HomeMy WebLinkAboutSuWa90Alaska Resources Library & Information Services
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Document
ARLIS Uniform Cover Page
Title:
Watana transportation access analysis, Project no. 82002
SuWa 90
Author(s) – Personal:
Author(s) – Corporate:
Prepared by HDR Alaska, Inc.
AEA-identified category, if specified:
Alaska Department of Transportation Access Analysis
AEA-identified series, if specified:
Series (ARLIS-assigned report number):
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project document number 90
Existing numbers on document:
Published by:
[Anchorage, Alaska : Alaska Energy Authority, 2012]
Date published:
June 2012
Published for:
Prepared for Alaska Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities
Date or date range of report:
Volume and/or Part numbers:
Final or Draft status, as indicated:
Draft
Document type:
Pagination:
xvi, 108 p.
Related work(s):
Pages added/changed by ARLIS:
Notes:
All reports in the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Document series include an ARLIS-
produced cover page and an ARLIS-assigned number for uniformity and citability. All reports
are posted online at http://www.arlis.org/resources/susitna-watana/
Watana Transportation Access
DRAFT
Watana Transportation Access
Project No.
Alaska Department of Transportation
and Public Facilities
Northern Region
2301 Peger Road
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
HDR Alaska, Inc.
2525 C Street, Suite 305
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
DRAFT
Analysis
Project No. 82002
Prepared for:
Alaska Department of Transportation
and Public Facilities
Northern Region
2301 Peger Road
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
Prepared by:
HDR Alaska, Inc.
Street, Suite 305
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
June 2012
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
xi
Contents
Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................... i
Acronyms and Abbreviations .................................................................................................................. xv
1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Project Background ................................................................................................................... 1
2 Previous Access Route Studies .......................................................................................................... 4
3 Access Corridor Identification .......................................................................................................... 4
3.1 Design Criteria .......................................................................................................................... 4
3.2 Corridor Development Methodology ........................................................................................ 5
3.3 Alternatives ............................................................................................................................... 9
3.3.1 South Road ................................................................................................................... 9
3.3.2 South Rail ................................................................................................................... 10
3.3.3 Hurricane (West) ........................................................................................................ 11
3.3.4 Seattle Creek (North).................................................................................................. 12
3.3.5 Butte Creek (East) ...................................................................................................... 14
4 Screening ........................................................................................................................................... 17
4.1 Step 1 Screening ...................................................................................................................... 17
4.2 Step 2 Screening ...................................................................................................................... 19
4.2.1 Engineering ................................................................................................................ 20
4.2.2 Geologic and Geotechnical ........................................................................................ 34
4.2.3 Hydrology ................................................................................................................... 44
4.2.4 Fish Streams/Waterbodies .......................................................................................... 47
4.2.5 Terrestrial Resources .................................................................................................. 53
4.2.6 Wetlands and Vegetation............................................................................................ 62
4.2.7 Land Status ................................................................................................................. 66
4.2.8 Fish and Wildlife Uses ............................................................................................... 71
4.2.9 Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................... 75
4.2.10 Socioeconomics .......................................................................................................... 81
4.2.11 Costs ........................................................................................................................... 86
4.2.12 Permits ........................................................................................................................ 87
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
xii
5 Summary of Findings ....................................................................................................................... 91
6 Airport ............................................................................................................................................... 97
6.1 Airport Location and Conditions ............................................................................................. 98
6.2 Design Aircraft and Airport Features ...................................................................................... 98
6.3 Runway Approaches .............................................................................................................. 102
6.3.1 South Airport ............................................................................................................ 102
6.3.2 North Airport ............................................................................................................ 102
6.4 Runway Wind Coverage ....................................................................................................... 103
6.5 Constructability ..................................................................................................................... 103
6.6 Cost ........................................................................................................................................ 104
6.7 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 104
7 References ....................................................................................................................................... 104
Tables
Table 3A1. Analysis design criteria ................................................................................................. 5
Table 4A1. Terrain classification criteria ....................................................................................... 20
Table 4A2. Terrain classifications .................................................................................................. 21
Table 4A3. Summary of road grade by alignment ......................................................................... 21
Table 4A4. Summary of lengths and travel timea .......................................................................... 23
Table 4A5. Time and date parameters, calculated altitude, angle, and azimuth angle .................. 24
Table 4A6. Approximately length and percentage of each corridor in morning shadow,
noon shadow, and evening shadow .............................................................................. 25
Table 4A7. Construction season estimate ...................................................................................... 26
Table 4A8. Avalanche potential related to terrain slope ................................................................ 27
Table 4A9. Regions of potential avalanche hazard ........................................................................ 27
Table 4A10. New road above 3,000 feet ........................................................................................ 34
Table 4A11. Durability test results ................................................................................................. 36
Table 4A12. Summary of geologic and geotechnical conditions ................................................... 44
Table 4A13. Summary of hydraulic conditions on new roadway .................................................. 47
Table 4A14. Summary of fish crossings ........................................................................................ 53
Table 4A15. Summary of impacts to terrestrial resources ............................................................. 61
Table 4A16. NWI wetland classification association with general categories .............................. 64
Table 4A18. BLMAlisted rare and sensitive plants in the project area ........................................... 66
Table 4A19. Land status summary ................................................................................................. 70
Table 4A20. Summary of fish and wildlife uses (qualitative assessment) ..................................... 75
Table 4A21. AHRS sites within or adjacent to the South Road corridor ....................................... 76
Table 4A22. AHRS sites within or adjacent to the Hurricane access corridor .............................. 77
Table 4A23. AHRS sites within or adjacent to the Seattle Creek access corridor ......................... 78
Table 4A24. AHRS sites within or adjacent to the Butte Creek access corridor ........................... 79
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
xiii
Table 4A25. Summary of cultural resource sites by corridor ........................................................ 81
Table 4A26. Distance between Parks Highway Junction and selected communities .................... 86
Table 4A27. Estimated cost in 2011 dollars (in millions) .............................................................. 87
Table 4A28. Summary of permits .................................................................................................. 91
Table 5A1. Summary of alternatives analysis ................................................................................ 94
Figures
Figure 1A1. Location and vicinity map ............................................................................................ 3
Figure 3A1. Corridors ...................................................................................................................... 7
Figure 3A2. Example of a steep ravine to be crossed in the Gold Creek variant ........................... 10
Figure 3A3. West slope above Portage Creek Valley .................................................................... 10
Figure 3A4. Steep ravine crossing over to Devil Creek ................................................................. 11
Figure 3A5. Kettle Lake variant ..................................................................................................... 13
Figure 3A6. Deadman Mountain .................................................................................................... 13
Figure 4A1. Sloughing soils in the South Rail alignment .............................................................. 18
Figure 4A2. Classification of alignment terrain ............................................................................. 22
Figure 4A3. Avalanche potential .................................................................................................... 29
Figure 4A4. Conceptual Gold Creek railroad staging and siding area ........................................... 31
Figure 4A5. Conceptual Hurricane railroad staging and siding area ............................................. 32
Figure 4A6. Conceptual Cantwell railroad staging and siding area ............................................... 33
Figure 4A7. Fish and water body map ........................................................................................... 49
Figure 4A8. Caribou habitat ........................................................................................................... 56
Figure 4A9. Moose habitat ............................................................................................................. 57
Figure 4A10. Dall sheep habitat ..................................................................................................... 58
Figure 4A11. Duck and swan habitat ............................................................................................. 59
Figure 4A12. Wetlands ................................................................................................................... 62
Figure 4A13. Generalized land status ............................................................................................ 69
Figure 4A14. Game management units .......................................................................................... 73
Figure 4A15. Communities of interest ........................................................................................... 82
Figure 6A1. Airport alternatives ..................................................................................................... 98
Figure 6A2 Proposed South Airport Location................................................................................ 98
Figure 6A3. Proposed North Airport location ................................................................................ 99
Figure 6A4. Proposed South Airport layout ................................................................................. 100
Figure 6A5. Proposed North Airport layout ................................................................................. 101
Figure 6A6. Ponded water and terrain west of the North Airport’s western end ......................... 103
Appendices
Appendix A Design Criteria
Appendix B Structures Report
Appendix C Denali Highway Trip Reconnaissance Report
Appendix D Cost Estimate
Appendix E Terrain Slope Figures
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
xiv
Appendix F Plan and Profile Sheets
Appendix G Shadow Analysis
Appendix H Geotechnical Report
Appendix I Wildlife
Appendix J Wetlands
Appendix K Regulatory Requirements
Appendix L Runway Wind Analysis
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
xv
Acronyms and Abbreviations
AAC Alaska Administrative Code
ABF Alaska Board of Fisheries
ADEC Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
ADF&G Alaska Department of Fish & Game
ADT Average Daily Traffic
AEA Alaska Energy Authority
AHRS Alaska Heritage Resources Survey
AKNHP Alaska National Heritage Program
ANCSA Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
APA Alaska Power Authority
APDES Alaska Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
AREMA American Railway Engineering and MaintenanceAofAWay Association
ARRC Alaska Railroad Corporation
AS Alaska Statute
ATV AllAterrain vehicle
BGEPA Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
BLM Bureau of Land Management
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
cfs Cubic feet per second
cm/yr Centimeters per year
Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
DEM Digital Elevation Model
DMLW Division of Mining, Land and Water
DNR Alaska Department of Natural Resources
DOT&PF Department of Transportation & Public Facilities
EFH Essential Fish Habitat
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAR Federal Aviation Regulations
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
ft Feet/Foot
GIS Geographic Information System
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
xvi
GWh Gigawatt Hour
H Horizontal
HEA Healy quadrangle
ICAP Indirect Cost Allocation Program
m Meter
MOA Memorandum of Agreement
MON Museum of the North
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
MP Milepost
mph Miles per hour
MSB MatanuskaASusitna Borough
MW Megawatt
NED National Elevation Dataset
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NHCCI National Highway Construction Cost Index
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
NWI National Wetland Inventory
OHW Ordinary High Water
PL Public Law
RM River Mile
ROM Rough Order of Magnitude
ROW Right of Way
SHP Susitna Hydroelectric Project
SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
TBD To be determined
TLM Talkeetna Mountains quadrangle
UCI Upper Cook Inlet
USAF United States Air Force
USC United States Code
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS United States Geological Survey
V Vertical
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
1
1 Introduction
The purpose of the Watana Transportation Access Study is to identify a transportation corridor to
be used to provide access to the Watana dam during its construction and operation. The
objectives of this report are to:
Identify the primary ground transportation mode to be used during construction and for
the operational life of the dam.
Identify and evaluate potential access corridors
Identify suitable access corridors for further study
Confirm the reasonableness of the proposed airport locations
This report is intended to be a reconnaissance level study based on engineering, scientific, and
environmental information. The information contained in this report is based largely on existing
information that was supplemented by limited field investigations performed in October 2011.
No public or agency consultation was conducted in the development of this report.
Section 1 of this report provides background information about the proposed project. Section 2
summarizes previous studies that have been done. Section 3 describes the identified corridors
and those recommended to be dismissed from future study. Section 4 provides information about
the criteria used to evaluate the corridors and summarizes the impacts. Section 5 identifies the
suitable access corridors. Section 6 presents a summary of the airport evaluation process.
1.1 Project Background
The Susitna River was identified as a potential large hydropower site in the 1940s by the Bureau
of Reclamation. In a 1976 report to Congress, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
proposed a two dam project capable of producing 7,300 Gigawatt hours (GWh) of hydropower
(Harza Ebasco 1987). This concept was adopted by the Alaska Power Authority (APA), which
began managing the project in 1980, and contracted with Acres America to review economic and
environmental feasibility and file a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license
application. Later, Harza Ebasco was contracted to update the license application and perform
final design.
The 1980s APA Project consisted of two dams: the first located in Watana Canyon at
approximately river mile (RM) 184 and a second located at Devils Canyon (referred to as the
Devil Canyon site in most earlier studies; RM 152). The 1980s APA Project effort culminated in
the development of a license application filed with FERC in 1983, and an amended license
application prepared in 1985. The project was cancelled in early 1986.
The current Watana Hydroelectric Project being evaluated by the Alaska Energy Authority
(AEA) is located approximately halfway between Anchorage and Fairbanks in the upper Susitna
basin (see Figure 1 1). It would create a single dam on the Susitna River at RM 184 in the
vicinity of Watana Canyon. The proposed dam site itself is currently not accessible from the
existing transportation network. Construction projects of this magnitude typically involve the
need to transport large volumes of construction material, equipment, and personnel to the project
site, making access an important component of the project. Once construction is complete, access
will be needed to support the ongoing operation and maintenance of the dam. The Alaska
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
2
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF) has undertaken a reconnaissance
study to identify potential modes and locations of access corridors connecting the existing
transportation network to the proposed dam site. The proposed dam site area is bounded by the
Parks Highway/Alaska Railroad to the west, the Denali Highway to the north, the Richardson
Highway to the east, and the Glenn Highway to the south. This report will evaluate potential
transportation (road and rail) access corridors for the Susitna Watana Hydroelectric Project and
confirm that the proposed airport location is reasonable.
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
3
Figure 11. Location and vicinity map
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
4
2 Previous Access Route Studies
As part of the 1980s licensing effort, access to the Watana and Devils Canyon dam sites was
considered. The reconnaissance level August 1982 Access Plan Recommendation Report
identified three general transportation corridors to access the Watana dam site. Those corridors
were:
A corridor running west to east from the Parks Highway to the dam sites on the north side
of the Susitna River. This corridor is often referred to as the North corridor.
A corridor running west to east from the Parks Highway to the dam sites on the south
side of the Susitna River. This corridor is often referred to as the South corridor.
A corridor running north to south from the Denali Highway to the Watana dam site. This
corridor is often referred to as the Denali corridor.
Within these three corridors, 18 different alternatives were analyzed. After some refinement and
screening, the options were narrowed down to one alignment with each corridor (Plan 13,
Plan 16, and Plan 18). These three corridors were then studied in further detail. After additional
refinement and analysis, it was concluded that the Plan 18 (also called Denali North)
“represented the most favorable solution to both meeting project related goals and minimizing
impacts to the environment and surrounding communities” (Harza Ebasco 1985). In 1985, a draft
environmental impact statement was produced that included a railhead and storage facility at the
Cantwell railway station and a new road from the Denali Highway to the Watana site.2
3 Access Corridor Identification
Construction projects similar to the proposed Watana Dam require large quantities of
construction material. Currently, there is no access to the proposed site, so an access corridor
needs to be developed. As there are existing highways and the Alaska Railroad (ARRC) in the
vicinity of the dam, both road and rail are considered potential modes of transportation for
construction materials. The first step in the corridor identification process was to identify the
design criteria for each of these modes.
3.1 Design Criteria
Road. For road access, an assessment of projected traffic volumes (less than 400 average daily
traffic [ADT]) and likely vehicles needed during construction (the design vehicle is a WB 120
Double Interstate Semitrailer), resulted in the access roads design criteria listed in Table 3 1. The
road is designed for those vehicles needed during construction rather than anticipated future
traffic because the design team felt that a road designed for future use (dam support vehicles,
recreational traffic, etc) would be insufficient to support construction needs. Public use of the
access road is not recommended during the construction of the road or the dam. Some public use
2 The Draft EIS included additional transportation improvements because that project was also developing a dam at
the Devil Canyon site.
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
5
of road segments that are already accessible by the public (such as the Denali Highway) will
need to be maintained during the project.
Rail. The proposed rail line to the dam site is a single track designed to American Railway
Engineering and Maintenance of Way Association (AREMA) standards. The maximum grade is
3 percent, which is a compromise between construction costs and train performance. Due to the
need to contour around mountainous terrain, small radius curves are used where required. Table
3 1 lists additional rail design criteria.
Table 31. Analysis design criteria
Roada Rail
Surface All season gravel Type Single track
Width 22 feet Top embankment width 28 feet
Shoulder 5 feet Minimum radius curve 574 feet
Overall width 32 feet Maximum grade 3%
Design speedb 20–40 mphc Design speed 25 mphc
a New alignment. Speed limits on the Denali Highway are not expected to change.
b Depending on grade. Refers to speed on new road.
c mph = miles per hour
For additional information about the design criteria, please see Appendix A.
For the purposes of this study for routes utilizing road access, it is expected that bulk materials
(cement, fuel, reinforcing steel, etc.) and manufactured materials (transformers, power parts, etc.)
for the dam will arrive in state at one of the Ports in Southcentral Alaska and be transported to
the project site by rail. Depending on the corridor selected, improvements will be necessary at
one of the sidings along the ARRC’s mainline tracks. Currently, there are passing sidings at Gold
Creek, Chulitna, Hurricane, and Cantwell stations that must remain unobstructed to support
ARRC’s current operations. Approximately 5,000 feet of new railroad siding is recommended to
accommodate the unloading and holding of rail cars until ready for return. Additionally, an
approximately 40 acre marshalling/lay down yard for the stockpile and storage of materials
brought up on the railroad before transfer to large truck would be necessary.
For the purpose of this study, it is also assumed that establishment of a pioneer road to the dam
site within the first construction season is important to the overall project schedule. A pioneer
road would not be built to pre established design criteria. The purpose of the pioneer road is to
provide basic access to the dam site by personnel and equipment while the road is under
construction.
3.2 Corridor Development Methodology
This section describes the methodology used to develop the corridors considered as part of this
study. For the current Watana Transportation Access Study, the project team started with the
three road alignments and one rail alignment identified in the Alaska Power Authority Access
Planning Study Supplement, September 1982. The three road (Plans 13, 16, and 18) and one rail
alternatives were digitized using GIS software then imported into AutoCad, where they were
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
6
adjusted to meet the project’s design criteria. The mapping used to lay out the corridors was
based on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) 100 foot contour data3.
Next, the project team reviewed USGS 1:63,360 series maps to identify other viable road
corridors that should be studied as part of the current transportation access study. As a result of
this review, the Butte Creek (East) corridor was identified.
The level of detail of the existing base data and mapping is generally adequate for a planning
level study, but it should be recognized that the centerlines presented in this study are subject to
change as additional information about the area is identified. To address this potential variation,
the project team delineated a broad corridor around each centerline that reflects the anticipated
limits of where the possible centerline alignments would be located as the design progresses. The
corridor widths are typically 2 miles (approximately 1 mile each side of the centerline) but vary
at certain locations along the routes to reflect areas where the project team determined additional
data and study are warranted to more precisely identify the road centerline locations. The
corridor boundaries varied due to factors including potential wetland areas, terrain, and
proximity to potential transmission lines.
The corridors identified through this process (South Road, South Rail, Hurricane [West], Seattle
Creek [North], and Butte Creek [East]) are shown in Figure 3 1 and are described in more detail
below.
3 The 100 foot contours were derived from the 90 meter National Elevation Dataset (NED) raster provided by the
Alaska Department of Natural Resources.
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
7
Figure 31. Corridors
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
8
This page is intentionally blank.
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
9
3.3 Alternatives4
3.3.1 South Road
The South Road corridor is based on Plan 16 from the September 1982 Access Planning Study
Supplement. The corridor starts at the ARRC Gold Creek Station5 (ARRC MP 263), adjacent to
the Susitna River. This alternative assumes resources (e.g., construction material, workers) are
transported to the Gold Creek Station via rail and then transferred onto vehicles. Heading east,
the first 16 miles traverses along a moderately steep, north-facing side slope and crosses multiple
deeply incised ravines. Near MP 16.5, the alignment heads south to ascend to higher ground to
bypass a large, deep ravine located just east of MP 21. When the alignment gets to the
headwaters of the ravines at MP 25, the alignment turns northeast toward the dam site.
At 750 feet, the alternative’s starting point at the ARRC Gold Creek Station is its lowest
elevation. As the corridor travels east, it increases in elevation until it reaches approximately
3,450 feet near the corridor mid-point (between MP 21 and MP 22). From there, the corridor
gradually descends to approximately 2,000 feet (the elevation of the south bank of the Susitna
River at the dam site). The total length of this alignment is approximately 54.8 miles.
Three variant routings off of this corridor were examined, including the Fog Creek variant,
South B variant, and Gold Creek variant (also known as South C).
3.3.1.1 South Road Fog Creek Variant
The South Road Fog Creek variant was developed to shorten the road required to cross Fog
Creek. The variant would deviate from the South Road Alignment near MP 44.5, cross Fog
Creek, and rejoin the South Road Alignment approximately 5.5 miles later (near MP 50). This
variant would be approximately 4.4 miles shorter than the South Road alignment but it would
require a bridge approximately 700 feet long. This required construction would substantially
increase the cost of this variant by approximately $27 million. A bridge of this size in an area
without existing road access would also be very time consuming to construct, and would
lengthen the construction schedule. Based on this information, it was decided that the Fog Creek
variant was unsuitable and dismissed from further analysis from the South Road corridor.
3.3.1.2 South Road B Variant
The South Road B corridor is a variant of the South Road corridor. The variant was developed in
an attempt to shorten the overall corridor length between Gold Creek and the Watana dam site by
continuing along the north-facing slope of the Susitna River to a point just north of Stephan
Lake. This variant would deviate from the South Road Alignment at MP 15.5, ascend to its
maximum elevation of 2,400 feet near MP 25, and rejoin the South Road Alignment 11 miles
later at MP 36 just north of Stephan Lake.
The South Road B variant is approximately 4 miles shorter than the South Road alternative.
However, the route would require three additional bridges, each with a clear span of 200 to
300 feet. These bridges would increase the cost to build the access route by approximately
$32.8 million. For additional information about these bridges, please see Appendix B. The need
4 Alternative descriptions are based on the proposed centerlines.
5 A road connection between this location and the Parks Highway was not studied as part of this analysis.
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
10
for these two bridges would make it difficult
to establish a pioneer road to the Watana dam
site in the first construction season and also
has the potential to increase the construction
schedule. Based on this information, it was
decided that the South Road B variant was
not suitable and the variant was dismissed
from further analysis from the South Road
corridor.
3.3.1.3 South Road Corridor—Gold
Creek Variant (South C)
This variant was identified because an office
review of the terrain in the area indicated that
an alignment that ascends the Gold Creek
drainage may be possible and would avoid
the deeply incised ravines and side-hilling that would be required in the South Road corridor.
After ascending Gold Creek valley to its maximum elevation of 3,650 feet (at MP 16), this
variant would have fairly level or gently rolling terrain for a substantial portion of the corridor.
In the office, using the 100-foot contour topographic map, constructing a road up the Gold Creek
drainage appeared to be feasible; however, aerial reconnaissance of this area indicated that a
long-span bridge would be required to cross the first major tributary of Gold Creek and rounding
the side of the hill where the creek turns east would likely require major rock excavation.
In the upper reaches of Gold Creek, between MP 4 and MP 6, the side slope is scree-covered
bedrock, which would make bridge construction extremely challenging. There are several deeply
incised gullies with exposed bedrock that would need to be crossed. Additional bridges and
major rock excavation would be anticipated to be necessary to traverse the deep gullies (see
Figure 3-2). Because the variant would have steeper side slopes, a high probability of extensive
rock excavation, the potential for mining claims in the area, and additional costs associated with
the extensive and difficult bridges, the South Road alignment was considered a more suitable
option and the Gold Creek variant was dismissed from further evaluation as a possible alignment
within the corridor.
3.3.2 South Rail
The South Rail corridor is based on the rail
corridor shown in Figures B6, B7, and B8 of
the 1982 Access Planning Study Supplement.
It would leave the ARRC Gold Creek Station
(ARRC MP 263) proceeding northeast to
start the 17-mile traverse along the north-
facing slope of the southern bank of the
Susitna River. Twenty miles from Gold
Creek Station, the alignment would turn
south to ascend the side of a narrow deep
ravine. After passing the headwaters of this
Figure 3!3. West slope above Portage Creek Valley
Figure 3!2. Example of a steep ravine to be crossed in
the Gold Creek variant
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
11
ravine (near MP 27), the alignment turns east to descend to the lower terrain near Stephan Lake.
The terrain between Stephan Lake and the dam site is characterized by rocky hills with lakes,
ponds, and wetlands between the hills. The alignment would need to twist and curve around to
avoid these lakes, rocky hills, and wetlands.
At the east end of the alignment, where it turns north toward the dam site, the rail line would be
routed around to the upper reaches of Fog Creek in order to shorten the length of the bridge
needed to span the Fog Creek. North of Fog Creek the alignment snakes around two higher
upland areas to reach the dam site.
The rail line was routed using a maximum grade of 3 percent, which is the maximum grade on
the ARRC mainline between Seward and Fairbanks. To keep the volume of embankment and
excavation, and the length of bridges to a minimum, the shallow 3 percent grade forces the
alignment to follow closely the terrain contours. Since it traverses hilly terrain, the alignment
curves and twists more than the road alignments, which greatly increases its length. The length
of the rail alignment could be shortened by using a 4 percent maximum grade and allowing for
higher embankments, deeper excavations, and longer bridges, but that steepness would reduce
the potential haul weight and increase operating cost.
At 750 feet, the alternative’s starting point at Gold Creek is its lowest elevation. As the
alternative travels east, it ascends to a maximum elevation of approximately 3,000 feet between
MP 23 and MP 25. From that point, the alternative gradually descends as it continues to travel
towards the Watana dam site which has an elevation of 2,000 feet. The total length of this
alignment is approximately 60.9 miles.
3.3.3 Hurricane (West)
The Hurricane (West) alternative is
based on the North-Access Plan 13
alternative from the September 1982
Access Planning Study Supplement. The
alternative is approximately 51.7 miles
long and is all new construction. The
proposed alternative starts on the Parks
Highway near Milepost 171, which is
across from the ARRC Hurricane station
(ARRC MP 282). At 1,750 feet, this is
also the lowest point on the alignment.
Leaving the Parks Highway, the
alternative heads east toward the
Talkeetna mountains for 1.3 miles.
After reaching the lower slopes of the
mountains, it turns southward toward Chulitna Pass where it side-hills around the lower slope of
an unnamed mountain to cross Indian Creek at MP 7.8. After crossing Indian Creek, the
alternative heads east to enter Portage Creek valley. Here, the alternative cuts along the steep
slope on the west side of Portage Creek to Thoroughfare Creek (MP 20.3). After crossing
Thoroughfare Creek, the alternative turns to cross Portage Creek (MP 20.5) then ascends a steep
gully toward Devil Creek (MP 26.7). After crossing Devil Creek, the alternative ascends to reach
Figure 3!4. Steep ravine crossing over to Devil Creek
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
12
higher rolling terrain where it will traverse Tsusena Creek. After crossing Tsusena Creek
(MP 44.7), the alternative ascends the bench located just south of Tsusena Butte then proceeds to
the dam site.
Of the alignments on the north side of the Susitna River, Hurricane (West) will be the most
difficult to construct due to the need to traverse the steep side slopes in Portage Creek valley and
to ascend the steep gully located opposite Thoroughfare Creek while leaving the Portage Creek
valley. In addition, the contouring around the base of the mountain at Chulitna Pass will be
challenging because of this area’s steep side slopes and swampy areas. In addition, the railbelt
intertie power line is located in this area.
At 1,750 feet, the alternative’s starting point at the Parks Highway is its lowest elevation. As the
alternative travels east, it ascends to a maximum elevation of approximately 3,250 feet at
MP 32.8. From that point, the alternative gradually descends as it continues to travel towards the
Watana dam site, which has an elevation of 2,000 feet.
3.3.3.1 Chulitna Variant (Road and Rail)
The two Chulitna variants were developed to use the Chulitna railroad siding because this siding
is closer to Anchorage and the proposed dam site. The Chulitna Variant—Rail would start at the
Chulitna railroad siding (ARRC MP 274) and would join the Hurricane Alignment near MP 7.
An approximately 1-mile access road would connect Chulitna to the Hurricane alignment. This
would eliminate the need to build approximately 6 miles of road and would not require any
improvements to the Parks Highway. A rail-only access option would restrict the general
public’s access along the corridor but would provide roadless flexibility for construction and
operation of the dam. It would also require more extensive improvements to the siding than an
alignment with road access. Based on this information, it was decided that the Chulitna
Variant—Rail was less desirable as an access corridor than the Hurricane (West) alignment, and
Chulitna Variant—Rail was dismissed as a variant from the corridor.
The Chulitna Variant—Road would use the road from the Hurricane (West) alignment but would
use railroad siding at Chulitna (ARRC MP 274) instead of Hurricane (ARRC MP 282). The
Chulitna railroad siding would require a similar improvements as the Hurricane siding. However,
the increased activity at Chulitna could be considered more disruptive to those living near
Chulitna because the area has less existing development than the area around Hurricane.
Additional information about the construction logistics would be needed to identify definitively
the more suitable location for the rail siding. Consequently, it was decided to keep the Chulitna
Variant—Road in the Hurricane (West) corridor for future study if the Hurricane (West) is
selected as the preferred access route.
3.3.4 Seattle Creek (North)
The Seattle Creek (North) corridor is based on the Denali-Access Plan 18 alignment identified in
the September 1982 Access Planning Study Supplement. The corridor starts on the Denali
Highway near MP 113.7 (approximately 20 miles east of Cantwell). The corridor heads south for
approximately 3 miles. At this point (between the Lily and Seattle Creeks) the corridor splits into
western and eastern segments.
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
13
The western segment proceeds southward
on the western side of Brushkana Creek
drainage, crossing Seattle Creek (MP 5.0)
and Brushkana Creek (MP 10.9). Then the
alignment continues southeast until
MP 14.8, where it merges with the eastern
segment.
The eastern portion (called the Kettle Lake
variant) goes through a group of kettle
lakes6 located in the center of the
Brushkana Creek drainage. There is shallow
ground water among the kettle lakes, but
the ground under this area appears to be
thaw stable. Based on the geotechnical
reconnaissance of this area, there appears to
be a lot of rock rubble in the streams, and water depth in the lakes does not seem to be more than
several feet deep at most.
While the Kettle Lake variant is 1.8 miles shorter and is better exposed to the sun, it also appears
to be wetter and would likely require additional stream crossings. Additional field work and
research would be required to definitively identify the more suitable location for the alignment.
Consequently, it was decided to have the alignment use the western segment but keep the Kettle
Lake variant in the Seattle Creek (North) corridor for future study if the Seattle Creek (North)
corridor is recommended for further study.
At MP 14.8, the corridor runs parallel to Brushkana Creek for a short distance before turning
south to ascend up to a higher valley along the western edge of Deadman Mountain. The
alignment runs along the lower west flank of
Deadman Mountain to stay above the wet
soils of the valley floor. Near MP 18.5, the
corridor splits into western and eastern
segments because the Deadman Mountain
area has the highest elevation along the
alignment. This elevation may cause snow
loading and icing issues for a potential
transmission line7. The east side of Deadman
Mountain, while not as suitable for an access
road as the west, would be a viable location if
it made economic sense to do so. Additional
information is needed before a decision to
locate the road on the eastern side of the
mountain or to separate the road and
6 Kettle lakes are water-filled depressions left behind after partially buried ice blocks melt.
7 In an October 25, 2011, meeting with the AEA project team, they indicated they would prefer to locate the
transmission line in the same corridor as the road but would prefer to remain under an elevation of 3,000 feet.
Figure 3!5. Kettle Lake variant
Figure 3!6. Deadman Mountain
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
14
transmission line can be made. As a result, the Deadman East variant is included in the Seattle
Creek corridor.
Just south of Deadman Mountain (MP 28), the corridor drops down into the Deadman Creek
drainage to run along the east side of Deadman Creek, crossing back to the west side of the creek
approximately 4.5 miles north of the dam site.
The starting elevation of the corridor at the Denali Highway is approximately 2,700 feet. As the
corridor moves south, it ascends to a maximum elevation of approximately 4,100 feet along the
west side of Deadman Mountain at MP 20.9. The corridor then descends until it reaches 2,000
feet at the Watana dam site.
The Seattle Creek alignment will require approximately 43.3 miles of new roadway. In addition,
24 miles of the Denali Highway will need to be upgraded. Likely improvements to the Denali
Highway appear to be:
Widening the highway by 8 feet (from 24 feet to 32 feet)
Approximately 56 culvert replacements
New bridge structure to replace existing multiple pipe culvert structure
Additional signage
Improvement of the Parks Highway/Denali Highway intersection to include a traffic
signal and turning lanes8
For more information about improvements to the Denali Highway, please see the Denali
Highway Trip Reconnaissance Report (Appendix C).
3.3.5 Butte Creek (East)
The Butte Creek (East) alignment starts on the Denali Highway in the area near MP 79
(approximately 53 miles east of Cantwell). The alignment travels south for approximately
2.5 miles, following an existing dirt road9. Just south of Snodgrass Lake, the alignment heads
west to follow the dirt road for approximately 7 miles. From this point, the alignment travels
southwest, following the northern side of the Butte Creek Valley crossing Butte Creek (MP 15),
Delusion Creek (MP 28.8), and Deadman Creek (MP 37.6). At MP 32.3, the Butte Creek (East)
alignment follows the Seattle Creek (North) alignment to the Watana dam site.
The Butte Creek (East) corridor requires approximately 42.5 miles of new roadway, which is the
shortest of the alternatives that were considered. However, accessing the corridor requires
traveling approximately 53 miles on the Denali Highway, making the dam site approximately
92.8 miles from the Parks Highway. This was the longest of all the corridors. From Hurricane,
this alignment takes an additional 80 miles to get to the dam site as compared with the Hurricane
(West) alignment.
8 Depending on the traffic associated with the operation of the dam, it may be possible to remove the traffic signal
and turn lanes after dam construction is complete.
9 This dirt road appears to provide access to a house/cabin located on Butte Creek.
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
15
For the Butte Creek (East) corridor, approximately 53 miles of the Denali Highway will need to
be upgraded. Likely improvements to the Denali Highway include:
· Widening 53 miles of the highway by 8 feet (from 24 feet to 32 feet)
· replacement of approximately 116 culverts (including 13 small fish culverts and 1 large
fish culvert)
· replacing an existing bridge over Seattle Creek
· replacing a multiple pipe culvert structure with a new bridge structure
· Additional signage
· Improvement of the Parks Highway/Denali Highway intersection to include a traffic
signal and turning lanes10
For additional information on improvements to the Denali Highway, please see Appendix C.
At the alignment start on the Denali Highway the elevation is 2,500 feet; the highest elevation on
the alignment is approximately 3,200 feet along the side of the hill just west of Butte Creek and
at a saddle southwest of Big Lake. The north bank of the Susitna River at the dam site has an
elevation of 2,000 feet.
3.3.5.1 Butte Creek—Raptor Trail Variant (East—Raptor Trail)
On November 16, 2010, a United States Air Force (USAF) F-22 Raptor crashed in the Watana
Creek valley. During March and April 2011, a winter trail was constructed from the Denali
Highway to the crash site to recover the wreckage. When the Watana Transportation Access
Study began, it was believed that the trail could be used as a potential access route to the Watana
dam site. During the aerial reconnaissance flights, project team members discovered that very
little of this trail remains and would need to be re-built to be used for the Watana project. During
the reconnaissance flights, it was also noted that the alignment should be placed farther toward
the center of the Watana Creek valley so the alignment would make better use of flatter terrain.
After refining the Watana Creek alignment based on the over-flight, it would make only partial
use of the crash-site access trail and previously disturbed grounds are not usable for most of this
proposed alternative.
At 100.6 miles (53.5 on Denali Highway and 47.1 of new roadway), the Raptor Trail variant was
the longest of all the identified alternatives. Being the furthest from the Parks Highway, this
alternative is anticipated to have the longest travel time between the Parks Highway and the
Watana dam site. Based on these factors, it was concluded that the Raptor Trail variant was less
desirable as an access corridor than the Butte Creek (East) alignment and it was dismissed as a
variant from the corridor.
3.3.5.2 Butte Lake Variant (A and B)
Connecting to the Watana dam site through the Butte Lake area was also considered. The Butte
Lake A variant intersects the Denali Highway at MP 94.5 to head southwest toward Butte Lake.
Between the highway and the lake, the alignment threads through numerous small and large
10 Depending on the traffic associated with the operation of the dam, it may be possible to remove the traffic signal
and turn lanes after dam construction is complete.
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
16
ponds. After passing the lake the alignment runs southwest along a fairly wide, broad, level
valley to reach Deadman Creek (MP 29); it then travels along the southern side of Deadman
Creek until it passes between Deadman Lake and Big Lake. The alignment crosses Deadman
Creek twice to skirt around the east side of Deadman Lake, then travels west to connect to the
Seattle Creek alignment. From there it traverses the last 20 miles on the same alignment to the
dam site.
At the alignment start on the Denali Highway, the elevation is approximately 3,100 feet. The
highest elevation on the alignment is approximately 3,500 feet between MP 11 and MP 15;
which is between Butte Lake and Deadman Creek. The Butte Lake A variant is approximately
40 miles long, and would require upgrading approximately 40 miles of the Denali Highway.
The first 3.5 miles of this alignment crosses an area with numerous ponds with a high water
table. The quality of the subsurface soils around the ponds (near the Denali Highway) is not
known and is assumed to be permafrost. The area where the valley is drained by Deadman Creek
and the valley leading back to Butte Lake appears to have a high water table and wetlands are
prevalent. In order to use drier ground and avoid ponds and oxbow lakes in the area, the
alignment crosses Deadman Creek multiple times and would require two bridges. Near Deadman
Creek, the alignment crosses another 2.5 miles of soils with a high water table and wetland
conditions. Field reconnaissance to confirm soil suitability was not conducted in this area due to
poor weather conditions. As a result, it was concluded that the Butte Lake A variant would be
kept in the corridor.
Another variant for the Butte Creek (East) corridor was considered. This option, Butte Lake B,
departed the Butte Lake A variant southwest of Butte Lake and included a connection to the
Butte Creek (East) alternative at approximately the midway point. This option would be 43 miles
long. An alignment following Butte Creek may have difficulty in constructing a road in the steep
5-mile portion of the Butte Creek Valley. The valley bottom appears too narrow and active for
both the creek and road. In the area where the creek makes a 45-degree bend to the east, the side
walls of the valley are too steep for economic road construction due to expected extensive rock
excavation. Due to the lack of field reconnaissance in this area, it was determined that the Butte
Lake B variant should remain in the corridor.
In summary, the project team started with five corridors. Within these corridors, there were five
alignments and multiple variants. Based on existing information about the corridors and aerial
reconnaissance, all the variants except five were not reasonable enough to retain in the corridor.
The Kettle Lake and Deadman East variants of the Seattle Creek (North) are potential locations
for the access road. These variants were included in the Seattle Creek (North) corridor but were
not studied in further detail in this report. Chulitna Variant—Road was included in the Hurricane
(West) corridor but was not studied in greater detail for this report. Butte Lake A and B variants
also were retained in the Butte Creek (East) corridor but were not studied in further detail in this
report.
The following five corridors/alignments were advanced into a two-tiered screening process
described in Section 5:
South Road
South Rail
Hurricane (West)
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
17
Seattle Creek (North)
Butte Creek (East)
4 Screening
The Watana Transportation Access Study used a two-tiered screening process. Step 1 was an
initial screening based on the initial office study and field reconnaissance. The five corridors
(four road and one rail) described in Section 3.3 were evaluated in the Step 1 screening process.
This initial screening resulted in the selection of three road corridors for further consideration
and the elimination of one road corridor and the one rail corridor. Step 2 screening consisted of a
more detailed evaluation of those three potential access corridors. Section 4.1 presents the results
of the Step 1 screening and Section 4.2 presents the results of the more detailed Step 2 screening.
4.1 Step 1 Screening
The first level of screening was to perform a preliminary evaluation of each corridor to identify if
there were any corridors that were so unsuitable that they would not warrant further
consideration to study in more detail. The Step 1 evaluation used the criteria described below to
assess each corridor:
Land Status: This criterion evaluates the general land ownership and status along the corridors.
In general, all corridors represent a mixture of land ownership including State, Federal, Native,
and private properties. The corridors originating from the Denali Highway (Seattle Creek and
Butte Creek) generally have State and Federal lands along the majority of the corridor, with
Native Corporation land near the proposed dam site. The corridors originating in the Parks
Highway/ARRC corridor (Hurricane (West), South Road, and South Rail) have additional
impacts to Native land along the routes. While the potential impacts to the various land owners
and right of way (ROW) acquisition time varied across the corridors, it was determined land
status alone was not sufficient to screen out any corridors during Step 1.
Creek Crossings: All corridors traverse numerous drainages along their routes. These creek
crossings were identified in an office study and were evaluated as part of the field
reconnaissance. The number of crossings varied by corridor, but no corridor presented a
significantly larger number of crossings than the others.
Mode Evaluation–Rail Versus Road: The corridors were screened by mode to evaluate the
relative efficiency of roads versus rail to support the construction and operation of the dam.
Some of the key differences between the two modes are:
Material handling. A rail corridor potentially reduces the number of times construction
materials would need to be handled. The materials would be loaded on the train in Anchorage
(or other Port of Entry/point of origin) then unloaded at the project site. Road access to the
project site would require materials shipped by rail to be offloaded at a railroad siding (at
Gold Creek, Hurricane, or Cantwell), placed in a large lay down yard, and then loaded and
transported by truck to the project site.
Ease of Access. A rail-only access to the project site is not as convenient as road access
because travel to the site must be scheduled to prevent rail traffic conflict on the rail line.
Rail sidings could be used to manage traffic conflicts, but these improvements come with
additional construction and operational costs. To make managing the rail traffic more
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
18
efficient, the rail line would need to be signalized and an electronic train management system
put in place. Road access is more convenient than rail access, because dispatching a truck can
occur at essentially any time and two-way traffic is more easily accommodated. Rail-only
access to the project site would restrict public access along the corridor, which has the
potential to reduce access-related impacts (such as the increased potential for hunting and
fishing) associated with the proposed project.
Steep grades. Due to the terrain in the project area, the track grades along the route are
steeper than the existing rail grades between Anchorage and Gold Creek. Therefore, trains
would likely need to be split into smaller sections or additional locomotives would be
necessary in order to pull the train from Gold Creek to the project site.
Per mile construction cost. The rail alternative is longer than the shortest road route by
approximately 20 miles and is approximately 10 miles longer than the closest road route
(South Road). On a per mile basis, rail infrastructure is generally more expensive than road
infrastructure. While the embankment the track is built on is narrower than the road
embankment, the cost for the track, rail, ties, and subballast makes the per-mile cost for the
rail line higher than the per-mile cost for the road. For this project, we estimated this cost
differential to be approximately $1 million per mile.
Operation costs. Rail transportation (excluding capital expenditures) is generally less
expensive per mile of material transported than truck transportation.
Vehicle cost and availability. The cost of
rolling stock is higher than the cost of large
trucks. Additional equipment may need to be
purchased if ARRC cannot accommodate
the project demands with their existing
inventory. Additional trucks are easier to
acquire than additional rolling stock.
Vehicle maintenance. Truck fleets are more
readily serviced and maintained than rail
rolling stock and the cost of maintenance is
considerably less.
Logistics. A detailed logistics plan was not
developed as part of this study, so evaluating
the differential cost of construction between road and rail modes could not be assessed. The
difference between the conveniences of the two modes could not be quantified at this level of
study either, although road transportation would provide more flexibility for construction and
operation of the dam.
Range of Magnitude (ROM) cost11. The cost of constructing a mile of rail was estimated to
be $2.5 million and the cost to construct a mile of road was estimated to be $1.5 million.
11 A more comprehensive cost estimate for these screened-out corridors that was performed using prorated costs
from the remaining corridors substantiated the removal of the South Rail and South Road corridors from further
consideration.
Figure 4!1. Sloughing soils in the South Rail
alignment
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
19
These construction costs per mile are representative of the average of all alternatives.
Individual alternative costs per mile will vary based on terrain. For a breakdown of terrain
classification by alignment, please refer to the cost estimate appendix, Appendix D. For
60 miles of rail, this results in a construction cost of $150 million. The cost to construct
50 miles of roadway is estimated to be $75 million.
Since these costs are ROM metrics, these cost differentials were not deemed sufficient to
dismiss the South Rail corridor without support from other additional screening criteria.
Field Reconnaissance: Aerial reconnaissance was performed to validate the corridor selections,
and to identify locations where the alignments should be modified or whether there were fatal
flaws associated with either alignments or variants on the alignments. Reconnaissance focused
on each corridor’s terrain, geologic conditions, and drainage characteristics. While the majority
of the corridors have similar terrain, the South Rail and South Road corridors have deeply
incised drainages (estimated at 200 feet deep) that are not present in the other corridors. The
adjacent banks were observed to have sloughing soils and consist generally of poor foundation
materials for bridges. The distance from bank to bank was estimated to be greater than 200 feet,
and bridge abutments would likely have to be 50 to 100 feet from the top of the bank because of
the poor quality founding materials. This would result in bridges with mainspans of 300 to
400 feet. Spans of this length necessitate the use of truss bridges for rail crossings and long steel
plate girders or similar bridges for road crossings. While these crossing are technically feasible,
the cost of these structures is typically more than two to three times the cost of bridges with span
lengths less than 150 feet.
Construction Schedule: Because of the size and complexity of the bridges on the South Rail
and South Road corridors, the construction schedule would be severely impacted. At a minimum,
the South Road and South Rail alignments would take at least one additional year to construct
than the other three alignments. It would also take at least two years for a pioneer road to be built
along the South Road alignment to the dam site. The completed road is likely to take an
additional one to two years after the completion of the pioneer road. A pioneer type of access
would not be possible on the South Rail alignment. It would be approximately three to four years
before trains could access the Watana dam site.
Conclusion: Based on cost (rail, ballast, major bridge crossings), time for construction of initial
access, overall construction schedule, and convenience of travel, it was determined that rail was
not the preferable mode of access to the Watana dam site and was dismissed from further
consideration.
4.2 Step 2 Screening
The Step 2 screening analysis applied more refined criteria than the Step 1 screening analysis to
each of the four remaining corridors (South Road, Hurricane [West], Seattle Creek [North], and
Butte Creek [East]). The project team identified screening that could be assessed, either
qualitatively or quantitatively, and compared between corridors. In general, the analysis was
performed based on the centerline for each corridor, which represents the most likely spot for the
access road given the available information. The results of the analysis presented in this report
may change as the centerline is refined and more detailed information is collected. Criteria were
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
20
identified and evaluation was performed for engineering, geological and geotechnical conditions,
hydrology, fish streams and waterbodies, terrestrial resources, wetlands and vegetation, resource
use, land status, cultural, socioeconomics, costs, and permittability. These evaluation areas were
selected because of the potential effect they may present to the project costs, necessary land
acquisition, project timeline, environmental considerations, impacts to stakeholders, and project
permitting. Each category included a number of specific criteria. Each of the criteria and a
summary of each corridor’s performance are described below.
4.2.1 Engineering
4.2.1.1 Terrain Types and Roadway Grades
Several studies were conducted to assess the terrain and original ground profiles along the
alignments for the corridors12. Terrain and ground profiles along the alignments were classified
as level, rolling, or mountainous according to the values in Table 4-1. Terrain classification was
assigned by meeting either the ground profile or cross slope criteria. For example, terrain may be
classified as mountainous if it has a level ground profile but a cross slope of greater than
18 percent.
Table 4!1. Terrain classification criteria
Classification
Ground Profile
Along the Alignment
(% grade)
Cross Slope Along
the Alignment
(% grade)
Level 0–7 0–14
Rolling 7–12 14–18
Mountainous >12 >18
In level terrain, horizontal and vertical alignments are controlled by the appropriate design speed
and sight distance. Rolling terrain starts to affect vehicle operation, particularly larger vehicles,
as the roadway profile grades rise and fall more steeply. In mountainous terrain, the elevation
changes are more severe and usually affect the ability to construct the desired horizontal and
vertical geometry. Alignment grades should be minimized, when possible, to maximize the
performance and operating efficiency of the access route.
Terrain Slope: GIS was used to shade the corridors based on the steepness of the terrain. This
was done to provide a visual representation of the terrain in the roadway corridors. Alignments
were adjusted to avoid areas of steep terrain, where possible, to minimize steep grades and
sidehill cuts. See Appendix E for terrain slope figures.
Terrain Classification: For estimating purposes, the terrain for the alignments was classified
into level, rolling, or mountainous categories. The classification of the terrain for each alignment
is shown in Table 4-2 and on Figure 4-2.
12 Unless otherwise noted, analyses were conducted on new alignments only.
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
21
Table 4!2. Terrain classifications
Corridor
Terrain Classification (in miles) Total
Length Level Rolling Mountainous
South Road 12.4 14.5 27.8 54.8
Hurricane (West) 13.5 14.1 24.2 51.7
Seattle Creek (North) 20.9 15.9 6.5 43.3
Butte Creek (East) 25.1 7.8 9.2 42.0
Red = Not preferable Green = Favorable
Original Ground Profiles: Profiles of the existing groundline for each corridor was produced
using Civil 3D. Profiles for existing groundlines were created along the centerline of the
alignment, and 300 feet right and left of the alignment. The purpose for creating a profile 300
feet right and left of the alignments is to give a representation of the terrain in proximity to the
alignments. See Appendix F for corridor plan and profile sheets. Information about the length
and percent of the alignment for each grade classification is summarized in Table 4-3.
The original ground profiles for Hurricane (West), Seattle Creek (North), and Butte Creek (East)
corridors have similar amounts of level, rolling, and mountainous designation (see Table 4-3).
The South Road corridor would need to traverse a much greater amount of mountainous terrain
(18.4 miles) and much less level terrain (20.7 miles) than the other three corridors. However,
classification of the terrain (Table 4-2, Figure 4-2) shows that the South Road and Hurricane
(West) alignments have a significantly higher amount of mountainous terrain than the other two
corridors. The Seattle Creek (North) alignment has the least amount of mountainous terrain
(6.5 miles) and Butte Creek (East) has the most level terrain (25.1 miles). The Seattle Creek
(North) alignment has more mountainous terrain than the Butte Creek (East) alignment both in
percent and total miles. Overall, the Butte Creek (East) alignment has the flattest profile of the
four. The amount of mountainous terrain will likely affect the cost to construct the facility and
the operational efficiency of the facility. When more detailed contour information is available,
the alignments should be refined to make better use of level/flat terrain.
Table 4!3. Summary of road grade by alignment
Corridor
Grade Classification Total
Length Level Rolling Mountainous
Miles % of
Corridor
Miles % of
Corridor
Miles % of
Corridor
South Road 20.7 37.7 15.7 28.6 18.4 33.7 54.8
Hurricane (West) 45.92 88.7 4.85 9.36 1.00 1.94 51.7
Seattle Creek
(North)
39.46 91.28
3.75
8.67
0.02
0.05
43.3
Butte Creek (East) 37.78 94.69 2.03 5.09 0.09 0.22 42.0
Red = Not preferable Green = Favorable
a Totals may not match due to rounding
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
22
Figure 42. Classification of alignment terrain
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
23
4.2.1.2 Operational Efficiency During Dam Construction
For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that the majority of construction materials will be
transported to the Watana dam site from a port in Southcentral Alaska although some materials
may come from elsewhere in Alaska. While a detailed logistics plan for the Susitna Watana
project has not been established yet, corridors that provide for the more efficient movement of
goods between the Southcentral ports and the dam site are preferable.
To quantify the operational efficiency of the corridors, the project team calculated the length and
travel time of each corridor from three locations (see Table 4 4):
· From the Parks Highway at Hurricane to the proposed dam site representing the goods
transported by road from Southcentral Alaska. The Parks Highway at Hurricane was
chosen as a starting point because this location is common to the three corridors
accessible from the Parks Highway.
· From the Parks Highway at Cantwell to the proposed dam site to represent goods
transported by road from Interior Alaska (Fairbanks area). The Parks Highway at
Cantwell was chosen as a starting point because this location is common to the three
corridors accessible from the Parks Highway.
· From the proposed railroad staging area (Gold Creek for South Road, Hurricane for
Hurricane [West] and Cantwell for Seattle Creek [North] and Butte Creek [East]) for
goods moved by rail from Southcentral Alaska.
Table 44. Summary of lengths and travel time a
From Hurricane From Cantwell From Railroad
Siding
Travel
Length
(miles)
Travel
Timea
(hours)
Travel
Length
(miles)
Travel
Timea
(hours)
Travel
Length
(miles)
Travel
Timea
(hours)
South Road N/A N/A N/A N/A 54.8 1.6
Hurricane
(West) 51.7. 1.5 91.0 2.1 52.3 1.5
Seattle Creek
(North) 102.6 2.4 63.4 1.8 65.3 1.9
Butte Creek
(East) 134.7 3.1 95.5 2.7 97.4 2.8
Red = Not preferable Green = Favorable
a Estimated, based on the following average running speeds: Parks Highway – 55 mph;
Denali Highway – 45 mph; Watana Access – 35 mph
4.2.1.3 Shadow Analysis
For road design and maintenance purposes, it is preferable to have a roadway that is in direct
sunlight for more of the time to minimize icing during the winter months. Additionally, roads
with better sun exposure typically freeze up later in the fall and thaw more quickly in the spring,
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
24
reducing snow clearing costs. For each corridor, a shadow analysis was performed using GIS to
identify the length of centerline that was in shadow on September 21 (equinox) and October 21.
For each date, shadows were calculated for three time periods (see Table 4 5): one hour after
sunrise, solar noon, and one hour before sunset. This analysis includes the effects of shadows
cast from surrounding terrain to provide a more realistic assessment of real world lighting
conditions for each corridor.
Table 45. Time and date parameters, calculated altitude, angle, and azimuth angle
Date Time of Angles Altitude Azimuth
September 21 8:33 5.78 99
13:47 27.77 180
18:56 6.4 258
October 21 9:54 4.79 125
13:38 16.39 180
17:19 5.11 234
November 21 11:22 2.87 148
13:40 7.21 180
15:54 3.07 211
December 21 12:19 1.77 159
13:52 3.74 180
14:48 1.92 200
The analysis was done by using the identified date and time information to generate a hillshade
from a 30 meter Digital Elevation Model (DEM) using the Spatial Analyst extension in
ArcGIS 10. In this analysis, all hill shades were created with modeled shadows for each date and
time period specified. Once these hill shades were generated, the areas in light or shadow for
each alternative were calculated. Table 4 6 and the maps in Appendix G show the final results
for the shadow analysis for each time modeled.
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
25
Table 46. Approximately length and percentage of each corridor in morning shadow, noon shadow, and
evening shadow
Alternative
September 21 October 21
AM Solar
Noon
PM AM Solar
Noon
PM Length (mi.) % Length (mi.) % Length (mi.) % Length (mi.) % Length (mi.) % Length (mi.) % South Road 12.2 22.5 0.1 0.1 10.3 19.1 30.5 56.5 3.2 5.9 22.0 40.8
Hurricane
(West)
18.8 36.3 0.7 1.4 13.5 26.1 21.2 40.9 2.7 5.2 14.2 27.4
Seattle Creek
(North)
14.6 33.7 0.3 0.7 14.1 32.6 16.6 38.3 1.2 2.8 0.0 0.0
Butte Creek
(East)
4.5 10.7 0.0 0.0 8.9 21.2 13.3 31.7 0.0 0.0 6.5 15.5
Red = Not preferable Green = Favorable
At solar noon, all four alignments have similar amounts of the roadway in shadow in September
and October. In the AM, the Hurricane (West) corridor has slightly more shading in September
and October than the Seattle Creek (North) corridor but has more than Butte Creek (East).
However, the South Road corridor has more shading in October than Hurricane (West). In the
PM, Seattle Creek (North) and Hurricane (West) have more shadow in September, while South
Road has the most in October. Overall, the South Road and Hurricane (West) have slightly more
shadow than the other two corridors. However, as detailed terrain information was not available
for the analysis, these data may change if more accurate information is used.
4.2.1.4 Construction Seasons
The Susitna Watana Hydroelectric Facility is one of Alaska’s most important capital projects.
The dam itself will take many years to construct. AEA stated the importance of establishing early
access to the dam site with a pioneer road so construction work on the dam and airport can begin
as early as possible. The pioneer road would then be upgraded concurrent with dam construction.
Corridors that can be constructed in fewer construction seasons13 would be considered preferable
because that would reduce the overall project construction schedule.
Based upon the project team’s experience with previous roadway construction projects, it is
assumed that in one construction season, 20 miles of roadway could be build in level terrain,
13 For the purposes of this analysis, winter construction is not assumed because of the need to achieve compaction
with moisture and density controls.
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
26
15 miles in rolling terrain, and 12 miles in mountainous terrain. The estimated number of
construction seasons for the three corridors is shown in Table 4 7.
Table 47. Construction season estimate
Corridor Level Rolling Mountainous Total
Construction
Seasons
South
Road
Miles 20.7 15.7 18.4 —
Construction
seasons 1.0 1.0 1.5 3.6a
Hurricane
(West)
Miles 45.9b 4.9 1.0 —
Construction
seasons 2.3 0.3 0.1 2.7
Seattle
Creek
(North)
Miles 39.5 3.8 0.0 —
Construction
seasons 2.0 0.3 0.0 2.3
Butte
Creek
(East)
Miles 37.8 2.0 0.1 —
Construction
seasons 1.9 0.1 0.0 2.0
Red = Not preferable Green = Favorable
a Total does not match due to rounding
b Rounded to the nearest tenth of a mile
The South Road alignment will take longer (between three and four construction seasons) to
construct than the other three corridors. Hurricane (West), Seattle Creek (North) and Butte Creek
(East) are expected to take between two and three construction seasons to complete. The Butte
Creek (East) corridor would have the shortest total construction period. With the existing
information, a more detailed analysis about construction schedules could not be produced.
4.2.1.5 Avalanche
An avalanche is the sudden release of snow down a slope, occurring due to either natural triggers
or human activity. In order for an avalanche to occur, terrain must be level enough to build
adequate snow mass, yet steep enough to mobilize the static snow mass into a dynamic slide.
Mitigation of many avalanche hazards can be proactive through alignment modifications,
modification of surrounding terrain, or initiation of controlled slides during facility operations. If
left unaddressed, avalanches can pose safety risks to facility users, temporary closures due to
avalanche debris, and high maintenance costs to address snow and debris removal.
Using ArcGIS, the terrain in the project area was evaluated and shaded according to the values
presented in Table 4 8. The proposed corridors were then overlaid on the map. The corridors and
terrain are presented on Figure 4 3.
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
27
Table 48. Avalanche potential related to terrain slope
Avalanche
Potential
Terrain Slope
(%)
Color
Low 0–25 Green
Moderate 25–30 Yellow
High 30–45 Red
Moderate 45–50 Yellow
Low 50–90 Green
Source: Colorado n.d.
Based on the ArcGIS analysis, there are five regions of potential concern for the proposed
alignments. These regions are identified in Table 4 9 and also presented on Figure 4 3.
While some planning level quantifiable results were developed during this assessment, it is
important to note the limitations of this assessment of the avalanche hazard for the proposed
corridors. This analysis only identifies terrain where avalanches could potentially occur.
Identification of specific avalanche paths or chutes and calculation of avalanche run out was not
performed. The avalanche hazard for Region 3 may be largely mitigated or even eliminated if
Tsusena Butte is re contoured as a result of material extraction for either the dam or road
construction. While Region 4 shows a small amount of terrain that could produce avalanches, the
contributing area may not be capable of sustaining enough snow load to produce a significant
avalanche. Region 5 shows some areas that could produce avalanches, but it appears there are
terrain features (gullies and benches) between the potential slide areas and the road corridor that
would arrest or redirect any avalanches away from the proposed road. Region 6 has some
avalanche potential, but hazard is deemed low as avalanches would most likely not reach the
road because there is significant run out area and the snow accumulation zone is not very large.
In Region 7, the road corridor is in close proximity to 30 to 45 percent slopes; however, the
accumulation zone is small.
Table 49. Regions of potential avalanche hazard
Region Route Location Description
1 Hurricane
(West)
MP 4.5–9.5 Avalanche potential is on the western side of the
access corridor. Alignment is side hilling as it wraps
around terrain features.
2 Hurricane
(West)
MP 13.5–20.5 Area where the alignment is side hilling in the Portage
Creek drainage.
3 Hurricane
(West)
MP 45.0 Corridor may potentially be affected by avalanches on
the southern face of Tsusena Butte.
4 Seattle
Creek
(North)
MP 11.5–13.0 Corridor is potentially affected by avalanches on the
east side of adjacent terrain.
5 Seattle
Creek
(North)
MP 25.5–26.5 Area adjacent to the southwestern face of Deadman
Mountain.
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
28
Table 49. Regions of potential avalanche hazard
Region Route Location Description
6 South Road MP 0.6 4.1 Road corridor is south of the Susitna River on the
northern slope (side hilling) of terrain with avalanche
potential.
7 South Road MP 9.8 12.1 Road corridor is south of the Susitna River on the
northern slope (side hilling) of terrain with avalanche
potential.
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
29
Figure 4 3. Avalanche potential
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
30
Based on this initial identification of potential avalanche terrain, the project team determined it
was more appropriate to evaluate avalanche hazards based on the miles of roadway in proximity
to a moderate or high slope. The basis for this recommendation is that a more detailed analysis
may result in minimal or reduced true avalanche hazard, rendering the true avalanche hazard
equal for all corridors.
The potential for avalanches for the Hurricane (West) corridor is higher than for the South Road,
Seattle Creek (North) and Butte Creek (East) alternatives. Based on this initial screening, the
avalanche potential for the Butte Creek (East) alternative appears to be non+existent, the potential
for avalanche for the Seattle Creek (North) alternative is slight (0.8 miles), and the potential for
the Hurricane (West) alternative is low to moderate (8.7 miles).
4.2.1.6 Railroad Siding and Staging Area
Based on the project team’s assumed construction logistics plan for the dam, each alternative
must be able to accommodate a rail siding and staging area. The project team developed
conceptual railroad staging yard diagrams to determine if there was adequate space available for
the needed facilities. The Hurricane (West) alignment would require a staging area in Hurricane
(ARRC MP 281). The Seattle Creek (North) and Butte Creek (East) alignments would require a
staging area in Cantwell (ARRC MP 319). Both Hurricane and Cantwell have existing sidings
that are part of current ARRC operations. These sidings need to be upgraded for use by this
project. Improvements at each siding location include the addition of approximately 4,800 feet of
siding track, approximately 40 acres of staging area; and storage tanks/silos14 for fuel, cement,
and fly ash. The Hurricane and Cantwell sidings include an access road to the highway (with a
traffic light on the Parks Highway).
The South Rail alignment would upgrade the existing Gold Creek siding (ARRC MP 263).
Because the South Road alignment would rely on goods, material, and people being brought to
the area by rail, the Gold Creek siding would require more extensive improvements than the
other alignments. The anticipated upgrades15 include:
· A passenger siding
· Two sets of double track sidings with appropriate offsets for unloading material, and
storage spurs
· Approximately 115 acres of staging area will be needed to support construction staging,
material and fuel storage, and track infrastructure.
· A 10,000+square+foot multiuse building for bunking facilities, project office space, and
miscellaneous storage
All three of these locations are considered feasible for a railroad siding and staging area;
therefore this criterion did not contribute directly to the relative ranking of the corridors. The cost
differential for upgrading the sidings was captured under the construction cost criterion.
14 The silos represent a conceptual location. It is anticipated that silo height will be consistent with airspace
restrictions. Without a detailed logistics plan, the sizing and configuration of the silos are unknown and additional
silos may be required.
15 A detailed logistics plan needs to be prepared before the list of improvements at the Gold Creek siding can be
fully identified.
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
31
Upgrades to the Gold Creek, Hurricane, and Cantwell sidings are shown on Figure 4+5 and
Figure 4+6, respectively.
All four alternatives appear to have adequate space for a railroad staging and siding area.
Figure 44. Conceptual Gold Creek railroad staging and siding area
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
32
Figure 45. Conceptual Hurricane railroad staging and siding area
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
33
Figure 46. Conceptual Cantwell railroad staging and siding area
4.2.1.7 Potential for Colocation of Transmission Lines
As part of the Watana Hydroelectric project, there would be a transmission line connecting the
dam to the Railbelt Intertie. While AEA has not identified the ultimate location of the
transmission line, there are several advantages to having the transmission line in close proximity
to the access corridor, including lower transmission line construction and maintenance costs and
reduced project footprint. Currently, AEA is studying transmission lines in the proximity of the
South Road, Hurricane (West) and Seattle Creek (North) corridors. AEA has indicated that the
elevation of the transmission line should be less than 3,000 feet although short segments that
exceed that elevation may be acceptable. Table 4+10 shows the length of alignment (new road
only) that exceeds 3,000 feet in elevation.
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
34
Table 410. New road above 3,000 feet
Corridor
Length above 3,000 feet
(Miles)
Transmission line in
close proximity to
corridor
South Road 5.0 Yes
Hurricane (West) 12.5 Yes
Seattle Creek (North) 32 Yes
Butte Creek (East) 6.4 No
Red = Not preferable Green = Favorable
4.2.2 Geologic and Geotechnical
The geological and geotechnical criteria were evaluated based on work done in the 1980s
combined with aerial reconnaissance and a hand+sampling of selected locations along each
corridor by a geotechnical engineer in October 2011 during field reconnaissance. For more
detailed information about the geological and geotechnical analysis, please see Appendix H.
Due to the lack of quantifiable data to evaluate the geologic and geotechnical conditions, the
project team decided to develop a set of specific development criteria assign each criterion a
value between 1 and 5, with 1 being most favorable. These values, assigned by a geotechnical
engineer, represent the overall suitability of the criteria for a road corridor and are shown in
Table 4+12 (located at the end of this section). The remainder of this section describes each
criterion considered.
Other regional geological hazards at the site include regional seismicity and volcanism. While
these hazards could impact the project, the project team does not believe that the effects from
seismicity or volcanism will be substantially different from one alignment to another. The
various evaluation criteria such as subgrade support, foundation support, and slope stability
inherently include consideration of seismicity and its effects (such as liquefaction, seismically
induced settlement, and lateral spreading). Other wide+area effects such as ground motions
should not be appreciably different from one corridor to another. Based on our review of existing
data, there are no significant fault alignments that cross the proposed corridors. Additionally,
volcanism may impact the project area, but the effects would likely be limited to ash fall events
from the closest active volcanoes, which are over 150 miles to the south+southwest of the area.
4.2.2.1 Rock Borrow Availability
Rock borrow availability addresses the proximity of rock materials to the corridors studied for
this project. Rock materials will be an important resource for the construction of the proposed
access road and associated facilities and structures. Material produced from quarries can be used
in a wide variety of applications from embankment development, concrete and/or asphalt
aggregate, revetment, rip+rap, and surfacing material. The proximity of the rock materials is
important because the distance that the material must be hauled during construction will have a
direct impact on the cost of construction. If rock material is not available adjacent to the
roadway, additional access roads may be needed to access potential sources, which would also
have an impact on the cost of the improvements and will increase the footprint of the project. For
successful completion of this project, it will be essential that the final corridor selected have
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
35
multiple sources of rock material along its full length. These sources will ideally be located
adjacent to the final road alignment and will require minimal development of access branch
roads to access them.
Each of the corridors appears to have regular sources of potential rock borrow with the exception
of the east end of the South Road alignment (between MP 30 and the dam site) and the first
several miles of the western end (between MP 0 and MP 10) of the Hurricane (West) alignment.
Based on the information available, all four corridors have similar rock material sources
available, although Seattle Creek (North) and Butte Creek (East) appear to be slightly more
favorable.
4.2.2.2 Rock Borrow Quality
Rock borrow quality addresses the rock material types along each corridor that will be available
for construction of the road and associated facilities. Rock material quality is important to the
project because some of the uses for the rock will require that the material be durable (i.e.,
resistant to mechanical degradation). In general, rock material used in the construction of this
project must meet the various durability requirements defined in DOT&PF specifications for the
material’s application (e.g., aggregate or rip+rap). The highest quality, most durable materials
should be used in the production of aggregates and rip+rap, while lower quality materials can be
used in embankment construction as shot+rock fill.
Typically, intrusive igneous rocks such as granite and diorite yield very high durability values.
Extrusive igneous rocks (such as basalt) and lightly metamorphosed rocks (such as phylite)
typically have somewhat lower durability characteristics. Highly metamorphosed rocks, such as
schist, and sedimentary rocks usually have the lowest durability values. The selected corridor
should have rock sources that produce high durability materials that can be developed into rock
materials of a wide variety of sizes. High quality sources will reduce the need to import higher
durability materials from long distances, thereby reducing the construction costs.
The quality of rock available on each alignment varies, and each alignment has a mixture of
high+ and low+quality rock. The highest quality rock materials were found to consist of coarse
granites and diorites. When found in outcrops, this material was blocky and resistant to
weathering. Biotite+rich gneiss and diorite, as well as isolated areas of basalt and phyllite
materials, were found north of the dam site along the Seattle Creek (North) alignment. These
formations may provide good materials for road construction, but may be somewhat less durable
than the granitic rock in other areas. As such, they may not be as reliable as the granite for use as
aggregate.
The South Road corridor appeared to cross terrain that likely consists of metamorphosed
sedimentary rocks (such as argillite, shale, greywacke quartzite, and conglomerate) and volcanic
flow rocks (such as lava, tuff, and agglomerate). Mapping does indicate granite and granodiorite
intrusive bodies near the beginning of the project and in the upland portions of the alignment
between approximate MP 15 and 30. It is likely that the intrusive igneous rock formations would
yield relatively high+quality, durable material for use in this project. Metamorphosed
sedimentary rocks may provide construction materials, but would be less reliable as sources of
high+quality materials for use as aggregate.
Very poor shaley rock was generally observed in the western half (between MP 5 and MP 13) of
the Hurricane (West) alignment. This rock was found to be weak and highly weathered in some
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
36
places. This material will likely be usable as embankment fill, but will most likely not be able to
meet durability requirements for aggregate. Rock materials found between MP 13 and the dam
site are likely higher quality and will likely be usable for embankment development and
potentially aggregate production.
Biotite rich gneiss and diorite, as well as isolated areas of basalt and phyllite materials were
found north of the dam site along the Seattle Creek (North) Corridor between MP 22 and MP 30.
These formations may provide good materials for construction of the road, however, they may be
somewhat less durable than the granitic rock found in other areas. As such, they may not be as
reliable for use as aggregate.
Along the Butte Creek (East) corridor, rock quality is expected to be variable, but generally
good, with no obvious areas of rock that is very poor or very low durability.
Based on the available information, Butte Creek (East) and South Road have the best rock
quality and Hurricane (West) has the worst rock quality. Table 4+11 shows the results of
durability tests conducted on four samples collected during surface reconnaissance activities. The
samples were selected to represent the variety of material that exists along the alignments. As
can be seen by the testing results, the highest quality material is from the igneous rock types
along the alignment. The poorest material was encountered at Observation Point 20 on the
Seattle Creek (North) Alignment (see Geotechnical Report in Appendix H for the location) in a
coarse+grained granodiorite material. While this, material is igneous in origin, it is biotite rich
and appears to be susceptible to mechanical weathering.
Table 411. Durability test results
Observation Point
Los Angeles
Abrasion
Loss
Los Angeles
Abrasion
Loss
Specification
Soundness
loss %
Soundness
Specification
12 31 <45 1 <9
20 75 <45 11 <9
22 14 <45 1 <9
30 22 <45 2 <9
4.2.2.3 Soil Borrow Availability
Soil borrow availability addresses the proximity of soil materials to the corridors studied for this
project. Soil borrow materials will be an important resource for the construction of the proposed
access road and associated facilities and structures. Soil borrow materials will likely be most
widely used to provide embankment fill materials and as structural fill for the roadway. It could
also likely be used in producing fine aggregates and as structural fill around drainage structures,
culverts, and bridges, and in utility trenches. As with rock materials sources, the proximity of the
soil borrow sources with respect to the proposed roadway will have a direct impact on
construction costs. Sources that are farther from the proposed roadway will have longer haul
times and will increase the footprint of the project.
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
37
To complete the construction of this project, the final corridor selected will need multiple
sources of soil borrow along its full length. As with the rock material sources, the soil borrow
sources should be located adjacent to the final road alignment to minimize the need for
additional access roads.
Soil sources are available along each alignment. The sparsest areas of viable soil deposits along
the alignments are likely to be the middle portion of the South Road corridor (between MP 15
and 30) and the middle quarter of the Seattle Creek (North) corridor (approximately between
MP 18 to 26) where the corridors traverse high, rocky terrain and the first several miles
(approximately between MP 1 and 5) of the Hurricane (West) corridor as it crosses lowlands that
may contain shallow groundwater or thick organic deposits.
Based on the information available, all four corridors have similar soil borrow material source
availability. The proximity of these sources is slightly favorable for Butte Creek (East) corridor.
Slight modifications in the alignments once additional information is gathered may reduce the
distance to these sources. Based on the level of detail available, it was concluded that the four
corridors perform similarly enough that this criterion individually should not be used as an
evaluation criterion.
4.2.2.4 Soil Borrow Quality
Soil borrow quality addresses the soil material types available in the soil borrow sources along
each corridor. While soil availability is important, the quality of available material will also
impact the cost of the project. Ideally, soil borrow will consist of clean (low fines content), well+
graded sand and gravel. Granular or non+frost+susceptible material will most likely be found in
outwash and/or alluvial deposits as well as some moraine deposits. This material would lend
itself well to development of structural sections for the road as well as structural fill around
bridge and culvert foundations. Poorly graded soils or soils with higher fines content (such as
those found in glacial till or moraine) may also be acceptable for use, but their applications will
be limited to deep embankment development. Regardless of the gradation of the soil fill used, it
should not contain significant amounts of free ice, organic detritus, or a significant amount of
plastic fines.
Higher quality soil borrow resources along the project corridor will have a positive impact on the
construction cost. The high+quality materials will require less processing (washing, screening,
etc.) and if they are located at regular intervals along the alignment, they will not need to be
imported from long distances. Ideally, the final selected corridor will have multiple high+quality
soil borrow sources along its full length.
Soil sources are available along each alignment. A wide variety of material is available from
each alignment ranging from glacial till, moraine, and outwash deposits to alluvial materials. The
Butte Creek alternative appears to have the highest quality and quantity of soil deposits available
of the three considered alignments. The majority of this alignment traverses alluvial terraces and
outwash deposits that appear to be relatively clean (low fines content) and well graded. The
western quarter of the alignment (near the dam site) begins to transition into glacial till materials
that likely include higher fines content.
The South Road will likely have soil deposits that are of glacial origin. While the soils may be
naturally dense and compact, they likely contain significant amounts of fines and may be
difficult to use effectively in embankment and/or structural section construction. In addition,
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
38
between approximately MP 15 and MP 30, the soil thickness over bedrock will likely be
relatively thin. As the alignment crosses into generally lower+lying areas to the east, soil
materials will likely be more abundant. Based on R&M terrain mapping and landforms evident
on available satellite imagery, the soil deposits are mostly glacial tills with sporadic lacustrine
and alluvial deposits. Significant surface deposits of organics may also be present in the eastern
half of the alignment between MP 35 and the dam site which could make mining soil deposits
more difficult. The northern half of the Seattle Creek (North) corridor traverses terrain that is
likely a mixture of outwash and moraine material between MP 0 and MP 18. While this soil
appeared to have relatively low fines content in the areas that we visited, it is likely to have a
higher variability in fines content. The southern portion of the Seattle Alignment between MP 18
and MP 26 generally traverses terrain that is shaped by glacial action and therefore is likely
dominated by till soils that likely contain relatively high fines content. The portion of the
corridor between MP 26 and the dam site appears to traverse terrain dominated by a mixture of
outwash, alluvium, and moraine soils.
The portion of the Hurricane (West) corridor between MP 5 and MP 20 traverses soil terrain that
likely consists of outwash, alluvial, and moraine soils (where bedrock is not exposed). Many of
the outwash soils in this area appear to be high energy deposits, and are likely intermixed with
colluvium where they exist on steep side slopes. This material was difficult to observe in the
field due to vegetative cover, however given the depositional environment, it is likely to be of
variable quality (i.e., variable fines content). Alluvial material is typically relatively clean (low
fines content), however, moraine materials can have a wide range of grain sizes including higher
fines content. The remaining portion of the Hurricane (West) alignment between MP 20 and the
dam site traverses wide, U+shaped valleys that are likely dominated by glacial till deposits with
the potential for alluvial deposits in the valley floors. Till soils will likely consist of relatively
dense sand and gravel with high silt content.
On average, the Butte Creek (East) alignment appears to have the highest quality and quantity of
soil deposits available of the four considered alignments. A majority of this alignment traverses
alluvial terraces and outwash deposits that appear to be relatively clean (low fines content) and
well graded. The western portion of the alignment between MP 25 and the dam site likely
transitions into glacial till materials that may have higher fines content.
Based on the information available, the Butte Creek (East) alignment crosses terrain that will
likely yield the highest quality soil borrow of the four alignments (most of the borrow is
anticipated to meet Selected Material Type A or B). The Seattle Creek (North) alignment will
likely have a mixture of material types available along its corridor, most of which will likely be
Selected Material Type B or C with scattered areas of Selected Material Type A. The remainder
of the alignments traverse terrain that will likely yield (on average) relatively low+quality
Selected Material Type C. In terms of borrow soil quality, the Butte Creek (East) alignment is
preferable to the other three alignments.
4.2.2.5 Subgrade Support
Subgrade support addresses the general support capabilities of the subsurface materials along
each corridor. In general, favorable subgrade support conditions consist of shallow bedrock
and/or firm, well+drained mineral soils. Poor conditions include thaw+unstable permafrost and
thick deposits of soft and compressible (mineral or organic) soils.
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
39
Favorable subgrade support conditions will have a positive impact on construction costs in
several ways. Firm subgrade support typically provides more ideal construction conditions and
presents fewer constructability challenges since conventional equipment can be used.
Furthermore, firm subgrade support circumvents the need for costly subgrade improvement such
as excavation and replacement of unsuitable soils, and typically results in thinner embankments
and structural sections. Additionally, ideal subgrade support conditions allow for steeper
embankment slopes that require less material to construct and result in a smaller project
footprint.
On average, the majority of the alignments cross ground that is relatively competent and capable
of supporting the proposed roadway. The exceptions to this condition are the lowland areas on
the extreme west end of the Hurricane alignment and isolated areas of the Butte Creek (East)
alignment. The lowlands on the Hurricane alignment exhibit widespread soft conditions that may
include thick organic soil deposits. The Butte Creek (East) alignment will likely require crossing
isolated, widely spaced, soft, poorly drained features that are typically less than 200 feet long.
Based on the information available, all four corridors have similar subgrade support conditions.
Based on the level of detail available, it was concluded that the four corridors perform similarly
enough that this criterion should not be used for evaluation.
4.2.2.6 Permafrost Conditions
Permafrost16 conditions address the state and nature of frozen ground under the various corridors
studied for this project. The proposed improvements will have an impact on the thermal regime
along each corridor that will likely result in warming of the ground around and under the new
road. Based on the location of this project, it is likely that the majority of the ground beneath
each alignment is frozen continuously throughout the year. As such, permafrost conditions are
most ideal if the subsurface consists of materials that do not lose a significant amount of strength
when they are thawed. Such conditions will likely include shallow bedrock and dense soils that
have low fines content.
Unfavorable conditions include poorly drained soils, fine+grained soils, and permafrost
conditions with large amounts of segregated ice. Such soils are subject to long+term creep under
foundation and/or slope loading and typically lose a significant amount of strength when thawed.
Having favorable permafrost conditions along the selected corridor will have a cost benefit, as
measures (such as insulation and refrigeration) will not need to be taken to maintain the thermal
balance under the roadway and associated structures.
Based on field observations and the project location, it is likely that permafrost soils are present
over most of each alignment. The most critical zones of permafrost are likely found along the
slopes above the bottoms of the wide, U+shaped valleys in the higher regions of each alignment.
These areas exhibit characteristics of solifluction17, which may impact roadways built on these
16 Permafrost is soil, sediment, or rock that remains at or below 32°F for a minimum of 2 years.
17 Solifluction is “the slow viscous downslope flow of waterlogged soil and other unsorted and saturated surficial
material, normally at 0.5+5.0 cm/yr; esp. the flow occurring at high elevations in regions underlain by frozen ground
(not necessarily permafrost) that acts as a downward barrier to water percolation, initiated by frost action and
augmented by meltwater resulting from alternate freezing and thawing of snow and ground ice” (Neuendorf et al.
2005).
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
40
slopes. Most other areas along each alignment are likely underlain by thaw+stable alluvial or
outwash soils or shallow bedrock.
Based on the available information and field observations, the Butte Creek (East) corridor
appears to have the least extent of thaw+unstable18 permafrost conditions, while the Seattle Creek
(North) corridor has a moderate extent of thaw+unstable permafrost conditions. On a relative
scale, the South Road and Hurricane (West) alignments appear to be between the two other
alternatives.
Based on the information available, the Butte Creek (East) alignment is expected to have the
least amount of permafrost or it has thaw+stable conditions. Permafrost conditions are less
favorable on the South Road, Hurricane Creek (West), and Seattle Creek (North) alignments.
4.2.2.7 Drainage
Drainage addresses the general surface and near+surface drainage characteristics of each corridor.
Well+drained conditions are usually found in free+draining soils and in topography that is sloped
to allow for the conveyance of surface water. Poor drainage is typically encountered in flat
terrain with soils that do not allow for infiltration of surface water (such as in peat bogs or in
permafrost terrain). In general, well+drained ground conditions typically result in favorable
support conditions for new roads and structures. Development of roadways in poorly drained
areas results in higher costs associated with designing and constructing additional drainage
provisions in the form of culverts and/or porous embankments. Additional costs may also be
associated with development of embankments and structures with poor subgrade support in these
areas.
Most of the areas that the four corridors traverse appear to be relatively well drained with the
exception of the west end of the Hurricane alignment, the Seattle Creek + Kettle Lake variant,
and some areas near the dam site in all four alignments. All of these areas appear to have
groundwater near the ground surface and will likely require special provisions for drainage to
facilitate construction and area drainage after construction is complete.
Based on the information available, all four corridors have similar drainage characteristics.
Based on the level of detail available, it was concluded that the four corridors perform similarly
enough that this criterion individually should not be used as an evaluation criterion.
4.2.2.8 Rock Slope Stability
Rock slope stability addresses the stability of rock slopes that are likely to exist along each
corridor. In the context of this report, rock slope stability is related only to new rock slopes that
will be developed during construction of the road, as most of the rock slopes observed during
field reconnaissance appeared to be relatively stable. In general, rock slope stability is
determined primarily by the rock material quality and the orientation of major rock structure
(joints, bedding, foliation, and shear zones) with respect to the orientation of the rock cut face.
Favorable rock slope conditions will allow for steeper rock slopes and fewer requirements for
slope retention (e.g., dowels, bolting, shotcrete) and rock fall mitigation (e.g., catchment basins,
18 Thaw unstable refers to “Poorly drained, fine grained soils, especially silts and clays. Such soils generally contain
large amounts of ice. The result of thawing can be loss of strength, excessive settlement and soil containing so much
moisture that it flows”.
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
41
barricades, fencing, netting). Unfavorable conditions will necessitate shallower rock slope angles
and/or increased measures for retention and rock fall mitigation. In general, favorable rock
conditions will have a positive impact on construction costs as less material will need to be
removed from rock cuts and fewer engineering measures will need to be taken to ensure that safe
conditions persist through the life of the project. The final selected corridor will likely have few
rock cuts needed and those that are required will be in areas with favorable conditions.
Most of the rock materials along the various corridors are generally well suited for developing
steep cuts with a few exceptions. The rocks along the western third of the Hurricane (West)
alignment are relatively weak and prone to weathering, resulting in slopes that will not stand
steeply, will be difficult to support with conventional rock retention systems, and will require
significant maintenance. The South Road alignment may encounter challenging slope conditions
between MP 0 and 20 where the alignment traverses across and up substantial natural slopes.
Most of the natural slopes appear to be incised by stream erosion, but due to organic and
vegetative cover, it is difficult to determine if shallow rock conditions exist. If shallow rock
exists in the natural slopes, cutting steep slopes in the hillsides to establish a road bench should
be readily achievable. However, if deep soil deposits exist, poor slope stability conditions
(requiring structural reinforcement of slopes and/or development of retaining walls) will persist
as these slopes are likely at or near the natural angle of repose for soil. Along the lower lying
portions of the South Road alignment, adjacent to stream crossings, steeply incised channels with
actively eroding bluff features and poor rock and/or soil conditions may pose significant
challenges to designing crossings and may require substantial stabilization measures and/or long
bridge spans.
Rock along the Seattle Creek (North) and Butte Creek (East) alignments is expected to be
relatively competent on average and likely capable of being developed at steep angles with
relatively few long+term maintenance concerns. While the competency of rock in the Seattle
Creek (North) and Butte Creek (East) corridors is similar, the Butte Creek (East) alignment
appears to have significantly fewer rock cuts than would be necessary for the construction of the
Seattle Creek (North) alignment.
The western portion of the Hurricane (West) corridor contains areas with rock quality that may
be well suited for developing steep cuts. The Seattle Creek (North) and Butte Creek (East)
corridors contain better quality rock for developing steep cuts. Based on this evaluation, the
Seattle Creek or Butte Creek corridors are preferable over the Hurricane (West) corridor.
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
42
4.2.2.9 Soil Slope Stability
Soil slope stability addresses the stability of natural soil slopes. Soil slope stability is directly
related to the material and strength properties of the soil exposed in the face of the slope as well
as the soils behind the slope face, and the slope angle. Under ideal conditions (well+drained
slopes consisting of angular, coarse soils over a well+drained, stable subgrade) permanent soil
slopes can stand at angles approaching 1.5 horizontal (H) to 1 vertical (V) if vegetation is well
established on the slope face. Shallower slope angles are needed if vegetative cover is poor or if
support or slope soils are fine grained, soft, rounded, or poorly drained. Natural slope conditions
may be unstable if the slope is near the maximum slope angle and vegetation is disturbed during
construction. Furthermore, natural slopes can be unstable if they are composed of colluvium or if
they are in an erosive environment such as undercut slopes in an incised stream channel.
Ideally, the selected corridor will traverse ground that does not require development on steep
and/or unstable soil slopes. The construction costs for a roadway that traverses unstable slope
conditions will be significantly higher through the need for constructing slope retention.
Unfavorable soil slope conditions exist on each alignment. However, it appears that in most
areas, those conditions are avoidable given appropriate route selection. Areas that should be
avoided are locations that would require traversing across the fall line on soil slopes that are
between 2:1 and 1.5:1. These slopes are found throughout the project area and are largely stable
due to established vegetative cover. Disturbing this cover could destabilize the entire slope and
cause significant sloughing failures well outside the project limits. Other areas are relatively
gentle slopes above the bottoms of the wide U+shaped valleys in the upper elevations of the three
alignments and should be relatively stable. Potential solifluction in these areas may not cause
dramatic failure events, but could result in long+term maintenance issues over the life of the
project. Difficult slope conditions do occur in the western portion of the Hurricane (West)
alignment.
The area along Portage Creek where the alignment traverses relatively steep side slopes and
crosses deeply incised tributary channels may require additional mitigation to maintain slope
stability. This area exhibits oversteepened soil slopes and the potential for significant instability
if the vegetative cover is disturbed. Retaining structures will likely be required in this area to
reduce the risk of slope failure during construction and the life of the project.
Based on available information, soil slope stability appears to be the best on the Butte Creek
(East) alignment and worst on the Hurricane (West) alignment.
4.2.2.10 Waste Area Availability
For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that that quarry/borrow pits can be used for waste
soil disposal. The distance between the roadway and the quarry/borrow pits will be the primary
factor and is accounted in the rock material source availability and soil borrow source
availability criteria. Some sites will be less desirable than others due to limited space to store
waste during production of materials. In addition, some waste materials may be used to flatten
foreslopes, which could be beneficial in thaw unstable permafrost soils where widened
embankments can improve driving surface performance.
Additional information would be required to evaluate this criterion in more detail.
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
43
Available information is not sufficient to evaluate the corridors based on the availability of waste
areas. At this level of evaluation it can be assumed that quarry/borrow sites for any selected
corridor will be adequate for soil waste areas.
4.2.2.11 Foundation Support
Foundation support addresses the overall likely subgrade support for structure foundations along
the various corridors. From a foundation support standpoint, the most ideal condition is a
foundation supported on shallow, competent bedrock. Less ideal conditions range from soft
bedrock and/or dense soil support to thick deposits of soft and/or compressible mineral and
organic soils that require deep foundations. Other less ideal conditions include thaw unstable
permafrost and liquefiable soils. In general, the poorer the foundation support conditions are, the
deeper the foundation systems will need to be to transmit structural loads to the subsurface. The
cost advantages to selecting a corridor with ideal foundation support conditions is obvious in that
shallower foundations require significantly less materials and effort to construct. Ideally, the
corridor that is selected will traverse ground that lends itself to development of relatively shallow
foundations on bedrock and/or dense, stable, mineral soils.
The South Road alignment appears to have relatively good foundation support between MP 0
and 30 in the alpine areas where bedrock is relatively shallow. In the lowland areas between
MP 0 and MP 15 as well as between MP 30 and the dam site, structure foundations will likely
bear on glacial till soils. Glacial till soils, while typically dense and adequate for support of
structures, may require development of deep foundations if they are overlain by thick organic or
lacustrine deposits or to support very high loading. Likewise, challenging slope conditions
adjacent to incised channels between MP 30 and the dam site could provide poor foundation
support. Based on field observations, the Seattle Creek (North) alignment appears to have
favorable foundation support characteristics where the majority of the stream crossings will
likely involve developing foundations on dense soil and/or rock substrata. It is likely that soil
conditions will be favorable for shallow foundations along the Seattle Creek (North) alignment
depending on the size of the crossing.
The Butte Creek (East) alignment is also expected to have relatively good foundation support
conditions; however, there will likely be few crossings along this alignment that will be founded
on bedrock. As with the Seattle Creek alignment, the soils along the Butte Creek (East)
alignment may also be suitable for supporting shallow bridge foundations, depending on the
loading requirements.
Foundation support along the Hurricane (West) alignment is expected to be variable with poor
conditions in the low lands on the west end of the alignment and good conditions in the eastern
two thirds of the corridor. Deep foundations will likely be needed on the extreme west end of the
corridor to penetrate soft and compressible surface deposits. Foundations may also be difficult to
establish around the deeply incised slopes around the tributaries of Portage Creek.
The South Road with the exception of abutments spanning rivers with deeply incised channels,
Butte Creek (East), and Seattle Creek (North) alignments are expected to have the best
foundation support conditions. The foundation support conditions for the Hurricane (West)
alignment is expected to be variable, with some locations having poor conditions requiring deep
foundations for structures.
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
44
4.2.2.12 Summary
Overall, based on an assessment of known existing geologic and geotechnical conditions, the
Butte Creek (East) corridor is preferred from a geotechnical standpoint. The South Road and
Seattle Creek (North) corridors appears to have acceptable geological and geotechnical
conditions. The Hurricane (West) corridor presents the greatest number of technical challenges
relating to this evaluation criteria (see Table 4+12).
Table 412. Summary of geologic and geotechnical conditions
Factor
South Road Hurricane
(West)
Seattle
Creek
(North)
Butte Creek
(East)
Rock borrow availabilitya 2 2 1 1
Rock borrow quality 2 4 3 2
Soil borrow availabilitya 3 2 2 1
Soil borrow soil quality 4 4 3 1
Subgrade support 3 2.5 2 1.5
Permafrost conditions 2 2 3 1
Drainagea 2 2.5 1.5 1.5
Rock slope stabilitya 3 3 2 2
Soil slope stability 2 3 2 1
Foundation supporta 2 3 2.5 2
Red = Not preferable Green = Favorable
aNot used as evaluation criteria.
4.2.3 Hydrology
Stream crossings were originally identified on USGS topographic maps and aerial imagery. The
watershed area draining to each crossing was estimated using 20m Advanced Spaceborne
Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer (ASTER)19 contour intervals and USGS mapping.
An approximate 50+year (2 percent) flood discharge was estimated using the watershed area,
precipitation, and lake area data and the regression equations of Curran et al. (2003). None of the
streams identified have gages on them.
Field reconnaissance consisted of flying each access route in a helicopter, identifying each
stream crossing (those previously mapped and those that did not appear on the USGS map),
landing20 at selected crossings to estimate channel width and incision depth, and identifying
more efficient crossing locations where they existed. The likely structures needed were selected
19 ASTER is an imaging instrument flying on Terra, a satellite launched in December 1999 as part of NASA's Earth
Observing System.
20 No crossings were field verified along the South Road alignment.
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
45
based on field observations and estimated design discharge. Most streams were assumed to be
fish+bearing unless earlier studies identified them as otherwise.
Generally, streams with an active channel over 20 feet wide or with an estimated peak design
flow greater than 650 cubic feet per second (cfs) were assigned bridges (see Appendix B).
Culverts were assigned to smaller streams, according to the following criteria: large fish culverts
were assigned to fish+bearing streams with peak flows between 200 and 650 cfs; small fish
culverts were assigned to fish+bearing streams with flows less than 200 cfs; and drainage culverts
were assigned to non+fish+bearing streams. Large fish culverts were defined as those greater than
10 feet in diameter based on design discharge. Small fish culverts have diameters ranging
between 48 inches and 9 feet (again, depending upon design discharge), whereas drainage
culverts have a diameter less than 48 inches. In some cases, it may be possible through further
study or minor route adjustments to use different structures than those indicated.
4.2.3.1 South Road
The South Road alignment crosses 23 streams, including four large fish culverts and four
bridges. From the Gold Creek Station adjacent to the Susitna River, this road alternative
traverses the north+facing slopes above the Susitna River. The first bridge crossing is a 200+foot
structure over Gold Creek near MP 0.5. The stream channel is relatively broad and shallow
compared to the incised channels elsewhere on the South Alignment.
The alignment crosses numerous smaller streams flowing north into the Susitna River before
encountering Cheechako Creek at MP 15. Cheechako Creek requires a structure with a clear span
on the order of 300 to 500 feet, due to the wide and deep canyon formed by the stream.
The alignment jogs south to the headwaters draining into Chinook Creek in order to avoid
Chinook’s deep ravine. Descending from MP 22 on an eastward course, the alignment navigates
between two small lakes downstream of Stephan Lake and crosses additional small streams
before approaching Fog Creek near MP 44.
Fog Creek is a large tributary of the Susitna River and is the last drainage requiring bridges
before the South Road alignment descends to the proposed dam site on the Susitna River at
MP 54.5. The lower reaches of Fog Creek flow through a deep canyon with steep walls and
unstable soils. The canyon walls are intermittent vertical, jagged rock formations and with
observed rockslides. Rather than attempt to span the canyon, the South Road alignment skirts
along the southern rim before crossing the more docile terrain to the east. The first structure in
the Fog Creek drainage crosses a major tributary to Fog Creek near MP 45. This structure will
have a length between 100 and 300 feet. Near MP 48, another bridge is needed to cross Fog
Creek. This bridge is approximately 150 feet in length. At this location, the topography slopes
more gradually across the creek, allowing for a shorter bridge and more agreeable access
conditions for the movement of equipment and materials making it preferable to crossing Fog
Creek closer to the Susitna River. From there the alignment follows the north ridge above the
stream approximately three miles back to the west to tie in with the original South Road
alignment. The structures associated with the South Road corridor are documented in
Appendix B.
4.2.3.2 Hurricane (West)
The Hurricane (West) alignment crosses the most streams of the four alternatives (36 in all, with
six bridges and two large fish culverts). The route begins on the Parks Highway, and traverses a
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
46
hillslope drained by multiple small tributaries to the Chulitna River. The alignment then enters
the Indian River drainage, and crosses Indian River with a 150+ to 200+foot bridge. Indian River
is incised into the surrounding landscape, but several locations were identified where an
appropriately graded road could descend into the river valley and back out the other side. Indian
River is a steep, bouldery stream, and the crossing should be located at a relatively stable and
preferably straight reach, as a bend is more likely to migrate.
After ascending out of the Indian River drainage, the alignment crosses into the Portage Creek
drainage, crossing six small tributaries incised into steep gullies. Each of these gullies appears to
have relatively stable side slopes at the crossing locations. Stability was judged by assessing the
condition of the adjacent vegetation (which was dense and undisturbed). Two of the larger
gullies have exposed bedrock cliffs in places. These stream crossings will require relatively deep
fill to maintain grade.
Portage Creek is a large tributary to the Susitna River. Thoroughfare Creek joins Portage Creek
in the vicinity of the crossing location. There is a large gravel bar immediately downstream of
the Thoroughfare/Portage Creek confluence, indicating that this is an active deposition area. We
recommend crossing Thoroughfare Creek and Portage Creek upstream of the confluence.
Although two bridges would be necessary, Portage Creek appears to be in a more stable channel
upstream of the confluence.
After leaving Portage Creek, the alignment crosses Devil Creek, a stable, confined channel
incised about 40 feet into bedrock. The alignment then traverses a moderate hill slope and
crosses several small streams. One moderately sized stream cut into a gully will likely require a
bridge, owing to the depth of incision and large amounts of sediment moving through. The final
major crossing is Tsusena Creek, which is the largest drainage on the Hurricane (West) route,
and will require a 150+ to 200+foot+long bridge to cross.
4.2.3.3 Seattle Creek (North)
There are 15 stream crossings21 on the Seattle Creek (North) route with the western option,
including four bridges and five large fish culverts. The Seattle Creek (North) route leaves the
Denali Highway and traverses the Lily and Seattle Creek drainages, both tributaries to the
Nenana River. Both Lily Creek and Seattle Creek are crossed in the upper reaches with large fish
culverts. The alignment traverses a mild slope into the Brushkana Creek drainage and then
crosses Brushkana Creek and a major tributary with short (50+foot) bridges.
The route leaves the Brushkana drainage and enters the Deadman Creek drainage, crossing
Deadman Creek three times. The first crossing of Deadman Creek is in a flat, grassy area near
the headwaters, and will require a large fish culvert or a short bridge. The second crossing, at the
outlet to Deadman Lake, will require a 50+ to 75+foot bridge. The creek is steep and incised at
this location but banks appear stable. The third crossing of Deadman Creek is the largest creek
crossed by any of the alignments and will require a 100+ to 150+foot bridge. Deadman Creek
alternates between broad, shallow reaches several hundred feet wide and deeper reaches of 90 to
100 feet wide. As the alignment is further refined, specific crossing locations of Deadman Creek
at narrower sections should be identified.
21 This number refers to the stream crossings on the new roadway. There may be additional crossing associated with
the Denali Highway.
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
47
4.2.3.4 Butte Creek (East)
The Butte Creek (East) route crosses 29 streams, including four that will require bridges and two
requiring large fish culverts. The route begins by crossing the outlet to Snodgrass Lake and
Wickersham Creek (both would require large fish culverts or short bridges). The alignment then
traverses a poorly drained hillside north of Butte Creek, and crosses Butte Creek with a 100+foot
bridge. The alignment leaves Butte Creek and continues along a north+facing slope in the Watana
Creek drainage, crossing multiple small streams and swampy beaver dam areas. One creek will
require a 30+foot bridge, and Delusion Creek will likely require a large fish culvert. The Butte
Creek alignment then joins the Seattle Creek alignment and crosses Deadman Creek with a 100+
to 150+foot bridge.
4.2.3.5 Summary
All four corridors require similar numbers of bridges (four on South Road, six on Hurricane
[West] and four on Seattle Creek [North] and Butte Creek [East]) for the new road alignment.
Collectively, the bridges on the South Road and Hurricane (West) alignments are substantially
greater (1,000 and 800 feet respectively) than the Seattle Creek (North; 200 feet) and Butte
Creek (East; 300 feet) alignments. The Seattle Creek (North) corridor appears to need 4 large
fish culverts while the South Road alignment needs 3 and the Hurricane (West) and Butte Creek
(East) alignments need only 2 each. The Seattle Creek (North) alignment needs substantially
fewer small fish culverts and drainage culverts (7) compared to South Road (15), Hurricane
(West; 27) or Butte Creek (East; 21). In addition to the structures along the stretches of new
road, the Seattle Creek (North) and Butte Creek (East) alignments will also require the
replacement or upgrade of culvert and bridge structures on their respective portions of the Denali
Highway, according to the information presented in Appendix C. Overall, the Seattle Creek
(North) alternative is preferable. Table 4+13 summarizes the hydraulic conditions of each
alignment. For more information about structures, please see Appendix B.
Table 413. Summary of hydraulic conditions on new roadway
Factor South Road Hurricane
(West)
Seattle Creek
(North)
Butte Creek
(East)
Number of bridges 4 6 3 4
Linear feet of bridge 1,000 800 200 300
Drainage culverts 0 2 4 0
Small fish culverts 15 25 3 23
Large fish culverts 4 2 4 2
Red = Not preferable Green = Favorable
4.2.4 Fish Streams/Waterbodies
Fish are an important resource in Alaska and maintaining access to fish habitat is important for
the health of this resource. Historically, road culverts have been a barrier to fish passage as they
have restricted the ability for fish to access upstream spawning and rearing areas. DOT&PF has a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with ADF&G to ensure that road culverts are adequately
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
48
sized to accommodate fish passage. Fish passage culverts tend to be larger (and more expensive)
than drainage culverts and can have an impact on a project’s construction cost. The crossing of
fish+bearing waters also requires a Title 16 Fish Habitat Permit (see Section 4.2.12.3).
The access corridor study area includes streams and waterbodies within both the Susitna River
and Tanana River watersheds (see Figure 4+7). However, most of the streams that may be
crossed ultimately drain into the Susitna River watershed. Many of the streams that would be
crossed are small, high+gradient tributaries in the upper reaches of larger watersheds (Schmidt
1983). However, each alignment would also cross larger streams as well as small, swampy
tundra streams. Most of these tributary streams are small and shallow with variable discharge
(Schmidt et al. 1983). Schmidt et al. (1983) reported that rubble, cobble, and boulders dominated
the substrate in many of the tributary streams.
A total of 14 fish species have been documented to occur throughout the streams and lakes
within the proposed access corridor study area, as listed below. Biologists documented the
presence of both resident22 and anadromous fish species23 within the access corridor study area
(Schmidt et al. 1983; ADF&G 1983, 2011; FERC 1984; Yanusz et al. 2011).
Arctic grayling (Thymallus arcticus)
Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma)
Coho salmon (Oncoryhynchus kisutch)
Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha)
Pink salmon (O. gorbusha)
Chum salmon (O. keta)
Sockeye salmon (O. nerka)
Rainbow trout (O. mykiss)
Lake trout (S. namaycush)
Slimy sculpin (Cottus cognatus)
Burbot (Lota lota)
Round whitefish (Prosopium
cylindraceum)
Longnose sucker (Catostomus catostomus)
Humpback whitefish (Coregonus
oidschian)
Overall, Arctic grayling was the most abundant and perhaps the most widely distributed fish
species documented during various baseline studies conducted within the access corridor study
area in the early 1980s. Dolly Varden, slimy sculpin, and burbot were also fairly abundant and
widespread (ADF&G 1983, Schmidt et al. 1983).
The five species of Pacific salmon indigenous to Alaska all occur in the Susitna River
downstream of Devils Canyon (ADF&G 2011, Yanusz et al. 2011). The Susitna River is among
the most important salmon+producing systems in upper Cook Inlet (UCI; HDR 2011a). Fisheries
resources contribute to the Cook Inlet commercial harvest as well as the important sport and
subsistence fisheries (Jennings 1984, Oslund and Ivey 2010, Shields 2010).
22 Resident fish spend their entire lives in freshwater. Dolly Varden and rainbow trout have both anadromous and
resident forms. Resident Dolly Varden are most often found upstream from barriers (i.e., natural falls, manmade
dams) that prevent the upstream migration of anadromous fish (Ihlenfeldt 2005).
23 Additional species have been documented farther downstream in the Susitna River, including, but not necessarily
limited to, eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus), northern pike (Esox lucius), Pacific lamprey (Lampetra tridentate),
and Arctic lamprey (Lethenteron camtschaticum; HDR 2011a).
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
49
Figure 4 7. Fish and water body map
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
50
The ADF&G has confirmed the presence of Chinook salmon in the Susitna River and some of its
tributary streams upstream of Devil’s Canyon (ADF&G 2011). Chinook salmon is the only
pacific salmon species documented upstream of Devils Canyon in the Susitna River or its
tributaries to date (ADF&G 2011).
The Susitna River Chinook salmon stock is the fourth largest in Alaska (Ivey et al. 2009).
Although Susitna River Chinook salmon make a relatively small contribution to commercial
fisheries, they are important to recreational and guided sport fisheries (HDR 2011a). In February
2011, the Alaska Board of Fisheries (ABF) declared Willow Creek and Goose Creek Chinook
salmon as stocks of concern due to declining escapement numbers (HDR 2011a). Both of these
creeks flow into the Susitna River well downstream of the access corridor study area.
Sockeye salmon also occur as far upstream as Devils Canyon (Yanusz et al. 2011, ADF&G
2011). Sockeye salmon is the most abundant and economically valuable salmon species in the
Susitna River system (HDR 2011a). The Susitna River is the third largest producer of sockeye
salmon in the UCI, following the Kenai and Kasilof river systems (HDR 2011a).
Sockeye salmon stocks in the Susitna River have reportedly declined over the past decade
(Shields 2010). In 2008, the ABF deemed the Susitna River Sockeye salmon as a stock of yield
concern. As a result, an action plan to develop conservation management measures was set in
place by the ADF&G. Although sockeye salmon have been extensively studied in the Susitna
River, additional information is necessary to identify spawning locations within the middle and
portions of the lower Susitna River (HDR 2011a).
The Susitna River coho, chum, and pink salmon stocks are also important to both the commercial
and sport fisheries in the UCI area (HDR 2011a). Coho salmon are abundant in the middle reach
of the Susitna River from Talkeetna to Devils Canyon (HDR 2011a). Recent studies have been
undertaken to identify the spawning distribution of both coho and chum salmon (Merizon et al.
2010) and determine bank orientation of migrating pink salmon within the Susitna River system
(Willette 2011).
Arctic grayling, Dolly Varden, lake trout, and rainbow trout are important for the recreational
sport fishery in Alaska and in some areas are important subsistence species. Burbot and various
whitefish species are also important food sources for subsistence harvest. A subsistence harvest
data gap analysis was recently completed for the Watana Hydroelectric Project (Simeone et al.
2011).
Maintaining natural fish populations also plays an important role for the overall genetic
biodiversity of each species. Fish species can act as indicator species for changes in the
environment. For example, slimy sculpin has been identified as a good indicator species for
acidification in lakes and ponds and possibly for streams (Mansfield 2011).
4.2.4.1 South Road
The South Road alignment would require a total of 23 stream crossings. All streams and
waterbodies intersected by this alignment drain into the Susitna River watershed. The Susitna
River (including side channels and sloughs) are known to provide habitat for Pacific Salmon
(ADF&G 2011). Many of the streams that would be crossed are unnamed tributaries of the
Susitna River. Fish data are available for a number of streams that would be crossed. However,
much of the available fish data were collected downstream from (i.e. not in the direct vicinity of)
the proposed crossing sites (ADF&G 1981, 2011; Schmidt et al. 1983).
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
51
A total of 8 of the 23 streams intersected by the southern alignment are known to provide habitat
for anadromous fish downstream of the proposed crossing sites (ADF&G 1981, 2011; Schmidt et
al. 1983). The South Road alignment is presumed to provide fish passage at all 23 proposed
stream crossings.
4.2.4.2 Hurricane (West)
The Hurricane alignment would require a total of 36 stream crossings. All streams and
waterbodies intersected by this alignment drain into the Susitna River watershed. The majority of
streams that would be crossed by the Hurricane (West) alignment are smaller tributary streams to
larger systems. However, the Hurricane alignment would also cross a number of larger streams,
such as Pass Creek, the Indian River, and Thoroughfare, Portage, Devil, Tsusena, and Deadman
creeks.
The Hurricane (West) alignment would cross Granite Creek west of the Parks Highway to
facilitate access to the existing railroad line. The ADF&G Anadromous Waters Catalog (AWC)
lists Granite Creek (AWC No. 247@41@10200@2381@3600) as providing habitat for anadromous
fish (ADF&G 2011). Bader and Sinnott (1989) captured juvenile Chinook and coho salmon at a
point downstream of the proposed crossing (Bader and Sinnott 1989, ADF&G 2011).The AWC
nomination does not identify the presence of passage barriers; therefore, anadromous fish
presence at the Hurricane (West) alignment crossing site is assumed. Fish passage at the crossing
site would be provided via either bridge or culvert.
Pass Creek, located southwest of the Hurricane route crossing, is specified as an anadromous
stream in the AWC (AWC No. 247@41@10200@2381@3236) and is designated to provide habitat for
all five species of Pacific salmon (ADF&G 2011). However, a waterfall located downstream of
the Hurricane alignment crossing presents a barrier to upstream migration of anadromous fish
(ADF&G 2011). The Hurricane alignment intersects nine small, unnamed tributaries to Pass
Creek. A limited electro@fishing assessment conducted by ADF&G found Dolly Varden and
slimy sculpin at the one location sampled (Buckwalter et al. 2003). Since no other data regarding
fish presence are available for these small tributary streams, culverts would be designed to pass
resident fish (e.g., Dolly Varden and slimy sculpin).
Three additional streams—Indian River (AWC No. 247@41@10200@2551), Thoroughfare Creek
(AWC No. 247@41@10200@2582@3201), and Portage Creek (AWC No. 247@41@1020@2585)—are
cataloged (ADF&G 2011) to provide habitat for anadromous fish at the crossing sites. Passage
for anadromous fish, including salmon, would need to be provided at each crossing. The
Hurricane alignment would include bridges to span the width of the four anadromous fish
streams.
The Hurricane (West) alignment would also cross 10 small, unnamed tributaries of Portage
Creek, the mainstem of Devil Creek and 3 of its tributaries, and 7 smaller tributaries to the upper
Susitna River (in the Swimming Bear drainages; Schmidt et al. 1983). The Hurricane (West)
alignment would also cross Tsusena Creek and 2 of its tributaries.
Since fish presence sampling has not been conducted in many of these tributary streams and
passage barriers have not been identified to date, fish presence should be assumed. The
Hurricane (West) alignment would be required to provide fish passage at all 36 proposed stream
crossings.
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
52
4.2.4.3 Seattle Creek (North)
The Seattle Creek (North) alignment would cross streams within both the Nenana River and
Susitna River watersheds. Seattle Creek and Brushkana Creek are the two major drainages
crossed within the Nenana River watershed. Deadman Creek is the major stream crossed within
the Susitna River watershed.
The Seattle Creek (North) alignment would require a total of 15 stream crossings. In the 1980s,
biologists conducted fish presence surveys in the vicinity of 10 of the 15 stream crossing sites
and recorded general habitat and water quality conditions (Schmidt et al. 1983). Resident fish
species were confirmed to be present in the vicinity of 9 proposed crossing locations (Schmidt et
al. 1983). Schmidt et al. (1983) identified three crossing sites as having intermittent flow and
deemed them unsuitable for long@term fish use; therefore, these three sites were not sampled for
fish presence at that time.
Biologists documented the presence of Dolly Varden, slimy sculpin, and Arctic grayling
(Schmidt et al. 1983). All three species were relatively widespread (Schmidt et al. 1983). No
anadromous fish habitat was identified along the Seattle Creek alignment (Schmidt et al. 1983).
Biologists captured sculpin near nine of the proposed crossing locations and Dolly Varden and
Arctic grayling near six of the proposed crossings. Fish were captured from all but one of the
sites sampled. No data are available for one of the 15 stream crossings.
Based on field data reported by Schmidt et al. (1983), the Seattle Creek alignment would be
required to provide fish passage at 12 of the 15 stream crossings. Fish passage would not be
required at the three crossing sites where intermittent flow was identified. Habitat descriptions
for streams crossed within the study area are provided by Schmidt et al. (1983).
4.2.4.4 Butte Creek (East)
The Butte Creek (East) alignment would require a total of 29 stream crossings. The Butte Creek
(East) alignment would cross streams and waterbodies that ultimately drain into the Susitna
River. Butte Creek, Watana Creek, Delusion Creek, and Deadman Creek are the major streams
crossed by the Butte Creek (East) alignment.
In the 1980s, biologists conducted fish presence surveys in the Watana Creek and Deadman
Creek drainages (ADF&G 1983, Schmidt et al. 1983). Arctic grayling, burbot, longnose suckers,
and sculpin were found to occur within both drainages (ADF&G 1983). Additionally, Dolly
Varden presence was confirmed throughout Deadman Creek, while lake trout were captured
from its middle and upper reaches (Schmidt et al. 1983). The presence of round whitefish was
confirmed in the lower portion of Watana Creek (ADF&G 1983). No fish data were identified
for Butte Creek.
The presence of anadromous fish has not been identified in any one of the streams that would be
crossed by the Butte Creek (East) alignment (Schmidt et al. 1983; ADF&G 1983, 2011).
However, Chinook salmon presence has been confirmed in the Susitna River just upstream from
Delusion Creek (ADF&G 2011).
The majority of fish data available for streams intersected by the Butte Creek (East) alignment
was not collected in the vicinity of the proposed crossing sites. Since data are not available for
the proposed crossing sites, fish presence was assumed. Therefore, the Butte Creek (East)
alignment would be required to provide fish passage at all 29 proposed crossing sites.
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
53
4.2.4.5 Summary
The Hurricane (West) alignment has the highest number of crossings compared to the other
alternatives and the highest number of crossings over anadromous waters (see Table 4@14).
However, proposed crossings over the four major anadromous streams would be designed with
full span bridges.
The Seattle Creek (North) alignment has the fewest number of stream crossings and does not
cross anadromous streams. However, the Seattle Creek (North) alignment would span between
two watersheds: the Susitna and the Tanana. Impacting fewer watersheds is preferable because
potential impacts (such as introduction of an invasive species) would affect a smaller geographic
area if they were to occur. Additional research would be needed to identify potential impacts.
The Butte Creek (East) alignment has a total of 29 stream crossings.
Table 4$14. Summary of fish crossings
South Road Hurricane
(West)
Seattle
Creek
(North)
Butte Creek
(East)
Salmon stream crossings 8 4 0 0
Stream crossings
requiring passage for
resident fish
23 32 15 29
Red = Not preferable Green = Favorable
4.2.5 Terrestrial Resources
There are 142 species of birds (mostly migratory), 38 species of mammals, and one amphibian
(the wood frog, Rana sylvatica) known or suspected to occur in the Susitna River basin
(see Appendix I). In the upper and middle Susitna basins, where all the access corridors are
located, 135 bird species have been documented (Kessel et al. 1982). The Susitna River basin,
divided into five subbasins, extends west and south of the corridor study area, but excludes the
northern part of the Seattle Creek corridor (ABR 2011).
There are no Federally or State@threatened, endangered, or candidate species of plants or animals
known to occur in the study area (ABR 2011, HDR 2011a). Fifty@five bird species (including
Trumpeter swans), one mammal (Alaska tiny shrew), and the wood frog are species of concern
designated by various agencies and organizations in the Susitna basin (HDR 2011a). There are
17 plant species considered rare or sensitive in the Upper and Lower Susitna sub@basins
(see Appendix I).
All migratory bird species are protected by the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which makes
it unlawful to “pursue…take, capture, kill…any migratory bird…nest, or egg…unless authorized
under a permit.” Take is defined in regulations as: “pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap,
capture, or collect, or attempt to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect.” Both
bald and golden eagles occur in the study area. They have additional protection under the Federal
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (Eagle Protection Act). Both acts are regulated by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), which sets project@specific timing windows for
construction, establishes areas of impact, and stipulates buffers surrounding known nests.
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
54
The Eagle Protection Act provides for the protection of bald and golden eagles by prohibiting,
except under certain specified conditions, the taking, possession, and commerce of such birds.
The management guidelines (USFWS 2007) include definition of zones around nest trees to
avoid disturbance. The primary zone extends 330 feet from the nest tree, and land clearing or
construction may be discouraged year@round. Human disturbance is discouraged, particularly
during the spring@summer nesting season. A secondary zone ranges to a distance of 660 feet from
the nest, and human disturbance must be minimized during the breeding season, but construction
may be possible outside the nesting season (USFWS 2007).
The USFWS and FERC have recently developed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
regarding protection of migratory birds (FERC and USFWS 2011). While the MOU covers all
species of migratory birds, it emphasizes “Species of Concern” that are identified by various
names by agencies and multi@organization working groups. The MOU does not have regulatory
authority that would affect alternative selection; consultation with USFWS and working groups
will occur according to the terms of the MOU during the NEPA process.
Because of emphasis on certain species during previous studies for the Susitna Hydroelectric
Project (SHP), caribou, moose, black and brown bears, Dall sheep, bald and golden eagles,
ducks, and trumpeter swans were the focus of this Watana Transportation Access study.
Available and pertinent summary information on wildlife species, status, distribution, habitat
use, and past environmental reviews and recommendations for access routes were reviewed
(APA 1981; Acres 1982; Kessel et al. 1982; ADF&G 1984, 2009 a–f; BLM 2002; ABR 2011;
HDR 2011a).
Terrestrial resource data for the project area are largely from studies conducted in the early
1980s, with limited updates available (ABR 2011). Many of the earlier studies were focused on
the Watana impoundment and/or downstream areas, and did not explicitly or completely cover
the three alternative corridor routes proposed in this report. More current wildlife data may
reflect changes in species distribution and habitat use, but this information is not readily
available from ADF&G (ABR 2011). Recent eagle nest survey data for the project area is
unavailable. Since nest occupation can vary from one year to the next, current data is essential to
accurately determine areas subject to the USFWS primary or secondary zones. While this
analysis assumes that the alternatives’ corridor widths are sufficient to avoid impacting primary
or secondary eagle nest zones, a take permit may be required if disturbance is unavoidable.
There is no complete and current wildlife habitat mapping for the selected species that covers the
entire access corridor study area. GIS data is not available for brown or black bears from the
Alaska Habitat Mapping Guide (ADF&G 2009 a–f). The Susitna Area Planning habitat maps
(ADF&G 1984), some of which include more detail than the Habitat Guide maps, are not
available digitally, so the information gathered from them is only referred to in the text.
Environmental reviews and recommendations of access alternatives chosen in the 1980s are not
completely applicable to the proposed alternatives in this analysis due to differences in
configurations and locations (APA 1981). In addition, there was no environmental analysis for
an access corridor in the Butte Creek (East) route area (APA 1981).
Due to these data limitations, most of the following analysis was based on the available maps
and reports, and is presented as a qualitative comparison between the alternatives.
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
55
4.2.5.1 South Road
The South Road corridor is anticipated to have fewer adverse impacts to caribou compared to the
other three alignments. It intersects the least mapped winter habitat (449.6 acres), summer habitat
(942.2 acres), and migration area (0 acres) than Hurricane (West), Seattle Creek (North), or Butte
Creek (East). “The upper Prairie Creek, Stephan Lake and Fog Lakes areas support one of the
largest year@round moose concentrations in the region” (APA 1981 2@29 and 2@30). The South
Road corridor intersects the fewest acres of moose general habitat and calving habitat. The South
Road corridor intersects slightly more rutting and winter moose habitat than the Seattle Creek
(North) corridor but less than Hurricane (West) and Butte Creek (East). “The upper Prairie
Creek, Stephan Lake and Fog Lakes areas support one of the largest year@round moose
concentrations in the region” (APA 1981 2@29 and 2@30).
The South Road corridor does not intersect mapped sheep habitat (Figure 4@10 and Table 4@15).
This alignment impacts fewer acres of general habitat for migratory ducks than the Hurricane
(West) alignment but more than the other two alignments. This alignment impacts slightly more
acreage of general swan habitat than the Hurricane (West) alignment and more than Seattle
Creek (North) and Butte Creek (East).
Bears, especially brown bears, have been known to inhabit the area near upper Prairie Creek,
Stephan Lake, and Fog Lake. This area is near a “midsummer migratory route for bears moving
from the Susitna River to Prairie Creek.” (APA 1981 2@30).
4.2.5.2 Hurricane (West)
With a few exceptions, the Hurricane (West) corridor has fewer adverse impacts to caribou and
moose compared to the Seattle Creek (North) route, because this corridor traverses or approaches
fewer areas of productive habitat and zones of species concentration or movement (APA 1981,
Acres 1982). This corridor includes both summer and winter caribou habitat range (ADF&G
1984; see Figure 4@8 and Table 4@15), but earlier studies suggested that this area has little use by
caribou (APA 1981, ABR 2011). Most or all of the entire corridor is mapped for general,
summer, or rutting, or winter habitat for moose (ADF&G 1984; Figure 4@9 and Table 4@15), but
moose were not considered abundant in this area during the early 1980s except for the mouth of
Tsusena Creek (APA 1981).
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
56
Figure 4 8. Caribou habitat
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
57
Figure 49. Moose habitat
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
58
Along the eastern half of the corridor, brown bears were more common than black bears (APA
1981). An area just north of the corridor and south of the headwaters of Devil and Clark Creeks
was mapped as a brown bear denning area, and Portage Creek was identified as a brown bear
concentration area during seasonal salmon abundance (ADF&G 1984). The extreme western end
of the corridor was mapped as “intensive use” by black bears during the spring (ADF&G 1984),
and the mouth of Tsusena Creek was also considered important habitat for black bears (APA
1981). The rest of the corridor is mapped as “general distribution” of black bears.
The Hurricane (West) corridor comes the closest to mapped Dall sheep habitat of the four
alternatives, but does not intersect sheep habitat (Figure 4/10 and Table 4/15).
Figure 4 10. Dall sheep habitat
The Hurricane (West) corridor intersects the most migratory duck habitat (387 acres) of the four
corridors, and intersects the same amount of trumpeter swan habitat as the Butte Creek (East)
route (65 acres; see Figure 4/11; Table 4/15).
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
59
Figure 411. Duck and swan habitat
4.2.5.3 Seattle Creek (North)
The Seattle Creek (North) route has more potential for wildlife disturbance and increased public
access to caribou and brown bear habitat and movement zones than much of the Hurricane
(West) route (Acres 1982). Moose and caribou were considered the most numerous big game
species along this route, compared to estimates along variations of the West route (APA 1981).
More than half of the corridor has been mapped as general habitat for moose (ADF&G 1984,
ADF&G 2009 a–f), although upper Deadman and Brushkana Creeks have been mapped as a fall
concentration area (ADF&G 1984), and the northern part of the corridor has been mapped as
both calving and winter habitat (Figure 4/9; Table 4/15). The corridor intersects year/round
habitat (see Figure 4/8) for a subherd of the Nelchina caribou herd (up to 1,500 animals), and
seasonal habitat for some of the migratory Nelchina and Delta herds (APA 1981, ABR 2011).
This corridor bisects an area of about 32 square miles west of Deadman Mountain that was
mapped as a brown bear denning area (ADF&G 1984). No brown bear concentration areas are
intersected or nearby (ADF&G 1984). The entire corridor is mapped as “general distribution” for
black bears.
This corridor is well outside Dall sheep habitat (Figure 4/10; Table 4/15), and intersects the least
amount of migratory duck habitat (322.1 acres) and trumpeter swan habitat (0 acres) of the four
alternatives (Figure 4/11; Table 4/15).
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
60
4.2.5.4 Butte Creek (East)
The Butte Creek (East) route was not included in previous environmental reviews of access
alternatives (APA 1981, Acres 1982). This entire corridor has been mapped as year/round range
for caribou (ADF&G 1984; Figure 4/8), and the entire corridor crosses general, winter, rutting,
and calving habitat areas for moose (ADF&G 2009 a–f; Figure 4/9). This corridor does not
intersect or closely pass brown bear denning or concentration areas or Dall sheep habitat
(ADF&G 1984; Figure 4/10). The entire corridor is mapped as “general distribution” for black
bears (ADF&G 1984).
The Butte Creek (East) intersects a similar amount of duck habitat (763.5 acres) than the South
Road corridor, less duck habitat (744.7 acres) than the Hurricane Creek (West) corridor (965.3
acres), but more than the Seattle Creek (North) corridor (322.1 acres; Figure 4/11). This corridor
intersects an less of trumpeter swan habitat than the South Road (166.4 acres) and the Hurricane
Creek (West) corridor (163.6 acres), but more than the Seattle Creek (North) corridor (0 acres).
4.2.5.5 Summary
There are no Federally or State/threatened, endangered, or candidate species of plants or animals
known to occur in any of the three corridors. The South Road corridor appears to pose the least
impact to caribou. The South Road corridor impacts the least amount of general moose habitat
but the highest amount of winter habitat. The Hurricane (West) corridor appears to be less
impactful to moose and caribou compared to the Seattle Creek and Butte Creek corridors because
it has fewer areas of productive habitat and zones of species concentration or movement.
The South Road corridor intersects a similar amount of migratory duck habitat (763.5 acres) to
the Butte Creek (East) corridor. This is less than the amount of migratory duck habitat impacted
by Hurricane (West) but more than double that of Seattle Creek (North). This corridor also
impacts a similar amount of trumpeter swan habitat (166.4 acres) as the Hurricane (West)
corridor.
The Hurricane (West) corridor intersects the most migratory duck habitat (965.3 acres) of the
four corridors, and intersects more trumpeter swan habitat than Seattle Creek (North) alternative
(0 acres) or the Butte Creek (East) route (71.3 acres).
The Seattle Creek (North) corridor is well outside Dall sheep habitat, and intersects the least
amount of migratory duck habitat (322.1 acres) and trumpeter swan habitat (0 acres) of the three
alternatives.
The Butte Creek (East) intersects less duck habitat (744.7 acres) than the Hurricane (West)
corridor (965.3 acres), but more than the Seattle Creek (North) corridor (322.1 acres). This
corridor intersects more trumpeter swan habitat than Hurricane (West) corridor (163.6 acres) or
the Seattle Creek (North) corridor (0 acres).
As the GIS mapping for terrestrial resources did not cover the entire area being studies and may
not reflect current conditions, each corridor was also ranked using professional judgment of
available information for the selected species as a whole. The corridors were ranked on a 1 to
5 scale with 1 representing no impact to terrestrial resources and 5 representing a significant
impact to threatened and endangered species (see Table 4/15).
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
61
Table 415. Summary of impacts to terrestrial resources
Corridor
South Road Hurricane
(West)
Seattle Creek
(North)
Butte Creek
(East)
Caribou
Winter habitat (acres) 449.6 1,797.8 1,489.0 2,5520
Summer habitat (acres) 942.2 2,226.0 1,489.0 2,552.0
Migration (acres) 0.0 162.7 1,46.3 146.3
Habitat qualitative score 2 2 3 3
Moose
General habitat (acres) 738.8 1,703.4 1,677.1 1,404.0
Calving habitat (acres) 0.0 0.0 922.2 584.3
Rutting habitat (acres) 320.5 838.2 50.5 534.7
Winter habitat (acres) 1,255.0 874.3 951.0 1,147.8
Habitat qualitative
score 2.5 2 3 3
Dall sheep
Habitat (acres) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Habitat qualitative score 1 2 1 1
Migratory duck
General habitat (acres) 763.5 965.3 322.1 744.7
Swan
General habitat (acres) 166.4 163.6 0.0 71.3
Nesting habitat (acres) 0.0 0.0 0.0 93.0
Bear
Habitat qualitative score 3.5 3 2.5 2
Red = Not preferable Green = Favorable
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
62
4.2.6 Wetlands and Vegetation
4.2.6.1 Wetlands
Wetlands are regulated by the Corps, whose permitting authority requires identification of
measures to minimize harm to wetlands. This is typically demonstrated in alternative
development that demonstrates alignment placement attempting to avoid identified wetlands.
Acreage quantification of wetland type will identify the relative impacts of the three project
alternatives to jurisdictional wetlands.
The USFWS National Wetland Inventory (NWI) mapped wetlands in the general project area in
1984 (see Figure 4/12 and Appendix J). NWI mapping is an effective tool for large/scale
planning and wetland analysis but is generally not suitable for a Section 404 permit application.
NWI mapping is based primarily on aerial photographic interpretation with limited ground
verification, and therefore wetland boundaries tend to be overly simplistic, with many smaller
wetlands not included in the mapping.
Figure 412. Wetlands
Current NWI mapping does not include, approximately half of the Butte Creek (East) alternative
and a portion of the South Road alternative, and the inventory therefore does not include the
extent of the current project alternatives. Digital Data Services, Inc. digitized hardcopy NWI
maps into a GIS layer in 2011 to support an evaluation of mapped wetlands within each proposed
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
63
project alternative corridor. A small portion of the westernmost portion of the Hurricane (West)
alternative was not included in the digitized effort; however, the existing NWI mapping was
digitized by HDR to complete digital coverage for that alternative. Mapping boundaries in the
project area are shown in Appendix J. No other wetland mapping datasets exist that would
provide a more detailed inventory or accurately describe functional analysis of wetlands within
each alternative corridor.
In general, wetlands may serve environmentally beneficial functions including water quality
regulation, animal habitat provision, and flood protection, which are provided relative value by
the Corps. While functional assessment methodology is often applied to field investigations, and
field indicators are recorded to determine potential functional performance of a wetland, these
activities are outside the scope of the Watana Transportation Access Study, which is to identify
potential landscape/level impacts that would deter further study and selection of a project
corridor. This study has used typical wetland functions based on wetland types to determine
construction suitability, and has not verified the existence of these functions in the field.
4.2.6.2 Construction Suitability Categories
For this evaluation, wetlands and uplands identified through NWI mapping were classified into
four construction suitability categories (Table 4/16). Areas with a high suitability rating
(Category 1) are expected to allow for the easiest construction and have the fewest regulatory
and design permitting challenges. Areas with a low suitability rating (Category 4) are expected to
pose the greatest challenges to construction, including the most permitting and design challenges.
Category 4 areas would likely require water crossings, addressing strong regulatory concern and
stringent environmental considerations, and result in a longer, more complicated permit
acquisition process. These suitability categories are based on the wetland type associated with
the NWI mapping data and the general wetland functions that these wetland types typically
perform.
Uplands were ranked as Category 1 because a Section 404 permit would be unnecessary for
construction in these areas.
The wetland types listed in Category 2 represent forested and scrub/shrub wetlands. These
wetlands may perform functions including groundwater discharge, wildlife habitat provision, and
sediment and pollutant retention. This category was associated with a “moderately high”
suitability ranking. These wetlands were assigned a slightly lower suitability because forested
and scrub/shrub wetlands are generally widespread and are least likely of all the wetlands to
perform functions that are unique to wetlands.
Emergent wetlands are dominated by grass/like plants, are represented in Category 3, and have a
“moderately low” suitability ranking. The functions of emergent wetlands can be highly variable
depending on their topographic position and level of inundation or saturation. In general,
emergent wetlands provide functions for groundwater discharge, stormwater runoff attenuation,
and habitat for water/dependent wildlife. In addition, many emergent wetlands perform water
quality improvement functions and do so at a greater rate than other wetland types because they
have more water movement within and through them. The water input and movement typically
causes emergent wetlands to provide more productive habitat and allows them to export organic
material to support downstream ecosystems. Emergent wetlands near human development
(including roads) may protect water quality by retaining sediments and other pollutants.
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
64
The wetland types included in Category 4 represent open water habitats. In general, these
wetlands represent the most unique wetland types within the project area, and have been
assigned a ”low” suitability ranking. Permanently flooded wetlands, streams, and lakes were
assigned to this category because they typically provide important wildlife movement corridors,
improve stream water quality, provide habitat cover for fish, and stabilize stream banks against
erosion. These wetlands and waterbodies are also likely to export organics to aquatic systems,
and perform flood flow attenuation that protects downstream habitats and water quality.
Any fill placed in the wetlands included in Categories 2, 3, and 4 would likely require a Corps
Section 404 Permit.
Table 416. NWI wetland classification association with general categories
Category
(Suitability for
Construction)
Wetland Type and NWI Code
1
(High) Uplands (U)
2
(Moderately High)
Forested Wetlands
PFO4/SS1B
Scrub/Shrub Wetlands
PSS1A
PSS1B
PSS1/4B
PSS/F04B
3
(Moderately Low)
Emergent Wetlands
PEM1C
PEM1F
PSS1/EM1B
PSS1/EM1C
4
(Low)
Lake or Reservoir Basins
L1OWH
Rivers or Stream Channels
R3OWH
Additional Open
Water Codes
PEM1H
POWH
The acreage of wetland category, as grouped by association in Table 4/16, was determined for
each project alternative corridor for a 300/foot buffer (150 feet either side of centerline) and
represents a potential right/of/way corridor/level assessment of wetlands associated with each
corridor. Table 4/17 presents wetland category impacts, by alternative, for this area.
As noted above, NWI mapping is not available in either hand/drawn or digital formats for the
eastern approximately half of the Butte Creek (East) alternative and approximately 316.5 acres of
the South Road alternative. Because of this lack of data, total acreage calculations for the
Hurricane (West) and Seattle Creek (North) alternatives should not be directly compared to those
for the South Road and Butte Creek (East) alternatives. It is likely, given the landscape location
of the alternative in the Susitna River valley, that wetlands are present throughout the unmapped
area. Additionally, riverine wetlands are included in Category 4 and have the greatest relative
value; it is expected that the Butte Creek (East) alternative would be within close proximity of
riverine wetlands along the unmapped portions of the route. It is likely that the total acreage of
wetland impacts is underrepresented by the available data presented in Table 4/17.
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
65
Table 417. Acres of wetland impacts, by alternative and category
Alternative a
Total acres of
wetland impact
(Categories 2–4
combined)
Acres of impact, by category
1 2 3 4
South Roadb 226.8 1,449.6 150.4 69.9 6.5
Hurricane (West) 553.9 2,589.6 59.0 485.3 9.6
Seattle Creek
(North) 699.2 1,928.9 199.9 490.1 9.2
Butte Creek (East)c 544.1 817.2 95.5 442.6 6.0
a Each alternative assumed a 300/foot buffer
b NWI mapping is not available for approximately 316.5 acres of the South Road alternative; therefore, the acreage
of impacts shown for this alternative are not for the entire corridor.
c NWI mapping is not available for approximately half of the Butte Creek (East) alternative; therefore, the acreage of
impacts shown for this alternative are not for the entire length of the route.
Using existing data, the Seattle Creek (North) alternative impacts the greatest total acres of
wetlands, but impacts similar acreage of Category 3 and 4 wetlands as the Hurricane (West)
alternative. While the Corps will require preparation of a permit for impacts to all wetlands
regardless of the wetland’s relative value, wetland impacts to Category 3 and 4 wetlands are
expected to receive the greatest scrutiny for efforts made during preliminary design to avoid or
minimize impacts. Consultation with the Corps will be necessary to further evaluate permit
stipulations and conditions, including potential mitigation options. For more information about
wetlands, please see Appendix J.
4.2.6.3 Vegetation
Earth cover habitat types for the Gulkana region, which includes the project area, was mapped by
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Ducks Unlimited in 1997, and contains highly
diverse landscapes used by a variety of animals (BLM 2002). While this mapping effort was
initially focused on wetland and upland boundaries, the project scope was expanded to quantify
nine habitat types: forest, shrub, herbaceous, aquatic, barren, urban, agriculture, cloud/shadow,
and other. Each habitat type is further delineated into subtypes. This dataset is incomplete for the
project area, so acreage of impact to vegetation types was not calculated. Vegetation cover alone
is not subject to regulatory authority, and so would not be a considerable factor in alternatives
screening.
The BLM includes 17 plant species considered rare or sensitive in the Upper and Lower Susitna
sub/basins; these are listed below in Table 4/18 (HDR 2011a). None of the listed species are
subject to management restrictions, permit limitations, or law; however, consultation with BLM
regarding distribution and potential impact to listed species will be required during the NEPA
process.
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
66
Table 418. BLMlisted rare and sensitive plants in the project
area
Speciesa
Sensitive (S) or Watch
List (W) Plant c
Aphragmus eschscholtzianus W
Arnica mollis —
Artemisia laciniatad W
Botrychium ascendens S
Ceratophyllum demersum —
Douglasia alaskana S
Douglasia gormanii W
Draba ruaxes —
Erysimum asperum var.
angustatum S
Papaver alboroseum S
Potamogeton robbinsii W
Ranunculus kamchaticus We
Smelowskia pyriformis S
Stellaria alaskana W
Taraxacum
carneocoloratum W
Thlaspi arcticum W
Viola selkirkii —
a Query of BIOTICS Database (Santosh 2011) unless otherwise
noted
b AKNHP 2008
c BLM 2010
d MON 2011
e Listed by BLM as Oxygraphis glacialis
4.2.7 Land Status
There are several land ownerships24 in the project area, including the Federal and State
governments, Alaska Native corporations, and other private land owners (see Figure 4/13).
Federal lands in the project area are controlled by the BLM. State lands include properties owned
by the State of Alaska (State), properties selected by the State of Alaska (State Selected), and
24 Due to the conceptual level of this study, minimal efforts have been made to avoid specific parcels and to ensure
that impacts to certain parcels may be minimized through future design refinements.
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
67
properties selected by the State of Alaska for which the state has been granted tentative approval
by the Secretary of the Interior for transfer of these properties to state ownership (State TA), but
title to these properties has not yet transferred. Native corporations (Native) lands may include
Selected Regional Native Corporation Lands (Native Selected). Other private lands may include
ownership by private citizens or corporations (Private), and Boroughs (Borough). Native
allotments have been identified in the South Road corridor but not the other three corridors.
In general, the time it takes to acquire ROW/construction rights varies by ownership. Based on
previous experience, BLM lands generally take the longest to acquire, with an estimated time of
24 to 36 months from the time the application is filed and accepted by the BLM as complete. In
general, it can take up to 3 months to prepare an application. It is recommended that consultation
with the BLM be initiated early in the project development process (pre/application). The pre/
application can and usually pulls in other Federal/State agencies to participate. This pre/
application meeting is very important for this project as there are several BLM field offices that
manage the various lands. When an application such as this one involves lands under more than
one jurisdiction of more than one office, the BLM Field Manager having jurisdiction over the
application process will be determined. Only one permit needs then to be filed. After successful
negotiations, BLM would issue a ROW Grant for the right of way. Land issues for BLM may be
managed out of the Fairbanks, Anchorage, or Glennallen BLM office. If the ROW does not
require any federal land (i.e. the ROW is all state land), there would be no BLM involvement in
the ROW acquisition process.
Lands owned by Native corporations typically take between 18 and 24 months to negotiate
acquisition. Should negotiation for Native lands not be achievable, the State does have
condemnation authority for the property. However, condemnation of Native land would be
precedence/setting, as the State has not condemned Native lands to date.
A Native allotment refers to a piece of unappropriated, and unreserved public land granted to an
eligible applicant under the Alaska Native Allotment Act of May 17, 1906, as amended. The
acquisition process from a Native allotment can be complex because out of the roughly
15,000 proposed or existing allotments, only a little more than half have been certified. The
process for acquiring land from an allottee or an allottee’s heirs can be a lengthy process. Most
allotments are restricted which means the process must work through the Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA). If an allotment has had its restriction classification removed, then the process
would be the same as acquiring land from any other private property owner. Only a very small
number of allotments have had their restriction classification removed.
The restricted allotments are managed by the BIA for the allottee and/or their heirs. Each
allotment can contain up to 160 acres and may be divided into as many as four parcels at
different locations. The location of an allotment frequently changes during the adjudication
process. Reasons for these changes include a lack of an adequate legal description, overlapping
land boundaries, land that has been already conveyed to another party prior to filing, filing on top
of other land uses such as 17(b)25 easements or a lake or river or within a State park. Many
allotments are still being surveyed. Until the survey is complete the exact location of the
allotment is not guaranteed. The BLM is working on surveying as time allows. Acquiring
25 A 17(b) easement is an easement “on lands which will be conveyed to Alaska Native Village and Regional
Corporations in order to allow public access to public land and water” (DNR 2012).
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
68
property from any restricted native allotment is coordinated through the BIA. This process
typically takes between anywhere from 6 month up to a year to complete. There are some cases
where this process has taken over 2 years to complete. On some projects, the acquisition process
has stalled due to the inability to locate allottees or to reach agreement on the terms of the
acquisition. Private lands, including those owned by private individuals, private corporations, or
Boroughs, generally takes up to 18 months for ROW acquisition. State lands generally take a
similar amount of time to acquire for State/supported projects. State/, Private/, and Borough/
owned land acquisition usually is not on the critical path for projects of this type.
For a road access corridor, a 300/foot ROW is typically acquired. The quantity of land from each
landowner type for a preliminary ROW is summarized in Table 4/19. The acreage of land by
land owner type for the corridor is also shown in Table 4/19 to indicate how future changes to
the alignment could influence ROW acquisition.
None of the four corridors cross designated Wilderness lands or wild and scenic rivers, or would
require the acquisition of land from Denali State Park. Near Gold Creek, the ARRC tracks are
located at the boundary of Denali State Park. Any activity west of the tracks would require the
acquisition of land from the park. The South Road alignment would require the acquisition of
land from the Nelchina Public Use Area. The Nelchina Public Use Area was created by the
legislature in 1985 to:
· Protect fish and wildlife habitat, particularly caribou calving areas, trumpeter swan
nesting areas, and other important habitats for moose, Dall sheep and brown bear so that
traditional public uses of fish and wildlife populations may continue;
· Perpetuate and enhance public enjoyment of fish and wildlife and their habitat, including
fishing, hunting, trapping, viewing, and photography;
· Perpetuate and enhance general public recreation in a quality environment;
· Perpetuate and enhance additional public uses described in the Susitna Area Plan;
· Allow additional public uses of the area in a manner compatible with the purpose
specified above. (AS 41.23.010)
The Hurricane (West) corridor contains 19,443 acres of State/owned land, which is the lowest of
the four corridors. The Butte Creek corridor contains the most State land (27,939 acres). The
Hurricane corridor also contains the most Federal land (14, 817 acres). This is almost double the
amount of Federal land in the Seattle Creek (North) and Butte Creek (East) corridors. The South
Road corridor does not contain any Federal land. The South Road corridor contains substantially
more Native corporation land (40,828 acres) than the other three corridors. The Hurricane (West)
corridor contains much less Native corporation land (300 acres). The other two corridors contain
the fewest acres of Native corporation land (45 acres each). In each corridor, land is owned by
Cook Inlet Regional Corporation, Knikatnu, and Tyonek Native Corporation26. It also contains
the most private/Borough land. Within the MSB27, GIS records indicate there are approximately
10 private landowners28 in the South Road corridor, 118 private landowners in the Hurricane
26 Specific landowner information was not available for lands within the Denali Borough.
27 Specific landowner information was not available for lands within the Denali Borough.
28 A landowner may own one or more parcels.
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
69
Figure 4 13. Generalized land status
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
70
(West) corridor, and two private landowners in the Butte Creek (East) corridor. There are no
identified privately owned lands within the Seattle Creek (North) corridor30
The potential Hurricane (West) ROW uses the most federal land (771 acres) compared to South
Road (0 acres), Seattle Creek (North; 357 acres) and Butte Creek (East; 255 acres). The potential
Butte Creek (East) ROW uses the most state owned land (1,230) which is only slightly more than
Seattle Creek (East; 1,174 acres). The South Road ROW contains the least amount of State
owned land (417 acres). The South Road ROW contains substantially more Native corporation
land (1,466 acres) than the other three alternatives. The Hurricane (West) ROW contains a
substantial amount more private land (300 acres) than the other 2 alternatives (45 acres each).
The South Road and Hurricane (West) ROW are the only two that would use private/Borough0
owned land.
The proposed location of the railroad laydown yard at Gold Creek associated with the South
Road alignment is on land owned by the State of Alaska, CIRI, and seven private owners. The
proposed location of the railroad laydown yard at Cantwell associated with the Seattle Creek
(North) and Butte Creek (East) alternatives is owned by Native corporations while the proposed
location of the railroad laydown yard at Hurricane is on State owned land.
Overall, the Seattle Creek (North) and Butte Creek (East) alternatives would be about the same
from a land status perspective. The ROW need for the Hurricane (West) corridor has the
potential to require the acquisition of more Federal and Native lands than the other corridors. The
South Road ROW is the only one of the four that would not require the acquisition of Federal
land. The actual length of time to acquire the ROW necessary for the project will depend on a
number of factors including the number of landowners to negotiate with and their willingness to
sell.
Table 419. Land status summary
Land type
South Road Hurricane
(West)
Seattle
Creek
(North)
Butte Creek
(East)
Wilderness designated lands 0 0 0 0
Wild and scenic rivers 0 0 0 0
Denali State Park (acres) 0 0 0 0
Nelchina Public Use Area 27,584 0 0 0
Corridors (acres)
Federal lands 0 14,817 6,613 10,238
State lands 13,719 19,443 36,042 50,634
Native 40,828 9,521 896 896
Private or Borough 1,692 5,160 0 818
30 The parcel information does not include the northern third of the Seattle Creek (North) corridor. Based on BLM
data, this land appears to be all state or federally owned.
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
71
Table 419. Land status summary
Land type
South Road Hurricane
(West)
Seattle
Creek
(North)
Butte Creek
(East)
ROW (acres)a
Federal lands 0 771 357 255
State lands 417 749 1,174 1,230
Native 1,466 300 45 45
Private or Borough 112 66 0 0
Red = Not preferable Green = Favorable
a ROW acres impacted is based on a 3000foot wide ROW.
4.2.8 Fish and Wildlife Uses
The fish and wildlife resources in the potential access corridors are important to a variety of user
groups that participate in managed hunts and recreational/subsistence fisheries. Development of
an access route to the Watana dam site may provide users new and expanded access to these
resources, potentially resulting in increased harvest pressure on some fish and wildlife
populations. Analyses of proposed access routes from the 1980s Susitna Hydro Project
(Terrestrial 1981, Acres 1982) were reviewed and compared to the current alternatives. In
addition, current data gap reports for subsistence resources (Simeone et al. 2011), terrestrial
resources (ABR 2011) and aquatic resources (HDR 2011) were included in the review along with
current management area reports and databases available on the ADF&G Web site. Detailed
geographic information on resource uses was not available at a high enough resolution to
perform a spatial analysis of access alternatives. As a result, this category was scored on an
objective ranking system (1 [best] to 5 [worst]) using professional judgment of the resource
specialists conducting the review.
4.2.8.1 Subsistence Uses of Fish and Wildlife Resources
Subsistence hunting and fishing are economically and culturally important to Alaskans. Both
State and Federal management authorities have a mechanism for establishing preferences among
subsistence users when a fish or wildlife population is not large enough to support harvests by all
those who are eligible for subsistence. This process is called a “Section 804” process under
Federal and a “Tier II” process under State management. The subsistence preference is granted
through a customary and traditional use determination made by the Alaska Boards of Fisheries
and Game.
For the purpose of wildlife population management and harvest reporting, the state of Alaska is
divided into 26 game management units. The Watana dam site, reservoir and potential access
corridors are located in Game Management Unit (Unit) 13 and more specifically within sub unit
13 E (Figure 4014, GMU 13 and project features). The State has made customary and traditional
use determinations for all major resources within Unit 13: salmon, non0salmon fish, Dall sheep,
black bear, grizzly bear, caribou, and moose. This means that all of these resources are classified
as subsistence resources. Of these, caribou and moose are most popular (Simeone et al. 2011).
All Alaskan residents as defined by the State are eligible to participate in subsistence hunts.
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
72
The Nelchina caribou herd occupies Unit 13 and is important to a large number of hunters due to
its accessibility and proximity to Fairbanks and Anchorage (Harper 2009). All of the caribou
hunts in Unit 13 are subsistence hunts. In 1990 more than 6,000 people obtained subsistence
permits to hunt caribou and achieved the allowable harvest in 3 days (Simeone et al. 2010).
Consequently in 1991, the State instituted a Tier II hunt to limit the number of hunters and
prevent over0harvest. From 2003 to 2008, the state Tier II subsistence hunt in Unit 13 accounted
for 60 to 90 percent of the Nelchina herd’s total annual harvest. The majority of the balance of
the harvest is taken by the Federal registration hunt, which takes place on BLM lands.
4.2.8.2 Sport Hunting and Fishing
A new access road to the Watana dam site will also provide new opportunities for hunters and
fishers. Expanded access opportunities to fish and wildlife resource areas may result in indirect
impacts due to increased harvest pressure or user conflicts. Sport fishing use areas in the upper
Susitna fall under the Northern Cook Inlet management area. Unit 3, a sub area of this
management area, incorporates the upper Susitna basin above Talkeetna to the Oshetna River.
Sport fishing activity ranged from 1,900 to 8,440 angler days in the 100year period from 1995 to
2006 (Ivey et al. 2009).
Unlike some hunts which are limited by registration or drawing systems, sport fishing is
unrestricted as to the number of users that can participate. In the 1980s, a statewide sport fishing
organization supported the alignment alternatives that would provided the most access for its
members to new fishing areas (Acres 1982). Local groups may not share that position, leading to
user conflicts. Modifications to fishing methods, means, seasons, and harvest allocations through
the Board of Fisheries is one manner in which these changes may have to be mitigated in the
future.
Where access alignments cross tundra, as opposed to forested areas, there is a greater opportunity
for off0road all0terrain vehicles (ATVs) to exit the roadway. To minimize secondary impacts to
caribou and other resources special land use policies governing road use and off0road ATV use
may need to be adopted.
4.2.8.3 South Road
The South Road alignment has a similar elevation to the Hurricane (West) and is lower than the
other two corridors. This alignment is not accessible from the existing roadway network which
means it has less potential for access than the other three alignments. This may reduce the
potential for secondary effects.
This route will cross or is in proximity to fish bearing streams which may increase sport fishing
activity in the area. However, the lack of connection to the existing road network may limit this.
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
73
Figure 414. Game management units
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
74
4.2.8.4 Hurricane (West)
The Hurricane (West) alignment has a similar elevation to the South Road alignment but is lower
in elevation than the other two corridors and passes through forest land between MP 0 and
MP 22. This habitat type limits the opportunities for ATV access to adjacent resource areas, and
as a result may pose a reduced potential for secondary effects discussed for the other alternatives.
Because this route is lower in elevation, it crosses less of the Nelchina caribou range than the
other alternatives.
The route will cross Indian Creek and Portage Creek, both salmon0producing streams. These new
access points may result in increased sport fishing pressure on these systems.
4.2.8.5 Seattle Creek (North)
This alignment passes through range habitat for the Nelchina caribou herd and has the potential
to have secondary impacts due to the increased hunter access. Previous studies cautioned that
increased hunting pressure may result from the new access (Acres 1982). Because much of this
alignment crosses tundra, there is a greater opportunity for ATVs to exit the roadway than with
the Hurricane (West) alignment.
Much of the alignment crosses, or is in proximity to, seasonal Arctic grayling habitat where
recruitment and growth are thought to be low (Acres 1982). Opening new sport fishing access to
the area may put pressure on the stability of the population.
4.2.8.6 Butte Creek (East)
This alignment passes through important range habitat for the Nelchina caribou herd and has the
potential to have secondary impacts due to the increased hunter access. Because much of this
routing crosses tundra, there is a greater opportunity for ATVs to exit the roadway.
Much of the route crosses or is in proximity to Butte Creek, which likely provides seasonal
Arctic grayling habitat. Providing access to more angling opportunities in the area could put
pressure on grayling populations.
4.2.8.7 Summary
All four corridors involve the construction of a road into areas that currently do not have access
except by off0road vehicle.
The South Road and Hurricane (West) alignments cross less of the Nelchina caribou range than
the Seattle Creek (North) or Butte Creek (East) alignment because the former are at a lower
elevation. Because the Hurricane (West) alignment passes through forested land instead of
tundra like Seattle Creek (North) and Butte Creek (East), there is less potential for people to use
off0road vehicles to access adjacent areas.
All four alignments will also provide new access points to fishing opportunities, which may put
pressure on local fish populations. The South Road alignment will provide less access for the
general public then the other three alignments because it is not connected to the existing road
network. Table 4020 summarizes the qualitative assessment of impacts to sport fishing and
recreational and subsistence hunting for each alternative.
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
75
Table 420. Summary of fish and wildlife uses (qualitative assessment)
Factor
South
Road
Hurricane
(West)
Seattle
Creek
(North)
Butte
Creek
(East)
Sport fishing 2 3 2 2.5
Recreational and subsistence
hunting 2 2 3 3
Red = Not preferable Green = Favorable
4.2.9 Cultural Resources
Cultural resources are subject to consideration under Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA). Under the Act, Federal agencies must consider the effects of Federal
undertakings on historic properties. Historic properties are cultural resources such as prehistoric
archaeological sites, historic buildings, or traditional cultural properties that have been evaluated
and found eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Cultural
resources are also subject to consideration under Section 4(f) (49 USC 303), AS 41.35.070
(Alaska Historic Preservation Act), and NEPA. Coordination of the NHPA with NEPA is
outlined in 36 CFR 800.8, which states that “Agency officials should ensure that preparation of
an…EIS and record of decision includes…identification of historic properties, assessment of
effects upon them, and consultation leading to resolution of adverse effects.”
Cultural resource site location information is restricted and withheld from public records
disclosure under state law (AS 40.25.110) and the Federal Freedom of Information Act (PL 890
554); consequently, site locations are not identified in this document but are discussed in general
geographic terms for each corridor analysis. The restriction of site location information is
allowed by AS 40.25.120(a)(4), Alaska State Parks Policy and Procedure No. 50200, the
National Historic Preservation Act, and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act.
For this analysis, cultural resources were identified through a review of the Alaska Heritage
Resources Survey (AHRS) database and Office of History and Archaeology records, including
studies associated with the 1980s Watana licensing effort. Based on the AHRS review,
previously recorded cultural resources in the Watana Access area consist primarily of prehistoric
surface lithic scatters on south0trending and/or south0facing ridge systems, terraces, and knolls.
Lithic scatters are prehistoric distributions of cultural items that consist primarily of lithic (i.e.,
stone) material. Often they include not only chipping debris from stone tool manufacture
activities, but also formed tools such as projectile points, bifaces, or knives. Because AHRS site
locations can vary up to 60 meters in some instances, AHRS sites reported in this study are
located within or up to 60 meters outside the access corridors.
Most AHRS sites were identified during cultural resource surveys for the 1980s Watana
licensing effort or the 1980s intertie project; however, some sites were recorded during
identification of important traditional and historical sites ([14][h]1 sites) under the Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). Only one previously recorded site within the Access Study
area has been evaluated for eligibility for inclusion in the NRHP. The site, HEA00353: Seattle
Creek Bridge, was determined to be not eligible for listing in the NRHP and therefore does not
require consideration as a historic property under the NHPA. However, the Denali Highway was
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
76
listed on 11/30/2010 by DOT&PF and the SHPO as an “Alaska road to be treated as NRHP
Eligible.” Consequently, maintenance or improvement plans to the Denali Highway for the
Watana Access project should consider this designation.
It is important to note that absence of sites within the AHRS is not necessarily indicative of
absence of sites on the landscape, as much of Alaska has never been archaeologically surveyed.
It can be assumed that site concentrations identified in the AHRS likely represent areas that were
archaeologically surveyed, while areas with no sites likely represent areas that have not been
archaeologically surveyed. Because of the disparity in archaeological survey coverage, this
analysis is based upon not only upon information in the AHRS, but also the professional
judgment of HDR’s cultural resource specialists.
4.2.9.1 South Road
The South Road corridor runs along the south side of the Susitna River, skirts the base of north
facing slopes, then works through the Stephan Lake and Fog Creek areas until its intersection
with the Susitna River. Only one previously recorded site (the historic Susitna River Railroad
Station at Gold Creek) is located within the South Road corridor (see Table 4021); however lithic
scatters are present at other locations1 to 2 miles from the currently defined corridor. As
previously discussed, this lack of recorded sites within the corridor reflects a lack of previous
cultural resource survey in the corridor area and should not be interpreted to mean that there is
little potential for disturbance to cultural resources should this alignment be constructed. The
north0facing slopes present relatively low potential for containing prehistoric sites. However, the
Stephan Lake and Fog Creek areas are characterized by low0elevation bluff and ridge systems in
close proximity to fresh water. The presence of archaeological sites within 1 to 2 miles of the
defined alignment corridor combined with this topography indicate a high potential for
containing prehistoric archaeological sites, particularly those associated with hunting and tool
manufacture, in some areas.
Table 421. AHRS sites within or adjacent to the South Road corridor
AHRS Number Site Name/Description NRHP Status
TLM00005 Gold Creek/Susitna River Railroad
Station
NEa
a Not evaluated
4.2.9.2 Hurricane (West)
The Hurricane (West) alignment follows the Susitna River from the Parks Highway and skirts
the bases of numerous south0facing slope, terrace, and ridge systems. Given their proximity to
freshwater creeks and the Susitna River, as well as south0facing aspect, these landforms present a
high potential for containing prehistoric archaeological sites, specifically those associated with
hunting and tool manufacture.
A total of 28 previously recorded sites are located within the Hurricane corridor (see Table 4022).
Many of the sites are large lithic scatters spread out along ridge and terrace tops, consisting of
both surface and subsurface components. Artifacts identified at these sites include tool
manufacture flakes, bifacial tools, and other lithic deposits. Other sites have been identified
outside the proposed road corridor. Construction of the Hurricane corridor could open up access
to Tsusena Butte, potentially causing disturbance to these sites.
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
77
Table 422. AHRS sites within or adjacent to the Hurricane access corridor
AHRS Number Site Name/Description NRHP Status
TLM00272 ARRC Timber Bridge MP 276.1 NEa
TLM00112 Irregular Stone Ring NE
TLM00110 Lithic Scatter NE
TLM00111 Rectangular Depression NE
TLM00109 Lithic Scatter NE
TLM00108 Lithic Scatter NE
TLM00107 Lithic Scatter NE
TLM00106 Chert Biface Tool NE
TLM00275 Lithic Scatter NE
TLM00113 Lithic Scatter NE
TLM00114 Lithic Scatter NE
TLM00101 Two Flakes NE
TLM00103 Lithic Scatter NE
TLM00202 Single Flake NE
TLM00209 Lithic Scatter NE
TLM00203 Lithic Scatter NE
TLM00176 Two Flakes NE
TLM00214 Lithic Scatter NE
TLM00002 Chulitna RR Station NE
TLM00160 Three Waste Flakes (Subsurface) NE
TLM00015 Two Flakes NE
TLM00016 North Arrow Site (hearth and
flaking station)
NE
TLM00192 Cobble Stone NE
TLM00018 Corps Trailer Site (subsurface lithic
deposit)
NE
TLM00165 Lithic Scatter NE
TLM00167 Single Flake NE
TLM00017 Lithic Scatter NE
TLM00137 Two Flakes NE
a Not evaluated
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
78
4.2.9.3 Seattle Creek (North)
The Seattle Creek (North) access route runs north0south along Seattle Creek from the Denali
Highway to Deadman Creek. A total of 20 previously recorded sites were identified within or
adjacent to the Seattle Creek corridor (with an additional 5 along the Denali Highway; see Table
4023). Most sites consist primarily of small, discrete surface lithic scatters containing only a few
flakes. Based on landforms, slope, and aspect, the Seattle Creek corridor overall has a medium
potential for containing additional unrecorded cultural resources, though potential is higher in the
area around Deadman Lake and Deadman Creek.
Table 423. AHRS sites within or adjacent to the Seattle Creek access corridor
AHRS Number Site Name/Description NRHP Status
TLM00160 Three Waste Flakes (Subsurface) NEa
TLM00015 Two Flakes NE
TLM00016 North Arrow Site (hearth and
flaking station)
NE
TLM00192 Cobble Stone NE
TLM00018 Corps Trailer Site (subsurface lithic
deposit)
NE
TLM00165 Lithic Scatter NE
TLM00167 Single Flake NE
TLM00017 Lithic Scatter NE
TLM00137 Two Flakes NE
HEA00248 Lithic Scatter NE
HEA00182 Lithic Scatter NE
HEA00181 Lithic Scatter NE
HEA00184 Two Articulated Flake Fragments NE
HEA00180 Lithic Scatters NE
TLM00098 Two Waste Flakes NE
TLM00117 Four Waste Flakes NE
TLM00250 Lithic Scatter (Rita) NE
TLM00251 Lithic Scatter (Rebecca Site) NE
TLM00183 Single Chert Flake NE
TLM00099 Lithic Scatter NE
Denali Hwy between Parks Hwy and Seattle Creek Access
HEA00450 Denali Highway NE;
considered
eligible
HEA00097 Edmonds Creek Site (late NE
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
79
Table 423. AHRS sites within or adjacent to the Seattle Creek access corridor
AHRS Number Site Name/Description NRHP Status
prehistoric site)
HEA00115 200Mile Shelter Cabin NE
HEA00274 No Information NE
HEA00353 Seattle Creek Bridge NE
a Not evaluated
4.2.9.4 Butte Creek (East)
Like the Hurricane (West) corridor, the Butte Creek (East) corridor runs east0west and is in close
proximity to freshwater creeks and south facing slope, ridge and terrace systems. However, the
corridor is separated from the Susitna River by large landforms. A total of 19 previously
recorded sites were identified within or adjacent to the Butte Creek (East) corridor (with an
additional 12 located along the Denali Highway; see Table 4024). Several sites along the Butte
Creek (East) alignment were recorded within the last year by the BLM and the Office of History
and Archaeology and descriptive information regarding the sites’ features and artifacts is not yet
available. The remaining cultural resources within the Butte Creek (East) alternative were
recorded during Ahtna, Inc., Section 14(h)(1) selections, and include the grave of Chief Nicholai
and prehistoric lithic scatters associated with Caribou hunting in the area of Snodgrass Lake.
There is one paleontology site (HEA00212) within the corridor. Paleontology sites do not fall
under the purview of NHPA; however, they are subject to consideration under 41.35.070, the
Alaska State Historic Preservation Act.
Table 424. AHRS sites within or adjacent to the Butte Creek access corridor
AHRS Number Site Name/Description NRHP Status
TLM00160 Three Waste Flakes (Subsurface) NEa
TLM00015 Two Flakes NE
TLM00016 North Arrow Site (hearth and
flaking station)
NE
TLM00192 Cobble Stone NE
TLM00018 Corps Trailer Site (subsurface lithic
deposit)
NE
TLM00165 Lithic Scatter NE
TLM00167 Single Flake NE
TLM00017 Lithic Scatter NE
TLM00137 Two Flakes NE
HEA00463 No Information (BLM using) NE
HEA00441 No Information (BLM using) NE
HEA00440 No Information (BLM using) NE
HEA00439 No Information (BLM using) NE
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
80
Table 424. AHRS sites within or adjacent to the Butte Creek access corridor
AHRS Number Site Name/Description NRHP Status
HEA00424 Denali Block Site (no information) NE
HEA00425 Denali Block Site (no information) NE
HEA00309 Lithic Scatter NE
HEA00212 (Paleo) Paleontology Site NE
HEA00307 Chief Nicholai Grave NE
HEA00308 Lithic Scatter NE
Denali Hwy between Parks Hwy and Butte Creek Access
HEA00450 Denali Hwy NE;
considered
eligible
HEA00097 Edmonds Creek Site
(late prehistoric site)
NE
HEA00115 200Mile Shelter Cabin NE
HEA00274 No Information NE
HEA00353 Seattle Creek Bridge NE
HEA00098 Sand Dune Site (lithic scatter) NE
HEA00100 No Information NE
HEA00432 Large Square Depression NE
HEA00122 Grimes Site (biface tool) NE
HEA00272 No Information NE
HEA00352 Brushkana Creek Bridge NE
HEA00268 No Information NE
a Not evaluated
4.2.9.5 Summary
The Hurricane (West) Corridor contains the greatest number of identified sites (28), while the
Seattle Creek (North) and Butte Creek (East) corridors (excluding the sites along the Denali
Highway) each contain only two0thirds of that number (see Table 4025) and the South Road
corridor contains only one identified site. The South Road, Hurricane (West) and Butte Creek
(East) corridors hold the highest potential for containing additional unrecorded sites, while the
potential for additional sites in the Seattle Creek corridor is lower. While sites are located along
the Denali Highway between the Butte Creek (East) and Seattle Creek (North) corridors and the
Parks Highway (including the Denali Highway itself), these sites can likely be more easily
avoided or mitigated, as improvements to the Denali Highway associated with the Watana
Access will typically not involve re0routing or movement of the existing Denali Highway
alignment.
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
81
There are a total of nine cultural resource sites located within three of the four access corridors,
as the corridor(s) approach the Susitna River. These sites are all lithic scatters or subsurface tool
manufacturing sites and are concentrated between Deadman and Tsusena Creeks and the Susitna
River. It can be assumed that all three of the access corridors would impact these sites in the
same way; consequently they were not factored into the discussion and scoring analysis of the
four corridors presented below.
Based on the presence of and disturbance to known sites, the potential for additional unrecorded
sites, and the potential to increase access to previously inaccessible areas of high site
concentration outside the access corridor, the Hurricane (West) corridor would likely have the
greatest impact on cultural resources. The Seattle Creek (North) corridor, with fewer reported
AHRS sites and lower potential for containing additional sites, would likely cause the least
disturbance to cultural resources.
Table 425. Summary of cultural resource sites by corridor
Factor
South
Road
Hurricane
(West)
Seattle
Creek
(North)
Butte
Creek
(East)
Cultural Resources on new roadway 1a 28 20 19
Cultural Resources on Denali Highway 0 0 5 12
Total 1 28 25 31
Red = Not preferable Green = Favorable
a Although only one known cultural resource is identified within the South Road corridor, the potential for
portions of the corridor to contain additional sites is high.
4.2.10 Socioeconomics
The development of an access route to the Watana dam site will affect the socioeconomic
characteristics of the surrounding region. Socioeconomic impacts may be both positive and
negative. The potential for socioeconomic impacts was evaluated based on analyses of proposed
access routes from the 1980s Susitna Hydro Project (APA 1981) and the current Socioeconomic
data gap report (HDR 2011b). The socioeconomic impacts will vary greatly depending on
construction activities. A construction camp0based project will have substantially fewer impacts
on the socioeconomics of the surrounding area than one where construction workers are expected
to reside in nearby communities. For the purpose of this study, we have assumed that a
construction camp near the Watana dam site will be used. For the purposes of this report, the
project team assumed that only employees will be housed at the dam site and will be transported
to the dam site on a two0week on/two0week off (or similar) schedule. The majority of the
socioeconomic impacts of the access corridor will be associated with changes in traffic levels.
The magnitude and location of potential impacts varies depending on the route and location of
the Watana dam access route tie0in with existing transportation facilities. In addition, all of the
proposed alternatives would provide road access to a large area that has no existing roads. This
may cause changes to recreation, subsistence activities, and business use that currently occurs in
the area.
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
82
Figure 415. Communities of interest
Communities likely to be impacted by the Watana access project include those within the Denali
and Matanuska0Susitna Boroughs and specifically those along the Parks and Denali Highway
Road Corridors. Communities in the immediate vicinity of the project area include Cantwell
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
83
(population 219), Trapper Creek (population 481), Chase (population 34), and Talkeetna31
(population 876; Figure 4015; USCB 2010). In addition to these communities, other settlements
also exist along the existing ARRC corridor near the Curry, Sherman, Gold Creek, Canyon, and
Chulitna railroad stations. The extent to which each of these communities experiences
socioeconomic impacts depends largely on where the junction between the proposed access
corridor and existing transportation facilities occurs.
Other communities located along existing transportation corridors (such as Wasilla
[population 7,831], Anchorage [population 291,826], and Whittier [population 220]), also have
the potential for socioeconomic impacts related to the transportation of construction materials.
Socioeconomic impacts on these communities are likely to be similar for all Susitna0Watana dam
access alternatives.
4.2.10.1 South Road
The junction between the South Road alignment and the existing transportation network occurs
at ARRC MP 263 of the Alaska Railroad. Socioeconomic impacts to communities located on the
ARRC tracks are likely to be the result of increased train traffic. The specific communities that
will be impacted depends on if trains are coming from the south, the north, or both.
The construction of the South Road alignment would likely result in substantial project0related
traffic and activity within the Gold Creek area. Gold Creek is expected to have additional
impacts because it is the point of modal shift from rail to road for goods, material, and people.
The increased distance from larger cities such as Wasilla and Anchorage may result in an
increased demand for housing, community services, and utilities in the community; additional
employment opportunities; increased income; and changes to community culture and way of life.
The construction and operation of the South Road alignment could have impacts on residents and
owners of cabins in the area. While access to the area would still be limited to ARRC and ATV
access from the Parks Highway, it would be easier for people to travel between Gold Creek and
the proposed dam site.
The increased activity in the area is also anticipated to impact one remote lodge (Stephens Lake
Lodge) in the project area.
4.2.10.2 Hurricane (West)
The junction between the proposed Hurricane (West) alignment and existing transportation
routes occurs at MP 171 of the Parks Highway, across from the ARRC station near Hurricane
(ARRC MP 282). Socioeconomic impacts would likely impact communities in the immediate
area including Talkeetna and Trapper Creek (86 and 56 miles, respectively, from the proposed
junction; see Table 4026). Project impacts related to increased traffic on the Parks Highway may
be minimal in Talkeetna, as the community is located on a 140mile spur road off the highway
itself.
While it is anticipated that the many of the construction goods and materials will be moved by
rail to an improved siding at Hurricane, construction supplies will also be transported by truck.
The movement of construction goods and materials along the Parks Highway is likely to result in
31 In an advisory ballot vote on October 5, 2011, the community of Talkeetna communicated their opposition to the
construction of the Susitna0Watana Dam to the Talkeetna Community Council by a vote of 109 to 19 (KTNA 2011).
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
84
increased traffic that may impact communities farther south along the Parks Highway, including
Montana, Willow, Houston, and Wasilla (75, 101, 114, and 129 miles, respectively, from the
proposed junction). An increase in traffic from construction activities and post0construction users
(recreationalists, hunters, fishermen, etc.) may change the quality of life for some area residents,
but may also provide increased opportunities and traffic for local businesses. Impacts from
increased road traffic depend on the degree to which materials and supplies are moved by road or
via rail.
The Hurricane (West) alignment would likely have the fewest impacts (positive or negative) to
communities on the Parks and Denali Highways north of MP 171 such as Cantwell (39 miles
from the proposed junction; see Table 4026) because construction traffic would not need to pass
through the community (HDR 2011b). As the community closest to the proposed site, Cantwell
may still experience an increased demand for housing and services during construction, but
potentially to a lesser extent than if access is provided via the Seattle and Butte Creek
alternatives.
The construction and operation of the Hurricane (West) alignment could have impacts on
residents and owners of cabins along the ARRC corridor. The Hurricane (West) alignment could
provide direct road access to people who live in or own cabins near the ARRC station of
Chulitna. Access to this area is currently limited to ARRC and ATV access from the Parks
Highway. The Hurricane route would not provide direct road access to cabins and communities
farther south along the ARRC corridor, but it may provide an alternative point of access for trails
leading to those locations.
The proposed Hurricane access route may also alter land use and businesses activities that
currently occur east of the Parks Highway. The Hurricane access route is likely to provide
ground access to the area near the High Lake Lodge, a commercial lodge that is currently
accessed by airplane. Road access near the lodge would likely alter the remote characteristics of
the lodge, but may also provide different business opportunities. Guiding companies that provide
services in the area may experience similar changes in the type of recreational experience and
use of the area, but may benefit from increased ease of access. In summary, the Hurricane access
route is likely to have greater impacts on communities along the Parks Highway corridor and the
ARRC corridor, including Trapper Creek, and may be better positioned to rely on services from
larger population centers farther south in Anchorage and Wasilla. The Hurricane (West)
alignment has the only remote lodge identified in the area. The construction of this alignment
may have an impact on the character of the lodge. There are other lodges located near the Parks
Highway that may be affected by an increase in traffic during construction. No residential or
business relocations are anticipated with this alternative.
4.2.10.3 Seattle Creek (North)
The junction between the proposed Seattle Creek access route and existing transportation routes
occurs at MP 113.7 of the Denali Highway. The development of the Seattle Creek access route
would likely shift many of the socioeconomic impacts farther north along the Parks Highway to
the community of Cantwell (20 miles from the proposed junction). However, project equipment
and construction materials would still likely be transported up the Parks Highway corridor, either
on the Highway itself or by rail to an improved siding at Cantwell. Project0related traffic is still
likely to have some impact on communities along the Parks Highway from Wasilla to Cantwell.
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
85
The construction of the Seattle Creek (North) alignment would likely result in substantial
project0related traffic and activity within the community of Cantwell. The upgrade of the western
20 miles of the Denali Highway would require construction work directly adjacent to the
community. The increased distance from larger cities such as Wasilla and Anchorage may result
in increased reliance on and demand for housing, community services, and utilities in the
community; additional employment opportunities; increased income; and changes to community
culture and way of life. There would also be impacts (including noise and traffic) related to the
railroad laydown yard at Cantwell.
The development of access to the Watana dam site via the Denali Highway would provide
ground access to a region that is relatively remote and currently used primarily for recreation and
subsistence purposes. The Seattle Creek access route would directly impact cabins at Big Lake,
near the access route corridor.
The upgrade of the Denali Highway also has the potential to change access to the Denali
Highway area. Currently, the Denali Highway is open only seasonally to vehicle traffic, and is
used by snow machine users, dog mushers, skiers, and hunters in winter. The upgrade of the
western 20 miles of the Denali Highway has the potential to change seasonal land use in the area
and may provide different opportunities for businesses operating in the area. No residential or
business relocations are anticipated with this alternative.
In summary, the Seattle Creek (East) alignment is likely to have an impact on the community of
Cantwell, with fewer impacts to Talkeetna and Trapper Creek, similar to that of the Butte Creek
(East) alignment. It is not anticipated to impact remote lodges in the project area. Construction0
related traffic may impact lodges located along the Parks Highway. The August 1982 Access
Plan Recommendation Report indicated that an access route in this vicinity would not conflict
with the interested of Native organizations and local communities.
4.2.10.4 Butte Creek (East)
The junction between the proposed Butte Creek (East) alignment and existing transportation
routes occurs at MP 81 of the Denali Highway, approximately 53 miles east of Cantwell and
81 miles west of the community of Paxson, located at the junction of the Denali and Richardson
Highways. As part of the Butte Creek (East) alignment, 53 miles of the Denali Highway east
from Cantwell would be upgraded and would become available for year0round use.
The socioeconomic impacts of the Butte Creek (East) alignment are expected to be virtually the
same as those described for the Seattle Creek (North) alignment, with the community of
Cantwell likely to experience the largest number of socioeconomic impacts. The community of
Paxson may also experience some spillover effects, but, as most construction traffic and activity
would occur via Cantwell and the Parks Highway, they are likely to be more minor impacts.
Businesses located along the Denali Highway, including the Alpine Creek Lodge at MP 68 and
the Gracious House Lodge at MP 82, are likely to experience substantial impacts, both as a result
of construction0related traffic and activity and as a result of increased use and seasonal access to
the area. No residential or business relocations are anticipated with this alternative.
In summary, the Butte Creek (East) alignment is likely to have a moderate impact on the
community of Cantwell and the fewest impacts to Talkeetna and Trapper Creek. It is anticipated
to impact one remote lodge in the project area and one lodge located adjacent to the proposed
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
86
junction with the Denali Highway. Construction0related traffic may also impact lodges located
along the Parks Highway.
4.2.10.5 Summary
The socioeconomic impacts are expected to be greater during the construction of the proposed
project than during its operation. The socioeconomic impacts may vary greatly depending on
construction logistics (how workers are housed, hours of operation, traffic generated, etc.). The
South Road alignment would have the greatest impact to communities located along the ARRC
tracks. The Seattle Creek (North) and Butte Creek (East) alignments both use the Denali
Highway and would result in increased impacts to Cantwell. The Hurricane (West) alignment
would have fewer impacts to Cantwell. Hurricane (West), Seattle Creek (North) and Butte Creek
(East) alignments are likely to have similar impacts to Talkeetna.
Table 426. Distance between Parks Highway Junction and selected communities
South
Road
Hurricane
(West)
Seattle
Creek
(North)
Butte
Creek
(East)
Distance between Parks Highway
junction and Cantwell (miles) N/A 39 0 0
Distance between Parks Highway
junction and Talkeetna (miles) N/A 86 125 125
Red = Not preferable Green = Favorable
4.2.11 Costs
Costs for each corridor were estimated based on conceptual engineering and using DOT&PF bid
tabs (see Table 4027). For a detailed breakdown of costs per corridor and assumptions used for
estimating purposes, see Appendix C.
New alignments: Alignments in each corridor were established that met the design criteria for
the project through a conceptual engineering process. The terrain in each corridor was evaluated
and classified as level, rolling, or mountainous. Due to the length of the corridors and the
coarseness of the contour data (20m and 30m intervals), only representative sections of profiles
were developed in each terrain type. These representative sections (approximately 5 miles) were
modeled using Civil 3D to generate earthwork quantities. Following aerial reconnaissance of the
corridors, there was a concern about the slope stability in mountainous terrain with excavations
on the uphill sides when sidehilling. To address this concern, retaining walls were assumed and
included in the corridor estimates to minimize excavation on the uphill sides. Once quantities
were developed for the three representative sections, the quantities were normalized on a per
mile basis. Miscellaneous construction items were also estimated on a per mile basis.
Denali Highway: Following a field reconnaissance effort on the Denali Highway to document
existing conditions and evaluate the necessary improvements to support the Seattle Creek
(North) and Butte Creek (East) alternatives, quantities were developed by estimating the existing
embankment fill or cut heights, number and size of culverts, and bridge deck area for
replacement bridges. Miscellaneous construction items were estimated on a per mile basis.
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
87
Other items: Costs for intersection improvements, rail sidings, staging areas, and the airport
were also estimated. These costs were not used in the analysis for comparing the three access
routes as they are deemed to be essentially the same for all corridors. Table 4027 presents the
estimated costs in 2011 dollars for the corridors; totals are exclusive of ROW costs.
Table 427. Estimated cost in 2011 dollars (in millions)
South
Road
Hurricane
(West)
Seattle
Creek
(North)
Butte
Creek
(East)
Road (new alignment) 251.2 211.5 149.1 144.0
Road (Denali Highway) — — 14.6 31.7
Roadway subtotala 251.2 211.5 163.7 175.7
Rail sidings and intersection
improvementsb 28.3 9.1 9.1 9.1
Airport 36.7 36.7 36.7 36.7
Total access cost 316.2 257.3 209.5 221.5
Red = Not preferable Green = Favorable
aUsed for comparison of access alternatives
b This total does not include costs to upgrades to the ARRC mainline that may be needed.
The South Road alignment is estimated to cost approximately $316.27 million, which is the
highest cost of the four alternatives. The Hurricane (West) alignment is estimated to cost
approximately $257.3million. The Seattle Creek (North) alignment is expected to cost
approximately $209.5 million, which includes $14.6 million to upgrade the Denali Highway and
$149.1 million to connect the Denali Highway to the Watana dam site. The Butte Creek (East)
alignment has a similar cost. It is expected to cost $221.5million, which includes $31.7 million to
improve the Denali Highway and $144.0 million to connect the Denali Highway to the Watana
dam site. The South Road alignment presents greater technical/engineering challenges than the
other three alignments. This translates to a higher potential of construction cost escalations.
The South Road alignment is expected to have rail improvements costing approximately
$28.3 million. The other three alternatives are expected to have railroad and roadway intersection
improvements costing approximately $9.1 million, regardless of the alternative selected.
The airport is expected to cost approximately $36.7 million, regardless of the alternative
selected, and will not affect the overall evaluation.
4.2.12 Permits
All proposed corridors will require the construction of new roadways, with the Seattle Creek and
Butte Creek alignments also needing to upgrade portions of the Denali Highway to be used as
year0round access. Because much of the project will include similar impacts to resources,
permits required for the construction of all access road alternatives are anticipated to require
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
88
similar permits and permitting strategies. The following permits are anticipated32 for all proposed
alternatives.
4.2.12.1 Section 404 Permit (Corps)
The Corps reviews, coordinates, and issues permits for the removal or placement of fill into
wetlands and other waters of the United States under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. A
Section 404 permit would be required for all build alternatives that would affect wetlands and
other waters under Section 404 jurisdiction. The Section 404 permit application and approval
also requires the following:
Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultation with the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) and USFWS
NHPA Section 106 consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Coordination and conference with ADF&G
Section 401 Water Quality Certification from ADEC
The Corps would also require authorization under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act for
any build alternative that includes construction of a structure that would cross navigable waters
or result in the modification of navigable waters. It is not anticipated that the proposed project
corridors would involved the placing a structure over Federally navigable waterways.
The Section 404 application process for large projects may take as little as 9 months, and up to
2 years, depending on the amount of field data collected, progress of engineering plans, and
preliminary agency consultation conducted prior to permit submittal. The Corps will not issue a
Section 404 permit without an approved environmental document and requires that the chosen
alternative be the least environmentally damaging while still meeting the purpose of and need for
the project. In general, the Section 404 permit has the most potential to cause delays to the
construction schedule.
4.2.12.2 Eagle Take Permit (USFWS)
Bald and golden eagles may nest in the project vicinity and are protected under the Bald and
Golden Eagle Protection Act (Eagle Protection Act; 16 USC 668). Some activities are eligible
for Federal permits under 50 CFR 22.26; USFWS 2011. The Eagle Protection Act prohibits
anyone without a permit from “taking” bald and golden eagles except as permitted under
USFWS regulations. Due to the location of the proposed corridors and the anticipated proximity
to active and inactive bald eagle nests, an eagle take permit may be necessary. Prior to
submitting the eagle take permit, a preconstruction survey of the project corridor will be
conducted to identify current nest locations and status of nests. Compensatory mitigation
measures and post0construction monitoring may be necessary to offset impacts.
Obtaining an eagle take permit generally takes 30 to 90 days following submittal and requires a
$500 application fee33 at the time of submittal. The amount of time required to obtain this permit
is directly related to preliminary agency coordination and completion of the preconstruction
survey prior to submittal.
32 Other permits may be needed if new regulations are enacted, project funding changes, etc.
33 The permit application fees are November 2011 rates and are subject to change in the future.
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
89
4.2.12.3 Title 16 Fish Habitat Permit (ADF&G)
The Fishway and the Anadromous Fish Acts are Alaska Statutes (AS) that require projects to
obtain a Fish Habitat Permit from the ADF&G for certain activities in fish0bearing streams.
Activities that may affect fish passage and all activities within or across anadromous fish streams
require a Title 16 Fish Habitat Permit. All project alternatives will require Title 16 Fish Habitat
permits; see Table 4028 for the number of fish0bearing waters crossed for each alternative.
Where no data exist for a waterway, for the purposes of this report, it was assumed fish are
present and an application will be required.
Title 16 permits are generally obtained within 30 to 90 days of submittal, given sufficient field
data has been collected, crossing design information is provided, and appropriate preliminary
agency coordination has occurred. It is not uncommon for ADF&G to issue conditional permits
that require additional design information to be provided and approved by ADF&G prior to
construction.
4.2.12.4 Land Use Permit (DNR, Application for Easement AS 38.05.850)
For crossing State navigable waterways, an easement application will be necessary from the
DNR, Division of Mining, Land and Water (DMLW). The DNR retains ownership of navigable
stream beds from ordinary high water (OHW) to OHW and will require a permit for construction
over or work in waters identified as navigable. A navigational analysis will be required under 11
Alaska Administrative Code (AAC) 51.03534 by the DMLW to determine if any of the
waterways crossed are considered navigable by the State of Alaska.
Generally, land use permits are obtained 60 to 90 days following submittal, as long as the
navigational determinations have been completed and sufficient agency coordination has
occurred prior to submittal. There is a $ 100 fee per land use permit application, due at the time
of submittal. DNR has the option to issue a Public Notice, which requires a 300day review
period, or not. If DNR determines that sufficient public scoping has been conducted, it may
determine that the notice is not needed.
4.2.12.5 APDES Construction General Permit (ADEC)
Beginning in 2008, the ADEC assumed the role from EPA to administer the Alaska Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (APDES). This program was formerly called the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. An APDES construction permit, issued by the ADEC,
is required for all construction activities that result in ground disturbance of 1 acre or greater. A
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which is related to the APDES permit, must
also be approved by the ADEC before construction can begin.
This permit and the associated plans are the responsibility of the contractor and will be obtained
prior to the start of construction.
34 A river, stream, lake pond, slough, creek, bay, sound, estuary, inlet, strait, passage, canal, sea, ocean, or any other
body of water or waterway within the territorial limits of the State of Alaska or subject to its jurisdiction, that is
navigable in fact for any useful purpose such as commerce, hunting, trapping, log floating, landing or take off of
aircraft, public boating or any other recreational purpose.
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
90
4.2.12.6 Floodplain Development Permit
A Floodplain Development Permit would be required for a construction activity that includes
development in the mapped floodplain or floodway. A review was conducted of mapped
floodplains/floodways in the vicinity of the proposed project corridors. All corridors lie outside
of the mapped flood hazard areas so a MSB floodplain development permit will not be required
(MSB 2011). A review of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Map Service
Center Web site indicates that there are no FEMA mapped flood hazard areas located in the
Denali Borough (FEMA n.d.).
4.2.12.7 Borough Land Use Permit
If any borough0owned material sources/sites would be used, a conditional land use permit from
the borough would be required. A land use permit would also be required for any grubbing/
clearing to take place prior to ROW acquisition on MSB0 or Denali Borough0owned lands.
Borough land use permits take 60 to 90 days to obtain, assuming that the lands (material
sources/sites) have been surveyed and appropriate coordination has occurred with each
respective Borough prior to submittal.
4.2.12.8 Contractorspecific Permits
Additional contractor0specific permits may be required for the construction of an access route.
These permits may include the APDES construction permit noted above and also may include
Temporary Water Use Permits from the DNR, DMLW, Water Section; and a material sale
permit35 from DMLW if materials are going to be used from state sources. If materials are
extracted or used from a state source, a site reclamation plan may be necessary.
Other permits may include additional Title 16 Habitat permits for temporary water usage from
fish0bearing waters, an ADEC dewatering permit, and various local land use permits, which will
be acquired following route selection and the right0of0way acquisition process begins.
A listing of all applicable permits and regulatory requirements and their statutory authority is
located in Appendix K. Anticipated permits by alternative are described in Table 4028. The same
permits are required; however, the number and complexity of the permits will vary based upon
potential project impacts to areas resources.
4.2.12.9 Summary
Based on the available information, all four alignments need the same permits (see Table 4028),
with one exception; the Seattle Creek (North) and Butte Creek (East) alignments are not
anticipated to need a Title 16 Habitat permit for anadromous stream crossings. While all resident
fish stream crossings can be addressed in one Title 16 Habitat permit, the Hurricane (West)
alignment would have to address 32 crossings, compared to 23 for South Road, 14 for Seattle
Creek (North) and 29 for Butte Creek (East). Permits that address more stream crossings are
likely to take longer to prepare. Separate Title 16 Habitat permits have to be prepared for
anadromous stream crossings. The South Road alignment would require eight permits and
Hurricane (West) alignment would require four permits. Butte Creek (East) would only require
one permit application and none would be required for the Seattle Creek (North) crossing.
35 A material sales permit may also be provided to the contractor from DOT&PF.
Watana Transportation Access Study June 2012
91
Without additional information about impacts of each corridor, it would be difficult to assess the ease of obtaining these permits. However, it would take more effort to prepare permits for the Hurricane (West) and South Road alignments than Seattle Creek (North) or Butte Creek (East). Table 428. Summary of permits Permit South Road Hurricane (West) Seattle Creek (North) Butte Creek (East) ADF&G— Title 16 Habitata (Resident, number of crossings) 23 32 15 29 ADF&G—Title 16 Habitata (Anadromous, number of crossings) 8 4 0 0 Corps 404/401 1 1 1 1 USFWS Bald Eagleb 1 1 1 1 DNR Land Use AS 38.05.850 TBD TBD TBD TBD NMFS–EFH Assessment 1 1 1 1 ADEC APDES (Contractor) 1 1 1 1
DNR Temp Water Use Permits
(Contractor)c
TBD TBD TBD TBD
MSB Flood Hazard Permit N/A N/A N/A N/A
Red = Not preferable Green = Favorable
aIt is assumed that Title 16 applications will be required for all stream crossings; however, some resident
crossings may be able to be combined onto one application. All anadromous crossings will result in separate
applications.
bAn eagle survey will be conducted prior to construction.
cAdditional Title 16 applications may be necessary is water is withdrawn from fish0bearing waters.
5 Summary of Findings
The purpose of the Watana Transportation Access Study was to evaluate potential access
corridors from the existing transportation network to the proposed Watana Dam site. Corridors
were initially identified by reviewing historical studies developed for the project in the 1980s.
The goal of this study was not just to update or validate previously studied access routes, but to
also evaluate other potentially feasible corridors. Major evaluation criteria included operational,
engineering, environmental, and cost factors. Corridors were evaluated to identify the advantages
and disadvantages and to identify suitable transportation access corridors that balances the
advantages and disadvantages.
The South Road alignment is only accessible from the ARRC tracks, making it the least
convenient of the four corridors. While this corridor has many benefits including the fewest
linear miles located above 3,000 feet and no acquisition of Federal land, it is also the longest
route, has the most linear feet of bridges, the highest cost, and a high potential for cultural
resource impacts. The need to transport the majority of goods, materials, and people by rail is
likely to increase the cost to construct the Watana dam. This cost has not been quantified as part
of this report but is a real operating cost that must be evaluated as the project advances. Rail
Watana Transportation Access Study June 2012
91
Without additional information about impacts of each corridor, it would be difficult to assess the ease of obtaining these permits. However, it would take more effort to prepare permits for the Hurricane (West) and South Road alignments than Seattle Creek (North) or Butte Creek (East). Table 428. Summary of permits Permit South Road Hurricane (West) Seattle Creek (North) Butte Creek (East) ADF&G— Title 16 Habitata (Resident, number of crossings) 23 32 15 29 ADF&G—Title 16 Habitata (Anadromous, number of crossings) 8 4 0 0 Corps 404/401 1 1 1 1 USFWS Bald Eagleb 1 1 1 1 DNR Land Use AS 38.05.850 TBD TBD TBD TBD NMFS–EFH Assessment 1 1 1 1 ADEC APDES (Contractor) 1 1 1 1 DNR Temp Water Use Permits (Contractor)c TBD TBD TBD TBD MSB Flood Hazard Permit N/A N/A N/A N/A Red = Not preferable Green = Favorable aIt is assumed that Title 16 applications will be required for all stream crossings; however, some resident crossings may be able to be combined onto one application. All anadromous crossings will result in separate applications. bAn eagle survey will be conducted prior to construction. cAdditional Title 16 applications may be necessary is water is withdrawn from fish0bearing waters.
5 Summary of Findings
The purpose of the Watana Transportation Access Study was to evaluate potential access
corridors from the existing transportation network to the proposed Watana Dam site. Corridors
were initially identified by reviewing historical studies developed for the project in the 1980s.
The goal of this study was not just to update or validate previously studied access routes, but to
also evaluate other potentially feasible corridors. Major evaluation criteria included operational,
engineering, environmental, and cost factors. Corridors were evaluated to identify the advantages
and disadvantages and to identify suitable transportation access corridors that balances the
advantages and disadvantages.
The South Road alignment is only accessible from the ARRC tracks, making it the least
convenient of the four corridors. While this corridor has many benefits including the fewest
linear miles located above 3,000 feet and no acquisition of Federal land, it is also the longest
route, has the most linear feet of bridges, the highest cost, and a high potential for cultural
resource impacts. The need to transport the majority of goods, materials, and people by rail is
likely to increase the cost to construct the Watana dam. This cost has not been quantified as part
of this report but is a real operating cost that must be evaluated as the project advances. Rail
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
92
access also increases the logistical challenges associated with construction. For example, rail
access is less convenient than road access because travel must be scheduled in advance to avoid
conflicting with other rail traffic.
The Hurricane (West) alignment is the closest to the Parks Highway/ARRC corridor but it
requires the most new construction. While it has many favorable conditions, it also has the
second most linear feet of bridges, the most stream crossings requiring fish passage, the most
Federal land, the least State land, and a high potential for cultural resource impacts. The
alignment also has the second highest cost of the four corridors.
The Seattle Creek (North) has acceptable engineering and geological/geotechnical conditions. It
also traverses to the highest point (4,100 feet) of the four corridors and includes the greatest
number of miles at higher elevations, with 32 miles of the alignment being above 3,000 feet.
However, it has the fewest number of new culverts and crosses the fewest fish0bearing streams.
The Seattle Creek (North) alignment has a similar cost to the Butte Creek (East) alignment, and
both alignments include upgrades to the Denali Highway (see Appendix B for the breakdown of
the associated upgrades and costs). However, the distance between the Watana dam site and the
Parks Highway/ARRC corridor is approximately 30 miles shorter than the Butte Creek (East)
alignment, as the new roadway would start farther west on the Denali Highway. This would
reduce the amount of Denali Highway that needs to be upgraded, and results in a shorter haul
than the Butte Creek (East) corridor.
The Butte Creek (East) alignment has the most suitable geological/geotechnical conditions of the
four corridors. However, this alternative is farthest from the Parks Highway/ARRC corridor. The
additional length (and thus travel time), will increase the cost to construct the Watana dam. This
cost has not been quantified because a logistics plan has not been developed, but it could be
substantial. While this alignment does not cross any salmon streams, it would require crossing
29 streams that would require fish passage. While this corridor has the fewest reported wetland
impacts, wetland information was only available for a portion of the corridor. It is believed that
the unmapped area contains a substantial amount of wetlands and that if the entire alignment was
mapped, Butte Creek (East) would have the greatest wetland impacts of the three alternatives.
The Seattle Creek (North) and Butte Creek (East) alternatives are preferable to the South Road
and Hurricane (West) alternative in many categories (such as cost, engineering, and
geology/geotechnical). The South Road and Hurricane (West) alignment fare better than the
other two corridors for moose and caribou impacts, but these resources were primarily evaluated
based on a relative comparison. In terms of cultural resources, fish passages, migratory ducks,
swans, and bears, the South Road and Hurricane (West) corridors are not preferable over the
other two corridors. Many of the environmental impacts are associated with increased access to
the resources being studied. Because it does not connect to the existing road corridor, the South
Road corridor would be expected to have fewer access related impacts than the other three
corridors. Regardless of the corridor selected, mitigation measures may be implemented to
reduce potential impacts on environmental resources.
Table 501 summarizes the criteria where meaningful differences were discernible among the
alternatives to help identify a preferred corridor. Criteria that did not result in a discernible,
substantial difference or have enough detail to support a planning0level decision are not reported;
the results for the criteria that are not reported in the summary were found to be relatively
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
93
uniform across the four corridors and did not contribute to the selection of suitable corridors that
meets the project’s cost and schedule goals.
Based on the information provided above, the project team concluded that the South Road and
Hurricane (West) corridors would be less desirable as the access road corridor than the other two
corridors. The Seattle Creek (North) and Butte Creek (East) corridors are both reasonable for a
future access road and have similar costs. However, the Seattle Creek (North) corridor appears to
best meet the schedule and cost goals for the future Watana dam access road corridor. The
Seattle Creek (North) corridor is approximately 30 miles closer to the Parks Highway/ARRC
corridor than the Butte Creek (East) corridor which is likely to result in lower dam construction
costs. Being closer is also anticipated to reduce operations and maintenance costs of the Watana
Dam. It will also reduce impacts along the additional 30 miles of the Denali Highway. The
Seattle Creek (North) corridor is also preferred over the Butte Creek (East) corridor because it
has greater potential for the access road and power transmission lines to be co0located. In a
meeting on October 25, 2011, AEA and their consultants indicated that the Butte Creek (East)
corridor is not being considered as a location for a potential power transmission line. They also
indicated that the transmission line could share a corridor with the access road within most of the
Seattle Creek (North) corridor.
As this project is further developed and additional information is obtained, further study will be
needed to identify if the Kettle Lake variant or the Deadman East variant of the Seattle Creek
(North) alternative should be used or if the primary alignment shown in this report should be the
selected route. Further engineering and environmental analysis may be required before an access
corridor is selected.
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
94
Table 51. Summary of alternatives analysis
Category Criteria
South
Road
Hurricane
(West)
Seattle
Creek
(North)
Butte Creek
(East)
Engineering
New road
(miles)
54.8 51.7 43.3 42.5
Upgrades to
Denali
Highway
(miles)
0.0 0.0 20.0 53.0
Total length
(including
Denali
Highway;
miles)
54.8 51.7 63.3 95.5
Highest
elevation (feet)
3,450 3,250 4,100 3,200
New road above
3,000 feet
(miles)
5.0 12.5 32.0 6.4
Travel time
from Hurricane
to Watana Dam
(hours)
N/A 1.5 2.4 3.1
Distance from
Hurricane to
Watana Dam
(miles)
N/A 51.7 102.6 134.7
Travel time
from Cantwell
to Watana Dam
(hours)
N/A 2.1 1.8 2.7
Distance from
Cantwell to
Watana Dam
(miles)
N/A 91.0 63.4 95.5
Travel time
from railroad
siding to
Watana Dam
(hours)
1.6 1.5 1.9 2.8
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
95
Table 51. Summary of alternatives analysis
Category Criteria
South
Road
Hurricane
(West)
Seattle
Creek
(North)
Butte Creek
(East)
Engineering
(cont.)
Distance from
railroad siding
to Watana Dam
(miles)
54.8 52.3 65.3 97.4
Potential
transmission
line in close
proximity
Yes Yes Yes No
Geologic and
Geotechnical
Conditions
Borrow soil
qualitya 4 4 3 1
Borrow rock
qualitya 2 4 3 2
Subgrade
supporta 2 2.5 2 1.5
Soil slope
stabilitya 3 3 2 1
Permafrost
conditionsa 2 2 3 1
Hydrology and
Hydraulics
Number of
bridges on new
roadway
4 6 4 4
Linear feet of
bridge on new
roadway
1,000 800 200 300
Drainage
culverts on new
roadway
0 2 4 0
Small fish
culverts on new
roadway
15 25 3 23
Large fish
culverts on new
roadway
4 2 4 2
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
96
Table 51. Summary of alternatives analysis
Category Criteria
South
Road
Hurricane
(West)
Seattle
Creek
(North)
Butte Creek
(East)
Hydrology and
Hydraulics
(cont.)
New/
replacement
bridges on
Denali
Highway
0 0 1 2
Replacement of
small fish
culverts along
the Denali
Highway
0 0 6 13
Replacement of
large fish
culverts along
the Denali
Highway
0 0 0 1
Fisheries and
Aquatics
Salmon stream
crossings 8 4 0 0
Stream
crossings
requiring fish
passage
23 32 15 29
Terrestrial
Caribou habitata 2 2 3 3
Moose habitat a 2.5 2 3 3
Migratory duck
habitat (acres) 763.5 965.3 322.1 744.7
Swan habitat
(acres) 166.4 163.6 0.0 71.3
Bear habitat
(acres)a 3.5 3 2.5 2
Wetlands
Category 2, 3
and 4 wetlands
(acres)
226.8 b 553.9 699.2 544.1b
Fish and Wildlife
Use
Sport fishinga 2 3 2 2.5
Sport and
subsistence
huntinga
2 2 3 3
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
97
Table 51. Summary of alternatives analysis
Category Criteria
South
Road
Hurricane
(West)
Seattle
Creek
(North)
Butte Creek
(East)
Land Status
Corridor (acres)
Federal lands 0 14,817 6,613 10,238
State lands 13,719 19,443 36,042 50,634
Native 40,828 9,521 896 896
Private or
Borough 1,692 5,160 0 818
ROW (acres)
Federal lands 0 771 357 255
State lands 417 749 1,174 1,230
Native 1,466 300 45 45
Private or
Borough 112 66 0 0
Socioeconomics
Distance
between Parks
Highway
junction and
Cantwell
(miles)
N/A 39 0 0
Costs
New road
construction ($
millions)
251.2 211.5 149.1 144.0
Denali
Highway
upgrades
($ millions)
0 0 14.6 31.7
Total roadway
($ millions) 251.2 211.5 163.7 175.7
Red: Not preferable Green: Favorable
a Criteria evaluated on a qualitative basis
b Wetland information was only available for a portion of the corridor. However, based on existing aerial
photography and other information, it is believed that the unmapped portion of the corridor also contains a
substantial amount of wetland.
6 Airport
Given the remoteness of the area, an airport is proposed for the project in order to be able to start
construction on the dam prior to the road being complete, and to support future dam operations.
It is anticipated that the airport will be used to transport construction materials and passengers to
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
98
Figure 61. Airport alternatives
the Watana dam site. This section examines two potential airport locations identified in previous
studies to validate that they are feasible. The evaluation considered the design demands of the
anticipated aircraft to use the facility (the design aircraft) and examined the site’s ability to
accommodate an airport meeting these dimensional standards. In addition, the team examined the
location to verify that approach surfaces and wind coverage would be suitable and that an airport
at the location would be constructible. Finally, a cost estimate was prepared.
6.1 Airport Location and Conditions
The Alaska Energy Authority (AEA)
provided the project team with two potential
runway alignments for validation based on
work done in the 1980s: one on the north
side of the Susitna River and one on the
south side (see Figure 601). As part of the
Watana Transportation Access Study, the
project team identified the runway south of
the Susitna River as the primary airport for
the South Road alignment. This proposed
location is on relatively level terrain at
approximately 2,300 feet of elevation (see
Figure 601). The site is relatively
unconstrained but there are some wetlands
and ponded water in the area.
The runway north of the Susitna River was
identified as the primary airport for the Hurricane
(West), Seattle Creek (North), and Butte Creek
(East) alternatives. This site is on relatively level
terrain and the proposed airport would be located
on a relatively flat bench of tundra at roughly
2,300 feet of elevation (see Figure 603). The site
is constrained by Deadman Creek on the east and
wetland areas to the west.
6.2 Design Aircraft and Airport
Features
Design Aircraft. The team first selected a design
aircraft and determined the required runway
length and dimensions required to accommodate
that aircraft. AEA suggested a Lockheed L0382 aircraft as the design aircraft, and DOT&PF
asked the project team to evaluate a Boeing 7370200 aircraft.
Runway Dimensions. Based on Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) runway length criteria,
a gravel runway that is 6,500 feet long by 100 feet wide would accommodate both of these
Figure 62 Proposed South Airport Location
Wet tundra, relatively flat, with mountainous
terrain in the distance
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
99
Figure 63. Proposed North Airport location
Wet tundra terrain, relatively flat, with mountainous
terrain far enough from the site to proved safe
approaches into the airport.
aircraft types.36 The runway safety area would need to be 8,500 feet long by 500 feet wide to
meet FAA requirements (see Figure 604 and Figure 605).
Apron Dimensions. A 4000foot0long by
2000foot0wide apron (8,000 square feet) is
recommended as a reasonable, workable
apron size, based on the anticipated need
of having two aircraft unloading/loading
supplies or personnel at the same time37.
The proposed apron could easily
accommodate two lease lots in the
proposed 4000foot by 2000foot
configuration. The apron could be
expanded for additional lease lots if
needed or desired in the future. The apron
would be set back 500 feet from the
runway centerline in accord with FAA
requirements.
Parallel Taxiway. A parallel taxiway is a
desired feature of:
Airports that use instrument
approaches and generally have less than
one mile visibility
Airports where aircraft landings and takeoffs are often delayed by aircraft taxiing on the
runway
The current proposal does not include the construction of a parallel taxiway and one is not
recommended at this time.
A runway with these specifications meets all FAA design criteria for these aircraft.
36 A runway of this size would accommodate aircraft currently being used by at least three cargo carriers (Lyndon,
Northern Air Cargo, and Everett).
37 This was not based on a specific logistics study, but rather was based on experiences of constructing the Trans
Alaska Pipeline. The apron size should be re0evaluated after a logistics plan is developed for the project.
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
100
Figure 64. Proposed South Airport layout
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
101
Figure 65. Proposed North Airport layout
Passenger Facilities. It is anticipated that typical passenger aircrafts include Beech 1900, De
Havilland Twin Otter, and CASA 212. As these aircraft hold fewer than 30 seats, it is anticipated
that the airport should not require an Airport Operating Certificate under 14 CFR 139.38 As a
non0certified airport, it will not require fire fighting and rescue equipment.
Airport Access Road. An airport access road will be needed to connect each alignment to the
airport. The airport access road is anticipated to have the same design criteria as the alignment.
38 Alaskan airports that serve aircraft with fewer than 30 seats are exempt from Federal airport certification
requirements (FAA 2011)
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
102
6.3 Runway Approaches
In addition, the project team evaluated the runway approaches to verify the approaches have
sufficient clearances for safe operations.
6.3.1 South Airport
The runway elevation will be approximately 2,350 feet. With the proposed runway orientation,
there are no object penetrations to the threshold siting approach slope as defined by FAA
Advisory Circular 150/5300013 CHG 12 (Line 9 of Table A201 in Appendix 2).
When approaching the runway from the west (landing to the east), there is a hill with an
elevation of 2,630 feet and 3.4 miles out from the airport, along the runway centerline; and a
second hill 2,500 feet in elevation and 1.5 miles out from the airport. Both of these hills are
below the threshold siting approach slope in Table A201. The precision instrument imaginary
surface extends 9.5 miles (50,000 feet) from the runway. The 2,6300foot hill will be
approximately 250 feet below the specified approach slope; and the 2,5000foot hill will be
approximately 85 feet below the specified approach slope used to land at the runway under
instrument conditions. Consequently, the hills should not be a factor for establishing an
instrument approach on the west side of the runway. Should a more detailed survey or the final
design of the runway change any of the parameters, the hills could be modified to eliminate the
approach slope penetration.
When approaching the runway from the east (landing to the west), there is no high terrain within
9.5 miles of the runway threshold along the extended runway centerline that would affect the
approach siting surface meaning a precision instrument approach would also be established on
the approach from the east. All the terrain encompassed by the Part 77 precision approach
imaginary surface is below the runway elevation.
The runway location was also checked to determine the ability to better orient the runway for
wind coverage. The proposed location provides some flexibility for changing the runway bearing
or orientation before airspace penetrations would create issues. The runway can be rotated
clockwise 15 degrees and counterclockwise 19 degrees from the orientation shown before
encountering terrain penetration of the FAR Part 77 precision approach imaginary surfaces.
6.3.2 North Airport
The runway elevation will be approximately 2,400 feet. With the proposed runway orientation,
there are no object penetrations to the threshold siting approach slope as defined by FAA
Advisory Circular 150/5300013 CHG 12 (Line 9 of Table A201 in Appendix 2).
When approaching the runway from the west (landing to the east), there is a hill with an
elevation of 4,056 feet 11 miles out from the airport, along the runway centerline. This hill is
beyond the outer edge of the precision instrument runway imaginary surface39 used to define
obstructions to navigable airspace. The precision instrument imaginary surface extends 9.5 miles
(50,000 feet) from the runway. There are no other terrain penetrations to the imaginary surfaces
to a precision approach from this direction. This 4,0560foot0high hill will be approximately
1,440 feet below the approach slope used to define obstructions for landing under instrument
39The runway imaginary surface is defined in 14 CFR 77.19of the Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77.
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
103
Figure 66. Ponded water and terrain west of the North
Airport’s western end
conditions and should not be a factor for
establishing an instrument approach on
the west side of the runway.
When approaching the runway from the
east (landing to the west), the nearest
high terrain is 13 miles from the runway
threshold along the extended runway
centerline (see Figure 606), meaning a
precision instrument approach would
also be established on the approach from
the east. All the terrain encompassed by
the Part 77 precision approach imaginary
surface is below the defined obstruction
elevation.
The runway location was also checked to
determine the ability to better orient the
runway for wind coverage. The proposed location provides some flexibility for changing the
runway bearing or orientation before airspace penetrations would create issues. The runway can
be rotated clockwise 17 degrees and counterclockwise 21 degrees from the orientation shown
before encountering terrain penetration of the FAR Part 77 precision approach imaginary
surfaces.
6.4 Runway Wind Coverage
To determine if the runway locations were feasible, the project team also looked at whether the
proposed location and alignment can meet FAA wind criteria for an airport. For this analysis the
project team conducted a wind analysis (based on AC 150/5300013 Appendix 1) using wind data
collected in the 1980s and FAA’s wind rose program. The project team concluded that both of
the proposed runways meets FAA’s goal of 95 percent wind coverage and neither would require
a cross0wind runway.
As noted above in section 6.3 runway approaches, mountainous terrain is far enough from the
runway that mechanical turbulence caused by terrain is not anticipated to be a substantial
concern. For more detailed discussion on the wind analysis, please see Appendix L.
6.5 Constructability
Both potential airport locations would be located on relatively flat, dry terrain. Standard arctic
engineering principles for construction are anticipated. For the south airport, there are no limiting
creeks or drainages, but there are some lakes that should be avoided. A more detailed mapping
effort could allow the proposed runway to shift to miss wetland features that might be identified.
For the north airport, Deadman Creek to the east is a constraining feature. To the west, the
proposed runway is wetter, with standing ponded water and wetlands. Wetland fill in the tundra
area is anticipated to be required. Based on aerial reconnaissance of the proposed locations, the
terrain and conditions appear to be suitable for a runway.
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
104
6.6 Cost
As both airports are the same size and have the same features, the cost is estimated to be the
same for each airport. The estimated total construction cost is $36.7 million dollars and it is
estimated to take between 1 and 2 years to construct.
6.7 Conclusion
Both potential airport locations near the proposed Watana Dam site appears feasible. An airport
with a 6,5000foot0long by 1000foot runway would accommodate the likely design aircraft. Both
sites have sufficient room and terrain conditions to accommodate this airport with standard
construction techniques and would avoid and minimize involvement with streams and wetlands.
Both sites have sufficient airspace for safe approach surfaces and wind coverage is good. Both
sites offer flexibility to rotate the runway about its access during design, based on additional
wind data and design and environmental information, and still provide for safe approaches.
7 References
ABR, Inc.—Environmental Research & Services. Wildlife DataGap Analysis for the Proposed
SusitnaWatana Hydroelectric Project: Draft Report. Anchorage: Prepared for the Alaska
Energy Authority, 2011.
Acres American, Inc. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Access Plan Recommendation Report.
Buffalo, New York: Prepared for the Alaska Power Authority, 1982dd.
ADF&G (Alaska Department of Fish and Game). "Caribou." Data representing caribou habitat
areas digitized from the Alaska Habitat Management Guides (AHMG). Anchorage, Alaska:
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 2009a.
—. Catalog of Waters Important for Spawning, Rearing or Migration of Anadromous Fishes.
2011. http://gis.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/FlexMaps/fishresroucemonitor.html?mode=awc (accessed
October 2011).
—. "Dall Sheep." Data representing dall sheep habitat areas digitized from the Alaska Habitat
Management Guides (AHMG). Anchorage, Alaska: Alaska Department of Fish and Game,
2009b.
—. "Dall Sheep Mineral Licks." Data representing dall sheep mineral lick areas digitized from
the Alaska Habitat Management Guides (AHMG). Anchorage, Alaska: Alaska Department of
Fish and Game, 2009c.
—. "Duck." Data representing duck and geese habitat areas digitized from the Alaska Habitat
Management Guides (AHMG). Anchorage, Alaska: Alaska Department of Fish and Game,
2009d.
—. "Existing Carrying Capacity for Moose for Beluga, Talkeetna, adn Upper Susitna Sub0
basins." An Atlas to the Fish and Wildlife Reources for the Susitna Area Planning Study.
Anchorage, Alaska: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Habitat Division, 1984.
—. "Moose." Data representing moose habitat areas digitized from the Alaska Habitat
Management Guides (AHMG). Anchorage, Alaska: Alaska Department of Fish and Game,
2009e.
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
105
—. Subtask 7.10 Phase 1 Final Draft Report Resident Fish Investigation on the Upper Susitna
River ADF&G/1981. Anchorage, Alaska: Prepared for Acres American Incorporated, Buffalo,
New York, 1981bb.
—. Subtask 7.10 Phase 1 Final Draft Report Resident Fish Investigation on the Upper Susitna
River ADF&G/1981. Anchorage, Alaska: Prepared for Acres American Incorporated, Buffalo,
New York, 1981.
—. "Swan." Data representing swan habitat areas digitized from the Alaska Habitat
Management Guides (AHMG). Anchorage, Alaska: Alaska Department of Fish and Game,
2009f.
AEA (Alaska Energy Authority). Railbelt Large Hydro Evaluation: Preliminary Decision
Document. Anchorage, Alaska: Alaska Energy Authority, 2010aa.
AKNHP (Alaska Natural Heritage Program). "Alaska Natural Heritage Program Rare and
Vascular Plant Tracking List." Alaska Natural Heritage Program: Botany. April 2008aa.
http://aknhp.uaa.alaska.edu/botany/pdfs/Rare%20PLant%20List%202008.pdf. (accessed October
1, 2009).
Alyeska Pipeline Services Company. Pipeline Facts: Permafrost. Alyeska Pipeline Services
Company. 2008. http://www.alyeska0pipe.com/Pipelinefacts/Permafrost.html (accessed October
23, 2011).
Bader, D., and R. Sinnott. South Central Anadromous Waters Catalog Nomination Form for
Granite Creek near the Parks Highway. AWC Stream No. 2470410102000238103600,
Anchorage, Alaska: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 1989.
BLM (Bureau of Land Management). "BLM0Alaska Revised Sensitive Species List." Instruction
Memorandum No. AK2010018 to District Managers, AFS Managers, DSDDivision of Lands,
Office of Pipeline Monitoring. Anchorage, Alaska: United States Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Land Management, May 18, 2010aa.
BLM (U.S. Bureau of Land Management). Gulkana River Watershed Earth Cover
Classification. Pending, U.S. Bureau of Land Managment, 2002.
Buckwalter, J., J. Wells, and J. Lazar. Fish Surveys Station #3826, Survey ID: FSS0310A02.
Odyssey Data Systems Fish Reource Monitor, Anchorage, Alaska: Alaska Department of Fish
and Game, Sport Fish Division, 2003.
Colorado Geological Survey. "An Avalanche Primer." Rock Talk: Colorado Geological Survey
Newsletter (Colorado Geological Survey. Available online at
geosurvey.state.co.us/pubs/Documents/rtv1n4.pdf) 1, no. 4 (October 1998): 607.
Curran, J. H., D. F. Meyer, and G. D. Tasker. Estimating the Magnitude and Frequency of Peak
Streamflows for Ungaged Sites on Streams in Alaska and Conterminous Basins in Canada.
Water0Resources Investigations Report 0304188, U.S. Geological Survey , 2003.
DNR (Alaska Department of Natural Resources). Alaska Heritage Resources Survey. Alaska
Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, Office of History
& Archaeology. September 29, 2011. http://dnr.alaska.gov/parks/oha/ahrs/ahrs.htm (accessed
October 30, 2011).
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
106
—. ANCSA 17(b) Easement Information. Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of
Mining, Land, and Water. 2012. http://dnr.alaska.gov/mlw/trails/17b/index.cfm (accessed June
20, 2012).
—. Solifluction Publications. Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological
and Geophysical Surveys.
http://www.dggs.dnr.state.ak.us/pubs/pubs?reqtype=keyword&keyword=Solifluction (accessed
October 23, 2011).
FAA (Federal Aviation Administration). Part 139 Airport Certification FAQs. November 15,
2011. http://www.faa.gov/airports/airport_safety/part139_cert/?p1=faq#q3 (accessed November
19, 2011).
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). Map Service Center.
http://www.msc.fema.gov/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/FemaWelcomeView?storeId=10001&catal
ogId=10001&langId=01 (accessed October 25, 2011).
FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) and USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service).
Memorandum of Understanding Between the FERC and the U.S. Department of the Interior
United States Fish and Wildlife Service Regarding Implementation of EO 13186,
"Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds". Washington, D.C.: Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Available online at
http://www.ferc.gov/legal/maj0ord0reg/mou/mou0fws.pdf, 2011.
FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission). Draft Environmental Impact Statement:
Susitna Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 7114Alaska. Washington, D.C.: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission Office of Electric Power Regulation, 1984.
Harper, P., ed. Caribou Management Report of Survey Inventory Activityes, 1 July 200630 June
2008. Juneau, Alaska: Alaska Department of Fish adn Game, Division of Wildlife Conservation,
2009.
Harza0Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture. "Project Description." In Draft Application for License to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Exhibit A, Volume 1, 616. Anchorage, Alaska:
Prepared for the Alaska Power Authority, 1985.
—. Susitna Hydroelectric Project: Records Management System File Reference Report. Harza0
Ebasco Joint Venture. Available online at http://susitna0watanahydro.org/Docs/1987_Records
Management System.pdf, 1987.
HDR Alaska, Inc. SusitnaWatana Hydroelectric Project Railbelt Large Hydro: Aquatic
Resources Data Gap Analysis. Draft, Anchorage, Alaska: Prepared for Alaska Energy Authority,
2011.
HDR Alaska, Inc. SusitnaWatana Hydroelectric Project Railbelt Large Hydro: Socioeconomics,
Transportation, and Air Data Gap Report. Draft, Anchorage, Alaska: Prepared for Alaska
Energy Authority, 2011bb.
Ihlenfeldt, N. J. An Annotated BibliographyL Above arrier Resident Dolly Varden Char
(Salvelinus malma) and Related Studies. Techncial Report No. 05005, Anchorage, Alaska:
Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Office of Habitat Management and Permitting, 2005.
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
107
Ivey, S., C. Brockman, and D. Rutz. Area Management Report for the Recreational Fisheries of
Northern Cook Inlet, 2006 and 2006. Fishery Management Report No. 09027, Anchorage,
Alaska: Alaska Department of FIsh and Game, Divisions of Sport Fish and Commercial
Fisheries. Available online at www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/FedAidPDFs/fmr09027.pdf, 2009.
Jennings, T. R. Fish Resources and Habitats of the Susitna Basin. Anchorage, Alaska: Prepared
by Woodward0Clyde Consultatns for the Alaska Power Authority, Susitna Hydro Document No.
3052, 1984.
Kessel, B., S. O. MacDonald, D. D. Gibson, B. A. Cooper, and B. A. Anderson. Subtask 7.11
Phase 1 Final Draft Report Birds and Nongame Mammals. Prepared by the University of
Alaska Museum, Fairbanks, and Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, Inc., Phoenix, New York,
for the Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage, Alaska, 1982.
KTNA Staff. "Susitna Dam Opponents Look for Next Steps." KTNA 88.9FM: Community Radio
for the Susitna Valley. Talkeetna, Alaska: KTNA. Available online at
http://ktna.org/2011/10/12/susitna0dam0opponents0look0for0next0
steps/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=susitna0dam0opponents0look0for0
next0steps, October 12, 2011.
Mansfield, K. Slimy Sculpin. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Available online at
http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/education/wns/slimy_sculpin.pdf, 2004.
Merizon, R. A., R. J. Yanusz, D. J. Reed, and T. R. Spencer. Distribution of Spawning Susitna
River Chum Oncohynchus keta and Coho O. kisutch Salmon, 2009. Fishery Data Series No. 100
72, Anchorage, Alaska: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Divisions of Sport Fish and
Commercial Fisheries. Available online at www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/FedAidPDFs/FDS10072.pdf,
2010.
MON (Museum of the North). "Links and References." University of Alaska Museum of the
North. April 12, 2011. http://www.uaf.edu/museum/collections/herb/links0and0references/
(accessed August 4, 2011).
MSB (Matanuska0Susitna Borough). Adopted DFIRM Maps. September 20, 2011.
http://www.matsugov.us/planning/flood0plain0development/adopted0flood0maps02011 (accessed
October 31, 2011).
Neuendorf, K. K. E., Jr., J. P. Mehl, and J. A. Jackson, . Glossary of Geology. American
Geological Institute, 2005.
Oslund, S., and S. Ivey. Recreational Fisheries of Northern Cook Inlet, 20092010: Report to the
Alaska Board of Fisheries, February 2011. Fishery Management Report No. 10050, Anchorage,
Alaska: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 2010.
Santosh, B.K.C. "RE: Request for Data: Watana Atudy Area." Email to Maaike Schotborgh,
HDR Alaska, Inc., Regarding Species Spatial Data and GIS Shape Files. Anchorage, Alaska: On
file with HDR Alaska, Inc., August 11, 2011.
Schmidt, D. C., C. C. Estes, D. L. Crawford, and D. S. Vincent0Lang, . Report No. 4 Access and
Transmission Corridor Aquatic Investigations (JulyOctober 1983). Anchorage, Alaska:
Prepared by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game for the Alaska Power Authority, 1984aa.
Watana Transportation Access Study
June 2012
108
Simeone, W. E., A. Russell, and R. O. Stern. Watana Hydroelectric Project Subsistence Data
Gap Analysis. Fairbanks, Alaska: Prepared by Northern Land Use Research, Inc., under contract
to ABR for the Alaska Energy Authority. Available online at http://susitna0
watanahydro.org/Docs/Watana_Subsis_DataGap%20Draft_07_25_2011.pdf, 2011.
SRI (The SRI Foundation). Report on the Alaska Historic Roads Study Group Workshop,
September 2830, 2010, Anchorage, Alaska. Rio Rancho, New Mexico: Prepared for the Alaska
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. Available online at
http://www.dot.state.ak.us/stwddes/desenviron/assets/pdf/AkHistRdsStudyGroupWrkshop_Final
Report.pdf, 2010.
Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, Inc. "Environmental, Socioeconomic, and Land Use
Analysis of Alternative Access Plans for the Susitna Hydroelectric Project." Subtask 7.14:
Environmental Analysis of Alternative Access Plans, October, 1981. Phoenix, New York:
Prepared for Acres American, Inc. of Buffalo, New York and the Alaska Power Authority,
Anchorage, Alaska, 1981aa.
USCB (U.S. Census Bureau). United States Census 2010. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census
Bureau. Available online at http://2010.census.gov/2010census/, 2010.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. May
2007a. http://www.fws.gov/pacific/eagle/NationalBaldEagleManagementGuidelines.pdf
(accessed March 23, 2011).
VanderHoek, R. Draft Cultural Resource Managemetn Plan for the Denali Highway Lands,
Central Alaska. Office of History and Archaeology Report Number 112, Anchorage, Alaska:
Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, 2011.
Willette, T. Personal Communication Between Alaska Department of Fish and Game,
Commercial Fisheries Division (Soldotna, Alaska), and James Brady, HDR Alaska, Inc.
Anchorage, Alaska, May 17, 2011.
Yanusz, R., R. Merizon, M. Willette, D. Evans, and T. Spencer. Inriver Abundance and
Distribution of Spawning Susitna River Sockeye Salmon Oncorhynchus nerka, 2008. Fishery
Data Series No. 11012, Anchorage, Alaska: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 2011.