that the assumed growth rates after 1980 are substantially
below existing trends and that they assume substantial savings through
increased efficiency in use of energy and conservation programs.
The estimates for the National Defense requirements are premised on
the 1974 power use for the major bases and an assumed future growth
of approximately one percent per year.These estimates are lower
than presented in the power survey data.reflecting trends in 1973
and 1974.
The estimates for future utility requirements cover the same load sectors
as now supplied by Alaska utility systems.This includes most light
industry and industry support services.The utility estimates do not
include allowances for industrial requirements for major new resource
extraction and processing.new energy intensive industries.or heavy
manufacturing.
The power survey studies included a review of potential new developments
in the energy.mineral.and timber fields and a set of assumptions
on individual developments considered likely through the year 2000.
Basically.the estimates involved selecting a few developments considered
most likely to occur from among the more promising potentials and
rough estimates of the power requirements that would be involved.
For this study.the power survey assumptions were screened to include
only those developments which could be readily served from an interconnected
Railbelt power system.This eliminated many potential new industrial
loads listed in the Survey.particularly remote mining developments
in the Yukon region.
Appendix I
G-47
Tables 12 and 13 summarize assumed new industrial power requirements
for th is report.
The basic assumptions incorporated in these new estimates are summarized
below.In most cases,the assumptions are similar to those adopted for the
power survey:
1.It is generally considered that the Railbelt area population
will continue to grow more rapidly during the study period than
the national average.
2.Utility statistics indicate individual customers'electric
energy consumption has been increasing six to seven percent per
year.However,all of the load estimates assume that saturation
levels for many energy uses will be reached and that rates of
increase for most individual uses will decline during the 1980's
and 1990's.This reflects assumed effects of major efforts to increase
efficiencies and conserve energy for all uses.
3.Rapid growth in the Railbelt area will continue through the
balance of the 1970's,with economic activity generated by
North Slope oil and gas development being a major factor.
4.Future additional energy systems,potential mineral developments,
petroleum processing,and development of a petrochemical
industry will all be very influential in use of electrical energy
through the end of the century.
5.Major economic advances for all of Alaska and especially for
the Alaska Native people should be anticipated as a result of
the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.
6.There may be substantial substitution of electricity for direct use of
oil and gas if the electricity is from other sources.
Load factors assumed were the same as for the power survey--utility
systems,50%;industrial loads,80%;and national defense,55%.The
50%and 55%are further supported by the data in Table 3.The 80%is
an assumption based on higher utilization of generation equipment by
industry.Minor differences may be reflected in the table due to
combining and rounding.
The concept of range
It attempts to balance
conservation trends.
Appendix I
G-48
estimates presented in the power survey is continued.
the population and the growth factors with increasing
The "higher"range anticipates significant new -
Table 12.Assumed Industrial Development
INDUSTRY
Kenai Peninsula:
Chemical Plant:
RATE OF
GROWTH
Low
ASSUMPTION
Existing,with planned expansion by 1980,
then,no change to 2000.
Mid Existing,larger eXPansion assumed by 1980,
continued expansion to 2000.
High Existing,largest yet expansion assumed
by 1980,larger expansion to 2000.
LNG Plant:
Refinery:
Timber
Processing:
Low
Mid
High
Low
Existing,with no change assumed to 2000.
Existing,no change before 1980,steady
expansion thereafter.
Existing,expansion assumed before 1980
and continuing to 2000.
Existing,plus same assumptions as LNG plant.
Small start before 1980,expansion to
high value by 2000.
Mid Larger start before 1980,expansion to
high value by 1990.
High Largest start before 1980,no change
to 2000.
Appendix I
TABLE G-12
G-49
Table 12.Assumed Inc1ustrial Deve]opmen t
(continued)
-
IHDOOTRY
Other Vicinities:
Mining and Mineral
Processing:
RATE OF
GROWTH
Low
ASSUMPTION
Start-up after 1980,five-fold expansion
by 2000.
Mid Start-up by 1980,five-fold expansion
by 1990,double by 2000.
High Large start-up by 1980,double by 1990,
no change to 2000.
LNG Plant:Low Start-up after 1980,no change to 2000.
Mid Start-up before 1980.no change to 2000.
High """"" "" "
Beluga Coal
Gas ification:Low Pilot project power between 1990 and 2000.
Mid Pilot project by 1990,full operation by 2000.
High Pilot project before 1980,full operation
by 1990,no change to 2000.
Nuclear Fuel
Enrichment:
Timber:
High
Low
Start at full operation before 1990,no
change to 2000.
Start-up after 1980,full operation by 2000.
Mid Start-up before 1980,full operation by 1990,
no change to 2000.
High Full operation start-up before 1980,no
change thereafter.
New City:Low Initially loaded after 1980,load tripled by 2000.
Mid Initially loaded before 1980,tripled by 1990
2 1/3 expansion by 2000._.
Appendix I
G-50
High Larger initial load before 1980,2 1/3
expansion by 1990,no change to 2000.
energy and mineral developments from among those that appear most promising.
The "lower "range generally assumes a slackening of the pace of development
following the completion of the Alyeska pipeline.The "m id-range ll appears
to be a reasonably conservative estimate.
With the exception of the annual large load for a nuclear enrichment facility
(2500 MW in the 1990 and 2000 "high range"estimates only)all of the
assumed new industrial loads are considered very conservative.The
main purpose of including the nuclear enrichment assumption is to illustrate
that order of magnitude of loads for large energy-intensive uses.
Very rough estimates for requirements that might be anticipated for a
new capital city are also included in Table 12.
The estimates do not assume major loads associated with OCS developments
or very large petrochemical industries.Similarly,they do not assume
rapid acceleration of mining and mineral processing.
Copper Valley Power Requirements
The Copper Valley Electric Association provides power at Valdez and Glennal-
len.Power requirements are relatively small,but recent rates of increase
have been large because of activity related to the Alyeska pipeline and
terminal construction.
Existing Situation
CVEA energy requirements have increased at an average annual rate of
10 percent from 5.6 million kwh per year in 1965,the first year CVEA
served both Glennallen and Valdez,to 14.4 million kwh per year in 1974.
The 1974 peak load for the two towns was 3.5 MW.Combined installed
capacity was 6.1 MW (all diesel).
CVEA recently installed 3.6 MW in Valdez and has 5.2 MW scheduled for
Glennallen during 1975 with an additional 6 MW proposed for Valdez in
1976 and again in 1978.CVEA has under study a small hydro project
(Solomon Gulch)and a potential intertie between Gtennallen and Valdez.
Future Utility Loads
The most recent estimate of utility loads is presented in an October 1974
study prepared for CVEA .Y The study estimated near future loads would
peak at 9 MW and 46 million kwh upon construction completion of the pipeline,
y Copper Valley Electric Association,Inc.15 Year Power Cost Study
Hydro/Diesel.Robert W.Retherford Associates,October,1974.
Appendix I
G-52
-
-
the pipeline terminal,and an electrical interconnection bet",reen Valdez
and Glennallen in 1978.The loads were estimated to level off for a few
years at that time.By 1989,the study estimated the loads at 15 MW and
75 million kwh.It was envisioned that CVEA would furnish energy to the
construction camp,the pipeline refrigeration station,and the utility-type
loads at two oil pipeline pumping stations.Alyeska Pipeline Company
estimated these loads would amount to 21.8 million kwh annually.
APA estimated CVEA power requirements based on rate of growth assumptions
similar to those used for estimating the Anchorage and Fairbanks area needs.
The estimates are shown in the following tabulation:
1980 1990 2000
Energy Energy Energy
Million Peak Million Peak Million Peak
Growth During Period kwh MW kwh MW kwh MW
High 32 7 77 18 169 38
Mid-Range 29 7 58 13 105 24
Lower 27 6 49 11 73 17
Should the Valdez area become a major manufacturing or oil processing
area,the above estimates of utility loads would be much too low.
Industrial Loads
Current industrial loads include the construction camps for the
pipeline terminal and pumping stations.An oil-fired steamplant
will supply electric requirements and process steam at the terminal.
These are relatively small loads.
The concept of using electric power for oil line pumping requirements
has been advanced in previous studies.For a variety of reasons,
including economics and absence of a strong area transmission
system,this plan was not attractive to the pipeline company.
All recognize that a substantial savings in oil could be accomplished
if the pipeline were electrified.and if the power were derived from
another source such as hydro or coal.Total requirements for
pipeline pumping south of the Yukon River were estimated at 225,000 KW
in an APA study (969).
Appendix I
G-53
The concept of utilizing electricity to displace fuels would bear further
attention if an Alaska route is selected for transporting natural gas from
Alaska's North Slope.The substantial amount of gas needed for compressor
and refrigeration stations and for liquefying the gas could be saved by
substituting electric power.Informal estimates from the El Paso Natural
Gas Company indicate requirements of up to 900 MW if an Alaska gas line
and LNG plant were powered by electricity.
Assuming an 80 percent plant factor,this would amount to around 6 billion
kilowatt hours annual energy.A large portion of the load would be at
tidewater at the LNG plant.
The availability of large amounts of oil and possibly natural gas at ports on
the Gulf of Alaska further suggests the possibility of establishing refineries
or petroleum plants in the area.
Industrial loads associated with oil and gas pipelines and other potential
industrial loads in the Prince William Sound Area have not been considered in
assessments of Upper Susitna power markets and financial feasibility of the
project.
Criteria for Capacity and Energy Distribution
Reservoir and powerplant capacity criteria are premised on expected use
of the project to meet power demands.This section discusses the data and
assumptions incorporated in the capacity criteria for the Upper Susitna
Project.
The basic approach involves a set of monthly energy distribution assumptions
which are used to size the project reservoirs and to determine annual firm
energy production from the project.The powerplant capacity assumptions
reflect the capacity needed to market the project power.
Energy Distribution
It is assumed that the energy requirements from the hydroelectric project
will be proportional to total system energy requirements on a monthly basis
for any given year.
Table 14 summarized 1970-1972 monthly energy distribution for the area
utilities,expressed as a percent of annual energy requirements.The
table also shows energy distribution assumptions used in previous hydro-
electric studies in the area.
Appendix I
G-54
-
Table 14.Monthly Energy Reguirements as Percent of Annual Reguirements
1961 1971 1970-1972 Reconnnended
Devil Brad127 Utili~for Current
MONTH Canyon 1/Lake-Loads l/Studies 4/
Oct.8.9 8.3 7.9 8.0
Nov.9.4 9.1 8.9 8.8
Dec.10.4 11.0 10.2 9.7
Jan.9.3 9.9 11.3 10.6
Feb.8.1 9.0 9.2 9.0
Mar.8.3 8.4 9.8 9.4
April 7.7 7.8 8.0 8.1
May 7.6 7.4 7.2 7.5
June 7.2 7.2 6.5 6.9
July 7.4 7.2 6.4 6.9
Aug.7.7 7.2 7.1 7.4
Sept.~7.5 7.5 7.7
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
SEASONAL
Oct.-Aug.
May-Sept.
62.1
37.9
63.5
36.5
65.3
34.7
63.6
36.4
1/USBR Feasibility report.
£/Corps draft report,1971
2/Combined loads of CEA,AML&P,GVEA,FMUS,for period Oct.1970 -Sept.1972.
±/Assumes total requirements consisting of 25%industrial loads and 75%
of the above combined loads of the four major utilities.
Appendix I
TABLE G-14
G-55
For the current studies,it assumes that future load patterns will be modified
somewhat as a result of industrial requirements that would tend to have
a fairly even energy distribution throughout the year.As indicated on
Table 14,this assumption modified seasonal distribution of energy by
less than two percent.
As used in the project operation studies,firm energy capability is deter-
mined for any given combination of reservoir capacity as the amount of
energy that can be delivered under critical year runoff conditions using
the assumed monthly energy distribution.Under these assumptions,substan-
tial amounts of secondary energy are available in most years,and a significant
part of the reservoir capacity is used only for long term storage to increase
flows in the lowest runoff years.
These methods are quite traditional for planning studies,although it is
recognized operations would not follow precisely the same patterns.The
project would always operate in conjunction with other thermal and hydro-
electric plants in the interconnected system.Energy demands on the
Susitna Project would vary because of changes in fuel supplies,generator
maintenance schedules,and other factors.It is also anticipated that
actual project operations would be pointed more towards maximizing
annual energy production rather than long term storage to augment
flows in the critical year.However,the planning study assumption
provides a reasonably conservative estimate of average annual firm energy
and an adequate basis for determining merits of the project.
Capacity Requirements
As discussed previously,the utility systems have had combined annual
load factors slightly over 50 percent in the past few years.This is premised
on non-concurrent peaks in separate systems,so actual load factors
would be somewhat higher due to diversity.Data presented earlier also
shows that mid-summer peaks have been running about 60 percent of
mid-winter peaks.that monthly load factors generally exceed 70 percent,
and that winter and summer load shapes are quite similar.
It is anticipated that there will be a trend towards somewhat higher annual
load factors in the future.In addition to benefiting from any load diversity
in the interconnected system,peak load management (including such
action as peak load pricing)offers considerable opportunity for improving
load factors,which in turn reduces overall capacity requirements for
the system in any given year.For planning purposes,it is assumed
that the annual system load factor will be in the range of 55 to 60 percent
by the latter part of the century.
Appendix I
G-56
-
System capacity requirements would be determined by winter peak load
requirements,plus allowances for reserves and unanticipated load growth.
The lower summer peaks provide latitude for scheduled unit maintenance
and repairs.
Daily peak load shapes for the system indicate a very small portion of
the capacity is needed for very low load factor operation.It is expected
that some of the gas turbine capacity which is now used essentially for
base load will eventually be used mainly for peak shaving purposes;
that is,it will be operating during peak load hours for the few days
each year when loads approach annual peak,and operating in standby
reserve for the balance of the year.
It is expected that reliability standards will be upgraded as the power
systems develop.This will likely include specHic provisions for maintain-
ing spinning reserve capacity to cover possible generator outages as
well as substantial improvements in system transmission reliability.
Examination of the winter daily and weekly load curves (Figure 4)indicates
the base load portion is about 70 percent of total load and the peak load
is about 30 percent of total load.Load factor for the peak portion is
about 50 percent,and winter weekly load factors are on the order of
80 percent.
An annual plant factor of 50 percent has been selected for the Upper
Susitna Project.This is largely a judgment factor reflecting the following
cons iderations:
1.This assumption would insure capability to serve a proportional
share of both peaking and energy requirements throughout the
year,and adequate flexibility to meet changing conditions in any
given year.
2.Any significant reduction in this capacity could materially reduce
f1exibility.
3.There does not appear to be a significant market for low load factor
peaking capacity within the foreseeable future.There is likelihood
that load management and addition of some industrial loads will
increase the overall system load factor in the future,and it is
expected that several existing and planned gas turbine units could
eventually be used for peak shaving.
Appendix I
G-57
4.It is recognized that the mode of operation for the hydro will change
through time.In the initial years of operation,it is likely that
the full peaking capacity would be used very infrequently.For
example,the mid-range estimated system peak load for the year
2000 is 3,170 MW.Assuming load shapes similar to the current
Anchorage area loads,the winter peak week would require about
2,000 MW of continuous power to cover the base loads and about
1,200 MW of peaking power.Load factors of the peak portion would
be about 50 percent.
Appendix I
G-58
-
Part VI AL TERNA TIVE POWER SOURCES
The proposed Upper Susitna hydroelectric development would provide
large blocks of load factor power for the Railbelt area starting in about
1985.This section discusses alternative means of providing equivalent
power supplies.It concludes that conventional coal-fired steamplants
represent the most logical alternative to major hydro development for
this time period.
The evaluation of alternatives is intended to help provide the basis for
selecting the most appropriate course of action for meeting future demands.
Reliability,prices,and environmental impacts are important aspects of
such a comparison.Additionally,the range of alternatives must include
only those for which technology is available (or may reasonably be
expected to be available in this time frame).
Power Survey Studies
The studies for the new power survey includes fairly detailed analysis
of generation costs for steamplants (coal and oil or gas-fired),gas turbines.
and diesel engines.Key assumptions relative to the Railbelt were that
0)fuels suitable for use in gas turbines would be available in 1980 at
a cost of from 60 ¢to $1.00 per million Btu I s at 1973 price levels (no
inflation),and (2)that coal for steamplants would be available at a cost
of from 30¢to 60¢per million Btu's in 1980 at 1973 prices.Table 15
summarizes the alternative generation costs presented in the survey.
Solar,wind,and tidal power were not considered as major planning
alternati ves .
Some very rough data on installation costs for nuclear power were
presented.Most planned developments in the South 1148 11 are in the
1000 MW class;reports at the time were indicating plant investments in
the range of $500 to $600 per kilowatt;that comparable Alaska costs
might be on the order of $900 to $1000 per kilowatt;and that smaller
plants would likely be more costly.
Appendix I
G-59
Table 15.Future Generation Costs 1/-
1.Diesel-Electric (IC)Powerplants @ 50%Annual Load Factor
(Public Financing)
Plant size,~IW
In ves tmen t cos t , $/kw
0.2
130
1.0
130
5.0
160
10.0
160
Uni t generation cost,including fuels,mills/kwh:
(Based on:11,200 Btu/kwh 10,370 Btu/kwh)
Fuel cost @ 20¢/gal.30.4 25.8 23.1 21.9
Fuel cost @ 25¢/gal.34.4 29.8 26.8 25.6
Fuel cost @ 30¢/gal.38.4 33.8 30.5 29.3
Fuel cost @ 40¢/gal.46.4 41.8 37.9 36.7
Notes:Costs would be higher for remote locations;alternate
assumptions of private financing increases unit costs
from 2.1 to 2.6 mills per kilowatthour.
2.Gas Turbine Powerplants @ 50%Annual Plant Factor
(Public Financing)
Plant size,~
Investment cost,$/kw
20
135
35
135
50
167
500
150
Unit energy costs,including fuels,mills/kwh:
Fuel cost @ 20¢/I\1Btu 7.61 7.31 7.75 7.22
Fuel cost @ 30¢/MBtu 9.11 8.51 8.95 8.42
Fuel cost @ 60¢/MBtu 13.61 12.41 12.55 12.02
Fuel cost @ $1.OO/MBtu 19.61 17.61 17.35 16.82
Fuel cost @ $1.41/MBtu 25.91 23.07 22.39 21.86
(oil @ 20¢/gallon)
Equipment and heat rate assumptions:
20 ~open cycle,15,000 Btu/kwh
35 ~open cycle,13,500 Btu/kwh
50 MW regenerative cycle,12,000 Btu/kwh
1/Source:Advisory Committee Studies for FPC Alaska Power Survey.
Appendix I
TABLE G-15
G-60
Table 15.Future Generation Costs (cant.)
3.Coal-Fired Steamplants,Railbelt Area,50%and 80%Plant Factor
(Public Financing).(Assumed heat rate of 10,000 Btu/kwh)
Plant size,MW 100 200 500
Investment cost,$/kw 496 456 373
Unit energy costs including fuels,mills/kwh:
50%Plant Factor Plants
Fuel cost @ 30¢/MBtu 14.4 12.9 11.1
Fuel cost @ 60¢/}..1Btu 17.4 15.9 14.1
80%Plant Factor Plants
Fuel cost @ 30¢/MBtu 10.1 9.2 8.0
Fuel cost @ 60¢/MBtu 13 .1 12.2 11.0
1,000
313
9.9
12.9
7.3
10.3
4.Gas-Fired Steamplants,Railbelt Area,50%and 80%Load Factor
(Public Financing).(Assumed heat rate of 10,000 Btu/kwh)
Plant size,MW 100 200 500
Investment cost,$/kw 444 409 334
Unit energy costs including fuels,mills/kwh:
50%Plant Factor Plants
Fuels @ 30 cr/MBtu 13 .0 11.7 10.1
Fuels @ 60 (:/rvffi tu 16.0 14.7 13 .1
Fuels @ $l.OO/MBtu 20.0 18.7 17.1
1,000
280
9.1
12.1
16.1
Fuel costs @ 30¢/MBtu
Fuel costs @ 60¢/Ivffitu
Fuel costs @ $l.OO/MBtu
80%Plant Factor
9.2 8.4
12.2 11.4
16.2 15.4
Plants
7.4
10.4
14.4
6.8
9.8
13 .8
Appendix I
G-61
Energy and Power Cost Trends
Energy and power economics are undergoing very rapid change,and
these changes are extremely important in terms of new decisions on new
sources of energy supply.Up until the early 1970 's,most energy planning
assumed that abundant,low cost energy supplies would be available on
a long term basis from oil,natural gas,and nuclear fuels.Long term
trends,especially since about 1950,seemed to support this assumption.
The more recent experiences,particularly since the 1973 oil embargo,
provide the outlook that energy will be a precious and relatively costly
commodity for the foreseeable future.Key changes include the huge
increases in fuel prices,added costs for pollution control,very rapid
increases in nuclear costs,and absence of any new technological
break-through.
The studies for the new Alaska Power Survey reflect the start of trends
towards much more costly energy supply in Alaska.Generally,these
studies reflected data up through mid-1973.Events since that time
indicate that most of the cost figures in the power survey are now too low.
Fuel prices have continued to escalate rapidly as have costs for labor
and materials.
The rapid pace of change makes many traditional cost comparisons
obsolete.For example,the 1969 Alaska Power Survey and other studies
at that time assumed long range generation costs using Alaska natural
gas would be on the order of four mills per kilowatthour.Nationwide
at that time,it was generally assumed that large nuclear and coal plants
would have about the same four mill average generation cost.These
figures generally became the yardsticks for measuring feasibility of new
power installations.
The nuclear and coal-fired steamplants are still the major yardstick for
the U .S . ,but is very difficult to put current values on the yardstick
because of the rapid cost increase.It now appears that the minimum
generation costs for large new baseload thermal plants may be in the range
of 15 to 20 mills per kilowatthour for the South"48"states.
A recent Interior Department report estimated unit costs of 18.8 and 19.8
mills per kilowatthour for new baseload (70%capacity factor)nuclear and
coal fired plants.Y This was premised on 1973 costs and 1,000 MW size
plants.
1/Energy Perspectives,USDI,1974.Based on Project Independence
studies.
Appendix I
G-62
-
That report indicated unit costs of 30 mills per kilowatthour for nuclear
and 28 mills for coal if similar plants were operated at a 40 percent annual
capacity factor.
In addition to rapidly increasing fuel costs,the investment costs for
thermal plants have been increasing very rapidly,partly through inflation
and higher rates and partly through added costs for pollution control
devices.One publication indicated the following trends y:
Dollars per Kilowatt Installed Capacity
(Based on 1000 MW plants)
Nuclear plants
Fossil fired steamplants
1965
119
95
1970
222
178
1974
558
446
1984
850
680
A more recent report by Edison Electric Institute indicated construction
costs for coal-fired steamplants ordered in 1974 for 1979 operation would
cost $525 per kilowatt.Cost of scrubbers for air pollution control amount
to an additional $140-$150 per kilowatt.?:../Smaller plants suitable for use
in the Railbelt area would logically cost more.
Review of Fuel Costs and Availability
It seems certain that by 1985 Alaska's production of oil and natural gas
will be a major portion of total U .S.production,and that the bulk of
the Alaska production will be for export to the South "48"markets.
Some cost advantage should prevail in Alaska because of the high trans-
portation costs,however,Alaska fuel costs will certainly reflect broader
national and international trends.Policies governing choice of fuels will
also reflect the broader national concerns.
1/
2/
Olds,FC;"Power Plant Capital Costs Going Out of Sight",Power
Engineering,August 1974.
"Utilities Hedge on Nuclear Plans;Coal Plant Prospect Brightens,"
Engineering News Record,August 21,1975.
Appendix I
G-63
At this time,it no longer appears appropriate to assume oil and natural
gas will be an available option for major power supplies in the long
range where options exist to utilize other sources.If this is true,the
conventional nuclear and coal-fired plants will become the most readily
available alternative to development of major new hydro sources for
the Railbelt.
A vail ability of ample supplies of coal for electric generation in the Railbelt
area seems assumed as reported in the power survey.In addition to
the active mine near Healy,there are active leases in the Beluga area.
Development of expanded coal mining is considered very likely in the
near future.It is likely that new coal mining would be primarily for
export to the South 1148 11 but opening of new mines would probably assure
adequate supplies of coal for utilities use in Alaska.
Current Alaska coal production is limited to the Usibelli mine near Healy
which furnishes coal to the GVEA powerplant at Healy,Fort Wainwright
near Fairbanks,and Fairbanks Municipal Utility System in Fairbanks.
The power survey stated mine mouth coal delivered to the Healy steamplant
was 47¢per million Btu in early 1974.Prices at the end of 1974 were
as follows:
-
GVEA cost at Healy powerplant
FMUS cost delivered to Fairbanks
Ft.Wainwright cost delivered
to Fairbanks
Freight cost to Fairbanks
Cents
Per Million Btu
53
85.6
93.2
32.6
$/ton
8.80
14.21
15.46
5.21
The cost of transportation from Healy to Fairbanks at $5.21 per ton and
8,300 Btu per pound is equivalent to 3.2 mills per kilowatthour based
on 10,000 Btu/kwh.
The Federal Power Commission recently estimated the value of coal for
electric generation at 60¢per million Btu for the Fairbanks area and
at 50¢per million Btu for the Anchorage/Kenai /rea;in their determination
of power values for the current FPC studies.1:.
1/FPC letter of Aug.12,1975,to Alaska District,Corps of Engineers.
Appendix I
G-64
-
--There is a wide variety of opinion on probable future cost of coal.For
many years,coal prices were set a small margine above production costs
to compete with low cost oil and natural gas supplies.This pricing
situation has changed dramatically in recent years with the changing
energy situation.The much higher prices for oil and incentives for
converting from oil and gas to coal substantially increases market value
of the coal.
Nationwide average prices for utility coal have increased dramatically
since the early 1970 1s.Average price nationwide increased 57 percent
in 1974 (from 51.4 to 80.9 cents per million Btu)according to FPC statistics.
The Federal Energy Administration's draft environmental impact statement
on "Energy Independence Act and Related Tax Proposals"predicted
a long-term price of low-sulfur coal at around $].50/million Btu.This
is premised on current price levels (no inflation),and may be too low.
According to some,the price of coal will eventually rise to equal the
price of oil on a cost per Btu basis,providing transportation costs are
accounted for.
It seems probable that any major Alaskan coal mining would result in
a pricing structure tied to the broader U .S.market,in which case Alaska
should have some advantages due to transportation costs.
For purposes of this study,it is assumed that 1985 costs without inflation
of utility coal for major Railbelt power supplies will be in the range
of $1.00 to $1.50 per million Btu.
Fuels for conventional nuclear powerplants have also increased substan-
tially over the past few years,but remain a comparatively small portion
of average costs of nuclear generation.
Review of Available Alternatives
Coal-fired Steamplants
It is assumed that any major new coal-fired plants would be located close
to mining operations,probably in the Beluga area for power supplies
to the Anchorage-Cook Inlet area,and in the Healy area for power supplies
to the Fairbanks-Tanana Valley.Based on relative sizes of power markets,
individual plant size would likely be 500 MW or less for the Anchorage-
Cook Inlet area and 200 MW or less for the Fairbanks-Tanana Valley
area,and individual plants would likely have at least two units.Because of
Appendix I
G-65
operating characteristics,and maintenance and reliability requirements,
it seems unlikely that very large unit sizes (500 MW and up)could be
utilized before about the year 2000.
The power survey studies included evaluations of likely costs for coal
fired steamplants of 200 MW,500 MW,and 1,000 MW capacity.The 200 MW
and 500 MW sizes are considered reasonably representative of plant sizes
that could be considered as alternatives to Upper Susitna power for the
Fairbanks-Tanana Valley and Cook Inlet areas,respectively.Cost estimates
for the 200 MW and 500 MW plants were updated for use in the current
study,and the results are summarized on Table 16.
Appendix I
G-66 -
.--
Table 16.Alternative Generation Costs for
Conventional Coal-fired Steamplants
Plant Size,MW
200 500
Number of Units
Investment Cost,Railbelt,
$/kw
Cost of Environmental Equipment
$/kw
Installed Cost
Capital Cost,mills/kwh
Operation and Maintenance,
mills/kwh
2
526
200
726
14.5
1.6
2
430
200
630
12.6
1.3
Fuel Cost,mills/kwh 10.0
Transmission Cost to
Load Center 2.5
Total Energy Cost mills/kwh 28.6
15.0
2.5
33.6
10.0
2.5
26.4
15.0
2.5
31.4
Appendix I
TABLE G-16
G-67
The principle assumptions reflected in this update include:
1.Updated investment costs presented in the power survey (January
1973 price levels)to January 1975 prices used the Engineering
News Record composite construction cost index.Using the Handy-
Whitman steam generation plant cost index,the estimated total energy
cost would be slightly higher--approximately 6 percent.The basic
estimate reflects South "48"construction costs and an Alaska con-
struction factor of 1.8.
2.Increasing the investment cost by $200 per kilowatt to reflect estimated
environmental protection costs which were not specifically included
in the estimate for the Alaska Power Survey.The data used
in the power survey was for plants completed during the 1960's;
current practice involves considerable additional expense for
control of sulfur,particulates,and nitrogen oxide in stack emission
and substantially increased costs for cooling water facilities.
3.Annual capital cost was determined using a 35-year life and an
interest rate of 6-5/8 percent.This equals the current (FY 1976)
Federal repayment rate for water projects and closely approximates
a current composite of municipal and REA borrowing costs.Annual
fixed charges of 8.77 percent for public,non-Federal financing were
determined (including cost of money,depreciation,interim replacements,
insurance and payments in lieu of taxes).
4.Operation and maintenance costs presented in this power survey were
updated to July 1975 costs,using the U.S.Department of Labor
Cost of Living Index.The power survey estimates reflect an Alaska
cost factor of 1.50.
5.Fuel cost range of $1.00 to $1.50 per million Btu and a heat rate of
10,000 Btu per kwh.
6.Annual capacity factor of 50 percent.
7.Transmission costs are on the same basis as costs of transmitting
Susitna River hydro project power to the load centers.Smaller voltage
lines were assured.Distances from Beluga Lake area to Palmer area
and Healy to Ester are both approximately 100 miles.
The indicated average unit cost of 26.4 to 31.4 mills per kilowatthour
is intended as an assessment of alternative costs for I\ailbelt area
power supplies from coal-fired steamplants under current cost levels.
~~~gndiX I
-
.,-
The Federal Power Commission prepared estimates of power values for
the Vpper Susitna studies premised on estimates for coal-fired steam-
plants for the Fairbanks and Anchorage-Kenai area.Y These estimates
incorporate the following assumptions:
1.Interest rates of 5-7/8 percent for Federal financing;and 6.25 percent
and 5.95 percent for Anchorage and Fairbanks,respectively,for
public,non-Federal financing.
2.A two-unit,150 MW plant for the Fairbanks area with fuel cost of
60¢per million Btu and a heat rate of 12,000 Btu/kwh.
3.A three unit,450 11W plant for the Anchorage-Kenai area with fuel costs
of 50¢per million Btu and a heat rate of 9,800 Btu/kwh.
4.The power value estimates incorporate transmission costs to the load
center and a credit for the hydro based on higher availability /
reliability .
The FPC estimates were converted to an average mill rate for comparison
with the other alternatives:
Fairbanks Coal-fired Alternatives
Public,non-Federal financing,29.5 -32.5 mills/kwh.
Federal financing (6-1/8%),27.8 -30.6 mills/kwh.
Anchorage-Kenai Coal-fired Alternatives
Public,non-Federal financing,24.6 -27.3 mills /kwh.
Federal financing (6-1/8%),22.3 -24.6 mills/kwh.
The above results are quite similar to the estimates based on the power
survey.It is recognized that the interest rates used for FPC are somewhat
lower than present Federal repayment criteria and that in other respects
the two evaluations are somewhat dissimilar.
1/FPC letter dated August 20,1975,to Corps of Engineers .
~~ggnd;x I
Diesel-electric Powerplants
Several smaller towns will have no alternative but diesel electric generation
until they are interconnected to a larger system.
Fuel costs remain the major cost for generation by diesel.However,equipment
and construction costs have increased significantly since the power survey.
Units identical to those costing $160/kw in the power survey cost $220/kw in
late 1974 for 1975 delivery.Y Planning,engineering,and financing costs
are additional.Heavy duty indoor units in the 2500 kw to 5000 kw size
range are costing $300/kw,excluding site,engineering,contingencies,
financing costs I and interest during construction.Y
The following tabulation shows diesel generation costs using assumptions
similar to those incorporated in the power survey studies and the more
recent equipment cost data:
Plant size I MW
Type of Service
Heat Rate,Btu/kwh
Investment cost $/kw
5.0
Medium duty
10,370
270
5.0 to 10
Heavy Duty
10,000
400
Unit generation cost,including fuel,mills/kwh:
Fuel cost @ 30¢/gal
40¢/gal
50¢/gal
60¢/gal
33.3
40.7
48.1
55.5
32.8
40.0
47.1
54.3
Assumptions include two units per plant,longer life and slightly higher
efficiency for heavy duty units.
Distribution costs and losses are not included.
1/Source:Glacier Highway Electric Association,Juneau,Alaska
2/Source:CVEA/KPU experience
Appendix I
G-70
-
One recent study estimated diesel generation costs at 34.6 mills/kwh
in 1974 based on $220/kw basic equipment costs and fuel at 33¢/gallon.1/
Future costs for 1980 and 1985 were estimated at 58.6 and 85.4 mills/kwh
assuming escalation of equipment costs at 6%/year and fuel costs at 10%/year.
Actual manufacturers'cost estimates received by the same firm for similar
generation equipment in July 1974 was $297/kw;considerably higher than
the assumed $220/kw.
1/R.W.Beck and Associates,Analysis of Electric System Requirements,
City and Borough of Sitka,Alaska,April 1974.
Appendix I
G-71
Hydro
As a part of its work for the June 1967 report,Alaska Natural Resources
and the Rampart Project,the Interior Department through the Bureau
of Reclamation prepared an extensive inventory of Alaskan hydroelectric
resources,including evaluation of potential large hydro projects
that might be considered as alternatives to the Rampart proposal.
The inventory with minor modification has been published in the
1969 FPC Alaska Power Survey and elsewhere.
The inventory studies,the evaluation of the few major hydroelectric
potentials of Alaska (i.e.,Rampart,Yukon-Taiya,Susitna,Wood
Canyon,and Woodchopper)in the 1967 report,and the earlier basin
and project reports of the Bureau of Reclamation are the basis of
advancing Upper Susitna as the most logical major hydro development
of the Alaska Railbelt at this time.
Nuclear
There are no authoritative studies of large nuclear plants for the
Alaska Railbelt.There is a great deal of controversy on nuclear
power --many proponents and many opponents.APA feels that
detailed evaluation would demonstrate existing nuclear technology
is thoroughly adequate to assure engineering feasibility and safety
for nuclear plants in the Alaska Railbelt.
However,several factors indicate nuclear power would be less attractive
than coal-fired plants for near-future consideration.First is performance
data on existing nuclear plants --averaging about 70 percent machine
availability nationwide because of down time for maintenance and
repair and forced outages.This characteristic will improve over
time,but for the present,the nuclear alternatives would probably
require substantially larger system reserves.
Recent cost data indicates that for the South 1148 11 ,nuclear and coal-
fired costs are quite similar,with nuclear requiring a much larger
initial investment.Because of higher construction costs,it is probable
that nuclear power would be considerably more expensive than coal-
fired power in Alaska at least for the foreseeable future.
Appendix I
G-72 -
.,.-
Other Alternatives
There is a known large physical potential for tidal power development
in the Cook Inlet area,but again no detailed studies are available.
Tide range is considerably smaller than the better known potentials
such as Passamaquoddy.
Several different concepts for developing the Cook Inlet tidal potential
have been mentioned.These include a plan to drain the Inlet at
the Forelands with pumped storage units to equalize output of power;
and a two basin scheme which would utilize the Knik and Turnagain
Arm.The latter in concept would be tied in with road or rail causeways.
Because of the interest in alternative energy sources,there is some
merit to preparing a good reconnaissance of this alternative.However,
considering the huge size of the work involved,the likely range
of important environmental considerations,and inherent difficulty
and cost of utilizing the low head available from the tide,tidal power
does not constitute a reasonable alternative for determining merits
of the Upper Susitna.
Similarly,geothermal power could eventually prove to be a very
valuable resource for the Railbelt.Geothermal potential is considered
high for the Wrangell Mountains and portions of the Alaska Range.
Subsurface information is not adequate to define the resources.
Existing geothermal technology is basically limited to using the best
of the resources --preferably hot dry steam,or superheated water
that can be reached at fairly shallow depth.As yet,there are no
firm indi.cations that large geothermal resources exist in Alaska that
could be developed with available technology.On this basis,geothermal
power cannot be considered a viable alternative at this time to major
coal and hydro power.
Wind power is receiving great interest,but existing and likely near
future technology is limited to small and relatively costly units.
Like geothermal,the long range potential may prove very important,
but wind is not a viable alternative for major new power supplies
at this time.
Appendix I
G-73
Part VII FINANCIAL ANALYSIS -
This section presents estimates of the market for project power and
evaluations of power rates needed to repay the investment in power
facilities.
The Upper Susitna Project is primarily for power,though present
indications are that minor portions of project costs would be allocated
to other purposes,such as recreation.Preliminary estimates are that
such cost allocations to other purposes would be less than one percent
of the total project investment.Thus financial viability of the project
becomes the essential element in demonstrating feasibility of the power
development.The size of market,amount of investment,and
applicable interest rate are the main factors influencing rates for power.
Operation,maintenance and replacement costs are a minor part of
total annual costs,so they do not influence power rates significantly.
If rates needed to repay the hydro development are attractive in comparison
to other alternatives that may be available,the project may be considered
financially feasible.
Present Federal criteria for power producing facilities call for repayment
of project costs with interest within 50 years after the unit becomes
revenue producing.The applicable interest rate for Fiscal Year 1976 is
6-5/8 percent.
Market for Project Power
Previous sections presented estimates of power requirements for the
interconnected Railbelt system under a range of assumptions for future
development.The portion of this power market that would represent
demands for project power would depend on rates of growth,changes
in operating modes of other facilities,fuel policies,availability and
prices.and other factors.
At the time Susitna power becomes available.the Railbelt power systems will
have several hundred megawatts of capacity in oil and natural gas fired (turbine)
equipment.It is assumed that because of fuel cost and other incentives.
it will be desirable to place much of the gas turbine equipment in cold
reserve.except for limited operation in the peak shaving mode.This is
particularly true of any oil-fired equipment and the least efficient of
the gas turbine equipment.
Appendix I
G-74
-
.-
By 1985.some of the older steam-fired plants ,vould be at or near
the end of useful life and likely candidates for early retirement.
Under these conditions,it is assumed that firm demands for Susitna
power would develop very rapidly.
For purposes of these preliminary rate determinations,it is assumed
that the firm market for Susitna power would be up to 75 percent of
the total utili ty requirements for the mid-range load estiroates for
the Anchorage-Cook Inlet and Fairbanks-Tanana Valley area.This
is conservative to the extent that it does not assume any demands from
the national defense or industrial load sectors.It could be optimistic
if the utili ties continue very heavy reliance on oil and natural gas.
Table 17 shows the 75 percent assumption in comparison wi th total
area load estimates.As indicated on the table,75 percent of utility
requirements is equivalent to 61 to 66 percent of total area requirements
during the 1985-1995 period.
It is recognized that these are oversimplified market assumptions,
and that the market estimates will require continued l'efinement as
project plans and design are prepared.If it should develop that future
demands for project power are somewhat lower.it is reasonable to
assume that the project would be staged over a somewhat longer period
of time.
Assumptions for secondary energy s ales are as follows:
1.With Devil Canyon operating alene,there is relatively little flexibility
for scheduling secondary energy so the market for such energy
would be limited.The Corps operation studies indicate average
annual secondary energy capability of 201 1\41\7.It is assumed
that the marketable portion would be 10 MW in the first year of
operation (equivalent to 86 million kilowatthours at the market),
and that this market would expand in 101M increments to 50 MW
in th e fifth year of op era tion .
This assumes that the secondary energy could be offered in sizable
blocks with guaranteed duration of two to six months,depending
on forecasts of reservoir operations,but that relatively little of
this energy would be available during mid-winter.
Appendix I
G-75
Table 17.Assumed Market for Upper Susitna Power
Potential market for new hydroelectric power and energy (based on
75%of estimated mid-range utility requirements)
Annual Peaking Requirements Annual Energy Requirements
1000 kw Million kwh
Year Anchorage Fairbanks Total Anchorage Fairbanks Total
1985 630 160 790 2,760 690 3,450
1986 680 170 850 2,950 740 3,690
1987 720 180 900 3,165 790 3,955
1988 770 190 960 3,395 840 4,235
1989 830 200 1,030 3,640 900 4,540
1990 890 220 1,no 3,900 960 4,860
1991 940 230 1,170 4,140 1,010 5,150
1992 1,000 240 1,240 4,400 1,070 5,470
1993 1,060 260 1,320 4,670 1,130 5,800
1994 1,130 270 1,400 4,950 1,200 6,150
1995 1,200 290 1,490 5,250 1,260 6,510
Year
1985
1990
1995
Comparison With Total Area Power Requirements
Anchorage &Fairbanks Assumed Market for
requirements new
(Mid-range Estimates)Hydroelectric Power
Peak Annual Energy Peak Annual Energy
1000 kw Million kwh 1000 kw Million kwh
1,220 5,560 790
1/
3,450
(65)(62)Y
1,670 7,620 1,no
1/
4,860
(66)(62)Y
2,300 10,680 1,490
1/
6,510
(65)(61)Y
1/Percent of total area requirements.
Appendix I
TABLE G-17
G-76
-
--
2.With the multiple reservoir systems,it is assumed that mClrket
fle~dbility could be substantially enhanced and that marketing
policies would be premised on maxin'izing annual energy production.
In practice,this would likely be achieved by setting firm energy
contracts close to average annual energy capability with exchanges
and off-peak purchases a.nd to meet contract commitments during
low runoff years.
The Corps operation studies indicate average annual secondary
capability ranging from 40 to 108 :MW for the multiple reservcir
system.For purposes of the rate studies,it is assumed the full
amount of the secondary energy could be marketed starting in
1990.The Corps values for secondary power were converted
to annual energy and transmission losses were deducted to derive
the amounts of secondary energy sales used in the rate studies:
6System#1 -690 x 10 kwh/year sales.
6System#2 -932 y,10 kwh/year sales.
6System#3 -345 x 10 kwh/year sales.
6System#4 -630 x 10 kwh/year sales.
6System#5 -690 x 10 kwh/year sales.
3.A rate of 10 mills per kilowatthour is assumed for secondary sales.
S coping Analysis
AP A prepared a set of estimates of average power rates needed to
repay costs of the alternative hydro development plans.This provided
a basis for looking at the alternative plans from the viewpoint of impact
on power rates.These studies were preroised on prelin:inary designs
and estimates prepared by the Corps of Engineers (dams and powerplants)
and AP A (transmission systems and operation and maintenance)as
reported in the Septerrlber 1975 draft reports of the tv.'o agencies.
These preliminary rate estimates are summarized in Table 18 and the
cost assumptions incorporated in them are summarized in Table 19.
Note that there have been substantial changes in the cost estimates
since the Septemb er draft report as dicusssed later.
Appendix I
G-77
Table 18.Average Rates for Repayment for Alternative
Development Plans U
-
System Plan
A verage Rates for
Firm Energy
(Mills/kwh)
System #1 Devil Canyon (W.S.1450),1985
Denali (W.S.2535),1990 24.5
I-A Devil Canyon and Denali both on line,1985
(USBR plan;Corps costs).21.9
1-B Same,but USBR-APA costs,Denali 20.7
System #2 Devil Canyon (W.S.1450),1985
Watana (W.S.2050),1990 21.4
2-A Watana,1985
Devil Canyon,1990 (Revise order of
construction)21.0
System #3 Devil Canyon (1450),1985
Watana (2050),1990
Denali (2535),1995 20.9
System #4 Devil Canyon (1450),1985
Denali (2535),1990
Vee (2300),1995
Watana (1900),2000 24.2
4-A Devil Canyon &Denali both on line,1985
Vee 1990
Watana,1995
(USBR plan;Corps costs).22.8
System #5 Watana (2200),1986
Devil Canyon (1450),1990 19.7
y Preliminary scoping analysis for September 1975 draft report;
does not reflect cost changes since that time.
Appendix I
TABLE G-18
G-78
-
Table 19.1/Cost Summary for Alternative Systems
System #I
Unit
w.S.Elev.
Canpletion Date
Dev i I Canyon
(1450)
1985
Costs -$1,000
Dena Ii
(2535)
1990
Total System
Power Production Facilities
Construction Costs
Interest During Construction
Investment Cost
Transmission Facilities
Construction Costs
Interest During Construction
Investment Cost
Total System Investment Cost
Annual Operation and Maintenance
Annual Replacement
Annual OM &R
389,000
64,430
453,430
114,100
II ,340
125,440
231,400
45,990
277 ,390 730,820
125,440
856,260
I ,538
177
I ,715
-
Y Costs are for preliminary scoping analyses in September 1975
draft report and do not reflect revisions since that time.
Appendix I
TABLE G-19
G-79
Table 19.Cost Summary for Alternative Systems 1/
(Continued)
System #2
-
Unit
W.S.Elev.
Completion Date
Dev i I Canyon
(1450)
1985
Cos ts -$I ,000
Watana
(2050)
1990
Total System
Power Production Facilities
Construction Costs
Interest During Construction
Investment Cost
Transmission Facilities
Construction Costs
Interest During Construction
Investment Cost
Total System Investment Cost
Annual Operation and Maintenance
Annual Replacement
Annual OM &.R
389,000
64,430
453,430
184,310
18,320
202,630
600,000
119,250
719,250
18,540
1,840
20,380
I ,172,680
223,010
1,395,690
1,883
396
2,279
Y Costs are for preliminary scoping analyses in September 1975
draft report and do not reflect revisions since that time.
Appendix I
G-80
-
-
Tab Ie 19.Cost of Summary for Alternative
(Continued)
System #3
1/Systems
Unit
w.S.Elev.
Completion Date
Devi I
Canyon
(1450)
1985
Watana
(2050)
1990
Dena Ii
(2535)
1995
Total
System
Costs -$1,000
Power Production Fad lities
Construction Costs
Interest During Construction
Investment Cost
Transmission Facilities
Construction Costs
Interest During Construction
Investment Cost
Total System Investment Cost
389,000
64,430
453,430
184,310
18,320
202,630
600,000
119,250
719,250
18,540
1,840
20,380
231,400
45,990
277,390 1,450,070
223,010
1,673,080
Annual Operation and Maintenance
Annual Replacement
Annual OM &R
!I Costs are for preliminary scoping analyses in September 1975
draft report and do not reflect revisions since that time.
I ,883
396
2,279
AppendiX I
G-81
Table 19.Cost Summary for Alternative Systems 1/
(Continued)
System #4
Devi I Total
Unit Canyon Watana Dena Ii Vee System
W.S.Elev.(1450)(1905)(2535)(2300)
Completion Date 1985 2000 1990 1995
Cos ts -$1,000
Power Production Facilities
Construction Costs
Interest During
Construction
Investment Cost
Transmission Facilities
389,000 486,400
26 •670
583,070
231,480
45,990
277 ,390
399,000
19,300
478,300 1,792,190
Construction Costs
I nteres t Dur i ng
Construction
Investment Cost
Total System Investment Cost
Annual Operation
and Maintenance
Annual Replacement
Annual OM &R
184,310
18,320
202,630
7,930
790
8,720
29,130
2,890
32,020 243,370
2,035,560
2,269
2J~*
Y Costs are for preliminary scoping analyses in September 1975
draft report and do not reflect revisions since that time.
Appendix I
G-82
Table 19.
1/Cost Summary for Alternative Systems
(Continued)
System #5
Unit
W.S.Elev.
Completion Date
Devil Canyon
(1450)
1990
Costs -$1,000
Watana
(2050)
1986
Total System
Power Production Facilities
Construction Costs
Interest During Construction
Investment Cost
Transmission Facilities
Construction Costs
Interest During Construction
Investment Cost
Total System Investment Cost
403,000
67,000
470,000
6,000
6,000
737,000
146,000
883,000
197,000
20,000
217,000
1,353,000
223,000
1,576,000
Annual Operation and Maintenance
Annual Replacement
Annual OM &R
1,883
396
2,279
!I Costs are for preliminary scoping analyses in September 1975
draft report and do not reflect revisions since that time.
Appendix I
G-83
The method used involves calculating 1985 present worth values of
investment and OM&R costs and energy sales and reducing both to
equivalent annual values.Revenues from secondary energy 00 mills
per kilowatthour)are deducted from equivalent annual cosLe;..An
average rate for firm energy to recover the remaining costs is then
computed.
In each case,the repayment period covers 50 years after each unit
becomes revenue producing under the market assumption presented
earlier,the full firm energy capability of each unit could be marketed
in the first year after completion.The rate determination also incorporates
the market assumptions for secondary energy which were presented
previously.
Table 21 summarizes the average rates for firm energy for the four
systems and also illustrates effect on rates of alternate assumptions
of scheduling project units.
The highest indicated rate is for System #1 (24.5 mills per kilowatthour).
This reflects the very limited energy capability of a Devil Canyon
Project for the first five years without upstream storage.System 1-
A (2].9 mills)assumes the same design and costs,but completion
of both Devil Canyon and Denali in 1985 as proposed in the USBR-APA
plan.The indication is that if Devil Canyon operates for a significant
time period without upstream storage.power rates would be significantly
increased.
Power rates are of course very sensitive to design assumptions.
The USBR estimates for Denali Dam were prepared on a very conservative
design reflecting the foundation conditions at that site.This is discussed
in the May 1974 Status Report.A rough update of the USBR costs
to January 1975 price was made.This indicates the new Corps estimates
for Denali are approximately 20 percent higher than would be derived
from the Bureau estimates.SystelT'1--B,(20.7 mills)using USER
costs updated to January 1975,indicates the added conservatism in
the Corps estimate adds about 1.2 mills to the average rate.
System 2-A assumes Corps design and costs but reverses the order
of construction.(Watana on line in 1985 and Devil Canyon on line
in 1990.)This indicates a small reduction in average rate,again related
to the limited storage capacity at Devil Canyon.
System 4-A a.ssumes Corps design and costs completion of Devil Canyon
and Denali in 1985,with Vee and Watana following at five-year intervals.
Appendix I
G-84
,-
If USER design assumptions were used for Denali,the rates for System
#3,#4,and #4-A would be somewhat lower than shown on the table.
System #5 has the lowest indicated rate (19.7 mills per kilowatthour),
or approximately 5 percent lower than System #l-B,#2-A,and #3.
The general conclusions from the preliminary analysis includes:
1.There appears to be several alternative development plans for
the Upper Susitna that would yield approximately equivalent power
l"ates to the consumer,and that on the basis of the power rates
there is little preference as between plans.
2.The iIrportance of upstrearr.storage above Devil Canyon is evident.
3.ThE:'studies indicate merit to the Denali unit as a possible future
addition.
Comparison with May 1974 Status Repor~
APA's May,1974,Devil Canyon Status Report provides a basis for
comparing recent cost changes.The development plan presented
in the Status report is analogous to the Corps System #1,except that
AP A assumed con:pletion of both the Devil Canyon and Denali units
at the same time while the Corps System #1 assumes Denali would be
completed five years after Devil Canyon.
The ~tatus Report used January 1974 price levels and the applicable
interest rates for FY 1974 which was 5-5/8 percent for repayment.
The present studies are premised on the FY 1976 interest rate of 6-
5/8 percent and January ]975 price levels.
The year ending January ]975 had very high rates of inflation in all
segments of the economy.The Bureau of Reclamation's composite
construction cost index increased 21 percent for the period.
The change in interest rates without any inflation would increase
annual repayment requirements by about 18 percent.The combination
of higher costs and higher interest rates represents approximately
a 42 percent increase in annual costs as indicated on Table 20.
Appendix I
G-85
Table 20.Comparison with May 1974 Status Report
Status Report Plan (Devil Canyon +Denali)
Price Level
Applicable interest rate
for repayment
Estimated construction
cost,$millions
Interest during construction
$millions
Investment cost
$millions
Annual payment,excluding
OM &R ,$millions
Appendix I
TABLE G-20
G-86
Costs as in
May 1974
Status Report
January 1974
5-5/8%
597.1
84.9
682
41.0
Current
Studies
January 1975
6-5/8%
724
121
845
58.1
Increase
+21%
+42%
-
Revised Cost Estimates
During the review process,there were some significant changes in cost
assumptions for the various alternative development plans.From the
viewpoint of the power market,the changes all favored System #5--
that is relative cost increases for System #5 were substantially smaller
than for the other alternatives under consideration.
A preliminary check was made using the new costs which indicated the
following average rates for the various systems:(same system designation
as Table 18)
System #5 -20.4 mills/kwh
System #2A -22.3 mills/kwh
System #2 -23.0 mills /kwh
System #IB -23.0 mills/kwh
System #3 -23.3 mills/kwh
Again the range is relatively small,but under the latest cost assumptions,
System #5 would have about 10 percent lower power rates than the next
most favorable plan.
Average Rate Determination for Proposed Plan
Table 21 summarizes the estimate of average rate for firm energy needed
to repay investment in the project facilities.The methods used are the
same as for the scoping analysis.The indicated average rate is 21.1 mills
per kilowatthour.
Note that the scoping analyses discussed previously found a 20.4 mill
average rate for System #5.The difference of 0.7 mills reflects added
transmission costs adopted for the proposed plan (substation in Talkeetna
vicinity,switchyard near Healy,and tVI/O single circuit lines in lieu
of the double circuit assumptions used in the scoping analyses).
The indicated n.te for the proposed plan is significantly lower than the
estimated costs of power from coal-fired steamplants.The analysis does
not reflect allowance for future inflation.A rough estimate indicates
that with a five percent per year cost escalation and construction schedules
as contemplated in the Corps proposaL required rates for the system would
exceed 40 mills per kilowatthour.
Appendix I
G-87
Table21.AverageRateDetermination-System#5(Watana+DevilCanyon)ProjectCosts,$10001986PWCostsProjectEnergySales,WillionKwhG"")--l::t:>Revenue$1,000I::t:>-o,coOJ-OProducingFirmSecondary1986PW1986PWcorrolT1:::::lYearInvestmentOM&RInvestmentOM&REnergyEnergyFirmEnergySecondaryEnergyc..G"")......IXN86(1986to1989)81---'......19861,278,81018291,278,81030541987""17210,4311511988"II2582131989"II3442661990489,2402400378,52048606903,527(1990to2040)1991"5150II3,5057,7321992"5470"3,4911993"5800"3,4721994"6058"(1994to2040)51,8732040--Totals1,657,33076,2998,443AnnualorAnnualEquivalent113,3452,2675,218577AverageRateComputation:(1)AnnualCosts:(2)(3)(4)(5)Capital$113,345,000OM&R2,267,000Total$115,612,000Revenuefromsecondaryenergy@10mills/kwh-5,770,000Requiredrevenuefrom:firn1energysales$109,842,000Equivalentannual:firmenergysales5,218,000,000kwhAveragerateforrepayment109,842,000/5,218,000,000=21.1mills/kwh~t
-Power Marketing Considerations
The average rate is useful mainly as a.basis for easy comparison of the
proposal and the alternatives.Actual rr.arketing contracts would likely
include separate provisions for demand and energy charges and account
for wheeling charges,reserve agreements,and other factors.
There are some built in inequities for any given method of pricing.Most
utility systelT's and most large Federal systems use essentially a postage
stamp rate,that is power rates set the same for all delivery points on
the system.Actual costs of serving the loads vary with the distance and
size and characteristics of load--it is more costly to serve a small load
several miles from the power source than to serve a larger load nearby.
Policies vary from system to system as to portions of "hookup"costs
born by the customers.
Actual ratES for the Susitna system might reflect several items of costs
and revenues not identified in the project studies.For example,it is
likely that considerable use of project facilities would be made over the
life of the project to wheel power from other sources.Any wheeling
revenues would lower overall project power rates somewhat.Conversely
wheeling costs for project power delivered over non-Federal transmission
lines would need to be worked into project rate schedules.This is now
done under APA marketing contracts for the Snettisham Project;there
are many similar situations in other Federal power systems.
Rough estimates were made on a cost-of-service basis for power deli vered
at Fairbanks and at Point :MacKenzie under the proposed plan.These indicated
that about 85 percent of the project costs (or about 17.9 of the 21.1 mills
per kilowatthour average rate)is involved in producing the power (Devil
Canyon and Watana units and the transmission line between De"'il Canyon
and Watana).The remaining 15 percent is for transmission facili ties to
the major load centers.If the transmission costs were charged to power
delivered at the two load centers on a cost of ser"'ice basis,average rates
would be about 25.2 mills per kilowatthour at Fairbanks and 20.2 mills
at Point ~'facKenzie.The difference relates to distance and size of load.
As stated elsewhere,the transmission plan to deliver project power in
Anchorage would need to be worked out in the detailed post authorization
studies.It would involve added costs,either through wheeling charges
for project power over non-Federal lines or project transmission lines
around or under Knik Arm.These costs could be about the same for
alternative power sources such as the Beluga coals.
It is considered essential that scheduling of project facili ties be closely
tied to the marketing function.
Appendix I
G-89
Market Aspects of Other Transmission Alternatives
It is reasonable to expect modifications of the project transmission system
to meet changing requirements through time.The capacity of the main
345 kv and 230 kv lines could be upgraded substantially as needs arise
by adding compensation and transformer capacity.Additional substations
could be provided as warranted by future loads and subject to 3.case
by case determination of economics.Similarly,extensions of the project
transmission lines to serve other areas would be considered on the basis
of needs,and economics,and available alternatives.
Anchorage-Cook Inlet Area
The costs in the proposed plan are premised on delivery points to sub-
stations near Talkeetna and Point MacKenzie.Hough estimates indicate
similar costs for a plan with delivery points at Talkeetna,Point MacKenzie,
and the existing APA Palmer substation.Thus,basically the project costs
can provide delivery points on the existing CEA and APA systems north
of Knik Arm,but do not include costs of delivering the power across or
around the Arm.
With or without the Susitna Project,additional transmission capability
is needed on the approaches to Anchorage.The CEA plan of Knik Arm
loop at 230 kv is an important step in developing this capability,but
additional capacity would be needed by the mid-1980's.Essentially the
same problems would exist with alternative power sources such as the
Beluga coals,so in this sense the solution doesn't bear on the merits of
the Upper Susitna Project.
Detailed studies following project authorization would need to consider
the several alternatives for providing power across Knik Arm.Costs
would be worked into rate structures either through wheeling charges
on non-Federal lines or project lines if needed.
Glennallen and Other Points on the Richardson Highway
Rough estimates were made for transmission systems to deliver project
power to the CVEA system at Glennallen.Line distance from Palmer is
approximately 136 miles.
The studies consisted of rough cost estimates for alternative 138 kv and
230 kv lines and comparison with load data presented previously.They
indicated that on the basis of normal utility requirements,an intertie to
Glennallen could probably not be justified until after 1990,then a line to
Glennallen is included in the plans and costs for the initial development
proposal.
Appendix I
G-90
-
-
Over the long term,it appears that a transmission loop from Palmer
to Glennallen and then north along the Fichardson Highway to interconnect
with the CVEA system should receive further consideration.
Appendix 1
G-91
EXHIBIT G-l
PARTIAL BIBLIOGRAPHY OF RELATED STUDIES
Appendix A
Partial Bibliography of Related Studies
1.Advisory Committee Reports for Federal Power Commission Alaska
Power Survey:
Report of the Executive Advisory Committee,December 1974
Economic Analysis and Load Projections,May 1974
Resources and Electric Power Generation,May 1974
Coordinated Systems Development and Interconnection,December 1974
Environmental Considerations and Consumer Affairs,May 1974
(FPC has its summary report in preparation)
2.Alaska Power Survey,Federal Power Commission,1969.
3.Devil Canyon Status Report,Alaska Power Administration,
May 1974.
4.Devil Canyon Project -Alaska,Report of the Commissioner of
Reclamation,March 1961,and supporting reports.Reprint,March 1974.
5.Reassessment Report on Upper Susitna River Hydroelectric Development
for the State of Alaska,Henry J.Kaiser Company,Sept.1974.
6.Project Independence,Federal Energy Administration,1974.A main
report,summary,seven task force reports and the draft environ-
mental impact statement.
7.Engineering and Economic Studies for the City of Anchorage,Alaska
Municipal Light and Power Department,R.W.Beck and Associates
and Ralph R.Stefano and Associates,August 1970.
8.Power Supply,Golden Valley Electric Association,Inc.,Fairbanks.
Alaska,Stanley Consultants,1970.
9.Copper Valley Electric Association,Inc.-15 year Power Cost Study,
Hydro/Diesel,Robert W.Retherford Associates,October 1974.
10.Environmental Analysis for Proposed Additions to Chugach Electric
Association,Inc.,Generating Station at Beluga.Alaska,Chugach
Electric Association,October 1973.
Appendix I
EXHIBIT G-l
11.Central Alaska Power Pool,working paper,Alaska Power Administration,
October 1969.
12.Alaska Railbelt Transmission System,working paper,Alaska Power
Adminis tration,Decemb er 1967.
13.Electric Generation and Transmission Intertie System for Interior
and Southcentral Alaska,CH2M Hill,1972.
14.Central Alaska Power Study,The Ralph M.Parsons Company,undated.
15.Alaska Power Feasibility Study,The Ralph M.Parsons Company,1962.
-
-
EXHIBIT G-2
UPPER SUSITNA RIVER HYDROELECTRIC STUDIES
REPORT ON OPERATION,MAINTENANCE,
AND REPLACEMENTS
.-
Contents
Title
Introduction and Summary
Operation Assumptions
Marketing and Administration
Ann ual Cos ts
Replacemen ts
Tables
1.Alternative System Plans -Installed
Capacity &Firm Energy.. .
Page No.
G-l
G-3
G-4
G-4
G-5
G-2
2.
3.
4.
Itemized 0 &M Cost Estimate
Annual 0 &M Cost Summary
Annual Replacement Costs . .
Figures
G-7
G-ll
G-12
1.Upper Susitna Basin Location Map
i
G-13
Appendix I
Exhibit G-2
Introduction and Summary
This paper presents estimates of the annual recurring costs for project
operations and maintenance,power marketing,and replacements for the
Upper Susitna hydroelectric projects.
Figure 1 shows general locations of the potential units of the Upper
Susitna project in relationship to the Alaska Railbelt.The four key
Upper Susitna damsites are Devil Canyon,Watana,Vee,and Denali.
Separate estimates were prepared for each of five alternative development
plans or systems.The five alternatives are identified on Table 1 along
with power and energy capability for each systerr.
The Corps of Engineers proposes an initial development consisting of the
Devil Canyon and Watana sites (System #5).The high Watana dam plan is
proposed to be constructed first followed by the Devil Canyon unit.
The estimates reflect .A2A's assumed operation plan for the project power-
plants,reservoirs,and transIT'ission lines.as well as estimated costs
for pewer marketing and overall project adminish·ation.
Summary of Op eration,Maintenance,and P.eplacement Cos ts
Annual Operation .Annual Total
and Maintenance Replacement OM&R
$1,000 $1,000 $1,000
System #1 -Devil Canyon
and Denali 1,538
Sys tern #2 -Devil Canyon
and Watana 1,833
System #3 -Devil Canyon,
Watana &Denali 1,833
System #4 -Devil Canyon,
Watana,Denali,&Vee 2,269
System #5 -Devil Canyon
&Watana (proposed plan)1,833
G-I
199
453
453
618
517
1,737
2,286
2,286
2,887
2,340
Table1.~_tCn:12.tivf::..Syst:-nlPlam;Y..~II-'.-'..,-..',..,g.F'~-E~:~:~~..~~~~"i,'__.~_-:~.E.~:~~:.L-._".....::nl.r,,__~.et:gy.?()1...DevilIJciY.C,~~..,_~,~._.~:_:~~~Y'~.r.:"__~Instc)II~dFirrn>,8t,l<::dFi~'mCar)itcityJ<nJ·~·~;-C~,apaCjty1000Mi.lhc·.!000kwkwhkwJ.,,,'•...wdEnE.r·~!y\'·1ililor,(...."';j....!.,~-tf''''~.{~"'"l:-t'crgyZ-~~)1jlor",'5')stet~)'fetalkw-(:!J2~r.ili'r0001.s1r-"T,;.Uf;"1F":},;'l:Scc:~,rltj3:~)"kwh;';ergy"{',1'·'Yll,J,.110~~,f;CW",y3.fj:____..'.n._.·.__.~..~.~._~~·,Inst.alJ~dFn':TkwhEnergM'illinr'·Cap;lc"ity1000kwW.S.e'M.SrSYstem<'"""....::..~._._~~~System!:l.DevilCanyon1450Denali2535System#2DevilCanyon1450Watana2050..)INSystem#3Devil'Canyon1450Watana2050Denali2535System#4DevilCanyon1450Den.ali2535Vee2300Watana1905System#5Watana2200DevilCanyon14501985199019851990580'.,.6002497262847020595802497701Notes:System#5istheproposedinitialdevelopmentplan.DataisfromCorpsofEngineersstudies.)~
--
Operation Assumptions
For purposes of this study,it is assumed the project headquarters and
main operations center would be near Talkeetna or at some other equally
accessible point on the system.It is recognized the remote operations
center is not dependent on being adjacent to a powerplant.
This central project headquarters,would house the remote powerplant
opera.tion and dispatch center.Powerplant operation and dam and re-
servoir operations would be from this operation-dispatch center for each
plan.Electricia.n/operators and mechanic/operators would be located at
the powerplants to provide for routine maintenance and manual operation
when required.Denali dam would be remote controlled,with a caretaker
in residence at the damsite.Specialized personnel such as electronic
technicians,and meter and relay repairmen would serve at the several
powerplants and substations,but would work out of project headquarters.
Project administration,including supervision of power production,water
scheduling,and transmission facilities,would be from project head-
quarters.
Major turbine and generator inspection and maintenance work would be
accomplished by electricians,mechanics,engineers,other experienced
APA personnel,and manufacturers I representatives as required.
Alaska Power Administration's main office would handle power marketing,
accounting,personnel management,and general administrative matters.
Transmission line maintenance would be handled by two linecrews with
integration of the Eklutna Project linecrew.Transmission line mainte-
nance warehouses and parts storage yard would be located at Devil Canyon
or Watana.approximately midway betvveen Devil Canyon and Fairbanks,and
at project headquarters.Members of the linecrew would be stationed
along the line.transmission maintenance stations,and the major sub-
stations to provide routine line patrol and minor caretaking tasks and
security around the facilities.For major maintenance work,the trans-
mission line crew members would gather at the problem area.
Visitor facilities with provisions for self-guided tours through the
powerplant would require only occasional assistance from operation
personnel.
Project related recreational facilities would involve cooperation
between Federal,State,and local interests and likely be maintained by
a State or local entity.
G-3
Project operation,maintenance and administration would likely include the
e:>.'isting Eklutna Project,with a resulting net savings to the electrical
consumer.Eklutna would be supervisory controlled from the rr:ain
operations center with electricians/operators and mechanic/operators
stationed at Eklutna.It is estimated that approximately $100,000 per
year could be saved by joint operation of the Eklutna and Susitna Projects.
Marketing and Administration
The marketing and adrrinistration aspects involve three main functions:
1.Administration
Personnel management
Property management
Budgeting
Marketing policy
Rate and repayment studies
2.Accounting
CustoI!'er billing
Collecting
Accounts payable
Financial records
Payroll
3.Marketing
Rate schedules
Power sales contracts
Operating agreements
System reliability and coordination
Part of this work would be carried out by the project headquarters;
overall administration and support services would be handled by the
APA headquarters staff.
Ann ual Cos ts
The estimated costs for operation,maintenance,marketing,and admin-
istration are based on itemized estimates of personnel,equipment,supplies,
and services required to accomplish the work.
G-4
-
-
Operation and maintenance requirements for Systems #2,#3,and #5
would be substantially the same.Each of the three plans has powerplants
at Devil Canyon and Watana that are similar except for installed capacity
(10701',1W for System #2,1370 MW for System #3,15681vlW for System #5).
Number of units and powerplant layout is the same for the three plans,
so staffing would be essentially the same for each plan.System #3
includes Denali Dam,but added O&M costs for the structure would be
minor.For purposes of this study,annual operation and maintenance
costs are assumed the same for the three plans.
The estimate assumes Federally classified personnel providing management
and administrative functions and wage grade personnel doing the physical
day-to-day technical operation and maintenance of the project.Wage rates
for the classified employees are based on the middle rate within a grade.
Wage grade personnel rates are based on prevailing wages in effect in
the Anchorage area and reflect basic hourly rates,benefits,and overtime
provisions.
Costs of supplies,equipment and personnel requirements are based on
Bureau of Reclamation Guidelines,characteristics of equipment,and
Alaska Power Administration operating experience on the Eklutna and
Snettisharn Projects in Alaska.The Eklutna project is a fully staffed
facility,induding a transmission linecrew,which has been operated by
APA and its predecessor agency since project construction in 1955.The
Snettisham Project is an isolated project,sepa.rated from Juneau load
center by 45 miles of rugged terrain and water.A maintenance crew
performs routine maintenance at the project site,while proje.ct opera-
tions are remotely controlled from Juneau.It is envisioned that the
Upper Susitna River Basin Project would have some characteristics of
both projects .
Itemized costs for operation,maintenance,marketing,and admi.nistration
for the alternative plans of development arc present in Table 2.
Costs by major category and number of pel'sonne!are summarized on
Table 3.
Replacements
The annual replacement cost provision establishes a fund to finance
major items which have a life period of less than fifty years for
project repayment.The objective is to cover costs and insure financing
for a timely replacement of major cost items to keep the project opera-
ting efficiently throughout its entire life.
G-5
items cc.','c'ced in ch.de generato:r windings,communication equiprcent,a
'.i!·;,:<l perc",';}';'c,f the tra:nsmisslon towers.and several items in the sub-·
s ;a'4 <'H\c:.r,"I:vi i;,:;hva:r';:},3.Items covpred by routine annl;al maintenance
ce,",'<r:'~'tlGt:::overcd by the replacement fund include vehicles,smail
0':'1:>.;3,camp u~jli ties,and materials and supplies.Major features
::.,".,'..h:'\l;3 ;::.r;c·'povel--p1ant structures are considered to hc1ve service
::\[':5 le',gel:'tha:n '-he 50-year project repayment period and their costs
are :>i c..:'l''I:'U:\:.hf:n.placernent funds,
The "''''''U~i'replac,.::n:ent cost is based on experienced d<~.ta by the Bureau
c'£~.I.:n:).;'WI.,.Trj c'procedure and basic factors have been adopted by
the Departr;'icat of Interior.The factors developed provide a sinking fund
Lr t1,t'V:,l,Aio',.J,Si t.:::T\S so that by the end of the items I service life,the
r,y,';'""ill l·(·':':'g';:,er,.:"iJgh to replace it.The san;e interest rate c.sed fa,
pYo>!"<';"~YT1i,~,·,t i~q usee to establisb tne sinking fund.The Fiscal
'(,",:)',ie-I.e rA 6·')5 percent was established by the Dep,irtment of
tb (~".L f'~.2.S t~~r\l
'I"tl"f~j"''''::3 [.;.~pr)tu ·~.hF:C:'1t.re ?owerplant)substation,and switch·yarc~.
'1;-]ii;Yt )c,.;ih;.'~>:'2,,:lsmission towers,fixtures and conductors on Lhe
tr;lJ.,c;","s,::;cn ?'{:3~'::'DI,Fight-of-way and clearing costs are not included.
Tab}.'":1 presents the annual replacement factors based on 6-5/8 percent
intei·~::t rate.the costs of the pertinent project feature,and the annual
l'l'placement lured for the altel"native plans of development.The project
cos1;:,are on a.:anUal"y }975 basis.Powerplant costs are from Corps
,-,[Ehgin-::el cstirn.ates wbiJe Alaska Power Administration estimated the
transmission,SU.;)station ,and switchyard costs.
G-6
-
-TABLE 2.ITEMIZED OPERATING &MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATE
SYSTEM 1.DEVIL CANYON AND DENALI
Devil Canyon
Denali
Personnel
600 MW
No Power
100 MW Future,5 units
Supervisory &Classified
Project Manager
Assistant Project Manager
Electrical Engineer
Mechanical Engineer
Supply &Property
Administrative Assistant
Secretary
GS-14
GS-13
GS-12
GS-12
GS-9
GS-7
GS-5
$30,000
24,700
22,200
22,200
14,500
12,000
9.600
Total Supervisory &Classified Wages
Wage Grade
135,200
Electricians
Mechanics
Heavy Duty Equip.Operator
Maintenance Man
Meter Relay Mechanic
Electronic Technician
Powerp1ant Operators
Ass't.Powerp1ant Operators
Total Wage Grade Wages
Line Crew
2 @ 13.00 hr.54,080
2 @ 13.00 "54,080
1 @ 13.00 27,040
2 @ 11.00 45,760
1 @ 13.00 27,040
1 @ 13.00 27,040
6 @ 13.00 162,240
4 @ 11.00 91,520
488,800
Foremen
Linemen
Equipment
Groundmen
Operators
2 @
4 @
2 @
4 @
15.00
13.00
13.00
13.00
hr.
"
"
"
62,400
108,160
54,080
108.160
Total Line Crew Wages
C.0.L.A.--25%
Shift Differential
Sunday Pay
Overtime
Government Contributions
Longevity N.A.
Total Fringe Benefits for Personnel
TOTAL PERSONNEL COST
G-7
332,800
33,800
15,000
8,000
25,000
86,100
167,900
$1,124,700
TABLE 2.(Continued)--ITEMIZED OPERATION &MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATE_
SYSTEM l--(Continued)--DEVIL CANYON AND DENALI
Miscellaneous
Telephone
Official travel
Vacation travel
Supplies,Services &Maintenance--Powerplant
Supplies &Services--Vehicles &Equipment
Employee training
Line spray
Government camp maintenance
Total Miscellaneous
$8,000
15,000
15,000
100,000
40,000
5,000
20,000
15,000
218,000
Equipment Operation &Maintenance,
D-8 -(1)
980 -(1)
Maintainer -(1)
Pickups -(4)&(6)
Sedan -(1)
Lowboy -(1)
Dumptruck -(1)
Flatbed -(4)&(2)
Firetruck -(1)
Sno tracs -(2)
Backhoe -(1)
Crane,50 ton -(1)
Hydraulic Crane,20 ton -(1)
Line trucks -(4)
Total Equipment,etc.
Annual Replacement
1.C."'~S.L."'~
$90,000 10
50,000 10
50,000 10
36,000 7
4,000 7
45,000 10
25,000 10
20,000 7
25,000 10
16,000 7
20,000 10
150,000 20
90,000 20
100,000 10
Cost
ANNUAL COST
9,000
5,000
5,000
5,200
600
4,500
2,500
3,000
2,500
2,300
2,000
7,500
4,500
10,000
63,600
APA main office administration,accounting,collecting,
marketing expenses.
TOTAL SYS TEM 1
132,000
$1,538,300
"'k S.L.
1.C.
Service Life
Initial Cost
G-8
-
TABLE 2.(Continued)--ITEMIZED OPERATION &MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATE
SYS TEM 2.DEVIL CANYON AND WA TANAY
Devil Canyon
Watana
Personnel
700 MW
600 MW
Watana Supervisory Control from Devil Canyon
Increase base staff of System 1.
Overtime
Government Contributions
Foreman Pay
2 Assistant operators @
2 Electricians @
2 Mechanics @
1 Maintenance man @
Miscellaneous
11.00
13.00
13.00
11.00
hr.
"
"
$45,760
54,080
54,080
22,880
176,800
10,000
16,000
5,000
31,000
Vacation travel
Employee training
Supplies,Services &Materials
Supplies and Services
3,000
1,000
90,000
10,000
104,000
Equipment
2 Pickups
1 Snow tractor
~<1.C.
12,000
8,000
a;'t:s.L.
7
7
2,000
1,000
3,000
APA main office administrative,accounting,collecting
&marketing expense
TOTAL ADDITIONS TO SYSTEM 1
SYSTEM 1
TOTAL SYS TEM 2
30,000
344,800
-.-L...2)8,300
$1,883,100
1/Same operation and maintenance estimate used for System #2,#3,and #5.
G-9
TABLE 2.(Continued)--ITEMIZED OPERATION &MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATE
SYSTEM 4--DEVIL CANYON AND WATANA AND VEE
-
Vee
Personnel
Add to System #2:
300 MW
1 Heavy equipment operator @ 13.00 hr.
2 Electricians @ 13.00 "
2 Mechanics @ 13.00 "
2 Maintenance men @ 11.00 "
1 Operator @ 13.00 "
1 Assistant operator @ 11.00 "
Total Wage Grade
Overtime
Government Contributions
Foreman Pay
Total Fringe Benefits
Miscellaneous
Vacation travel
Employee training
Supplies,Services and Materia1s--Powerp1ant &vehicles
Total Miscellaneous
Equipment,Operation &Maintenance,Annual Replacement Cost
D-8
Maintainer
Pickups -(4)
Dump truck
Firetruck
Sno tracs -(2)
Backhoe
Hydraulic Crane,20 ton
Total
APA main office administration,accounting,collecting,
marketing expenses.
Total Additions to System 2
System 2
$27,040
54,080
54,080
45,760
27,040
22,900
$230,900
10,000
20,800
5,000
35,800
6,000
2,000
50,000
58,000
9,000
5,000
3,400
2,500
2,500
2,300
2,000
4,500
31,200
30,000
385,900
1.883,100 _.
TOTAL SYSTEM 4
G-IO
$2,269,000
))TABLE3.OPERATLNANDMAINTENANCECOSTSUMMA.RYT--~'-'Sy-;t~-;;-2--'l-SY~e;;~i--'-r---Syste;;;4'--&DevilCanyon&DevilCanyon,DevilCanyon,Watana.YI\·Jatana&Dena1iHatana,Denali,-._~---_..f-----....«••••---.-.----f-.--..----------____..-U~.._NumberDollarsNumberDollarsNumberDollars".NumberDollars1_."-~-_._---_..----_..-I1,124,7001,332,5001,332,5001,599,2007777313838·47218,000322,000322,000380,000--6360066.60066.60097.8001,406,3001,721,ioo1,721~1002,077,000-132,000162,000162,000192,000---.-o'1,538,300I1,883,1001,883,1002,269,000III":~ISyst-~_;m#2,.II•\!AnnualcosttoreplaceTelephone,travel,supplies,services,training,linespray,campmaintenanceAPAmainofficeadministration,accounting,collecting,marketingexpenseDirectcosts,COLA,benefits,overtimeNumberofclassifiedpersonsNumberofwageboardpersonsisce11aneous:Personnel:._-,<.",--_.'-.'-.',-,~/Syst~,:~rQ#5cost\-/(c'jid.bethesanH~':aEquipment:TOTALSubtotalMarketingandAdministrationI--"---·__·__·~··_-----·-~·--·-IISystem]IDevilCanyonDenaliI-.._+~II-'I-'
Table4.ReplacementCostsSystem#1DevilCanyonandDenaliSystem#2DevilCanyonandVIatana(includesDenali)CosttoConstructFeatureAnnualReplace-mentFactorCosttoConstructAnnualReplace-mentCostCosttoConstructAnnualReplace-mentCostSystem#4De'\'ilCanyon,Watana,VeeandDenaliAnnualReplace-mentCostPo~erplantTransmissiontowers,fixtures&conductors0.00120.0001----..$128,000,000$153,600$283,600,000$340,30085,200,0008,500150,000,00015,000$404,400,000$485,300163,400,00016,300GJI........NSubstationsandswitchyards0.00399,400,00036,700198,00025,100,00097,900453,20029,900,000116,600618,200PowerplantTransmissiontowers,fixtures&conductorsSubstationsandswitchyards~0.00120.00010.0039System#5Watana(el.2,200)andDevilCanyon$301,191,000$361,400180,362,00018,00035,235,000137,400516,800)
100 Mdf:ls
APA 2-74
SCALE
~-------.-o so
.~..Q
0°:~.·PR'fC~W"-LjAM .....~.~i~
u.s.DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
ALASKA POWER ADMINISTRATION
UPPER SUSITNA BASIN
LOCATION MAP
G-13
SECTION H
TRANSMISSION SYSTEM
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Alaska Power Administration
Upper Susitna River Hydroelectric Studies
Report on Transmission System
December 1975
Contents
Title
0_
Part I -INTRODCCTION . . . . . . . .
Purpose and Scope . . . . . . . .
Alternative Plans for Upper Susitna
Hydroelectric Development
Previous Studies
Acknowledgements
Part II -SUMMARY .
Part III -EXISTING TRANSMISSION SYSTErv~S
Anchorage -Cook Inlet Area
Fairbanks -Tanana Valley Area
Clennallen and Valdez Area . .
Part IV -TPANSMISSION CORRIDOR STUDIES
f\1dhod of Evaluation
The Corridors
Susitna Corridor
Nenana Corridor
Delta Corridor
Matanuska Corridor
Available Data
Location Considerations
Climate and Elevation
Topography . . . . .
Soils and Foundation
Vegetation
Wildlife . . . . . . .
Vis ual Aspects
Socio-Economic Aspects
Distance ....
Relative Cost . ....
Corridor Evaluations
Project Power to Anchorage -Cook Inlet Area
Project Power to Fairbanks -Tanana Valley Area
Project Power to Valdez and Other Points on the
Richardson Highway .
i
H-l
H-l
H-l
H-l
H-4
H-5
H-8
H-8
H-ll
H-ll
H-15
H-15
H-24
H-24
H-24
H-25
H-25
H-25
H-27
H-27
H-27
H-28
H-28
H-28
H-29
H-29
H-29
H-32
H-32
H-32
H-34
H-37
Title
Part V -TRANSMISSION SYSTEM DESIGNS AND ESTIMATES
Electrical Design . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Transmission Capaci ty . . . . . . . . .
Voltage Selection and Line Characteristics
Substations and Switchyards
Power Flow Studies
Reliability
Right-of-Way
Clearing
Access Roads
Structural Design
Wind and lee Loading
Snow ....
Tower Design . . . .
Foundations . . . . .
Transmission Cost Estimates
Alaska Cost Factors
Transmission Line Costs
Switchyard and Substation Costs
Transmission Maintenance Facilities
Estimates for Alternative Hydro Development
Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Transmission Estimates for Proposed Plan.
Cons truction S ch edule . . . . . . .
Other Transmission Alternatives . . . .
Service Plans for Anchorage-Cook Inlet Area
Service to Other Railbelt Power Loads . . . .
i i
Page No.
H-38
H-38
H-38
H-40
H-48
H-48
H-49
H-49
H-49
H-50
H-50
H-52
H-52
H-52
H-56
H-57
H-57
H-60
H-60
H-60
H-64
H-66
H-66
H-66
H-67
List of Tables
Page No.
1.Upper Susitna River Basin,Project Data Sheet.
2.Transmission Lines and Major Interconnections
3.Key to Alternative Corridors and Segments
H-3
H-12
H-22
4.Relative Transmission Construction Costs for
Alternative Corridors . . . . . . . . .H-30
5.Corridor Analysis:Project Power to Anchorage -
Cook Inlet.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .H-33
6.Corridor Analysis:Project Power to Fairbanks -
Tanana Valley Area . . . . . . .H-35
7.Comparison of 230 and 345 kv Systems
8.Transmission Line Characteristics
H-41
H-44
9.Temperature,Precipitation,and Wind for Summit H-53
10.Typical ~ile Transmission Line Costs
11.Switchyard and Substation Costs
H-58
H-61
12.Summary of Transmission System Cost Estimates H-63
iii
List of Figures
10.Transmission System Layout
11.Substation Layout . . . . .
12.Alternative Transmission Line Structures
1.Upper Susitna Basin Location Map
Pa~]'Jo.
H-2
H-9
H-lO
H-14
H-16
H-17
H-18
H-20
H-21
H·-42
H-46
H-54
H-65
Alternati ve Transmission Corridors
Alternati ve System Plans
The Railbelt.. . . . .
Potential Transmission Corridors
Transmission Corridor Segments
Existing Transmission Systems -Cook Inlet Area
Existing Transmission Systems -Anchorage fl.rea
Existing Transmission Systems -Tanana Valley flrea .
13.Transmission System Layout .
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
iv
Part I INTRODUCTION
Purpose and Scope
This report covers the transmission system studies by the Alaska
Power Administration for the proposed Upper Susitna hydroelectric
development.The studies are of pre-authorization or feasibility grade.
They consist of evaluation of alternative corridor locations from the
viewpoints of engineering,costs,and environment;studies of transmission
systems needed for alternative project development plans;and consider-
ation of alternative transmission technologies.These studies deal
with general corridor location;the more detailed studies following
project authorization would include final,on the ground route location.
The engineering and environmental evaluations for the transmission
systems are parts of the same study,and Alaska Power Administration's
environmental assessment for the transmission system is a companion
report to this volume.
Alternative Plans for Upper Susitna Hydroelectric Development
Figure 1 shows general locations of the potential uni ts of the Upper
Susitna Project in relationship to the Alaska Railbelt.The four key
Upper Susitna damsites are Devil Canyon,Watana,Vee,and Denali.
The Corps of Engineers proposes an initial development including
the Devil Canyon and Watana sites with the Denali site considered
as a potential future stage.Table 1 summarizes data on energy and
power capability and costs for this proposed plan and the principal
alternative system for developing the Upper Susitna hydroelectric
potential.System #5 is the Corps proposed plan.
Previous Studies
There is a fairly substantial backlog of power system and project
studies relevant to the current evaluation of the Upper Susitna River
Project.A partial bibliography is included in the power market report.
The previous studies most relevant to power market and transmission
system planning include:
1.Advisory Committee studies completed in 1974 for the Federal
Power Commission 1s new Alaska Power Survey.The studies include
evaluation of existing power systems and future needs through
the year 2000,and the main generation and transmission alternatives
available to meet the needs.The FPC summary report for its
new survey is not yet available.
DEPARTMENT OF THE It--TERIOR
ALASKA POWER ADMINISTRATION
UPPER SUSITNA BASIN
LOCATION MAP
Appendix IFIGUREH-l.SCALEH-2 .......__-==-....:o?:===:::::::~5~O~=~~~~~-J100Mileo;.
APA 2-74
AlternativeSystemPlansInstalledCapacity&FirmEnergyW.S.el.P.O.L.DevilSystemM.S.L.DateCanyonWatanaVeeSystemTotalInstalledFirmInstalledFirmInstalledFirmInstalledFirmSecondaryCapacityEnergyCapacityEnergyCapacityEnetgyCapacityEnergyEnergylOOnMillion1000Million1000Million1000MillionMillionkwkwhkwkwhkwkwhkwkwhkwhSystem#1--DevilCanyon145019855802497Denali253519905802497701System#2DevilCanyon145019856002628Watana20501990470205910704687946System#3DevilCanyon145019857003066Watana205019906702935Denali2535199513706001350System#4DevilCanyon145019857133119Denali25351990Vee230019953001314Watana19052000421184014346273640System#5Watana220019867923101DevilCanyon14501990776304815686149701::C-i)::oI)::oi::JWC:O~~~Notes:System#5istheproposedinitialdevelopmentplan.0-::c......DataisfromCorpsofEngineersstudies.IX......n1
Appendix I
H-4
2.A series of studies for Railbelt area utilities include assessments
of loads,power costs,and generation and transmission alternati ves.
3.Previous work by the Alaska Power Administration,the Bureau
of Reclamation,the utility systems,and industry on studies of
various plans for Railbelt transmission interconnections and the
Upper Susitna hydroelectric potential.The most recent of these
are the t-l!ay,1974 Status Report on the Devil Canyon Project
by APA and the September,1974 Reassessment Report on Upper
Susitna Ri vel'Hydroelectric Development prepared for the State
of Alaska by the Henry J.Kaiser Company.
It should be noted that many of the studies listed in the bibliography
represent a period in history when there was very li tile concern about
energy conservation,growth,and needs for conserving oil and natural
gas resour.ces.Similarly,many of these studies reflected anticipation
of long term,very low cost energy supplies.In this regard,the studies
for the new power survey are considered particularly significant
in that they provide a first assessment of Alaska power system needs
reflecting the current concerns for energy and fuel conservation and
the environment,and the rapidly increasing costs of energy in the
economy.
Acknowledgements
We have attempted to reference principal data sources in the text.The
corridor studies utilized data from many different sources--USGS mapping;
ERTS photo mosaics obtained through the Geophysical Institute of the
University of Alaska;soils survey and snow survey information from
Soil Conservation Service reports for portions of the corriclors;resources
maps and reports from the statewide resources inventory by the Resources
Planning Team of the Federal-State Land Use Planning Commission;the
State of Alaska's Regional Profile for the South central Region;climate
records from the National Weather Service;and other data sources.
The Bonneville Power Administration provided technical assistance in
several ways:participation in the aerial and surface reconnaissance
of the potential corridors;structural designs anq unit costs for transmission
lines and substations;consultations on the transmission environmental
assessment and reviews of design and cost studies prepared by APA.
The electric utilitity systems of the Railbelt area provide the Alaska experience
base for considering future transmission systems;utility personnel provided
valuable assistance through consultation on their transmission system
experiences and practices and on alternative plans for transmitting
Susitna power to the load centers.
Part II SUMMARY
1.The main elements of the study were:(1)evaluation of alternative
corridors for locating project transmission lines considering environ-
mental,engineering,reliability and cost aspects;(2)preparation
of designs and cost estimates for the transmission systems needed
for alternative project development plans.
2.The power market analyses (APA report on project power markets)
show that the bulk of the project power would be utilized in Fairbanks -
Tanana Valley and Anchorage -Cook Inlet areas,with smaller
potential markets in the Glennallen and Valdez areas and other
points along the Richardson Highway.Because of the relatively
large demands,electric service to the Anchorage and Fairbanks
areas i.s the largest single consideration in design of project transmis-
sion facilities.Service to the other areas would be added when
feasible.
3.The corridor evaluation started with map identification of all potentially
feasible corridors and a field reconnaissance which eliminated
those for which topography,elevation,and climate factors would
be unacceptable.The remaining corridors were then evaluated
in more detail to determine their relative advantages and disadvant-
ages.Much of the detail of this evaluation is presented in the
APA environmental assessment of the project transmission facilities.
4.It was concluded that the most desirable corridor location would
follow existing surface transportation systems whenever possible.
The principle disadvantage of such location is line visibility from
the existing road and rail systems.Careful attention to use of
natural vegetation and topography to screen the lines,locating
the lines at an appropriate distance from roads,and selection
of non-reflecting materials in final route selection and design
would minimize visibility problems;it is recognized that even
with best location and design,portions of the line would be highly
visible.Significant advantages of locating the lines near existing
surface transportation sy stems include minimi zing requirements
for new access roads,savings in costs for construction and operation
and maintenance,a significant improvement in reliability,and
avoiding need for pioneering new corridors in presently undeveloped
areas.
Appendix I
H-5
Appendix I
H-6
5.Except for constricted passes through the mountains,the proposed
corridors should be considered as very broad and general
locations within which many alternatives are possible for final
route locations.The final route locations would be determined
through detailed post authorization studies.
6.The most serious conflicts in the final route selection will likely
be encountered in the Nenana Canyon route through the Alaska
Range.The Fish and Wildlife Service has recommended that a
route west of the Parks Highway be selected through the
Nenana Canyon to minimize possible conflicts with raptor
habitat.Any route through the Canyon area would involve lines
visible from portions of l\lount McKinley NC!tional Park and the
FWS proposal would place portions of the route within park
boundaries.AP A considers use of the corridor through the
Nenana Canyon will result in substantially less environmental
damage than would the pioneering of new corridors through the
Alaska Range.
7.Additional conflicts are anticipatfod in final route selection along
the approaches to Anchora.ge because of the Knik Arm,and
topography.and land use and ownership patterns on possible
routes around Knik Arm.Cost estin1 ates presented in this
report assume delivery of project power to points on the CEA
transmission system north of Knik Arm.It is recognized that
the detailed studies following authorization would need to
consider several alternative plans to transmit power across or
around Knik Arm to Anchorage.
8.The initial set of transmission plans and estimates were prepared
for use in evaluating the alternative Susitna hydroelectric develop-
ment plans.It was found that conventional overhead lines at 230 kv
and 345 kv would be suitable for the distances and amounts of
power invol ved.The initial plans used double circui t lines on
a single set of towers and assumed deli very points at Fairbanks
and Anchorage.
9.As a result of review by area utilities,the Bonneville Power
Administration,and others,the transmission plan and cost
estimate for the initial hydro development plan (Watana and
Devil Canyon)was modified to incorporate:the added costs for
two single circuit lines in lieu of double circuit lines;an
additional substation in the general vicinity of Talkeetna;and
a switching station in the vicinity of Healy.The resulting trans-
mission plan includes:two single circuit 230 kv lines from
Watana to Devil Canyon (30 miles),two single circuit 230 kv
lines from Devil Canyon to Fairbanks (198 miles)within intermediate
switching station at Healy;and two single circuit 345 kv lines from
Devil Canyon to points on the north shore of Knik Arm (136 miles)
with an intermediate substation in the vicinity of Talkeetna.The
estimated construction cost based on January ]975 price levels
is $256 million.It is estimated that three years would be required
for construction of the transmission facilities following completion
of detailed route studies and final designs and acquisition of
necessary rights-of-way.
10.Rough plans and estimates were prepared for transmission systems
to deliver project power to Glennallen and other points along the
Richardson Highway,and results are summarized along with
econOIric analyses of such plans in the AP A power market study.
11.Alternative transmission technologies were considered in plan
selection,including DC systems and underground lines.With
exsiting and likely near future technology.reliability and cost
considerations appear to rule out use of underground systems
for the lines under consideration.Operating characteristics of
DC systems would essentially rule out their application for an
initial system to distribute project power to Railbelt power markets.
12.The general corridor locations and transmission designs and
estimates are considered adequate for purposes of demonstrating
project feasibili ty .
Appendix I
H-7
..-_._._-_.-.•._-_._---------------_._--
Part III EXISTING TRANSMISSION SYSTEMS
Appendix I
H-8
The power market studies make it very clear that a major part of the
project power would be utilized in the Anchorage -Cook Inlet and
Fairbanks -Tanana Valley areas,respectively.Additional potential
power markets exist in the Glennallen and Valdez areas and along
the Alyeska pipeline.
Anchorage-Cook Inlet Area
The five electric utility companies serving this area are:
Anchorage Municipal Light and Power (AML&P)
Chugach Electric Association (CEA)
Matanuska Electric Association OvillA)
Homer Electric Association (HEA)
Seward Electric System (SES)
Alaska Power Administration operates the Eklutna Hydroelectric Project
and markets wholesale power to CEA,AML&P,and MEA.
AML&P serves the Anchorage Municipal area.CEA supplies power
to the Anchorage suburban and surrounding rural areas and provides
power at wholesale rates to HEA,SES,and MEA.The HEA service
area covers the western portion of the Kenai Peninsula including Seldovia,
across the bay from Homer.MEA serves the town of Palmer and the
surrounding rural area in the Matanuska and Susitna Valleys.SES
serves the city of Seward.
The utilities serving the Anchorage-Cook Inlet area are presently
loosely interconnected through facilities of APA and CEA.An emergency
tie is available between the AML&P and Anchorage area military installations.
The existing transmission systems in this area are indicated on Figures
2 and 3.Table 2 has a summary of existing lines and interconnections.
The area presently has a total of about 545 circuit miles at 33 kv or
higher voltage.
CEA has under construction a 230 kv overhead line around Knik Arm
to Anchorage including interconnections with the MEA and APA systems.
The initial phase is now under construction;initial operation will
beat138kv.
ISTING TRANSMISSION SYSTEMS
COOK INLET AREA
x~-x-x-x 33 KV Transmission Line
.·-..·-x-·-x 69 KV Transmission Line
x-··-x-··-x 115 KV Transmission Line
..··-x-·-x 138 KV Transmission Line
Scale in miles
LOCATION MAP
A ~.
\
-'~.
r .~.~
CHAKACHAMNA
LAKE
---_._----_.__.-_.....
o 20 40 60 80
A.P.A.-JULY 1974
Appendix I
FIGURE H-2
H-9
:r:""Tl;t:>I_-0......G"J-0aero:;o::::lrr.0-......:r:xIw......CEA115KVCEA115KV>~100<tof0It)a:a..wcISu..J<[::El.L~~0---_..,,IICDIAPA115KV}:'::~>~:l::"~~~:~~~>~~·~;·(g:~·~;,\\:···:·.::,tf·P.bW·ERPLANTIAML~P)'.?:::::'.,.':;:~It):.::'\~AMLElP34'"V\Ia..\ /NORTHERNBLVD~"...jr-_I@.34.5KV®~CEA34.5KV(j)(<IDIICEA138KV<t/"'_~§~/'~1..-/~>------.>'\//~t-'-.~/10w~>-IOw""-~. w3:':'::/.ra:I.r<['-../.It)tilIt)TUDOR-lROADo~ua:W~(.)w(j)CEA34.5KV\.j~1~Scaleinmileso2468UNITEDSTATESDEPARTMENTOFTHEINTERIORALASKAPOWERADMINISTRATIONEXISTINGTRANSMISSIONSYSTEMSANCHORAGEAREA,APA-JUIY19~~
For purposes of this study,it is assumed that Susitna power would be
made available at a substation in the vicinity of Talkeetna and at points
on the CEA 230 kv loop around Knik Arm,and that the power would be
wheeled over the CEA and APA Eklutna systems to serve Anchorage.
As discussed later in the report,the actual plan for delivering project
power in the Anchorage-Cook Inlet area will need to be determined through
detailed systems studies following project authorization.
Fairbanks-Tanana Valley Area
The two electric utilities in this area are:
Fairbanks Municipal Utility System (Ff\,1lTS)
Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA)
FMUS serves the Fairbanks municipal area,while GVEA provides
service to the suburban and rural areas.The Fairbanks area power
suppliers have the most complete power pooling agreeIl"ent in the State.
FMUS,GVEA,the University of Alaska and the military bases have
an arrangement which includes provisions for sharing reserves and
energy interchange accounts.In addition,GVEA operates the Fort Wain--
wright steamplant under an agreement with the army.
The existing transmission systems are indicated on Figure 4;Table 2
includes a summary of the lines and existing interconnections.
The delivery point for Upper Susitna power to the GVEA and FMUS
systems is assumed at the existing Gold Hill substation of GVEA near
Fairbanks.
Glennallen and Valdez
The Copper Valley Electric Association serves both Glennallen and
Valdez.Radial distribution lines of CVEA extend from Glennallen
30 miles north on the Copper River,55 miles south on the Copper
River to Lower Tonsina and 70 miles west on Glenn Highway.
CVEA has given some consideration to a 115 kv intertie between Valdez
and Glennallen.For this study,it is assumed that project power would
be delivered to the CVEA system at Glennallen.
Appendix I
H-ll
:I:---I::t:>I::t:>"'C......co"'CN,l'D1Tl~c..:I:.....I><N.....TransmissionLinesandMajorInterconnections(Note:Linesunder33kvnotincluded)TransmissionLinesInterconnectionsYAreaOwnerDesignationKVMileageWithSubstationFairbanksGVEAHealy-GoldHill138104U.ofAlaskaUniversityGoldHill-JohnsonRd.6945Ft.WainwrightFt.WainwrightZehnder-Fox698EielsonAFBEielsonMisc.withinCity693Ft.GreelyHighwayParkGoldHill-MurphyDome34.524FMUZehnderFox-PilotBluff34.518FMUMW1i.Pwr.Plt.-Zehnder691Ft.Wainwright19thStreet(SeeGVEA)Anchorage-MEAEagleRiverTap-WalterCookInletPipple1153/4APAPalmerPalmer-NWKnikArmSym.34.542APAReedPalmer-Lucas-Reed34.518APAEagleRiverAPAEklutna-Palmer11515AML&PAnchorageEklutna-Reed-EagleRiver-Anchorage11532CEAAnchorageElmendorfAnchorageAML&PAnchorageAPASub-CitySystem34.523-1/3(SeeAPA)
(cont.)TransmissionLinesandMajorInterconnections(Note:Linesunder33kvnotincluded)TransmissionLinesInterconnection!IAreaOwnerDesignationKVMileageWithSubstation-Anchorage-CEABeluga-International13852(incl.4(SeeAPAandHEA)CookInletmi.submarine)(cont.)AnchorageAPASub-BerniceLake2/U5l65-iCooperLake-QuartzCreek6963LinestoSoldotna3/6986Misc.withinAnchorage34.531HEAKasilofSub-Homer6961CEAKasilofKenaiAreaLine3312-~yListedonlyonceundersubstationownership(NationalDefense-ownedsubstationsarelistedundertheinter-connectedutility).yIncl.TudorSub.-InternationalandspurlinetoPortage.QuartzCreek-BerniceLakeportionleasedfromHEA.3/LeasedfromHEA:Soldotna-QuartzCreek,Soldotna-BerniceLake,Soldotna-Kasilof.:I:-1:t:>oI:t:>o"'0......o::l"'CWrtl)IT1:::::lc..:I:......1><N......
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
ALASKA POWER ADMINISTRATION
EXISTING TRANSMISSION
SYSTEMS
TANANA VALLEY AREA
Appendix I
FIGURE H-4
H-14
:
I
)(
I:.;
X
\~
\-
\HEALY
\
~
AIRPORT WAY
FAIRBANKS o
LOCATION MAP
/
\
\
x-x-x-x 33 KV Transmission Line
x-·-x-·-x 69 KV Transmission Line
)t-..-x-..-x I 15 KV Transmission Line
)t---x-..·-x 138 KV Transmission Line
Scale in mi les
20 40 60
A.PA.-JULY 1974
Part IV TRANSMISSION CORRIDOR STUDIES
Appendix I
H-15
This portion of the transmission study evaluates alternative corridors
for transmission facilities to deliver project power to the power markets.
The term"corridor"means general location of transmission facili ties,
and the studies are intended to show relative merits of alternative
transmission corridors from the viewpoints of the environment,engineer-
ing,economics.and reliability.
Width of corridor is not defined precisely.The actual right-of-way
needed is fairly narrow.Except where limited by specific physical
or environmental considerations,the corridors themselves should
be considered several miles wide.
The major mountain ranges--Alaska,Talkeetna,and Chugach--limit
the range of choice in corridors (See Figure 5).The higher elevations
in these mountains are completely unsuitable for transmission lines,
and there are relatively few low-elevation passes through these ranges.
Away from the mountains,a wide range of locations could be considered.
Figure 6 illustrates on a very broad scale,the alternatives for locating
the lines.From the project south to the Anchorage area,the heart
of the Talkeetna mountains can be avoided by corridors which generally
follow the Susitna River Valley (Susitna Corridor)or ones that pass
to the east of the mountains and approach Anchorage from the Matanuska
Valley (Matanuska Corridors).
From the project north to the Fairbanks area,the options for crossing
the Alaska Range are limited to the pases in the Nenana River drainage
(Nenana Corridor)or to the east generally along the Richardson Highway
(Delta Corridor).
Method of Evaluation
A preliminary identification of potential corridors was made utilizing large scale
topographic maps and photo mosaics prepared from satellite photography.
This involved primarily identifying potentially feasible passes through
the moun tains.Figure 7 indicates the corridors identified in this
step.
The second step involved an aerial reconnaissance to determine which
of these corridors were actually feasible for constructing lines.Several
were found to have tlfatal flaws"or characteristics that would preclude
their use for transmission lines.Reasons for eliminating corridors
at this stage included completely unsuitable topography,obstruction
by major glaciers,or excessive elevations.
~s~UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT or THE INTERIOR
ALASKA POWER ADMINiSTRATION
1
5
75
A PA-JUU ~7!'>
!50
RAILBELT
Scale -Mile\,
25---o
THE
DEN@U--STATE
PARK
!
[J
Appendix I
FIGURE H-5
H-16
ITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
ALASKA POWER ADMINISTRATION
Appendix I
FIGURE H-6
H-17____._3
100 125
A.P.A-Morch 1975
75
Paxson
50
(
Scale in miles
DEVIL CANYON PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE
SYSTEM PLANS
•FAIRBANKS
Healy
NENANA ICORRIDOR
Cantwell •
/
----_.-.~-
-
IOOMlle'i50
SCALE
~~-----.-o
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
A LASKA POWER ADM IN I STRATION
UPPER SUSITNA RIVER PROJECT
POTENTIAL TRANSMISSION
CORRIDORSAppendixI
FIGURE H-7
H-18
The remaining potential corridors,which are indicated on Figure 8,
were then analyzed in more detail.The basis for the analysis was
individual corridor segments which are indicated on Figure 9.For
convenience,the alternative corridors and the individual segments
were numbered as shown on the maps.Table 3 provides a key to
this numbering system.All of these remaining corridors are considered
physically feasible for transmission lines.
The evaluation is intended to identify the relative advantages and
disadvantages of utilizing the alternatives for transmission lines.
The steps in the evaluation were:
(1)Description and inventory by segment of the key resources
that would be impacted by a transmission line.
(2)Evaluation of probable impacts of locating,building,and
operating transmission lines for each segment.
(3)Determination of relative cost and reliability for lines utilizing
the alternative corridors.
(4)Summarization of advantages and disadvantages from the
viewpoint of environment,engineering,costs,and reliability
of service.
(5)Selection of preferred corridors.
The comparisons between alternatives used parameters that could
be quantified,such as length and cost,while judgment ranking was
used for those parameters that could not be readily quantified.
The descriptions and inventory and evaluation of impacts are reported
in more detail in th eA.P .A.en vi ronmen tal as s ess men t,wi th only
summary information presented in this report.The description and
inventory grouped data and interpretations under nine broad categories:
(1)Topography and Geology
(2)Soils
(3)Vegetation
(4)Wildlife
(5)Climate
(6)Existing Developments
(7)Land Ownership and Status
(8)Relation to Existing Rights of Way
(9)Scenic Quality and Recreation
Appendix I
H-19
Appendix I
FIGURE H-8
H-20
Nenono-3
DELTA CORRIDOR
•Paxson
___---.,M~ArrTANUSKA
~~-----CORRIDOR
·Palmer
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
ALASKA POWER ADMI NISTRATION
DEVI L CANYON PROJECT
AL TERNATIVE
TRANSMISSION CORRIDORS
Scale in miles
3
50 75 100 125
A.P.A-Morch 1975
•Paxson
DEVIL CANYON PROJECT
TRANSMISSION
CORRIDOR SEGMENTS
Scale in miles
STATES DEPARnAENT OF THE INTERIOR
ALASKA POWER ADMINISTRATION
Appendix I
FIGURE H-9
d-21
~~~iiiiiiiiiii~~Iiii!il~~~~iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii~~~~S~
50 75 100 125
A.P.A-Morch 1975
Key to .Alternative Corridors and Segments
Corridor
Susitna #1
Susitna #2
Susitna #3
Susitna #4
Matanuska #J
Matanuska #2
Segments
of Corridor
Susitna Corridors
1,3,7,8,9
1,2,7,8,9
1,4,5,8,9
1,4,6,8,9
Matanuska Corridors
8,9,20,22
8,9,18,21,22
Nenana Corridors
Approxiwa te
Total Mileage
166
170
159
164
258
385
Appendix I
TABLE H-3
H-22
Nenana #1
Nenana #2
Nenana #3
Nenana #4
Nenana #5
Delta #1
9,8,7,10,13,16 228
9,8,7,10,12,14,17 250
9,8,7,10,12,14,15,16 261
8,9,11,14,15,16 223
8,9,11,14,17 212
Delta Corridor
8,9,18,19 280
The probable impacts are identified and described under five broad
categories in the environmental assessment.
(1)Soils
(2)Vegetation
(3)Wildlife
(4)Existing Developments
(5)Scenic Quality and Recreation.
Alternative corridors were compared utilizing a judgment ranking
under each of the five impact categories.
The cost aspect of the corridor analysis is premised on rough recon-
naissance costs for a double circuit steel tower line located in the
corridor.The estimate included access facilities using the following
criteria:
(1)For corridors within approximately five miles of existing
surface transportation,pioneer access suitable for four-wheel
drive vehicles would be provided where terrain and soils are
favorable.Where soils are not suitable for pioneer road type of
access,no road is provided and overland access for construction
and operation and maintenance would be limited to winter periods
with adequate snow cover.Otherwise,access would be by helicopter.
(2)For corridors pioneering into new areas,or more than five
miles from existing surface transportation,the estimates include
a new road to minimum standards suitable for access to the line
and to provide appropriate environmental protections--adequate
erosion control,permafrost protection.etc.Such new roads
would be single lane,gravel surface,with periodic passing areas.
Relative cost and difficulty for operation and maintenance activities
are shown by judgment ranking for this analysis.This reflects ease
of access,terrain,climate,and other factors that bear on the operation
and maintenance activities.
Reliability is also shown by judgment ranking reflecting relative hazards
to major outages and relative difficulty of making repairs.
Appendix I
H-23
-"'-------------_._,
Appendix I
H-24
The Corridors
The alternatives represent only general corridors,and do not attempt
to define an actual right-of-way.Thus,the alternatives do not distinguish
among many minor variations,and as a result,are fairly flexible.
Only brief descriptions of the corridors are included here since details
of resources and identified impacts are available in the APA environmental
assessment.As a summary reference,the IIInventory ll and IIImpact"
matrixes from the assessment are appended to this report.
Susitna Corridors
There are basically four feasible corridors which connect Devil Canyon
to Anchorage via the Susitna drainage.All four of these incorporate
the segment that runs from the endpoints of Point MacKenzie to Talkeetna,
so this segment can,therefore,be treated as separate and not included
in a comparison of the alternative corridors.
Of the four corridors that run from Talkeetna to Devil Canyon-Watana,
the first follows the Susitna Valley north,paralleling the Alaska Railroad
to Gold Creek,where it leads east to tie into Devil Canyon-Watana
(Susitna -1).
The next,and farthest west,parallels the Anchorage-Fairbanks Highway
through Denali State Park,along Troublesome Creek,eventually leading
east to tie into Gold Creek and Devil Canyon-Watana (Susitna -2).
The third goes up the Talkeetna River and gaining the ridge to the
east of Disappointment Creek,leads north to the ridge leading to Devil
Canyon (Susitna -3).
The fourth and most easterly corridor follows the Talkeetna River
to Prairie Creek,which it follows to Stephan Lake,halfway between
Devil Canyon and Watana (Susitna -3).
Nenana Corridors
There are five feasible corridors connecting the Upper Susitna with
Fairbanks by way of the Nenana River.The first is a corridor paralleling
the highway and railroad from Gold Creek to Cantwell,to Healy,and
to Fairbanks (Nenana -1).
The second duplicates the first corridor to Cantwell,but then leads
east paralleling the Denali Highway,as far as Wells Creek and north
over the pass to Louis Creek,continuing over the Dean Creek Pass
to the Wood River.It then follows the Wood and Tanana Rivers to
Fairbanks (Nenana -2).
The third corridor,(Nenana -3),duplicates the second to Dean Creek,
where it then continues up Yanert Fork and over Moody Pass,ending
up at Healy and joining the first corridor.
Corridor four (Nenana -4)leaves Watana and heads north,emerging
onto the Denali Highway near the Brushkana River.It then leads
west.goes up Wells Creek,and joins corridor three to Healy and
Fairbanks.
Corridor five starts the same way as corridor four,except instead
of going over Moody Pass to Healy,it leads east over Dean Creek
into the Wood River,and then leads north to Fairbanks,(Nenana -
5).
Delta Corridor
For this study.only one corridor along the Delta River was considered.
This corridor leaves Watana damsite and leads east down Butte Creek
to the Denali damsite and continues east along the Denali Highway.
It then proceeds north near Paxson over the Isabel Pass and parallels
the Richardson Highway into Fairbanks.Alternatives could be very
limited in the vicinity of Isabel Pass.but additional alternatives could
be considered in the Tanana Valley and Copper River Valley.
Matanuska Corridors
Two corridors were considered utilizing the Matanuska Valley as access
to Anchorage.The first corridor connects Watana to Vee damsite,
leads southeast to the Little Nelchina River,which it follows to the
Glenn Highway and corridor one,which it follows to Point MacKenzie
(Matanuska-l).
The second follows the Delta route to Paxson,then leads south to Glennallen.
It then goes west,over Tahneta Pass,and into the Matanuska Valley,
tying into Point MacKenzie (Matanuska-2).
Available Data
A variety of data sources were used in the study,including U.S.
Geological Survey maps at scale 1:250,000 and 1:63,360,ERTS photo
mosaics,and uncontrolled aerial and ground photo mosaics of critical
areas.
-----------------"-
Appendix I
H-25
Appendix I
H-26
The data compiled by the Resource Planning Team of the Land Use
Planning Commission in their statewide inventory studies was used
extensively.This data is available in a set of 1:250 ,000 overlay maps
and supporting reports.It includes information on geology,vegetation.
wildlife habitat,soils,water resources,recreation,land status,archaeological
and historic sites,and other resource aspects.
More detailed soil survey data from the Soil Conservation Service
is available for some corridor segments.U.S.Geological Survey
permafrost maps were utilized.
Available climatological data from the National Weather Service were
utilized for Fairbanks,Anchorage,Palmer,Talkeetna,Summit,McKinley
Park,Clear,and other locations in the Railbelt.
In September,1974,personnel from APA and Bonneville Power Administration
made an aerial and surface reconnaissance of the alternative corridors
to examine critical areas and obtain first-hand information on the terrain
and other factors.
Over 2,600-35mm slides were taken,processed,indexed,and catalogued
to record and preserve details of the observations.Interviews with
management and maintenance personnel of the two major utilities operating
transmission lines in the marketing areas of Anchorage and Fairbanks
were made.The objective was to determine the criteria,problems,
experience,and suggestions they could offer in planning,locating,
and designing an upper Susitna transmission system.
Panoramic photo mosaics were prepared using photographic color
prints made from the slides to help evaluate the impact of a transmission
line constructed through critical,scenic,and other potential problem
areas.Reports covering impressions and data gathered from the reconnais-
sance and rough cost evaluations were prepared to further assess
the meri ts of the various alternative corridors.
Uncontrolled aerial photo mosaics of the alternative corridors were
prepared to assist in the resolution of questions in critical problem
areas.
Several environmental impact statements were used to provide information
not readily available elsewhere.
Aerial photographs of the various corridor routes are available from
Bureau of Land Management,U.S.Geological Survey,and Alaska
State Highway Department.
Numerous magazines,newspapers,publications,and other reports
were also incorporated into the study data.
Location Considerations
Corridor location objectives are to obtain an optimum combination
of reliability and cost with the fewest environmental problems.In
many cases.these objectives are mutually compatible.However.
this is often not the case with respect to line visibility and scenic
impacts.Throughout the corridor evaluation.the question arises
of whether it is more desirable to place lines relatively close to existing
surface transportation facilities or to pioneer new corridors where
the line would be seen by few people.
The following items are major factors considered in the evaluation
of altern ati ve corridors:
Clima te and Elevation
Winds.icing.snow depth.and low temperatures are very important
parameters in transmission designs,operation.and reliabili ty.Experience
with existing lines of the area utili ties indicates few unusual climatic
problems for the areas away from the mountains.except for winter
low temperatures that inhibit operation and maintenance activities.
The climate factors become more severe in the mountains.High winds.
longer winters,more snow.and colder average temperatures are
charactistic.APA believes that elevations above about 4000 feet in
the Alaska Range and Talkeetna Mountains are completely unsuitable
for locating major transmission facilities.Significant advantages
in reliability and cost are expected if the lines can be kept well below
3000 feet in elevation.
Extreme winds in excess of 100 fv1PH are expected for exposed areas
and passes in the mountains.The potential for icing is probably not
as serious as in coas tal areas of Alaska.so long as the lower elevation
passes are used.The corridors under consideration do not involve
unusually heavy snow depths.
Topography
Topography plays a threefold role in transmission location--0)it
affects cost of construction.inspection,and maintenance;(2)it affects
visual impact;and (3)it affects reliability.
Transmission costs rise dramatically in areas of broken or steep terrain--
towers require special foundations,individual design for variation in
leg lengths to accommodate sloping sites.Broken relief also increases
cost by increasing the number of towers required per mile due to decreased
Appendix I
H-27
Appendix I
H-28
spacing.These same topographic characteristics increase access difficulties
which,in turn,increase access road costs,time spent in transit,and
difficulty in transporting construction and maintenance supplies and
materials.Inspection of lines in rough terrain changes a routine operation
into an ordeal or increases costs by making utilization of aircraft a necessity.
It is increasingly difficult to visually shield a line and its clearing scar
as topographic relief increases.This is especially true under certain
orientations,particularly when the line runs parallel to a steep side
hill in view of a road,railroad,or other view point.
Conditions of instability pose physical threats to the reliability of the
line.Broken terrain,steep slopes,or conditions in which the angle
of the terrain exceeds the angle of repose of the soil,increase the chances
of land,rock,or mud slides.Snow slides are an additional hazard
on steep slopes.
Soils and Foundation
Transmission lines are less affected by soils and foundation limitations
than are roads,railroads,and pipelines.Good examples of this exist
in the GVEA and CEA transmission systems which traverse sensitive
muskeg and permafrost areas with few problems.This requires designs
of tower foundations that are compatible with the soil situation and careful
design and control of access for construction and operation and maintenance.
Vegetation
Heavily forested areas in the valleys would require essentially continuous
clearing of the transmission right-of-way.The higher elevations and
muskeg areas would involve essentially no clearing.Impacts are di verse:
in the forested areas,opportunities to shield the lines from view are
good,but the continuous scar is generally unavoidable.At higher elevations,
there would be very little impact on vegetation,but line vis ability is
high.
Wildlife
There will be some habitat changes due to clearing and access facilities.
Probably the major consideration for wildlife is the extent to which the
transmission lines change the access to land by people.This is subject
to some control by managing access,but new corridors and new access
roads tend to encourage public use and thus increase pressures on fish
and wildlife.
Visual Aspects
More than any other factor in transmission location,the visual aspect
is controversial and subject to a wide range of opinion.Existing criteria
provide for utilizing natural vegetation and topographic relief as a shield,
minimizing crossings over roads,and otherwise utilizing route selection
and orientation techniques to minimize vis ability .Other options include
use of non-reflective conductors and towers.At best,such measures
are only partly effective.
Socio-Economic Aspects
Land status,ownership,use.and value are important factors in the
location of transmission corridor alignments .
Consideration of existing uses,costs of right-of-way and easements
tend to influence the selection of alignments which will affect other uses
least.Hunting lodges.tourist accommodations,and facilities with high
scenic uses or values,such as parks.scenic viewpoints,recreation
areas,etc.,also should be avoided or skirted by transmission corridors
or the corridor should be well screened.
Recent trends in land management tend to favor the corridor concept
for combining transportation,utility,and communication facilities.
The rationale is to confine man's influence to a relatively small zone
Distance
The economics of transmission line construction and maintenance dictate
that line distances should be kept as short as possible while recognizing
other criteria.This will result in lower construction costs and shorter
construction periods.Lower operation and maintenance costs will result
because it will take less time to find a fault on a shorter line.A shorter
line will be subjected to fewer hazards because it is physically smaller.
Power and energy losses will be lower on a shorter line.
Other impacts of a shorter line include less clearing--fewer trees must
be cut,thus less land will be subjected to man's influence and less wildlife
habitat will be altered.
Longer lines require higher voltages with a resultant requirement of
higher capacity and larger conductors,towers,and hardware.This
combination increases costs as well as right-of-way width.
Appendix I
H-29
:I:-1)::>I)::>-0Wco-oormfTl::::s0-:::I:......IX+:>~RelativeTransmissionConstructionCostforAlternativeCorridors-UpperSusitnatoAnchorageSusitnaCorridorsMatanuskaCorridorsS - IS - 2 S - 3 S - 4M - I M-2-Length,miles166170159164258385Max.elevation,feet2,1002,1003,8002,2003,0004,000Clearing,milesMed.heavy166146132142166228Light---10101317157None---1417975AccessRoads,milesNewroads00123284644-Wheeldriveaccess122126122104138290None444425283631TowerConstruction,milesHeavysteel444468623094Normal12212691102228291ComparativeCost,$1,000Clearing3,0003,0003,000 3,0006001,100Access8,000 8,2009,50010,90019,90027,200TransmissionLines82,000 84.00081,30082,200132,700196,200Total93,00095,20093,80096,100153,200224,500•
:::r::-l~I~"OW0:1"0......r(!)l'T1:::Jc..:::r::......I X.j:>.......(continued)RelativeTransmissionConstructionCostforAlternativeCorridors-UpperSusitnatoFairbanksNenanaCorridorsDeltaCorridorN - 1 N - 2N -3N - 4 N-5 DLength,miles228250261223212280Max.elevation,feet2,4004,3004,000 4,0004,3004,000Clearing,milesMed.heavy12513912799III114Light0000021None103III134124101145AccessRoads,milesNewroads013650961821684-Wheeldriveaccess972211997082None13110292303030TowerConstruction,milesHeavysteel155194188121127198Normal7356731028582ComparativeCost,$1,000Clearing400400400200300400Access7,80021,80017,40020,500 24,80027,300Transmissionlines77,20084,90088,50075,00071,40094,800Total85,400107,100106,30095,70096,500122,500
Appendix
H-32
Relative Cost
Rough reconnaissance cost estimates were made for transmission lines
in the alternative corridors to illustrate relative costs.The estimates
are summarized on Table 4.
The estimates reflect access,clearing,and line construction costs .
For the Susitna and Matanuska Corridors,they are premised on a 345 kv
double circuit line;the Nenana and Delta Corridors are based on a
230 kv double circuit line.
Corridor Evaluations
This section summarizes results of the evaluations and identification
of preferred corridors.In the assigned ranking,lower numbers reflect
a preference or fewer impacts.
Project Power to Anchorage-Cook Inlet Area
Six corridors were considered.A summary of the analysis is presented
on Table 5.
The Matanuska Corridors were found to offer no significant advantage
for major power supplies to the Anchorage-Cook Inlet area.Disadvantages
include added length,significant distance at higher elevations which
could complicate construction and operations,and additional impacts
associated with more access and longer lines.
The four Susitna Corridors assume a common alignment from Talkeetna
to Pt.MacKenzie.This should be depicted as a fairly broad corridor
at this time,since the terrain is quite favorable for transmission and
there would be a great deal of flexibility in locating the final route to
minimize impacts and interference with existing developments.This
will require very careful route studies.
North of Talkeetna,there are some cri tical factors of terrain and access.
The feasible routes between Devil Canyon-Watana and the Talkeetna
area are:
S-l,generally along the Alaska Railroad.
S-2,which generally follows the Anchorage-Fairbanks Highway
S-3 and S-4,which approach Talkeetna through the Talkeetna River
Valley.
S 3,the shortest route,also involves the most difficult terrain and highest
elevations.This would be the least advantageous from the viewpoint
of building and operating a transmission line.
CorridorAnalysis-ProjectPowertoAnchorage/CookInletAreaSusitnaCorridorsMatanuskaCorridorsAnalysisFactor:S - 1 S - 2 S-3 S - 4 M - 1M - 2Length,miles166170159164258385Max,elevation,feet2,1002,1003,8002,2003,0004,000Ranking112134EnvironmentalImpactsSoils121122Vegetation231345Wildlife123343Existingdevelopments332133Scenicquality/recreation:Developedareas332133Remoteareas123443Ranking131344Costs--Construction112134Operationandmaintenance112133Ranking112134ReliabilityExposuretohazards112123Easeofrepair122233Ranking123244SummaryRanking123244:::X:-l):o(preferredI):0"0corridor)wOJ"0wrrol'Tl::l0-:::x:-"IXU'I.....
Appendix I
H-34
Reconnaissance of the four Susitna Corridors indicates that vegetation
and topography would facilitate screening of lines to minimize visual
impacts.
S-4 would involve pioneering a new road up the Talkeetna River to the
Stephan Lake area;similarly,S-3 would involve considerable new road
construction in the Talkeetna Valley.S-2 would traverse the existing
Denali State Park,which would require a new access between Gold
Creek and the Anchorage-Fairbanks Highway.The aspects of the State
Park for S-2 and the new corridors required for S-3 and S-4 were major
factors in the evaluations.
There does not appear to be a great deal of difference in terms of impacts
on soil,vegetation,and wildlife,except that involved in new access
road construction.
Cost aspects are quite similar for S-l,S-2,and S-3;S-l appears most
desirable from the reliability viewpoint because of proximity to existing
transportation and lower elevations.
The preferred corridor is S-].
Project Power to Fairbanks-Tanana Valley Area
Six corridors were considered,and a summary of the analysis is presented
on Table 6.
The Delta Corridor involves several disadvantages which relate primarily
to longer distances and a considerable distance at fairly high elevations.
The potential advantages are avoiding entirely the Broad Pass-Nenana
Canyon area and the potential for extending electric service to the Paxson
area and portions of the Upper Tanana Valley.
Much of the Delta Route is in areas where lines would be quite visible
because of limited vegetation and limited opportunity to shield lines
with topography.
The Nenana alternatives fall into two general classes:(1)corridors
paralleling the existing transportation corridor containing the Anchorage-
Fairbanks Highway and the Alaska Railroad,and (2)alternatives to
the east of this corridor through the Alaska Range to the Fairbanks area.
N-1 follows the Alaska Railroad to the Broad Pass area and Cantwell,
proceeds through the Nenana Canyon to Healy,and generally parallels
the existing GVEA transmission line from Healy to Fairbanks.
')CorridorAnalysis-ProjectPowertoFairbanks/TananaArea')NenanaCorridorsDeltaCorridorAnalysisFactor:N-1N - 2 N - 3 N - 4N - 5D--Length,miles228250261223212280Max.elevation,feet2,4004,3004,000 4,0004,3004,000Ranking133233EnvironmentalImpactsSoils132233Vegetation223213Wildlife132333Existingdevelopments322212Scenicquality/recreation:Developedareas322113Remoteareas132232Ranking133213Costs--Construction142356Operationandmaintenance142353Ranking142354ReliabilityExposuretohazards143244Easeofrepair142343Ranking132233SummaryRanking142234:I:--1)::>(preferredI)::>"'CWco"'Ccorridor)(J'1r(l)rn:::l0-:I:......IXen......
Appendix I
H-36
N-l is an obvious first choice from the viewpoint of transmission line
construction and operation because of the proximity to existing transportation
throughout its length and use of the most favorable pass through the
Alaska Range.
Because of proximity to existing transportation,impacts on soil,vegetation,
and wildlife would likely be less severe than the other alternatives which
pioneer routes in remote areas.
N-l also has obvious disadvatages in that the area from Broad Pass through
the Nenana Canyon offers very limited opportuni ties to shield transmission
lines from view,and from Cantwell to Healy,the route parallels the
eastern boundary of Mt.McKinley National Park.Portions of the line
would be visible from the Park Headquarters.The environmental assessment
includes a number of photos illustrating terrain and vegetation in this
area.
The other Nenana alternatives provide a basis for exploring feasibility
of avoiding the areas of Broad Pass and the Nenana Canyon.
N-l,N-2,and N-3 follow the same alignment from Devil Canyon to Cantwell.
N-2 and N-3 follow east along the Denali Highway,and then head north
through the Alaska Range about 30 miles east of the Nenana Canyon.
N-2 crosses two passes and returns to the Nenana River at Healy just
below the Nenana Canyon.From Healy to Fairbanks,N-2 follows the
existing GVEA line,as does N-l,
N-3 continues north through a third pass and approaches Fairbanks
through the Wood River Drainage.
N-4 and N-5 avoid both the Broad Pass area and the Nenana Canyon.
They head north from the vicinity of Watana Dam to Wells Creek and
then north to the Fairbanks area using the same route as N-2 and N-3,
respectively.
The primary advantages to this group of alternatives are avoiding highly
scenic areas along the Alaska Railroad and Anchorage-Fairbanks Highway.
N-2 and N-5 additionally are removed from the Railroad and the Highway
between the Alaska Range and Fairbanks.
Other than visual impacts in presently utilized areas,N-2,N-3,N-4,
and N-5 seem to offer no significant advantages.Because they involve
pioneering new routes in remote areas,including substantial requirements
for new access roads,the four alternatives would have greater impacts
on soil and wildlife than would N-l.
APA believes it would be feasible from the engineerng viewpoint to construct
and operate transmission lines in any of these corridors.However,
because of remoteness,more rugged terrain,and the high elevation
passes,alternatives N-2,N-3,N-4,and N-5 would involve significantly
higher initial cost as well as operational costs and significantly lower
reliability than alternative N-l,
On the grounds of environment,engineering,costs,and reliabili ty ,
N-1 is the preferred corridor.
Project Power to Valdez and Other Points on the Richardson Highway
Analysis has not been completed of alternative corridors for delivering
power to the Glennallen area and other points along the Richardson Highway.
The basic alternatives appear to be:
(1)Cons truc ting a line from the Palmer area to Glennallen.
(2)Constructing a line from the Devil Canyon-Watana area to
Glennallen.
(3)Completing a loop from Palmer to Glennallen and then north
along the Richardson Highway to the Fairbanks area.
Existing studies by APA and area utilities evaluate possible electric
service to points along the Richardson Highway from Glennallen to Valdez
with and without power to electrify the pumping stations along the Alyeska
pipeline.The studies indicate 138 kv system would suffice if pipeline
pumping loads are not included,and that a 230 kv system would be needed
with pipeline pumping.Neither of these alternatives would provide
significant additional capacity to transfer power between the Anchorage
and Fairbanks areas.
APA's present thinking is that a 138 kv or 230 kv line to Glennallen,
either from Palmer or the Devil Canyon-Watana area should be evaluated
for possible inclusion in early stages of project construction,and that
completing a loop along the Richardson Highway may be desirable as
a later stage of the project.
Appendix I
H-37
Part V TRANSMISSION SYSTEM DESIGNS
AND ESTIMATES
This part summarizes designs and estimates for transmission systems
for the four alternative development plans referenced in Table 1.
The transIY'ission studies assume lines located in the preferred
corridors from the project to the Anchorage and Fairbanks areas.
Transmission to the Glennallen area is treated as a separate alternative.
Electrical Design
Transmission Capac~
Based on firm power capability of the alternative systems,the
relative size of power markets in the Anchorage-Cook Inlet and
Fairbanks-Tanana Valley areas,and an assumed margin for flexibility,
design capacities for the transmission systems were assumed as follows:
Project
Installed Capaci ty
MVV
A__s_s_u_m_e_d_T_r_an_s_m_i_s_s_i_o_n_C_a.....p_a_c_i ty,MW
Anchorage Fairbanks Anchorage +
Fairbanks
System #1:
Devil Canyon+Denali
System #2:
Devil Canyon+Watana
System #3:
Devil Canyon+
Watana+Denali
System #4:
Devil Canyon+Watana
+Vee+Denali
System #5:
Watana+Devil Canyon
580
1,070
1,370
1,434
1,568
500
1,000
1,200
1,200
1,200
250
300
300
300
300
750
1,300
1,500
1,500
1,500
Appendix
H-38
As discussed subsequently,these design capacities are not necessarily
ultimate capacities of the transmission system.For example,with minor
cost additions and nominal increases in losses at peak loading,the
transmission system capacity for the proposed plan (System #5)could
be upgraded by at least 50%without basic change in voltage,tower design,
or conductors.
Voltage Selection and Line Characteristics
Based on nominal carrying capacities,both 230 kv and 345 kv
systems entered consideration.Because reliability has high priority,
the systems used multi-circuit configurations,except System #1.
Conductor sizes,spacings,stranding,and bundling were assumed
for each voltage.The following table summarizes these assumptions.
It also indicates a measure of capability to be subsequently discussed.
Design studies will determine final parameters,including series compensation.
230 kv 345 kv
ACSR ACSR
Pheasant Rail
1272 MCM 954 MCM
54/19 45/7
Simplex Duplex
16"
20'28'
Voltage
Conductor:
Type
Name
Size
Stranding
Number per phase
Flat Spacing:
Conductor
Phase
Towers:
Material
No.per mile
Right-of-Way Width .!/
Single Circuit Capacity
without Compensation
Steel or Aluminum
6
125'
29,300 MW-mi.
Steel or Aluminum
5
140'
82,200 MW-mi.
The two voltage options indicate minimum and maximum considerations.
Alaska's first 230 kv line is now being constructed in the Anchorage
area will be operated initially at 138 kv.Based on a conservative or
"safe"stability criteria of 25 0 power angle between high voltage
buses,the 138 kv transmission system is capable of less than 12,000 MW-
mi.That is,the power transmitted times miles transmitted must
be less than 12,000.The minimum acceptable capability north or
south from the Susitna Project is over 50,000 MW-mi.and eventually
could be as high as 188,000 MW-mi.Clearly,even a compensated
138 kv system of several lines would be inadequate and uneconomical.
Under the same stability criteria,a single circuit,uncompensated
230 kv transmission line has a capability of about 29,300 MW-mi.
A 345 kv duplex system carries 82,000 MW-mi.A 500 kv line is capable
of 186,000 MW-mi.,which is too large to apply to the Susitna Project.
The voltage alternatives therefore are bracketed by the standard 230
kv and 345 kv systems.
Conductors chosen for use in this study have not been subjected to detailed
economic evaluation.The 1272 MCM applied to the 230 kv option is
often used for that voltage but seldom is it exceeded.The 345 kv 954 MCM
duplex conductor has been used extensively.Thermal constraints necessitate
larger conductors with larger kv systems.The carrying capacity of
the 345 kv transmission voltage can be accommodated by a simplex conductor,
and there are many such in the U.S.However,the conductor size approaches
an unwieldy diameter.Duplex bundling widely used in 345 kv systems
reduces the diameter,retains thermal capacity,and increases stability
limi t.Higher voltages also produce more corona phenomena.This is
1/Would be 50%greater for two single circuit lines on adjacent
righ ts-of-way .
Appendix I
H-39
Appendix I
H-40
relieved somewhat by larger conductors.The 954 MCl-/duplex conductor
approximates an average among all these factors for use in feasibility
studies.
DC options were considered only briefly.Operating characteristics
made DC systems inappropriate for a first major Railbelt intertie.
The line lengths between the Project and the Anchorage and Fairbanks
areas are 136 and 212 miles,respectively.It is generally considered
that DC economics would not be attractive at these relatively short
transmission distances.
Table 7 summarizes a comparison of 230 kv and 345 kv systems for
the alternative hydro development systems.On the basis of this compari-
son,a 230 kv transmission plan was selected for System #1 with two
circuits to Anchorage and a single circuit to Fairbanks.For Systems #2,
#3,#4 and #5,two 345 kv circuits would be needed between Devil
Canyon and Anchorage,and two 230 kv circuits between Devil Canyon
and Fairbanks.
The assumed transmission system layout is indicated on Figure 10.
The main lines go from the Devil Canyon switch yard to substations
at Point MacKenzie and Ester-Gold Hill.Systems #2,#3,and #5 have
a switchyard at Watana and two 230 kv circuits from Watana to the
Devil Canyon switchyarc:1.System #4 has a similar switchyard at
Vee and two 230 kv circuits from Vee to Watana.
All transmission plans are relatively simple,radial systems that have
distances,voltages,and loads well within experience of existing systems
in the South 48.Hand studies were used to determine required compensation
and system losses and to check for voltage drop and stability.
Table 8 summarizes line characteristics and system losses for the
transmission systems.The 230 kv line from Devil Canyon to Fairbanks
in System #1 appears to be close to stability limits.All of the double
circuit lines could provide considerable additional capacity by adding
series compensation.
Substations and Switchyards
The transmission studies included switch yard and substation design,
layouts,and cost estimates.Switch yard and substation designs assumed
the nominal "breaker and one-half"scheme.Each line and transformer
is protected by one and one-half circuit breakers.This is a compromise
between the cost of a "two-breaker"plan and the reduction in reliability
inherent in a "one-breaker"scheme.Figure 11 indicates substation
layouts at the load center and switchyard layouts at powerplants .
Comparisonof230and345KVSystemsLine(PheasantConductor):204036,60048,800AlternativeSystemandInstalledCapacityAnchorageLine(136mi.)CapabilityRequirement(MW-mi.)230kvCompensatedTransmissionCompensation(%)MaximumCapability(MW-mi.)(percircuit)NumberofCircuitsRequiredPowerLoss(%)#1(580MW)70,00024.8#2(1070MW)140,00036.5#3(l370MW)164,0005058,60037.7#4(1434MW)164,0005058,60037.7#5(15681lW)164,0005058,60037.7Line(RailConductor):82,200 82,200345kvDuplexUncompensatedTransmissionMaximumCapability(MW-mi.)82,200(percircuit)NumberofCircuitsRequired1PowerLoss(%)2.922.923.582,20023.582,20023.5Line)PheasantConductor):51255,00033,300FairbanksLine(198mi.)CapabilityRequirement(MW-mi.)230kvCompensatedTransmissionCompensation(%)MaximumCapability(MW-mi.)(percircuit)NumberofCircuitsRequiredPowerLoss(%)50,0001760,00024.660,0001233,30024.660,0001233,30024.660,0001233,30024.6Line(RailConductor):82,200 82,200:J:-i»I:x:-"'O~c;o"'O......rro(Tl:::lc..:::I:......IX"-..l345kvDuplexUncompensatedTransmissionMaximumCapability(MW-mi.)82,200(percircuit)NumberofCircuitsRequired1PowerLoss(%)2.312.712.782,20012.782,20012.7
100Mil••o 50
U.S.DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
ALASKA POWER ADMINISTRATION
UPPER SUSITNA RIVER PROJECT
TRANSMISSION SYSTEM LAYOUT
SYSTEM IAppendixI
FIGURE H-IO-l.
H-42
U.S.DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
ALASKA POWER ADMINISTRATION
UPPER SUSITNA RIVER PROJECT
TRANSMISSION SYSTEM LAYOUT
SYSTEMS 2,3,84
SCALE
~~------=-...--2
o 50 100Mil••
Appendix I
'FIGURE H-IO-2
H-43
:I:-l:J::>I:J::>"O~t::C"O~rCl>m::l0-:I:......IXCOTransmissionLineCharacteristicsTransmissionDataForAlternativeSystemsSystem System SystemSystem#1#2#3#4DevilCanyontoPt,MacKenzie036miles):System#5Numberofcircuits22222Nominallineloading,MW5001,000 1,2001,2001,200Voltage,kv230345345345345Conductor(ACSR)1,272954954954954Losses:PeakMW2428404040Peak%53333EnergyMWH/yr..!/19,10022,70032,70032,700 32,700DevilCanyontoEster-GoldHill098miles):Numberofcircuits12222Nominallineloading,MW250300300300300Voltage,kv230230230230230Conductor(ACSR)1,2721,2721,2721,272 1,272Losses:PeakMW1712121212Peak%74444EnergyMWH/yr..!/13,90010,00010,00010,000 10,000.!/At40%LineLoadingFactor.
(continued)TransmissionDataForAlternativeSystemsSystemSystemSystemSystem#1#2#3#4WatanatoDevilCanyon(30miles):System#5NumberofcircuitsNominallineloading,MWVoltage,kvConductor(ACSR)Losses:PeakMWWatanatoVee(40miles):2222470670721750230230 2302301,2721,2721,2721.272Lessthan2%ofpeak:J:-I~I)::0"0+:=-OJ"OU1rCD1T1~0-:J:....I><CO......NumberofcircuitsNominallineloading,MWVoltage,kvConductor(ACSR)Losses:PeakMWLessthan2%ofpeak23002301,272
SUBSTATION LAYOUT
I.WATANA 230KV SWITCHYARD
c:'---§-/'---§-/~0>.c:c:..
0 OJU>
0
.~en u
'--@--/'--@--/'-@--/..en0_en OJ OJ
o '5 :::I E-
- u
CD ..~
OJ .!::,20c:u en u
~>c:>~~o~-'---@--/'--@--/-0.-0 en _........-[]_/-l:l~~OJ~
.-N .:NEI&.'enN u~
c:0
0 Et=t2.
DEVICE SIZE No.OF UNITS
Circuit Breakers 230 KV 8
Sta.Svc.,Reac.,Capacitor Mach.KV 5%of above
[2.FAIRBANKS 230 KV SUBSTATIONc:
8
.:;
OJ
°en.E·5"'~1------_...I
OJuc:...:=·u
~>._~
l:lo'e~..........,t------......
en'c:Not=
Appendix I
FIGURE H-ll
H-46
Power Transformers
Circuit Breakers
Sta.Svc.,Reac.,Capacitors
230/138 KV-200MVA-30
230 KV
Tertiary KV
2-30 Units
6
5%of above
3.DEVIL CANYON SWITCHYARD-c
':;C
'---@I---/'---@}--/C eno~--c·-~·u ~a61>o.~.!:~~-u-0 m 61>Crt')-~'--@}--/.!:~.!:!N en
-;;0en'JenN ort')'E en '-N>en.en oK ~>.!!!NccCc0~E
~~0 en
rt')C...rt')~;f N N
vJw 2-400 MVA BankWvv
IV\('A 230/345 KV IV\('A
...t6I~Clu ene·~~en
Ou m ~
"5~m
c lO
'In ~«~
DEVICE
Power Transformers
Circuit Breakers
Sta.Svc.,Reac.,Capacitors
SIZE
2-400 MVA Bks.230/345 KV
230 KV-345 KV
Tertiary KV
No.OF UNITS
7-10 Units (133.3 MVA ea.)
6-230 KV,3-345 KV
5%of above
4.ANCHORAGE 345 KV SUBSTATION
_en._-
~.~'--@--/
o'u->-+-----_..........~~en
=10 ~c~m
ort').s:::.'--@--/'cnN ~CB
.!!?-z
E c_+------..........en O
c>.
C C
~8
Power Transformers
Circuit Breakers
Sta.Svc.,Reac.,capacitors
750 MVA Bks.-345/230 KV
345 KV
Tertiary KV
7-10 Units (250 MVA eo)
6
5%of above
Note:Single-phase (10)transformers are connected 3 per 30 bank with 10 spare
per switchyard or substation.
Ap:Jendix I
FIGuRE H-ll
d-47
Appendix I
H-48
In addition to the breakers,each end of the transmission line has
transformers,bus work,and,where pertinent,reactors and capacitors.
Transformers were provided between transmission voltages.
Power Flow Studies
As stated previously,hand studies were used to determine transmission
system design parameters and losses.Several computer runs were
made at the Bonneville Power Administration to check basic system
performance under load and with assumed outages.The computer
studies confirm that the system design assumptions are adequate for
feasibility study purpose,that is,to provide an adequate basis for
determining physical and financial feasibility of the system.The
more detailed studies for actual design would include the full range
of systems analysis appropriate for a major new power system.
Reliability
The preliminary transmission evaluations assumed multiple circui t
configuration;substations,and switchyards use the "breaker and
one-half"scheme.The various systems assume two circuits on a
single tower except for a single circuit 230 kv line to Fairbanks in
System #1.Tower designs are free-standing,steel with NESC "heavy"
loading for the low-level portions of the corridors,and an additional
safety factor for rugged terrain and mountain passes.
There have been no specific studies of system reliability.Based on
experience elsewhere,the double circuit lines would have very high
reliability.They would be vulnerable to outages due either to tower
failure (landslides,etc.)or to a failure caused by interference with
both circuits (such as an aircraft accident).
The next higher level of reliability would be to utilize two single-circuit
lines.If these were in close proximity to each other,they could utilize
the same access facilities.Right-of-way and clearing requirements
would increase.
Some further reduction in vulnerability to serious outages would be
obtained by parallel or looped lines in separate rights-of-way.
During review of the preliminary studies by the Bonneville Power
Administration and area utilities,strong preference was indicated
for placing each circuit on a separate set of towers.The reviewers
felt the added reliability of such a plan would justify the additional
costs .
Right-of-Way
Estimated width and area of rights-of-way are as follows:
Line
230 kv,single or double circuit
2-230 kv,adjacent ROW
345 kv,single or double circuit
2-345 kv,adjacent ROW
ROW Width
125
190
140
210
Acres Per Mile
15.2
22.8
17.0
25.5
Over most of the route,the normal ROW width would be adequate for both
the lines and the access facilities.
Detailed analysis of land ownership would be needed as a part
of final route selection.It is anticipated that some private lands will
be crossed and that easements would be obtained (rather than purchased
in fee).Where the lines are on public land,it is assumed that ROW
can be obtained without cost to the project.The estimates include
an allowance of $700 per acre for easements on portions of the lines
which are assumed to involve private lands.On the basis of judgment
evaluation of broad land ownership patterns for each corridor segment,
approximately 75 miles along the Devil Canyon to Fairbanks and 89 miles
along the Devil Canyon to Point MacKenzie route may require easements.
Clearing
Heavily forested areas in the Susitna and Tanana Valleys would require
essentially continuous clearing.However,tree size varies from small
to medium and clearing operations are not particularly difficult.
Based on USGS maps with vegetation overprint and Forest Service
maps showing timber types,approximately 231 miles of line under
System #1 and 261 miles for System #2,#3,#4,and #5 would require
essentially continuous clearing.A unit cost of $500 per acre for clearing
was assumed,based on recent highway construction bids.Acreage
for clearing were premised on 4.6 acres per mile for the 230 kv lines
and 5.1 for the 345 kv lines.
The remaining portions of the lines would involve only nominal clearing
of occasional small trees and some brush removal.
Access Roads
Since the preferred corridor is in close proximity to existing surface
transportation,requirements for new access roads are minimal.Where
soils and topography are favorable,a primitive access road suitable Appendix I
H-49
Appendix I
H-50
for four-wheel dri ve vehicles is assumed.Such access roads would
consist of little more than a trail along the right-of-way with occasional
cross drainage structures and small amounts of gravel fill.Access
to existing roads would be provided periodically.No major stream
crossings would be involved.These rudimentary roads would be
used in both the construction and operation and maintenance phases.
Between Gold Creek and the project powerplants,it is assumed that
the access roads built for dam construction would be adequate for
transmission access.
For the remainder of the line,an estimated 219 miles is suitable for
four-wheel drive access roads.The estimates include $50,000 per
mile for roads.
From Gold Creek to Cantwell and Healy,terrain,vegetation,and soils
do not favor use of the primitive access roads.It is assumed that
no new roads would be provided for this line segment.For this portion
of the line,access would be limi ted to helicopter and winter over-snow
vehicles for construction and operation and maintenance.Significant
portions of the existing GVEA and CEA transmission systems have
been built and operated in this manner.
Structural Design
Wind and Ice Loading
There is not a great deal of hard data on wind and icing extremes
for the selected corridors.However,there is a sufficient experience
base to establish that wind and ice conditions should not be unusually
severe.
Existing transmission lines in the Matanuska-Susitna Valleys and from
Healy to Fairbanks have not experienced any unusual icing problems.
Hoarfrost is a fairly common experience in winter,but not a problem
for HV lines.Climate and topography generally do not favor formation
of heavy glaze or rime ice--during most of the year it is either too
hot,too cold or too dry for heavy icing to occur.
This is markedly different from condi tions in some mountainous areas
along the Gulf of Alaska where temperature and moisture condi tions
favorable to heavy icing are quite common.
Key stations for wind data are at Anchorage,Talkeetna,Summit,Nenana,
and Fairbanks.All of these stations have fairly lengthy records of wind
observations;none have recorded unusually severe winds.The available
recorded data is on the basis of fastest mile,so actual peak gusts would be
higher.
Period Maximum Source
of Wind Recorded (all from National
Station Record MPH Weather Service)
Anchorage 1914-1974 61 1974 Annual Station Summary
Talkeetna 1940-1974 38 1974 Annual Station Summary
Summit 1941-1974 48 1974 " "
"
Nenana 1949-1967 less than 40 NWS Uniform Summary,Part C
Fairbanks 1929-1974 40 1974 Annual Station Summary
It is known that more severe winds occur through the Nenana Canyon.
During initial operations of the Healy-Fairbanks 138 kv line,3 towers
in the immediate vicinity of Healy were lost due to high winds.The
problem area is right at the mouth of Nenana Canyon.The Alaska State
Highway Department operated an anemometer at the Moody Bridge site in
Nenana Canyon for a short period during construction of the Anchorage-
Fairbanks Highway.1·1aximum recorded wind was 62 MPH,and a more
severe wind storm was observed during a period when the recorder
was not operating.Y
The basic transmission cost data for this study are premised on the
Bonneville Power Administration designs for National Electric Safety Code
Heaving Loading assurnptions--4 pound wind concurrent wi th -J,"radial
ice or an alternative 8 pound wind loading.The NESC loading assumption
is consistent with normal utility practice for this area and is considered
adequate for the portions of the line from Talkeetna to Anchorage and
from Healy to Fairbanks.
It is expected that more severe wind load criteria would be appropriate
for portions of the line through the Broad Pass area and the Nenana
Canyon.A more detailed study of climate conditions for these
corridor segments,including collecting additional wind data,would
be needed along with the detailed design studies.This study makes
allowance for more severe wind conditions in these areas by increasing
tower steel 10 percent.
1/Communication from Alaska Department of Highways,June 1975.Appendix I
H-51
Appendix I
H-52
Very severe icing is not considered likely based on the topography
and climate data,comparatively low elevations through the Alaska
Range,and absence of reports of severe icing.The available data
also indicates possibilities are remote for simultaneous occurrence
of maximum wind and maximum icing.A summary of data for the
station at Summi t follows.Heaviest winds occur from November
to March when air temperatures are well below freezing.
Snow
Available snow depth data from Soil Conservation Service Snow Survey
publications were reviewed prirr;arily to determine if there were any
areas along the corridor where snow depths are large enough to affect
tower designs.
Standard tower designs assumed for this study are generally adequate
to handle snow depths up to 10 feet.For areas of larger snow accumulation,
added tower heigh t would be needed to obtain nec~ssary clearance.
This is often handled by adding "snow legs"to standard tower designs.
Based on the snow data,maximum snow accumulation well under 10
feet is expected over the entire route,except for occasional areas
subject to drifting.The snow depthwill not likely affect transmission
designs and costs significantly.
Tower Design
The cost estimates are premised on free-standing,steel-lattice towers.
This assumption reflects fully-proven technology for which there is a
good experience base in costing and construction methods.
The final designs would consider several alternative designs and may
result in selecting guyed towers for portions of the line and use of
special tower designs in areas where the lines are most visible.
Figure 12 indicates representative sizes and shapes for several 230 kv
towers;345 kv towers are somewhat larger because phase to phase and
phase to ground clearances must be 8 to 10 feet greater than for
230 kv.
Foundations
Available soils and foundation data include:detailed soil surveys from
the Soil Conservation Service for part of the lower Susitna Valley and
the immediate Fairbanks area;general geologic and permafrost maps from
the USGS;1:250 ,000 scale reconnaissance level interpretation of soil
types prepared by the Resources Planning Team of the Land Use Planning
Commission;and data from route studies for existing transmission lines
and highways.The environmental assessment includes a regional perma-
frost map and strip maps showing general soil types for the corridors.
Temperature,Precipitation,and Wind for Summit
0 Mean Wind Speed,MPHAverageTemperature,F
Mean Maximum Minimum Precip.
Month Month Month Inches Mean Fastest Mile
Jan.0.8 7.3 -5.7 0.9 15.1 44
Feb.6.3 13.0 -0.5 1.17 11.9 46
Mar.10.4 18.7 2.0 1.01 11.0 48
Apr.23.4 32.7 14.0 0.64 7.6 33
May 37.4 45.6 29.1 0.72 7.7 28
June 48.8 57.9 39.7 2.18 8.3 29
July 52.1 60.3 43.9 2.98 7.8 30
Aug.48.7 56.1 41.2 3.25 7.4 26
Sept.39.8 47.1 32.5 2.75 7.5 37
Oct.23.7 30.1 17 .2 1.62 8.0 35
Nov.9.5 15.5 3.5 1.23 11.3 39
Dec.3.0 9.3 -3.3 1.17 12.7 44
Appendix I
TABLE H-9
H-53
:I:"'T1)::oI.....':ID<J1G')"'O+:>cro;;O~IT1c........:I:XI::::;.....--------------------------------------------------------------------------..,1I..~('~~j\A1/~\\I/'---~.,_.._------------_.,--r-I31'\-I-CDm___~}L__SINGLECIRCUITSINCLECiRCUITFLATCONFIGURATIONDELTACONFIGURATIONFREE-STANDINGTOWERS-cor--r------54'.------IT,-I!V'"•"\ J_____----.L_GUYEDTOWERS'",.II.~~-4L..-i~L_.\;'1!\\/,\ \If\\II\VI--,]-.--------------S!NG~.ECIRCUiTFLATCONFIGURATION~:--::~-'---_.--------!y~---i\:r-~:~".;/1\"/(I~:'~'/r""\\//\\//\\II\~.-.LJ!\\______~_LSINGLEClhc.d:T~LATCONFIGURATIONDOUBLECIRCUITSTACKCONFiGURATIONNOTESmLJCTJRESDEPIC:[C"flRF:DE.SiGtJEDFOR230I"~.UNITEDSTATESDEcPArifMHIT(JTHEINTERIO~","AS>(/lP~'WEP./lDM'~<I'5TI'ATIONALTERNATIVETRANSMISSIONLINESTRUCTURESAP."-JA."'UAR:"d~
<0t-I-CDC1>SINGLECIRCUITDELTACONFIGURATIONGUYEDTOWER1--5@'~-fP=TJ==iIJIf!11II-<DIiI~SINGLECIRCUITMETALH-FRAMESTRUCTUREr-40'~rOMQI-0J ""SINGLECIRCUITMETALH-FRAMESTRUCTURE1-'56'•.:-~'....1.ii/"II~1l!\[;11!f.X__~__1(-------.l.L--\1I__SINGLECIRCUITWOODH-FRAMESTRUCTURESING.LECIRCUITWOODH-FRAMESTRUCTURE.NOTESTRUCTURESDEPICTEDAREDESIGNEDFOR230KV.UNIlEDSTATESDEPARTMENTOFTHEINTERIORALASKAPOWERADMINISTRATIONALTERNATIVETRANSMISSIONLINESTRUCTURES::I:"T1)::oI....."'C~~~APA-JANCIARY1975,;o::::lrna......::I:><I...........N
Appendix I
H-56
Areas of muskeg,frost susceptible soils.and permafrost will require
careful foundation design.It is estimated that up to about 30 percent
of the line would require foundations designed specifically to accommodate
these conditions.Experience suggests that such special designs would
not involve major increased costs for the line.
A number of different design approaches have been used.Portions
of existing CVEA lines through muskeg areas that have considerable
frost action have used guyed towers set on steel pile foundations.
The GVEA Healy-Fairbanks line crosses some very sensitive permafrost
areas.It also uses guyed towers,but the foundation is a single pedestal.
A further option would be use of thermal pilings to keep foundations
in a frozen state.
Transmission lines for Canada's Nelson River Project use free standing
towers with footings set on a grillage foundation to cross permafrost
and muskeg.This technique involves setting a grillage of steel or
timber below the active frost zone for the foundation.The estimates
for this report are premised on use of the grillage foundations.
This is a conservative assumption since much of the route will undoubtably
be suitable for normal tower foundations --concrete footings under
each tower leg.Foundation considerations will of course be a major
consideration in the detailed route and design studies.following author-
ization.
Transmission Cost Estimates
This section summarizes the transmission system cost estimates.
The basic estimates are pren1ised on cost experiences of the Bonneville
Power Administration with adjustments to reflect Alaska construction
costs and January 1975 price levels.As noted previously.costs for
rights-of-way.clearing.and access were estimated separately.
The first set of estimates were prepared to allow comparison of the
several alternative hydro development plans and were used in the
Corps of Engineers scoping analysis.
Further studies were made on alternative transmission plans for the
proposed initial development plan (Watana and Devil Canyon)resulting
in the transmission plan and estimate included in the project proposal.
Alaska Cost Factors
The basic cost data from BPA reflects Pacific Northwest conditions.
Alaska construction would involve substantially higher labor costs
and additional transportation costs to deliver materials fabricated
in the South \148\1 to Alaskan construction sites.
AP A derives"Alaska factors \I of 1.9 for labor and 1.1 for added transport-
ation.The BPA data were separated into components of labor and materials
and the appropriate factors were applied to estimate Alaska costs.
The 1.9 labor cost factor is premised on a comparison of wage and
fringe benefits data under recent IBEW contracts for the Anchorage
and Portland areas with appropriate allowances for overtime and subsistance
pay for remote work in Alaska.
The 1.1 transportation cost factor is premised on current barge and
rail tariffs between Seattle and various points along the Alaska Railroad,
with an allowance for loading and unloading.
Transmission Line Costs
Typical mile costs for constructing transmission lines were furnished
by the Bonneville Power Administration.These costs were itemized
by major components and portions of costs for labor and material.
APA adjusted these costs with the Alaska factors for labor and transport-
ation derived above.The estimates are summarized on Table 10.
The BPA typical mile costs were premised on January 1974 price
levels and APA made adjustments to January 1975 prices.Based
on advice from BPA personnel,tower steel costs were increased
from $450 to $800 per ton.Other basic cost items were updated
using USBR indexes.
The estimates include allowances for:handling and storage of materials;
contingencies and unlisted items;and overhead items.The allowance for
handling and storage is 15%of tower steel costs plus 10%of other material
costs.There is a 25%allowance for contingencies and unlisted items such as
communications equipment and series compensation.The 20%overhead
item includes surveys,designs,inspection,and contract administration.
Appendix I
H-57
Typical Mile Transmission Line Costs
230 kv
Single
Circuit
Labor Materials
230 kv
Double
Circuit
Labor Materials
345 kv
Double
Circuit
Labor Materials
January 1974 Costs,$1,000
Tower Steel 13.18 13.95 22.95 24.30 42.71 45.23
Conductors 10.49 13.73 16.26 27.47 18.31 37.48
Hardware &
Accessories .82 1.64 4.00
Insul2.tors 1.14 2.28 4.21
Miscellaneous 4.41 3.58 4.41 5.05 4.41 9.24
Subtotal
(Pacific NW)28.08 33.22 43.62 60.74 65.43 100.16
January 1975 Costs,$1,000 1/
Tower Steel 16.74 24.83 29.15 43.25 54.24 80.51
Conductors 13.32 17.44 20.65 34.89 23.25 47.60
Hardware &
Accessories 1.04 2.08 5.08
Insulators 1.45 2.90 5.35
Mis cellaneous 5.60 4.55 5.60 6.41 5.60 11.73
Subtotal
(Pacific NW)35.66 49.31 55.40 89.53 83.09 150.27
Alaska Factor 1.9 1.1 1.9 1.1 1.9 1.1
Alaska Cost 67.75 54.24 105.26 98.48 157.87 165.30
Subtotal 121.99 203.74 323.17
Handling &2/
9.52 16.99 29.81Storage-
Subtotal 131.51 220.73 352.98
Contingencies &
Unlisted Items (25%)32.88 55.18 88.25
Subtotal 164.39 275.91 441.23
Admin.overhead,
survey,design
&inspection (20%)32.88 55.18 88.25
Total Alaska Con-
struction Cost 197.27 331.09 529.48
Rounded 200 330 530
1/
Appendix I
TABLE H-I0 2/
H-58 -
Cost increase reflect following assumption:
Tower Steel:Jan 1975 $800/ton =1.78
Jan 1974 $450/ton
Other items based on USBR transmission cost index:
Jan 1975 1.87 _27-1.Jan 1974 1.47
15%of tower steel cost plus 10%of other materials costs.
Typical Mile Transmission Line Costs -cont.
345 kv
Single
Circuit
Labor Materials
January 1974 Costs,$1,000
Tower Steel
Conductors
Hardware &
Accessories
Insulators
Mis cellaneous
Subtotal
(Pacific NW)
26.35 27.90
11.81 18.74
2.00
2.10
4.41 5.95
42.57 56.69
January 1975 Costs,$1,000 1/
Tower Steel
Conductors
Hardware &
Accessories
Insulators
Mis cellaneous
Subtotal
(Pacific NW)
Alaska Factor
Alaska Cost
Subtotal
Handling &
Storage Y
Subtotal
Contingencies &
Unlisted Items (25%)
Subtotal
Admin.overhead,
survey,design
&inspection(20%)
Total Alaska Con-
struction Cost
Rounded
33.46
15.00
5.60
54.06
1.9
102.71
197.57
17.67
215.24
53.81
269.05
53.81
322.86
320.00
49.60
23.80
2.54
2.70
7.60
86.24
1.1
94.86
Appendix I
TABLE H-I0
H-59
cost index:Other items
Cost increase
Tower Steel:
reflect following assumption:
Jan 1975 $800/ton
Jan 1974 $450/ton =1.7 8
based on USBR transmission
Jan 1975 1.87
Jan 1974 1.47 =1.27
15%of tower steel cost plus 10%of other materials costs.
1/
2/
Appendix I
H-60
As noted previously,tower steel was increased 10%above that for
the typical mile costs for portions of the line in higher elevations through
the Alaska Range.
Switchyard and Substation Costs
Table 11 shows sample computations of switchyard and substation costs.
These were estimated using basic cost data for major equipment items
from Bonneville Power Administration's "Substation Design Estimating
Catalog'!with price levels of January 1975.The major cost items are
the transformers and circuit breakers.As in the transmission estimates,
costs for the major equipment items were adjusted for Alaska labor
and transportation costs.Additional allowances were made for:handling
and storage (15%of material cost);contingencies and unlisted items
(25%);and overhead (20%).
Costs for individual switchyards and substations were determined
by increasing the major equipment item as derived above by an additional
10%allowance for station service items.
Transmission Maintenance Facilities
The estimates include provision for transmission maintenance headquarters
at roughly the mid-points of the Devil Canyon-Fairbanks and Devil
Canyon-Anchorage lines.Each headquarters would consist of a lineman's
residence.vehicle storage building,warehouse,and fenced storage
yard.
Estimates for Alternative Hydro Development Plans
Table 12 summarizes cost estimates for transmission systems assumed
for the Corps of Engineers scoping analysis of alternative hydro develop-
ment plans.The plans include substations at Fairbanks and Point
MacKenzie with switchyards at each powerplant.Transmission lines
assumed for the scoping analysis are as follows:
System #1 assumes a single circuit 230 kv line from Devil Canyon to
Fairbanks and a double circuit 230 kv line from Devil Canyon to Point
MacKenzie.
The transmission plans in the scoping analysis for systems #2,#3,
and #5 assume a double circuit line from Devil Canyon to Fairbanks,
a 345 kv double circuit line from Devil Canyon to Fairbanks,and a
230 kv double circuit line from Watana to Devil Canyon.System #4
adds a 230 kv double circuit line from Vee to Watana.
Switchyard and Substation Costs
Part I -Sample Calculation,Derivation of Circuit Breaker and Transformer Costs
Equipment Cost ($1,000 -
Power Transformer
345/230 kv
Labor Material
January 1975 Costs)
Circuit Breaker
345 kv
Labor Material
Equipment Cost
Structures &Accessories
Subtotal
Alaska Factor
Alaska Cost
Subtotal
Handling &Storage
(15%of material)
Contingencies and
unlisted items (25%)
Adminis trati ve overhead
and design (20%)
Total,Alaska Construction
Cost
Rounded
11
+5
16
x1.9
30
320
+138
458
x 1.1
504
534
76
+134
+107
851
850
15
+8
23
x1.9
44
265
+138---
403
x 1.1
443
487
66
+122
+97
772
770
Part II -Sample Calculation,Devil Canyon Switchyard
Cons truc tion Cos t
January 1975 Costs
Six -230 kv Circuit breakers 6 x $565,000 =
Six -345 kv Circuit breakers 6 x $770,000 =
Seven -345/230 kv Single phase
transformers 7 x $850,000 =
Subtotal
10%station service,capacitors,reactors
Total Construction Cost
$3,390,000
4,620,000
5,950,000
13,960,000
1,400,000
$15,360,000
Appendix I
TABLE H-ll
H-61
:::I:--f:t:>I:t:>"'CO'lOJ"'CNrrtlrn::l0-:::I:~.1)<....................SwitchyardandSubstationCosts(cont.)PartIII-Summary,System5SwitchyardandSubstationCostsDevilEster-PointIntermediateSwitchingWatanaCanyonGoldHillMacKenzieDel.PointStationSwitchyardSwitchyardSubstationSubstationSubstation(Compensation)CircuitBreakers8@230kv6@230kv6@230kv6@230kv5-345kv6-230kv6@345kv2@138kv2@138kv1-138kvTransformers---7@2@7@4@345/230kv.Y230/138kvY345/138kv.Y345/138kv1/ConstructionCost($I,OOO-January1975)4,97015,3609,15012,4207,8903,720.YSingle-phasetransformers2/Three-phasetransformers
Summary of Transmission System Cost Estimates
Length of line,miles
Portion requiring easements,
miles
Portion requiring clearing,
miles:
Medium-Heavy
None
Access roads,miles:
4-Wheel Drive
None
Tower Construction,miles:
NESC Heavy
Added Steel (Mountains)
Estimates for Scoping Analyses
Clearing
Easements
Access Roads
Transmission Lines
Substations l!r Switchyards
TOTAL
System System System
#1 #2-3-5 #4
334 364 404
164 164 164
231 261 301
103 103 103
219 219 219
115 145 185
195 195 195
139 169 209
Construction Costs ($1,000)
System System System
#1 #2 l!r 3 #4
1,010 1,210 1,210
2,240 2,410 2,410
14,240 14,240 14,240
87,190 151,960 165,700
19,320 41,900 46,870
124,000 211,720 230,430
Estimate for Proposed Plan (System #5)
Construction Costs ($1,000)
Clearing
Easements
Access Roads
Transmission Lines
Substations l!r Switchyards
TOTAL
Rounded
2,430
3,620
14,370
182,100
53,520
256,040
256,000
Appendix I
TABLE H-12
H-63
Transmission Estimates for Proposed Plan
On the basis of reviews of the preliminary designs by area utilities,the
Bonneville Power Administration,and others,further consideration was
given to alternative circuit configuration,alternative service plans for
the Anchorage-Cook Inlet area,and sectionalizing the Devil Canyon
to Fairbanks line.This resulted in the following changes in the
transmission plan adopted for the proposed project:(see Figure 13)
1.Addition of a switching station at the approximate mid-point
of the Devil Canyon-Fairbanks line (this is assumed at Healy and estimated
added costs are $3.7 million).
2.An additional substation in the vicinity of Talkeetna which appears
warranted by the pattern of load development in the MEA system (estimated
added costs of $7.9 million).
3.Including costs for parallel single circuit lines on adjacent
rights-of-way in lieu of the double circuit lines in the preliminary
estimates (added costs of $32.7 million).
With these changes,total construction costs of $256 million are included
in the proposed initial development plan:
Appendix I
H-64
Item
Transmission Lines:
Clearing
Rights-of-Way
Access Roads
Lines
Subtotal,Transmission Line
Switchyard and Substations:
Fairbanks Substation
Talkeetna Substation
Point MacKenzie
Healy Switchyard
Watana Switchyard
Devil Canyon Switchyard
Subtotal,Switchyards and Substations
Total Transmission Costs
Rounded
Construction Cost
$1,000
2,430
3,620
14,370
182,100
$202,520
9,150
7,890
12,420
3,730
4,970
15,360
$53,520
$256,040
$256,000
Appendix I
FIGURE 11-13
H-65
IOOMil••
--==SCALE-----------------------------=--.o 50
U.S.DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
ALASKA POWER ADMINISTRATION
UPPER SUSITNA RIVER PROJECT
TRANSM ISS ION SYSTEM LAYOUT
SYSTEM 5
Appendix I
H-66
Construction Schedule
It is estimated that actual construction of the backbone transmission system
could be accomplished readily over a three-year period.It is assumed that
construction would be keyed to completing the system at the same time
that first generating units come on line.
Other Transmission Alternatives
Service Plans for Anchorage-Cook Inlet Area
It must be anticipated that there will be continuing problems and controversy
as to bulk transmission facili ties in the approaches to Anchorage.Knik
and Turnagain Arms are formidable barriers;the Chugach Range and
existing land use designation and ownership patterns combine to restrict
alternatives for locating lines.Existing underwater cables across Knik
Arm have had serious problems;overhead lines will con tinue to draw
opposition;environmental groups would like to see all new lines underwater
or underground;this technology has some severe problems in reliability
and costs and is particularly vulnerable to extended outage.
The transmission alternatives for this area include the following:
Addi tional underwater cables and locating cables at different
crossing points to reduce hazards of failure.
Cables constructed on a Knik or Turnagain causeway.This would
eliminate much of the hazard to extended outages since cables would be
easily accessible for repairs.
Overhead lines around the two arms.One option is rebuilding
along the Eklutna transmission right-of-way to provide addi tional
capacity .
Overhead lines across shallower portions of Knik and Turnagain
Arms (place tower structures on piers).
Detailed cost estimates for these alternatives were not developed for this
study.The same problems will exist with or without the Susitna Project
since the available power supply alternatives also require lines crossing
or routed around Knik Arm.
The basic cost estimates for the proposed plan assume two single circuit
lines terminating at Point MacKenzie.An alternative estimate was
prepared assuming one line terminating at Point MacKenzie and a second
at the existing APA substation at Palmer.Total costs for the two alternatives
were similar.
It is recognized that the detailed studies following project authorization
will need to include careful study in cooperation with the area utilities
to determine appropriate facilities in a final plan and that such studies
may demonstrate need to include additional capacity to deliver project
power to Anchorage.While the plan advanced in this report is not
intended as a fixed plan,it is considered an adequate basis for determining
merits of the proposed project.
Service to Other Railbelt Power Loads
The total Railbelt power system will include bulk transmission facilities
such as those presented in this report and extensive transn~ission
and distribution systems at lower voltage.The bulk power facilities
do not replace the need for the distribution systems.
For example,the concept of electrifying the Alaska Railroad has been
advanced from time to time.This would require power at distribution
voltage along the railroad right-of-way.The high voltage lines for
the Susitna Project may encourage consideration of Railroad electrification,
but a separate line at lower voltage would be needed to serve the railroad.
Similarly,the proposal of GVEA to extend its 25 kv distribution line
to Mount McKinley Park Headquarters and Cantwell is compatible with
the Susitna plan.Again,the high voltage line does not replace the
need for the distribution facilities--Susitna power would reach Cantwell
through the GVEA distribution system.
As a part of the Susitna studies,very rough costs estimates were
prepared for transmission lines to deliver Susitna power to Glennallen
and other points along the Richardson Highway.These alternatives
are discussed in the Power Market Report.
Appendix I
H-67
SECTION I
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
FOR
TRANSMISSION SYSTEMS
UNITED STATES DEPARTlvIENT OF THE INTERIOR
Alaska Power Administration
Environmental Assessment for
Transmission Systems for
Devil Canyon and other
Potential Units of
The Upper Susitna
River Project
December 1975
--
Contents
Title
Contents
INTRODUCTION
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
THE CORRIDORS
Susitna Corridor
Nenana Corridor
Del ta Corridor
Matanuska Corridor
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF CORRIDORS .
SumJIlary Matrixes
Susitna-l
Nenana-l
Susitna-2
Susitna-3
Susitna-4
Nenana-2
Nenana-3
Nenana-4
Nenana-S
Matanuska-l
Matanuska-2
Delta ....
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF CORRIDORS .
Summary Matrixes ..
Susitna-l .
Nenana-l
Susitna-2
Susitna-3
Susitna-4
Nenana-2
Nenana-3
Nenana-4
Nenana-S
Matanuska-l
Matanuska-2
Delta ...
Comparison of Impacts of Corridors
Page No.
1-1
1-4
1-12
1-12
1-15
1-16
1-16
1-21
1-17
1-21
1-22
1-24
1-25
1-25
1-25
1-26
1-26
1-26
1-27
1-28
1-29
1-,')5
1-31
1-35
1-39
1-44
1-47
I-SO
I-53
I-56
I-S8
1-60
1-63
1-68
1-72
1-76
MlTIGATTON OF HIPACTS .
Soi Is .
Vegetation .
Wildlife .
Existing Developments .
Scenic Quality-Recreation '"
CuI tural Resources .
ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS .
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES OF TIlE
ENVIRONMENT ANn LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITy .
If{REVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMI'J1I.IENTS OF
RESOURCES '"'".
OTHER ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSEU ACTION .
Sharing of Rights-of-Way .
lJnderground Transmission Systems .
Direct Current Transmission ..'".
Alternative System Plans .
Alternative Methods of Construction and Maintenance ..
Al ternati ve Endpoints .
Alternative Local Service .
No Action (non-construction).
ACKNOWLEDGHIENTS .
BIBLIOGRAPHy .
LIST OF TABLES
1-84
1-84
1-87
1-88
1-89
1-89
1-90
1-92
1-96
1-98
1-101
1-101
1-103
1-107
1-108
1-111
1-114
1-116
1-117
1-118
I-J19
Key to Alternative Corridors and Segments 1-14
Corridor Analysis--Project Power to Anchorage/
Cook Inlet..........................................1-77
Corridor Analysis--Project Power to Fairbanks/
Tanana.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-78
Materials and Land Committed..........................1-99
ii
-
LI S1'OF FIGURES
1.The Railbe1t .
2.Alternative Transmission Line Structures .
3.Alternative Transmission Line Structures '"
4.Alternative System Plans .
S.Alternative Transmission Corridors '".
6.Transmission Corridor Segments .
LIST OF EXHIBITS
I-I Physical and Social Characteristics of the Environment
1-2 Strip Maps Covering the Alternative Corridors
1-3 Photographs
1-4 Glossary
iii
Page
T:2
1-6
1 -7
1-10
1-11
1-13
INTRODUCTION
The Transmission System Environmental Assessment for the Upper Susitna
Project is one of three reports produced by the Alaska Power Administration
as supporting studies for investigations by the U.S.Army Corps of
Engineers of hydroelectric development in the Upper Susitna River Basin.
The other two APA reports that complement this Assessment are the
Transmission System Report and the Power Markets Report.Although
there is considerable overlap in these three documents,each of the three
discusses basically different facets in the transmission systems.
The Corps studies considered several alternative hydro development
plans involving four main damsites on the Upper Susitna River above
Gold Creek.Four of these sites were identified in previous Bureau of
Reclamation investigations (Devil Canyon,Watana,Vee and Denali,
as indicated in Figure 1.)The fifth site (High Devil Canyon)is located
between Devil Canyon and Watana and is an alternative for developing
the head in that reach of the river.Based on engineering,cost,and
environmental factors,the Corps proposes an initial development plan
including the Watana and Devil Canyon dam and power plants at each
site.
The transmission system studies for the Upper Susitna River Project are
of preauthorization or feasibility grade.They consist of evaluation of
alternative corridor locations from the viewpoints of engineering,costs,
and environment;reconnaissance studies of transmission systems needed,
for alternative project development plans for use in overall project
formulation studies;consideration of al ternati ve transmission technologies;
and feasibility grade designs and cost estimates for the preferred transmission
plan.These studies deal with general corridor location;the more detailed
studies following project authorization would include final,on-the-ground
route location.
The purpose of a preliminary transmission corridor survey is to eliminate
those which do not appear to be feasible,whether for technical,economic,
or environmental reasons.The preliminary survey then analyzes those
remaining corridors and presents the data on the various alternative
corridors in such a way so that comparisons can be made.At this point,
it is not within the scope of the preliminary survey to show preference
for some corridors over others,only to reject obviously unfeasible ones
and to analyze the feasible ones.Further analysis then provides the
basis for the selection of the preferred system plan.
The width of the corridors is variable.In stretches confined by mountain-
ous terrain,the corridor may be almost as narrow as the final route;in flat
country,the corridor can be several miles wide.Within a given corridor
there can be several feasible routes to be selected from in the final route survey.
Appendix I
I-I
----,-,----
~s~UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
ALASKA POWER ADMINISTRATION
RAILBELT
75
A.PA.-JULY 1975
MAP
50
Scale -Mile$.
25-
THE
Appendix I
FIGURE I-I
1-2
Basicall y,the selection of corridors devolves on the need to transmit
power from a generation site --the Devil Canyon-Watana dam sites --
to two load centers,Anchorage and Fairbanks (See Figure 1).The
load centers are almost equally to the north and south of the LT pper Susitna
complex,and are connected to each other by two basic corridors --
the Anchorage-Fairbanks Highway/Alaska Railroad and the Glenn/Richardson
Highway.The alternatives are all variations upon these two basic corridors,
which are dictated by the topography and climate of the Railbelt area.
Although the most economical transmission corridor is theoretically a
straight line joining generation site and load center,physical and social
factors force deviations from this shortest-distance ideal.Thus,it
can often happen that physical and social factors are in opposition to
economic factors,and a balance has to be found.This striving for a
balance results in alternatives,from which,eventually a most desirable
corridor has to be chosen.
The method of analysis for the alternatives uses the shortest segments
between intersections of al ternati ve corridors as the units of eval uations;
these may vary in length from 15 to over 100 miles.These segments
were evaluated on a set of physical and social criteria,but are not to
be compared to each other.These evaluations are shown in the matrixes
on pages 19-22 and pages 34-37.
Using these segments as basic units in combination,several alternative
corridors can be devised and can then be compared.To save repetition,
segments common to alternative corridors being compared can be omitted
from the comparison.The corridor presented in the Description of
the Proposed Action is that route which produces the minimum adverse
impacts consistent with economic feasibility.
Appendix I
1-3
Appendix I
1-4
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
The proposed action includes the construction and operation of a transmission
system to deliver power generated by dams and powerplants on the Upper
Susitna to the two primary load centers of Anchorage and Fairbanks,and
perhaps other load centers that may prove feasible.The design and
location of this line will provide for the most economical construction
and reliable operation consistent with minimal damage to the environment.
If approved,construction would begin by about 1980.
Besides delivery of power from the Upper Susitna Project.another quite
important function of the transmission line is the interconnection of the
systems presently serving the Anchorage and Fairbanks areas.Inter-
connection will have several results.It will provide increased reliability
for the entire system in that severe shortage or outages in one utility can
then be alleviated by a transfer of power from other utilities.Each utility
will need less reserve capacity and surplus from one part of the system can
offset deficits in another.Communities presently not served by the larger
utilities.or near the fringes of service may benefit from interconnection by
tying into the system,thus allowing them to avoid local generation,which
is usually a more expensive alternative.Interconnection of the Anchorage
and Fairbanks utilities would be a step toward an intertie with Canada and
the Lower 48.with benefits on a larger scale than local interconnection.
This would lead to the most efficient generation and distribution of energy.
resulting in great savings of fossil fuels.
The proposed corridor runs from the Devil Canyon powerhouse west
to Gold Creek.then southwest along the Susitna River and the Alaska
Railroad to Talkeetna.From Talkeetna the corridor follows the east
bank of the Susitna River to the Nancy Lake area and then due south to
Point MacKenzie.The second half of the corridor runs from Gold Creek
north to Chulitna and then parallels the Anchorage-Fairbanks Highway and
the Alaska Railroad through Broad Pass,the Nenana Canyon.and to Healy.
From Healy the corridor will follow the existing GVEA 138 kv transmission
line to the existing substation at Gold Hill to Ester.although the existing
right-of-way may not necessarily be used.The section of corridor from
Devil Canyon to Point MacKenzie is about 140 miles;from Devil Canyon
to Ester is about 200 miles.
The proposed facilities are a double circuit 345 kv transmission line to
Anchorage.a double circuit 230 kv transmission line to Fairbanks.a switch-
yard at each powersite.and the necessary substations to deliver power to
the utility systems.Access road suitable for four-wheel drive vehicles
will follow the right-of-way where feasible.In areas of highly erodable
soils,scenic sensitivity,or vulnerability to impacts stemming from improved
access,these access roads will be omitted.This assessment was premised
upon stacked double circuits,both circuits using the same set of trans-
mission structures.However,reviews by Bonneville Power Administration
and other agencies voiced concern for the reliability of this system,and an
alternative arrangement of circuits studied.
In this arrangement,two single circuit systems parallel each other,not
necessarily along the same right-of-way.This parallel single circuit system
will reduce the probability of a total break in transmissions,but will cost
somewhat more and require more right-of-way and clearing than the stacked
double circuit system.The right-of-way for double and single circuits of
similar voltage is identical;in the case of 345 kv it is 140 feet,for 230 kv it
is 125 feet.A parallel single circuit could require up to twice the right-
of-way area and clearing of a single or double circuit.
The proposed action will include the alternatives of parallel single circuits
and stacked double circuit.Neither system will be exclusive;it is very
possible to use both systems along different stretches of the transmission
line.In the following discussions of impacts,the acreage of right-of-way
and clearing will be premised upon stacked double circuit.
The sequence of final routing and construction follows a general sequence
of final survey to locate towers and clearing widths,clearing and access
construction,erection of towers,stringing,tensioning,and right-of-
way restoration.
The final survey will involve photogrammetric determination of clearing
widths to minimize the amount of clearing;not only is this more economical,
but it also avoids the method of total clearing within set distances from the
center line.Final tower locations are also determined at this time;tower
spacings are usually on the order of four or five per mile,but will be
spaced closer as conditions warrant.
Towers will be either steel or aluminum and of the free-standing type,
although depending upon final design and local conditions,guyed towers
may be used in some areas.The conductors are of aluminum conductor
reinforced with steel.
Appendix I
1-5
"T1:PH"dHCl"d1C:(l)0';>;:1:;3tTl0..~.H><INHSiNGLECIRCUITSINGLECIRCUITFLATCONFIGURATIONDELTACONFIGURATIONFREE-STANDINGTOWERSI•!I•iI.III\:!i-----140'--JT'--IiII:II'00C1>III__J__~---!54'11~1?iSINGLECIRCUITSINGLECIRCUITFLATCONFIGURATIONFLATCONFIGURATIONGUYEDTOWERSTI-~!--1DOUBLECIRCUITSTACKCONFIGURATIONNOTE:STRUCTURESDEPICTEDAREDESIGNEDFOR345KV.230KVSTRUCTURESARESLIGHTLYSMALLER.UNITEDSTATESDEPARTMENTOFTHEINTERIORALASKAPOWERADMIN:STRATIONALTERNATIVETRANSMISSIONLINESTRUCTURESSource'EdisonElectricInstituteA.P.AcJANUARY1975)
"00en140'1fol'71Q"0It><TI~56'T-j:.ll----Co....l'T:I;J>H'1:lHCJ'1:lIC('l)-...);:<::l;:lmO-l-"HXIV-lHSINGLECIRCUITDELTACONFIGURATIONGUYEDTOWER"56'rF~IftTHJ<0....SINGLECIRCUITMETALH-FRAMESTRUCTURESource'EdisonElectricInstituteSINGLECIRCUITMETALH-FRAMESTRUCTURE156'~\~Ii)•<0SINGLECIRCUITWOODH-FRAMESTRUCTURESINGLECIRCUITWOODH-FRAMESTRUCTURENOTE'STRUCTURESDEPICTEDAREDESIGNEDFOR345KV.230KVSTRUCTURESARESLIGHTLYSMALLER.UNITEDSTATESDEPARTMENTOFTHEINTERIORALASKAPOWERADMINISTRATIONALTERNATIVETRANSMISSIONLINESTRUCTURESA.P.A.-JANUARY1975
Appendix I
1-8
Tower designs will be determined in the final design;val"ying conditions
may call for several designs being used.Free standing towers are more
easily constructed on sections with good access roads;guyed towers
are more suitable for helicopter construction.Various guyed and free-
standing tower designs,for single and double circuits,and several
alternate structures for use in lieu of these towers in special circumstances
are shown on Figures 2 and 3.
In heavily forested areas,clearing will be done by brush blades,or rotary
cutters on bulldozers and by hand removal of the cleared area and individual
danger trees outside of the main cleared strip.Danger trees are those trees
that may grown to such a size within five or ten years that they may fall
within a set distance from a conductor or tower.Distance from the center
line,growth rate,and maximum obtainable height will determine danger
trees.Disposal of cleared materials may vary from selling of merchantable
timber to chipping or burning of slash.
There are known and potential archeological and historical sites along the
proposed corridors.To minimize possible vandalism or disturbance,no
sites other than those on the National Register shall be located either on a
map or on the narrative of this assessment.To preserve the integrity of
these known and potential sites,a preconstruction archeological survey
of the corridors will be carried out and the final transmission route will
be adjusted to minimize disruption.Inadvertent discovery of an unsuspected
site at a later stage will entail either the minor relocation of a segment of
the transmission line or the salvage of the site as prescribed by Executive
Order #11593 and P.L.93-291.
In sections where permanent access roads are required,the road will
be built and maintained to a standard suitable for four-wheel vehicles.
Not all sections will have access roads;in critical areas,winter con-
struction,or helicopter construction will be used.
Right-of-way restoration after construction includes removal of temporary
structures and temporary roads,disposal of slash and refuse and revegeta-
tion.In some cases,it may be necessary not only to maintain access roads,
but to upgrade them if it is determined by the State Department of Highways
that such a road would be a suitable addition to the secondary road system.
At each terminus,and at any future taps on the line to serve other communi-
ties,a substation will be required.Basically,a substation is required to
adjust the voltage supplied by the transmission line to match that of the
recipient system.In addition,the substation fulfills a switching function.
At the north terminous of Ester,the existing Gold Hill substation could be
used with appropriate modification.At the south terminus at Point MacKenzie,
the existing underwater cable terminal could be enlarged to accommodate a
substation.If an alternative end point near Palmer is finally selected over
Point MacKenzie,a substation presently serving the APA US kv Eklutna
system could be used.
Along some sections,periodic suppression of tall vegetation will be
necessary.This will be accomplished with manual application of herbi-
cides or hand clearing,or both.Vegetation maintenance will need to be
repeated every five years or longer.
Periodic inspection of the line will be done from the air,complemented
by less frequent inspection from the ground.Inspection will reveal
potential failure of tower components such as vibration dampers,insulators,
and guy lines;condition of tower footings;condition of conductor;presence
of danger trees;and condition of access roads.
Alternative methods of construction and maintenance which were referred
to above,will be discussed in greater detail in the section Alternatives to
the Proposed Action.
The preferred system plan was chosen by Alaska Power Administration
after preliminary study of all feasible corridors joining the Upper Susitna
complex to Anchorage and Fairbanks.The most feasible corridor was
selected on the basis of cost,reliability,and potential environmental
impact;the remaining corridors represent alternatives of varying degrees
of feasibility.
Appendix I
1-9
75 100 125
A.P.A.-Morch 1975
DELTA
CORRIDOR
230 KV
Double Circuit
50
DEVIL CANYON PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE
SYSTEM PLA NS
Scale in miles
STATES OEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
ALASKA POWER AOMINISTRATION
•FAIRBANKS
~345 KV Double Circuit .......
I~MATANUSKA
almer CORRIDOR
230 KV
Double Circuit H Ieoy
NENANA ICORRIDOR
Co",w,II_lU-'De.."
DevilConyon ~,~r'
-"---I Walano ve,e
Appendix I
FIGURE 1-4
1-10
PROPOSED
CORRIDOR_
Ifl.~;i~~'~::-STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
ALASKA POWER ADMINISTRATION
DEVI L CANYON PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE
TRANSMISSION CORRIDORS
Scale in miles
50 75 100 125
A.P.A.-March 1975
Appendix I
FIGURE 1-5
1-11
Appendix I
I-12
THE CORRIDORS
The alternative system plans represent only general corridors,and do
not attempt to define an actual right-of-way.Thus the alternatives do
not distinguish among many minor variations,and as a result,are fairly
flexible.
Four alternative dam systems for the Upper Susitna are outlined in the
Transmission Systems Report,and two alternative transmission systems to
connect them with Anchorage and Fairbanks.Details of the alternative
dam systems will be found on Table 1 of the Transmission SystelT's Report.
For three of these alternative systems--one of which is the Devil Canyon-
Watana System proposed by the Corps of Engineers--the transmission
system will consist of the proposed 345 kv double circuit to Anchorage
and the 230 kv double circuit to Fairbanks.For the fourth dam system,
a 230 kv double circuit to Anchorage and a 230 kv single circuit to
Fairbanks will be used.
These two alternative designs in conjunction with the alternative
transmission corridors,constitute the alternative system plans.The
degree of environmental impact is more dependent upon the alternative
corridor and,to a lesser degree,upon the voltage;the number of circuits
affects environmental impacts least.
The width of the corridors is variable.In stretches confined by
mountainous terrain,the corridor may be almost as narrow as the final
route;in flat country.the corridor can be several miles wide.Within
a given corridor,there can be several feasible routes to be selected
from the final route survey.
There are four groups of alternatives:first,those that lead from
Devil Canyon-Watana to Anchorage via the Susitna watershed;second,
those that lead to Fairbanks via the Nenana and Tanana drainage;third,
those that lead to Fairbanks via the Delta and Tanana drainages;and
fourth,those that lead to Anchorage via the Copper and I\1atanuska drainages
(see Figures 4 and 5,and Strip Maps in Exhibit I-2).
Susitna Corridors
There are basically four feasible corridors which connect Devil Canyon
to Anchorage via the Susitna drainage.All four of these incorporate
the segment that runs from the endpoints of Point MacKenzie to Talkeetna,
so this segment can,therefore,be treated as separate and not included
in a comparison of the alternati ve corridors.
J!!:;~:~~STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
ALASKA POWER ADMINISTRATION
DEVIL CANYON PROJECT
TRANSM I SSION
CORRIDOR SEGMENTS
Scale in miles
50 75 100 125
A.P.A.-March 1975
Appendix I
FIGURE 1-6
1-13
Key to Alternative Corridors and Segments
Corridor
Susitna #1
Susitna #2
Susitna #3
Susitna #4
Matanuska #1
Matanuska #2
Segments
of Corridor
Susitna Corridors
1,3,7
1,2,7
1,4,5
1,4,6,8
Matanuska Corridors
8,9,20,22
8,9,18,21,22
Nenana Corridors
Approximate
Total Mileage
136
140
129
147
258
385
Appendix 1
1-14
Nenana #1 7,10,13,16 198
Nenana #2 7,10,12,14,17 220
Nenana #3 7,10,12,14,15,16 231
Nenana #4 8,9,11,14,15,16 223
Nenana #5 8,9,11,14,17 212
Delta Corridor
Delta #1 8,9,18,19 280
Of the four corridors that run £l'om Talkeetna to Devil Canyon-VJatana,
the first is the southern half of the proposed corridor,which follows
the Susitna valley north.paralleling the Alask L1.Railroad to Gold Creek,
where it also leads east to tie into Devil C'anyon-Watana (Susitna-l,in
Figure 5).
The next,and farthest west parallels the Anchorage-Fairbanks Highway
through Denali State Park,along Troublesome Creek.eventually leadir..g
east to tie into Gold Creek and Devil Canyon-\'Vatana (Susitna-2).The
third goes up the Talkeetna River and gaining the ridge to the east of
Disappointment Creek,leads north to the ridge leading to Devil Canyon
(Susitna-'3).
The fourth and most easterly corridor follows the Talkeetna Ri vcr to
Prairie Creek.which it follows to Stephan Lake,halfway betvieen Devil
Canyon and Watana (Susitna-4).
Nenana Corri.dors
There are five feasible corridors connecting th~'Upper Susitna with
Fairbanks by way of the Nenana River.The first is a corridor paralleling
the highway and railroad frorr Gold Creek to Cantwell,to Healy,and to
Fairbanks.This is the northern half of the preferred corridor (Nenana-
1,in Figure 5).
The second duplicates the first corridor to CanN/ell,but then leads
east paralleling the Denali Highway.north up as far as Wells Creek and
over the pass to Louis Creek,continuing ever the Dean Creek Pass to the
Wood River.It then follows the \!Ilood and Tanana Rivers to Fairbanks
(Nenana-2).
The third corridor,(Nenana-3),duplicates the second to Dean Creek,
where it then continues up Yanert Fork and over Moody Pass,ending up at
Healy and joining the firs t corridor.
Corridor four (Nenana-4)leaves Watana and heads north.emerging onto
the Denali HIghway near the Brushkana River.It then leads west,goes
up Wells Creek,and joins corridor three to Healy and Fairbanks.
Corridor five starts the same way as corridor four,except that instead
of going over 1\100dy Pass to Healy,it leads east over Dean Creek into
the Wood River,and then leads north to Fairbanks.(Nenana-5).
Appendix I
I-IS
Appendix I
1-16
Delta Corridor
There is only one basically feasible corridor along the I'elta Pi VE~r.
This corridor leaves Watana damsite and leads east down Butte Creek to
the Denali damsite and continues east along the Denali Highwvy.It then
proceeds north near Paxson over Isabel Pass and par<lllels the Richardson
Highway into Fairbanks.
!l-latanuska Corridors
There are two corridors utilizing the Matanuska Valley as access to
AnchOl-age.The first follows the Delta route to Paxson.then leads
south to Glennallen.It then goes west,over Tahneta Pass,and into the
Matanuska Valley,tying into Point MacKenzie.
The second corridor connects Watana to Vee dan~site,leads southeast to
the Little Nelchina River,which it follows to the Glenn Highway and
corridor one,which it follows to Point ~facKerzie.
Corridor Segments
In order to more easily assess environmental impacts of a transmission
line on these corridors,they are reduced to smallf'!"uni is,or corridor
segments.A segment is thus that part of a corridor,either between two
intersections with other corridors,or beN/pen an intersection and one
of the endpoints near Anchorage or Fairbanks.The length of a segment
is not standard,nor is the length set by any physical criteria.These
segments aTe the minimum number of uni ts that can be combined to form
the previously described alternative corridors (see Figure 6).
Assessment of the existing environment and of impacts of a transmission
corridor will be done on the segment level.As a convenience,these
assessments will be summarized in matrix form,differentiated as to
environmental inventory and asseSSITJcnt of impacts.The Susitna 2nd
Nenana corridors will each have separate matrixes;the Matanuska and
Delta corridors will be combined because of the fewer number of alternatives.
Segments are labelled in two ways;the first is a nodal label,in which
the nodes identify the segment (e.g.Wells Creek-Dean ered:),the second
is an assigned number which corresponds to a key map.Both labels arc
used on the matrix.Matrixes will be found on pp.18-20 and pp.32-34.
Matrixes for Inventory of Corridor Segments:
The following matrixes are for inventory of the environment by nine
categories.The definitions of the categories and general information
are given in the Exhibit 1-L The process from which the 22 corridor
segments are derived is explained on pages 15 -20.
Due to the problems attendant to reducing such large amounts of information
to such a constrained format,it would appear that some of the categories
are not treated on the same level of detail as oth~rs.Specifically,climate,
which is of greater concern from the design than the environmental
stand point,and thus is relatively lightly treated in this Environmental
Assessment.Only data that was found by searching the literature was
entered.Thus,for example,caribou may be found in a segment although
no mention of it is made in the matrix.One advantage to the matrix
system of presentation is that it is easily updated;thus,discrepancies
brought to our attention can easily be changed.
The constraints of this format also oblige the use of abreviations;MMCPM
zone stands for the Mount McKinley Cooperative Planning and Management
zone,GVEA refers to the Golden Valley Electric Association,MEA refers
to the Matanuska Electric Association,and the ARR is the Alaska Railroad.
The land status entries are based upon the land status situation of March 1974.
State selections refer to not only patented,but also all pending and tentatively
approved State selections.Native village deficiencies and regional
deficiencies (NVD and NRD)will perhaps be the most unstable areas
at present,so it is quite likely that the entries regarding these lands
may not be presently valid.
Appendix I
1-17
ExhibitI-IThefollowingappendixwilldiscussgeneralcharacteristicsofthephysicalandsocialcategoriesusedintheassessmentoftheproposedcorridorsandtheiralternatives.Bothadefinitionordescriptionofthecategoryandadescriptionofpotentialimpactsinthesecategoriesfromatransmissionlinecorridorwillbediscussed.Notethephase"potentialimpactsII;notallimpactsdescribedwillnecessarilyoccur.Thissectionisintendedonlyforbackgroundinformation;specificandmoredetailedtreatmentoftheproposedcorridorsandtheiralternativesiscoveredunder"EnvironmentalAssessmentofCorridorsIIand"Assess-mentofImpactsII•TopographyandGeologyThisisoneofthemoreimportantcategories,fortopographyinfluencesmostofthesucceedingones.Topographyisitselfasurfaceexpressionofunderlyinggeologyandtectonics(forconvenience,tectonicswillbeconsideredundergeologywhilehydrologywillbecoveredalongwithtopography).TheRailbeltareaischaracterizedbythreelowlandareasseparatedbythreemajormountainareas.TothenorthistheTanana-KuskokwimLowland,whichisdelineatedbytheAlaskaRangetothesouth.TheSusitnaLowlandistothesouthwest,boundedtothenorthbytheAlaskaRange,andtotheeastbytheTalkeetnaandChugachMountains.TheCopperRiverLowlandintheeastisboundedonthenorthbytheAlaskaRange,andthewestbytheTalkeetnaMountains.Eachbasinisunderlainbyquaternaryrockssurfacedwithglacialdebris,alluvium,andeoliandeposits.ThemountainsareprimarilymetamorphicandsedimentaryrocksoftheMesozoic,withseveralareasofintrusivegraniticrocksintheTalkeetnaMountainsandtheAlaskaBange,andI1/esozoicvolcanicrocksintheTalkeetnaWountains.Figure1delineatesthemajorfeatures.TheRailbeltisanactiveseismicarea;the1964earthquakewasperhapsoneoftheniostdestructiveearthquakesonrecord.Theseismichistoryisshortrelativetothetimeoverwhichstrainsaccumulatetoproduceanearthquake,sohistoricseismicityisapoorguidetopotentialseismicrisks.ThereareseveralsignificantlyactivefaultsintheRailbeltarea.Themostspectacularfaultintermsoflengthandprorr:inenceistheDenaliFault,alongarcbisectingtheentireRailbeltthroughtheAlaskaRange.!v1aximumexpectableearthquakesintheareacanbeofatleastamagnitudeof8.5ontheRichterScale.Figure2depictsseismichistoryoftherailbeltfrom1899to1964.I-I
LEGEND
IGNEOUS ROCKS
""T1
~.
<0c:
""lrn
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
ALASKA POWER AOMINISTRATION
GEOLOGY
OF THE
RAILBELT AREA
SCALE~--7
o 50 IOOMllu
(
~
<:;:>
glacial debris,
MESOZOIC
Sandstone and shale;marine and nonmarine;
includes some metamorphic rocks
PALEOZOIC AND PRECAMBRIAN
Sandstone,shale,limestone;mostly marine;
includes some early Mesozoic rocks
TERTIARY
Sandstone,conglomerate,shale,mudstone;
nonmarine and marine
PALEOZOIC AND PRECAMBRIAN
Metamorphic rocks:schist,gneiss,etc.;
mainly Paleozoic
QUATERNARY
Surficial deposits,alluvium,
eolian sand and silt
Paleozoic volcanic rocks
--
Fault
(Dashed where inferred)
SEDIMENTARY AND METAMORPHIC ROCKS
l1li
Source:U.S.G.S.
APA-1975
El
-
IIIIIllIIIIl
-
I~';lA"'1>:1 Paleozoic intrusive rocks;granitic and ultramafic
.~Quaternary and Tertiary volcanic rocks
~~~~'-~Mesozoic intrusive rocks;mainly granitic
F++++1 Mesozoic volcanic rocks
--
H
I
I\)
1-3Figure2,t""'COROOV~.(~¥u.s.DEPARTMENTOFTHEINTERIORALASKAPOWERADMINISTRATIONEARTHQUAKES:1899-1964MAGNITUDE~6SOURCE:US.C.s.G.S.1966SCALE~---"0a50100MilesA.P.A.-JULY1975
TheAlaskaRange,withintheareaunderconsideration,ispiercedbytwotributariesoftheTananaRiver,theNenanaandDeltaRivers.Theriverstothenorthoftherangeforthemostpartflowfromglacialsources,throughtherollingnorthernfoothills,andthendirectlynorthtofeedintotheTananaRiver.TheSusitnaRiverstartsfromglacialoriginsquiteclosetothoseoftheNenanaFiver.TheupperSusitnadrainsalargeplateauandfoothillarea,debouchingontoawidefloodplainfromthejunctionwiththeChulitnaandTalkeetnaRivers,thenflowingsouthtoitsmouthinCookInlet.TheGulkanaandNelchinaFiversarebothtributariesoftheCopperPivel'.TheGulkanahasitsglacialoriginsontheAlaskaRange,theNelchinafromglacialandclearwateroriginsintheTalkeetnaandChugachMountains.MostoftheseriversystemsexperiencehighflowsstartinginlateAprilandcontinuingthroughlatesummer.diminishingtominimumsinJ\·IarchorearlyApril.BreakupusuallyprecedesthesnowmeltandoccursinlateAprilorearlyMay.Glacial-fedstreamsaresubjecttoviolentflowandrapidchannelchanges.SoilsSoilsareafunctionofgeology,vegetation,andclinlate.Climate,particularly,playsanimportantroleinsoilformationanddistribution,beingthecauseofoneofthemorewell-knownattributesofnorthernsoils--permafrost.Ingeneral,soilsinboththetaigaandtundraregionareshallowandprofilesarepoorlydeveloped.Slewdecompositionrateslimitthenutrientsupply;insolationislowandtheyearlyaveragesoiltemperatureislow,oftenbdowfreezing.Ingeneral,subarcticbrownforestsoilsdominatenorthoftheAlaskaRange,podzolsdominatesouthoftheRange,andbogandhalf-bogsoilsarefoundeverywhere.Permafrostistheresultofanannualsoiltemperaturenearorbelowfreezing.Technically,permafrostisthatpartofthesoilandbedrockwhichhashadatemperatureof00orlowerforatleasttwoyears.Thus,frozenrockanddrysoilscanbeconsideredtobepermafrost;however,ice-richsoilsaregenerallythetypesofpermafrostofmostconcerntoman-madeprojects.PermafrostisgenerallycontinuousnorthoftheAlaskaRangeandsporadicsouthofit;itsdepthandthicknessvaryconsiderably.1-4
.,',- 2100MII"A.PA.-JANUARY1975o-----~50DEPARTMENTOFTHEINTERIORALASKAPOWERADMINISTRATIONPERMAFROSTINTHERAILBELTAREA~~.LEI-5MAPUnderlainbyisolatedmassesofpermafrostr-=lLJC-JLEGENDrmmmUnderloinbycontinuouslllllllliIpermafrostf/mUnderlainbydiscontinuous~~;;;~~~~~~~~~~~J~;::=~~~~~~permafrost
Thesoilabovethepermafrosttablewhichthawsinsummerisknownastheactivelayer.Sinceice-richpermafrostisrelativelyimpermeable,ashallowactivelayerwilltendtobequitemoist;runoffisslightduetolowevaporationratesandlowsoilpermeability,soevenintherelativelydryinteriorthereisconsiderablesoilmoisture.Theactivelayer,ifoffinegrainmaterial,isverysusceptibletofrostaction,suchasheavesandformationoficelenses.Shallowmoistactivelayersmaybelubricatedduetoexcessivemoistureatthepermafrosttable,resultinginmasswastingonevengentleslopes,calledsolifluction.Thevegetativecoverhasastronginfluenceonpermafrost;therelativelyhighreflectanceofsolarradiation(albedo)limitsinsolation,andtheinsulationprovidedlimitsheattransferfromabove.Otherfactorsinpermafrostdistributionareslopeandaspect,andunderlyingparentmaterial.Duetothewarmermeanannualtemperature,theequilibriumbetweenvegetationandpermafrostcanbemoredelicateintaigathanintundraareas.Forgeneralpermafrostdistribution,seeFigure3.lfostsoilsareofglacialorigin;eitherdirectlyfrommorainalmaterial;orfromglaciolacustrineorglaciofluvialmaterials;orfromloess,orwinddepositedmaterialofglacialorigin.Someoftheseoriginsaree'videntinthecontinuingdepositionofthemajorriversspringingfromtheAlaskaRange.Lowtemperaturesandhighsoilmoisturecombinetocauseslowdecompositionoforganicmaterialandsubsequentlycausetheubiquitiousbogsandmuskeg,typifiedbypeatlayersoverfinegrainmaterial,supportinglittleelsethanblackspruceandsedges.Bogsandmuskegsareespeciallyprevalentinthefloodplainsofriversandlevelareasunderlainbypermafrost.Themajorimpactsofatransmissionlinewillbeasaresultofconstructionactivitiesandofanyaccessroads.Constructionactivities,withtheirpotentialforbreakingthesurfacematofvegetationanddisruptionofsurfacedrainage,canpossiblyresultinwindandwatererosion.Theexistenceandmaintenanceofanaccessroadmaycauseerosion,thoughtoalesserdegreetha.nconstructionactivities.Groundwaterregimeandsurfacedrainagemaybealteredbyanaccessroad,particularlyonfinegrainsoils.Thiscouldresultincreationofbogsonflatlandorgullyingonsideslopes.1-6
Destructionofpermafrostandtheresultantsettlinganderosionmayresultfromincreasedinsolationwherethevegetationmathasbeendestroyed,eitherfromdirectdestructionfromvehicles,orfromover-compactionofwinterroads.Destructionofpermafrostmayalsooccurfromerosionandseverewildfires.Firecontrolproceduresmayresultingreaterdamagetothevegetationcoverthanthatcausedbythefireitself.Otherpotentialresultsfromdestructionofpermafrostareloweringofthewatertablewithanincreaseinthicknessoftheactivelayer,andslopeinstabilitywhichmanifestsitselfasslumpingandsolifluction.Insomelocalareas,thixotropicsoilsexist,whichbecomeplasticunderstresssuchaswouldbecausedbyearthquake.Theintegrityofatransmissionlinecanbethreatenedinthesesituationseitherbyfailureoftowerfoundationsorbyslideorslumps.Wet,finegrainsoilsareparticularlyvulnerabletofrost-heaving,whichcouldcausedamagetotowerfootingsandtheroadway;sinceheavingisaseasonalphenomenon,thismightresultinconstantmaintenanceoftheseareas.VegetationTherearesevengeneralvegetationtypespresentwithinthestudyarea.Theyareclassifiedastothepredominantvegetationtypeandtopographiclocation;thisclassificationisderivedfromthatoftheecosystemclass-ificationoftheJointFederal-StateLandUsePlanningCommission.ThesearedepictedinFigure4;forestdensityinFigure5.Bottomlandspruce-poplarisconfinedtobroadfloodplainsandriverterraces,andwarmersouthslopesofmajorrivers.Characteristicvegetationiswhitespruce,balsampoplar,birchandaspen.Uplandspruce-hardwoodissimilartobottomlandspruce-poplarinthepresenceofthesamecharacteristictrees,butislimitedtothehigherportionsofwatersheds.Actualspeciescompositionvariesduetoslopeande},.rposure.Lowlandspruce-hardwoodisgenerallyfoundonpoorersoilsorsites,suchasonpeat,glacialdeposits,outwashplainsandalluvialfans,oronnorth-facingslopes.Characteristictreesarewhitespruce,blackspruce,tamarack,aspenandbirch.1-7
H
I
00
L"gen~
_Coastal Hemiock-Spruce
_Bottomland Spruce-Poplar
Upland Spruce-Hardwood
r··:·\,]Low land Spruce-Hardwood
Ii.....i]:~.':<:'<:'::"'<;:High Brush
"".
IJillID Low Brush,Muskeg-Bog
E===========~Moist Tundra
I I Alpine Tundra
I I Wet Tundra
Source:Joint Federal-State Land Use
Planning Commission
APA -July 1975
"=>
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
ALASKA POWER ADMINISTRATION
ECOSYSTEMS
BASED ON VEGETATIVE TYPES
SCALE~______'7
o SO '00 MIle,
"Tl
~.
<0
<:.,
m
-">
~;gure5A.P.A.-JULY1975a50FORESTDENSITYDEPARTMENTOFTHEINTERIORALASKAPOWERADMINISTRATION1-9MAPSource'AlaskaInternationalRollAndHia'-'YCommission('_DENSEFORESTmnmmMODERATEFORESTlIJI]SPARSEFORESTc::JNON-FORESTey'-///A\\~,.._,I)'-~,)"-\'-\.,.\(I\I
Highbushincludestwosub-types.Oneexistsjustabovetimberlineinmountainousareas,theotherexistsonactivefloodplainsofmajorrivers.Characteristicplantsareaspen,balsampoplar,aldersandberries.Lowbush,bog,andmuskegisformedusuallyonoutwashandoldriverterraces,infillingpondsandsloughs,andthroughoutlowlands.Characteristicplantsaretamarack,blackspruce,alders,willows,andberries.110isttundraexistsontherollingfoothillsoftheAlaskaRangeandthehigherportionsoftheupperSusitnaRiver.Characteristicplantsaredwarfwillowsandbirches,Labradortea,greenalder,andberries.Alpinetundratypicallyisfoundinmountainareas,generallyabovetheforestandbrushsystems.Characteristicplantsareresinbirch,Labradortea,mountainheath,rhododendronanddwarfblueberry.Vegetationisafunctionofclimate,soil,topographyandotherfactors,amongwhichisvvildfire.Naturalwildfireshavealwaysbeenanimportantpartoftaiga(borealforest)andtundraecosystems,andvegetationmosaicsareoftenanexpressionofpastwildfires.Manytaigaspeciesshowadaptationstofire;forexample,theconesofblackspruceopenwithheatandthusareamongtheearliestcolonizersofburnt-overareas.Firecanpreventvegetationsystemsfromreachingaclimacticstagebyperiodicdestructionofforest,tothebenefitofsuccessionalvegetation,suchasbrush.Primalproductivityintaigaecosystemsishighestinsuccessionalbrushandlowestinblackspruce,muskegsandbogs.Therefore,agentssuchaswildfireandactivefloodplainscanincreaseandmaintainprimalproductivity.Secondaryeffectsoftheseagentscanbeincreasedforageformammalsanddeepeningoftheactivelayerinpermafrostareas.Mostofthedirectimpactsofatransmissionlineandaccessroaduponvegetationaresmallbecauseoftheinsignificantratiooflandoccupiedbytheline,road,borrowpits,etc.tothesurroundingunaffectedland.Somesecondaryimpactsareofgreaterconsequence.Themostobviousimpactisthelossofvegetation.Thisislimitedtotheaccessroad,andtemporarily,theright-of-way.Primaryproductivitymaybedecreased;inforestedareasitwillprobably1-10
beincreased.Limitedregrowthandmaintenancealongtheright-of-waywillresultinasubclimaxplantcommunityinforestedareas;regrowthinbrushandtundraareaswilleventuallyreachclimaxasfarasnaturalconditionsallow.Inanycase,directchangesinprimaryproductivityalongtheright-of-wayuponthetotalproductivityoftheareaarenegligible.Thereisapotentialforintroductionofnon-nativeorIlweedllspeciesintoclearedareas.However,fewplantsnotalreadyadaptedtotheharshclimate,especiallyofthetundras,willbeabletocompetewiththenativespecies.Whereclearinghasresultedinslashanddebris,thisslashmustbedisposedof.Althoughstackedordispersedslashmayprovidehabitatforsmallanimals,thereisahighpotentialthatslashmayresultinincreasedfirehazardandincreasesininsectpopulationsandpossiblyaffectingsorroundingforests.Slashcanbeburnedintheopen,burnedinforced-draftburners,orchipped.Openburningresultsinconsiderablesmokeandash,yetissimpleanddirect.Forced-draftburningismoreexpensivethanopenburning.Bothburningmethodsaresubjecttoopenburningordinancesofboroughs.Chippingeliminatessmokeandashentirely,butisveryexpensiveandrequiresmoremachinerytotravelalongtheright-of-way.Disposalofthechipsisaproblem,becauseideallytheyshouldbedispersedtopreventkillingtheplantsontheground.Sincedecompositionratesareslow,chipsmaynotreverttohumusforquitesometime.Disposalofchipsinlakesandpondswillresultineutrophicationandcontamination.Slowgrowthrateswillkeepvegetationmanagementalongtheright-of-waytoaminimalmaintenance.Periodiccontrolwillstillbenecessaryinforestareashowever.Mechanicalcontrol,thephysicaldestructionoftrees,canbetimeconsuming,expensive,anddetrimentaltotheright-of-waycover.Theuseofbrushhogsandotherlargemechanizedclearingmachinesisnotonlyinefficient,butalsoentailsdamagetothesoilandsmallplants.Cuttingwillagainraisetheproblemofslashdisposal.Theuseofherbicidestocontrolvegetationintheright-of-wayisconsiderablycheaperthanphysicaldestruction.Herbicidescaneitherbeofabroad-spectrumtypeorspecies-specific;applicationcanbefromtheairorontheright-of-way.I-ll
Oversprayanddriftingareproblemswithaerialapplication;applicationonthegroundismuchmoreselectiveandaccurate.Degenerationofherbicidesdependsonthechemicalused,soiltemperature,moisture,texture,andtherateofbiodegradation.Mostherbicidesusedinright-of-waycontrolareoflowto)<.-icitytoanimals,andappeartobenon-cumulative,unlikemanypesticides.Contaminationofla.kesandstreamsispossible;potentialdestructionofaquaticplantsmayresult,destroyingfishhabitat.However,thispossibilityisoffsetbythedecompositionanddilutionofherbicides.Thereislittleornoevidenceoflong-termaccumulationofherbicidesonthesoil;leaching,sunlight,microbialaction,anddegradationbyvegetationitselfinhibitsaccumulation.Physicaldisruptionofthevegetativemat,eitherfromclearingormachinetracks,orfromroadconstruction,willreducetheinsulationoffrozensoilfromsummerwarrrth.Theexposureofdarkersoilwillincreasewarmthfron:insolation;thesefactorscancombinetoalterthepermafrost-vegetationrelationship.Settlingfrompermafrostdestructionwillcauseerosionandthermokarst;loweringofthepermafrosttablewillalterthegroundwaterregime.Theseeffectsinturnwillaffectthevegetationcover.Areaswiththinpermafrost,suchasinthetaiga,areinamoredelicatebalancewithvegetationthanmoreheavilyfrozenareas,particularlyiftheactivelayerisshallowalso.ExperienceinfarmingintheTananaValleyhasshownthatloweringofthepermafrosttableduetodisruptionoftheoriginalvegetationcanalsocauseloweringofthewatertableandsubsequentchangesinvegetationduetoadeeperactivelayeranddryertopsoil.Althoughtaigaecosystemsareadaptedtowildfire,exceptionallydeep-burningfiresinpeatcanchangethepermafrostregimeofanarea,withsubsequentchangeinvegetation.Excessiverepetitionoffiresinanareacanachievethesameresult,andalsocanhavearesultofmaintainingalowsubclimaxvegetation.Secondaryimpactstowildlifearevaried,fromdestructionofhabitatandcovertoenhancedhabitatduetoincreasedprimaryproductivity.Constructionandmaintenanceactivitiesprovideadditionalpotentialforfire;towhatdegreefireswillincreaseisimpossibletopredict.Potentialman-causedfiresdependuponthedistributionandflammabilityofplantcommunitiesalongtheright-of-way,theseasonalscheduleofconstruction,andannualclimaticvariation.Duringconstruction,potentialofman-causedfirewillbegreat,butdetectionshouldbeearly,andareasburnedsmall.Duringoperationandmaintenanceofthetransmissionline,potentialofman-causedfirewillbelow,butdetectionslower,andconsequently,areasburnedwillbelarger.Operationoffire-fightingmachineryofftheaccessroadsmaycauseconsiderabledamage.1-12
Variousplantcommunitiesdifferinrateoffirespreadandresistancetofirecontrol:UplandSpruce-HardwoodLowlandSpruce-HardwoodBottorrJandSpruce-PoplarHighBrushMoistTundraAlpineTundraRateofSpreadHighHighMediumLowMediumHighResistancetoControlMediumHighHighHighMediumLowMan-causedfirepotentialexistsmainlyduringtheperiodofMaythroughSeptember.Uncontrolleduseofaccessroadswillincreasethepotentialforman-causedfires.WildlifeSomegeneralitiescanbedrawnforasthefaunaofthetaigaandtundraecosystems.Themostimportantfactorgoverningwildlifepopulationsanddistributionistherelativelylowprimalproductivityofthetaiga,andtheevenlowerproductivityofthetundra.Herbivore-basedfoodchainsaremoredevelopedanddiverseonthetaigathenthetundra.Inbothareas,arelativelysmallnumberofherbivorespeciesexist,withlessonthetundra.Someherbivoresexperiencecyclicalpopulationfluctuations;thesefluctuationsarecoupledtofluctuationsinpredatorpopulations.Thereishighmobilityofthelargermammalsandbirds.Migratingmammalsareanexpressionofthelowbearingcapacityofthelandforlargeherbivores.Migratingbirdsreflectextremesintheseasonalavailabilityoffood.Sapravory(consumingofdeadplantandanimalmaterial)playsanimportantroleinthefoodchain.Thelownumberofspeciesinthetundraecosystemfoodchainmakesthisanextremelysensitivearea.Adisturbanceaffectingonespecieswillhaveaninordinatesubsequenteffectonotherspeciesinthefoodchain.Anexpressionofthistenuousbalanceisinthefluctuationsinpopulations.Examplesofthesefluctuationsaretheperiodicexplosionsoflimmingandsnowshoeharepopulations,whicharerelatedtothesomewhatmilderandslightlylaggingfluctuationsofpredators,suchaslynxorwolf.Distributionofmoose,bear,Dahlsheep,caribou,bisonandwaterfowlareshowninFigures6, 7,and8.Aquaticecosystemshavesimilarfeaturesoftheaboveterrestrialecosystems.Lowspeciesdiversity,lowgrowthrates,andlonglifespansarecharac-teristicsofthelakefish.Anadromousfishsuchassalmonareextremelyimportantintherailbeltarea;thelowerSusitna,Copper,andTananaRiversarethebasisforaconsiderablecommercial,subsistence,andsportfishery.1-13
Figure6U.S.DEPARTMENTOFTHEINTERIORALASKAPOWERADMINISTRATIOf'j100Mn..-2A.P.A.-JULY197!lo50/(,.WILDLIFEMOOSE,DALLSHEEp,BROWNBEAR1-14MAPIIABrown/GrizzlyBearDenningAreas1/:::]MooseConcentrationlIIillII!IDollSheepRongeSource'JoinlFederol-SloleLandU..PlanningCommission
Figure7DEPARTMENTOFTHEINTERIORALASKAPOWERADMINISTRATIONIOO~i1.5A.P.A.-JULY197550SCALEoWILDLIFECARIBOUANDBISON...'...".......~P81f;;t,~;'-"..".:"l...J__.....•..•:~...<.'e.~:.:•....:...•..~...."':.':.....':"..:':."".:.'......:.:.'......"::.:.".;:.:...:","1-15MAP...""-Range~,,~~.""......."....~Co',,'"~nbouSummerRange~:.:.~'::.~'::."",....,~""""~CaribouCalvingRange~,,:~..~'::.~,'''::!loo....l.__or.?,",....,....I11III...."....__BisonRange,~...:i-"'><~_"'77-Source'JointFederal-StoteLondUsePlanningCommission.At.."",.....)
Figure8DEPARTMENTOFTHEINTERIORALASKAPOWERADMINISTRATIONWILDLIFEWATERFOWLHABITATRIlIIIlIllIIIlIHighDensity[[ITTIJ]MediurnDensityITII]LaNDensitySource'Jointfederal-Stat.LaUsePlanningCommission'/I-16SCALE~--........----------o50=100Mile5A.P.A.-JULY1975
Atransmissionlinepersewillnothavemanyimpactsuponwildlife;mostoftheimpactswillbeasaresultofconstructionandmaintenance.Directdestructionwillaffectthelessmobileanimalssuchasthesmallmammals,whoseterritoriesmaybesmallenoughtobeencompassedbytheconstructionarea.Thesignificanceofthisimpactissmallinrelationtotheanimalpopulationinthesurroundingareasunlesstheareaeffectedisakeyareaforaparticularspecies.Theconstructionareawillbereinvadedtoadegreebyanimalsfromthesurroundingareaafterthelineisbuiltandregrowthproceeds.Huntingandtrappingbyconstructionworkerscanbeconsidereddirectdestruction;mortalityfromproject-relatedfirescanalsobeconsidereddirectdestruction.Amoreseriousimpactthandirectdestructionisthepreemptionofhabitat.AnimalsforcedoutoftheirhabitatbyconstructionD1aynotfindanotherniche;thisassumesthatthelandisatitscarryingcapacityforthatspecieswhichisaffected.Someanimals,suchascarnivores,willfleeatalmostallhumanintrusion;iftheyareforcedintoalower-gradearea,oraredislocatedforalongperiod,theywillbeweakenedandincreasedmortalitycanbeexpected.Deliberateorinadvertentharassmentofwildlife,particularlylargemammals,willbeaseriousimpact.Flightstoconstructionsites,maintenanceflights,andoperationofvehiclesonopenareas,allhavethe"potentialforanimalharassment.Harassmentduringcalvingforsheepandcariboucancauseincreasedstillbirth.Althoughatransmissionandaccessroadwillnotimposeabarriertomigrationofcaribou,constructionworkduringcertainseasonsmayinhibitherdsfromapproachingworkareas.Thecreationofaclearedcorridorthroughheavyforestmayresultinincreasedanimalmovementalongtheright-of-way.Migratingbirdsmaysuffersomemortalityfromcollisionswithtowersoflines,buttheselossesshouldbenegligible.Collisionsofbirdswillbemostlikelynearareasofbirdcongregations,suchasrestingorfeedingareas,particularlyduringtimesofpoorvisibilityandduringtakeofforlanding.Thecablesarenotspacedcloseenoughnoraretheyinvisibleenoughtobeefficientsnares.Thesizeofconductorforthe230kvlineis1.4inchesacrossandthespacingis18to40feetbetweencables.Theprobabilityofabirdflyinginanappropriateareaattherightelevationandattheproperangletothelinesimultaneouslyisrathersmall.Electrocutionofbirdsisalsounlikely;thedistancebetweenlinesover115kvandbetweenlinesandgroundisgreatenoughtomakeshortingoutbyabirdalmostimpossible.Birdscansafelyperchoncablesortowers.ThereislittleexperienceofprovenbirdfatalitiesfromcollisionorelectrocutionwiththepresentAPAtransmissionlinesinJuneauandAnchorage.1-17
Themostsignificantimpactsresultfromhabitatmodificationresultingfromimpactsonsoilsandvegetation.Clearinginforestareasandmaintenanceofasubclimaxplantcommunityofbrushandlowplantswillenhancehabitatbyincreasingtheprimaryproductivityoftheclearedarea.Browseformoosewillbeincreased;theconjunctionofgoodcoverintheoriginalforestwithaswathofbrowsecreatesadiverse"edge"habitatformanyanimalsdependentonsubclimaxgrowth.Animalsdependentonclimaxornear-climaxvegetationwillsufferlossofhabitat;examplesaretheredsquirrelandnorthernflyingsquirrel,bothofwhichdependuponWhiteSpruce.Destructionofclimaticlichenontundraareaswilldestroywinterbrowseforcaribou.ThedeclineofthecaribouherdsinP,laskaisattributednotonlytohunting,butalsotodestructionoftundralichenbyman-causedfires.Lichenisthekeybrowseforcaribou,foritistheirprimefoodduringthewinter.Itisestimatedthatapproximately50yearsarerequiredforaburnedareatorecoverausablecoveroflichenforcaribou.Destructionofclimacticvegetationbyfireoftenenhancesmoosehabitat.Tiagaecosystemsareadaptedtowildfire,andpresentmosaicsofvegetationcommunitiesareoftenareflectionofformerfires.Anincreaseoffiresresultingfromman-madecauseswill,uptoapoint,havenotmuchmoreimpactthantheincidenceoflightning-causedfires.Asignificantincreaseovernatural-causedfireswillresultinincreasedmortalityfromfires,excessivedestructionofcoverandhabitatforwildlifedependentuponclimacticornear-cliwacticvegetation,increasedsiltingofriversandlakes,potentialdisruptionofseasonalhabitsandmigrations,andpotentialdisruptionofthepermafrost-vegetationrelationship.Impactuponaquaticlifefromatransmissionlineshouldbesmall.Theaquaticfoodchaininthetaigaandtundraisextremelysimple,andasaresult,disruptionofhabitatforonespeciesquiteoftenindirectlyaffectsmanyotherspecies.Potentialimpactsaretheincreasedsedimentationofriversandlakes;alterationofflows;eutrophicationandpollutionoflakesandstreams;disruptionofhabitatduetogravelborrow,fill,andexcavation;andwithdrawalofwater,especiallyduringwinter.Sedimentationcanresultfromerosionalongtheconstructionsites,burned-overareas,borrowpits,andrivercrossings.Theimpactofsedimentationdependsupontheseverityofsedimentation,theexistingwaterquality,andtheamountofaquaticlifeinthestreamorlake.1-18
Inriversalreadycarryingglacialsediment,theeffectofman-causedsedimentationwillbeslight.Clearwaterstreamsandlakessupportinglargeaquaticpopulationswillbemostaffected.Suspendedsedimentcancausegilldamageinfishandsedimentsettlingoutofsuspensioncanfillinte:rsticesingravelbeds,reducingsuitabilityforspawning.Alterationofdrainagebyanaccessroadmayinfluenceriverflow,butatransmissionlineprojectshouldnotaffectsurfacedrainagetoanyappreciabledegree.Spillsofoilorfuel,herbicides,andotherchemicalsintowaterbodieswillimpactaquatichabitat.Fast-flowingstreamswillbetheleastaffectedbyspills,duetotherapiddispersalanddilutionofthecontaminant;lakesandslowstreamswillbemostaffected.Theactualimpactisdependentuponthetypeofspill,theamount,andthevolumeofwateraffected.Additionofexcessivenutrientsororganicmattertolakes,suchasdisposalofslash,maycauseeutrophication,eitherfromexcessivealgalgrowthorfremdecompositionororganicmaterial.Excessiveoxygendepletioninlakewaterswillleadtofishkills.Alterationofstreamandlakebedswilldestroyhabitat.Someofthealterations,suchasgravelextraction,willaddaninordinateamountofsedimenttoaclearwaterstream.Asecondaryimpactofgreatsignificancetowildlifefromatransmissionlinewillbetheincreasedaccesstoareasnowunservicedbyroads.Ifanaccessroadismaintainedforlinemaintenance,itisverylikelythatitwillbeusedbythepublic.BonnevillePowerAdministrationhasexperiencedunauthorizedpublicuseofthoseaccessroadswhicharesupposedlyclosedtoallnon-maintenanceuse.Tomanymammals,thepresenceofmanhasanimpact,particularlythepresenceofhunters.Increasedaccesstopresentlyinaccessibleareaswillcertainlyaddtohuntingpressuresongamein'tttoseareas.Thedegreeoftheimpactdependsuponregulationbygamemanagementagencies,thequalityoftheareaforhunting,andtheseason.ClimateThiscategoryadherestothedefinitionofclimate,thatis,theaverageweatherconditionsoveralongperiod;however,thereareveryfewclimaticdataforthestudyarea,particularlyinregardstowindspeeds.Thus,eachsegmentisassignedtooneormoreofthreegeneralclirnaticzones.ThesearetheTransitional,Interior,andMountainzones.TheTransitionalZoneisamodifiedcontinentalclimate,havingsomeofthecharacteristicsoftheMaritimeZonealongthecoastoftheGulfofAlaska,yetbeingpartiallysubjecttothegreatertemperatureextremesanddrierclimateoftheInteriorZone.1-19
Theyearlyaveragetemperatureforthiszoneisabout290Finthenortherlypartto380inthesoutherlypart.Temperatureextremesrangefromabout-400to850F.Precipitationrangesfrom12to24inchesperyear;snowfallrangesfromlessthan50tomorethan200inchesperyear.Windsaregenerallycalm,althoughhighwindsover50mphcanbeexpected.TheInteriorZoneisatruecontinentalclimate.Itisrelativelydry,beingdominatedbyhighpressureairmasses.Asaresult,extremeseasonaltemperaturevariationsandrelativelymildwindscanbeexpected.Theyearlyaveragetemperatureforthiszoneisabout240to290F;annualtemperatureextremesrangefrom-600tonearly1000F.Precipitationhasanannualrangeofabout8to16inchesayear.Snowfallamountsfrorr,lessthen50toalmost100inchesayear.Windsaregenerallyverylight,withhighwindsrecordedatlessthan50mph.Sincethisareaisdominatedbystablehighpressureair,temperatureinversionsarecommon,andventilationislow.Thusthepotentialexistsforsmog,fog,andice-fogaroundsourcesofparticulatesand/ormoisture.Ice-fogsrepeatedlycoverFairbanksandseriouslyreducevisibility;thetemperatureusuallymustbebelow-350Fforthistooccur.TheMountainZoneisbasicallyamodificationofamoreprevalentzone,inthiscase,eithertheTransitionalortheInteriorZones.Thecausesofthemodificationareelevationandrelief.Increasedeleva-tiontendstolowertheyearlyaveragetemperaturewithoutdecreasingseasonaltemperaturevariationspresentatlowerelevations.Highreliefcombinedwithelevationresultsinincreasedprecipitationduetoadiabaticcoolingofupliftedairmasses,andanincreaseintheforceoflocalwinds.Sincemountainousterrainisanythingbutuniform,windpatternscanvarytremendously.However,itissafetoassumehighextremesofwindthroughouttheentirezone.LandOwnershipandStatusLandownershipisconsiderablylessinfluencedbyphysicalfactorsandmorebysocialfactors.Atpresent,landownershipisanunstablesituation,foralthoughthemajorityofthelandtraversedbytheroutesegmentsispresentlyFederalland,thatratioisdestinedtochange,withmorelandbeinginStateandNativeownership.WiththeexceptionoftheMatanuskaValleyandthemoreheavilysettledareas,thereispresentlyrelativelylittleprivatelyownedland.1-20
LandStatusisanevenmorechangingsituationthanlandownership.ThepresentlandstatussituationislargelyaresultoftheStatehoodActof1959,ANCSAin1971,andtheAlaskaConservationActof1974.AllFederallandsinAlaskaarepresentlyinawithdrawalstatus;notonlywillaconsiderableportionofFederallandbetransferredtoStateandNativeownership,butalltheremainingFederallandsareslatedeitherforinclusionintoeithertheexistingNationalsystemssuchasNationalParksandtheNationalForests,orforwithdrawalsforclassificationandpublicinterest.Atpresent,apartfromprivateholdings,onlypatentedStatelandandexistingFederalwithdrawalscanbeconsideredconstant.t-lostofthecorridorsegmentslieinlandsthatarependingortentativelyapprovedStateselections,Nativevillagewithdrawals,andNativeregionaldeficiencywithdrawals,allofwhichareinfluxatthepresent.Therefore,assessmentofthelandstatusofasegmentreflectsonlythesituationatthetimeofthispublication.Directimpactsonexistingdevelopmentswillgenerallybelow,mainlybecausetherearesofewexistingdevelopmentsalongthesegments.Duetothechangingnatureoflanduseandownership,impactsmaychangeconsiderablyinthespaceofafewyears.Withthepresentpatternoflandownership,therewillbefewconflictswithlandownership,asmostofthelandalongtheroutesarepresentlyinFederalandStateownership.DistributionoflandstoNativesandotherprivateownersbytheFederalandStategovernmentsinthefuturewillincreasethelikelihoodofpurchaseofeasementofprivatelandsandpossiblesubsequentdisplacementofprivateowners.Littleimpactisexpecteduponexistinglanduse;theright-of-waywidthrequiredforatransmissionlineisasmallfractionofthelandthelinetraverses.Therewillbealmostnoconflictwithagriculturallands;atpresent,agricultureisbasicallylimitedtothelower11atanuskaValley,andsmallerareasintheTananaandCopperRiverValleys.Thepotentialforagriculturee}d.stsoveraconsiderableareaoftherailbelt(seeFigure9),buttheimpactofatransmissionlineonthesepotentialareasislessthanontheexistingareas.ForestryatpresentisverylimitedintheRailbelt,morefromownershipcausesthennaturalcauses.Forestrycanbeexpectedtoincrease,butimpactsfromatransmissionlinewillbeminimal.I-21
Knownandpotentialareasofcoal,oil,naturalgas,andmineralsexistintheRailbeltarea.ThefossilfuelsarepredominantinthethreebasinsoftheTananaRiver,CookInlet,andtheCopperRiverlowland.Mineralsaremoreusuallyfoundinthemoremountainousareas.Atransmissionlineitselfwillhavelittleeffectondevelopmentoftheseresources.TheavailabilityofpowerfromtheUpperSusitnaprojectmightspurdevelopment,butthisisdependentuponthelocalutilitiesandtheirdistributionsystems.LocationofthesemineralresourcesisshowninFigure10,11,and12.Littledirectimpactontownsfromatransmissionlinecanbeexpected;thisresultsfromtheabilitytocircumventthefewtownsencountered.TheendpointsubstationsareoutsideofAnchorageandFairbanks'-sothesetownswillnotbepenetratedbyaright-of-way.SocialImpactsThepredictionofsocialimpactsandtheirmitigationisdifficult;quiteafewvariablesareinvolved,suchasthelaborsupply,thedesiresoftheaffectedcommunities,andtheoccurrenceofotherlargeprojectsintheareaoftheproposedcorridor.However,itiscertainthatbecauseofitssize,therewillbesocialimpactsduetotheconstructionactivity,interconnection,andtheavailabilityofpower.Constructionactivitywillaffectcommunitiesindirectproportiontotheinvolvementandinindirectproportiontotheirsize.Perhapsthebestwaytominimizetheeffectsofconstructionactivityuponsmallcommunitiesiswiththeuseofconstructioncampsspacedalongthecorridor,avoidingthecommunitiesofTalkeetnaandthelowerSusitna,Cantwell,Healy,and Nenana.Thesecampswillbetemporary,tobeconstructedandmaintainedinsuchamannerastominimizedamagetotheirsurroundings.Uponcompletionoftheproject,thecampsshallberemovedandrestoredascloselyaspossibletotheiroriginalconditionorcanbere-usedforotherpurposes.Thespacingofthecampsisdependentuponthenatureoftheterrainandthemethodofconstruction;spacingwillvaryfromfortytoonehundredmiles.Notallcampswillnecessarilyoperatesimultaneously.Theestimatedtimeneededforconstructionisthreeyears;assumingthatthecampsarenotoperatingsimultaneously,butprogressfromonesectiontoanother;thenitfollowsthattheconstructionperiodforagivenareaalongtheproposedcorridorwillbeconsiderablyshortedthanthreeyears.Thus,impactsfromconstructionactivitiescanbeexpectedtolastlessthanthreeyears.1-22
U.S.DEPARTMENTOFTHEINTERIORALASKAPOWERADMINISTRATIONPOTENTIALARABLELANDINTHERAILBELTAREA,,"'""'.SOURCE:ALASKAINTERNATIONALRAILANDHIGHWAYCOMMISSION1-23Figure9L11ULF1~~LTASCALE~..---==.aa50100Milo,A.P.A-JANUARY1975
aIOOMile.A.P.A.-JULY197!lo_.~~DEPARTMENTOFTHEINTERIORALASKAPOWERADMINISTRATIONOILANDGASPOTENTIAL1-24MAPSourceJointFederal-StateLandUsePlanningCommission4~~<~"i.L1:..~~--==d/"HighPotentialforOilandGas~ModeratePctential[IT]LowPotential
Figure11DEPARTMENTOFTHEINTERIORALASKAPOWERADMINISTRATIONCOALANDGEOTHERMALAREASMAPlIBCoalAreasmmGeothermalAreasSource'JointFederal-StoteLand_UnPlanningCommissionI1-25SCALEt"""""""\~---..~---o50IOOM,I..A.P.A.-JULY1~7~-~,
Figure12DEPARTMENTOFTHEINTERIORALASKAPOWERADMINISTRATIONPOTENTIALMINERALDEVELOPMENTAREAS100MiinA.P.A.-JULY1975o50.0.....~o. . .PR'f~~;~LlAM......~.~..".:::.,,~..",.-.":..p:,..'>..,""'.. ...,......1-26MAPSource'JointFedertJl-StoteLandusePlanningComminlon_VERYHIGHPOTENTIAtIIIIII!II!HIGHPOTENTIAL
Theworkforceisdependentuponthecontractor,thetimeschedule,andtheavailabilityofworkers.Afigurecanbeobtainedasfollows:assumethatworkisprogressingsimultaneouslyalongtheentirecorridor;thatcampsareanaverageofsixtymilesapart,andthatitrequiresfivemenpertowerfortransmissionlineconstruction.Withina60milestretchoflinethereare300towers,andifittakestenworkingdaysontheaveragetoplacea345kvtower,includingfoundations,thenfivecrewscouldcompletethetowersinrangefromcampin60days.Thetimeneededtostringandtensionthestretchwiththreeconductorswillbeanother20days;associatedworkpriortoandfollowingthisconstructionwilloccupytherestoftheseasonofabout15-20weeks.Ifthisrateofworkisprogressingattheothercamps,andifsixcampsareplannedinall,thenatotalof150lineworkersarerequired.Otherworkersareneededsuchasdrivers,pilots,laborers,cementworkers,surveyors,campsupport,andadministration.Thiscouldbringthetotalupto250people;however,actualnumbersmaybeashighastwiceorthreetimestheestimate.Associatedwiththeemploymentgenerateddirectlybythisprojectistheeffectonservicesintherailbeltarea,suchassuppliers,machinerysales,shippers,etc.Theimpactonasmallcommunity.suchasCantwell,willbethatofacampseparatedfromthetown,withabout100-125workersforthespaceofoneortwoworkingseasons;apartfromincidentalcontacts,suchasentertainment,andservicetovisitorstotheproject,thisimpactwillberatherlow,andofshortduration.Operationandmaintenanceimpactswillalsobelow.Arelativelysmallworkforcecanhandleoperationsatthepowersites,substations,andinterveningtransmissionline.MostoperationswilloccuratthepowersitesandtheterminalsubstationsatEsterandPointMacKenzie;amuchsmallerforcecanpatrolthetransmissionperiodically,makingnecessaryrepairsandmaintainingeffectiveclearance.Ifthesmallercommunitiesareserved,theywillrequiretheirownsubstationandcrew,whichcanhandlebothsubstationoperationandlinemaintenancefortheirarea.TheinterconnectionandavailabilityofUpperSusitnapowerwillhavesomeeffects.Forthesmallercommunitiesalongtheproposedcorridor,connectionwiththeinterconnectedsystemwouldprovideelectricpowercheaperthanthepresentlocalgeneration.Manyfamiliespresentlywithoutelectricpowerbecauseofthecostofgeneratorsandfuelwouldfinditmoreeconomicallyavailable.Theavailabilityofpower,not1-27
Figure13••_+__:sA.PA.-JULY197460'80LOCATIONMAP4020oUNITEDSTATESDEPARTMENTOFTHEINTERALASKAPOWERADMINISTRATIONEXISTINGTRANSMISSIONSYSTEMSCOOKINLETAREAX-ll-X-X-X33KVTransmissionLineIt---lt-·-x-·-x69KVTransmissionLinex----x-,--x115KVTransmissionLine~----x----x138KVTransmissionLineScaleinmil~~.._1-28\CHAKACHAMNALAKE---'------."l
Figure14(LOCATIONMAP./UNITEDSTATESDEPARTMENTOFTHEINTERIORALASKAPOWERADMINISTRATIONEXISTINGTRANSMISSIONSYSTEMSTANANAVALLEYAREA\\X-ll-X-X33KVTransmissionLinex-·-x-·-x69KVTransmissionLine)t---x-··-xI15KVTransmissionLine)t----X-·_-X138KVTransmissionLine4060AP.A.-JULY197420ScaleinmilesoFAIRBANKSAIRPORTWAY1-29
necessarilycheappower,willprobablybeacauseofsomegrowthinthesecommunities.However,itisextremelyunlikelythatindustrywouldbeattractedtooutlyingcommunitiesasaresultoftheavailabilityofpower;thehighcostsoftransportation,laborandmaterialwouldoutweighthebenefitofaccessiblepower.TheprobabilityofdevelopmentofanewStatecapitalalongtheproposedcorridorwouldbeenhancedsomewhatbytheexistenceorpromiseofavailablepowerandaconnectiontothepresentutilitiesintheAnchorageandFairbanksareas.ThelocationofthenewStatecapitalwould,however,beinfluencedmorebytransportation.Inanycase,ifthenewcapitalweretobeconnectedtoUpperSusitnapower,itwouldhaveaprojectedloadoflessthantenpercentofthepresentAnchorageload.Unlikethesmallercommunitiespresentlynotservicedbyoneoftherailbeltutilities,theavailabilityofUpperSusitnapowerwouldnotsignificantlyaffectgrowthinAnchorageorFairbanks.Growthintheseareasisaproblemthatalreadyexists,andincreasedpowerforthesetownsisaresponseto,notacauseofgrowth.Formoreinformationonsocio-economicfactors,seethePowerMarketReport.ExistingRights-of-WayExistingrights-of-wayisconcernedwithsurfacetransmissionandtransportationroutes.Thepossibilityexistsforsharedrights-of-wayorsharedaccesswithanexistingtransmissionortransportationsystem.Someoftheseexistingrights-of-wayarethehighwaysystem,theAlaskaRailroad,transmissioncorridors,theAlyeskaPipeline,andforaproposednaturalgaspipelinesystem.FederallandhasbeenwithdrawnforautilitycorridoralongpartsoftheAlyeskapipelineroute.Thepossibilityexistsnotonlyforsharedright-of-way,butalsofora"symbiotic"useofanexistingright-of-wayinwhichatransmis-sionlinecouldprovidepowerforthepresentoccupant.TwoexamplesareelectrificationoftheAlaskaRailroad,andusingelectricpumpingstationsalongtheAlyeskaPipeline.ExistingtransmissionsystemsareshownonFigures13and14.ScenicQualityScenicqualitydoesnotlenditselfwelltoquantification;thisisamuchmoreambiguouscategorythantheprecedingones,duetothedifficultyindefinitionofsuchtermsas"scenicquality".ThereareseveralI-3D
componentsofscenicquality,whichwhendefined,willdefinethiscategory."Existingscenicquality"isastatementofthepresentvisualaspectofanarea,whetheritisanareaofperceivedhighscenicvalue,oranareaoflowscenicvalue.Perceivedscenicvalues(beautiful,ugly,monotonous,vibrant,etc.)areextremelyvariable,notonlybylocation,butalsobyseason,weather,andmostimportantly,bytheindividualviewer.Someofthemoreimportantcomponentsofscenicqualityarescale,unity,intactness,varietyandvividness.Scaleisrelationshipofaviewedareatotheviewer.Scalesrangefromdetail,orclose-upviews,(suchasviewsofsmallelementsofthelandscapeasplants,rockformations,etc.)tomiddleviews,suchasonecouldhaveinaforest,inwhichindividualelementsstillholdmostoftheattention;todistantorscenicviews,inwhichindividualelementsaresubordinatetotheentireview(perceptionofaforestratherthanperceptionofindividualtrees).Unityisthedegreeofharmonyamongelementsinalandscape;putanotherway,itisthedegreeofthelackofdiscordantelements.Awheatfarmoffiveacresisconsideredbymostpeopletobelessdiscordantinanotherwiseforestedlandscapethanafiveacretankfarm.Unityisalearnedconcept,andassuch,isvariablenotonlyamongtheindividualsandgroups,butalsoisvariableovertimeastasteschange.Varietyisthedegreeofdiversityinalandscape;itsconverseisuniform-ity,thedegreeofhomogeneity.Varietymaybeafunctionofscale;alandscapeperceivedasuniform,suchastundra,mayhavedetailviewsofamazingvariety,particularlyinitsplantlife.Thereappearstobenoobviousrelationshipbetweenvarietyandunityorbetweenvarietyandintactness.Vividnessisthestrengthoftheimpressionoflandscape.Itisafunctionofthedegreeofpronouncementofthemajorqualitiesinalandscape.Vividnessisinterrelatedwiththecomponentsofunity,intactness,andvariety.Itdoesnotimplystrongvarietyorstronguniformity,butratherthedegreetowhichvarietyoruniformityisperceivedandremembered.Astwoexamples,thehighlydiverseviewofMt.McKinleyasseenfromWonderLakeandthehighlyuniformlandscapearoundLakeLouisearebothveryvividtotheauthor,whereasthelandscapeoflowerTalkeetnaRiverismuchlessvivid.Sincescenicqualityisacomplexsubject,someassumptionsmustbemadeinordertouseitascategoryinamatrix."Thefirstassumptionisthatwewillonlybeconsideringlarge-scaleviews;detailandmiddle-viewsshouldnotbeaffectedbyatransmissionline.Second,1-31
Figure15NATIONALHISTORICALANDARCHEOLOGICALSITESUS.DEPARTMENTOFTHEINTERIORALASKAPOWERADMINISTRATION(1-32SCALE.,.............~.....---.()50-I.1001.411..A.F'A.-JULY11l7!l
MAP([[ll]GoodtoHighQualityScenicAreaB8888JHighQualityScenicAreaSource'JointFederal-StatelAndUsePlonningCommissionI-33Figure16U.S.DEPARTMENTOFTHEINTERIORALASKAPOWERADMINISTRATIONSCENICVALUESSCALE~~.....-.~-_.?o50100MII..
noattemptwillbemadetoquantifyscenicqualities;thestudyofperceptionisnotyetadvancedtothepointwhereonecanconfidentlyquantifyasubjectofsuchwidelyvaryingindividualperceptions.Third,theareawithinNationalandStateParksorotherscenicreserveswillautomaticallybeconsideredmoresensitivetoscenicdegradationbecauseoftheirrecognizedscenicqualities.Fourth,landscapesvisablefrommajorsurfacepublictransportationrouteswillbeconsideredmoresensitivethanthosethatarenot.Thereasoningbehindthisisthatallscenicvaluesarenotintrinsictothelandscape,rather,theyareresponsesoftheindividualsperceivingthatlandscape.Anareawithahighnumberofviewercontactswouldthenbemoresensitivetoscenicdegradationthananareawithnoviewers,orwithveryfewviewers.Obtrusivenessisthelackofunityofanelementwiththerestofalandscape,thedegreetowhichanelementisperceivedasincongruous.Atransmis-sionlineinavalleybottomseenfromtwomilesawayislessobtrusiveandvisiblethanalinesilhouettedonaridgeonemileaway.Factorsaffectingobtrusivenessaretowerdesignandheight;designandwidthofclearing;reflectivenessoftowerandcable;topography;anddistancefromviewer.Wherenaturalcoverandtopographyenablealinetobehidden,impactonscenicqualityislow;onopentundra,impactwillbemediumtohigh,dependingondistanceandtopography.Thereareseveralrecreationandscenicreservesaffectedbythealterna-tiveroutes;mostimportantare!\,fountWcKinleyNationalParkandDenaliStatePark.Botharerathersensitiveareas,astheyattractandaretheresultofaconsiderabletouristtrade.ParksinAlaskahavetheimageofopen,unspoiledwilderness,particularlytotouristsfromoutsidetheState.Visibilityofatransmissionlineinoraroundtheseparkswillhaveagreaterimpactthaninotherareas.ThereareavarietyofState-ownedrecreationalareasandwaysidesadjacenttothehighwaysintheRailbelt;impactontheserecreationalsiteswillbelow;duetotheirrelativelysmallsize,theycanbecircumventedeasily.TheNationalRegisterofFebruary4,1975listssixregisteredhistoricalandarchaeologicalsitesthatmightpossiblybeaffectedbythealternativeroutes.TheseareshownonFigure15.ThereareknownandpotentialarcheologicalandhistoricalsitesnotontheNationalRegisteralongtheproposedcorridors.TominimizepossiblevandalismordisturbancenositesotherthanthoseontheNationalRegistershallbelocatedeitheronamaporonthenarrative1-34
ofthisassessment.Topreservetheintegrityofknownandpotentialsites,apre-constructionarcheologicalsurveyofthecorridorswillbecarriedout,andthefinaltransmissionroutewillbeadjustedtominimizedisruption.Inadvertentdiscoveryofanunsuspectedsiteatalaterstagewillentaileithertheminorrelocationofasegmentofthetransmissionline,orthesalvageofthesitesasprescribedbyExecutiveOrder11593andP.L.93-291.Thealternativeroutescrossnoproposedorexistingscenic,wildorrecreationalrivers,nordotheycrossanyproposedorexistingwilder-nessareasorwildliferefuges.However,insegmentswherethetrans-missionlinewillpioneeracorridorthroughapreviouslyintactarea,thequalityofwilderness\villsuffer,especiallyifthetransmissionlineiseasilyvisible.However,inmostsegmentsthetransmissionlinewillparallelexistingcorridorsorwilltraversenosignificantlylargeareasofintactwilderness.Apioneercorridorcrossingasignificant-lylargewildernessareawillhaveahighimpactonaccessandfuturelocationofotherrights-of-way.Theseinturnwilldegradewildernessqualityfurther,buttothebenefitofincreasedaccessforrecreationalusesinvolvingmotorizedaccess.Figure16showsanapproximationofexistingscenicquality.HazardsandInconvenienceOneofthemoreobviouspotentialhazardsisthatofelectricalshock.Threedistincthazardscanbedefined.Oneisthebriefvoltagebrieflyappearingonthegroundnearadroppedconductor.Thesecondisthedirectcontactwithaconductor.Thethirdhazardisthatofinducedcurrentinmetallicobjectsnearanoperatingtransmissionline.Whenaconductorisdropped,eitherasaresultoftowerorconductorfailure,itisswitchedoffinafractionofasecond.Duringthisshorttime.avoltageiscausedintheimmediatevicinityofthecontact;thehazardwouldvarywiththedistancetothecontactpoint,thevoltageproduced,andotherfactors.Droppedconductorsarearareeventinmosttransmissionsystems;theyaretheresultofvandalism(riflefire),storms,andoccasionally,defectsofcomponents.Directcontactcanbealethalhazard;usuallyitinvolvesinadvertentlyshortingoneoftheconductorswithmachineryorotherequipmentworkingunderatransmissionline.Constructionbooms,pipes,andpolesmustbemaneuveredwithcarenearanoperatingtransmissionline.Sincegroundclearanceincreaseswithoperatingvoltage,thishazardislesswiththehighervoltages.1-35
Itispossibletoinduceavoltageinmetallicconductorsparallelingatransmissionline,suchasraillinesandfences.Thiscouldpresentapotentialhazarddependentupontheconductivityandlengthoftheobject,anditsdistancefromthetransmissionline.Propergroundingofpotentialinductingobjectswilleliminatethishazard.Overheadtransmissionsystemsnearairfieldsandareasofheavylow-flyingairtrafficpresentapotentialhazardtoaircraft.Properplacementandroutingwillreducethishazard;theuseoftaut-spanshorttowerscanreducetheheightofanoverheadsystem,andmarkingconductorsthatspanvalleysandnotcheswillincreasevisibilitytoaircraft.Anoperatingoverheadtransmissionsystemwillgenerateaudiblenoiseimmediatelyadjacent,particularlyifthevoltageis345kvorhigher.Fora345kvline,audiblenoiseattheedgeoftheright-of-waywillbelessthan45decibels,roughlyequivalenttothenoiseleveloflighttrafficat100feet.Actualaudiblenoiselevelsarerelatedtovoltage,configuration,andheightofconductors,atmosphericconditions,andindi'vidualsensitivity.RadioandtelevisionreceptionimmediatelyadjacenttoanoverheadtransmissionsystemmaysufferfromelectromagneticinterferenceCEtI.lI).Suchinterferenceislocalized,andismoreintenseduringrain.OtherfactorsinfluencinglevelsofEMIarethevoltageandconfigur-ationoftheconductors,heightofconductoraboveground,ageandsurfacefinishofconductor,andatmosphericconditions.AgoodreferenceforEM!andaudiblenoiseistheEHVTransmissionLineReferenceBook.Evidenceofeffectsonlifefromexposuretoelectricalfieldspresentinthevicinityoftransmissionlinesisinconclusive.SeveraltestscitedintheBattelleReport"MeasuringtheSocialAttitudesandAestheticandEconomicConsiderationsWhichInfluenceTransmissionLineRouting"indicatenoilleffectsnotedonlinemenworkinginverystrongelectricalfields,andmiceexposedtoelectricalfields;however,othersourcesintheUSSRandGermanycitedbythisreportindicatedpossibleharmfuleffectsonanimalsandhumans.OzoneproductionbyCoronalossesfromtransmissionlinesislow.TheBattelleReportcitedaboveindicatesthatozoneconcentrationadjacenttoa765kvlinewasontheorderofonly2to3partsperbillionbyvolume;thisconcentrationshouldbeconsiderablylessfor230kvlines.1-36
STRIPMAPSCOVERINGTHEALTERNATIVECORRIDORSAPPENDIXIEXHIBITI-2
Exhibit1-2StripMapscoveringtheAlternativeCorridors.Thefollowingstripmapsareinthreegroups:thoseshowingthegeneralfeatures.thosedepictinglandstatus.andthosedelineatingsoiltypes.Thealternativecorridorsarecoveredbysevenmapsforeachgroup;thereissomeoverlapfrommaptomap.butnotallalternativecorridorsareentirelydepictedonanyonemap.Oneachmapisagraystripeshowingtheapproximatepositionofanalternativecorridoronthatmap;thesepositionsareveryapproximate.andtheexactlocationandwidthareindeterminate.ThelandstatusmappedisbaseduponthelandstatussituationofMarch1974.Stateselectionsincludepatented.pending.andtentativelyapprovedState-selectedlands.Duetothepresentunstableconditionoflandstatus.itmustberecognizedthattheremaybechangessincethedateofthemap.Thesoilsmapsarebaseduponthe1:250.000soilsoverlaymappublishedbytheJointFederal-StateLandUsePlanningCommission.
.i\JN·iT~·DSTATESDEPARTMENTOFTHEINTERIORALASKAPOWERADMINISTRATIONINDEXTOALTERNATIVECORRIDORMAPSScaleinmiles5075100125A.P.A-March1975
A.P.A.-March/97525201015Scaleinmileso5ANCHORAGE-DEVILCANYON
)~~~~0~2.--t.--.:...-..JI_L-!./-.....~~~~o
I~----o5Scaleinmiles101520I25A.P.A.-Morch1975SUSITNA
\\'\\\)J1\;,
252015CANTWELL-PAXSONAP.A.-March197510Scaleinmileso5RANGE7
)
BLAIRLAKEAIRFORCERANGE-------~--;20251015ScaleinmiIe.~_KARIV£R~~"-1'
Scaleinmiles1510I~~~'_RIVERMOUNTMCKINLEY4-
ScaleinmilesFORTGREELY~-o5101520
'.MILITARYBLAIRLAKEAIRFORCERANGEFORTGREELY
i25201015VALDEZ-RScaleinmiles-----5o
(f)2:-<:{I-2.::>o~.:z:o<:{<.9.::>.:z:oe;~~:::..~~~~~~~~9,q,7oc.,o
/)1-~,/r"\\IIScaleinmiI~s101520.125oD
-,252010.milesScaleIn_15/','".,-'<./".'-\\)MOUNTINS\<EETNA1AL
SOILSLEGENDSoil"~_mmCi})..SlopeGroup-~I(------I~TexturalGroupSoilsErosionPotentialEAT-Poorlydrainedsoils,normallyinwaterlaidmaterials.EFT-Welldrainedsoils,instratifiedmaterialsonfloodplainsandlowterraces.EOL-Welldrainedgraysoils;shallowbedrock.EOP-Welldrainedloamyorgravellygraysoils;deeppermafrosttable.HMT-Poorlydrainedpartiallydecomposedpeat;seldomfreezesinwinter.HMV-Poorlydrainedpartiallydecomposedpeat;containslensesofvolcanicash.HY(B)G-Poorlydrainedfibrouspeat;freezesinwinter.HYP-Poorlydrainedfibrouspeat;shallowpermafrosttable.IAHP-Poorlydrainedsoilswithpeatysurfacelayer;shallowpermafrosttable.lAP-Poorlydrainedsoils;shallowtodeeppermafrosttable.lAW-Moderatelywelltopoorlydrainedsoils;maycontaindeeplyburiedicemasses.ICF-Welldrainedbrownsoils;containslensesoffine-grainmaterial.ICP-Welldrainedthingrownsoils;deeppermafrosttable.ICT-Welldrainedgrownsoils;non-acid.IND-Welldraineddarksoilsformedinfinevolcanicash.IUE-Welldrainedsoilswithdark,acidsurfacelayer.IUL-Welldrainedsoilswithdark,acidsurfacelayer;shallowbedrock.IUP-Welldrainedthinsoilswithdarkacidsurface;deeppermafrosttable.RM-Verysteep,rocky,orice-coveredland.SOP-Welldrained,thin,stronglyacidsoils;deeppermafrosttable.SOT-Welldrainedstronglyacidsoils.SOU-Welldrained,stronglyacidsoils;verydarksubsoil.Themappingunits,whilereferringtoonlyoneortwodominantsoilsintheassociation,includeothersoilsandlessextensivesoils.SlopeGroups1 -Slopesdominatelylessthan12%.2 -Slopesdominatelysteeperthan12%.TexturalGroupsc -sandyf -clayeyErosionPotentialg -verygravellym -loamy(medium)E-l-lowE-2-mediumE-3-high
RM§QY-HY(B)G2mE-2~-HY(B)G1mE-I,2SOU2gE-I,2
§Q!-HY(B)G2gE-2RM'1M>/~.Hr.lVSOUE·22mE-2grr-HY(B)G1mE-I,2~o
SOPIAHPE-220-"'1m1015Scaleinmiles5\\~~~-RM)i)!\;,
/0\\~UL_RM)29I;1\;
RM20r-_.::.2::::.,5-~-10 15A.PA.-Morcll1975501LS~CANTWELL-PAXSONRANGE_IAHP1m:-27
!YJ:-RM20E-I/2LL__~---I._--I.t:::.~-.......-ALA
Scaleinmiles~_1AHf2g1m101520
lkI_lAHf2g1mScaleinmiles/1RM1015(\2
ScaleinmilesRM1520RM10,....",.---o5RMlAW_leTE-21mIQ
ICTIAHPE-210-2mICF_IAHPE-232m1m•IAHPE_21mICT-IAHPE-2.32g1mICFIAHP2m-1m'3LJ-.JU--L-L..---l.__--L-_~___.llI.._I_-)
1510SOILS:VALDEZ-R~,,"n5oW~E~2If/:)~E-2CFIfD!AHfE-21mIUPE-32gIA1:LPE-2IfP-IAHP2g)E-2,3
RMRMRM~~~IUP-IAHP2gE-2,3IAHPE.1m:.:::.:::::::::;::;:;:.-:.:.:-::::::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:lAJiPE-2If
IUP-IAHP2QE-25RMScaleinmiles10152025RMoDIAHPIfE-2SOILS:PALMER-GLENNALLEN
IUP-IAHP2gE-2ScaleinmilesRMRMRMRMSOU-IUL2gE-I/51--'---=O5=--__1:0~_~15::.......____=2~O__..:2~·~_
:'/':.~~"k>~}"..:.~'.'...l...',...,....·.f.',.......'...,1.:','.:LANDSTATUSLEGENDMajorwithdrawalspriortoAlaskaNativeClaimsSettlementAct,(December18,1971)WithdrawalsforpossibleinclusiononthefourNationalsystems(D-2)Withdrawalsforclassificationandpublicinterest(D-l)Stateselections-patented,tentativelyapproved,andpending(SS)WithdrawalsforNativevillageseligibleforlandselectionsWithdrawalsforNativevillages,eligibilityforlandselectionnotfinallydeterminedVillagedeficiencywithdrawals(NVD)oRegionaldeficiencywithdrawals(NRD)~~~~~~;~;~~Utilitycorridor(UGlThesemapsrepresentthelandstatussituationasdeterminedbytheBureauofLandManagement,December18,1973
...)55101520250-2A.~A.-March1975LANDSTATUS:ANCHORAGE-DEVILCANYON
/61-----1._55
2010.15Scaleinmiles_~----o5•..•.•.........."Q.10·
55\\\\IJ1\)Nf
ScaleinmilesNRDSATUSCANTWELL-PAXSON55252015APA.-MorCh197510=I""""I..WW_-LANDo555RANGE~55
/9-----l._--L.~A Lt
SUSITNACORRIDORSINVENTORYCLIMATEEXISTINGDEVELOPMENTSLANDOWNERSHIP/STATUSEXISTINGRIGHTS-OF-WAYSCENICQUALITY/RECREATIONbear,Varioussmalltownsalongtrans-PrimarilyStatepotentialse1-Recreationareas:BigLake,RockyTransitional-milderandwetterportationcorridor.Severalections;indetenninate(asofAnchorage-FairbanksHighwayLake(SUckerLake),NancyLake,Ginsouthernendofsegment.recreationareasandcampgrounds3 -74)NativevillagesofMontanaAlaskaRailroad,MEAlines.'WillowCreek.Mediumtolowalonghighway.Creek,Caswell,andWk.scenicqualityinsouth.Mediumy.tohigharoundTalkeetna.•blackTransitional/mountain.Stateselectedland.DenaliStateP~ra11e1~Anchorage-FairbanksRunsthroughDenaliStatePark.None.Park.Highwaymmidsection.Highscenicquality.TownsofGoldCreek.Curry.Lane.ParallelseastboundaryofDenaliearers.Transitional.Chase.andSherman.MostareStateselectedland,bordersonParallelsA.R.R.smallcommunitiesJnotallDenaliStatePark.StatePark.servedbyAlaskaRailroad.bearers.Transitional.Stateselectedland.None.Mediumscenicvalue,relativelyNone.accessiblebyboat.andgrizzlyMountain/traP$itiona1.None.1/3.State~e1ectedland,2/3Highscenicqualityarea-re1a-1ge.Nat~vereglOna1deficiency.None.tive1yinaccessible.bears.1/3Stateselectedland2/3SomerecreationaluseoflakesinMountain/transitional.None.Nativeregionaldeficie~cy.None.PrairieCreekPassarea.Highscenicquality-accessiblebyfloatp1aile.None.1/2Stateselections1/2NativeH~ghscenicquality-impressiveTransitional.r~v~rvalley.Limitedaccessi-regionaldeficiency.'None.b~hty.bear,Mountain/transitional.Nativeregionaldeficiency,power-Highscenicquality-limitedNone.sitewithdrawalforDenaliCanyonNone.accessibility.Reservoir.iIbear,Mountain.Nativeregionaldeficiency,power-Recreotiona1useofFogLakesNone.None.area.Highscenicquality-sitewithdrawalforDenaliCanyonaccessiblebyfloatplane.Reservoir.CIICITt\!1\
SUSITNACORRIDORSINVENTORYTOPOGRAPHY/GEOLOGYSOILSVEGETATIONWILDLIFECLIMATETransitional/mountain.Transitional-milderand~insouthernendofsegment,MooseeverywhereJblackbearJfurbearers.TrumpeterSwanhabitatinpondsalongSusitnaValley,Cariboumightbepresent,blackbear,moose.Bottomlandspruce-poplar,uplandspruce-hardwood,lowbrushmus-keg/bog.Alpinetundra(?).Bottomlandspruce-poplar,lowlandspruce-hardwood,muskeg/bog.GlacialdebrIs-groundmorinnealteredbyoutwash,floodplains,silt,sand,gravel,swampsandlakes,Freefrompermafrost.Poorlydrainedfibrouspeatsoils,otherpoorlydrainedsoilsandwelldrainedstronglyacidsoils,r,owtomediumerosionR"'o"'te"'n"'t"'i"'al"','-+-i,.--1-_Innorthernpart,welldrainedthinsoils,stronglyacid;deeppermafrosttable,Southernpartpoorlydrainedfibrouspeat,otherpoorlydrainedsoilsandwelldrainedstronglyacidsoils,Slopesonnorth),12%.Lowtomediumerosionpotential.84miles.Highestpoint500'atTalkeetnatosealevelatPt.McKenzie.Widerivervalley;eastbankmorerollingthanex-tremelyflatwestbank.Valleywidensandflattenstosouth.Poorlydrained,manybogsandlakes.42miles.Rollinghighplateautonorth,becomingflatter,lower,forestedhillstosouth.MergesintoSusitnaValley.Highpointaround2000f •PointMacKenzie-TalkeetnaTalkeetna-GoldCreekviaTroublesomeCreek(2)Talkeetna-GoldCreekviaAlaskaRailroad(3)38miles.Highpoint900'.Veecanyon-moderatelynarrowvalleyfloorwideningtothesouth.Welldrained,gravelly,stronglyacidsoils.Southernthird,poorlY,drained,fibrouspeatandwelldrained,stronglyacidsoil.Slopesonnorth>12%.Lowtomediumerosionpotential.Bottomlandspruce-poplar,uplandspruce-hardwood.M:lose,blackbear,furbearers.Transitional.TalkeetnaRiver(4)8mi~es.500'elevation.Wide,:r:ollmgvalleybottom.Manylakes.Poorlydrainedfibrouspeat,vulnerabletoheavingandwelldrained,stronglyacidsoils.Slopes<12%.Lowtomediumerosionpotential.Bottomlandspruce-poplar.~bose,blackbear,furbearers.Transitional.DisappointmentCreek(5)37miles.3800'elevation.Rollinghillsincreaseineleva-tiontohighplateauwithseveralincisedcreeks.Welldrained,stronglyacidsoilsthininnorthernpartsincon~junctionwithverysteepandrockyground.Gravellysoil.Slopes>12%.Lowerosionpotential.Bottomlandspruce-poplar,uplandspruce-hardwood,lowbrush,mus-keg/bogandalpinetundra.~boseinlowerelevationsandstreambottoms,blackandgriZZlybear,possiblecaribourange.Mountain/transitional.PrairieCreek-StephanLake(6)42miles.2200'elevation.Widevalleynarrowsgraduallyasitrisestowide,flat,poorlydrainedpass.Welldrained,stronglyacid,gravellysoils.Slopes>12%.Lowtomediumerosionpotential.Bottomlandspruce-poplar,uplandspruce-hardwood,lowbrushmus-keg/boginpassarea.'~bose.blackandgrizzlybears.Mountain/transitional.DevilCanyon-GoldCreek(7)14miles.1500'elevationabovedamsite.Narrowcanyonincisedinplateauwidensasplateauchangestorollinghillstowest.Welldrained,stronglyacid,gravellysoils.Slopes>12%.Lowtomediumerosionpotential.Uplandspruce-hardwpod.~bose,blackbear.Transitional.13miles..2200'elevation.HighDevilCanyon-StephanplateaumthdeeplyincisedcreeksLake(8)andrivers.Welldrained,stronglyacid,gravellysoils.Slopes>12%.Lowtomediumerosionpotential.Uplandspruce-hardwoodinriverandstreamvalleys,lowbrushandbog/muskegonplateaus.M:lose,blackandgrizzlybear,furbearers.Mountain/transitional.17miles.2200'elevation.FlatStephanLake-Watanaplateauboundedbyhillstonorth(9)andsouth,incisedriverandcreeksWelldrained,thin,stronglyacidsoilswithdeeppermafrosttableandpoorlydrainedsoilswith'shallowtodeeppermafrosttable.Gravellysoils.Slopes<12%.Mediumerosionpotential.Uplandspruce-hardwoodinriverandcreeks,brushandbogandmus-kegonplateau.~bose,blackandgrizzlybear,furbearers,caribou.M:luntain.
WILDLIFENENANACORRIDORSINVENTORYCLIMATEEXISTINGDEVELOPMENTSLANDOWNERSHIP/STATUSEXISTINGRIGHTS-OF-WAYSCENICQUALITY/RECREATIONespeciallyinlowerMountain/transition.SeveralsmallcommunitiesalongHighscenicqualityalongmostof>oplar,up-~bosepresent,Sunmitweath-thisroute,southernpartborders.owbrush-valleys,blackbearonforesteder:annualtemperature25.9F.,transportationlines.FAAstripsStateselectedland,Nativevillage~An~horage-FairbanksHighway,AlaskaDenaliStatePark.Majorviewstoareas.annualprecipitation21.85"•atSt.UI1lllitandCantwell.Southern\;ithdrawal,areawithin~MCPMZone.Ra11road.\;estandnorthoftransportationpartbordersDenaliStatePark.corridorofAlaskaRange.10l;landCaribouconcentrations,moosein~~diumscenicqualitybutinacces-lowervalleysandplateaus,Dall~buntain.None.V-Iwithdrawal,northernpartwith-None.sible.csh-muskegsheepinhighareas,blackbearonin~t>lCPMZone.forestedareas.irdwood.Caribouconcentrations,moosepre-DenaliHighway,somesettlementNativeVillagewithdrawal,StateDenaliHighway.Highscenicqualitygoodviewstosent,Dallsheepinhighareas,Mountain.blackbearinforestedarea.alonghighway.selectedland,withinMMCPMZone.allsides.'Mountain.HighwindsreportedbySeveralsmallcommunities.Mc-Highscenicquality,impressived,lowlandCaribouconcentrationssouthofGVEAtohaveknockeddown138KVKinleyParkonwestbankofNenanacanyonsinterspersedwithopennetundra,canyons,moosepresentinmoretowers.McKinleyweather:annualRiver.FlightstripsofYanertStateselectedlandandMcKinleyAnchorage-FairbanksH1ghway,Alaskaareasofmoredistantviews.Goodmuskeg.openpartsofcanyons,Dallsheeptemperature27.7F.,annualprecip-and~kKinleyVillageandHealyNationalPark,withinH\cfCPMZone.'Railroad.possibilityofviewingwildlife.inhighareas,blackbearpresent.itation14.50".(FAAatMcKinley).Hightouristtrafficalongthismajortransportationcorridor.,uplandCaribouconcentrations,mooseinJSh-muskeg/lowerelevations,DallsheepinMountain.None.D-landStateselectedland,WellsNone.Highst:enicqualitybutinacces-Highbrushhighareas,blackbearinforestedCreek,rithinMMCFNZone.sible.area,iSTizzlybearinhigherareas.I,uplandCaribouconcentrations,mooseinush-mus-lowerelevations,DallsheepinNoneinmountains'UsibelliCoal~~diumscenicqualitybutinacces-alpinehighareas,blackbearinforestedMountain.MinesatHealy.'Stateselectedland.None.sible.,werMoodyareas,grizzlybearinhigherareas.ir,uplandCaribouconcentrationsonwestldspruce-bankofNenanabetweenHealyandSmallcommunitiesalongtransporta-PrimarilyState-selectedlandwithHighscenicqualitynearHealyandrRlSkeg/bog,southofClearAFB.moosealongInterior.Healyweather:annualtionlines.Severalflightstrips.someexistingFederalwithdrawalsAn~horage-FairbanksHighway,AlaskatheC,oldstreamHills.Lowtomed-~s,northwholeroute,blackbearinforestedtemperature26.4°1'.,annualpre-FAA.stationatNenana.TownofandNativevillagewithdrawals.Ra11road,GVEA138kv.line.iumscenicqualityalonglowerlce-hard-Nenana,ClearMilitaryReservation.uplandareas.TrumpeterSwanhabitatcipitation11.34",NenanaRiver.DryCreekArcheo-alongpondsofTananaValley.logicalSite(NationalRegister).Caribouconcentrationsinuppersh,lowWoodRiver,moosepresentinlowerPr~arilyStateselectedland.)isttundra,elevationsandstreambottoms,DallNone.Scenic.qualityrangesfromhigh,lowersheeponhighareasofupperWoodMountainandinterior.BlairLake~lilitaryReservation.Na~lv7villagedeficiencyandtomed1umbutinaccessible.lterspersedRiver,blackandgrizzlybeareX1st1ngFederalwithdrawals.ldswith~patterns.present.TrumpeterSwanhabitatalongpondsofTananaValley.NENANAINVENTORY
TOPOGRAPHY/GEOLOGYSOILSVEGETATIONWILDLIFENENANACORRIDORSINVENTORYCLIMATE48miles.2400'elevation.WideWelldrained,thin,stronglyacidvalleywithmoderatelyincisedsoils,deeppennafrosttableandBottomlandspruceandpoplar,up-Moosepresent,especiallyinlmverMountain/transition.SumnitGoldCreek-Cantwellriversinsouth,becomingverypoorlydrainedwithsurfacepeatlandspruce-hardwood,lowbrush-valleys,blackbearonforesteder:annualtemperature25.9(10)widedepressioninBroadPass,andshallowpennafrosttable.bog/muskeg.areas.annualprecipitation21.85".travelingNE,withrollingvalleyBothsoilsgravellywithmediumbottom.erosionpotential.Slopes<12%.Onslopes>12%:Welldrainedthin46miles.3300'atDeadmanPass.stronglyacidsoilswithdeepper-Caribouconcentrations,mooseinmafrosttable,gravelly.OnslopesUplandspruce-hardwood,lowlandWatana-WellsCreekviaSeriesofmoderatelywidevalleys<12%:Poorlydrainedloamysoilsspruce-hardl;ood,lowbrush-muskeglowervalleysandplateaus,DallMountain.joinedbygentlepasses,culminat-sheepinhighareas,blackbearonBrushkanaCreek(11)ingonwidevalleyofBrushkanawithsurfacepeatandshallowper-bog.Alpinetundra.forestedareas.mafrosttable.~1ediumerosionpo-CreekandNenanaRiver.tential.22miles.2500'elevation.Welldrained,thin,stronglyacidValleysoilswithdeeppennafrosttableWellsCreek-Cantwellq.tWellsCreekwidenstowest,withinconjunctionwithpoorlydrainedLowlandspruce-hardwood.Caribouconcentrations,moosepre-flatbottomboundbymountainstosoilswithsurfacepeatandshallowsent,Dallsheepinhighareas,Mountain.(12)northandsouth.pennafrosttable.~1ediumerosionblackbearinforestedarea.potential.Gravellysoils.Slopes<12%.39miles.2200'atCantwell.Widevalleynarrmvstonorthtoseri~s,WelldrainednonacidbrolvngravelMountain.Highwindsreport'oftightcanyonsseparatedbymdesoilsinconjunctionwithpoorly'Uplandspruce-hardl;ood,lm;landCaribouconcentrationssouthofGVEAtohaveknockeddown13Cantwell-Healy(13)valleyofYamertFork.Northofdrainedloamysoilwithsurfacespruce-hardwood,alpinetundra,canyons,moosepresentinmoretowers.McKinleyweather:;canyontoHealyiswiderollingpeatandshallowpennafrosttable.somelowbrush-bog/muskeg.openpartsofcanyons,Dallsheeptemperature27.7F.,annual]plainwithstreamterracesadjacentHigherosionpotential.Thinrockyinhighareas,blackbearpresent.itation14.50".toNenana.Denalifaultcrossesasoilsandrockonlowercanyon.Windy.26miles.4,000'atWellsPass.Lowlandspruce-hardlvood,uplandWidevalleynarrowingtothenorthCaribouconcentrations,mooseinWellsCreek-DeantopasswithLouisCreek,ahighThinsoilsandrock,verysteepspruce-hardlvood,lowbrush-muskeg/lowerelevations,DallsheepinMountain.Creek(14)saddle.AbruptdropintoLouisslopes.Levelareaspoorlybog,andalpinetundra.Highbrushhighareas,blackbearinforestedCreek,downtoYanertForkanddrained.inYanertValley.area,¥Tizzlybearinhigherareas.extremelywideaggradingchannel.Thinrockysoilsandrock,steepCaribouconcentrations,moosein24miles.2700'atMoodyPass.slopesonupperparts.SteepLowlandspruce-hardlVood,upland.Northupwidevalleyandoverwidegravellypoorlydrainedsoilswithspruce-hardlVood,lowbrush-mus-lmverelevations,DallsheepinMountain.DeanCreek-Healy(15)flatpassintosinuousv-canyon,variablepennafrosttableincon-keg/bog(inpassarea),alpinehighareas,blackbearinforesteddroppingintowidervalleyofHealyjunctionwithsteepgravellywelltundra(ridgesalonglowerMoodyareas,grizzlybearinhigherCreek.drainedgraysoils,shallowbed-Creek).areas.rock.~bderateerosionpotential.97miles.1400'atHealy.350'atHealy-Nenana:Well-drainedbrmvnBottomlandspruce-poplar,uplandNenana,1500'inGoldstreamHills.gravelsoilsandpoorlydrainedCaribouconcentrationsonwestWide,terracedvalleyofNenanaloamswithsurfacepeat,shallowspruce-hardlvood,lowlandspruce-bankofNenanabetweenHealyandflolVsnorthtomergewithTananapennafrosttable.Nenana-Ester:hardlvood,lmvbrush-muskeg/bog,southofClearAFB,moosealongInterior.Healyweather:HealytoEster(16)floodplain.OverTananaRiverwell-drainedbrownloamswithlevelareastendtobogs,northwholeroute,blackbearinforestedtemperature26.4°F.,annuallensesoffinesandpoorlydrainedslopesarelOWlandspruce-hard-trendingN.E.arelowrollinghillsloamswithsurfacepeat,shallowwood,sunnyslopesareuplandareas.TrumpeterSwanhabitatcipitation11.34"ActivefaultatHealy.Ice-richalongpondsofTananaValley.clayandsiltat~body.pennafrosttable.~diumtohighspruce-hardwood.Ip...n~;nn.110miles.4300'atDean-WoodPassUpperWoodRiver:ThinrockysoilsAlpinetundra,highbrush,lowCaribouconcentrationsinupperDeanCreek,sharpmountainvalleyLowerWoodRiver:PoorlydrainedWoodRiver,moosepresentinlowerJ:>eadsinhighpassintoWoodRiver,loamysoilswithsurfacepeatandbrushbogandmuskeg,moisttundra,elevationsandstreambottomsJDallDeanCreek.toEsteriu-shapedglaciervalleywithag-shallowpermafrosttable.Gentlelmvlandspruce-hardwood,lmversheeponhighareasofupperWoodMountainandinterim:(WoodRiver)(17)gradingstream,whicheventuallyslopes.SomewelldrainedbrownWoodRiverisareaofinterspersedRiver.blackandgrizzlybeardebouchesontoTananafloodplain,bogsandleveesandmoundswithnonacidsoils.Lowtomediumcorrespondingvegetativepatterns.present.TrumpeterSwanhabitatflatandpoorlydrained.erosionpotential.alongpondsofTananaValley.
DELTAANDMATANUSKACORRIDORSINVENTORYl;uplandushbogl.vetypes-poplarrood;low'g;moistlowbrushlowbrush,pruce-lice-poplarWILDLIFENelchinacaribouherd(presentlyabout4000-5000),moosepresentinmoderatelyhighnumbers,blackandgrizzlybears,wolvespresent.TrumpeterSwanhabitatalongpondsofTananaValley.BigDeltabisonherdfallrange(200animals),DallsheepcommononAlaskaRange,blackandgrizzlybears,goodduckhabitatinsloughsandoxbowsofChenaandSalchaRiversandmorainalpondsofDonnellyDome.Peregrinefalconhabitat,particularlynearSalchaR.Nelchinacaribouherd,mooseinmoderatelyhighnumbers,blackandgriZZlybears,wolvespresent.'NelchinacaribouandveryhighmooseconcentrationsonGulkanadrainage,blackandgrizzlybears,wolvespresent,goodduckhabitatalongGulkanafromSummitandPaxsonLakes,ThawLakes.GulkanaismostimportantfisheryinCopperRiversystem.PaxsonandSummitLakesareimportantfishlakes.~bosepresent,blacl<andgriZZlybear,Dallsheeponsurrotmdingmotmtains.CLIMATE~btmtain.Interior.~tmtain/interior.Interior.Transition/motmtain.EXISTINGDEVELOPMENTSNone.Lowtonopotentialforcommercialforestingandagri-cultureduetosoils.ConsiderablesettlementalonghighwaynearFairbanks.Militarybases,townsofBigDeltaandDeltaJtmction,potentialagri-cultureatBigDelta-ClearwaterLake.None.Lowtonopotentialforcommercialforestryoragricul-'ureduetosoils.TownsofGlennallen,Gulkana,settlementalonghighway.Recrea-tionaldevelopmentnorthofGlennHighway.Thisareahaslowpotentialforcommercialforestryandagricultureduetosoils.ConsiderabledevelopmentinMata-nuskaValley.CoaldepositsnearSutton.Farminginlowervalley,recreationusealongKnikAnn.LANDOWNERSHIP/STATUSStateselectionsJNativeregionaldeficiencywithdrawals,andD-1withdrawals.DenailDamsitewith-drawal.AreaaroundDenaliDamsiteiswithinMMcPMZ.Stateselections,utilitycorridorandmilitaryreservations.Nativeregionaldeficiencyandstateselections.WatanaandVeepowersitewithdrawals.StateselectionsandUtilityCorridor.Nativevillagewith-drawalsofGulkana,Gakona,TazlinaandCopperCenter.Stateselectionsprimarily.SomeNativeregionaldeficiencyandD-llands.Nativevillagewith-drawalsofChickaloon,EklutnaandKnik.EXISTINGRIGHTS-OF-WAYDenaliHighway.RichardsonHighway,AlyeskaPipeline.None.RichardsonHighway,AlyeskaPipe-line,GlennHighway.GlennHighway,AlaskaRailroad,variousminorroads.SCENICQUALITY/RECREATIONTangleLakesArcheologicalDis-trict(NationalRegister).DenaliCampgrotmd.TangleRiverBoatLatmch.Highscenicquality-easilyaccessiblewithgoodviewstonorthofMt.HayessectionofAlaskaRange,Clean~aterandAmphitheater~untains.ProposedHistoricalSites:RapidsHuntingLodge,Mile220;BigDeltaRoadhouse,Mile252.Clearwater,Donnelly,FieldingLake,WaysideParks.DeltaCampgrotmd,proposedDeltaWildRiver.Excellentviel'sofAlaskaRangefromBigDeltasouth.Easilyaccessible.ToeastisLakeLouiserecreationallandcomplex.Highscenicquality-landoflakesandponds.Access-iblebydirtroadfromGlennHigh-.waytoLakeLouiseorbyfloat:plane.SourdoughLodge(NationalRegister)ProposedhistoricalsitesofMc-Creary'sRoadhouse,Mile104;GakonaRoadhouse,Mile132;Pax-sonLakeWaysidePark;SourdoughCampgrotmd,DryCreekWayside,LittleNelchina,TolsonaandLakeLouiseWaysides.ProposedPaxsonLakeRecreationAreaandGulkanaWildRiver.Hightomediumscenicquality.KnikArcheologicalSite-IndependenceMinesnearPalmer(NationalRegister).BigLake/RockyLakeWaysides.ChugachStateParktosouth.MatanuskaValleyishighscenicqualityarea.Severalscenicoverlooksalonghighway.Highlyvividlandscape.DELTA/MATANUSKAINVENTORY
DELTAANDMATANUSKACORlINVENTORYWatanatoPaxsonviaButteCreek(18)PaxsontoFairbanks(19)WatanatoSlideMtn.viaVee(20)PaxsontoSlideMtn.viaG;ennallen(21)SlideMts.toPointMacKenzie(22)TOPOGRAPHY/GEOLOGY98miles.4000'nearRockCreek.Variesfromwide,flat,openter-raintorolling,post-glacialterrain.Valleyfloorsareusuallywideandflat,poorlydrained.Manylakes,kettles,andmorainalridgeseasttoMac-larenRiver.Thisuplandareacontainsaltiplanationterracesandisunderlainwithdiscon-tinuouspermafrost.152miles.2700'atPaxson,3000'atIsabelPass.RollinghillsatPaxsonleadtohighflatpassandnorthtoU-shapeMountainValleynearRainbowRidge-BlackRapidsarea.RollinghillsnearDon-nellyDomedecreasetoflatlandbyEielsonAFB.90miles.3000'elevationatplateauatheadofLittleNelchinaRiver.Generallyflatandrollingterrain;ahighplateauextendingfromSusitnRivertoLakeLouisearea.Numeroslakesandbogs.119miles.2700'atPaxson.Rollinghillsandflatplateaus,cutbyincisedstreams.Poorlydrained,havingmanylakesandbogs.138miles.3000'atTahnetaPass.Widepassapproachedfromeastbe-comesnarrowvalleytowestofpass.Incisedriverandlowridgesoccupyvalleyboundedbyinajormountainrangesonnorthandsouth.Valleydeboucheson-toMatanuska-Knikfloodplain,toPt.McKenzie,routecrossesmanylakesonflatfloodplainsandpoorlydraineduplands.SOILSLowareas:poorlydrainedsoilswithsurfacepeatandshallowpermafrosttable.Texturesrangefromgravellytofine.Slopes:Well-drained,thin,stronglyacidsoils;deeppermafrosttable.Mediumtohigherosionpotential.Lowareas:Poorlydrainedsoilswithsurfacepeatandshallowpermafrosttable.Slopes:Welldrainedsoils;somecontaininglensesoffines.Shal-lowtodeeppermafrosttable"ifany.Mediumerosionpotential.RockysoilandbedrockinDeltaCanyonarea.ThixotropicsiltsjustnorthofSum-mitLake.PermafrostcontinuousfromShawCreektoTananaRiver.Lowareas:Poorlydrainedsoilswithpeatysurface;shallowper-mafrosttable.Mediumerosionpotential.Uplands:Welldrainedthinsoilswithdarkacidsurface;deeppermafrosttable.Gravellytexture.Med-iumerosionpotential.Perma-frostiscontinuousonthispoorlydrained,ice-richareaoffinesediments.Majorportionofroute:Poorlydrained,finegrainsoilswithsurfacepeat;shallowpermafrosttable.Mediumerosionpotential.Uplandareas:Welldrained,thin,stronglyacidsoilswithdeeppermafrosttable.Perma-frostiscontinuousinthisarea.MatanuskaValley:Welldrainedloamyorgravellygraysoilsandstronglyacidsoils.Mediumtohigherosionpotential.KnikAnn:Poorlydrainedfibrouspeat,vulnerabletofrostheaving,andwelldrainedacidsoils.Lowtomediumerosionpotential.VEGETATIONLowlandspruce-hardwood;uplandspruce-hardwood,lowbrushbogandmuskegmoisttundra.Fullrangeofvegetativetypesfrombottomlandspruce-poplartoalpinetundra.Uplandspruce-hardwood;lowbrushbogandmuskeg;moisttundra.Lowlandspruce-hardwood,lowbrushbogandmuskeg.Lowlandspruce-hardwood,lowbrushbogandmuskeg;uplandspruce-hardwood;Bottomlandspruce-poplaragriCUlturalland.WILDLIFENelchinacaribouherd(presentlyabout4000-5000).moosepresentinmoderatelyhighnumbers,blackandgrizzlybears,wolvespresent.TrumpeterSwanhabitatalongpondsofTananaValley.BigDeltabisonherdfallrange(200animals),DallsheepcommononAlaskaRange,blackandgrizzlybears,goodduckhabitatinsloughsandoxbowsofChenaandSalchaRiversandmorainalpondsofDonnellyDome.Peregrinefalconhabitat,particularlynearSalchaR.Nelchinacaribouherd,mooseinmoderatelyhighnumbers,blackandgriZZlybears,wolvespresent.'NelchinacaribouandveryhighmooseconcentrationsonGulkanadrainage,blackandgrizzlybears,wolvespresent,goodduckhabitatalongGulkanafromSummitandPaxsonLakes.ThawLakes.GulkanaismostimportantfisheryinCopperRiversystem.PaxsonandSummitLakesareimportantfishlakes.~osepresent,blackandgrizzlybear,J?allsheeponsurroundingmounta1.IlS.CLIMATE~buntain.Interior.~untain/interior.Interior.Transition/mountain.
SOILSVEGETATIONSUSITNACORRIDORSIMPACTSWILDLIFEEXISTINGDEVELOPMENTSSCENICQUALITY/RECREATIONConsiderableclearingisneeded.Uplandvege-Destructionofhabitatforsmallanimals.En-Littleimpactonscen1CqualityfromNancytoPt.I-tKenziesincelinecanbeconcealed.,ilvulnerabletofrostheavingbuttationwillwarrantmaintenance;poorlydrainedhancementofhabitatforlargermammalsduetoSomepossibleconflictswithprivatelandsfromPossibleconflictwithrecreationareasinrosionpotentia}.Uplandsoilsareareaswillprobablyneedlittlemaintenance.increasedsuccessionalgrowth.HarrassrnentNancyLaketoTalkeetna.Noimpactonfore-Wasilla-BigLakeareaandNancyLakearea,'ptibletoerosion.Thermaldis-Slashmustbedisposedoftoinhibitinfestationunlikelyduetogoodcoverthroughoutarea.seeableagriculture-mostsoilsareunsuit-dependinguponfinallocation.Noconflictunlikely.NomajorrivercrossingsofremainingtreeswithsprucebeetleoripsFromNancyLaketoPt.McKenzie.accesswillableforagriculture.withKnikarcheologicalsite.Talkeetnaatedonthisroute.beetle.Vegetationhashighresistancetofirebeimprovedifaccessroadleftin;increasedtoNancy:linecanbealmosttotallycon-control.huntingpressuremayresult.cealedorlaidparallelandadjacenttoexistinglineclearings.problemsinherenttosoilsaroundLowerelevationforestwillneedconsiderableFrostheaving,possiblepermafrost,ge,slowrevegetation.Uplandclearing;regrowthratefastenoughtowarrantHighimpactonscenicquality-invadesDenalielldrained,buterosionpotentialmaintenance.UplandareaswillrequirelessRouteopensupaninaccessibleareawithin~';oneStatePark.Linecanbeconcealedsomewhat,Possiblerivercrossingneededforclearingandmaintenance.EXceptforareaDenaliStatePark;closedtohunting.butwillundoubtedlyinterferewithpotentialCreek,threeneededforSusitnaabovetimberline,vegetationhasahighratetrailusers.naRivers.Accessroadcrossing.onofspreadoffireandahighresistancetoCreekmaycausesiltation..control.Treeclearingneededalongentiresegment;NoextensiveinaccessibleareasopenedupIflineadjoinsAlaskaRailroad,railroadmaintenancewillbeneeded.VegetationhaslineparallelsA.R.R.;accessroadwouldMediumimpactonscenicquality.Mosttraffic,Riveronlymajorrivercrossing;highrateofspreadandhighresistancetoallowvehiclestoreachthisareaindepen-couldbeelectrifiedandcorridorconsolidated.throughthisstretchisbyA.R.R.,andlinelereisnotaproblemasrivercarries·control.Brushwillbeintroducedbyre-dentlyfromtheA.R.R.,sohuntingpressureIncreasedaccesstoanareapresentlyhavingcanbewellhiddenfrompassengersusingItalready.growth.mayincrease.IftheA.R.R.right-of-wayisonlyafewflagstopsonAlaskaRailroad.raillinesunlesscorridorisconsolidated.adjournedorshared,impactswillbeverylow.eainedsoilssusceptibletofrostExpensiveclearingofheavyforestneededPioneerroutewillopenupnewareastoaccess.LowimpactOnscenicquality.Lineisnotmdpoorfoundations:welldrainedwithmaintenance.BrushwillbeintroducedHuntingpressurewillincrease.Brushintro-,.visible.Wildernessqualitysomewhat~\:Jne;lopeslessapttocauseproblems.byregrowth.Vegetationhashighrateofductioninthisareawillenhancehabitatsimpacted,buteaseofconcealmentkeepsediumerosionpotential.LittlefirespreadandhighresistancetocontrOl;formoose,bear.impactlow.:lofseriouspermafrostdegradation.Clearingandmaintenanceneedinlowereleva-degradationoflocalpermafrost.Fewtions.Mostofrouteishighlandspruce-PioneerroutewillopenupconsiderablenewLinewillcrossopenalpinetundraforquitea)leimpactsfromerosion.siltation,orhardwoodandalpinetoodra.Preservationofareastoaccess.Mostofthisareaisopendistance,havinghighimpactonwildernessqual'.grooodvegetationessential-disruptioncanforesttoalpinetundra-damagetohabitatIbnetty.stdegradation.resultinlonglivedscarscluetoslowregrowthcouldbesevere(fromfires,erosion.ORV's).rate.Upperelevationshavehighrateoffirespread,lowresistancetocontrol.HeavyforestclearingneededonTalkeetnaPioneerroutewillopenupconsiderablenewWherelineemergesfromTalkeetnaRivervalleyRivervalleywithintroductionofbrushrequir-areastoaccess.ImpactwillbelessonPrivatelandand/orcabinleasesonlakeshoresupperareasduetolessdisruptionofvege-toStephenLake,scenicqualityreceivesmediUJ1~eableimpactsfromerosion.siltationiogmaintenance.Lessclearingrequiredandinthepassareas.~jostofthesecanbeimpact;lakesreceivedsomerecreationaluse.morecareforvegetativematneededinPrairietationbyclearing.Areaispresentlyac-avoided.OtheTh'ise,noimpactsonexistingImpactonwildernessismediumduetothecostdegradation.cessiblebyfloatplaneandreceivedcon-CreekvalleytoStephenLake.Hightomediumsiderablehuntingpressurealready.developments.existingrecreationaluseandeasyaccessihil-rateoffirespreadJhightomediumresistanceitybyfloatplane.tocontrol.MooseandbearhabitatenhancedbyregrowthOldjeeproadexists,connectingDevilLowimpactonscenicquality-thisareaisClearingofmediumforestwithperiodicmain-CanyonDamsitetoAlaskaRailroad.Miningnotpresentlyeasilyaccessible,andDevilCan-eeableimpactsfromerosionJsiltationtenance.Highrateoffirespread,mediumre-onclearings.Accessroadmayresultinclaims,nolongeroperating,onPortageyonDamsiteroad1Yillnotbeusedmuchbynon-rostdegradation.sistancetocontrol.increasedhuntingpressure.Creek.Theseroadscouldbepartoftheprojectpersonnel;linecanbeconcealedfromaccessroadsystem.thisroadorcanbeusedasthelineaccessroadalso.:Clearingofmediumforestinrivervalley;Littleimpactonhabitatoflargemammalssuchlessclearingneededonplateau.Firerateasmooseandbear,minimalclearingonplateauLowimpactonscenicquality-areaisofmed-eeableimpactsfromerosion,siltationofspreadinvalleyhigh,resistancetocontrolareasandcreekcanyonscanbespanned.Ac-Noneiumscenicquality.Somerecreationalusein>:ostdegradation.medium.Onplateau,rateoffirespreadlow•.cessroadwouldbeundercontrolfromdam-StephenLakearea.Linecanbepartiallycon-resistancetocontrolhigh.sitesounauthorizeduseforhunting,,"'Quld\cp.aledbutnottotally.be1m;.Heaviervegetatio:1increekbottomscanbeLittleimpactonhabitatofmooseandbear,Mediumimpactonscenicquality-areaiso~onimpactsbutpossiblepermafrost·spannedoverbyline.Vegetationonplateauminimalclearingonplateauareasandspan-mediumscenicquality.SomerecreationalInandfrostheavinginpoorlydoesnotrequireextensivecleaning.Rateofningofcreekcanyons.Accesswouldbe!t!:'meuseofStephenLakearea.Linecanbepar-undercontrolofdamsitessounauthorizedJils.firespreadlow.resistancetocontrolhigh.useforhootingwouldbelow.tiallyconcealedbutnottotally.l"1I~I"'~IA
SOILSVEGETATIONConsiderableclearingisneeded.UplarLowlandsoilvulnerabletofrostheavingbuttationwillwarrantmaintenance;poorlyPoint~\I:acKenzie-withlowerosionpotentia}.Uplandsoilsareareaswillprobablyneedlittlemaintena"moresusceptibletoerosion.Thermaldis-SlashmustbedisposedoftoinhibitinfeTalkeetnaruptionisunlikely.Nomajorrivercrossingsofremainingtreeswithsprucebeetle01:areanticipatedonthisroute.beetle.Vegetationhashighresistancecontrol.SomedesignproblemsinherenttosoilsaroundLowerelevationforestwillneedconsiTalkeetna:Frostheaving,possiblepennafrost,poordrainage,slowrevegetation.Uplandclearing;regrowthratefastenoughtoTalkeetna-GoldCreeksoilsarewelldrained,buterosionpotentialmaintenance.UplandareaswillrequirviaTroublesomeCreekishigher.Possiblerivercrossingneededforclearingandmaintenance.EXceptfor(2)TroublesomeCreek,threeneededforSusitnaabovetimberline,vegetationhasahigandTalkeetnaRivers.Accessroadcrossing,onofspreadoffireandahighresistancTroublesomeCreekmavcausesiltation."control.Treeclearingneededalongentirese&TalkeetnaRiveronlymajorrivercrossing;maintenancewillbeneeded.VegetatiTalkeetna-GoldCreekhighrateofspreadandhighresistarviaAlaskaRailroad(3)siltationhereisnotaproblemasrivercarries-control.Brushwillbeintroducedbyglacialsiltalready.growth.PoorlydrainedsoilssusceptibletofrostExpensiveclearingofheavyforestruheavingandpoorfoundations;welldrainedwithmaintenance.Brushwillbeint:TalkeetnaRiver(4)soilsonslopeslessapttocauseproblems.byregrowth.VegetationhashighraLowtomediumerosionpotential.LittlefirespreadandhighresistancetoCIlikelihoodofseriouspermafrostdegradation.ClearingandmaintenanceneedinlowerPossibledegradationoflocalpermafrost.Fewtions.Mostofrouteishighlandspruhardwoodandalpinetundra.Preservat,)isappointmentCreekforeseeableimpactsfromerosion,siltation,or.groundvegetationessential-disrupti(5)permafrostdegradation.resultinlonglivedscarsduetoslowrate.Upperelevationshavehighratespread,lowresistancetocontrol.HeavyforestclearingneededonTalkeeRivervalleywithintroductionofbrushPrairieCreek-StephanFewforeseeableimpactsfromerosion,siltationingmaintenance.Lessclearingrequir<Lake(Liorpermafrostdegradation.morecareforvegetativematneededinCreekvalleytoStephenLake.Hightorateoffirespread,hightomediumrestocontrol.De,';'lCanyon-GoldFewforeseeableimpactsfromerosion,siltationClearingofmediumforestwithperiodiCreek(7)tenance.Highrateoffirespread,I1l€orpermafrostdegradation.sistancetocontrol.4Clearingofmediumforestinrivervall.lessclearingneededonplateau.FireDe,';'lCanyon-StephanFewforeseeableimpactsfromerosion~siltationofspreadinvalleyhigh,resistancetoLake(8)orpermafrostdegradation.medium.Onplateau,rateoffirespre,resistancetocontrolhigh.Heaviervegetatio':1increekbottomsccStephanLake-WatanaFewerosionimpactsbutpossiblepermafrost-spannedoverbyline.VegetationonI(9)degradationandfrostheavinginpoorlydoesnotrequireextensivecleaning.drainedsoils.firespreadlow,resistancetocontrol
SOILSVEGETATIONNENANACORRIDORSIMPACTSWILDLIFEEXISTINGDEVELOPMENTSSCENICQUALITY/RECREATIONSuccessivelylessclearingassegmentgoesEntiresegmentwithinMt.McKinleyCoopera-north.InBroadPass,notreesneedSomeenhancementofbearandmoosehabitatpactislow.Shallowpermafrostinclearingandtheonlyvegetationlostinsouthernpartofsegment;nochangeinFewprivateholdings-smallchanceofcon-tivePlanningandManagementZone.Southerninedareassusceptibletodegrada-wouldbefromaccessroad.Slowregrowthnorthernpart.Thisrouteopensupno'flict.Lowimpact-veryfewexistingpartbordersDenaliStatePark.Visibleline~theaccessroadcanavoidtheseimpliesthatmaintenancewillnotbeneededmajornewareastohunting;overallimpactdevelopments.willhavehighimpact,particularlyiftowestofhighwayandrailroad.Linecanbecon-iimpactwillbelow.andalsothatrevegetationmaybenecessaryisl~'!.cealedsomewhat,however,inmostofsegment.alongsomeareas.MediumtohighrateofBroadPasshasleastcoverforline.firespread;highresistancetocontrol.Clearingvariesfromdensespruce-hardwoodsSomeenhancementofbearandmoosehabitattoalpinetundra.~bstvegetation1055inheavierforestedareas,butnosignifi-Lowimpactonscenicquality;thisareaistinedloam:impactonpermafrostinwillbefromaccessroad.Slowregrowthcantchange.Accessroadopensupapre-ofmediumscenicqualityandnotreadilyshigh,andfrostheavingisposs-impliesthatmaintenance\'Iillnotbeviouslyinaccessibleareatointrusion;'bneaccessible.However,thereisahighim-mdsoils:impactislowonperma-neededandthatinplacesrevegetationandhunting;sincecaribouandmoosearepactonwilderness,especiallyifanaccessmaybenecessary.~lediumtohighrateofpresent,thiscouldhaveasignificantroadisbuilt.iumonerosion.firespread;highresistancetocontrol;impactonhuntingpreserve.Firingon10\'1resistanceinalpinetundra,tundraareascouldseverelyimpactcari-bouhabitat.actislow·level.ShallowpermafrostClearingvariesfromspruce-hardwoodstoSomeenhancementofbearandmoosehabitatainedareassusceptibletodegrada-highbrush.~bstvegetative1055fromac-inheavierforestedareas,butlittlesigni-ApartfromsettlementsalongDenaliHighway,~diumimpactonscenicquality;areaisofcessroads.Slwregrolvthimpliesthathighscenicquality,butlinecanbecon-heaccessroadcanavoidthesemaintenance\'Iillnotbeneeded.Mediumtoficantchange.Nonewareasopenedup.nodevelopments-noimpacts.mpactwillbelow,highrateoffirespread;highresistanceOverallimpactislow.cealed.Fntiresegment\'IithinMMPCPMZone.tocontrol.npotentialthroughoutstretch,HeavyclearinginvalleybottombyYanertSomehabitatdestructionandenhancementdueTheadditionofathirdright-of-waythroughdrockincanyonswillprovidesolidFork;lighterclearingthroughoutrestoftoclearing;overallimpactofclearingisthecanyonsmaycausecongestionunlesssevereimpactonscenicquality;notonlyislationsbutwillinhibitaccessroadroute.Highrateoffirespread,highre-10\'1.None\'lareasopeneduptohunting.rights-of-wayareconsolidated,Possiblecon-thecanyonanareaofhighscenicquality,nifneededoncanyonslopes.?istancetocontrolonvalleyfloor;10\'1Constructionactivitiescombinedwithtrans-nectiontoGVEAlineatHealy,Potentialtaptoconcealmentofthelineishardandthe\'lestnedareashavehighpermafrostresistanceinalpinetundra.portationuseofcorridormaytemporarilyprovideconnectionofCantwellintosystem.bankoftheNenanaisparkland.1susceptibility,Lowsiltationimpact.repulsesomemannnalssuchaswolfandbear.1potentialandexposedbedrockonBeavyclearingonvalleybottomstonoConstructionactivitiesmayinhibitcaribouHighimpacttowildernessquality,butlimitedleareasofpoorlydrainedsoilsus-clearinginalpinetundra.510\'1regrowthandsheepactivities.Overallhabitatmodi-totheimmediatevalleyoccupiedbyline;ermafrostdegradationinwiderval-inhigherelevations.Highrateoffirefication10\'1,especiallyifwinterroadsnatureofterrainwilladequatelyconceallineRivertoodeepforfordingandisspread;highresistancetocontrolatand/orhelicopterconstructionisused.Noneunlessitisrunonridges(unlikelyinthis10\'lerelevations;lowresistancetocon-Firecanseriouslyimpactsleepandcaribouormally.sosiltationwillhavelowtrolinalpinetundra.habitat.Largene\'lareaopenedbyaccesssegment),road\'Iillincreasehuntingpressure.npotentialonslopes;highsuscepti-HeavyclearinginYanertFork;ConstructionactivitiesmayinhibitcaribouHighimpacttowildernessqualityexceptfor'mafrostdegradationonpoorlylittletonoclearingelse\'lhere.Slowregroh~hinhigherandsheepactivities.Overallhabitatmodi-PossiblelineconnectionatHealyPowerlowerMoodyCreek(VsibelliMineworks),leyfloors,TowardsHealy,wellficationlow,especiallyif\'linterroads/5aresubjecttomediumerosionelevationsandpoorlydrainedareas.Highhelicopterconstructionisused.FirecanPlant-Usibelli~lineroadsmaybeusedNatureofterrainwillconceallineexceptfortolowrateoffirespread;highto10\'1foraccess.ridgealonglowerMoodyCreekwherelinewilldlowsusceptibilitytopermafrostresistancetocontrol.seriouslyimpactsheepandcaribouhabitat.CrossingneededonHealyCreek:Largenewareaopenedbyaccessroad\'Iillbesilhouetted,limpact.increasehuntingpressure.lplainhasmediumerosionpotential.Clearingwillenhanceconsiderableamount0Privateholdings(claims,homesteads,etc.)NoimpactonDryCreekarcheologicalsiteedareassubjecttopotentialperma-Heavyclearingformostofrouteexceptalongroute-townsofHealy,Lignite,sinceline\'IilltraveloneastbankofNe-Goldstreammoosehabitat.CaribouconfinedtowestNenana:ThesetownsmaybeaffectedbynanaRiver.~diumimpactnearHealyandationandfrostheaving.nearHealy.IntroductionofbrushintobankofNenanaandthus\'Iillnotbeaffectedhlyerosiveandsusceptibletoright-of-\'Iay.Highrateoffirespread;iflineTunSoneastbank.Nonewsignifi-'constructionactivitiessincetheyareintheGoldstreamHills;10\'1impactalonglegradationandslopeinstability,highresistancetocontrol.cantareasopenedup,particularlyifGVEAtransportationcentersalongthesegment.lowerNenanaRiver.ImpactwillbelessIfGVEAlineisadjoined,therewillbeaifGVEAright-of-wayisadjoined.Lowim-TananaRiverneeded:lowsiltationright-of-wayisparalleledoradjoined.conflictwiththeFAAairportatNenanaforpacton\'Iilderness.clearance.liver:10\'1erosionandpermafrostHeavyclearingonTanana10\'llands.LighttoConstructionactivitiesandfireinUpperLowimpactonscenicqualityduetoextreme)werWoodRiver:mediumtohighnoclearinginl/pperWoodRiverinalpineWoodRiverwillnegativelyaffectcaribouand,inaccessibility.Wildernessqualitywillrrpactsonpermafrost.Highsus-andmoisttundra,andtheTananafloodplainsheep.ClearinginLowerWoodRiver\'Iillen-Ne>n€receivehighimpactinupperWoodRiver,toheaving.Lo\'ltomediumero-nn.l5kegs.Varyingratesoffirespreadandhancemoosehabitat.Verylargeareaopenedmediumto10lvalonglowerWoodRiverbe-ial.CrossingofTananaRivercontrollability.upbyaccessroad\'Iillbesubjectedtocauseofvaryingconcealmentandpresencegreaterhuntingpressure.ofcivilization.NENANAIMPACTS
SOILSVEGETATIONSuccessivelylessclearingassegmentgErosionimpactislow.Shallowpermafrostinnorth.InBroadPass,notreesneedclearingandtheonlyvegetationlostGoldCreek-Cantwellpoorlydrainedareassusceptibletodegrada-wouldbefromaccessroad.SlowregrOl;(10)tion;sincetheaccessroadcanavoidtheseimpliesthatmaintenancewillnotbeneareas.thisimpactwillbelow.andalsothatrevegetationmaybenecesalongsomeareas.Mediumtohighratefirespread;highresistancetocontrolClearingvariesfromdensespruce-hardw,toalpinetundra.~bstvegetationlossPoorlydrainedloam:impactonpermafrostinwillbefromaccessroad.SlowregrowtJWatana-WellsCreekvi~thiscaseishigh,andfrostheavingisposs-impliesthatmaintenancewillnotbeBrushkanaCreek(11)ible.Uplandsoils:impactislowonperma-neededandthatinplacesrevegetationfrost,mediumonerosion.maybenecessary.Mediumtohighrate(firespread;highresistancetocontrollowresistanceinalpinetundra.Erosionimpactislow·level.ShallowpermafrostClearingvariesfromspruce-hardwoods1highbrush.~bstvegetativelossfromWellsCreekCantwellinpoorlydrainedareassusceptibletodegrada-cessroads.SlOl,regrolvthimpliestha1(12)tien;sincetheaccessroadcanavoidthesemaintenancewillnotbeneeded.Mediurareas,thisimpactwillbelow.highrateoffirespread;highresistartocontrol.Higherosionpotentialthroughoutstretch.HeavyclearinginvalleybottombyYanEExposedbedrockincanyonswillprovidesolidFork;lighterclearingthroughoutrestCantwell-Healy(13)towerfoundationsbutwillinhibitaccessroadroute.Highrateoffirespread,highconstructionifneededoncanyonslopes.~istancetocontrolonvalleyfloor;l(Poorlydrainedareashavehighpermafrostresistanceinalpinetundra.degradationsusceptibility.Lowsiltationimpact.HigherosionpotentialandexposedbedrockonfJeavyclearingonvalleybottomstonoslopes.Someareasofpoorlydrainedsoilsus-clearinginalpinetundra.SlowregrmWellsCreek-Deanceptibletopermafrostdegradationinwiderval-inhigherelevations.HighrateoffilCreek(14)leyfloors.Rivertoodeepforfordingandisspread;highresistancetocontrolatlowerelevations;lowresistancetocorsilt-ladennormally,sosiltationwillhavelowtrolinalpinetundra.impact.Higherosionpotentialonslopes;highsuscepti-HeavyclearinginYanertFork;bilitytopermafrostdegradationonpoorlylittletodrainedvalleyfloors.TowardsHealy,wellclearingelsewhere.SlowregrowthinhiDeanCreek-Healy(15)drainedsoilsaresubjecttomediumerosionelevationsandpoorlydrainedareas.Hito10\,rateoffirespread;hightolowpotentialandlowsusceptibilitytopermafrostresistancetocontrol.degradation.CrossingneededonHealyCreek:lowsiltationimpact.Nenanafloodplainhasmediumerosionpotential.Poorlydrainedareassubjecttopotentialperma-Heavyclearingformostofrouteexcelfrostdegradationandfrostheaving.GoldstreamnearHealy.IntroductionofbrushintHealytoEster(16)hillsarehighlyerosiveandsusceptibletoright-of-way.Highrateoffirespreepermafrostdegradationandslopeinstability.highresistancetocontrol.CrossingofTananaRiverneeded:lowsiltationimpact.UpperWoodRiver:lowerosionandpermafrostHeavyclearingonTananalowlands.Lig:impacts.LowerWoodRiver:mediumtohighnoclearinginlJpperWoodRiverinalpiDeanCreektoEsterpotentialimpactsonpermafrost.Highsus-andmoisttundra,andtheTananaflood.(WoodRiver)(17)ceptibilitytoheaving.Lowtomediumero-muskegs.Varyingratesoffirespreadsionpotential.CrossingofTananaRivercontrollability.needed.
VEGETATIONLngthroughoutsegment;noneed:e.PossibledisruptionofldsubsequenterosiononslopesdegradationonpoorlydrainedhavelowtomeditnnresistancefromPaxsontoDonnellyDomelearingasroutegoesnorth.tioninclearingsinSpruce-ts.Slashmustbedisposedoftleinfestations.Vegetationhighrateoffirespreadandresistancetocontrol.ImpactsbelessifAlyeskaright-of-wayDined..overmostofroute;someclear..;ruce-Hardwoodsnecessaryaround'elchinaRiver.Riskofbeetle'slash.VegetationonUpper..uhaslowtomeditnnrateoffuelitnntohighresistancetocon-:iononlowerLittleNelchinahaspreadandhighresistancetoryclearingthroughoutsegment.:tionwilloccurinclearings.~infestationofslash.Vege->hrateoffirespreadandhigh>control.OverallimpactswouldAlyeskaright-of-wayweretobepossible.metaPassandGunsightMountainrequiredmediumtoheavyclear-~length.Brushintroductionclearings.Clearingswillneed:enance.Riskofbeetleinfest-t.Vegetationhasmeditnnto:irespreadandhighresistanceDELTAANDMATANUSKACORRIDORS-----IMPACTSWILDLIFEConstructionactivitiesmayinterferewithcariboumovements.Lowimpactonmooseactivities.Littlechangeinhab~tatfromconstruction,unlessseverescarr1ngorex-cessivefiresaffectvegetation.AccessroadwillopenuptheButteCreekareaandhuntingpressuresmayincrease.Possibleinterferencewithcaribouandbison'movements.Lowimpactonmooseinsouthernpartbutwillenhancehabitatonmoreheavilyforestedareas.LowimpactonDallSheepinDeltaCanyonsincelineWill.staylow.Minimaldestructionofduckhab1tatifright-of-waycrossesSalchasloughsandpondsbvDonnellyDome.SiltationinGul-kana,SalchaandShawcreekswillaffectanadromousfish•PossibleinterferencewithNelchinacaribouherdmovements.LowimpactonmooseexceptonlowerLittleNelchina,whereclearingswillenhancecaribouhabitat.Thisrouteopensaverylargeareatohunting.PossibleinterferencewithNelchinacaribouherdmovements.Althoughmoosearentnnerous,majorimpactshouldbetheenhancementofhabitatalongclearings.Firewillbedestructivetocaribouhabitat,mayenhancemoosehabitat.OverallimpactswouldbelessiftheAlyeskaright-of-wayweretobeadjoined.LowimpactonDallSheep..Clearingwi~ler.t-hancemoosehabitat.Lowlmpactsonw1ldhfeingeneral.EXISTINGDEVELOPMENTSNoexistingdevelopmentsexceptforscarcesettlementsalongDenaliHighway.Noimpact.SettlementsalongRichardsonHighwaymaybeimpactedbylineright-of-way.acquisiti?n.To,vnsofDeltaJunctionandB1gDeltaw1IIreceivesomeimpacts,mostlybeneficial,.fromtransitofmaterialandlabor.POSS1-blecongestionofright-of-waythrough.DeltaCanyonunlessrights-of-wayar~consol1dated.Overallimpactswouldbeless1fAlyeskaright-of-wayweretobeadjoined.N::meTownofGlennallenwillreceivesomeimpacts,mostlybeneficial,fromtransitofmaterialandlabor.Noothermajorimpacts.OverallimpactswouldbelessifAlyeskaright-of-wayweretobeadjoined.ConsiderablefarmingcorrummityonPalmer-conflictsmayariseinlanduse.Roadsbyabandonedcoalmineareascanbeusedasaccess.LowerMatanuskaValleyhasahighratioofprivatelyownedlandwhichwillresultinacquisitionforright-of-way.SCENICQUALITY/RECREATIONonviewasseenfromDenallH1ghway,lmecanbeconcealedsomewhatfromhighway.Prelim-inaryroutesurveysinTangleLakesAr<::heo-logicalDistrictwilllocatearcheolog~calsites;adjustmentofrout~would.allev1ateconflict.Right-of-wayw1llavo1drecrea-tionareasandeastendofDenaliHighwaytolessenimpactonrecreationandscenicquality.HighimpactsonscenicqualityfromPaxsontoDonnellyDome,meditnntoDeltaJunction,andlowtoEielsonA.F.B.Impactisafunc-tionofexistingscenicqualityandabilitytoconcealthetransmissionline.Iftrans-missionlineisroutedparalleltoRichardsonHighway,recreationareasandhist?ricsiteswillbenegativelyaffected.If.lm~ad-..joinstheAlyeskaright-of-way,lmpactsWlIIbeless.Wildernessqualitysufferssincethiswouldbeapioneercorridor.Lowimpactonscenicquality-linecanbeeasilyconcealedforentiresegment.Pos-sibleconflictswithrecreationalandhis-toricsitesdependingonfinallocation.ImpactswouldbelessifAlyeskaright-of-wayweretobeadjoined.SevereimpactonscenicqualityofUpperMatanuskaValleyandTahnetaPass.Partialconcealmentispossible.Impactlessensasvalleywidens,andagriculturalusebecomesmoreapparentan~concealment~creases..LowimpactonKInkArmarea;lmecanaVOldallrecreationareasandbeconcealedfromroads.DELTA/MATANUSKAIMPACTS
WatanatoPaxsonviaButteCreek(18)PaxsontoFairbanks(19)WatanatoSlideMtn.viaVee(20)PaxsontoSlideMtn.viaGlennallen(21)SlideMts.toPointMacKenzie(22)SOILSVulnerabletopermafrostdegradation,Low-lyingareasaresusceptibletoheavingandsettlement,Erosionpotentialismediumtohigh,Accessroadwillneedtobeadequatelyculvertedoverareasofpoordrainage,InDeltaCanyonbedrockiseasilyreachedfortowerfoundations,ThixotropicsiltsnorthofSummitLakecombinedwithseismicriskwillaffectreliabilityofline,PhelanCreek,TananaRiver,GulkanaRiver,ShawandSalchaCreeksneedcrossings,Lowareasvulnerabletoheaving,Considerableimpacttopermafrostpossiblefromaccessroad;winterconstructionpreferable,Accessroadwillneedtobeadequatelyculvertedoverareasofpoordrainage.Vulnerabletoheaving,Considerableimpacttopermafrostpossiblefromaccessroad;winterconstructionpreferable,Accessroadwillneedtobeadequatelyculvertedinareasofpoordrainage,OverallimpactswouldbereducedifAlyeskaright-of-wayweretobeadjoinedwherepossible,Erosionimpactfromconstructionandaccessroadcanbehigh.Permafrostdegradationisunlikely.ImpactofconstructionandroadonKnikArmsoilswillbelow,Frostheavingisveryprobableinpoorlydrainedareas,VEGETATIONMinimalclearingthroughout.segment;no.needformaintemince.Possibledis1Uptionofsurfacematandsubsequenterosiononslopesorpermafrostdegradationon~oorly~rainedareas.Fireshavelowtomedlumreslstancetocontrol.LightclearingfromPaxsontoDonnellyDomearea.Heavyclearingasroutegoesnorth.BrushintroductioninclearingsinSpruce-Hardwoodforests.Slashmustbedisposedoftopreventbeetleinfestations.Vegetationhasmediumtohighrateoffirespreadandhightomediumresistancetocontrol.ImpactsoverallwouldbelessifAlyeskaright-of-wayweretobeadjoined.Lightclearingovermostofroute;someclear"ingthroughSpruce-Har~oodsne<;:essaryaroundlowerLittleNelchinaRiver.RlSkofbeetleinfestationofslash.Vegetat~ononUpper,Susitnaplateauhas10':'tome~lumrateofflYespreadandmediumtohlghre~lstanceto,con-trol.VegetationonlowerLlttl~Nelchmahashighrateofspreadandhighreslstancetocontrol.Mediumtoheavyclearingthroughoutsegment.Brushintroductionwilloccurinclearings.Riskofbeetleinfestationofslash.Vege-tationhashighrateoffirespreadandhighresistancetocontrol.OverallimpactswouldbereducedifAlyeskaright-of-wayweretobeadjoinedwerepossible.ExceptforTahnetaPassandGunsightMountainarea,segmentrequiredmedium~oheavy<;:lear-ingforentirelength.BrushlJ:trodu<;:tlOnwilloccurinclearings.Clearmgswlllneedperiodicmaintenance.~skofbeet~einfest-ationofslash.VegetatlOnhasmedlUmtohighrateoffirespreadandhighresistancetocontrol.DELTAANDMATANUSK,IMPACTSWILDLIFConstructionactivitiesillcariboumovements.Lowiactivities.Littlechangconstruction,unlesssevecessivefiresaffectvegeroadwillopenuptheButhuntingpressuresmayincPossibleinterferencewit}movements.Lowimpactonpart,butwillenhancehalheavilyforestedareas..uSheepinDeltaCanyonsm(low.Minimaldestructionifright-of-waycrossesS,pondsbyDonnellyDome.~kana,SalchaandShawcreEanadromousfish.Possibleinterferencewitherdmovements.LowimpaonlowerLittleNelchina,willenhancecaribouhabiopensaverylargeareatPossibleinterferencewitlherdmovements.AlthoughmajorimpactshouldbethEhabitatalongclearings.destructivetocaribouhalmoosehabitat.OverallinlessiftheAlyeskaright-beadjoined.LowimpactonDallSheep..hancemoosehabitat.Low:ingeneral.
ENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSOFCORRIDORSImpactsofPreferredCorridorSusitna-lSoils:InthelowerSusitnaValleythecorridorwillencountersubstantialareasofpoorlydrainedsoilsthatalthoughnotvulnerabletoerosionwill,however,posetheproblemoffrost-jackingoftowerfootingsandanchors.Unlessmeasuresaretakentocounteractthispotentialproblem,additionalmaintenanceanditscorrespondingimpactswillbenecessary.Thebetterdraineduplandsoilsarelessvulnerabletoheaving,but,aswithmanyfloodplainsoils,israthersusceptibletoerosion,pa.rticularlystreamerosion.Sincetherelativeproportionsofthesetwosoiltypesvaryfrompoorlydrainedsoilsinthesouthernportiontowelldraineduplandsoilsinthenorthern,theimpactsassociatedwiththemwillhaveasitrilardistribution.Accessroadconstruction,althoughrequiringheavyclearing,willberelativelyeasyintheuplandsoils.Watererosionwilloccursomewhat,particula.rlyduringtheconstructionphase,influencingwaterqualityinthe<clea.rwaterstreamscrossed.Roadconstructionintheareasofpoorlydrainedpeatswillinvolveproblemsofhardeningthesurfacesufficientlytobearconstructiontraffic.Ruttingandgougingoftrackswilloccurifconventionalvehiclesattempttocrossanunhardenedsurface.Corduroy,piles,deepfills,anddrainagearemethodsofhardeningmuskegsurfaces,allofwhichareexpensiveandwillinvolvelocalimpacts.Avoidanceoftheproblembycarefulrouting,wintercon-struction,and/oruseoflow-pressuretreadvehicleswillinvolvelessimpacts.Permafrostisgenerallynotpresent.Whereisolatedmassesdoexist,theyareburiedfairlydeeply.Potentialthermaldisruptionofperma-frostalongthiscorridorisunlikely.ThecorridorparallelstheSusitn.a,involvingnocrossing,butinter-sectsseveraltributariesfromtheTalkeetnaMountains.Fordingofmachineryandyardingoflogsacrossthesestreamswillresultinincreasedsedimentation.Inthesmallerclearwaterstreamsthismayresultinreductionofspawninghabitatandpotentialgilldamageinfishdown-streamofthecrossing.Vegetation:IfthelinetoPointMacKenzieis345kv,theamountofclearingfortheright-of-waywillbeupto2,308acres;ifthelineistobe230kv,theamountofclearingwillbeupto2,060acres.TheactualAppendixII35
AppendixI1-36clearingwillprobablynotbeashighastheseacreagessincevegetationalongsomestretchesUlaynotrequireclearing,exceptaroundtowerbases.Theterrainbeingrelativelyflat,theaccessroadcanutilizetheright-of-waywithoutadditionalclearing.Theimmediateeffectofthisclearingwillbethedestructionofthevege-tation;themuchmoresignificantimpactwillbeuponerosionand'\vildlifehabitats.Inhillyterrainmechanicalclearingmethodssuchasbulldozingwillcauseconsiderabledisruptionofthesoilandsubsequenterosionandstreamsedimentation..Theuseofbrushbladesorrotarycutterswillreducethiseffect.Onsteepslopeshandclearingwillmitigatetheotherwiseheavyerosionpotentiallikelywithmechanicalclearing.Toreduceavailablefuelforforestfires,andtoreducepotentialinfesta-tionofhealthytreesbysprucebeetles(Dendroctomusrufipennis)andipsbeetles,slashmustbedisposedof.Thiscanbeeitherby.saleofmarket-abletimberorbyburning.Althoughburningwillreduceairqualitytempor-arily,itismoreeconomicalandlessdamagingthanthealternatives.(SeeMitigatingMeasures)Regrowthratesalongthiscorridorarefastenough,particularlyinthesouthernportion,towarrantperiodicsuppressionoftallgrowingtreeswhichposeahazardtothetransmissionline.Thepreferredmethodalongthiscorridorismanualapplicationofasuitableherbicide.Theamountofclearingtobemaintained,themodestregrowthrates,andhighcostoflabormakethisalternativepreferrableinthiscorridoroveraerialapplicationofherbicidesontheonehand,orhandcuttingofresidualtreesontheother.Ifproperapplicationtechniquesareadheredto(seeMitigatingMeasures),therewillbenootherimpactsotherthanthemaintenanceofasub-climaxvegetation.Accidentaloversprayingorwinddrift,orimproperdilutionresultinginunnecessarydestructionofvegetation,andsprayingofwaterbodiesresultinginhabitatdestructionforaquaticlifearenotlikelytooccurwithmanualapplication.Sectionsneedingvegeta-tionsuppressionoccursinthebottomlandspruce-poplar,lowlandspruce-hardwood,anduplandspruce-hardwoodforests,particularlyinthebottomlandspruce-poplarandmuskeg-bogareas,whichcompriseasignificantproportionoftheecosystemscrossedbythiscorridor,willneedlittleclearingandnovegetationsuppression.Lowlandspruce-hardwoodareaswillnotneedtobemaintainedasoftenasbottomlandspruce-poplar.Wildlife:Alterationofvegetationpatternswillaffectwildlife.Thiscorridortraversesmanyareasofmooseconcentration,a.ndmooseshouldbenefitfromtheintroductionofbrushresultingfromtheregrowthontheclearing.Sincetheclearingmustbemaintained,thisbrushareawilllastforthelifeoftheline.~,fostbrushareasareintransition,
changingfromthebrushphasetosomeotherphasenearertheclimacticphase;thebrushinatransmissionclearingcanbecountedasamorepermanentsourceofbrowse.Animalsdependentuponclimacticforest,suchassquirrels,willsufferlossanddisplacement.However,theirfasterreproductiverateswillallowtheirpopulationstoadjustrapidly.Mostanimalswillbenefitfromtheedgeenvironment,offeringbothforageandcoverfortheadjacentforestandbrush.Initially,animalmovementsmayoccuralongtheright-of-way,butasthebrushgrowsintoadensecoverthiswillbelimited.Inanyevent,thisimpactshouldbelowinthiscorridor.Constructionitselfwillaffectwildlife.La.rgermammalsmaytemporarilyleavetheareatoreturnaftertheconstructionactivity.Smalleranimalswillsufferlossofindividuals,butshouldrecuperaterapidlyoncecon-structioniscompleted.Thedensityofforestinthiscorridorwillallowanimalstomoveonlyashortdistancetoavoidcontactwithconstructionactivities.Vegetationsuppression,bywhatevermethod,willperiodicallyremovecoverfromalongtheright-of-way.However,duetothesurroundingcoveroftheunclearedforests,thisimpactwillbeinsignificant.Recreation:TheSusitna-1corridorwillapproachwithin10milesofseveralrecreationalandwaysideareasinthelowerSusitnavalley.ThelargestoftheseistheNancyLakesRecreationArea.Inaddition,thecorridorwillrunadjacenttotheDenaliStateParkfor22miles.However,theSusitnaRiverwillseparatethecorridorfromthePark;themainaccesstolandswithintheParkistheAnchorage-FairbanksHighway,andthisisanaverageof10milesawaytothewestovera2,000to2,500feethighridge.Dependinguponthepoliciesofthelandmanagingagenciesinvolved,thiscorridorwillprovideaccesstoareaspreviouslydifficultofaccess.ThelargestsuchareaisthatsouthofNancyLaketoPointMacKenzie.Denseforestandmuskeglimittravel.AnothersuchstretchisthatfromTalkeetnanorth.AlthoughtheserviceroadparallelstheRailroad,itwillofferasignificantlyeasieraccessbycarortrucktothiscorridor.Manycabinsalongthesestretcheswillbeprovidedwithbetteraccess;however,thecreationofeasieraccessmayinterferewithisolationdesiredbymanyoftheowners.IfnobridgeisprovidedovertheTalkeetnaRiver,theserviceroadwillbelessattractivetocasualtravellers.AppendixI1-37
AppendixI1-38CulturalResources:TheNationalRegisterofHistoricandArcheologicalSiteslistsonlyonesiteinthearea,KnikVillage.Thecorridorwillrunatleast10milestothewestofthissite.Itislikelythatarcheo-logicalsiteswillbefoundalongthecorridor,eitherduringthelocationsurveyorduringconstruction.Ifso,minorrouterelocations,orcarefultowerlocations,willprotectthesesites.Inadvertentalterationofasitewillreduceordestroyitshistoricalvalue.ScenicResources:Thiscorridordoesnottraverseanyareasofgoodorhighqualityscenicvalues.Thenorthernportionis,however,morescenicthanthesouthernportion.Inthenorthernportionthefairlycontinuousmoderatelydenseforestwillprovideamplescreeningfromtransportationroutes.Furthersouth,theforestsaremoreintermingledwithopenmuskeg.Glimpsesofthetransmissionlinecanthenbeseenfromthehighwayorrailroadthroughthesemuskegs.SouthofNancyLakethecorridorandthetransportationcorridorsdiverge,andalthoughcOVerbecomesmoresporadic,thelinewillnolongerbevisiblefromthetransportationroutes.ThetransmissionlinewillnotbevisiblefromtheNancyLakeRecreationArea.AstheAlaskaRailroadandthetransmissioncorridorapproachGoldCreek,thevalleybecomesmoreconfined,andscreeningbecomesmoredifficult.However,itappearsthatthelinecanbeconcealedthroughmostofthisportion.LandUseandResources:FromPointMacKenzietoNancyLakethecorridorfollowsnoexistingcorridorfor32miles.NorthofNancyLaketoGoldCreekthecorridorparallelstheAlaskaRailroad,andtoTalkeetnatheAnchorage-FairbanksHighwayandMatanuskaElectricAssociationdistributionlines.Noimpactisexpectedontheseutilities.Althoughagricultureinthisareaisgenerallylimitedtoafewfarmsandsubsistencegardens,thereispotentialinthebetterdrainedsoilstosupportfarming.ThecorridorwillencountersomeagriculturenearNancyLake,andagainabout25milesnorthnearthesettlementofMontana.Impactonagriculturewillbeverylow.GoodstandsofblackcottonwoodandbalsampoplarexistneartheTalkeetnaRiver,butthereisnoextensiveforestrytobeimpactedbythecorridor.Futureforestrymayutilizetheaccessroadbothforloggingandasafireroad,butthisimpactislowanddependsalsouponthelandownership.
Impactonmineralresourcesislow;thecorridordoesnottraversesignificantareasofpotentialmetallicminerals,anddoesnotapproachanyexistingcoaloroildevelopmentsalthoughthepotentialforcoal,oilandgasexistsalongnearlytheentirelengthofthecorridor.Duetothehighcostofalow-loadtapona345kvline,thelikelihoodofthedevelopmentoftheseresourcesduetotheproximityofatransmissionlineislow.Social:Fewtownsareencounteredbythecorridor.Wheneverpossible,thefinallocationwillcircumventcommunities.Theconstructionphasecanlastsomewherefromthreetofiveyears.Duringthattime,workonthetransmissionlinewillaffectthesecommunities.Thenumbersofworkersneededonatransmissionlinerelativetoapipelineislow.Workerswillbehousedincamps,orwillbebasedinAnchorageorFair-banks,bothofwhicharelargeenoughtoabsorbtheworkforce.Laborwillprobablyberecruitedfromthesecitiesorbroughtinbythecontractors.Littleornolaborforcewillbedrawnfromthesmallercommunitiessinceitisnotexpectedthattheirresidentsmighthavetheskillsandqualificationsfortransmissionlinework.Someeconomicimpactcanbeexpected,asflyingservices,motels,restaurants,andentertainmentsreceivebusiness,notonlyfromthetransmissionlineworkers,butfromrelatedpersonnel,also.Talkeetnaistheonlycommunity,exceptAnchorage,receivingtheseimpactsfromcorridorSusitna-l.ItcanbeexpectedthatAnchoragecouldacceptthisimpactwithlittlestrain,buttheimpactmaybehighforTalkeetna.Theimpactsmaybeadverseinthatservicesmightbetemporarilymonopolizedbytheconstructionactivity,andgoodinthatitwouldbringconsiderablemoneytobusinessinthetown.ImpactsofPreferredCorridorNenana-l_Soils:TheincidenceofpermafrostincreasesfromDevilCanyonnorthtoFairbanks;however,itisgenerallydiscontinuous,withafairlydeeptable.Impactsresultingfromthermaldegradationwillbelow,exceptforsoilsintheMoodyareawhichareice-rich.AsinSusitna-l,soilsvaryfrompoorlydrainedsoilsonlowlands,andbetterdrainedsoilsonslopes.Erosionpotentialforthemajorityofthecorridorislowtomediumsincethegreaterportionofthecorridorisonrelativelylevelland.TwosignificantexceptionsarethesectionsintheNenanaCanyonandtheItGoldstreamHills.ItTheNenanaCanyonareawouldposesevereerosionalproblemsforanaccessroadduetothesteepslopesencountered.Discontinuouspermafrostisfound,whichpresentsahighpotentialfordegradation.AppendixI1-39
AppendixI1-40Duetothephysicalandpoliticalrestraints,thecorridorwillhavetotraversemanyslopes.Soilsareoftenshallowontheseslopes;indeed,manyofthemaretalus.TheuppercanyonisconstrictedbetweenPanoramaMountainandtheNenanaRiver,andanextensive,unstabletalusslopeliesatthefootofPanoramaMountain.Inthelowercanyon,thin,unstablesoilblanketsthesteepslopetotheeastofthehighway.Wherethecorridortraversesslopessuchasthese,erosionwillbeaseriousproblem,especiallyonthinsoilsorunstablesoils.ThisimpactwillbeespeciallyobjectionablesinceerosionscarsmaybevisiblefromtheAnchorage-FairbanksHighwayandMt.McKinleyNationalPark.Becauseofthepotentiallysevereimpactofouraccessroadinthisarea,nonewillbebuiltandhelicopterconstructionwillbeused.TheNenanaCanyonareaisalsointhevicinityofseverallargefaults.TheDenaliFaultcrossesthecorridorjustnorthofCantwell,andanotheractivefaultisencounterednearHealy,northofthelowercanyon.Thisfactorwillaffectlocationofthetransmissionlineonunstableslopes.ThesoilintheGoldstreamHillscontainslensesoffinegrainmaterialwhich,combinedwiththeslopesencounteredbythecorridor,posesapotentialerosionproblem.Fortunately,rainfallisscantinthisarea.ThelowlyingareasintheGoldstreamHillshaveashallowpermafrosttable;soavoidingthepotentiallyerodablefinegrainsoilsbylocatingthetransmissionlinelowwillpresentaproblemwithfrozensoilsandmuskegs.ThecorridorwillcrossPortageCreek,theWestandMiddleForksoftheChulitnaRiver,theJackRiver,theNenanaRiver,YanertFork,HealyandLigniteCreeks,andtheTananaRiver.WiththeexceptionoftheNenanaandTananaRiversandYanertFork,theseareclearwaterstreams.Fordingsandcrossingswhichdisturbthebottomwillaffectwaterquality,aswillrun-offintothesestreamsfromadisturbedclearing.Vegetation:Upto1,440acreswillneedclearingalongthiscorridor.Actualacreageofclearingwillprobablybemuchlesssincethisfigureassumesclearingtothefullwidthoftheright-of-way.Inmanyareas,onlytheareasaroundthetowerbaseswillrequireclearing,particu-lal'lyinthelowlandspruce-hardwoodandmuskeg-bogecosystems.Theheaviestclearingswillbenecessaryinthebottomlandspruce-poplaranduplandspruce-hardwoodecosystemsalongthelowerNenanaRiverandtheTananafloodplain.Alongthegreaterpartofthecorridor,theaccessroadcanbeincorporatedintotheclearingduetolevelterrain.FromDevilCanyontoHealy,therewillbenoaccessroad.
Themostimmediateeffectofclearingwillbethedestructionoftheclearedvegetation.Thetimberclearedfromthebottomlandspruce-poplarwillbesold,ifmerchantable.Non-merchantabletimberwillbeburnedifanaccessroadispresent.Withnoaccessroad,machinerycannotbebroughtinforstacking,burning,orchipping,anddownedtimberwillbeleftalongtheclearing.Beetleinfestationwillbeofconcernmainlyinthebottomlandspruce-poplarecosystem.Somedisruptionofthesoilfromclearingistobeexpected;increasederosionbecauseofthis,andenhancedbythelackofcover,willresult.Ifvegetationiscleareduptoriverbanksonstreamcrossings,thismayresultinadditionalsedimentation.Clearingwillentailhabitatmodification,tobediscussedunderIIWildlife.IIRegrowthratesalongthiscorridorareslowenoughtonotrequireaprogramofvegationsuppressionotherthanoccasionalcuttingduringroutineinspectionandmaintenancepatrols.Wildlife:Therewillbelossofindividualsmalleranimals,anddisplace-nlentofothers;however,thisisatemporarysetback.Highreproductiveratesofsmallermammalsandre-invasionwillalleviatethisimpact.Apermanenthabitatmodificationwillresultfromtheclearingandmaintenance;acorridorofbrushwillbemaintainedthroughotherwiseforestedland.Animalsdependentuponclimaxforest,suchassquirrels,willsuffersomehabitatloss.Animalsdependentuponbrushandforbsforbrowsewillgain.Apartfromlocalconcentrations,theonlymajormooseconcentrationalongthiscorridoroccursfromHealytotheTananaRiveralongtheNenanaRiver.Aftertheconstructionphase,moosewillbenefitfromthelIedgellenviron-ment,offeringincreasedbrowseimmediatelyadjacenttoforest,whichprov-idescover.Dependinguponthefinallocation,theaccessroadmayresultinadditionalhuntingpressureuponmooseinthisarea.Thiswillalsodependuponthechanceofmorehuntersintheareathanpresentlysinceifthenumberofhuntersremainsthesame,thereisnoreasontosuspectthatincreasedaccesswillresultinbetterhuntingsuccess.InpassingthroughthelowerNenanaCanyon,theNenana-lcorridortraversesDallsheephabitat.However,sincethesheeptendtoinhabitareashigherthananyfeasiblelinelocation,andsincenoaccessroadwillbeusedinthisarea,impactonDallsheepwillbelowtonone.AppendixI1-41
AppendixI1-42Recreation:TheNenana-1corridorwillparalleleightmilesofthenortheastborderofDenaliStatePark,butwillbeseparatedfromtheboundarybyIndianRiver,theAlaskaRailroad,andatleastonemileofbuffer.Furthernorth,itparallelstheeastborderofMt.McKinleyNationalParkfor30miles,beingseparatedbytheNenanaRiver,theAnchorage-FairbanksHighway,andtheAlaskaRailroad.AtnopointwillthecorridorcrosslandsproposedasadditionstotheMt.McKinleyNationalPark.Theaccessroadwillopenupnoextensivepreviouslyinaccessibleareassinceitwillparallelexistingtransportationafewmilesdistant;norecognizedwildernessareasareinfringed.Useoftheaccessroadbythepublicwillbedeterminedbytherelevantland-managingagency.IfthefinalroutelocationcrossestheClearMEWS,restrictionsmaybeplaceduponpublicuseofthisportionoftheaccessroad.CulturalResources:TheNationalRegisterofHistoricandArcheologicalSiteslistsonlyonesiteapproachedbytheNenana-1corridor,theDryCreekarcheologicalsite.ThisliestothewestofHealy,theNenanaRiver,andtheexistingtransportationcorridors.SincethecorridorrunsalongtheeastbankoftheNenana,therewillbenoimpactonthissite.IfthefinalroutesurveydisclosesanunsuspectedarcheologicalorhistoricalsitewithpotentialforinclusionintheNationalRegister,minorrouterelocations,orcarefultowerlocation,willprotectthesesites.Inadvertantalterationofasitewillreduceordestroyitshistoricalvalue.ScenicResources:ThecorridorpassesthroughanarearecognizedasbeingofgoodtohighscenicqualityfromDevilCanyontoHealy.ThepossibilityofscreeningthroughoutthisareavariesfrommoderateinthesouthernportionaroundChulitna,tominimalintheBroadPassandtheupperandlowercanyonsoftheNenanaRiver.Scenicqualitywillbeimpacted,theimpactbeingafunctionofexistingscenicqualityandtheopportunityforscreening.Impactinthe-NenanaCanyonwillbehigh;impactonBroadPasswillbemoderatetohigh;impactelsewherewillbemoderate.Twofavorablefactorsmitigatetheimpactsomewhat:1)ThecorridorisnotvisuallyintactastheAlaskaRailroadandtheAnchorage-FairbanksHighwayhavealreadyreducedscenicqualitysomewhat.2)Thetr.ajorviewssouthofthecanyonsaretothewest,towardtheMt.McKinleymassif,whereasthecorridorliestotheeastofthetransportationroutes,themostlikelyviewpoints.(SeeMitigatingMeasures.)
LandUseandResources:TheNenana-lcorridorfollowsexistingcorridorsforits.entirelength.For10milesitfollowstheAlaskaR.ailroadfromGoldCreek.FromnorthofChulitnatoEsteritfollowsacombinedRailroad/Highway.corridor.FromHealynorthitalsoparallelstheGoldenValleyElectricAssociation138kvtransmissionline.Itispossiblethecorridorcouldadjointhisright-of-wayortheGVEAlinecouldberebuilttoahighercapacityandtheexistingright-of-wayutilized.AlthoughthepotentialforagricultureexistsalongthiscorridorintheTananaValleyportion,itexistsintheformofhomegardensandgrazingifatall.Impactonexistingandpotentialagricultureislowtonone.Someforestryexistsinthebottomlandspruce-poplarforestsalongthelowerNenanaRiverandtheTananaRiver.Possiblesalesofmerchantabletimberfromtheclearinginthisareawillbringshort-livedbusinesstothetownofNenana,butthisimpactwillbelow.Useoftheaccessroadasaloggingroadandfirebreakmayoccur,butthisusewillnotsignifi-cantlyaffectlogginginthisarea.Althoughthecorridorapproachesandcrossesseveralmineralizedareasandfossilfueldeposits,itwillnotmakepowerdirectlyavailablefordevelopmentexceptthroughdistributionsystemsoftheexistingelectricutilities.Theaccessroadmaybeusedasaprospectingroad,butwillnotserveforheavieruse.Thevalueofthemineralsandfuelissuchthatifaprofitableareaweretobedeveloped,itwouldbefeasibletorelocatesmallsectionsofthetransmissionline.Onthewhole,impactenexistingandpotentialmineralandfuelextractionislow.Slightlymorethanhalfofthelengthofthiscorridorpassesthroughthe1H.McKinleyCooperativePlanningandManagementZoneofEcologicalConcern.ThisisastudyareaofajointState-FederalPlanningandManagementCommitteeresponsibleforlanduseplanningintheareaperipheraltotheMt.McKinleyNationalPark.Social:Thesetownswillbeaffectedbythecorridor:Cantwell,Healy,Nenana,andFairbanks.Cantwellisasmallcommunitywithnoelectricutility,andfewservicesapartfromarailroadstationandafewrestaurant/motel/gasstations.IncomingmaterialmayarriveattheAlaskaRailroad;possiblecongestionofthestationmayoccur.Thisisaninsignificantimpact,however,andquitetemporary.ItispossiblethatCantwellwilltapdirectlyfromthe230kvtransmissionline.AppendixI1-43
Appendix11-44Electricalservicewilleitherbeviafuturedistributionlinesofoneoftheexistingutilitiesorbytappingfromanewsubstation.Theproposed25kvdistributionlinetoMcKinleyParkmayeventuallyextendsouthtoserveCantwellandSummit.Ifthetransmissionlineisconstructedfirst,pressureisexpectedtobegreaterforasubstationtoserveCantwellandSum1T.it.Thepresenceofanearbytransmissionlinewillundoubtedlyresultinincreasedpressurefromthecommunityforelectricalservice;althoughwhichofthetwomethodswillbedeterminedbythecostandfeasibilityofboth.HealyissimilartoCantwell,exceptthatitisservedbytheGVEAsystemISHealysteamplant.Nenanaisafairlyimportanttransportationnode,situatedatthecrossingoftheTananaRiver,anavigablewaterway,bytherailroadandhighwaycorridors.Situatedinabottomlandspruce-poplararea,ifthetimberfromalineclearingistobesold,thenthelogswillpassthroughNenana,offeringsomebusinessandjobs.ItisunlikelythatmuchlaborfortheactuallineconstructionwillbedrawnfromNenana.ThetownisalreadyservedbytheGVEAsystem.TheexistingHealy138kvlinepassesveryclosetothetown.ForashortstretchitusesshortertowersandspanstominimizehazardstoaircraftusingtheFAAstripsouthoftown.Thecorridorwillbefarenoughfromtheairstriptoreducethishazardtoaminimum,and anyspansdeemedhazardousbytheFAAwillbemarked.ImpactsofAlternativeSusitna-2AlternativecorridorSusitna-2duplicatesSusitna-lfromPointMacKenzietoTalkeetna.Impactsareidenticalforthissegment,andarediscussedunderimpactsofpreferredcorridorSusitna-l,ImpactsdiscussedhereareforthesegmentfromTalkeetnatoGoldCreekviaTroublesomeCreek.Soils:Inthesouthernportionofthisalternativethereisahighproportionofpoorlydrainedsoilswhichcanbeexpectedtopresentproblemsfortowerfootingsandaccessroads.Theseverityoftheproblemwilldependuponthevulnerabilityofthesoiltofrostheavingandtheabilityofthefinallinesurveytoavoidareasofpoorsoils.IntheuplandareasaroundTroublesomeCreek,gravellysoilswillpresenterosionalproblems,particularlysincesteeperslopesareencountered.Frostheavingshouldbelessofaconcern,andmaintenanceoffootingswillbeless.Therewillbelittleornoproblemwiththermaldisruptionofpermafrostasthereisonlydiscontinuous,deeplyburiedpermafrostalongthisalternative.However,finallinesurveycanlocateandavoidanyhighl"iskareas.Thermaldisruption,particularlyintheuplandareas,couldleadtogulleyingandotherformsoferosion.
CrossingsoftheTalkeetnaandSusitnaRivers,parallelingofWhiskersCreek,andapossiblecrossingofTroublesomeCreekarenecessary.FordingoftheTalkeetnaandSusitnaRiversisunlikely.Inanyevent,theriversarebothalreadysedimentladenriversandwillbelittleaffectedbyadditionalsediment.SedimentwillnegativelyimpactfishhabitatintheWhiskersandTroublesomeCreeks,bothofwhichareclearwaterstreams.Vegetation:TheamountofclearingfortheSusitna-2alternativeisupto2,375acres,67acresmorethanthatforSusitna-1,ifthelineistobe345kv.A230kvlinewouldrequireupto2,121acres,61morethanasimilarlinealongSusitna-1.Theactualacresofclearingwillprobablybelessthanthesefiguressincesomestretchesmayonlyrequireclearingfortheaccessroadandthetowerbases.Inthesouthernportiontheterrainisflatenoughsothattheclearingwillincludetheaccessroad;inthesteeperterraintheaccessroadmayhavetodeviatefromtheright-of-waytomaintaingrade,andthiswillrequireadditionalclearing.Theimmediateeffectofthisclearingwillbethedestructionofthevegetation.Themuchmoresignificantimpactwillbeuponerosionandwildlifehabitats.Inhillyterrain,mechanicalclearingmethodssuchasbulldozingwillcauseconsiderabledisruptionofthesoil,andsubsequenterosionandstreamsedimentation.Theuseofbrushbladesorrotarycutterswillreducethiseffect.Onsteepslopeshandclearingwillmitigatetheotherwiseheavyerosionpotentiallikelywithmechanicalclearing.Toreduceavailablefuelforforestfires,andtoreducepotentialinfestationofhealthytreesbysprucebeetles(Dendroctonusrufipennis)andipsbeetles,slashmustbedisposedof.Thiscanbeeitherbysaleofmerchant-abletimberorbyburning.Althoughburningwillreduceairqualitytemporarily,itismoreeconomicalandlessdamagingthanthealternatives.(SeeMitigatingMeasures.)Regrowthratesalongthiscorridorarefastenough,particularlyinthesouthernportion,towarrantperiodicsuppressionoftallgrowingtreeswhichposeahazardtothetransmissionline.Thepreferredmethodalongthiscorridorismanualapplicationofasuitableherbicide.Theamountofclearingtobemaintained,themodestregrowthrates,andhighcostoflabormakethisalternativepreferableinthiscorridoroveraerialapplicationofherbicidesontheonehand,orhandcuttingofindividualtreesontheother.Ifproperapplicationtechniquesareadheredto(seeMitigatingMeasures),therewillbenootherimpactsotherthanthemaintenanceofasub-climaxvegetation.Accidentaloversprayingorwinddrift,orimproperdilution,resultinginunnecessarydestructionofvegetationandsprayingofwaterbodiesresultinginhabitatdestructionAppendixI1-45
AppendixI1-46foraquaticlifearenotlikelytooccurwithmanualapplication.Sectionsneedingvegetationsuppressionoccursinthebottomlandspruce-poplar,lowlandspruce-hardwood,anduplandspruce-hardwoodforests,particularlyinthebottomlandspruce-poplarandmuskeg-bogareas,whichcompriseasignificantproportionoftheecosystemscrossedbythiscorridor,willneedlittleclearingandnovegetationsuppression.Lowlandspruce-hardwoodareaswillnotneedtobemaintainedasoftenasbottomlandspruce-poplar.Wildlife:Alterationofvegetationpatternswillaffectwildlife.Thiscorridortraversesmanyareasofmooseconcentration,andmooseshouldbenefitfromtheintroductionofbrushresultingfromtheregrowthontheclearing.Sincetheclearingmustbemaintained,thisbrushareawilllastforthelifeoftheline.Mostbrushareasareintransition,changingfromthebrushphasetosomeotherphaseapproachingtheclimacticphase.Thebrushinatransmissionclearingcanbecountedasamorepermanentsourceofbrowse.Animalsdependentuponclimacticforest,suchassquirrels,willsufferlossanddisplacement.However,theirfasterreproductiverateswillallowtheirpopulationstoadaptrapidly.Mostanimalswillbenefitfromtheedgeenvironment,offeringbothforageandcoverfromtheadjacentforestandbrush.Initially,anin:almovementsmayoccuralongtheright-of-way,butasthebrushgrowsintoadensecover,thiswillbelimited.Inanyevent,thisimpactshouldbelowinthiscorridor.Constructionitselfwillaffectwildlife.Largermammalsmaytemporarilyleavetheareatoreturnaftertheconstructionactivity.Smalleranimalswillsufferlossofindividuals,butshouldrecuperaterapidlyonceconstructioniscompleted.Thedensityofforestinthiscorridorwillallowanimalstomoveonlyashortdistancetoavoidcontactwithconstructionactivities.Vegetationsuppression,bywhatevermethod,willperiodicallyremovecoverfromalongtheright-of-way.However,duetothesurroundingcoveroftheunclearedforests,thisimpactwillbeinsignificant.Recreation:Thiscorridorpenetrates26milesoftheDenaliStatePark,comingwithin4milesoftheAnchorage-FairbanksHighwaynearthePark'ssouthernborder.ThisputsthecorridorwithineasywalkingdistanceofthehighwayforasignificantpartofitslengthwithinthePark.Thiswillaffectpresentandpotentialtrailsintersectingthecorridor.
AccessibilitytotheParkwouldbeincreasedbythecreationofanaccessrouteparalleltothehighway;however,thehighwayandtheSusitnaRiverarenotseparatedmorethannineorlessthanfourandahalfmiles,sothecorridor,whichseparatesthetwo,willnotserviceaninaccessiblearea.HuntingispresentlyprohibitedinDenaliStateParksoanaccessroadwillhavenovalueashuntersIaccess.ImpactonrecreationwillbenegativesincetheentireareaoftheParktotheeastofthehighwaywillbelimitedforhikinganddaytrails.CulturalResources:TheNationalRegisterlistsnohistoricalorarcheo-logicalsitesalongthiscorridor.Ifthefinalroutesurveylocatesanarcheologicalsite,minorrelocationorcarefultowerlocationwillavoiddisruptionofthesite.Inadvertantdisruptionofanarcheologicalsitewillreduceordestroyitsarcheologicalvalue.ScenicResources:Thetransmissionlinecanbeeffectivelyhiddenfromthehighwayforitsentirelength;however,itsimpactisstillhighbecauseofconflictswiththeexistingandpotentialtrailsintheStatePark.Asignificantvalueofthesetrailsisaesthetic,andvisibilityofatransmissionlinefromaninterceptedoradjacenttrailwillseriouslydetractfromtheoriginalpurposeofthesetrails.LandUseandResources:Themajorlanduseofthissegmentisscenicandrecreational.Impactsareasdescribedaboveunder"Recreation"and"ScenicResources,IITherewillbenosignificantimpactonforestryoragriculturebecauseoftheexclusivenatureoftheStateParklanduse.Therewillbenoimpactsonotherresourcesinthissegment.ImpactsofAlternativeSusitna-3Soils:Thesoilsencounteredalongthisalternativearebasicallywellsuitedtotheconstructionofanaccessroad,Thelowerosionpotential,absenceofsignificantpermafrost,andthegravellytextureindicatethateffectsoferosionandconsequentsedimentationwillbelow,Dependinguponthefinalroutesurvey,severalsmallclearwatercreekswillbecrossed,Somesedimentationwilloccurfromfordingofconstruc-tionequipment.Thissedimentationwillbeofatemporarynature,andoflowsignificancesincethisuplandareaisnotanimportantfishery,TheTalkeetnaRiverwillneedatleastonecrossing,butprobablywillnotbeforded.SincetheTalkeetnaRivercarriesaglacialsiltload,anyadditionalsedimentationwillnotbesignificant.AppendixI1-47
AppendixI1-48Theuplandsoilsarequiteshallow;excavationoffootingsmayrequireblasting.Accessroadlocationmayhavetodeviatefromthetransmissionlineinordertokeepanacceptablegradewithoutextensiveexcavation.Vegetation:TheSusitna-3alternativefor345kvcouldrequireupto1,900acres,407acreslessthanthatforSusitna-1.For230kv,thisalternativewouldrequireupto1,696acres,364acreslessthanasimilarlinealongcorridorSusitna-1.ThemajorityofthisclearingwilloccurintheTalkeetnaRivervalley.LittleornoclearingwillberequiredintheuplandareastowardDevilCanyon.Theimmediateeffectofthisclearingwillbethedestructionofthevegetation.Themuchmoresignificantimpactwillbeuponerosionandwildlifehabitats.Inhillyterrainmechanicalclearingmethods,suchasbulldozing,willcauseconsiderabledisruptionofthesoilandsubsequenterosionandstreamsedimentation.Theuseofbrushbladesorrotarycutterswillreducethiseffect.Onsteepslopes,handclearingwillmitigatetheotherwiseheavyerosionpotentiallikelywithmechanicalclearing.Toreduceavailablefuelforforestfiresandtoreducepotentialinfestationofhealthytreesbysprucebeetles(Dendroctomusrufipennis)andipsbeetles,slashmustbedisposedof.Thiscanbeeitherbysaleofmerchant-abletimberorbyburning.Althoughburningwillaffectairqualitytempo-rarily,itismoreeconomicalandlessdamagingthanthe·alternatives.(SeeMitigatingMeasures.)Regrowthratesalongthiscorridorarefastenough,particularlyinthesouthernportion,towarrantperiodicsuppressionoftallgrowingtreeswhichposeahazardtothetransmissionline.Thepreferredmethodalongthiscorridorismanualapplicationofasuitableherbicide.Theamountofclearingtobemaintained,themodestregrowthrates,andhighcostoflabormakethisalternativepreferrableinthiscorridoroveraerialapplicationofherbicidesontheonehandorhandcuttingofindividualtreesontheother.Ifproperapplicationtechniquesareadheredto(seeMitigatingMeasures),therewillbenootherimpactsotherthanthemain-tenanceofasub-climaxvegetation.Wildlife:Alterationofvegetationpatternswillaffectwildlife.ThiscorridortraversesmanyareasofmooseconcentrationintheTalkeetnaRivervalley,andmooseshouldbenefitfromtheintroductionofbrushresultingfromtheregrowthontheclearing.Sincetheclearingmustbemaintained,thisbrushareawilllastforthelifeoftheline.Most
brushareasareintransition,changingfromthebrushphasetosomeotherphasenearertheclimacticphase.Thebrushinatransmissionclearingcanbecountedasamorepermanentsourceofbrowse.Animalsdependentuponclimacticforest,suchassquirrels,willsufferlossanddisplacement.However,theirfasterreproductiverateswillallowtheirpopulationstorecuperaterapidly.Mostanimalswillbenefitfromtheedgeenvironment,offeringbothforageandcoverfromtheadjacentforestandbrush.Initially,animalmovementsmayoccuralongtheright-of-way,butasthebrushgrowsintoadensecover,thiswillbelimited.Thisimpactshouldbelowinthiscorridor.Theremaybeapossibleimpactonthecaribouwinterrangereportedtoexistin intheuplandareasalongthisalternative.Summerconstruc-tionwillreducecontactsofcaribouandtheconstructionactivity.Firesstartedbyconstructionmaydestroypotentialwinterbrowse.Thedegreeofthisimpactdependsupontheareaburnedandtheseasonoftheburning.Largermammalsmaytemporarilyleavetheareatoreturnaftertheconstructionactivity.Smalleranimalswillsufferlossofindividuals,butshouldrecuperaterapidlyonceconstructioniscompleted.Thedensityofforestinthiscorridorwillallowanimalstomoveonlyashortdistancetoavoidcontactwithconstructionactivities.Vegetationsuppression,bywhatevermethod,willperiodicallyremovecoverfromalongtheright-of-way.However,duetothesurroundingcoveroftheunclearedforests,thisimpactwillbeinsignificant.Herbicideswillnotdirectlyaffectanimalsinthedilutionsusedformanualspraying;herbicidesusedonright-of-waymaintenancearenon-cumulativeandarereadilyexcreted.Theoveralladverse.impactofherbicidesprayingwillbelow,asitwillbenecessaryonlyeveryfivetotenyears,whereastheavailabilityofforageprovidedisaspermanenta.sthetransmissionline.Recreation:Thiscorridorapproachesnorecognizedrecreationarea.SincetheentirelengthofthissegmentfromTalkeetnatoDevilCanyonparallelsnoexistingtransportationline,asizeableamountoflandisopeneduptoaccessbyfour-wheeldrivevehicles,dependentuponthepoliciesofthelandownersormanagingagency.Forrecreationrequiringvehicularaccess,thisincreasedaccesswillhaveabeneficialimpact.Forrecreationdependentuponprimitivevalues,increasedaccesswillhaveadetrimentalaspect.AppendixI1-49
AppendixII-SOCulturalResources:Thereisnoknownimpactonculturalresourcesinthissegment.ScenicResources:Intermsofviewercontacts,thiscorridorwillhavealowimpactonscenicqualityduetoitsrelativeinaccessibility.How-ever,thiscorridorwillhaveahigherimpactupontheintactnessofthisareathanthecomparablesegmentsofSusitna-landSusitna-2.Thehighprimitivevaluesandmediumtohighscenicvalueofthiscorridor,coupledwithrelativelyhighvisibilityofatransmissionlineintheuplandarea,willresultinahighimpactonscenicquality,dis-regardingthefactorofviewercontacts.LandUseandResources:NoimpactonagricultureisanticipatedalongthiscorridorfromTalkeetnatoDevilCanyon.AnaccessroadwillnotenhanceforestryintheTalkeetnaRivervalleysinceitwouldbeunsuit-ableforaloggingroadunlessitwereoverbuilt,andsincetheaccessroadwouldrunveryclosetothetransmissionlineitself.Impactsonmineralresourceswillalsobelow;notenoughpotentialexistsalongthecorridortobeinfluencedbytheincreasedaccess.Social:Nocommunitiesareencounteredalongthiscorridor;sothereisnoimpact.ImpactsofAlternativeSusitna-4Soils:ForsoilsintheportionofthiscorridorthatfollowstheTalkeetnaRiverandPrairieCreek,impactsfromerosion,siltation,andpermafrostdegradationarelow.CrossingsoftheTalkeetnaRiverandIronCreekwillbenecessary.Bothofthesestreamsaresedimentladen;soaddi-tionalsedimentationwillhavelittleeffect.Thesoilsontheuplandportionofthiscorridoraremoresusceptibletoerosion,althoughtheslopesareshallower.Animproperlyconstructedaccessroadwillcauseerosion.Veryfewcreeksarecrossed.Sedimentationwouldbeaveryminorproblem.Somepermafrostassociatedwithpoorlydrained,peatysoilsmaypresentproblems,notonlyofpermafrostdegradation,butoffrost-heaving.However,finallinesurveyshouldreducethispotentialimpact.Unavoidablestretchesofpoorlydrainedsoilsmayberuttedandscarredbyvehicletracksunlesstheaccessroadishardenedwithagravelbed.Vegetation:Fora345kvlinethiscorridorcouldrequireupto2,257acresofclearing,50acreslessthanSusitna-l.Fora230kvdesignitwouldrequireupto2,105acres,45acreslessthanasimilarlineon
Susitna-l.Actualacreagesofclearingwillprobablybelessthanthesefiguressincetheentireright-of-waywillinmostcasesnotbecleared,andalongsomestretchesonlytheaccessroadandtowerbasesneedtobecleared.Theimmediateeffectofthisclearingwillbethedestructionofthevege-tation.Themuchmoresignificantimpactwillbeuponerosionandwild-lifehabitats.Inhillyterrain,mechanicalclearingmethodssuchasbulldozingwillcauseconsiderabledisruptionofthesoilandsubsequenterosionandstreamsedimentation.Theuseofbrushbladesorrotarycutterswillreducethiseffect.Onsteepslopes,handclearingwillmitigatetheotherwiseheavyerosionpotentiallikelywithmechanicalclearing.Toreduceavailablefuelforforestfiresandtoreducepotentialinfesta-tionofhealthytreesbysprucebeetles(Dendroctonusrufipennis)andipsbeetles,slashmustbedisposedof.Thiscanbeeitherbysaleofmerchantabletimberorbyburning.Althoughburningwillaffectairqualitytemporarily,itismoreeconomicalandlessdamagingthanthealternatives.(SeeMitigatingMeasures.)RegrowthratesalongtheTalkeetnaRivervalleyarehighenoughsothatperiodicsuppressionoftallgrowingtreeswithintheclearingisrequired.Themethodtobeusedwillbemanuallyappliedherbicide,appliedtotargettreesduringregularmaintenancepatrols.Ifproperlyapplied,therewillbenocontaminationofwaterbodiesordestructionofnon-targetvegetation.Themostimportantimpactofthisprogramwillbethemainte-nanceofsub-climaxbrushwithinforestedareas.Wildlife:Alterationofvegetationpatternswillaffectwildlife.ThiscorridortraversesanareaofmooseconcentrationintheTalkeetnaValley,andmooseshouldbenefitfromtheintroductionofbrushresult-ingfromtheregrowthontheclearing.Sincetheclearingmustbemaintained,thisbrushareawilllastforthelifeoftheline.Mostbrushareasareintransition,changingfromthebrushphasetosomeotherphasenearertheclimacticphase.Thebrushinatransmissionclearingcanbecountedasamorepermanentsourceofbrowse.Animalsdependentuponclimacticforest,suchassquirrels,willsufferlossanddisplacement.However,theirfasterreproductiverateswillallowtheirpopulationstoadaptrapidly.Mostanimalswillbenefitfromtheedgeenvironment,offeringbothforageandcoverfromtheadjacentforestandbrush.Initially,animalmovementsmayoccuralongtheright-of-way,butasthebrushgrowsintoadensecover,thiswillbelimited.Inanyevent,thisimpactshouldbelowinthiscorridor.AppendixII-51
AppendixII-52Constructionitselfwillaffectwildlife.Largermammalsmaytemporarilyleavetheareatoreturnaftertheconstructionactivity.Smalleranimalswillsufferlossofindividuals,butshouldrecuperaterapidlyoncecon-structioniscompleted.Thedensityofforestinthiscorridorwillallowanimalstomoveonlyashortdistancetoavoidcontactwithconstructionactivities.Vegetationsuppression,bywhatevermethod,willperiodicallyremovecoverfromalongtheright-of-way.However,duetothesurroundingcoveroftheunclearedforests,thisimpactwillbeinsignificant.Herbi-cidesappliedasoutlinedunder"Vegetation,"willproducefeweffectsuponanimals.Sincetheherbicidesareappliedonlytotargetvegeta-tion,theprobabilityofingestionisreducedtoaminimum.Herbicidesarenottoxictoanimalsintheconcentrationsnormallyused,andarenotcumulativeineffect.Recreation:AlthoughthiscorridordoesnotapproachanyStateOrFederalrecreationareasorparks,itwillaffecttherecreationaluseoftheuplandareanearStephenLake.Readilyaccessiblebyfloatplane,thisareaispopularwithsportsmenandvacationers.Thelakeshavemanycabinsalongtheirshores.Theaccessroadwouldprovideanothermeansofaccessforthisarea,whichwouldtendtoincreasetherecrea-tionaluse,andatthesametime,thetransmissionlinewouldbevisibleformostofitslengthovertheuplandarea.Ifoneoftheperceivedvaluesofthisareaisitsrelativeinaccessibility,thenincreasedaccessandavisibletransmissionlinewouldhaveahighlydetrimentalimpact.Increasedaccessibilitytootherareastraversedbythecorridorwouldbebeneficialtorecreationalusedependentuponeasyaccess.CulturalResources:Ifthefinalsurveydisclosesanunsuspectedarcheologicalsitealongtheright-of-way,thelocationofthelineortowerswillbealteredtoavoiddamagetosuchsites.Inadvertentdamagetoanarcheologicalsitewillreduceitshistoricalvalue.Atthesametime,discoveryofanarcheologicalsiteduringsurveyorconstructionwillbeabeneficialaspect.ScenicResources:Intermsofviewercontacts,impactofatransmissionlinealongtheTalkeetnaRivervalleywillbelow.Alongtheuplandareaitwillbehigh.Thisareaisaheavilyusedrecreationarea,sparselyforested,andofmoderatetohighscenicquality.Thus,theconstructionofatransmissionlineandtheinherentvisibilityofsuchalinewouldresultinahighimpact.
LandUseandResources:Therewillbesignificantimpacts,bothbene-ficialanddetrimental,onthepredominantlanduse,recreation.TheseimpactsarediscussedunderthelfRecreationlfsectionabove.Therewillbenoimpactonagriculture,forestry,andmineralresources.Social:Therewillbenosocialimpactsfromthiscorridor.ImpactsofAlternativeNenana-2Soils:Impactsonsoilsalongthiscorridorwillbeidenticaltothoseout-linedinNenana-luptoCantwell.Thegenerallyflat,gravellysoilfromCantwelltoWellsCreekisvulnerabletowatererosion.Constructionactivitiesmaycausegulleyinginthisarea.Thepeatypermafrostsoilsalsofoundinthisareawillpresentproblemsinconstructingtheaccessroad.Possibleruttingandscarringmayleadtodegradationoftheunder-lyingpermafrostandfurthererosion.FromWellsCreektotheupperWoodRiver,impactswillvarywiththetypeofsoilencountered,whichcanbelocalizedpoorlydrainedfrozensoil,thinsoilsandgravel,andbarebedrockandtalus.Localpocketsofpoorlydrainedsoilscanbeavoidedtoanextent.Unavoidableencounterswillresultindisturbanceofthesoilandpossibleconsequentdisruptionofthepermafrost.Thinsoilsandgravelareverysusceptibletoerosion.particularlysincetheywillbefoundinconjunctionwithsteepslopes.Accessroadconstructionwillhaveadetrimentalaffectinboththesesoils.Noimpactonbarebedrockandtalusisanticipated;however,footingsfortowerswillrequireblastingandconstructionofanaccessroadwillbeextremelydifficult.Increasingamountsofpoorlydrained,frozen,peatysoilsencounteredfromalongthelowerWoodRivertotheTananaRiverwillcauseincreasingproblemswithaccessroadconstruction,footingstabilization,andruttingandscarringofthesoils.Unlesstheaccessroadisbeddedongravel,thereisastrongpotentialforpermafrostdegradationandconsequentgulley-ingandmaintenanceproblems.ImmediatelyadjacenttotheTananaRiver,stratifiedsoilspresentapotentialwatererosionproblem,yetareeasiertoconstructonthanthesurroundingpoorlydrainedpeats.Thesestrati-fiedmaterialsareoftenleveesofextinctorexistingchannels.Theyarelinear,butsinuous,andmayprovidenotonlythebestfoundationforaroad,butalsothehighestpointabovefloodwaters.AppendixII-53
Appendix11.,.54Theimpactofsedimentationonglacialriverswillbelow.SedimentationimpactonclearwaterstreamswillbemediumforWellsCreek,LouisCreek,andDeanCreek.SedimentationimpactsuponthenumerousclearwatertributariesoftheWoodRiverwillbelowsincetheywillbecrossedclosetotheirconfluenceswiththesiltladenWoodRiver.Vegetation:ThiscorridorcouldrequireuptoI,500acresofclearing,60acresmorethanthatforNenana-I.Actualacreageclearedwillprobablybelessthanthisfiguresincetheentireright-of-wayneednotbecleared,andtheterrainrequiringtheheavierclearingisgenerallyflatenoughtoallowtheaccessroadtorunwithintheclearing.Theimwediateeffectofthisclearingwillbethedestructionofthevege-tation.Themuchmoresignificantimpactwillbeuponerosionandwildlifehabitats.Inhillyterrainmechanicalclearingmethodssuchasbulldozingwillcauseconsiderabledisruptionofthesoilandsubsequenterosionandstreamsedimentation.Theuseofbrushbladesandrotarycutterswillreducethiseffect.Onsteepslopes,handclearingwillmitigatetheothelowiseheavyerosionpotentiallikelywithmechanicalclearing.Toreduceavailablefuelforforestfiresandtoreducepotentialinfesta-tionofhealthytreesinthebottomlandspruce-poplarecosystembysprucebeetles(Dendroctonusrufipennis)andipsbeetles,slashmustbedisposedof.Thiscanbedonebysaleofmerchantabletimber,bychipping,orbyburning.Althoughburningwillaffectairqualitytemporarily,itismoreeconomicalandlessdamagingthanthealternatives.Withnoaccessroad,machinerycannotbebroughtinforstacking,burning,orchipping,anddownedtimberwillbeleftalongtheclearing.(SeeMitigatingMeasures.)Exceptforthebottomlandspruce-poplarforestalongtheTananaRiver,regrowthratesarelowenoughsothatlittlevegetationsuppressionotherthanroutinetrimmingofdangertreesisnecessary.MoreextensivecuttingprogramsmaybenecessaryintheareaaroundtheTana.naRiver.Inthemoisttundraandalpinetundraecosystems,disturbedareaswillbeveryslowtorecuperate.Revegetationwithappropriatespecieswillbenecessarytominimizesurfaceerosionandpermafrostdegradation.Properconstructionandaccessroaddesignwilllimitvegetationlosstotheareaoccupiedbytheroadbedandtowerbases.Noclearingisnecessaryintheseareas.Firescausedbyconstructionandmaintenancewillhavelittleimpact,providingtheyarediscoveredquicklyandstoppedwithoutexcessdisturb-anceofthesoil.Thepresentpatternsofforestsarecausedbypreviousnaturallycausedfireswhichareanintegralfactorofthese
ecosystems.Impactfromasmallnumberofadditionalfiresoflimitedareawillbelow.Wildlife:Thegreatestanticipatedimpactuponwildlifewillbethealtera-tionofvegetativepatterns,andthisimpactwillbeafunctionofthedegreeofclearing.Animalsdependentuponclimaxforestwillsufferlossofindividualsandlossofhabitat.Generally,thesearethesmallmammalssuchassquirrelandmarten.Moosewillbenefitfromthecreationofanareaofmaintainedbrowse.Sincetheclearingwillnotbeallowedtotalregrowth,thebrowsecreatedcanbeconsideredaspermanentastheline.Theconjunctionofforestandopenbrushcreatesafavorable"edge"environmentformostanimals,offeringforageontheclearingandcoverintheforest.Constructionactivitywilltemporarilyfrightenawaywildlife;however,thisisanextremelylocalandtemporaryimpact.Maintenancepatrolswillnotbefrequentenoughtokeepanimalsfromreturningtothecorridor.ImpactuponthecaribouwinteringrangesoneithersidesoftheAlaskaRangewillbelowifconstructionisdoneinsummer,whichmaybepre-ferrableinanycasebecauseofbetterworkingconditions.Dallsheephabitatwillbeimpactedinthattheywillbefrightenedawayfromcon-structionactivitymoresothancaribouandmoose.Again,thisimpactisofatemporarynature.Uncheckedfireineitherofthesehabitatswilladverselyimpactbothcaribouandsheep.Withcaribouparticularly,destructionoftheirkeywinterbrowse,lichen,mayhavelonglastingeffectsduetoslowregrowthrates.Recreation:ThiscorridordoesnottraverseanyFederalorStateparksorrecreationareas.Itdoes,however,brieflyapproachwithinfivemilesthesoutheastcornerofMcKinleyNationalPark.Exceptfor22milesalongtheDenaliHighway,thecorridorwillprovideaccesstoanareapreviouslyaccessibleonlybyairorfoot.Insomecases,accessispresentlypossiblewithall-terrainvehicles.Increasedaccesswillimpactgameanimalpopulationssomewhat;theactualimpactwilldependuponthedesirabilityoftheareaforhunting,andaccessandhuntingregulationsimposedbythelandmanagingagencies.CulturalResources:ThisalternativeapproachesnoNationalHistoricorArcheologicalSites.Ifthefinalsurveydisclosesanunsuspectedarcheologicalsitealongtheright-of-way,thelocationofthelineorAppendixII-55
AppendixII-56towerswillbealteredtoavoiddamagetosuchsites.Inadvertentdamagetoanarcheologicalsitewillreduceitshistoricalvalue.Atthesametime,discoveryofanarcheologicalsiteduringsurveyorconstructionwillbeabeneficialaspect.ScenicResources:Thisalternativetraversesareasoflowtohighscenicquality.Intermsofviewercontacts,thiscorridorwillhavelittleimpactsinceitwillnotbevisiblefromtransportationroutesformostofitslength.Disregardingviewers,highvisualimpacttoscenicandwildernessqualityinthemountainousportionofthecorridorcanbeexpected.LandUseandResources:Therewillbenoimpactsonforestryandagriculturethroughoutthisalternative.Therewillbenoimpactsonmineralorfossilfuelresources.Apartfromobtainingeasements,noimpactisexpectedonexistinglanduse.ImpactsofAlternativeNenana-3Soils:ThemajorityofthesoilsontheportionofthisalternativewhichdiffersfromtheproposedNenana-1corridorarerocky,thinsoilsandbedrock,andassucharewellsuitedgenerallyfortowerfoundations.Accessroadconstructionwillbehamperedbysteepslopes,bedrock,andtalusencounteredbythiscorridor.Erosionwillgenerallybelow,althoughonthinsoilsorunstableslopes,erosionwillbesevereunlesscorrectivemeasuresareemployed.Permafrostcanbeassumedtobecontinuous,butwillnotusuallybeofconcerntotowerlocationunlessthesoilisice-rich.Thisconditionisassumedtoberestrictedtovalleyfloors.Soilimpactsfortheremainderofthealternativearedescribedundersoilimpactsoftheproposedcorridor.Vegetation:TheNenana-3corridorcouldrequireupto1,318acresofclearing,121acreslessthanNenana-I.AlmostnoclearingisneededontheportionwhichdiffersfromtheNenana-1corridorsincemostlyalpineandmoisttundraecosystemsareencounteredinthisportion.ImpactsresultingfromclearingwillbesimilartothosediscussedunderNenana-I.Alongthedifferingsegmentdestructionofvegetationwillbelimitedtothoseareasdirectlyoccupiedbythe"roadbedandthetowerbases.Thiswillbeapermanentimpact,althoughsomerevegetationoftowerbasescanbeexpected.
Destructionofthevegetativematintundraareaswillresultinlonglastingscarsunlesscorrectiveandpreventivemeasuresaretaken.Thisscarringcouldleadtosubsequentdegradationofice-richpermafrostanderosion.Firesresultingfromconstructionandoperation,unlesssuppressedquickly,willresultinextensivedestructionofvegetation.Theseecosystemsareadaptedtonaturalwildfires,andunlesstheoccurrenceofman-causedfiresisveryhigh,theyshouldrecuperateasquicklyastheywouldundernormalcircumstances.Wildlife:ImpactsonwildlifeforthosesegmentsofthisalternativecorridortoNenana-larediscussedunderimpactstowildlifeoftheproposedcorridor.Alongthedifferingsegment,therewillbelittleimpactfromhabitatmodificationduetoclearing.IncreasedincidenceoffireresultingfromoperationorconstructionwilladverselyaffecthabitatforDallsheepandcaribou.Moosehabitatwillbeenhanced,uptoapoint,byfire.Constructionactivitymaycauseavoidanceofthecorridorbyanimals;however,thisisatemporaryimpact.OperationandmaintenancewillnotaffecttheanimalsIoccupationofthecorridor.IncreasedaccessaffordedbytheaccessroadmayincreasehuntingpressureonDallsheep,caribou,andtoalesserdegreeonmoose.Thedegreeofthisimpactisdependentuponthedesirabilityofthiscorridorforhunting,andaccessandhuntingregulationsimposedbythelandmanagingagencies.Recreation:ThiscorridordoesnottraverseanyFederalorStateparksorrecreationareas.Itdoes,however,brieflyapproachwithin5milesthesoutheastcornerofMcKinleyNationalPark.Exceptfor22milesalongtheDenaliHighway,thecorridorwillprovideaccesstoanareapreviouslyaccessibleonlybyairorfoot.·Insomecases,accesSispresentlypossiblewithall-terrainvehicles.Increasedaccesswillimpactgameanimalpopulationssomewhat.Theactualimpactwilldependupondesirabilityof.theareaforhunting,andaccessandhuntingregulationsimposedbythelandmanagingagencies.CulturalResources:ThisalternativeapproachesnoNationalHistoricorArcheologicalSites.IfthefinalsurveydisclosesanunsuspectedAppendixII-57
AppendixII-58archeologicalsitealongtheright-of-way,thelocationofthelineortowerswillbealteredtoavoiddamagetosuchsites.Inadvertentdamagetoanarcheologicalsitewillreduceitshistoricalvalue.Atthesametime,discoveryofanarcheologicalsiteduringsurveyorconstructionwillbeabeneficialaspect.ScenicResources:Thisalternativetraversesareasofmoderatetohighscenicquality.Intermsofviewercontacts,thiscorridorwillhavelittleimpactsinceitwillnotbevisiblefromtransportationroutesformostofitslength.Disregardingviewers,highvisualimpacttoscenicandwildernessqualityinthemountainousportionofthecorridorcanbeexpected.LandUseandResources:Therewillbenoimpactsonforestryandagriculturethroughoutthisalternative.Therewillbenoimpactsonmineralorfossilfuel.resources.ImpactsofAlternativeNenana-4Soils:FromHealytoEster,thiscorridorduplicatesNenana-I,andimpactstosoilsareidenticaltothosediscussedunderimpactsofNenana-I.ThesoilsfromWatanaDamsitetoWellsCreekwillbeveryvulnerabletopermafrostdegradationandfrostheaving.Thevegetativematmustbepreserved,andconstructionactivitymustbeplannedtominimizedisruptionofthesoil.Erosioncausedbypermafrostdegradationandaccessroadconstructionwillhave<adverseimpactsonwaterqualityintheclearwaterstreamsencountered.Fordingofstreamsinthissegment,giventhesensitivesoilconditions,couldresultinextensivebankerosion.Tominimizethisandtoensuretheintegrityofthetransmissionline,thecorridorwillavoidrivercrossingswhenpossible.FromWellsCreektoHealyviaNenana-4,thesoilsarerocky,thinsoilsandbedrock,andassucharewellsuitedgenerallyfortowerfoundations.Accessroadconstructionwillbehamperedbysteepslopes,bedrock,andtalusencounteredbythiscorridor.Erosionwillgenerallybelow,althoughonthinsoilsorunstableslopes,erosionwillbesevereunlesscorrectivemeasuresareemployed.Permafrostcanbeassumedtobecontinuous,butwillnotusuallybeofconcerntotowerlocationunlessthesoilisice-rich.Thisconditionisassumedtoberestrictedtovalleyfloors.
Vegetation:TheNenana-4alternativecouldrequireuptoI,182acresofclearing,257acreslessthanNenana-I.Actualacresclearedwillprobablybelessthanthissincetheentireright-of-wayneednotbecleared.ImpactsonvegetationfromHealytoEsterareidenticaltothosediscussedforthatsegmentunderimpactsofNenana-I.AlmostnoclearingisneededontheportionwhichdiffersfromtheNenana-lcorridorsincemostlyalpineandmoisttundraecosystemsareencounteredinthis.portion.Impactsresultingfromclearingwillbesimilartothosedis-cussedunderNenana-I.Alongthedifferingsegment,destructionofvegetationwillbelimitedtothoseareasdirectlyoccupiedbytheroadbedandthetowerbases.Thiswillbeapermanentimpact,althoughsomerevegetationoftowerbasescanbeexpected.Destructionofthevegetativematintundraareaswillresultinlonglastingscarsunlesscorrectiveandpreventivemeasuresaretaken.Thisscarringcouldleadtosubsequentdegradationofice-richpermafrostanderosion.Firesresultingfromconstructionandoperation,unlesssuppressedquickly,willresultinextensivedestructionofvegetation.Theseeco-systemsareadaptedtonaturalwildfires,andunlesstheoccurrencofman-causedfiresisveryhigh,theyshouldrecuperateasquicklyastheywouldundernormalcircumstances.Wildlife:ImpactsonwildlifeforthosesegmentsofthisalternativecorridortoNenana-larediscussedunderimpactstowildlifeoftheproposedcorridor.Alongthedifferingsegmenttherewillbelittleimpactfromhabitatmodi-ficationduetoclearing.IncreasedincidenceoffireresultingfromoperationorconstructionwilladverselyaffecthabitatforDallsheepandcaribou.Moosehabitatwillbeenhanced,uptoapoint,byfire.Constructionactivitymaycauseavoidanceofthecorridorbyanimals;however,thisisatemporaryimpact.OperationandmaintenancewillnotaffecttheanimalsIoccupationofthecorridor.IncreasedaccessaffordedbytheserviceroadmayincreasehuntingpressureonDallsheep,caribou,andtoalesserdegreeonmoose.TheAppendixII-59
AppendixI1-60degreeofthisimpactisdependentuponthedesirabilityofthiscorridorforhunting,andaccessandhuntingregulationsimposedbythelandmanagingagencies.Recreation:ThiscorridordoesnottraverseanyFederalorStateparksorrecreationareas.Thecorridorwillprovideaccesstoanareapre-viouslyaccessibleonlybyairorfoot.Insomecases,accessispresentlypossiblewithall-terrainvehicles.Increasedaccesswillimpactgameanimalpopulationssomewhat.Theactualimpactwilldependuponthedesirabilityoftheareaforhunting,andaccessandhuntingregulationsimposedbythelandmanagingagencies.CulturalResources:ThisalternativeapproachesnoNationalHistoricorArcheologicalSites.Ifthefinalsurveydisclosesanunsuspectedarcheologicalsitealongtheright-of-way,thelocationofthelineortowerswillbealteredtoavoiddamagetosuchsites.Inadvertentdamagetoanarcheologicalsitewillreduceitshistoricalvalue.Atthesametime,discoveryofanarcheologicalsiteduringsurveyorconstructionwillbeabeneficialaspect.ScenicResources:Thisalternativetraversesareasoflowtohighscenicquality.Intermsofviewercontacts,thiscorridorwillhavelittleimpactsinceitwillnotbevisiblefromtransportationroutesformostofitslength.Disregardingviewers,highvisualimpacttoscenicandwildernessqualityinthemountainousportionofthecorridorcanbeexpected.LandUseandResources:Therewillbenoimpactsonforestryandagriculturethroughoutthisalternative.Therewillbenoimpactsonmineralorfossilfuelresources.ImpactsofAlternativeNenana-5Soils:ThesoilsfromWatanaDamsitetoWellsCreekwillbeveryvulner-abletopermafrostdegradationandfrostheaving.Thevegetativematmustbepreserved,andconstructionactivitymustbeplannedtomini-mizedisruptionofthesoil.Erosioncausedbypermafrostdegradationandaccessroadconstructionwillhaveadverseimpactsonwaterqualityintheclearwaterstreamsencountered.Fordingofstreamsinthissegment,giventhesensitivesoilconditions,couldresultinextensivebankerosion.Tominimizethisandtoensuretheintegrityofthetransmissionline,thecorridorwillavoidrivercrossingswhenpossible.
FromWellsCreektoupperWoodRiverthesoilsarerocky,thinsoilsandbedrock,andassucharewellsuitedgenerallyfortowerfoundations.Accessroadconstructionwillbehamperedbysteepslopes,bedrock,andtalusencounteredbythiscorridor.Erosionwillgenerallybelow,althoughonthinsoilsorunstableslopeserosionwillbesevereunlesscorrectivemeasuresareemployed.Permafrostcanbeassumedtobecontinuous,butwillnotusuallybeofconcerntotowerlocationunlessthesoilisice-rich.Thisconditionisassumedtoberestrictedtovalleyfloors.TheWoodRivervalleyandTananaRivervalleypresentproblemswithlocatingwelldrainedsoils.Largeareasofpoorlydrainedpeatswithcontinuousshallowpermafrostwillresultinpotentialsevereimpactssuchaspermafrostdegradation,ruttingandscarringofthesurface,bankerosionwhereclearwaterstreamsareforded,anderosioncausedbyaccessroadconstruction.Thenecessaryclearingwillalsogreatlyaddtoerosionandsiltation.Preventiveandcorrectivemeasureswillneedtobeusedtominimizetheseimpacts.Vegetation:Thiscorridorwillrequireupto1,369acresofclearing,74acreslessthanNenana-I.Actualacresclearedwillprobablybelessthanthisfiguresincetheentireright-of-wayneednotbecleal'ed,ThemajorityoftheclearingwillbealongtheTananaRivervalleyandlowerWoodRiverinthebottomlandspruce-poplaranduplandspruce-hardwoodecosystems.Alongthegreaterpartofthecorridortheaccessroadcanbeincorporatedintotheclearingduetolevelterrain.Themostimmediateeffectofclearingwillbethedestructionoftheclearedvegetation.Downedtimberandslashmustbedisposedofbyopenburningorchippingwhenpossibletopreventinfestationofstandingstocksofbottomlandspruce-poplarwithsprucebeetle(Dendroctonusrufipennis)andtheaccumulationoffuelforwildfire.Non-merchantabletimberwillbeburnedifanaccessroadispresent.Withnoaccessroad,machinerycannotbebroughtinforstacking,burning,orchipping,anddownedtimberwillbeleftalongtheclearing.Beetleinfestationwillbeofconcernmainlyinthebottomlandspruce-poplarecosystem.Destructionofthevegetativematintundraareaswillresultinlonglastingscarsunlesscorrectiveandpreventivemeasuresaretaken.Thisscarringcouldleadtosubsequentdegradationofice-richpermafrostanderosion,Firesresultingfromconstructionandoperation,unlesssuppressedquickly,willresultinextensivedestructionofvegetation,Theseeco-systemsareadaptedtonaturalwildfires,andunlesstheoccurrenceofman-causedfiresisveryhigh,theyshouldrecuperateasquicklyastheywouldundernormalcircumstances.AppendixI1-61
AppendixI1-62Somedisruptionofthesoilfromclearingistobee:h.'pected.Increasederosionbecauseofthis,andenhancedbythelackofcover,willresult.Ifvegetationiscleareduptoriverbanksonstreamcrossings,thismayresultinadditionalsedimentation.Wildlife:Therewillbelossofindividualsmalleranimalsanddisplace-mentofothers;however,thisisatemporarysetback.Highreproductiveratesofsmallmammalsandre-invasionwillamendthisimpact.Apermanenthabitatmodificationwillresultfromtheclearingandmainten-ance.Acorridorofbrushwillbemaintainedthroughotherwiseforestedland.Animalsdependentuponclimaxforest,suchassquirrels,willsuffersomehabitatloss.Animalsdependentuponbrushandforbsforbrowsewillgain.ThelargeconcentrationofmoosealongthelowerWoodRiverandtheTananaRiverwillbenefitfromtheregrowthofbrushintoclearedareas.Dallsheepandcaribouinthemountainousareaswillsuffersomelossofforagetotheroadbedandtowerbases.Excessivefirewilladverselyaffecttheforagefortheselasttwogameanimalssincetheyaredependentuponclimaxvegetationwhichhasaslowregrowthrate.Moosewillbenefitfromfires,uptoapoint.Excessivefiresmaytriggererosionwhichwoulddegrade,ratherthanenhance,browseformoose.Constructionactivitymaycauseavoidanceofthecorridorbyanimals;however,thisisatemporaryimpact.Operationandmaintenance"\TillnotaffecttheanimalsIoccupationofthecorridor.IncreasedaccessaffordedbytheserviceroadmayincreasehuntingpressureonDallsheep,caribou,andmoose.The·degree·ofthisimpactisdependentuponthedesirabilityofthiscorridorforhunting,andaccessandhuntingregulationsimposedbythelandmanagingagencies.Recreation:ThiscorridordoesnottraverseanyFederalorStateparksorrecreationareas.Thecorridorwillprovideaccesstoanareapre-viouslyaccessibleonlybyairorfoot.Insomecases,accessispresentlypossiblewithall-terrainvehicles.Increasedaccesswillimpactgameanimalpopulationssomewhat.Theactualimpactwilldependuponthedesirabilityoftheareaforhunting,andaccessandhuntingregulationsimposedbythelandmanagingagencies.CulturalResources:ThisalternativeapproachesnoNationalHistoricorArcheologicalsites.Ifthefinalsurveydisclosesanunsuspected
archeologicalsitealongtheright-of-way,thelocationofthelineortowerswillbealteredtoavoiddamagetosuchsites.Inadvertentdamagetoanarcheologicalsitewillreduceitshistoricalvalue.Atthesametime,discoveryofanarcheologicalsiteduringsurveyorconstructionwillbeabeneficialaspect.ScenicResources:Thisalternativetraversesareasoflowtohighscenicquality.Intermsofviewercontacts,thiscorridorwillhavelittleimpactsinceitwillnotbevisiblefromtransportationroutesformostofitslength.Disregardingviewers,highvisualimpacttoscenicandwilder-nessqualityinthemountainousportionofthecorridorcanbee:h.-pected.LandUseandResources:Therewillbenoimpactsonforestryandagriculturethroughoutthisalternative.Therewillbenoimpactsonmineralorfossilfuelresources.ImpactsofAlternativeMatanuska-lSoils:FromDevilCanyontoVeeDamsite,someproblemsrelatedtopoorlydrainedwoilswillbeencountered.Generally,erosionpotentialalongthissegmentwillbelowtomoderate.Permafrostdegradationpotentialislow.Therelativelylevelnatureoftheterrainwillfacilitateconstruc-tionofanaccessroadwithoutundueerosionalproblems.Severalclear-waterstreamswillneedcrossing.Sedimentationmayoccurfromthesecrossings,butsincetheywillbecrossedclosetotheirconfluenceswiththesilt-ladenSusitna,thisimpactwillbelow.FromVeeDamsitetoSlideMountainthepotentialforpermafrostdegrada-tionisveryhigh.Thepoorlydrainedfine-grainsoilsencounteredareveryvulnerabletofrostheaving,whichwillentailmuchmaintenanceofthelineandroad.Thepotentialforscarringandruttingofthesurfaceishigh,andthesubsequenterosionmaycausesignificantsedimentationinthemanyclearwaterstreamsinthisarea.FromSlideMountaintoPalmer,thecorridorencounterslesssensitivesoils.OnceoverTahnetaPasspermafrostbecomesincreasinglydiscon-tinuous,andwelldrainedsoilspredominate.Erosionpotentialislowtomoderateandconstructionofanaccessroadshouldpresentnoundueerosionalimpacts.SteepslopesintheupperMatanuskaValleymaypresentsomeerosionalproblems,buttheslopesaregenerallystable.Thinsoilsarealsocommon,andpotentialfordenudationofslopesbelowanaccessroadcutexists,butshouldbeeasilypreventable.AppendixII-63
AppendixII64InthelowerMatanuskaValleysoilssusceptibletowatererosionareencountered,andlocationoftowersandroadwillhavetobeplannednotonlytopreventbankcutting,butalsotoavoidathreattotheinteg-rityoftheline.SincethisareaisalsotheState'sonlymajoragricul-turalarea,extensivecareshouldbetakentoavoidadverselyaffectinggoodquality,arablesoils.FromPalmertoPointMacKenzielargeareasofpoorlydrainedsoilswillagainnecessitategreatcareinlocationofthetransmissionline.Althoughpermafrostisabsent,scarringofthesoftpeatsoilsisstillapossibility,andthesubsequentsedimentationofclearwaterstreamswillhaveanadverseimpactonaquaticlife.Theheavierclearingnecessaryinthisareawillalsocontributesomewhattosedimentation;towhatdegreeisdependentuponthecareexercisedinminimizingdisruptionofthesoil.Vegetation:Ifa345kvtransmissionsystemisconstructed,thisalter-nativecouldrequireupto2,817acresofclearing,510acresmorethanSusitna-l.Ifa230kvsystemisused,upto2,514acresofclear-ingwillbenecessary,454acresmorethanasimilarsystemalongSusitna-l.ThemajorityofthisclearingwillbeinthelowerMatanuskaValleyandalongthenorthshoreofCookInlettoPointMacKenzie.VerylittleclearingwillberequiredalongtheportionfromVeeDamsitetotheLittleNelchinaRiver.Actualacresofclearingwillprobablybelessthantheabovefiguressincetheentirewidthoftheright-of-wayneednotbeclea.red.Theterrainisgenerallylevel;sotheaccessroadcanbeincorporatedintothelineclearingwithoutadditionalclearing.Theimmediateeffectofthisclearingwillbethedestructionofthevege-tation.Themuchmoresignificantimpactwillbeuponerosionandwildlifehabitats.Inhillyterrain,mechanicalclearingmethodssuchasbulldozingwillcauseconsiderabledisruptionofthesoilandsubsequenterosionandstreamsedimentation.Theuseofbrushbladesorrotarycutterswillreducethiseffect.Onsteepslopeshandclearingwillmitigatetheotherwiseheavyerosionpotentiallikelywithmechanicalclearing.Toreduceavailablefuelforforestfires,andtoreducepotentialinfes-tationofhealthybottomlandspruce-poplarbysprucebeetles(Dendroctonusrufipennis)andipsbeetles,slashmustbedisposedof.Thiscanbeeitherbysaleofmerchantabletimber,chipping,orbyburning.Althoughburningwillreduceairqualitytemporarily,itismoreeconomicalandlessdamagingthanthealternatives;so,non-merchantabletimberwillbeburnedifanaccessroadispresent.Withnoaccessroad,machinerycannotbebroughtinforstacking,burning,orchipping,anddownedtimberwillbeleftalongtheclearing.Beetleinfestationwillbeofconcernmainlyonthebottomlandspruce-poplarecosystem.
Regrowthratesalongthiscorridorarefastenough,particularlyinthesouthernportion,towarrantperiodicsuppressionoftallgrowingtreeswhichposeahazardtothetransmissionline.Thepreferredmethodalongthiscorridorismanualapplicationofasuitableherbicide.Theamountofclearingtobemaintained,themodestregrowthrates,andhighcostoflabormakethisalternativepreferrableinthiscorridoroveraerialapplicationofherbicidesontheonehand,orhandcuttingofindividualtreesontheother.Ifproperapplicationtechniquesareadheredto(seeMitigatingMeasures),therewillbenootherimpactsotherthanthemaintenanceofasub-climaxvegetation.Accidentaloversprayingorwinddrift,orimproperdilution,resultinginunnecessarydestructionofvegetationandsprayingofwaterbodiesresultinginhabitatdestruc-tionforaquaticlifewillnotoccur.Sectionsneedingvegetationsuppressionoccurinthebottomlandspruce-poplar,lowlandspruce-hardwood,anduplandspruce-hardwoodforests,particularlyinthebottomlandspruce-poplar.Ivfuskeg-bogareas,whichcompriseasignificantproportionoftheecosystemscrossedbythiscor-ridorwillneedlittleclearingandnovegetationsuppression.Lowlandspruce-hardwoodareaswillnotneedtobemaintainedasoftenasbottom-landspruce-poplar.InthemoisttundraecosystemsencounteredbetweenVeeDamsiteandtheLittleNelchinaRiver,destructionofvegetationwillbelimitedtothoseareasdirectlyoccupiedbytheroadbedandthetowerbases.Thiswillbeapermanentimpact,althoughsomerevegetationoftowerbasescanbeexpected.Destructionofthevegetativematinthetundraareaswillresultinlonglastingscarsunlesscorrectiveandpreventivemeasuresaretaken.Thisscarringcouldleadtosubsequentdegradationofice-richpermafrostanderosion.Firesresultingfromconstructionandoperation,unlesssuppressedquickly,willresultinextensivedestructionofvegetation.Theseecosystemsareadaptedtonaturalwildfires,andunlesstheoccurrenceofman-causedfiresisveryhigh,theyshouldrecuperateasquicklyastheywouldundernormalcircumstances.Wildlife:Alterationofvegetationpatternswillaffectwildlife.Thiscorridortraversesmanyareasofmooseconcentration,andmooseshouldbenefitfromtheintroductionofbrushresultingfromtheregrowthontheclearing.Sincetheclearingmustbemaintained,thisbrushareawilllastforthelifeoftheline.Mostbrushareasareintransition,changingfromthebrushphasetosomeotherphasenearertheclimacticphase.Thebrushinatransmissionclearingcanbecountedasamorepermanentsourceofbrowse.AppendixI1-65
AppendixI1-66Animalsdependentuponclimacticforestsuchassquirrelswillsufferlossanddisplacement.However,theirfasterreproductiverateswillallowtheirpopulationstoadaptrapidly.Mostanimalswillbenefitfromtheedgeenvironment,offeringbothforageandcoverfromtheadjacentforestandbrush.Initially,animalmovementsmayoccuralongtheright-of-way,butasthebrushgrowsintoadensecover,thiswillbelimited.Inanyevent,thisimpactshouldbelowinthiscorridor.Constructionitselfwillaffectwildlife.Largermammalsmaytemporarilyleavetheareatoreturnaftertheconstructionactivity.Smalleranimalswillsufferlossofindividuals,butshouldrecuperaterapidlyonceconstructioniscompleted.Thedensityofforestinthiscorridorwillallowanimalstomoveonlyashortdistancetoavoidcontactwithconstruc-tionactivities.Vegetationsuppression,bywhatevermethod,willperiodicallyremovecoverfromalongtheright-of-way.However,duetothesurroundingcoveroftheunclearedforests.thisimpactwillbeinsignificant.Areasrequiringclearingcoincidewithmoosepopulations.Theresultingbrushwillbetotheirbenefit.CaribouontheuplandbetweentheSusitnaandLittleNelchinaRiverswillsuffersomedirectlossofforagefromthevegetationcoveredbytheroadbedandtowerbases.Ofmoreimport-ancetocaribouhabitatisthepotentialoverburningofkeywinterbrowse,andthesubsequentreductionofwinterrange.SincetheNelchinacaribouherdhasundergonedrasticreductionsinpopulation(fromanestimated61,000inthelate1960lstoanestimated4,000to5,000presently)anyadverseimpactoncaribouhabitatcanbeconsideredserious.Theaccessroadwillseriouslyaffecthuntingsuccessunlesshuntingisfurtherrestrictedinthisarea.TherewillbeonlyslightimpactonDallsheeprangeinTahnetaPass.Recreation:ThiscorridorapproachesnoStateorFederalparkorrecreationarea.However,areaswithahighrecreationaluseareencroachedupon.TheLakeLouiseareaisacomplexofinterconnectedlakessetuponagentle,rollinguplands,andreceiveshighuseforvacationing,fishing,andcamping.LakeLouiseitselfliesapproximately10mileseastofthisalternativecorridor.Increasedaccessandvisibilityoftransmissionstructureswillhaveimpactsupontherecreationaluse.SincetheareaisservedbyonlyoneroadtotheGlennHighway,anaccessroadwouldincreaseaccesstothearea.Thismaybeperceivedasanadverseimpactbypeoplealreadyowningorleasingsitesalongthelakeswhovaluetherelativesolitude,andmaybeperceivedasbeneficialbyfishermen,hunters,andotherswantingaccesstocabinsitesontheselakes.
FromDevilCanyontoSlideMountainthiscorridorwilltraverseareaspreviouslyaccessibleonlybyfootorair.Theimpactofanaccessroadhasbeendiscussedabove.ForaccesstothenorthofLakeLouise,increasedaccesswillallowgreateruseofthisuplandarea.Forhuntersparticularly,theincreasedaccessmaybeperceivedasdesirable.Accesswillbecontrolledbythelandmanagingagencyhavingjurisdic-tionovertheseareas.CulturalResources:ThiscorridorwillapproachthesitesoftheIndependenceMinesandKnikVillage,bothNationalHistoricalSites.ThecorridorwillavoidtheIndependenceMinesbyatleast8miles;sonoimpactonthissiteisanticipated.TheKniksitewillbeapproachedupto3to5miles;however,impactonthissitewillbelowtonone.Ifthefinalsurveydisclosesanunsuspectedarcheologicalsitealongtheright-of-way,thelocationofthelineortowerwillbealteredtoavoiddamagetosuchsites.Inadvertentdamagetoanarcheologicalsitewillreduceitshistoricalvalue.Atthesametime,discoveryofanarcheo-logicalsiteduringsurveyorconstructionwillbeabeneficialaspect.ScenicResources:TherewillbeamediumtohighimpactonscenicqualityoftheTahnetaPass-upperMatanuskaValleyarea.Highexistingscenicquality,largenumbersofviewersalongtheGlennHighway,andsomedifficultyinconcealmentofatransmissionlinecontributetothisimpact.DevelopmentofthelowerMatanuskaValley,whichhasalreadyaffectedtheintactnessofthatarea,willlessenvisualimpact.Theoppor-tunitiesforconcealmentaregreateralsointhelowervalley.LownumbersofviewercontactsandeaseofconcealmentwillgreatlymitigatevisualimpactfromPalmertoPointMacKenzie.Visualimpacthereislowtomedium.VisualimpactfromVeeDamsitetoSlideMountainislow.Thisisafactoroflowviewercontacts,lowtomediumexistingscenicquality,andtowardSlideMountainsomemeasureofconcealment.LandUseandResources:AlowimpactisexpectedonagricultureontheMatanuska.Thefinalroutecanavoidpresentlydevelopedlandandhighqualityundevelopedland.Eveniflandinproductionweretobecrossed,onlythelanddirectlyoccupiedbythetowerbaseswouldberenderedunfarmable.Muchoftheagriculturallandisdevotedtodairy-ingandhay.Therewouldbeaverylowimpactontheseuses.Truckfarmingwouldbeimpactedmorethandairyingorhaysincethepatternsofrowcropswouldbeaffectedbytowerlocations.AppendixI1-67
Appendix11-68Nosignificantimpactsareexpectedonpotentialforestryalongthisalternative,norareanysignificantimpactsexpectedonmineralsextraction.Social:Somesocio-economicimpactscanbeexpectedforPalmer,Wasilla,andtheseveralsmallcommunitiesalongthenorthshoreofCookInlet.Skilledlaborwillmostlikelynotbedrawnfromthesecommunities,althoughitispossiblethatunskilledlaborfromthesecommunitiesmightbeemployedontheconstructionphase.Localservicessuchasfoodandlodgingshouldexperienceanincreaseinbusiness,butthiswillbeatemporaryimpact,andduetotherelativelysmallamountofworkersneededandtheshiftingaspectoftheconstruction,aninsignificantimpact,also.Easementswillneedtobepurchasedoverprivatelyownedlands.Thiswillgivealumpsumpayment,whichwillbeapositiveimpactuponthelandowner.Futureriseinlandpricesandassessedtaxesduetoencroachingresidentialdevelopmentwilladverselyimpactlandownerswhohaveeasementsontheirland.Theywillpaytaxonlandtheycannotdevelop,atratesfarbeyondtheratesforundevelopedland.Tncaseswherethismayoccur,somearrangementsuchasanincreasedlumpsumpaymentorannualpaymentsequaltothedifferenceintaxratesshouldbemade.ImpactsofAlternativeMatanuska-ZSoils:ImpactsonsoilsfromSlideMountaintoPointMacKenzieareidenticaltothosedescribedunderimpactsonsoilsofalternativecorridorMatanuska-l.ThroughouttheentiresegmentfromWatanaDamsitetoSlideMountainbywayofGlennallen,thepotentialforpermafrostdegradationisveryhigh.Thepoorlydrainedfine-grainsoilsencounteredareveryvulnerabletofrostheaving,whichwillentailmuchmaintenanceofthelineandroad.Thepotentialforscarringandruttingofthesurfaceishigh,andthesubsequenterosionmaycausesignificantsedimentationinthemanyclearwaterstreamsinthisarea.ParticularlysensitiveistheGulkanaanditstributaries.Thecorridorparallelsthissystemforapproximately50miles,andmultiplecrossingswillhavecumulativeeffectonsedimentation.
Vegetation:TheMatanuska-2alternativecouldrequireupto3,869acresofclearingifa345kvsystemisconstructed.Thisis1,561acresmorethantheproposedSusitna-1corridor.Ifa230kvsystemisused,upto3,454acreswillneedclearing,1,394acresmorethanSusitna-l.Actualacreageofclearingwillprobablybelessthanthesefiguressincenotalloftheright-of-wayneedbecleared,andtheterrainislevelenoughsothattheaccessroadcanbeincorporatedintothelineclearing.Theimmediateeffectofthisclearingwillbethedestructionofthevege-tation.Themuchmoresignificantimpactwillbeuponerosionandwildlifehabitats.Inhillyterrain,mechanicalclearingmethodssuchasbulldozingwillcauseconsiderabledisruptionofthesoilandsubsequenterosionandstreamsedimentation.Theuseofbrushbladesorrotarycutterswillreducethiseffect.Onsteepslopes,handclearingwillmitigatetheotherwiseheavyerosionpotentiallikelywithmechanicalclearing.Toreduceavailablefuelforforestfires,andtoreducepotentialinfesta-tionofhealthybottomlandspruce-poplarbysprucebeetles(Dendroctonusrufipennis)andipsbeetles,slashmustbedisposedof.Thiscanbeeitherbysaleofmerchantabletimber,bychipping,orbyburning.Althoughburningwillreduceairqualitytemporarily,itismoreeconomicalandlessdamagingthanthealternatives,sonon-merchantabletimberwillbeburnedifanaccessroadispresent.Withnoaccessroad,machinerycannotbebroughtinforstacking,burning,orchipping,anddownedtimberwillbeleftalongtheclearing.Beetleinfestationwillbeofconcernmainlyonthebottomlandspruce-poplarecosystem.(SeeMitigatingMeasures.)InthemoisttundraecosystemcrossedfromWatanaDamsitetowithin10or20milesofPaxson,destructionofvegetationwillbelimitedtothoseareasdirectlyoccupiedbytheroadbedandthetowerbases.Thiswillbeapermanentimpact,althoughsomerevegetationoftowerbasescanbeexpected.Destructionofthevegetativematintundraareaswillresultinlonglastingscarsunlesscorrectiveandpreventivemeasuresaretaken.Thisscarringcouldleadtosubsequentdegradationofice-richperma-frostanderosion.Firesresultingfromconstructionandoperation,unlesssuppressedquickly,willresultinextensivedestructionofvegetation.Theseecosystemsareadaptedtonaturalwildfires,andunlesstheoccur-renceofman-causedfiresisveryhigh,theyshouldrecuperateasquicklyastheywouldundernormalcircumstances.AppendixI1-69
AppendixI1-70Wildlife:Alterationofvegetationpatternswillaffectwildlife.Thiscorridortraversesmanyareasofmooseconcentration,andmooseshouldbenefitfromtheintroductionofbrushresultingfromtheregrowthontheclearing.Sincetheclearingmustbemaintained,thisbrushareawilllastforthelifeoftheline.Mostbrushareasareintransition,changingfromthebrushphasetosomeotherphasenearertheclimac-ticphase.Thebrushinatransmissionclearingcanbecountedasamorepermanentsourceofbrowse.Areasrequiringclearingcoincidewithmoosepopulations.Theresultingbrushwillbetotheirbenefit.CaribouontheuplandsbetweentheSusitnaandLittleNelchinaRiverswillsuffersomedirectlossofforagefromthevegetationcoveredbytheroadbedandtowerbases.Ofmoreimportancetocaribouhabitatisthepotentialoverburningofkeywinterbrowse,andthesubsequentreductioninwinterrange.DuetothedrasticreductioninthepopulationoftheNelchinaherd,(fromanestimated61,000inthelate1960'stoanestimated4,000to5,000in1974)anyadverseimpactoncaribouisaseriousimpact.Increasedaccesswinbeaseriousadverseimpactunlesshuntingisfurtherrestrictedinthisarea.AnimalsdependentuponclimacticforestsuchassquirrelswillsufferlossanddisplacementHowever,theirfastreproductionrateswillallowtheirpopulationstoadaptrapidly.Mostanimalswillbenefitfromtheedgeenvironment,offeringbothforageandcoverfromtheadjacentforestandbrush.Initially,animalmove-mentsmayoccuralongtheright-of-way,butasthebrushgrowsintoadensecover,thiswillbelimited.Inanyevent,thisimpactshouldbelowinthiscorridor.Constructionitselfwillaffectwildlife.Largermammalsmaytemporarilyleavetheareatoreturnaftertheconstructionactivity.Smalleranimalswillsufferlossofindividuals,butshouldrecuperaterapidlyoncecon-structioniscompleted.Recreation:ThiscorridorapproachesnoStateorFederalparkorrecrea-tionarea.However,areaswithahighrecreationaluseareencroachedupon.TheLakeLouiseareaisacomplexofinterconnectedlakessetuponagentle,rollinguplands,andreceiveshighuseforvacationing,fishing,andcamping.LakeLouiseliesapproximately35milestothewest.Sincethecorridorwillparallelanexistinghighway1itisunlikelythatitwillcontributegreatlytoincreasedaccesstothislakecomplex.
ExceptfortheportionfromWatanaDamsitetoDenaliDamsite,thecorridorwillparallelexistinghighway.Threfore,itisnotexpectedthatthecorridorwillprovideaccesstosignificantlylargeareas.CulturalResources:ApartfromIndependenceMinesandtheKniksitediscussedunderalternativeMatanuska-l,theonlyNationalArcheol-ogicalsiteistheTangleLakesArcheologicalDistrictwestofPaxson.Carefulexaminationofthefinalroutewillminimizeanychanceofdisruptionofarcheologicalsiteswithinthisdistrict.ANationalHistoricalSite,SourdoughLodge,willnotbeapproachedenoughtobeaffected.Ifthefinalsurveydisclosesanunsuspectedarcheologicalsitealongtheright-of-way,thelocationofthelineortowerswillbealteredtoavoiddamagetosuchsites.Inadvertentdamagetoanarcheologicalsitewillreduceitshistoricalvalue.Atthesametime,discoveryofanarcheologicalsiteduringsurveyorconstructionwillbeabeneficialaspect.ScenicResources:ImpacttoscenicqualityfromDenaliDamsitetoPaxsonwillbehigh.Largenumbersofviewercontacts,littleopportunityforconcealment,andareasofhighexistingscenicqualityarefactorsinthishighimpact.FromWatanatoDenaliDamsites,visualimpactislow.FromPaxsontoSlideMountainvisualimpactwillrangefromlowtomoderate.Fortherestofthisalternative,visualimpactsareasdescribedforalternativeMatanuska-l,LandUseandResources:Littleornoimpactisexpectedonagriculture,forestry,ormineralextraction.Thiscorridorwillparalleltheright-of-wayoftheAlyeskaPipelineandtheRichardsonHighway.Itwill,bydoingso,reinforcetheexistenceofautilitycorridorandsubsequently,thelocationoffuturerights-of-way.Somesavingsoftotalwidthofthiscorridorcouldbeachievedbysharingofrights-of-way.(SeeAlternativestotheProposedAction.)Social:Socio-economicimpactswillbeidenticaltothosediscussedforalternativeMatanuska-l,withtheexceptionoftwoadditionalcommuni-ties,GlennallenandPaxson.Sincethecorridorwillrunsoclosetoboth,itisverylikelythattheywillreceiveimpactsupontheirservicessuchaslodgingandfood.Thisisatemporaryimpact,andnotverysignificant.Somelocallabormaybeemployedduringconstruction,butthiswillprobablybeunlikely.AppendixI1-71
AppendixI1-72Easementswillneedtobepurchasedwhereprivatelandmustunavoid-ablybecrossed.Thiswillresultinthelandownerreceivingalumpsumpayment,andwillprovidesomeinfluxofcapitaltotheseareas.ImpactsoftheDeltaAlternativeSoil:Thisalternativecrossessignificantlylargeareasofsoilshavingmoderatetohigherosionpotential.Therearetwosensitivesoilareas:1)Thepoorlydrained,ice-richpermafrostfoundthroughouttheentirelengthoftheroute.Thissoilisvulnerabletopermafrostdegradation,frostheaving,andruttingandscarringofthetopsoil.2)Thesecondsensitivesoiltypeisthefine-grainsoils,generallywelldraineduplandsoils,foundbetweenShawCreekandFairbanks.Thissoilisvulner-abletogulleying,unstableslopes,andwinderosion.ErosionfromeitherofthesetwosoiltypesmaycausesedimentationinthemanyclearwaterstreamsthataretributariestotheTananaRiver.Gen-erally,theseclearwatertributariesarelimitedtothosedrainingthenortheastportionoftheTananaRivervalleyinthisarea.TributariesoftheTananafromtheAlaskaRangearesedimentladenandwillnotbesignificantlyimpactedfromerosion.Localproblemareaswillbeencountered.NorthofSummitLake,inIsabelPass,isanareaofthixotropicsoilswhichbecomeplasticunderseismicshock.Unlessthissoilcanbefeasiblycircumvented,trans-missiontowersinthisareawillbeunderhigherthannormalseismicrisk.ThroughtheIsabelPass,rockysoilsinterspersedwithbedrockandtaluswillpresentproblemsinplacingoftowerfoundationsandaccessroad.Excessivecuttingandfillingforanaccessroadthroughthisarea,inconjunctionwiththinsoilsorunstableslopes,cancausesevereerosion.Alarge,extremelymarshyareaaroundtheShawCreekconfluencewillbeencountered.Towerfoundationswillneedspecialattentionandtheaccessroadwillneedspecialdesign.Frostheavingwillbesevereinthismarshysoil.Vegetation:TheDeltaalternativecouldrequireupto1,737acresofclearing,288acres'morethanNenana-I.Theactualacreageclearedwillprobablybelessthanthesefiguressincetheentirewidthoftheright-of-wayneednotbecleared.Inareaswhereclearingisrequired,theterrainislevelenoughtopermittheaccessroadtobeincorporatedintothelineclearing.
Themajorityoftheclearingwillbedoneintheuplandspruce-hardwoodandbottomlandspruce-poplaralongthelowerDeltaRiverandtheTananaRiver.Toreduceavailablefuelforforestfires,andtoreducepotentialinfesta-tionofhealthybottomlandspruce-poplarbysprucebeetles(Dendroctonusrufipennis)andipsbeetles,slashmustbedisposedof.Thiscanbeeitherbysaleofmerchantabletimber,bychipping,orbyburning.Althoughburningwillreduceairqualitytemporarily,itismoreeconomicalandlessdamagingthanthealternatives,sonon-merchantabletimberwillbeburnedifanaccessroadispresent.Withnoaccessroad,machinerycannotbebroughtinforstacking,burning,orchipping,anddownedtimberwillbeleftalongtheclearing.Beetleinfestationwillbeofconcernmainlyinthebottomlandspruce-poplarecosystem.(SeeMitigatingMeasures.)Theimmediateeffectofthisclearingwillbethedestructionofthevege-tation.Themuchmoresignificantimpactwillbeuponerosionandwildlifehabitats.Inhillyterrain,mechanicalclearingmethodssuchasbulldozingwillcauseconsiderabledisruptionofthesoilandsubsequenterosionandstreamsedimentation.Theuseofbrushbladesorrotarycutterswillreducethiseffect.Onsteepslopes,handclearingwillmitigatetheotherwiseheavyerosionpotentiallikelywithmechanicalclearing.InthealpineandmoisttundraecosystemsfoundfromWatanaDamsitethroughIsabelPassandtheAlaskaRange,destructionofvegetationwillbelimitedtothoseareasdirectlyoccupiedbytheroadbedandthetowerbases.Thiswillbeapermanentimpact,althoughsomerevege-tationoftowerbasescanbeexpected.Destructionofthevegetativematintundraareaswillresultinlonglastingscarsunlesscorrectiveandpreventivemeasuresaretaken.Thisscarringcouldleadtosubsequentdegradationofice-richperma-frostanderosion.Firesresultingfromconstructionandoperation,unlesssuppressedquickly,willresultinextensivedestructionofvegetation.Theseeco-systemsareadaptedtonaturalwildfires,andunlesstheoccurrenceofman-causedfiresisveryhigh,theyshouldrecuperateasquicklyastheywouldundernormalcircumstances.Wildlife:Theareasrequiringthemostclearingcoincidewithmanyareasofmooseconcentration,andmooseshouldbenefitfromtheintroductionofbrushresultingfromtheregrowthontheclearing.Sincetheclearingmustbemaintained,thisbrushareawilllastforthelifeoftheline.Mostbrushareasareintransition,changingfromthebrushphasetosomeotherphasenearertheclimacticphase.Thebrushinatransmissionclearingcanbecountedasamorepermanentsourceofbrowse.AppendixI1-73
AppendixI1-74ThelargenumbersofcaribouintheNelchinaherdsouthoftheAlaskaRangewillsuffersomedirectlossofforagefromthevegetationcoveredbytheroadbedandtowerbases.Ofmoreimportancetocaribouhabitatisthepotentialoverburningofkeywinterbrowse,andthesubsequentreductioninwinterrange.DuetothedrasticreductioninthepopulationoftheNelchinaherd,(fromanestimated61,000inthe1960ISto4,000to5,000in1974)anyadverseimpactisaseriousimpact.Increasedaccesswillseriouslyaffecttheherdunlesshuntingisfurtherrestricted.TherewillbeonlyslightimpactonDallsheeprangeinIsabelPassandthecanyonoftheDeltaRiver.Animalsdependentuponclimacticforestsuchassquirrelswillsufferlossanddisplacement.However,theirfasterreproductiverateswillallowtheirpopulationtoadaptrapidly.Mostanimalswillbenefitfromtheedgeenvironment,offeringbothforageandcoverfromtheadjacentforestandbrush.Initially,animalmovementsmayoccuralongtheright-of-way,butasthebrushgrowsintoadensecoverthiswillbelimited.Inanyevent,thisimpactshouldbelowonthiscorridor.Constructionitselfwillaffectwildlife.Largermammalsmaytemporarilyleavetheareatoreturnaftertheconstructionactivity.Smalleranimalswillsufferlossofindividuals,butshouldrecuperaterapidlyonceconstructioniscompleted.Thedensityofforestinthiscorridorwillallowanimalstomoveonlyashortdistancetoavoidcontactwithconstruc-tionactivities.Vegetationsuppression,bywhatevermethod,willperiodicallyremovecoverfromalongtheright-of-way...However,duetothesurroundingc()veroftheunclearedforests,thisimpactwillbeinsignificant.Recreation:ThiscorridordoesnotinfringeuponanyFederalorStateparkorrecreationarea.SincetheDeltaalternativeparallelsexistinghighwaysandtheAlyeskaPipeline,itwillnotprovidenewaccesstoanysignificantlylargearea.Useoftheiaccessroadisdependentuponregulationsimposedbythelandownersorlandmanagingagency.CulturalResources:ForthesegmentfromWatanaDamsitetoPaxsontheimpactsareasdescribedunderimpactsofalternativeMatanuska-2.FromPaxsontoFairbankstherearenoNationalArcheologicalorHistori-calSites.Ifthefinalsurveydisclosesanunsuspectedarcheologicalsitealongtheright-of-way,thelocation.ofthelineortowerswillbealteredtoavoiddamagetosuchsites.Inadvertentdamageto.anarcheo-logicalsitewillreduceitshistoricalvalue.Atthesametime,discoveryofanarcheologicalsiteduringsurveyorconstructionwillbeabeneficialaspect.78
ScenicResources:ThiscorridorwillhavevisualimpactsrangingfromhighalongtheDenaliHighwayandthroughtheIsabelPass-AlaskaRangearea,moderatefromDonnellyDometotheSalchaRiver,andtolowfromtheSalchaRivertoFairbanks.SincenearlytheentirecorridorisexposedtoviewersfromtheDenaliandRichardsonHighways,thevari-ablesaretheexistingscenicqualityandtheopportunitiesforconceal-ment.Alongthisalternative,generallythehighertheexistingscenicquality,thelesstheopportunityforconcealment.LandUseandResources:Noimpactsareexpectedonmineralsextrac-tion.TheareaaroundBigDeltaandDeltaJunctionisapotentiallymajoragriculturalarea,particularlyingraincropssuchasbarley.Crossingofgoodqualityarablelandwillresultintheremovalfromproductionofthelandoccupiedbythetowerbases.Rowcropswillbemoreaffectedthanfieldcropsinthatpatternsoftillingandharvestingwillbemoredisruptedbytowerlocations.AlongthelowerDeltaRiverandtheTananaRiverthereispotentialforforestry,particularlyinthebottomlandspruce-poplarecosystems.TheDeltaalternativewillhavelittleeffectonforestry,apartfromminimaluseasloggingroadsorfirebreaks.Merchantabletimberfromclearingoperationscanbedisposedofbysale.Theproximityofahighwayandriverwillfacilitatesalvageoflogs.ParallelingoftheAlyeskaPipelineandtheRichardsonHighwaywillreinforcetheutilitycorridoralongtheDeltaandTananaRivers,andwillaffectlocationoffuturerights-of-way.thetotalwidthofthisutilitycorridorcanbereducedbysharingofrights-of-way.(SeeAlternativestotheProposedAction.)Social:ThetownsofPaxson,DeltaJunctionandBigDeltawillbenefitfromuseofservicessuchasfoodandlodgingbyconstructionworkers.Itisunlikelythatmuchofthelaborneededforconstructionwillbedrawnfromthesmallercommunities.LoggingoftimberandclearingcontractswillaffecttownsalongtheTananaRiverbyprovidingjobsandcapitalfromsalesoftimber.Thiswillbeashort-livedimpact,however.Someeasementsacrossprivatelandmayneedtobepurchased.ThemajorityofthealternativecanberoutedalongtheutilitycorridoralongtheAlyeskaPipeline.Purchasesofeasementwillprovidealumpsuminfluxofcapitaltotheaffectedlandowners.Thisinfluxistemporary,unlessarrangementsaremadeforyearlypayments.AppendixI1-75
AppendixI1-76ComparisonofImpactsofCorridorsFromtheprecedingdescriptionsofpotentialimpactsoftheyariousalternativecorridors,comparisonscanbedrawntorankthesealternativesastotheirdegreeofcumulativeimpact.Severalassumptionswillbeusedinthesecomparisons,andfromthesecomparisonstheproposedcorridorswereselected.Thefirstassumptiontobemadeisthatotherfactorsbeingequal,cumulativeimpactsareproportionaltocorridorlength.Inotherwords,a100milecorridorwillhavetwice.thecumulativeimpacta50milecorridor.crossingsimilarterrainandecosystemswouldhave.Ifvaryingconditionsexist,thisassumptionisnotnecessarilyvalid;a100mile.corridorcrossingstablesoilsmayincurlessimpactthana50milecorridoroverice-richpermafrost.Thesecondassumptionisthatjointuseandparallelingofexistingrights-of-wayispreferabletopioneeringofanewcorridorbecauseofthesecondaryimpactsassociatedwithnewcorridors.Againstthisassumptionistheassumptionthattransmissionsystemsalwayscauseanadversevisualimpactofvaryingdegree,andthattransmissionsystemsshouldbescreenedasmuchaspossiblefrommajorsurfacetrans-portationroutes.Thusatransmissionlineideallyshouldshareorparalleltran.sportationrights-of-wayandyetnotbeseenfromthem;thisisaconditionrarelyachieved.Thefourthassumptionisthatatransmissioncorridorshouldbelocatedtoanticipatefutureneeds,andsoreducepotentialproliferationoffuturetrans-missioncorridors.Practically,thiswillfavorcorridorsthatapproachpresentandpotentialcommunitiesthatmayrequireinterconnection.Thefifthassumptionisthatthecorridorshouldfulfillitsrequirementsaseconomicallyaspossiblewhilekeepingenvironmentalimpactstoaminimum.Thisisanextensionofthefirst,second,andfourthassumptions.Usingtheseassumptionsasbroadcategoriesinconjunctionwithenviron-mentalcriteria.,thetwelvecorridorscanbesummarizedandrankedinthefollowingtable:
~
H"O
I (])
---J:::l---Jp..
1-"
X
H
Corridor Analysis -Project Power to Anchorage/Cook Inlet Area
Susitna Corridors Matanuska Corridors
Analysis Factor:S - 1 S - 2 S - 3 S - 4 M - 1 M - 2
Length,miles 136 140 129 147 258 385
Max.elevation,feet 2,100 2,100 3,800 2,200 3,000 4,000
%of joint or parallel use 75 75 39 35 52 90
Cost x $1,000 92,650 94,986 93,712 96,072 153,187 224,427
Ability to accommodate
future needs 1 1 3 3 4 2
Ranking 1 1 2 1 3 4
Environmental Impacts
Soils 1 2 1 1 2 2
Vegetation 2 3 1 3 4 5
Wildlife 1 2 3 3 4 3
Existing developments 3 3 2 1 3 3
Scenic quality/recreation:
Developed areas 3 3 2 1 3 3
Remote areas 1 2 3 4 4 3
Ranking 1 3 1 3 4 4
~
H'"d
I (])
'-I::J00p..
l-"
X
H
Corridor Analysis -Project Power to Fairbanks/Tanana Area
Nenana Corridors Delta Corridor
Analysis Factor:N -1 N -2 N -3 N -4 N -5 D
Length,miles 198 220 231 223 212 280
Max.elevation,feet 2,400 4,300 4,000 4,000 4,300 4,000
%of joint or parallel use 100%38%78%43%0%86%
Cost x $1,000 85,382 107,090 106,272 95,648 96,572 122,475
Ability to accommodate
future needs 1 4 3 4 5 2
Ranking 1 3 3 3 4 3
Environmental Impacts
Soils 1 3 2 2 3 3
Vegetation 2 2 3 2 1 3
Existing developments 3 2 2 2 1 2
Scenic quality/recreation:
Developed areas 3 2 2 1 1 3
Remote areas 1 3 2 2 3 2
Ranking 1 3 3 2 1 3
Combiningtheinformationonthistablewiththemoredetaileddescrip-tionsofpotentialenvironmentalimpactsofthecorridorsinpages34to74,abriefdiscussionofeachcorridoranditsrelativesuitabilityfollows:Susitna-lOfthepossiblecorridorsfromtheUpperSusitnaProjecttotheAnchoragearea,theSusitna-lcorridoristhesecondshortest,andoneoftheclosestadherentstoexistingcorridors.Becauseofthefairlyheavytomoderateforestdensity,theclearingcanbescreenedfromtheparallelAlaskaRailroadandAnchorage-FairbanksHighway.OfthesixcorridorsleadingtotheAnchoragearea,thisisthecheapesttoconstruct.Someoftheadvantagesofthiscorridorareitsdirectnessanditsproximitytosmallcommunitieswhichmayeventuallyrequireadirecttap.ItavoidstheDenaliStateParkandconsequentialscenicimpactsasseenfromthehighway,andavoidsunnecessarycrossingsoftheSusitnaRiver.Thedisadvantagesofthiscorridorare:theadditionalaccessprovidedtotheareabetweenTalkeetnaandGoldCreek,whichispresentlyservedbyfla.gstopsontheRailroad;thenewaccessprovidedtotheareabetweenNancyLakeandPointMacKenzie;andthepossibleinterferencewithrecreationintheNancyLakeRecreationArea.Susitna-2ThiscorridorisslightlylongerthanSusitna-l,moreexpensive,andwillinterferewithrecreationintheDenaliStatePark.ConcealabilityofthelinefromtransportationroutesisequaltoSusitna-l,asisitsabilitytoincorpor-atefutureelectricalneedsofcomlr.unitiesenroute.InterferencewiththeNancyLakeRecreationAreaandthenewaccessprovidedtoPointMacIZenzieissimilartoSusitna-l.Themajordisadvantageofthiscorridorwillbetheinterference\x:iththeDenaliStatePark;itwouldpracticallyrendertheParkareatotheeastoftheHighwayueslessforhikingtrails,sincetrailsofanylengthoverfivemileswouldcrosstheright-of-way.Forthisreason,itisnotpreferredoverSusitna-l.Appendix11-79
AppendixI1-80Susitna-3Thisistheshortestofthecorridors,andthesecondtothecheapestcorridortoAnchorage.Itavoidsvisibilityfromtransportationroutesbystrikingtothenortheastthroughrelativelyinaccessiblecountry.Thus,itislessabletoaccommodatenewtapsalongthestretchfromTalkeetnatoGoldCreek.TheproximitytoNancyLakeRecreationAreaandtheaccesstoPointMacKenziearesimilartoSusitna-l.Thiscorridorhas1:>'1'0seriousdisadvantages:First,itwillpioneeraconsider-ableareaofland,reducingwildernessvaluesandpermittingproblemswithincreasedaccess.Secondly,itwillbemorevulnerabletoweatherandrelia-bilitywillbereduced.Forthesetworeasons,itisnotfavoredoverSusitna-l.Susitna-4ThiscorridorisconsiderablylongerandmoreexpensivethanSusitna-l;only33%ofitslengthfollowsexistingcorridors,sinceitavoidspublictransporta-tionroutesbyleadingnortheasttoDevilCanyonfromTalkeetna.ItisnotasabletohandlenewloadsfromTalkeetnatoGoldCreekasSusitna-l;theprox-imitytotheNancyLakeFecreationAreaandtheincreasedaccesstoPointMacKenziearesimilartoSusitna-l.Thelargeareaofnewaccessprovided,withitsattendantproblems,combinedwithrecreationaluseoftheStephanLakeareareducethevalueofthiscorridor.Becauseofthisanditshighercost,itisnotpreferredoverSusitna-l.Matanuska-lThiscorridorisalmosttwiceaslongasSusitna-l,andabout60%moreexpensive.Halfofitslengthparallelsexistingcorridors;whereitdoesfollowthesecorridors,itsconcealabilityvariesfromlowtohigh.Itispoorlysuitedtoaccommodatefutureelectricalneeds.Thereareseveralmajorenvironmentalobjectionstothiscorridor.First,itwouldopenupaverylargeareaofpreviouslyinaccessible(exceptbyair)area.Thisareaisuniqueinmanyways:first,itisaconsiderablepartoftheNelchinacaribourange,andsincethisherdhassufferedmajordeclinesrecently,anyimpactontheirrangewillbeadverse.Secondly,thisareahasahighrecreationaluse,suchasfly-inhunting,fishing,andcabins;increasedaccessmayreducewildernessvaluesforthissortofrecreation.Thirdly,thisisalargeareaofcontinuousice-richpermafrost.Theseobjec-tions,combinedwithitslengthandcost,ruleoutthisalternative.
Matanuska-2ThiscorridorisalmostthreetimeslongerthanSusitna-1andalmost150%moreincost.However,mostofitslengthparallelsexistingcorridors;v-1.sibilityfromtransportationrouteswouldbemediumtohighformuchofitslength.Itwouldbewell-suitedtotheinterconnectionoftheCVEAsystem.Sinceitfollowsexistingcorridorsformostofitslength,thenew-accessproblemisratherlowforthisalternative.Themajorenvironmentalobjectiontothiscorridorwillbethelargeareaofice-richpermafrosttobecrossed,andvisibilityinscenicareas,asinTahnetaPassandtheUpperIv1atanuskaValley.However,itslengthandcostareinordinatelyhigh,sothiscorridorisnotrecommendedatthistime.Nenana-1TheNenana-lcorridoristheshortestandcheapestcorridorconnectingtheUpperSusitnaProjecttoFairbanks.Itwouldparalleloruseexistingrights-of-wayforitsentirelength,anditsabilitytoaccommodatefutureelectricalneedsareverygood.ThemainobjectiontothiscorridorwouldbethelackofconcealmentfromsouthofBroadPasstoHealy;varyingdegreesofvisualimpactalongthisstretchcouldbeexpected.AlthoughnotenteringtheMountMcKinleyNationalPark,itwouldbevisiblealongtheAnchorage-FairbanksHighwayinthevicinityofthePark.Noothermajorenvironmentalproblemsareantici-pated.Tofurtherreduceimpact,noaccessroadisplannedfromHealysouthtotheProjectarea.Thismodificationwouldapplynotonlytothiscorridor,butalsototheCantwell-GoldCreeksectionsofNenana-2andNenana-3.Nenana-2AlthoughnotmuchlongerormoreexpensivethanNenana-I,thiscorridorwouldprovideaccesstoaverylargearea;only38%ofitslengthfollowsexistingcorridors.ThosesectionsparallelingtheAnchorage-FairbanksHighway/AlaskaRailroadcorridorwouldberathervisible.Theincreasedaccessisamajorenvironmentalobjection;themajorrecrea-tionaluseofthisaccessroadwouldbeforhunting,andwildernessqualityofthisareawouldbeirreversiblydamaged.AnothermajorobjectionisthenecessityofcrossingseveralhighpassesintheAlaskaRange;reliabilitywouldbeless,notonlybecauseofharsherconditions,butalsotouncertaintyofaccessforrepairs.ThiscorridorislesssuitablethanNenana-I.AppendixI1-81
AppendixI1-82Nenana-3Thiscorridorismoreex-pensiveandlongerthan:Nenana-l.Itparallelsexistingrights-of-wayformorethan75%ofitslength,circumventingtheNenanacanyonareabywayoftwootherpassesintheAlaskaRange.FromtheProjecttoCantwell,itwouldberathervisible.ItismuchbettersuitedtoconnectexistingandpotentialcommunitiestotheinterconnectedsystemthanNenana-2,butwillnotbeabletobetappedbyMcKinleyPark.Asignificantareaofmountainousterrainwillbeopenedupbythiscorridor,unlesshelicopterconstructionisused.Onehighpasswillneedtobecrossed;theharshconditionswillreducereliabilityofoperationandaccess.ThiscorridorisnotpreferredoverNenana-].Nenana-4SlightlylongerandmoreexpensivethanNenana-I,thiscorridorwouldnotbeseenfromtransportationroutesfromtheProjectareanorthtoHealy.Lessthanhalfofthiscorridorparallelsexistingrights-of-way,anditwouldbepoorlysuitedtoaccommodatefutureelectricalneedsofexistingorpotentialcommunities.NotonlywouldthiscorridorhavethesameobjectionsasthatofNenana-3,italsowouldprovideaccesstotheareaimmediatelynorthofWatanadamsitetotheDenaliHighway,dividingwhatisnowafairlylargewildernessarea.ThisareacanbeeA.-pectedtoprovideunsuitablesoils,muchofitice-richpermafrost.Nenana-4isnotpreferredoverNenana-I.Nenana-5Thiscorridorisuniqueinthatitswholelengthpioneersanewcorridor;noexistingrights-of-wayareparalleled.Yet,itslengthandcostarenotmuchgreaterthanNenana-l.Itwouldbeverypoorlysuitedtoaccommodatefutureelectricalneedsofexistingandpotentialcommunities.ThiscorridorcombinestheobjectionsofNenana-2andNenana-4,anditsonlyadvantagewouldbeitsconcealmentfromtransportationroutes.Thus,thiscorridorisnotrecommended.
DeltaTheDeltacorridoristwiceaslongand50%moreexpensivethanNenana-I.Mostofitparallelsexistingrights-of-way,andformanystretches,wouldbehighlyvisiblefromtheDenaliandRichardsonHighways.Ithasafairsuit-abilityforaccommodatingfutureelectricalneedsofexistingorpotentialcommunities.Inaddition,itcanservetopowerpipelinepumpingstationsandconnecttheCVEAandGVEAsystems.Themajorenvironmentalobjectionstothislineare:thereisalargeareaofpoorsoilstobecrossedalongtheDenaliHighwayandthroughIsabelPass;thelinewouldalsobehighlyvisibleinthesetwoareas.Thiscorridorin-fringesontheNelchinacaribourange.SincetheNelchinaherdhassufferedsuchdramaticlossesinthepasttenyears,anyimpactontheirrangeshouldbeconsideredadverse.TheonlyEndangeredSpeciesinAlaska,thePeregrinefalcon,wouldbeaffectedinitshabitatalongtheSalchaBluffs.AlargearcheologicaldistrictwouldhavetobecrossedwestofPaxson.Theseobjec-tions,combinedwithlengthandcost,ruleagainstthisalternative.TheselectionoftheNenana-IandSusitna-Iastheproposedcorridorsdoesnotdisavowtheimpactsassociatedwiththem;itonlyselectsthesetwoasthemosteconomicallydesirableandtheleastenvironmentallyobjectionablealternatives.Lessening,ormitigation,oftheimpactsofthesetvvocorridorsisdiscussedinthefollowingsection.AppendixI1-83
AppendixI1-84MITIGATIONOFIMPACTSMostmitigatingmeasuresarebasicallystandardpracticesstringentlyenforced.IfbasicapplicableregulationsissuedbytheFederal,State,andlocalgovernmentsregardingenvironmentqualityareadheredto,mostimpactsaffectingairandwaterqualitywillbeminimized.ApplicationofpracticesandguidelinessuchasthoseissuedinEnvironmentalCriteriaforElectricTransmissionSystems,ajointDepartmentoftheInterior,DepartmentofAgriculturepublication,willreducevisualandenvironmentalimpacts.Consultationwithagenciesproficientincertainareasofconcern,suchastheSoilConservationServiceandtheStateDepartmentofFishandGame,willprovidefurtherguidanceonmitigationofimpacts.Morespecificmitigatingmeasuresarediscussedbelow.Itmustberememberedthatmanyofthesearestandardpracticesintendednotonlytominimizedamagetotheenvironment,butalsotoprotecttheintegrityofthetransmissionline.ExperiencegainedfromconstructionandmaintenanceofothertransmissionsystemsinAlaskahasshownthatmostenvironmentalimpactsfromtransmis-sionlinescanbeavoided.GoldenValleyElectricAssociationandChugachElectricAssociationhaveconstructedandoperatedseverallineswithoutaccessroads,onpoorsoils,andunderharshclimaticconditions.Exceptforvisualimpact,mostenvironmentalimpactscausedbyatransmis-sionsystemarefarlessthanmanytransportationandcommunicationsystems;particularlyifitisanoverheadsystem.Themajorityoftheimpactsareduetotheaccessroads;iftheaccessroaccanbeomitted,alargeportionofthepotentialimpactswillbeeliminated.Thefollowingmitigativeprocedureswillassumetheexistenceofanaccessroadanditspotentialimpacts;itmustberememberedthataccessroadswillnotbeusedwheretheyareshowntobeincompatiblewiththeenvironment.SoilsSinceitisexpectedthatmostdamagetosoilswilloccurduringtheconstructionphase,theconstructionschedulecanbearrangedsothatconsiderableamountsofthework,particularlythoserequiringtheuseofanaccessroad,suchasdeliveryofmaterials,canbedoneinwinterandspring,whenthegroundisleastvulnerabletophysicaldisturbances.
However,winterroadusewillbedependentuponsnowdepthandsurfaceconditions;winterusecanaffectsurfacevegetationthroughdestructionofsurfaceplants,orover-compactionofsnow.Temporaryroadswillbeavoidedasmuchaspossible;accessroadswillbebuilttoastandardapplicabletotheexpecteduse.IfsodesignatedbytheStateDepartmentofHighways,somesectionsofa.ccessroadswillbebuilttosecondaryroadstandards.Notallsectionsofthelinewillrequireanaccessroad;particularlysensitiveareasmaybeprotectedbytheuseofhelicopterconstructionandmaintenance,ortheuseofwinteraccessroadsandhelicoptermainten-ance.Itshouldberecognized,however,thatdependenceonaerialmethodsleavestheconstructionand/ormaintenanceprogrammorevulnerabletoweatherconditions.OnemajorsectionwillbeconstructedwithoutaccessroadsfromDevilCanyontoHealy.Forgroundwork,roadsmustbeadequatelyconstructedtoavoiderosion,slopeinstability,degradationofthepermafrost,andalterationofdrainage.Gravelorotherinsulatingmaterialshouldunderlaypermanentaccessroadsonpermafrostarea;culvertsandbridgeswherenecessaryshouldbeplacedtoavoiddisruptionofdrainageandpossibleicingconditions.Slopesoncutsandfillsshouldbeofpropergradientandrevegetatedassoonaspossibletopreventerosionandslumping.RevegetationwillbedonewithspeciesrecommendedinAVegetativeGuideforAlaskapublishedbytheSoilConservationService.Forgroundworkoffoftheaccessroad,orwherenoaccessroadwillbeprovided,machinerycompatibletothesurfaceshouldbeused.Forshallowpermafrostareas,softmuskegandbogs,andhighlyerosivesoils,machinerywithlow-pressuretreadsortiresshallbeusedtoavoidscarringthevegetativematandincurringsubsequenterosion.Onsensitivesoils,suchasice-richsoilswithashallowpermafrosttable,disturbedsoilwillbeprotectedwithanorganicinsulatingmulch,suchasstraw,orwhenavailable,chippedslashfromtheclear-ing.Revegetationwithappropriatecoverplantswillimmediatelyfollowconstruction.Toreducethelikelihoodofdisturbanceofmarshysoils,matsofslash,logs,orothermaterialswillbeused.Onerodableslopes,nobulldozingwillbedoneonslopesgreaterthan35%.Allcutsandfillsshallbeangledbacksufficientlytominimizeslumpingandimmediatelyseededwithappropriateplants.SoddingorfabricmatsmayneedtobeusedinsomecasestominimizeerosionuntilAppendixI1-85
AppendixI1-86revegetationcancontrolslopeerosion.Culvertsandwaterbreakswillbeplacedtoreducewaterflowoverthebareroadbed.Nomachineclearingwillbepermittedwithin100feetofanystreambed.Toprotecttheintegrityofstructuresinextremelymarshysoilsorsoilswithashallowice-rich,permafrosttable,andtominimizeuseoftheaccessroadformaintenanceoftowerfootingsonthesesoils,heattransferdevicesmaybeusedifnecessarytokeeptowerfootingsandguysfrozenintoplace.Thisisespeciallyimportantinthosestretchesnothavinganaccessroad.Keepingpoorlydrainedsoilsandtheshallowactivezonearoundtowerbasespermanentlyfrozen,eliminatesfrost-heavingofanchorsandsettlingoffoundationsduetochangesinthepermafrost.Thereareseveraltypesofthesedevicesinuse;theiruseiswidespreadalongtheAlyeskaPipelinewhereelevatedsectionsofpipearevulnerabletosettling.Agooddiscussionofseveraltypesofthesedevicesisfoundinthearticle"SettlingaProblemofSettling",intheNorthernEngineer,VoL7,no.1.Thebasicprincipleofthesedevicesisthatof"pumping"heatfromthesoiltotheair.Year-roundoperationwouldrequireanactualpumptokeepcoolantflowing,butseveraltypesusenopump,relyinginsteaduponthedifferencebetweensoilandambientairtemperaturesinwinterandone-wayflowofcoolanttoretardheattransfertothesoilinsummer.Theseheat-transferdevicesmayprovidethebestavailablesolutiontotheproblemofsuitablefootingsandanchorsforstructuresinmuskeg.Firecontrolwillbequickandefficienttolimitfirestosmallareas.Firecontrolmethodsandmachineryshouldnotultimatelycausemoredamagethanthefiresthemselves;soildisruptionbyfirecontrolmustnotaggravatesoildisturbancealreadycausedbyafire.Aerialcontrolandgroundvehicleswithlow-pressuretreadswillbeusedwhereneeded.Crewswillbeinstructedonfiresafety.Extinguishingtoolswillbeonhand;machinerywillbesuitablymaintainedtominirrdzesparking.Workwillgoonaspecialbasisduringhigh-riskperiods.Thepermanentaccessroadcandoubleasafirebreakandafire-controlroadforcontinuingwildfiremanagement.Onunbridgedstreamcrossings,gravelfordswillbeconstructedwherethebottomisnotalreadygravel.Notreesshallbefelledoryardedacrossstreams.Nowastematerialwillbedumpedintostreamsor
abandonedontheirfloodplains.Towerswillbelocatedwellawayfromstreams,notonlytoreducethepotentialforerosion,butalsofortheirownsafety.VegetationOnlythenecessaryvegetationwillbeclearedtominimizeimpactandcost.Photogrammetricidentificationofclearingzoneswillbeused;thistechnique,alreadyinusebyBonnevillePowerAdministration,usesacombinationoffactors,includingspacingoftowers,linesag,topo-graphy,profiles,andgrowthratestodetermineexactlywhichtreesneedtobeeliminatedinaforestedarea.DesignationoftheminimumsafeclearingwillbeinkeepingwiththeNationalElectricSafetyCode.Clearingwillbewithbrushbladesonbulldozersonfrozenground,aswellaswithrotarycuttingorhandclearingtoreduceunnecessarydisruptionofvegetation.Nobulldozingwillbepermittedonslopesgreaterthan35%.Clearingonsteepslopeswillbebyhand;stumpsandrootswillbeallowedtoremaintohelpkeepslopesstable.Slashwillbeimmediatelychippedtoprovideerosioncontrolwherenecessaryorburnedtoavoidpotentialinsectepidemicsandtoreducefirehazard.Non-merchantabletimberwillbeburnedifanaccessroadispresent.Withnoaccessroad,machinerycannotbebroughtinforstacking,burning,orchipping,anddownedtimberwillbeleftalongtheclearing.Beetleinfestationwillbeofconcernmainlyonthebottom-landspruce-poplarecosystem.Disturbedareaswillbegradedbacktomergewiththecontoursoftheland,andfertilizedorrevegetatedifnecessarytoprovideagroundcover.Inmanycases,chippingofbrush,averysuitablemethodofreducingsoilerosionintheclearing,willalsoprovidesomeincreaseofinsulationinareasofshallowpermafrost.Firehazardwillbelow,sincethechipswillusuallybeinwetsoilsintheseconditions.Revegetationofclearedareascanbewithplantspeciesthatwillenhancehabitatforanimals,yetcansuccessfullydominatetaller-growingspecies.Typicalofthesespeciesaregrassesandlegumes.RevegetationwillbecarriedoutinaccordancewithAVegetativeGuideforAlaskapresentlyusedbytheStateDepartmentofHighways.Thosesectionsofclearingneedingperiodicmaintenancetokeepdowntall-growingtreeswillbeclearedinsuchawayastominimizefurthersoildisruption.Ifmechanicalmethodsareused,selectivecuttingispreferableoverbrushhogsorbrushbladesontractors,whichnotonlyAppendixI1-87
AppendixI1-88canbedestructivetothesoil,butinefficient,also,inthatlittleselectivecuttingispossible.Ifherbicidalcontrolistobeused,properapplicationmethodsandproperherbicidemethodswillbeused.Aerialapplicationwillnotbeused;manualapplicationisnotonlyveryselective,butaccidentalmisapplicationislesslikelytooccur.Herbicideswillnotbeappliednexttostreamsorlakes;abufferstripwillbeleftuntreatedadjacenttowaterbodies.Applicationwillbeofacoverageanddilutionappropriatetothevegetationbeingtreated.Firecontrolwillbeasdiscussedintheprecedingsectiononsoils.WildlifeApolicyofminimalclearingofvegetationshouldhavetheleastimpactuponwildlifeintermsofdestructionofhabitat.Avoidanceofuniquehabitat,orhabitatofrareandendangeredspecieswillminimizeimpactontheseimportant,butusuallylocalized,areas.Seasonalschedulingofconstructionwillminimizecontactswithmigratingmammals,althoughthismayconflictwithwinterconstructioninareasusedbywinteringcaribouormoose.Anyaccessroadswillbedesignedtominimizerivercrossings,whichshouldreducesedimentationcausedbyfordingmachinery.Wherepossible,drainagewillbepreservedthroughproperplacingofculvertsandbridges.Borrowpitswillbelocatedtoavoidsedimentationofclearwaterstreamsandlakesandsubsequentimpactsonaquaticecosystems.Spillsoffuel,oil,andotherchemicalswillbeavoided,particularlyifstreamsorlakesmaybeaffected.Herbicides,ifused,willbeappliedproperly.Wildfirecontrolwillbeasdiscussedinthesectiononsoils.Harassmentofwildlifebygroundvehicles,planes,orhelicopters,eitherdeliberateorinadvertant,willbeminimizedbystrictenforce-mentofvehicleuseandaircraftusebyeitherthecontractorsorthesupervisorsduringconstructionandmaintenance.Huntingandtrappingactivitiesofworkcrewswillbecontrolled.TheAlyeskaPipelinecampsrestrictfirearmspossessiontocontrolhuntingandharassment,aswellasaccidentalshootings.TheAlyeskaPipelinecampandconstructionareashavealsobeenclosedtohuntingandfishingbytheAlaskaStateDepart-mentofFishandGame.Similarcontrolswillbeemployedfortransmissionlinework.Increasedexposureofwildlifetohuntingortrappingbecauseoftheincreasedaccessofaserviceroadcanbecontrolledtoadegree,ifdeemednecessarybygamemanagementagencies.Accessroadheadscanbe
barricadedorconcealed,breakscanbedesignedontheaccessroadtolimitusebystandardfour-wheeldrivevehicles,andtheroadcanbeposted.However,itisnotexpectedthatsuchaccess-controlmeasureswillentirelysucceed.Inmostareas,AlaskaPowerAdministrationfavorsmultiple-useoftheright-of-way;finalregulationofaccesswillbeatthediscretionofthelandownerorland-managingagency.ExistingDevelopments-SocialToavoidpreemptionofprivatelands,thefinalroutewillbeflexibleenoughtocircumventsmallblocksofprivateland.Largerprivatelyownedsectionswillentailapurchaseofeasement.Allofthealter-nativecorridorscanavoidcommunitiesenroute.SectionsofthelinedeemedhazardousbytheFAAwillbeadequatelymarkedasoutlinedinPart77,FAAregulations"ObjectsAffectingNavigableAirSpacell•Effectsofaudiblenoiseandelectromagneticinterferenceareminimizedbythedistancebetweenthemajorityofthecorridorandresidences,especiallyresidenceswithradioand/ortelev-isionreception.Avoidanceofcommunitiesforthemostpartwilleliminatethenuisancesofnoiseandinterference.Parallelingcommunicationlinesvulnerabletoreducedinterferencecanbere-routedtominimizethedistancealongwhichtransmissionandcommunicationlinescloselyparallel.Themagnitudeofinducevoltageisinverselyproportionaltothesquareoftheseparatingdistance,sodoublingthedistancebetweenthetransmissionlineandcommunicationlineswouldreduceinducedinterferencetoaquarter.Campswillbeprovidedfortransmissionlineworkers;theseandallmaterialdumpsandconstructionareaswillbelocatedawayfromsmallcommunities;suchprecautionswillnotbeneededforthelargertownsofAnchorageandFairbanks.Thecampswillbetemporary,andwillberemovedastheconstructionphaseintheirvicinityiscompleted;thelandoccupiedbythecampswilleitherreverttotheirformeruseorusedforotherpurposes.Dependingupontheabilityofthecommunitytoabsorbaninfluxofpeople,thecampswillprovideforentertainment,food,andlodging.Thiswillminimizethestrainonsuchservicesinthecommunities,atthesametime,allowinglocalmerchantstoprofitfromtheseservices.ScenicQuality-RecreationTheobtrusivenessofatransmissionlinecanbelessenedbyproperdesignandlocation.Inforestedareas,placingtheclearingfarenoughAppendixII-89
AppendixII-90fromaparallelhighwayorrailroadissufficienttoconcealthetransmissionline.Inareashavingshortertrees,usingthetopographytoconcealalinebehindridges,inswales,andalongbreaksinslopeswillhelptolessenitsvisibility.Incompletelyopenareas,theonlyalternativesareusingacombinationoftopographyanddistancetoconcealaline,ortokeepitclosetotheroadifitcannotbeconcealed.Bykeepinganobviouslinenexttoaroad,onecanwalkunderthelinetogetanunobstructedviewofsceneryontheotherside;merelykeepinganunconcealablelineashortdistancefromaparallelroaddoesnotlessenitsobtrusiveness,anditprecludesgettingaclearviewofscenerybeyond.Othertechniquesofconcealingormitigatingthepresenceofalinearetoavoidclear-cutsforclearings,butinstead,tofeatherbackthebreakbetweenoriginalforestandclearing;useofphotogrammetricselectiveclearingwilleasetheabruptappearanceofclearings.Whereroadcrossingsarenecessary,itisbesttocrossatlessthanrightanglesandtoleaveabufferstripoforiginalvegetationtomasktheright-of-way.Thismightinvolveusingtallerthanusualtowersoneithersideofthehighwaytoprovidetheadditionalclearance.Placinglinesonridgessilhouettesthem,andwillbeavoided;ridgecrossingsarebestputinnotchesorlowspots.Wheneverpossible,existingrights-of-wayshouldbesharedorparalleledtoavoidtheproblemsassociatedwithpioneeringacorridorininacces-sibleareas.TrailsintheseIlinaccessiblellareasshould,however,beavoided;preservingwildernessqualityentailssharingorparallelingallrights-of-wayexcepttrails,andfromthese,linesshouldbeshieldedasmuchaspossible.CulturalResourcesThereareknownandpotentialarchaeologicalandhistoricalsitesalongtheproposedcorridors.Tominimizepossiblevandalismordisturbance,nositesotherthanthoseontheNationalRegistershallbelocatedeitheronamaporonthenarrativeofthisassessment.Topreservetheintegrityoftheseknownandpotentialsites,apre-constructionarchaeologicalsurveyofthecorridorswillbecarriedout,andthefinaltransmissionroutewillbeadjustedtominimizedisruption.Inadvertentdiscoveryofanunsuspectedsiteatalaterstagewillentaileithertheminorrelocationofasegmentofthetransmissionline,orthesalvageofthesiteasprescribedbyExecutiveOrder11593andP.L.93-291.
Forsitesalreadydisturbed,suchasthoseuncoveredduringexcavation,accuraterecordsofthesitewillbeprepared;thesitewillbestudiedtodetermineitssignificanceandtheextentofdisturbance.Allphoto-graphs,drawings,anddescriptionswillbefiledwiththeLibraryofCongressaspartoftheHistoricAmericanBuildingsSurveyortheHistoricAmericanEngineeringRecord.Ifthesiteisofsuchsignifi-cancetowarrantmoredetailedstudy,constructionworkshallbetemporarilyhaltedonthevicinityofthesite;ifnecessary,aminorrelocationcanbearrangedtopreventfurtherdisruptionofveryimportantsites.AppendixI1-91
AppendixI1-92ADVERSEENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSAllgenerationofpowerwillcreateadverseimpacts,alltransmissionofpowerwillcreateadverseimpacts;allgenerationsites,exceptforlocalgeneration,needatransmissionsystem.Thedegreeofadverseimpactofatransmissionlinewillvarywithitslength,thecharacteroftheterrain,andthecareexercisedindesign,construction,operation,andmaintenance.AdherencetoregulationsandguidelinesissuedbytheNationalEnvironmentalPolicyActof1969,theWaterQualityAct,andrelevantStateandlocalagenciesandapplicationofmitigatingmeasuresasoutlinedintheprecedingsectionwillreduceunavoidabledetrimentalimpactstoaconsiderabledegree.ExperienceinconstructionandmaintenanceofthemorerecenttransmissionlinesofAlaskanutilitieshasshownthatmostadverseimpactscanbeavoidedormitigated.TheHealy-FairbanksandtheBeluga-PointMacKenzietransmissionlineshavebeensuccessfulincrossingawidevarietyofecosystemswithlittledamage.Theselineshaveusedwinterandhelicopterconstructioninadditiontoconventionalvehicleaccessroads.Theuseoftheexperiencegainedintheseprojectswillreducethedegreeofadverseimpactsconsiderably.However,someunavoidableimpactsareinevitable.Theseimpactsareoftwokinds:Thoseresultingfromtheconstructionactivities,andthoseinherentintheexistenceofatransmissionline.Unavoidableimpactsduetoconstructionactivitiesareusuallytemporary;theseincludeeffectssuchasdisruptionofthesurfacevegetationandsubsequenterosiononslopes;disruptionofanimalhabitatduetohumanpresence;andlossofvegetationduetoclearing.Thedegreeoftheseimpactswilldependuponthemitigationmeasurestaken,timingoftheconstructionphase,andecologicalfactors;theseimpactswilllessenorceaseafterconstructtion,asregrowthofvegetationandreinvasionoffaunaoccurs.Unavoidableimpactsofamorepermanentnatureassociatedwithmaintenanceandoperationofthetransmissionlineincludemodificationofhabitatduetoamaintainedclearing;increasedaccessandsubsequentimpactsofincreasedaccess;influenceonexistingandfuturelanduse;influencesonexistingandfutureutilitycorridors;andveryimportantly,impactsonscenicquality.Themaintenanceofaclearingthroughforestedareaswillhaveimpactsonwildlifeforthelifeofthetransmissionlines.Animalsdependentuponsuccessionalvegetationforbrowse,suchasmooseandsnowshoe
hare,willbenefitbytheintroductionofbrushintoanotherwiseforestedarea.Animalsdependentuponclimaxforestforhabitat,suchasredsquirrel,willsufferareductionofhabitat.Ingeneral,bothoftheseimpactswillbeinsignificantduetothesmallratioofaffectedlandtotheareaofunaffectedforesttraversedbyatransmissionroute.Increasedaccessduetotheexistenceofatransmissionlinewilldependuponthetypeofaccessusedtotheline,thedegreeofpresentaccess-ibility,theareaofinaccessiblelandopenedup,andtheattractionforactivitiesotherthanlinemaintenance.Somesectionsofthelinewillhavenoaccessroad;somewillbeservicedbytemporaryconstructionroadsorwinterroads;somesectionswillbeservicedbyanaccessroadsuitableforfour-wheeldrivevehicles.Thus,accesswillbeeffectivelydeniedtovehiclesunabletonegotiatearoadofthisstandard,andinmanyareas,toallvehiclesexceptall-terrainvehiclesoraircraft.Iftheareaisalreadysuitablyservedbyanexistingroadofhigherstandards,itwouldbeexpectedthatatransmissionlineaccessroadwillnotappreciablyaffecttheexistingaccess.Also,itwouldbeexpectedthatlargeareasopenedupbyanewaccessroadwouldreceivemoreimpactsthansmallerareas;however,itcanalsobereasonedthatlargerareascanabsorbthegreaterimpactsofincreasedaccessmoreeasilythansmallerareas.Ifotherfactorsareconsideredequal,impactsofincreasedaccesswilldependuponthearea'sattractivenessforhunting,packing,camping,andsightseeing.AlaskaPowerAdministrationpresentlyfavorsmultiple-useoftransmissionrights-of-way.Sincemostoftherights-of-waywillbeeasementsonStateandprivatelands,andlandsmanagedbyotheragencies,deter-minationofaccesswillbelefttothelandownersormanagers.Therewillbeanunavoidableimpactonpresentandfuturelanduse;thedegreeofthisimpactisafunctionoftheexistinguseandthepotentialusesofnotonlythelandoccupiedbythetransmissionline,butalsotheadjacentlands.Presently,thereislittleagricultureorforestryalongthealternativecorridors;residentialareasarelargelylimitedtotheAnchorage-PalmerandFairbanksareas.However,futurepatternsoflandusewillchange;agriculturalpatternsadjacenttoatransmissionlinewillbeaffectedsomewhat,dependingonthecropandthemethodofagriculture.Sincethetransmissionlinewillprobablypredateagriculturallandusealongthecorridor,thisAppendixI1-93
AppendixI1-94impactwillbeslight,andprobablybeneficial,sincearight-oi-waywouldprovideclearedlandatlittleornoexpensetothefarmer.Irrigationandtillingmethodswillhavetoadaptthemselvestothespacingofthetowers;landoccupiedbythetowerbaseswillbeunusable,butthislandisasmallfractionoftheright-of-way.Forestryispresentlylimitedbyphysical,economic,andownershipfactors.Presentforestryareascaneasilybecircumvented;potentialareasmaybenefitfromtheexistingaccessroadofthetransmissionlinenotonlyforlogging,butalsoforfirecontrol.Theexistenceofatrans-missioncorridoringeneralwillhaveaminimalimpactonforestry.Presentresidentialareaswillbeunaffectedbyanyofthealternativecorridors;potentialresidentialareasadjacenttoanexistingtransmissionlinewillaccommodatethemselvestoitspresence.Thevoltageofthetrans-missionlineprecludesdirectservicetosmallcommunities;thesewillhavetobeservedbylowervoltagedistributionlines,emanatingfromexistingorfuturemajorsubstations.Thepotentialforservicetosmallcommunitiesisasignificantimpactinthatthesecommunitiesmaystronglydesiretotapthetransmissionline;iftheyareservicedbythetransmissionline,theywillessentiallybecomepartoftheinterconnectedsystem.Sincethecostofpowerwillmostlikelydecreaseinthesecommunitiesafterinterconnec-tion,somelocalgrowthcanbeexpanded,dependingonwhatdegreetheavailabilityandcostofpowerwasalimitingfactortogrowth.Theexistenceofatransmissioncorridormaytendtoattractfuturecorridors;toaconsiderableextent,thisisabeneficialimpactinthatitismoreeconomi-calforrights-of-waytobesharedortobeadjacent;thereisalessenedlikelihoodoflargeareasofwildernesstobecutintoamultitudeofsmallerareasbyredundantrights-of-way;andthepossibilityexistsfor"symbiotic"useofaright-of-waybytwodifferenttypesofutilities.Examplesaretheuseofaccessroadsfortransportationandtheelectrificationofrailroadsandpipelines.Incorridorslimitedbyphysicaland/orland-useconstraints,suchastheNenanaCanyonthroughtheAlaskaRange,proliferationofrights-of-waywillleadtocongestion;incasessuchasthis,itismostdesirabletosetafuturepatternbyattemptingtoutilizeexistingcorridorstominimizepotentialcongestion.Oneofthemostsignificantunavoidableadverseimpactswillbeuponscenicquality.Atransmissionlinewillalwayscauseadetrimentalimpact;thedegreeofthisimpactisdeterminedbythevisibilityandobtrusivenessofthetransmissionlineasseenbythemajorityoftheviewers.Sincemostoftheviewersofthealternativecorridorswillbeontheexistingtranspor-tationroutes,itisinferredthatincreasedvisibilityandobtrusivenessfrom
However,itisimpossibletohideanylinefromallviewersfromalldirections.Anytransmissionlineiseasilyvisiblefromtheair;placingalineawayfromaroadtohideitfrommotoristswillnotconcealitfromhunters,hikers,andcampers,towhomthelinemaybeespeciallyobtrusive.Thisdilemmabecomesmoresevereinopencountry,partic-ularlyinscenicsurrounds.Insummary,adverseenvironmentalimpactswillbe:-clearingofvegetationfromasmuchas3747acres.-subsequentperiodiccontroloftheregrowthontheclearingcreated.-permanentremovalofvegetationfromtowerbases,accessroads,andanyfuturesubstationstobeaddedtothesystem.-impactstosoilfromconstructionandmaintenanceoperations.-impactstofisheriesinclearwaterstreamsaffectedbyconstructionandmaintenance.-impactstowildlife,bothbeneficialandadverse,stemmingfromtheaboveeffectsofconstructionandmaintenance.-visualimpactstoscenicandrecreationalresourcesfromTalkeetnanorthtoHealy.-effectsonairqualityduetoburningofslashresultingfromclearingoperations.AppendixI1-95
AppendixI1-96RELATIONSHIPBETWEENSHORT-TERMUSESOFTHEENVIRON1tffiNTANDLONG-TERMPRODUCTIVITYThetransmissionlinecanbeassumedtohaveaverylonglife;aslongasloadsareexpectedtoincrease,astheyare,andaslongastheUpperSusitnaprojectisaviablesourceofpower,thetransmissionroutecanbeconsideredoperative.Individualcomponentswillbereplaced,anditisforeseeablethatthelineitselfmaybeupgradedtohighervoltagesandcapacity,butitwillstillbeessentiallythesametransmissionsystem.Thebulkoftheimpactsontheenvironmentofthelinewillbeencounteredduringtherelativelyshortconstructionphase.Ofthelong-termeffects,somewouldterminateimmediatelyorshortlyaftertheretirementoftheline.Someoftheseeffectswouldbethosespringingfromaccessroadmaintenance,vegetationcontrol,'noiseandelectromagneticinterference,(seeExhibitI"Hazards")andvisualimpact.Otherimpactswillbe"imprintedllintotheenvironment.Wildlifepatternsmayhavebeenaffectedbycontinualhuntingorhabitatmodification;thesepatternswilllingerforaconsiderabletimeafterapossibleremovaloftheline.Vegetationpatterns,alteredbycontinualmaintenanceorintroductionofgrassesorothernonnativeplants,maycontinueforaverylongtime.Uncheckedregrowthoftheclearingwilleventuallyresultinsuccessionalvegetationclosertothestageofthesurroundingforests;thisregrowthwillentailhabitatmodificationsoppositetothosecausedbytheoriginalclearing,butofcourseoveramuchlongertimeperiod.Theaboveassumesthatthetransmissionright-of-waywillretainitsoriginalfunctionforthelifeoftheproject.However,thisright-of-waymayinfluencelandusepatternsthat,likevegetationpatterns,willlingerafterthetermoftheactualtransmissionline.Theright-of-waymayassumethefunctionofatransportationroute;thistransport-ationroutemayeventuallyhavemoreimpactthantheoriginaltransmissionlineandevenoutlivetheline.Otherrights-of-waymayberoutedadjacenttothetransmissionline,thussettingaregionalpatternofcorridorsthatagainmayoutlivethelifetimesoftheoriginalutilities.Atransmissionlinewhichpresentlypioneersaright-of-wayintoundevel-opedareasmayimprintapattern,whichalthoughitmightshiftandfluctuatesomewhat,willdeterminefuturelanduseandtransportationandtransmissionnetworksforthatareafarbeyonditsownlifetime.Thiseffectissimilarforotherrights-of-waywhichpioneerlargeundevelopedareas.AgoodexampleofthisistheAlaskaRailroad,whichisnowparalleledbydistributionandtransmissionlinesandahighway,andwhichresultedinthecreationofseveralsmallcommunitiesalongitslength.
Anothereffectonthelong-termproductivityoftheareabythetransmissioncorridorwouldspringfromtheinterconnectionoftheelectricpowergridsofthetwolargestpopulationcentersintheState.Interconnectionwouldenableuseofthecheapestgenerationandthemaintenanceofsmallerreservecapacity,whileatthesametimeresultingingreaterreliabilityforbothsystems.InterconnectionwouldassumeanimportancenearlyasgreatasthefunctionofdeliveryofUpperSusitnapower.NewpopulationcentersarisingintheRailbeltareawouldbeaidedbyproximitytothisinterconnectedsystem.Thegrowthofenergy-intensiveheavyindustryalongthecorridorduetotheavailabilityofpowerispresentlyunlikely;thisisduetothehightransportationandlaborcostsofthearea,whichwouldoutweightheadvantageoftheavailabilityofrelativelycheappower.TheconstructionofaninterconnectedpowersystemfortheRailbeltisaresponsetotheincreaseddemandforelectricpower.Initself,theavailabilityofpowerisnotenoughtoinducegrowthofanarea;otherfactors,someofwhichareintra-andinter-regionaltransportation,theavailabilityoflabor,theexistenceofamarketformanufacturedgoods,produce,and/orrawmaterials,mustexistalsotospurregionalgrowth.Theseotherfactorsareprobablymoreresponsibleforgrowththantheavailabilityofpower.TherearenoimportantpotentialhydropowersitesclosetothealternativecorridorsexcepttheWoodCanyonsite.TheviabilityofthisprojectmaybeenhancedbytheexistenceofthetransmissionroutewhichfollowstheRichardsonHighwayroute.However,otherfactorssuchaslargesizeofthepotentialprojectandenvironmentalimpactsoftheWoodCanyonprojectreducetheprobabilityofthisprojectbeingspurredonbytheexistenceofanalternativecorridor.TheproposedHealy-McKinleyPa.rk25kvdistributionlinemaybeaffectedbytheNenana-lcorridor.Thedistributionlinewilladdanotherright-of-waytoanarrowcanyonalreadyoccupiedbytwotransportationlines.Theconstructionofatransmissionlinecouldremovethenecessityofpartofthisdistributionline;atapatMcKinleyParkcouldservethisareawithpowerfromtheUpperSusitnaProject.However,ithasyettobedeterminedifthecostofalow-loadtapatMcKinleyParkwillprovemoreeconomicalthananextensionofadistributionlinefromHealy.Theproposed230kvCEAtransmissionlinefromPointMacKenziearoundKnikArmmayprovideanothermeansofconnectionoftheSusitna-lcorridortotheAnchorageareainconjunctionwiththeexistingsubmarinecablesatPointMacKenzie.AppendixII-97
AppendixI1-98IRREVERSIBLEANDIRRETRIEVABLECOMMITMENTSOFRESOURCESThematerialsdirectlyusedintheconstructionofthetransmissionlineandaccessroadswillbeirretrievablycommittedforthelifeofthetransmissionline.Thesematerialsincludethealuminumandsteelinthetowers,aluminumandsteelinthecablesandguys,insulators,steelculverts,gravelandconcrete.Ofthese,aluminumandsteelhavescrapvalueandcanberecycled.Maintenancevehicleswillbeirretrievablycommitted,sincetheirresalevalueafterfullusecanbeexpectedtobelow.Thefuelexpendedonconstructionandmaintenanceisirretrievablycommitted,asareotherchemicals,suchaspaint,ifsteeltowersaretobecoated,andherbicides,ifchemicalcontrolofvegetationisused.Thelandoccupiedbytheright-of-wayisirreversiblycommittedforthelifeoftheproject,althoughitcanreverttoitsoriginaluseorsomeotheruseafterretirementoftheline.Thislandcan,forthemostpartbeusedforotheractivities,suchasrecreation,access,oragriculture.Thisis,however,atthediscretionofthelandownerorland-managingagency.Landusepatternsmaybepermanentlyaffectedbythepatternoriginatedbythetransmissioncorridor,witheffectsoutlivingtheoriginaltrans-missionline.Irreversibleecologicalchangesmayresult,dependingupontheamountofclearingorlarge-scalechangeimposeduponanareabyaright-of-way.Mostofthesechanges,suchasthemaintenanceofsuccessionalvegetationinanotherwiseclimaticforest,willeventuallyreverttotheiroriginalcondition,afterretirementofthetransmissionline,althoughthismaytakeaconsiderableperiodoftime.Mineralextractionmaybeaffectedbythelocationofthetransmissionline;sucheffectsprobablywilllastforthelifetimeoftheline,unlessthelineislaterre-routedaroundorebodies.Thiswouldnotbepracticalforlowunit-valueminerals,suchassandandgravel.Inadvertantdisruptionofundetectedarcheologicalsiteswouldresultinirreversibledamagetosuchsites,reducingtheamountofinformationobtainableandtheirhistoricalorarcheologicalvalue.Discoveryofunharmedsitesduringconstructionwillbeabeneficialeffect,however.AllsitesdiscoveredduringconstructionwillbesalvagedasprescribedbyExecutiveOrder11593andPublicLaw93-291,anamendmenttotheReservoirSalvageActof1960.Thelaborspentinconstruction,operation,andmaintenanceofthetrans-missionlineisirreversiblycommitted,asarethesecondaryeffectsoftheincreasedemploymentafforded.
MATERIALSANDLANDCOMMITTEDConduc-Struc-}.;faximumLengthtors1/tures2/ROW3/Clearing4/ProposedSystemPlanmilesTon Tonacresacres-----------Susitna-l:345-kv-DC1364,62413,6682,3082,308Susitna-l:345-kv-PSC4,62416,6844,6164,616Susitna-2:345-kv-DC1404,76014,0702,3762,376Susitna-2:345-kv-PSC4,76017,3604,7524,752Susitna-3:345-kv-DC1294,55613,4672,2741,900Susitna-3:345-kv-PSC4,55615,9964,5483,800Susitna-4:345-kv-DC1475,06614,9752,5292,257Susitna-4:345-kv-PSC5,06618,2265,0584,514Matanuska-l:345-kv-DC2589,01026,6334,4972,817l\htanuska-l:345-kv-PSC9,01031,9928,9945,634Matanuska-2:345-kv-DC38513,05638,5926,5163,869Matanuska-2:345-kv-PSC13,05647,74013,0327,738Nenana-I:230-kv-DC1985,10810,6923,0001,439Nenana-I:230-kv-PSC5,10813,1446,0002,878Nenana-2:230-kv-DC2205,67611,8803,3331,500Nenana-2:230-kv-PSC5,67614,5086,6663,000Nenana-3:230-kv-DC2315,96012,4743,4501,318Nenana-3:230-kv-PSC5,96015,1906,9002,636Nenana-4:230-kv-DC2235,75312,0423,3781,182Nenana-4:230-kv-PSC5,75313,8266,7562,364Nenana-5:230-kv-DC2125,47011,4483,2121,364Nenana-5:230-kv-PSC5,47013,1446,4242,728Delta:230-kv-DC2807,22415,1204,2421,727Delta:230-kv-PSC7,22417,3608,4843,4541/Assumesterrain.2/Assumesterrain.3/Assumes4/AssumesRailandPheasantconductors;canbe10%greaterinroughsteelfree-standingtower;canbe10%greaterinroughR.O.W.widthof140'for345kv,and125'for230kv.totalclearingforfullwidthofright-of-way.DC=DoubleCircuit;SC=SingleCircuit;PSC=ParallelSingleCircuitAppcnuxI1-99
MATERIALSANDLANDCOMI."lITTEDConduc-Struc-MaximumLengthtors1/tures2/ROW3/Clearing4/AlternateSystemPlanmilesTonTonacresacresSusitna-l:230-kv-DC1363,5097,3442,0602,060Susitna-l:230-kv-PSC3,5098,4324,1204,120Susitna-2:230-kv-DC1403,6127,5602,1212,12]Susitna-2:230-kv-PSC3,6128,6804,2424,242Susitna-3:230-kv-DC1293,4577,2362,0301,697Susitna-3:230-kv-PSC3,4577,9984,0603,394Susitna-4:230-kv-DC1473,8448,0462,257 2,015Susitna-4:230-kv-PSC3,8449,1144,5144,030Matanuska-l:230-kv-DC2586,837]4,3]04,0152,515Matanuska-l:230-kv-PSC6,837]5,9968,0305,030Matanuska-2:230-kv-DC3859,90720,7365,8183,454Matanuska-2:230-kv-PSC9,90723,87011,6366,908Nenana-I:230-kv-SC1982,2546,1383,0001,439Nenana-2:230-kv-SC2202,8386,8203,333],500Nenana-3:230-kv-SC2312,9807,1613,4501,318Nenana-4:230-kv-SC2232,8766,9133,3781,182Nenana-5:230-kv-SC2122,7356,5723,2121,364Delta:230-kv-SC2803,6128,6804,2421,7271/Assumesterrain.2/Assumesterrain.3/Assumes4/AssumesRailandPheasantconductors;canbe10%greaterinroughsteelfree-standingtower;canbe10%greaterinroughR.O.W.widthof140'for345kv,and125'for230kv.totalclearingforfunwidthofright-of-way.AppendixI1-100DC=DoubleCircuit;SC=SingleCircuit;PSC=ParanelSingleCircuit
OTHERALTERNATIVESTOTHEPROPOSEDACTIONAlternativecorridorshavealreadybeendiscussedandcomparedontheprevioussectionsandonthematrixesintheappendix.Inthissection,alternativestobasicassumptionsoftheproposedtransmissionlinewillbediscussedalongwiththealternativeofnon-construction.SharingofRights-of-WayTheassumptionismadeintheproposedandthealternativecorridorsthatanentirelynewright-of-waywillneedtobeobtainedfortheentirecorridor.Sharingright-of-waywithanotherutility(notnecessarilyelectrical)mayobviatemanypotentialimpactsinthataccessmayalreadyexist,reducingconstructionactivitysomewhat,andthatpioneeringofnewcorridors,withattendantproblems,isnolongernecessary.Theproposedtransmissioncorridorcouldadjoinorsharetherights-of-wayoffivetypesofsystems:otherelectricaltransmission,communica-tion,pipelines,railroads,andhighways.Althoughthebenefitineachcaseisasavingsintotallanduse,theadverseimpactsuponthesefivesystemsvary.Electricaltransmissionsystemsthatarejointlyusingoneright-of-waywillsufferareductioninreliability,inthatacatastropheaffectingoneline,suchasseismicactivity,isverylikelytoaffecttheother.Safetyduringmaintenancewilldecreasesomewhat.Jointuseofanexistingcommuniciationright-of-waywillentailpossibledamagetotheexistingsystemduringconstructionofthetransmissionline.Steadystatenoisemaybeinducedintothecommunicationline;thecommunicationlinewillalsobemorevulnerabletofaultandlightningdamage.Inthecaseofburiedcommunicationcables,erosionwilloccurunlesscorrectivemeasuresareused.Pipelinesaresubjectedtocorrosionriskalso.Thehazardsofconstructiondamage,shockandfiresorexplosionwillexist.Railroadswillbesubjectedtoshockandfirehazards.Communicationsmaysufferinterference,andinthecaseofelectricsignals,inducedcurrentmaycausefalsecontrolsignals.Alonghighways,transmissionlinescancontributetoradioandaudiblenoise,andinthecaseofaccidents,cancauseafireandshockhazard.Inthecaseofjointuseofrailroadandhighwayrights-of-way,theriskofaccidentsonthesesystemsaffectingtheintegrityofthetransmissionsystemmustalsobeconsidered.AppendixI1-101
AppendixI1-102Theaboverisksareconsideredwithnocompensationormitigation.Forinstance,corrosionofcablescanbecontrolled,ascaninducedcurrents.Properconstructiontechniqueswillgreatlyminimizeriskofdamage.Effectssuchasaudiblenoiseandresultingrisksoffireandexplosionfromaccidentscannotberesolvedwithjointright-of-wayuse.However,theuseofabufferstripbetweenright-of-waywillnotentailasavingsinland;inthecaseofadjoiningorpartialoverlapofrights-of-waysrequir-ingclearingthroughforest,theuseofabufferofstandingtreeswillrealizenosavingsinclearing.Notallrights-of-waysarevisuallycompatible;forinstance,sharingofright-of-waywithamajorhighwayortrailsystemswillcauseanunacceptablescenicimpact.Forhighways,thisincompatibilitymustbeweighedagainsttheadditionalscenicvisualimpactofviewingtheparallel,butseparaterights-of-way.However,utilitiesnotdirectlyinvolvinghumantransportationorthoseincommercialorindustrialsurroundingsaresuitedforright-of-waysharingparticularlyiftheutilityisanexistingtransmissionline.OntheproposedcorridortoFairbanks,theGoldenValleyElectricAssocia-tionownsa138kvtransmissionlinefromHealytoEster.Itispossibletocombinethislinewiththeproposed230kvdouble-circuitlinefromDevilCanyonbyupgradingtheproposedlineto345kvdouble-circuitandaddingenoughwidthtomakea140footwideright-of-way.Thiswouldbeamoreefficientuseoftheland,alongwiththeeliminationofredundancyofparalleltransmissionlines.Anotherexistingright-of-waywhichcouldbesharedisthatoftheAlyeskaPipeline.Thisisaright-of-waywithanexistingroadfornearlyitsentirelength;useofthisutilitywould,however,entailalongertransmissionline.Thepumpingstationsalongthepipelineareplannedtooperatewithaportionofthetransportedoil;however,ifthestationsweretobeelectricallyoperated,theycoulddrawpowerfromanadjacentdistributionlinewhichtapsthetransmissionline.Extrawidthwillneedtobeobtainedfortheright-of-wayifthetransmissionlineweretofollowthepipeline.Thefeasibilityofhavingindividualtapstoservethepumpingstationsislow,duetotheinordinateexpenseinvolved.Oneutilityright-of-waycloselyfollowstheproposedtransmissioncorridorfornearlyitsentirelength.ThisistheAlaskaRailroad,ownedbytheFederalGovernmentandoperatedbytheDepartmentofTransportation.
AppendixI1-103Presently,therailroadisoperatedbydieselmotors;ifelectricmotorsweretobeused,powercouldbetappedfromanadjacentpowerline.However,duetoarelativelynarrowright-of-waywhichatransmissionlinecouldnotsimultaneouslyoccupy,theright-of-waywouldneedtobedoubledonwidth,creating,ineffect,twoimmediatelyadjacentright-of-ways.Thus,therewouldnotbethesavingsofright-of-wayastheprevioustwocases.TheAlaskaRailroadcarriesmainlyfreight;in1973,therailroadoperatedover1800freightcarsand54passengercars.Therewillbesomeobjectiononthepartofthepassengercomponenttotheextremeclosenessofamajortransmissionlinefor250miles;how-ever,thisismuchlessofanimpactthanifthelineweretocloselyparalleltheAnchorage-Fairbankshighwayforthesamedistance.T.Y.Lin(intheNorthernEngineer,Vol.5,No.4)proposestheconstructionofIntegratedPipelineTransportation,acoalescenceofseparatebutparalleltransportationcorridorsintooneintegratedstructuretominimizeenvironmentalimpacts,economizeonconstruction,andincreaseefficiencyofserviceandmaintenance.Itispossibletointegratetransmissionlinesintosuchatransportationsystem,andwouldresultinthebestuseofthelandandtheleastimpacts.However,thepresenceofseveralexistingtransportationroutesprecludeconstructionofsuchintegratedtransportationsystems;theyaremostfeasibleinopeningupnewcorridorsofsignificantlength,andthissituationisnotforeseeableintheRailbelt.Also,atransmissionlineintegratedintosuchasystemwouldrequiretechnologysimilartothatrequiredbyanundergroundcable,thenextalternativetobediscussed.UndergroundTransmissionSystemsThisdiscussionwilllimititselftothepresenttechnologyoftransmissionsystems;potentialcapabilitieswillbediscussedattheendofthissection.MuchofthismaterialisabstractedfromtheBonnevillePowerAdministrationsdraftFiscalYear1976ProposedProgramEnvironmentalImpactStatementUndergroundtransmissionshavebeenfoundtobepracticalintwotypesofsituations;oneinwhichthecostsofanundergroundsystemarelessthananoverheadone,suchasinareasofveryhighright-of-waycostsorwherealargesavingsinlinelengthispossible,suchaswithsubmarinecables.Theothersituationisthatinwhichanundergroundsystemhashighsuitability,suchasentrytosubstationsincongestedareasoreliminatingthehazardsofcriticalcrossings,suchasothertransmissionsystems,andtoeliminatehazardstoaircraftnearairports.Neitherofthesetwogeneralsituationsexistsforanyappreciablelengthalongtheproposedcorridororanyofthealternatives.Althoughunder-groundlineswillalmosteliminatesomeimpacts,suchasvisualimpacts,theywillproduceotherimpactsnotnormallyassociatedwithoverheadsystems.
AppendixI1-104Insomecases,theuseofundergroundtransmissioncanbejustifiedtoreducevisualimpactswheretheseimpactsarejudgedtobegreaterthantheadverseimpactsofundergrounding.Suchasituationistypicalinthosehighlyscenicareaswherethetransmissionstructureswouldeitherbesilhouetted,highlyvisible,orhighlyobtrusive,yetwheretheaccessroadandtrenchingscarofanundergroundcablewouldnotbeoverlyvisible.Thissortofsituationwillruleoutcanyonsandotherhigh-reliefareas,butwillfavorrelativelyflatland.Thegreatestvisualdifferencebetweenundergroundandoverheadtrans-missionisobviouslythelackofthetransmissionstructures.However,anundergroundsysteminallcaseswillrequirenotonlyanaccessandconstructionroad,butalsoatrenchwhichwillbevisibleforquitesometitLeafterconstruction.Overheadsystems,however,canbebuiltwithouttheneedforanaccessorconstructionroad,andtheonlyexcavationneededwillbeforthetowerfoundationsspacedoutatarateoffourorfivetoamile.Ifthelocation,design,andconstructionofanoverheadsystemareproperlyspecified,theaccessroadandclearingwillbeasvisible,andusuallymorevisible,thanthestructuresthemselves.Whereclearingisnotneeded,themostvisiblecomponentwillthenbetheaccessroad,andasindicated,eventhisneednotbeconstructedforanoverheadsystem.Incontrast,anundergroundsystemwillalwaysneedaclearinginanyareaandwillalwaysneedaconstructionroad.Thus,anundergroundsysteminrollingorsteepterrainmaywellbemorevisiblethananoverheadsysteminthesesituations.Forthisreason,coupledwiththeseismicrisktobediscussedbelow,itisnotrecommendedthatthesectionofcorridorthroughtheAlaskaRangebeunderground.Amajorfactorintheuseofundergroundsystemsisthecost.Transmissionsystemsareusuallydesignedtomeetgivenrequirementsfortheleastcost;inalmostallsituations,overheadlineswillmeetsystemrequirementsatalowercostthanundergroundcables.TheA.D.LittleReporttotheElectricResearchCouncil(October1971)statesthatundergroundtransmissioncostscanbeashighastentimesgreaterthanoverheadsystems,andinthecaseofcompressedgascablesystems,upto20times.Undergroundsystemsgenerallyinvolvehighermaterialscostforthecableandforassociatedmaterialssuchasinsulatingbackfillorprotectivesheeting.Installationismorecomplicated,involvingexcavationandbackfillingandlaboruseishigherthanforoverheadsystems.Splicing
ofa345kvcablecantakeeightormorefullworkdaysandmustbeperformedinspeciallyconstructedair-conditionedrooms,(lIUndergroundPowerTransmissionII,P.H.Rose,Science,Vol.170,Oct.1970).Theoretically,overheadsystemshavemoreoutagesthanundergroundsystemssincetheyareexposedtoweather,vandalism,andaccidents;however,unlessdamageisexceptionallysevere,includingfailureofoneormoretowers,oraccessisrestrictedbyweather,theseoutagesareofshortduration.Faultsinundergroundcablesmayresultinlong-termoutagesuptoseveralweeks;thisresultsfromthedifficultyinlocationofthefault,thetimeinvolvedinexcavationandbackfilling,andthetimeneededtoreplacethefaultedsectionbysplicinginanewsection.Frozenground,whichpersistsforfiveorsixmonths,willretardrepaireffortsmorethanusual.Inseismicallyactiveareas,suchascanbefoundintherailbelt,thereliabilityofundergroundcablesmustbequestioned.Slicingofthecablecanresultfromsettlingorslumpingofthesoil;oil-filledorcompress-gasfilledcablesmayruptureduringsoilmovement.Otheragentscancausefaulting,suchasrodents,corrosion,andsubsequentexcavation.Locationandcorrectionoffaultsinacablefollowingquakesmayinvolveconsiderabletimeandeffortasopposedtothelocationoffaultsinanoverheadsystem.Overheadtransmissionlineshavemoreinherentresiliencythanundergroundcables,andfaultsaremoreaccessibleandeasiertolocate.Environmentalimpactsofanundergroundcablecanbequitesignificantinthatacontinuoustrenchisrequiredandanaccessroadismandatoryfortheconstructionvehiclesandthelayingofthecable.Thebackfilledtrenchmaycauseerosionalproblems,particularlyifthetrenchcutsupordownslopes.Aclearedright-of-waymustbeprovidedformain-tenancevehiclesneededtounearthafaultedline;however,thisclearingneednotbeaswideasforanoverheadsystem.Repairswillinvolvere-excavation,withattendantimpactsduetopotentialerosion.Anundergroundcableinusewillcontinuouslygiveoffheat;thiscanbeveryseriousinice-richpermafrostareas,whichoccurinallofthealternativecorridors.Insulatingbackfillwillretardbutnoteliminatethisheatflow;heat-transferdeviceswillbenecessarytopreventexcessiveslumpingandsettlingofice-richareastraversedbyanundergroundcable.Generatedheatwillalsoaffectthegrowthofvegetation,butthisdoesnotappeartobeasignificantimpact.AppendixII-IDS
AppendixI1..,106Duetotheexpenseanddifficultyofinstallation,undergroundcablesareratherinflexiblewithregardstochangingpowerneeds.Theadditionofanothercircuitortheadditionoftapsforlocalcommunitiesisverydifficultincomparisontooverheadsystems,wheretheadditionofanadditionalcircuitwillnotrequireanotherright-of-way,andtheadditionofatapwillnotinvolvetheexcavationofthecable,splicing,andterminalfacilitiesfortheoilorpressurizedgasinsulation.Onhillyterrain,unreinforcedlow-pressure,oil-filledcableissubjecttopossibleruptureduetotheincreasedoilpressureatthelowpointsofcables.Reinforcingandpressurecompensationdevicesarenecessaryinthistypeofcableoverhillyground.High-pressureoil-filledpipecablerequiresacontinuoushighpressuremaintainedbypumps.Thistypeofundergroundsystemisalsosubjecttopressuredifferentialsduetoelevationchanges.CablesfilledwithnitrogenorSF6gascontainconductorswrappedwithoil-impregnatedpaper;onhillyterrain,thisoilwillseeptothelowerends,andsothiscableisonlysuitedforlevelterrain.Cablesinsulatedwithsolidinsulation,suchascross-linkedpolyethylenearesubjecttomanufacturingflaws,suchassmallvoids,whichcanlaterdevelopintoelectricalfaults;theprobabilityoffaultsisproportionaltothevoltage.Usageisusuallylimitedto138kvorlower.Amajordisadvantageofundergroundsystemsisthecarryingcapacitydictatedbycapacitivereactance.Capacitivereactanceisinherentinthecableconstruction,andresultsinachargingcurrentwhichdecreasestheusablepowerthatcanbetransmitted.Thepowerlossinanundergroundcableis25to30timesgreaterthanforanoverheadsystem.1£acableexceedsacertainlength,itstransmissioncapacitybecomeszero.Foracableof115kv,thislengthisabout45miles;fora230kvcablethelengthisabout35miles.Inotherwords,fora230kvcable35mileslong,thelossisequaltotheinputpower.Toovercomecapacitivereactancelosses,andthuslengthenthecriticallengthofanundergroundcable,shuntreactorsmustbeinstalledatperiodicintervalsalongthecable.Theseshuntreactorsarepreferrablylocatedabovegroundforaccessandheatdissipation,andarebasicallyequivalenttoaseriesofminiaturesubstationswiththeattendantsimilarenvironmentalirrpacts,highreductioninreliability,andadditionalcosts.
ResearchtoimprovetheundergroundtransmissiontechnologyiscarriedonbytheDepartmentoftheInteriorthroughtheOfficeoftheAssistantSecretaryforEnergyandMinerals,andbyprivateindustrythroughtheElectricPowerResearchInstitute;privateindustryismakingbyfarthegreatercontribution,spending$14millionduringfiscalyear1974ineffortstoadvanceundergroundtransmissiontechnology.OneresultofrecenteffortsistheCompressedGasInsulatedBus(CGIB).Althoughstill10to20timesmoreexpensivethanoverheadtrans-missionandofuntestedreliability,thissytemcanhandle500kvwithacriticallengthofupto200miles,atenfoldimprovementoverpreviouscriticallengthsforthisvoltage.Thepotentialadvantagesofsuchasystemincludereducedvisualimpact,noaudiblenoiseaselectro-magneticinterference,smallvolume,simplicityofmaintenance,andpowerhandlingcapabilityapproachingthatforoverheadsystems.BonnevillePowerAdministrationplanstooperatealengthofprototype500kvCGIBnearEllensburg,Washingtonstartingthesummerof1974toaccumulateeA-periencewiththissystem.Eventually,undergroundcablesmaybeexpectedtoequaloverheadsystemsinperformanceandoverallreliability;however,sincemostofthecostofanundergroundsystemisattributabletolabor,thecostdifferentialbem'eenthetwosystemsisnotexpectedtodecreasesignificantly.APAwillnotrecommendundergroundconstructionforthisproject.Thepresenttechnologyforundergroundtransmissionisnotsufficientlyadvancedtoassurereliabilityofserviceforaregionalintertie.APAintendstofollowcontinuingdevelopmentsinundergroundingtech-nology,butthereisnoindicationthatthedisadvantagesofunder-groundingwillbesolvedinthenearfuture.DirectCurrentTransmissionDirectcurrenttransmissionhasbeenusedinseveralcountriesforbulktransmissionofpoweroverlongdistances.Duetothehighercostsofconversion,thistypeoftransmissionisusuallyusedfordistancesof500to1,000milesbet\.'1/eenconverterstations.IfnoitermediatetapsareplannedbetweenthegenerationsiteandAnchorageandFairbanks,thenthe136mileand198milelengthsoftheproposedcorridorsareconsiderablyshorterthantheeconomicaldistances.Intermediatetapstoservepresentlyunconnectedtownandfuturepopulationcentersalongthesecorridorswouldrequireconverterstationsandevenshortertrans-missionlengths.AppendixI1-107
AppendixI1-108Environmentalimpactsofd-ctransmissionsystemsaregenerallythesameasfora-csystems,exceptthatd-csystemsrequireonlytwoconductorsinsteadofthree,andthuswouldrequireaslightlynarrowerright-of-way.Forundergroundtransmission,theuseofdirectcurrentwillobviatelossesfromcapacitivereactance,andinthisway,enhancetheviabilityofundergroundingwhileimposingtheadditionalcostsofconvertersateachendofthecable.Theuseofd-cinundergroundsystemswillnotlowertheinstalledcostpercable,norwillitenhancereliability.Theneedforonlytwocableswilllowerthetotalcostversusa-ctransmission,andifonecableisfaulted,theothercanfunctionathalf-capacitywithpropergrounding.Thelimitationsofd-ctransmissionpresentlyaregreatenoughsothatitcannotberecommendedfortheUpperSusitnaRiverProject.However,technologicaladvancesmayeventuallyprovideacheaperalternativetothepresentconverters,andthusprovidetheflexibilitypossessedbythea-csystem.AlternativeSystemPlansAlternativeVoltages:Theproposedsystemplanspecifiesa345kvdoublecircuitlinefromthegenerationsitetoAnchorageanda230kvdoublecircuitlinefromthegenerationsitetoFairbanks.TheIITransmissionReportlldiscussesanalternativesystemplanwith.a230kvdoublecircuitlinetoAnchorageanda230kvsingleCircuitlinetoFairbanks.Fordesigndetails,refertotheIITransmissionReport".Theright-of-waywidthfor230kvis125feet;for345kvitis140feet.Doubleandsinglecircuitlinesofthesamevoltagerequireidenticalwidths.Thestructuresneededfor345kvareslightlylargerthanthosefor230kv,andinsomecases,maybemorevisible,butthisisunlikely.Theenvironmentalimpactsofthisalternativevoltagewillbeessentiallyidenticaltotheproposedone.Therewillbesomemajordifferences,however,intheamountofright-of-wayandclearingforallthea.lternativecorridorsfromthegenerationsitetoAnchorage,andintheamountsofmaterialscommittedforallthealternativecorridors.
DoubleCircuits:StackedorParallelSingleCircuits:BothoftheabovealternativevoltageswillcallfordoublecircuitstoAnchorage,andonewillrequireadoublecircuittoFairbanks.IntheDescriptionoftheProposedActionsection,theuseofstackeddoublecircuitswaspremised.Inthisarrangementofcircuits,bothcircuitsoccupythesameright-of-wayandaresupportedbythesametowers,suchasshowninFigure2.However,anotherarrangementofcircuitswillbeproposedforthosesegmentsofthecorridorrequiringaddedreliability.Sincetheproposedprojectwillbearegionalintertie,thereisconcernforreliabilitybytheutilitiesservingtheAnchorageandFairbanksareasandconsultedagenciessuchasBonnevillePowerAdministrationandtheBureauofReclamation.Becauseofthisconcern,mostoftheproposedcorridorwillrequireamorereliablearrangementofcircuitsthanthestackeddoublecircuit.Thisalternativearrangementofcircuitsforeithervoltageplanwillcallfortwoparallelsinglecircuitsinsteadofastackeddoublecircuit.Thiswillnotaffectthesystemplan,asineithermethod,adoublecircuitwillbeprovidedwhereneeded.However,aparallelsinglecircuitwillrequireuptotwicetheacreageandclearingofastackeddoublecircuit,whichrequiresnomoreacreageorclearingthanasinglecircuit.Themajoradvantageofsuchamethodwillbetheextrareliabilityprovidedbyaredundanttransmissionline;outagesfromdroppedtowersordroppedconductorsshortinganothercircuitareeliminated.Thevisibilityofaparallelsinglecircuitlinewillbedifferentthanastackeddoublecircuit;thetowersareshorterthandoublecircuittowers,butthenumberofstructurespern:ileistwiceasmuch.Inaddition,theclearingistwiceaswide.Theextrareliabilityofaredundanttransmissionlinemaynotbenecessaryfortheentirelengthofacorridor,butonlyinthoseareasofhighriskfromwinds,slides,orseismicactivity.Inthetableonpages108-109,thematerialsandlandcommittedforeachalternativecorridorandbothalternativesystemplansarepresented.Foreachdoublecircuitsystem,theequivalentmaterialandlandfortheparallelsinglecircuitsystemispresentedalso.Itmustberememberedthatinthistable,itassumedfortheparallelsinglecircuitsystemthattheentirecorridorwillusethissystem,theactualmaterialsandlandscommittedwillprobablybeless.AppendixI1-109
AppendixI1-110CommonorDividedRight-of-wayforParallelSingleCircuits:Whentwoparallelsinglecircuitsareused,theycanbelocatedeitheronacommonright-of-wayofawidthuptotwicethewidthrequiredforasinglecircuit,ortheycanbelocatedalongtwototallyseparaterights-of-way.Theadvantagesofacommonright-of-wayareeconomyofconstructionandmaintenanceinthatonlyoneaccessroadneedbebuiltandmaintained;andabetteruseofthelandinthatunusuablestripsoflandbetweenrights-of-waywillbeminimized.Problemsrelatedtoincreasedaccesswillbelesswithacommonaccessroadthanwithduplicateaccessroads.Thereliabilityofparallelsinglecircuitswill.beincreasedifseparaterights-of-wayareusedonthetheorythatnaturaldisastersaffectingonecircuitwillprobablyaffecttheotheroneimmediatelyadjacenttoit.Separationofthetwocircuitswillincreasethechanceofsurvivalofatleastoneofthecircuits.Inthiscase,thedistanceofseparationisunderstoodtobeontheorderofuptoseveralmiles;bothcircuitswouldremainthesamecorridor.Anadditionaladvantageofseparaterights-of-waywillbeflexibilityforlocalserviceforcommunitiesenroute,andforlocalservice,assumingitisdecidedthatacommunityinthevicinityofthecorridorofa345kvdoublecircuitlinewillbeconnectedtothetransmissionsystem.Iftwoparallelsinglecircuitsareused,oneright-of-waycanberoutedtoprovideacloserapproachtothecommunity,reducingthelengthofdistributionline.Theuseofparallelsinglecir-cuitsforconnectiontotheAnchorageareawillbediscussedunderAlternativeEndpoints.Acommonright-of-waymayinsomeinstancesrequireonlyhalftheclearingrequiredofseparaterights-of-way;inmostcases,however,theamountsofclearingwillbenearlyequal.Bothwillrequirethesameamountsofmater-ialandlaborinconstruction.Iftwoparallelsinglecircuitsareused,bothcommonandseparaterights-of-waymaybeused.Instretchesofhighriskofcatastrophicfailure,suchasslideandseismicareas,separaterights-of-wayarepreferrable.Inareasoflowriskofnaturaldisaster,economyofconstructionandmaintenancewouldindicateacommonright-of-way.Thecostofparallelsinglecircuitconstructiononacommonright-of-wayisincludedinthe"TransmissionReport.IILaterdesignstudieswillgointogreaterdetailontheproblemofreliability.
AdditionalTransmissionLinesAlongOtherCorridors:Anotheralter-nativeistheconstructionoftransmissionlinesalongtheMatanuska-lorMatanuska-2andtheDeltacorridorsinconjunctionwiththeproposedsystem.Thesecorridorswouldnotnecessarilybeconstructedatthesametimenorsamevoltagesorcapacitiesastheproposedsystem.Themainadvantageofsuchasystemwouldbetheincreasedreliabilityofredun-dantlines,andtheinterconnectionofcommunitiesalongtheGlennandRichardsonHighways,theCopperValleyElectricAssociationandtheinterconnectedsystemproducedbytheproposedsystemplan.TheenvironmentalimpactsoftheseadditionalcorridorswouldessentiallybethesameasthoseoutlinedforMatanuska-landMatanuska-2andtheDeltacorridors.However,theamountsofright-of-way,clearing,andmaterialscommittedwilldependuponthevoltageandcapacitiesoftheseadditionalcorridors.Fordetails,refertotheIITransmissionReport.IIAlternativei'.1ethodsofConstructionandMaintenanceAccessRoadsversusHelicopterConstruction:ItisproposedtobuildpermanentaccessroadsforthelengthofboththeproposedSusitna-landNenana-lcorridorswiththeexceptionofunsuitableareas.Theseareaswillbeconstructedbyhelicopteraccess.Whereanaccessroadisused,itwillbebrokenatmajorstreamcrossings,stretchesofpoorsoilorbrokenterrain,orwhereitwouldresultinexcessivevisualdegradation.Themajorsectionsoftheaccessroadwilltieintoexistingtransportationcorridors.Thesebreaksintheaccessroadwillalsoservetolimitaccess.Theadvantagesofanaccessroadoverhelicopteraccessare:lessexpensepermileovermostterrain;easeintransportationofmachineryandmaterials,towererection,stringingofconductors,andremovalofmerchantabletimber;morereliabilityofaccessformaintenanceandinspection;andmultiple-useofcorridor.Disadvantagesofanaccessroadare:increasedmaintenanceproblems;unauthorizeduseofaccessroad;potentialincreaseinerosionandsedi-mentation;increasedvisibility,andmoreclearingrequiredwithsubse-quentimpacts.Sinceneitheralternativemethodissuitablefortheentirelengthoftheproposedcorridor,theproposedmethodofaccessisthatwhichwasjudgedtobemostsuitabletothelocation.AppendixII-Ill
AppendixI1-112WinterAccessversusYear-RoundAccess:Transportationofmaterialsandmachineryandconstructionduringwinterwouldeliminatemanyimpactsrelatedtoaccessroadconstructionandtowererection.Withtotalwinterconstruction,theaccessroadwouldnotbenecessary.Winterroadusewilldependuponthetopography,snowdepths,soilmoisturecontent,vegetationcover,andloadedvehicleweights.Twomajorabusesofwinterroadsaretheiruseoverinsufficientsnowcover,especiallywithvehiclesofhighsurfaceloading,whichcandestroythevegetativecover;andtheover-compactionofsnowcausedbyhighsurfaceloadingsindeepersnow,whichresultsinlossofinsulationforsurfacevegetationandamoretenaciousspringsnowpackonthetrackarea.Disadvantagesofwinteraccessandconstructionare:theconstructionseasonwouldberatherlimited;conditionswillbeharshonmenandmachinery;snowandfrozengroundmayinterferewithexcavationandplacementoftowerfootings;thelackofanaccessroadwillaffectthereliabilityofmaintenanceaccess,andwilleliminateanymultiple-useoftheclearing.Consideringthesiteofthisproject,itisnecessarytouseasmuchoftheyearaspossibleinordertocompleteconstructionwithinareasonabletime.Also,givensomeoftheweatherconditionsandthelengthofthecorridors,reliabilityofaccessisimperative,especiallysincethereisnoproposedback-uptransmissionlineincaseofafault.Thus,wheneverpossible,year-roundconstructionwillbeused.Asoutlinedabove,accessroadswillbeusedwheneverindicated.AlternativeMethodsofClearing:Presently,someoftheclearingmethodsusedbytheutilitiesareassimpleasbulldozingoverany andalltreeswithinasetdistancefromthecenterlineoftheright-of-way,insuringenoughwidthforanaccessroad,easeofconstruction,andclearancebetweenfallingtreesandtheconductors.Thismethodisfairlydirect,involvinglittlediscretionbetweenwhatiscleared,andactuallywhatisminimallynecessaryforconstructionandmaintenance.However,thisn:ethodalsoresultsinexcessivedisturbanceofthesoilandunnecessarydestructionofvegetation.
Considerablycheaperandlessenvironmentallydamaging,thetechniqueofonlyclearingthatvegetationnecessaryforconstructionandmaintenanceisrecommended.Insteadoftopplingtreeswithabulldozer,selectivecut-tingisused,allowingstumpstoremain.Therearethreemethodsofdisposalofclearedvegetation:salesofmerchantabletimber,burning,orchipping.Allthreealternativemethodswillbeusedwhereapplicable.Withnoaccessroad,machinerycannotbebroughtinforstacking,burning ,orchipping,anddownedtimberwillbeleftalongtheclearing.Saleoftimberwillrequireanaccessroad;someofthetimbercanbeusedinroadconstructionintimberbridgesandcorduroyinmuskeg.Alsointhiscategoryistheofferingoftimbertoanywhowishtoremoveitforfirewood;thiswillonlybesignificantnearsettledareas,andanytimbernotdisposedofinthiswayafterafewmonthswillbedisposedofinotherways.Ifnoaccessroadistobeused,thenopenburningistheonlyavailablemethodofdisposal.Atemporarydeclineinairqualityisinevitable,andopenburning,inanycase,willbesubjecttolocalordinancesoftheaffectedboroughs.Forced-draftburningwillconsiderablyreduceparticulates,butwillrequireanaccessroadforthelargetubburners.Inanycasewhereburningisallow-able,whereanaccessroadwillbebuilt,andwherechippingisnotnecessary,forced-draftburningwillbeused.Inareaswherelarge-scaleburningisprohibited,orwherechippingismoresuitable,thenslashandunsalabletimberwillbechipped.Althoughmostexpensiveandtimeconsumingofthethreemethods,chippinginmanyinstancesispreferable.Wherepermafrostdegradationis.likely,wherethesurfacematofvegetationhasbeenseriouslydisturbedordestroyed,oronpotentiallyerosivesoils,theuseofchipsasaprotectivehumusisindicated.Chipswillprovideameasureofinsulationoverice-richfrozensoils,someprotectionforbaresoils,andalthoughdecompo-sitionratesareslow,anorganicmulchtoaidrevegetation.Sincethechipswilllieontheground,andusuallybesomewhatwet,theywillpresentlessofafirehazardthanunchippedslash.AppendixI1-113
AppendixI1-114Afourthmethodofdisposalistostackslashandallowittonaturallydecompose.Althoughthiswillprovideatemporaryhabitatforsmallmammals,itwillalsoprovidegoodhabitatfordestructiveinsects,providefuelforfires,andreducethevalueoftheclearingasafirebreak.Thus,thisoptionisnotrecommendedintheecosystemsofmoderateanddenseforests,specificallythebottomlandspruce-poplaranddenseuplandspruce-hardwoodecosystems.AlternativeMethodsofClearingMaintenance:Inareasoffastregrowth,someperiodicsuppressionoftallplantsisnecessary.Therearethreemajoralternativemethods:aerialapplicationofherbicide,manualapplicationofherbicide,andphysicalcuttingoftreesandbrush.Aerialsprayinginvolvesthecoverageoflargeareaswithherbicidessprayedfromanairplane,ormorefrequently,ahelicopter.Duetothenon-selectivenatureofapplicationandtheriskofaccidentaloverspraying,sprayingofwaterbodies,andimproperconcentrations,thismethodwillnotbeused.Manualapplicationofherbicidesinvolvesthesprayingoftargettrees,dispersalofpelletsatthebaseoftargettrees,orselectivesprayingofthicketofbrush.Itisrelativelysafefromtherisksassociatedwithaerialspraying,andalsomuchmoreselective.Itcanbecarriedoutduringroutinegroundinspectionsorduringscheduledprogramsofbrushsuppression.Physicalcuttinginvolvestheidentificationanddestructionofdangertreesandtheperiodicsuppressionofbrush.Chainsaws,brushaxes,andmotorizedrotaryaxescanbeusedforthis.Thelaborexpendedisgreaterthanformanualapplicationofherbicide,butissafeforuseadjacenttowaterbodies.Iflargeareasofbrusharecut,theslashmustbeburnedorchipped.Smallamountsofslashwidelydispersedwillnotposeaninsectorfirehazard.Theproposedmethodofcontrolisthemanualapplicationofherbicideswithcuttinginsensitiveareas;aerialsprayingisnotproposed.AlternativeEndpoints:Forthisfeasibilitystudy,itwasnecessarytoassumeendpointstoallowdeterminationcosts,clearing,etc.Thisinnowaywillfinallydefinetheendpointsoftheactualtransmission,justasthelocationofacorridordoesnotattempttolocatetheactualplacementofatransmissionlinewithinthatcorridor.Theactualendpointswillbedeterminedinthefinaldesignstudies.
ThechoiceofendpointsoftheNenanaandDeltaalternativecorridorsisrelativelylimitedtothosealreadypostulated--EsterandFairbanks.Unlessnewsubstationsweretobebuilt,thesearetheonlytwofeasiblechoices.TheAnchorageareawillneedadditionaltransmissioncapacity,whethertheproposedtransmissionsystemisbuiltornot.However,thereareseriousproblemsinsupplyingpowertoAnchorage.Presently,powerisbroughtintoAnchoragethroughthesubmarinecablesatPointMacKenziefromthenortheastviatheAPA115kvline,andfromthesouth,whichwillnotbeofconcerninthisdiscussion.ThetwosuppliestoAnchorageviaPointMacKenzieandtheAPAlineovercomethebarrierofKnikArmintwoways:adirectcrossing,andanend-runaroundthenorthoftheArm.Althoughmostdirect,thesubmarinecablesarenotasreliableasanoverheadsystem;thiswasbroughtoutinthefailureofthecablescausedbyadraggingshipIsanchorinthewinterof1974-75.PointMacKenzieisfarclosertothemainloadcenteratAnchoragethanPalmer;thetransmissioncorridorwillcrossrelativelylessdevelopedlandtoapproachAnchorageviaPointMacKenziethanviaPalmer.PowerwouldbemarketeddirectlytoChugachElectricAssociation,andwheeledovertheirsystemtoAnchorageMunicipalLightandPower,HomerElectricAssociation,MatanuskaElectricAssociation,andtheSewardElectricSystem.AnotherpossiblemethodforconnectiontoAnchorage,utilizingthePointMacKenzieendpointwouldbetheoverheadcrossingofKnikArm.PlacingthetowersonpiersacrossarelativelyshallowsectionofKnikArmwouldallowamoredirectconnectiontoAnchorage,avoidingboththesubmarinecablesandthemorecircuitousroutearoundtheArm.However,visi-bilitywouldbehighforthisline,possibleinterferencewithmarineandairtrafficmayresult,andthereisapossibleriskofdamagebypackicetothetowers.CEApresentlyoperatesa138kvlinefromtheBelugagasturbinegenera-tionsitetoPointMacKenzie,designedforupgradingto230kv,andhasproposedanextensionaroundKnikArmwhichwilleventuallytieintoAnchoragebywayofReedSubstation.AnendpointforSusitna-1atPointIvfacKenziecouldusethisproposedlineasanalternateconnectiontoAnchoragealongwiththesubmarinecables.Thiswould,however,bedependentuponauthorizationfortheconstructionoftheextension.DeliverytotheexistingAPAsystematPalmerwouldavoidthelimitationsandriskofthesubmarinecrossingofKnikArm,butwouldinvolvemorecrossingofprivatelyownedland.PowerwouldbemarketeddirectlytoAppendixI1-115
AppendixI1-116AnchorageMunicipalLightandPowerandChugachElectricAssociation.PowerwouldbewheeledovertheCEAsystemtoHEA,SES,andMEA.TheenvironmentalassessmentfortheSusitnacorridorwithanendpointatPalmerwouldbesubstantiallythesameasthatfortheproposedsystem.Mileage,clearing,andotherimpactswouldremainvirtuallythesame.IfthecorridorweretoberoutedalongtheuplandsnorthoftheAnchorage-FairbanksHighway,somewhatbettersoilswouldbeencountered,andmoreprivatelyownedlandandfarmswouldbecrossed.FortheMatanuskaalternativecorridors,therewouldbemoresubstantivedifferences:thecorridorwouldbeabout45milesshorter,andwouldinvolveupto764acreslessofright-of-wayandclearing.Also,lessmaterialswouldbeused,andlesslaborexpendedbyutilizingthePalmerendpoint.Theuseofseparaterights-of-wayforparallelsinglecircuitswouldenabletheutilizationoftwoseparateendpointschosentomaximizeeaseofaCcesstoAnchoragewhileretainingahighdegreeofreliability.Asanexample,onecircuitcouldterminateatthePointMacKenziecableterminal,theothercoulddeliverpowerviatheAPAsystemnearPalmer.OtherpossiblecombinationscouldbedevisedwithendpointsofPalmer,apotentialcause-wayacrossKnikArm,andtheprojectedBelugaextensionaroundKnikArm.Anothervariationonendpointswouldbetheupgradingoftheexisting115kvAPAlinefromPalmertoEklutnatoAnchorage.EitherasinglecircuitorbothcircuitsfromtheUpperSusitnaprojectcouldbebuiltuponthisright-of-wayifadditionalcapacitywasaddedtohandletheoutputoftheEklutnapowerplant.Thefinaldecisiononendpointswillbemadeinlaterdesignstudies,andwillbedependentupontheevolutionoftheexistingtransmissionsystemsinthetimeuntilthefinaldesignstudies.AlternativeLocalServiceAlongtheproposedcorridorsareseveralcommunitiesnotpresentlyservedbythelargerutilities.Thesecommunitiesdependuponlocaldieselgenerationforelectricalpower,andnotallmembersofthesecommunitiescanaffordthehighcostoflocalgeneration.Thesecommuni-tieswilleventuallybeservedwithUpperSusitnapower,eitherbyadirecttapfromtheproposedtransmissionlineorindirectlybyextensionsofexistingdistributionsystems.Sizeoftheload,lengthandcostofthenecessarydistributionsystemextension,anddistancefromotherpresentlyunservedcommunitieswilldeterminewhichofthesetwomethodswillserveacommunity.
Acommunity,orclusterofcommunities,relativelydistantfromexistingdistributionsystems,yetclosetothetransmissionsystem,andhavinganexpectedloadoffivetotenmegawatts,willbelikelytotapdirectlyfromthetransmissionline.However,adistributionsystemwillstillbenecessarytodeliverpowerfromthesubstationtothecommunity.CommunitieswitheA-pectedlowloadsmaynotjustifytheexpenseofasubstationforadirecttap;thesecommunitieswillhavetowaitforanextensionofexistingdistribution.NoAction(Non-construction)Indiscussingthealternativeofnon-constructionoftheproposedtrans-missionline,theviabilityoftheUpperSusitnahydroelectricprojectmustbeconsidered,sincetheprimarypurposeofthetransmissionlinewillbetodeliverthegeneratedpowertothemajorcentersintheRail--belt.Inessence,non-constructionofthetransmissionlineimpliesnon-constructionoftheUpperSusitnapowersites.NoactionwillmeanthatthepotentialpoweroftheUpperSusitnawillnotbemadeavailabletotheRailbeltarea.Sinceuseofpowerisprojectedtoincrease,alternatesourcesofpowerwillhavetobeused.Ifpresentplantsareupgraded,thiswillresultintheincreaseduseoffossilfuelssuchascoalandgas.Itisnotlikelythatcostsoffossilfuelswillremainthesame,andtheywillalmostcertainlynotdecrease.Developmentoflarge-scalehydroprojectswillprobablybebeyondthecapabilityofthepresentutilities,sofossilfuelswillbeusedforarelativelylow-priorityusewhereasarenewableresource,waterpower,willgountapped.Ifadditionalpowersitesarerequiredtosatisfyenergyneeds,astheyprobablywillbe,then theywillrequiretheirowntransmissionsystemstodelivertheirpower.Thus,non-developmentoftheUpperSusitnaanditstransmissionsystemwillnothaltfurtherconstructionoftransmissionsystemsbyotheragenciesorutilities,andifnewpowersitestendtobesmall-scaleduetoinabilityofutilitiestodeveloplargehydrosites,thenmoretransmissionlinesmayresultthaniftheUpperSusitnaweretobedeveloped.Anothereffectofnon-constructionwillbetopreservetheinsularanddisconnectedcharacteroftheutilitysystemspresentlyservingtheRailbelt.Atransmissionlinetobebuiltwiththemainpurposeofinter-connectionwouldnotbelikelyinthenearfuture,andtheduplicationandwasteofthepresentsituationwillbeprolonged.AppendixI1-117
AppendixI1-118ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSInpreparingthisEnvironmentalAssessment,theAlaskaPowerAdminis-trationhasworkedinclosecoordinationwiththeAlaskaDistrictCorpsofEngineers.ThisreportwascirculatedinpreliminarydraftanddrafteditionstointerestedFederalandStateagencies,boroughs,utilities,andgroupsforcommentandinformation,manyofwhichprovidedvaluableassistance.Commentsandadvicehavebeengivenbythefollowingagencies,utilities,andgroups:BonnevillePowerAdministrationBureauofLandManagementBureauofReclamationU.S.ForestService,AlaskaRegionNationalParkServiceFishandWildlifeServiceNationalWeatherServiceStateofAlaska:DepartmentofEnvironmentalConservationDepartmentofCommunityandRegionalAffairsDepartmentofNaturalResources-DivisionofParksDepartmentofFishandGameDepartmentofHighwaysFairbanksNorthStarBoroughAnchorageMunicipalLightandPowerDepartmentChugachElectricAssociationGoldenValleyElectricAssociationHomerElectricAssociationMatanuskaElectricAssociationGeophysicalInstitute,UniversityofAlaskaCommonwealthAssociates,Inc.Inaddition,manyindividualshavecontributedvaluableinformalcomments.
BibliographyUndergroundPowerTransmission,A.D.LittleReporttotheElectricResearchCouncil,October16,1971.AlaskaRegionalProfiles:South-CentralRegion,theArcticEnvironmentalInformationandDataCenter;TheUniversityofAlaskaandtheOfficeoftheGovernor,StateofAlaska1974.MultimodalTransportation~CorridorsinAlaska:APreliminaryConceptualAnalysis.U.S.DepartmentofInterior,BureauofLandManagement,October1974.2Volumes.TheNeedfor~NationalSystemofTransportationandUtilityCorridorsAcrossFederalLands:AStudyReport(Draft).U.S.DepartmentofInterior,BureauofLandManagement,July1975.2Volumes.EnvironmentalEffectsofHerbicidesResearchProject,K.L.Carvell,EdisonElectricInstitute,NewYork;EElProjectRPI03.The1970NationPowerSurvey,FederalPowerCommission;printedbyGovernmentPrintingOffice,Washington,D.C.,December1971,PartIV.EHVTransmissionLineReferenceBook,writtenandeditedbyProjectEHV,GeneralElectricCompany;published1968byEdisonElectricInstitue.MeasuringtheSocialAttitudesandAestheticandEconomicConsiderationsWhichInfluenceTransmissionLineRouting,P.L.Hendrickson,etaliBattellePacificNorthwestLaboratories,Richland,WA;July1974,NWL-1837:UC-H.EnvironmentalAtlasofAlaska;P.R.JohnsonandC.W.Hartman;UniversityofAlaska,College,Alaska,1969.MuskegEngineeringHandbook,editedbyI.C.MacFarlane;bytheMuskegSubcommitteeoftheNRC-AssociateCommitteeonGeotechnicalResearch;UniversityofTorontoPress,1969.55WaystotheWildernessinSouthcentralAlaska;Nienhauser,Simmerman,Vandel'Laan;MountaineeringClubofAlaskaandTheMountaineers;Seattle,June1972.OregonWeedControlHandbook,OregonStateUniversityExtensionService,Corvallis,April1973.AppendixI1-119
AppendixI1-120ResourcesofAlaska:ARegionalSummary,theResourcePlanningTeam,JointFederal-StateLandUsePlanningCommissionforAlaska,July1974.AVegetativeGuideforAlaska,preparedbytheSoilConservationServiceetal;publishedbytheDepartmentofAgriculture,Portland,1972.EnvironmentalCriteriaforElectricTransmissionSystems,USDA,USDI;U .S.GovernmentPrintingOffice,Washington,D.C.1970.B.H.Baker,IIDidBeetlesDoThat?",AlaskaMagazine,July1974,p.48.A.E.Caswell,C.V.Nazare,R.J.Berger,J.C.TossiofCommonwealthAssociates,Inc.,llGeologyisCriticalinRoutingEHVTransmissionLinesII,ElectricalWorld,December1974,p.54ff.J.A.Heginbottom,"PermafrostandGroundStability",NorthernEngineer,Vol.6,No.4,Winter74-75,p.4.ProposedMt.McKinleyNational~arkAdditions,Alaska:EnvironmentalStatement;AlaskaPlanningGroupvs.DepartmentofInterior,October1974.GeneralConstructionandMaintenanceProgram::EnvironmentalStatementpreparedbyBonnevillePowerAdministration,August1974.GasPipelineDraftEIS;DepartmentoftheInterior,BureauofLandManage-ment,January1975.HerbicideUseonNationalForestsofAlaska:EnvironmentalImpactState-mentpreparedbyU.S/ForestService,Region10,~vlay1975.ProposedElectricDistributionLineExtensiontoMcKinleyPark:DraftEIS;preparedbyDepartmentofInterior,NationalParkService,PacificNorthwestRegion.ReceivedNovember1975.EnvironmentalAnalysisofProposed230kvTransmissionLinefromTeelandSubstationtoReedSubstation;ChugachElectricAssociation,January1975.DraftEnvironmentalImpactStatementfortheCantwell-~JcKinleyParksectionoftheAnchorage-FairbanksHighway;DepartmentofHighwaysStateofAlaska,August1971.
"PreservationofHistoricPlacesII,FederalRegister,Vol.40,No.24,February7,1975.IIThreatenedorEndangeredFaunaorFlorall,FederalRegister,Vol.40,No.127,July1,1975."NationalRegisterofNaturalLandmarksII,FederalRegister,Vol.40,No.87,May5,1975,p.19503ff.IIDiscussionofUndergroundingAlternativesinEnvironmentalSupplementsII,draftpositionpaperpreparedbyBonnevillePowerAdministration,February1975.AppendixI1-121
Scaleinmiles10551520_i2555
-'j10Scaleinmile.~..-152CMt.MoKlnleyNationalPark.-)'
55.20-..'rScaleinmile_s___.-251015LAN·D55
)55MilitaryReservationMilitaryReservation
252015VALDEZ-R-I----<.......10NRDScaleinmilesSTATUSo5LANDNRD5555
GalNRD-----~C/)2«NRCI-2.::>0SS~0.:ro?u<::((9.::>.:r0Irt.Ur,14'47./)
Scaleinmile_soSTATUSIPALMER-GLENNALLENssNRDi25201510I)
ss..~-...-o5ScaleinmilesNRD
PHOTOGRAPHSAPPENDIXIEXHIBIT1-3
EXHIBIT1-3PhotographsThefollowingphotogl'aphsdepicttypicalviewsandcriticalpointsalongtheproposedcorridorsandtheiralternatives:Photos1 - 4areillustrationsofCorridorSusitna-1Photos5 -25areillustrationsofCorridorNenana-1Photos26-28areillustrationsofCorridorSusitna-2Photos29-30areillustrationsofCorridorSusitna-3,4Photos31-40areillustrationsofNenana-2,3,4,5Photos41-56areillustrationsofMatanuska-1,2Photos57-69areillustrationsofDeltaCorridorAllphotographsinthisappendixweretakenbyAPApersonnel.ThemajorityweretakeninSeptemberof1974.
LowerSusitnaRiverValley.Thisareaischarac-terizedbyextensivemuskegs,intermingledwithbottomlandspruce-poplarforests.Pennafrostisabsentordiscontinuousinthisarea,althoughthesoilsaregenerallypoorlydrained.II1-1
SusitnaRiverValley.Lakesareprevalentandassoc-iatedwithmuskegs,whichsucceedtheminformation.Muskegsaresucceededinturnbyforestsdependentuponwell-drainedsoils.Thethreestagesofsuccess-ionareshownhere.III-2
SusitnaRiverValleynearTalkeetna.Astheterrain·.becomesmorerolling,therelativeamoillltofmuskegbecomesless.III-3
............
I
~
itf:
Town of Talkeetna.This town is at the confluence of the Talkeetna,
Susitna,and Chulitna Rivers.The Alaska Railroad can be seen cross-
ing the Talkeetna River near the right edge of the picture.
..................
I
U"I
Summit Lake at Broad Pass.Broad Pass is an aptly named feature;a
structurally-controlled depression in an otherwise mountainous area.
It is the divide for tributaries of tIle Chulitna and Nenana Rivers.
...............
I
~
f······
Alaska Range from Anchorage-Fairbanks Highway near Broad Pass,late
spring.Vegetation biome is lowland spruce-hardwood.Soils here are
basically glacial deposits.
...............
I......
Alaska Range from Anchorage-Fairbanks Highway near Broad Pass.Soil
here is poorly drained;trees visible are black spruce.
...............
I
ex>
Entering Alaska Range on Anchorage-Fairbanks Highway,north of Cantwell.
Concealment of line will be difficult in areas such as this.
LookingsouthalongNenanaRivertoUpperNenanaCanyon.TheAnchorage-FairbanksHighwayparallelstheleftbank.Mount!'-1cKinleyNationalParkandtheAlaskaRailroadareontherightbankoftheriver.1II-9
..................•--'o
Nenana River and Sugar MOlmtain,seen from Anchorage-Fairbanks Highway
near Yanert.Yanert Fork enters Nenana River near right-hand edge of
photo.Visible also is communication line for Alaska Railroad.
VeryrestrictedcanyonalongNenanaRivernorthofMcKinleyPark.AlaskaRailroadisoffleft-handedgeofphoto.LandleftofriveriswithinMotmtMcKinleyNationalPark.II1-11
III-12
..................
I.......
W
Nenana River valley in vicinity of Moody bridge on Anchorage-
Fairbanks Highway.
1II-14
............
I.....
U1
Usibelli Coal Mines near Healy.Note the seams of coal in the
scarp.This coal is the fuel for the Healy steamplant.
...............,......
0"1
Nenana River flood plain near Healy.Note the terraces
characteristic of the Nenana Valley in this area.
~
~
~
I
...J
""-J
138 KV Healy transmission line.Looking south from Anchorage-
Fairbanks Highway towards Healy.
Guyedtangenttowerinforeground;guyeddead-endtowersinbackground;Healy138K:Vtransmissionline.1II-18
Guyed138KVtowerontheHealytransmissionline.III-19
---•I'\,)o
Nenana River valley,looking south to Alaska Range.Terraces are
fairly evident along right backgrotmd.
TownofNenana,atconfluenceofTananaRiverandNenanaRiver,whichflowsinfromlowerright.Double-spanbridgeisfortheAnchorage-FairbanksHighway;single-spanbridgeisforAlaskaRailroad.III-21
...............
I
N
N
Alaska Railroad siding along Tanana River at Nenana.Large free-
standing tCMer is part of river crossing of Healy 138 KV transmission
line.
...............
I
N
W
Town of Nenana;frontage on Tanana River.Nenana handles considerable
river traffic on the Tanana River.
...............
I
N
.j::>,
"Goldstream Hills".On the slopes,the predominant vegetation is
birch-white spruce,on poorly drained areas and some north-facing
slopes;black spruce predominate.
---•N
01
"
View to the west from the "Goldstream Hills".These hills flank the
north bank of the Tanana River;the Anchorage-Fairbanks Highway enters
them immediately across the river from Nenana,and follCMs their
crest to Ester and Fairbanks.
...............
I
N
O"l
Clearing for Matanuska Electric Association (~~)distribution line.
Vegetation is predominantly poplar and spruce.Clearing was done
by uprooting trees with a bulldozer.
...............•N
'"
Near Honolulu on the Anchorage-Fairbanks Highway.Biomes shown on
low brush muskeg in foreground and upland spruce-hardwood in back-
ground.Black spruce in foreground are associated with poorly drain-
ed soils and/or shallow permafrost tables.
LittleCoalCreekinDenaliStatePark.Vegetativebiomeisclassifiedasuplandsprtlce-hardwood.Streamsinthisareaareincisedintoarelative-lygentleplain.1111-28
TalkeetnaRiverneartownofTalkeetna.ThisphotoshowsthedensityandconformityoftheforestofthelowerSusitnaValleyintheTalkeetnaarea.111-29
...............
I
Wa
Detail of bottomland forest near Talkeetna.Predominant trees are
poplar and white spruce with considerable brush llllderstory.This
forest type can easily conceal a transmission clearing.
-.,",.'.'1.tUpperWellsCreek,approachingpasstoLouisCreek.Biomeisalpinetundra.III-31
II1-32
...............
I
W
W
Moody Pass fran Yanert Fork to Moody Cree~,.which is visible in the
upper left.This pass is relatively low (2900')and wide,but
soils are poorly drained and subject to permafrost.
...............
I
W
~
Lower Moody Creek.This is a well-dissected area,covered with
upland spruce-hardwood.Routing of transmission may prove diffi-
cult in this stretch.
LCMerMoodyCreekatconfluencewithHealyCreek(topofphoto).Unstableslopesareevident.111-35
............
I
W
0'\
Looking north from western end of Denali Highway.Typical low
brush and muskeg biomes.Trees are black spruce.
.AerialviewlookingwestalongDenaliHighwayandNenanaRivertoCantwell.Notethatforestsarelimitedtotheterraceslopesandleveesoftheriverchannel.III-37
...............
I
Wco
.".._~
.'-..
Surface view of area typical of that shown in photo above;in this
case,the Nenana River is in the vicinity of the Wells Creek con-
fluence.The lowland spruce-hardwood is limited to the terrace
slope and river bottom.
...............
I
W
\D
Looking wes t up the Nenana River and Denali Highway.The sources of
both the Nenana and Susitna Rivers are in the Alaska Range visible in
the upper left.In the upper left also is the divide between these
two rivers,a wide,poorly-drained area called Monahan Flat.
SusitnaRiverbetweenWatanaandVeedarnsites.Heaviervegetation,inthiscaseuplandspruce-hardwoodforest,islimitedtothevalleyslopes,thevegetativebiomeontheupperplateausisgenerallymoisttundra,muskeg,andalpinetundra.III-40
..................
I
~
--'
Susitna River at Vee damsite.This demonstrates the typically in-
cised character of the Upper Susitna from Devil Canyon to the Tyone
River.Note that heavier vegetation is limited to slopes and creek
valleys.
)i)isttUndranearButteLake;lookingnorthtoMmahanFlatsandAlaskaRange.ATVtracksarevisibleintheforegromd;thesetracksstart£rolltheDenaliHighway,whichcrossestheflatsinthebackgromd.111-42
ATVtracksleadingfromDenaliHighway.Thisphotoshowstypicalmoisttundravegetationwithlow-growingbrush,peatysoil,andpoordrainage.1II-43
...............
I
~
~
Susitna River above Denali darnsite,looking west.The few spruce to
be fomd are limited to the river bottom.
l
~
............
I
~
<.TI
Impoundment area of Denali damsite.The Susitna here is a rneandery,"
aggrading river,the surrounding land is very poorly drained and
underlain by fairly continuous permafrost.
............•.f:lo
0)
Maclaren River,looking north to the Clearwater MOlm.tains.The fore-
ground knob is part of a morainal ridge.These morainal features
are reltaively well-drained,whereas the flat low-lying lands are
poorly drained with shallow permafrost tables.
...............
I
~
'"
Looking north along the Denali Highway to the Amphitheater Mmmtains.
Morainal ridges n.m across the middle of the photo.The biome along
most of the eastern half of the Denali Highway is moist tlUldra.
...............
I
~
ex>
Uplands near Sourdough on the Richardson Highway.This is typical of
the plateau bordering the Copper River lowland on the north and east.
Poorly drained,it supports many lakes,the largest of them in the
Lake Louise complex.
.....................•.;:.
\0
The Lake Louise plateau.Biomes are predominantly lowland spruce-
hardwood and muskeg.These uplands are underlain by continuous
permafrost.
III-50
TazlinaRiverasseenfromtheGlennHighway.III-51
............
I
01
N
Tahneta Pass area between the Tazlina and Matanuska River drainages.
Lakes and muskegs are indicative of poor drainage.The mOlmtains
are part of the OlUgach Range.
TalkeetnaMountains;GlennHighwaynmsacrossthelowerportionsofthephoto.TheMatanuskavalleyisborderedonthenorthbytheTalkeetnaRange,onthesouthbytheQlUgach.III-53
............
I
U1.;..
HCMell Glacier and the Omgach Range.The Matanuska River flCMS in an
incised channel across the middle of the photo.
CaribouCreekandtheTalkeetnaMountains;GlennHighwayonlowerportionofphoto.ThistributaryoftheMatanuskaRivertypifiestheincisedcharac-terofmanyriverserodingthroughglacialdebrisandloess,suchastheMatanuska,Copper,Gulkana,andupperNenanaRivers.III-55
...............•U'1
O'l
Matanuska River and Chugach Range.The Matanuska River has a braiding
channel due to the high silt load from the Howell and ],latanuska
Glacier,and the glacial tributaries entering from the Chugach Range.
~
~
~•01......,
Looking north by Paxson Lake on the Richardson Highway to the
Alaska Range.Paxson Lake is an important part of the fisheries of
the Gulkana River.
,,:,,,';"'"'n'~~¥W"~~!",,_"ld'""""'''''''-'
---I
<.TIco
SUI1IIlit Lake and the Alaska Range.Stunmit Lake is drained by the
Gulkana River and is just south of Isabel Pass.
...............
I
U'1
\0
Isabel Pass,looking north to Rainbow Ridge.The Richardson High-
way,the Delta River,and the Alyeska Pipeline cross the photo at the
base of Rainbow Ridge.
...............
I
0'\o
RainbCM Ridge,as seen from the south.The Richardson Highway crosses
under the ridge fran right to left.The slope of the ridge is a
series of adjoining talus cones some of which are unstable.
---I
O'l....
Delta River by Black Rapids Glacier.The glacier is partially visible
in the upper center of the photo.The Delta River carries considerable
,glacial silt,resulting in aggradation and braiding of the charmel.
"'rif
...............•m
N
Alaska Range seen frcrn the north from the Richardson Highway.This
is not true perspective as seen from the highway,since the photo was
taken with a telephoto lens..--
---•mw
The Alaska Range seen from the Richardson Highway near Donnelly Dome,
looking south.The dust is from the channel of the Delta River,which
.is extremely undersized for its channel.
.....'...'.,.
...............
I
0\
~
Another view of the Delta River as seen fran near Donnelly Dome.
Again,the blowing dust from the channel is evident.
...............
I
0\
CJ1
Alaska Range from Big Delta,taken with telephoto,In the foreground
is the Del ta River channel,which near here joins the Tanana River.
---•0'\
0'\
Fann near Delta Jtmction.Some attempt at fanning is made in the
ClealWater Lake area,but agriculture is relatively tmimportant except
for the lCMer Matanuska Valley area.
---I
0'1
'I
Silhouetted notch on a clearing for a GVEA distribution line.
Looking~theT8D8JUlRiveracrosstheconfluenceofSh_Creek.ThebraidingofcbamelscharacteristicoftheDeltaandTananaRiversisevident.III-68
TheTananaRiverfloodplain.Thisareaisextreme-lyflatandpoorlydrained.Threetypesofbiomearerepresentedinthispicture:muskeg,lowlandspruce-hardwood,andbottomlandspruce-poplar.Thedarkforestsaremainlyblackspruce.Thesinuouslighterforestiswhitespruce,aspenandbirch.Thisforesttypepreferswell-drainedsoils,andsoisfoundonoldlevee$ofexistingandextinctchannels.tll-69
)GLOSSARYAppendixIEXHIBIT1-4
GLOSSARY-EXHIBIT1-41.Brushblades,brushhogs:Devicesmountedontractorsorbulldozerswhichcutandclearbrushwithlesssoildisturbancethanthemethodsofuprootingwiththestandardbladeorshovel.2.Chipping:Methodofdisposalofclearedbrushandslashbymechanicalcuttingintosuitablysmallchips,whicharetheneitherdispersedorhauledaway.3.Climax:Astableconditionachievedbyacommunityofplantsandanimalsresultinginsuccessfuladjustmenttoitsenvironment.Thestabilityinvolvedisofalong-termnature;short-termfluctuationsaretobeexpected.Inthisway,aclimaxstageofdevelopmentcanbeconsidereddynamicallystableratherthanstatic.SeeSuccession.4.Conductor:Thepartofthetransmissionsystemwhichactuallytransmitspower.Inoverheadsystems,thisisanuninsulatedcable,generallyofaluminumandsteel,connectedtothetowersbywayofinsulators.Inunder-groundsystems,theconductorisgenerallyaluminumcableinsulatedwithoil-impregnatedpaper,oil,orplastic.Thiscableisoftenwrappedinaprotectivesheath.Inoverheadsystems,therecanbemultipleconductorsperphase.Singleconductorsarecalledsimplex;doubleconductorsarecalledduplex.Largernumbersofcablesperphasecanbeused,theresultingcombinationcalledconductorbundles.5.Corridol':Ageneralizedroute.Astripoflandofvariablewidthjoiningtwoendpoints.Inthisassessment,corridorsarenotdefinedinwidthandfinallocation.AmorespecificlinearlocationistheRoute.6.DangerTree:Anytreewhichthreatensthesafetyofatransmissionsystem.Severalfactorsdeterminedangertrees:voltageofline,heightoflineaboveground,heightoftree,growthrateoftree,anddistanceoftreetocenterline.Thesetreesmustbeperiodicallyidentifiedandremoved.7.Ecosysem:Thecomplexofacommunityanditsenvironmentfunctioningasanecologicalunitinnature.8.ElectromagneticInterference(EM1):Interferencewithradioandtelevi-sionproducedbycoronalossesfromtransmissionlines.EMlisafunctionofmanyfactors,amongthemthevoltageoftheline,theconfiguration,site,heightandageoftheconductors,andatmosphericconditions.IV-l
9.Fault:Inthetransmissionsense,aconditionofeitheropenorshortcircuitingcanbecausedbydefects,lightning,groundingorconnectingofphases,droppingofoverheadcable,orbreakininsulationinundergroundcable.Inthegeologicsense,afractureinthecrust,alongwhichdisplace-menthasoccurred.10.Free-standingTowers:Atransmissiontowerdesignneedingnosupportfromguyedcables.Thisdesigngenerallyhasfourlegs,andisusuallyofsteellatticeconstruction.SeeGuyedTower.11.GenerationSite:Anypowersite,withoutregardtomethodofgeneration.Generationsitesareoneendtotransmissionlines.Inthisassessment,thegenerationsitesarethepotentialpowersitesontheUpperSusitnaRiver.12.GuyedTower:Atransmissiontowersupportedbytwoormoreguyedcablesandpivotingononeortwopoints.Generallylighterthanfree-standingtowers,theyaremoresuitedtohelicopterconstruction.SeeFree-standingTO\1\1ers.13.Habitat:Theparticularareainwhichaplantoranimallives.Ingeneral,anyareapossessingthoseconditionsnecessarytosupportapopulationofaparticularplantoranimal.14.Herbicide:Avarietyofpesticidewhichaffectsplants.Herbicidescanbegeneralorspecificinaction,andofvariouspotenciesandduration.15.Interconnection:Theconnectionoftwoormoreindependentpowersystemswithtielines.Besidesanincreaseintotalreliability,theopportunityexistsforonesystemtosellsurpluspowertoanother,whichcanresultingreaterefficiencyofgeneration.16.LoadCenter:Apointatwhichtheloadofagivenareaisconcentrated.Forexample,theAnchorageloadcenter,asreferredtointhisassessment,coverstheloadincludedintheCEA,AML&P,HEA,SES,andMEAsystems.Theloadcenterisassumedtobethereceivingendofatransmissionline.SeeGenerationSite.17.Permafrost:PermafrostisaconditionresultingwheneversoilorrockhasbeensubjectedtoanannualaveragetemperatureoflessthanOOCformorethantwoyears.Ice-richpermafrostispermanentlyfrozensoilwithahighmoisturecontent.Permafrosttableisthelevelbeneaththesoilsurfacewhichremainsfrozenthroughsummer.IV-2
18.Right-of-way(ROW):Aright-of-wayisastripoflanddedicatedforuseofsomeutility,suchastransportationortransmission.ThelandwithinaROWissometimesaneasement,notinvolvingthepurchaseoftheland,orcanbeownedbytheutility.Theright-of-waywidthforatransmissionlineisgenerallylessthan200feetwide.Clearingwidthandright-of-waywidthshouldnotbeconfused;clearingwidth,ifclearingisneededatall,isalmostalwayslessthantheright-of-waywidth.19.Route:AdefinitelocationofaROW,asopposedtoacorridor.20.Seismic:Pertainingto,subjectto,ofthenatureof,orcausedbyanearthquake.21.Substation:Afacilityatajunctionoftransmissionlinesoratthepointofdistributiontoaloadcenter.Asubstationfunctionstoswitchpowerandraiseorlowervoltage.SeeTap.22.Succession:Aprocessbywhichacommunityofplantsandanimalsachievesastableadjustmenttoitsenvironment;asuccessionalstageisatransitionculminatinginastableclimaxstage,providingtheprocessisallowedtocontinue.However,duetonaturalandhumancauses,acommunitywilloftenneverreachaclimaxstage,thesuccessionalstagesbeingmaintainedbyfire,logging,grazing,agricultureorotherreasons.23.SystemPlan:Aplanoftransmissionfromgenerationsitetoloadcenterwhichisacombinationoftwofactors:thecorridorlocationandthevoltageandcapacityofthetransmissionline.24.Tap:Adrawingofpowerfromatransmissionline,particularlyatapointbetweenthegenerationsiteandthemainloadcenter.Eachtapwillinvolveasubstation.25.UtilityCorridors:Aconceptofconcentratinggenerallyparallelrights-of-way,eventothepointofsharingofrights-of-way.Therights-of-waycanbeforvariousutilities,suchaspipelines,railroads,transmissionlines,andhighways.26.Sedimentation:Theintroductionintoastreamorlakeofsedimentnotnormallyassociatedwiththatwaterbody.Althoughsometimescausedbynaturalagents,suchasslidesorerosiontriggeredbyfires,itismoreoftenaresultofman'sactivities,suchasloggingandfarming.IV-3