HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA4045DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
HYDROELECTRIC POWER DEVELOPMENT
ALASKA DISTRICTt CORPS OF ENGINEERS
ANCHORAGE,ALASKA
SEPTEMBER,1975
II.
1425
.58
. 5
UPPER SUSITNA RIVER BASIN
SOUTHCENTRAL RAILBELT AREA,ALASKA
..
TK
!1.\2S
,S~
A7.:'!;;
SUMMARY
Hydroelectric Power Development,Upper Susitna River Basin
.(Southcentra1 Rai1be1t Area,Alaska)
(X)Draft Environmental Statement..
Responsible Office:
( )Final Environmental Statement
Alas ka Di s tri ct,Corps of Eng i neers
Colonel Charles A.Debelius,District Engineer
P.O.Box 7002,Anchorage,Alaska 99510
Telephone (907)753-3128
1.Name of Action:()Administrative (x)Legislative
2.Descri~tfon of Action:The recommended plan is to construct dams on
the upper us;tna River at Watana and Devil Canyon,powerp1ants,elec-
tric transmission facilities to the Railbe1t load centers.access
roads.and permanent operating and recreational facilities.
Since the current study is in the feasibil ity stage,impacts are not
exhaustively evaluated.If the project is authorized and funded for
detailed studies,environmental.social,economic,and engineering
aspects of the project will be studied at length prior to a recommen-
dation to Congress for advancement to final project design and con-
struction.
3 a.Environmental Impacts:The two-dam system would inundate some
50,500 acres extending 84 miles upstream from Devil Canyon Dam.Nine
miles of a total ll-mile reach of white water would be inundated in
Devil Canyon.Transmission lines would total 364 miles in length.
average 125-140 feet in width,and require about 5,300 acres of right-
of-way.over half of which would reqUire vegetative clearing.The
project would utilize a renewable resource to produce projected power
needs of the Rai1belt area equivalent to the annual consumption of 14.8
million barrels of oil.Heat and noise and air pollution problems
associated with most alternative energy production sources would be
prevented.Stream flows for some distance below Devil Canyon would
carry significantly reduced sediment loads during the summer months.
Recreational opportunity would be increased by access roads and creation
of project-related recreational facilities.I
b.Adverse Environmental Effects:The following adverse impacts
would result from project implementation:impairment of visual quality
resulting from access roads,dams.and transmission lines;loss of
vegetation and habitat due to inundation and road construction;
creation of public access resulting in increased pressure on wildlife
and need for intensified game management and fire prevention practices;
ARLIS
Alaska Resources
Library &.Information SerVices
Anchorage Alaska
increased turbidity of Susitna River downstream from Devil Canyon Dam
during winter months;foreclosure of future mineral extraction from
inundated land and limitations of options for uses of lands affected
by the transmission corridors;direct impact on moose through some
reduction of already limited habitat;poss"ible inhibition of movement
and increased mortality of caribou which cross reservoirs between
calving and summer ranges;temporary degradation of air,water,and
vegetation as a result of slash and debris disposal;inundation of one
historical site and any archaeological sites which might be discovered
within the reservoir pools;social impacts related to seasonality of
construction work and demands upon services of small cOlJl11unities located
in the vicinity of construction activity.
4.Alternatives:Construct no additional electrical generating facili-
ties,construct other Susitna hydroelectric alternatives,construct
other Southcentral Railbelt hydroelectric facilities,develop other
alternative energy generating facilities using resources such as coal,
oil,and natural gas,nuclear power.geothennal.solar,or other alter-
native power generating resources.
5.Comments Requested {Departmental Review):
U.S.Department of the Interior
U.S.Department of Agriculture
U.S.Department of Commerce
U.S.Environmental Protection Agency
Federal Energy Administration
U.S.Department of Transportation
Federal Power Commission
U.S.Department of Health,Education,and Welfare
U.S.Department of Housing and Urban Development
The Honorable Ted Stevens -U.S.Senate
The Honorable Mi ke Gravel -U.S.Senate
The Honorable Don Young _·U.S.House of Representatives
Office of the Governor of Alaska -State Clearinghouse
Joint Federal-State Land Use Planning COnlTlission for Alaska
City Mayors:
City of Anchorage
City of Fairbanks
Borough Mayors:
Ma tanuska-Susi tna
Fairbanks North Star
-Kenai Peninsula
_________________________________c··
University of Alaska
Native Corporations:
Doyon Limited
Cook Inlet Regional Corporation
Ahtna.Incorporated
Alaska Federation of Natives
Sierra Club
Friends of the Earth
Alaskan Conservation Society
Alaska Center for the Environment
Izaak Walton League of America
Alaska Wildlife Federation and Sportsmen's Council.Inc.
Matanuska Electric Association.Inc.
Central Alaska Utilities
Golden Valley Electric Association
Chugach Electric Association
Administrative Management Society
Alaska Methodist University
Association of the Army
Bankers Alaska Association
Anchorage Bar Association
Anchorage Businessmen's Association
Mt.View Businessmen's Association
American Business Women Association
Anchorage Business and Professional Women
Spenard Business and Professional Women
Susitna Business and Professional Women
Employees Association of Alaska Public
Alaska Society of Professional Engineers
Alaska Society American Institute of Mining.Metallurgical
and Petroleum Engineers
American Society of Civil Engineers
Society of American Military Engineers
Society of Petroleum Engineers of "AI ME
Anchorage Jaycees
Gold Rush Jaycees
League of Women Voters
American Society for Public Administration
Captain Cook Jaycees
International Jaycees
Anchorage League of Women Voters
Fairbanks Industrial Development
DRAFT ENV1RONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
SOUTHCENTRAL RAILBELT AREA,ALASKA
HYDROELECTRIC POWER DEVELOPMENT
UPPER SUSITNA RIVER BASIN
Table of Contents
..Paragraph Page
1.0 Project Descriition 1
1.01 Purpose anduthority 1
1.02 Scope of the Study 1
1.03 Description of Action 3
2.0 Environmental Settin~Without the Project 10
2.01 Phys ica 1 Cha racter1 sti cs 10
2.01.1 Description of the Area 10
2.01.2 River Characteristics 12
2.01.3 Cook Inlet 14
2.01 .4 Geology/Topography 14
2.01.4.1 General 14
2.01.4.2 Susitna Bas in 15
2.01.4.3 Transmission Line Corridor 15
2.01.4.4 Seismic Areas 17
2.01.4.5 Minerals 17
2.01.5 Climate 18
2.02 Biological Characteristics 18
2.02.1 Fish 18
2•.02.1.1 AnadromousFish 18
2.02.1.2 Resident Fish 21
2.02.2 Birds 21
2.02.2.1 Waterfowl 21
2.02.2.2 Raptors 21
2.02.2.3 Other Birds 23
2.02.3 Mammals 23
2.02.3.1 Caribou 23
2.02.3.2 ~1oose 25
2.02.3.3 Grizzly/Brown Bears 25
2.02.3.4 Black Bears 27
2.02.3.5 Dal1 Sheep 27
2.02.3.6 Mountain Goats 28
2.02.3.7 Wolves 28
2.02.3.8 Wolverines 28
2.02.3.9 Other Mammals 28
2.02.4 Threatened Wildlife of the United States 30
2.02.5 Vegetation 30
2.03 Cultural Characteristics 31
2.03.1 Population 31
2.03.2 Economics 33
i
Table of Contents (Cont'd)
45
45
49
5254 .
56
56
57
58
59
59
59
60
61
62
62
62
63
63
63
43
43
43
44
Environmental 1m acts of the Pro osed Action
ydro ogy and Water ua lty
Fish
Wildlife
.Recreation
Historical Resources
Archaeological Resources
Vegetation
Mining
Agriculture
Roads
Construction Activities
Workers'Facilities
Esthetics
Earthquakes
Sedimenta ti on
Climatic Conditions
Air Pollution
Socia]
Population
Page
Transportation 36
Rail 36
Roads 36
Air 36
Other Forms of Transportation 36
Recreation 37
Access 37
Hunting 37
Fishing 38
Boating 38
Camping 38
Other Outdoor Recreational Activities 38
Historical Resources 39
Archaeological Resources 39
Energy Needs40
Relationship of the Proposed Action to
[and Use Plans
Present Land Status
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
Utility Corridors
3.01
3.02
3.03
4.0
4.01
4.02
4.03
4.04
4.05
4.06
4.07
4.08
4.09
4.10
4.11
4.12
4.13
4.14
4.15
4.16
4.]7
4.18
4.]8.1
Paragraph
2.03.3
2.03.3.1
2.03.3.2
2.03.3.3
2.03.3.4
2.03.4
2.03.4.1
2.03.4.2
2.03.4.3
2.03.4.4
2.03.4.5
2.03.4.6
2.03.5
2.03.6
2.04
3~0
ii
Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses
of Man's Environment and the Maintenance
and.Enhancement of [ong-Term Productivity 91
Paragraph
5.0
6.0
6.01
6.02
6.02.1
6.02.2
6.02.3
6.02.4
6.02.5
6.02.6
6.02.7
6.02.8
6.02.9
6.02.10
6.02.11
6.03
6.03.1
6.03.2
6.03.3
6.03.4
6.03.5
6.04
6.04.1
6.04.2
6.04.3
6.04.4
6.04.5
6.04.6
6.04.7
6.04.8
6.05
7.0
Table of Contents (Cont'd)
Adverse Environmental Effects Which
Cannot be Avoided
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
General
Alternative Sources of Power
No Action
Coal
Oil and Natural Gas
Nuclear Power
Geotherma 1
Solar
Wind and Tidal
Wood
Intertie
Sol id Waste
Hydropower
Alternative Hydrologic Basins in the
Southcentral Railbelt Area
Rampart Canyon
Wood Canyon
Chakachamna Lake
Bradley Lake
Susitna River
Alternative Hydroelectric Plans in the
Upper Susitna River Basin
General
Devil Canyon
Watana
Devil Canyon High Dam
Devil Canyon-Denali
Three-Dam System
Four-Dam System
Kaiser Four-Dam System
Alternative Power Transmission Corridors
65
68
68
69
69
69
72
75
76
76
77
77
77
77
77
78
78
78
78
80
80
80
80
80
80
81
81
84
84
89
89
iii
---._-
Paragraph
8.0
8.01
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.04.1
8.04.2
8.04.3
8.04.4
9.0
9.01
9.02
9.03
9.04
Table of Contents (Cont'd)
Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitments
of Resources in the Proposed Acti on
Changes in Land Use
Destruction of Archaeological or
Historical Sites
Change in River Use
Construction Activities
Fuel Requirements
Manpower
Material
Land
Coordination with Other Agencies
General
Formal Public Meetings
Workshop Meetings
Informal Meetings
93
93
93
93
94
94
94
94
94
95
95
95
95
95
Photos:Proposed Transmission Une Corridor
(Courtesy tAlaska Power Administration).96
Literature Cited 97
LI ST OF FI GURES
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Title
.The Railbelt
Upper Susitna River Basin Location Map
Transmission Corridor Segments
Upper Susitna River Basin
Geology of the Rai1belt Area
Wild1ife--Waterfow1 Habitat
Wild1ife--Caribou and Bison
Wildl ife--t~ooset Dal1 Sheept Brown Bear.
Projected Energy Demand
Proposed Recreation Plan
Coal and Geothermal Areas
Oil and Gas Potential
Potential Mineral Development Areas
Southcentra1 Key Hydroelectric Alternatives
Alternative Transmission Corridors
iv
Page
2
5
7
11
16
22
24
26
42
55
70
73
74
79
90
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1.01 pur~ose and Authoritl .The utilization of renewable resources to
produce e~ectr;ca'energy or domestic and industrial uses has become a
primary concern in today's energy crisis.The consumption of non~
renewable sources of energy such as petroleum and natural gas has now
reached a critical point where conservation of domestic sources must be
considered.With the forecast increase in development for Alaska and
corresponding increase in demand for electric power,the COfiDnittee on
Public Works of the U.S.Senate,at the request of local interests made
through Senator Ted Stevens,adopted a resolution on 18 January 1972,
requesting a study for the provision of power to the Southcentral Rail-
belt area of Alaska.The resolution is quoted as follows:
That the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors created
under the provisions of Section 3 of the River and HaTbor Act
approved.June 13,1902,be,and is hereby.requested to review
the reports of the Chief of Engineers on:Cook Inlet and
Tributaries,Alaska,pUblished as House Document Numbered 34,
Eighty-fifth Congress;Copper River and Gulf Coast,Alaska,
published as House Document Numbered 182,Eighty-third Congress;
Tanana River Basin,Alaska,published as House Document Num-
bered 137,Eighty-fourth Congress;Yukon and Kuskokwim River
Basins,Alaska.published as House Document Numbered 218,
Eighty-eighth Congress;and,other pertinent reports,with a
view to determining whether any modifications of the recom-
mendations contained therein are advisable at the present
time,with particular reference to the Susitna River hydro-
electric power development system,inclUding the Devil Canyon
Project and any competitive alternatives thereto,for the
provision of power to the Southcentral Railbelt area of Alaska •
.1.02S.cope of the Study.The investigation is being conducted in two
stages ..Stage 1 ;s an interim report,to be completed by 1 December 1975,
on the feasibil ity of hydroel ectric development on the upper Susitna
River.Stage 2 is a comprehensive report,anticipated to be completed
in 1978,to determine the feasibility of developing other hydroelectric
sites in the Southcentra1 Railbelt area.
TheSouthcentral Rai1belt area is that portion of the Yukon and
southcentral subregions which extends from Cook Inlet and the Gulf of
Alaska on the south to the southern slopes.of the Brooks Range on the
north,a distance of about 500 miles.This area,containing about
75 percent of Alaska1s population,is served by the Alaska Railroad and
is commonly referred to as the IIRailbelt.1I (See Figure 1.)Major power
resources,both hydroelectric and fossil fuels.and the greatest power
demands are in this region.
-,n.,
RAILBELT
1,
75
A PA -JULY 19~
~o
~..•l.,.••T (JVJP~
Score l -Mil~~
~-o 25
FIGURE 1
2
The proposed action discussed in this draft environmental impact
statement is a two-dam system located in the Upper Susitna River Basin
which will provide hydroelectric power to the Southcentral Railbelt
region in Alaska.(See Literature Cited.)
1.03 Description of Action.The recommended plan consists of construc-
tion of dams and powerplants on the upper Susitna River at Watana and
Devil Canyon,and electric transmission facilities to the Railbelt load
centers,access roads,permanent operating facilities,and other project-
related features.
A subsidiary purpose in the construction of the electric trans-
mission line will be the interconnection of the two largest electrical
power distribution grids in the State of Alaska,which will result in
increased reliability of service and lower cost of power generation.
The proposed plan for the Watana site (figure 2)would include
the construction of an earthfill dam with a structural height of
810 feet at river mile 165 on the Susitna River.The reservoir at
normal full pool would have an elevation of 2,200 feet and a crest
elevation of 2,210 feet,have a surface area of approximately 43,000
acres,and would extend about 54 river miles upstream from the damsite
to about 4 miles above the confluence of the Oshetna River with the
Susitna..
The generating facilities would include three Francis reaction
turbines with a nameplate capacity of 250 MW per unit,and a flow of
about 5,300 cfs per unit at nameplate capacity.The firm annual pro-
duction of electrical power at Watana would be 3.1 billion kilowatt-
hours.
Development of the Devil Canyon site includes the construction
of a concrete,thin-arch dam with a maximum structural height of
635 feet and with a crest elevation of 1,455 feet.The dam would be
located at river mile 134 on the Susitna River.Devil Canyon reservoir
would have a water surface area of about 7,550 acres at the normal full
pool elevation of 1,450 feet.The reservoir would extend about 28 river
m1iles upstream toa point near the Watana damsite,and would be confined
within the narrow Susitna River canyon.
The generating facilities would include four Francis reaction
turbines with a nameplate capacity of 180 MW (megawatts)per unit.
The flow at nameplate capacity would be about 4,400 cfs (cubic feet
per second)per unit.The firm annual energy provided at Devil Canyon
would be increased to 3.0 billion kilowatt-hours.
A total of 6.1 billion kilowatt-hours of firm annual energy would
be produced by the combined Devil Canyon-Watana system.Secondary
annual average energy production from this two-dam system includes an
3
~-_~_IIll4J_'_
.f:::o
Looking upstream toward Watana damsite.Tsuena Creek in left center of photo.
Da~site just beyond the visible section of river.
w
!,,!,=;;;l'!!"!'!!Ii=~SC~A~L~E__==__~~
---50 10 OMII ••o
UPPER SUSITNA BASIN
LOCATION'MAP
o
\
't::::>
..
FIGURE 2 .'
5
additional 0.7 billion kilowatt-hours per year.The 6.8 billion kilo-
watts of firm and secondary annual energy would be the energy equivalent
of about 14.8 million barrels of oil .per year.or about 100bil1jon
cubic feet of natural gas per year.or about 1.5 billion barrels of oil
over a 100-year project-life period.
Most of the generated electrical power would be utilized in the
Fairbanks-Tanana Valley and the Anchorage-Kenai Peninsula areas.The
proposed transmission system would consist of a 184-mi1e,230 kv double
circuit1ine from Gold Creek to Fairbanks (called the Nenana corridor),
and a 136-mi1e.345 kv double circuit line from Gold Creek to the
Anchorage area (called the Susitna corridor).Both lines would generally
parallel the Alaska Railroad.Power would be carried from Watana and
Devil Canyon to Gold Creek via a corronon transmission line.a distance
of 44 miles.Total length of the transmission lines would be 364 miles;.
The general locations of the transmission lines are shown on Figure 3.
Transmission line corridors would require a cleared right-of-way approxi-
mately 125-140 feet in width totaling slightly more than 5.300 acres.
Towers wouldbe.etther steel or aluminum and of free-standing or guyed
type.depending upon final design and local conditions.
Access to the Devil Canyon and Watana sites would be·determined by
siting studies that would include consideration of the environmental
impacts for roads and transmission lines.Preliminary studies indicate
an access road approximately 64 miles in length would connect the Watana
site with the Parks Highway via Devil Canyon.A factor considered in
location and design of access roads would be their subsequent use for
public recreational purposes.
Project-oriented recreational facilities would include visitor
centers at the dams,boat launching ramps.camp~rounds,picnic areas,
and trail systems.
The total first costs of the proposed hydroelectric project based
on January 1975 prices are estimated at $1.343 billion,including
the transmission system.Overall,Devil Canyon costs are estimated at
$432,000,000,and Watana at $911.000.000.Watana Dam would be con-
structed first.
The benefit-to-cost ratio compared to the coal alternative at 6-11'8
percent interest rate and 100-year project life is 1.4 using Federal
fi nanci ng.
Detailed power and economics,hydrology,project description and
costs,foundation and materials,transmission line,and recreational
information are available at the Alaska District,Corps of Engineers
office in Anchorage,Alaska.
6
...
..
.,_......._-----------------_........_-------------_.
~
·Palmer
FAIRBANKS
•Paxson
TRANSMISSION
CORRI DOR SEGMENTS
Scale in miles,
3
50 75100 125
A.P.A-Morch 1975
FIGURE 3
7
._--~_._----_._-------_.._-
This environmental impact statement discusses the known and
suspected impacts of the proposed project.Since the study is currently
.in the feasibility stage.the EIS does not include a detailed and
exhaustive evaluation of project impacts.many of which cannot be
ascertained prior to congressional consideration for project authori-
zation and funding of detailed environmental and engineering studies.
The Water Resources Development Act of 1974.Publ ic Law 93-251.,sets
forth a two-stage authorization process prior to project construction.
If the project is authorized.the process requires congressional
approval before advancing to final project design and construction.
During this period.additional studies will be undertaken to assess
environmental impacts of the project.The EIS will be updated and
refined during this phase to reflect the changed conditions which nor-
mally prevail several years later when design studies are undertaken.
and to more fully address impacts on those resources for which detailed
information is presently limited.Since the updated and revised EIS
will again be fully coordinated with all reviewing entities.Congress
will be fully apprised of the latest thinking and the fullest possible
consideration of environmental impacts prior to authorizing advancement
to final project design and construction stages.
Meanwhile.general environmental studies are continuing.Inventory
and evaluation studies of fish and wildlife resources affected by the
project are being conducted by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service.and National Marine Fisheries Service.
As these ongoing studies identify specific areas of concern.they will
be selected for more intensive investigation during detailed design
studies.should Congress authorize advancement to that stage.Examples
of problems expected to be addressed during the detailed design study
phase include identification of significant adverse impacts to important
fish and wildlife spedes.and specific actions which should be taken to
prevent.arnel i orate,or mitigate these impacts.
8
\D
Susitna Glacier on Susitna River drainage.Glacier melt in
summer months contributes to hi~h sediment in the river.
2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING WITHOUT THE PROJECT
2.01 Physical Characteristics
2.01.1 Description of the Area.The Susitna River,-with an overall
drainage area of about 19,400 square miles,is the largest stream
discharging into Cook Inlet.The Susitna River basin is bordered on the
south by the waters of Cook Inlet and the Talkeetna Mountains,on the
east by the Copper River plateau and the Talkeetna Mountains,and on the
west and north by the towering mountains of the Alaska Range.The upper
Susitna River upstream from the proposed Devil Canyon damsite drains an
area of approximately 5,810 square miles (see Figure 4).
Three glaciers flow down the southern flanks of the Alaska Range
near l3,832-foot Mount Hayes to form the three forks of the upper
Susitna River.These forks join to flow southward for about 50 miles
through a network of channels over a wide gravel flood pla"in composed of
the coarse debris discharged by the retreating glaciers.The cold,
swift,silt-laden river then curves toward the west where it winds
through a single deep channel,some 130 miles through uninhabited
country,until it reaches the Alaska Railroad at the small settlement of
Gold Creek.
After the Susitna escapes the confinement of Devil Canyon,the
river's gradient flattens.The river then turns south past Gold Creek,
where it flows for about 120 miles through a broad silt and grave1-
filled valley into Cook Inlet near Anchorage,almost 300 miles from its
source.
Principal tributaries of the lower Susitna basin also originate in
the glaciers of the surrounding mountain ranges.These streams are
generally turbulent in the upper reaches and slower flowing in the lower
regions.Most of the larger tributaries carry heavy loads of glacial
silt during the warmer summer months.
The Yentna River,one of the Susitna's largest tributaries,begins
in the high glaciers of the Alaska Range,flows in a general south-
easterly direction for approximately 95 miles and enters the Susitna
24 miles upstream from its mouth.
The Tal keetna River originates in the Tal keetna l'1ountains on the
southeastern part of the basin,flows in a westerly direction,and
discharges into the Susitna River 80 miles upstream from Cook Inlet and
just north of the community of Talkeetna.
The Chulitna River heads on the southern slopes of Mount McKinley,
the highest point in North America,with an elevation of 20,320 feet.
The river flows in a southerly direction,joining the Susitna River near
Tal keetna.
10
'",
"
1115
_..-
!!.!li:-
ALASKA III fnlICT,<Xll'"I 01 o.tcIlII
UPPER SUS/rNA RIVER BASIN
SOlITHCf:NTIlAl.IIAILII[LT AIIt:A.ALAlIlA
\
\e:?J--,/
r-./
.,-J_J
/...,
\
"}
,C7
~c:?'
l-v1
\'l-,/
,,-.-_....---~.
I
'""{-,;,/-.......r .....__.1\./
Q
-,
'\OAMSITE
\
~\~
"?"'I.
U}1-"'....
6'~I
'1-<:>\
"?.p {
J-\
I
I
.....\.
........r
"~,
\
!GALE
~10 1.5===;;'''11"
t
i
f
I ,co<1/'-............F--t...
c"-./'\I ~,
"I)Ir;.;Z dol fJiiL I ..I I Ief'r.~<~PJ-"\.,•~I-i ,.l~:?~j.I ''\
-;.--.---I '\
'UPPER SUS;;;;;;;E-R-PROFIL.E (7)-..:"'-.'\
"U "LEI IlO·ZlNl T."_-'-r )
I I
\-'"~
("-1.J"\"
)
FIGURE 4
The principal tributaries of the upper Susitna basin are the silt-
laden Maclaren,the less turbid Oshetna,and the clear-flowing Tyone
(Figure 4).Numerous other smaller tributaries generally run clear.
Streamflow in the Susitna River basin is characterized by a high rate of
discharge from May through September and by low flows from October
through April.
Most of the Upper Susitna River Basin is underlain by discontinuous
permafrost.Permafrost is defined as a thickness of soil,or other
surficial deposit,or of bedrock beneath the ground surface in which a
temperature below 32 0 F has existed continuously for two years or more.
Such permanently frozen ground is found throughout much of Alaska.
The area above and below the Maclaren River junction with the
Susitna is generally underlain by thin to moderately thick permafrost.
Maximum depth to the base of permafrost in this area is about 600 feet.
Around the larger water bodies,such as lakes,permafrost is generally
absent.In some areas of the lower section of the upper Susitna basin,
permafrost is not a factor,while data are presently lacking in specific
sections of the river upstream from Devil Canyon.
Because of the length of the proposed transmission system,and the
diversity of terrain and ecosystems bisected by a corridor extending
from Anchorage to Fairbanks,the system is divided into six major
segments which lend themselves to discussion in terms of generally
similar ecological characteristics.The route extending south from
Watana Dam to Point MacKenzie is referred to as the Susitna Corridor.
The route north from Gold Creek to Ester is called the Nenana Corridor
(both corridors share the line fromWatana to Gold Creek).The corridor
for most of its length generally parallels the Alaska Railroad.
The Susitna Corridor is subdivided into three major segments:(a)
Point MacKenzie north to Talkeetna,a distance of 84 miles;(b)Talkeetna
to Gold Creek,38 miles;and (c)Gold Creek to Watana.44 miles.The
Nenana Corridor is also divided into three segments (continuing north):
(a)Gold Creek to Cantwell,62 miles;(b)Cantwell to Healy,39 miles;
anq (c)Healy to Ester,97 miles ...These locations are shown on Figure 3.
Relevant physical and ecological features of individual transmission-
line segments are described in the following paragraphs.
2.01.2 River Characteristics.The upper Susitna River is a scenic.
free-flowing river with very few signs of man~s presence.Theextreme
upper and lower reaches of the Susitna occupy broad,glacially scoured
valleys.However.,the middle section of the river,between the Denali
Highway and Gold Creek.occupies a stream-cut valley with spectacular
rapids in Devil Canyon that are extremely violent.
12
--'w
"II''.
Confluence of the Tyone and Susitna Rivers several miles above
the upper reaches of the proposed Watana reservoir.
The Susitna,the Bremner in the southcentra1 region,and the A1sek
in the southeast are the three major whitewater rivers in Alaska.All
three are Class VI (on a scale of I to VI)boating rivers,at the upper
limit of navigability,and cannot be attempted without risk of life.
Few kayakers have attempted the dangerous 11-mi1e run through Devil
Canyon.
The Susitna was one of the Alaskan rivers recommended for detailed
study as possible additions to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers
System in 1973,but was not one of the 20 rivers recommended for inclu-
sion in the system by the Secretary of the Interior in 1974.The
Susitna River has not yet been studied as recommended.
About 86 percent of the total annual "flow of the upper Susitna
occurs from May through September,with the mean daily average flow from
late May through late August in the range of 20,000 to 32,000 cubic feet
per second.In the November through April period,the mean average
daily flow of the river is in the range of 1,000 to 2,500 cubic feet per
second.On 7 June 1964,the recording station at Gold Creek measured a
flow slightly in excess of 90,000 cubic feet per second,which was the
highest flow recorded for the upper Susitna River since recording
started in 1950.
High summer discharges are caused by snowmelt,rainfall,and
glacial melt.The main streams carry a heavy load of glacial silt
during the high runoff periods.During the winter when low temperatures
retard water flows.streams run relatively silt-free.
2.01.3 Cook Inlet.All of the major water courses which flow into Cook
Inlet either originate from glaciers or flow through erosive soils;
either type of stream carries a high suspended-solids load.The natural
high flow period in streams tributary to Cook Inlet occurs during the
summer months of May to September,the main period when sediment is
transported to the Inlet.
Freshwater runoff into the upper Ih1et is an important source of
nutrients and sediments.Large quantities of nitrate,silicate,and
surface-suspended sediment with particulate organic carbon enter the
Inlet with fresh water.Concentrations are especially high in the
initial runoff each spring and summer.These additions decrease in
concentration down the Inlet upon subsequent mixing with saline oceanic
water and with tidal action.The large input of fresh water dilutes and
tends to reduce salinity and phosphate concentration around river mouths
and in the upper reaches of Cook Inlet.
2.01.4 Geology/Topography.
2.01.4.1 General.The Rai1be1t area is characterized by three lowland
areas separated by three major mountain areas.To the north is the
14
#p,u¥
Tanana-Kuskokwim Lowland,which is delineated by the Alaska Range to the
south.The Susitna Lowland is to the southwest,bounded to the north by
the Alaska Range,and to the east by the Talkeetna and Chugach Mountains.
The Copper River lowland in the east is bounded on the north by the
Alaska Range,and the west by the.Talkeetna Hountains.Each basin is
underlain by quaternary rocks surfaced with glacial debris,alluvium,·
and eol ian deposits.The mountains are primarily metamorphic and sedi-'
mentary rocks of the Mesozoic,with several areas of intrusive granitic
rocks in the Talkeetna Mountains and the Alaska Range,and Mesozoic
volcanic rocks in the Talkeetna Mountains.Figure 5 delineates the
major features.
2.01.4.2 Susana Basin.The Alaska Range to the west and north and the
Talkeetna Mountains to the east make up the high perimeter of the Lower
Susitna River Basin.The Alaska Range is made up of Paleozoic and
Mesozoic sediments,some of which have been metamorphosed in varying
degrees and intruded by granitic masses.The Talkeetna Mountain Range,
with peaks up to 8,850 feet,is made up of a granitic batholith rimmed
on the Susitna basin side by graywackes,argellites,and phyllites.
Much of the interior portion of the basin is fluvial-glacial overburden
deposits.Glaciers,in turn,carved the broad U-shaped valleys.
Glacial overburden covers the bedrock,which is composed mainly of shale
and sandstone with interbedded coals,Paleozoic and Mesozoic sediments,
and lava flows.
The Upper Susitna River Basin is predominantly mountainous,bordered
on the west and south by the Talkeetna Mountains,on the north by the
summits of the Alaska Range,and on the south and east by the flat
Copper River plateau.Valleys are floored with a thick fill of glacial
moraines and gravels.
2.01.4.3 Transmission line Corridor.Beginning at sea level at
Point MacKenzie,the transmission line corridor rises to an elevation
of 500 feet at Talkeetna.The corri dor traverses a wi de river valley
with rolling terrain east of the Susitna River and extremely flat
land to the west.The valley flattens and widens to the south,is
poorly drained,and has many bogs and lakes.
From Talkeetna to Gold Creek,the corridor follows a moderately
narrow valley floor widening to the south.Maximum elevation is
900 feet.
The corridor from Gold Creek to Watana is common to both the
Fairbanks and Anchorage power distribution system.It rises to an
elevation of about 2300 feet on the plateau south of Devil Canyon
before descending to the Watana damsite.
15
GEOLOGY
OFTHE
RAILBELT AREA
SCALE
~""""'!""'~7o50'OOMll",
~~~S~~~~~&~~~o ~oJ.dN~~:~LI.~
!;f f7Jt
<;;:>
Mesozoic intrusive rocks;mainly gr.anitic
TERTIARY
Sandstone,conglomerate,shale,mudstone;
nonmarine and marine
MESOZOIC
Sandstone and shale;marine and nonmarine;
includes some metamorphic rocks
Mesozoic volcanic rocks
PALEOZOIC fu"iD PRECAl-.IBRIAN
Sandstone,shale,limestone;mostly marine;
includes some early Mesozoic rocks
PALEOZOIC AI'.JD PRECAl\lBRIAN
Metamorphic rocks:schist,gneiss,etc.;
mainly Paleozoic
Paleozoic volcanic rocks
~.
Fault
(Dashed where inferred)
Source:U.S.G.S.
APA-1975
~Quaternary and Tertiary volcanic rocks
SEDIMENT ARY AND ~lETAMORPHIC ROCKS
LEGEND
~:~-~~-,-
~l...::!-2...J
[!i!;:;'I
QUATERNARYEJSurficialdeposits,alluvium,glacial debris.
.eolian sand and silt
I~,,/;"/>~Paleozoic intrusive rocks;granitic and ultramafic
.,----------
~I IGNEOUS ROCKS
FIGURE 5
Between Gold Creek and Cantwell,the corridor rises to a 2400-foot
elevation.It traverses a.wide valley with moderately incised rivers in
the south,becoming a very wide depression in Broad Pass with rolling
valley bottom continuing to the northeast.
From Cantwell,elevation 2200 feet,the Nenana River valley narrows
to the north into a series of tight canyons separated by the wide valley
of Vanert Fork.The corridor emerges from the canyon into a wide
rolling plain south of Healy,with stream terraces adjacent to the
Nenana River.The corridor is bisected by the Denali Fault at Windy
Creek.Elevation at Healy is 1400 feet,dropping to 350 feet at Nenana,
and rising again to 1500 feet in the Goldstream Hills southwest of
Ester.
2.01.4.4 Seismic Areas.The southcentra1 area of Alaska is one of the
world's most active seismic zones.In this century,9 Alaskan earth-
quakes have equalled or exceeded a magnitude of 8.0 on the Richter
Scale,and more than 60 quakes have exceeded a magnitude of 7.0.
Several major and minor fault systems either border or cross theSusitna
River basin.The March 1964 Alaska earthquake,with a magnitude of 8.4,
which struck southcentral Alaska,was one of the strongest earthquakes
ever recorded.A total of 115 lives were lost,98 by quake-associated
tsunami (seismic sea waves).
Much of southcentral Alaska falls within seismic zone 4 (on a scale
of 0 to 4)where structural damage caused by earthquakes is generally
the greatest ..This area of Alaska and the adjoining Aleutian chain are
just part of the vast,almost continuous seismically and volcanically
active belt that circumscribes the entire Pacific Ocean Basin.
2.01.4.5 Minerals.Most of the Susitna basin above Devil Canyon is
considered to be highly favorable for deposits of copper or molybdenum
and for contact or vein deposits of gold and silver.One known deposit
of copper of near-commercial size and grade is near Denali.Also,the
Valdez Creek gold placer district,from which there has been some pro~
duction,is within the proposed project watershed.
Tnough a number of mineral occurrences are known and the area is
considered favorable for discovery of additional deposits,much of the
drainage basin has never been geologically mapped.Thus,geologically,
the basin constitutes one of the least known areas in the State except
for a few areas in the vicinity of Denali where some geologic mapping
has been done.
Geologic information for the project area is not detailed enough
to assess mineral resource potential within the proposed reservoir
impoundment areas.
17
The Alaska State Department of Natural Resources states that there
arel'active"and IInon-activell mining claims in the upper Susitna River
drainage area between Devil Canyon and the Oshetna River.Many of these
claims are in upper Watana Creek above the maximum reservoir pool
elevation,and in the surrounding drainage areas where copper activity
is moderately extensive.
2.01.5 Climate.The Susitna basin has a diversified climate.The
latitude of,the region gives it long winters and short summers,with
great variation in the length of daylight between winter and summer.
,The lower Susitna basin owes its relatively moderate climate to the warm
waters of the Pacific on the south,the barrier effect of the Alaska
Range on the west and north.and the Talkeetna Range on the east.The
summers are characterized by moderate temperatures,cloudy days,and
gentle rains.The winters are cold and the snowfall is fairly heavy.
At Talkeetna.at an elevation of 345 feet,which is representative of
the lower basin.the normal summer temperature ranges between 44 0 and
680 F,with winter temperatures ranging between 00 and 40 0 F.The extreme
temperature range is between -48 0 and 9l oF.The average annual precipi-
tation is about 29 inches,including about 102 inches of snowfall.
The upper Susitna basin.separated from the lower basin by mounta.ins.
has a somewhat colder climate and an average overall annual precipi-
tation rate of approximately 30 inches.
The climate of the transmission line corridor from Devil Canyon to
Point MacKenzie is transitional,with mild.wet conditions prevailing
toward the southern end of the segment.The northern corridor has
extremely variable climate related to differences in elevation.From
Gold Creek to Cantwell,the annual temperature averages 25.90F and
annual prec·j pi ta ti on _21.85 inches.From Cantwe 11 to Healy,the annual
temperature is 27.7 0 F and annual precipitation 14.5 inches.High winds
are reported in this segment.North from Cantwell,the climate is
typical of the interior.with an average temperature of 26.4 0 F and.
annual precipitation 11.34 inches.
2.02 Biological Characteristics.
2.02.1 Fish.
2.02.1.1 Anadromous Fish.Fish inhabiting the Susitna basin are
divided into two major groups:resident and anadromous.The anadromous
,fish spends a portion of its life cycle in salt water.returning to the
freshwater streams to spawn.In this group are included five species of
Pacific salmon:red (sockeye);coho (silver);chinook (king);pink
(humpback);and chum (dog)salmon.All five species of salmon die soon
after spawning.Dolly Varden.a char,is widely distributed in the
streams of Cook Inlet and is present in the Lower Susitna River Basin
18
with both anadromous and resident populations.,Smelt runs are known to
occur in the Susitna River as far upstream as the Deshka River about
40 miles from Cook Inlet.
Salmon are found to spawn in varying numbers in some of the sloughs
and tributaries of the Susitna River below Devil Canyon.Salmon surveys
and inventories of the lower Susitna River and its tributaries have been
made over a number of years,resulting in considerable distribution
data;however,population studies and additional resource studies are
needed.The surveys indicate that salmon are unable to ascend the
turbulent Devil Canyon,an9,thus,are prevented from migrating into the
Upper Susitna River Basin.
The 14 million pounds of commercial salmon caught in Cook Inl,et
during 1973 comprised about 10 percent of the 136.5 million pounds of
salmon harvested in Alaska during the year.Chum,red,and pink salmon
totaled about 94 percent of the salmon catch for Cook Inlet during 1973.
1973 Catch and Production--Commercial Fisheries Sta istics--Leaflet
#26,State of Alaska Department 0 F1Sh and Game.
The 1973 commercial catch figures do not approach the maximum
sustained yields for Cook Inlet,but do present the latest available
commercial catch information,and are representative of the last several
years of commercial salmon fishing.Sport and subsistence fishing for
salmon in Cook Inlet and in the Susitna basin are also important consider-
ations.
According to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game,a significant
percentage of the Cook Inlet salmon run migrates up the Susitna River
and as far as Portage Creek,about three miles downstream from the
Devil Canyon damsite to spawn in the river's clearwater sloughs and
tributaries.A 1974 assessment study,by the Alaska Department of Fish
and Game,of anadromous fish populations in the Susitna River watershed
estimated 24,000 chum,5,200 pink,1,000 red,and between 4,000 and
9,000 coho salmon migrated up the Susitna River above the river's con-
fluence with the Chulitna River during the 7-week study period from 23
July through .11 September when most of the salmon were migrating up the
river.The report indicated that chinook salmon were also present.
A minimum of 1,036 pink,2,753 chum,307 coho,and 104 sockeye
salmon spawned during the August and September spawning period in the
streams and sloughs of theSusitna River between the Chulitna River
tributary and Portage Creek as determined from peak slough and stream
index escapement counts,according to the stUdy.The assessment also
indicated that a portion of the pink salmon snawn in the study area may
have been destroyed by a late August-early September flpod.
19
Chinook 'Kin Salmon.The king salmon spends from one to three
years 1n res water e ore migrating to sea.It is not unusual for
this species to attain a weight of over 40 pounds.The maximum age is
Byears.In 1973,over 5,000 kings were caught in Cook Inlet;the total
commercial catch comprised about 1.S.percent of the total weight of
salmon caught in this area.The 1973 catch figures for king salmon wer~
very low when compared to the average yearly catch for this species.
Red Salmon Socke e.The red salmon averages between 6 and 8
pounds,W1t a range 0 rom 2 to 12 pounds.This species spends from
1 to 3 years in a river system in which there are connecting lakes.The
maximum age attained by this salmon is 7 years,but most return to spawn
at 4 or 5 years of age.The landlocked variety of this species is
called a koka.nee and usually attains a length of from 12 to 15 inches.
In 1973,almost 700,000 reds were caught in Cook Inlet,with a total
weight of over 5 million pounds,or 37.0 percent of the total weight of
the Cook Inlet commercial salmon catch.About 14.5 percent of the red
salmon catch in Alaska were caught in Cook Inlet.
Coho Salmon (Silver).The coho or silver salmon spends from 1 to
2 years in ¥resh water and returns from the ocean to spawn at 3 or
4 years of age.Mature coho average about 10 pounds;some reach weights
of over 30 pounds.The 106,000 cohos caught in Cook Inlet dudng 1973
weighed just over 648,000 pounds and comprised about 4.5 percent of the
total commercial salmon catch for the area.
Pink Salmon Hum back.The pink salmon migrates to sea immediately
after atching an returns to spawn at 2 years of age.The average
weight of a mature pink is 3 to 4 pounds,with some pinks weighing up to
10 pounds.The 624,000 pink salmon caught in Cook Inlet during 1973
weighed over 2,260~000 pounds and comprised about 16.2 percent of the
total weight of the commercial salmon catch in the area.Historically,
odd-year catches of pink salmon are poor.Even-numbered year catches
average about 2'million pinks.
Chum (Dog Salmon).Chum salmon attain weights of up to 30 pounds,
with an average mature weight of 8 to 9 pounds~This species migrates
to sea immediately after hatching and matures between 3 and 6 years of
age.The 742,000 chums caught in Cook Inlet during 1973 weighed almost
5,800,000 pounds and made up over 41.0 percent of the total commercial
salmon catch for the area,the largest percentage of any of the 5 species
of Pacific salmon.About 12.5 'percent of the 1973 Alaskan chum salmon
catch were caught in Cook Inlet.
Salmon eggs hatch in late winter or early spring following the
summer and fall spawning periods.The eggs incubate in gravelly stream-
beds and cannot tolerate high levels of siltation or low f10ws that
dewater the streambeds during the incubation or alevin (pre-emergent)
stages.
20
2.02.1.2 Resident Fish.Grayling,rainbow trout,lake trout,Dolly
Varden,whitefish,sucker,sculpin,and burbot (ling)comprise the
principal resident fish population of the Susitna River basin.Although
distribution studies have been made in the past,the magnitude of
resident fish populations in the Susitna drainage is largely ~nknown.
During the warmer months of the year,when the Sus1tna River is
silt laden,sport fishing is limited to clearwater tributaries and to
areas in the main Susitna River near the mouths of these tributaries.
Resident fish,especially grayling,apparently inhabit the mouths
of some of the clearwater streams on the Susitna River between Devil
Canyon and the Oshetna River;however,most of the tributaries are too
steep to support significant fish populations.Some of the upper sections
of these clearwater tributaries,such as Deadman Creek,support grayling
populations.Lake trout are also prominent in many of the terrace and
upland lakes of the area.
2.02.2 Birds.
2.02.2.1 Waterfowl.The east-west stretch of the Susitna River between
the Tyone River and Gold Creek is a major flyway for waterfowl.The
majority of the waterfowl nesting areas in the Upper Susitna River Basin
are on the nearby lakes of the Copper River Lowland region,on the Tyone
River and surrounding drain~ge areas,and on the ponds and lakes of the
wide flood plain in the Denali area.
The Upper Susitna River Basin has a moderate amount of use by
waterfowl when compared with the Lower Susitna River Basin.The lower
basin has a substantially greater amount of waterfowl habitat,and a
greater number and variety of waterfowl seasonally use the thousands of
lakes and ponds in this area to nest and to raise their young.Large
numbers of migrant birds also use the Susitna River basin for feeding
Bnd resting during spring and fall flights to and from A1aska 1 s interior
and north slope.Distribution and density of waterfowl habitat within
the Rai1be1tarea is shown on Figure 6.
2.02.2.2 Raetors.Raptors,iric1uding golden eagles,bald eagles,and
various speCles of hawks,owls,and falcons,occur throughout the entire
Susitna River,basin but in smaller numbers in the river canyon between
Portage Creek and the Oshetna River.A June 1974 survey of c1iff-
nesting raptors conducted by the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service,deter-
mined that the population densities of these birds between Devil Canyon
!and the Oshetna River are low and that no endangered species of per-
egrine falcons,American or arctic,appear to nest along the upper
Susitna River.Peregrines have occasionally been sighted within the
area of the upper Susitna basin and along migration routes through the
Broad Pass area of the upper Chulitna River.
21
WILDLIFE
WATERFOWL HABITAT
IllilllIllIIlIi Hi 9h Den sit y
IllTIIill Medium Density
[1]]]]Low Density
Source'Joint Federal-Slale La
Un Planning Commission
M
FIGURE 6
22
o 50 100Mil••
A.P.A.-JULY 1975
On the basis of the 1974 U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service findings,
other raptor populations in the canyon area of the upper Susitna River
were determined to be minor,although minimal data were acquired on the
tree-nesting raptors.Several nesting pairs of bald eagles and gyr-
falcons were observed in or near the canyons of this area,and golden
eagles frequently occupied upland cliffs in the vicinity of Coal Creek.
Substantial populations of ravens were found in reaches of the
,Susitna River above Gold Creek.The nests of this large bird are often'
used by raptors,including peregrines and gyrfalcons.However,there
was no evidence that the nests observed were being used by raptors.
2.02.2.3 Other Birds.limited numbers of game birds,~uch as spruce
grouse and willow ptarmigan,inhabit the Upper Susitna River Basin.
Some incidental hunting takes place along the Denali Highway,but
hunting pressures are practically nonexistent in most of the area.
Various other species of birds including songbirds,shorebirds,and
other small birds are found throughout the Upper Susitna River Basin in
varying numbers.
2.02.3 Mammals .
.2.02.3.1 Caribou.One of the most significant wildlife resources of "
the Upper Susitna River Basin is the wide-ranging Ne1china caribou herd V t
This herd,a major recreational and subsistence resourCe in the south-(1
central region,dec1 ined from a population high of about 71,000 in 1962/)
to a low of between 6,500 and 8,100 animals in 1972.This spectacurar'
decline has been attributed to various factors,including migration to
other areas,ba~weather,predation,and overhunting.Motorized a11-
terrain vehicle access to the backcountry has improved hunting success
even in the face of a rapidly declining caribou population.
Segments of the Ne1china herd periodically range throughout much of
the Upper Susitna River Basin.(See Figure 7.)The major calving area
for the herd is on the northeast slopes of the Talkeetna Mountains on
the upper reaches of the Kosina Creek,Oshetna River,and little Ne1china
River drainages.Calving generally takes place between mid-May and mid-
June.Except for intermittent seasonal migration routes across the
Susitna River in areas upstream from Tsusena Creek.caribou are not
resident to the main Susitna River canyon between Devil Canyon and the
Oshetna River.
Caribou depend upon climax range,especially for winter forage;any
alteration of the vegetation,especially of sedges and lichens,has a .
detrimental impact upon their distribution and numbers.A trait of the'
Ne1china herd is an almost constant change of winter ranges.a phenomenon
that has undoubtedly characterized Alaska's caribou populations for
centuries.
23
•
tOO Mile.
A.P.A.-JULY 1975
WILDLIFE
CARIBOU AND BISON
o 50
FIGURE 7
24
MAPo
,...",EJII]Caribou Win1e~Range ~',~~'."".,.,....
.....'"~.........'".~Caribou Summer Range ~:..~~~~.
......."".....r::-1II=l....,...........",.....~Caribou Calving Range ,.:.""",,,..~~~....
~Bison Range .~)<"<:j.'.;::~:'~:r
Souree'Jolni Ftdllrol-StOle Land "(f
Use Planning Commission I
d IIJ'
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game considers the Nelchina herd
to be one of the State1s most important caribou populations.Several
thousand hunters from Anchorage and Fairbanks participate in the annual
hunting of this species.Additional thousands of non-hunting recrea-
tionists view the migrations of caribou as they cross the State's major
highways.In addition,the herd provides sustenance to predators and
scavengers such as wolves,grizzly bears,black bears,wolverines,lynx,
and various species of birds.
Caribou are essentially limited in distribution within the
transmission line system to the 136-mile segment extending north
from Cantwell.In the mountainous area between Cantwell and Healy,
they concentrate south of canyons.They are found in concentrations
on the west bank of the Nenana River north of Healy and south of
Clear Air Force Base.
2.02.3.2 Moose.Moose range throughout much of the Upper Susitna River
Basin {Figure 8).Wide fluctuations of populations have 6ccurred over
the years.A 1973 Alaska Department of Fish and Game fall aerial count,
resulted in sighting of approximately 1,800 moose in the upperSusitna
River drainage.Numbers of moose in the southcentral region of Alaska
have been reduced in recent years due mainly to weather conditions,
hunting pressures,wolf predation,unbalanced age-sex ratios,and elimi-
nation of habitat.
Much of the Upper Susitna River Basin is at or above timberline,
resulting in large amounts of lI edge"at timberline which produce con-
siderable quantities of willow,an important winter forage for moose.
Successional vegetation changes following fire also contribute he~vily
to areas favoring moose habitat.
Limited numbers of moose inhabit the Susitna River bottom between
Devil Canyon and the Oshetna River,because of a restricted amount of
suitable habitat.However,the available habitat provides critical
winter range for moose that do utilize this area.
Moose inhabit the entire length of the transmission line corridor
but are more abundant in the lower valleys.In mountainous terrain,
they are more commonly found in more open parts of canyons.
2.02.3.3 Grizzl Brown Bears.Grizzlies are common throughout the
Susitna River rainage and are fairly numerous in the upper Susitna
despite the absence of salmon (see Figure 8).Alpine and subalpine
zones are the habitats most frequently used by grizzlies,although the
more timbered areas are seasonally important.Denning begins in October,
and all bears are in dens by mid-November.Bears usually reappear
duting May,depending on weather conditions.Important spring foods
include grasses,sedges,horsetails,other herbaceous plants,and
25
--------~-------_.-_.--
2
IOOMil ••
A.P.A.-JULY 1975
·0 50
WILDLIFE
MOOSE t DALL SHEER BROWN BEAR
•~.....;;;;;,,~\-E ~.
FIGURE 8
26
MAP
~Srown/GrizzIY Bear Denning .Areos
I/>:/:J Moose Concentration
ffiIillIlI Doll Sheep Range
:1",11
carrion when available.On occasion.moose or caribou calves are taken.
Berries--lowbush and highbush cranberries.blueberries.and bearberries--
provide major summer food supplements.A prime consideration for grizzly
bears is to minimize direct conflict with humans as the grizzly is
adversely affected by contact with man.
Hunting for grizzly bears in this area often occurs incidentally to
other hunting during the short fall open season.'
Within the transmission line corridor.grizzly bears are limited in
distribution to the higher areas,primarily between Cantwell and Healy.
2.02.3.4 Black Bears.The Upper Susitna River Basin supports fair
black bear densities.The larger populations are in semi-open forested
areas with readily accessible alpine-subalpine berry"crops.River
bottoms.lake shores,and marshy lowlands are favorite spring black bear
areas.Black bears generally eat many of the same types of food as are
eaten by grizzlies.Denning habits are also somewhat similar to the
grizzly bear1s.'
Natural fires generally benefit black bears,especially when dense
mature spruce stands are burned.Most other land uses do not seriously
affect bear numbers in this area,and black bears are not as adversely
affected by contact with man as are grizzlies.
Black bears are found in forested areas throughout the length of
the transmission line corridor.
2.02.3.5 Dall Sheep.These sheep are present in many areas of the
Alaska Range.Talkeetna Mountains.and in the higher elevations of the
Susitna River basin (Figure 8).The greatest concentrations of Dall
sheep in the Susitna basin occur in the southern portions of the Tal-
keetnas;herds become scattered on the northern portion of the range,
where parts of the mountains are uninh~bited by sheep.Dall sheep are
also found in the Watana Hills.Because of the relatively gentle nature
of much of the Talkeetna Mountains and Watana Hills,predation in this
area has more effect on sheep numbers than in more rugged habitats.
Sheep have always furnished some of the diet of wolves and other carni-
vores in this area..
Within the transmission line corridor,Dall sheep are essentially
limited to the mountainous area between Cantwell and Healy.
~unting pressure for rams is fairly heavy due to relatively good
access from highways.by air.and by ATVs (all-terrain vehicles).
Nevertheless.as is true elsewhere in the State,ram-only hunting seems
to have little effect on overall numbers.Sheep populations are almost
entirely controlled by natural factors such as habitat.weather condi-
tions.predation.and disease.Conflicts between manis activities and
27
critical sheep habitat,such as lambing or wintering areas,can adversely
impact Oall sheep populations..
2.02.3.6 Mountain Goats.Goats occur in low numbers in various areas
of the Talkeetna Mountains and in the Watana Hills area.and do not
provide a significant amount of hunting in the upper Susitna basin.
The goats generally inhabit rougher terrain than do Oa11 sheep,and
are thus less susceptible to man1s activities.
2.02.3.7 Wolves.Wolves occur throughout most of the Upper,Susitna
River Basin.Populations are subject to rapid fluctuations,and esti-
mates should be viewed \o'/ith extreme caution.Wolf numbers have been
estimated from a low of 13 in 1943.after predator control efforts,to a
high of 400 to 450 in 1965.Currently an estimated 300 wolves populate
the area encompassing the upper Susitna.the Talkeetna Mountains.and
the upper Copper River drainage area.The wolf has been removed from
predator classification and is now classified as a game animal in Alaska.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game managenent studies concluded
that.from 1957 to 1967,wolf predation neither adversely affected other
game populations,nor reduced hunting success for sportsmen.However,
absolute conclusions were uncertain since moose and caribou populations
may have reached their highs during this period.The study proved that
wolves and men can often coexist while competing for game animals.but
that at times man must accept reduction of available game by wolves.
2.02.3.8 Wolverines.This area of Alaska has consistently produced
more wolverines than any other area of comparable size in the State.
Regularly throughout the area.it is not unusual for a hunter returning
to a kill site to find a wolverine feeding on his moose or caribou..
Wolverines have withstood human encroachment and trapping without any
noticeable reduction in numbers or range.
2.02.3.9 Other Mammals.Fur animal species of the upper Susitna in
addition to wolf and.wolverine include beaver.muskrat,otter.mink.
Canada lynx,fox.marten,and weasel.Found in varying populations
throughout much of the Upper Susitna River Basin and transmission
corridor,each of these species has its own unique habitat requirements.
However.except for a limited number of beaver.the river canyon area
between Devil Canyon and the mouth of the Oshetna River is not con-
sidered good quality fur animal habitat for most of these species.
Other mammals found in this area include coyotes.snowshoe hares.
ground squirrels,tree squirrels,pikas.marmots.and several species of
voles.shrews.and mice ..As with other animals,the populations of the
varioti~species vary as adverse or beneficial factors are encountered.
Some popUlations fluctuate greatly while others remain fairly stable.
28
Susitna River between Watana and Vee damsites.
Heavier vegetation,in this case upland spruce-
hardwood forest,is ,limited to the valley slopes,
the vegetative biome on the upper plateaus is
generally moist ttuldra,muskeg,and alpine ttuldra.
29
2.02.4 Threatened Wildlife of the United States.The only species in
the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Services publication,Threatened Wildlife of
the United States,that might be resident in or migrate through the
Upper Susitna River Basin are the two subspecies of the peregrine falcon:
Falco peregrines anatum (American)and Falco peregrines tundrius (arctic).
Although no peregrines appear to be nesting along the upper Susitna
River at present,there have been occasional s;ghtings within the area
and along known migration routes for this species as they move through
the Broad Pass area on the upper Chulitna River.These migrating
peregrines are occasionally reported to include members of the two
endangered subspecies.
Several species of wildlife that are considered threatened or
depleted in the Lower 48 States have substantial populations within
Alaska.Such species include the American bald eagle,the wolf,and the
gri zzly bear.
2.02.5 Vegetation.The major ecosystems of Alaska are divided into
marine and land groupings.with the land group divided into fresh-
water,tundra;and coniferous systems.The freshwater system includes
glaciers and ice fields,lakes,and riverine ecosystems;the tundra
system is subdivided into moist,wet,and alpine tundras;and the coni-
ferous system is divided into six plant-related classifications.
The Upper Susitna River Basin includes the following four broad
land ecosystem classifications:moist tundra;alpine tundra;upland
spruce-hardwood forest;and lowland spruce-hardwood forest.The largest
percentage of the basin is classified as moist or alpine tundra with
most of the area in and adjacent to the main river channel below the
Maclaren River classified as either upland or lowland spruce-hardwood
forest.
At Gold Creek,the bottomland forest of white spruce and black
cottonwoood is very much in evidence on well drained banks.Ascending
the river,balsam poplar replaces the cottonwoods around Fog and Tsusena
Creeks.Thin hardwoods and white spruce become less and less in evidence
but still occur in small stands on well drained river bars and tributary
fans upstream to Butte Creek.Above this tributary,only scattered
stands of black spruce occur,growing up to the glaciers.The lower
hillsides have a low brush cover with moist tundra in the lower areas.
The periodically flooded river flats are in willow,sedges-high brush,
and wet tundra.Since much of the drainage basin is uplands,alpine
tundra is one of the most prominent vegetation types.
Alpine tundra is composed of low mat plants,both herbaceous and
shrubby.Moist tundra usually forms a complete ground cover and is very
productive during the growing season.Plant types vary from almost
continuous cottongrass with a sparse growth of sedges and dwarf shrubs
to stands where dwarf shrubs dominate.Tundra ecosystems are especially
fragile and are very susceptible to long-term damage or destruction from
overuse.Regeneration is extremely slow,with some lichens requiring
more than 60 years to recover.
30
..
Most of the timber ecosystems in the upper Susitna basin are located
adjacent to the river and tributaries on the canyon slopes and on the
surrounding benchlands.The major timber species include birch,balsam
poplar,black cottonwood,white spruce,and black spruce.Overall,the
timber quality in this area is not good,with a wide variety of sizes,
mostly smaller and noncommercial.Much of the birch and spruce is more
suitable for pulp than for sawtimber;however,a fair yield of sawlogs
could be obtained ·from stands of black cottonwood and balsam poplar.
The transmission line corridor transects five generally distinct
vegetation types.Three of these--up1and spruce-hardwood,lowland
spruce-hardwood,and alpine tundra--are common.within the upper Susitna
basin,as discussed above.Two are related to distinctly different
land forms.Bottomland spruce-poplar is confined to broad flood plains
and river terraces,and warmer slopes of major rivers.Characteristic
vegetation is white spruce,balsam poplar,birch,and aspen.Low
bush,bog,and muskeg are another distinct type usually formed on
outwash,and old river terraces,in filling ponds and sloughs,and
throughout lowlands.Characteristic plants are tamarack,black spruce,
alders,willows,and berries.
Progressing northward from Point MacKenzie,the corridor is
principally characterized by bottomland spruce-poplar,lowland spruce-
hardwood,and muskeg bog to Talkeetna.From this-point to Gold Creek,
bottomland spruce-poplar is interspersed with upland spruce-hardwood.
The segment leading from Gold Creek to Cantwell is typically bottom-
land spruce-poplar interspersed with upland spruce-hardwood,and
low brush-bog/muskeg.Through the Alaska Range between Cantwell
and Healy,the vegetation is a mixture of upland spruce-hardwood,
lowland .spruce-hardwood,alpine tundra,and some low brush-muskeg/
bog.From Healy to Ester,the vegetation is characterized by bottom-
land spruce-poplar,upland spruce-hardwood,lowland spruce-hardwood,
and low brush-muskeg/bog.
2.03 Cultural Characteristics.
2.03.1 Population.The Southcentra1 Rai1be1t area of Alaska contains
the State's two largest population centers,Anchorage and Fairbanks,and
almost three-fourths of the State1s total population.The Anchorage
area alone has over half the residents in the State.Recently revised
estimates for 1975 indicate over 386,000 people will be in Alaska by the
end of the year,compared to slightly over 302,000 counted in the 1970
census,an increase of about 28 percent in that period.Other estimates
by the Alaska Department of Labor indicate an expected State population
of almost 450,000 for the year 1980,an additional 16 percent increase
over 1975,and a population increase of nearly 50 percent in 10 years.
The 1arges t growth in the Sta te has been in the Southcentra 1 Ra n be 1t
area,and this trend is expected to continue.With the possible relo-
cation of Alaska's capital from Juneau to the Rai1be1t area,an addi-
tional population impact will be exerted on this area of the State.
31
W
N
Looking upstream at Susitna River near Gold Creek about 15 miles below Devil
Canyon.Note Alaska Railroad bridge.
At the present time,only a few small settlements are located along
the Parks Highway between Anchorage and Fairbanks and the Alaska Rail-
road in the Susitna River valley.Except for the small settlement at
Denali.there are few,if any,permanent full-time residents in the
Upper Susitna River Basin above Devil Canyon.
2.03.2 Economics.Both Anchorage and Fairbanks are regional "economic
centers for the Southcentral Railbelt area.Government,trade,and
services comprise the major portion of the area's total employment.
Construction and transportation are also important.Making relatively
less significant contributions are the financing,mining,and manufacturing
industries,while agriculture.forestry,and fisheries contribute less
than one percent of the employment dollar to the economy of the Railbelt
area.In 1972 the wages and salaries for the southcentral region of
Alaska amounted to more than $704,000,000.
In the government groups,employment is divided more or less equally
between Federal,State,and local sectors.The area's major Federal
employer is the.Department of Defense,with most of its employees con-
centrated in four military installations.State and local government
employment includes employees from agencies of the State of Alaska and
the cities and boroughs within the area.
!
After government.the two groups having the largest employment are
trade and services.Their importance as sources of employment for the
Railbelt area residents is a further manifestation of the region's two
relatively concentrated population centers and of the high degree of
economic diversity,as well as levels of demand for goods and services,
which are substantially higher than in most other parts of Alaska.The
importance of construction is largely due to the high level of expansion
experienced by the Anchorage and Fairbanks areas since 1968.This
.growth can partli be attributed to the trans-Alaska pipel ioe project,
which is encouraging much new construction in both public and private
sectors.
High levels of employment in the region's transportation industry
reflect the positions of Anchorage and Fairbanks as major transportation
centers,not only for the Southcentral Railbelt area but for the rest of
the State as well.The Port of Anchorage handles most of the waterborne
freight moving into southcentral and northern Alaska.International
airports at Anchorage and Fairbank~serve as hubs for commercial air
traffic throughout Alaska·andare important stopovers for 37 major
international air carriers.Anchorage also serves as the transfer point
for goods brought into the area by air and water,which are then distri-
buted by air transport,truck or by Alaska Railroad to more remote
areas.
33
Although exerting relatively little direct impact on total employ-
ment,mining,finance,insurance,and real estate play important roles
in terms of the secondary employment they generate in the region.Most
people employed in mining engage in activities relating to petroleum
extraction from fields in Cook Inlet and the Kenai Peninsula.A sub-
stantial portion of the royalties and taxes collected by the State as a
result of oil production in the area is returned to the area in the form
of jobs in State government and through revenue sharing with various
local governments.The total value of oil and gas production in the
southcentral region for 1972 was almost $240 million.Similarly,the
Anchorage financial sector,in spite of its small employment,exerts
con$iderab1e economic leverage as the banking center for Alaska.
Most agricultural activities in the Southcentral Railbelt area take
place in the Matanuska,Susitna,and Tanana Valleys.The potential for
agriculture in these areas of Alaska is considered favorable,although
-development of the industry has not been extensive.
Commercial fisheries activity is the oldest cash-based industry of
major importance within the region.The industry has changed substantially
during the past 20 years and continues to be modified as a result of
both biologic and economic stimuli.The salmon industry has always been
a major component of the industry in terms of volume and value.Since
1955,the king crab,shrimp,and Tanner crab fisheries have undergone
major development,and halibut landings have increased substantially in
recent years.The total wholesale value of commercial fish and shell-
fish for the southcentral region of Alaska in 1972 was just over $100
million including a catch of almost 110 million pounds of salmon with a
wholesale value of nearly $38 million.
The sQuthcentral region of Alaska includes the Kodiak-Shelikof
area,the Cook Inlet area,and the Copper River~Gulf of Alaska area.
The Southcentral Rai1belt area is that portion of the southcentral and
Yukon subregions that is serve~by the Alaska Railroad.
The regionis timber output is less than 10 percent of the total
timber harvested commercially in Alaska.The timber industry is shifting
from supplying the local market to production aimed at the export market.
Stumpage value of timber cut from State and National forest lands in the
sQuthcentral region during 1972 was about $130,000.
The tourist industry plays an increasingly important role in the
economy of the region.Precise data on tourism are not available,but
the numbers of Alaskan visitors have increased from about 130,000 in
1971 to approximately 216,000 in 1973.A forecast by the Division of
Tourism in 1973 estimated 288,000 people would visit Alaska in 1975 and
about 554,000 in 1980.
34
I
wc..n
'"
Looking north along the Denali Highway to the Amphitheater Mountains.
Morainal ridges run across the middle of the photo.The biome along
most of the eastern half of the Denali Higmvay is moist tundra.
With population trend projections showing a substantial increase in
the number of future residents in the State and especially in the South-
central Railbe1t area,there will be a related increase in the demand
for jobs,goods,energy,and services.Alaska has a wealth of reserves
in renewable and nonrenewable resources that will have to be addressed
in the very near future.
The world consumption of nonrenewable resources for energy produc-
tion such as oil and gas has reached or will soon reach a critical point
in time where alternative means to produce energy must be developed.
The need for the development and utilization of those renewable resources
must be weighed against the adverse effects that these developments
would have on an ever decreasing regime of natural environment.
2.03.3 Transportation.
2.03.3.1 Rail.The Alaska Railroad runs from Seward on the Gulf of
Alaska,past:1fnchorage,up the Susitna Valley,past Mount McKinley
National Park,and down to Fairbanks on the Tanana River,a distance of
483 miles.The Federally constructed and operated Alaska Railroad was
built between 1914 and 1923.
2.03.3.2 Roads.Paved roads in the Railbelt area include:the 227~
mile Sterling-Seward Highway between Homer and Anchorage,with a 27-mi1e
side spur to Seward;the newly-constructed 358-mile Parks Highway
between Anchorage and Fairbanks;a205-mile section of the Alaska
Highway that connects Tok Junction with Fairbanks;the 328-mile Glenn
Highway connecting Anchorage with'Tok Junction;and the 266-mi1e Richardson
Highway from Valdez,on Prince Will iam Sound,to its junction with the
Alaska Highway at Delta Junction,97 miles southeast of Fairbanks.
The only road access through the upper Susitna basin is the
l35-mile gravel Denali Highway between Paxson on the Richardson Highway
and Cantwell on the Parks Highway,and the 20-mi1e gravel road from the
Glenn Highway to Lake Louise.The Denali Highway is not open for use
during the winter months.
2.03.3.3 Air.In addition tomajor airlines within Alaska,there are
numerous sma"commercial operators plus the highest per capita ratio of
private aircraft in the nation.Many small remote landing strips are
scattered throughout the Susitna basin,and float planes utilize many
lakes and streams to ferry freight and passengers to the remote back-
country areas.In many areas of the State,the only access is provided
by the bush,plane.
2.03.3.4 Other Forms of Transportation.ATVs and other types of off-
road vehic'es prov;detransportation into areas in the upper Susitna
basin where there are no developed roads.Several developed trails are
36
..'
shown on maps of the upper basin.Trails are utilized by ATVs,trail
bikes,hikers,horseback riders,and winter travelers.
Shallow-draft river boats,small boats,canoes.rubber rafts.and
kayaks utilize sections of the upper Susitna River,a few tributary
streams,and some of the lakes for recreation purposes.Except for
~~~s~p~~~~~~~~:,boating use is practically nonexistent within much of
2.03.4 Recreation.
2.03.4.1 Access.The greatest constraint on recreation activities for
most of the 5,800-square-mile Upper Susitna River Basin is the shortage
of road access.Except for a 20-mile gravel road from the Glenn Highway
to the soutnern shores of Lake Louise on the upper drainage of the Tyone
River.the main access to the area is by way of the gravel Denali Highway
through the upper part of the basin.
Float planes are used to fly in hunters,fishermen,and other
recreationists to various areas within the basin.but,except for a few
larger isolated lakes.this form of access is relatively minor.All-
terrain vehicles and snowmobiles also provide off-road access to areas
within the upper Susitna basin.Boats are used to some extent to provide
access on the Tyone River drainage and to areas of the Susitna River
between the Denali Highway and Devil -Canyon.
Much of the Upper Susitna River Basin has very little recreational
activity at the present time.Great distances,rough or wet terrain.
and lack of roads limit use of most of this area to a few hardy souls
who enter these wild lands for recreational purposes,or to the wildlife
residents and migrant birds and animals that pass through the region.
2.03.4.2 Huntin~.A major recreational use of the upper Susitna area
is big-game huntlng and associated recreational activities.The greatest
hunting pressures are exerted from a few fly-in camps,and from areas
along the Denali Highway.Most wolves and bears harvested are taken
while hunting caribou or moose.The increased use of ATVs to provide
access and to haul big game is a significant factor in improved hunting
success,even in the face of declining game populations.The mechanized
ATV can penetrate deeply into previously inaccess"ible country,leaving
few areas that provide havens for the reduced numbers of caribou
and moose.It appears that the use of ATVs for hunting,already pro-
hibited in some areas,may have to be further controlled.
The hunting of Dal'sheep,mountain goats,and waterfowl is minimal
in the upper basin even in areas of road access such as the Denali
Highway.
37
-----__~_.__,__"4U'__.......----...._""""!""--~~----------------
2.03.4.3 Fishin~.Access is again the major factor in determining
areas that are utilized in fishing for grayling,rainbow trout,white-
fish,and lake trout.The Susitna and Maclaren Rivers are silt laden
throughout their entire courses during the warmer months of the year.
Therefore,sport fishing is limited to lakes,clearwater tributaries,
and to areas in the main Susitna near the mouths of these tributaries.
Sport fishing pressure in the upper Susitna basin is light.Many
lakes and some areas of the river afford landing sites for float-equipped
aircraft.A few areas along the main Susitna and some tributaries,such
as the Tyone River and Lake Louise,have some pressure from boat fisher-
men.An increasing number of hunters use ATVs to get into and out of
the back country,exerting incidental fishing pressure in some areas.
As previously stated,salmon do not migrate into the upper Susitna
River above Devil Canyon so are not a factor in the sport fishery of
this area.
2.03.4.4 Boating.A minor amount of recreational boating occurs in the
waters of the upper Susitnabasin.Some lakes such as Lake Louise have
a heavier amount of boating activity,and some rivers such as the Tyone
and the Susitna have a lighter amount of boating activity.Some kayakers
utilize portions of the main Susitna River,but very few have braved the
violent waters of the Susitna through the area known as Devil Canyon.
2.03.4.5Campin~.Most camping use in this area is incidental to other
recreational actlvities such as hunting,fishing,boating,and highway
travel.Some developed campground facilities are located at Lake
Louise and at three campgrounds along the Denali Highway outside the
upper Susitna basin.Tourism during the summer months involving the use
of campers,trailers,and similar recreational vehicles is increasing at
a dramatic rate in Alaska.Many of these vehicles camp along the roads
where adequate facilities do not exist and where these activities are
creating ever increasing adverse impacts upon the land.
2.03.4.6 Other Outdoor Recreational Activities.Most other recreational
activities in the Upper Susitna River Basin exert varying environmental
impacts ~n the area.Many activities such as hiking,backpacking,and
photography take place incidentally to other recreational pursuits such
as hunting,fishing,boating,camping,and driving for pleasure.Trail
bikes,snowmobiles,four-wheel-drive vehicles,and other mechanical
equipment can cause extreme adverse environmental damage to the fragile
ecosystems of the basin when used in a careless,uncontrolled manner.
At the present time,recreation is one of the major uses of the
upper Susitna River drainage area.but the overall utilization of this
area by humans remains comparatively light.
38
2.03.5 Historic Resources.The current National Register of Historic
Places has been consulted.and no National Register properties will be
affected by the project.A historical-archaeological study recently
completed for the Corps of Engineers by the Alaska Division of Parks
(Heritage Resources Along the uPaer Susitna River,August 1975)indicates
11 historic sites within the stu y portion of the upper Susitna basin.
These are all essentially related to the discovery of gold.Most of the
early mining activity occurred on Valdez Creek.where the town of Denali
was established.Nine of the sites are located in that general area.
Two sites,both designated as cabins.are located on Kosina Creek.one
near its mouth.and one about six miles upstream.The apparent dearth
of historical locations between Devil Canyon and the Maclaren River is
explained by the following excerpt from the Alaska Division of Parks'
report (in discussing the first mapping of the area in 1912):"Except
for a few prospects on the Oshetna River,the USGS never received any
reports of gold being found on the Susitna between Devil Canyon and the
Maclaren in significant quantities.Though the Tanaina and Ahtna Indians
did a great deal of hunting and fishing on the river in this area.the
white man found little gold.an almost unnavigable river.and no reason
to sett1 e anywhere near the •Devil's Canyon'.II
In 1920 the Alaska Railroad was completed.giving general access to
Mount McKinley National Park.Highways followed in the 1940·s and
1950's.and the .primary use of the area became recreational.The road
approach to IVlount McKi n1 ey Park was by way of the gravel Dena1 i Highway
until the recent completion of the Parks Highway between Anchorage and
Fairbanks.
2.03.6 Archaeological Resources.Only one archaeological site has been
examined within the study area portion of the upper Susitna basin,and
it has never been excavated.This is the Ratekin Site,located near the
Denali Highway several miles east of the Susitna River.Three bther
late prehistoric archaeological sites have been reported.one on upper
Valdez Creek.and two on the Tyone River.Very little information is
presently available on the aboriginal uses of the Upper Susitna River
Basin.Based upon the knowledge of the prehistory of contiguous areas.
the Alaska Division of Parks!report concludes that the Upper Susitna
River Basin was likely inhabited as early as 10.000 years ago.during
Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene times.with use continuing in intensity
during late Prehistoric/Early Historic times.
Two archaeological sites within the general vicinity of the pro-
posed transmission line corridor are listed in the National Register of
4 February 1975.These are the Knik and Dry Creek sites.
Extensive archaeological remains have been found in the Tangle .
lakes area outside the Upper Susitna River Basin near the Maclaren River
drainage.and the area has been entered on the National Register of
Historic Places.The remains are apparently associated with a large
39
-I;:liP
proglacial lake that existed during and after the last period of glacia-
tion,dating back some 10,000 to 12,000 years~It is reasonable to
expect further remains to be found around the lakebed margins when more
detailed investigations are made..
.2.04 Energ~Needs.Power requirements for the Railbelt are increasing
rapidly.an substantial amounts of new generat-ing capacity and addi-
tional transmission system development will be needed in the near future.
The Railbelt now derives most of its power from oil and natural gas.
Past planning has contemplated that natural gas and,eventually.fuels
from the Alyeska Pipeline would continue as long-range energy sources
for Railbelt power systems.However,recent changes in the national and
international energy situation indicate that other alternatives such as
the abundant coal and hydro resources of the Railbelt should be recon-
sidered.
The energy demand curve used in the hydropower study is based on
1975 projections provided by the Alaska Power Administration.The
curve represents the combined demand of the southcentral and Yukon
regions and presumes that substantial progress in energy conservation
will be made with resultant lowering in the mid-range demand curve.
Approximately 80 percent of the energy demand within these two regions
is estimated to lie in the Anchorage and Fairbanks population centers
within the Southcentral Railbelt area.Figure 9 shows both the 1975
projected demand curve for these two load centers and the high.mid-
range.and low projections from the 1974 Alaska Power Survey.
Because of lead time needed for coal and hydroelectric development.
immediate needs for the next decade will have to be handled by additional
oil and gas-fired units.However.the opportunity exists for hydro and
coal to become the main energy sources for Railbelt power by about 1985.
if priority is attached to these resources.
Studies by the advisory committees for the current Alaska Power
Survey provide estimates of costs for alternative power supplies from
coal,natural gas.and oil-fired plants.Indications are that power
from Susitna hydroelectric development would be comparable in cost to
present gas-fired generation in the Cook Inlet area and would be less
expensive than alternatives available to other Southcentral Railbelt
power markets.
There are many questions concerning future availability and costs
of natural gas and oil for power production.Oil prices have increased
dramatically in the past few years,and there are many pressures to
raise natural gas prices.There are also arguments that natural gas
reserves are needed for petrochemical industries and for other non-power
uses.Many people in Government and industry question the use of
natural gas and oil for long-range power system fuels.
40
On 31 December 1974 the Congress enacted Public Law 93-577.This
act established a national program for research and development in non-
nuclear energy sources.One of the sections of the law stipulated that
heavy emphasis should be given to those technologies which utilize
renewable or essentially inexhaustible energy sources.
41
i iii -I'II -,'mIllj 11 I till I I lilli'FiTr1.:T...•J-j-jrr --.-j-yn ., I I i I!I .I,I!I I'!.I I 1'1
50,000 ·+J.--t J'1--c-L~-t-·T,·-i+-T,-_L+r·.T ~.-+!--i+t.....'.J-,t--I-I.~j I II III II I I ill;II 1 iii I I.j I!"j i I I)
.
!II /.I'r I III 11i j I I II 'I 'Ii I j [\..I.'i'·'.1 ~~.:'j',]I 'i I I,I!I .I I II'f'f'i·ttl--'ll-rr .LOAD PROJECTIONS T I --1;'.'-_'~~jti-··l "'.
,'1 I I I ~Il_1.)1-,"1 r I I ....,.·1 .
40,000 ;rt+!'r I i.-'-nTrrfr-I:T-~ITr·-T···++-1 \'\'t-+l.'1
j I I I I I 'I I'j I 1·'."j .'1 t ..I"I I'j ,1--j'II.J I II'I '.'I .II +""!.1 '._"1
1 t j J'.I', I I "I Iii ,.I 'I I·I··.,;..I: I I I ii,1 II I .II .,'."1 .ItlriT~rtt1'I.~TI:.i.t.l.Tr1 ·1 til ~,.m·,hi i-I ,1.1.1-I !I I I,f I )1 II 'J i 1 j :I !1:-1 I iI r H!!!I Ii J .i,I II
30,000 -',-+J-1-·jJ.-1--1--1-4+.+.---Tr --.."',-I-'~..l.--'~..,-T.-I.•-1.-tT.r,'.'; -..'.,....H'II I I)I jr I I:I I I J 1 I I <9 1 Ii!I,j J I !I·J .
.I III I',"I !i .I I II ··1 ~;I'i !'I';I .Ii 1.1I!I 1 I I I I I "'C,,-I'i":I 'i .'I r',i 1\I,·I Ii'I I,I i j'I ,I !1 ,i 'I i.-~,j Til r+.~rl'rTiT -nn.tYi T..r-+.!h.tl)·'i,l.Tt
I
i l lllll-0
J I Ii ,).t~f-f'1 JilL II j m'~II I Illi I ill HI+'I'!
20,000 '-.+--,-"",!--...---,i--r -:.,1+.1.--.".m.+.H,..•,.--1--.-1---'.'·.I.
i
.-...+-.'..+,--:-.l:-:+..'I !j I I .I"I 'I I'I 'I I I I i II I I 1 I,I I :I1 1 I I,"!I I·.'II ..1.I I...i :..i"I ,I I
.-J1111 i '.1 'Hi!II i II.Ii!i ~,.t'tt!:'.1 )1..1.1,j I l'~~' .
I 1HI)-I-r --t-I-I rT'--1'/1-.iT I rio Ti-1 'S~~I j
1 ".! ,II i I'"I:"Q II!I Illi I i I,I!,[i ,'I I I \)~j ~<:J..Q~'O~rl
10,000 --lJ.+L jlJ-+-JA~J _L~,+.1 I f--t-~Tl-.~~Q\·,+~;'~~·-;.-:+-.,J..~.'I++--r
1 11 I :I II I I I '[:;.'1 i.,-Ii""'IT'~'ii II I
, I '.!::I.I '\I I'.",,i :....."""I'I..'.'!.I ~'.''".':'I I I I .I.\II ,I 1 I I I I 'I I.....,I "'I ','!'IIIIiII '...i '!,I .L..J,;..-r---;-,,!I :1 I I:I1-1---\-1-._1...1,~-;....r~.'I'I d·i."-f-LLt++--r-~lJ II-l-lJ,--+.-
'It I,~-rl""1"1 1 "1
1 [1 1 1 1 1M,lillI!I ,;iii I t i \I I .I I!l \~I 'I 1 .I I ;
'.'i,".I 1 ;I'I Iii;I I I I''[II 'I'I I ':I ..I I I.I II II i I,II
i''I I I ,I I I ii,,I I I I 'I',jLL.L.lJ,..1,1 .1,,_LJ,L ,.)II...I-l.l-.J.L.I.lJ ,~_..J j ..L.u.'d_"I..1 ..,-"lli-JI W
1970 1980
YEAR
1990 2000
>&.
FIGURE 9
42
-
PROJECTED
ENERGY DEMAND
SOUTHCENTRAL RAILBELT
3.0 RELATIONSHIP OF THE PROPOSED ACTION TO LAND USE PLANS.
3.01 Present Land Status.Lands in the general project area of the
proposed Upper Susitna River Basin hydroelectric development at Devil
Canyon and Watana are under Federal jurisdiction and administered by the
U.S.Bureau of Land Management.These lands have been classified as
power sites by Power Site Classification Number 443 0 dated 13 February
1958.The project areas are designated in the Power Site Classification
by approximate damsite locations and contour designations as follows:
Devil Canyon:This area begins approximately 1.4 miles upstream
from the mout~of Portage Creek and includes all lands upstream from
this point below the 1500-foot contour.
Watana:This area begins approximately 1.5 miles upstream from
Tsusena Creek and includes all lands upstream from Tsusena Creek and
from this point below the l,910-foot contour.
Transmission Corridor:Most of the route segments lie in lands
that are pending or tentatively approved State selections.native
village withdrawals,and native regional deficiency withdrawals,all
of which are in a state of flux at the present.There is very little
privately owned land within the proposed corridor.Most of the affected
lands between Point MacKenzie and Talkeetna are potential State
selections.Native village withdrawals relevant to the settlements
of Montana Creek,Caswell,and Knik are indeterminate.From Talkeetna
to Gold Creek,the corridor transects State selected land and borders
on Denali State Park.Between Gold Creek and Devil Canyon,the lands
are 50/50 State selections and native regional deficiency.From
Gold Creek to Cantwell.the lands are comprised of native withdrawals
and State.selections.From Cantwell to Healy,the route is State
selected land bordering on Mount McKinley National Park.Route lands
between Gold Creek and Healy also fall within the Mount McKinley
Cooperative Planning and Management Zone.From Healy to Ester,the
route primarily transects State selected land with some existing
Federal withdrawals and native Village withdrawals.Land status
described above is subject to change as determinations are made for
ultimate disposal.
3.02 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.The Power Site Classifi-
cation withdrawals are in an area designated under the Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act (Public Law 92-203)for regional deficiency with-
drawals:lands which can be selected by native regional corporations
who cannot meet their selection entitlement from the withdrawals in
their regions.
43
The U.S.Department of Interior,Bureau of Land Management,stated
in correspondence of 13 ~1arch 1975:liThe land within the power site
reserve is segregated from a deficiency withdrawal under ANCSA because
it is Ireserved public land l and Congress did not give the Secretary
(Interior)the authority to make deficiency withdrawals from reserved
lands.1I
3.03 Utility Corridors.The U.S.Bureau of Land Management has pre-
pared a report suggesting a Primary Corridor System for the State of
Alaska.The report was prepared in accordance with the provisions of
Section 17 (b)(3)of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (Public
Law 92-203).
The Primary Corridor System is defined as a network of corridors
intended for the sy~tematic transport of high-value,energy-related
resources from theft point of origi n to processing or transshipment
points in other regions of the State.The network is intended to
identify transportation routes for resources of national or statewide
significance and is analogous to the transportation network that already
exists in conterminous states consisting of navigation,highway,rail-
road,and pipeline systems.
The Susitna project is one of the hydroelectric power developments
sufficiently advanced in the planning phase to warrant corridor consider-
ation for high-voltage power transmission lines.The transmission lines
from the proposed Susitna project have been identified in the suggested
Pr'imary Corridor System.
44
:a;
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
4.01 Hdrolo and Water ualit.About 86 percent of the total annual
flow 0 t e upper uSltna lVer occurs from May through September.
Average daily flows from the latter part of May through the latter part
of August fluctuate in the range of 20,000 to 32,000 cubic feet per
second (cfs).November through April the average daily flows range
between 1,000 and 2,500 cfs.The river also carries a heavy load of
glacial sediment during the high runoff periods.During the winter when
low temperatures reduce water flows the streams run practically si1t-
free.
Some of the impacts that would be caused by the project downstream
from Devil Canyon Dam are discussed below.
Significant reductions of the late spring and early summer flows of
the river and substantial increases of the winter flows would occur.
The flow of the river during the period 1950 through 1973 averaged about
9,300 cfs.The projected average regulated downstream flows for a Devil .
Canyon-Watana system computed on a monthly basis would range between
about 6,800 cfs in October to almost 18,000 cfs in August.In extreme
years,the monthly averages would range from about 6,000 cfs to nearly
32,000 cfs.The average monthly regulated flows compared to the average
unregulated flows based on the period from 19~0 through 1973 are as
follows:
TABLE I
Regulated Unregu1 ated
Mohth cfs cfs
January 8,782 1,354
February 8,368 1 ,137
March 8,031 1,031
Apri 1 7,292 1,254
May 7,347 12,627
June 7,603 26,763
July 11 ,266 23,047
August 17,937 21,189
September 12,704 13,015
October 6,776 5,347
November 7,394 2,331
December 7,936 1,656
The heavier sediment material now carried by the river during
high runoff periods between Devil Canyon and the junction of the Chulitna
and Talkeetna Rivers with the Susitna River would be substantially
reduced,and a year-round,somewhat milky-textured "g1ac ial flour"
(suspended glacial sediment)would be introduced into the controlled
45
_______""""!""'--~---_M'._
water releases below the dam.Preliminary studies by the Corps of
Engineers indicate that the suspended sediment would beat low levels
(15-35 ppm).Although the average sediment load in summer months ;s
less than 1000 ppm,loads sometimes reach a maximum of 5000 ppm in the
unregulated river.Reduction of existing summer sedimentation peaks
should have a beneficial effect on anadromous and resident fish popu-
lations for some distance downstream from Devil Canyon Dam.
On rare occasions after the development of upstream storage when
spilling water over Devil Canyon Dam would be necessary during some
periods of extreme high flows,super-saturated nitrogen could be intro-
duced into the river below the dam.Fish exposed to high levels of this
condition can suffer gas-bubble disease (like bends to a deep-sea diver)
which can be fatal.
With appropriate operational procedures,it is estimated that
spilling excess flows at Devil Canyon would occur on the frequency of
once every 10 years with an average duration of 3 days.However.any
supersaturated nitrogen and dissolved oxygen thus introduced should be
reduced substantially in the turbulent river section just downstream
from the dam.The proposed spillway at Watana Dam is not conducive to
nitrogen or oxygen supersaturation.
Temperature of the water released from Devil Canyon Dam would
approximate the river water temperature under natural conditions.
This.would be made possible by the proposed incorporaUon of multiple
level discharge outlets into the dam structure.
Variations in water releases at Devil Canyon Dam would cause less
than a one-foot daily fluctuation of downstream water levels in the
river during the May through October period since the reservoir would
not be used for peaking purposes.The regulated daily fluctuations
during the winter months could range up to two feet under normal peaking
conditions.According to U.S.Geological Survey studies,the natural
normal daily fluctuations in the Susitna River below Devil Canyon range
up to about one foot.
Stratification conditions within the reservoirs could cause some
temperature and dissolved oxygen problems in the river for some distance
downstream from the Devil Canyon Dam and within the reservoirs them-
selves.These conditions could have an adverse impact on the downstream
fishery.However.this problem can be minimized by multiple-level water
release structures which are proposed for incorporation into both dams.
This would provide the capability of selective withdrawal of water from
any level within the reservoir to moderate release temperatures and
dissolved oxygen content.
46
SkP __li1Rf UTi 0
"
I
..(::lo
-.....I
Looking downstream on Susitna River at Devil Canyon damsite.Dam would be
located near bottom of photo.Vegetation is mostly white spruce.
General channel degradation caused by a river's attempt to replace
the missing sediment load with material picked up from the riverbed is
not expected to be a significant concern along the coarse gravel bed
reaches of the Susitna River between Tal keetna and Devil Canyon.However.
this phenomenon would be the subject of future detailed studies to
determine the distance at which sediment loads would become reestab-
lished.
Upstream from the dams the major environmental impacts would be
caused by the reservoir impoundments.Under the proposed two-dam
system,the reservoir behind the Devil Canyon Dam would fluctuate
up to 5 feet during the year.while Watana reservoir would fluctuate
between 80 and 125 feet during the year under normal operating condi-
tions.The maximum daily fluctuation at Devil Canyon reservoir under
normal operating conditions would be in the range of one to two feet.
Devil Canyon reservoir would cover about 7.550 acres in a narrow
steep-walled canyon (1/4 to 3/4-mi1e-wide)with few areas of big game
habitat and a minimal amount of resident fish habitat at the mouths of
a few of the tributaries that enter the Susitna River in the 28-mi1e
section above the proposed damsite.The reservoir would also flood
approximately 9 miles of the 11-mi1e,whitewater section of Devil·
Canyon.
Watana reservoir,with a structural height of 810 feet and a pool
elevation of 2,200 feet.would flood about 43,000 acres in a 54-mile
section of the Susitna River that would reach upstream about 4 miles
above the Oshetna River confluence.Except in a few areas near the
mouths of tributaries such as Deadman Creek,WatanaCreek,Jay Creek,
and Kosina Creek,the Watana reservoir would be contained within a
fairly narrow canyon 1/3-mi1e to 1 mile in width for much of its length.
The spillway design at Watana diverts the excess river flows into
the Tsusena Creek drainage approximately 2.5 miles above the creek's
confluence with the Susitna River.On the rare occasions when it would
be necessary to divert excess river flows over the spillway,the adverse
environmental impact on fish and vegetation resources in lower Tsusena
Creek could be significant.
Watana reservoir would flood reaches of the Susitna River upstream
from TsusenaCreek that are sometimes used as caribou crossings.
It would also flood some moose winter range in the river bottom.The
reservoir would also cover existing resident fish habitat at the mouths
of some of the tributaries in this section of the river and possibly
would create other fish habitat at higher elevations on these tributaries •.
Potential water quality impacts caused by construction of trans-
mission faci1fties are the increased siltation of rivers and lakes;
48
alteration of stream flows;eutrophication (increased nutrient levels)
and pollution of lakes and streams;and disruption of aquatic habitat
due to gravel borrow,fill,and excavation.
4.02 Fish.One of the environmental impacts caused by the proposed
Devil Canyon-Watana project would be·the reduction of natural river
flows during the latter part of June and the early part of July when
salmon start migrating up the Susitna River.The projected average
monthly regulated flows during August and September,when the majority
of the salmon are spawning,approach the average natural flows of the
river during this period (see Table I,page 45)•
..In a 1974 study by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game on
surveys conducted to locate potential salmon rearing and spawning
sloughs on the 50-mile section of the Susitna River between Portage
Creek and the Chulitna River.21 sloughs were found during the 23 July
through 11 September study period.~almon fry were observed in at least
15 of these 21 backwater areas.Adult salmon were present in 9 of the
21 sloughs.In 5 of the sloughs the adult salmon were found in low
numbers (from 1 to 24 with an average between 6 and 7).In 4 other
sloughs large numbers were present (from 107 to 681 with an average of
just over 350).
During December 1974 and January and February 1975,the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game investigated 16 of the 21 sloughs previously
surveyed during the summer of 1974.,Of the 16 sloughs,5 indicated
presence of coho salmon fry~The numbers captured in the 5 sloughs
at various times ranged from 1 to 21.Many of the 16 sloughs surveyed
were appreciably dewatered from the summer/fall state.
The report also stated that a number of coho fry were captured
in the Susitna River near Gold Creek indicating that some coho salmon
fry do overwinter in the main river.
The winter investigations indicated that the Susitna River
between Devil Canyon and Talkeetna was transporting suspended solid
loads ranging from 4 ppm to 228 ppm.
It is reasonable to assume on the basis.of existing data that there
will be some changes in the relationship between the regulated river and
access to existing salmon rearing and spawning sloughs and tributaries
downstream from Devil Canyon Dam.It appears feasibl e to develop a
program to improve fish access to and from some of the sloughs and
tributaries in theSusitna River as a consequence of the project's
stabil iZing effect on summer flows.Such a program woul d be a project
consideration.
Periodic flood conditions that presently destroy salmon eggs in
this stretch of the river would be almost completely eliminated by
regulation ·of the upper Susitna River flows.
49
Reduction in flows,turbidity,and water temperatures below Devil
Canyon Dam might cause some disorientation of salmon migrating into the
section of the Susitna River between Portage Creek and the Chulitna
River during an initial period after construction of the dams and until
future salmon stocks readjusted to the change in regulated river condi-
tions.
During the period in which the newly-constructed reservoirs would
be filling with water,downstream flow maintenance would be coordinated
with the fish and wildlife agencies to prevent unnecessary damage to
downstream fishery resources.It is proposed to construct Watana Dam
first starting in about 1981,and Devil Canyon approximately five years
1a ter.
According to a study discussed in the Journal of Fisheries Research
Board of Canada--Vo1ume 32,No.1,January 1975,Ecological Conseguences
of the Proposed Moran Dam on the Fraser River.some of the beneficial
downstream imp~cts of the dam could include the following:
The higher regulated winter flows might increase the survival of
salmon eggs in the river downstream from the dam.The increased flows
could insure better coverage artd better percolation through the gravel
and presumably increase egg anda1evin survival.Salmon alevin are
young fish with attached egg-sacs that remain in the gravel beds until
they emerge as fry.
An additional consequence of reduced turbidity below the dam might
bea gradual reduction in the percentage of fine materials in the salmon
spawning areas near the mouths of sloughs and tributaries as they enter
the Susitna River.This could also lead to improved percolation through
the gravel in the streambed and possibly improve survival of eggs.
Reduced siltation during the summer months should prove beneficial
for"both anadromous and resident fish species for some distance down-
stream from the proposed Devil Canyon Dam.General channel degradation
caused by the river1s attempt to replace the missing sediment load
with material picked up from the riverbed is not expected to be a
significant imp~ct along the gravel bed reaches of the Susitna River
between Talkeetna and Devil Canyon.It is also reasonable to expect
that some additional salmon spawning and rearing habitat would develop
within the section of reduced sediment load:
Other hydrologic factors previously discussed would also affect the
fishery resource downstream from the dams.These and other changes
could also influence the food and life cycles for fish in this section
of the river.Biological and physical changes likely to occur are the
subjects of ongoing studies by State and Federal agencies under the
direction of the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service.Results of which will
50
\:
be used in determining needs for more detailed final design phase
studies,feasible project modification,and mitigative or ameliorative
measures.
Upstream from the dams,the major impact on the resident fish
populations would be caused by the reservoir impoundments.Under the
proposed plan,Devil Canyon reservoir would fluctuate very little.Even
though the steep-walled canyon of this reservoir might prove less than
desirable for a program to develop a resident fish population,some
species of fish might be able to.adapt to this reservoir and provide
some future sport fishing benefits.
Watana Dam would have a widely fluctuating reservoir which would
generally prove detrimental to the development of resident fish popu-
lations.Suspended glacial sediment could be a factor in both of the
reservoirs after the heavier glacial sediments have settled out;how-
ever,many natural lakes in Alaska such as Tustumena and Tazlina,with\
heavy inflows of glacial debris sustain fish populations under similar
conditions,so to develop populations of fish under related conditions
may be feasible..
Most resident fish populations,especially grayling,utilize some
of the clearwater tributaries of the Susitna River or areas near the
mouths of these streams as they enter the glacially turbid main river
channel during periods of high runoff.Many of these tributaries would
be flooded in their lower reaches by the proposed reservoir impound-
ments.The resident fish populations would be affected by.the increased
water levels in the proposed reservoirs;but "in some areas,access to
tributaries for resident fish may be improved by increased water elevations.
It appears highly unlikely that anadromous fish such as salmon
could be successfully introduced into the Upper Susitna River Basin.
With the succession of very high dams and the related problems and costs
of pas.sing migrating.fish over and through these dams,such a program
appears infeasible (Report,Eco10 ica1 Conse uences of the Pro osed
Moran Dam on the Fraser River.This report states in re erence to high
dams:liThe choice is clearly between upstream salmon stocks or dams.1I
However,the introduction of a resident salmon species,such as sockeye
(kokanee)or others to some waters of the upper Susitna basin might
prove feasible with further studies.
Fi sh would experience high mortal i ty rates if they attempted to
move downstream through turbines or outlet works in the proposed series
of high-head dams.According to Corps of Engineers studies,a 35 per-
cent mortality rate could be expected on fish such as young salmon at
each dam.
Impact upon aquatic life from the transmission line should be
small because of the care that would be taken to prevent degradation
of streams within the corridor.However,the aquatic food chain in
the taiga (boreal forest)and tundra is extremely simple,and as a
51
result,disruption of habitat for one species quite often indirectly
affects many other species.Potential impacts are:increased silta-
tion of rivers and lakes;alteration of flows;eutrophication and
pol1ution of lakes and streams;and disruption of habitat due to gravel
borrow,fill,and excavation.
4.03 Wildlife.Reservoir impoundments,transmission line corridors,
and access roads would have varying degrees of environmental impact on
wil dlife.
':/':,1'~/P~The Devil Canyon reservoir would be located within the confines of
I"~'a narrow,steep-walled canyon with few areas of big-game habitat and no
"majorn,D~ratto'n CQutes fOf'big-gameanimals.In some cases,animal s----...
SUd}as moose an'd car'Hrou may,findAt~r to cross the narrow reser-
voir than they would the present fast-moving river at the bottom of a
deep,steep-sided canyon.
The proposed Watana Dam would be generally contained within a
fairly deep and narrow river canyon.Watana reservoir would lie across
one of the intermittent-seasonal caribou migration routes between the
main calving area of the Nelchina caribou herd,located south of the
river in the northeast foothi 11 s of the Tal keetnaMountai ns,and some
caribou summer range on the north side of the Susitna River.CalVing
generally takes place during a month-long period starting in the middle
of May.
Ice-shelving conditions caused by winter drawdown on Watana reser-
voir or spring ice breakup conditions on the reservoir could cause
problems for caribou,moose,or other animals if they attempt to cross
this reservoir when these adverse conditions exist.As caribou are
/,strong swimmers,they should have fewer problems crossing the narrow
II reservoir during July after calving than they would crossing the swollen
U
91ac,."al river dur.ing periods of high runoff.Some caribou could also
migrate around the upper reaches of the proposed Watana reservoir
area as indicated in existing spring migration patterns.Caribou
migration patterns for the Ne1china herd are continually changing,as
stated in Alaska Department of Fish and Game study reports.Their
studies also indicated the use of theWatana reservoir site by Nelchina
caribou for grazing and crossing was minimal during the period November
1974 through April 1975.Under adverse ice conditions,the reservoirs
could result in increased mortality in some segments of the herd.
Also,there could be some permanent changes in historical herd move-
ment patterns.
Within the transmission line corridor system,impacts to caribou
would be 1imited to the 136-mile segment extending north from Cantwell.
There is no significant caribou use of areas to the south.Although
the transmission line and related access roads would not impose a
physical barrier to migration of caribou,construction and maintenance
work during certain seasons may inhibit herd movement.Since caribou
52
are primarily confined to the west bank of the Nenana River,they
will not be si]nificantly affected in this area if the line runs along
the east bank.Although physical des'truction of caribou habitat will
not be a significant impact of po~er line construction,there are
indirect consequences which could'be significant.Increase of fires
resulting from manmade causes could destroy tundra lichen which is
their prime source of winter food.It is estimated that approximately
50 years are required for a burned area to recover a usable cover of
lichen for caribou.Noise generated by the transmission lines could
also modify normal behavior,as could public access'ibility provided
by transmission line roads./-:7/..
_·_-_········1-:>
A moose Sl.lrvey conducted in early June 1974 by the Alaska Depart-i~;;·
ment of Fish and Game indicated that,although spring counting condition~
were less than ideal,a total of 356 moose were seen along the upper /11/:
Susitna River and in the lower drainage areas of the major tributaries.I :'"
A 1973 fall count in the same general area sighted a total of 1796 f"-::;"
moose._~.
Of the 356 moose counted in the June 1974 survey,13 were seen ~
the area of the proposed Watana reservoir below Vee Canyon.None were !~
sighted within the proposed Devil Canyon reservoir irnpoundment.Although
moose habitat does exist within the pool areas of the proposed Devil .
Canyon and Watana reservoirs,the overall loss of preferred or critical!
iwinterforageareaswouldaffectbutasmallpercentageoftheupper(
Susitna moose population.'--~
During the June 1974 survey,one grizzly was sighted on the
upper Oshetna and one on the Maclaren River.Five black bears were
sighted on the Susitna River.A total of 56 caribou were sighted in
the survey area.
Moose are found throughout the length of the transmission line
corridor.The greatest adverse impact to these animals would be the
increased hunting access provided by roads and the openness of the
corridor itself.Habitat,on the other hand,would overall be improved.
Subc1imax growth within the transmission line corridor would increase
moose browse.
The proposed reservoirs at Devil Canyon and Watana are located
along a major flyway for waterfowl.Very few waterfowl appear to nest
on the sections of the river that would be flooded by these reservoir
proposals.On the other hand,the reservoirs would provide suitable
resting areas for waterfowl migrating through the basin.
Migrating birds would possibly suffer some mortality from
collisions with towers or lines,but such losses should be negligible.
The line would generally parallel normal north-south migration routes.
The cables would be large enough to have a high degree of visibility
53
and would be widely enough spaced to be ineffective snares.Electro-
cution of birds is a1so un1i.kely since the distance between lines and
between lines and ground would be great enough to make shorting out by
birds almost impossible.
A transmission line per se will not have many impacts upon wild-
life;most of the impacts will be as a result of construction and
maintenance.Direct destruction will affect the less mobile animals
such as the small mammals,whose terri tori es may be small enough to be
encompassed by the construction area.The significance of this impact
to these animals is small in relation to their population in surrounding
areas.
The loss of habitat for bears,wolves,wolverines,Dall sheep,and
other animals also appears to be minimal.However,losses to any
significant element of the food web will affect consumers.Thus,
losses to moose or caribou would impact upon predator species.Other
birds,including raptors,songbirds,shorebirds,and game birds,do not
appear to be significantly affected by the reduction of habitat in the
area of the proposed dams and reservoirs and on the transmission line
corridor,although some habitat will be lost for all species of wildlife
that utilize the affected areas.
Road access to the two damsites and to the transmission line would
have a significant impact on fish and wildlife resources in areas
opened to vehicle encroachment.Specific areas such as Stephan Lake,Fog
Lakes,lower Deadman Creek,and the northern slopes of the Ta"lkeetna
Mountains could be significantly impacted by hunters,fishermen,and
other recreationists by an access road to the Watana Dam.The same
\'Iould be true along various segments of the transmission line ..State
game management policies could control some of the adverse impacts on
fish and wildlife in these areas.However,this increase in pUblic
accessibility would significantly increase the necessity for intensi-
fied law enforcement and fire prevention measures.
4.04 Recreation.Much of the Upper Susitna River Basin has little or,
in many areas,no recreational activity at the present time.A combi-
nation of poor road access,rough terrain,and great distances from
population centers presently limit the use of the 5,80Q-square-mile
basin,especially the lands directly impacted by the proposed project,
to a fe\'J hunters,fi shermen,and other hardy soul s who uti 1i ze these
wild lands for recreational purposes.
The construction of the proposed hydroelectric project would have
an impact on a number of present and projected recreational activities
both in the immediate dam and reservoir areas and downstream from the
dams.(See Figure 10.)
At the present time,the Susitna River upstream from Portage Creek
to the Denali Highway bridge is a free-flowing river with few signs of
man's activities and minimal public use.The project would significantly
54
"
~[",.,
RECREATION PLAN
&1...&5.....D<STlllCT,cooPS 0#'UOGI "I:[RS
--.........
SOUTMCl."TRAI,.lIt"ILKLT AR[A.Ausa
UPPER SUSlTN,A RIVER BASIN
\
\
l
\
<?J.--
./
,
I
\-..~
~
('-1./"
)
~
,,---
"...,_J
./c:::"\
~
\1
)
~&C7
!-v,
\
)~-:>
r------.---
<>
r
I
.......f..-.r,-........r '---/\'/
-J
-,....,
\
'l
'--
"<9..",
S''1.-...........
<90 I
t-1-,,
(?.q {
.'9).\
I
J
....\.
......
r'
~
~
\
I
\
5CAl[
Q
.~10 g-----=z?...l"
SITE 'C'
TRAIL HEAD A"ID
PIC"IIC AREA
I /':..;oc;;-.........s_\...,-,.,-r--\
,/I
.J '<..~~
(I t~
I
/...'....(~
'J)
j
(Jl
(Jl
·FIGURE 10
~.1
change both the present riverine setting and human use of the area.
Improved road access into the upper Susitna basin would substantially
increase pressures on all the resources impacted by outdoor recreation
activities within these areas.Along with increased hunting pressure,
the construction of project-oriented recreational facilities would
further increase public use in the immediate vicinity of the proposed
dams and reservoirs.These recreational developments would eventually
include visitor centers at the dams,boat launching ramps on the reser-
voirs.campgrounds,picnic areas,trail systems,and other related
developments,as shown in Figure 10.It is estimated that with the
recommended development plan,the initial annual visitation to the
project area would be about 77,000 people.
The possible relocation of the state capital to the Lower Susitna
River Basin could have a substantial impact on the extent of development
of recreational facilities within the Devil Canyon-Watana project area.
At the present time.few people reside within a IOO-mile radius of the
project area,and day-use of the project by local residents would be
minimal under existing growth conditions.
Any project-related recreational development program would involve
cooperation between the appropriate Federal,State,and local interests
and would require State or local sponsorship,sharing of costs for
construction,and maintenance of the developed recreational facilities
by the appropriate State or local sponsor.The State of Alaska (Divi-
sion of Parks)has indicated an interest in sponsoring a program of
recreational development in the area of the proposed project.
4.05 Historical Resources.Although a preliminary investigation by
the Alaska Division of Parks Herita e Resources alon the U er Susitna
River,August 1975)indicates t e ocatl0n 0 lstorlc sltes W1t 1n
tne upper Susitna basin hydropower study area,only one of these would
be directly affected by the currently proposed two-dam development.
This site is located near the mouth of Kosina Creek and would be
inundated by the Watana ,reservoir.The significance of this site,
a cabin,is not disclosed in the State report.However,on the basis
of the limited early modern history associated with the upper Susitna
basin,particularly the downstream portion above Devil Canyon,it is
most likely that the site is related to early exploratory mining in
the area.No sites would be affected within the transmission line
corridor.
4.06 Archaeological Resources.Of the four presently known archaeo-
logical sites in the upper Susitna basin,all lie upstream from the
influence of the Watana Dam and reservoir,according to the Alaska
Division of Parks report of August 1975.On the basis of probable
highest game diversity in early times,the report selects areas most
likely to have been inhabited·by people,and thus identifies sites
for potential archaeological exploration.These sites are most
56
generally designated as being near the confluence of streams where
habitat diversity was likely highest.The report concludes that II--the
entire river system should be regarded as an area of extremely high
archaeological potential."The report further states:"While it is
difficult to measure the amount of adverse impact each of the four dam
complexes will have on heritage resources,itis possible to ascertain
that the Devil Canyon Dam will have the least effect.The Watana Dam
will have the second lowest adverse impact,followed by Denali Dam.The
construction of the Vee Dam site will have the most adver~e impact on
significant heritage resources.1I (The Vee and Denali Dams are not in
the proposed plan of development.)
More intensive reconnaissance of the affected areas will be neces-
sary following project authorization to determine the actual existence
and locations of sites.
The Knik and Dry Creek archaeological sites are located in the
vicinity of the proposed transmission line corridor.Neither site will
be affected by development within the proposed route.
4.07 Vegetation.All of the vegetation within the pools of the pro-
posed reservoirs and in the proposed road locations would be eliminated
if the dams were constructed.Trees would also be cleared in areas
within transmission line corridors.Most of the trees and shrubs would
be cleared during construction operations,and some of the commercial
timber would probably be marketed.Most of the residue slash material
and debris would be burned or buried.
Much of the existing tree and shrub cover in the Upper Susitna
River Basin is located in the river and creek bottoms and on the steep
canyon slopes above the streams and would be lost during dam construc-
tion.The operations to clear the vegetation within the reservoir
\impoundments and other areas would requi re a network of temporary roads
and work areas for personnel,equipment,and vehicles within and around
the areas to be cleared.Controls over the clearing and related opera-
tions would include provisions to reduce or prevent many of the adverse
environmental impacts of these activities including the possibility of
uncontrolled fires.
The major ecosystems of the upper Susitna basin include the upland
and lowland spruce-hardwood forest systems and the moist and alpine
tundra systems.All these ecosystems are susceptible to long-term
damage or destructi on;the predominant tundra systems are especially
vulnerable.Particular care would have to be taken to protect the land
and the vegetation from unnecessary damage,and remedial actions would
also need to be taken to make feasible repairs to whatever damage should
occur.Except for the river itself the area within the proposed reser-
voir pool is dominated by the upland spruce-hardwood forest ecosystem.
57
-----,-,---'------------------------------
J4¥l1'''*
Most of the direct impacts of the transmission line and required
.access roads upon vegetation would be relatively small with respect to
the magnitude pf surrounding unaffected land.Up to 3,800 of the
approximately 5,300 acres of right-af-way would have to be cleared.
The effect on scenic quality would be a major impact of the cleared
right-of-way.Regrowth beyond a limited height would be prevented by
maintenance,thus cuts through forested areas would be permanently
visible.This effect would not be as significant in more open areas at
higher elevations.such as Broad Pass.where no tree clearing is required.
On the other hand,in such areas the transmission line itself would be
more visible.This effect is more fully discussed under the heading of
Esthetics.
The disposal of slash and debris.whether by burning,burying,
chipping.or stacking has potentially adverse effects upon remaining
vegetation and other resources.Although stacked or dispersed slash may
provide habitat for small animals,there is a high potential that slash
may result in increased fire hazard and increases in insect populations
which could damage surrounding forests.Chipping is very expensive and
requires more machinery to travel along the right-of-way.Disposal of
chips is a problem because they should be dispersed to prevent killing
the plants on the ground.Since decomposition rates are slow,chips may
not revert to humus for quite some time.Vegetation along most of the
transmission line corridor is conducive to a high rate of fire spread
and is considered to be of medium to high resistance to fire control.
However,with proper precautionary measures.burning.would probably be
the most desirable method of slash and debris disposal from an environ-
mental viewpoint.
Significant impacts to wildlife would result from habitat modifi-
cation resulting from impacts upon vegetation.Clearing in forest areas
and maintenance of a subclimax plant community of brush and low plants
would improve habitat for some species by increasing primary productivity
in the cleared areas.Browse for moose will be increased;the con-
junction of good cover in the original forest with a swath of browse
creates a diverse "edge"habitat for many animals dependent on subclimax
growth.Animals dependent on climax or near-climax vegetation will
suffer loss of habitat;examples are the red squirrel and northern
flying squirrel.both of which depend upon white spruce.
4.08 Minin*.The U.S.Department of Interior.Bureau of Mines office
in Juneau.laska.has stated that the Susitna River basin in the pro-
posed reservoir impoundment areas is generally favorable for various
types of mineral deposits.but the area has never been mapped geologi-
ca lly.
58
4.09 Agriculture.No project benefits are anticipated for irrigation
at this time,and except for providing reasonably priced electrical
power to farms and agricultural activities,no other major impacts on
agriculture are expected.
Presently most agricultural activity in the State,from crop
farming to dairy farming,occurs in the Cook Inlet subregion.Of the
2.5 million acres of land that have soil characteristics conducive to
the production of cultivated crops in the Cook Inlet-Susitna Lowlands,
about 70 percent occurs in the valleys of the Matanuska and the Susitna
Rivers and their tributaries.Most of this land is as yet undeveloped.
4.10 Roads.Permanent roads would be built to provide access from the
Parks Highway to the Devil Canyon andWatana damsites and some segments
of the transmission line.Permanent roads would also provide access to
proposed recreation facilities within the project area.Temporary roads
for project construction and reservoir clearing operations would also be
constructed.No roads would be built within the transmission line
corridor in the 39-mil e reach between Cantwell and Healy,and the
la-mile reach between Gold Creek and Chulitna.
The impact of road access to areas within the proposed hydroelectric
developments would be significant;also,the roads themselves would have
.a definite impact upon the land.Resource values impacted by proposed
roads include fish,wildlife,vegetation,recreation,scenery,water,
and soils.Air and noise pollution related to road construction and
dust generated by vehicle travel on unpaved roads could also be signifi-
cant adverse environmental impacts.
In sections where permanent transmission line access roads are
required,the road would be built and maintained to a standard suitable
for four-wheel-drive vehicles.Not all sections will have access
roads;in critical areas,winter construction or helicopter construction
will be used.
Proposed right-of-way restoration after construction includes
removal of temporary structures and temporary roads,disposal of
slash and refuse,and where necessary,revegetation.
Design,location.construction,rehabilitation,and maintenance of
a project road system will be given prime consideration with the utili-
zation of good landscape management practices.
4.11 Construction Activities.Proposed project-related construction
activities include the building of the dams and their related facilities;
the clearing of reservoir areas;the construction of roads,electrical
distribution systems,and recreation facilities;and the building of
facil Hies for workers.The construction of the Devil Canyon and Watana
59
------_._.--_...........
project is estimated to take from 10 to 12 years to complete,with an
estimated 5 to 6 years required for construction at each of the two
sites.
The impact of these construction activities on the existing environ-
ment would be significant.The activities themselves would cause varying
degrees of physical pollution to the air,land,and water within the
project area and to some areas outside the development area.Fish,
wildlife,vegetation,visual resources,soils,and other resource values
would be adversely impacted by construction.activities within the
project area.General construction activities would intrude on existing
fish and wildlife habitat,cause soil erosion problems with related
reduction of water quality,clear areas of vegetation,cause noise
and dust problems,intrude on natural visual resource values.,introduce
air pollutants into the atmosphere by burning slash and debris,and
cause other related environmental impacts.For instance,breaking
the surface mat of vegetation and disruption of surface drainage can
result in wind and water erosion,and melting of permafrost,resulting
in subsidence and disruption of groundwater tables which in turn
results in erosion.
Most of the damage to soils along the transmission line would occur
during the construction phase.The construction schedule would be
arranged so that work requiring use of an access road,such as delivery
of materials,could be done in winter and spring,when the ground is
least vulnerable to physical disturbances.This would eliminate the
need for extensive filling and consequent use of borrow pits or quarries.
To obtain materials from borrow sources and quarry sites for the
construction of the dams,roads and other facilities would be necessary.
Borrow areas would be located within the proposed reservoir pool areas
where feasible.Any borrow or quarry sites necessary outside of the
pool area would be rehabilitated.Areas will also be needed to dispose
of some materials and debris.All construction activities would be
controlled to minimize or to prevent adverse environmental impacts.
4.12 Workers·Facilities.No communities within commuting distance to
the proposed project area could absorb the number of workers required
for the construction of the dams and related facilities.Some type of
temporary construction camps with the necessary facil ities would need to
be provided during the construction periods,and permanent facilities
would need to be built for maintenance and operational personnel after
completion of the construction phase.
The construction and operations of the workers'camps would comply
with State and Federal pollution control laws and standards,and all
activities would be controlled to minimize adverse environmental impacts
presented by the camps.,Lands used for opera ti n9 the temporary camp
areas would be rehabilitated when the project work was completed.
60
4.13 Esthetics.The proposed project would be located in areas that
presently have practically no permanent signs of man's presence.The
land between Portage Creek and the Denali Highway is a natural and
scenic area that would probably qualify for wilderness classification
under most definitions of the term.
The construction of the proposed hydroelectric project would have a
significant impact on the existing natural scenic resource values
within the project area.'Any dam construction on the upper Susitna
would change a segment of what is now a natural,free-flowing river into
a manmade impoundment.,Within a l2-month period,Devil Canyon reservoir
could fluctuate up to 5 feet while Watana reservoir would fluctuate up
to 125 feet under normal operating conditions.The proposed Watana
impoundment is located in a narrow,steep,isolated canyon where the
seasonal fluctuation would not have a substantial scenic impact.The
violent,whitewater section of the Susitna River through Devil Canyon
would be substantially inundated by a dam at Devil Canyon.Roads and
transmissien lines would also impact the natural scenic resource values
of the area ..
Since it is expected that a considerable number of tourists and
State residents would visit the damsites,every effort would be given to
minimizing the adverse visual impacts of construction activities.A
great deal can be accomplished to maximize scenic resource values that
will remain after construction.Good landscape management practices·
would add substantially to the recreational experience of the project
visitor with facilities that are well planned and well maintained.
The proposed transmission line corridor would cross no existing
or presently proposed scenic,wild,or recreational rivers,nor would
it cros,s any existing or presently proposed wilderness areas or wild-
life refuges.In most segments,the transmission line would parallel
existing corridors or traverse no significantly large areas of intact
wilderness.However,in some segments where the transmission line
would pioneer a corridor through a previously intact area,the quality
of wilderness would suffer,especially where the transmission line is
easily visible.'-.
The transmission line would have minimum impact on scenic quality
from Point MacKenzie to Talkeetna since it could be concealed or in
some areas be laid parallel and adjacent to existing line clearings.
The line would have a moderate impact on scenic quality between
Talkeetna and Gold Creek.The line could be hidden well from rail-
lines unless the corridor were consolidated.From Gold Creek to
Devil Canyon,the line could either be largely concealed from the
road or could be used as the road access route itself.Between
Gold.Creekan~Cantwell,a visible line would have.substantial impact,
partlcularly lf located west of the highway andrallroad ..The line
through this area could be somewhat concealed.with the exception of
61
.,~-~~------------------._-----------------
Broad Pass which has the least vegetative cover.From Cantwell to
Healy,the line would have a severe impact on scenic quality;not only
is the canyon,an area of high scenic quality,concealment of the line is
difficult and the west bank of the Nenana is Park land.The impact
would be moderate near Healy and in the Goldstream Hills and low along
the lower Nenana River.Impact would be less if Golden Valley Electric
Association right-of-way were joined.
4.14 Earthquakes.Several major and minor fault systems either border
or cross the Upper Susitna River Basin,and the southcentral "area of
Alaska is in one of the world's most active seismic zones.One of the
strongest earthquakes in recorded history struck southcentral Alaska in
March of 1964;the magnitude of the quake was 8.4 on the Richter Scale.
The quake was centered just north of the Prince William Sound area,·
approximately 120 miles from the proposed damsites.
Devil Canyon and Watana Dams will be designed to withstand a
Maximum Credible Earthquake of 8.5 magnitude with an epicenter of
40 miles at a focal depth of 20 miles.which is the approximate distance
of both damsites to the Denali Fault system,and is the most likely
source of a seismic event of this magnitude.The Susitna Fault.trun-
cated by the Denali Fault,bisects the region ina northeast to south-
west direction approximately 2.5 miles west of the Watana damsite.
4.15 Sedimentation.Reservoir sediment inflow would vary at each
reservoir.Onder the proposed system,Devil Canyon reservoir would
lose approximately 6.5 percent of its total storage area to sedimenta-
tion during a lOa-year period.Watana reservoir would have a lOa-year
sediment inflow that would equal about 3.6 percent of the reservoir's
storage capacity.
Both proposed reservoirs have a dead storage area that is not
utilized for power production;therefore,much of the initial lOa-year
sedimentation for the reservoirs would be contained within this "dead
storage space,"which would not have any significant effect on reservoir
operations.~~uch of the heavier sediment deposited in Watana reservoir
would collect at the bead of the 54-mile-long reservoir.With adequate
maintenance.the useful life of the proposed project is estimated to be
in excess of 500 years.If at some future time a feasible program of
sediment removal were developed,the useful life period could be
substantially increased.
4.16 Climatic Conditions.The severe climatic conditions in the Upper
Susitna River Basin could have a substantial environmental impact on
the design,construction,and operation of the proposed hydroelectric
development.Permafrost conditions,extreme cold winter temperatures.
a long period of cold weather,and ice conditions on the reservoir and
.river are some of the significant climatic conditions that would have to
be considered.
62
ml'
..
The Upper Susitna River Basin is underlain by discontinuous perma-
frost.so some project areas will have to contend·with permafrost and
other areas will not.
Extremely cold winter temperatures and long periods of cold weather
will place substantial restrictions on many project construction activi-
ties and increase the time needed to complete the construction of the
project to a total of 10 to 12 years..
Icing conditions on the reservoirs and the river may cause a wide
range of adverse impacts both on project construction activities and on
project operations.An ice-free stretch of warmer.open water below
Devil Canyon Dam could cause ice-fog conditions in that area during
periods of extreme cold weather.Regulations of winter flows are not
expected to have any significant effects on river ice conditions neces-
sary for the continued use of the stream for winter travel downstream
from Talkeetna.
4.17 Air Pollution.Most of the existing electrical power in the
SouthcentralRailbelt area is produced by gas,coal,and oil-fired
generating units which cause varying degrees of air pollution.
Cook Inlet gas is a clean fuel that causes few serious airpollu-
tion problems at the present time.The existing gas turbine$have very
low efficiencies and emit visible water vapor emissions during the
colder winter months.Also.nitrogen emissions could be of significant
concern for any proposed larger gas-fired plants.
Hydroelectric energy could replace the burning of fossil fuels for
electric power generation in much of the Fairbanks area and could help
to alleviate the severe winter ice fog and smoke problems in that area.
Hydroelectric projects provide a very clean source of power with
practically no direct air pollution-related problems.This type of
electrical power generation could reduce a substantial number of future
air pollution problems associated with the burning of gas,oil.and
coal.It would be necessary to burn some of the residue slash material
and debris during project construction and clearing operations,and
fires would be controlled as necessary.
4.18 Soci a1.
4.18.1 Population.Substantial increases in population are expected
within the Southcentral Railbelt area through the year 2000 and,with
the possible relocation of Alaska's State capital from Juneau to the
Railbelt,an additional population impact can be expected in this area.
,The population of the area will increase with or without the
development of hydroelectric projects proposed for the Susitna River;
construction of the project is not expected to have any significant long
63
range effect on overall population growth,but is rather designed to
full fi 11 presently projected needs of a growing popul ation as one
alternative means of producing power which will have to be provided
in one way or another.Thus the total amount of power generated by the
proposed Susitna hydroelectric project would generally be an alternative
source,which would have as one of its major considerations a renewable
energy source.rather than being an additional power source.Projected
power requirements based on mid-range estimates show that the proposed
Susitna hydroelectric development program could supply a substantial
portion of the Railbelt's projected electric power needs starting in
about 1985.The proposed upper Susitna River hydro projects will not
create large blocks of excess electric power for heavy energy-consuming
industries.If larger amounts of electric energy are needed for a
program of heavy industrial development,additional energy-producing
sources will have to be constructed.In summary.the project is designed
to serve projected population needs--not to stimulate population growth
as a consequence of industries which would be attracted by large
blocks of excess electrical energy.
A 10-to 12-year Devil Canyon-Watana hydroelectric development
program would have an economic impact on the Southcentral Railbelt area
that would be felt to a greater degree during the construction phase of
project development.
It is expected that this proposed project would have some stabilizing
i nfl uence on the avera 11 economy of the Rail bel t area duri ng the peri od
of construction starting in about 1980,since construction would be
initiated several years after the Alaskan oil pipeline has been built
and about the time the proposed gas pipeline is scheduled for completion.
The number of men required to construct this project is estimated to
range between 500 and 1.000 men during the peak construction period.
Various community,borough.state.and private facilities and
agencies would be impacted to varying degrees by the workers involved in
the construction of the proposed project.Workers'camps would be
constructed in the vicinity of some of the various construction acti-
vities,but additional impacts would be created by the families of the
construction workers living in various nearby communities who would
require additional facilities and services.It is also expected that
due to adverse climatic conditions,much of the construction on the
project facilities would be restricted to the warmer months of the
year--probably April through October.The seasonal nature of the
construction work would have an adverse impact on the local economy
during the winter months.
After the construction of the project,a small number of people
would be required to operate and maintain the project and project-
related facilities--these people would not create a significant social
or economic impact on the rail belt area.
64
-
5.0 ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED
Approximately 50.550 acres of land would be flooded by the reser-
voirs (7,550 acres at Devil Canyon,43,000 acres at Watana)at normal
pool elevation.This encompasses an almost continuous B4-mile reach of
the upper Susitna River.Approximately 2 miles of natural river would
remain unflooded between the two reservoirs.All woodlands and other
vegetation within the reservoir pools would be permanently lost.Trans-
mission line clearing wo.uld be required essentially the full length of
the 136-mile-long Susitna corridor for a total of about 2,300 acres.
Only about half of the 19B-mile-long Nenana corridor would require
clearing,or approximately 1,500 acres.
Water released from the reservoirs would be slightly turbid through-
out the year,whereas under existing conditions the stream normally runs
clear from late fall until early spring breakup.Studies to date
indicate that the sediment in suspension would not be high,ranging
probably from 15-35 ppm.On the other hand,heavy sediment loads now
carried by the stream during the warmer months of spring through early
fall would be significantly reduced.
Downstream water quality problems related to temperature,dissolved
oxygen,and supersaturated nitrogen could occur.These would be held to
minimal ,and possibly insignificant levels by spillway des.ign and the
incorporation of multiple-level water withdrawal structures.
Approximately 9 miles of the existing ll-mile whitewater reach
through Devil Canyon would be lost through inundation.
The lower 2.5 miles of Tsusena Creek,which would be utilized as a
spillway for excess river flows (this would occur rarely),will suffer
adverse impacts to fish and on-shore vegetation during such periods.
Some moose habitat within the canyon floor and adjacent slopes
would be inundated by the reservoirs.Most of the present use is
upstream from Tsusena Creek,thus the greatest impact to moose would
result from the Watana reservoir.The amount of habitat is limited,
but its loss woul d be permane~t.
The reservoirs would lie between the spring calving grounds and
portions of the summer range of the wide-ranging Nelchina caribou
herd.Increased mortality to caribou attempting to cross the reser-
voirs between these two areas could result from ice-shelving conditions
which might occur,particularly on Watana reservoir,and other diffi-
cu1tieswhich might be encountered in swimming both reservoirs.
The reservoirs could conceivably alter historical herd movement and
distribution,although the animals do not exhibit any readily definable
patterns,other than in the broadest of terms,at the present time.
65
Although other major wildlife species,such as bears,wolves,
wolverines,and Dall sheep are not expected to be directly affected
by the project'to a significant extent,there will inevitably be
some secondary impacts resulting from disruption of existing predator-
prey relationships.Overall,terrestrial wildlife habitat will be
reduced.Small animals resident to inundated areas will be lost.
Within the transmission line corridors,those species dependent upon
climax or near-climax vegetation will be the most adversely affected.
Examples are the red squirrel and northern flying squirrel.
Resident fish populations above Devil Canyon Dam (there are
no anadromous fish under existing conditions above this point)could
be advers~ly affected to some extent by the change from a riverine
to lake environment within the reservoir pools.The resident sport
fishery is not believed to be significant within the main river
channel.Primary impacts would occur near the mouths of clearwater
tributaries which provide some known grayling habitat.The intricate
changes expected to occur downstream from Devil Canyon will result
in both beneficial and adverse impacts to resident and anadromous
fishes.Adverse impacts could result from possible reduction in
nutrients and primary productivity,cutting,and erosion of existing
streambed configuration,increased turbidity during the winter months,
and changes in the hydraulic and biological regime of salmon rearing
and spawn"ing sloughs.(As pointed out in Section 4,many of the
anticipated changes downstream from Devil Canyon Dam could prove
beneficial to both the anadromous and resident fishery.Determinations
as to the offsetting effects of these changes are the subject of
on-going studies.)
Roads required for project construction,operation,and main-
tenance would impair visual quality and permit general public access
into a largely pristine area.This would increase-c pressure on existing
game populations through hunting,trapping,and general disturbance
and harrassment.This in turn would require intensified game manage-
ment and law enforcement practices and preventative measures for the
control of wildfire.Another harmful effect would be the impact of
some of the roads themselves where delicate ecosystems are traversed.
Some of the inevitable consequences of road construction are destruction
of vegetation and wildl ife habitat,reduced insulation of frozen soils,
and settling from permafrost destruction resulting in both erosion and
alteration of the groundwater regime.
Degradation of visual quality in general would be a major adverse
effect of project construction.This would be attributable primarily
to roads,dam construction,right-of-way clearing for the transmission
line,and the obtrusiveness of the transmission line itself.Although
care would be taken to minimize these impacts to the greatest possible
extent.the overall natural setting and scenic quality of the damsites
and transmission line corridor would be permanently impaired.
66
...II!
Although only one historical cabin site and no archaeological
sites are presently known to exist within the proposed reservoir pools
or transmission line corridor,ground reconnaissance of the affected
area~which would take place prior to any construction activity could
result in the discovery of such sites.Where determined necessary,
sites would be salvaged at project cost.
Disposal of slash and other woody debris resulting from reservoir
and transmission line right-of-way clearing would have varying degrees
and duration of impact.Material in the reservoir pools would most
likely be disposed of by burning.This could increase the possibility
of wildfire in woodlands adjacent to the clearing area,and would affect
ambient ai~quality,and introduce ash and other material into the
Susitna River during reservoir filling.These impacts,while temporarily
harmful,would be of short duration.Other methods of disposal,such as
stacking,burying.and chipping.have related adverse impacts.many of
which are more severe or of longer duration than burning.
Mineral resource potential within areas which would be inundated by
the reservoirs is not fully known.Inundation would obviate the practi-
cability of future mining or extraction of such resources.
Future options concerning any other use of lands within the reser-
voir pools would effectively be foreclosed.Impacts on land use related
to the transm'ission 1ines are more difficult to assess.There will be
unavoidable impacts on present and future land use with foreclosure of
some alternative future uses.These could be both adverse and beneficial.
For instance,the transmission line would probably predate agriCUltural
land use along much of the corridor.This could be beneficial since a
right-of-way would provide cleared land at little or no expense to the
farmer.On the other hand.irrigation and tilling methods would have to
adapt themselves to the spacing of towers and land occupied by the tower
bases would be unusable.Also.the transmission corridor could attract
future corridors.This could be beneficial in preventing separate
rights-of-way impacts such as more clearing and additional road con-
struction.but might further impair visual impacts associated with
additional structures within the existing corridor.
Both temporary and permanent facilities would have to be provided
for project workers.Impacts from temporary facilities.while adverse.
would be temporary.Permanent facilities would be located and designed
to minimize adverse impacts.Small communities near construction
actiVities would be impacted by an influx of temporary construction
workers and their families.with resultant increased demand upon com-
munity services.The temporary nature of this influx of people would be
difficult to cope with,and could well have community effects last"ing
well beyond the departure of this transient population.Another problem
related to work generated by the project would be its seasonality.In
many instances,construction activity would be limited to the warmer
season,thus many of these workers woul d be seasonally employed.
67
~__._....._""Ilt_.-r--"---~--------
-~¢
6.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
6.01 GeneraL Alaska has a wi de vari ety of energy a lterna ti ves to
produce electricity.Each of the major energy resources--oil,coal,
natural gas,and hydroelectric potential could easily meet projected.
power requirements well beyond the year 2000.The nuclear energy alter-
native is also available,and geothermal resources could be significant
in some parts of the State.Present energy generation systems depend
heavily on fuel oils and natural gas with smaller amounts of electrical
energy coming from hydro powerplants and coal.
,
It is assumed that hydroelectric power from the Upper Susitna River
Basin could be operational by 1986 with the completion of the first dam
and powerplant;thus economic and financial feasibility should be
assessed in terms of realistic alternatives that could be made available
in about the same time frame.Such alternatives include power from Cook
Inlet oil and natural gas,coal resources in the Beluga and Nenana
fields,oil from the Alyeska pipeline,natural gas from the North
Slope,other hydro resources,nuclear power,and geothermal power.
Public Law 93-577 passed by the Congress on .31 December 1974 has
emphasized the conservation of nonrenewable resources and the utili-
zation of renewable resources where possible.The construction of the
proposed hydroelectric dams on the upper Susitna River is a feasible
project that utilizes a renewable resource to generate electrical power
while helping to conserve the use of nonrenewable resources such as oil
and natural gas.Present Alaskan power systems have a significant
environmental impact on urban environments,but a relatively small
environmental impact outside the urban areas.Substantial increases
in Southcentral Railbelt power requirements will involve the develop-
ment of future electric power systems,larger facilities,and some
alternatives that have very important environmental implications.
.Future power systems will also require approaches that include full
consideration of environmental values and alternatives and must antici-
pate that Alaska and the nation will attach increasing importance to
environmental protection,energy conservation,and conservation of
nonrenewable resources.Additional requirements must be anticipated for
long-range advance planning and site selection,public participation,
and full consideration of the environment in planning,design,construc-
tion,and operation of power facilities.
The significant environmental impacts of the various proposed
alternatives would vary depending on the location,design,construction,
and operation of the facilities for each of the alternatives.
Solutions considered in this investigation to meet electrical needs
in the Southcentral Railbelt area were grouped in three major categories:
68
alternative sources of power;alternative hydropower sources in the
Railbelt area;and alternative hydropower plans in the Upper Sus.itna
River Basin.The extent of study given to each potential solution was
established by first screening each alternative for suitability,appli-
cability,and economic merit in meeting needs.Each alternative was
tested for physical,political,financial,institutional,economic,
environmental,and social feasibility.Continuous coordination was
maintained with area State and Federal agencies which have related
interests.Alternative measures considered for power purposes are
discussed in the following paragraphs.
6.02 Alternative Sources of Power.
6.02.1 No Action.If a hydroelectric system is not developed,
alternative power sources would be required to satisfy projected future
growth needs of the Railbelt area.Because of lead time involved in
planning,financing,and construction of any currently viable alternative,
oil and natural gas must continue to provide the bulk of the area's
power supplies until the 1980 1 s.Dnan equivalent time-frame basis,
coal is the most likely future electrical energy source for the Railbelt
area,if hydropower is not developed.The impacts of the coal alterna-
tive are discussed in the follow"jng paragraph.
6.02.2 Coal.·Coal is the most abundant fossil fuel in the nation.
Southcentral Alaska has two known extensive deposits (Figure 11).The
Beluga River area northwest of Cook Inlet contains coal reserves of at
least 2.3 billion tons or,energy-wise,an equivalent of almost 7 billion
barrels of oil.Development of Beluga coals would enhance possibilities
for coal-fired power generation at reasonable cost.Coal resources in
the Nenana Fields in the Southcentral Railbelt south of Fairbanks near
Healy,Alaska,are even more extensive than the Beluga River reserves,
totaling at least 6 billion tons,or equivalent of about 18 billion
barrel s of oil.
In many cases,the major obstacle to increased coal usage is the
problem of removing the high sulfur content in order to meet air pollu-
tion standards when the coal is burned.Other problems include strip
and subsurface mining,with associated environmental impacts,and trans-
portation of the coal.The Beluga coals have low amounts of sulfur but
also have high ash and water content.Considerable refining would be
needed to enable its use in power generation.
The coal al ternative could be available on about the same time
frame as other major new power sources such as hydropower and possibly
nucl ear power.It appears that baseload t~ermalplants could be util i zed
in the Railbelt area by 1~90.Coal and hy~ro potential for the South-
central Railbelt may be the least expensive alternatives for the new
power supplies in the 1980's and beyond,but coal would be more expensive
than hydro.Coal-fired plants should also be given consideration in
remote areas which could be supplied by water transportation.
69
COAL AND
GEOTHERMAL AREAS
100Mil••
A.P.A.-JULY 1975
o 50
FIGURE 11
70
MAP
IIIIIIIIJ]Cool Areas
~Geothermal Areas
•
In the absence of major hydro development or the discovery of addi-
tional gas reserves,it is assumed that the Rai1be1t power system would
shift from oil and gas-fired power units to coal as their principal
energy source starting about 1985.It is further assumed that the coal
plants would either be conventional steam or steam and gas turbine units
located near the Beluga and Nenana coal fields.
In view of the quantities of coal involved and present-day mining
practice,it is presumed that strip mining would be employed to obtain
the coal.Without specific knowledge of the mining site,it is not
possible to project how much acreage would be affected;however,it is
assumed to be in the hundreds,possibly thousands,of acres.Much addi-
tional land would be required for stockpiling of overburden and mine
wastes until such time as a portion of the pit became worked out and
could be used for disposal.The immediate impacts would be the destruc-
tion of the overlying vegetation and thus loss of habitat for the resi-
dent animals and birds.Additional land would be altered for roads or
other routes for working the mine(s}and transporting the coal to genera-
tion facilities.Air quality could be expected to suffer from large
inputs of dust.Water in contact with coal and mine wastes generally
become acidic and toxic to vegetation and animal life.It is difficult
to prevent such water from entering either the underground water table
or the natural drainage streams in the area and thus impacting water
quality to some distance from the actual mine.Any scenic values in the
mine area would be lost at least until the mine was exhausted and res-
toration completed.
Environmental qualities would also be affected at the generating
facilities.Considerable land would be occupied by the structures and
more by the operating coal stockpiles and access routes.The associated
vegetation,habitat,and scenic values would be lost.Even with emis-
sions controlled to legal levels,there would be an input of particulate
matter and chemical compounds into the atmosphere.Large amounts of
water would be needed for cooling ponds requiring either land for in-
stallation of the ponds and the removal of the water from natural sources
or the use of a natural water body (lake or river)for the cooling
element.In the latter case,the effects of IItherma1 po11ution ll on the
receiving water would be substantial,especially as regards stimulation
of vegetal growth and adverse impacts on fish,if present.Disposal
sites for the waste combustion products would be needed and could require
alteration of large quantities of land and its natural values.
Social impacts would be mixed in effect.The operation of the
minepowerp1ant would provide long-term employment for many more people
than for a like-sized hydroelectric facility.Because of this,the
visible economic effects related to disposable income and the multiplier
effect of additional cash circulating in the economic community would be
much more evident than with a hydropower system.A coal-thermal facility
would forego the recreational and flood control benefits provided by a
hydropower project.
71
In view of the extensive adverse environmental impacts associated
with the coal alternative,both in magnitude of effects and areas affected,
this is determined to a less desirable source of energy production than
hydroelectric development.
6.02.3 Oil and Natural Gas.In the period following the 1967 Depart-
ment of Interior report,Alaska Natural Resources and the Rampart Project,
most studies by Federal agencies and area utility companies focused on
the Cook Inlet supplies of natural gas and,more recently,on pipeline
fuels for Railbelt power.Location of potential oil and gas reserves in
the Southcentral area are shown in Figure 12.
Cook Inlet gas is a clean fuel,and few serious air pollution prob-
lems exist for gas-fired units.Gas turbine exhaust is noisy,but
modern noise suppression equipment can reduce this impact.Energy
conservation aspects of gas-fired units may become significant because
existing gas turbines have low efficiencies and emit visible water vapor
emmissions during the colder winter months.Also,nitrogen emissions
could be of significant concern for any proposed larger gas-fired plants.
Existing plans for the Cook Inlet area involve additional large,
advanced-cycle gas turbine units at Beluga and additional turbines and
waste-heat-recovery units in Anchorage.The Fairbanks area utility
companies plan additional gas turbine units using pipeline fuels.
Plans for the near future include a number of measures to increase
efficiency,including the advanced cycle and waste-heat-recovery units
mentioned previously.However,because of lead time involved in planning,
financing,and constructing alternatives,oil and natural gas must
provide the bulk of the area's power supplies,at least until the mid-
1980's.
Cook Inlet natural gas has provided low cost power benefits for the
surrounding area in the recent past and,with substantial reserves under
contract,should handle area power requirements for several more years.
Also,additional reserves may be found in future exploration to meet
future demands.It appears reasonable to assume that there will be sub-
stantial increases in costs for future oil and gas supplies as U.S.do-
mestic reserves decline,worldwide demand increases,and foreign oil
prices remain high.
.Higher costs for fuels in the future,especially for oil and gas,
should be considered in all future planning,and should anticipate
serious national efforts to develop alternative energy sources that
limit the use of oil and gas for power generation.To a very large
extent these factors invalidate many previous power studies which were
made on the assumptions that cheap,long range oil and gas fuel sources
would be available.
Alaska power systems now depend on oil and gas for about 60 percent
of total energy production,and by 1980 about 90 percent of the State's
72
~,;;r
~(~(?~o
o&.VICINITY M
.•I ~H;gh Potentiol f::m .~~Mod I and Gas
ITD erate Potential
Low Potential
Sou"~e'Jol nl FPIed"ol-SI~.,:::.;on"d.IJUseJ::..~~~~.,W3
MAP
~VERY HIGH POTENTfA-C---
mmnn HIGH POTENTIAL
FIGURE 13
74
:~:::::..:::;;:; ;::.
POTENTIAL MINERAL
DEVELOPMENT AREAS,
~_.;,,;;,;,;;,~_LE,===
o 50 100 Mil..
A..P.A.-JULY 1975
..
electric energy will come from these premium fuels.Estimated 1972 fuel
use for Alaska's power systems included 1.4 million barrels of oil and
16 billion cubic feet of natural gas.If recent trends continue,the
use would increase to about 26 million barrels of oil and 134 billion
cubic feet of natural gas annually by the year 2000 under mid-range
level estimates.
Since low cost natural gas became available for power production in
the Cook Inlet area,the Upper Susitna River Basin hydro pqwer develop-
ment has not looked attractive to the area utilities.
Now the long range outlook for availability and cost of gas is
changing;this,coupled with high power costs in the Fairbanks area,
possibilities that pipeline fuels will also be quite expensive,and
broader new interest in conservation of nonrenewable resources has
created renewed interest in Susitna hydro potential.
A concentrated effort to develop alternatives for power generation
such as coal,hydro,and eventually nuclear power could result in sub-
stantial reduction in demand for oil and natural gas.The lead times
and large investments required to develop alternatives reinforce the
point that oil and natural gas must supply near future requirements.
For most smaller power systems,bas i ca 11y no economi ca 11y feas ib1e
alternatives to diesel generation exist,'at least for the present.
The availability of fuels in Alaska will undoubtedly improve as
reserves and facilities are developed,which should lead to reduced
dependence on costly imported diesel fuels and other petroleum products
for power generation and other uses within the State.However,there is
no longer any reason to anticipate that Alaskan oil and gas will provide
an abundant,cheap energy source for the long term.These fuels will be
expensive,if only because of pressures to export the fuels to areas
where higher prices can be obtained.The present use of oil and natural
gas as a source of electrical energy is viable for Alaska;however,a
higher and better future use of these resources can and,in all prob-
ability will,be made.
In view of the national efforts to develop energy sources that
limit the use of oil and gas for power generation,this alternative was
rejected.
6.02.4 Nuclear Power.The use of nuclear power as a commercial elec-
trical energy source for the nation is expected to increase considerably
by the year 1985.Adverse environmental impacts are associated with
surface and subsurface mining of uranium,changes in land use,disposal
of waste heat,risk of accidents,and safe storage of highly radioactive
wastes.In spite of these factors,more than 50 percent of the elec-
trical power of the nation is expected to be generated by nuclear power
75
~~~~~_._------,_....'-------------'-------------
by the year 2000.By the end of this century~breeder plants~which
produce additional fuel while they produce power~will gradually take
over a larger share of the production of electricity.Possibly at some
time in .thenext century~nuclear fission plants and proposed nuclear
breeder plants will be replaced by nuclear fusion reactors and by central
generating stations running on solar power.
Nuclear power should be considered a likely long-range source of
baseload power for the Railbelt area and is generally considered a
distant option because of size of power markets~cost and environmental
factors,and the availability of more favorable coal and hydro alter-
natives.The foreseeable future for nuclear power generation in Alaska
should become materially more favorable orlly if there is either a break-
through in costs and technology or significant new development in small-
sized plants.
Because of the size of power markets~costs,and environmental
factors~nuclear power development in Alaska is not considered to be an
attractive alternative to cheaper~readily available power sources
during this century.
6.02.5 Geothermal.Geothermal resources may eventually provide
significant power generation in Alaska;the Southcentral Railbelt area
has substantial geothermal potential.This source of energy is not
considered a reasonable short term alternative to other more proven
types of power generation~as increased utilization of geothermal
resources depends upon additional technological development and economics.
Geothermal power gneration is also considered to be a future supplement
to other power sources rather than an alternative method of producing
electricity.
Some of the possible problems associated with the generation of
electric power from geothermal resources include siting of facilities,
brine disposal~and corrosion.This renewable resource could also
provide usable side products such as heat,water,and chemicals.
This is not considered a realistic alternative to other energy
sources within the foreseeable future.
6.02.6 Solar.The radiant heat of the sun is another renewable
source of energy that has considerable potential for generating power in
this country and the world.Practical use of solar energy to produce
electric power on a large scale is primarily a question of developing
the technology to generate and to store large amounts of electricity
produced by the sun's radiation.A major disadvantage wherever such
development is pursued is the large land area required for reflector
installation to provide usable amounts of power and thus the large
environmental disturbances inherent in such a change in land use.
76
111
A second concern especially in Alaska is that during the wint~r,
when demand for electrical power is greatest,the sun is either absent
from or at best a brief visitor to local skies.Solar power generation
is not considered a feasible planning alternative for Alaskan power
systems in the near future.
6.02.7 Wind and Tidal.Research and development proposals for wind
generators should improve future capabilities of wind-powered electrical
generating systems.With increa~ed diesel fuel costs,wind-generated
electrical power is a possible alternative power source for remote areas
with small loads.The extreme costs and environmental effects involved
in most tidal flow hydroelectric proposals are major factors opposing
this alternative method of generating electrical power.Neither alter-
native is considered feasible for provision of large amounts of energy
at this time.
6.02.8 Wood.In parts of southeastern Alaska,wood is used to fire
steam-generating power plants.Alaska does have vast forest reserves
that could be used;however,these same trees have far higher and better
alternative uses in wood,paper,and other industries.In addition,the
esthetic,ecological,and environmental impacts of the large harvests
necessary to allow production of large amounts of energy appear to be
massive.Wood as an energy source is not considered a major alternative.
6.02.9 Intertie.Alaska could purchase surplus power from sources in
Canada or the "Lower 48;"however,the cost of transmission facilities
and the uncertainty of available dependable power would be major factors
opposing such a scheme.Therefore,an intertie does not appear to be
feasible at this time..
6.02.10 Solid Waste.The use of solid wastes was proposed by the
Alaska Center for the-Environment as an alternative source of energy at
the intermediate public meeting held in Anchorage on 29 May 1975.There
does not appear to be an adequate supply of solid waste products in the
rai 1belt area to produce enough energy.Associated air qual ity and odor
problems would also appear to be severe.This alternative is not con-
sidered feasible to meet the energy needs in the rail belt area.
6.02.11 Hydropower.The reconnaissance report on potential development
in the State of Alaska made in 1948 by the U.S.Bureau of Reclamation,
included hundreds of potential power development sites located through-
out the five study regions of the State:Southeast;Southcentral;
Yukon-Kuskokwim;Seward Peninsula;and Arctic.The two largest market
areas for power are located in the Southcentral region,.particularly the
Anchorage-Cook Inlet area,and the Fairbanks-Tanana Valley area.The
large amount of the available renewable water resource which could
produce electric power has excellent potential to answer the energy
needs of the Southcentral Railbelt area.
77
.6.03 Alternative Hydrologic Basins in the Southcentral Railbelt Area
6.03.1 Rampart Canyon.The site for the proposed Rampart Canyon Dam
is on the Yukon River approximately 140 miles northwest of Fairbanks,
Alaska.The project has one of the greatest hydroelectric potentials in
North America.The proposal would create a reservoir with a water
surface area of approximately 10,600 square miles;with a maximum length
of 280 miles and a maximum width of about 80 miles.The project would
provide firm annual energy of 34.2 billion kilowatt-hours (the energy
equivalent of over 74 million barrels of oil per year).However,the
adverse environmental impacts on fish and wildlife in the Yukon Flats
would be significant.
While Rampart is engineeringly feas"ible,it would provide enough
excess energy to encourage further industrial development in Alaska,
thereby introducing a number of secondary impacts not associated with
the recommended alternative.Excess energy could also be transmitted to
the "Lower 48/1 through an intertie system.However,this would be a
major action not directly applicable to energy needs of the Rail belt
Area.Justification would have to be based on a nation-wide plan which
included Rampart as a recommended alternative to the development of
other energy sources.Within the time-frame criteria established for
fulfillment of projected growth needs in the Railbelt Area,this is not
considered a viable alternative.
The tremendous financial investments,the substantial environmental
impacts,the limited opportunities for marketing the enormous amounts of
power,.and the availability of favorable,less costly alternatives
preclude'recommending construction of the Rampart project at this time.
6.03.2 Wood Can.xon.The site for the proposed Wood Canyon Dam is
about 85 miles above the mouth of the Copper River in the Chugach
Mountains of southcentral Alaska.A "high damn would develop firm
annual ,energy of 21.9 billion kilowatt-hours.A "low dam"would provide
10.3 billion kilowatt-hours of firm annual energy.
The construction of a dam at Wood Canyon would force relocation of
two communities and would create serious environmental problems affecti-
ng both fish and wildlife values,~specially to the large salmon runs on
the Copper River.Unless the problem posed to migrating salmon could be
solved satisfactorily,the project would have an extremely adverse
effect on the major commercial fishing industry in a wide area of the
Gulf of Alaska.This alternative is not considered feasible at this
time.
6.03.3 Chakachamna Lake.The site for the proposed Chakachamna Lake
Dam is located on the Chakachamna River which empties into the west side
78
'"
l
100Mllo.a 50
,r...r---YUKON RIVER
..'.
r-.~~·;:.:;::='i2!~0jl;t1.;·::L.:""'::r.Aoo1I'
~I~i~i~~!.
SOUTHCENTRAL RAILBELT
KEY HYDROELECTRIC AND
.<;:}}»::::««<t:::TR AN 8M ISS ION ·A LTERNAT IVES
....~..I::~/.>p:i::.~:::::i:::::l:;:::!l::::i·(::.:..l::i:!~!)::l::::
FIGURE 14
79
of Cook Inlet approximately 65 miles west of Anchorage.The facility
would generate 1.6 billion kilowatt-hours of firm annual energy.The
project would require the erection of transmission facilities over
difficult terrain to tie into a Southcentra1 Railbe1t transmission
System and the construction of a high-cost ll-mile tunnel for power
generation.The adverse environmental impact would be substantially
less than for many proposed Alaskan hydroelectric projects.However,
the low energy output and the high costs render this alternative econom-
ically infeasible at this time.
,6.03.4 Bradley Lake.The site for this proposed hydroelectric project
is at Bradley Lake on the Kenai Peninsula at the head of Kachemak Bay
near Homer,Alaska.The proposal would generate 0.4 billion ki11owatt-
hours of firm annual energy and could serve as a southern peaking in-
stallation for a Southcentra1 Railbe1t power system.Adverse environ-
mental impacts of this proposed project would be relatively minor com-
pared to the other hydroelectric development alternatives.If an eco-
nomically feasible plan can be developed for Bradley Lake,the project
could be integrated with future development of the Susitna River basin.
By itself,the alternative is not viable at this time.
6.03.5 Susitna River.Surveys for potential hydropower development
in the Susitna River basin were reported by the Corps of Engineers in
1950 and by the u.s.Bureau of Reclamation in 1948,1952,1961,and
1974.The 1952 USBR report indicated 12 potential hydropower sites in
the basin;of these,the five damsites studied in the upper Susitna
basin showed the highest potential.These studies showed the environ-
mental impact from projects in the Upper Susitna River Basin would not
be as severe as those from other basins,and the firm energy potential
could contribute substantially to satisfying the needs of the South-
central Railbelt area.
6.04 Alternative Hydroelectric Plans in the Upper Susitna River Basin:
6.04.1 General:Eight plans for hydroelectric development of the
Susitna River basin including the proposed actions were studied as
follows:
6.04.2 Devil Canyon.The possibility of a single dam development of
the Upper Susitna basin located at the Devil Canyon damsite was investi-
gated.The proposed thin-arch dam would have a water surface area of
about 7,550 acres at the normal maximum pool elevation of 1,450 feet,
m.s.l.The project would produce 0.9 billion kilowatt-hours of firm
annual energy from an installed capacity of 220 megawatts.Because of
the very limited storage capacity,the project has a low firm energy
capability and is not considered economically viable.
6.04.3 Watana.This single dam development of the upper Susitna
basin located at the Watana site would be an earthfill dam with structural
80
height of about 810 feet.The reservoir would have a normal maximum
pool elevation of 2.200 feet,would have a surface area of approximately
43,000 acres.and would extend about 54 river miles upstream to a point
between the Oshetna and Tyone Rivers.The annual firm electrical pro-
duction of Watana would be 3.1 billion kilowatt-hours from an installed
capacity of 750 megawatts.Although feasible.the project develops less
than half of the basin potential and is not viable in itself since more
productive feasible plans are available.
6~04.4 Devil Canyon High Dam.In September 1974.Henry J.Kaiser
Company prepared a report proposing an alternative hydroelectric develop-
ment project on the upper Susitna River.The report states that pre-
liminary investigations indicated that an 8l0-foot-high.concrete-faced
rockfill dam located about five miles upstream from the proposed Devil
Canyon site would provide 3.7 billion kilowatts of average annual energy,
or 2.6 billion kilowatt-hours of firm annual energy (figures converted
to standard Corps of Engineers evaluation parameters).This dam would
inundate about 58 miles of the Susitna River with a reservoir of approx-
imately24,000 surface acres at a full pool elevation of 1,750 feet.
This project would be located in much of the same area of the
Susitna River canyon occupi ed by the proposed Devil Canyon-Watana project
and would have similar environmental impacts with some exceptions.
Whereas the Devil Canyon reservoir in the two-dam proposal would remain
nearly full all year.the Kaiser reservoir would fluctuate substantially.
Kaiser's proposed Devil Canyon High Dam,located about 25 miles
downstream from the Watana site.would have proportionately fewer miles
of permanent roads and transmission lines than the Devil Canyon-Watana
project.therefore less environmental impact on resources affected by
these facilities.
The recreation opportunities would be fewer for the one-dam proposal.
The sUbstantial fluctuation of the reservoir would reduce some recre-
ation potential and reduce resident fish populations while increasing
the adverse visual impact associated with reservoir drawdown.The plan
was found to lack economic feasibility.
6.04.5 Devil Canyon-Denali.This alternative two-dam system would
include the thin arch concrete dam at Devil Canyon and a 260-foot-high
earthfill dam in the vicinity of Denali.The Denali Dam would provide
storage only and would have no powerhouse.This system would generate
2.5 bi 11 ion k i1owatt-hours of fi rm annual energy from an ins ta 11 ed
capacity of 575 megawatts at Devil Canyon Dam.The surface acres flooded
would total about 62,000 acres (Devil Canyon.7,550;Denali 54.000).The
plan would entail significant environmental impacts on waterfowl nesting
areas.moose range,and archaeological/historical values in the Denali
reservoir area.Economic feasibility is lacking.
81
Upstream view of Devil Canyon damsite.
82
~~~
<Xl
W
Looking upstream at Susitna River near Denali.Tundra ecosystems with
scattered areas of black spruce.
6.04.6 Three-dam System.A three-dam Devil Canyon-Watana-Denali
hydroelectric development on the upper Susitna River could be built as
an extension of the two-dam Devil Canyon-Watana project if the Denali
storage site proved feasible.Such a dam system would provide a total
of 6.9 billion kilowatt-hours of firm annual energy.
If a three-dam Devil Canyon-Watana-Denal i project were constructed,
it would include Devil Canyon and Watana dams previously described,and
a 260-foot storage dam at Denali.This three-dam system would inundate
approximately 104,550 acres and would take 13 to 17 years to construct.
With a three-dam system~the 100-year storage capacity in Watana reser-
voir would be reduced by about 4 percent due to sedimentation.
Environmentally,this plan would result in the adverse impacts
assocated with the Devil Canyon-Denali two-dam system~plus the added
impact of inundating some additional moose range and bisecting a sea-
sonal caribou migration route.Though the latter impact should not
seriously impede caribou migration,it could result in increased car"ibou
mortality if animals attempted to cross the reservoir during adverse ice
conditions,including the possibility of ice-shelving during periods of
reservoir drawdown..
This alternative has significantly greater total adverse environ-
mental impacts than the recommended plan (Devil Canyon and Watana develop-
ment would have almost identical impacts with either plan)and is not
economically feasible.
6.04.7 Four-dam System.In May 1974,the Alaska Power Administration
updated a March 1961 report of the Bureau of Reclamation which proposed
development of the hydroelectric resources of the Upper Susitna River
Basin.The report proposed an initial plan to build the Devil Canyon
Dam and powerplant and an upstream storage dam and reservoir at Denali.
Subsequent development ofa four'-dam system would include dams at both
the Watana and Vee sites.The four-dam system would generate a total of
6.2 billion kilowatts of firm annual electrical energy.TheWatana Dam
under this plan would be about 300 feet lower than in the selected Devil
Canyon-Watana proposal.
Initial development of the four-dam system,Devil Canyon-Watana-
Vee-Denali,would include only the construction of the hydroelectric dam
at Devil Canyon and the storage dam at Denali.This combination of two
dams would produce 2.5 billion kilowatt-hours of firm annual energy.
This initial two-dam system would also be compatible with the three-dam
Devil Canyon-Watana-Denali,alternative proposal.
The four reservoirs considered in this development would inundate
approximately 85,000 acres of land and river in the upper Susitna basin,
compared with about 50,550 acres flooded in the selected two-dam proposal.
84
f
I
J
f
'>"'"
TABLE II
DATA ON THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND SELECTED SUSITNA ALTERNATIVES
Type Normal Miles of Billion Kilowatt-
of Structural Full Pool Surface Total Storage River Hours of Firm
Construction Height Elevation Acres Acre-Feet Inundated _~nnual Energy
seTected Plan:
Devil Canyon Concrete.635'1450·7,550 1,050,000 28
thin-arch
Watana _EaT.thfill 810'2200'!3--,-OOO _9,400,000 54 _
(2.6)
883,0001,0001020'200'+Concrete,
gravity
Vee Earthfill 455'2300'9,400 920,000 32
Denali Earthfill 260'2535'54,000 3,850,000_.34
Tofals 50,550 6.1
Alternatives:
Kaiseris High Earthfill 810'1750'24,000 4,700,000 58
Devil Canyon
Olson
00
(J'l
Totals·---,----"_88,400 '5.6
Dev i1 Ca nyon Concrete,635'1450 I ~;050~,050,0-00 ---,-----zg
thin-arch
Watana Earthfill 810'2200'43,000 9,400,000 54
Dena 1i Ea rthfill 26()'_2535 1 ~4 ,000 3-,~50,000 34
Totalsl04,5So 6.B
Devn-·Canyon Concrete,635'1450'7,550 1,050,000 ·--2"8
thin-arch
Watana Earthfill 515'1905'14,000 2,420,000 40
Vee Earthfill 455'2300'9,400 920,000 32
Denali Earthfill 260'2535'54,0003.850,000 34
Totals 84,950 0.2
00
O'l
Susitna River at Vee damsite.This demonstrates the typically in-
cised character of the Upper Susitna from Devil Canyon to the Tyone
River.Note that heavier vegetation is limited to slopes and creek
valleys.
~"
The two reservoirs proposed in the lower section of the upper Susitna
River would have substantially fewer known adverse environmental impacts
than the two upper area reservoirs at the Vee and Denali.Generally the
further upstream a reservoir is located in the four-dam system,the
greater the overall adverse environmental impact would be on fish,
wildlife,and esthetic resources.
In a four-dam plan,Watana reservoir would cover a surface area of
about 14,000 acres behind a 5l5-foot-high dam with a pool elevation of
1,905 feet.The reservoir would extend over 40 miles upstream from the
damsite and would be contained in the narrow canyon for most of its
length.
Under either Watana alternative,the reservoir would flood areas
used by migrating caribou and would flood some moose winter range in the
river bottom.It would also cover existing resident fish habitat at the
mouths of some of the tributaries in this section of the river and
possible would create additional stream habitat at higher elevations.
The 455-foot-high Vee Dam would be built only under the four-dam
plan in conjunction with the lower height Watana Dam.Vee reservoir
would inundate about 32 miles of glacial river and would have a pool
elevation of 2,300 feet with a surface area of approximately 9,400
acres.The reservoir would flood a substantial amount of moose habitat
on the main Susitna and on the lower reaches of the Oshetna and Tyone
Rivers.Caribou migration routes along the south bank of the Susitna
River would also be affected as would some waterfowl habitat of minor
significance.Present resident fish habitat,especially grayling,would
be flooded at the mouths of many of the clearwater tributaries in the
area covered by the Vee reservoir.
Any road to the Vee damsite would open up larger areas of wild
lands that are prime wildlife habitat and escapement areas (inaccessible
to man)for caribou,bear,and moose,and would have a significant
impact on these and other fish and wildlife resources within these
areas.
Denali Dam,with a structural height of 260 feet,would form a
54,OOO-acre storage reservoir with a pool elevation of 2,535 feet.Large
areas of wildl ife habitat,especially for moose and waterfowl,would be
inundated in an area between 2 and 6 miles wide and approximately 34
miles long.Many clearwater streams entering the Susitna River in this
area have varying populations of arctic grayling;how the fluctuating
reservoir would affect this fishery is generally unknown at this time.
Substantial areas of lands would be exposed during the seasonal drawdowns
of this storage reservoir;from an esthetic standpoint,this would be a
substantial adverse environmental impact,especially when viewed from
the well-traveled Denali Highway during the earlier summer months when
the reservoir would be low.
87
'""'~~~~,--------""---------------------------
coco
Denali Highway bridge across upper Susitna River.This area would have
been inundated by a dam at the Denali site.
;,The relocation of the Denali Highway necessary with the constructiongfadamattheDenalisitewouldprovideadditionalaccesstothisarea
with increasing pressures on the fish and wildlife resources in Coal
~reekt Clearwater Creek,lower Maclaren River,Butte Creek,and the ,
eastern slopes of the Watana Hills.There would be substantially less
developed recreational potential at the Vee and Denali sites than at
bevi 1 Ca.nyon because of travel distances,involved and reservoir draw-
~ownt especially at ~he Denali damsite.
,It is expected that construction of the Vee project would take 5 to
6 years,while the Denal i dam and reservoir would take between 3 and 5
years to construct.The construction period of the four-dam system
~~uld be between 18 and 23 years,if the dams were constructed in
sequence.The magnitude of environmental impacts resulting from a four-
dam system in the Upper Susitna River Basin clearly makes this a less
desirable alternative than the one-,two-,or three-dam plans.
6.04.8 Kaiser Four-Dam System.An additional study of a four-dam
system was made by the Corps of Engineers util i zing the Kaiser Devil
Canyon High Dam as the main component in an upper Susitna basin system.
This alternative included both the Vee and Denali Dams and a low reregu-
'ilating dam just below the confluence of Portage Creek.This four-dam
system could provide an estimated 5.6 billion kilowatt-hours of firm
imnua 1 energy.
•The environmental impacts of this four-dam system are a combination
bf the impacts of the Kaiser Devil Canyon High Dam,the Vee and Denali
;~amsites,and a low reregulating dam downstream from Devil Canyon just
jbelow Portage Creek.The system would inundate about 88,250 acres.One
~af the major additional impacts would include anadromous and resident
~fishery impacts caused by the reregulating dam near Portage Creek.The
plan is not economically feasible.
Ii
10.05 Alternative Power Transmission Corridors.Any development of
lbydroelectr;c power in the upper Sus;tna basin would require development
;of electric transmission facilities to the Railbelt load centers.In
determining the preferred system,the Alaska Power Administration studied
~ll feasible corridors joining the upper Sus1tna comples to Anchorage
iiand FAirbanks.The most feasible corridor was selected on the basis of
:~ost,reliability,and potential environmental impact;the remaining
corridors represent alternatives of varying degrees of feasibility.
Four groups of alternatives were considered:first,those that led
from Devil Canyon-Watana to Anchorage via the Susitna watershed;second,
those that lead to Fairbanks via the Nenana and Tanana drainage;third,
those that lead to Fairbanks via the Delta and Tanana drainages;and
fourth,those that lead to Anchorage via the Copper and Matanuska drainages.
Within each of the four basic corridor systems,a number of alternative
corridor routes were considered.Figure 15 displays these various
routes.Susitna 1 and Nenana 1 are the selected routes.
89
!
~~--~~,.....,.;.,..~"'~-~--,~---~-~------_._-""""""----~
Nenono-3
CORRIDOR
Paxson
AL TERNATIVE
TRANSM ISSION,CORRIDORS,
Scale in miles
s
50 75 100 125
A.P.A.-Morch 1975
FIGURE 15
90
"
7.0 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENTANDENHANCEMENTOFLONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
,The project as presently conceived could have a useful life span
in excess of 500 years based on the IIdead storage space ll within the
reservoirs for sediment accumulation.Individual components would be
replaced as necessary.but the overall system would remain essentially
the same.Should the system last this long,or for any number of
reasons be made inoperative at an earlier date (an example would be
development of more desirable alternative sources of electrical power),
many of the resources described above in Sections 4 and 5 would have
been,for all practical purposes,committed to permanent foreclosure
of options for alternative future uses.
In this sense,the long-term productivity of the directly affected
environment will have been sacrificed for a shorter-term alternative
use,since impacts attributable to the reservoirs will be of much
longer duration than the useful life of the project for hydroelectric
power production.By the same token,the project would contribute
to a savings in nonrenewable energy sources with an energy equivalent
of about 11.3 million barrels of oil,or approximately 80 billion
cubic feet of gas per year.Although this savings is a principal
factor in the consideration of a hydroelectric alternative,over the
long haul,hydroelectric energy must be viewed as an interim measure
for conserving the nation's nonrenewable energy sources until some
more practical,permanent method of producing electricity is achieved
which will not overburden the nation 1 s or world's finite resources.
Some features of the project will have less lengthy impact on
the environment than the dams and reservoirs.Many of the impacts
will be encountered during--and for a relatively brief time following--
the construction phase.Of the longer-term impacts,some would termi-
nate or lessen immediately or shortly after retirement of a given
project component.For instance,if the transmission line were to
be removed,many of its impacts would soon disappear.Maintenance
activity,noise and electromagnetic interference,and visual impacts
associated with the lines and towers would be immediately eliminated.
Roads could be removed,top soils replaced,and eventually natural
revegetation processes would largely obscure the previous existence
of the transmission system.Other impacts would,to varying degrees,
be "imprinted"into the environment.Wildlife patterns may have been
affected by continual hunting or habitat modification.Vegetative
patterns,altered by continual maintenance or introduction of non-
native plants,may continue for a long time.Land use patterns
influenced by the project would linger after it ceased to function.
No extremely short-term benefits from the project are the basis
for justifying the long-term,if not permanent,commitment of the
91
---"---------
productivity of the affected areas.The trade-off is essentially a
long-term benefit which can be achieved only at the expense of even
a longer-term commitment of the affected resources.
92
..
8.0 IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES IN THE
~ROPOSED ACTION.
8.01 Changes in land Use.The development of hydroelectric dam~on the
upper Susitna River would present an irreversible change of land use
from an existing wilderness type land-use situation,along a free-
flowing river with limited access,to a land-use situation where public
access would be provided to a series of manmade lakes created by the
construction of hydroelectric dams within the river corridor and to
recreation sites within the project area.
Proposed transmission lines and permanent roads would also be
located in areas of existing wild lands or where transportation corri-
dors presently exist.
B.02 Destruction of Archaeologica1 or Historic Sites.At the present
time,no archaeological sites are known to exist within the areas of the
proposed impoundments,damsites,power line routes,or road locations.
Should such sites be located during on-the-ground reconnaissance during
the detailed study phase,measures will be taken to avoid disturbance
where possible.Should they fall within the reservoir pools,salvage
will be undertaken.In the latter event,however,the sites would be
permanently lost to alternative future uses.
One old cabin site,probably related to early mining exploration,
is located at the mouth of Kosina Creek within the Watana reservoir
impoundment area.This site is designated as a historical site by the
Alaska Division of Parks.
8.03 Change in River Use.If the proposed project is developed,the
B4-mile portion of the river above the dams would be converted from a
free-flowing river to a series of manmade lakes totaling about 50,000
surface acres.Such development would preclude any consideration for
Wild and Scenic River classification.
The "whitewater"section of the river through Devil Canyon would be
inundated,as would sections of the river bottom now used for wildlife
habitat.
Downstream the initial 50-mile section of the river would be
changed from an uncontrolled natural river,with very high summer flows
and heavy glacial sedimentation and low winter flows with practically no
sedimentation,to a river with regulated flows and a small amount of
suspended glacial sediment.The BO-mile section of the river between
Talkeetna and Cook Inlet would be affected to a lesser degree because of
major tributaries.
93
~,·_r
8.04 Construction Activities.
8.04.1 Fuel Requirements.Significant amounts of fuel oils and gasoline
for use in transportation and construction activities related to project
construction would be irretrievably committed.
8.04.2 Manhower.Manpower resources during the construction and
operation p ases of the project would be irretrievably cOll1llitted.The
majority of these man-hours would be committed over a 10-to l2-year
period,depending on the final development program.
8.04.3 Material.All·the material used in project-related construction
would constitute an irretrievable commitment of resources,as this
material would not be available for other uses.Some amounts of material
might be salvaged if the facilities were removed at some later date.
8.04.4 Land.Any land committed to project development such as reser-
voir impoundment areas,damsites,roads,etc.,would be unavailable for
other than project-related uses until such time as the facilities were
no longer needed.
94
9.0 COORDINATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES
9.01 General.A public participation program was maintained throughout
the investigation.Coordination with various agencies and ~roups was
made to provide and to obtain pertinent information,and the following
methods were used:public meetings,workshop meetings,and informal
meetings.
9.02 Formal Public Meetings.Three sets of public meetings were held
or are scheduled in Fairbanks and Anchorage,the two largest population
centers in the study area,and also in the State.The initial public
meetings were held on 6 May 1974 in Fairbanks,and 8 May 1974 in Anchorage,
to notify the public that this investigation has been initiated and to
furnish any available information and comments.The State of Alaska and
several electric utility companies endorsed the study and several
conservation groups and individuals asked that environmental aspects be
studied also.
The interim public meeting was held in Anchorage on 27 May 1975 and
29 May 1975 at Fairbanks.
There has been no significant opposition to the proposed project as
of September 1975,although some environment,a1 groups withheld comment
until more project data and a draft environmental impact statement were
available for study.Concerns of these and other groups could be
expressed after the draft environmental impact statement for the recom-
mended project has been distributed to the public on 22 September 1975.
Late stage public meetings will be held on 7 October 1975 in
Anchorage and in Fairbanks on 8 October 1975 when the selected plan will
be discussed.
9.03 Workshop Meetings.The following workshop meetings were held:
1.30 April 1974,with environmental groups
2.29 October 1974,with Federal and State agencies
3.12 March 1975,with Native Corporations.
9.04 Informal Meetings.Informal meet'ings with various Federal and
State agencies were held throughout the study.Topics discussed included
but were not limited to items related to the environment,economics,
recreation,archaeology,fish and wildlife,transmission lines,land
use,and power generation~
95
/
PROPOSED TRANSMISSION LINE CORRIDOR
(Photos courtesy of Alaska Power Administration)
'96
..
Lower Susitna River Valley.This area is charac-
terized by extensive muskegs,intermingled with
bottomland spruce-poplar forests.Permafrost is
absent or discontinuous in this area,although the
soils are generally poorly drained.
Susitna River Valley,Lakes are prevalent and assoc-
iated with muskegs,which succeed them in formation.
Muskegs are succeeded in tum by forests depenJent
upon well-drained soils.The three stages of success-
ion are shown here.
f
I
I
f
Town of Talkeetna.This town is at the confluence of the Talkeetna,
Susitna,and Chulitna Rivers.The Alaska Railroad can be seen cross-
ing the Talkeetna River near the right edge of the picture.
I
1
I
c
Near Honolulu on the Ancho,rage-Fairbanks Highway.Biomes shown on
low brush muskeg in foreground and upland spruce-hardI.vood in back-
ground.Black spruce in foreground are associated with poorly drain-
ed soils and/or shallow pennafrost tables.
tc
Alaska Range from Anchorage-Fairbanks Highway near Broad Pass,late
spring.Vegetation biome is lowland spruce-harchv-ood.Soils here are
basically glacial deposits.
Looking south along Nenana River to Upper Nenana
Canyon.The Anchorage-Fairbanks Highway parallels
the left bank.Motnlt McKinley National Park and
the Alaska Railroad are on the right bank of the
river.
"-------,---------_.---....,------~-------------------
Very restricted canyon along Nenana River north
of rkKinley Park.Alaska Railroad is off left-
hand edge of photo.Land left of river is
within MOl.mt McKinley National Park.
TIle Tanana River flood plain.This area is extreme-
ly flat and poorly drained.1bree types of biome
are represented in this picture:muskeg,lowland
spruce-harmvood,and bottomland spruce-poplar.The
dark forests are mainly black spruce.The sinuous
lighter forest is white spruce,aspen and birch.
This forest type prefers well-drained soils,and
so is found on old levees of existing and extinct
d1annels.
~~~~;--_........-----------------~---------------------
LITERATURE CITED
1974 Alaska Power Survey
Resources and Electric Power Generation
1974 Alaska Power Survey
Environmental Considerations and Consumer Affairs
U.S.Department of the Interior Alaska Power Administration
Devil Canyon Status Report -May 1974
Department of the ArmY Corps of Engineers,Alaska District
A Report oh the Rampart Canyon Project
Yukon Basin,Alaska -1971
Joint Federal State Land Use Planning Commission for Alaska
Resources of Alaska - A Regional Summary
July 1974
State of Alaska
Alaska Regional Profiles -Southcentra1 Region
July 1974
State of Alaska -Department of Fish and Game
Alaska's Wildlife and Habitat
January 1973
Speech written by Dixie Lee Ray,Chairman of the U.S.Atomic Energy
Commission on 17 June 1974,at 25th annual AIBS meeting at Arizona State
University,Temple,Arizona
Analyzing the Environmental Impacts of Water Projects -Institute for
Water Resources,prepared for U.S.Corps of Engineers,March 1973
Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada -Volume 32,No.1,
January 1975,Ecological Consequences of the Proposed Moran Dam on the
Fraser River
Offshore Oil and Gas Development in Cook Inlet,Alaska -Environmental
Impact Statement,U.S.Corps of Engineers,September 1974
Alaska 1973 Catch and Production Commercial Fishery Statistics -
Statistical Leaflet No.26 -State of Alaska,Department of Fish and
Game .
Observed and Potential Downstream Effects of Large Storage Projects
in Northern Canada -1973
97
.,J
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Sprihg 1974 Moose Parturition Counts of the Proposed Devil
Canyon Dam Area
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
An Assessment Study of the Anadromous Fish Populations in the
Upper Susitna Watershed Between Devil Canyon and the Chulitna River
U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service
Survey of the Peregrine Falcon and Other Raptors in the Proposed
Susitna River Reservoir Impoundment Areas.
U,S.Fish and Wildlife Service
Various letters.review comments.and reports.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Various letters.data sheets.review comments.and reports.
U.S.Corps of Engineers.Anchorage.Alaska
An Inventory and Evaluation of the Environmental.Esthetic.and.
Recreation Resources of the Upper SusitnaRiver.Alaska.
March 1975.
National Marine Fisheries Service
A Hydrological Reconnaissance of the Susitna River Below Devil
Canyon Dam.October 1974.
Department of the Army.Corps of Engineers.North Pacific Division
A Compendium on the Success of Passage of Small Fish Through
Turb"ines.May 1967 (out of print)
Alaska Division of Parks
Heritage Resources Along the Upper Susitna River.August 1975
U.S.Department of the lnterior
Alaska Natural Resources and the Rampart Project.June 1967.
U.S.Bureau of Reclamation
Feasibility Report.Devil Canyon Project.Alaska.March 1961
98