Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutConstruction camp and village sitting study draft 1985I I I I I I G=O&&~(g£ c @:liD&®©@ Susitna Joint Venture Document Number Please Return 'fo DOCUMEhiT CONTROL SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT WATANA SUPPORT FACILITIES MASTER PLAN CONSTRUCTION CAMP AND VILLAGE SITING STUDY AND . PRELIMINARY AIRFIELD SITING STUDY REPORT BY HARZA-EBASCO SUSITNA JOINT VENTURE PREPARED FOR .ALASKA POWER AU'l'HORITY Draft Report July 1985 i l" r. ! ' l " 1 ! " 1 I I 1 I I I I I Table of Contents Page 1.0 Introduction I-1 2.0 Summary II-1 Construction Camp/Village II-1 Airfield II-2 3.0 B--ackground III-1 4. 0. Method.ology IV-1 5.0 Construction Camp and Village Siting V-1 Study Camp ~nd Village Requirements V-1 Engineering Siting Criteria V-2 Environmental Siting Criteria V-4 Selection ~nd Evaluation of Candidate Sites V-7 Final Evaluati6n of Candidate Sites V-9 Recommendation V-11 6.0 Airfield Siting Study VI-1 Airport Design Criteria VI-1 Engineering Siting Criteria VIo2 Environmental Siting Criteria VI-2 Selection and Evaluation of Candidate Sites VI-3 RecolD.lf!endati-on VI-5 ! l [ ~ l I l r I I I LIST OF TABLES (r I Title NUMBER 1. Construction Camp/Village Siting Crite~ia I 2. Generalized Soil Classification . .. I 3. Construction Camp/Village Siting: Preliminary Screening 4. Construction Camp/Village -Rating of Candidate Sites I S. Airfield Siting Criteria I q ~ ~ Jl JJ q JJ ,;I ,~ m --"~ ul l I ~.) ': lll ·~ I l -LIST OF EXHIBITS -Number Title l 1 Watana Support Facility Layout 2 Watana Dam Access Plan I 3 Generalized Soil Map .. ,/ .. 4 Generalized Wetlands Map I 5 Wildlife Habitat 6 Recreation/Archeological Sites -7 Land Ownership . ~ 8 Camp/Village Preliminary Screening 9 Camp/Village Candidate Site Evaluation mr 10 Lower Deadman Creek Location Plan . 11 Lower Deadman Creek Site-Profile B-B JF ! 12 Lower Deadman Creek Site-Gradation ~Jj 13 Upper Deadman Creek Site Location Plan 14 Upper Deadman Creek Site-Profile C-C JIJ 15 Upper Deadman Creek Site-Gradation 16 Tsusena Creek Location Plan UI 17 d .. ·; Tsusena Creek Site-Profile A-A I( If 18 Tsusena Creek Site-Gradation Analysis i r ;; 19 Candidate Airfield Sites u: ~' " 1' I ~l I l ! l 11 I, : l /· m~ I ~ I ',',3 ) L ~~~ I } ' ~i .~ -'~1 I I q I ' -- I J ~ 1 ~ J JI! 11 . .I J!l .. 1 :i ,, J!l .I I!! t ' _; J!i » U! ", ·:.d l·n,; '•i' ?L H' u~ :~H 'dl ,.,:1 ~: .~_~ f~1 ;ti' ~-~:::.r.t 1.0 IRTRODUCTIOR The proposed Susitna Hydroelectric Project will consist of two dams on the Susitna River, an earthfill/rockfill dam at Watana and ~ concrete arch dam at Devil Canyon. During the construction of the Watana Dam, air and ground transportation to the site al~ng with housing for management and workers will be required. The Watana Support Facilities Master Plan is to provide the basis for the planning, permitting and the co11tinued licensing of the access road, construction camp, permanent village, and airfield. The Master Pl.an is necessary because the location and configuration of these facilities as currently presented in the license application are largely schemati~. The pllrpose of the Master Plan is to identify specific sites and layouts for the construction camp, permanent village and airfield and to refine and/or modify the access road alignment based on engineering and environmental concerns. The work effort was to include a review of previous work~ the development of siting criteria, the selection of candidate sites and the evaluation and selection of recommended sites for the various Watana support facilities. Design guidelines, conceptual layouts, cost estimates and per- mitting assistance were also to be provided. Due to budgetary constraints, this report only includes a siting study for the con.;truction camp and permanent village and a preliminary evaluation of potential airfield sites. The Master Plan work effort was suspended at the conclusion of fiscal year 1985. This report documents the fiscal year 1985 work and will also form the basis for the continuation of the Master Plan when additional funds are made available. I-1 . ) ( rl L' .! ' ) ;.~ ~I 'U !J ;( *J l ~ ; :1 11 \~ • .f r, 1~ ~ ' ''rJ 1 ~~ l: r ff' ~ :.'· " I I I I I ., I - I I ! II Jt j Jt Jfl Jl1 ' ' Ill ! •; Jf J~~ U' u~ ~l ·~ f, c.# 2.0 SUMMARY The 1985 work effort for the Watana Support Facilities Master Plan consisted of an evaluation and selection ·of sites for the construction camp/village and permanent airfield. A discussion of the primary siting criteria and a summarr of the dternative sites are presented below. . ---- Construction Camp/Village The area required for a construction camp/village has been modified from the FERC License Application as a 't'esult of the current plan to construct the Watana dam in two stages. Th:ts concept has reduced the population of t.he construction camp by approximately 50% over that Which was presented in the FERC license application (APA 1983). The current estimate for the land area required for the construction cal'.~.p/village is approximately 250 acres. The construction camp/village will provide for sepa.t'ate communities for single status personnel and families. Following a preliminary screening of potential sites, three candidate sites, Tsusena Creek, Upper Deadman Creek, and Lower Deadman Creek, ~re selected for detailed study. From this analysi3, the z-ecommended site for t.he con- struction camp/village is the Lower Deadman Creek site. This site is the most favorable location from an engineering and wilcll:tfe perE"pective and is within a short distance of the dam site. The Lower Deadman Creek site is characterized by flat, slightly hummocky to hummocky terrain w.ith scattered ponds and small lakes. Topographic relief of up to approximately 50 feet is found between the broad knobs and kettle topography. The foundation material consists of silty, gravelly sands to silty sands (SM) with little to some gravel and cobbles and generally of low frost susceptibility (F2). The main iisadvantage is that the unforested, tundra covered area is basically open and unprotected from winds. II-1 -l"r'. -'~ ... ·• ''V"'\ ... _' .. : ·:/" .. ~ . . ,..~ ~ Aesthetically, the living er..virorunent in the northern portion of the Tsusena Creek site (T32N R.4E, Sec. 4 and T33N/R4E, Sec. 32) is more attractive than the recommended edte at Lower Deadman Creek because of the view of Tsusena Creek and Butte and the surroullding ridges and spruce trees. Although the site is aesthetically attractive, development of a camp and village in the northern portion of the site would adversely affect moose, brown bear, and fish habitat in the area. These impacts are considered to be significant enough at this time to preclude the selection of a site for the construction camp in the Upper Tsusena Creek area. The Tst.:sena Creek site may be an attractive location, however, for the smaller permanent operators camp (approximate population of 290). It may be possible to locate the operate ~s camp in a portion of the site that would. minimize wildlife impacts. The Upper Deadman Creek site was eliminated because of its potential for flooding, the high groundwater table, poor soil conditions, and the poten- tial impact to a bald eagle nest in th.e area. The recommended site, Lowe~ Deadman Creek, is in approximately the same·area as that which was proposed in the Ff~RC license application and therefore should be considered only a refinement of the previous siting. The re-siting of the construction camp/vilJ~ge site is to take advantage of better foundation conditions in the area. Airfield Separate temporary and permanent airfields are shown in the FERC license application. Tqis report presents the rationale for a phased development of the temporary and permanent airfield in one location. Based on the current- ly planned use of Boeing 737 and C-130 Hercules aircraft and FAA guidelines for these aircraft, a minimum runway length of approximately 6500 feet would be required. Wind directit.'n is currently assumed to be SW and consequently the airstrip srn~1.ld be oriented NE-SW. II-2 t ~. I I l I l1 } ' l' 1.· I l I 1 ~ !.. r I I.' j··' i I \' l: i I I I I 3.0 BlCKGROUND The schematic lo~ation and conceptual plans for the construction camp, perm- anent village, and airfield have been presf 1ted in the license application (E..~hibit F, drawings 32,34, ~6~ lind 37). The camp, village, and ai.rfield locations as proposed in the license application are shown. in Exhil.,it 1. At the present time, a 47-man camp .dsts near the Watana Dam site which has been us,ed in support of site !· .\ 2stigations during the project feasibility and licensing phases. Watana Camp is located in a low lying, poorly drained area in and on the e~6 a of a peat bog, in T32N R5E Section 27 (Exhibit 1). The camp water supply is from a lake approximately 3500 feet to the north of the camp. Use of the existing camp site as the construction camp/village site is not recommended due to poor foundation conditions and because it is situated in a primary borrow site (Borrow D}. The general location of the construction camp and permanent village, as proposed in the license application, is on the north side of the Susitn~ River between Tsusena and Deadman Creeks. This location was chosen since access to the site will be from the north and the tJSe of south facing slopes is preferred (APA, 1983a). Other siting criteria used in the license appli- cation included ·separating the village {family status) and camp (single status), selecting a site with a gentle grade for drainage purposes, and limi tittg t ravtl time to the dam site to generally les·.s than 15 w.!nutes. '!he camp/village was designed to provide housing for approximately 4000 people {3000 in the camp a~~ 1000 in the village) during construction (APA, 1983). Following construetion much of the construction camp would be dismantled and demobilized except for the power and communications facilities. A port1on of the village would remain as a permanent village to provide facilities for personnel invvlved in the operations and maintenance of the dam. · The general concept for site power and the utilities as presented in the FERC license application is outlined below. III-1 I I I I I I I I ~ . ~ It -J -· 4 il ;, ' ~ J~ J J~ fl --~ ,"( ~~ -~ ,~ H ~~ ! ,fi. ,, ;: ~: ;...,,; Nine proposed site locations for the permanent airfield were selected and evaluated. After completing a preliminary evaluation of the nine sites, it is recommended that the permanent airfield be located in T32N Sections 10 and 11 subject to verification of the foundation conditions. The site is characte=ized by a broad, relatively flat to gently undulating, unforested terrain. Based on air photo interpretation, the foundation material appears to be similar to that which has been found at the construction camp/village site (T32N R5E Sl4) which includes silty, gravelly sands to silty sands {SM). The orientation of the area delineated is N-NE to s-sw and slopes to the s-sw. Tne recommended permanent airfield site is approximately· one mile from the proposed construction campivillage site and the access road. Another potential airfield site is located to the northeast along Deadman Creek {T22S R4W Sections 22, 23, 27). This site was deemed to have advan- tages over the other sites from an engineering perspective, but was not evaluated in detail due to potential environmental impacts and the distance from the dam site and cou~truction camp/village site {approximately 14 and 11 miles respectively). II-3 I ·.' I ~ .. , ~ ii < l J i i I .t .n •I I ~ ! ! ! ( I ?' ' I· lJ j-·' l' ,. n "h i· :.j ~~ rt " " ' I I I • I I ~ ~ ~ I! ~~ " II . ~. -~ a~ ' 'I ~] ~~ ,l u ), ~~ .. ~ ~n l; J' y ~r:. J; 0 electric power would be provided by diesel generators; peak demand is estiamted at 16 MW; 0 principal water source would be Tsusena Creek with wells used for backup and a maximum withdrawal of 1.5 cfs or 700 gplll; 0 qischarge of treated wastewater would be to Deadman Creek; maximu'i1l volume of effluent, 1 million gallons per day or 1 cfs. Two airstrips were also proposed in the license application. A 2500 foot temporary airstrip would be constructed adjacent to the existj.r..g temporary camp to provide support during ·the detailed site investigations. A perma- nent 5500 foot airfield would be constructed for the construction phase, in general proximity to the proposed Watana construction camp. During th~ project feasibility study, a detailed access study was undertaken to evaluate and select an access road alignment for ground transportation to the site (APA, 1982). General engineering and environmental criteria were used in the selection. The access route from the Denali Highway, east of Cantwell, south to Watana was recommended (Exhibit 2). The total length of the recommended road was 44 miles. Other criteria were established as part of the study to evaluate the responsiveness of the access plan to project objectives and to concerns of the resource agencies and nearby comm~~ities • III-2 l i ) t {U' l ,, f' l ',• I ~·: t: I' ,I ·:'), ~· . r H' "' -~ '-' t \ ~1 ~: Jr '· .~. 4.0 METHODOLOGY The sitirtg of the permanent airfield and construction camp/villagG: facili- ties consisted of a screening process of potential candiate sites l1 Pu:rin.g each screening phase, additional land areas were excluded from consl.deration by applying a set of predetermined engineering and environmental criteria. The criteria used ..:or evaluating sites were developed based on input from both the engineering and environmental disciplines. Wildlife, fisheries, recreational, and historic/cultural criteria were developed by the environ- mental and social sciences disciplines. For the airfield study, Federal Aviation Administration circulars were consulted for airfield design requirements. Specific methods and sources used for developing each set of evaluation ~riteria are listed under .. Siting Criteria .. in Chapter'S 5 and 6. Following the development of siting criteria, a study area for each facilty was delineat.ed. Using the appropriate criteria, preliminary sitep, were selected fro~ the study ·area. A screening process was then use~ to elimi- nate alternative sites that were c.onsidered unsatisfactory. A detailed discussion of the screening process is presented in the appropriate sections in Chap~ers 5 and 6. The remaining candiate si-tes for the constructi·on camp/vill~ge were evaluated during meetings and a·field reconnaissance by personnel from the evnironmental aDd engineering disciplines. '!he candidate sites were evaluated based on the established criteria and observations made during the site visit. Three, sites were subsequently selected for further field studies. Field studies consisted of a soils investigation to verify the foundation condi- tions at each site. The final recommendation is derived from the additional information collected quring the soils investigations and results from the overall evaluation process. IV-1 ~ .J ~ .~i j ~ '! l' ~·· ,, )1 ! I .I I ' ' i I I l~ ·~ ll IJ ~~ n () ' i.! ~~ l ~ -~ I• H .4l a~ .~ ' "' ~r ~· ;1) ., 1 ~r· 4i. ~ l r '~. tr (,;!, Preliminary sites for the airfield study were delineated by identifying areas with suitable topography. The topographic conditions, based on a USGS topographic map at 1:63,360, were used to ascertain a sufficient runway length and an acceptable glide path for each of the preliminary sites. The site with the least impacts on wildlife habitat and with the most favorable foundation ~onditions we.re subsequently recor.ili.Uended for further considera- tion. .Distance from the dam site and recommended camp/village location was also considered. No field recPnnaissance or soils investiga~i~ns of the candidate sites were made due to budgetary c:pLw:straints. Additional wind data and soil investigations will be required to verify that the recommended site is acceptable. IV-2 l I l i l l I ; 5.0 CONSTRU~TION CAMP AND VILLAGE SITIBG STUDY Engineering and environmental criteria used to select potential camp/village sites are described below. A description of the proposed camp and village as proposed in the license application is also provided. Table 1 provides a summary of the siting criteria. Camp and Village Requirements The Watana construction camp and village will provide housing for the work force required for the construction of Watana Dam. The camp and village are to be two separate communities with separate roads and facilities. These facilities should either be sited in separate locations or be separated by natural features or fencing. If the distance between the camp and village is too great, however, separate utilities may be necessary, thus increasing the cost. The construction camp will provide temporary housing for contractor person- nel, including laborers, fvremen, and project managers. Support facilities will include a kitchen and dining hall, a hospital, administration offices,· a store, and laundry facilities. A variety of recreational facilities will also be provided, including a swimming ·,ool; hockey rink; baseball, football and softball fields; and a recreation hall. The construction camp will be primarily single status, with some family housing provided for management personnel if required. Housing will consist of dormitories, management dormitories and beveral guest houses. The popu- lation of the camp during the peak construction period will be approximately 1800 workers. This number is based on work force data for the staged con- struction of Watana Dam. The construction village will provide housing for management personnel, which includes the owner, design engineer and construction management per- :; ---- V-1 '· ~ -; J J ' i \ .;; I '·i .• . . • • • .. tl _ • , •. .~ r~.:~ ~ ~ I I I .. . ~-.~.,.__,.,t~ .... -_..."':'...,'\.r----'c• ... ,...._,..•,-~-.e""', ....,._. .~ . ~· ' CriteTia Engineering A. Size Uo Accessi~ility c .. D. lL, F. 1. D!atance froa Daa 2. Distance from Access Route Soils (Foundation Gondi tiona) V.etlan.ds :opo gra..-hy , Water supply .,j fi .~""·'"---··~) ~-"'~~-:··.,. .... ~---::....1 -~~--~ :~-,r~~:I ~-' 'l•,..i ::~~~~ -.-~--.-.·. 4 '"'' ..... Table 1. CONSTRUCTION CAMP/VILLAGE SD.'ING CRITERIA Description -Approxim&tely 250 acres 0 ~o 5 milee preferred 0 to 10 miles if alons access road 0-2 miles preferred \ Non-frost susceptible Hell draine~ granular material -Lack of permafrost Ad~quate bearing capaai- ty Limite~ amount of vet- land prefer~ed (geneTal- ly leas than 10 percent) Avoid steeply eloping ~errain, narrow ridges. Prefer flat site or over- all flat site with hum- mocks or local relief Close wate~ supply avail- able to provide 270,000 gpd, preferabl~ leas then two miles away. Minimize vertical head differential to lese than lOO feet \ "' Criteria II. Environmental A. Visual qualities/ living environment B. Recreation c. Wildlife D. Fisheries E. Cultural/Hiatorie ;.:_j '-,1Y.!i ~;!!i ..::.~ ~.":.:~ "~ ~~ Description -Protected from winds -Attractive views ftOil1 camp/":illage slte -Removed from construction activities and traffic -Outside vlew fro11 access roads -A.v.oi.ds existing or pro- pofied recreation sites Lakes and ponds to pro'- vide for worker recre!a- tiona! activ!tie~ -Avoid prime moose or brown bear habitat -Avoid known eagle nests (l"'!:tllaUiil 1/2 mile away) -Close to dam to minimize extent of wildlife impacts -Site between Tsusena and Deadman Creeks to pre- elude the need for bridg- ina and subsequent acces.e to additional habitat areas -fiinil'IUII of approxiamtely 200' feet away frolll creeks to reduce co:.struction impacts on fish habitat -Site away from creeko to minimize increases in angling presaur~ -avoid known archeologi~al sites ;;, ,, ~ .4 '') I I L ,, ·;,., c ~ i .. ~ l :l R :t ~ l ·i'i·) li{ 'II ' :,i 1 :t l 11; !l lj\ ~-),· ,{ j\ n: ~ l· \)! ~~ :jj ·' 'j' H ., ;.· i .jj ·~l ~I 'I' l ' ll ~· ' AI ·~ i . ::; ;~! ) ~t~ gl ' ·~! .Al ·il '4j J• ~~· ~ 0 'J~ ')1 1i r . ~ r ~ . H y 1~ 'I{ jrt il jl . I• ·' J r ,, "I ll j.• H ,. l' \1 " 1\ r H ll :i. ;! ';I '1 l ;{ 1\ ~ \j ' ~~ it ·ti 1 ;: 1 ~ l i! :I II ·! '·1 ! I -~ ! I I IJ II J ~i ~~ 1 iR " ~~: ~ It •' ' <J ~~ ~ . ~ ~~ I; .<) r ;; "d r ~! ~.·_,!ij I~ !I I L~ I~ " j, dl JI sonnel. A portion of the village may remain and become permanent to provide facilities for personnel involved in the operation and maintenance of the dam. The construction village will be family status~ with single family and multifamily dwellings provided. Support facilities will include a school, hospital, fire station, store, gymnasium, recreation center, and swimming .. pool (APA 1983). The camp will house approximately 310 families. Camp and vlllege populations are estimated on the basis of labor estimates for phased construction and married/single status ratios presented in the license application. Desirable locations for the construction camp and village would be those wi tb some protection from winds, such as a forested or terraced area, and locations removed from the immediate vicini.ty of the construction activi- ties. Sites clo~e to the proposed borrow area as shown on Exhibit 1 and the airfield should be avoided. Scenic vie·.;"s of the area's primary features such as Tsusena Butte, Tsusena Creek, or Deadman Creek would also. be desir- able. Sites with existing lakes would add to the scenic value and provide recreational opportunities for the residents. EngineeringASiting Criteria Size Requirements. The ,;t;ize requirement for the camp and village was based on the proposed site layouts in Exhibit F of the FERC License Application. Since the expected population of the camp under the staged construction ~oncept is approximately one half of the population proposed in the license application, the required camp ~ize ~as reduced from 125 acres to 110 acres. The relatively large area n~eded. for the support and 'life support facili- ties, accounts for the small reduction in size from the licenije applica- tion. The land area required for tne village was determined by delineating 310 lots, the planned support facilities and the central open area as shown on Exhibit F of the FERC License Application. The total area required is V-2 l' ... I I , L ( l \ . c' ! . ' ~ ' ~ ~~ L~ l~ 00 t~ ~J ~ ~ ']I i,~ H~ B~ !~ ' k ~~ ~. ' ¥ ' / ~~~ k'' ..,_ ,t'' ' ~~ w~ '· ;,.. \j •.-b I ~ '1 :! a~ )It I' ) <p d: approximately 7n acres. An additional 30 acres for the permanent village was added to the camp and village acreage in case the permanent village is constructed separate from the temporary village. In addition, a 20 percent contingency figure was added to accommodate potential changes in the work force numbers, support facilities, or open space requirements. The total area required for identifying potential constLuction camp/village sites is approximately 250 acreP. 1be area required and the general layout of the camp and village will likely be modified during detailed design. !icce.:Jsibility.. Access requirements relate to the distance of the camp/village site from the dam and access roads. T~e distance to the camp/village from the dam site should be minimized· if possibl= to reduce travel time and costs. Proximity to the·access road ~s also a considera- tion because of the larga cost of building additional roads. Criteria for accessibility included an evaluation of those sites within five miles of the dam site and sites up to ten miles from the dam that are situated along the access road corrider. Soil Criteria. The £soils for each of the camp/village sites were evaluated to determine the sites having the most favorable foundation conditions. Favorable soil conditions would consist of ice-free, reasonably well drained granular material, with low frost susceptibility, and moderate to h~gh bearing strength. Classification of the soils for preliminary o:tcreening in this study were based on the terrain unit maps prepared for the dam site, reservoir and access road areas (APA 1982). Selecting soils with these conditions would minimize earthwork requirements and the need for a borrow source. Table 2 describes the soil types found in the study area and classifies the soils as favorable or unfavorablee Exhibit 3 indicates the portion of the study area with favorable soil conditions. Wetlands and uplands within the study area ~ere identified from maps pre- pared by the U • s. Fish and Wildlife Serv·> -~e National Wetlands Inventory (USFWS 1985) • Most of the wetlands within the study area are classiffed as V-3 I ! i l ·~ r l l. J, \. II l l \, ( f ! II t 1 I l I I' l l I 1' l' l l ! I I I l ,j ~ ~ ;ij \ji ~l: ·I' r ih PK! ;ll !j 1,'~ l: r~· \ ', :-,! dJ ; ' 'I' !I r~ l )• ,' 1 \} l~ I i l'j f~ ['I. ·:; 1m t "' ~! lJ H. ; i I ' I ~· .; 1 ' ~ rr ~l f ' ~ l ~ r ~· ,, ,' .; fl H~ I ~! : r a~ r' ' ~ F .~ 1: !,• 'l L, ~~ ., ~{ " ,· J -r ~· ~ ' ~ ~' I ;, [~(; li ~ ~; '.! hl~ I r. f l .. .l~ I l } n~ H,;, ~~. ' l :.R ':)"< ·~ • TablE 2. GENE.FALIZED SOIL CLASSIFICATIONlf. Unit Name Favorable FP GFo Gta Uafavorablell Bxu Citb-f 0 L-f Deacription & Stratigrapht Floodplain depoaits; occur alightly above and adjacent to Susitna River and its major tributaries; ~lso occura aa flat aurface remnants of former floodplain deposits iaolated above preaent floodplain deposits; mtratigraphy conaiata of rounded cobbles, gravel, 11nd aand; sorted and layered, with or without ailt cover. Outvaflh deposita; occurs in bottoms of U-shaped valleys of tributariea to Suaitna River and adjacent to Suaitna; consiata of round~d and striated cobbles, gr~vel and sand; ia crudely sorted and layered. Ablation till; occurs in tributary .alley side wall~ and v.alley bottoms mostly between Tauaeu.a and Deadman Creek; has hummocky rollin& surface, numeroua channels; locally overlies unweathered bedrock; .. teriAls include rounded and atriMted cobblea, gra- vel, and sand with no aortiag or layering; haa boulder-cobble lag covering surface. Jnveathered coaaolidated bedrock; is found cliffs in river canyon and as rounded kaoba on valley floor and mountain peaka. Solifluction deposits occuring as smooth lobate areaa created by the flow of ~teri­ alao subjected to frequent freeze-thaw cycles; conaiata of ailty sand and sandy silt• sh~ving contorted layering; alao occurs over hl•al and ablation till. Basal till-froz~n; occurs at bottom of u-ahaped valleya and adjacent ,eatle alopes; consists of gravelly, silty sand and gravelly, sandy Bilt; has no layering or sorting; cobbles and boulders poorly round- ed and atraited; .. y be overl~in by soli- fluction deposits or occur as thin veneer over bedrock. Organic depoaita; occur in svales between small riaes on lovlanda and in high eleva- tiona bedrock deposita; occurs as flat sur- faces to steplike terraces; aaterial con- sists of decomposed and cndecomposed organic uterial with eow.e lilt. Lacuatrine-frozen; occur• in lowlands (below 3000') in the Tyone -Oshetna River area; conaiata of sandy silt and ailty sand with occaaional pebbles to gravelly sand is often aorted and layered; unfrozen lacust- rine depo~its also overlie frozen baaal till in localized areas. Engineering Properties Contains ~nified ao!l types GW, GP, Sn, SP, ~; HL may ex'lst where silt cover is present; has .~ood drainage, no permafrost. generally lov frost susceptibility, and high bearing strength. Contains unified soil types GW and SW; has-good drainage, no permafrost permafrost, low frost susceptibility and high bearing strength. Contains unified soil types GW, GM, SW, and SM; has moderate drainage, .tnor permafrost distribution, low to .oderate froat ausceptibiliey, and moderate to high bearing strength. Non froat susceptible, high bearing - atrength.Y Contains unified soil types SW, SM, ML; iQ frozen with sporadic perma- frost, has high froat susceptibilty and tdgh bearing strength. Contains unified soil types GM, SM, and ML; is frozen with discontinuous to continuous permafrost distribu- tion, high frost ausceptibility, .and low bearing strength when thawed. Contain~ unified soil types Pt and OL; baa poor to moderate drainage, discontinuous permafrost, high frost susceptibility, and ~ry low bearing strength. Contain• unified soil types S~, SW, and ML; it ia frozen, has discou~ tinuous to continuous permafrost distribution, high frost auscepti- bility, and loY bearing strength when thawed. 1/ Frozen soils have poor drainage : 3 2 1 1 Unfavorable because of the need for extensive earthwork for engineering use Modified aft~r Acres American, 1982 I ~ ·r I' l r r \ I I l l l I \ I I I i r I I 1 l ! ! ! ! \ t -~~~-·~~~-~~-~-~~----------------------~-----~-------~r--------··---···-··---. -I ,,:1,'*',.:.·1·,·.~.~~' r' ~ ;4~ "':;.~' ~ "".:-,. ~ ,># '\ ··~, " ··~ 1 :.j' ij l j !· .. ;s I I j;: l" r i I I t .l l ~; l ! ! I fJ ~ ~· \i f~ I·• .~ f~ [· ::r lfl t'·li f~ t u )~ 'ijl i l 1 ~ )' •. Jl ltl~ g :l ·.~ ·r li tcz, rr r~ . l . ~ .. J ll j) x~ .. .J tr '!I :.' ~ ·,;. rrr·; ~t t~~:· -· ~ 1 :,J ""-·-~ p:r 'ill 'i y ~.~ r·.~ '' I . ~ /. <I!· ,.;;/) :·ril . i· ~~il c.,<J/ shrub-scrub, emergent, or open water palustrine systems. All of the wetland types were considered unfavorable because '1lf the cost of fill and the poten- tial for permitting delays. Exhibit 4 indicates uplands and wetlands in the study area~ ~ater Supply Requirements. An analysis of Tsusena and Deadman Creeks was conducted to identify potential siting constraints in terms of water supply availability. Water needs for the camp and village were based on an assumed demand of 80 gB:llons per person per day. The quantity of water to be used during construction activities was added to tl&: camp and village demand to present the worst case water demand. The total peaK water demand for the camp, village, and construction site was estimated at 267,000 gallons per day or 185 gallons per minute (0.4 cfs). To determine water availability, four potential diversion lo~ations within the study area were identified, two on Tsusena and two on Deadman Creeks. The drainage area above each diversion site and the monthly streamflow data were used to determine minimum, maximum and average flows for each month. The minimum flow for the lowest flow month ranged from 3200 to 3800 gallons per minute (gpm) at the four sites, which exceeds the required flow of 185 gpm. Therefore, it was concluded that water availability will not restrict the choice of camp/village sites. The proximity of the water supply source to the dam was included in the criteria. The distance of the sites from T~usena or Deadman Creeks and the head differential between the creek and site was evaluated in order to minimi.~e costs for pumping and for installing water and and sewer lines. Environmental Siting Criteria Fish and Wildlife Criteria. Minimizing disruption of moose, brown bear, and eagle habitat was the primary wildlife consideratione Exhibit 5 indicates prime moose and brown bear habitat and golden and bald eagle nests in the study area. The general area surrounding Clark Creek and Tsusena Butte is V-4 1 ! l I l \ r I \ --~~~~-·--···--·--------~-·--~-··----~-~---~~--·"-·--.----=-·-·~... ----~~-·---'"·---·-;~··-""_ ......... -~---· .. -· ........ -.......... "._ ................................ ~-. .. ~ ............ _._ ......... ·~·2 ..... > .~ . · .. '~-. :i~' ' ... -~·-~.· j it j; :!i 1' i; ~ l -~ ~· 11 .. 1 1'1 :1 ,·~ ·''.\ 'f ~; ~ t ;I ' f~> 1 •. ~~ {. J rm j it ~ '!} [~ IWI l ' J' ·~ I\ ' 'L!J "1 l i t .. ::...t R' . ' l • ~ ~ ~ l ·}~'\ ! __ r ~ rt• ' ' (,; (H ,_;> rr 'i• .. ' "' .1 n{ ' !} '.~J rr _! ;, ~:,~ .. r L ~ J:. tl L.i! fi'1 t t! t'' ,kl~ , __ ;.~< r"f, I, u H~ ,.,.!.1f n~ 1:);:. ~ I !i ',, ' _,. ·o r._.t ' (? 0 heB."V.J.iy used by brown bears dtlring th~ spring breeding season (S. Miller, ADF&G, Pers. Comm~)· This area is being considered as a candidate area for wildlife habitat mitigation through preservation. The Clark Creek drainage and the Clark-Tsusena Creek confluence areas are heavily used by moose dur~.ng the breeding season in the fall (W. Ba~.lard, ADF&G, Pers. Comm.). The are:'.s indicated on Exhibit 5 only show heavily used moose and bear habi- tat. uther areas, especially those that contain white spruce, willow~ and mixed shrub habitats, can be of value to moose and other wi~dlife species. In general, the lands west of Tsusena Creek ·contain valuable moose habitat. Re~tricted zon.es within a raduis of one-half mile of an active eagle nest site are required based on the State of Alaska~ temporal and spatial protec- tion criteria which are used for evaluating fac.ility sites (Roseneau et. al. 1981, 19~4). The distance criteria should be considered minimums, and separation--of the nest f:rom facilities and or a~.r traffic should be maxi- mized to the extet1t practical. . Potential camp/village sites shoul~ be & minimum of 200 feet fran any creek to avoid construction impacts on fish habitat. Impacts on arctic grayling fisheri~s is the primary concern in both Tsusena gnd Deadman Cr~eks. Siting the camp/village away from the creeks would reduce the likelihood of workers fishing for grayling and minimize increases in angling pressure. Sites with existing lakes are preferred since they co~ld be stocked for use by workers therefore reducing angling pressure on the c:reeks4 In addition to avoiding prime habitat, the camp and village should be s close as possible to the dam site, so to concentrate habitat disruption in the smallest area possible. Additional bridges over Deadman Creek should be avoided to atnimize access to the Creek and to additional wildlife habitat east of Deadman Creek. Bridging of Tsnsena Creek or the Susitna River should also be avoided, as it wuld open access t" habitHt west of the creek or south of the river earlier than would otherwise occur. V-5 ! I' . . ' ! I I 1 I 1 ' .. ,I I I { 1 I l l I I ' f h .,# ~ f ~; ,~J ff • !i; ~ ·'~ Recreation and Visual Criteria. The primary recreation concerns in siting the camp/village was to avoid disturbing areas that are currently used for recreational activities and to avoid sites Which may impact on the proposed recreation areas included in the license application. In conjunction with the development of the hydroelectric project, the APA has proposed a recrea- tion plan that includes visitor centers at each dam and a system of trails and primitive campsites within the vicinity of the project. Proposed rec.re- ation trails in the study area are shown on Exhibit 6. The exact location of recreation facilities may be subject to change during the plan refinement process. Existing recreational activities in the area consist. primarily of fishing and hunting. Fishing is most prevalent in fly-in locations such as Deadman Lake, the Fog Lakes, and Stephan Lake. Views of the access road or construction activities from the camp and vil- lage were not considered favorable in the si t:f.ng of the facilities. Minimi- zing views of the camp and village from the access road was also considered since the road will eventually be open to the p~blic. Although most of the camp and village will be dismantled after construction, the permanent opera- tor's camp may be lo~ated in the same site to take advantage of P~isting utilities. Once the camp is dismantled, the site will be distinguishable from the surrounding landscape because of the difficulty of reclaiming tundra vegetation. A detailed viewshed analysis from the access road was not conducted, however, since the acce~s road route may be slightly modified during final design. All of the sites 1d~ntified in the preliminary screen- ing process were visible either from the Watana or Devil Canyon access roads as t~urren tly proposed. Recreation~l facilities far the workers and aesthetic requirements for the camp and village are discussed under the "Camp and Village Requirements" section. Historic/Cultural Criteria~ Archeological studies to date in the Susitna Project Area have been concentrated along the Susitna River (gam site and propoced reservoirs) and the borrow sites along Tsusena and De.a.dman Creeks. V-6 1 if 1 1 r : '· ~ lJ l :! ~ 'I f 'l '1 'l I ;] I J i .l i 1 l .1 -t lj q :} ~~ i ;1 ·~ I ,, ~ ' '! " :i ' '~ ~ i t~ r~\ 1 ' 4 'f f:, ' .~ .... ; \H' 1 : ~":·!_j w i ·, 't j '!i nj ,1 t -J 'I If . )>. '~ ~-1 ll' f'3 {l ~. fi' r' 'I ". ' .. ~ ~ 1 f'N · .... 'J ' C:fJ' !:.; ~ -\; 0 n (1 _:;1"' f,,' ' ,, Known archeological sites in the study area are indicated on Exhibit 6. These archeological sites .should be avoided where possible in choosing a camp and village location. The ::amp and village sites selected will be reviewed and/or surveyed by project archeologists prior to the filing of permits with the State Ri.storic Preservation Officer. Land Ownership. The status of the lands along the Susitna River at the time the lic~nse application was published are indicated on Exhibit 7 (APA 1983) ~ Most. of the study area considered in this report is in T32N R5E. 111e north- ern portion of this townsh~p has been selected by the State of Alaska, but the selection has been suspended due to competing claims. Native corpora- tions have selected.the southern part of the township, some of which has been conveyed to several native villages. Patents to the township immedi- ately north of township 32 have either been conveyed to the Stat~ of Alaska . or tentatively approv~d. Selection and Evaluation of Candidate Sites Study Area. According t the criteria discussed above, the study area was defined as the area north of the Susitna River within a five mile radius of the dam or within a ten mile radius of the dam and close to the proposed access roads. Areas north of the river were chosen to avoid the necessity of a bridge over the Susitna River. A bridge would result in incr~ased access to wildlife habitat and to the Fog Lakes. Wildlife habitat would be adversely affected by the increased access. Since the Fog Lakes area is currently used for recreation and is being considered as a permanent recrea- tional area for the post construction phase, it was determined that advF.rse impacts to these areas be minimized. As a result of these criteria, the study area includes portions of T32N ll5E; T32N R4E; T32N R6E, and T33N RSE, all in the Seward Meridian. Preliminary Screening. The preliminary camp/village sites were selected by overlaying the soils and wetland maps (Exhibits 3 and 4) in order to identi- V-7 r j' t' I I I ! l ! I ~ I f' j i' M rn, t ~· ~ ~~ ~ g i... ·.~ I f \lf' il 'r '·.It J ij 1 . ' <t ,• ~ ''l 1 ~~' ~~~ I 1'.:;: \ I .. 1 •\ r~ I I ~,~, ) ! }~ j r f,~~ I I I I I l l r~ \ ,! ! ~; I 1~! r r ,r~·~ H j· ,, ' ,,, ' f ,.~; 1· i' ... fy those upland sites with favorable soils. Large wetland areas, as shown on u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service maps~ were eliminated by virtue of the need for fill and its additional cost and becaune of the perm.itting problems associated with wetland use. Favorable soils i'ncluded those areas on the terrain unit map with soil type "Gta". an ablation till (indicated on Exhibit 3), because it fulfilled the requiremeuts iisted under "Soils Criteria." Once the wetlands and soils maps were used to eliminate some areas, the slopes of the remaining areas were examined u.sing U.s. G. S topographic· maps c Those areas with slopes greater than 10 perce!nt were considered undesirable . and were excluded. Once this was accomplish1~d, portipns of the following sections were left as candidates for site selection: T32N R5E, 11, 24, 1, 15, 3, 4, 9, 16, 29; and T33N RSE, sections 35, 26, 33 and 32. The preliminary sites are indicated on Exhibit 8. Sections 14, 23, 27, 34., Table 3 describes the preliminary sites and lists the primary disadvantages of each site. Candidate Site Selection.. In order to further delineate potential camp/vil- lage sites, aerial photographs of available sites were examined. Due to steep slopes, shallow bedrock, and erratic or wet soils, T33N R5E Section 23 and T32N R5E Section 1 were eliminated. Additional sites were eliminated by subdividing soil type Gta into 2 soil types: poorly drained soils in flat- lying areas and hummocky terrain in Which coarser and beter drained material might be found. This delineation caused the elimination of T32N R5E Sec-. tions 15 and 16. In addition, Section 24 in T32N RSE was eliminatd due to the st.eep topography, proximity to th~ borrow area, and the need for bridg- ing Deadman Creek. Section 29 in T32N R5E was eliminated due to its proxi~ ity to construction activities and distance from water supply. At this point, the candidate site selection included: T32N RSE Sections 4, 9, 11, and 14; and T33N RSE Sections 33, 34, 35, and 26/27. T32N RSE Sec- tion 3 was combined with Section 33 in T33N RSE. Section 32, T33N RSE, V-8 J ' i " ,, Table 3 CONSTRUCTION CAMP/VILLAGE SITING: PRELIMINARY SCREENING POTENTIAL CANDI.DATE SITES -I I I I I I CRITERIA n:m SJ2 TJdS29 I l:IZN 515 i 1:12N SIS I TJ2N S14 TJ2N 524 TJ2N 511 TJ2N 51 l:IJN SJS TJJN SJ4 TJJN SJJ TJJN 526.27 T3Jil2J l:l~N S.S. 9 I TJ2N SJ I I I . I I I I ENGINEERING SIZE Sutftcttnt I SoH•cttnt l tn~uft•cten: 1 ~nJ.utt.c:umt I Sutftc&~nt l Sufhcumt I Suflu:umt I SurftCI~Ot Sullicoenr S.Jificu:nt I SuffoL •. II I Sulficoen1 I Sutf!Ctent I ACCESSIBILITY S rmie-s hom dim sue I 1 mete hom o.arn ftte I 2 rn•les ffam dam site 12.5 m•o.-rrom Qom Jlle 3 mues trom uam ill. 14 moo•s from Deo~man I 4 5 miles from dam sue: f 6 miles tram tJam 'ue; I' .5 moles from dam snc I 6 miles trom dam sue I 5 rnllu hom 001m sue I 7 mties from dam sue I B miles from d,am sue Crtti(._Duoga reQUired bruJge r~u11ed ~ brtdge u:uuued SOILS Fa-able I Favorable I Fnorable I F•t.~oc;;.ule F .. vorJble: I F.avor.a.bh~-Favoubl: Margon•l Marq.n.al Margtnal Margtn.al I Favorable I F;vorable: - • WETLANDS I Ltm•ted to nu wet1.1ndt S'g01f'c11nt ¥tetlands . ~~urut~Unt lllfi!UJnUs: 1 I LJmlted. wellinds. I I I I Sujl"\lhcant Yo~l!.tlt1r.d1 Lmued weclands._ Ltmuw wetlands.-Limireo "Nett~nds, Ltml1etl we11and' Ltm,ted wetlint.Js Stgmt.c;nt W"etlanos~ Signtftcanr wetlands Limned wtuancb u:an~ca oonds severaUakn ........ u t:utet. I SC.lttered laX.ts $C.1Uered UQtUJS larqe lake lake 1nd pandl I e TOPOGRAPHY Flu/ JOme gently I Sloomg terraan HU'Ilmoc:lty I Hummoo:11 . Hummocky I Sloptn9 rerra.n .1nd I SlOPing terratn 1ummOc.J'-'1 I FIJI Sioomg serratn T<rrKedand Moce~au~ reiiet Wllh SloUmq tern1n rol~nqholls . i hummocky narro"" r•dqef mO'.Ju~te relu:t wtth J I nanow ridge • WATER SUPPLY Tsu,.... Cr""k less tt>•n II mole from Tsus<na leu th•n !~ mde frorn 1 m•lr ltom T no~;ettJ L~.s tnan ~1 mt'~ from Lm It~ Y, mole from Leu th11>ll mde !rem 1 mile from Deadman Leu than II motu from Less rmn, II mila from 1 mile from Duum~n 1 mal• from Oe•dman I 1% mlli!slrom OeatJrTtOJn ·~ mde awr,; 200 feet c. .. k. 700 f .. t vet local Tsus~n.a Ue-ek. 200 feet ::trK. 300 ferr Vt!tUal Oe~dnan Cteelif.~ 150 Dea·· <eek,150 Delldman Cleek. 50 f .. t Cleek, 400 feotvenoc•l Otadmon Clee~. 50 feet Deadman Creek, 100 Cleek, JSO feet veniClll Creel<, 100 feet .err out Creek, 400 fee~ vcft!tlf 0 vental differenttal dillerento21 ve:rttca1 d•Herenr•ai rl•ff'.t!!nltaJ fet1 verucat ditfere:nual ft-tr , 1ft.._, \ d1ftrrtnual venu:al diflerenual dollerentlal '"'rtltol dillermto•l feel ver<1col difi...,cial diNerentlll dolfenntoal I J1herenu.tt ENVIRONMENTAl~ I . I I I ' - • VISUAL QUALITIES I Protect~ wtth v•ews of Unorotectr:d Ylt"WW of Ungrotrcted. "'~of Unprote-cted Unprotoerr:d, .,.,. of UnptOtected. v1ew af Unprotectzd. -.lttwof Unprotected Protected. v1ew of Dead Unprotoerr:d, ~of Unprotected. VI~ of UnPiolectedf v1~ of Unorotecttd. WltVt of LIVING ENVIRONMENT Tsus.en.a Bune Jlnd Cr~kt d.am stte and consuuct-TsusenaCr .. ~ De•dm•n C..,k Deadman Cttek and OudmanC.tek m•n Creek in lower tar. Tsa.tw'• Butte lsuwN Bune Twsena Butte TJu~na Bun• rernov.d from construct· ton activltleJ BOO'OW lite r11ce: unprotected an •on xtiYite .1nd tuff.c: IJPDer terrace • RECREATION IMPACTS/ No adYe~u 1111pxts No adverse tmD.JCU No ~d~retse tmpacu., No .J<nven~: •mPatts, No advrrse imNc:ts ... No •dvene: 1mp~cu No ad vena amoaca. No adversa imPacts No advent mpKU No advent unoacu. Nu ;dy~te 1mpacu Advuu •mpacu on I No au,ene tmpacu AVAILABLE RECREAT-l.1kes anafab(l lakes-av~al.l:ble lakes a•aofabt~ one: lakra av1•lable lakri 1.vailabh:r prooo•ed Tw..,na Cleek JONALLAKES trail • WILDL'FE HABITAT Withltl ntune brown I No ~tgntlieantampac:u No s•gnihant lmPJCts I No ,.~n•t•cant 1rnoacu No s•gn1liant amo.,cts I Broc!')e opens •ccess to I Bridqe ooens access to Bridge o~ns 1ccess to Adjoc:cniiD bald ••sles Close 10 bold oaqleo WithiO prame brown I Wnh1n pumc txow.1 Withrn pume: bro .... n IMPACTS bear Nb•t:n. dose to I ust sids at De.adman east Jtde of oe~dmcn un side of Oe.adman neu. wtthan pum• neu, Yllthin ptune bur habotat beru h•bot•l """ habuar pmne: mocxe h~bltiU Crr<l< Cle•k Cleek brown bear :h1bn•t brown beat rubitat • FISHERY IMPACTS Fotrnual U'11D.act on I No s•qntf•cant tm~l I Potrnual tmo£t~.~ on i ~:, !· .n1t1UM1 •tnoacts I No SIIJnltcanttm~u I Potellu;l •moact on I ~atenuallmp>c:t on No IIQnlfic•nt r npact Po1tnti•l1mo.>c:t on No S&gntjtc.ant amoaeu No tt';tnth~n1 1mo~u I No ltgnthc;nt tmLklC'I:s No tlgntftunr HnrMttt . m;vunc ft'lhtttts. gt1YI1ng hUle:nn ~tiVIIOf.J fit.hetl.:t grayling h>horoes nro~vung hshefJes • CULTURAL RESOURCE One known·Jtt~ I No known.s1t~ I Two .known sites i :\"')t:;\(JW'lS.tt! j Fwe: JC.nown su•·s .ilung I No itnown sues I No i(nown tiles. I No known tiles I No kno~Hn sues I No 111.nown sua I No known llltl I One known lilt I ~0 kOO<Nt'\ Ulei I I I SITES l l Deadman. Cteoc:K I LAND OWNERSHIP SJ2-Sute stoocted BLM (State and Nattvr BLM IStatt and Nart•• l Ill!'.! IS11t• •~~<~ t:atM JlL~.IIStJtt and UJrovo BLM lStlte .amt N.auve BLIA !State •nd N•uve BLM !Stott •nrl N•uve State utected St;ue srtet."tet! J-BLM t<>t•tc and !~tate te•e:aed I StJtt St:le"ClCU SUI-BLt,IIStat• seloerr:dl seltcttdl I seoectctJI seiOQ.,Jl setecter.U $<!ltctedl telectrdl N.ttlve telectedl .and N'h~ s.tlectrdl 3J -Soot• .. oected ' MAIN DISADVANTAGES W•Jahfr r.o~httat dtttur~ J Undettnblt IOC.1Uon. lntutlici<nuuotoble ., •• ,tnwffoco;nt su•ta~le ., .. Unprotected ReQUtrn bmJge crossmg; AeQUI!<S brouye crouong,l Poor lound•uon condo~ Pro1umuv ta •~g•n neu P-brgmt~l founcJ.ltton Margtnal foundauon Unfavouole trHJin far I Unfhoraott urratn tor •nee tllloos• and Browro I etosr 10 connrucroon due to am,Yn~ of oNtt-due to amount of wrt· OPtn' ~cce,s tO h~Oiflit opens ;cc~s to hlbttar tlont; reQUiftl bt&d~ condl,t:ut\: unfa't()l'able conchuoos. unfnor~:bie ra.cdute• I lae•l•uu. nead dtlfertttt"' br:Jt t JCtiVtUn. tte:"<i daffrre:nt• h1nds I lanus ~1st of ~~m .. n Creek tlst of Ot=ild:m•n Crc& c:rost&nq~ opens J:teu to tenaan for t.acahuc-s nro-tetram for f.lc::!luu:s I 111 tor \lw~lltf IUDPIV f ·~t for w•u~:r tt.ortly habuat ean of Oudman l"morv to U9'~ nett I I l i I C.<<k heaoJ dill<rtnu•l I i ' fOt WJtf'r l1.1UOIY . --·---------------· ------- j j ' J was combined with Section 4 in T32N R5E because of the similarity of the two sections and the lack of adequate space in Section 32. Final Evaluation of Candidate Sites Once the sites were narrowed to those listed above, a field reconnaissance of the potential locations was made. Following the site 'Visit the alterna- tive sites were evaluated based on the engineering and environmental· criteria discussed above tmder "Construction Camp/Village Siting Criteria ... As a result of the site visit, T33N R5E Section 3·3, 31*, and 26/27 were eliminated. These sections were found during the field visit to be located on unsuitable terrain, which was not previously apparent from the topograph- ic maps. The site in T32N R5E Section 11 was eliminated because a bridge would be required over Deadman Creek, which would adversely affect fish and wildlife habitat and increase the overall costs. The remaining sections were grouped into three sites for detailed field inv~stigations. Sections 9 and 4 in T32N R5E and S~ction 32, T33N R5E, were combined and labelled the "Tsusena Creek Site .. " Sections 26 and 35 in T33N R5E were grouped together as the "Upper Deadman Creek Site... Section 14, T32N RSE was labelled the "Lower Deadman Creek Siten. The three sites are indicated on Exhibit 9. To further evaluate the three remaining sites, a soil drilling program was . initiated to verify the foundation conditions. The results of the drilling program indicate that the Lower Deadman Creek site consists of silty sands or silty, gravelly sands (SH) of mild frost susceptibili.ty (Exhibits 10, 11 and 12). The Upper Deadman Creek site consicts of sandy silt (ML), silty, gravelly sand (GP-GM) and silty sand (SM), ;;.11 of marginal frost suscepti- bility (Exhibits 13, 14, and 15). The Tsusena Creek site is comprised of silty uand and silty, gravelly sands (SM) of mild to marginal frost susceptibility (Exhibits 16, 17, and 18). V-9 "' --·· The following discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of the final three si~es is summarized in Table ~. The Upper Deadman Creek site contains soils of moderate frost suceptibility and less desirable drainage than that Which exists at the oth~r two sites. The floodplain area is characterized by a high groundwater table and con- tains several old channels which could experience flooding during high creek levels. Elimination of the floodplain area reduces the amount of area available for the support facilities. The site is the furthest candidate site from the dam site (7.5 miles) and would require a moderate amou~t of fill in order to fill in the flood~~y channels and to increase the available area. Environmentally, the most significant problem with the Upper Deadman Creek Site is its proximity to a bald eagle's nest. State guidelines restricitng development to a ~tinimum of a half mile away and the floodplain conditions discussed abQve would reduce the available land area in section 35 to a terrace overlooking the floodplain. This area is characterized by marginally favorable foundation ~onditions. This site is within the prime bear habitat indicated on E~:hibit 5, but is not within the prime moose habitat. The upper terrace of the site is in au open area and unprotected from winds. The site has moderately good views of Tsue.ena Butte and Deadman Creek. Of the three sites, it is the closest site to the proposed recrea- tional trail to Tsuena Creek. To date no cultural resource sites hcve been identified within the area. The Tsusena Creek site is the largest of the three sites. It was second closest to the dam site (5 miles) and had the least amount of wetland areas, The nature of the topography would require earthwork and terracing of the st:ructures, but the drainage and soil material are better than the Upper Deadman Creek site. The wooded area is well protected from winds by a ridge to the east and Tsusena Butte to the north. The head differential for water V-1 0 --" ' 1 () Table 4. CONSTRUCTION CA~P/VILLAGE -RATING OF CANDIDATE SITES Criteria I. Engineering Available Area (1=largest) Accessibility to damsite (l=most convenient) Wetland (l~least) Foundation Condi.tions Site Preparation (1=least earthwork) Soils (1=best foundation required conditions Drainage/Permeability (1=best drained site) Water Supply (l=most convenient) II. Environmental Visual Qualities/Living Environment Protected (1=most protected) View from Camp (l=best view) Visual Impact of Project ActiYities (1=least visual impact) Proximity to Lakes/creeks (1=most visually pleasing) Recreation Impacts to Proposed Recreation sites (1=least impact) Wildlife Habitat Impacts (1=least impact) Moose Brown Bear Eagle Nest Sites Fishery Impacts (1=least impact) Cultural Resource Sites ( 1=leas t number of known sites) ];./ All sites are in Range 5 East (RSE). Candidate Sites11 Tsusena Creek T33N 532 T32N S4,9 1 2 2 3 2 2 3 1 1 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 2 Lo·wer Deadman Creek T32 S14 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 Upper Deadman Creek T33N S35 3 3 3 2 3 3 1 2 2 2 3 2 1 3 3 2 1 ' '. (; ' ""; ~-'~..:...t.~u. :~~-, ~ supply at this site is the greatest of the three sites studied (approx. 200 ft). The Tsusena Creek site would adversely impact wildlife si~~e it is witnin a white spuce forest used for pr~e brown bear habitat and is close to the prime moose habitat at the confluence of Tsusena and Cl.ark Creeks. It would also adversely affect fisheries due to its proximity to Tsusena Creek. There were no known cultural resource sites within the area, but one located immediately west of the site~ this site posed no threat to proposed recrea- tion areas. Based on the quality of the living environment, the 'Tsusena Creek site was the best site due to its remoteness from construction activities, the avail~ ability of ponds and Tsusena Creek:fcr recreational enjoyment, the attract- ive views of Tsusena Creek and Butte, the wooded, terraced character, and the protection from winds. The main disadvantage with this site was its potential impact on brown bear and fish habitat. The Lower Deadman Creek site is the recommended location for the support facilities. The site's advantages are discussed in the next section. Its major disadvantage is that it·is in an open area and unprotected from" winds. In addition, if the camp is extended to the edge of the site, close to Deadman Creek, there lJ;ta.Y be adverse affects on fj.sheries from workers fis~ ing Deadman Creek. Stocking the various lakes in the site with game fish would partially mitigate this impact. There are also five known archaeolog- ical sites on the eastern edge nf the.site along Deadman Creek. Recommendation A comprehensive evalution of the final three conotruction camp/village cand- idate sites was cc~pleted and it is recommended that the Lower Deadman Ct·eek, T32N R5E Section 14, be selected. This site is recommended based on the following reasons: V-11 Engine~ring: 0 0 Proximity to the damsite, within 3 miles. The foundation conditions are adequate; the material consists of silty, gravelly sands and silty sands (SM) with trace to little cobbles and boulders; it is adequately drained and has a low frost susceptibility. o Due to the limited t:opgraphic relief aud the composition of the material at the site!., earthwork will bE! minimized and the need for a borrow source is remote, therefore reducing the overall cost of the foundation preparation. o Proximity ~o a water supply, Deadman Creek. Environmental: o No si~1ificant wildlife impacts were identified. 0 0 No significant fisheries impact to Deadman Creek. Availability of lakes for recreational use and for separating the camp and village (family and single status occupants). V-12 !' i l J \ I J < 1 ' I ; .. • j 6.0 AIRFIELD SITIRG STUDY General The planned temporary and permanent airfields at the Watana site will pro- vide support for the project during the design; construction, and the opera- tion and maintenance phases of the project. Contrary to the airfield scheme that was proposed in the FERC licen~e application (Exhibit 1), it is recom- mended that the temporary airstrip, which is to support the detailed geo- technical investigations required for design, be constructed at the per- manent airfield site. The location of the temporary airfield as shown in the license application is within the area delineat~d for Borrow Site D, a primary borrow site and may only be usable until the start of construction. It is planned that with the construction of the temporary airfield on the permanent airfield site the temporary strip could be upgraded and expanded to the required length for the permanent strip, thus reducing the overall cost for the airfields. A summary of the design criteria and engineering and environmental criteria used for evaluating alternative airfield sites is presented in Table 5. Airp~rt Design Criteria 'l'he temporary airstrip runway would be between 2000 to 2500 .feet in length. This airstrip would be a dirt strip and would require year-round main- tenance. The air.strip would be used only for VFR (Visual Flight Restric- tions) flights; its design would conform to all state, feocral and FAA regu- lations. l'he permanent airfield will be designed to accommodate B737, B727, and C-130 and various light aircraft. The minimum runway length required to accommo- date these aircraft is 6500 feet for elevations under 3000 feet. The air- VI-1 "'''""7"'-·:......J·-·.· ·.· ..... '. . ' . f ' · . ' ~··~r -.. :::;1, ,< ~ . .. ~;:~ ·. .f IY : ~ i ,) j .! Table 5. AIRFIELD SITING CRITERIA I. FAA Requirements..!./ A. Runway length B. Alignment c. Glide Path D. Maximum Grade E. Maximum Cross Slope II. Engineering ~equiraments A. Accessi.bility 1. Proximity to Dam 2. Proximity to .Access Roads B. Soils (Foundation Conditions) c. Wetlands III. Environmental Crj.teria A. Visual Impacts B. Recreation C. Wildlife D. Fisheries ______________ , ____ o Dependent on elevation and maximum air temperature; minimum 6,500 feet within the :study area o Soutltlwest-:ti>rtheas t o 50:1 ~lope for first 10,000 feet, 40:1 slope for next 40,000 feet ~ +1.5% roaximum, +0.5% first & last quarter c.· 1-2% o 0 to 10 miles, 15 miles maximum o ¥~nimize additional access road required to the airfield o Non-frost susceptible o Well drained granular materi~l o Lack of permafrost o M equate bearing strength o Minimize the amount of wetlands and therefore fill requireraents 6 Avoid sites within view of public access road o Avoid proposed or existing recreation sites o Avoid prime moose, bear and caribou habitat and eagle nests o Avoid additional bridges over Tsusena and Deadman Creek to minimize additional access to other habitat areas o Site as close as ;")Ossible to dam to minimize impacts to the area o Provide a minimum of approximately 200' setback from creeks 1/ From Federal Aviation Administration Circular 150/5300-12. 19ts3. ' \ port would be equipped for ~11 weather ~lights and have a Multiple Approach Light System (MALS) and an Instrument tanding System (ILS). According to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) cr!teria the glide path for the air- field will require a slope of 50:1 for 10,000 feet and 40:1 for the next 40 000 feet (FAA 1983). The maximum grade for the runway is +1.5% a.nd the ' - maximum cross slope is 1-2%~ All navaids and lighting locations will be FAA approved. The prevailing winds are assumed to be from the SW and therefore the orientation of the runway will be NE-SW. The airfield will be designed to meet Category I or II t'equirements of the FAA guidelines and will be licensed and certified by the FAA. Engine~ring Siting Criteria Major construction and maintenance problems may result if the airfield is placed on ice-rich or highly frost susceptible soils. Therefore it is essential that the best foundation conditions for the airfield be identified so as to reduce potential foundation problems and overall cost. In addi-_,. tion, if the site is characterized by low topographic relief, overall cost can be reduced by minimizing the amount of earthwork required or the need for a borrow site. The soils at the recommended site should have some or all of the following characteristics; ice-free, reasonably well-drained granular material, low frost susceptibility, and of moderate to high bearing strength. Environmental Siting Criteria Recreation and Visual Criteria. Since the airstrip will remain in place after completion of the project, impacts to proposed recreation facilities should be avoided. The airstrip should also not be highly visible from the access road, since the road will be open to the public ·after completion of the proJect. In addition to the existing recreation use and proposed recreation plan features discussed in Chapter 5, the airfiel.d study area also includes the proposed trails to Deadman Lake and to the Chulitna VI-2 l I I :';J. Mountains in T22S, R4W. The.se trails are proposed in Chapter 7 of the FERC license applicati.on and may be revised during the license amendment pro- cess. Fish and Wildlife Critefi~_. Fish and wildlife resources to be avoided in siting the airfield are dis<::ussed in Chapter 5 under the Camp/Village Envi·- ronmental Siting Criteria sraction indicated on Exhibit 5. In addition, the airfield study area include:; Deadman Lake and upstream portions of Deadman ~reek~ which contain arctic grayling fisheries-Trophy sized grayling have been found in the upper portion of Deadman Creek. Historic/Cultural Criteriae Archeological sites in the study area are indi- cated on Exhibit 6. Archec1logical concerns in siting the airfield are dis- cussed in Chapter 5 under C:amp/Village Er:tvironmental Siting Criteria. Selection and Evaluation of Candidate Sites Study Area. The general area considered for selecting potential locations for the permanent airfield was based on relative cost. Additional access roads and/or bridges would .increase the cost for construction and potential- ly open up other areas to e:nvironmental impacts. For these reasons conside- ration of lands on the south side of the Susitna River were eliminated. The area considered for delineation of potential airfield locations was limited to the north side of the Susitna River within a distance of 15 miles from the damsite. Using the above criteria, thE~ study area included T32N R4E, R5E, ar~d R6E; T33N RSE; and T225S RSW~ Preliminary Screening. Using the airport design criteria (runway length, glide path and wind direction), relatively flat areas wi'thin broad valleys or open areas were identified as potential sites for the airfield. A total of nine general areas were delineated using USGS topographic maps at VI-3 ,, I I 1:63,360 scale~ The location of the nine candidate sites are presented on Exhibit 19. Table 6 provides an evaluation of the nine sites based on the established criteria. Candidate Site Selection~ ~lee the nine sites with suitable topography were identified, two candidate sites were selected based on an analysis of foundation conditions and environmental impacts. After a comprehensive review and evaluation of the terrain units, unit Gta, an ablation till, was identified as having the most favorable foundation conditions and could be found over much of the area. Descriptions and the engineering properties of the soils in the area is presented in Table 2. In general, wetlands and poo:rly drained soils, soils subject to high frost susceptibility, ice-rich soils and/ or bedrock areas were excluded from con- sideration. Several sites WE~re identified as bei~g comprised of frozen ablation or basal till and WE!re therefore eliminated using the above criteria. Other disadvantage:s of the eliminated sites included the distance to the camp, a potential need for bridges, and additional access road length. The sites excluded f:rom consideration based on the above informa- tion are sites 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 9 (Table 6 and Exhibit 19). Final Evaluation of Candidate Sites. A preliminary e•;aluation wa~ conducted of the two remaining sites considered as potential locations for the air- field. A brief field reconnainsance of one of the sites plus overa1.1 familiarity with the area helpe\d to further evaluate these sites. Budgeta~y constraints precluded t.ny exploration work for the purpose of verifying the foundation conditions of the sites. Site 3 (T22S R4W, Sections 22,23:, and 27) wC.\S considered to have potentially favorable soils, but is located on the side slope of the Deachaan Creek valley {moderate to high cross slope) and is 11 miles frQ"Lll. the dam site. Impacts on the fisheries· aud the planned recreation t:cail at Deadman 1:..ake ·C "'.'.__j'. · ... ·. {/ .• : I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0 ,. .. , I ; \\ \ \' ·\ 1'l ·-~ ~i~.----------------11 =r=n· -;c-...... , -. . I _,ft1Mwt 1 me 'oi~WAH~--_ _ '\ . _ ___, . .. • -qa " . ,....... . w~\~ 'Jer·"'W'4-If!lt lnrtt:liin n 'Ill"" -. > . :tlt---~.o·d#=•'BBt•-~W'~-~···m~ •• NM._.__.~_.._ ... .__. .. _.~~.-~~~~~~~_.._ .. ~MM_. .... -.-..u~--~~~~----.1~~ -·~~•--ncr ~ sr~Wre' r VMrwe *'' 1 1 1 *' ). · 1 r ..,.J Plll:o•<;.il&;ll II . t'X M! ~~_,, __ ,.:,; ;, ...... CRITERIA 0 1'225 R4W SEC. 33, 34 T33N p:;~: S!: ::.16 ENGINEERING 1 a-SIZE Suffici~nt I l • ACCESSIBILITY -To Camp 9 miles -To Access Road 1.5 miles -Bridge Needed Yes '' - • SOILS (Foundation Unfavorable Conditions) • WETLANDS Limited wetlands • TOPOGRAPHY Slight relief ENVIRONMENTAL • VISUAL IMPACTS Visible from access road • RECREATION rlight path over pr•::> IMPACTS posed Deadman Lake trail • WILDLIFE 11ABITATS Within prime brown IMPACTS beat habitat e FISHERY IMPACTS No significant impact r • CULTURAL No known sites RESOURCE SITES I LAND OWNERSHIP State selected 1 I MAIN DISADVANTAGES ~o;able soils, far ' , camp, bridge I I !. ,;pd Table 6 EVALUATION OF PRELIMINARY AIRFIELD SITES . I PO'rENTIAL GAND!DATE SITE ·-® ® 0 ® ® 10 ® T22S R4\\' SEC. 20, T72S R4W SEC. 22, T32N RI\·E SEC. 26, T321\i R5E S!':C. 17, 19 T32N RSE SEC. 10, I T3:?N R6E SEC. 19, T32N R6E SEC. 13, 14 29,30 23.27 ~'7, 32 33 I 2, 11 20,30 ·-I - r r I I I Suff1cient I Suffident I Suff1c:ient I Suffici~:nt I. Sufficient I Suff1cient I su;ficwnt I - I I 9 miles 11 miles 8 miles 3.5 miles 1.25 miles 3.25 miles 7 miles 0.5 mile 1.5 miles 8 m1les 4 miles I 0.5 mile 3.5 miles I 7 miles No Yes Y~s Yes No Yes Yes I 1 l I Unfavorable Favorable UnfavoraLie Unfavorable • Favorable Unfavorable Unfavorable I No significant wetlands No significant wetlands Limited to no wetlands (, imited wetlands Limited wetlands Significant wetlands Significant wetlands Moderate to significant Slight relief Gently sloping Slight relief Gently sloping Relatively flat Relatively flat relief - Visible from access road Visible from nccess road No significant impact No signific,lnt impact Vis!b!e froffi access road, May be visible from May be visible from half mile from construct-reservoir reservoir ion camp Intersects proposed Flight path over pro-No significant ir..pac~ No significant ir.•1pact No significant impact No significant impact No significant impact southern Chulitna posed Deadman Lake Mountain trail trail No significant impacts Impact on beaver habitat Within moose habitat Within moose habitat I Potential impact to Bridge required would Bricige required would active eagle nest open access to east side open access to east side of Deadman Creek of Deadman Creek No significant impact Deadman Lake and Creek No dgnificant impact No significant impact h'o significant impact No signif:cant impact No significant <mpact No known sites No known sites No known sites No known sites Ho known sites No known sites No known sites • State selected State selected BLM (State and Native BLM (State and Native BLM (St,,'te and Native BLM (State and Native BLM (State and Native selected) selected) selected) selected) selected) Unfavorabh.: soils. Bridge needed Unfavorable soils, far Unfavorable soils, bridge Unfavorable soils, bridge Unfavorable soils, bridge signifkant rehef, from camp, bridge needed, requires realign-needed needed far from camp needed ment of transmission line . -· --· I ® T32N RSE SEC. 2::!, 23 Sufficient -- lJ.7'l miles 1 mile No Unfavorable Significant wetlands Relatively flat Visible from access road, adjacent to construction camp No significant impact No significant impact No significant impact No known sites BLM (State and Native selected) Unfavorable ! l i I I l I !@ bJ I i ' ' I I ~~ [ ~n ~M -8 ! j ' ·' /~I ·.:) 3 <· ----' ' '" ,) : ..... ........_ ______ r·c..::.-"'1..__:...:_.-....,·, __ ,.· ~·~-----~-------~----------~- would occur. This site is located on state land and therefore the time required to obtain a permit would be less than a site on feC.e:ral 1CLu.d. Site 6 (T32N R5E, Sections 10 and 11) is approximately one mile fran the proposed Construction Camp/Village siteo Tbe foundation conditions and the topographic relief of the site are presumed to be favorable based on a review of the wetland and terrain unit maps. To the northeast of the run- ~ay, in the general flight path of air traffic, an active bald eagle nest has been found (Exhibit 5). Protection criteria exist Which restrict areal activity to a minimum of 1/4 mile horizontally and 1000 vertical feet from the nest beween March 15-August 15. It is anticipated that air traffic can be routed away from the nest. The two candiate sites have undergone a preliminary evaluation, but further investigation 'idll be required to verify the foundation conditions at the sites. l1itigation measures which might be requirecl in response to the bald eagle nest must be drafted. Recom:nendation As a result of the ..,reliminary evaluation of the airfield candidate sites, it is recommended that the site in T32N RSE Sections 10, and 11 be consider- ed as the ~j te fo1r the temporary/permanent airfield. This recommendation is subject to the verification of the foundation materials at a later date. This site is selected based on the following reasons: Engineering: o Proximity to the construction camp/village site, (approximately 1 mile) VI-5 <: --_j 'I \ ~~ ~ h\ ~ ~ 4 1 ~ ' """ 1 ;I 'l :( A t ; l l J l 4 ~ J ~ i J ; ; _,_ T . j would occur. Thi~ site is located on state land and therefore the time requ:tred to obtain a permit would be less than a site on federal land. Site 6 (T32N RSE, Sections 10 and 11) is approximately one mile from the proposed Construction Camp/Village si~e. Tbe foundation conditions and the topographic r•~lief of the site are presumed to be favorable based on a review of the wetland and terrain unit maps. To the northeast of the run- wayj in the general flight pa.th of air traffic, an active bald eagle nest has been found (Exhibit 5 ).. Pt'otection criteria exist whi·~h restrict areal activity to a minimum of 1/4 mile horizuntally and 1000 vertical feet from the nest bewe,!n March 15-August 15. It is anticipated that air traffic can be routed away from the nest. The t\.TO candiate sites have undergone a preliminary evaluation, but further investigation will be required to verify the foundation conditions at the sites. Mitigation measures which might be required in response to the bald eagle nest must be drafted. Recommendation As a result of the preliminary evaluation of the airfield candidate sites, it is recummended that the site in T32N R5E Sections 10, and 11 be consider- ed as the site for the temporary/permanent airfield. This recommendation is subject to the verification of the foundation materials at a later date. This site is selected based on the following reasons: Engineering: 0 Proximilty to the construction camp/village site, (approximately 1 mile) VI-5 {' (: 1 ~4 " j J 0 0 0 0 0 The .foundation conditions of t:he site appear to be favorable; the material appears to be similar to thaL which was found at the con- struction camp/village location. The relatively flat te~rain and the favorable foundation material should minimize the amount of earthwork required and may eliminate the need for a borrow source. Proximity to the access road eliminates the need for additional access road length or bridges, resulting in reduced costs. Limited to no fisheries impact on Deadman Creek No significant impacts on the moose or bear habitats; potential impact to a bald eagle~ nest Following verificati~n of the foundation material at the airfield site, it will be necessary to establish the aerial restrictions due to the presence of an active bald eagles nest just to the northeast elf the proposed runway. Input from. the environmental disciplines would be required during final design of the airfield. VI-6 References Alaska Po.wer Authority. 1982. Susitna Hydroelectric. Project, Access Planning Study, Prepared by R & M Consultants for Acres American Incorporated. Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage. September 1982. Alaska Power Authority. 1983. Susitnd Hydroelectric Project. FERC License Application Proj. No., 7114-000. Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage. February 198.3. Ballard, w. 1985. Comm.tmication. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 1985. Personal Federal Aviation Administration. 1983. Airport Design Standards -Transpo~t Airports, Advisory Circular 150/530D-J.2. UoS Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration. 1983. Miller, S.D. 1985. Commtmication. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 1985. Personal Roseneau, D.G., Tull, C.E., and Nelson, R.w. 1981. Protection Strategies for Peregrine Falcons and Other Raptors along the Planned Northwe~t Alaskan Gas Pipeline Route. LGL Alaska Research Associates, Inc. Fairbanks, Alaska. 1981. uoS. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. National Wetlands Inventory Map. Draft. u .. s. Department of the Interior, Fish and W:tldlife Service. 1985. ' : ! ., •1 ,, ~ ' i .. ·.• _,.,. c .. ' -·""f .Li~ · ... ~.. . ·. '.i . ' l I ~ ~ t @ ---- t L TRANSMISSION LINES - ..._ ··. --~ '-._-.·· ......-;,;;;-···-"'.--- :.. ~ ~~ _. .. -•. _ ... , ~ ... --:;=--:;-.·" ::::::/" ~ ~ 1600 . -----,soO~ ~----~ zooo / · _ ___..,. ~ -~ /2200~ -~"""'''"'--"H_..__.__,_~-...__.,., • ....._K_""-..__,..__, .. ~ ... ~~·-..·--··-·------........ ----7_-... __..~-· ... -- •'' ;rc'~ -~~---, ·---- -o~ ; ,fl',.. ~~ ..... .":""" -~ ........ \t:::· .. ":;:~ ~-· 'J"."....- .;... PERMANENT AIRSTRIP '1 ~~{'--/ ~ C.-<' • +....., L' ~-+-..,.. ~E.s~-~~'~-::== ~ I ALASKA POWER AU7HORITV SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT 0 2000 r""', WATANA SUPPORT FACILITIES FERC l~CENSE GENERAL LAYOUT SCALf l__ ..J 1--~ I ~-~lit lUlU IU JOIN I VINI,'UII\1 •~FOIOVI:l ! ............. •••·• ••••• ••••••• •• ••••••••••• "" 0\11 IOIU,'IIIIHIIIoO ANCttOAAOE, ~:LASKA AUGUST 1983 EXHIBIT 1 ' \ 1 l .... ) @P 1 1 I 1 li 1 I .;1 SCALE· 0 <4 MILES ....___ _ ___, ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY SUSI"~"NA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT WATANA SUPPORT FACILITIES FERC LICENSE ACCESS PLAN ~-nn~= aualh4 ..0 .. 1 YI111U'If A-O\'t:O I I l r j l I 1 ! I 1 t l I j t l ) ,·c~ r.· .\ ,, ~ i '~ 1 'l l ' ! \ l ' "' . 1 '! d J 1 , . . I q • \t ~{ ~ --4 i ~ ~ ~ ;1 '~ ,, \ J 1 ~ --J 'l 1 ~ ' I ~ ~ H· d ! ~ J ~( ! .. J ! 1 ~ :j 1w '· ~ d I ~ J would occur• This. site is located on state land and therefore the time required to obtain a pe~mit would be less than a site on federal land. Site 6 (T32N RSE, Sections 10 and 11) is appro~imately one mile fran the proposed Construction Camp/Village site • Tbe foundation conditions and the topographic relief of the site are presumed to be favorable based on a review of the wetland. and terrain wit maps • To the northeast of the run- way, in the general flight path of air traffic, an active bald eagle nest has been found (Exhibit 5 ) •. Protection criteria exist which restrict areal activity to a minimum of 1/4 !tile horizontally and 1000 vertical feet from the nest beween March 15-August 15. It is anticipated that air traffic can be routed away from the nest. The tw~ candiate sites have undergone a prel1minary evaluation, but further investigation will be required to verify the foundation conditions at the sites. Mitigation measures which might be required in response to the bald eagle nest must be Jrafted. Recommendation As a result of the preliminary evaluation of the airfield candidate sites, it is recommended tr~t the site in T32N R5E Sections 10, and 11 be consider- ed as the site for the temporary/permanent airfield. This recommendation . is subject to the ~"erification of the foundation materials at a later date. This site is selected based on the following reasons: Engineering: o Proximity to the construction camp/village site, (approximately 1 mile) VI--5 l 0 0 0 The foundation conditions of the site appear to be favorable; the material appea~s to be similar to that which was found at the con- struction camp/village location. The relativ~ly flat terrain and the favorable foundation mate~ial should minimize the amount of earthwork required and may eliminate the need for a borrow source. Proximity to the access road eliminates the need for addi ti.onal access road lengt'' ot bridges, resulting in reduced costs • . o Limited to no fisheries impact on Deadman Creek 0 No significant impacts on the moose or bear habitats; potential impact to a bald eagles nest }'allowing verification of the foundation material at the airfield site, it . will be necessary to establish the aerial res-trictions due to the presence of an active bald eagles nest just to the northeast of the proposed runway. Input from the environmental disciplines would be required during 1:1nal design of the airfield. VI-6 C;f \ ' L..) J l u ' JJ ~ . JJ i j ' <1/j d .... • 1 j Re~ferences Alaska Power Authority. 1982. Susitna Hydroelectric Project, Access Planning Study, Prepared by R & M Consultants for Acres Amer'ican Incorporated. Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage. September 1982. Alaskc. Fo·wer Authority. 1983. Susit:na Hydroelectric Project. FERC License Application Proj. No. 7114-000. Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage. February 1983. Ballard-, w. 1985. Communication. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 1985. l?ersonal Federal Aviation Administration. 1983. Airport Design Sta-,.;;dards -Transport Airports, Advisory Circular 150/530D-12. u.s Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration. 1983. Miller, S.D. 1985. Communication. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 1985. Personal Roseneau, D .. G., Tull, C. E., and Nelson 11 R.w. 1981. Protection Strategies for Peregrine Falcons and Other Raptors along the Planned No~thwest Alaskan Gas Pipeline Route. LGL Alaska Research Assoc:fates, Inc. Fairbanks, Ala.ska. 1981. u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. National Wetlands Inventory Map. Draft. u.s. Department of the Interior, ~ish and Wildlife Service. 1.985. f '~ f ® --;-r~~~SMISSION --£._____, ...... /2200 0 SCALE L 2000 FT ____ _jf • _.,....,.I)-·-~-·':\,:",_ •. -... -~".-r--t.~~'-~-.. ,._.-............... _....--~--_._.~.,..._ ... _...._::---"~;:::" .. ~--..':"':":'r ........ -~,.-....._ ... ~---.. -.-._---.-.~~~-'"ti...~..-r-~-...--------·- ) ~ ~ PERMANENT AIRSTRIP ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT WATANA SUPPORT FACILITIES FERC LICENSE GENERAL LAYOUT ~-[I!J£1ltt,Ql IUIIfiiA JOiiU WllitUitl APPitOVID!••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• -OA T1 DI141WM<4 If(! ANCHORAGE, ALASKA AUGUST 1983 EXHIBIT 1 n " ,;;.,. .SCALE.~'-------...~ MILES ALASKA. POWER AUTHORITY SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT W/'TANA SUPPORT FACILITIES FERC LICENSE ~CCESS PLAN ~·rn.;~ S~&tT•• .IO~'J ,l!-c1ultt .f:lifl"'!!llltOYIO ·-;.•·•-••••-·••••••••••·····-•••••-••••••••• "" l!)a'IT 1010••-11.'0 A~A~A.I..A~;~." AUGUST 1983 EXHIBIT2 ·r.,,·· .. --.-: .. ""· ' ' • •1: ~ A& ~~ ---- ~ "C <: .5 .. a: '0 "' ~ -£: • <: ~ mN .. .~m a ::l~ .. .,,: .. "' "' ~ -u ·c: .~ ·.: ::l .. "' g E <: ~~ ·e :t: .. ~ ·-e 1-"C u e~ "' ~ 0: £ 0 "' .;! ::1: c ....... 0 5 ·c-,: ·= ... :J.-0.. == c"C'tjN ~ ·e <: Kl.=! .. ~&"t>i j!:~~.q..; • r< I > 1-a: 0 :X: .... ::l < a: UJ ?: 0 a. < ~ UJ c( ..J < • I I l ' •' w U) a: w LO a: w LO .h7~~~~~~~~~~iAT~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~a: -.. .. - ID~ !::':1: :::!0 U.J <(-u.O 1-tl') a:o ow c..N c.._ :::l..J U)c:t <ta: . z w ! ~z II <(W 3C!J 1!1 . I jj ! c ~ ~ 0 ·-r • ii l ~ j I l ! l I ' l i l 1 ' 1 i -J I l .· .. "l J •• ..... I I I I I ~· 101 !1 !-" 11 !.~ , k' ... I I I I I •• I I ',) .--.It " ~) II' -~~ \) ~· ·' I . 12 He () 0 f,) ~l {t 0 Scali 0 1 Mill "f. C• " 1] ·., .. '!.' ' ... <,: ~-:. ,,;_-.. ~: : .... ' ••• ,< ~~ ·;--. ·r~~ • --~, LEGEND UPLANDS L ----~~ f., .............• WETLANDS :n·;;.:~s;~:.§:? L Wetlands Map data is from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory, 1:63,360. WATANA SUPPORT FACILITIES GENERALIZED WETLANDS MAP I :1 fi:~ o!T jl 1j, ir I'·, If 1: 1: . I I :• 1 ·I I I I I 0 f'l lM I I I I ll I -• I I L ~~ :) J:F <;<- 10 ·A~' '"' ~; ,.' (_' 0 11 \\i •, RSE I R6E ~ Sc•l• 1 0 i 1 Mila r!"""' I :· ;· .. {~\~.~~ '.·~;,~;,_1'. I ;t::,,·,· r r: J ' . ' ' l PRIMARY MOOSE HABITAT (fall Concentration Area) PRIMARY BROWN BEAR HABITAT (Late Spring Concentration ,O.rea) EAGLE NEST LOCATION I 1/2 Mile Radius Restriction Zone) GOLDEN EAGLE NEST NUMBER BALD EAGLE NE'ST NUMBER ~WZJ ~~)-~I 0 GE-10 BE-6 1. Moost~ and Bear Habitat Areas represent !)ener31 location of habitat. 2. Eagle Nest Restriction Zona represents 1/2 mile radius activity restrictions used In the State of Alaska as guidelines. 3. Source fo·r eagle nest locations Is the "Summary Statement For Bald and Golden Eagles in The Sustina Hydroelectric Project Area", A lulu! Power AuthoritY, 1984. 4. Moose and bear habitat Information is from personll communic:~tion with the Alaska Depanment of Fish and Game, 1985. L i· I 1. il ~y u f:OLC . LE.NGil 112 'J1 IB.5 ~3 AU'fC ·~ •• I~EEC : •, i. ---· ·--~ ........ ---~~-------,~-.-.. .......... _~· ... ·-·_,_,......_.~--... ·~--------"'"'~~--............ --.,..,.,...,.__.. ____ .........._.._..,._... ~.._~_, _ _......,...._......_..._-.~----.---:-!;""~""~~---~~--~iiiiiiii:,...,· C! '{) J ~ r') . ·r· , ___ .;_:.,~,~ .. ·-. _"):::;/" c ,~~ t 0 !I D: I I I I I I· f3 l&'j I I I I I I .. It I ·"'" V,l !J•'· CP {,.,";/" " fJ 0 'l·:·. ·:::. ,-::;:, ,, I r=' ~ r-...... _ ' I ---·~·~ \. :_ . 4 ·-.... \Ill.:._ . ..,, "' ' ' ~~~ <'' ~~ ~· '· ... (i 0 c_.,. f; ·" /;.;I,; .,; ... :\¥'• ' ,., i•, ... "" "''"'•' ,. <1'-:"" _..L.,..,..: ' :/' ~ -I 11-t..f~ ~~-.· ~\. .! ~-~-' 1--: 4 /../' / ~· ' <L f, q !) Ci@ Scali 1 0 . Milt e-"1 .. PROPOSED RECREATION TRAIL PRO!'OSED CAMPSITES AND TRAILHEADS ARCHEOLOGICAl;-SITE NOTES LEGEND ______ ....,. eo ® 1. Recreation trails and campsites are proposed in the Alaska Power AuthoritY, Final Application for License for Major Project, Susitna Hydroelectric Project, 1983, Chapter 7. 2. SQurce for.archeological.sites is Dixon, et. al , UniversitY of Ala$ka Museum, Cultural Resources Studies for the Alaska PoW!!r AuthoritY. 1985. Al.ASKA POWER AUTHORITY WATANA SUPPORT FACILITIES RECRIEATJON/ARCHEOl.OGICAL SITES ~·IDARO "'"'" .. ,..., .... ,., .. AHCitOR~OE. ALAliKA _.....-~-· .... -·-~ .. ·-·--·-------............. -..... "'~~--=,._,·--'""·---~----·""'·----::--~----~-~..,-~ . ..... ... __,._ ............... ~-~--~~--··--·- \) --------------~· --~' '·" J· A.UTO ... ~ ~ ~ I I I I I I I 1/?' p I I I I I I I ! I I .~-t.:,_'~,. ~"'" ~--r-, .. ,, LEGEND • "!'911 ~0·'~ ., ..... __ .. ,. ::jt,~::: f~ .:.:.:::::£~~;· ['...:'(SJ (//2) C=:t @] NOTE STUDY AREA BOUNDARY PUBLIC PARKS PRIVATE FEDERAL RAILROAD NATIVE SELECTION STATE SELECTION SUSPENDED STATE SELECTION STATE SELECTION PATENTED OR TENTATIVELY APPROVED BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT SECTIONS CONVEYED TO COOK IN!..'ET REGION,INC. 1. Source for l&nd natus is the Final Application For License For Mojor Profject, Susltna Hydroelectric Projt'Ct, Alaska Power Authority, Febru11ry 1983, ChaPtel 9. SCALE O 3 6 9 MILES ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT WATANA SUPPORT FACILITIES LAND OWNERSHIP ~-~ ANQlORAG£. ALASKA I Guan•" .,._, .,.,.,., ,,..,..~•-··-·····-·-:,:::::.::.::.·-···••"••••••••••• .... ,. FEB 1983 r··E~HIBIT7 ··~• ·-• ---~·o·-• -•-~-..... ~··-·~~--~-·---·~-.,-•.-·-.-----------.,_ ~~-:~J:'I'i ~ ·~, :,.~<: • 1f,~fb·, 4"'' o} •, ~<~··'-. :~ ... :-f'\'l~.J~*).f.J:t'';1L:~;;;:f::;~~'.,_,«!~'fl;. -'t>.~~:-"":'·~··j ~ .. : () ;;; ; ~. I I I -! ' I I ) G1 m I I I I I •• I I 12c .'·t._t ,, " ·-~; > (\ 'O It () <) ({@ Scali 1' 0 1 Mill r:=s;e-""' .. ,_ , ..... --~ \rcc ;; ,_; q_ .~ ~') (,~ C·~.cccCCC•••': .... c .• ' - " ,. ~ -· -· ' " UNFAVORABLE SOILS (Bxu, Cs, Gtb, L, 0) WETLAND PRELIMINARY CAMP/VILLAGE SITE LEGEND [ J 1. The Soil Units v.oere differentiated using the R and M Terrain Unit Maps, Acres American, 1982, AppendixJ. 2. A description of the Terrain Units is presented in Tllbla2. 3. Wetlands Map Data is from the U,S. Fish and Wildlif!l Servie13, fllational Wetlands lnwntory, 1 :63, 360, WATANA SUPPORT FACILIT(ESl " cc _PREUMINA-RYL_ .. C.AMPNtt.LAGE SCREENING. OGADI.&A•IDA800 tw•lf•• .-.t ,..~,.,.. ~1Uo31CA • ----·' ... .,.. •• ·---a-.,..,.-__ ...,. .. ------·-- 0 r> AUTO ·~ JL. FEED '"·r::.··.-.-" ... <, ' --,~ '\ -~ ~~;_. ·; . ':... ~-~ ~::}<_~- . ·i) ' ~' . ~. ~~~!:: ~~ I'":~~- I i I I -,_,_ /! ;;_, . c: '(i -... .. I) il tjl Rl ~ I I I I I I I a I .. L =- <.;.• l,j ~·· >:/' .. C) ).':J -::.··· "(_) -(• v ;,, .. ,·; ;_, -o' . ;,") {~) ·1': 0 Sl:ale f 0 1 Milt ~-_,;;;;;-or:; .,;;_-;--: UNFAVORABLE SOILS (Sxu. Cs, Gttl, L, 0) LEGEND WETLAND~~ PRIMARY MOOSE HABITAT 0~'l'/:/.] (Fall Conc~ntrauon Areal " · · EAGLE NEST LOCATION I With Y. Mile Radius Remiclion Zone) PROI-'uSED RECREATION TRAIL PROPOSED CAMPSITE AND TRAiLHEAD ARCHEOLOGICAL SITE' CANDIDATE CAMrJfVILLAGE Sll'E NOTE f\~;;,;_;;;:\•··. <\, ~] L~;~t·\ ---~- 0 ... ...--.--..o~~~: ~9 @ -- 1. See EXHIBITS 3, 4, 5, and 6 for source and not~s; for unfavorable soils, wetlandJ, wildliie hnbitat end !'ecreation/arcnnological site1, WATANA SUPPORTFACILITIES~ ---CAMP!VILL.~GEl CANDIDATI!'SITES EVA~L~U..,...A,....,T=E=D-. ----·· ..... ····--·~---. -·-·---···-~--·-·""·---.:::--7~·--·-~-.,-~~-------,,-----~-·-~-,....... ·__ .:. ~--·-··r-----·---------·~--·---------~---~--·-c-~----,---~-----~ "-;"'T?·' '"''· " l j· l 1 ... •. ' .. ll . E:D ,:oJ lY I t j 1 1 I I ) ~~ I l .I i! , ' l J i 'l I I l l J l \ 1 i J \ \ I I· I ) 'l J i t l l \] . i' .. ' l I ! l l [ l l l l I l l 'I jJ. • AUGER HOLE (~umber refen to profiles on EXH151rs 11 •nd 121 CANDitJATE SITE LOCATIOt• NOTES ' <:. --. -.....--.. --,<...~ LEGEND • S20 r-' a s, ~Z@d ~ 1. Topo£~:::Jh•,• bd:·-i on U.!:.G.£. Tooo:;•~p'li:: M:,. 1 , e3,3t'O .. \ ' ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY SUSITNA HYDAOELECT~C PROJECT WATANA SUPPORT FACILITIES LOWER DEADMAN CREEK SITE BORE'HOtE LOCATION PLAN l>';i...'i:.':.&•lll.~ t"'l '•i.JCI,.'!\I•tUIIII ...... :OYt! ............................................................ ., ..... ,. .... .,., I. 2. Candidat~ site is approx!mat!.' nnd. bu~o on air p'lOto 'nternrcti>L • .n. 3. Profiles are shown in EXHIBLi 11 ~ , ........ "" •Nc'lM~G'l'~ .. ~ w:E19C!j e>:Hien 10 L~.~~----------------·--------------------~------------~--------~ I I I I t I i ! I C" I I I i I I I ! t I 1 l I ! I \ ' I I I 5 I ,~ -i- t!J t!J [ ·I IJ.. ..... :::c 10 1- I a.. t!J 0 15 I I I .! I ~~ ·I ~ • .• .,. P'M!!!I'rnmrs __ ._ •• TTD Ill' 7 Dlll1 •- NW SE -1- t!J 2600 AH-S 11 UJ I IJ.. - AH-S20 AH-S 10 I I AH-S 13 I z: 2500~ 0 l-2400 <: > t!J ...J ·------,---------r-------~---------.~---------.------~1 I .11 0+ 00 40 + 00 60 + 00 80 +DO 20 + 00 PROFILE 8-B EXAGGERATED SCALE 4V:1H AS-S1 1 FL. 24r!3.2 .AS-813 EL 2406.0 AJ;i~S20 EL. 24 06_2 ORGANICS SILTY SAND, TRACE GRAVEL, LITTLE F!N.ES, SM SILTY, GRAVELU SAND INCREASE IN GRAVEL SILTY S,\ND CON 'T. S'\fll-, LITTU. GIR.· TRA:}E !='INES. Sf' GqAVELLY SAND,, SOME GR.<\ VEL. TRACf.: TO Li"rTLE FINES; SP-SM SANDY SILT, FROZEN; ML SlL TY SAND, TRACE TO UTTLE GRAVEL, LITTLE FINES, SM SILT", GRAVELLY SAND, INCREASE IN GRAVEL CONTENT, SM SILTY SAND. DECREASE REFUSAL HJ GRAVEL CONTENT, SM RE~='USAL REFUSAL AH-810 EL 2404.6 SILTY GRAVELLY SAND SOME GRAVEL, LITTLE FINES, SM REFUSAL 7 •m H 7 LEGEND ~ ORGANICS ~ SANDY SILT ~ SILTY SAND ~ Q.~~ SILTY GRAVELLY SAND lt1' ~ LABORATORY TEST SAMPLE NOTES: 1. TOPOGRr'\PHY IS APPROXIMATE BASED ON USGS TALKEETNA MOUNTAINS QUADRANGLE, D-3, 1:63360 2. PROFILE LOCATION SHOWN ON EXHIBIT 10 . ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY SUSITNA. HYDROELECTRIC PROJE~T WATANA SUPPORT .CACILITIES .LOWER DEADMAN CREEK SITE PROFILE D-S ~-iJ':i,U.::::; •u•"••..:-o•r 'I'JIIItu•r --.. -.. - --,.. GRADf,TION SIZE ANALYSIS """'""' ·--- u, s, Sltn~ar4 Shu llptnl~a• In ln~hu U, S, Sttnd~rd Sh11 lfi..but Hxdrp,!lthr u ' • l l 11/2 I !/4 1/Z )/8 ( 10 10 40 6) 10100140 zoo 270 100 .,. I -~~ ' r· I 1 100 -··-----+~1 ,I I 1\~ ~"t--.. -· ---_....,__ ·--- 90 . -t.... P.IH..:. 821 ~~~ 1'-1'. . . --1-1-----. ----1--90 '\' J~ ~ -1----· -+----' "" uo -"' l't'-.. 'r-.. ' ---------Ull -........ ~ "" ---I--I---------- 70 +-1--I'-' 0.. I'~ -I-f--I-----1--- - /0 -i "' :-...._ lA" t\. ---------... 60 r-.. I-AI I-S1 .c: .. ~ ~~-61 o:::· t-. ~ "' ---·~-<-----~ 60 ... r-...... !:' l ;; ):-. ':\. ·-1-·--1--1----~- .. ~50 )'. " " ;,. -I-:.· ~· -~) 13 .J !'-.. 1\ l'\ .• "'-:. -t-----. -50 r .. " t --I " '' L"0 -. ---·I---... 40 -. -1-40 ... .. ~ ~ -. ----- "' "' .. .. 1--c: t! -S14 ... -------.. ~ 30 "~'~ :-... _f ·A1i I! --1-30 .. " ft: . -------... . --.. -1--f---......... 20. . f'""' .. 1-20 10 r:: ~ . ---1--1- . ·--.. -,_ 1-----10 -I----. . -- -----1- i ! ' <~ r I 0 1000 500 100 50 10 5 I 0.1 0,1 0.05 0,01 o,oos o.oo1° r Grtln Sin In HIIIIMhl"l IOIJLDCU conus I GRAHL I SAHD I FIMU Coaru Tint Coaru 1 Mtdl..,. -1 ftftl I Sill Sflu ~llr Sl n~ ' lAI IUT 110. IO~IHQ 110, SMPL[ KO, D!PTK ClASSifiCATIOH (lriCJ ALASI<A POWER AUfHOniTY I ! I l ·' 'J AH-SlO et~1 2.0-2.5 SILTY, GRAVELL V SAND, SM, F2 SUSI!IV. ltYtJIICX.LEC TlliC I'IIOJI Gl MI-S12 Cl-1 2,5-G.O SIL TV SAND, SM, F2 AI-l-S 13 Cl-2 9.0-9.5 SIL·ry, GRAVELLY SAND, SM, F2 WATANA SUPPORT FACILITIES AH-S14 Cl-1 3.0-3,5 SIL TV SAND, SM, F3 LOWER DEADMAN CREEK SITE AH·S20 . GRADATION ANALYSIS Ct-1 2.0-Z.S SIL TV, GRAVELLY SAND, NONPLASTIC, SM ~I ~OAt IWIUAl ClASS HI CAliON ~.:n.'lll<•ltL .. f()') ~ ,...,., __ ..... _ ...,._ .... p----o:ii .. ---- '" ... "'""' ...... •JUNE 198U EXHIDIT12 1 6/30/05 . ) ) 0 36 AUGER r.OLE ~ell profii~Js on (~•umber r.,fel'5IT·~· 14 •nd 15) --,_ •·o E~~;iiB "'' t f PROFILE, C C · a "''E BITE-LOC CANDID,.., ATION W!?i//JJI/j . MaiJ 1 : 63,360 NOTES U S G.S. Topographa\ Ph~to int~rpnnauon. bas~>d on • • d bas"d on ao T opograPil\ -·mate an -1. • b approxo 2 Candadatc sote • EXHISIT M • • ., •howo '' ··--· 3. '""'". - - I • • I I I I I I I ~ I I I I I I I I I -!:- 1!J 1!J v .... -z 0 r-- < > UJ ~.J lJJ a ...... -1-5-w UJ u ... -:r. 1-a.. w 10 0 15 sw ru:. 2800 AH-SS AH-SB AH-S9 AH-S6 2700 2600 I J I ~- 25~0 AH-S5 El. 2546.7 0 -1-00 AH-sa EL. 2585.7 I 20 +oo 40 +DO PROFILE C-C EXAGGERATED SCALE 4 \': i H AH-S9 EL. 2523.1 ~~a NONPLAS""JC, M!.... :j TO L!TTLE GRAVE!.., -• ;~ : •• SOMe: FINES, AH-36 El. 2615.9 60 +DO "<';!: GRAVEL. LITTLE TO 0 SOME FINES, SM ~SANDY SIL'i. Ff!OZEN,I':. SILTY SAND, TRACE 1-:i PEAT, f-ROZEN. PT ;;~ :~~ FROZEN, SM •. ~g ~ t~ SANDY Sll T. TRACE ~~:Jl f:~ ~'tl GR.AVI=L, SOME SAND, ·~~~;·· SILTY SAND, TRA8E 3;.:£ ,,;,t. {. :)! SILTY SAND, Tl2ACE ·f! )1 SATURATED, Ml GRAVEL. SOMt::. SILT, ~;:.; SM ~ REFUSAL *~ ·/ ReFUSAL REFUSAL LEGEND t.:7:l ORGANICS SANDY SILT t~~~ SILTY .S,;ND ~ SILTY GRAVELLY SAND ~ LABORATORY TEST SAMPLE NOTES: 1. TOPOGRAPHY IS APPROXIMATE, BASED ON USGS TALKEETNA MOUNTAINS QUADRANGLE, D-3, 1:63360 2. PROFILE LOCATION SI-IOWN ON EXHIBIT 13 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY SUSITNA HYDROELECTRI::; PROJECT Wtl ANA SUPPORT FACILITIES UPPER DF..ADMAN CREEK SITE PROFILEC-C ·- ~-rr:u.:.::: I au,,, ... .10 .. , "•••v•t .-.oYit. ···-· ........... -....................... ~ ................................. l ... n • ...,..._.......,< ANCHO'>A~ J<i..ASI<A JUNE: • ')BS I EXH1Bl7 14 : ( l I I i l i l ~----··-~ . GRADATION SIZE. ANALYSIS U, s. Sltndar4 Shn Opu;lilil In lnthu U, S, Sh11dard ~ltv• "U..bera Htdr011ehr u ' I 3 l 11/Z I 100 l/4 l/1 l/S ( IO 20 417 •o 10 100 teo zoo nc "' 1-'. -f-t-• . . . 100 \ "" t...::: . '--.... -- 90 t..... - ......... --f-~ ----90 -. -1-1---1-rt---· !"----1-- liO f---r:~ \ . - """' -.-1-"'--'r-... -----Ull ---' \ 70 -"-... ' ...... ----·-f--- \~ " -----70 - --. .. 60 !'--.. . ---f--1---------- .0: ---- -- ~ ............ 60 .. .. -- --c "' . - ... ~ 50 " . --r-1-r--f.-----; -"' ~ f'-" -1-50 ... [\ ~r-s~: ... - ;;: 40. ' ~ i --' ~ ---f---.. ~ ;;: " ---r-40 .. -- ---~ e -. 1--~I';: .. --" ::. 30. - -1-~----~ ------.. --1-1-.. I! !'--.. --r-.:·-· --·--I--30 .. .. . . 20 I'. -. -1-1--lti . --1 "' 1--~-sa·~_ 1---20 - 10 ' -I ..... -f--1-1--1-- -1- -- - . ---I- c.: A t\-S7 --1-------10 0 ,_:C ....., f-- I tooo soo · ' !90 50 IO 5 I 0.1 0,1 0.05 o.ool 0 . Gral11 Slu In Hllll .. ltrl 0.01 0,005 ' I IOULDllS COUlU I GAI!Y[l I SA/Ill I Cotru I rlnt I Cotru .I I fiiiB Htdl.,. Pint I Sill Sllll ~ht Slu l.J.I lUI 110. IOAI~Q 110, SNIPL[ HO, D£P1H (lAISifiCATIDH (lriC) ALASKA POWE:R AUTHORITY AI-I-SS Ct-2 5.0-5.5 SANDY Sll T, NONPLASTIC, ML, F3 SUSIINA tiYDitOlLI:CllliC J'IIOJLCI AH-S7 Ct-2 6.5-7.0 SILTY, GRAVELLY SAND, GP-GM AH-SB Ct-1 3.5-4.0 SILTY SAND, '1</ATANA SUPPORT FACILITIES S_f:!, F:3 UPPER DEADMAN CnEEK SITE I GRADATION ANALYSIS l -I YI~UA1 IIAHUA1 ClAHirt£AfiDH ~~;.~!~~ -·~· l .. u. ...... ,. ......... JU~g 1905r----;~~H~;~~:==-. 6/30/05 •••• ..... 11 &'SWHRJ•'Pl?ifasa DPswaw=~·~--=-·-------~· AUGF.R HOLE (Number refers to profiles on EXHIBITS 17•nd18) LEGEND • 52 \ ~ROFILE t l. A A CANDIDATE SITE LOCATION [·/f/:~';<r·;'t/1 NOTES 1. Tooooraohv based on U.S.G,S. Topogra;1hic: Man, 1 ~ 63,360 2. Cand 1 d~tc Sltt' js approximate end based on eir photo i11terpreta!lrm :?.. Profile:. arc shown In EXHI&IT 17 ALASI<!A POWER AUTHORITY SUSITNA HYDROELEC!!:!!£. PROJECT WATANA SUPPORi FACILITIES TSUSENA CREEK SITE BOREHOLE LOCATION PLAN I I -I J-w UJ u.. ,_, I Z, 0 -!-< I > UJ ...J w Ji!l!!t I .I I I] \' tJ 0 I I -J- UJ UJ 5 u. ...... I I J- 0. JJ.I I 0 10 I 15 I I I I N-NW AH-S1 I 2500 2400 2300 D+ 00 AH-S1 El. 2395.7 .AH-S15 I AH-S15 EL. 2435.3 AH-S2 I 2u+ oo AH-S2 EL. 2391.2 I 40 +DO ~ SILTY SAND, ~,_.:.; SILTY CLAy LITT:E G~AVEL ~-;\ SIL TV SAND, LITTLE !J FRO ........ N, SM .~f St.~ -:_~ SOM~/I~._S, Q.. GR,!, VEL AND FINES; ORGANICS; ML-uL SILTY SAND, LITTLE GRAVEL, SOME FINES FROZEN;SM :/.· ~~ <"') j,., ~. SILT.-{, GRAVELLY t~: · SAND SOME :/, ~ •. :. GRAVEL. LITTLE '{: FINES; SM SILTY SAND, CONT'T. REFUSAL REFUSAL SILTY, GRAVELLY SArm SOME GRAVEL AND FINES: SM REFUSAL AH-S 19 I AH-S 18 l 60+ 00 PR10FILE A-A EXAGGERATED SCALe 4 V: 1 H I ao +oo 100 + 00 AH-S19 EL. 2482.6 AH-S18 EL. 244 9.0 AH-S17 EL. 2337.7 SILT. SL TO MED PLASTICITY, FROZEN; ML SILTY SAND, TRACE GRAVEL, SOME FINES, NONPLASTIC; SM S-SE AH-S 17 I 120 + 00 Sll.TY SAND, TRACE GRAVEL, LITTLE Sin. SM CILTY, GRAVELLY SAND; TRACE TO SOME GRAVEL, LITTLE TO SOME FINES; SM REFUSAL REFUSAL RCFUSAL ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY i K I' GRADATION SIZE ANALYSIS r---··~~----------------------------~~~~~~~~~~~~~--=-------------------------------~ .. c ... .. :>1 .. ... ~ c i: .. 0: .. ~ 1.. U. S. Standar4 Slav• Opanlnga In lnchtl U, S, Sl~ndera Shv., H~ara 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 -f-- H4-H-r-r-r--I-----HHH~-~I--I--~----HHHHf-~~~--I-----HH- . -f-1- ... --- 1--1----+---+ -1--1--t--+---1 -11-~-+--+----~~H~~-+-1--~------ -1--1--l--lr----1+++-H-t--+--+----1·--i---1--- H-t-4--4-=t~-~90 -~---~-~--on . --------20 I r- -1--·---- 1000 500 100 50 10 5 I 0,1 0,1 o.os 0,01 Q,OOS '"'~ Slu In Hllll .. ltre I •ooLDtll conus I GRAHL I SAIID T fiHCS :J '--------~---------L~C~o~ar~··~--L-~f~ln~·----~~~·~r~u~I--~Mo~d~I~~---L-1 __ ~,1~··~--~~-------~S~I~It~S~I~u~~-----------L~~~·~r~s~lr~~ LAI l[Sl hQ, ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY WATANA SUPPORT FACILiTIES TSUSEN.l\ CREEK SITE I GRADATION ANALYSIS VIWM IWIUAl ClAHifiUJIO~ e-1!~!:'::,.!!-:'.;!!:0 ~·"• =----~ j:-..__.:...,_-.,.:::::::::_-:_-_-_.:..::_-:_-::_-:::_-:::::::::_-:_-_-::_-:_-_~::::::_-:::::_-_-::_-::_~::_-:::::::_-:J_ . ...;-:_.=.-:._ .. -:_ .. -:_.-.. ~.JL!J-U~~~·E;..1 .:.,:19~B;:~5L:... ___ 1 ..:E.;.;X.;.;H:.;:IB-:.:.:_~T~ 6/30/85 ;: I L ;;"'J r I • I I I I I I 0 r• ' l u I I I I I I I ~..... f • " \ ' ( .. J • • : ~.. • ,, • •• ' • ' ·-~~ ---.. • ..~ --• I) "· ~ • • • • ·, ........ ' • ;{ .-' ~ ' r.'"' -,-~ ' I. • ... • -J l' . ~ ... ·~..:;..,.~---/ ' --•' _: -.,I , -~ I ·-.:-J·• -.~·-' LEGEND CANDIDATE AIRFIELD SITE JIJHrnmll NOTE 1. Number with Candidate Airfield SltC refers to list•ng in Table 6. ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY WATA1NA SUPPORT FACILITIES CANDIDATE AIRFIELD SITES ~-~ IU111"'A J0•1 ¥1M,.,_I JUNE 1985 IBIT 19 ,. ! \ r