-------
drainage ditch inspection, repair of any localized erosion on
embankments, wetting of the road surface by water trucks to
control dust during dry periods, and snow removal by
snowblower to prevent buildup of high snow berms which would
impede animal movements across the right-of-way.
2.10 OPERATION
2.10.1 Coal Production and Shipping Schedules
Under the optimal four-year full production development
schedule, initial production would begin at a low level and
build to full production. During the initial year of
operation, approximately 1.8 million Mt (2 million short tons)
of coal would be produced using two shifts of mine workers per
day and truck/shovel operations in the pit. The coal would
be transported to the port site on the access/haul road using
truck tractors, each hauling two, 4 5.4 Mt (50 ton) uncovered
trailers. The tractors would make approximately 55 round
trips per day.
During the second year of operation, production would be
increased to about 3.6 million Mt (4 million short tons) per
year by adding a second work shift at the mine. The coal
would still be hauled by trucks to the port site in
approximately 99 round trips per day. Early in the second
year, the first dragline would begin working. Later in the
second year, the main overland conveyor would commence
operation. This would eliminate the need to haul coal by
truck to the port site. Production would increase in the
third year to approximately 5.4 million Mt (6 million short
tons) per year. In the fourth year, full production of 10.9
million Mt (12 million short tons) per year would be reached.
In the fifth year, the second dragline would begin operation.
Shipping schedules and frequency would depend upon the
size of the ships to be loaded. Table 2-2 shows approximate
shipping characteristics for two sizes of ships at full
production. At lower production levels not requiring ships,
barges would be berthed at the Ladd trestle for up to
approximately 200 days per year.
2-44
-------
Table 2-2
APPROXIMATE SHIPPING CHARACTERISTICS AT FULL PRODUCTION
FOR TWO SIZES OF COAL SHIPS
Characteristics 100.000 dwt 6Q.ooo Huf
Ship arrivals/yr
150
250
Interval between arrivals (days)
2.3
1.4
Berth loading time (hours)
25
15
Approximate berth occupancy
52%
57%
Source: Diamond Alaska Coal Company
2.10.2 Job Skills and Shift Schedules
An estimated total of 848 permanent employees would be
employed by the project at full production, with half that
total (424) being at the project site at any one time. There
would be two 11-hour shifts each day. Thus, half the
employees on site (212) would be working and half eating or
sleeping at any given time. Employees would work a four-day-
on, four-day-off schedule and would be flown back to their
homes in Anchorage or on the Kenai Peninsula during their off-
work periods. All operations except ship loading would be
scheduled for 362 days per year (three-day holiday allowance) .
Shiploading would be scheduled for 350 days per year to allow
12 days for down time due to weather and ice conditions.
Table 2-3 shows the estimated buildup of new permanent
project employees (excluding construction personnel) under
the optimal, four-year full production development schedule.
2-45
-------
Table 2-3
NEW PERMANENT PROJECT EMPLOYEES
(EXCLUDING CONSTRUCTION PERSONNEL)
UNDER THE OPTIMAL, FOUR-YEAR FULL PRODUCTION
DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE
Project Year New Employees
1
2 98
Construction 3 276
Mining Begins 4 140
5 96
6 86
7 122
8 30
Total 848
Source: Diamond Alaska Coal Company
Of these 84 8 employees, approximately 218 would be heavy
equipment operators; 125 operators for trucks, light equipment
and other machinery; 289 mechanics, shop hands, electricians,
plumbers and other maintenance personnel; 110 miscellaneous
personnel including cooks, bakers, house-keepers, dishwashers,
and other life support functions; and 106 administrative
personnel.
2.10.3 Fuel Handling
Because the project would receive, store, and use sizable
quantities of diesel fuel, lubricating oils, and other liquids
at various facilities, a Spill Prevention, Control and
Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan consistent with federal and state
fuel handling standards will be prepared for each facility.
Copies of that plan will be kept on file at each facility.
Each plan will specify the methods which will be used to
prevent and control spills which might occur during
transportation, unloading, storage, or use of petroleum
products. All personnel at each facility will be trained in
spill prevention and appropriate personnel will be trained in
the execution of the SPCC plan in case of a spill. Each
facility will have adequate equipment available to complete
2-46
-------
cleanup operations. During construction each contractor will
also be instructed in SPCC plan compliance and cleanup
methods.
Runoff water from the equipment washdown areas would
contain oils, grease, solvents, and other hydrocarbon materi-
als. Traps will be installed to collect these materials
before discharge to the pond. In addition, the runoff pond
receiving this water will be equipped with a skimming device
to separate these materials if the traps fail and route them
to storage areas.
Waste oil and other used hydrocarbon materials will be
collected, stored, and removed from the project area for
recycling or for disposal in approved waste disposal sites.
Other hazardous waste materials (e.g., paint, solvents) will
be handled and stored separately and shipped from the project
area for disposal in approved waste disposal sites.
2.10.4 Air Quality Considerations
Burning of slash material from clearing and grubbing
operations will occur only under favorable weather conditions
and when permitted by DEC. Otherwise, slash will be buried
under an adequate depth of spoil in the mine pit.
At all facilities, operations will be conducted to
minimize coal dust, fugitive dust, and other emissions which
might affect air quality. At the mine service area and the
onshore port site, the coal stockpiles will be oriented to
minimize contact with the prevailing north-south winds.
Usually, no water will be sprayed onto the stockpiles because
of the normal water content of the coal and because the coal
will be regularly stacked and recovered and will not remain
in the stockpile for long periods. If coal does remain in a
stockpile for an extended length of time, periodic
applications of water or water with a chemical dust retardant
will be used. Tests on the self-heating potential of the coal
indicated no susceptibility to fire hazard while exposed to
the atmosphere.
The coal stacking and recovery units will use water
sprays to control dust during those operations. All conveyor-
systems will be designed to minimize wind effects. Both the
mine conveyors and the main overland conveyor will be
partially enclosed. The transfer points, including the second
crusher in the mine service area, will use negative pressure
systems, water sprays and/or other technology to capture as
much coal dust as possible. Coal dust collected from the
negative pressure systems will be put back onto the coal
conveyors. The first crusher, in the mine area, will not have
a negative pressure system since it will be open at the top
to permit the trucks to dump coal into it.
2-47
-------
Once the coal reaches the shiploader, it will be
discharged into the barge or ship holds through a fixed
downspout. Coal will not be subjected to wind since the
downspout will extend into the ship's hold, keeping most of
the dust within the hold.
Fugitive dust will be minimized in several ways. Ground
disturbance will be kept to a minimum with disturbed areas
being revegetated as soon as possible. Exposed areas which
will be continuously used, e.g., roads, pads, laydown areas,
would be surfaced with aggregate material. When dry or windy
conditions occur, these surfaces will be watered to control
dust or truck speeds will be reduced to lower fugitive dust
emissions. During the early years of operations when coal
is hauled to the port site by trucks, road watering and use
of a chemical dust suppressant, if required, will keep
fugitive dust emissions to a minimum. Trucks will be properly
loaded to prevent spillage when turning or braking. Spillage
which does occur will be cleaned up to minimize coal fines on
the road surface.
2.10.5 Environmental Training Program
An environmental training program designed to promote
environmental awareness and highlight environmental protection
and mitigation measures will be developed for contractors and
employees. The program will include a description of existing
environmental resources, identification of potential
environmental impacts related to project operations, and a
discussion of environmental protection and mitigation measures
with emphasis on employee involvement.
2.10.6 Environmental Coordinator
An environmental coordinator will be located in Anchorage
during the construction phase. Through onsite monitoring, the
coordinator will assure adherence to project stipulations.
During the operational phase, the coordinator will continue
to ensure that environmental permit stipulations are met,
direct the worker environmental training program, investigate
human/wildlife contacts (including road collisions), oversee
the various environmental mitigation and monitoring programs,
and serve as agency contact for project status reports and
site inspections. The environmental coordinator will be
represented in the field by a full-time, on-site environmental
supervisor with a support team made up of personnel from the
revegetation and reclamation staff.
2-48
-------
Chapter 3.0
Alternatives
-------
3.0 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION
3.1 INTRODUCTION
Three types of alternatives exist for the Diamond
Chuitna Coal Project: 1) alternatives that are available to
the applicant (action alternatives); 2) alternatives that
are available to the agencies which must act upon the
applicant's various permit applications (agency
alternatives); and 3) the No Action Alternative.
A description of the process of identifying and
comparing the action alternatives and selecting the
preferred alternatives constitutes the bulk of this chapter.
The process is designed to avoid significant adverse
project impacts. Identification of agency alternatives,
which largely involves minimization of unavoidable adverse
impacts is summarized in this chapter; mitigation is
detailed in Chapter 6.0. The No Action Alternative is
discussed in this chapter.
3.2 ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE TO THE APPLICANT
Identifying and comparing the alternatives available to
the applicant (action alternatives) and selecting the
preferred alternative is a process of systematically and
rationally reducing a large number of options to a smaller
number that ultimately represents the alternative with the
fewest adverse impacts. It begins with the EIS scoping
process which identified the range of options and then
proceeds through screening and analysis stages as described
below until the preferred alternative is identified.
3.2.1 Options Initially Considered
The EIS scoping process, described in Chapter 7.0,
established important cornerstones for this EIS. First, it
identified 10 issues of major concern to be addressed during
the EIS process. These issues are described in Section 1.4
and were the bases for ultimately determining the action
alternatives. Second, to address the 10 issues, the scoping
process identified a full range of options for the project
components (Table 3-1). The initial options considered the
major technical, environmental, and economic issues
associated with the project. These initial options are
described below.
Thirty-one options were identified for the 12 project
components (Table 3-1). One component, the mine, had only
one option since the coal deposit, and therefore the mine
location, was fixed. A second component, the mine service
3-1
-------
Table 3-1
COMPONENT OPTIONS IDENTIFIED DURING THE SCOPING PROCESS
Component
Mine Location
Overburden Stockpile Location
Mine Service Area Location
Transportation System
o Corridor/port Location
o Mode
Loading Facility
o Type
o Length
Housing
o Location
o Type
Airstrip
Water Supply
Power Supply
Option
Fixed
North of mining limit
Center
Northeast
Southeast
Fixed
Northern/Ladd
Eastern/Ladd
Southeastern/North Foreland
Southern/Granite Point
Pneumo-train
Coarse coal-water slurry
Coal-carbon dioxide slurry
Road
Railroad
Conveyor
Filled causeway
Elevated trestle
Short
Long
Nikolai
Congahbuna
Lone Creek
Threemile Creek
Townsite
Single status
Existing
New
Surface impoundments
Wells
Purchase power from
Chugach Electric Associati0n
3-2
-------
area (Fig. 3-1), was also relatively fixed because of its
dependence upon the mine location and because it would be
located at the approximate center of the three logical mining
units within the lease area, thus allowing its use during
future development of other coal resources. For a third
component, power supply, the only option considered was
purchase of power from the existing Chugach Electric
Association power plant at nearby Beluga (Fig. 2-1). Since
an existing powerline right-of-way from the Beluga Station
would intersect each of the transportation corridor options,
this option was clearly more environmentally favorable than
any on-site generation option.
3.2.1.1 Overburden Stockpile Location
Four locations for the overburden stockpile were
identified: north of the mining limit, in the center of the
mining limit, northeast, and southeast (Fig. 3-1).
3.2.1.2 Transportation Corridor/Port Location
Four corridor options were identified (northern,
eastern, southeastern, and southern) between the mine site
and Cook Inlet (Fig. 3-2).
Northern/Ladd
This corridor would extend approximately 14.5 km (9 mi)
east from the mine service area toward the Beluga airstrip,
then turn south southeast for approximately 7 km (4.3 mi) to
a port site at Ladd just north of the mouth of the Chuitna
River, about 5.6 km (3.5 mi) north northeast of Tyonek.
Eastern/Ladd
This corridor would extend approximately 17.6 km (11 mi)
east southeast from the mine service area to the same port
site at Ladd.
Southeastern/North Foreland
This corridor would extend approximately 18.5 km (11.6
mi) southeast from the mine service area to a port site at the
North Foreland, about 2.4 km (1.5 mi) southwest of Tyonek.
Southern/Granite Point
This corridor would extend approximately 17.6 km (11 mi)
south from the mine service area to a port site at Granite
Point, about 14.4 km (9 mi) southwest of Tyonek.
The existing Ladd Road (Fig. 3-2), primarily used in
winter for moving heavy equipment in the region, was not
considered since its alignment and condition are such that
3-3
-------
Stockpile Locations
NORTH
>" \
CENTER \
MINING LIMIT
JORTHEAST
K.\y&m
LEASE AREA
BOUNDERY
NORTHERN
CONVEYOR
HAUL ROAD
*
g SERVICE
AREA
CO
EASTERN
CONVEYOR
EASTERN
NVEYOR
) HAUL ROAD
SOUTHERN
CONVEYOR
SCALE IN MILES
1/2 1
HAUL ROAD
SOURCE: DIAMOND ALASKA COAL COMPANY
INITIAL MINE AREA OPTIONS LOCATIONS
Diamond Chuitna Environmental Impact Statement
FIGURE 3-1
3-4
-------
4-
LEGEND
AIRSTRIP
NX^j TYONEK NATIVE CORP. BOUNDARY
~ HOUSING
SSS? PORT SITE
HAUL ROAD
Felt Lake1
CONVEYOF
MINING
LIMIT
O
kDenslow Lake
~
SREE
N
W"
Susitna Flats
Wildlife Refuge
B
,elv)G*
THREEMILE
% °
JS
Chugach Electric
Beluga Power Station
Beluga J// .I
Airstrip Ji/-
//f
\CreeK
EXISTING CHUGACH
POWER LINE
CONGAHBUNA
Ladd
Congahbuna
Lake
~ NIKOLAI
Trading Bay
Refuge
! Nikolai Ck
Airstrip^'
TRESTLE
SCALE
1 2 3 4
IN MILES
Granite Point
Tyonek
North Foreland
SOURCE: DIAMOND ALASKA COAL COMPANY
INITIAL TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR, HOUSING
AND AIRSTRIP OPTIONS LOCATIONS
Diamond Chuitna Environmental Impact Statement
FIGURE 3-2
3-5
-------
it would have to be totally rebuilt with no significant
environmental or economic savings.
3.2.1.3 Transportation Mode
Six options were identified for the method of
transporting coal from the mine to the port site.
Pneumo-train
In this option, open-top, wheeled capsules would be
loaded continuously with crushed coal at the mine and
propelled down a buried pipeline by compressed air to the
port. There the coal would be dumped and the cars returned
to the mine via a second pipeline. The coal would be stored
at the port for ship loading.
Coarse Coal-Water Slurry
The coal would be crushed, mixed with water, and pushed
through a slurry pipeline to the port. There the coal would
be separated from the water, dried, and loaded directly onto
ships. The slurry pipeline would operate only when a ship was
available for loading, thus eliminating the need for coal
storage at the port. Slurry water would be processed and
recycled back to the mine in a closed system.
Coal-Carbon Dioxide Slurry
In this option, coal would be washed, crushed to a fine
powder, and dried at the mine site. The powdered coal would
be mixed with liquid carbon dioxide (C02) and transported via
pipeline to the port. At the port, the CO, would be heated
and flashed, thus separating the coal for direct loading onto
a waiting ship. No coal would be stockpiled at the port. The
CO, would be recompressed and returned to the mine.
Road
For this option, the haul road initially built to supply
the mine area, which would be used to transport coal to the
port for the first years of production, would continue to
serve as the transportation mode throughout the life of the
project. At full production, approximately twenty-three truck
tractors, each hauling two 45.4 Mt (50 ton) uncovered
trailers, would make about 311 round trips per day between the
mine and the port. Coal would be stockpiled until a ship
arrived. This option is not proposed by the applicant.
3-6
-------
Railroad
Crushed coal would be loaded at the mine for transport
by rail to the port. Approximately 3.3 round trips per dav
would be made using 100-car trains over 1.6 km (l mi)
length. Coal would be unloaded from the heavy duty bottom-
dump hopper cars and stockpiled until a ship arrived.
Conveyor
For this option, coal would be crushed, placed on
single span, covered, conventional belt conveyor, and carried
to the port. Coal would be delivered directly to a ship or
taken from the conveyor and stockpiled until a ship arrived
3.2.1.4 Loading Facility Type
Two options for the coal loading facility were identi
fied.
Filled Causeway
The causeway would be earth-filled and armored with rock
It would support the conveyor and shiploader structures a*
well as a road for operations and maintenance personnel. ThS
causeway would be used for unloading barges and other fuel and
supply ships.
Elevated Trestle
An elevated, pile-supported approach trestle would
support the conveyor and shiploader as well as a narr
roadway for operations and maintenance personnel
equipment. While it would not serve supply barges (ther
would be a separate barge staging area on the beach) , it wouin
support a pipeline to move fuel from tankers or barges t
storage tanks at the onshore port area.
3.2.1.5 Loading Facility Length
Both short and long loading facilities for fun
production were considered for each port location.
options represent the facility lengths necessary to rea h
water depths that would allow use by either smaller (60 on
dwt) or larger (up to 120,000 dwt) vessels. The small °
vessels would require a berthing depth of about 14 m (46
at mean lower low water (MLLW) while the larger vessels w0ui I
require between 15.2 to 18.3 m (50 to 60 ft) of depth.
3.2.1.6 Housing Location
Four options for the location of worker housing We
identified (Fig. 2-1). re
3-7
-------
Nikolai Site
The Nikolai site is about 9.6 km (6 mi) northwest of
Granite Point and 14.4 km (9 mi) south of the mine site. The
housing area would be located on the edge of the Nikolai
escarpment with a southerly exposure overlooking Trading Bay
State Game Refuge.
Congahbuna Site
The Congahbuna site is immediately northeast of
Congahbuna Lake, about 8 km (5 mi) north of Granite Point and
9.6 km (6 mi) south of the mine site. This site would be
located in the middle of the southern transportation corridor
option.
Lone Creek Site
The Lone Creek site is immediately north of the Chuitna
River about 12.8 km (8 mi) north of Granite Point. It would
be west of Lone Creek and about 4.8 km (3 mi) southeast of
the mine site.
Threemile Site
The Threemile site is north of Threemile Creek and south
of the Beluga River about 6.4 km (4 mi) west of the Chugach
Electric Association Beluga Power Plant. This site is located
just north of the northern corridor.
3.2.1.7 Housing Type
Two options for worker housing were identified.
Townsite
The townsite would have a large proportion of individual
houses and apartments for workers and their families.
Additional community facilities would include schools,
hospital, recreation center, religious facilities, town
administration offices, police and fire stations, supermarket,
and department store. The townsite would function as a
largely self-contained entity with workers commuting to work
daily from their homes as do most workers in Alaska. No
transportation to the townsite from Anchorage would be
provided and workers would live and recreate in and around the
townsite.
Single Status Housing
Single status housing facilities would provide
individual rooms for workers in a camp-type housing complex
which would include a dining hall/administration building,
recreation center, laundry, medical facilities, and security
and fire services. Minimal emphasis would be placed on
3-8
-------
shopping and commercial facilities since the personal needs
of the workers, including routine health care, would be served
during their off-work, off-site periods. Workers would be
flown to the project area from Anchorage and Kenai for their
time on the job and then be returned home for their off-work
periods.
3.2.1.8 Airstrip
Two options for location of an airstrip were identified;
an existing airstrip in the region or a new one in proximity
to the housing area.
3.2.1.9 Water Supply
Two options were considered for supplying both the
industrial and domestic water needs of the project: surface
impoundments and wells.
3.2.2 Options Screening Process
The options screening process was conducted in two steps.
First all 31 options identified during the scoping process
were initially evaluated to eliminate those options which were
clearly unreasonable or infeasible for environmental,
technical, or other reasons. In the second step, all
remaining options not eliminated in step one were evaluated
in greater detail.
3.2.2.1 Initial Options Evaluation
Each of the 31 component options identified during the
scoping process was individually reviewed from environmental
and technical perspectives. If an option were environmentally
and technically reasonable and feasible, it was retained for
further analysis. If, however, the option was determined to
be unreasonable or infeasible, and if other options retained
for that component adequately addressed the 10 scoping issues,
it was eliminated. Table 3-2 identifies the nine options
eliminated during this initial options review, and outlines
the major reasons why each was eliminated. Table 3^3
summarizes the results of the initial options evaluation
process and shows which options were retained or eliminated.
The elimination of the southeastern/North F°reland
transportation corridor/port location option requires some
amplification. The North Foreland port site is located on
land owned by TNC and was considered as an option because
there is an existing port at the site, including a pier>
which was used in the 1970s for loading wood chips aboard
vessels for transport to market. An analysis of the pier,
m well as tidal currents and ice conditions, was conducted
bv the applicant (Soros Associates 1986) to determine the
feasibility of using the North Foreland site. That study,
3-9
-------
Table 3-2
MAJOR REASONS FOR ELIMINATION OF INDIVIDUAL OPTIONS
DURING INITIAL OPTIONS EVALUATION
rmxxxi&it Option Eliminated
Overburden Stockpile Center
Transportation
Corridor/Port
Location
Transporation Mode
loading Facility
Northeast
Southeastern/
North Foreland
Pneumo-train
Coarse coal-
water slurry
Coal-carbon
dioxide slurry
Filled causeway
Housing Type
Townsite
Water Supply
Surface
impoundments
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Major Reasons for Elimination
Inside mining limit (stockpiled
material would have to be rehandled
to mine under stockpile)
Would require a bridge across Lone
Creek
Visual impacts
Port site tidal currents and ice con-
ditions prevent ship berthing/loading
to full project production capacity
Demonstration plant technology only
Moderate product degradation (10%
BTU loss fran water)
Unproven Arctic technology
Spill hazard
Pilot plant technology only
Spill hazard
Final product not presently market-
able
Large quantities of fill and armor
rock required
Constant protection from tidal and
ice scour required
Interference with anadromous fish
movements and local set net fishery
Substantially greater infrastructure
required (water, sewer, housing,
etc.)
Adverse to local autonomy
Less adaptable to traditional
regional lifestyles
Competition with subsistence activ-
ities
Greater land area impact
Greater impacts on fish and wildlife
(increased hunting & fishing;
human/wildlife contacts; etc.)
Block free-flowing streams
Interference with fish movements
High dams to store water in winter
3-10
-------
Table 3-3
OPTIONS ELIMINATED OR RETAINED FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS
DURING INITIAL OPTIONS EVALUATION
Caiponent
Options Retained
o Corridor/Port
Location
o Mode
Loading Facility
o Type
o Length
Housing
o Location
o Type
Airstrip
Water Supply
Power Generation
Northern/Ladd
Eastern/Ladd
Southern/Granite Point
Road
Railroad
Conveyor
Elevated Trestle^
Short
Long
Nikolai
Congahbuna
Lone Creek
Threemile Creek
Single Status!
Existing
New
Wellsl
Purchase1
Options Eliminated
Mine Location Fixed!
Overburden Stockpile North
Location Southeast
Mine Service Area Fixedl
Transporation System
Center
Northeast
Southeastern/North
Por^land
Pneumo-Train
Coarse Coal-Water Slurry
Coal-Carbon Dioxide —
Slurry
Filled Causeway
Townsite
Surface Impoundments
1 Sole option remaining for this component
3-11
-------
as reviewed by Dames & Moore, showed low ship berthing
availability due to tidal currents and ice for any pier
located at that site. While berthing availability would
probably be adequate to load coal during the lower coal
production levels early in the project, serious difficulties
and vessel delay could be expected during full coal production
levels of 10.9 million Mt (12 million short tons).
The existing pier was also judged inadequate since water
depth is not sufficient to accommodate vessels of 72,576 Mt
(60,000 dwt) or larger needed at full production. Further,
it is misaligned with respect to dominant ebb and flood
current direction, it has an inadequate fender system and
sedimentation at the berth, and it is structurally inadequate
to support a movable type shiploader needed to load ships at
full coal production levels.
As a result of the initial options screening, the number
of components with only one option to be considered increased
to six. Housing type, water supply, and type of loading
facility joined the mine location, mine service area location,
and power supply as single option components.
3.2.2.2 Remaining Options Evaluation
Since all options in the applicant's Proposed Projects
were environmentally and technically reasonable and feasible,
each of those options was retained so that the applicant's
Proposed Projects would constitute formal alternatives to be
analyzed during the analysis of alternatives process. Then,
for each component where at least one option other than the
applicant's choice remained, all options were individually
evaluated from the perspective of each resource or technical
discipline (e.g., water quality, subsistence, technical
feasibility, etc.). If it was determined that one of the
other options was as good as, or better than, the applicant's
option on an overall basis, or if it addressed one or more of
the 10 scoping issues in a significantly more favorable manner
than did the applicant's proposed option, that option was
retained for the analysis of alternatives process.
The following discussions summarize the results of these
more detailed analyses and describe why an additional seven
options and one component were eliminated from consideration.
Generally, only those disciplines which would likely have a
reasonable difference in impacts between options are
discussed.
Overburden Stockpile
The two remaining stockpile locations, north and
southeast (Fig. 3-1) , would have similar impacts on water
quality and vegetation, but the north site would be closer
3-12
-------
ho in the southern portion
to fish spawning habi^at. a"^ea Also, use of the north site
of a fall moose ruttl"g to project-related disturbance
would subject dral"a^L 22 years into the project. The north
immediately rather than ' Z tion conditions and would cause
site would have poorer fc?JL ts than the southeast. On the
Skater negative visual imPa°V it did not address any of
basis of this analysis, an orably than the southeast site
the 10 scoping isSUe^QoOSed option), the north site was
(the applicant's proposed as the slngle optlon
SVS2 -erburden stockp
lEaME2ItatAm^2md2E^^
_ 4-hn would directly affect more vegetation and wetlands
Indirectly, the northern/Ladd option would potentially impac2
=» a y-oa nf i nn dllP. to tT3 f f i r-nonoy = 4-~J - ^T-
a greater area of vegatation due to traffic-generated d^t
Therefore, the northern/Ladd option was judged to have
relatively moderate potential for impact while tha
eastern/Ladd option was judged to have a relatively
potential.
3-13
-------
Table 3-4
TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR/PORT LOCATION INDIVIDUAL
DISCIPLINE OPTIONS SCREENING CRITERIA
Disciplinel
Options Screening Criteria
Water Quality
Vegetation
Fish
Wildlife
Socioeconomics
Subsistence
Recreation
Regional Use
Sediment production from road surfaces, cuts, fills,
sideslopes and stream crossings
Reclamation difficulty
Spill Hazard (includes offshore port)
Direct vegetation loss
Indirect loss from dust and vehicle or foot traffic
Relative value of wetlands lost
Presence or absence of fish
Value in terms of spawning, rearing or migration
Number of stream crossings
Direct habitat loss
Indirect habitat loss due to noise, other disturbance or
human contacts
Effects on animal movements
Local resident control of, or input to, project through
land ownership
Proximity of port site to Tyonek
Income from corridor and port site leases
Interference with access to traditional use areas
Interference with existing harvest activities
Changes in resource availability (increased competition,
reduced populations, changes in movement patterns)
Impacts on existing recreation
Flexibility for other regional uses
Size and location of component sites adequate for expansion
Preclusion of other users or uses
Consolidation with existing facilities
Technical
Feasibility
Reclamation
Availability of adequate construction technology
Relative complexity of design, construction and operation
Reclamation difficulty
1 includes only disciplines having a reasonable difference in impacts among
the options
3-14
-------
High
Table 3-5
COMPARATIVE RESOURCE DISCIPLINE ANALYSIS OF
RELATIVE POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS FOR THE NORTHERN/LADD AND
EASTERN/LADD TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR/PORT SITE LOCATION OPTIONS
Northern/Ladd Eastern/! .aHH
Discipline^ Low2 Moderate High Low ModerafP
Water Quality M L
Vegetation M L
Fish M L
Wildlife H M
Socioeconomics M L
Subsistence L L
Recreation M L
Regional Use M M
Technical Feasibility L L
Reclamation M L
' Includes only disciplines having a reasonable difference in adverse inm
between the options. cts
2 "High", "moderate", and "low" are comparative among the three corridor opt*
not absolute values of potential environmental impacts. l°ns,
3-15
-------
Analysis of the relative potential impact to fish showed
that the eastern/Ladd option would involve four stream
crossings with two crossings being in areas of high fish
value. The northern/Ladd option would involve six stream
crossings with at least two crossings being in areas of high
fish value. Thus, the overall relative potential for adverse
impact for the eastern/Ladd option was judged to be low, while
that for the northern/Ladd option was judged to be moderate.
From a wildlife perspective, the northern/Ladd option
would directly impact about 14 ha (35 ac) more habitat
including wetlands and riparian areas important to waterfowl
and bears than the eastern/Ladd option. Indirect habitat loss
for swan nesting and rearing would be equally high for both
options. The northern/Ladd option would pass within 7 04 m
(770 yd) of an eagle nest. Effects upon animal movements for
both options would be similarly moderate, but would be reduced
by optimizing the locations of specially constructed wildlife
crossings. Therefore, the northern/Ladd option was judged to
have a relatively high potential for adverse impacts upon
wildlife while the eastern/Ladd option was considered to have
a relatively moderate potential.
Analysis of the socioeconomic impacts upon residents of
Tyonek showed that the eastern/Ladd option would cross lands
owned by TNC, thereby giving Tyonek residents some degree of
control over project design and location as well as direct
income from a corridor right-of-way lease. The northern/ Ladd
option would not cross any TNC lands. Both options would
offer the same benefits of proximity to jobs as well as the
disadvantages of the port site being relatively close to the
village. Thus, the eastern/Ladd option was judged to have a
relatively low potential for adverse impact while the
northern/Ladd option was judged to have a moderate potential.
From a subsistence perspective, the potential for adverse
impact to residents of Tyonek from either the eastern/Ladd
option or the northern/Ladd option was considered to be low
since Tyonek residents make relatively little use of lands
affected by those options. The level of impact to the small
number of residents between the Ladd port site and the Beluga
power station is unknown, but would likely not differ
significantly between the two options.
Analysis of relative potential impact to recreation
showed that the northern/Ladd option crossed more streams than
did the eastern/Ladd option, including two crossings of
Threemile Creek. The northern/Ladd option would also pass
close to Viapan and Tukallah Lakes. Thus, the northern/Ladd
option was judged to have a relatively moderate potential for
adverse impact while the eastern/Ladd option was judged to
have a relatively low potential.
3-16
-------
From a regional use perspective, there was no significant
difference between the options relating to size or ability to
expand to accommodate other users, nor was there a differenc
in consolidation with existing facilities. Both options would
cross private land which might restrict other potential uses
in the future. The northern/Ladd option would cross the
southern extreme of another state coal lease (Fig. 4-1) , thus
making development more economically feasible by having a road
and conveyor right on the lease. This was not judged
however, to be a significant difference considering th'
relatively small advantage this would provide to the leas6
holder. Thus, on an overall regional use basis, both option6
were considered to have moderate potential for adverse impact
Analysis of technical feasibility showed adequat
construction technology exists for both options, with neithe6
having significant complexity of design, construction 0
operation. Thus, both options were judged to have
relatively low potential for adverse impacts. a
From a reclamation perspective, the northern/Ladd opti0
with its greater length and acreage of wetlands and hig^*1'
number of stream crossings, was considered to be mo^
difficult to reclaim. Thus, the eastern/Ladd option Wa6
judged to have a relatively low potential for adverse impacts
while the northern/Ladd option was judged to have a moderat-
potential. e
Overall analysis of the 10 resource disciplines for th
two transportation corridor/port site options showed (Tafoi
3-5) that the eastern/Ladd option clearly had a lower overai?
potential for adverse impacts than did the northern/L^ii
option. The eastern/Ladd option was judged to have a i
potential for adverse impacts for eight of the 10 discipiinOW
with none rated as having a high potential, while t^S
northern/Ladd option was judged to have a low potential f
impacts for only two disciplines and rated as having a hi°K
potential for one.
In final analysis, the eastern/Ladd option was jucUi ^
preferable to the northern/Ladd option. However, despite
rating, the northern/Ladd option was not eliminated becau
most potential impacts could be mitigated by proper siting
design of facilities. Therefore, both options were retain
and specifically addressed in the comparison of acti
alternatives process. °n
Transportation Mode
Table 3-6 summarizes the resource discipline analysis
the three remaining transportation modes for moving coal f
the mine to the port: road, railroad, and conveyor
applicant's proposed option). ^he
3-17
-------
Table 3-6
RESOURCE DISCIPLINE ANALYSES OF THE RELATIVE
POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS OF TRANSPORTATION MODE OPTIONS
Mode
Road Railroad Conveyor
Discipline' Low2 Moderate High Low Moderate High Low Moderate High
Water Quality H L L
Air Quality H M L
Vegetation L H H
Fish ML L
Wildlife H M L
Subsistence M H H
Visual H M M
Noise H M L
Recreation H M L
Economics M H L
Reclamation L H M
Regional Use ML M
1 Includes only disciplines having a reasonable difference in adverse
impacts among the options.
2 "High", "moderate", and "low" are comparative among the three corridor options,
not absolute values of potential environmental impacts.
3-18
-------
For each discipline, the potential adverse impacts for
each option are shown relative to the potential impacts fQ
the other two options. For the road option, it is important
to keep in mind that a road from the port to the mine Would
still exist in any event, i.e., the road would be ther
whether or not another coal transportation mode Wae
constructed. Therefore, cumulative adverse impacts Wer.S
considered for construction of the other transportation modes6
For example, the road would have a lower adverse impact tha *
the railroad or conveyor on vegetation because thei*1
construction would destroy additional vegetation, while Ugr
of the existing road to haul the coal would cause
additional vegetation destruction (assuming adequate dust-
control measures). The following discussion addresses Qni
resource discipline analyses which showed a reasonabl ^
difference in adverse impacts among the options. e
Because of the high level of truck traffic necessary t
transport the coal by road at full production (approximate!°
331 round trips per day), erosion problems, hence potential
adverse water quality impacts, would be significantly greate
than for either the railroad or conveyor options, both of
which were rated as relatively low.
By the same reasoning, the road option rated high f
potential adverse air quality impacts. The railroad, whi°h
would generate a diesel smoke plume and some dust, was rat rf
as moderate. The conveyor option was rated as low.
From a vegetation perspective, the road option rat
relatively low since the road would already exist and oni
moderate additional vegetation destruction would occur if -Y
continued to be used to haul coal throughout the life of
project. Potential adverse railroad impacts were rated
relatively high due to the necessity to clear and mainta^S
another right-of-way. Although the conveyor itself would s^?
on elevated supports, it would need an adjacent service
throughout its length which would also require clearing
maintenance of another right-of-way. The conveyor option w
also rated as having a relatively high potential for adverdS
impacts to vegetation. se
The greater potential adverse water quality impact-
identified for the road option, discussed above, resulted •
a relatively moderate rating for potential adverse
impacts while the railroad and conveyor options were rated
relatively low for this discipline. as
From a wildlife perspective, the road option possess
a relatively high level of potential for adverse impac^S
because of disturbance from noise and vehicle movement
associated with the 311 round trips per day (an average *
one truck with two trailers passing a given point everv
minutes, 22 hours per day, 3 62 days per year) . Also, 2
snow in winter would cause moose to use the cleared road ^
to
3-19
-------
move about, resulting in more frequent vehicle/moose
collisions. The railroad option would generate substantially
less noise and movement on a continuous basis than would the
road, but it would have the same problems with moose
collisions in winter. It was rated as having a relatively
moderate potential for adverse impact. The conveyor would be
stationary and would generate significantly less noise. Its
main potential adverse impact would be physical blockage of
animal movements, a problem not associated with either the
road or railroad. Since large animal crossings would be
designed into the conveyor option, it was rated as having a
relatively low potential for adverse impact.
The road and railroad would potentially have direct
adverse impacts upon subsistence resources. The moose
population, especially, would be expected to be adversely
affected as a result of collisions with vehicles. The
railroad and conveyor could also have direct impacts upon
subsistence use because they could physically block access
across the transportation corridor. With the conveyor
generally elevated only 0.6 m (2 ft) above the ground (with
no clearance in winter due to snow), traditional winter travel
across the corridor could be limited to the road and large
animal crossings. The railroad right-of-way could pose a
similar though less formidable obstacle, especially to snow
machines. Thus, the road was considered to have a relatively
moderate potential for adverse impacts on subsistence while
the railroad and the conveyor were considered to have
relatively high potential for adverse impacts.
Visually, the road, with its frequent truck traffic and
associated dust, was judged to have a relatively high level
of potential for adverse impact. The railroad, with its 5.5 m
(18 ft) high engines and 1.6 km (1 mi) long trains was judged
to have a relatively moderate level of potential for adverse
impact. The conveyor would be stationary and stand about 2.7
m (9 ft) above the ground and was also judged to have a
relatively moderate level of potential for adverse impacts.
The road option was determined to have a relatively high
potential for adverse impacts from noise associated with truck
traffic. The railroad was judged to have a moderate relative
potential impact for noise, while the conveyor was determined
to have a relatively low potential impact.
From a recreation perspective, noise and visual
considerations (including dust) were the primary factors used
to determine effects upon the quality of the recreation
experience. On that basis, the road was determined to have
a relatively high potential for adverse impact while the
railroad was judged to have a relatively moderate potential.
3-20
-------
The conveyor, with its stationary nature and lower nois
level, was judged to have a relatively low level of potential
impact.
On the basis of initial capital as well as operation anrt
maintenance costs, the road option was judged to be ^
moderate overall economic impact while the railroad w
determined as having a relatively high economic impact. ThS
conveyor was judged to have an overall relatively low econo®-
impact. lc
From a reclamation perspective, the road, which wouirf
exist in any event, was considered to have a relatively 3
potential for adverse impacts. The railroad was judged
have a relatively high potential impact because of th°
necessity to reclaim the greater cuts and fills necessary ^
maintain grade and to remove the large bridge across th°
Chuitna River if the southern corridor option were selected
The conveyor, which would largely be elevated above the grou A
on pilings, was considered to have a relatively modera?
potential for adverse impacts from reclamation.
The railroad seemed to possess some possible advanta
over the other two options when considering future regi0r,^?
uses. The road option would exist for other potential us©
regardless of which other coal transportation mode was buii£S
The conveyor system would be sized for the output of
Diamond Chuitna project only. If another coal developing ?
commenced operations during the life of the Diamond Chuit
project or if another large development occurred after +->}a
coal mine was terminated, the conveyor system would not ha
the capacity or geographic flexibility to handle addition?
coal. The railroad option could provide some advantage f
another coal development project favorably located
respect to the right-of-way. However, another project
similar size to the Diamond Chuitna project would probat»?f
have to substantially upgrade the size of any exist!
railroad system to meet its needs. Thus, both the road a^
the conveyor options were judged to have a relatively hi k
potential for adverse impacts from a regional perspecti
(i.e., both would have no significant positive effect e
promoting a regional coal transportation system), while th*1
railroad was judged to have a relatively moderate level
adverse impacts.
Overall analysis of the three options (Table 3^
clearly showed that the conveyor option had the low©6*
levels of relative adverse impacts for the twei t
disciplines considered. The conveyor option show6
relatively high potential for adverse impacts for only th^r^
disciplines: vegetation, subsistence and regiQ^ee
perspective. The relative differences among the th£al
options for potential impacts to vegetation were not judo S
to be significant. The relatively high adverse impa d
3-21
-------
rating for the regional use discipline was also judged not to
be significant because it merely means that the conveyor would
not have a positive effect on promoting a regional coal
transportation system, but it would not in any way preclude
such a system from being developed in the future.
The one major discipline concern for the conveyor was
the relatively high potential impact of blocking access to
traditional subsistence use areas if the southern
corridor/Granite Point option were selected. This concern
could be addressed by providing enough crossings to permit
subsistence users reasonable access to traditional use areas.
It was felt that this potential problem could be adequately
handled in the design of that option, and thus the conveyor
system (the applicant's proposed option) was judged the best
overall transportation mode option for addressing the 10
scoping issues.
Loading Facility Length
Both full production options identified, i.e., a short
trestle and a long trestle, were dependent upon vessel draft
and water depth. The greatest difference between these
options would occur at the Granite Point port site where the
shorter trestle would be approximately 2,277 m (7,470 ft) and
the longer trestle 3,810 m (12,500 ft). Analysis showed only
three areas where a reasonable difference between the options
would exist. Visually, the longer facility would have a
greater adverse impact. It would also require somewhat
greater travel time for a larger boat moving along the coast
to pass around it. Smaller boats, which make up the majority
of existing use, could sail through the 122 m (400 ft)
openings between the trestle supports. From a regional use
perspective, however, the longer facility could be considered
more favorable because of its increased flexibility for other
potential users. None of these three differences was
considered significant and neither option addressed any of the
10 scoping issues in a significantly more favorable manner
than the other. Thus, it was judged that length of the
loading facility was not of significant importance and it was
dropped as a component.
Housing Location
Initial analysis of the four housing location options,
Nikolai, Congahbuna, Lone Creek (the applicant's proposed
option), and Threemile, showed that three of the four sites
were corridor specific (Fig. 3-2). Lone Creek was the only
option which could be used regardless of which
transportation corridor was selected. Both the Nikolai and
Congahbuna sites are located well south of the mine area
near Granite Point and would be practical only if the
southern corridor were selected. The Threemile site is just
north of the northern corridor near the Beluga power station
and would be practical only if the northern corridor were
3-22
-------
selected. Since all four sites had already been determined
to be environmentally and technically reasonable and feasible
it was decided to retain each corridor-specific option for
alternative analysis with its respective corridor. This was
predicated on the assumption that the option was the best one
for that corridor and that it addressed at least one scopincr
issue more favorably than did the Lone Creek site. The Lone
Creek site would be retained in any event because it is the
applicant's proposed option and it is not corridor specific
Analysis of the Nikolai and Congahbuna options showed
that they are within 4.8 km (3 mi) of each other and have manv
similarities. Because the two sites are so similar,
appeared most logical to compare them to one another to select
the more favorable for retention.
Although the Nikolai and Congahbuna sites showed few
significant differences among potential adverse resourc
discipline impacts, the Nikolai site was considered to have
more potential for adverse impacts upon both fish and wildlif
because it is closer to Nikolai Creek and Trading Bay Refuqe6
Also, Nikolai would have a greater adverse visual impact
because it would be located apart from the conveyor and th
haul road whereas Congahbuna would be in the transportati S
corridor immediately adjacent to the conveyor and haul road11
The Nikolai site, being further from the mine site, would als*
increase the daily cost of transporting the majority ^
workers to their work stations. From the subsisten
perspective, however, there does not appear to be much use
the Nikolai site by local residents while the area in th
vicinity of Congahbuna Lake receives some use for huntin
picnicking, and berry picking. Taking all potential impact'
into account, the Congahbuna site collectively was judged t
be more favorable than the Nikolai site. °
A further analysis between the Lone Creek and Congahbun
housing site options showed that the Congahbuna opti
addressed at least two scoping issues (fish
socioeconomics) in a significantly more favorable manner tha
did the Lone Creek option. Therefore, the Congahbuna opti
was retained for alternatives analysis. °n
Analysis of the Threemile housing site showed this opti
addressed at least one scoping issue (regional use) in a mo*-*1
favorable manner than did the Lone Creek option. Theref0f
the Threemile option was retained fo^ the alternative analys^'
process.
Airstrip Location
Two options were identified for locating the airstrip +.
be used to shuttle workers between the project area and the*
homes in Anchorage and on the Kenai Peninsula: use ir
3-23
-------
a presently existing airstrip in the vicinity of the project
area or construction of a new airstrip adjacent to the housing
site ultimately selected. The latter is the applicant's
preferred option.
Using an existing airstrip would offer the advantages of
lower capital costs for construction and less environmental
impact at the site of the proposed new airstrip.
Disadvantages would include: the possible need to construct
additional roads and bridges to access an existing strip;
greater operational costs and environmental impacts from
transporting workers and equipment significantly greater
distances; the necessity to substantially upgrade an existing
airstrip; and the possibility of more marginal operating
conditions because the existing runway alignment might not be
optimum. Other disadvantages related to the operation of an
existing airstrip at greater distances from the housing site
would include the need to construct larger terminal facilities
to shelter workers waiting for planes, the increased risk and
liability from unauthorized use of a previously public
airstrip by private pilots, hunters or fishermen, and
vandalism.
On a more site-specific basis, all currently usable
airstrips in the vicinity of the project area which might be
upgraded to handle traffic needs for the Diamond Chuitna
Project are private. Thus, their availability for use by the
project would be uncertain. The major airstrips (Beluga,
Tyonek, and Nikolai Creek) would be located approximately 19.2
to 28.8 km (12 to 18 mi) from the mine site. While the Beluga
airstrip is presently capable of handling the traffic needs
of the project, Tyonek and Nikolai Creek are not. They both
would require lengthening and construction of a cross runway.
This would probably not be possible at Nikolai Creek because
of space limitations and the substantial adverse wetlands
impacts which would occur. Whether residents of Tyonek would
consent to a major upgrading and operation of a busier
airstrip immediately adjacent to the village is doubtful.
Other airstrips in the vicinity are mostly smaller ones
built to support short term oil and gas drilling operations.
Some are presently useable by small aircraft, but all would
require substantial upgrading and construction of a cross
runway before being capable of supporting the project's
operational needs. From a strictly geographical standpoint,
the "Pan Am" airstrip, located only 0.6 km (0.4 mi) east of
the Lone Creek housing site, would appear to be the most
logical location because it would be close to the mine site.
However, its location on the bluff above stream 2003 would
prevent it from being upgraded to sufficient size.
On the basis of the advantages and disadvantages
discussed above, it was judged that use of an existing
airstrip in the vicinity of the project area, as opposed
3-24
-------
to construction of a new airstrip immediately adjacent to the
housing site, would not address any of the 10 issues in a
significantly more favorable manner. This option was
therefore eliminated.
At the completion of the options screening process a
total of one component and 15 options had been eliminated
The options that were retained and used to form the action
alternatives are shown in Table 3-7.
3.2.3 Identification and Description of Action A1 terna-t--i
The options screening process left only two components
with more than one option remaining: the transportation
corridor/port site location and the housing site location
The applicant wishes to retain two transportation
corridor/port site options (southern/Granite Point an
-------
Table 3-7
OPTIONS USED TO FORM ALTERNATIVES
Component
Opt i on(s)
Mine Location
Overburden Stockpile Location
Mine Service Area
Transportation System
o Corridor Location
Fixed
Southeast
Fi xed
Southern/Granite Point
Northern/L add
Eastern/Ladd
o Mode
Loadi ng Faci1i ty
Housing
o Location
o Type
Ai rstrip
Water Supply
Power Generation
Conveyor
Elevated Trestle
Lone Creek
Congahbuna
Threemi1e Creek
Single Status
New
Wei 1 s
Purchase
3-26
-------
3.2.3.3 Eastern/Ladd Alternative
This alternative would be the same as the northern/Ladd
alternative except that the eastern corridor to a port site
at Ladd would be used (Fig. 2-1).
3.2.3.4 Housing/Airstrip Options
Conaahbuna Housing/Airstrip Option
This option would be substituted for the Lone
housing/airstrip site in the southern/Granite
alternative with the housing area and the airstrip
located at the Congahbuna site (Fig. 2-1).
Threemile Housing/Airstrip Option
This option would be substituted for the Lone
housing/airstrip site in the northern/Ladd alternative with
the housing area and the airstrip being located at th
Threemile site (Fig. 2-1). e
3.2.4 Comparison of Action Alternatives
The three action alternatives were compared to determin
the preferred alternative. The Congahbuna and Threemii6
housing/airstrip options were then compared with the LQn6
Creek option to determine whether either option provided °
significant advantage over the Lone Creek site such that
could substitute for the Lone Creek option in one or more of
the alternatives. The analytical basis for the comparison
in this section is provided in the detailed impact discussi0nS
in Chapter 5.0. The reader is encouraged to consult Chapte
5.0 for more extensive examination of the major issues. r
Evaluation criteria based on the ten issues identify
during scoping (Section 1.4) were developed to compare th
three action alternatives and the housing options. Th
criteria are shown in the first column of Table 3-9. For ea h
scenario, the evaluation criteria were applied separately ^
each alternative to determine the relative values for +-v°
total potential impacts for that alternative. It is importa ^
to note that the "relative total impact value" assigned to
given alternative for a specific criterion was derived onia
by evaluation of that alternative relative to the oth
alternatives for that scenario. The relative values used w»Sr
low, moderate, and high. re
For example, using the third evaluation criterion (Tab!
3-9), i.e., "Minimize impacts to wildlife and wildlit6
habitats," each alternative was analyzed from the standpoi
of its total potential for impacts to wildlife and wildH^
Creek
Point
k®ing
CrPaV
3-27
-------
Table 3-8
DIAMOND CHUITNA PROJECT ACTION ALTERNATIVES
Project Components and Options
Mine Location* - Fixed
Overburden Stockpile Location* -
Southeast
Mine Service Area* - South of
Mining Limit
Transportation
a) Corridor/Portsite
1. Southern/Granite Point
2. Northern/Ladd
3. Eastern/Ladd
b) Mode* - Conveyor
Loading Facility* - Trestle
Worker Housing
a) Location
1. Lone Creek
2. Congahbuna
3. Threemile
b) Type* - Single Status
Airstrip* - New Construction
Water Supply* - Wells
Power Generation* - Purchase Gas
~Components with only one option.
Action Alternatives
Southern/ Northern/ Eastern/
Granite Pt. Ladd Ladd
XX X
X X X
XX X
X
X
X
XX X
XX X
X X X
X X X
XX X
XX X
X X X
3-28
-------
habitat and a relative value (compared to the other tw
alternatives) was assigned. Only significant differences i°
potential impacts were considered. Thus the southern/Granit11
Point alternative had a relatively moderate value for total
potential wildlife and wildlife habitat impacts compared t
the northern/Ladd and eastern/Ladd alternatives which k ^
relative values of high and low, respectively. Table 3_q
summarizes the relative total impact values for ea~h
evaluation criterion. This allows a consistent comparison
alternatives to be made. °
It must be emphasized that while a particular alternativ
might be assigned a high relative total impact value Wke6
compared with the other alternatives, it does not necessarii11
mean that the alternative would have a high absolute impact^
In this chapter, therefore, alternatives were assigned a tot i
impact value relative to one another while the actui
significance of the alternatives' impacts are described"—•
Chapter 5.0. ln
Analysis showed that, because of the specific nature f
the project and the make-up of the action alternatives,
of the significant potential impacts were associated direct!
with activities at the mine and that there were relatively f
significant differences in potential impacts among the oth^
project components. Since all impacts associated direct?r
with the mine and its attendant operations were common to Y
alternatives, the comparison of alternatives process address
only potential impacts associated with the components of thS
project other than the mine. The locations of th
transportation corridor, port site, and the housing a ?
airstrip sites were the only components creating signifiCan?
differences in potential impacts among alternatives.
Water Quality
Potential water quality impacts were evaluated primarii
on the basis of the risk of petroleum product spills a ^
sediment production from road surfaces, pads, cuts, fills a
stream crossings. No significant differences in potenti ^
impacts were identified between the southern/ Granite Po^ ^
and northern/Ladd alternatives. The eastern/ Ladd alternat
would have fewer potential impacts since it would be shoriVe
and cross no major streams as would the southern/Granite p0I"er
alternative. It would also cross flatter terrain than eitKnt
of the others. Therefore, the southern/Granite Point ar
northern/Ladd alternatives were assigned moderate relati d
total impacts values for water quality while the eastern/Lartn
alternative was assigned a low value.
3-29
-------
Table 3-9
EVALUATION CRITERIA MATRIX SHOWING RELATIVE1 TOTAL IMPACT
VALUES ASSIGNED TO THE THREE ACTION ALTERNATIVES
Evaluation
Criteria
Southern/
Granite Pt.
Northern/
Ladd
Eastern/
Ladd
1. Minimize risk of water
quality degradation and
alteration to flows
Moderate
Moderate
Low
2. Minimize impacts to
fish and fish habitat
Moderate
Moderate
Low
3. Minimize impacts to
wildlife and wildlife
habitats
Moderate
High
Low
4. Minimize potential
reclamation problems
Low
Low
Low
5. Minimize impacts to set
net fishery Moderate
6. Minimize impacts to
traditional subsistence
harvest activities High
High
Low
High
Low
7. Minimize social, cultural,
and economic impact upon
local residents
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Minimize cumulative
regional use impacts
Low
Moderate
Moderate
9. Minimize technical
complexity
10. Minimize cost
Low
No Data
Low
No Data
Low
No Data
"High", "moderate", and "low" are comparative among the three corridor options,
nnt: absolute values of potential environmental impacts.
3-30
-------
Fish
Potential impacts to fish and fish habitat were evaluat
primarily on the basis of the presence or absence of fish
number of stream crossings, and the value of potential i
affected streams for fish spawning, rearing or migration
No significant differences in potential impacts w©
identified between the southern/Granite Point and norther^/
Ladd alternatives. The eastern/Ladd alternative would ha
fewer potential impacts since it would cross fewer stre^6
than the northern/Ladd alternative and would cross no
streams as would the southern/Granite Point alternative.
would also impact fewer lakes than either of the oth
alternatives. Therefore, the southern/Granite Point a 5
northern/Ladd alternatives were assigned moderate relatT
total impact values for fish while the eastern/L Xh
alternative was assigned a lower value.
Wildlife
Potential impacts upon wildlife were evaluated primat *i
on the basis of direct and indirect habitat loss si ^
potential impacts arising from interference with rnoveme*^6
across the corridors could be largely mitigated by pro
design, construction, and operation of animal crossings. ^er
The northern/Ladd alternative was considered to hav
greater potential impacts than either of the others beca
it is longer and would cross riparian habitat importantUSe
brown bears feeding upon salmon. The southern/Granite pQ'to
and northern/Ladd alternatives would have similar impactslrVt
. * . i J j J_ J ! T JT 1 _ L J_ J_l_. ^
wetlands important to wildlife, but the eastern/r to
alternative would cross fewer important wetlands than eitKdd
of them. The eastern/Ladd alternative, unlike the other +^er
alternatives, would also avoid eagle nests. Thus, ^Wo
eastern/Ladd alternative was assigned a low relative 'toiT*16
impact value while the southern/Granite Point and north®
Ladd alternatives were assigned values of moderate and hi*^
respectively.
Reclamation
Essentially all of the major reclamation cone
identified during the scoping process were focused on the e;fns
and its surrounding area. Technology for succes^'''116
reclamation of the other project components exists and SkU1
been demonstrated to be effective for other Alaska proje s
Since reclamation procedures that would be used at the C^"s*
and its surrounding area would be common to all th^ne
alternatives, no significant differences were identified a
the three alternatives for this criterion and all Inon9
assigned a low relative total impact value. were
3-31
-------
Set Net Fishery
Potential adverse impacts to the commercial set net
fisheries near the port sites were evaluated primarily on the
basis of interference with fish movements and existing set net
sites caused by the supply barge unloading facility, the
approach trestle, and coal vessel traffic.
The Ladd port site and supply barge unloading facility
were judged to have a significantly greater potential for
impact upon set net sites since they are located in the midst
of one of the most productive set netting areas in upper Cook
Inlet. The Granite Point site would also impact some set net
sites, but to a lesser extent. Both the northern/Ladd and
eastern/Ladd alternatives were thus assigned a high relative
total impact value while the southern/Granite Point
alternative was assigned a moderate value.
Subsistence
Potential subsistence impacts were evaluated primarily
on the basis of: 1) effects on access to, and use of,
traditional use areas; 2) changes in fish and wildlife
abundance; 3) interference with fish and wildlife cycles or
movements; 4) increased nonresident harvest of subsistence
resources; and 5) the possibility of increasingly restrictive
harvest regulations.
The southern/Granite Point alternative was judged to have
a significantly greater potential for impacts to subsistence
since the lower corridor and port site would be in areas
traditionally used for subsistence by residents of Tyonek
while the other two alternatives are located in areas with no
significant subsistence use. Also, the southern/ Granite
Point alternative would open access to the Chuitna River to
impacts on subsistence fish species. Therefore, the
southern/Granite Point alternative was judged to have a high
relative total impact while the northern/Ladd and eastern/Ladd
alternatives were judged to have low values.
Socioeconomics
No significant differences in socioeconomic impacts to
Anchorage or the Kenai Peninsula were identified among the
three alternatives. Potential socioeconomic impacts to Tyonek
were evaluated primarily on the basis of effects upon: 1)
local employment, 2) community population and infrastructure,
and 3) social and cultural values.
No significant differences were identified among the
three alternatives for local employment since Tyonek is
connected to the southern/Granite Point alternative by the
existing road system and a small vehicle bridge would be built
across the lower Chuitna River to provide access to either
3-32
-------
of the two other alternatives. The social and cultural
impacts to residents of Tyonek would be similar for any of the
three alternatives. If the eastern/Ladd alternative wer
selected, however, it could give Tyonek a significantlv
greater degree of control over the project and would increas
the applicant's accountability to the community. Tyonek would
also receive revenue from the transportation corridor right-
of-way lease. Therefore, the eastern/Ladd alternative was
assigned a low relative total impact value while the
southern/Granite Point and northern/ Ladd alternatives were
assigned moderate values.
Regional Use
Potential impacts to regional use were evaluated
primarily on the basis of consolidation with existin
facilities, potential for other regional uses, and component
size, location, and adequacy for expansion.
The southern/Granite Point alternative would be cloSe
than the other two alternatives to areas most likely to fc>r
developed in the future (e.g., the Placer U.S. Center Ridr,6
coal deposit west of the Diamond Chuitna project area). Thi
could have a positive effect upon the feasibility of Soi.S
potential developments since a crossing of the Chuitna Riv e
would not be required to reach the port site as would h*"
necessary with either the northern/Ladd or eastern/Ladd
alternative.
The southern/Granite Point alternative would
consolidate with the existing road system and facilities
the Granite Point area while the other alternatives would
consolidate with existing facilities to the same extent
This, however, was not judged to be significant.
The southern/Granite Point alternative would w
constructed entirely on public land and the port site Wo^n!*
have ample room for expansion, thus likely making the corri«s
and port site available to other potential users.
northern and eastern corridors, however, would cross So
private lands which may not be available to future ugg®6
Also, while the port site at Ladd is public land, the amouS*
of public land is not as large as at Granite Point, possiK^
precluding expansion to accommodate other users and requits
development of another port.
In the final analysis, the southern/Granite poi
alternative was judged to have a low relative total impact
value while the northern/Ladd and eastern/Ladd alternativ
were judged to have moderate values. es
3-33
-------
Technical Complexity
Potential technical complexity impacts were evaluated
primarily on the basis of the availability of adequate
technology and the relative complexity of design,
construction, and operation. Adequate technology presently
exists to design, construct, and operate all three
alternatives. Both port sites have shoals offshore which
would need to be considered in navigating ships during
operations. This was not considered a significant cause for
concern in either situation. Therefore, all three
alternatives were assigned a low relative total impact value.
Cost
No comparative cost data for any of the three
alternatives were made available by the applicant. Therefore,
no relative total impact values have been assigned for this
criterion.
3.2.5 Identification of Preferred Alternative
The comparison of alternatives process described above
assigned relative total impact values to the three action
alternatives for each of the ten evaluation criteria (Table
3-9). It should be remembered that when using relative total
impact values, the lower the value the better, i.e., a lower
value equates with a lower potential for adverse impact.
Inspection of Table 3-9 shows that for the nine evaluation
criteria for which data were available, seven showed
significant differences among the three alternatives: water
quality, fish, wildlife, set net fishery, subsistence,
socioeconomics, and regional use.
The eastern/Ladd alternative clearly had the lowest
overall relative total impact value. For five of the seven
criteria showing a significant difference among the
alternatives, it received a low rating. Only for the set net
fishery criterion did it receive a high rating.
While impacts to set netters from a port site at Ladd
could be significant, proper scheduling and operational
management at the port site would likely substantially reduce
or eliminate significant impacts to the fishery. Such impacts
probably would not occur from coal loading operations at full
production which would take place at the end of the trestle
over 3 km (1.8 mi) from shore, but rather from the supply
barge staging area on the beach adjacent to the trestle.
Since the set net sites are used only during the fishing
season, and then only on certain days of the week, proper
scheduling of incoming supply barges to avoid fishing openings
and to accommodate local fishermen's traditional uses could
likely avoid serious impacts.
3-34
-------
On the basis of its having the least overall relativ
total impact value and the capability of substantial
reducing or eliminating significant impacts to the i0ny
criterion (set net fishery) for which it received a hicrh
rating, the eastern/Ladd alternative was identified as th
preferred alternative. e
Whether the applicant could develop an eastern corridor
however, is not certain. The corridor would cross privat'
land owned by TNC and to date, the applicant and TNC have be &
unable to negotiate a right-of-way agreement. en
The southern/Granite Point and northern/Ladd alternativ
showed significant differences in potential impacts for fouS
criteria: wildlife, set net fishery, subsistence, and regi0naf
use (Table 3-9) . The potential exists for significant!
greater impacts to the set net fishery for the northern/Ladrf
alternative and the eastern/Ladd alternative. pro
scheduling and operational management, however, would
substantially reduce or eliminate such impacts.
The differences for the wildlife criterion We
considered significant. The northern/Ladd alternative woulri
have greater adverse quantitative and qualitative habit +¦
impacts for brown bear that could not be mitigated t
eliminate those differences. to
For the subsistence criterion, the southern/Granite pQi +.
alternative would have significantly greater adverse impact-
that could not be mitigated to eliminate the differences. iti^
northern/Ladd alternative would have very limited impact
subsistence values while the southern/ Granite Poi°I?
alternative would be built through a significant tradition!
use area. J-
From the regional use perspective, the low potential -f
adverse impacts for the southern/Granite Point alternative w°r
considered a significant benefit. The size of the a]raS
available for the port site at Granite Point as well as i^a
geographic location with respect to likely future development
and the southern corridor's location entirely on public u !
were considered to be significantly better than for +.>>
northern/Ladd alternative. "e
Thus the lower potential for adverse impacts from +-H
southern/Granite Point alternative for the set net fisheS!je
wildlife and regional use criteria were countered by t£'
higher potential for impacts for the subsistence criterio
Therefore, on an overall basis the southern/Granite Pqj11*
alternative was judged to have a lower potential for adve^
impacts than did the northern/Ladd alternative. Although th6
preponderance of higher potential for adverse impacts to tK
evaluation criteria from this comparison were attribut
to the northern/Ladd alternative, the potential effects
uPon
3-35
-------
local residents from the higher impacts to subsistence from
the southern/Granite Point alternative were not lightly
dismissed. Thus, while the overall potential for adverse
impacts was judged higher for the northern/Ladd alternative,
it was not a clear cut difference.
3.2.6 Comparison of Housing/Airstrip Options
The three alternatives compared above all used the Lone
Creek site as the option for the housing and airstrip
components. Two other options were identified for those
components and are compared below to the Lone Creek site.
These are the Congahbuna and Threemile sites. The purpose of
this comparison was to determine whether either site provided
a significant advantage over the Lone Creek site such that it
could be substituted for the Lone Creek option in one or more
of the alternatives.
The differences in impacts to the evaluation criteria
among all three housing/airstrip sites are described below.
For each criterion, the basis for the evaluations were the
same as those used above in comparing the three alternatives
(e.g., spill risk and sediment production for water quality,
direct and indirect habitat loss for wildlife, etc.). The
relative total impact values assigned to a criterion for each
housing/airstrip option are shown in Table 3-10.
Water Quality
No significant differences in potential water quality
impacts were identified for any of the three options.
Therefore, each was assigned a low relative total impact
value.
Fish
The Congahbuna site would have a lower impact than Lone
Creek since it is located at least 3.2 km (2 mi) from the
Chuitna River, thus making it more difficult for workers to
fish. The Threemile site would have a greater impact than
Lone Creek as its location would permit access to several
lakes or streams with fish. Thus, the Congahbuna site was
judged to have a low relative total impact value while the
Lone Creek and Threemile sites were judged to have values of
moderate and high, respectively.
3-36
-------
Table 3-10
EVALUATION CRITERIA MATRIX SHOWING RELATIVE TOTAL IMPACT
VALUES ASSIGNED TO THE THREE HOUSING OPTIONS
Evaluation
Criteria
Lone Creek
Congahbuna
Threemile
1.
H2O Quality
Low
Lew
Law
2.
Fish
Moderate
Lew
High
3.
Wildlife
Lew
Moderate
Moderate
4.
Reclamation
Low
Lew
Low
5.
Set Net
Lew
LCW
Lew
6.
Subsistence
Moderate
High
Lew
7.
Socioeconomic
Lew
Lew
Lew
8.
Regional Use
Lew
Lew
Low
9.
Technical Complexity
Lew
Lew
Low
10.
Cost
No Data
No Data
No Data
3-37
-------
Wildlife
Both the Congahbuna and Threemile sites would have a
greater impact upon waterfowl and swans than would the Lone
Creek site as they would be located close to areas used by
waterfowl and swans for breeding, resting, and some migration.
Therefore, the Lone Creek site was assigned a low relative
total impact value while the Congahbuna and Threemile sites
were assigned moderate values.
Reclamation
Technology for successful reclamation of the housing and
airstrip facilities at any of the three sites exists and has
been demonstrated to be effective for other Alaska projects.
Therefore, each of the sites was assigned a low relative total
impact value.
Set Net Fishery
No significant differences in potential impacts to the
set net fishery were identified for any of the sites.
Therefore, each of the sites was assigned a low relative total
impact value.
Subsistence
The Congahbuna site would have potential for
significantly greater impacts to subsistence than the Lone
Creek site as it would be located in an area of traditional
subsistence use. The Threemile site would have somewhat lower
potential for impact than the Lone Creek site since it would
be well removed from areas of traditional subsistence use.
Thus, the Congahbuna option was assigned a high relative total
impact value while the Lone Creek and Threemile options were
assigned moderate and low values, respectively.
Socioeconomics
Both the Congahbuna and Threemile options would have
somewhat less potential impact than the Lone Creek option
since there would be less fishing in the Chuitna River by
workers and the local fishing guides would not have as much
competition for fish. This, however, was not considered to
be a significant difference. Therefore, all three options
were assigned low relative total impact values.
Regional Use
Future developments (e.g., coal) would be most likely to
take place to the northwest of the Diamond Chuitna
project area. The Congahbuna housing and airstrip site
would be closer to these potential development sites than
would be either Lone Creek or Threemile. Closer inspection,
3-38
-------
however, shows that its distance from potential developments
is great enough that the site would not likely be used bv
other developments in the region and thus any advantage over
the Lone Creek site probably would be negligible. Thus, all
three sites were judged to have a low relative total impact
value.
Technical Complexity
Adequate technology presently exists to design
construct, and operate all three options. Therefore, aii
three options were assigned a low relative total impact value
Cost
No comparative cost data for any of the three options
were made available by the applicant. Therefore, no relative
total impact values have been assigned for this criterion.
Identification of Preferred Housing/Airstrip Op-t--ion
The results of the comparison of housing/airstrip options
described above are shown in Table 3-10. There were f w
significant differences among the three options. For six 6f
the nine criteria for which data were available, all thr°
options showed uniformly low relative total impact value66
For the three criteria for which significant different *
existed (fish, wildlife, and subsistence) , both the CongahbunS
and Threemile options received alternately higher and low
values than the Lone Creek option such that neither emercr^
as having an overall significantly lower potential for adve?
impacts than the Lone creek option. For example,
Congahbuna option was judged to have values of low and hioh
respectively, for the fish and subsistence criteria while ?£'
Threemile option received values of high and i
respectively, for the same criteria. The Lone Creek op-t?W'
received moderate values for both criteria. on
In final analysis, therefore, there was no basis -p
substituting either the Congahbuna or Threemile housin°r
airstrip options for the applicant's preferred option at. Lo ^
Creek in any of the three alternatives. °ne
3.3 ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE TO THE AGENCIES
There are three alternatives available to EPA, the Cor
DNR, and other state and local agencies through each agencv^'
permitting responsibilities. They can: 1) issue permits
proposed with standard stipulations, 2) deny the permits
3) issue the permits with stipulations tailored to
project which address specific impacts. Generally, the th* S
alternative is preferable because it allows the project
proceed while minimizing the unavoidable adverse impacts to
3-39
-------
Although it is not the purpose of this EIS to decide what
stipulations the agencies should impose, it is appropriate to
review the relative advantages and effectiveness of the
various mitigation options which agencies may require as
permit stipulations. The major mitigation options available
to the agencies are discussed in Chapter 6.0.
3.4 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
The No Action Alternative means that development of the
Diamond Chuitna project would not occur. This alternative
may be used as a baseline to which the action alternatives
can be compared.
The No Action Alternative would result from denial of
one or more federal or state permits necessary for project
development or a decision by the applicant not to undertake
the project.
3-40
-------
Chapter 4.0
Affected Environment
-------
4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
4.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter describes the environment as it currently
exists without the proposed project, emphasizing those
environmental aspects of the Diamond Chuitna project area
that could be affected by the construction, operation, and
reclamation of the proposed mining and support facilities.
As required by federal (NEPA) regulations, these
descriptions stress the elements of the natural and human
environments that are most likely to be impacted or which
have been identified as likely areas of concern through the
scoping process.
Much of the following information is derived from
baseline environmental investigations that were initiated in
1982 and largely completed in 1984. Some additional work
was done in 1986. The baseline study reports provide an
important source of detailed information and are on file at
the sites identified on page ii and in Section 7.7. The
following reports are incorporated by reference into this
EIS: ERT 1983, 1984a, 1984b, 1984c, 1984d, 1984e, 1984f,
1984g, 1985d, 1986, 1987; Gerlach and Lobdell 1984, 1986;
Science Applications, Inc. 1984; and Riverside Technology,
Inc. 1986.
4.2 REGIONAL HISTORY AND LAND STATUS
The Beluga region was first settled by Tanaina Indians
who lived along the coast in the general vicinity of the
present Native village of Tyonek. In 1915, the Moquawkie
Indian Reservation was established for the benefit of the
Natives living in the Tyonek area. In the early 197 0s,
reservation status ended and the Natives chose to
participate as a village corporation under the Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA).
Exploration and development of natural resources have
produced the primary impacts on the region. Major oil and
gas exploration began in the early 1960s and included lands
within the Moquawkie Indian Reservation. The first major
permanent development in the region was the construction of
Chugach Electric Association's natural gas power plant at
Beluga which began operations in 1968 (Fig. 4-1).
The presence of coal outcrops in the region has been
known since the early 1900s. Shortly after statehood, a
major portion of the Beluga coal fields was selected by the
State of Alaska under the federal government's mental health
land grant entitlement. Coal exploration began in the 1960s
4-1
-------
LEGEND
CAPPS GLACIER
STATE
KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH
SUSITNA FLATS WILDLIFE REFUGE
1^
TYONEK NATIVE
CORPORATION
COOK INLET REGION. INC
OTHER PRIVATE (P)
DIAMOND CHUITNA
COAL LEASE
OTHER COAL LEASES
CHUGACH ELECTRIC
POWER PLANT
STATE GAME REFUGE
BOUNDARY
MILES
TYONEK
TRADING BAY WILDLIFE REFUGE
NORTH FORELAND
DRIFT RIVER OIL PIPELINE
GRANITE POINT
BELUGA REGION LAND (SURFACE)
OWNERSHIP STATUS
Diamond Chuitna Environmental
Impact Statement
FIGURE 4-1
-------
with the first leases issued in the late 1960s. A number of
coal leases exist in the region today (Fig. 4-1).
In the mid-197 0s, the State sold the salvage rights to
a large amount of beetle-killed spruce timber west of the
Tyonek Native Corporation lands. The ensuing logging
operation established a road network in the area that
ultimately stretched west through the Trading Bay Wildlife
Refuge and across the Chakachatna River. The logs were
trucked to a new facility constructed on Tyonek Native
Corporation land at North Foreland where they were processed
into wood chips and loaded onto ships from an elevated
trestle.
There are four major landowners in the region today
(Fig. 4-1) . Most of the project area, including all the
Diamond Chuitna lease area, the Granite Point port site, and
about one-third of the southern transportation corridor, is
state land as is the Trading Bay State Game Refuge to the
south. In April 1985, a land use plan was adopted by DNR
which designated development of coal resources as the
primary management objective for their lands in the Beluga
area. Most of the land east of the project area is owned or
selected by the Tyonek Native Corporation, while Cook Inlet
Region, Inc. (CIRI) owns the majority of the remainder of
the land on the northeast, north, and west. The Kenai
Peninsula Borough has either selected or received selection
approval to approximately 6,249 ha (15,440 ac) around the
southern portion of the southern transportation corridor
just north of the Granite Point port site. In addition, the
Borough owns approximately 1,416 ha (3,500 ac) along the
coast between the Beluga airstrip and the Chuitna River
including the Ladd port site. Title to the subsurface
estate under all state and most borough lands lies with the
State, while CIRI holds title to all subsurface estate under
its lands, those of the Tyonek Native Corporation, and some
borough lands. There are relatively few parcels of
privately owned land in the region.
4.3 TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT
4.3.1 Physiography. Geology, and Soils
4.3.1.1 Physiography
The Beluga region lies between the Beluga River and the
Middle River and consists mainly of the broad Beluga Plateau
which is of generally low to moderate relief (Schmoll et al.
1984) . Streams have dissected the overburden and underlying
sedimentary rock creating valleys ranging from a few tens of
feet to several hundred feet in depth. Elevations range
from about 49 m (160 ft) near the coast to about 427 m
(1,400 ft) near the northwestern edge of the lease area.
The study area has typical morainal* topography
4-3
-------
• „ bv irregular ridges and depressions (ERT
characterized by irr g
1985d)* . anked on the northwest by higher
P"-- .joining
S2stia?d toward the Alaska Range, , ^ ^ chakachatna-
cfuarine* and alluvial 1 proposed mining area are
& tiller embayment. South o:E marshes with numerous
f Si anS covered by extensive.bogs ^ st s
iowlands lakeSi Areas ne Beluga region is drained
P°np?allv well-drained. Th achatna rivers, which are
ge?^rilv bY the Beluga anj c7which heads on the Beluga
primarily Y Chuitna R streams, such as Tyonek
SS' t '""'iTSS' «*«•• """ """»
A -i -\ 2 Geology
_nloaic features in the area are
The primary regional, geoi g ^ d6posits sedimentary
• * volcanic* rocKS Sourr, an active volcano
plutonic* an deposits. n -l^s about 48 km (30 mi)
rockS' a^«va-Aleutian batholith* > at least Tertiary
°f thl site and has beeri acti ed from about 3 ( 000
V8St ° Extensive ash of the site, extrusive*
tim®S'00o years ago. SO* rocks consisting primarily of
to • StuSive* igneous* rocK volcanic breccias* of
and intrus granodiorites*, pyroclastics*, are exposed
andesites*, ^rtiary ages, ana yx
JUraSSi?en2ive areas (ERT 1985d).
over ext Beluga Plateau, including
^^J^^^a^ea, ^is^characterized by ^a^ sedimentary ^plateau
the+-?pd'lbY Quaternary glacial Foreland Formation
mantled by ^ fche Tertiary * ai Qroup, The Kenai
rocks c ^ng) and the 0Yf^Jld claystone, siltstone,
(Honcoal-beariJ) of mterbedde^ numJ0US coal beds. Coal
sandstone, andthe overlying Beluga Formation
is also known to occur
(ERT I985d)• pntarY rocks in the lease area
The coal-bearing sedime y nation of the Kenai
Jl of the Tertiary Tyonejc nce of fluvial* and
are Part Tyonek Formation is g occasional gravel beds
Group. 1 n J* siits, and sanas • ed by its extreme
deltai^,l seams " ts ^ lacies* a"d
andAbility both laterally and distances. Although at
variabil y over very J" <=trinqers*) are known to
thickness Change ^ , including springe ^ ^ ^ fae Qf
least the lease area, .OIV-J t be significant for
"deauate areal extent an* ^^tuminous* C rank and are
mining^ ¦«=<&• hanging fro, 0.05 to o.45
^entVlVr (EKT 1985d) .
4-4
-------
Five major Pleistocene glacial advances have been
recognized in the Cook Inlet region; three of these have
contributed to surface deposits within the Beluga region.
All of the advances were characterized by dominant advances
from the base of the Alaska Range at the northwest, toward
lesser advances from the Kenai Peninsula on the southeast
(ERT 1985d).
Thicker Quaternary deposits in the region include the
embayment deposits* in the Chakachatna-McArthur River area
and the Bootlegger Cove clay (ERT 1985d).
Composition of overburden, interburden, and coal seams
have been extensively analyzed for plant growth suitability
and water quality projections. Table 4-1 illustrates the
average physicochemical characteristics of overburden and
interburden material that would be encountered during
mining. Sufficient quantities of selected parameters are
present which accounts for the existing slightly elevated
water quality concentrations discussed in the water quality
section.
4.3.1.3 Seismology
Two major faults trend northeastward across the region:
the Lake Clark fault to the north and the Bruin Bay fault to
the south. They are believed to converge within 16 km (10
mi) northeast of the proposed mining site. There is a
potential for seismic events ranging from the severe 8.5
Richter magnitude* earthquake of 1964 to short-duration,
low-magnitude tremors that occur commonly throughout the
Cook Inlet region (ERT 1985c).
During the 1964 earthquake, the Cook Inlet region
experienced a variety of ground failures including slumping
of surficial deposits toward steep unconfined slope faces,
ground-water extrusion of sand and gravel, and landslides on
gentle to moderate slopes resulting in tensional cracking
and pressure ridges. These effects occurred near the
Diamond Chuitna project area which was near the line of zero
land level change (ERT 1986). According to the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, the project area is located within
Seismic Risk Zone* 4. This designation applies to areas
that could be affected by earthquakes having a magnitude of
7 producing a peak acceleration of 0.4 gravity.
4.3.1.4 Soils
Surficial materials in the project area generally
consist of alluvium, peat, and glacial deposits
(non-homogeneous mixtures of clay, silt, sand, gravel,
cobbles, and boulders) and minor amounts of loess* and
volcanic ash. Alluvium is primarily found along stream
drainages and consists of poorly-sorted cobbly sand to
well-sorted sand and silt. Alluvial deposits are generally
4-5
-------
TABLE 4-1
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Of PHVSICOCHEM1CAL CHARACTERISTICS ACROSS
NINETEEN DRILL HOLES IN THE 01AMOK) CHUITNA MINE AREA
Statistic
PH
EC
mhos/
ca
SAR
ESP
H?0
Na
Soluble
Ca
Mq
nh4-
0AC
Ext.
Na CEC
As
Mo
B
A1
c
o
•*4
m
H —*
•w •
m +*
£ { Acid
g o Base
* Account
T CaCor/
1000 T Soil
Sulfur
SQ4
Pyrlte
Reaidual
I
»eg/L
meq/100q
PP«
Mean
6.)
1.1
5.0
1.8
5.99
3.85
2.25
0.31 19.5
0.12
0.35
0.18
1.02
13.6 12.5
0.01
0.01
0.03
Mini»un
4.1
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.18
0.05
0.02
0.18 0.9
0.005
0.01
0.01
0.02
2.0 1.0
0.005
0.005
0.005
Maxiaun
8.1
3.8
48.6
7.0
33.80
30.70
24.40
1.10 69.0
2.78
1.92
2.50
293.00
38.0 35.0
0.08
0.05
0.19
Observations
335
335
125
64
365
365
365
64 199
270
336
334
365
86 86
86
86
86
I
ON
Particle
Size
IV
B
s I
c
o
•H
u
2
u
0
•
a b
¦a
• •
Sand
h
3
o> o
l, -u
u
m
<3 H
Total
Coarse fine
Silt
Clay
¦Li
9
o
¦3
u.
K
C1 CO^
HC0,
SO*
Ca
Mg K
S
10
M X
»eq/L
meq/100q
Mean
13.2
51.3
44.4
11.0
33.9
15.0
37.3
2.3
0.40
0.36
0.41 0.18
3.80
2.74
10.02
2.79 2.30
Minimum
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
1.6
0.0
5.6
0.05
0.09
0.03
0.005 0.005
0.005
0.005
1.21
0.17 0.08
Maximum
64.3
98.2
89.0
51.6
84.9
54.4
89.1
14.3
0.70
5.92
2.50 2.93
23.4
15.80
25.00
12.40 11.80
Observations
219
347
135
134
352
352
333
144
137
229
199 199
199
191
64
64 64
NH4
+
Total
Se
Hq
Zn
Te
Mn
Cu
Cd
Pb
Hi
Cr
Be
P
N0i
N
ppm
%
He an
0.01
0.10
10.76
119.0J
20.20
6.50
0.25
3.16
5.09
0.23
0.01
2.10
14.73
0.15
Minimum
0.01
0.01
0.07
0.10
0.04
0.22
0.22
0.05
0.12
0.05
0.00
0.30
4.30
0.01
Maximum
0.01
0.67
312.00
1760.00
101.00
21.50
2.47
10.70
03.00
1.50
0.03
12.50
60.30
0.91
Observations
196
197
229
22 9
229
229
229
229
229
229
229
191
63
62
-------
shallow, ranging from 3 to 9 m (10 to 30 ft). Peat deposits
are found in depressions in the glacial deposits. They are
characterized by accumulations of organic matter in various
stages of decomposition, frequently interbedded with
compacted sandy materials. Upland mineral soils are
generally organic-rich and are typically underlain by
glacially-derived soils at depths of 76 to 114 cm (30 to 45
in) (ERT 1985d).
From the agronomic point of view, the soils of the
project area are composed of numerous series* that represent
both organic and mineral profiles (Soil Conservation Service
1980). The relationship between soils and vegetation for
the project area is shown on Table 4-2. General profile
characteristics of soil units are listed in Table 4-3.
Upland soils include the Talkeetna series which
consists of several sandy loam variants. The soils are
loessal and volcanic in origin and overlie glacial till.
Other mineral soils are associated with alluvium along
streams and primarily include the Killey-Moose River
complex, although Cryaquents and Histosols were also mapped
on alluvial floodplains and sandbars (Table 4-2) (ERT
1984d).
Poorly drained organic soils dominate much of the
project area. Starichkof taxadjunct and Chichantna soils
are associated with decomposed peat and muskeg (Table 4-3).
Starichkof peats are similar to the Starichkof-Chichantna
soils, comprised of peat with thin layers of volcanic ash,
but occur primarily near the coast. Jacobsen mucky fine
sand occurs on muskeg perimeters and poorly drained swales.
Thus, this series is closely associated with the Starichkof
organic soils prominent in bogs and the wetter areas of
muskeg.
4.3.2 Vegetation
4.3.2.1 Plant Communities
The vegetation of the project area is broadly
characterized as closed spruce-hardwood forest (Viereck and
Little 1972) and as bottomland spruce-poplar forest, high
brush, and wet tundra (Joint Federal State Land Use Planning
Commission for Alaska 197 3). A complex of forest, woodland,
and shrub communities has been identified within these
broader life-form types by an interagency vegetation
inventory (U.S. Forest Service - U.S. Soil Conservation
Service 1982) and by a baseline investigation specific to
the proposed Diamond Chuitna mine lease and transportation
corridor (ERT 1984g).
Table 4-2 lists the major vegetation units for the
project area. Forests are formed by both open (25 to 75
percent tree cover) and closed (more than 75 percent tree
4-7
-------
Ma jnr VeaetationJjnitg1
iauxp t ..
MAJOR VEGETATION UNITS AND COMMUNITY TYPES AND ASSOCIATED SOIL
OF THE DIAMGND-CHUITNA PROXCT AREA
Betula papyrifera/Qplopanax horridua/
Cyatopteri8 app.
Papec birch/dev il13 cliii/blsdder- fern
' > i _
F great
CToied Paper Birch Broadleaf
Forest
Qaen Baisam Poplar Broadlaaf
Forest
Open Mixed Birch-Spru:e Forest
^TSpr^rch Woodland
^edleleaf Black Sprire
Vtoodland
2$Sgn.ll «1« *"*
Own !>11 «'ll°"
fapec —
Populus balaamifera/Alnua tenuifolia-
Viburnum edule/Calamaqrostis canadensis-
" on _
V ¦
PolypodUW 3P
1 - ——t rVlfll sr/1
alder-Higrtiuah
— nA 1 v/rv
BaX«rp5pif-»w
canadensis
Paper birch-white spruce/Sitka alder-tall
blueberry wiHoK/bluajoint reedgraas
Plcea mariana/Vaccinium uliqinosunt-Empetrum
nigruny/Rubua pedatua-Equisetum arvenae
Black apruce/bog bluBberry-black crovfcerry/
five-leaf branble- field horsetail
Alnua tenuifolia-A. ainuata/Calamaqroatis
canadensla-Polypodium sp.
Thinleaf aider-Sitka alder/bluejoint
reedgraaa-polypody fern
Salix nova-anqlia»-S. planifolia/Calama-
qroatia canadenais-Rubus arcticua
Tall blueberry willow-diamondleaf willow/
bluejoint reedgrasa-nangoonberry
-n i laoche
Diuejuj.iii. „ — j
Cfcen low Sweetgale Shrdb Scrub/ Myrica qala/Carex aquatilis-Eleocharis
Grass Fen palustris
SweotgaTeTwater sedge-spike rush
+ QX BHiasi*. w»»
anquatifoliuro-Equisetun) ar venae
Bluejoint readgrasa-willow weed-field
¦ |
v*>J-—.
horse tail
Herbaceous
He sic Gr amino id Bliejoint
Herbaceous
Source: ERT 190Ag.
Kitnala (Typic Cryorthoda)\
Spenard (Sideric Cryaquads)2
3acobsen (Histic Cryaquepts)
Matnala (Typic Cryorthods)2
Talkeetna (Humic CryorthodS;
Spenard (Sideric Cryaquads)i
3acobsen (Histic Cryaquapts)
Starichkof (Fluvaquantic
Borochemists)
Kliskon (Typic Cryaquoda)2
Talkeetna (Humic Cryorth&ds)
Kliskon (Typic Crgaquods)
Talkeetna (Humic Gryorttods)
Starichkof (Fluvaquentic
Borosaprists)
Mutnala (Typic Cryorthoda)2
Talkeetna (Humic Cryorttods)
Killey & Moose River (Typic
Cryaquents)
4-8
-------
TABLE 4-3
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MAJOR SOIL UNITS OF THE
DIAMOND CHUITNA PROJECT AREA
Soil Unit
Major Profile Characteristics
Drainaqe
PH
Talkeetna
Variant
Deep (to 1.5 m [60 in]) sandy
loams with volcanic ash over-
lying gravelly glacial till
on norainic uplands
Well
4.2-4.6
Killey Series
Silt loam in alluvial sedi-
ments overlying gravelly
substrata, 76-102 an (30-40 in)
Poor
Acidic
Moose River
Series
Stratified coarse alluvium over
sandy - gravelly substrata
(102 cm [40 in])
Poor
Acidic
jacobsen
Series
Deep (86 cm [34 in]) fine to
coarse sand over glacial till
mixed with volcanic ash; very
acidic
Poor
3.8-4.7
Chichantna
Series
Deep (66 cm [26 in]) peat w/
coarser peat volcanic ash
inclusions, interbedded coarse
sand at depth
Poor to
very poor
5.3-4.7
Starichkof
Taxadjunct
Moderately decomposed coarse
and fine peat with interbedded
volcanic ash
Very poor
5.1-3.9
Cryaquents-
Histosols
Ccmplex
Cryaquents-stratified sand,
sandy loams and silt loams over-
lying coarse sand and gravel
alluvium
Poor to
very poor
Histosols-deep peat, mucky peat
and muck with sane stratified
mineral inclusions
Very poor
Acidic
4-9
-------
ctands or a mixture of deciduous and
cover) deciduous stan,®' ientifiC names of dominant plant
coniferous species. ^ foliar cover percentage are
species as QIen broadleaf balsam poplar forests
listed in Table 4-2.) Open ^ channels. white
occur primarily on a trees or seedlings in the
spruce usually °c?^rScommUnity (ERT 1984g). A similarly
understory of this com by paper birCh on upland
structured community AS» white spruce is apparent in the
slopes and knolls. .Ag^^nced stage in the paper birch to
understory. A more. a presented by a mixed white
spruce succession is birch woodland community.
spruce-black sP^f^S with upland knolls and slopes and is
This type is ass°cl1^ project area,
abundant throughout the proj
i.v.an 25 percent tree cover) are found
Woodlands (less uw imeter of fens and sphagnum bogs
near black spruce on tn p ^ mixture of white spruce and
on poorly drained soils. woodland community, but on
paper birch forms a disturbed (e.g., burned).
uplands and slo?es J^^iallY prominent north of the Chuitna
This community is especially v
River.
• , *. anrt willow stands are a conspicuous
Alder thickets and ^ ^ project area. Thinleaf
component of the vegetal shrub community on upland
and Sitka alders especially above 200 m (656 ft)
knolls and steep„ 'shrub community is formed by tall
blueberry' willov^and diamondleaf willow along the „ajor
stream courses of the area.
Low shrub-grass fen vegetation of sweetgale and sed
occurs as part of the muskeg-bog complex on poorly drai^SS
soils. This vegetation is scattered throughout the pro-i*"10^
area but is especially prominent south of the Chuitna Riv Ct
A bluejoint grassland community is associated with openi^"
in the white spruce-paper birch forest that has resui?^S
from logging and beetle kill of trees (ERT 1984g) . Th^
community is considered early successional and is rich -S
herbaceous flora (Table 4-2). Logging activity has b ln
especially prominent south of the Chuitna River, altho660
recent harvesting has also occurred north of the river
1984g). (ERT
4.3.2.2 Threatened and Endangered Plant Species
No threatened or endangered plant species are kn
to occur in the vicinity of the Diamond-Chuitna project a°Wn
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1984). Furthermore Cea
candidate threatened, endangered, or rare plant species
known to occur in this area (Murray 1980). ls
4-10
-------
4.3.2.3 Wetlands
It has been nationally recognized that wetland habitats
are a particularly valuable ecological resource and an
integral part of regional hydrological regimes. Because of
these special values and vulnerability to development
activity, wetlands were granted special regulatory status
via Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1977. The U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers has been delegated the
responsibility of regulating the discharge of dredged or
fill material into wetlands. Wetlands are treated as a
separate section in this report in order to emphasize their
special values. The regulatory definition of wetlands found
in 33 CFR 323.2 Para, c is as follows:
"those areas that are inundated or saturated by
surface or ground water at a frequency and
duration sufficient to support and that under
normal circumstances do support a prevalence
of vegetation typically adapted for life in
saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally
include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas."
Wetlands within the project area have been mapped as
part of the National Wetland Inventory Program (USFWS 1984).
More detailed maps of wetlands within the southern
transportation corridor, Granite Point port site, and
10-year mine permit area were developed by ERT (1984g).
Wetlands in the eastern/Ladd transportation corridor,
30-year permit area and the northern transportation corridor
were mapped by ERT (1986, 1987). They identified nine
wetland types (Table 4-4). The percentage of total surface
area covered by wetland communities within the study area
has not been precisely determined, but is probably in the
range of 2 0 to 3 0 percent. Of the nine wetland types
identified by ERT, open low shrub scrub/sweetgale grass fen
was the most common, especially south of the Chuitna River,
where it comprised nearly 50 percent of total wetlands.
Open mixed forest wetland occupied 30 percent in this area,
with seven other types comprising the remaining 2 0 percent.
North of the Chuitna River, open mixed forest wetland
appeared more common than open low shrub scrub/sweetgale
fen, although both clearly were more dominant than any other
wetland type.
Bogs composed of a complex of the above palustrine*
wetland types are common within the study area. Typically,
the wetter areas are characterized by various proportions of
emergent grasses and sedges and woody shrubs which grade
into forested wetland types at the edge of the muskeg areas.
Often open water areas are present near the center of the
wetland depressions. Estuarine salt marsh and mud flat
wetland types are not present within the study area but do
exist in the adjacent Trading Bay State Game Refuge.
4-11
-------
Table 4-4
WETLAND CHARACTERISTICS IN THE MINE LEASE AREA, SOUTHERN TRANSFORATION CORRIDOR, AND PORT AREA^
FWS
Symbol^
System
CI ass
Subclass2
Dominant Vegetation^
Water Regime
PF04/1
PF 04
PSS1
PSS1/EMS
PEMS
R3QWH
L10WH
L2AB4H
POWH
Palustr ine
Forested
Mixed needle-leaved
evergreen/broad-
leaved deciduous
Palustr ine
Forested
Naedl©- leaved
evergreen
Palustr ine
Scrii)/ Shrii)
Broad-leaved
dec id lous
Palustr ine
Scrii)/ ShrUJ
Broad-leaved
decidtous
Emergent
Narrow-leaved
Persistent
Palustr ine
Emergent
Narrow-leaved
Persistent
Riverine
U|pper perennial
Open water
Lacustrine
Limnetic
fyen water
Lacustrine
Littoral
Aquatic Bed
Floating-leaved
Palustr ine
C^en water
Open Mixed Forest/Spruce
Birch;Mixed Woodland/Spruce
saturated to aemi-permanently
flooded
Birch
Needle-leaf Wood land/Black saturated to semi-permanent!
Spruce
flooded
(fcen Tall Shrtij Scrub/Willow; saturated to 3emi-perman«n»-i
Closed Tall Shrub Scriij/Alder flooded y
Open Low Shrit Scrib/Sweet- saturated to semi-permana^n
gale-Grass Fen flooded nciy
MBsic Graninoid Herbaceous/ saturated to semi-perman«
R1 ioininf_Horh flooded n
Bluejoint-Herb
Utricularia spp., Sphagnum
spp., Nuphar app., Nymphaea
spp., Pocamaqeton spp.
Utricularia spp., Sphagnum
spp., Nuphar app., Nymphaea
spp., Potamaqeton app.
permanent
permanent
permanent
permanent
1Symbols conform to those used in National Wetlands Inventory (U.S. Fish and Wildlife s»—
2Coverdin et al. 1979 ryice 1981
'Adapted from ERT 1984g
4-12
-------
Based on federal regulations (40 CFR 230) and
scientific analysis, wetland values in the project area are
viewed in four broad categories. The following is a
discussion for each of the value categories in order to
provide a basis for assessing the wetland impacts that could
result from the proposed activities.
Food Chain Production
Some kinds of wetland communities are known to produce
large quantities of plant matter compared to other
biological systems (Darnell et al. 1976). However, the
isolated palustrine wetlands characteristic of the study
area cannot be considered highly productive and probably
have a lower net primary productivity* than the adjoining
upland forests (Good et al. 1978). Nevertheless, these
wetlands contribute substantially to the net production of
organic matter that supports other ecosystem components.
The plant matter produced enters the food web in a number of
ways. Some animals such as insects and other invertebrates,
bears, moose, and waterfowl feed directly on the vegetation.
A portion of the vegetation, especially in the emergent
sedge/grass communities, dies and becomes part of a
decomposing mass which is consumed by bacteria and fungi
which in turn is fed upon by invertebrates. Cones produced
by the black spruce communities at the edges of the bogs
provide a specific food source for red squirrels
fTamiasciurus hudsonicus) and some birds.
Habitat for Land and Aquatic Species
The wetland habitats within the study area provide
openings and habitat diversity within the predominantly
forested terrain and consequently enhance the value of the
area to key species such as moose (Alces alces) and black
bear (Ursus americanus). Ponds within the wetland
depressions contribute some limited habitat for waterfowl.
Sandhill cranes (Grus canadensis) as well as some shorebirds
and songbirds utilize the muskeg areas for nesting and
feeding.
Hvdroloav and Water Quality
Wetlands within the study area play an important role
in the storage of water and the recharge of shallow
groundwater aquifers (ERT 1984c) . Water held in the deep
organic material contributes to surface water flow in local
streams. This storage capacity tends to buffer surface
runoff and moderate stream flows. Enhanced winter stream
flows due to ground-water input and moderate peak flows are
important to successful fish production in the Chuitna River
and other drainages.
Marsh and muskeg wetlands can contribute to flow of
nutrients within freshwater and marine environments.
4-13
-------
occur during the process of decay
Chemical reactions underlying wetlands cause nutrients
within organic matte h us to be released into the
such as nitrogen a"?lnPah°/Pdistributes these nutrients to
water. surface a«anage tQ purlfy of
aquatic habitats.Wetland^^^^ coIopounds by accumulation
some trace elem
within the organic matter
por-reational^_Use
within the Diamond Chuitna
Recreational use o identai to area-wide activities
project area is low' andL i Coastal wetlands south of the
such as moose hunting. & Game Refuge receive some
project area in T*ad*"*te*s. The limited access and
use by waterf°"L^n of local residents precludes heavy
subsistence orientation
recreational use.
4 3.3 frJi T dlife
4.3.3.1 Birds
birds are of particular interest m the
Three groups of'bird shorebirds, and raptors.
ar-pa: watettuw-i,
project area:
v, important waterfowl breeding
», irrh it is flanked by imP'° ding Bay State Game
, Oration areas on t^^Vs^tUame Refuge) , ^
and migrat (Susitna Fla breeding and
Refuge) a"deathftseeaif contains relatively P^ a sffiall
proiect ar for ducks and g ^ area west Qf the
staging ha gahbUna Lake and qnificant habitat for
northeast of ^ong^t.^ provide signi and ^
Beluga ducks (ERT 1983). d qreenwinged teal, and
breeding waterfowl (mainly mal1 mouth of the Chuitna
roi9^Nccur in fair "airstrip. However,
pintails) mudflats east of 1^ icant compared to other
neither area ^ ^ ^
areas utilized by my
1986, 1987). rts moderate numbers Qf
... Tukallah Lake area P used during spring
* j-\ during the summer ozen longer than the Beluga
waterfowl during ^ remainS frozjf^i0ngscaup, shovelers,
migration Common wigeons, and mallards have
Flats aoldeneyes, ga1dw ' after breakup. The area
been observed feeding in ^ « resting and feeding durin,
is also used to * ^g7) ^
fall migration ^ importance to migrating
The plS?anCs used during^grltto^
SSSKSS ^ ^ -ed hnI upper portions of all trans-
The mine permit
-I A
-------
portation corridor options are seldom frequented by
trumpeter swans, but one active nest site was found in 19 8 3
adjacent to the Chuitna River crossing in the proposed
southern transportation corridor (Fig. 4-2). The lower
portion of the southern corridor falls within a broad band
of swan nesting habitat that stretches from the Beluga River
to Nikolai Creek, extending inland approximately 8 km (5 mi)
from Cook Inlet (Fig. 4-2). This area includes 50 percent
of the swan nesting sites within the Beluga Region (ERT
1984f). Surveys in 1986 revealed that better swan nesting
habitat and greater swan use occurs north of the Chuitna
River rather than along the river itself (ERT 1986).
Surveys in 1987 (ERT 1987) identified two swan nests
within 1 mile of the proposed northern/Ladd corridor. One
nest was located near the northern end of Tukallah Lake and
the other was near Threemile Creek (Fig. 4-2). Swans also
use the area north of the northern/Ladd corridor for molting
and during migration. Nesting does not appear to occur west
of Threemile Creek (ERT 1987).
With the exception of the portion of the southern
transportation corridor option just north of Granite Point,
the project area is not important for sandhill cranes (Grus
canadensis^. The area north of Granite Point may support
two or three breeding pairs (ERT 1984f). There have been
many sightings of cranes in Trading Bay State Game Refuge
where a breeding pair was reported in 1981 (DOWL 1981) .
Shorebirds
The project area itself is not important for migrating
or breeding shorebirds or other waterbirds, but is bordered
by important migration areas. The mudflats between Granite
Point and Nikolai Creek, just west of the proposed Granite
Point port area, are very important for migrating shorebirds
(ERT 1984f). Migrating shorebirds are common at the mouth
of the Chuitna River and on the mudflats east of the Beluga
airstrip (ERT 1986); they are uncommon at the proposed Ladd
portsite (ERT 1987).
Raptors
The most common raptor in the project area is the bald
eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). Eagles are found along
the coast and the Chuitna River as far upstream as Chuit
Creek during the spring, summer, and fall. They are less
common along the major tributaries of the Chuitna in the
mine permit area, but are regularly seen there feeding on
dead salmon during the July through October spawning period
(ERT 1984 f).
4-15
-------
Denslow Lake
Tyonek Native
Corporation
Congahbuna
Lake
B'
elug*
•~I
Chugach Electric
Beluga Power Station
Beluga ./
Airstrip/V
.r#v>
; :TT./>
v.
v /«V» %'
&>
X-
RIVER
Creek
>
Viapar
Lake,
Ladd
Tyonek
As.
4/
Trading Bay Refuge
LEGEND
o Bald Eagle Nest Sites
* Trumpeter Swan Nest Sites
SOURCE: ERT 1984, 1986
North Foreland Q
Granite Point
BALD EAGLE AND
TRUMPETER SWAN NEST SITES
Diamond Chuitna Environmental
Impact Statement
FIGURE 4- 2
-------
Within the study area, 16 bald eagle nests have been
located on or near three major waterways (Fig. 4-2). Seven
nests are located on the Beluga River (only four of which
are within the area depicted in Fig. 4-2) , seven on the
Chuitna River, four are on or near Nikolai Creek, and one is
on the east side of Tukallah Lake. Only two nests, one on
the north side of the Chuitna River near the proposed
southern transportation corridor crossing and the second on
the east side of Tukallah Lake, are located within the
project area itself (Fig. 4-2) (ERT 1984f; Dalton 1987) .
Passerines
Songbird habitat in the project area (including the
transportation corridors and proposed port site) is typical
of that found throughout southcentral Alaska. Common
species include Swainson's thrush, alder flycatcher,
ruby-crowned kinglet, orange crowned warbler, yellow-rumped
warbler, blackpoll warbler, and dark-eyed junco. Most of
these species nest in the area, particularly in spruce/birch
forest and wet meadow habitats.
4.3.3.2 Mammals
Four species of mammals are of particular concern in the
project area because of their economic, ecological, or
cultural importance: moose (Alces alces), brown bear (Ursus
arctos), black bear (Ursus americanus), and beaver (Castor
canadensis).
Moose
Moose are common throughout the study area in spring,
summer, and fall. Most calving takes place between the
middle of May and the middle of June in the lowland bog and
open, mixed spruce/hardwood communities below 152 m (500
ft). A majority of cows with calves remains in the area all
summer because of the abundant vegetation. During that
period, a sizable portion of the population, primarily bulls
and cows without calves, follows the receding snowline to
the open upland shrub/tundra communities above timberline
(above 381 m [1,250 ft]). These animals remain there until
forced down to lower elevations near the coast and along the
main stem of the Chuitna River by deep snow in November and
December (ERT 1984f) .
During the breeding season (the rut') which occurs in
October and November, relatively large numbers of moose
concentrate in rutting areas at the higher elevations in the
project area. One such rutting area is located south of
Lone Ridge in the vicinity of Denslow Lake and the northern
portion of the permit area (Fig. 4-3) (Faro 1985a). Moose
in these rutting areas gather in small groups which stay in
the area throughout the breeding season. Detailed habitat
characteristics of moose rutting areas are not fully
understood or defined in current scientific literature.
4-17
-------
Felt Lak
Susitna Flats
Wildlife Refuge
Mlnin^Limit
HI
ienslow Lake
Congahbuna
Lake
Trading Bay
SjU Refuge
Chugach
Beluga Powet/Stati
Beluga
Airstrip
Creek
Lease Area
Tyonek Native
9^^TNa ~ RIVER
Corporation
Viapa
Lake
Ladd
Tyonek
North Foreland q
o
Granite Point
0 1 2 3
Miles
SOURCE: Faro 1984
LEGEND
Rutting Concentrations
Wintering Areas
MOOSE RUTTING CONCENTRATIONS (OCT/83)
AND WINTERING AREAS (FEB.'84)
Diamond Chuitna Environmental Impact Statement
FIGURE 4-3
4-18
-------
However, the moose monitoring study which will be conducted
by ADF&G according to the ASMCRA permit will provide greater
understanding of the attributes of moose breeding habitat.
ADF&G will conduct a three year telemetry study two years
prior to mine construction. This study will be supplemented
with aerial population surveys and fall trend counts that
ADF&G believes will be sufficient to answer questions about
the Lone Ridge moose rutting area.
In late winter, moose concentrate in the lowland flats
on the south side of the Beluga River for a distance of
approximately 16 km (10 mi) upriver from the mouth (Fig.
4-3). Moderate numbers of moose appear to inhabit a 3.2 to
6.4 km (2 to 4 mi) wide band stretching south from the mouth
of the Beluga River along the coast of Cook Inlet to the
vicinity of the Nikolai Creek escarpment and Congahbuna Lake.
Small numbers of scattered moose range upstream to above
the confluence of Chuit Creek in the riparian* willow
habitats along the main stem of the Chuitna River. Small
numbers are also found along most of Lone Creek and in the
lower 3.2 to 4.8 km (2 to 3 mi) of Stream 2 003 . There
appears to be little late winter use of the mine permit area
by moose (ERT 1984f).
Moose wintering in the vicinity of Granite Point appear
to spend a major portion of other seasons within the project
area, including the mine permit area (Faro 1985a). A winter
moose census within the study area in February 1984
estimated a population of 792 moose within the 1,343 km2
(518.5 mi2) area between the Beluga River and Nikolai Creek,
or approximately 0.6 moose per km2 (1.5 moose per mi2)
within the study area (Faro 1985a).
Brown Bear
Brown bears may be found throughout the study area
during the spring, summer, and fall. They are likely to be
found in any vegetative cover type, but generally prefer
open habitats and are most common in the upland shrub and
tundra communities. Brown bears are not as common in the
lowlands adjacent to Cook Inlet as are black bears (ERT
1984 f).
Food availability significantly influences brown bear
distribution in the study area. Emerging grasses and
herbaceous plants are critical to bears during the late
spring period after leaving their dens and during early
summer. From late July until as late as October, the
availability of spawning salmon draws bears to the streams,
often over long distances. The main stem of the Chuitna
River within the project area is used very little by bears.
The three major tributaries in or adjacent to the mine
permit area (Lone Creek and streams 2003 and 2004), however,
show substantial use by bears feeding upon salmon (ERT
1984f). In general, brown bears tend to predominate in the
4-19
-------
+-•^7-1^ of these creeks while in the
more open
ifSi »«To»n. However bcthespec,es6£d.spepsed
J fh areas. Seasonally/, bear the three creeks
areas identified (ERT
with no particular
1984f)* • e become available and may
st-r?hfSSr*£
"OP,.ndRiP^nrrupCpaH- of salmon (Erickson l9„, .
access! October or November
Brown bears. enter their den^ Dens ^usually
j ¦_« noon the ons bears remain there until
^pending upo elevations andJ®e t n is available on
}°C,l tirll or May. No specific in estimate exist
ia« sitedistribution nor population in the study area.
size of the br°wn bear P P ars tQ be typlcai for
etatively undfst^Sed'coasSal aPreas in southoentral Alaska.
rt ar*k Rear
* throughout the study area at
Black bears may be found tQ prefer open, mixed
z timl of year, but they elevations between Cook
They af co-o-ly seen alor* streams
around bo,s - «» •*»«
appear to spend
generally eat
anVea- di-rtity
^ S hearf teed on the emerging ^e^lu£f on the north
black seeps at the ba® o£ the chuitna River
3 Me of the canyon on the ®ain ^ signi£iCant predators
»S«). A1f' iatfsprlng (Miller and McAllister 198a).
on moose calves sumIner and fall black bear
Ma-inr factors affecV3T?rf> and distribution of berries
• «- Nation are the abun?a£?® salmon spawning takes place
did salmon. Since «udi of the ranges, black bears in
and saim n_vations within tne" _horter distances to the
?Ll0study area ProbablJia ^EOT 1984f>• Black bears are
^ than do brown bears { fall than are brown bears;
mixed"spruce/hardwood^ forests^ population ln the study area,
III If i^pro^bly relatively high.
4-20
-------
Beaver
Beaver are widely distributed in the study area, from
lowlands near Cook Inlet to the upland tundra/shrub
communities at 503 m (1,650 ft) on top of Lone Ridge. They
are most common along the major tributaries of the Chuitna
River that have a low gradient (Lone Creek and streams 2 003
and 2004) and in sloughs and backwater areas along the main
stem of the Chuitna (Fig. 4-4) . Beaver dams are a very
important influence on the distribution of spawning and
rearing salmon in the Chuitna River tributaries of the
project area (ERT 1984f).
Beaver cache* counts show that Lone Creek has the
highest number (0.70) of caches per km (1.13 per mi) of the
tributary streams within the project area, followed by
Stream 2004 with .49/km (.79/mi) and Stream 2003 with .26/km
(.43/mi). The Lone Creek and Stream 2003 drainages also
have several active lake colonies (ERT 1984f).
Two beaver colonies are located on Old Tyonek Creek
within or immediately adjacent to the southern
transportation corridor option and two more colonies exist
on the large lake 1.6 km (1.0 mi) southeast of Congahbuna
Lake. There are no known colonies on Tyonek Creek within
the southern corridor nor in the Granite Point port area.
Ten active beaver colonies occur just north of the Chuitna
River (ERT 1986) .
Beaver are common in the northern/Ladd corridor area
although no beaver colonies were located within 1.6 km
(1.0 mi) of the proposed Ladd port site. Nine active beaver
colonies occur within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of the North Road, one
of which is on Threemile Creek downstream from the proposed
road crossing. The other eight colonies are on small lakes
(ERT 1987).
4.3.3.3 Threatened and Endangered Species
Use of the study area by threatened or endangered
wildlife has not been documented. The only endangered
species which may be found in the area is a subspecies of
the peregrine falcon fFalco perearinus anatum). The project
area is at the extreme southern end of the range of this
species and no suitable habitat nor any individuals have
been located by surveys (ERT 1984f).
4.3.4 Habitat Value and Sensitivity
A habitat mapping and evaluation study was conducted
specifically for this EIS to provide a basis for comparing
habitat impacts from project alternatives as well as
comparing pre- and postproject habitat values. Specific
evaluation species were selected that have high public
interest or serve as indicator species for habitats having
4-21
-------
LEASE AREA
BOUNDERY
KEY
BEAVER COLONY
SCALE IN MILES
1/2 1
SOURCE: ERT 1984 f
MINING LIMIT
£
j 3
IS
'u>
/
NORTHERN
CONVEYOR
MINE
SERVICE
AREA
*lVi
SOUTHERN
CONVEYOR
*
Ul I
UJ
s 1
o
HAUL ROAD
EASTERN
CONVEYOR
tP
A
V*
LONt
CREEK
HOUSING
AREA
UJ'
z
o I
HAUL ROAD
MINE AREA BEAVER COLONIES (OCTOBER 1983)
Diamond Chuitna Environmental Impact Statement
FIGURE 4-4
4-22
-------
significant ecological value. Evaluation species were
moose, brown bear, black bear, trumpeter swan, and sandhill
crane. Methods and results of the analysis are summarized
below and presented in detail in Appendix A.
The habitat value categories used in the analysis
(Appendix A, Table 1) roughly correspond with categories in
the USFWS Mitigation Policy (FR Vol. 46 No. 15, 23 Jan.
1981). In general, none of the habitats in the project area
would be considered to have "very high" value (unique and
irreplaceable) relative to the key species. However, some
habitats with values in the "high" range are present.
Mapping of moose spring/summer/fall range (Appendix A,
Fig. 7) indicates that the mixed woodland/muskeg terrain
that covers the area is predominately medium quality with
scattered areas of high quality shrub habitat in some
riparian and adjoining zones, especially in the vicinity of
Old Tyonek Creek. Moose winter habitat (Appendix A, Fig. 9)
is limited by snowfall to the southwest portion of the study
area at elevations less than 152 m (500 ft) . Within this
lower elevation area, winter habitat value is primarily
medium with some scattered high quality areas interspersed.
It should be noted that the Appendix A habitat evaluation is
based on habitat characteristics rather than actual animal
distribution. Moose studies have indicated that winter
concentrations occur along the coast (Fig. 4-3) within
habitats rated from low to high value. Therefore, impact
analyses should consider both animal distribution and
modelled habitat value when assessing impact significance.
According to the models used in Appendix A, nearly all
of the study area provides high quality habitat for both
black and brown bears (Appendix A, Fig. 5). A few scattered
areas of medium quality brown bear habitat are also present.
Sandhill cranes represent a somewhat different
situation. Little information is available upon which to
base habitat ratings. The study area was divided into
suitable and unsuitable (not utilized) areas (Appendix A,
Fig. 1) . All suitable areas were considered to have high
value for cranes. Suitable areas are scattered throughout
the southwest portion of the study area within selected
wetlands at elevations below 152 m (500 ft).
Trumpeter swan nesting habitat is limited to lakes.
Lakes within the study area are rated as high, medium, or
low value swan habitat (Appendix A, Fig. 3) . High quality
lakes are primarily north of the Chuitna River at lower
elevations.
From the standpoint of sensitivity to impacts from
development, high quality habitats that exist in limited
quantity would generally be considered most vulnerable since
disturbance of a relatively small area could affect a
4-23
-------
On this
* vhp available habitat. wn
_ *<;,l percentage of the av winter range
substantial P nest^ng0} the most sensitive habitat
basis, trumpeter considered the mos considered in
X5SS.» f-S ^ST»
lost if humans are pr
4.4 freshwater environment
4-4-1 ST2and=S»te£jli 3s ground-water hydrology of
Detailed i"t°™a^ °thebaseline study report (ERT
«- summari2es the re
1984C)• ine
that study. niamond Chuitna project permit
, water within the Dl . drogeoioqic units. These
Cround tegorized in seve:-fated Ground water within
are? "are distinct but ^"or Sctfined. starting with
^he units is ^^"^"furfaoe the units are descried as
those closest to tn
foll°ws; consists of the sands and
Recent Alluvium - t stream channels. _ The
gravels within usually have high permeability
lands ^^e'/is in an unconfined aquifer,
and ground water
of unconsolidated surficial
overburden - Cons,ls1lf glacial tills, drift and
deposits co®P°S®oPer part of the Tyonek Formation
outwash and the uppe Pidated clays and sandy
composed of seml~^ltv sands and coal stringers,
silts with some silty ^ separated from the
?he Tyonek an erosional unconformity .
surficial deposits overburden is unconfined
Ground water wl^fining conditions ^hxn the
^ToSioTr tS si- and clay beds.
B- -\s"th^ the°aareaSdu:
discontinuous it ig confined.
Ground water m tm
Red 3 Seam - A ^t^the permit area due to
discontinuous throug ^ saturated with water and
fxfs«indeTr confined conditions.
Minable coal seam which underlies
Red 2 Seam - JKina & ^ areag wl?ere removed
most of the fwa?er in the unit is confined.
by erosion. Grounu
jv minable coal seam which is
Red 1 Seam the permit area. The layer
continuous Jjhroughou under confined conditions,
is saturated and ex
4-24
-------
Sub Red 1 Sand - A thick sandstone unit which is
overlain by the Red 1 Underclay. The unit is
continuous throughout the permit area and is
saturated under confined conditions.
The interburden layers between the coal seams and the
Sub Red 1 Sand generally act as confining tiers, or
aquitards, between the hydrogeologic units. The confining
properties of the layers are variable due to sandy zones
within the units and hydraulic connections between the coal
seams resulting from erosion. The Red 1 Underclay appears
to be more homogeneous than other interburden units, forming
an effective continuous aquitard over the Sub Red 1 Sand.
The interburden units themselves are not considered aquifers
or hydrogeologic units of interest because of their low
transmissive properties (relative to the coal seams or
overburden); however, localized areas within the interburden
may be more permeable than the adjoining coal seams.
Transmissivity, i.e., the rate at which water flows
through an aquifer, and the thickness of each hydrogeologic
unit are listed on Table 4-5. The hydrogeologic units have
variable transmissivities due to differences in the physical
characteristics of the rocks or the amount of fracturing
within the unit.
Hydraulic characteristics of the overburden and the
alluvial deposits are highly variable and nonhomogeneous due
to the variability of materials within these units, (i.e.
gravels, sands, silts, and clays) and complexity of the
depositional environments. The overburden is recharged
primarily by direct precipitation and stores significant
quantities of water due to its thickness and porosity.
Ground water in the overburden aquifer discharges to
streams, providing approximately 89 percent of the estimated
baseflow, and to stratigraphically lower aquifers, including
the coal seams.
The Red 3 Seam, Red 2 Seam, and Red 1 Seam are all
considered to be low permeability aquifers. The
ground-water storage capacity and permeability on the coal
seams are controlled by the fracture patterns (secondary
porosity) of each unit. Thus, in general, the amount of
water that can freely drain is probably small compared to
the overburden. Recharge to the coal units occurs by direct
precipitation where the units are exposed by erosion, by
contact with saturated overburden aquifers, and by leakage
through the interburden units. The coal seam aquifers and
other water bearing units in the Tyonek Formation provide
approximately 11 percent of estimated baseflow to streams.
The Sub Red 1 Sand aquifer underlies the entire permit
area and lies below the coal seams. This aquifer is
confined by the overlying Red 1 Underclay and appears to be
hydraulically separated from the overlying Tyonek and
4-25
-------
. w nermit area. This aquifer does
TorconSbu?f?oWstriL base'flow in the permit area.
controlled by both the local
Ground-water flow isstructural geology. The
topography and by the r 9 ^ surface-water collection
irregular topography rqe* into the underlying alluvium
and tor ground-water recharge in^ discharge t0 th strean
or overburden unit. Grou el has cut below the local
channels occurs where; the ceS> Folding in the Tyonek
ground-water Piez°me7fAr the erosional unconformity at its
Formation combined witn formation of several discharge
surface has resulted in folding or erosional breaks
and recharge bouKnda*ie®/t^ the surface or the overburden
permit water exchange wit flow in the surficial
unit (ERT 1984c) . Gro lluvial units is predominantly
overburden unit and recen lower elevations m the stream
from higher elevati°"!ter is discharged. Ground-water flow
In'the3 rSffg^Sydrogaologic units is predominantly fro,
west to east.
Tvonek Formation (Chuit Fault in
Faulting within permit area and the South Pit
the northwest part ot f the permit area) act as
Fault in the sou^h^"rP flow; however, evidence suggests
barriers to ground-water rio^ barriers (ERT 1984c)
that leakage occurs^acr^^ of these fault barriers
(Figure 2-4). recharge area and extent of the
essentially l1®1* Reservoir within the Tyonek Formation
ground-water storage re t£. will not have an impact on
(coal seam aquifers .in dated glacial deposits in the
the alluvial and u™on its continuously overly the
overburden ^e«"steed Formation.
faulted consolidatea iy
the qround-water barriers may
During Pifc ^ater %'t dewatering the coal units by
increase the effj-j;1®" potential reservoir in each coal
limiting the extent of t £ from the coal seams exceeds
seam aquifer. Thus, i* * und water stored m these
natural recharge, th-
4-26
-------
quality (Table 4-11) . The Sub Red 1 Sand is the only
aquifer which contains ground water below recommended
drinking water standards due to excessive dissolved solids.
The removal of portions of the South Pit Fault during mining
would allow ground water from the Sub Red 1 Sand to enter
the pit.
The quantity of water entering the pit from the Sub Red
1 Sand would be significantly diluted by water entering the
pit from the overburden and coal unit aquifers overlying the
Sub Red 1 Sand. The dilution effect would be expected to
maintain water quality in the pit discharge water above
drinking water standards. This conclusion was arrived at by
assuming that the transmissivities in the Red l Coal, Red 2
Coal and the glacial deposits are represented by the lowest
values reported for these aquifers in Table 4-5, and that
the transmissivity of the Sub Red 1 Sand is represented by
the highest value as shown in Table 4-5. The specific
conductance of the ground water for each unit (ERT 1984c)
was used to evaluate the dissolved solids in each aquifer
contributing to the pit.
Table 4-5
AQUIFER CHARACTERISTICS
THICKNESS
HYDROGEOLOGIC TRANSMISSIVITY OF UNIT
UNIT (gpd/ft)3 m f ft)
Recent Alluvium
3,000
to
50, 000'
0- 12.2 (0- 40)
Overburden
155
to
250,000
0-152.5 (0-500)
Blue Coal
102
to
667
4.58(15)2
Red 3 Seam
96
to
624
4.58(15)2
Red 2 Seam
58
to
815
4.58(15)2
Red 1 Seam
29
to
300
4.58(15)2
Sub Red 1 Sand
86
to
1,850
9.15(30)
'Estimated.
'Average thickness.
'Reported in English units to correspond with
hydrological convention.
Source: EFT 1984c.
An understanding of the interrelationships between
ground water and surface water is critical in providing a
basis for impact assessment. Ground water contributes 34,
32, and 30 percent to the annual flows of Lone Creek, Stream
2003, and Stream 2004, respectively (ERT 1984c). At least
90 percent of this ground water is derived from the shallow
overburden aquifers; the deeper aquifers contribute little
4-27
-------
• area Muskegs are important
to streamflow within the * sto;age within the shallow
to ground-water ^ec^rgJater recharges rapidly causing flow
aquifers. The stored water ^e_ ultimately drained by
of water in surfa^e£°t£oms. These shallow systems on the
streams at the valley bottom ject area drainages provide
terraced stress (ERT 1984c) .
the maiority of base
4.4.2 cr-f^ce Wator Hydrology
hvdrologic impacts related to the
The area of Pos®^l headwaters of the Chuitna River on
project extends from_the ^ fche southeast and to
the northwest to Cook ^ t (Fig. 4-5). Upstream of
Threemile Creek the Chuitna River is joined by Chuit
the project bourvda y, number of smaller unnamed
creek, W°lverin®fLrfe streams will not be affected by the
tributaries. These
proposed development.
alonq the southwest side of the
The Chuitna River fl , cier_free area of about 388 km5
project area and drains distance of about 27 km (17 mi)
(150 mi2) over a total flo Ground elevations in the
from the northwest to soutJie oximately 549 m (1,800
basin range ffrOB,upstrean of the project area the
ft). A short .distance broad piedmont lowland that is
streams are incised m tle of poorly drained tundra
covered with a tn
vegetation.
¦ a. the terrain is relatively
North of the Chu^na lakes> Larger lakes
flat with numerous ponds LaRe and TukaUah Lake. The
include chuitbuna.La^f ' « v ^ poor; surface water runoff
surface drainage in thi south. Since the soils are
Is generally to the %££?££ ponds fill quickly during
^y^ai^TRWside Technology, Inc. 1986).
The surface water
proposed development in the mine area> Ty0nek Creek
tributaries inJ*® ind their tributaries, and Threemile
and Old Tyonek CreeK an estimated mean, minimum, and
creek. The drainage ®re affected streams are shown
maximum flows ofuth® p°Cge lakes and ponds are also present in
nVarea £££££ Congahbuna and Vicky lakes near the
proposed southern corridor.
annual nrecipitation in the basin during
The average .anilu.aqLa-_^3 has been estimated to be 122
the monitoring transpiration losses of 23 cm (9 inj .
cm (48 in) with evaP®"®"/ range from a minimum of -17 *c
Sean monthly tenparatures ran.3^ ^ ^ Ju^y_ ^
/ -1 50 f) in January to a depth in the area varied from
& 19", th%snow-courseadepth ^ ^ ^ ^
58 cm (23 in) ne on Lone Ridge, and 229 cm
on^Capps' Plateau.
4-28
-------
UPPER
MIDDLE
\
LOWER
CONGAHOUNA LK.
tyonek
VICKY
LEGEND
30 YEAR MINING LIMIT
NORTH FORELAND
SCALE IN MILES
GRANITE PT.
WATERBODIES OF THE DIAMOND CHUITNA MINE STUDY AREA
Diamond Chuitna Environmental Impact Statement
4-29
FIGURE 4-5
-------
Table 4-6
AFFECTED STREAMS
Estimated FIowa m/sec (cfa)
Stream
Location
Drainage Area
kn^ (mi^)
Instantaneous
Minim im
Ms an
Annual
Instantaneous
Maximun
1.
Chuitna River (Sta. C045)*
Southwest of mine area
183.81 ( 70.97)
0.75(26.61)
5.70(203.68)
118.72(4240.16)
2.
Chuitna River (Sta. C120)*
Near conveyor crossing
130.12( 88.85)
0.84(29.93)
7.79(278.28)
156.80(5600.13)
3.
Chuitna River (Sta. C230)*
Downstream of affected mine area
342.48(132.23)
1.77(63.36)
10.26(366.30)
189.82(6779.11)
4.
tone Creek (Sta. C220)*
Above confluence with Chuitna River
49.78( 19.22)
0.13( 4.73)
1.36( 48.40)
25.46( 908.80)
5.
Unnamed Tributary 2003
(Sta. C180)
Above confluence with Chuitna River,
3.22 km (2 mi) east of conveyor and
4.83 km (3 mi) south of mine area
39.81(.15.37)
0.02( 0.81)
0.71( 25.37)
12.65( 451.63)
6.
liinamed Tributary 2004
(Sta. C110)
Above conflience with Chuitna River, 46.0B( 17.79)
2.4 km (1.5 mi) southwest of mine area
0.09( 3.33)
0.99( 35.43)
36. 76(1312.70)
7.
Tyonek Creek
(a) At conveyor crossing
(b) At mouth of Cook Inlet
3.89( 1.5)
44.03( 17.0)
—
0.08( 3)**
0.95( 34)**
—
8.
Old Tyonek Creek
(a) At conveyor crossing
(b) At moi£h of Cook Inlet
2.30 ( 0.92)
60.87( 23.5)
—
0.05( 1.8)**
1.32( 47)**
—
9.
Uinamed tributary of
Old Tyonek Creek
(a) At conveyor crossing
(b) At mouth
5.44( 2.1)
8.81 ( 3.4)
—
0.12( 4.2)
0.19( 6.8)**
—
10.
Ihnamed Creek south of
Congahbina Lake
(a) At conveyor crossing
(b) At mouth of Cook Inlet
10.10( 3.9)
12.95 ( 5.0)
~
0.22( 7.8)**
0.20( 10)
—
* Based on observations from July, 1982 to August, 1983.
** Data not available. Estimated at 0.036 m'/sec (2 cfs) per square mile.
Source: ERT 1984a
-------
4.4.2.1 Seasonal Flow Characteristics of Affected
Streams
During the winter months (November through March)
below-freezing temperatures prevail in major portions of the
watersheds of the streams likely to be affected by the
project. Therefore, streamflows in these months are very
low with lowest flows occurring in March. The period April
through August is generally dry. During this time
streamflows are augmented by snowmelt and may vary from low
in August to moderately high during the peak of snowmelt in
late May and early June. The most significant rainfall in
the area occurs in September and October. During this
period, most of the streams experience high flows and
flooding conditions following storm events.
4.4.2.2 Origin of Water in Surface Streams
The sources of surface runoff transported by the
streams likely to be affected by the project include
rainfall, snowmelt, and ground water. Using the continuous
streamflow data for Station C04 5 and C2 3 0 on the Chuitna
River for the period August 1982 to August 1983, rough
estimates of the contributions of each source have been
made. These estimates are based on the assumption that
streamflows in September-October are contributed mainly fc>v
rainfall, those in November through March by base flows*
those in April-May by snowmelt, and those
June-July-August by snowmelt and rain. The resulting values
are shown in Table 4-7.
In the absence of detailed information on the hydrolo^-^
of Tyonek Creek, Old Tyonek Creek, Threemile Creek, and
other streams in the area, it is assumed that contribution
of rainfall, snowmelt, and ground water to the annual runoff
of these streams will be of the same order of magnitude as
shown in Table 4-7.
4.4.2.3 Runoff Characteristics of Affected Streams
In the Chuitna River drainage basin, surface soils have
slow to very slow infiltration rates and, therefore, hiah
runoff potential. The Soil Conservation Service Curv
Number (CN) for these soils is estimated to be 61 fQS
antecedent moisture condition* - II (AMC-II) and 78 fQr
AMC-III. AMC-II represents the average soil moistui-r
condition that precedes the annual flood; AMC-III represent^
saturated soil conditions caused by heavy rainfall or liah^
rainfall and low temperatures during the 5 days previous +•
the given storm. The minimum infiltration rate for AMC-xtt
conditions for these soils is estimated to be 0.2 cm/h
(0.08 in/hr). Estimated runoff factors for the Chuitnr
River basin at Station C23 0, downstream of the affected
area, are shown in Table 4-8. a
4-31
-------
Table 4-7
SOURCES OF SURFACE WATER IN CHUITNA RIVER BASIN
Station Source Approximate percentage of annual runoff*
1.
C045, Chuitna
Rainfall
26
to 40
River southwest
Baseflow
5
to 26
of mine area
Snowmelt
22
(Drainage area
183.81 km2
[70.97 mi2])
Snowmelt & rain
24
to 34
2.
C230, Chuitna
Rainfal1
25
to 42
River downstream
Baseflow
5
to 26
of affected area
Snowmelt
20
to 34
(Drainage area
342.48 km2
[132.23 mi2])
Snowmelt & rain
16
to 34
~Ranges are based on observed mean daily minimum flow and mean daily maximum
flows.
Source: ERT 1984e
Table 4-8
ESTIMATED RUNOFF FACTORS FOR CHUITNA RIVER BASIN
(Drainage area 342 km2 [132.23 mi2])
Storm Designation
Estimated Runoff Factor
Return Period
Duration
Depth
(years)
(hours)
(cm[in])
2
24
7.59(2.99)
0.32
5
24
9.45(3.72)
0.40
10
24
12.04(4.74)
0.48
25
24
13,72(5.40)
0.52
50
24
14.38(5.66)
0.54
100
24
15.09(5.94)
0.55
Source: ERT 1984e
4-32
-------
4.4.2.4 Flooding Characteristics
The USGS gauge on the Chuitna River was maintained from
1976 to 1986, at which time it was discontinued. Estimates
of the magnitude of the October 1986 flood on the Chuitna
have been made by the USGS (USGS 1987). The USGS estimated
that the October 1986 maximum instantaneous discharge on the
Chuitna occurred on October 10 and was greater than 10,000
cfs (283 cubic meters/second). This magnitude of discharae
was also estimated by the USGS to represent a flood with a
return period between 50 and 100 years. Because there are
only 11 years of published streamflow records for the
Chuitna, estimates of flood return periods are not hicrhlv
reliable. y xy
A frequency analysis of the 11 year data set vas
conducted (the results are not highly reliable). The flood
frequency analysis applied to the maximum annual
instantaneous discharge (maximum annual flood) indicated
that the maximum flood of Sept. 1976 (4300 cfs) represents
approximately the average annual flood or the flood with
2.33 year return period, the maximum flood of 1977 (67oo
cfs) represents approximately a 5 year return period, the
10 year flood was estimated to range between 7300 and'8000
cfs, and the 25 year flood ranging between 9000 and 10000
cfs. The flood frequency analysis also indicated that th
flood of October 1986 (greater than 10000 cfs) would
represent a return period of 50 years or more. The
results compare favorably with the estimated peak discharcrSS
for the chuitna River Station C230 (at the same location
the USGS gauge) developed using synthetic methods as showS
in Table 4-9. Wn
Because no other streamflow data exists form the stud
area, the synthetic data represent the best available desio^
information. The synthetic streamflows also appear
represent conservative flood values as compared to th°
results from the frequency analysis of the Chuitna Riv 6
data. er
4.4.2.5 Channel Characteristics
Channel characteristics were observed for streams nort-h
of the Chuitna River near the existing Ladd Road. These a
summarized on Table 4-10. Generally, the stream channels
10 to 2 0 ft (3 to 6.1 m) wide with 2 to 3 ft (0.6
0.9 m) vertical banks. They are well-developed, incised
V-shaped. Dense riparian vegetation and woodland compri^
overbank vegetation. In the Chuitna River basin, channel
appear to be dynamic and have potential for bank collapse a
migration due to extreme runoff events. For fi
events, less than bankfull, very little bank alterati°d
would likely occur since they are held together by a hea"
vegetative mat in most cases. Large streambed materials
low natural sediment content of the water minimi*^
4-33
-------
Table 4-9
ESTIMATED PEAK FLOWS AND RUNOFF VOLUMES FOR STURMS UF DIFFERENT RECURRENCE INTERVALS1
2-year
24-hour storm
5-year
24-hour storm
10-year
24-hour storm
2 5-ye ar
24-hour storm
50-year
24-hour storm
100-year
24-hour storm
Station
Dr i an age
Area
(sq miles)
Fteak
Flow
(cfs)
ftjnoff
Volune
(acre-ft)
Peak
Flow
(cfs)
Runoff
to lime
(acre-ft)
Peak
Flow
(cfs)
Runoff
Volune
(acre- ft)
Peak
Flow
(cfs)
Runoff
Volune
(ac re- ft)
Peak
Flow
(cfs)
ftjnoff
Volune
(ac re- ft)
Peak
Flow
(cfs)
ftjnoff
Volune
(acre-ft)
1.
Oiuitna River southwest
of nine area C045
70.97
3,838
3,792
5,693
5,792
8,452
8,864
10,284
10,951
11,032
11,812
11,812
12,715
2.
Oiuitna River near
conveyor crossing C120
88.85
3,966
4,711
5,918
7,175
8,859
10,977
10,854
13,584
11,642
14,624
12,525
15,795
3.
Oiuitna River dovnstream
of affected area C230
132.23
4,209
6,825
6,398
10,471
9,704
16,050
11,952
19,879
12,852
21,419
13,830
23,095
4.
Lone Creek above confluence
with Chuitna River C220
19.22
985
1,097
1,456
1,660
2,162
2,525
2,633
3,111
2,828
3,355
3,030
3,610
5.
Ihnaned Tributary 1, 2 miles
east of conveyor and 3
miles south of mine area
C180
i 15.37
988
888
1,438
1,340
2,113
2,040
2,556
2,511
2,737
2,7U6
2,925
2,909
6.
Lhnamed Tributary 2, 1.5
miles southwest of mine
area C110
14.79
1,126
855
1,619
1,290
2,347
1,964
2,822
2,417
3,016
2,604
3,215
2,800
7.
Lone Creek east of mine
area C200
7.15
562
429
808
647
1,167
981
1,403
1,207
1,498
1,298
1,599
1,396
8.
Tributary of Chuit Creek
west of mine area L020
2.37
218
142
308
214
440
325
526
400
561
430
597
463
9..
Tributary of Chuitna River
just south of mine area,
0.7 miles east of conveyor
C140
6.51
511
391
786
589
1,128
893
1,354
1,099
1,444
1,182
1,539
1,271
10.
Tributary of Chuitna River
south of mine area, 1.4
miles west of conveyor
9.42
780
566
1,115
852
1,603
1,292
1,925
1,590
2,053
1,710
2,190
1,839
CO 60
1 Reported in English units to correspond with hydrological convention.
Source: ERT 1984c
-------
Table 4-11
GROUND-WATER QUALITY
Characteristic
Spring
Aluvium
Over-
burden
Blue
Coal
Red 3
Coal
Red 2
Coal
Red 1
Coal
Sub Red
1 Sane
Conductivity,
micromhos/cm @ 25°C
44
180
250
280
400
590
580
910
Hardness, mg/L
as CaOD3
8.9
66
100
94
75
102
104
134
Dominant Cation
Ca/Na
Ca
Ca
Ca
Na
Na
fe
Daninant Anion
ieo3
IE03
HCO3
HCO3
HCO3
HCO3
ICO3
C03
Sulfate, mg/L
1.9
5.0
5.8
21.2
2.5
38.9
39.7
5.9
Iron, mg/L
<0.02
3.5
5.1
2.1
2.1
12.1
39.7
3.7
Manganese, mg/L
<0.005
0.19
0.39
0.29
0.08
0.16
0.72
0.15
Zinc, mg/L
0.045
0.24
0.23
0.41
0.22
2.24
2.51
3.39
Trace Elements (other
than Fe, Mn, & Zn)
Lew
Low
Lew
Lew
Lew
Lew
Law
to
Total Aromatic
Hydrocarbons
Lew
Lew
Lew
Lew
Lew
Lew
Lew
Lc*
Acid Extractables
Lew
Lew
Lew
Low
Low
Low
Law
Base/Neutral
Extractables
Lew
Lew
Lew
Lew
Low
Lew
Low
by
Note: Values are averages for each unit.
Iron, manganese, and zinc concentrations are total recoverable levels
Source: ERT 1984c.
4-37
-------
Felt Lake
Susitna Flats
Wildlife Refuge
9^
Chugach Elect-ric
Beluga Power Station
Mining
Limit
Beluga y
Airstrip
„ Creek
yiapa
i Lak
Tyonek Native
RIVER
Corporation
Ladd
Congahbuna
Lake
Trading Bay^
"j Retug*
!--/
Nikolai Ck.
Airstrip
Well Locations
Tyonek
North Foreland Q
o
4/
Granite Point
0 Stations sampled by Maurer and Toland (1984)
4ft TSS Data Reported by Cook inlet Region, Inc. and
Placer Amex, Inc. (1981)
IN MILES
WATER QUALITY SAMPLE STATIONS
Diamond Chuitna Environmental Impact Statement
FIGURE 4-6
4-38
-------
water displays neutral pH levels but low concentrations of
alkalinity indicate the streams are poorly buffered.
Mineralization is low as indicated by relatively low conduc-
tivity levels, ranging up to 12 0 micromhos per centimeter at
25°C (77 °F). The dilute surface waters are a calcium bicar-
bonate type, have low concentrations of nutrients, and only
a small amount of natural organic enrichment.
Breakup occurs in late April or early May. In May and
June, water temperatures exhibit a moderate increase
followed by a more rapid increase in late June and July.
The annual maximum water temperature occurs in late July or
early August and the maximum temperature recorded was 22.5°C
(72.50F) (Scully et al. 1981). Water temperatures decrease
throughout September and usually reach near the freezing
point by late October.
Total suspended solids concentrations have ranged up to
1570 mg/1 in the Chuitna River (Scully et al. 1981). Total
suspended solids concentrations and turbidity levels,
however, are consistently low over a wide range in
discharges on the smaller streams. In the Chuitna River, 86
percent of the suspended sediment is discharged during 10
percent of the time. Further, particle size analyses show
that 30 to 70 percent of the suspended sediment consisted of
sand particles and the rest was silt and clay (Scully et al.
1981) .
Although iron and manganese concentrations exceed their
respective drinking water criteria (EPA 197 6; ADEC 1982)
much of the time, concentrations of other trace elements are
low. These constituents include antimony, arsenic, barium,
beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, mercury,
selenium, silver, titanium, zinc, and uncomplexed cyanide.
Background concentrations of boron, nickel, and zinc are
low, but have been found to occasionally exceed standards
for aguatic life. Organically derived ammonia nitrogen is
also found to periodically exceed recognized standards.
Recoverable iron has ranged up to 6.1 mg/1 (Maurer and
Toland 1984), with most of the measurements exceeding 1.0
mg/1—the level critical for the preservation of freshwater
aquatic life (EPA 1976).
Radioactivity levels determined as gross alpha and
gross beta on all samples were below the drinking water
limits (EPA 1976).
Volatile organics, acid extractables, and base/neutral
extractables were consistently less than their respective
detection limits. This information indicates that there is
no evidence of herbicides, pesticides, and other organic
chemical contamination in these streams.
Limited water quality data exist for Threemile, Tyonek,
and Old Tyonek Creeks. Four total suspended solids
4-39
-------
m d Tyonek creek ranged from 2.1 to 19-0
measurements in Old iy" relatively low sediment load
mg/l (DOWL 1981), inai|®^4io Survey data (USGS l98V- "?GS
in this creek. indicate all three creeks display
l983; Still et al. :1984) levels. Hence, mineralization
relatively low co?dn?^ture ranges from 0 to at least 20»C
Is low. Water are nod tel hi h
(32° to 68°F) / e typically neutral. Bicarbonate
to high, and pH va£j*®. aJe relatively low which means
alkalinity ^ncer^ra^u.on ac^ty in these creeks. Color
levels^in Tyonek and old Tyonek creeks are high.
4.4.4 BioloSY
4.4.4.1 Aquatic Ecology
_olativelv distinct freshwater habitat
There are four ^el the chuitna River, the three
types in the P*°^ec* itna* Threemile Creek, and numerous
tributaries to the ^hU1(lTa 4-5) • Most of these habitats
ponds and small lakes, k v porting a diverse array of
are relatively productiv , (algae and invertebrates).
primary and seoond?^nP available since the last ice age.
Where access has been ^ of these waters. where
acSesf isfcurrently possible, anadromous* fish dominate the
aquatic communities.
i e. m-n the Chuitna River meanders
For its lower W to (6 pU,n that extends
over the relativeiy "a nats_ At a point about 1 km
northward past the J3us mouth of Lone Creek, the river
(0.6 mi) downstream or ^ the sinuosity is somewhat
leaves a steep-walled stream is characterized by long
reduced. . 0ver • rsed with scattered deep pools. The
riffle sections mtersper the pro]ect area is
entire mainstem throug f.gh and ig alsQ utli12ed by
accessible to adult ana<^L 1984a). Substrate ranges from
juveniles for rearH^e { and boulder with bedrock outcrops,
coarse sand to c°bb seams. Water is typically clear
often in the for* of co stained with organics. Benthic
(non-glacial) and JjHfnced by standing crop, tended to be
productivity, as eY^e"° tributaries. Mean annual fiow
less than in the ®in t 10.26 m'/sec (203 .68 to 366.30
^e?thea^*recorded extreme range of flow of 2.41 to 112.00
torT,°0r0d0 Cfs)
-------
these streams can be characterized as clear-water streams
with moderate to high organic staining, stable channels and
flows, good benthic productivity, and good to excellent fish
habitat. The benthic community is dominated by immature
stages of chironomids (mosquitoes and midges), simuliids
(black flies), mayflies, caddis flies, and stoneflies with
species dominance shifting with time during the open water
season (ERT 1984a).
The mine area contains numerous small ponds and lakes
in various stages of eutrophication. Most are being
encroached upon by vegetative growth that will eventually
turn them into boggy muskeg. Only a few of these lakes have
been shown to support fish, primarily because of limited
access or limited spawning or overwintering areas. Benthos
and zooplankton densities and diversities measured in these
lakes appeared low (ERT 1984a); however, sampling in July
likely missed periods of peak abundance.
4.4.4.2 Fish
Freshwater habitats in the project area support
abundant resident and anadromous fish populations that have
significant subsistence, commercial, and sport value (see
also Sections 4.5.3, 4.8, and 4.10.1). The distribution of
fish and spawning and rearing habitat within the study area
are shown in Figures 4-7 and 4-8.
At present, resident species are not significantly
exploited in project area streams. Limited numbers of both
resident rainbow trout fSalmo crairdneri^ and anadromous
Dolly Varden char (Salvelinus malma) are taken as incidental
catch in the salmon sport fishery in the lower Chuitna
(ADF&G 1983, 1984). Possibly the most important resident
species is the rainbow trout. The mainstem of the Chuitna
River, particularly upstream of Stream 2004, contains a
population of modest-sized (e.g., to 1 kg [2.2 lb]) rainbows
that would be capable of supporting a limited, but
high-quality, sport fishery (Dames & Moore 1980). Limited
access and availability of other fishing opportunities have
prevented development of such a fishery to date. Juvenile
rainbow trout, and perhaps smaller adults, are widely
scattered but not abundant in the tributary streams draining
the mine area (ERT 1984a, 1985c).
Dolly Varden are the most widespread of the salmonids
found in the study area, occurring in both resident and
anadromous forms. In 1983, in excess of 3,000 anadromous
Dolly Varden were counted entering the system (Table 4-11;
ERT 1984c). Juveniles were taken at virtually every stream
location sampled that had any fish, including the uppermost
reaches of tributaries to Lone Creek and streams 2 003 and
2004 (ERT 1984a, Dames & Moore 1980).
Other resident fish that have been taken in the Chuitna
system include Pacific lamprey (Lampetra tridentatus)
4-41
-------
LEGEND
a CHINOOK
• COHO
o RAINBOW
~ DOLLY VARDEN
— MINING LIMIT
~
04
Chuftn
North
Foreland
SOURCE: ERT 1984a. b
UPPERMOST EXTENT OF DOCUMENTED USE BY
REARING JUVENILE SALMONIDS
Diamond Chuitria Environmental Impact Statement
FIGURE 4-7
4-42
-------
V
k
i#
LEGEND
A CHINOOK
•COHO
~ PINKS
— MINING LIMIT
w
©
„ *
Sh
u>tna
*/i
*r,
SOURCE: ERT 1984a, b,
DAMES & MOORE 1980 (PINKS ONLY)
North
Foreland
UPPERMOST EXTENT OF DOCUMENTED USE BY
SPAWNING ANADROMOUS FISH
Diamond Chuitna Environmental Impact Statement
FIGURE 4-8
4-43
-------
arctic lamprey (L. iaponica), slimy sculpin (Cottus
cognatus), coastrange sculpin (C. aleutJLcus), and threespine
stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus. primarily a lake
resident) (ERT 1984a).
By far the greatest fishery value of the Chuitna System
is represented by the production of anadromous Pacific
salmon, especially Chinook (king) and coho (Oncorhvnchus
tshawvtscha and .0. kisutch). Pink salmon (0. gorbuscha)
are also abundant in the system along with a few chum and
red (sockeye) salmon (0. keta and 0. nerka. respectively).
Timing of key life history phases of important salmonids in
the Chuitna System is presented in Figure 4-9. Documented
spawning escapements* of chinook, coho, and pinks to the
Chuitna system and to mine area tributaries are provided in
Table 4-12. Chum escapements are not well documented, but
are likely less than a hundred fish annually (ERT 1984a) .
Small numbers of red salmon are taken each year in the
chinook fishery in the lower Chuitna (ADF&G 1983, 1984b).
Maturing adult chinook salmon enter the Chuitna River
from mid-June through early July on their spawning
migration. Estimated escapements in the three years of
baseline data ranged from 3,537 to 6,000. Spawners were
noted as far upstream as 6.5 km (4 mi) above the mouth of
Wolverine Creek in the mainstem. Chinook spawners were
documented as far upstream as 10, 5.6, and 7 km (6.2, 3.5,
and 4.4 mi) above the mouths of Lone Creek and streams 2 0 03
and 2004, respectively, in at least one of the three
baseline survey years (Table 4-12, Fig. 4-8). Maximum
percentage of the documented chinook escapement for the
Chuitna system spawning in each creek has been 7, 14, and 8
percent, respectively. Upstream extent of chinook spawning
in these three streams has declined progressively from 1982
through 1984. Upstream migration distance, and very likely
escapement numbers to each stream as well, is dependent in
each year on the location of impassible beaver dams.
Chinook spawn in the study area from early July through
mid-August (Fig. 4-9). Preferred spawning habitat is gravel
and cobbles with a tendency toward use of coarser stream bed
areas. Measured spawning area water velocities ranged from
0.27 to 0.46 m/s (0.9 to 1.5 ft/s) in depths of 25 to 35 cm
(0.8 to 1.1 ft) (ERT 1985c). Emergence reportedly occurs
throughout April and May (Fig. 4-9). Fry usually spend one
year in the stream, residing primarily in the main Chuitna
and the middle and lower sections of the tributaries and
feeding on a mixture of terrestrial adult and immature
aquatic insects (ERT 1984a). Outmigration probably occurs
during the spring but may extend from March through July
(ERT 1985c) . Late fall migrations out of the smaller
tributaries may occur but have not been well studied.
Overwintering distributions are also not fully defined.
Maturing adult coho salmon enter the Chuitna River from
late July into September on their spawning migration. Coho
4-44
-------
AGE 0«• - 3+ OUTMIGRATE AFTER 3-4 YEARS
DOLLY
111IIIIIU
VARDEN 'm'j'j 'a's'o'n'dIj 'f'm'a'm'j'j'a's'o'n'dIj'f 'm'a'm' j 'j"a's'o'n'dIj 'f'm'a'm'j 1J 'a's 'o'n'dI
CHUM ¦¦¦
SALM0N 'm'j'j'a'sVn'dIj'f'm'a'm'j'j'a'sWdI
PINK ¦¦
SALM0N 'm'j 'j 'a's 'o'w 'dI j 'f'm'a'm'j 1 j'a 's'o'm'dI
AGE ° +
mmm spawning
BZU) INTRAGRAVEL DEVELOPMENT
FRY EMERGENCE
oooooo OUTMIGRATION TO SEA
AGE 1 +
K—
~LB
CHINOOK
SALM0N 'm'j'j'a's'o'n 'dIj'f'm'a'm'j 'j'a's'o'n'dIj'f 'm'a'm'j 'j 'a's'o'n'dI
AGE 1 +
AGE
O*
-ooooo-
AGE 2*
*
II ¦ ¦¦ ¦¦ ¦¦ ¦ II
COHO
SALM0N Im'j'j'a's'o'n'dIj'f'm'a'm'j'j'a's'o'n'dIj'f'm'a'm'j 'j'a's'o'n'd Ij'f'm'a'm'j'j 'a's'o'n'dI
IbROOD STOCK YEAR| YEAR 0 I YEAR I | YEAR 2 |
SOURCE: ERT, 1985
TIMING OF LIFE HISTORY PHASES FOR ANADROMOUS
SALMONIDS IN THE CHUITNA RIVER DRAINAGE
Diamond Chuitna Environmental
Impact Statement
FIGURE 4-9
-------
Table 4-12
SALMON ESCAPEMENT 10 I HE CHUIINA RIVER AND PHOXCF AREA IRUUIARIES
CHINOOK
COHO
PINK
DOLLY VAROEN
ON
UPSTKEAM
% Of
UPSTREAM
S Of
UPSTREAM
s or
UPSTREAM
% OF
STREAM
CAR
LIMIT
NUMBER
SYSTEM
YEAR
LIMIT
MMBER
SYS TEM
YEAR
LIMIT
MMBEH
SYSTEM
YEAR
LIMIT NW6ER
SYSTEM
CHUITNA SYSTEM
1982
to south of 2011
3537 to
100
1982
not docuiented
1085 to
100
1980
to 2 si. below
N.E.
N.E.
1982
not doicsented N.E.
_
20
(Nbiverlne fork)
4119
1500
south of 2004
1903
to 4 ai, above
5750 to
100
1983
to 4 si. above
1600 to
100
1982
to south of
20,410+
100
1983
above south of 3328+
100
¦K»Uth of 2011
6000
south of 2011
1800
2004
Molverine Creek
1984
to aouth of 2011
3900
100
1984
not doc men tod
1900 to
100
1983
to south of
7150
100
1984
not documented N.E.
_
(ttolverine Fork)
2500
2004
1984
to south of
9775
untootn
2004
sainstes
only
LONE CREEK
1982
to 0.5 Mi. above
200+
5-6
1982
to tf>ove 20U204
130*
9-12
1980
to south of
aeveral
2002
200201
(Den slow Late)
200202
thousand
1963
to 0.8 si. above
338+
7
1983
to 2 si. above
312
17 - 19
1982
to 0.5 ai. above
N.E.
N.E.
mouth
20020)
200205
1984
to 0.8 si. above
224
7
1984
to just below
446
18 - 23
1983
to 0.8 ai. above
225
3
south
200204; 0.5 si.
aouth
into 200202
1984
to 0.8 ai. above
324
3
aouth
WATERSHED
1982
to near south
508
12 - 14
1982
not docuiented
70+
5-6
1980
to just below
5000?
N.E.
2003
or 200302
aouth of 200306
1983
to near south
325
6-7
1983
to just tf>ove
141
8-9
1982
not docuiented
N.E.
N.E.
of 200302
200306
1984
to 1.0 Ri. above
41
1
1984
to south of
5-7
1983
to 0.8 ai. abo/e
<50
4
of aouth
200306; 0.4 si.
aouth
into 200305
1984
to 0.8 ai. above
N.E.
N.E.
aouth
WATERSHED
1982
to 1.0 Mi. above
280
7 - 8
1982
docuiented only
100+
7-9
1980
none seen
0
0
2004
200405
in 200405
1983
to just below
BU+
2
1983
to south of
144
8-9
1902
none seen
N.E.
N.E.
200403
200406
1984
to 0.5 ni. above
9
<1
1984
to south of
H6
3-5
1983
none seen
0
U
mouth
200406
1984
none seen
u
0
Soiree: ERI 1984a, 1984b; Danes A ftoore 19B0
-------
, __ uostream as 5.6 km (3.5 mi)
pawners have been noted as tar v ^ the mainstem and some
above the mouth of Wolverin.e ig84a) . coho spawners also
flZ (7 mi) "P/h"%Carr ' as 17.6, 11.5, and 9 6 to
were documented as far ups hs of Lone creek and
,-fi -7 o and 6 mi) above least one of the
itreams' 2003 and 2004, re!=Pe=" V-8) . Maximum percentage
S"e baseline survey yearsJ Fig.J «) Chuitna system
S the documented escapement ^ ^ # p
„„,)na in each creek nas 6 to 11>8 in)
or gravel/cobble s"^r® - 0.34 to 0.43 m/s (1.1 to 1.4
of water with a v.eloclE^rgfence reportedly occurs from late
ft/s) (ERT 1985c) . Em®^ens d one or two years m the
April through June. jFry P and slower reaches of
stream residing mainly in P fged on a muture of
^o«?sible tributaries. fall into the water and
terrestrial adult s,Scott and Crossman 197 3, Dames &
immature aquatic insects (.s bl occurs primarily during
Moore 197 6) . out^1^vtend throughout much of the year (Fig.
the spring "ut ®ay extenci ^late fall migrations and
overwintering1 distributions are not well unders
. , ,lmnn pnter the Chuitna River from
Maturing adult pin:k ® t on their spawning migration.
mid-July through early.*U^he three years of baseline ranged
Estimated with greater numbers during
from 7,150 to over 20,400, ^ noted only as far
even-numbered years. stream 2004 in the mainstem. Pink
upstream as the mou ^ r UpStream as 4.7 and 1.3 to
spawners were decanted js 'of streams 2 002 and 2003,
(2.9 and 0.8 mi) f °^st one of the toree.b??®1^ ®^rYey
respectively, at 1 Maximum percentage of the documented
years (Table 4-12>• chuitna system spawning in each
acnaDement for tne rp??Dectively. However.
¦ J.7,,1 v "Cnrouyn «- , - i.urag years or uascixac icmyeu.
Estimated escapements in the greater numbers during
Estimat to over 20,400, v«n y noted only as far
even-numbered years. 2004 in the mainstem. Pink
ter? documented as far ^««m ^ »
IfHnd 0 8 mi) above the mouths £ »«£, baseii„e survei
respectively, in at percentage of the documented
f-?s (Table 4-12) . M ^uitna system spawning m each
Ytnk escapement for the ^eicent, respectively. However,
p V Has been 3, 4, and 0 Pe* exceptionally good 1980
°netn earlier survey, dur^Ji * more abundant (Table 4-11)
pink year, pink ^f^Th^n during the baseline study
in streams 2002 and 2003 tn t activity was noted as
vears (Dames & Moore 1980). P ve the mouth of Stream
far upstream as 11.4 J?'2 1&S were seen as high as 14.6
inrvT In Lone Creek ( ' the confluence of 200202) in
i mi) above the mouth (at the_ ^ chinQok_ u tream
(Dames & Moor® d very lively escapement numbers to
migration distance, and very depen(Jent the location of
each stream as we^ ' . trend of increasing exclusion from
^pLsible beaver dams, ajr tr.butaries has occurred Slnce
upper reaches
¦in the study area from late July to
Pink salmon spawn m Preferred spawning habitat is a
r September (Fig- *
1980.
early
4-47
-------
gravel or gravel/cobble stream bed with depths of 12 to 4 6
cm (0.4 to 1.5 ft) and velocities from 0.30 to 0.60 m/s (1
to 1.9 ft/s) (ERT 1985c). Emergence reportedly occurs from
mid-February into May (Fig. 4-9) . Fry spend only a few days
or weeks in their natal stream, moving rapidly out to the
marine environment and feeding little in freshwater.
Quantitative data on fish resources of other drainages
that would be crossed by the alternative transportation
corridors or affected by facility drainage patterns are not
available. Nikolai Creek, west of the Granite Point port
site has a run of perhaps several hundred Chinook, as well
as good runs of even year pinks, a good resident rainbow
population and, very likely, some coho salmon (Hepler 1985).
ERT (1984b) reported spawning pink salmon in the lower mile
of both Tyonek and Old Tyonek creeks in August 1984 and coho
spawners in the upper reaches of each stream in October
1984.
The eastern route to the Ladd Port site crosses two
lower tributaries to the Chuitna River which support rearing
juvenile salmon (ERT 1986). The outlet to Chuitbuna Lake
had juvenile coho salmon as well as rainbow trout in July
1986 sampling. The next upstream tributary entering from
the north (2001) had these species as well as Chinook and
Dolly Varden.
Threemile Creek and its tributaries, which would be
crossed by the northern route, supports a run of some 3,000
sockeye salmon (0. nerka; Hepler 1985). Juvenile sockeye
along with coho salmon, Dolly Varden, and rainbow trout were
captured by electrofishing in the stream above and below
Tukallah Lake (ERT 1987). The unnamed tributary to
Threemile Creek that would be crossed by this route
supported abundant coho salmon juveniles as well as Dolly
Varden and rainbow trout (ERT 1987). Two small tributaries
of Lone Creek (200205 and 200206) that would be crossed by
the route have not been surveyed in any of the studies to
date. Their small size indicates that fish use is probably
minimal.
4.4.4.3 Stream Habitat Evaluation
Physical and biological characteristics of the Chuitna
River and its mine area tributaries have been described
above in Sections 4.2, 4.3, 4.4.4.1, and 4.4.4.2. In
addition to this information, a considerable body of data on
specific characteristics of individual stream reaches that
may be directly or indirectly impacted by the project was
gathered in the baseline studies. These data (ERT 1984a,
1985c) are essential to the impact analyses described in
Section 5.0 and provide necessary documentation for
designing and measuring the success of stream reconstruction
and rehabilitation. Parameters that are used in the impact
analysis are summarized by stream reach in Table 4-13.
4-48
-------
Table 4-13
HABITAT AM) BIOLOGICAL CHARACTERIST ICS OF POTENTIALLY AFFECTED REACHES OF MINE AREA Sf REAMS (a)
4*
I
DRAINAGE
IR1BUIARV
REACH
REACH LENGTH
(•eters)
KAN WIDTH
(aetert)
REACH AREA (a2)
POOL/RIFFLE
(area ratio)
SLOPE (*)
SINUOSITY
RIFFLE VEL. (aajor
category,»/*,
and percent)(b)
BEAVER DAMS
DISCHARGE
(annual range a3/s)
MAXIMUM KASRED
SPANNING DENSITY
(no.A*)
- CHINOOK
- COHO
- P1M(
MAXIMUM KASURED
REARING DENSITY
(no./a2)
- CHINOOK
- COHO
- RAINBOW/
DOLLY VARDEN
ASSIGNED PROJECT
AREA HABITAT VALUE
- CHINOOK
- COHO
- PINK
- RAIttOW/
DOLLY VARDEN
20
2002
2002
2002
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2004
2004
2004
2004
CHU1INA R.
LONE CR.
LONE CR.
LONE CR.
MA1NSIEH
MAINSTEM
MAINSTEM
MAINSTEM
MAINSTEM
MAINSTEH
MAINSTEM
200304
200305
200306
MAINSTEM
MAINSTEAM
MAINSTEM
200403
BELOW 2003
UPPER
MIDDLE
LOWER
UPPER
MIDDLE
LOWER
ENTIRE
ENTIRE
ENTIRE
UPPER
M100LE
LOWER
UPPER 360
17910
3670
11340
6390
4610
8860
4020
2820
1450
2100
4630
4830
3020
360
22.6
2.4
3.7
6.7
1.8
4
4.6
1.2
1.2
2.4
2.4
3.3
3.9
1 (i)
404766
8808
41958
42813
8298
35440
18492
3384
1740
5040
11112
15939
11778
360
0.4-0.85
0.4-1.7
0.8-3.4
1.2-4.3
0.73-12.0
1.69-7.13
0.34-0.50
31.1
0.83-290
2.08-617
0.27-4.53
1.36-4.32
2.39
-
0.5-3.0
1.Q-3.0
1.0-1.5
1.0-1.5
0.5-3.0
0.5-2.5
1.5-3.5
3
1
1
2.0-5.0
0.5
2.5
-
HIGH
LOW
HIGH
MODERATE
LOW
HIGH
LOW
LOW
LOW
MODERATE
MODERATE-HIGH
HIGH
LOW
-
0.31-0.76
0.31-0.76
0.31-0.76
0.31-0.76
0.16-0.30
0.16-0.30
0.77-1.1
0.16-0.30
0.16-0.30
0.31-0.76
0.16-0.30
0.31-0.76
0.31-0.76
_
44
90
59
75
68
65
56
71
63
67
55
61
75
"
NONE
FEW
MANY
FEW
NONE
MANY
FEW
FEW
NOtC
MANY
FEW
FEW
MANY
-
2.4-113*
0.01-2.9
0.08-17.2
0.23-19.4
<0.003-0.17
0.06-4.5
0.11-9.3
0.01-0.07
0.003-0.28
0.01-0.04
<0.006-0.25
0.08-13.1
0.11-24
-
85
(j)
200
65(1)
85
45 (1)
45
-
20
20-35
160
16-18
3-18
8
-
5
-
(J)
(J)
(J)
-
1140
300(k)
190
150-250(k)
800-1000(k)
eoo-iooo(k)
0.64 (d)
0.11
0.43
0.32
0
0
2.05
0
0
0.0 (e)
<0.04 (f)
<0.04 (f)
0.23 (f)
- (g)
0.55 (d)
0.75
3.03
0.9
1.08
1.64
0.75
1.28
2.56
1.92 (e)
0.13 (h)
2.98 (h)
0.74 (h)
1.92 (e)
0.47 (d)
0.64
0.1
0.2
0.86
0.11
0.76
0.27
0.4
0.34 (e)
1.44 aean CPtC'S
froa applicable reaches.
(g) No basis for extrapolaton of density valuee.
(h) Scaled froa higheat 1983 or 1984 densities on 2002
using 1962 ainnow trap «ean PCUC'S froa comparable
(i) Estimated value.
(J) Species is present; no density estiute obtained.
(k) Source: Oases A Moore 1980.
(J) Lower portion only.
end 2003
reaches.
-------
Other physical and biological habitat data are available in
the baseline studies reports (ERT 1984a,b) and the State
Permit Application (ERT 1985c).
Maximum measured rearing densities and maximum spawner
densities for each key species have been included (Table
4-13) for the various stream reaches that may be influenced
by the project. Finally, each reach has been assigned a
rating of habitat (resource) value based on a localized
application of USFWS mitigation policy (FR Vol. 46, No. 15,
23 January, 1981). These assignments are based on perceived
potential value of the various reaches (cf. entire drainage
in standard USFWS applications), the physical and biological
data available, and the assumption that access is unhindered
to reaches currently blocked by beaver dams. This
assumption is based on the trends observed between 1980
(Dames & Moore 1980) and 1984 (ERT 1985c) which indicate a
progressive decline in numbers of chinook and pink spawners
reaching upper stream areas. For example, the middle reach
of the mainstem of Stream 2003 was rated as having high
habitat value for chinook salmon despite the fact that none
were taken in the 1983 or 1984 quantitative sampling in the
reach. However, habitat present should be excellent for
chinook juveniles if upstream access were not blocked by
beaver dams and very likely would be used by adults for
spawning as well.
Overall, the lower reaches of all three streams were
rated as very high in habitat value for chinook while the
middle reaches were rated very high for coho. Middle
reaches were rated high for chinook based on their rearing
potential but upper reaches and small tributaries tended to
be rated low because low flow likely would limit access even
in the absence of beaver dams. Most reaches in Lone Creek
and 2003 were rated high for pinks based on the high
densities of spawners seen in 1980 (Dames & Moore 1980),
while 2004, where none have been seen, was rated low. All
reaches were rated at least high for coho since only the
uppermost reaches of the smaller tributaries lacked
significant rearing by this species. Upper and lower
reaches of the three streams were generally rated high for
resident rainbow and Dolly Varden while middle reaches were
of lesser value based on measured usage densities. The
Chuitna River below 2003 was rated as very high in habitat
value for chinook and high for all other species because of
its combined function as a migratory pathway, spawning area,
rearing area, and excellent sport fishing water.
4 . 5 MARINE ENVIRONMENT
4.5.1 Physical and Chemical Oceanography
Cook Inlet is a large tidal estuary with its axis
trending NNE-SSW. It is divided into north and south
sectors by the East and West Forelands. The Beluga region
4-50
-------
- rook miet which has implications
iLa?ivTto^uTation,° water quality, and ice cond, ions.
—1 —at;7 ourrents ana circulatio*
te^^n^'cXtnir" Coo* «!£
Iroclsses have^een^^nstruc ^ ^ffer fSUff icient
Mungall three possibl P diurnal, exhibiting
resolution a* ™Inlet tides are mixed diuraa ^
assessment. and lQW tides in a P mouth to 9
two unequal^" from 3 m (10 fee-cj
^S'tSS)™held-
m (30 fe .te point port site for
Tides were measured at the investigations (Bechtel
lire during the feasibility ¦LI? dicate a tidal range
19I3" Nortec 1982) and these «s _ comparUon of these
J-l. ^vrt#»r of 4 m (I3 to 1 „A_h_r parts of Cook Inlet
°n vith predicted tides rom Diamond Alaska site
^acrests some differenf®®. tatd ediotions) tidal datum,
relative to expected ^adiuste^ P bathymetrlo survey
levels and times.
data* driven reverse direction
Currents, being *ldall*ith ^reat tidal range, the
«^matelv every 6 hours, wx in Cook Inlet can be
approx turbulence of ° (NOS) conducted current
velocities ana National 0cean Survey^ m;id_1970s. Their
dramatic. Inlet during Granite Point/North
monitoring and 58 are in the ^ current tables
statt°^ vicinity. Data from the NOS tia Bscause q£ ^
osteite higher «low® app»°tline the ebb and flood current
indica seafloor and coastli , ct^y opposite in
in se!ecting doc*
10 4-- measured at Granite Point during
-jhe highest investigation were on ebb, which
,H(3 brief feasibility inv®ideg reached 2.6 knots during
Slicedat 2.8 knots; flood tide analysis (Nortec 1982)
Stf-tre^t^ "Turfenfwouirbr^t
Net circulation an.
southwest.
4.5.1.2 Bathymetry
1 data are not available for the
retailed bathymetric <*aja River except in the
„ between Trading Bay Granite Point and Ladd
* odiate vicinity of the pr p ion charts show that, in
immediate tec 1982) . sloping with a shallow
^CHhaTw^O ft)C extending into CooK Inlet
-------
for a distance of 2100 m (7000 ft) to 3600 m (12,000 ft).
The shelf narrows opposite the North Forelands where 18 m
(60 ft) depths are found about 900 m (300 ft) from shore.
The Granite Point bathymetric study indicated that many
uncharted irregularities exist in the bottom topography.
Shoals with water less than 18 m (60 ft) deep are present
south of Granite Point and southeast of the mouth of
Threemile Creek.
4.5.1.3 Wind and Wave Climate
Cook Inlet lies in a northwest-southeast storm track
that is bounded on the northeast by the Canadian continental
air mass and on the south and west by a maritime air mass.
The location is susceptible to sudden intense storms.
Prevailing winter winds are from the northeast and can reach
intensities up to 66 knots. Because Cook Inlet is
paralleled by mountain ranges, winds perpendicular to the
channel seldom exceed 3 5 knots (Bechtel 1983).
There is little published data on waves in Cook Inlet.
Carsola (1975) investigated waves in lower Cook Inlet and
reported significant wave heights less than 0.6 m (2 feet)
about 8 0 percent of the time. Maximum observed significant
wave heights were reported at 2.4 m (8 feet) in that study.
Most common wave periods are 3 to 4 seconds. The frequency
of occurrence for deepwater waves greater than 2.6 m (8 ft)
is about 12 percent, 5 percent for waves of 3.8 m (11.5 ft).
Fishermen have reported observing waves in excess of 6.6 m
(20 ft) during storms.
Tsunami waves are a possibility in Cook Inlet. Such
waves were observed at Seldovia, and possibly at Homer,
during the 1964 Alaska earthquake (Wilson and Torum 1968).
The active volcanoes near Cook Inlet might also generate a
tsunami wave. Mt. Augustine, an island in Cook Inlet south
of the project area, erupted in 1976 and 1986.
4.5.1.4 Marine Water Quality
Cook Inlet water quality is incompletely understood and
no studies have been done at this site. However, regional
Cook Inlet studies and the dynamic mixing that is
characteristic of Cook Inlet permit some generalizations for
the site.
The water column is expected to be well-oxygenated.^
Suspended solids are very high in Cook Inlet, owing to the
turbulent transport and the contribution of silt from
glacier-fed runoff, which is especially high during
spring/summer seasons (especially July, August, September).
Rivers near the project area are important in this respect
and include the Susitna, Beluga, and McArthur.
In upper Cook Inlet, the clay and silt particles are
kept in suspension by the tidal currents. The circulation
4-52
-------
, _ • nf this fine sediment
-t-terns in Cook Inlet re®?-1 side of the inlet, across
being transported ^"""-^facS suspended sediment near the
thHite (UtbjWWj greater than 100 mg/1 (Sharma et al.
site will be generally gt
19731 ' . ridal estuary and its salinity may vary
Cook inlet is a tidal est * season. A mean salinity
Widely in areal distribution and by^ ^ parts_per-thousand
value at the slt®,irTna May through September, river
TSn rtec 1982). DurA JJiinitv Of the upper inlet.
&f£S: salinities 'rise Sdue to ^eater^do.i na^of ^the
oiean water fresher than on the east
Side of eCooK^ xnlet ten^ ^ _
Variations in s™fiCC ®''"attT 1976) The gradients
alI°l L^n^VoVthe flood tide and less on the ebb, due
to greater mixing.
_ r*nnv inlet are essentially
The waters °f sediment). Some local
unpolluted
-------
4.5.1.6 Other Marine Conditions
Corridors containing buried oil and gas pipelines
extend eastward from Granite Point to offshore oil
production platforms and across the inlet to Nikiski.
Additional pipelines extend shoreward from oil platforms in
Trading Bay. No anchoring is permitted near these
corridors.
Cook Inlet is used year-round for shipping, with
regular winter traffic to the Port of Anchorage. Offshore oil
platforms are common in the site's operating vicinity.
Fishing vessels operate throughout Cook Inlet during
the open-water seasons.
4.5.2 Biology
4.5.2.1 Lower Trophic Levels
The estuarine habitat of upper Cook Inlet is
characterized by high turbidity and suspended sediment
levels, extreme tides and currents, highly variable
salinity, and seasonal ice formation (Section 4.5.1). This
combination has discouraged biological research and has lead
to the widely held conviction that, except for seasonal
passage of anadromous fish such as Pacific salmon and
eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus), and the belukha whales
fDelphinapteras leucas^ which feed upon them, the upper
Inlet is a very unproductive environment (Bakus et al.
1979). Bakus et al. (1979) looked at some portions of the
biological community in the vicinity of the Anchorage
airport and concluded that subtidal infauna was essentially
nonexistent and that intertidal life was very poor. The
diversity and abundance of plankton also was less than that
observed at other locations. Macroscopic algae on the
beaches in the Granite Point/Trading Bay area are reportedly
limited to mats of the green alga Vaucheria sp., while three
additional species have been reported elsewhere in the upper
Inlet. In contrast, in an intensive study of Knik Arm,
Dames & Moore (1983) found evidence of an active ecosystem
despite these conditions and despite the apparent low
primary productivity. They found that massive quantities of
organic detritus are carried to the Inlet by its many
tributary rivers and that an abundance of a limited number
of species of large epibenthic invertebrates that are likely
detritivores* (mysids, crangonid shrimp, amphipods) are
found in the Inlet. Limited sampling in the vicinity of
Granite Point indicate that a similar invertebrate
assemblage is present at the locations of the two port site
alternatives (ERT 1984a). Infauna* at the port site is very
likely limited to a small bivalve (Macoma balthica^ and
unidentified polychaetes (DOWL 1981).
4-54
-------
_,,r,+-ities of organs . the Upper Inlet is
large ^ waters of lower Cook ' including all
productlv pathway for ^nad as weil as eulaction,
^S° LstS-Pacif ic species of .
1 o?tl (osmeridae) and Bering taken in upper
smelts ( species of marine f . significance does not
A liable 4-1") alth^l!h inlet (Blackburn 1978).
C°moare with that in the low ^ sampling in the North
compare te-summer be beach of fish, including pink,
Limited __ea captured 10 speci Dolly Varden (age
Fhuf anf cohoaP salmon » '***** ««piiW
chum, .-. j eRT 1984a). A collected 18 species
uns?™= in Knlk\™ (Dames s «Mrr« "8^ fCr°om the upper Inlet
including five not occur seasonally in the study
mclua y assumed to also 1_lv the Knik Arm study
which m 4-14) . More impo miarate through the upper
maS ' includin^ j uveni 1 ' such d wd
Wspawn on thebeaches
Of the upper Inl beaches and nearshore waters for
Use of the study area.b?*ver, given the considerable
« functions is unknown, J\0™ificant beach spawning would
the ® activity in the area, sign Beaches in the study area
human a gone unnoticed. Kni]c Arm study did
n I aopear unique in any way_ of fisll for specific
not"detect any particular pre considerable feeding by
£ -v, +-vt>es. certainly, ^he£. area particularly on the
iuvenile anadromous fish. in «l> Trading Bay and around the
v^oad flats and tidal channels ^ salmon returning along
of the Chuitna River. probably do not feed
shoreline to their natal streams ^ ^
extensively, In th. ^fxtremeiy
ES&ll "ffii- are discussed in Section
4.5.3.
4 5 2.3 Birds and Mammals
-Flats and nearshore waters of upper
Most beaches, mud fi ' ilized by waterfowl and marine
rook inlet are not heavily utilized g
£?°ds (Dames _ & Moore^l983).t ^ ^ water _ surface_ but
aridae) and sea ducks rest on the water suriace but
(Laridae) nities are limited by the high turbidity.
foraging opp . f likewise may discourage use by
SS^birds except in small bays and at the mouth of creeks
S risers' An exception to this generally low use by birds
,,r in the large saltmarsh and mud flat areas of Trading
OCCUf® JL south and the Susitna Flats to the north, as well
sythe much smaller flats around the mouth of the Chuitna
4-55
-------
Table 4-14
FISH SPECIES KNOWN TO OCCUR IN UPPER COOK INLET
Scientific Name
Common Name
Spawning Period^
Time Spent in
Marine Environment
.sh
Salmonidae
Oncorhynchua qorbuscha
0. keta
0. kiautch
0. nerka
0. tahawytscha
ITalmo qairdneri
Salvelinua malma
Coreqonus laurettae
Osmeridae
Hypomeaua pretiosus
Sperinchua thaleichthys
rhaleichthy~pacificu8~
Trout, salmon, vrfiite fish
Pink (hunpback) salmon
Chum (dog) salmon
Goto (silver) salmon
Socks ye (red) salmon
Chinook (king) salmon
St eel he ad ( rainbow)
trout^
Dolly Varden
Bering cisco
Smelts
Surf smelt
Long fin smelt
Eulachon
mid-July - early Sept.
early Aug. - early Oct.
early Aug. - Feb.
early Aug. - Nov.
mid- June - mid-Aug.
fail - spring
fall
fall(?)
March to May
Oct. to Dec.
mid- to late May
1+ year
2-4 years
1 -3 year
1 - k years
1 - 6 years
2 mo. - 4 years
several weeks
to 6-7 months
2-3 months per year
entire life cycle
1-2 yeara
entire life cycle
except about 2 weeks
Clupeidae
Clupea harenqus pallaai
Gadidae
Gadus macrocephalua
Theraqra chalcogramma
Eloinus gracilis
Gasteroateidae
Gaaterosteus aculeatua
Punqitiua punqitius
Pacific herring
Codfishes
Pacific cod
Walleys pollock
Saffron cod
Sticklebacks
Threespine stickleback
spr ing
usually Jan. & Feb.
winter
June to July
Ninespine stickleback May to July
entire life cycle
entire life cycle
entire life cycle
entire life cycle
variable, but anadramous
forma spend up to 1 year
in fresh water before
moving to sea
variable, always spawn
in fresh water
Upar idae
Liparia rutteri
Cottidae
Leptocottua armatus
?leuronectidae
Plafcichthya stellatua
Hippoqlos80ide8 eleasodon
Hippoqioaaus 8tenoleoia
Limanda aspera
Snail fish
Ringtail snail fish
Sculpins
Pacific 3taghorn
sculpin
Flounders
Starry flouider
Flathead sole
Pacific halibut
Yellowfin sole
Oct. to March
March to April
March to late April
winter
entire life cycle
entire life cycle
entire life cycle
entire life cycle
entire life cycle
entire life cycle
Sources: ERT 1984a, Dames & Moore 1983, Scott and Crossman 1973.
No CT«Jramou8 rainbows are taovn from rivers ncrth of east and west ford-
lands; however, Dames & Moore (1983) captured a single aexually mature
rairtoow (195 mm [7.7 in]) in uper Cook Inlet in May 1983.
4-56
-------
River and between Granite Point and Nikolai Creek. These
areas are very important spring and fall staging areas for a
number of waterfowl and shorebird species and are important
sport hunting areas as well (see Section 4.10.2).
addition, a small (estimated 30 nesting pairs) colony Qf
glaucous-winged gulls is located about 0.8 km (0.5 mi) north
of the proposed Ladd port site (ERT 1986).
Only two of the 21 species of marine mammals reported
from lower Cook Inlet are common in the upper Inlet; these
are belukha (beluga) whale (Delphinapterus lenn^c) a d
harbor seal (Phoca vitulina) (Calkins 1981). in the studv
area, both species are common primarily in the spring an;>
summer when they feed on anadromous fish near the mouths of
rivers. The area from Trading Bay to the Susitna Rive
appears to be especially important for belukhas with
numerous sightings near the mouth of the Beluga River durin
July of 1982 and 1983 by baseline study team members (ERT
1984a). The area between the Beluga and Susitna rivers m
also be a significant calving and/or nursery area
belukhas (Calkins 1981). or
Information on the life history of harbor seals
upper Cook Inlet is incomplete; however, they are common ^
times in certain areas (ERT 1984a). Harbor seals ar
present from May to September. During the winter month °
they most likely move to Lower Cook Inlet. Like th'
belukha, they appear to feed on anadromous fish, followi 6
them to, and into, the mouths of the Inlet's tributa^
rivers.
4.5.2.4 Threatened or Endangered Species
None of the marine biota known to frequent the stun
area are considered endangered or threatened. ^
4.5.3 Commercial Fisheries
The only significant commercial fishery in upper c v
Inlet is that for the five species of Pacific salmon. Ab°
the East and West Forelands, all commercial fishing is°ue
set net (fixed gill net). Tyonek residents held 26 set r»
permits in 1983. The area from Chuit flats to Threemi?*"
Creek is fished intensively; set net sites are nea l
continuous. Commercial fishing is somewhat less intens ^
from Chuit Flats to Granite Point. Permits in this area 1Ve
held almost exclusively by Tyonek residents. From Gran>6
Point west to within 1.6 km (1 mi) of Nikolai Creek th 6
are some 14 permits held and fished by local residents et*e
lease holders (individuals leasing fishing camp sites). °r
The combined total catch of all species of salmon '
ADF&G statistical areas 247-10 (West Foreland to Grani^
Point) and 247-20 (Granite Point to Threemile Creek) ha
averaged 3.5 percent of the total upper Inlet catch over t^
4-57
-------
last 22 years (Table 4-15). While numbers of fish taken in
these two reporting subareas have declined in the last 8
years, the percentage contribution to the total upper Inlet
fishery has declined to 2.5 percent (Table 4-15), probably
due to increased effort in other portions of the upper
Inlet. Since 1980, these two commercial fishery subareas on
either side of Granite Point have contributed the highest
percentage of Chinook and coho salmon (13.2 and 6.4 percent,
respectively, using 1980-1987 averages) and the lowest
percentage of chum and sockeye (1.3 and 1.5 percent
respectively each using 1980-1987 averages). This harvest
distribution coincides to a degree with the relative
importance of these species in the Chuitna River, although
what proportion of the catch is actually contributed by the
Chuitna System has not been determined.
4.6 METEOROLOGY, AIR QUALITY, AND NOISE
4.6.1 Meteorology
The regional climate near the project site is most
noticeably influenced by regional topography and bodies of
water. The Chugach Mountains to the south act as a barrier
to warm, moist air from the Gulf of Alaska, decreasing local
precipitation to less than 20 percent of that measured on
the Gulf of Alaska side of the Chugach Range. The Alaska
Range to the west and north acts as a barrier to very cold
winter air masses which dominate the Alaska interior. Cook
Inlet tends to moderate temperatures in the project area.
A one-year meteorological monitoring program was
conducted at the project site from April 1983 through March
1984 (Science Applications, Inc. 1984). Two monitoring
sites were installed: one near the proposed surface coal
mine and a second near the proposed Granite Point port
facilities. Wind speed, wind direction, and temperature
were measured at 12 meters (39.4 ft) above ground level at
both sites.
Seasonal wind roses for the two sites, given in Figures
4-10 and 4-11, show a predominant southerly flow during the
summer months and a predominant northerly flow during the
rest of the year. At Granite Point, north and northeast
wind directions occur most frequently during the fall,
winter, and spring seasons while the most frequent wind
directions during the summer are south-southwest and south
with a secondary maximum at no^th-northeast. At the coal
mine site, the predominant wind directions measured were
north-northwest and north during the fall and winter,
north-northwest through north-northeast with a small
secondary maximum at south-southeast during the spring, and
south through southwest with a large secondary maximum about
north during the summer. Wind speeds at both sites were
relatively light, averaging 3.1 m/sec (6.9 mph) and 2.4
m/sec (5.4mph) for the monitored year at the port and coal
mine sites, respectively.
4-58
-------
Table 4-15
UPPER COOK INLET SALMON CATCH SUMMARY 1954-19871
LOCATION
UPPER COOK INLET
(No. of Anchor Pt.)
CHINOOK
1954-87 1980-84
AVE * AVE «
20574 100.0
15262 100.0
SOCKEYE
1954-87 1980-84
AVE « AVE t
1753503 100.0
2658000 100.0
COHO
1954-87 1980-84
AVE % AVE »_
293441 100.0 501881 100.0
641
3.1
952
6.2
11877
0.7
15359 0.6
13642
4.6
15224
3.0
AREA 247-20
(Granite Pt. to
Threemi le Creek)
538
2.6
1067
7.0
14354
0.8
21213 0.8
13119
4.5
17137
3.4
LOCATION
1954
AVE
PINK
-87
«
1980
AVE
-84
%
1954-
AVE
CHUM
-87 1980-84
» AVE %
1954
AVE
ALL
-87
t
SPECIES
1980-84
AVE «
UPPER COOK INLET
(No. of Anchor tt.)
835807
100.0
679417
100.0
665418
100.0
891441 100.0
3568746
100.0
4773000
100.0
1966
AVE
-87
»
1980
AVE
-87
«
1966-
AVE
-87
%
1980-87
AVE t
1966
AVE
-87
«
1980-87
AVE %
NORTHERN DISTRICT
(No. of Forelands)
136185
16.3
11379B
16.7
35126
5.3
48179 5.4
351175
9.8
426293
8.9
AREA 247-10
(H. Foreland Granite
Pt. )
31462
3.8
19960
2.9
3992
0.6
3298 0.4
61615
1.7
54793
1.1
AREA 247-20
(Granite Pt. to
Threemile Creek)
28195
3.4
19079
2.8
8294
1.2
7706 0.9
64500
1.8
66202
1.4
1. Data from S. Seagren, ADF&G Comnercial Fish Divison, Soldotna;
1984 and 1985 data are preliminary; Upper Inlet includes all gear
types; other subareas are only fished by set net. All percents
are given as a percentage of the total Upper Inlet harvest.
-------
NW
1.50
I WNW
1.30
NNW
1.80
NNE
2.60
NE
2.50
cukss:
o.oo
PERCENT
CALM
ESE
1.60
WSW
Summer
NNW
2.10
NW
1.90
WNW
1.50
W
1.70
WSW
1.60
3.70
0.59
PERCENT
CALM
1.70
sw
3.00
SSW
6.10
Fall
NW
1.80
I WNW
1.10
W
1.20
| WSW
1.60
SW
2.40
NNW
2.00
1.31
PERCENT
CALM
NNW
1.60
NW
1.70
WNW
1.50
ESE
0.90
WSW
1.20
SE
0.90
SW
1.90
SSE
1.40
Winter
NNE
3.80
NE
3.70
3.00
0.39
PERCENT
CALM
ESE |
1.60
SSE
1.70
Spring
NUMBERS INDICATE SECTOR MEAN WIND SPEED (METERS/SEC.)
SOURCE: SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INC., 1984
WIND FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
GRANITE POINT PORT SITE
Diamond Chultna Environmental Impact Statement
FIGURE 4-10
4-60
-------
NNW
1.90
NW
1.70
|WNW
1.80
1.70
0.00
PERCENT
CALM
SSW
Iwsw
1.60
SW
2.00
ESE
1.90
SSE
2.00
Summer
NNW
2.70
WNW
2.00
WSW
1.40
SW
1.70
SSW
1.90
ENE
2.30
0.51
PERCENT
CALM
ESE |
1.80
Fall
NNW
2.80
NW
1.70
| WNW
1.90
W
11.60
Iwsw
1.30
SW
2.20
NE
1.80
ENE
2.40
2.14
PERCENT
CALM
SSW
NNW
2.20
NW
1.70
WNW
1.80
NNE
2.20
NE
1.70
SSE
1.10
0.05
PERCENT
CALM
WSW
ESE |
1.50
SW
1.70
SSW
2.60
Winter
Spring
NUMBERS INDICATE SECTOR MEAN WIND SPEED (METERS/SEC.)
SOURCE: SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INC.. 1984
WIND FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
MINE SITE
Diamond Chuitna Environmental Impact Statement
FIGURE 4-11
4-61
-------
The climates of Anchorage and Kenai are similar to that
of the project area due to the influence of the Chugach and
Alaska mountain ranges and Cook Inlet. Seasonal wind roses
for Anchorage (Figure 4-12) show a northerly flow during
fall and winter and a southerly flow in spring and summer.
North to northeast winds occur during the fall and winter
months, while south to southeast winds dominate during the
spring and summer months. Wind speeds at Anchorage are
comparable to those of the project area, averaging 3.3 m/sec
(7.3 mph).
Wind roses for Kenai (Figure 4-13) also show a strong
northerly flow during fall and winter and a more subtle
southerly flow in spring and summer. North to
north-northeast winds are dominant during the fall and
winter months, while south to southwest winds are frequent
in spring and summer. Wind speeds at Kenai are similar to
those at the project sites and Anchorage, averaging
3.4 m/sec (7.5 mph).
Monthly temperatures measured at the project monitoring
sites are given in Table 4-16. Temperatures measured at the
port site were slightly warmer than the mine site,
particularly during the winter, with the mine site
exhibiting slightly higher maximum daily temperatures in the
summer. This pattern is typical for a shoreline environment
and demonstrates the moderating effect of Cook Inlet on
ambient temperatures. Maximum and minimum temperatures
measured at either site were 22°C (71°F) and -22°C (-7°F),
respectively. Temperature and precipitation summaries from
a one-year monitoring program near Kenai (June 1981 through
May 1982) are also given in Table 4-16. No site-specific
precipitation data were measured at either project
monitoring site. Average yearly precipitation in the
Chuitna Basin is approximately 122 cm (48 inches), which is
considerably greater than the 39 cm (15.4 inches) measured
near Kenai. This difference is due to orographic* effects
reflecting the higher elevations in the Chuitna Basin area.
In 1983, snow depths in the area varied from 58 cm (23 in)
near Congahbuna Lake to 229 cm (90 in) on Capps Plateau.
4.6.2 Air Quality
Air quality data for the project site area were
available from the following programs:
Monitoring site operated for Tesoro Petroleum near
Kenai during June 1981 through May 1982 (All major
criteria pollutants were measured except lead)
ADEC Total Suspended Particulate monitor located
on the Beluga Power station during April 1978
through May 1979
ADEC SOj monitoring site located near Kenai at Wik
Lake for November 1982 through May 1983.
4-62
-------
NNf.
5.40
NW
5.00
NE
5.10
WNW
5.40
,W
8.20
wsw
4.90
12.40
[P;F I I PERCENT
CALM
sw
5.50
ssw
6.90
Summer
NNW
7.50
N
7.60
NNE
7.70
NW
5.60
NE
6.30
WNW
5.10
w
4.60
wsw
4.30
PERCENT
5.40
SW
5.30
SE
5.50
SSW
7.30
Winter
NNW
g.so
N
7.20
NNE
8.80
NW
8.30
17.50
PERCENT
CALM
WSW
4.10
ESE
3.80
SW
5.00
SSW
7.40
Fall
NNW
6.00
N
6. 10
NNE
6.20
NW
6.30
WNW
8.30
W
6 90
WL.W
6.90
B. 90
PERCENT
CALM
\
9.00
SW
5.70
SSW
6.80
Spring
KIND speed range
NUMBERS INDICATE SECTOR MEAN WIND SPEED (KNOTS)
~
0-3
DO
11-16
¦
4-6
¦
17-21
&
7 -10
¦
>22
WIND FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
ANCHORAGE
Diamond Chuitna Environmental Impact Statement
FIGURE 4-12
4-63
-------
NNW
7.30
NW
5.50
WNW
6.00
sw
7.30
SSW
9 . 90
N
7.90
NNE
7.70
NE
5.60
15.90
PERCENT
CALM
Summer
wsw
6.70
sw
6.00
SSW
11.20
NNE
0.90
NE
5.80
9.20
7. 10
PERCENT
CALM
Fall
PERCENT
CALM
U. 22
WIND FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
KENAI
Diamond Chuitna Environmental Impact Statement
FIGURE 4-13
4-64
-------
NW
5.50
wsw
7.10
SW
7.30
NNW
7.30
N
7.90
NNE
7.70
NE
5.60
15.90
PERCENT
CALM
ssw
8.90
»INO SPEED RANGE
Summer
NNW
8.60
N
9.20
NW
s.ao
WSW
6.70
SW
e.oo
SSW
11.20
NNE
a.90
NE
s.ao
17,10
PERCENT
CALM
Fall
IB. 40
PERCENT
CALM
11.50
PERCENT
CALM
Spring
Winter
NUMBERS INDICATE SECTOR MEAN WIND SPEED (KNOTS)
~
0-3
DID
11-16
¦
4 - 6
17-21
m
7 -10
¦
>22
WIND FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
KENAI
Diamond Chuitna Environmental Impact Statement
FIGURE 4-13
4-64
-------
Table 4-16
MONTHLY TEMPERATURE (°C) AND PRECIPITATION (cm)
SUMMARY FOR PROJECT REGION
Monthly Average Average Daily Average Daily Monthlyl
Month Temperature Max. Temperature Min. Temperature Precipitation
Port Mine Kenai Port Mine Port Mine Kenai
JAN
-4
-5
-12
-2
-3
-7
-8
0.
FEB
-5
-6
-8
-2
-3
-7
-8
2.
MAR
3
2
-3
5
4
1
0
2.
APR
3
2
0
5
4
1
0
0.
MAY
8
7
5
11
10
5
4
1.
JUN
12
12
10
15
15
9
8
2.
JUL
13
13
12
15
16
11
9
5.
AUG
13
12
11
15
15
10
9
4.
SEP
8
6
9
11
9
5
3
6.
OCT
3
0
3
5
3
0
-1
12.
NOV
1
0
-4
2
2
-1
-1
4.
DEC
-4
-4
-8
-1
-2
-6
-5
1.
YEAR
4
3
1
7
6
2
1
CO
•
1 given as liquid water equivalent
Source: Science Applications, Inc. 1984; Radian Corp. 1982
4-65
-------
Maximum measured concentrations from the Tesom
Beluga monitoring sites are compared to ambient air cruai?^
standards in Table 4-17. These data indicate that mSSiiS
ambient background levels of all major pollutant* *
significantly less than applicable standards ^re
dioxide (SO ) data measured at the Wik Lake monitor
the available data period were nearly always 0 nob n ?ng
measurement) with an occasional 5 ppb reading which m^~v?°Ur
been due to instrument zero drift. y have
Since the project site is considerably more remote 4-v,
the Tesoro monitoring site, air guality is expected f ?
better than that presented in Table 4-17. ° be
4.6.3 Sound Climate
The project area in the vicinity of the proposed
and transportation corridor is expected to experiencJ « !
levels typical of remote locations unaffected bv S»Und
activities. Typical natural sound levels are apnro^in
45 db (A) with higher levels of natural sound of ah?a.tely
db(A) associated with storms and wildlife. 6!
natural noise include winds, rain, and
vocalizations. W1-Ldlife
The project area in the vicinity of the CooV t i i.
coast experiences higher background noise levels Inlet
Inlet contributes higher noise levels because of P°ok
waves and winter ice movements. Human activities
more frequent near the coast. Some exairmi f also
human-generated noise include vessels of
diesel-powered boats on Cook Inlet), aircraft (ai as
strip is located approximately 2 miles from the\;andinq
Granite Point port site), and other mobile vehicles 5,?P°sed
snowmobiles and all-terrain vehicles. Typical noiL ^ as
for vehicles and aircraft are 80 to 95 db(A) at a ri ' Vels
of 50 feet. Commercial and noncommercial aircraft
from Anchorage to southwestern Alaska locations fiv ™ r°ute
project area routinely at varying altitudes. over the
4.7 SOCIOECONOMIC ASPECTS
<= located about 7 5 air miles west of
The Project site ^ la Borough and about ten miles
Anchorage m the Kenai ren ^ nek# socioeconomic impacts
west of the Native vill 9 increaseci income and employment of
would likely derive from Kenai Peninsula Borough,
residents of *>oth village of Tyone*.
particularly the. Cl^h° Borouqh seat of government and its
The City of Kenai is is the nearest community to the
most populous city, Tyon following description of the
oroiect site. focuses on conditions m the Kenai
^OCiS;SrmBoCroun;h,r°™; Municipality of Anchorage, and the
community of Tyonek.
4-66
-------
Table 4-17
REGIONAL MEASURED AIR QUALITY DATA
(micrograms/cubic meter)
Site/Pollutant
1-hour
Averaging Time
3-hour 8-hour 24-hour Annual
FEDERAL AND ALASKA
AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
N02 - a
S02
CO 40000
(h 235
Pi
TESORO PETROLEUM
NO2
so?
CO
°3
PM
BELUGA
PM
2560
96
1300
70
10000
1660
365
150
9
60
78
100
80
60
6.3
0.3
9
b
a indicates that an air quality standard does not exist for this pollutant
and averaging time; hence, no measured air quality data will be presented.
b No annual average PM concentration was calculated for Beluqa due to the
large amount of missing data.
Source: Chappie 1985; Radian Corp. 1982
4-67
-------
4.7.! anrt ynn^i Ppninsula
4.7.1.1 Population
^ * nchoraoe and the Kenai Peninsula
The population £etween 1970 and 1984, exceeding the
Borough grew rapidly a th of 77.8 percent. Anchorage
substantial statewide 9 . ig70 to 244,030 in 1984-an
grew from 126'385 ^rcent. The Kenai Peninsula Borough
increase of 93.1 P • percent from 16,586 in 1970
population incr®as®^^L Deoartment of Labor 1984). The City
So 38,919 by 1982 (Alasthis period, from 4,324
of Kenai grew by 42-8 P Central Kenai Peninsula, which
to 6,176 persons. in primary commuting distance of the
includes the area within^ P" *.ion of 24 , 64 3 . Historical
p^la?ioKnn?rinds are summarized in Table 4-18.
The State of Alaska currently ^hw^no
population projections s 1985). Population forecasts
Borough or Anchorage g growth for the Kenai
used here assume a si percent annually over the
Peninsula Borough ent per year through 1992. Thus, by
1980-84 period to 5 per Kenai peninsula Borough is
1992 the population 57,500. The 1992 populations
expected to be and £he central Kenai Peninsula are
of the City of Kenai respectively, based on a 5
projected to b* l^rease. Preliminary draft
percent averag Anchorage indicate a high
population 4»oo by 1990, a low projection of 273,100,
and^^medium or mostf likely population of 292, 300 (Breedlove
1985) .
4.7.1.2 Economy
jj^neqions of the economies of the Kenai
The foiling di hQ e foCus on the cash economy.
Peninsula Borough an provide food and sustenance for
Subsistence activitye , Kgnai peninSula Borough, are not
many res;dentSfhestatistical data presented. Therefore,
reflected m the st Anchorage, in which relatively
comparisons of dar occurs, to data for the Kenai
little subsistence activity ^ substantiai
Peninsula Boroug•' m are conducted, must be made
subsistence f^^-sion Qf subsistence activities of the
Tyoneks^is presented in Section 4.9.
¦ o of the Kenai Peninsula Borough and
The econo^®*inctly different. While employment in
Anchorage are dis^xn yconcentrated in trade, service, and
4-68
-------
Table 4-18
POPULATION TRENDS IN ALASKA,
ANCHORAGE, AND THE KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH
Population
Jurisdiction
1970(a) 1980(a) 1982
1984
Alaska Statewide
302,583
401,851
460,837(b)
538.000(c)
Anchorage
126,333
174,431
204,216(c)
244,030(c)
Kenai Pen. Borough
16,586
25,282
5,231(d)
6.176(d)
-Central Kenai Pen. Bor.
na
15.672(e)
19,886(f)
24,643(f)
(a) Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census counts for years indicated.
(b) Source: Alaska Department of Labor 1984.
(c) Source: Van Patten 1985.
(d) Source: Kenai Peninsula Borough 1984.
s"""' SfS'w.sMS'Sffi'a
local planners to be a substantial undercount (Mcllhargy 1985).
(f) Source: Mcllhargy 1985.
4-69
-------
n nafterns in the Kenai Peninsula
Over time, emp:°™0rtional drop (but a small numerical
Borough in?ica^ * Pempioyment (the standard industrial code
increase) in ml£ing £ gas extraction) . The loss of
of mining include:3 since 1970 has been counteracted by
federal government, employment,
increases in sta petrochemical industry), and the
manufacturing (inclll services, and finance, insurance, and
service sector (tradeserv ^ ^ ^
real estate) . or .,exp0rt" sectors) are primarily
region (the oasi and manufacturing. Tourism is
federal government, sector, but existing data do not
also an serving employment and therefore the
'me^ent "nvolved is not: readily quantifiable.
"• — ed sin
. diversified since 1970 and
The Anchorage economy . ted Dependence on federal
has become more se^ic®~ deciined and the proportion of
government employment ^ ^^8 has increased,
employment in all otne
i, -t-oc -in the Kenai Peninsula Borough have
Unemployment rates . higher than those in
historically been s subject to seasonal swings. Over
Anchorage, as well as m unemployment rate in the
recent years, the averag nged from a high of 15.9
Kenai Peninsula Borough has ran^ ^ . n 197? _ The
percent in 1982 to a 1 however, has been nearly 22
monthly unemployment unemployment in Anchorage has
percent during wint®jf ® 7 to 8 percent range and exhibits
relatively^modest seasonal changes.
—ni Trie ion tend to have
actual experience
1 «™anf-to-Dopulation ratio was 36
The , Borough-wid^ emp^y^ fQrce participation rates will
percent
4-70
-------
likely continue to increase, a projected employment-to-
population ratio of 40 percent is used herein. The area
included within the primary Kenai commuting area is the
Central Kenai Peninsula (CKP), consisting of Sterling,
Soldotna, Ridgeway, Kalifonski, Kenai, Salamatof, Nikiski,
and Tustumena. This area had a population of 2 4,64 3 in 1984
and is projected to grow by 5 percent annually without the
project, to 30,000 by 1988 and 36,400 by 1992. If 40
percent of the population is employed, the number of
employed residents of the CKP would be about 12,000 in 1988
and 14,600 by 1992. If the assumed annual Borough-wide
population growth rate of 5 percent (Section 4.7.1.1)
applies to the City of Kenai's employment base, about 3,000
of its residents would be employed by 1988 and about 3,7 00
by 1992.
Per capita personal income in the Kenai-Cook Inlet
Division was $13,394 in 1982. This was somewhat below the
statewide average of $16,598 and the Anchorage Division
figure of $18,429 (U.S. Department of Commerce 1984a).
Cost-of-living differentials between these three areas,
however, prevent accurate comparison in terms of real
income.
4.7.1.3 Community Facilities and Services
As Alaska's primary urban area, Anchorage is in general
well-served by all facilities and services necessary for
urban life, making detailed discussion unnecessary. For a
smaller community, the City of Kenai is also generally
well-served by sewer, water, and road systems and public
services such as fire and police protection and education.
Public Services and Facilities in Kenai
Kenai's water system services much of the city, with
about 1,100 residential connections (compared to an
estimated 2,446 housing units in 1984 [Kenai Peninsula
Borough 1984]) serving 3,500 people and under 100 commercial
connections. The City's water source is the aquifer at
Beaver Creek, which is of excellent quality and requires
only chlorination at the wellhead. The combined design
capacity of the City's two water pump stations is about
2,000 gallons per minute, or about 2.9 million gallons per
day (gpd). Daily water demand averages slightly less than
500,000 gpd, with a peak of about 1,200,000 gpd (Lashot
1985).
Kenai*s sewer system also services much of the City,
with about 1,100 of the City's homes currently connected.
The total volume of effluent treated averages 800,000 gpd.
With a design capacity of 1,300,000 gpd, the system is
expected to be adequate to service the City's needs through
the early 1990s. Solid waste is disposed of at a landfill
operated by the Kenai Peninsula Borough (Bambard 1985).
4-71
-------
bv three commuter airlines
The city Airport is se" services. The airport has
AS well as several private charter runway, VORTAC and
f 7 575 ft (2,309 «) Pava^ afs ll?n general well equipped
ILs'navigational aids and^ ^ been conslstently upgraded
with amenities. •«rindina an expanded parking area and
current projects including an ^ applied for^ ^
flight service area. The y & basin tQ seryice high
IUndanS! ^ wUdetne^s^Kplditio,? companies and individuals.
The Kenai Police "oTSSi
for a relatively low P°PulJg,, Fire protection is also
(Kenai penin®ulari2°r°Shich has a fire department staffed by
provided by the City, whicn ^ ^ statlon 1S equipped
twelve full-time firefx^%ruck three pumpers, and a
with a 1/ 500-gallon cras^ Ins^ance Services Office fire
5 000-gallon tanker. one-to-ten scale), which is
rating is fiv. <« size (winston 1985).
about average for a city
, care m Kenai is provided by the Fire
Emergency medical ca lly brought to the Central
neDartment. Patients are in soldotna; more serious
£SK.»1« General Hc^pital ^CPGH) » (winst 1985).
cases are treated »t AJnch | r ^ the x Peninsula,
CPGH the primary healtn ca four-bed intensive care
provides 24-hour staff consists of 18
unit, and an obstetric ^ During summer 1985, the
MD'S, 20 RN'S, o^hstetrics unit was expanded, another MD
emergency room and obste^ chemical dependency unit was
was hired, anci
constructed. *. •
have an average capacity utilization
CPGH' s 4 5 beds ha ^ ^ percent. utilization
rate of 35 percent ana pe to increased emphasis
has leveled °« " th?h^npatient care Demand for beds
on outpatient rather ^ . al average of about 3 beds per
is somewhat below the n u to the young age of the
^HiatlSi1 in"the Sk le^ice area (Nichols 1985) .
popula Kenai Peninsula Borough
Education is prateS a high school, junior high
school District, nt°aplrfc ooifta the city of Kenai.
school, and two eleme,from 1,252 students in
Total enrollmen Peninsula Borough 1984) to 1,878 in May
October 1980 (Kenai Penin District employs 124 teachers at
1985 (Overman 1985) . relatively low student-teacher
it<5 Kenai schools, rOT * Subject to bond issue approval
ratio of 15:1 program would increase the
by voters, a from 2,250 to 2,750, adequate to
capacity of Kenal. ® until about 1990, if 7 percent
handle enrollment gr t growth occurs. In the
average a^a3j dotna-Sterling area, planned construction
Kenai-Nikiski-Soldotna tQ gf475 (subject to voter
would increase total P be sufticient to accommodate
projected'enrollment until the 1992-1993 school year.
proj<
4-72
-------
4.7.1.4 Local and Regional Governance
The primary government jurisdiction in the region of
the site is the Kenai Peninsula Borough. Under state law,
boroughs can exercise a variety of powers, including
provision of education, land use planning, platting and
zoning, public safety, and other services, and may collect
property, sales, and use taxes levied within their
boundaries.
The Borough does not currently have a land use plan for
the site area. A coastal zone management plan for the
Beluga coal field area was formulated by the Borough in 1980
but was never implemented.
The State of Alaska is also an important government
entity by virtue of its land holdings in the site area,
permitting authority, and power to levy taxes on resource
developments.
4.7.2 Tvonek
4.7.2.1 Demography
Tyonek's February 1984 population of 273 residents was
approximately 95 percent Native (Fall et al. 1984). Village
officials estimate the February 1985 population at 325
people. The rate of population growth in Tyonek has
fluctuated throughout the past century (Table 4-19). The
village population declined in the late 1800s and eventually
crashed in 1918 as a result of a devastating influenza
epidemic. Since 192 0, the population has gradually
increased with only a slight decline between the 1940 and
1950 censuses. In the 1960s, the town experienced a growth
rate of about 2.4 percent annually. The population growth
rate dropped during the 1970s, however, stagnating at about
0.3 percent annually. This decline in population growth was
due to outmigration (McCord 1985) since both employment
opportunities and subsistence resources were in short supply
throughout the 1970s. The population has grown by
approximately 3.5 percent annually between 1980 and 1984.
As presented in Figure 4-14, 78 percent of the
population is under 35 years of age (Fall et al. 1984) .
Although this segment of the population was represented
equally by males and females, the male/female ratio is
disproportionate in certain age groups. There were 66 males
and 45 females between the ages of 15 and 34. This may
possibly be due to a higher outmigration of females. in
contrast, there were 59 girls and 34 boys under 15 years of
age.
4-73
-------
Cu
3
O
a:
W
Male
51.8%
Female
4 8.2%
N = 80
1 (.4%)
70-74
65-69
(.7%) 2
60-64
(1.9%) 5
3 (1.1%)
2 (.7%)
55-59
50-54
(2.2%) 6
45-49
(1.9%) 5
4 (1.5%)
40-44
(4.1%) 11
9 (3.4%)
35-39
(2.6%) 7
5 (l.9%)
30-34
(5.6%) 15
7 (2.6%)
25-29
(5.6%) 15
12 (4.5%)
20-24
(6.0%) 16
15-19
(7.4%)20
10-14
(5.2%) 14
22 (8.2%)
(2.9%) 8
(4.5%) 12
19 (7.1%)
18 (6.7%)
25 20 15 10 5 0 5 10 15 20 25
NUMBER OF PEOPLE
SOURCE: D'VIS.ON OF SUBSISTENCE TECHNICAL REPORT *,05.
POPULATION PROFILE BY AGE AND SEX, TYONEK, FEBRUARY, 1984
Diamond Chuitna Environmental Impact Statement
FIGURE 4-14
4-74
-------
Table 4-19
POPULATION OF TYONEK, ALASKA, 1880-1984
1880
1890
1900
1920
1930
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
1984
117
115
107
58
78
136
132
187
232
239
273
Source: Fall et al. 1984; Darbyshire and Associates 1981a
4.7.2.2 Economy
Tyonek residents participate in a mixed economy that
requires integration of elements of both subsistence and
cash production into a unified economic strategy (Fall et
al. 1984). For example, cash is required to purchase
equipment necessary to harvest subsistence resources.
Although the two production strategies are related, their
integration is often difficult. A successful renewable
resource harvester must be willing to wait for suitable
weather and adapt to the seasonal availability and variable
migration patterns of targeted resources. This flexibility
is frequently incompatible with full-time employment.
Hence, employers are often faced with absenteeism and
villagers must choose between work and subsistence resource
harvesting. Layoffs, seasonal job fluctuations, and chronic
unemployment and underemployment are perennial problems in
Tyonek. This general situation was illustrated by the
construction of a logging and chip mill operation by Kodiak
Lumber, Mills (KLM) in 1975. Despite high unemployment and
KLM's apparent desire to hire local workers, problems
similar to those described above were encountered and KLM
eventually found it necessary to replace much of the Tyonek
work force with non-locals. By 1979, only eight Tyonek
villagers worked for KLM (Braund and Behnke 1980) compared
with a maximum of approximately 3 0 Tyonek residents employed
by KLM in 1976 (McCord 1985) .
Tyonek villagers had an average 1983 household income of
$12,853, with the median income about $11,000 (Darbyshire
and Associates 1984a). In addition, Darbyshire and
Associates found that, of a total local workforce of 145
villagers, 41 held full-time jobs in 1983 (Table 4-20) .
4-75
-------
Table 4-20
TOTAL VILLAGE INCOME AND EMPLOYMENT, BY INDUSTRY
VILLAGE OF TYONEK, ALASKA, 19831
Seasonal/
Industry
Ful1-time
Part-time
Commercial Fishing
0
51
Construction
1
1
Cottage Industry
0
2
Transportation
1
0
Communications/Uti1ities
2
0
Trade/Private Services
6
2
Real Estate
0
0
Village Government
19
1
Borough School
5
6
State & Federal Agencies/Services
3
0
Total Employment in Tyonek
37
63
Outside Employment2
4
0
Transfer Payments
TOTAL VILLAGE
EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME
41
63
Annual
Income
142,500
15,000
1,500
14,600
30,600
132,825
33,400
282,325
89,455
82.000
S 824,205
73,700
258.837
$1,156,742
1 Does not include Tyonek Native Corporation jobs filled by
non-vi1 lagers.
2 Residents who leave Tyonek periodically to work outside the
communi ty.
Source: Darbyshire and Associates (1984a)
4-76
-------
Darbyshire (1984a) estimated that an additional 63 part-time
and seasonal jobs existed. Hence, 104 people were
unemployed or underemployed in Tyonek in 1983, including
those involved in commercial fishing and other part-time or
seasonal opportunities. This high level of unemployment and
underemployment is a serious impediment to the economic
health of the community.
Positions with the Tyonek village council, Native
Village of Tyonek (NVT) accounted for 19 (51 percent) of the
37 full-time jobs in Tyonek in 1983. These positions
included: village president, equipment operators,
secretaries, custodians, fire and patrol men, a nurse,
health aide, and others. The Kenai Peninsula Borough
employed five villagers full-time in 1983 in the school. In
addition, six full-time positions were filled in private
enterprises such as the local store. The remainder of the
full-time positions were offered by a range of local
industries including construction, transportation, utili-
ties, and through state and federally funded programs.
Changes in employment opportunities after 198 3 include
creation of approximately two positions in coal exploration,
six carpentry positions for construction of the new tribal
center, and two Chuitna River sportfish guiding businesses,
one of which is based in Tyonek (McCord 1985).
The 63 possible part-time and/or seasonal employment
opportunities were dominated by commercial fishing with
seasonal positions available for approximately 51 people,
including 26 limited entry salmon permit holders and their
crew members. In 1983, 28 households derived a total income
of $142,500 from commercial fishing for an average of $5,089
per household or $5,700 per permit (Darbyshire and
Associates 1984a; Fall et al. 1984). In 1982, gross
earnings from commercial fishing in Tyonek were slightly
below 1983 fishing incomes at $4,753 per permit (Fall et al.
1984) . Although data from only two years cannot be
considered representative, commercial fishing earnings in
Tyonek appear to be below those in other Cook Inlet
fisheries. For example , gross earnings for Upper Cook
Inlet set gill net permit holders averaged $9,672 per permit
in 1979, $10,541 in 1980, $14,640 in 1981, $20,969 in 1982,
and $16,283 in 1983 (Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
1984) .
In terms of relative contribution to Tyonek, Darbyshire
and Associates (1984a) estimated private sector income
including commercial fishing, village government, and
transfer payments to be the most important sources of income
(Table 4-21). The relationship between village government
and the real estate sector of the economy requires
elaboration. The Tyonek Management Corporation (TMC), a
subsidiary of NVT, manages royalties from a 1965 sale of oil
and gas drilling rights on the former Moquawkie Indian
4-77
-------
^ .a locally and outside
Reservation. ® rental properties in Tyonek
the community. in xy , through houses leased to
generated $33,400, priin /ciates 1984a) . However, rental
teachers (Darbyshire a"d A ti located primarily m
receipts NVT and its activities.
Anchorage essenJ1^i^he economic base of the community was
Thus, 30 P^ce^pofre^e receipts (Table 4-21) . Private
derived from T^,.rn_ commercial fishing, construction and
industries (inclu<^d for 24 percent of the economic base
merchandise) a^°u^ing represented 46 percent of Tyonek's
and public reliance on the public sector
economic base. AlJ*°^allv in terms of direct transfer
is substantial, espec ^ ^ gtate and federal programs
payments^TYonek ^^p®ural Alaskan villages (Darbyshire and
Associates 1984a).
Table 4-21
TYONEK'S ECONOMIC BASE,
1983
pp.rcent
24
Basic Industries
Private Activities
TMC Rent Receipts 3 0
Kenai Borough School Funding 10
State and Federal Services Funding 9
State and Federal Transfer Payments ",~7
27
100
Source: Dartre and Associates (19.4.)
.. Facilities and Services
4.7.2.3 Community Facii
+- +• oil and gas lease income in the
Due in large part.to ^ continually develop and
1960s, Tyonek ha* ^ties and services to meet the needs
vmarade community taclr}^eQ^ and gas royalties supported
nf the community. Th?°t fusing in the mid-1960s and
Sonst^ction of oTIh*9 school. Investment
contributed to =°nstrU°^yalties has allowed continued
infrastructure development* to meet the changing needs of the
community. filled by approximately 60
Housing needs Tyonek built in 1965 and 27 houses
prefabricated homes JhatT;y funds frQm Housing and Urban
?hat were built in 1.978 79 Native Association (CINA)
Development (HUD) J^sib) . Public utilities
fDarbyshire and ^ss°fsidents include water (treated with
ISailable to Tyonek resi hone service, and electric
chlorine and \t\tT Tyonek sold an electric
service. xn
4-78
-------
generating unit to Chugach Electric Association in trade for
an electricity allotment. In 1982, Tyonek's consumption was
4.7 million kilowatt-hours; by mid-1983, 11.9 million
kilowatt-hours remained in Tyonek's allotment (Vecera 1985).
Chugach Electric Association officials estimated that, at
current rates of consumption, Tyonek would begin paying for
electricity by 198 6.
Sewage disposal (using septic tanks and leach fields)
and solid waste disposal (at a landfill 6.4 km (4 mi) south
of Tyonek) needs are filled on an individual basis. The
E.L. "Bob" Bartlett School, constructed in 1967 by the
Bureau of Indian Affairs and NVT and added to in 197 6 by
KPB, offers education for grades K-12. The school, which is
operated by KPB, includes a library, full kitchen,
gymnasium, and multipurpose room, as well as classrooms and
offices.
A local health clinic accommodates health care needs,
although residents commonly use hospitals in Anchorage for
all but minor health needs. The village clinic is operated
by a full-time CINA aide and a part-time CINA
representative. In addition, personnel from the Public
Health Service and the Alaska Native Service visit Tyonek
periodically to provide health care (Darbyshire and
Associates 1981b).
Other social services offered locally are administered
by the NVT and supported by funds from CINA as well as
various state and federal programs. These services include
counseling, drug and alcohol abuse programs, day care, adult
and child protection, and employment assistance (Darbyshire
and Associates 1981b). In addition, CINA funds are used to
support three local firemen. Public safety needs are
further filled by a village public safety officer and two
village security officers in Tyonek and a State Trooper in
Beluga (Darbyshire and Associates 1984b; Fall et al. 1984).
Additional community facilities include a guest
house/day care center, snack bar/recreation center, post
office, heavy equipment shop, and community center that
houses village offices (Darbyshire and Associates 1981b,
1984b). A new tribal center, funded by an HUD Community
Development Block Grant, is nearing completion. It includes
offices for the village government and various social
service programs as well as a large public hall that will be
used for village gatherings. Finally, other community
service needs are filled by the private sector, including
the village store and two Anchorage-based air taxi services
that provide numerous daily flights between Tyonek and
Anchorage.
4-79
-------
4 7.2.4 Local Government
., under the name Native
The Tyonek village coun ' lly chartered Indian
T of Tyonek (NVT) , is * is recognized as the
zatio^ A=t (IRA) council that ^ couqncil has been
aoverning body for the vi g • community and its
acllie in the development of cover
®Tuties for many Year®'n . ,,4-nities, and management of
facilities i a£fairs, pUblicutilities Peninsula
village-owned lands and b-^sand ?s responsible for
Borough ad"ini^eriandfill, though this function has been
operation of ^ village.
subcon ra claims settlement Act (ANCSA)
When the Alaska Native ^ participate in the Act
massed in 1971, Tyonelc ch
-------
Laboratory and Battelle Human Affairs Research Center 1979;
DOWL 1981) indicated general disapproval for such
development. As reported by these studies, Tyonek
residents' concerns centered around increased outside
influence on the community, disruption of their subsistence
livelihood (through habitat disruption, increased
competition for wildlife, or potential difficulty with
access to hunting areas), and general village disruption.
Field interviews conducted in January 1985 suggest that many
of these concerns still prevail in Tyonek.
The January 1985 fieldwork conducted in Tyonek revealed
that local attitudes toward specific aspects of the Diamond
Chuitna project ranged from vehement opposition to
enthusiastic support. Individuals strongly supportive of
coal development invariably cited the expected increases in
local employment opportunities as the major benefit to the
community. Opposition to the project was based on the
perceived sociocultural impacts, changes in local resource
use patterns, and effects to the surrounding environment.
Specifically, these concerns included:
Effects of pollutants (especially coal dust,
acidic runoff, and sewage) on fish, plants, and
water quality
Changes in fish and wildlife availability due to:
fish and game habitat disruption
stream blockage
increased activity that could drive fish and
game away
overhunting by workers associated with the coal
mine
increasingly restrictive hunting regulations
should overhunting occur
disruption of moose migrations and traditional
hunting patterns
Disruption of the local sportfish guiding business
due to increased competition for fish and reduced
wilderness qualities
Erosion of Tanaina culture and the rural way of
life
Increased outside influence in the community that
could lead to:
loss of local control
increased traffic of drugs and alcohol into the
community
increased competition for fish and game from
non-locals
increased trespass onto Tyonek land
pressure for a road connection to Anchorage.
4-81
-------
. ^ ^,r<~ Tvonek residents who
According to development of the coal fields due to
had reservations about de^/el p environmental consequences
possible adverse pre**"** them with a dileiw?a:
realized that such deve^m^onomic opportunities that will
On one hand, they other hand, they perceive the
generate local 3oba; on the oth^ ^ Ufeatyle to be
substantial .C° One Tyonek resident conmjnted^ ^ The
Vlit. here."
• a need for a viable economic
Some villagers voi
-------
pessimistic that any agreements will be carried out in good
faith. This skepticism is in part due to the performance of
KLM, but is compounded by perceptions that Tyonek is being
excluded from the planning process and is powerless to
affect the outcome of major land and resource use decisions
for the area. One resident said, "They have planned
everything off of our boundaries. It seems like they are
going all around us without working with us."
4.8 SUBSISTENCE
The harvest and use of subsistence resources are
important to Tyonek residents for three reasons. First,
locally available wild resources are less expensive than,
and often nutritionally superior, to store-bought goods.
Second, subsistence resources can be a supplement or partial
replacement for income derived from wage employment. As
such, time and money spent obtaining subsistence resources
can be adjusted depending on need, opportunities for wage
employment, and success of recent cash generating activities
such as commercial fishing. Finally, the harvest, use, and
distribution of these resources is integrally tied to Tyonek
villagers' social and cultural value system (Fall et al.
1984) . Therefore, subsistence resource harvests must be
viewed in light of food value, as a component of an overall
economic strategy, and as a central focus of the social and
cultural value system.
Figure 4-15 shows the overall resource use area for
Tyonek residents from 1978 to 1984 based on a study by the
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) from 1980 to 1983
(Fall et al. 1984). Tyonek•s subsistence harvesters use a
1942.5 km3 (750 mi2) area generally west and northwest of
the village and 217.2 km (135 mi) of coastline along the
western shore of Cook Inlet (Fall et al. 1984). Methods and
ease of access play a major role in determining Tyonek's use
areas. Dories are used to travel along the coast and into
the McArthur River flats. The road network, developed to
facilitate logging and oil and gas exploration, is heavily
used to access upland areas.
Although Tyonek residents harvest a wide variety of
subsistence resources, moose and salmon are the most
important in terms of nutritional contribution to their diet
(Fall et al. 1984). In 1983, of a mean subsistence harvest
of 359.6 Kg (964 lb) per household, 71 percent of the edible
weight was salmon, primarily king salmon taken during a
May 15 to June 15 subsistence fishing season. Moose
comprise 21 percent of the 1983 edible harvest weight. The
remaining 8 percent of the harvest included a variety of
resources including other salmon species, porcupines
(Erethizon dorsatum). berries, razor clams (Siliqua sq.)/
waterfowl (especially mallards fAnas platvrhynchosl.
pintails rA. acuta 1 . and green-winged teal [Aj__crecca]) ,
4-83
-------
NOTE: This map was compiled during 1902 with
a sample of 39 Tyonefc households, and updated
In 1983-84, It represents areas us«d during
1978-1984. This map way be a partial repre-
sentation of use areas by the community. Use
areas change through time and are not fixed
entitles.
SOURCE: Fall, F»ster, Stanek.
ADF&G, Division of Subsistence
Technical Report I 105. Anchor-
age. Alaska. 1984.
LEGEND composite map of all resource use areas
SCALE
>0
mtfes
COMPOSITE MAP OF ALL RESOURCE USE AREAS.
TYONEK, ALASKA, 1978-1984.
Diamond Chuitna Environmental Impact Statement
FIGURE 4-15
4-84
-------
smelt (eulachon), rainbow trout, Dolly Varden, belukha
whale, harbor seal, beaver, spruce grouse (Canachites
canadensis), and ptarmigan (Lagopus sp.). A variety of
furbearers, including red fox fVulpes vulpes^, weasel
(Mustela sp.) and beaver are trapped for furs, although
trapping effort is currently lower than historical levels
due to low fur prices. In addition, firewood, building
timber, and coal were collected by Tyonek villagers.
The area of most intensive marine resource harvest
includes marine and estuarine waters from the mouth of the
Chuitna River south to Granite Point. Village fish camps
and fishing sites used for both commercial and subsistence
salmon harvest are located along this stretch of beach.
Intensively used aquatic and terrestrial resource
harvest areas include the floodplains of the McArthur,
Middle, and Chakachatna rivers; Nikolai Creek; and portions
of smaller creeks in the area such as Old Tyonek Creek,
Tyonek Creek, and Threemile Creek. These areas receive more
intensive use than surrounding habitat due to harvest
efforts on instream salmon stocks, freshwater fish,
waterfowl, and moose that winter in these river valleys.
Spring, early summer, and fall are generally the
busiest seasons for subsistence resource harvests. May and
June are dominated by the subsistence king salmon harvest
and preservation. This subsistence fishery was reopened in
1980 following a 16-year closure and originally consisted of
10 fishing periods (12 hours each) between May 23 and June
15 with a household harvest limit of 50 king salmon or a
total community harvest of 3,000 king salmon. Both the
season length and harvest limits for subsistence fishing in
Tyonek were relaxed in 1981 to allow three 16-hour openings
each week between May 25 and June 15 and 12-hour openings on
Saturdays from June 16 until October 15. Harvest limits
were raised to 70 king salmon and 25 salmon of other species
per permit holder or 4,200 kings for the community.
Subsistence king harvests have ranged from a low of 1,565 in
1982 to a high of 2,750 in 1983 (Fall et al. 1984; Stanek
and Foster 1980) .
Other marine resources are also harvested in the early
summer including smelt, razor clams, and, occasionally,
marine mammals. As the season progresses, commercial salmon
fishing opens in late June and continues until the runs
diminish in August and September. Although these fish are
taken with commercial gear under commercial fishing
regulations, a proportion of the catch is usually removed
and used for subsistence purposes. As the salmon runs
decline, harvest efforts are transferred to moose,
waterfowl, and a variety of other resources.
Moose hunting occurs during the general hunting
seasons. Until 197 6, ADF&G regulations allowed moose
4-85
-------
zmaust/September and November,
hunting during two seaSOn?'.mi^ated in 197 6 due to excessive
5he November season was el:imin populations had rebounded
hunting pressure. ^/^^wal opened. currently, ADF&G
and a special November season noose hunting m Game
regulations ?llc™ residents only between November
Management Unit 16B J di adf&G personnel, the winter
i and January 31. According ^ sufficiently deep to
moose season is 0Pe*edj£eaccessible lowland areas (Foster
force the moose into. moire d the importance of the
1964). Tyonek residents s Qf year/ moose are
winter moose season. « 9 meat supplies from fall
generally \nd competition is reduced because
151^ ^o^to area residents.
area used for moose hunting
Figure 4-16 shows the iQns of this area, however,
between 1978 and 1984. only p n. Yearly variation in
are used in a given hunting conditions, moose
movements?^nd presence of other hunters m the area.
„ «ri™arilv in the McArthur
Fall moose road network. Because dories
River Flats are%*n£he ^Arthur River, this area is not used
are used to access the McAr t effort occurs primarily
during the winter. ^f^^Skachatna River (Fig. 4-14) .
between the village and throughout the road network;
Trucks are used to tra_ b foot snowmachme, or
roadless areas indicated they once hunted
threewheeler. Alth g Chuitna River as far as the
moose frequently nortn o currently used less than
Beluga River, this area competition from permanent
previously due o^necially in Beluga. Instead, winter
non-Native residents,eplace to the southwest and northwest
hunting as the chakachatna River,
of Tyonek as far
f,ar qneciesf including porcupines,
Hunting for other specie occurs incidentally while
grouse, and Ptarn^an usua . y_ ^ ^ ht durlng the
moose hunting. ™"lnPcombination with other subsistence
remainder of the yeaJ fishing, trapping, and firewood
pursuits such as Knnters indicated that the abundance of
cutting. TVone* JlTaiiy porcupines, spruce grouse, and
and att"b'd thls
Areas used for ^^^rainag^^ar^aS along the road
include the Nikolai r _n|te point including Old Tyonek
between the town G*orth o£ the chuitna River and east
creek, and in the a ... a trapper who does not reside
f Lone creek. In h a' broad area north of the Chuitna
?n Tyonek traps thE°":!h° a ry of the Diamond chuitna lease
Sv2 from fche western^bou,,dar;^ ^ Riv6r>
area, nortn
4-86
-------
Balug
Lak •
l_»*e
1
T YONEK
NOTE: This nap was compiled during 1982 with a
sanple of 39 Tyonek households, and updated in
1983-04. It represents areas used during 1978-
84. This map nay be a partial representation of
use areas by the community. Use areas change
through time and are not fixed entites.
SOURCE: FALL at al. (1»«4: FIGURE 41)
SCALE
10
miles
Ul
o
ui
RESOURCE
Small Game
Moose
Bear
Waterfowl
SYMBOL
USE AREAS FOR MOOSE, SMALL GAME, BEAR,
AND WATERFOWL, TYONEK, ALASKA
Diamond Chuitna Environmental Impact Statement
FIGURE 4-16
4-87
-------
Eighty-two percent of the households in Tyonek
harvested salmon in 1983 and 69 percent harvested or
attempted to harvest moose in 1983 (Fig. 4-17) (Fall et al.
1984) . Participation levels for other subsistence resources
were lower than for salmon or moose. Although not all
households in Tyonek participate in resource harvest
activities, 90 to 95 percent of the households receive or
exchange one or more subsistence resources in a given year
(Foster 1981; Fall et al. 1984) . Distribution of
subsistence resources ensures that the benefits of
subsistence harvests are dispersed throughout the community.
Exchanges generally occur along kinship lines and are
influenced by available surpluses, the number of dependents
in a given household, and perceived need.
Cooperative harvest, use, and distribution of
subsistence resources are important cohesive elements in
Tyonek culture (Fall et al. 1984). The opportunity to hunt
and fish is an affirmation of cultural values in an age when
the dominant social, economic, and political influences tend
to dilute the Tanaina culture. Continuation of traditional
harvest activities, then, provides the focus of Tyonek's
value system and kinship networks provide the social
structure within which these traditional activities occur.
Tyonek villagers want to retain these elements of their
culture. It is for these reasons that Tyonek residents
desire some degree of autonomy and control over the factors
that influence the resources they rely on, their access to
the resources, and the socioeconomic conditions that affect
life in the village.
4.9 VISUAL RESOURCES
The project area is in the Coastal Trough physiographic
province (U.S. Department of the Interior 1978a), which
includes much of the land bordering Cook Inlet. This region
is characterized by flat to rolling terrain and sparse to
moderately dense vegetation. The project area is visually
representative of this physiographic province, with
elevations ranging from sea level at the proposed
alternative port sites to about 275 m (900 feet) at the mine
site and 415 m (1,3 60 feet) in the northwest portion of the
Diamond Alaska lease area. Vegetation is generally of
moderate density, consisting primarily of open mixed woods of
birch and spruce in the uplands (9 to 12 m in height [30
to 40 feet]), and muskeg in the depressions and lowlands.
Above 153 m (500 feet) In elevation are willow and alder
shrub communities which may reach 6m (20 ft) in height.
Numerous drainages and depressions exist on the site, which
in combination with vegetation provide good, but not
complete potential for screening of project facilities from
view of the occasional visitors to the area.
4-88
-------
1001
w
TJ
<1)
tt>
0
1
c
a>
o
i—
0
Q_
75
50
25
0*
62%
N = 72
69%
?v cf>
64%
60%
5
tf°
¦S^
40%
\>
#
39%
v\0^
^0°
26%
26%
,v^ ^V"
.. ^ .<&
18%
15%
5^
11%
8%l 1%
Resource Categories
SOURCE: FALL. FOSTER, STANEK. ADF&G, DIVISION OF SUBSISTENCE TECHNICAL REPORT *105. ANCHORAGE, ALASKA. 1984.
PERCENTAGE OF TYONEK HOUSEHOLDS ATTEMPTING TO
HARVEST RESOURCES BY RESOURCE CATEGORY,
FEBRUARY 1983-JANUARY 1984
Diamond Chuitna Environmental
Impact Statement
FIGURE 4-17
-------
The mine site and other proposed facility areas are
rarely viewed due to their remoteness from inhabited areas
and the low use level of nearby land and water. Lands near
the proposed port sites can be viewed from nearby areas on
Cook Inlet where occasional commercial, subsistence, and
sport fishing occurs. Recreational use of the project area
is described in Section 4.10.
Visual quality of the project site area was assessed
using the U.S. Bureau of Land Management Visual Resource
Management (VRM) System (U.S. Department of the Interior
197 8b) . The terrain unit (viewshed) used for the analysis
consisted of a triangular area extending from Granite Point
to North Forelands to the mine area. Because of the visual
screening available from topography and vegetation, the
viewshed included lands about 2 miles on either side of the
proposed transportation corridor alternatives and 5 miles on
either side of Granite Point and North Forelands.
As shown on Table 4-22, the scenic quality rating
assigned to the area is 19 on a scale from 0 to 33. This
rating is in Class A (of classes A, B, and C), which
includes ratings between 19 and 33. According to the BLM
criteria for categorization of an area as a potential area
of critical environmental concern regarding scenic values,
the scenic quality rating must be Class A and must have a
scarcity rating of 5 or 6. Therefore, the project area
would not qualify under these criteria. However, the Class
A rating implies that some special management attention to
maintaining the area's scenic quality may be merited.
Table 4-22
SCENIC QUALITY RATING FOR THE PROJECT AREA
Possible
Catecrorv
Score
Ranae
Landform
3
1-5
Vegetation
3
1-5
Water
3
0-5
Color
3
1-5
Influence
3
0-5
Scarcity
2
1-6
Cultural Modification
2
-4-2
Total 19
0-33
The area's remoteness from large communities or
activity centers tends to lower the level of concern for
visual intrusions. However, an important use of the area
is for wilderness expeditions such as fly-in fishing and
subsistence use, for which lack of man-made visual
4-90
-------
ijitirusions is an important attribute. Addition of this user
attitude factor would tend to raise overall concern for
visual changes to the area. The net effect of low use level
and high user concern is assessed as neutral and the scenic
guality rating of 19 is considered representative of the
overall sensitivity of the project area to change.
It should be noted, however, that a common vantage point
is not from the ground, but from the air, since most
travellers who see the site area fly in. Thus, the viewshed
is actually larger if aerial vantage points are included.
If a larger area were considered to reflect aerial views,
the visual sensitivity of the area would be somewhat lowered
because "cultural modifications" such as logging roads, the
Beluga power station, and power lines are more visible from
the air. The presence of these man-made influences tends to
lower scenic quality ratings according to the vrm
methodology.
4.10 RECREATION
The primary recreational uses of the site and its
environs are fly-in fishing expeditions, non-subsistence
moose hunting, and some hiking, camping, and picnicking by
Tyonek residents (see Section 4.8).
4.10.1 fiport Fishing
The oroiect area, particularly the chuitna River,
provides excellent coho and king salmon fishing. The
chuitna is open for coho salmon fishing in its entirety and,
iince 1933 has been open for king salmon from Cook Inlet to
the mouth 'of Lone creek. These areas are accessible from
Tyonek and nearby airstrips via abandoned logging roads and
are fished during June-July for king salmon and July-August
for coho. While there is good potential for a rainbow trout
fishery on the upper chuitna, lack of access probably' limits
use of upstream areas. However, good rainbow fishing is
available on the lower Chuitna early in the season. Kings
and red salmon are also taken in this area.
At least two wilderness fishing operations regularly
use the permit area. Clients are picked up at the Tyonek or
Superior airstrip and driven to the Chuitna River or Lone
crISk, then picked up at day's end. One operator has
developed a trail network along the river banks and has
huilt a lodge near the Chuitna River-Lone creek confluence.
Permit area waters are seldom fished. Although good fishing
is available, fishing guides do not use either Nikolai or
Threemile Creek, which are fished primarily by local
residents for kings and red salmon.
Tn 1983 between 4,000 and 5,000 man—days of fishing
effort are estimated to have been spent m Western Cook
4-91
-------
Inlet (including all streams north of the MacArthur system
and south of the Lewis River). Most of this effort was on
the Chuitna River. The king salmon fishery accounted for
approximately 2,000 man-days of this total (the 1984 king
salmon run attracted a similar level of use). The Chuitna
River king salmon fishery is excellent, with harvest rates
over 0.5 fish per man-day. The Chuitna River king salmon
population is presently underharvested (Hepler 1985) . The
Chuitna River coho salmon fishery attracts somewhat lower
fishing effort, but probably still accounts for most of the
4,000 to 5,000 man-days spent in Western Cook Inlet not
represented by king salmon. No data are available on the
level of effort for rainbow trout (Delaney 1985) .
4.10.2 Hunting
Sport hunting in the project area is largely restricted
to moose hunting. Waterfowl may be taken opportunistically
on lakes in the area, but most waterfowl hunting takes place
in the Trading Bay or Susitna Flats State Game Refuges.
Brown bear are not harvested except occasionally in "defense
of life and property." In the vicinity of the Beluga River,
approximately twenty hunters per year hunt black bear.
There are no statistics available to indicate success.
Ptarmigan are also occasionally hunted in the area.
Moose hunters number about 150 per year. Hunters
usually arrive in Tyonek by air or boat and hunt from the
road system. Tyonek residents provide some support
facilities for hunters in their area. Hunts are held in the
fall and in the winter. In 1984, ADF&G issued 48 permits
for the winter moose hunt and in 1985, 67 permits were
issued. Statistics indicate there is an approximate hunter
success rate of 25 to 50 percent. It should be noted that a
winter sport hunt for moose has not been held since 1985.
4.10.3 Other
Other possible recreational uses of the project area
include recreational trapping and waterfowl hunting by
non-Natives and picnicking, camping, and sight-seeing by the
Tyonek villagers. Data on recreational trapping and
waterfowl hunting by either Natives or non-Natives is
unavailable, but some occasional use may occur.
4.11 CULTURAL RESOURCES
The Diamond Chuitna project area lies within a region
of Alaska where relatively few archaeological sites have
been discovered and even fewer scientifically excavated.
Current understanding of the region's cultural history is
sketchy due to the lack of data. It appears as if the
earliest human use of the Cook Inlet area was sometime
between 8,000 and 10,000 years ago. The lowest level of the
4-92
-------
«« the north shore of Turnagain Arm,
Beluga Point site, on ials in an undated context;
produced core ?nd blade elsewhere have been assigned to
similar materia^0^°tiS Tradition of about 10,000 years ago
the American Paleoarctic OCCUpation _ of the
fReger 1977, 1° ' ' , ^he Beluga Point site, is
region, also rePre®®^l dating to about 3,000 years ago,
characterized by have obvious relationships to
cuiSra?rarainsyelsewhere in AlasKa.
cultural manif-stati.ns at^ Bel%aJ01e£l!es?
date between 3,000 and l^ Nortyon cuiture and thus may be
probably is related to ^ Eskimo peoples or cultural
connected with an intr^th sites from the same time period
traits into the ar®^3r collections of cultural material are
and possessing similar c ticulariy to the north. The
known from the general ar ' * ted but may be similar to
lmoSn £ron Bristo1 Bay and dating
to°about 500 B.C. (Ross 1971).
• history is represented by several
The late period of J? . t area, including Beluga Point
sites in the general pr l ^ tQ around 600 years ago.
where the uppermost lev ^ the Russians, iater the
Historic sites, out the period, by the Tanama
Americans and, throug inhabiting the region at the
Athapaskans^the ^tivej^P ^ ^ regloni though few have
been Extensively excavated.
v. site is known to be present in
Only one archaeol g rea (Gerlach and Lobdell 1983) .
the Diamond Chuitna p 3 elevated bluff above Cook Inlet
The site °£rea within the confines of the coal
in the Granite Point ar DlaKmci AlasKa at the port Site.
storage area propose-u representing salmon storage
Shallow depressions, p (TYO-064) . Further testing
pits, were reported. a habitation features or debris,
might disclose ^®n ald not disclose any other materials
Archaeological survey ° use Qf the umnediate project
attributable to pa historic cabins are located adjacent
area. The remains of n Y0_033) . The cabins, which are
to the Ladd Port sice v frame and log structures. No
greatly deteriorated at been carried out in the
archaeological corridor. However, the nature of
Northern transP°^* ° tensive vegetative cover suggests the
possibility Sft^ther archaeological sites may exist.
4-93
-------
Chapter 5.0
Environmental Consequences
-------
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
5.1 INTRODUCTION
The scientific and analytical bases for the comparison
of alternatives summarized in Section 3.2.4 are presented in
this chapter.
The No Action alternative is discussed first. Since for
almost all disciplines, the impact of the No Action
Alternative would be the status quo, impacts of this
alternative are not discussed for each of the individual
disciplines. Rather, the No Action alternative is discussed
in a separate section (Section 5.2) which deals primarily with
the socioeconomic impacts of no project implementation.
Section 5.3 discusses the impacts of components common
to all action alternatives, i.e. impacts associated with the
mine, overburden stockpile location, and mine service area.
Impacts are considered for each discipline. Next, the chapter
deals with the applicant's Proposed Project, which includes
two port site/transportation corridor alternatives. Finally,
several additional alternatives are discussed, including an
eastern corridor/Ladd alternative and three housing area
conf igurations.
The environmental consequences described for the action
alternatives in this chapter assume that the level of
mitigation would be as proposed by the applicant (Chapter
2.0) • One of the alternatives available to the permitting
agencies is to request additional mitigating measures as a
condition of their respective permits. Possible mitigation
measures beyond those proposed by the applicant and the
environmental consequences of their implementation are
discussed separately in Chapter 6.0.
Throughout the following impact discussion, various
references are made to "local" impacts and "regional" impacts.
For purposes of this EIS, "region" refers to the Beluga Region
or the area roughly outlined in Figure 4-1. Local impacts
refer to effects that occur at, or immediately adjacent to,
proposed project facilities. Therefore, impacts that are
"regionally significant" would normally be noticeable or
measurable when considered from a regional perspective.
"Locally significant" impacts would be noticeable or
measurable in the vicinity of the impact but would not be
noticeable on a regional basis. Regionally significant
impacts could have significance on a broader scale (statewide
or national) if the magnitude were large enough or the
resources particularly sensitive.
5-1
-------
5.2 THE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
The No Action alternative would result if at least one
of the permits necessary for project development were denied
or if the project sponsor chose not to undertake the project.
No Action would mean that none of the activities described in
Chapter 2.0 would occur. In addition, ongoing exploration
activities would likely stop and Diamond Alaska would probably
be required to rehabilitate existing disturbed areas. None
of the impacts to the physical and biological environment
described in the remaining sections of this chapter would
occur and the area would essentially retain its relatively
undeveloped character. Some development scars from past
exploration would remain in the coal field vicinity for an
indefinite time period, but they would become less conspicuous
with the passage of time.
Not developing the Diamond Chuitna Coal Project could
create a future need for coal mines at other locations. The
extent of this need would depend on local and worldwide
conditions of supply and demand. If substitute mines were
developed, environmental impacts of unknown, but possibly
significant, magnitude could occur at some other location(s) .
Whether or not the impacts would be greater or less than those
that would occur at the Diamond Chuitna site cannot be
determined.
If it is assumed that the No Action alternative would
cause Diamond Alaska to cease exploration and predevelopment
activities, then the small number of jobs that are currently
supported by these activities would be lost and Diamond Alaska
would turn its energies elsewhere. Failure to proceed with
mine development would result in at least 848 permanent jobs
not being realized over the 34-year life span of the mine.
The various positive and negative socioeconomic impacts to the
village of Tyonek and Kenai Peninsula communities described
in subsequent sections of this chapter would not occur.
From a regional standpoint, not developing the Diamond
Chuitna mine could significantly affect the course of future
development in the area. Development of the project and its
infrastructure would likely serve as a stimulus for
development of other coal fields as well as providing the
economic base for support and other industries (see Section
5.7). The No Action alternative would prevent or delay
industrial development of the Beluga area and tend to maintain
the present character of the area.
5-2
-------
5.3 IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES -
MINE AND MINE FACILITIES
5.3.1 Impacts to Terrestrial Environment
5.3.1.1 Physiography and Geology
The major construction and operation impacts of the
proposed project on physiography, geology, and soils are
related to coal and gravel extraction and gravel placement
for facilities and for roadway and drainage structures. Four
sites (Fig. 2-16) have been selected as potential gravel
mining sites. These sites would provide a maximum of 4.3
million m3 (5.6 million yd3) of material and riprap which would
be required for facilities foundations, roadway and drainage
embankments, drainage structure protection, and reclamation.
Extraction of coal, gravel, and rock would deplete portions
of valuable resources. The above figure includes
approximately 3060 m3 (4000 yd3) riprap, 459,000 m3 (600, 000
yd3) gravel or road surface material and 2.3 million m3 to 3.8
million m3 (3 to 5 million yd3) unclassified fill. The impacts
of specific components are discussed in the following
paragraphs.
Mining operations would deplete approximately 299 million
Mt (330 million short tons) of coal. A 16.8 million m3 (22
million yd3) overburden stockpile would be created from
overburden and interburden from the initial box cut for the
mine. Approximately 81 ha (2 00 ac) would be covered by the
overburden stockpile. Consideration has been given to the
stability of the overburden stockpile slopes and future slope
failures on the waste pile would not be anticipated with the
proposed configuration.
The earth-moving sequence proposed by Diamond Alaska
would replace materials in approximately the same order as
their removal. However, it is anticipated that significant
mixing of overburden and interburden would still occur during
their extraction and replacement in depleted portions of the
mine pit. Therefore, the postmining stratigraphic sequence
would be similar to, but not identical to, the premining
condition.
The surface excavation required to remove the coal would
substantially alter the topographic relief during mine
operation. As described in Section 2.3.2, the pit fa^e would
be continually advancing as new overburden is removed. The
trailing edge of the pit would also advance as overburden is
dumped onto mined-out areas. In effect, a 182 ha (4 50 ac)
hole in the ground would move across the landscape over a 3 0-
year period. The reclaimed area behind the mine pit would be
5-3
-------
regraded to its approximate premining topography as the pit
advances and, at completion of mining, the whole area would
be restored. Postmining topography would be similar, but not
identical, to the premining condition.
5.3.1.2 Soils
clearing and grubbing operations for the rain® and mine
• Pa^-iiities would directly disturb over the life of
service facilit of mainly organic soils,
the mine af^72£°5?2 735 'ac) of Mutnala-Chichantna, 548 ha
S?) Mutnala, 'and284 hi <702 ac) starichkot sell types
i4e Tables 4-1 and 4-2 for characterizing features of the
affected soils)(Bechtel 1982).
The 10-vear mine area consists of 1,406 ha <3,546 ac) of
. J\It rV«585 ac) or 73 percent consists of Strandlme
have a'landy loam texture (ERT 1984d) . Because of
soils that have * theSe soils are valuable for
their mineral Starichkof - Chichantna soils occur on
rhatoTac) of the 10-year mine area. The remaining 23 ha
(56 ac) consTsts of Jacobsen sand and Killey - Moose River
silt loams.
Because of the long period required for soil formation,
^ Diamond Chuitna mine area are highly susceptible
soils in theDia otive impacts from surface mining. A
maior^ong-term'disturbance would result from the removal of
sou5 infovlrturden to reach the coal seams.
The initial construction impact to soils would be
o^ntnallv litigated by implementation of the reclamation plan
^d succtLful revegetation. The revegetation medium would
and suctr®ssru backfilled overburden with a minimum 6-inch
be provided by toDSoil. The development of a
layer of t^cilitated by addition of
favorable grow accelerated erosion. Development
f?rt bVoZieoraicn<(iCe biologically mature) dynamic soil profile
of a blolo2 ,ii' Jrniivalent to that which currently exists
from overburde qu period (hundreds of years) in this
would require a 1 <3 - nd Tedrow 1959; Heilman 1966;
ThZCiM74?£he 'addii^n of a topsoil layer containing
Brady 1974) . in currently planned would greatly
biologic componen ^ evolution. Thus, construction,
accelerate the P* tion impacts of the project on existing
operation, and recia^ te^ but partially reversible
soils wo^ld b.h resource. It should be noted that a
commitment ofion program, including attainment of a
successful r®^®9 . community, is not necessarily dependent
diverse and soil profile. Test plots in
the"mining area are designed to establish the most favorable
reclamation conditions.
5-4
-------
5.3.1.3 Vegetation
Community Composition
During construction and operation, clearing for the mine
would directly disturb about 2,029 ha (5,014 ac) of existing
vegetation, including 1,356 ha (3,351 ac) of mixed spruce-
birch woodland, 3 64 ha (8 99 ac) of open low shrub
scrub/ sweetgale-grass fen, and 182 ha (450 ac) of closed
alder/tall shrub scrub (ERT 1985e). An additional 22 ha
(54 ac) of primarily mixed spruce-birch woodland vegetation
would be disturbed by construction of the mine service
facilities (Table 5-1) .
Vegetation would also be disturbed by mining of gravel,
the extent of which would depend on the number of sites used
(Fig. 2-16). site 5 would disturb about 106 ha (262 ac) of
mainly mixed spruce-birch woodland vegetation. Sites 8 and
7 would disturb 134 ha (331 ac) of mixed spruce-birch woodland
and mesic graminoid herbaceous/bluejoint herb vegetation and
119 ha (294 ac) of mainly mixed deciduous woodland vegetation,
respectively.
Damage to vegetation could also occur from fuel and
chemical spills. The degree of impact would depend on the
amount of the spill, the time of the year, type of community,
and type of action required for the cleanup (Brown and Berg
1980). Spills in communities with wet, organic soils during
the growing season are considered to be more damaging than
those occurring in mineral soils or those occurring in winter.
Spill contingency plans and engineering design will help to
prevent or minimize damage.
Another possible indirect impact would be the increased
risk of spruce beetle infestation of native trees resulting
from the spread of beetles in piles or windrows of trees
created during clearing operations. Delayed burning of dead
trees would increase this risk.
The use of topsoil as a revegetation growth medium would
facilitate the establishment of vegetation and would reduce
the time and effort required to attain a self-sufficient plant
community (McGinnies and Nicholas 1980). Revegetation studies
by Diamond Alaska on test plots in the mine area have
indicated that early successional species (e.g., grasses) will
readily grow on typical overburden materials even in the
absence of topsoil. Estimation of the time required to attain
a plant community with a similar structure and diversity to
premining conditions (or a successional stage leading to such)
requires extrapolation of data from similar areas and project
development circumstances. Because no data are directly
5-5
-------
Table 5-1
AREA (ha [ac]) OF VEGETATION DISTURBED
BY VARIOUS MINE COMPONENTS
Project Component
I 2 T
Vegetation Unit^
_ Total
9 Area (Hafar-n
Mine and Mine
Facilities
Mine
Mine Service Area
Housing Facilities
and Airstrip
(Lone Creek)
TOTAL
20 1356
(49) (3351)
14
(35)
(62)
25
• 6 20 1395
(14.8) (49) (3447)
182 364 101 2029
(450) (899) (250) (5014)
8 - 22
(20) (54)
(4.9) (2.5) (2.5) (72)
— — — 29
184 373 102 2080
(455) (922) (252) (5140)
^¦Vegetation Units (ERT 1985e) are as follows:
1 - Closed broadleaf forest/paper birch
2 - Open broadleaf forest/balsam poplar
3 - Open mixed forest/spruce-birch
4 - Needleleaf woodland/black spruce
5 - Mixed woodland/spruce-birch
6 - Open tall shrub scrub/willow
7 - Closed tall shrub scrub/alder
8 - Open low shrub scrub/sweetgale-grass fen
9 - Mesic graminoid herbaceous/bluejoint herb
5-6
-------
transferable to the Diamond Chuitna Project, conservative
estimates of time required for soils and vegetation regen-
eration have been obtained by a review of literature
documenting natural and man-assisted succession.
The time period required for vegetation reestablishment
varies with ecosystem (climatic regime) and site conditions.
In the absence of reclamation, secondary succession to attain
premining vegetation biomass on overburden would require an
estimated 2 0 to 4 0 years. This estimate is based on
regeneration data, including studies on secondary succession
and revegetation after complete soil disturbance. Natural
regeneration after logging to an early successional Canada
bluejoint grass community occurs relatively quickly in the
project area (ERT 1984g). However, vegetation regeneration
on highly disturbed soil would be expected to require a
somewhat longer period. Natural vegetation, including the
establishment of willows and black cottonwood, occurred within
25 years on newly exposed glacial till and a nearly continuous
cover of alder had established after 35-40 years in the moist
environment of Glacier Bay (Crocker and Major 1955). Younkin
and Martens (1985) indicate reinvasion of native species
including trees and shrubs after four years on fertilized mine
overburden in a boreal forest ecosystem in Canada (61 degrees
latitude). Unassisted revegetation (20 percent cover) was
attained in the same time frame in the Yukon Territory (64
degrees latitude) on pipeline overburden (Younkin and Martens
1985) . Willow and alder with an herbaceous understory have
established within 2 0 years after fire in central Alaska (Lutz
1956). However, the establishment of a diverse, relatively
mature community from natural succession alone could take 50
to 100 years (Rowe and Scotter 1973; Hettinger and Janz 1974).
Implementation of reclamation procedures as currently
planned would facilitate and accelerate the reestablishment
of self-perpetuating plant communities on disturbed sites
within the project area. Using results of previous work
(Younkin and Marten 1985; Crocker and Major 1955; Lutz 1956;
Vierick 1982), it is postulated that well-developed stands of
herbaceous and shrub vegetation would be established 5 to 10
years after commencement of reclamation. Self-perpetuating
vegetation with sufficient cover to prevent erosion could
probably be established within 10 to 20 years after
reclamation. The establishment of mature shrublands and young
forests would require an estimated 2 0 to 30 years.
Resstablishment of woody communities, species diversity, and
wildlife values similar to existing communities, however,
could require a longer period (20 to 40 years). The use of
topsoil as a revegetation growth medium would tend to shorten
the time needed to obtain a self-perpetuating plant community.
5-7
-------
Long-term adverse impacts on vegetation would occur in
areas that are cleared and used continuously during mining.
Reclamation operations could not be implemented until the mine
service area and other mine facilities were dismantled. Thus
reestablishment of vegetation would not occur until 10 to 15
years after project completion.
Threatened and Endangered Species
No threatened, endangered, or special status plant
species are known to occur within the mine area.
5.3.1.4 Wetlands
Of the total area directly altered by clearing for and
construction of the mine and mine facilities, 545 ha (1361
ac) or 27 percent is classified as wetlands according to the
criteria presented in Section 4.3.2.3 (Table 5-2). in
addition to direct adverse impacts, wetland structure and
function would be altered adjacent to project facilities by
blockage of natural drainage patterns and disturbance of
wetland inhabitants.
Ponding and dewatering of wetlands adjacent to
development areas such as road-fills can occur where the fill
is perpendicular to the natural flow of water through the
wetland and cuts off the flow. The result can include the
drying up of the wetland on one side of the fill to varying
degrees and flooding of the other side. This type of impact
has been most pronounced in relatively flat permafrost areas
where the active soil that allows water movement is very
shallow. The Diamond Chuitna area is not a permafrost area
and has enough topographic relief that the ponding/dewatering
will not be widespread. Much of the potential impact can be
prevented by proper placement and maintenance of culverts.
Some wetland areas would probably become reestablished
in low areas following reclamation of the mine area. However
because of unknowns regarding postreclamation soil
permeability and water tables as well as the long period of
evolution that is required to create natural peatlands with
their inherent water holding capacity, it is likely that the
extent of wetlands would be much smaller following reclamation
than prior to mining. Most wetlands within the reclaimed mine
area would lack the peat and organic material which
characterize the existing wetlands. Mineral soil substrate
with sparse sedges and grasses would initially predominate in
wet areas. In the very long term (hundreds of years) , organic
matter would accumulate and some peat growth would probably
occur, bringing the area closer to its initial condition. As
a partial mitigation measure to offset this loss of peatlands
5-8
-------
HECTARES (ACRES) OF WETLAND LOST AS A RESULT OF MINE DEVELOPMENT BY PROJECT COMPONENT
Wetland Type1
Components
PFChj—
SS1
p
F04
PF04
PSS1
SS1
p
EM5
PEM5
POWH
TOTAL
Mine Components
30 year mine limit 2
Mine Service Area
¦ Transportation Corridors3
Southern Corridor haul
road & conveyor system
Material Sites
(a) #5
(b) #7
(c) #8
Eastern Haul Road
and conveyor systems
Northern Haul Road
and conveyor system
Housing & Airport Facilities
Lone Creek Site
Congahbuna Lake Site
Threemile Site
Port Facilities
Granite Point
Ladd Port Site
59.3ha(148ac)
0.4ha(1ac)
3.0ha(7.6ac)
12.4ha(31ac)
0.1ha(0.2ac)
0.2ha(0.6ac)
0.5ha(1,2ac) 12.2ha(30.6ac)
2.4ha(6ac) 8.4ha(21ac)
7.8ha(19.6ac)
24.0ha(60ac)
2.8ha(7ac)
0.1ha(0.2ac)
0.8ha(2ac)
348ha(869ac)
1,8ha(4.5ac)
2.6ha(6.4ac)
2.4ha(6ac)
2.4ha(6ac)
70.5ha(176.2ac)
47.3ha(118ac)
4.3ha(10.8 ac) 0.5ha(1.3ac)
1,2ha(3ac)
1.6ha(4ac) 0.4ha(1ac)
0.4ha(1ac)
50.6ha(127ac) 541 ha(1353ac)
3.2ha(8ac)
0.2ha(0.5ac) 9.1ha(22.2ac)
1,2ha(3ac)
2.8ha(7ac)
2.0ha(5.1ac)
15.7ha(38.8ac)
2.4ha(6ac)
2.4ha(6ac)
1.2ha(3ac) 79.5ha(198.8ac)
2.4ha(6ac) 13.2ha(33ac)
NOTE: Wetland area figures may not correspond exactly with areas in the vegetation sections because the two mapping efforts differed.
4
1) PFO-— Palustrine - Forested mixed needle leaved/broad deciduous
SSI
P . Palustrine - Scrub-shrub/Forested broad leaved deciduous
F04
PF04 Palustrine - Forested broad leaved deciduous
PSS1 Palustrine - Scrub-shrub broad leaved deciduous
SS1
p ~~ Palustrine - Scrub-shrub broad leaved deciduous/Emergent narrow leaved persistent
EM5
PEM5 Palustrine - Emergent narrow leaved persistent
POWH Palustrine - Open water permanent
2) Includes overburden stockpile
-------
J nians to include establishment of 2 to 5 acre
oeat-filled depressions as part of their reclamation plan.
?n addition reclaimed sedimentation basins would be
selectively revegetated to accelerate the buildup of organic
selectively ,yese experiinental measures would alleviate
wetland impacts to some extent but would cover a small surface
area compared to the area of existing wetlands.
Wetland-related impacts to vegetation and wildlife for
y» alternative are presented in subsequent sections. The
following paragraphs address wetland impacts in relation to
the special values presented in Section 4.3.3.
Most wetland-related plant and animal productivity would
be lost during operations, for a substantial period
thereafter and possibly indefinitely depending on the success
of wetland reclamation. The acidic, muskeg-type wetlands
which are widely dispersed throughout the a^ea .ar.® n°t
Specially P^ucti.e. . the neta t, o
™ -ist- Therefore, adverse
resulting from overall loss of primary productivity
ioSld probably not be significant on a regional scale. Food
webs would be interrupted locally (in the immediate vicinity
°£ HF ^fbfstgnri^ant'on a^egio^l ba^Te^e
SSSS na^re3^ most^rea wetLnds ana the presence of
similar wetlands outside the project area.
Wetland habitat available for wildlife use within the
disturbed areas would be reduced. For the most part, the
wetlands in the project area are not themselves high value
habitat but the habitat diversity and forest edge associated
thP interspersed wetlands contributes significantly to
with the m P to high vaiUe of the area to wildlife,
the overall bears. Postreclamation habitat value for
especially ® could be less than premining (Section
5°3 1.5 and Appendix A) partly because of loss of habitat
diversity now contributed by wetlands.
significant impacts to local hydrological regimes would
nrn,r as result of eliminating, reducing, and altering
occur as a re (Section 5.3.2.1). Wetland areas
wetlands in the m characteristics of their watersheds
i"aCvarietyy of° ways depending on wetland characteristics.
Wetlands in the ^iine area store^large ^an^i -_esg°Qun^
play an imPor^J ^984c) . The baseline investigations
¦nST^?ad°that the deep organic layer underlying the muskeg
indicated that the^ ^ P ^ y yalleys fo„s a shallow
ground-water system that contributes the majority of base flow
5-10
-------
to the streams in and adjacent to the mine area. Removal of
the vegetation and organic soils would destroy this shallow
system and potentially prevent restoration of streams to
premining conditions. Removal of wetlands would probably also
increase flood peaks in the Chuitna drainage to some extent
(Carter et al. 1978); however, saturated peatlands tend to
respond quickly to precipitation events and the impact of
removing the muskeg would probably not be dramatic (Verry and
Boelter 1978). Recharge rates within the deeper ground-water
systems could be increased after mining because deep organic
deposits can inhibit percolation; evapotranspiration within
wetland communities removes substantial water that would
otherwise be available for recharge (Carter et al. 1978).
Lone Creek and Stream 2003 could be affected (Section
5.3.2.1), resulting in lower minimum flows and higher peak
flows.
The removal of wetlands would cause long term alteration
in the quality of surface-water runoff from the mine area.
Wetlands tend to remove suspended sediment from inflowing
waters (Carter et al. 1978); therefore, postreclamation runoff
would likely contain more sediment than at present which could
affect long-term stream water quality. Peatlands also tend
to lower the pH (increase the acidity) of water flowing
through them, consequently, postmining runoff would probably
be less acid than at present (Carter et al. 1978).
Additionally, nutrients that are available as a result of
organic matter decay within wetland areas would be reduced.
However, it is unlikely that altered nutrient flow would
significantly affect ecosystem functions within the region.
Wetland-related recreation activity within the project
area is minimal and no significant impact to recreation
opportunity as a result of construction, operation, and
reclamation would be anticipated.
5.3.1.5 Wildlife
This section primarily addresses four adverse impacts to
major species or groups: 1) direct habitat loss, which is the
actual physical destruction of habitat; 2) indirect habitat
loss, which is the effective loss of habitat use because of
noise, human contact, or other disturbance directly associated
with project construction or operation; 3) effects on animal
movements; and 4) construction impacts. Impacts were viewed
fror*. regional and local standpoints.
Direct habitat loss from construction and operation of
the mine itself, the mine service area, overburden stockpile,
and associated roads would be approximately 2,051 ha
(5,068 ac) during the 34-year life of the project. In the
5-11
-------
T nncr term this loss would be largely mitigated or eliminated
¦f r- mncjt' soecies by reclamation of the entire aJea ,
for m°^ sP.ldlife habitat at least as useful and productive
a^the premining environment. In the short term, i.e., up to
25 years, there would be adverse impacts.
Direct habitat loss as a result of construction and
operation would be significant for song bird, shorebird and
P ?? sDecies on a local basis only. Approximately
eiaht existing beaver colonies (Fig. 4-4) would be eliminated
^„fina the life of the mine. This, and the adverse impacts
on other furbearers, would be significant on a local basis
only.
For bald eaqles, the loss of salmon spawning habitat with
its associated eagle feeding activities, could be significant
rin a local basis/ but would not be significant on a regional
Sasis Direct habitat loss for trumpeter swans, sandhill
cranes, and waterfowl would not be significant.
Direct habitat loss would be significant on a local
h ancj nossibly on a regional basis, for moose because of
elimination of approximately half of one rutting concentration
area within the northern portion of the mining limit (Fig. 4-
3^ The factors that encourage repeated use of a specific
alia for rutting are unknown. Lone Ridge is an important
rutting area on 1 regional basis, stress from disturbance or
rutting area affect breeding success or chronology and
cou?dareesuint iTreduced*fatality. !nd survival For brown and
bears the direct habitat loss would be of local
significance' due to loss of terrestrial habitat and salmon
spawning habitat associated with bear feeding activities.
Indirect habitat loss for song bird, shorebird, small
mammal and most smaller furbearer populations, including
beaver' could be significant on a local basis These species,
beaver, couxa ^-&lv adapt (to varying degrees) to the
however, wo facilities and associated activities (Univ.
Mainri983) indirect habitat loss would be insignificant for
Maine 1983). swans, and cranes since appropriate
h^? is lacking^ For bald eagles, indirect habitat loss
couW be sign?fSt on a local basis, unless they adapt to
mining activities over time.
For moose and black bears, habitat loss
initial v could be locally significant, but these species
-i j "Hkelv adapt to some extent with time to the presence
^ noise an/activities, and the degree of initial disturbance
ni/nrobablv decrease. Brown bears and marten, however,
Sou" likely Experience significant local indirect habitat
Toss because of their generally strong aversion to human
activity This loss would not be significant on a regional
basis.
5-12
-------
Movements of birds and most mammal species with small
home ranges adjacent to the mine area would be largely
unaffected in a direct way by project activities in the mine
area. However, seasonal movements of moose, bears, and some
larger furbearers could be delayed or prolonged as animals
seek new routes around the mine pit and other facilities.
Individuals may eventually find alternate routes, although
populations of moose, especially, tend to continue to use
historical movement routes despite man-made obstacles such as
the Trans-Alaska pipeline system.
Brown bear movements in particular could be affected
because of this species' aversion to human activity. While
brown bears are most numerous at higher altitudes in the more
open habitats west of the mine area, smaller numbers do
inhabit the lower forested areas to the south and east. If
normal movements through the mine area were to be hindered by
behavioral or physical barriers, brown bear numbers might be
substantially reduced in the areas south and east of the mine
area. This would be a significant adverse local impact and
might be regionally significant if regional movements were
affected.
Since the mine area would not be fenced, some animals,
e.g., moose or bears, would occasionally wander into the area.
These animals would usually not be harmed, but would probably
need to be herded out by project personnel. In unusual cases,
they may be killed.
Construction activities within the mine area would likely
have smaller adverse impacts upon all species than would
actual mine operations because of the significantly greater
noise and activity levels associated with mining operations.
Habitat Evaluation
The results of the terrestrial habitat evaluation study
performed for this EIS are summarized in Table 5-3 for the
mine and mine service area and presented in detail in
Appendix A. Mining activities would disturb significant areas
of high quality black bear and brown bear habitat as well as
high and medium quality moose spring/summer/fall habitat. No
trumpeter swan habitat or suitable sandhill crane habitat
would be directly impacted by the mine or mine service area.
The habitat evaluation study also compared the premining
and postreclamation habitat values within the 10-year mine
permit area based on the detailed revegetation plan presented
in the Surface Mine Permit Application. As indicated in Table
5-4, the postreclamation habitat value would be significantly
less for black bear and moose (summer/fall/ spring). The
5-13
-------
Table 5-3
DIRECT LOSS OF WILDLIFE HABITAT AND SUITABILITY OF HABITATS IN HECTARES (ACRES)
FROM MINE DEVELOPMENT BY PROJECT COMPONENT
10
Year
30 Year
Mine
Limit
Mine Limit
Mine Service
Pit
Stockpile
Roads and
Pit
Species
Area
Area
Areas
Settlinq Ponds
Area
Suitable
0
0
0
0
0
Sandhill
X
0
0
0
Crane
X
0
0
0
Unsuitable
22(55)
564(1411)
80(200)
68(169)
2029(5012)
High
0
0
0
Trun peter
fed
0
0
0
Swan
Low
0
0
0
Nil
22(55)
575(1438)
80(200)
68(169)
2029(5012)
High
22(55)
564(1411)
80(200)
64(158)
1982(4955)
Black Bear
fed
0
0
0
0
0
Low
0
0
0
0
0
NU
0
11(27)
0
4(10)
23(57)
High
22(55)
564(1411)
79(198)
64(158)
1982(4955)
Brotn Bear
fed
0
0
0
0
Low
0
0
0
0
NU
0
11(27)
1(2ac)
4(10)
23(57)
High
14(35)
380(950)
47(117)
47(117)
1356(3349)
Maose
fed
8(20)
85(212)
33(83)
21(52)
653(1612)
Spr ing/ Sumner/
Low
0
180(449)
0
0
20(49)
Fall
NU
0
0
0
0
0
High
0
0
0
0
0
Moose
fed
0
0
0
0
0
Winter
Low
0
0
0
0
0
NU
22(55)
575(1438)
80(200)
68(169)
2029(5012)
Total 22(55) 575(1438) 80(200) 68(169) 2029(5012)
1 Exact sighting not finalized.
2 Hat Utilized.
-------
Table 5-4
COMPARISON OF PREMINING AND POSTMINING HABITAT VALUES FOR
EVALUATION SPECIES (10 YR MINING AREA ONLY)
Premining
Postmining*
Evaluation
Habitat
Habitat
Habitat
Species
Val ue
(Hectares [acres])
(Hectares [acres])
Black Bear
High
660 (1639)
0
Medi um
0
660 (1639)
Low
0
0
Brown Bear
High
660 (1639)
660 (1639)
Med i um
0
0
Low
0
0
Moose
High
398 (984)
71 (178)
Summer/Fall
Medium
257 (637)
485 (1202)
Low
0
104 (259)
~Postmining refers to the period after revegetation has been completed and
allowed to stabilize but before reinvasion of native species has reached an
equilibrium - estimated as 10-100 years after pit closure.
5-15
-------
reduced value to black bear would be primarily due to lack of
berry-producing shrubs (such as elderberry, high bush
cranberry, and blueberry) and succulent herbs (such as
fireweed and vetch) as compared to the existing plant
communities. Postreclamation summer/fall/spring habitat value
for moose would be lower than existing value because some
kinds of selected edible broadleafed herbaceous plants (such
as aquatic emergent species) would be absent. In addition
the overall diversity would be somewhat lower, edge habitat
(where wooded and open habitats meet) would be decreased, and
most of the existing ponded areas would be absent.
It should, however, be emphasized that plant communities
are dynamic, especially on reclaimed lands, and the
communities established during reclamation would undergo a
long-term succession as natural plants invade the restored
communities. Eventually a more or less stable equilibrium
would probably be reached. The exact nature of the postminincr
plant community and its wildlife habitat value a century or
more after restoration cannot be predicted with accuracy, but
it is likely that it would approach the premining condition.
5.3.2 Impacts to Freshwater Environments
5.3.2.1 Ground-water Hydrology and Water Quality
Impacts to the ground-water regime as a result of mining
operations would be substantial and would affect recharge and
discharge relationships; quantity, quality, and direction of
ground-water flows; and quantity and quality of surface water
These impacts are unavoidable; however, with proper planning*
the impacts can be minimized. '
The overburden materials and coal units that would be
removed during mining operations contain large volumes of
ground water and can be considered important aquifers in the
local hydrological regime (Figure 5-1). The mining operations
would disrupt the natural ground-water flow regime within each
of the units as they are mined. The intercepted ground-water
flow would become inflow to the mine pit area where it would
be collected in sumps, pumped to down-gradient offsite
sediment treatment ponds, and discharged to streams.
The predicted quantities of ground-water inflow to the
pits as mining progresses are summarized on Table 5-5. The
intercepted inflow to the pits would, in time, dewater each
of the intercepted aquifers. The predicted drawdown values
in the active pit after 10 years of operation are 13.7 m (45
ft) and 24.4 m (80 ft) for the overburden and coal zone
respectively. The cone of depression for the overburden
aquifer is predicted to extend some 732 m (800 yd) to the
5-16
-------
Ol
I
NORTH
A 1501,2
1*01,2
STREAM 2003
STREAM 200304
25H1 25E
2381,2
SOURCE: DIAMOND ALASKA COAL COMPANY, 1985
OVERBURDEN TO COAL
AQUIFER RECHARGE AREA
SURFACE WATER/PRECIPITATION RECHARGE
SURFACE WATER/
PRECIPITATION RECHARGE
OVERBURDEN TO COAL AQUIFER
RECHARGE AREA
OVERBURDEN AND COAL
AQUIFERS DISCHARGE AREA
COAL AQUIFER
RECHARGE AREAS
= 600
UZZZZZZZL
RECENT ALLUVIAL AQUIFER
QUATERNARTY OVERBURDEN AQUIFER
UNCONFORMITY
TERTIARY OVERBURDEN AQUIFER
TERTIARY INTERBURDEN (AQUITARDS)
BLUE COAL AQUIFER
RED 3 COAL AQUIFER
RED 2 COAL AQUIFER
RED 1 COAL AQUIFER
TOP OF SUB Rl SAND AQUIFER
PERMIT AREA
- 200
PREDOMINANT GROUND WATER
FLOW DIRECTIONS
LOCATION MAP
SOUTH PIT FAULT
GROUND-WATER
FLOW BOUNDARY
Limit of subsurface data
HYDROLOGIC CROSS SECTION A-A'
Diamond Chuitna Environmental
Impact Statement
FIGURE 5-1
-------
Table 5-5
ESTIMATED PIT INFLOW RATESl
Year of No Pit Backfill
Operation
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Inflow to Pits from
Overburden Aquifer
(l/nin[gp«])
484(128)
1,673(442)
1,926(509)
3,531(933)
3,852(1,018)
4,203(1,110)
4,508(1,190)
4,948(1 ,307)
Inflow to Pits from
Coal Aquifer and Sub
Red 1 Sand
(l/nin[gp«])
195(51)
310(82)
424(112)
516(136)
589(156)
661(175)
Total Inflow
(l/nin[gp*])
484(128)
1 ,673(442)
2,123(561)
3,841(1,015)
4,276(1,130)
4,719(1,247)
5,097(1,346)
5,609(1,484)
Total Inflow
(l/day[gpd])
698,851
(184,637)
2,410,602
(636,883)
3,052,819
(807,624)
5,523,325
(1,451,197)
6,149,618
(1,626,883)
6,785,712
(1,795,162)
7,329,594
(1,939,046)
8,066,331
(2,133,950)
Year of
Mith Pit Backfill
Operation
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Inflow to Pits from
Overburden Aquifer
(l/nin[gpa])
484(128)
1,673(442)
1,926(509)
3,198(645)
2,017(533)
2,540(671)
2,725(720)
1,987(585)
Inflow to Pits from
Coal Aquifer and Sub
Red 1 Sand
(l/min[gpn])
195(51)
155(41)
159(42)
151(40)
140(37)
136(36)
Total Inflow
(l/min[gpm])
484(128)
1,673(442)
2,123(561)
3,354(886)
2,176(575)
2,691(711)
2,865(757)
2,120(560)
Total Inflow
(l/day[gpd])
698,851
(184,637)
2,410,602
(636,883)
3,052,819
(807,624)
4,828,835
(1,275,782)
3,130,437
(828,158)
3,870,225
(1,023,869)
4,120,393
(1,090,051)
3,050,150
(806,918)
1 ERT 1985b
-------
j -4,,0 nprmit area, while the coal zone
L expscte™ to extend to the mine permit
boundarydrDiimondnAlaska Coal Company 1985) .
Predicted Impacts to the mine permit area as a result of
the mining operations include:
A reduction of flow in springs and streams:
time and continued mining, this impact would
increase in magnitude. Impacts of interrupted base
flow (ground-water input) to surface drainages would
be complex. These significant impacts are discussed
for each affected stream in Section 5.3.2.2.
Tt is anticipated that mining operations (dewatering
and lowering of the water table) would affect the
qround-water regime throughout the mine permit area.
However, these impacts would probably be limited to
that area due to the structural faulting which
borders the northwest and south sides of the permit
a?ea and due to the presence of Lone Creek to the
northeast and east. Lone Creek would provide a
constant source of recharge and, thus would
minimize the impact of mine dewatering to the east
of Lone Creek.
Disruotion of the natural recharge due to
mining operations: Natural recharge to the aquifers
Tspredominantly the result of surface-water
infiltration from both incident precipitation and
inowmelt Surface disturbance during mining and
construction of support facilities and access roads
Tould affect the potential for natural recharge.
Surface-water diversions which channel flow to
nearby streams would limit the opportunity for, and
quantity of, water available for recharge in the
mine area.
niversion of pit inflow and surface water in the
Stnp aiea to nearby sediment treatment ponds: Since
treatment ponds are constructed on glacial
deposits some water would infiltrate, but most
wou?dbf'released as surface flow downstream of the
mine area. Increased surface flows, with increased
bank storage, could result in increased erosion and
^snnplization; however, the storage capacity of
treatment ponds would tend to counteract this effect
by moderating extreme flows.
5-19
-------
High risk of ground-water degradation from fuel or
chemical spills within the mine areas: Proper spill
control and prevention plans, and immediate response
to spills would limit the magnitude of the impact.
Potential change in stream temperatures and icing
conditions: Discharges of ground water from the
sediment ponds into the lower reaches of impacted
natural stream systems during the winter, as well
as a reduction of ground-water recharge to upper
reaches of impacted natural streams, potentially
can alter the thermal regime of these streams.
Because of these potential impacts, the mine
development may affect the magnitude and temporal
variation of stream temperatures, subsequently
impacting aufeis' development and surface ice
formation in streams during the winter. These
potential impacts are discussed more fully in
section 5.3.2.2.
Reclamation of the mine area would at least partly
reverse the ground-water impacts from mining. After removal
of the surface-water diversion systems, surface water together
with incident precipitation would recharge the underlying
spoil materials and with time result in the reestablishment
of a ground-water regime similar but not identical to the
premining condition. It is anticipated that the water quality
might be somewhat poorer than the premining quality due to the
nature of the spoil material, i.e., intermixed clay, sand, and
gravel. That is, the ground water would likely shift from
calcium bicarbonate type to calcium and sodium sulfate type
associated with an increase in total dissolved solids.
However, the premining condition of progressively lower water
quality with depth could persist in the reclaimed spoil
aquifer. Postmining aquifer properties would also vary from
premining conditions; however, this impact would not be
expected to adversely affect the regeneration of the
postmining hydrogeologic regime since the subsurface materials
would probably be permeable and have some capacity for storage
and transmission of ground water. The reestablishment of the
qround-water regime and, in turn, reestablishment of the
surface streams would likely require decades. This is
governed by the necessary condition of establishing a quasi-
equilibrium between the ground-water and surface-water
regimes. If an equilibrium condition similar to the existing
condition cannot be established, then maintenance of the
baseflow contribution to streams during low flow periods might
not be achievable. The elevation of the shallow aquifer water
table relative to postreclamation ground surface elevations
cannot be predicted with sufficient accuracy to assure base
flow contribution to restored stream channels.
5-20
-------
5.3.2.2 Surface Water Hydrology
The mine and mine facilities would occupy an area of
approximately 2,051 ha (5,068 ac) including the mine pit,
drainage and sediment control structures, structures for coal
transportation and handling, buildings, and access roads.
This area is comprised of portions of the watersheds of Lone
Creek and unnamed tributaries of the Chuitna River (streams
2003 and 2004) . The areal extents of the watersheds of these
streams and the portions occupied by the mine and mine
facilities are shown in Table 5-6.
During mine development, no surface runoff from the
disturbed areas would enter any stream without passing through
a sediment control structure. The stream course of Lone Creek
is outside the mine limit and would not be disturbed. Surface
runoff from disturbed areas along the western edge of the mine
limit would be routed through sediment ponds, treated if
necessary, and discharged to stream 2004. Surface runoff from
the areas east of the mine pit would be routed through a
system of ditches and sediment ponds and discharged to Stream
2003 and Lone Creek. The overall impacts on the downstream
hydrology of these streams include moderation of flood peaks
and reduction in the annual runoff contributed by the
disturbed areas due to storage and evaporation in the sediment
ponds.
Surface runoff from compacted gravel areas such as roads
and staging areas within the mine limit would be increased to
3 or 4 times the premining conditions during the operation
phase. However, these areas would be very small compared to
the watersheds of the streams listed in Table 5-6. Water
recovered by pit dewatering and surface runoff from the
remaining areas within the mine limit would be passed through
a system of sediment ponds and ditches before being discharged
into streams 2003, 2004, or Lone Creek. Since precipitation
(122 cm [48 in]) greatly exceeds evapotranspiration (23 cm [9
inl) in the project area, nearly all surface runoff held in
the sediment ponds would eventually be discharged into the
streams. Therefore, the net impact to the combined annual
runoff of these streams from increased evaporation would be
insignificant. The runoff peaks at the downstream boundary
of the mine area would be somewhat moderated by the increased
pond storage. This beneficial impact would, however, diminish
as the mouth of the stream is approached and would eventually
oecome insignificant. Impact on the Chuitna River <=rom the
above effects would not be significant.
5-21
-------
Table 5-6
WATERSHEDS OCCUPIED BY THE MINE AND MINE FACILITIES
Stream
1. Unowned tributary
of Chuitria River
Stream 2003
Unnamed tributary
of Chuitna River
Stream 2004
3. Lone Creek
(Stream 2002)
Drainage Area
At Downstream
Boundary of
Mine Area
16.86 km2
(6.51 mi2)
(Station
C140)
24.39 km2
(9.42 mi2)
(Station
C080)
18.52 km2
(7.15 mi2)
(Station
C200)
At Mouth
39.80 km2
(15.37 mi2)
(Station
C180)
46.98 km2
(17.79 mi2)
(Station
CI10)
49.78 km2
(19.22 mi2)
(Station
C220)
Drainage
Area within
Mine Limit
14.89 km2
(5.75 mi2)
5.18 km2
(2.0 mi2)
2.59 km2
(1.0 mi2)
Drainage Area within Mine
Limit as a Percent of
Watershed at
Boundary of
Mine Area
88.3%
21.2%
14.08
Watershed
at Mouth
37.4SS
11.2S
5.25
5-22
-------
Diamond Alaska has stated that they do not expect stream
SiSSres to be significantly impacted by their operation
temperatures to g 4-261 -4-261h); however,
i^^n^iTte^chniies ^p^thermal mass balance) cannot
their analysis tedhniques ( P stream thermal regime duri
predict will be managed throughout the
W1Sr bv Dumping into the sediment ponds, subsequently being
released periodically, depending on mine operation, into
released peri imoact of these operations during winter
maveioc!lly upset the thermal balance by changing the timing
and location of ground-water contribution to streams.
In stream reaches where ground water is cut off by the
operations reduced thermal mass from the inflowing
mining operati ,cause localized increases in
surface and channel ice formation, constricting flow from
urStreL. The potential flow constriction can enhance the
formation of aufiis. In reaches that receive discharges from
formation 01 ^ in winter unfrozen water may overflow and
the sediment ponds in winter, \mix -,nr.padv formed It is
-rpate aufeis in regions where ice has already rormeo. it is
impossible to predict the extent of these occurrences without
impossiDie to p cpdiment pond operation in winter,
complete knowledge of sediment P P reaches likely
Soleimpacted^ " «»*«• In
JSp^al reaime in the streams will be highly site specific and
thermal regime * ar to year variation. The impact of
enhanced^aufeis development is difficult to ascertain and is
to bi minimal because interruption in ground-water
expected t expected to be minimal (ASMCRA Application
uif XVII section 4.12.1.3, page 4-205). However, one
possible impact is channel morphology changes in localized
areas.
- sinni ficant physical impacts that would
One of the mo g Diamond Chuitna project would
result from development of_the ui ^ ^ chuitna River
be alteration of diate mine vicinity (streams 2003,
tributaries in the i enerai, the proposed mining plan
2004, and Lone creeK). * from the northeastern corner of
calls for mining to p g ^ Lone Creek to the south and
the Pr°Pfrty mining will with time progress through a
SSal portion of ltrea»,2003 and into several minor left
banK tributaries to Stream 2004.
-p nt implications to fish resources, the
Because of xaporta^ impliid each Qf
chronology of |d in the following paragraphs. Emphasis
streams is ^dial alteration of minimum flows because such flows
is on potential a-J. ± t0 fish. Aspects of ground-water and
are most °*ten 1 rology are integrated to provide an overall
surface-water hydr gy absence Qf detailed information
view of impacts.
5-23
-------
regarding the progression of the mine pit and pit backfilling,
schedule of transferring treated pit water to the adjacent
streams, and hydrologic characteristics of the backfill
material, it is not possible to accurately estimate the net
reductions in the flows of affected streams. Assuming the
watershed areas intercepted by mine related activities after
3 0 years of mining to be those shown in Table 5-6, rough
estimates of the reduced streamflows after 10 years and 3 0
years of mining have been made (Table 5-7). These estimates
assume that there will be no transfer of treated pit water
back into the streams and, consequently, represent a worst
case situation. Diamond Alaska does plan to pump pit water
back into streams. Minimum flows reflect primarily base flow
contributions.
The methodology used to generate the figures in Table 5-7
is described below. The premining estimated monthly minimum
streamflows shown in Table 5-7 are taken from ERT (1984e).
The percentage reductions used to estimate minimum monthly
flows after 10 years of mining are the same as those estimated
by ERT for monthly average flows of streams at selected
stations (Diamond Alaska Coal Company 1985). Generally, the
reductions in monthly streamflows after 10 years have been
evaluated by a nearly uniform distribution of the total
estimated annual reduction in 12 monthly increments with minor
adjustments made by judgment. The same heuristic* methodology
has been used to estimate the reduced streamflows after 3 0
years of mining. The ratio of the reduction in annual
streamflows to the total flows is assumed to be the same as
the ratio of the drainage area occupied by mine-related
facilities to the total drainage area of the stream at a
particular station. The resulting annual reduction is divided
nearly equally in 12 monthly increments.
Since the measured monthly minimum streamflows shown in
Table 5-7 are not based on any mathematical ratio, the
measured streamflow per square mile of drainage area for each
stream is different. Therefore, the above method resulted in
some anomaly in that the sum of the estimated eeductions in
streamflows for the tributaries of the Chuitna River are less
than the estimated reduction in the streamflows of the Chuitna
River itself. To avoid the unrealistic situation of 0 winter
flow, it was assumed in the case of Stream 2004 that the
reductions in the monthly flows, rather than the annual flows,
are in the ratios of the drainage areas occupied by the mine
to the total drainage areas of the streams. In view of the
assumptions stated previously, the values given in Table 5-7
should be treated as order-of-magnitude estimates to be used
for qualitative assessment of potential mine-related impacts
rather than quantitative indices based on measured or
simulated data.
5-24
-------
Table 5-7
ESTIMAICD MONTHLY MINIMUM SfREAMFLOWS
Estimated Minima Flow ¦3/sec (cfs)
Stream
Drainage Area
km2 (mi 2)
August
September
November December January February
March
April
May
June
July
0.13
0.13
0.88
0.29
0.16
(4.62)
(4.68)
(31.60)
(10.47)
(5.56)
0.12
0.13
0.88
0.29
0.15
(4.41)
(4.52)
(31.36)
(10.30)
(5.4B)
0.09
0.09
0.85
0.26
0.12
(3.34)
(3.40)
(30.32)
(9.19)
(4.28)
1) Lone Creek east of mine area.
Station C200, Stream 2002
(a) Premining1
(b) After 10 years of mining?
(c) After 30 yeara of mining?
18.52 km2
<7.IS mi2)
0.1
0.30
0.38
0.22
0.20
0.15
0.14
(3.48)
(10.64)
(13.43)
(7.85)
(7.31)
(5.18)
(5.16)
0.09
0.29
0.37
0.22
0.20
0.14
0.14
(3.35)
(10.53)
(13.30)
(7.73)
(7.09)
(4.94)
(4.92)
0.06
0.26
0.34
0.19
0.17
0.11
0.11
(2.20)
(9.36)
(12.15)
(6.57)
(6.03)
(3.90)
(3.88)
Ln
l
to
cn
2) Lone Creek above confluence with
Chuitna River, Station C220,
Stream 2002
(a) Premining
(b) After 10 years of mining
(c) After 30 yeara of mining
3) Unnamed tributary of Chuitna River,
Stream 2003, Just downstream of
mine area, Station C140
49.76 k*2
(19.22 mi2)
16.66 km2
(6.51 mi2)
0.26
(9.17)
0.25
(9.03)
0.23
(6.23)
0.69
(24.77)
0.69
(24.65)
0.67
(23.83)
0.71
(25.47)
0.70
(25.32)
0.69
(24.53)
0.48
(17.17)
0.48
(17.05)
0.46
(16.23)
0.46
0.38
0.32
0.26
0.27
1.60
0.40
0.22
(16.57)
(13.58)
(11.39)
(9.19)
(9.82)
(56.68)
(14.31)
(7.64)
0.46
0.37
0.31
0.25
0.27
1.60
0.39
0.22
(16.34)
(13.41)
(11.18)
(9.01)
(9.70)
(56.44)
(14.16)
(7.75)
0.44
0.36
0.30
0.23
0.25
1.58
0.38
0.20
(15.63)
(12.64)
(10.45)
(8.25)
(8.88)
(55.74)
(13.37)
(6.90)
(a)
Premining
0.05
0.22
0.22
0.11
0.06
0.08
0.06
(1.92)
(7.92)
(7.82)
(3.60)
(2.29)
(2.72)
(2.10)
(b)
After 10 yeara of mining
0.05
0.21
0.21
0.10
0.05
0.07
0.05
(1.61)
(7.70)
(7.61)
(3.68)
(2.02)
(2.36)
(1.62)
(c)
After 30 yeara of mining
0
0.12
0.12
0.004
0
0
0
(0)
(4.27)
(4.17)
(0.15)
(0)
(0)
(0)
0.05
0.07
0.34
0.08
0.04
(1.98)
(2.39)
(12.06)
(3.02)
(1.55)
0.05
0.06
0.33
0.08
0.04
(1.72)
(2.29)
(11.80)
(2.80)
(1.44)
0
0
0.24
0
0
(0)
(0)
(6.41)
(0)
(0)
4) Unnamed tributory of Chuitna
River, Stream 2003 at motith,
Station C180
39.81 km2
(15.37 ai2)
(a)
Premining
0.13
0.49
0.52
0.28
0.23
0.17
0.14
(4.66)
(17.50)
(18.42)
(10.02)
(6.25)
(6.11)
(4.94)
(b)
After 10 years of mining
0.12
0.48
0.51
0.27
0.22
0.16
• 0.13
(4.54)
(17.27)
(18.21)
(9.87)
(7.92)
(5.77)
(4.66)
(c)
After 30 years of mining
0.03
0.39
0.42
0.16
0.13
0.07
0.04
(1.09)
(13.93)
(14.65)
(6.45)
(4.68)
(2.54)
(1.37)
0.13
0.14
0.66
0.19
0.12
(4.75)
(5.00)
(23.43)
(6.98)
(4.33)
0.12
0.14
0.65
0.19
0.12
(4.26)
(4.96)
(23.12)
(6.76)
(4.21)
0.03
0.04
0.56
0.10
0.02
(1.18)
(1.51)
(19.86)
(3.41)
(0.76)
-------
Table 5-7
ESTIMATED MONTHLY MINIMUM STREAHFLOMS
(cont'd)
Cstiatted Minimal Flo« e5/eec (cfe)
Drainage Area
l«2 (ai 2) August September October November December January February March April May June July
5) Chuitna River downstream of 342.48 ka2
affected area, Station C230 (132.23 ai2)
(•)
Freed ning
1.68
5.98
6.82
3.51
3.08
2.88
2.22
1.66
1.88
15.64
4.87
1.56
(60.17)
(213.30)
(243.72)
(125.52)
(110.14)
(102.92)
(79.27)
(59.36)
(67.30)
(558.61)
(174.04)
(55.76)
(b)
After 10 yeara of aining
1.68
5.96
6.81
3.51
3.07
2.86
2.21
1.65
1.87
15.62
4.87
1.56
(59.97)
(212.89)
(243.26)
(125.28)
(109.56)
(102.34)
(78.76)
(58.96)
(66.87)
(557.88)
(173.85)
(55.60)
(c)
After 30 yeara of aining
1.41
S.74
6.61
3.26
2.83
2.62
1.95
1.39
1.62
15.52
4.64
1.29
(49.97)
(203.10)
(233.52)
(115.32)
(99.94)
(92.72)
(69.07)
(49.16)
(57.10)
(548.41)
(163.84)
(45.56)
6) Unnaaed Tributary of Chuitna 17.79
River, StreM 2004, Station C110,
«t Mouth
(a) Preaining 1.9$ 4.89 $.01 3.18 1.22 0.74 0.61 0.24 3.91 8.$* 2.81 2.32
(68.9) (172.8) (177.0) (112.4) (W.I) (24.1) (21.6) (8.5) (13B.2) (302.1) (99.3) (82.0)
(b) After 10 year, of aining NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
(c) After 30 years of Mining 1.73 *.34 4.45 2.82 1.08 0.66 0.S4 0.21 3.47 7.59 2.49 2.06
(41.1) (153.4) (157.2) (99.6) (38.2) (23.3) (19.1) (7.4) (122.6) (268.2) (88.0) (72.8)
7) Unrtawd Tributary of Chuitna River, 9.42
Streaa 2004, Station C060, About
one aile upstreai of aouth
(a) P rosining 1.03 2.59 2.65 1.68 0.65 0.39 0.32 0.13 2.07 4.53 1.49 1.23
(36.4) (91.5) (93.64) (59.36) (22.97) (13.78) (11.31) (4.59) (73.1*) (160.07) (52.65) (43.46)
M After 10 yesrs of dining NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACI
(c) After 30 years of Mining 0.81 2.04 2.09 1.32 0.51 0.31 0.25 0.10 1.63 3.57 1.17 0.97
(28.6) (72.08) (73.85) (46.64) (18.02) (10.95) (8.13) (3.53) (57.60) (126.15) (41.34) (34.28)
Source: 1. CRT 1984., 1985c
2. Da.es A Moore calculations
Assumes no pumping of pit water back into streams; thus, these numbers represents a worst case scenario. Diamond Alaska,
however, does plan to pump pit water into streams.
2
Model used for these calculations required the use of assumptions since no actual field data is available. Therefore, these
numbers must be treated as "order-of-magnitude estimates to be used for qualitative assessment" of potential impacts.
-------
Lone Creek
The initial box cut will approximately parallel Lone
Creek, but will not directly impact the stream course. Both
surface runoff and the base flow contribution from that
portion of the Lone Creek watershed within the affected mining
area, however, will be directly impacted. The impacts to Lone
Creek are expected to be greatest during low flow periods
particularly during late summer and winter, when the stream
flow is comprised entirely of base flow (ground-water input) .
The resultant decrease in base flow contribution is estimated
on the basis of maximum drainage area affected to be about 2 5
percent assuming no pumping from the pit.
Another calculation method using a percent of the
predicted pit inflow combined with a Glover depletion analysis
(Diamond Alaska Coal Company 1985) estimated that base flow
in Lone Creek would be reduced by 8.5 percent after year lo
at a stream station immediately below the mining activity.
It is likely that actual maximum depletion would occur after-
year 10 and would be in the range of 8.5 to 25 percent. The
maximum impact would be reached in the middle years of mining
and would continue over the mine life. Some alleviation of
impact could occur late in the mine life if ground-water
recharge occurred in the backfill adjacent to Lone Creek and
reached sufficient elevation so that it could begin to
contribute again to base flow. However, the pit bottom, being
the lowest point, would still be the principal point of
collection for water within the mined out area and base flow
contribution to Lone Creek from the mine area would not be
fully restored until 5 to 10 years after backfilling is
completed and recharge has occurred.
As indicated in Table 5-7, minimum flows could be reduced
during low flow periods (late summer and late winter) by up
to 25 percent within the portion of Lone Creek east of the
mine. As flows increase downstream, impact would be
proportionally less. The above calculations of flow reduction
assume no transfer of pit drainage to Lone Creek. During the
first 10 years of mining, Diamond Alaska plans to release much
of its pit drainage into Lone Creek; therefore, net flow could
actually increase at least temporarily. The up to 2 5 percent
reduction would still occur in the event of pump failure or
in the event that pit water freezes and cannot be pumped.
Water allocation during later years of mining has not been
planned but it is reasonable to assume that as the pit
progesses westward, discharge from dewatering would be more
likely to be released in the Stream 2003 or 2004 watersheds
than into Lone Creek.
5-27
-------
Stream 2003
Greatest impact would occur to Stream 2 003 since a
substantial portion of the stream and its watershed would be
within the mine area. Mining would proceed in a south-
westerly direction starting at the extreme headwaters of
Stream 2 003 and moving downstream. Thus, impact would be
cumulative over the 3 0-year mine life with maximum impact
occurring when the mine reached its maximum extent. At 3 0
years, about 14,200 m (46,570 ft) of stream channel would be
removed along with 14.9 kmJ (5.75 mi2) of watershed area.
As mining progressed to the southwest, the impact on
Stream 2003 would continue to increase. The impact on base
flow contribution to 2003 would be most pronounced during low
flow periods (Table 5-7). The magnitude of the effect of base
flow contribution to the stream would depend on its proximity
to the active mining area. In this regard, the pit bottom,
being the lowest point would be the principal point of
collection for water within the mined-out areas. It would
also be the "low point" with respect to existing terrain and,
therefore, would induce drainage of surrounding areas. Plans
provide for the accumulated surface and ground waters to be
routed through a series of sedimentation/treatment ponds
prior to their discharge to existing streams. In the worst
case (e.g., during cold winter weather), it is projected that
during at least short periods of time, there would be no
direct discharge from the mine to Stream 2003 downstream of
the mining area. This implies, therefore, the total
streamflow in Stream 2 003 may be lost for at least some
distance downstream of the mine limit. The downstream point
at which ground-water discharge or base flow would be
sufficient to sustain streamflow throughout the year is not
known, but believed to be in the range of 0.8 to 2.4 km (0.5
to 1.5 m) downstream from the 30-year mine limit because of
the confluence of tributaries 200303 and 200302, both of which
would be relatively unaffected by mining. Minimum flow at the
mouth of Stream 2003 could be reduced by as much as 80 percent
during low flow period (Table 5-7).
After cessation of mining, the backfilled and reclaimed
areas would begin to resaturate by infiltration and the
ground-water levels in the vicinity would tend to recover to
near premining conditions. Depending upon the hydraulic
conductivity and porosity of the backfill material, it may
take 5 to 10 years for the restoration of ground-water levels
to the premining conditions. Therefore, the impacts on
streamflows shown in Table 5-7 would be expected to continue
through this recovery period. As a consequence of pit
excavation and mine dewatering, existing bogs and wetlands
within the mine area would be eliminated. This would result
5-28
-------
+-v,0 locic; of the shallow ground-water system within the
layer thS currently provides much of the input to
organic layer even after reclamation, the postmining
monthly minimum streamflows of the affected streams would be
expected to be somewhat lower than the premining values shown
in Table 5-7.
The main channel of Stream 2003 will not be disturbed
during the 10 year mine period; however, tributaries 200304
and 200305 will be mined through or used to form sedimentation
curing the 30 year mine period, approximately the
P thiri to one-half of 2003 including tributaries
500304 200305 and 200306 will be mined through (Figure 4-
I? It is the applicant's intent to restore permanent stable
channels along the approximate original courses of these
Streams after reclamation using established engineering
?»chniLes However, the backfill material on which the
restoration channels would be formed cannot be compacted to
the same degree as the original bed material of these streams
and would be susceptible to some erosion and degradation until
ana wouia, . ^Vmilibrium were attained. Remedial
stabilization measles would probably be required during the
l«lv vears of restoration. Furthermore there would be no
Guarantee that the post-reclamation water table would coincide
wi?r the elevatiSns of the recreated stream channels.
Therefore while it would be possible to reconstruct stream
havina ohvsical characteristics similar to the
existing stream channels, there is no way to predict whether
channels would have sufficient base flow through the
upper reaches to provide year-round flow similar to that which
now exists.
g-hyp.riTn 2004
Toward the end of the 30-year mine period, several minor
i v^v tributaries of Stream 2004 would be mined out. The
left bank tri through these tributaries would be similar
impacts of mining through Creek, These impacts would
» reduction in both surface flow and the base flow
include a red e-tream Based on drainage area
contribution to the » relie£ to uesty of the
consideration taqe reduction in flow is estimated
forSben a^rk'pe/cent 'TthJ normal flow at the time of
maximum mine extent.
Possible alterations to minimum flows ns a rasult of
PossiDie Table 5-7. Impacts to Stream 2004
mil}idgber of shorter duration than for the other mine area
w° s since the stream would not be affected until late in
S life After backfilling and ground-water recharge,
base flows would be restored and long-term impact would prob-
ably be insignificant.
5-29
-------
Chuitna River
As indicated in Table 5-7, minimum flow in the Chuitna
River immediately below the mouth of Lone Creek could be
reduced by up to 17 percent during low flow periods in the
later years of mining. This reduction would represent an
extreme worst case situation and would be unlikely during
mining because of the addition of return water to the Chuitna
drainage from the various mine area drainage systems. If the
mine dewatering system should fail during low flow months
(e.g., August, March) in the later years of mining, then a
temporary flow reduction in the 10 to 20 percent range could
occur. In the lower reaches of the Chuitna River where flow
is greater, the impact of such a flow reduction would be
proportionally reduced. Flow in the Chuitna River would also
be reduced during the period following mine closure while
ground-water recharge is occurring in the backfilled area.
Initial reduction after mine closure could be in the 10 to 2 0
percent range and would gradually decrease to near 0 over a
period of up to 10 years until recharge is completed.
Hydrological characteristics of the Chuitna River after
reclamation and recharge would not be significantly different
from the existing condition.
5.3.2.3 Surface Water Quality
General Criteria
Surface water quality would be controlled by both EPA
and state regulations. These regulations are based upon
protection of existing and potential beneficial uses of the
water as well as national water quality objectives. The most
stringent requirements would be applicable. Domestic
wastewater would, as a minimum, require secondary treatment.
Most other water discharges from the project would be treated
in upgraded sediment pond treatment systems prior to
discharge. EPA criteria would require sediment pond discharge
to meet the following minimum requirements (EPA 1982):
pH in the range of 6 to 9
During rainfall events (less than 10-year events
occuring in 24 hours) that result in an increase in
base streamflow or when snow or ice exist and
ambient air temperature is above freezing (thaw
conditions) settleable solids must be lesr than 0.5
ml/1
During non-thaw or non-storm periods: 30-day average
of 35 mg/1 and 3.0 mg/1 suspended solids and total
iron respectively; maximum day value of 70 mg/1 and
6 mg/1 suspended solids and total iron respectively
5-30
-------
During 10-year, 24-hour or greater storm events
only the pH level requirement of 6 to 9 is
applicable
Discharges from outfalls 017 and 018 shall not
exceed a daily average of 10.0 mg/1 or a daily
maximum of 15.0 mg/1 for oil and grease during
baseflow conditions.
In addition to the EPA pH, iron, and sediment standards,
state standards would apply to protect the current and
possible beneficial uses of the water.
in Alaska, the water quality standards are the
wte^in'VaBta must meet all
2 ^ fjrir i Q»7\ which indicate that all water bodies in
TlllTare'fSLiiSiidfor all uses except the lower Chena
Riverand Nolan Creek and all its tributaries excluding Acme
Creek wSich are classified for industrial use.
Freshwater Uses
• Drinking, including cooking and food processing
• Agriculture (irrigation and stock watering)
° Aquaculture .
• Contact^recreation^swimming?^wading, bathing, etc.)
• secondary recreation (boating, hiking,camping, etc )
• l?o™h and propagation of fish, shellfish, and other
aquatic life
sa 1 twat.er Uses
0 seafood processing
• Harvesting of clams or other aquatic life
• industry^other than seafood processing)
• Contact recreation (swimming, wading, bathing, etc.)
o recreation (boating, hiking, camping, etc.)
• GroSSf^nd propagation of fish, shellfish, and other
aquatic life
• 4-^ Wii-h each use are criteria for different water
Associated wi ^ example/ drinking water quality
quality Pa^™. limits on bacterial contamination, color,
temperature fturb iditV» and sediment, as well as other
5-31
-------
parameters. The water quality standards consist of the set
of most stringent criteria associated with each water use.
Generally, the ADEC receiving water standards would require
(ADNR 1984) :
Turbidity
5 NTU above natural background when background
is below 50 NTU
10% increase when background is above 50 NTU
25 NTU maximum increase
TSS/Suspended solids
- No increase above background, can have a mixing
zone
Metals and other parameters
- Drinking water criteria or aquatic life stan-
dards if a specific hazard to aquatic life has
been identified.
The specific parameter limitations typically are modified to
reflect background levels if a receiving water has normally
elevated concentrations of specific parameters. The receiving
water standards are based upon impacts to human and aquatic
life and are therefore being used as standards for this impact
analysis.
Mine and Mine Area Facilities
- Mine Site Runoff
Mine site runoff consists of surface water other than
pit drainage that flows from the project area into area
streams. During operation, the mining process would result
in progressive disturbance and reclamation of a fixed size
area. Before excavation begins in an area, surface drainages
would be rerouted. Areas that had been mined would be
reclaimed with interburden and overburden replaced in the same
relative positions and in the same relative topographic
configuration. Revegetation, routing drainage through
ditches, and erosion control measures would be undertaken
immediately upon redeposition of the material in the mined
area (ERT 1985c).
Erosion control measures would consist of permanently
developed site drainage courses, contour reclamation,
mulching, temporary drainage control, revegetation, and
5-32
-------
construction of long-term sediment ponds. Eighteen sediment
construction Dlanned for the mine and mine area facility.
Drainage siopes and most side slopes would generally be
limited to 5 percent to limit runoff velocities, although some
limited to o y . up to 12 percent. On steep slopes,
.lfcamative sediment control measures include filter dams,
filter fabric installations, gravel pads, chemical
and matting as necessary (Diamond Alaslca coal Company
f XX™ sldiment ponds would be utilised until well
ilter toe entire reclaimed drainage is stabilized and runoff
naturally meets background quality (ERT 1985c).
During sediment pond construction, temporary sediment
„„rr«nres would be employed to limit impacts to
streams These measures could include filter fabric sediment
fences specific construction scheduling, immediate matting
and revegetation or other approved techniques.
The erosion precautions noted would be designed to
4. V S suspended solids discharges (ERT 1985c) .
control mao illustrates that without further treatment,
sediment diJcharges and corresponding turbidities would exceed
proposed standards under v«ioua^condi 10^sul(atf0mn°^reat^n^
?rtheC3en"pondV sVstemsV effluent turbidities could range
from 30 to more than 14,000 NTU* during ma^or flow events (10-
A* y?™7r-\ The hiah range turbidity would be in excess
^/Aowable 'discharge limitations. Therefore, additional
?rea4ent iling P°l^r flocculation to increase settling
effectiveness is necessary to provide compliance.
Recent laboratory bench scale and modeling tests have
indicated that with a polymer flocculation-sedimentation
system effluent turbidities may be reduced to between 5 and
?7 NTU during major flow (l0-year/24-hour) events (Diamond
37 NTU auriny J Vol< XXI) . Based upon turbidity
Alaska Coaj- correlations, Diamond and the state have
and suspended solids^orreiati _ waters at various floQd
estimated ^urbidi receiving water is expected to range from
flows. Turbidity 10-year, 24-hour flood event
1'^° coal Company 1985, Vol. XXI). Therefore, all
^rb!di?y crfterTa woS!d Tikely 'be met during major storm
events. Compliance is further projected for 2-year, 24-hour
storm conditions.
Durina winter baseflow conditions, stream turbidities
During comtiliance of discharge at low baseflow
are .X.®ry ? *not directly projected by the recent studies
anfiorilng (S?a»odndreA^skaP c'oal CompLy 1985, Vol. xxi> .
and modeling ^ assumptions used, as well as
limitations 01^ discharge rates, proposed double stage
5-33
-------
flocculation for problem sediment pond systems, and possible
use of controlled discharge versus stream baseflow. The
applicant projects that compliance will be achieved after
application of a mixing zone (ASMCRA Volume XXI, Table 40) .
However the actual size and amount of dilution will not be
known until ADEC acts on applicant's request for mixing zones.
Treatment during winter baseflow conditions will be adequate
to prevent degrading receiving stream water quality. ASMCRA
stipulation 3 describes conditions which must be met by the
applicant prior to receiving winter baseflow in the pond
systems (7, 11, 13, and 15/16) that will receive winter
baseflow. Furthermore, the Water Quality Contingency Plan
(stipulation 6) , specifies additional treatment measures that
will be implemented if sediment pond discharges fail to meet
Alaska water quality standards.
No specific testing has been conducted to determine what
potential pollutants may leach from disturbed overburden
material. However, laboratory leach tests on the coal have
not indicated significant amounts of metals, organics, or
other potential pollutants (Bookcliffs 1985). Table 5-8
combines information from available baseline measurements to
estimate water quality that could be expected from normal
sediment pond systems. Since the information for other than
total suspended solids is for dissolved material, it is
assumed for the worst case analysis that sediment pond
settling would not reduce metals or similar contaminant levels
significantly. A comparison with baseline data in existing
site streams illustrates that normal sediment pond discharge
may be expected to have slightly higher levels of the elevated
parameters in the baseline stream water quality. Treatment
to meet state and federal standards would limit increases in
total loadings in the receiving water. No pollutants
significantly in excess of background levels have been
observed in runoff from disturbed site test areas (ERT 1984e) .
No significant water quality impact is anticipated from
disturbed site leaching although some present surface water
has slightly elevated levels of boron, iron, nickel,
manganese, zinc, and ammonia nitrogen which may continue to
be periodically above standards or slightly increase. The
projection of a slight increase is based upon baseline data
as well as a leaching test performed on coal samples. In
addition, an analysis of overburden and coal constituents and
corresponding ground-water quality supports a contention that
leaching would not be excessive.
As proposed by the applicant, flocculation and sedimen-
tation treatment for excessive suspended solids, turbidity,
or metals would most likely involve the use of polymers for
solids removal. The flocculants polyethylene oxide (PEO) and
percol 352 have been tested in a two stage laboratory jar test
5-34
-------
Table 5-8
ESTIMATED SEDMIENT POND EFFLUENT WATER QUALITY1 (AFTER SEDIMENTATION AND FLOCCULATION TREATMENT)
Parameter
Projected Sediment
Pond Effluent
Water Quality
(Range)a
Receiving Hater
siving
Quail
(Range
&
Alkalinity as CaCOj
Aluminum, dissolved (mg/1)
Arsenic, dissolved (mg/1)
Bicarbonate as CaCOj (mg/1)
Boron, dissolved (mg/1)
Cadmium, dissolved (mg/1/
Calcium, dissolved (mg/1)
Carbonate as CaC03 (mg/1)
Chloride (mg/1)
Chromium, dissolved (mg/1)
Conductivity (umhos/cm @ 250C)
C opper, di s solved (mg/1)
Fluoride (mg/1)
Hardness as CaC03 (mg/1)
Iron, dissolved (mg/1)
Lead, dissolved (mg/1)
Magnesium, dissolved (mg/1)
Manganese, dissolved (ma/1)
Mercury, dissolved (mg/1)
Molybdenum, dissolved (mg/1)
Nickel, dissolved (mg/1)
Nitrogen, ammonia (mg/1)
Nitrogen, nitrate/nitrite (mg/I)
Organic carbon, dissolved (mg/I)
pH (units)
Potassium, dissolved (mg/1)
Selenium, dissolved (ma/1)
Sodium, dissolved (mg/1)
Solids, dissolved (mg/1)
Sulfate (mg/1)
Suspended Solids (mg/1)
Zinc, dissolved mg/l)
5.5
_
43
5.5
_
43
<0.1
—
0.4 (total)
<0.1
—
0.4 (total)
<.005
nd
<52
nd
<.1
—
0.52
<.1
0.1
<.005
nd
1.4
-
10
1.4
-
9.3
0
nd
0.06
-
13
0.06
-
4.4
<.02
nd
11
-
300
11
-
121
<0.02
-
0.12 (total)
<0.02
•
0.09 (total)
0.01
—
0.3
0.01
-
0.09
<45
nd
0.2
-
3.4 (total)
0.2
-
3.4 (total)
<0.02
-
0.03
<0.02
-
0.03
0.1
-
4.4
0.1
-
2.5
<0.02
-
0.2
<0.02
-
0.2
<0.001
-
0.001 (total)
<0.001
-
0.001 (total)
<.02
nd
<0.02
-
0.05 (total)
<0.02
0.05 (total)
<0.01
-
1.5
<0.01
-
1.5
<0.05
-
1.5
<0.05
-
1.5
<35
nd
5.9
—
7.8
5.9
-
7.8
0.25
-
3
0.25
-
2.0
nd
nd
0.4
-
35
0.4
-
6.0
2
-
200
2
-
104
0.27
-
20a
0.27
.
4.5
5
-
20 4
<1
-
60
<0.02
-
.08
<0.02
-
0.04
Anticipated
Receiving
water Qualit
St»nd«r^3
20 or more
0.05
0.043*+
0.004
200
0.05
lTo
214
0.3*+
0.03*
0.05*
0.0002
0.07
0.025* +
0.020*+
10
6.5 - 8.5
0.010
250
500*6
200
35
nd - no data
•Parameters with potential to equal or exceed receiving water standards before dilution in a mixinn
+The receiving water at times equals or exceeds some or these standards now under natural conditions20ne •
NOTES:
1 water quality estimates are based upon an analysis of baseline data. No actual sediment oond mi
were performed. This estimate of quality is not statistically significant and represents possihi8^ te8ts
only. iQ ranges
2 Ran^e^from an analysis of surface water quality. Does not include peak discharge quality measurements (ert
3 Standard listed is the most stringent for the various protected uses in Alaska. Sources! epi to-?*
et al. 1979; Sittig 1981; ADEC 1982; ADEC 1984. X376» McNeely
4 From Diamond Alaska Coal Company 1985, Vol. XXI. Mote - low flow conditions critical and reauii-
operational modifications for compliance with turbidity regulations. additional
\ Range from an analysis of surface runoff quality (ERT 1985a) and leach data (Bookcliffs 1985)
The standard for total dissolved solids is 500 mg/1 or no greater than 1/3 higher than natural
whichever is less. condition,
5-35
-------
procedure. Sediment removals were good, resulting in low
turbidity levels. Furthermore, the ASMCRA, through
stipulation 1, requires the applicant to install all necessary
equipment on sediment pond systems 1-6, 8-12, 15, and 16 prior
to the ponds going into operation. Stipulation 6 discusses
additional treatment measures that may be implemented to
insure that sediment pond discharges meet Alaska water quality
standards. If required, aluminum sulfate (alum), ferric
chloride, or lime could be employed for metals precipitation.
Polymers are listed as "relatively non-toxic" while lime
addition would result in increased pH, higher dissolved
solids, and increased calcium concentrations (Hawley 1977).
Toxicity of lime would normally be pH dependent. The
discharge could not be allowed to be elevated to pH levels
causing aquatic impacts. Low levels of alum have not been
found to be toxic (Hawley 1977).
Impacts from site runoff are not anticipated to be
significant with proposed treatment. With present sediment
pond design and planned polymer flocculation, tests have
indicated that treated pit water discharges which would occur
during dry periods when high runoff exemptions are not
applicable may be the worst case condition but are not
projected to exceed the limits for total suspended solids with
special operational limits. Refer to Section 5.4.2.3 for an
analysis of potential impacts to fish and other aquatic plants
and animals.
Erosion control for overburden stockpiles would be
accomplished as described for the mine area. Water quality
impacts from these areas are not anticipated to be different
from other disturbed sites.
Pit Drainage
The actual mine workings or pit would accumulate water
from surface runoff and from ground-water seepage into the
pit. This water would not drain or infiltrate from the deep
pit, but would be collected in the bottom sump of the pit
where settling would substantially reduce sediment loads,
initial estimates by the applicant indicate up to 70 percent
removal of solids in the pit settling areas. During periods
of high rainfall, the pit drainage water would be high in
suspended solids. Runoff and sediment levels would also be
high in the receiving streams during these storm events.
However, natural strean. flow and sediment levels would rapidly
decrease after the storm event while sediment-laden water
would continue to be pumped from the in-pit sumps for many
days or weeks depending on the storm event and pond system.
The applicant would only pump from the in-pit sumps when the
discharge can meet the Alaska water quality standards. This
5-36
-------
provision is described in the Water Quality Contingency Plan
(stipulation 6 ASMCRA). During low rainfall, most of the pit
drainage water would be from ground-water drainage and would
reflect the quality of the aquifers intersected and erosion
and sediment from excavations.
Table 5-9 illustrates the range of projected conditions
for pit water quality. When runoff predominates, sediment
levels after treatment may reach in excess of 2 0 mg/1 TSS and
parameters such as boron, iron, nickel, manganese, ammonia,
nitrogen, and zinc may reach or exceed standards. When
ground-water seepage predominates, projected suspended solids
levels would be lower. It is significant that background
water quality in the receiving waters would at times also
likely equal or exceed the standards for boron, iron, nickel,
manganese, ammonia, nitrogen, and zinc as shown by the
baseline data. Table 5-9 also lists the applicable receiving
water standards which discharge from the pit collection sumps
must ultimately meet.
Water which would be pumped from the pit would be
discharged into site drainage sediment pond systems. This
would provide additional settling. Diamond Alaska has
committed to a flocculant treatment system to comply with
discharge requirements. Lime or a similar flocculant-
coagulant would be used for metal removal, if necessary, while
a polymer would be used to enhance sediment removal.
The potential for contamination from metals appears to
be small according to laboratory leaching tests. Although
the Beluga low sulfur coal is non-acid generating, some metals
do leach from it in minor quantities (Bookcliffs 1985). if
metals treatment or treatment for excessive sediment load
became necessary, a precipitating flocculant could be
introduced before the sediment ponds. The flocculant would
reduce both metals and suspended solids (sediment). Initial
operational testing would determine the need for such
pretreatment since it is difficult to determine under
laboratory conditions.
The impact of the pit drainage would be most significant
during low winter stream flows. In the winter, surface runoff
would be minimal, while ground-water seepage into the pit
would continue at near normal rates. At certain times, most
of the streamflow in Stream 2003 could be from treated pit
drainages. At other times (depending upon the location of
mining activities) major portions of Lone Creek or Stream 2003
flows could be from treated pit drainage. Impacts to water
quality would be greatest when nearby pit operations divert
baseload ground water from the creeks, leaving the pit return
flow as the primary water source. Since pit drainage would
5-37
-------
Table-5-9
PIT DRAINAGE EFFLUENT WATER QUALITY PROJECTION (AFTER SEDIMENTATION AND FLOCCULATION TREATMENT)
Parameter
Rainfall .
Predominated1
(Range)
Projected In-Plt
Water Quality
seepage
Predominated^
(Range)
Anticipated
Receiving Water.Quality
Standard-3
Alkalinity as CaC03
Aluminum, dissolved (mg/l)
Arsenic, dissolved (mg/1)
Bicarbonate as CaC03 (mg/l)
Boron, dissolved (mg/1)
Cadmium, dissolved (mg/1)
Calcium, dissolved (mg/1)
Carbonate as CaCO? (mg/1)
Chloride (m^/l)
Chromium, dissolved (mg/1)
Conductivity (umhos/cm % 25'C)
Copper, dissolved (mg/1)
Pluoride (mg/1)
Hardness as CaCOj (mg/1)
Iron, dissolved (mg/l)
Lead, dissolved (mg/l)
Magnesium, dissolved (mg/l)
Manganese, dissolved (mg/l)
Mercury, dissolved (mg/l)
Molybdenum, dissolved (mg/l)
Nickel, dissolved (mg/l)
Nitrogen, ammonia (mg/l)
Nitrogen, nitrate/nitrite (mg/l)
Organic carbon, dissolved (mg/l)
pH (units)
Potassium, dissolved (mg/l)
Selenium, dissolved (mg/l)
Sodium, dissolved (mg/l)
Solids, dissolved (mg/l)
Sulfate (mg/l)
Suspended Solids (mg/l)
Zinc, dissolved mg/l)
5.5
-
43
98
270
20 or more
<0.1
nd
0.4 (total)
<.2
<0.01
0.05
nd
99
233
<.1
nd
0.1
<0.1
<0.01
.52
0.043*
0.004
1.4
-
9.3
17
58
nd
0
24
0.06
nd
4.4
1.6
<0.02
13
200
0.05
11
-
121
180
906
—-
<0.02
-
0.09 (total)
<0.02
.1
1.0
0.01
-
0.09
<.24
2.4
nd
65
134
0.2
-
3.4 (total)
0.12
0.96
0.3*
<0.02
-
0.03
<0.02
0.03
0.1
-
2.5
<5
<0.02
-
0.2
.06
.29
0.05*
<0.001
nd
0.001 (total)
<•001
<.02
0.0002
0.07
<0.02
-
0.05 (total)
<.02
0.025*
<0.01
—
1.5
0.5
4.1 (as N)
0.020*
<0.05
-
1.5
<0.01
0.15 (as N)
10
nd
0.17 -
80
5.9
*
7.8
7.1
8.2
6.5 - 8
0.25
nd
2.0
1.9
<0.01
4.8
0.010
0.4
—
6.0
9.1
57
250 _
2
—
104
200+
500 '
0.27
-
4.5
2.5
40
200
5
-
20
<35 mg/l est.
35 mg/l
0.030*
<0.02
-
0.04
<0.02
0.36
nd m no data
•Parameters with potential to equal or exceed receiving water standards before dilution in a mixing zone.
NOTES:
1 Range of surface runoff quality. Does not include peak discharge quality measurments (ERT 1985a).
2 around water data (ERT 1984e) and leach data (Bookcliffs 1985).
3 Standard listed is the most stringent for the various protected uses in Alaska. Sources: EPA 1976; McNeely
et al. 1979; Sittig 1981; ADEC 1982; ADEC 1984. The receiving water at times equals or exceeds some of
these standards now under natural conditions.
* Proa Diamond Alaska Coal Company 1985, Vol. XXI. Note - low flow conditions critical and require additional
operational modifications for compliance with turbidity regulations.
5 Tfje standard for total dissolved solids is 500 mg/l or no greater than 1/3 higher than natural conditions,
whichever is less.
5-38
-------
be a continuing winter flow, sediment ponds and other
treatment processes would be operated to assure unobstructed
water flow into and out of the sediment ponds.
Impacts of treated pit drainage to receiving waters would
be especially critical since little dilution water would be
available in winter. Therefore, in many instances, no real
zone of mixing could be defined. During winter baseflow
conditions, stream turbidities are very low. Compliance of
discharge at low baseflow conditions is not directly projected
by the recent studies and modeling (Diamond Alaska Coal
Company 1985, Vol. XXI). However, the conservative
assumptions used, as well as limitations on discharge rates
proposed double stage flocculation for problem sediment pond
systems, and possible use of controlled discharge versus
stream baseflow suggests that there is enough flexibility
built into the system such that compliance can be achieved.
The specific impacts could be slight increases in normal
sediment levels and turbidity and possibly in boron, nickel
iron, manganese, ammonia nitrogen, and zinc concentrations!
The proposed treatment methods using flocculants are slightly-
reduced in efficiency during very cold conditions. Although
other treatment methods are not feasible on the scale
necessary, use of settling alone to remove suspended solids
as well as precipitated metals would limit strict compliance
with water guality standards without the proposed operational
modifications. Treatment and removal of ammonia nitrogen
would not be feasible on such a large scale nor at such low
concentrations. The occurrence of metals and ammonia nitrogen
in the projected pit drainage flow is based upon baseline data
analyses and with present data is not statistically
significant as a projection of actual pit drainage guality.
In addition, estimated impacts would not be significant
compared to baseline conditions.
Mine Service Area
The mine service area would contain shops, coal transfer
points, equipment ready yards, and a small coal storage area.
Sources of waste water during operation include site runoff*
runoff from coal storage and transfer areas, washdown water
from equipment maintenance facilities, and domestic sewage.
Runoff from disturbed areas would be routed through
stabilized drainage systems and sediment ponds before being
discharged to tributaries of the Chuitna River. Water quality
of the coal storage area and coal transfer point runoff could
be similar to that of the pit drainage.
5-39
-------
No adverse effect on water quality is expected from water
use and the disposal of treated sanitary wastes from mine site
facilities. Domestic waste will be treated by secondary
treatment and discharged into the Chuitna River at the same
location as the discharge from the housing complex. The
effects of domestic waste discharges on the Chuitna River are
discussed in detail in the Housing Facilities section using
the total discharge from both treatment plants.
No significant impact would occur from the discharge of
treated effluent. However, there may be risks from breaks in
the 3.2 km (2 mi) pipeline due to freezing during the winter.
This could result in discharge of treated secondary effluent
to local drainages. The impact of such a spill would be
limited in area and volume and the quality of the effluent
would be high. Adverse impacts from such a spill would not
be significant.
Wildfires and man-caused fires including slash burning
can affect water quality by introducing into water bodies
nutrients and suspended solids resulting from erosion in
burned areas. Depending on the water body, this may be an
adverse or beneficial effect. Fire fighting equipment and
techniques also disturb watersheds, causing effects on water
quality.
Petroleum product spills into water bodies would
adversely affect water quality. A layer of petroleum on the
surface of a water body would inhibit aeration of the water,
reducing the dissolved oxygen content. Soluble fractions are
usually toxic to plant and animal life. The probability of
large spills, however, is low because all storage areas would
be surrounded by dikes capable of retaining 110 percent of the
volume of the petroleum product storage tanks. Additionally,
an SPCC plan would be developed to minimize the potential for
accidental discharge of refined products and to outline
cleanup response if a spill occurred.
Solid wastes generated in the mine area would be
landfilled in an approved solid waste disposal site. Permit
restrictions would require design of a facility that would
protect surface and ground-water quality. Wells would be
installed to monitor any adverse effects early so that actions
could be taken to correct any water quality impacts.
The sclid waste disposal sites would require fencing and
periodic covering of deposited wastes to control blowing
debris and limit animal problems. Burnables would be
incinerated prior to landfill. Sludges would be stabilized
as required by state law using one or more of the approved
methods prior to inclusion in the landfill.
5-40
-------
Reclamation of landfill sites would include covering,
contouring for proper drainage, and revegetation. Impacts
would be limited to visual, noise, and site disturbances
during use. Upon closure, the reclaimed site would be
monitored for water quality impacts and reclamation success.
A properly constructed, operated, and reclaimed site should
limit significant long-term environmental impacts.
Sediment from the sediment ponds would be removed
periodically to maintain pond capacity. The sediment would
contain classified particles from erosion and pit dewatering
activities. The material should represent the general
composition of the existing overburden, interburden, and
possibly coal site materials. Grain size of pond sediment
would likely be smaller than the average site material.
However, chemical composition should not be markedly different
from a composite sample of the various site materials mixed
at different proportions depending upon season and mining
activity. The material may not be suitable for use in
revegetation or for placement in the top soil zone due to
higher than normal concentrations of parameters that could
inhibit plant growth or the erosion potential of the smaller
grain size distribution. Therefore, if pond sediment is found
to be unsuitable, it would be buried under a layer (1.2 m [4
ft] minimum) of suitable erosion-resistant growth material.
The chemical composition of the sediment should be no
jAQj-'g concentrated than individual geologic formations unless
some natural flotation or gravity separation process is
involved. However, the location and absence of weathering of
sediments could result in greater reactivity of sediments.
Therefore, monitoring will be necessary to fully assess short-
term water quality impacts and suitability for use as plant
growth media.
5.3.2.4 Biology
Mine Area
Construction, operation, and reclamation of the Diamond
Chuitna Mine would result in a progression of changes over
more than 30 years in the surface water quality and hydrology
of mine area streams, primarily upper portions of Stream 2003.
The nature and extent of these changes has been discussed
above. Changes in the physical and chemical characteristics
of the streams would caur.e changes in associated biota that
would range from extreme and highly predictable (in cases of
mining through existing drainages) to subtle and/or highly
unpredictable (in adjacent streams such as Lone Creek and in
downstream reaches of 2003). A major unknown is the time
required to restore aquatic productivity to mined drainages.
For the purpose of impact analysis, both the 10-year and 3 0-
year impact scenarios have been considered (Tables 5-10 and
5-11)•
5-41
-------
Table 5-10
AQUA1IC HAB1U1 CVM.M1IQN 0T fOICNllM.LV AfFCCICO KMXS Of M* AREA STHEMtt (V(M 10)U)
drainage
20
ORJ11NA R.
2002
10* CR.
2002
LONE CR.
2002
LONE CR.
2003
2003
2003
2003
1001
1003
ZOO!
2004
2004
2004
2004
IOIALS
IRIBUlART
MAlNSIEM
MAlNSIEM
MA1NS1CM
MAlNSIEM
MAlNSIEM
MAlNSIEM
HAINSICN
MAlNSIEM
200304
200305
100304
MAlNSIEM
MAlNSIEM
MAINSTCN
200403
-
REACH
BCLON 7003
UPPER
HtOOLE
LONER
UPPER
MIOOLC
(uppor)
mioole
(Io««r)
LOMCR
ENTIRE
ENTIRE
ENURE
l/PPCR
MIOOLC
LONER
UPPER 340 •
-
AFFECTED LENGTH
17910
3470
11340
4390
4410
3215
3445
4020
2020
1430
2100
4430
4630
3020
340
74010
(aotoro)
tCAM V10TH (wUfi)
22.4
2.4
3.7
4.7
1.6
4
4
4.4
1.2
1.2
2.4
2.4
3.3
3.9
1 (i)
AFFECIED AREA (o2)
404744
RBOB
41954
42613
R29R
12640
223B0
1B492
3304
1740
5040
11112
15939
11776
340
409926
HOW AFFECTED
MQ/aOM
NQ/TION
MQ/FLOH
HQ/FLOW
NQ/FLOW
NQ/TLCW
UQ/FLOM
NQ/aON
MlfCD
MINED
AREA
NIL
NIL
MIL
NU
_
DISTURBANCE
MU. % HABITAT
2
20
10
5
25
20
15
10
25
100
>0
0
0
0
0
-
rcductiw (b)
MU. PERCENTAGE
or OOORCNTCD
SrSICH £SCAPC»CNI
USING ItCAOt (c)
_ Oil NOOK 31 0 0 7 0 0 7.7 4.J 0 0 0 0 4.* >.« Q
- C0H0 SO 1.* 7.2 7.4 1 2.3 2.3 2.4 0 | 0 2.4 3.7 2.7 0
. riw to 0 3 3 13 3 300000 0 0
NAXIMM LOSS or
DOClRCNTCO SPANNERS (no.) (d)
- Oil NOW 37.2
- CONO 23
- fINK 321
0 0 21
7 II 9.23
0 102.3 31.23
0 0 <9.3
4.25 11.3 1.423
31.23 123 92.23
37.0 0 0
4 0 25
41.3 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 143.3
0 0 114.423
0 0 609.73
P0TCN1IAI
SPANNING DENSITY (no./k«)
_ CMlttOK 130 10 100 200 10 100 100 130 10 10 10 30 40 100 10
. COHO 20 20 30 ISO 30 30 30 30 20 20 20 30 30 30 20
. nm 1300 200 400 400 200 400 400 400 100 too 100 0 0 0 0
NU1HM LOSS
or POTENTIAL SPANNERS (no.)
. Oil NOOK 33.73 7.34 113.4 43.9 11.32 44.3 04.47 40.3 21.13 14.3 30.5 0 0 0 0 303.32
. COHO 7.144 14.40 34.7 37.51 34.37 32.3 42.33 20.1 42.3 19 It 0 0 0 0 337.3163
- NM 537.3 144.0 460 121 232 344 301 241 211.3 143 105 0 0 0 0 3320
POTENTIAL
REARING OCNSIIY {no./ml)
- OINOOC 0.7 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.7 0.7 2.25 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.5
- COHO 0.4 2 3.1 1.2 2 2 2 1 2 3 2 2 3 1.2 2
- RA1W0N/ 0.5 0.9 0.13 0.3 1 0.15 0.13 1 0.4 0.3 0.4 1.7 0.3 1 0.5
OOLLY varden
NAXIKM LOSS OF POTENTIAL
KAJtlfC S4LM0N1DS (no.)
- Q4IMXK 5444.724 060.0 2937. 1496. 1037. 1600. 2370. 4140. 1249 070 1240 0 0 0 0 23731.26
- COM) 4657.192 3323. 13004 . 2540 . 4149 3144 4774 1049. 3074 3220 5040 0 0 0 0 37206 33
- RAJMXM/ 40*7.44 1563. 429.3 442.1 2074 . 305.1 300.0 1649. 1015 . 070 1000 0 0 0 0 14413.41
DOLLY VARDCN
(a) SOURCEt CRT (19B4o, 1904b, 1965) FOR STREAM CHARACTERISUCSt SEE TABLE 4-11| POTENTl*. FISH USCMZ IS
ES UNA ICO USIIC BASEL IIC tCASUREMCNTS (TABLE 4-11) MO ItC ASSUUMI® THAT ACCESS PROBLEMS CREATED BY
6CAVCR ACTIVITY ARC REMOVED.
) REDUCTION ASSUCO 10 BC 100ft fOR SIREAM5 fO 6E HltCO THROUCM. REDUCTION IN HA6IIA1 FOR OOHNSfREAM REACHES
MERC ASSIGNED BASED ON COttlNEO EFFECTS OF HATER QUALITY AM> FLOW CHANCES AT THE tCIGHT OF PROXCT DISTUR-
BANCE FOR THAT REACH.
(e) SEC IA&E 4-10. CHUITNA PERCENTAGES BASED ON ERT 1965 (TABLE 3.6-9)} OTtCR PCRCENIACES PROPORIIOKD ON
THE BASIS OF RATIOS OT REACH AREA AFrCCTEO TO IOIAL AREA Of ItC REACH FOR MHICM SPANNING DATA IS AVAIL-
ABLE. PERCENTAGE FOR PINK SALMON IN 1002 AND 2003 ASSUCD 10 BC 10 BASED ON LARGE MMCRS PRESENT IN 1960.
(•) BASED m MAXIMUM OBSERVED SPANNER DENSITIES IN THE REACH IN QUESTION OR A CM>ARABLE REACH IN AN ADJACENT
SYSTEM| ASSUCS REWVAL OF STREAM MIGRATION BARRIERS AK> OPTIMJM OCEAN SURVIVAL.
(f) naui or Huiiut i mmiim nucum ims rotom*. vmmihc ocnsih iincs kach ama (icncih).
(«) lAStD ON MUINJH KASUKD IKMllC OCNSIIY (TABLE 4-11) IN THIS 0* aMVUWLC HTACH; ASSUWS KHMH
V ALL ¦AMUCK 10 ITSIKAN NICUIION.
(h) rmoict or NAIINJH t HA5IIAI HCOUCIIOM IIICS POICNflAL KANIIC DCHSIIT IIICS HUM AAC» (.}).
(d) NU1NM KMZNIMX US1NC IIC KCACH IIICS IK HAJIIMJH PCMXNI NASI IAI KDUCIION IIICS HAIIHM MCUCNICO
srsit* tsCArtiCNi mo» iasli »-io.
-------
Table 5-11
AQUA IIC HA0IIAI IVMUAIION U PU ItNl (At. L T AfltCHU NLACHIS 0 HI* AM. A SINEAHS (ttAR *!)(•)
TRIBUTARY
KMM
Arrccico length
(Meters)
»CAN WIDTH (aeter*)
AfFECICO AMI A (a2)
»OM AFFECTED
MAX. % HA8IIAT
REDUCTION (b)
MAX. PERCENTAGE
Or DOCUMENTED
SYSTEM E5CAPEMNT
USIfC REACH (c)
- CHINOOK
- COM)
- pi*
20
CHUllNA R.
MAINSTEH
BCLON 2003
2002
LONE CR.
2002 2002
ione ch. lone cr.
17910
22.4
40*766
MO/FLOW
5
31
50
HUiMM LOSS (T
OOCltCNTEO SPANNERS (no.) (d)
- CHINOOK «
- COHO 62.5
- em 820
POIENtlAL
SPAMNlNC 0ENS1 IT (no./k«)
- CHINOOK
- COHO
- PINK
IM7
20
1500
HAXltOI LOSS
Of POTENTIAL SPANNERS (no.)
- CHINOOK
- COHO
- PINK
1)4.)25
17. 91
1H).»
POTENTIAL
REARING DCKS1IY (no./«2)
- CHJtOOK 0.7
- com 0.6
- RAINBOW/ 0.5
DOLLY VARDCN
WUltftJM LOSS QT POTENTIAL
¦EARIMC SAlMONlDS (no.)
- CHINOOK 14166.B1
- COHO 12142.96
- RAINBOW/ 10119.15
OOUY VARDCN
MAINSIEN MAINSIEM M1NSIEH NA1NSIEH KAINSICH NAINSICH HAINSILH 200)04
UPPER
>670
2.4
•801
HQ/FLOW
40
0
1.4
0
20
200
14.61
29.X
299.4
0.5
2
0.9
1761.
7046.
>170.
M1COLE
11)40
).7
41950
HQ/FLOW
20
0
7.2
5
0
56
205
100
50
600
226. a
11).4
1541
0.7
5.1
0.15
5874.
2601)
12Sfl.
6)90
6.7
4281)
MQ/FL0W
10
7
7.4
5
42
18.5
102.5
200
180
127.8
115.0
256
0.7
1.2
0.)
2996.
51)7.
1284.
4610
1.8
8298
MltfO
100
0
25
205
)0
200
46.1
158.)
927
0.5
2
1
4149
16596
8298
M100LE
(upper)
12860
MINED
100
0
2.)
)
0
57.5
615
100
50
600
)21.5
160.7
1929
0.7
2
0.15
9002
25 720
1929
HIUGtt
(lower)
5645
4
22560
HQ/FLOW
7.7
2.)
3
569.6
46
492
100
50
600
451.6
225.8
2710
0.7
2
0.15
12644
M126
2709.
4020
4.6
18492
HQ/FLOW
25
6.)
2.4
3
285.5
45
461.2
150
50
600
452.2
150.7
1809
)1205
1)869
13869
200)
200)
200)
2004
2004
2004
2004
TOTALS
200)04
200)05
200)06
MA1NSICM
MAiNSItM
MAINS TEN
20040)
-
ENURE
ENTIRE
ENtIRE
UPPER
M1D0LE
LOMER
UPPER 560
•
2820
1450
2100
46)0
48)0
)020
)60
76010
1.2
1.2
2.4
2.4
).)
J.9
1 (I)
))84
1740
5040
11112
159)9
11778
)60
609928
MINED
NINEO
MIMD
WQ/FLOW
MQ/FLM
NQ/FLON
MINED
"
100
100
100
10
20
15
100
0
0
0
0
4.6
).4
0
60
0
1
0
2.6
5.7
2.7
0
84
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
100
0
0
0
0
55.2
>0.6
0
873.9
0
25
0
4.5
18.5
10.12
0
364.625
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2900.75
10
10
10
50
60
100
10
20
20
20
30
50
50
20
100
100
100
0
0
0
0
28.2
H.5
21
2).15
57.96
45.3
3.6
1968.765
56.4
29
42
13.89
48.3
22.65
7.2
1170.7)
282
145
210
0
0
0
0
11265
0.5
0.5
0.5
Q.5
0.7
0.7
0.5
2
)
2
2
)
1.2
2
0.4
0.5
0.4
1.7
0.5
1
0.5
1692
870
2520
555.6
22)1.
12)6.
180
91086.24
6768
5220
10080
2222.
956).
2120.
720
179)47.7
1)5).
870
2016
1889.
159).
1766.
180
52)08
(•) SOURCEi CRT (19i»e, 19846, 1985) fOR STREAM CHARACTERISTICS} SEE TABLE 4~11| POICNTIAL FISH USCAGE IS
ESTIMATED USINC BASEL INC MEASUREMENTS (TABLE 4-11) AM) THE AS SUCTION THAT ACCESS PROBLEMS CREATED BY
BEAVER ACTIVITY ARE REMOVED.
(b) REDUCTION ASSUtCO TO 8E 1005 FOR STREAMS 10 SC MlNCO THROUGH. REOUCKON IN HABITAT FOR OOWNSIREAM REACHES
ICRE ASSIOCD BASED ON COtflHCD EfFECfS OT HATER QUALITY AND FLOW CHANCES AT THE HEIGHT OF PROJECT DISTUR-
BANCE FOR THAT REACH.
(c) SCC TABLE 4-10. CMJITNA PERCENTAGES BASED ON CRT 1915 (TABLE 3.8-9); OTHER PERCENTAGES PROPORTIONED ON
THE BASIS OT RATIOS Of REACH MCA MfftCICD TO TOT* AREA V THE REAOf FOR WHICH SPANNING DAIA IS AVAIL-
ABLE. KmxMtta. rtm nm sal mm in 2002 200) assucd to ec 10 based m large MMf*s mx.*r in fno.
<•) BASCO .
-------
At the 10-year point in mine development, 4.3 km (2.67
mi) of smaller tributaries to Stream 2003 would be mined
through, in various stages of preparation for mining, or
occupied by sediment ponds (Table 5-10). Full development of
the 3 0-year mine pit would result in the direct destruction
of some 14.6 km (9.1 miles) of stream habitat, mostly (98
percent) in system 2003 (Table 5-11). Measured or
extrapolated levels of anadromous fish use (spawning and
rearing) of these areas is generally high (Table 4-11).
Available information suggests that downstream impacts
due to changes in water guality would be minimal except where
sediment pond discharges comprise a major percentage of
streamflow. The applicant intends to meet all applicable
state and federal water quality standards. Nonetheless,
extended periods of above-ambient levels of suspended
sediments and turbidity would inevitably result from instream
and in-drainage work in the mine area and from sediment
retention pond discharges, especially during the winter.
Heavy siltation can smother aquatic invertebrates that
comprise roughly one-half or more of the diet of trout and
salmon in small streams (Dames & Moore 1976). Loss of
interstices among larger gravel and cobbles removes areas of
refuge for fry and may increase predation loss to birds or
larger fish. Emergence pathways may also be blocked,
resulting in delayed emergence or entombment of alevins'
(Phillips et al. 1975).
Siltation can also reduce fish production by reducing
circulation of aerated water through the spawning gravel
necessary for survival of eggs and alevins (Mason 1969) . High
turbidity (e.g., greater than 3 0 N.T.U.) greatly reduces
feeding efficiency (Berg and Northcote 1985). Reduced light
penetration of turbid water, if prolonged, may decrease growth
of periphyton' on which some fish food organisms subsist.
Healthy fish adapted to living in streams which traditionally
flood at least once a year protect their gills by secretion
of mucus to carry off the irritants. Prolonged exposure of
fish to high concentrations of suspended particles with a
hardness greater than one may cause damage to the gills and,
in extreme cases, lead to death (EIFAC 1965; Cordone and Kelly
1961). The effect of natural siltation in local creeks is
minimized by its association with periods of high runoff when
stream velocities and turbulance are great enough to prevent
significant deposition. Introduction of silt into streams
during periods of low flow, when deposition is greatest, has
a far more damaging impact on stream biota. Recent work by
Berg and Northcote (1985) has shown that even short pulses of
turbid water in the 30-60 NTU range reduces not only coho
juvenile feeding efficiency but territorial behavior patterns
as well.
5-44
-------
The planned erosion and water quality control program
for construction and operations should reduce sediment
introduction during critical low flow periods. Erosion
control measures also would reduce inputs during high runoff
periods. However, some siltation would be inevitable as a
result of work in and near streams, normal sediment retention
pond discharges, or overloading of silt collection facilities
during heavy rainfall. Some reduction in the abundance of
benthic fauna and reduced growth rates of fish would likely
result in stream areas near discharge points. Reduced
survival of salmonid eggs and alevins in the stream bed
gravels could occur downstream of discharge points (e.g.
middle and lower 2 003) when such sediments remain in spawning
gravels during the winter intragravel development period for
salmon. Discharges of water containing suspended materials
under ice in the winter may be particularly harmful. If water
quality standards are met during mine operation, sediment
impacts would probably not be significant.
In addition to occasional introduction of above ambient
suspended sediment loads, sediment pond discharges may
intermittently contain levels of zinc approaching standards
required for protection of aquatic life. Toxic effects of
many trace metals, including zinc, on aquatic life are known
to be highly dependent on water pH, hardness, and (less
predictably) temperature (EPA 1972; Hodson and Sprague 1975).
Acute toxicity generally increases with decreasing pH (below
7.0) as a result (in part at least) of the increased mobility
and bioavailability of metals (EPA 197 6). The pH values in
surface waters of the study area are slightly basic, generally
ranging between 7.5 to 8.5. Increasing hardness (commonly
reported as equivalent concentration of calcium carbonate)
reduces the toxic effects of divalent metal ions such as
copper, lead, zinc, and cadmium (EPA 1976). Hardness in study
area waters is typically low, ranging between 10 and 50 mg/i
(as CaC03) with higher values during periods of lower flow and
vice versa, thus little reduction in metal toxicity would be
expected. Effects of temperature on metal toxicity are more
variable with increased or decreased toxicity depending on
species, acclimation temperature, exposure temperature, and
metals concentration (whether above or below acutely lethal
levels) (Hodson and Sprague 1975; Cairns et al. 1975).
Brown (1976) has suggested that fish can tolerate toxic
metals up to a given concentration by actively secreting them
back into the water (via gills or kidney) or by having them
bound to a specific protein (metallothionein). However, once
a threshold value is reached, only a slightly higher
concentration causes mortality (the "spill-over hypotheses")
Roch et al. (1982), in studies of fish populations in
contaminated reaches of the Campbell River system (British
5-45
-------
Columbia), concluded that metallothionein concentration was
a useful measure of the degree of exposure to fish to heavy-
metals.
Levels of zinc projected for intermittent release from
the ponds (0.04 mg/1) approach the EPA 24-hour average
criterion for zinc (0.047 mg/1). These levels are all well
below the maximum level of 0.534 mg/1 shown by Holcombe et
al. (1979) to have no effect on survival, growth, or
reproduction in brook trout. They are also below the maximum
level of 0.112 mg/1 shown by Chapman (1978) to have no effect
on adult to smolt survival, fertility, fecundity, growth, or
saltwater adaptability of sockeye salmon. Exposure to 0.242
mg/1 similarly had no effect over the embryo to smolt exposure
period for sockeye. Thus, no measureable effects are expected
on study area fish due to zinc exposures.
Another possible, but unpredictable, impact on salmon
related to water quality concerns the fact that adult salmon
identify their home stream by "smelling" the water. The
addition of sediment or small concentrations of metallic
pollutants would be unlikely to interfere with this ability.
However, the transfer of water from one watershed to another,
or, as is the case with Stream 2003, the elimination of
headwaters could alter water chemistry to a sufficient degree
to confuse homing ability. Such confusion could result in
spawning occurring in marginal habitat or, at worst,
elimination of a tributary as spawning habitat. Water
allocation to various streams from the sediment pond and
diversion systems would vary with the extent of mine
development.
Changes in stream flow downstream of the mine pit on all
three streams (Lone Creek, 2003, and 2004) during operation
would result in changes in stream habitat for anadromous
salmonids. Altered stream flow can have varied impacts on
fish habitats depending on the direction and magnitude of the
change, the time of year the change occurs, and the nature of
fish populations present. ERT (1985c) performed a study to
evaluate effects of altered stream flows on fish habitat in
Lone Creek and Stream 2003 for the first 10 years of mine life
using the instream flow incremental methodology (IFIM)
developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Bovee 198 2) .
Their results indicate that for "normal" water years, slightly
decreased flows (0.028 m3/sec [1 cfs] reduction at all
stations and times was assumed) would have a variety of
effects on fish habitat. During summer and fall, the reduced
flows would generally result in reduced habitat for coho
juvenile and spawning chinooks while increasing habitat for
chinook juveniles. Flow reductions used in these analyses do
not reflect the maximum projected over the 30-year project
5-46
-------
life and do not evaluate the potential impacts during winter
which may be the most critical time period for fish.
Based on available information on the cumulative effects
of all of the physical and chemical alterations likely down-
stream of the mined area, a subjective estimate has been
formulated of a likely resultant reduction in fish habitat in
these reaches ("maximum percentage habitat reduction") for the
10 year and 30 year scenarios (Tables 5-10 and 5-11). This
maximum percentage habitat reduction factor logically can
range from 0 percent (no change in habitat) to 100 percent
(complete destruction of the stream as it is mined through)
Intermediate values are based largely on the maximum reduction
in minimum stream flow that would occur when no return flow
is provided to the streams from ground water entering the pit.
During the summer months, the effects of this unlikely and
short term occurrence (e.g., due to pump or power failure)
could be readily modelled using the IFIM for selected species
and life history stages (Diamond Alaska Coal Company 1985)
Such an analysis would likely show changes in habitat for a
given flow change that vary in magnitude and direction with
species and life history stage. The most damaging summertime
scenario would occur if a flow reduction caused drying of
redds' containing pink or chinook salmon eggs. However, IFIM
is not appropriate for modeling changes in habitat that would
occur due to the more likely scenario where cold weather
causes the water entering the pit to freeze resulting in
interception of ground water which normally would be pumped
to the streams. Because limited data are available to address
this condition and because of its likelihood of occurrence
the predicted winter flow reductions (Table 5-7) have been
used as the primary basis for assigning the maximum percent
habitat reduction values. These values are considered to be
indicative of the relative magnitude of habitat reduction that
might be experienced between stream reaches subjected to
varying degrees of project-related impacts. It should be
noted, however, that the values are based on no pit water
pumping back into streams and on a series of assumptions used
in the absence of field data. The resultant values should be
used as "order-of-magnitude estimates to be used for
qualitative assessment of mine-related impacts" rather than
quantitative indices based on measured or simulated data.
This estimated percentage reduction is used to weigh fish
habitat loss estimates and to calculate resultant fish losses.
It is assumed that there is a one to one relationship between
habitat loss and fish loss. This would occur only if habitat
is limiting to the species/life history stage in question
which is unlikely in portions of these streams to which beaver-
dams appear to limit access. In addition, it would only occur
if the flow (i.e., habitat) reduction was prolonged; for
5-47
-------
example, a few days of lowered flows during the summer might
reduce fish growth rates somewhat but would be unlikely to
cause significant mortalities. This application is therefore
conservative and represents a worst-case scenario.
Because access to many areas of the three mine area
tributaries is severely limited by beaver dams (Dames & Moore
1980; Diamond Alaska Coal Company 1985) , there is a high
degree of variability in numbers of adults using the middle
and upper reaches of these streams from year to year.
Therefore, combined losses from both direct habitat loss in
the pit area and indirect downstream effects have been
calculated two ways (Tables 5-10 and 5-11): 1) using maximum
documented spawner densities, and 2) using estimated potential
maximum densities of both spawners and rearing fish.
Calculations using potential maximum densities indicate that
at year 10, habitat for 505 Chinook, 360 coho, and 3,320 pink
adults might be lost, assuming a maximum escapement for each
species and assuming that fish encountering this habitat
degradation do not successfully spawn elsewhere.
As discussed in the surface hydrology section, the period
of maximum hydrological impact would occur in the later years
of mining and in the early years of reclamation perhaps
occupying years 20 through 30 of mine life. Worst case
impacts would apply to this time period. As shown on Table
5-11/ at the 30-year point in mine life, habitat for a
calculated 1,970 Chinook, 1,170 coho, and 11,3 00 pink salmon
spawners might be lost under the worst case assumptions stated
above.
Using the maximum documented (c.f. potential) spawning
density in a similar calculation (Table 5-10) yields
substantially lower adult loss figures: 165 Chinook, 115
coho, and 810 pink spawners lost at the 10-year point due to
habitat degradation (assuming that fish encountering this lost
habitat do not successfully spawn elsewhere). These losses
would constitute reductions of 2.8, 4.6 and 4.0 percent,
respectively, of the maximum estimated system escapements for
chinook, coho, and pink salmon (Table 4-12). At the 30-year
point in mine life, a similar calculation gives an estimated
habitat loss for 875 chinook, 365 coho, and 2,900 pink salmon
spawners (14.6, 14.6 and 14.2 percent, respectively, of the
maximum estimated system escapements).
In addition, habitat for 23,750 juvenile chinook, 57,200
juvenile coho, and 14,600 juvenile and adult rainbow and Dolly
Varden also could be lost at year 10 (Table 5-10) . These
losses of juvenile habitat would result in a potential
additional loss of some 238 and 571 returning adult chinook
and coho salmon, respectively, assuming a 1 percent juvenile-
5-48
-------
to-adult survival. At the 30-year point in mine life (Table
5-11), habitat losses could affect 91,000 Chinook, 179,300
coho, and 52,3 00 rainbow and Dolly Varden. These losses of
juvenile habitat, if realized, could result in the loss of
approximately 911 Chinook and 1,793 coho adults - a very high
percentage of the maximum documented total system escapement.
Obviously, these numbers are highly conservative in that
they assume coincident loss of all stream habitats that would
be affected by mine operation. They also assume maximum
potential values of fish usage. Finally, these loss
calculations have assumed the worst case flow reduction
factors for each reach based on Table 5-7 which assumes
interruption of the normal return flow to the streams from
pit dewatering as discussed above. In actuality, there would
be a loss of flow, hence productivity, in each creek for some
years as the mine pit is progressively excavated and
backfilled and the stream is rehabilitated. The degree of
success with which streams can be rehabilitated is unknown and
would depend on the level of effort expended, the degree to
which the existing physical habitat can be reconstructed, and
perhaps most importantly, the rate of ground-water recharge.
Certainly there would be a long term (e.g., several decades
or more) loss of habitat due to the difficulty of
reconstructing habitat as good as naturally exists and due to
loss of habitat area where highly sinuous stream reaches are
replaced by straighter reaches.
Using the habitat value ratings assigned for the several
stream reaches in the mine area, the wetted surface area of
each reach, and the estimated maximum percent habitat loss
(Tables 5-10 and 5-11) , the area of habitat lost in each
category for each species has been calculated for the 10-year
and 30-year mine scenario (Tables 5-12 and 5-13). These
calculations show a moderate potential loss after 10 years of
1.21 ha (2.99 ac) of very high quality Chinook habitat in the
lower reaches of the three tributaries and in the Chuitna
River itself (4.02 ha [9.9 ac] after 30 years). Another l.oi
ha (2.5 ac) of high quality chinook habitat would be lost*in
the middle reaches of the three tributaries after 10 years
(4.25 ha [10.50 ac] after 30 years). Very high quality coho
habitat (1.02 ha [2.52 ac]) would be lost from the middle
reaches of each tributary after 10 years (4.02 ha [9.9 ac]
after 30 years) with additional loss of high guality coho
habitat in all other area waters. High quality pink spawning
habitat (2.43 ha [6.0 ac] and 8.60 ha [21.2 ac] after lo and
30 years, respectively) would be lost from the mainstream of
Lone Creek and 2003 where heavy spawning was noted in 1980.
5-49
-------
Table 5-12
WEIGHTED MAXIMUM POTENTIAL HABITAT LOSS (HA) BY LOCALLY ASSIGNED CATEGORY,
DRAINAGE AND SPECIES (YEAR 10)
Habitat Value
System
Chinook
Evaluation Species
Coho Pink
Rainbow/Dolly Varden
Very High
- Chuitna
- 2002
- 2003
- 2004
0.81
0.21
0.18
0
0
0.42
0.60
0
0
0
0
0
High
- Chuitna
- 2002
- 2003
- 2004
0
0.42
0.60
0
0.81
0.39
1.07
0
0.81
0.63
1.00
0
0.81
0.18
0.39
0
Medium
- Chuitna
- 2002
- 2003
- 2004
0
0.18
0.42
0
0
0
0
0
0.18
0
0
0
0.63
1.28
0
Low
- Chuitna
- 2002
- 2003
- 2004
0
0
0.46
0
0
0
0.68
0
Total Potential Loss
- Very High
- High
- Medium
- Low
1.21
1.02
0.60
0.46
1.02
2.27
0
0
0
2.43
0.18
0.68
0
1.38
1.91
0
J-ThiB area is the sum of the products of area and maximum habitat reduction (Table 5-11)
for each reach with the habitat value in question.
5-50
-------
Table 5-13
WEIGHTED MAXIMUM POTENTIAL HABITAT LOSS (HA) BY LOCALLY ASSIGNED CATEGORY,
DRAINAGE AND SPECIES (YEAR 30)
Habitat Value
System
Chinook
Evaluation Species
Coho Pink
Rainbow/Dolly Vardun
Very High
- Chuitna
- 2002
- 2003
- 2004
2.02
0.43
1.39
0.18
0
0.84
3.09
0.04
0
0
0
0
High
- Chuitna
- 2002
- 2003
- 2004
0
0.84
3.09
0.32
2.02
0.78
3.23
0.32
02
27
31
2.02
0.35
2.22
0.39
Medium
- Chuitna
- 2002
- 2003
- 2004
0
0.35
0.51
0.15
0
0
0
0
0
0.35
0
0
0
1.27
4.11
0.35
Low
- Chuitna
- 2002
- 2003
- 2004
0
0
1.33
0
0
0
1.02
0.64
0
0
0
0
Total Potential Loss
- Very High
- High
- Medium
- Low
4.02
4.25
1.01
1.33
3.97
6.36
0
0
0
8.60
0.35
1.66
0
4.88
5.73
O
^¦This area is the sum of the products of area and maximum habitat reduction (Table 5-12)
for each reach with the habitat value in question.
5-51
-------
5.3.3 Impacts to the Marine Environment
Increased dissolved and suspended solids in the Chuitna
River would increase slightly the load of these materials
entering Cook Inlet. Because of the tremendous natural
sediment load of Inlet waters, the effect of any increases
from the Chuitna River on the marine environment would be
insignificant.
5.3.4 Air Quality Impacts
Ambient air quality monitoring data are not available
for the project site. Air quality monitoring done in the
project region, however, demonstrates that ambient air quality
levels are well below the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS). Current ambient air quality levels at the
project site are therefore expected to be in attainment with
the NAAQS (see Section 4.6.2). Since air quality modeling was
done for the whole project, the following discussion will
cover the mine, mine service area, ports, transportation
corridors, and housing sites.
5.3.4.1 Emissions
The project would generate emissions of several
pollutants including nitrogen oxides (N0X) , sulfur dioxide
(S0?) , carbon monoxide (CO), hydrocarbons (HC), particulate
matter (PM) , and lead (Pb) . Any project, before it can be
permitted, must demonstrate the ability to comply with the
NAAQS for these pollutants. All projects must also show
compliance with the Prevention of Significant Air Quality
Deterioration (PSD) increments for S02 and PM (stationary
sources only). Air emission controls for specific activities
are given in more detail in Appendix E.
Due to the large amount of particulates associated with
mining projects, particulate emissions are of special concern.
Air quality impact analyses have been performed to quantify
the PM and S02 impacts associated with the project (TRC
Environmental Consultants 1986, 1987a, 1987b). An analysis
of air emissions (assuming that full production would be
reached after 4 years) showed that the third and fourth years
of coal production would have the largest emissions of
particulate matter, the pollutant of greatest concern (TRC
Environmental Consultants 1987b). Delayed phase-up to full
production would mitigate air quality impacts somewhat because
higher coal production levels would occur during later years
of the project when the amounts of overburden to be removed
would be less. However, this mitigating effect would not be
expected to be substantial and largest emissions would still
occur in the third and fourth years.
5-52
-------
Production phase emissions sources would include those
which produce particulate matter only and those which produce
gaseous pollutants (N0„, S02, CO, PM, and THC) . Particulates
sources would include coal and overburden handling activities
and vehicle travel over unpaved roads. Gaseous pollutant
sources would include bulldozer, ship, and other vehicle
tailpipe emissions and slash burning. Annual emissions from
all significant sources of particulate matter are shown in
Table 5-14. The estimates are called intermediate production
and full production, corresponding to the third and fourth
years of production, and represent maximum emissions and
impacts. Annual gaseous pollutant emissions are presented in
Table 5-15. Short-term particulate emissions for full
production and production year 3 are presented in Tables 5-16
and 5-17, respectively. calculations of all emissions plus
discussions of potential but insignificant air emissions
sources are given in Appendix E. Where feasible, emissions
were assigned to one of the four functional areas of the
project: the mine area, the mine services area, the port
facility, or the housing facility. Emissions which do not
occur in one of the four functional areas, such as overland
conveyor emissions or miscellaneous vehicle emissions, are
classed under general project area emissions.
Slash burning emissions would require a separate permit.
It was the applicant's initial plan to bury the slash material
in the backfill areas of the pit. However, other Alaska State
agencies have expressed concerns regarding bark beetle
populations in the slash materials and have requested burning
as a disposal method.
Production phase emissions given in Tables 5-14 and 5-15
are subject to both the NAAQS and PSD increments. In addition
to the production phase emissions from the project, there
would be construction and other temporary emissions. The
construction emissions would consist of land clearing and
slash burning emissions and would occur during the first three
years of the project. The temporary emissions would consist
of the emissions from overland truck coal haul during the
first two years of coal production before the overland
conveyor is constructed. These construction and temporary
sources must comply with the NAAQS, but are exempt from the
PSD increments. These construction and temporary sources
would primarily emit particulates. Particulate emissions
associated with these sources are given in Table 5-18.
The final category of emissions associated with the
project are the secondary emissions from power generation.
A nearby utility would provide generation capacity to
accommodate the Diamond Chuitna project. Diamond Chuitna' s
needs for this project would be approximately 33 megawatts on
5-53
-------
Table 5-14
PRODUCTION-PHASE ANNUAL PARTICULATE EMISSIONS
Intermediate
Full
Production
Production
Emissions
Bnissions
Source
(ton/yr)
(ton/yr)
Mine Area:
Land clearing/reclamation
55.5
55.5
Overburden removal - truck shovel
0.1
0.1
Overburden removal - dragline
165.0
221.4
Overburden hauling
225.6
62.9
Overburden dusping
0.1
0.1
Coal removal
6.3
12.6
Coal hauling
43.6
87.3
Coal dunping
0.0
0.0
Coal primary crushing
0.6
1.2
Hind erosion ^ -
38.0
35.9
Haul road maintenance/graders
15.6
15.6
Mine area combustion sources(a)
35.0
30.4
Mine Area Subtotal:
585.4
523.0
Mine Service Area:
Secondary coal crushing
1.8
3.6
Coal screening
3.0
6.0
Coal handling
0.0
0.0
Coal stockpile
20.5
20.5
Wind erosion
10.0
10.0
Mine Service Area Subtotal:
35.3
40.1
Part Area:
Coal handling
0.0
0.0
Coal stockpile
218.1
218.1
Wind erosion
U.9
U.9
Port area combustion sources
6.6
6.6
Port Area Subtotal:
236.6
236.6
Housing Area:
Housing area combustion sources(a)
7.7
7.7
Housing Area Subtotal:
7.7
7.7
General Project Area:
Overland conveyor
8.4
8.4
Miscellaneous vehicle traffic
9.1
9.1
General Project Area Subtotal:
17.5
17.5
TOTAL
882.5
824.9
Note: Bnission rates listed as 0.0 are less than 0.05 tons per year.
(a)Further delineated in Table 5-15.
5-54
-------
Table 5-15
GASEOUS AND PARTICULATE ANNUAL COMBUSTION EMISSIONS
Source
annual remissions (tons per year)
NOx SO2 00 V0C 5L
Mine Area
4.8 0.0 167.9 28.9 20.4
trISs 96.3(i72.8)b 10.5(19.1) 27.0(48.1) 4.3(8.0) 5.9(10.5)
92 8 7.8 40.0 4.3 3.7
Dozers Q5 0>9 0.2 0.4
— — 3.0
Graders
Fuel Storage
Fuel Storage
Mine Area Subtotal 198.2(274.7) 18.8(27.4) 235.8(256.9) 40.7(44.4) 30.4(35.0)
15.0 95-1
2.1 0.2 6.6
— 11.1 —
3.3
2.7 11.0 3.3 7.7
Port Area
Ships
Fuel Storage
Housing Facility
Incinerator
General Project Area
Miscellaneous Ql 0.0 _JL1 —'— —^
vehicles - ^ g 55 <4 44 /?
a6*6 21 (270.7) (59.1) (49.3)
Total (293.3) (225.2)
a Haul truck emissions include overburden and coal handling.
b Numbers in parentheses reflect emissions for production year 3 where these
differ frcm full production emissions.
5-55
-------
Table 5-16
FULL PRODUCTION SHORT-TERM PARTICUIATE EMISSIONS
Source
Mine Area:
Land clearing/reclamation
Overburden removal - truck shovel
Overburden removal - dragline
Overburden hauling
Overburden dunping
Coal removal
Coal hauling
Coal dunping
Coil primary crushing
Wind erosion
Haul road maintenanoa/gradera'
Mine area combustion sources
Mine Area Subtotal:
Mine Service Area:
Secondary coal crushing
Coal screening
Coal handling
Coal stockpile
Wind erosion
Mine Service Area Subtotal:
Part Area:
Con! handling
Coal stockpile
wind erosion
Part area ccnbustion souroes
port Area Subtotal:
Housing Area:
Housing area combustion sources
Housing Area Subtotal:
General Project Area:
Overland conveyor
Miscellaneous vehicle traffic
General Project Area Subtotal:
TOTAL
Full
Production
Omissions
(lb/hr)
13.7(a)
0.0
50.6
14.4
0.0
2.9
19.9
56.0
3.5
3.5
4.2
189.1(188.2)e
Note: EJnission rates listed as 0.0 are less than 0.05 tons per year.
Based on 338 days per year versus 365 days per year.
-------
Table 5-17
PRODUCTION YEAR 3 SHGRT-TERM PARTICULATE EMISSIONS
Production
Year 3
Emissions
Source (lb/hr)
Mine Area:
Land clearing/reclamation 13.7*a)
Overburden removal - truck shovel 0.0
Overburden removal - dragline 37.7
Overburden hauling 51.5(b)
Overburden dunping 0.0
Coal removal 1.4
Coal hauling 10.0
-------
Table 5-18
CONSTRUCTION AND TEMPORARY EMISSIONS
Annual
Emissions 1
(tons per year)
Source
NOx
SO2
CO
VOC
PM
Construction
Land Clearing
-Fugitive Dust
-Tailpipe Exhaust
Slash Burning
103.0
4.8
8.6
0.0
44.3
167.6
4.7
28.8
61.6
4.1
20.4
Total Construction
107.8
8.6
211.9
33.5
86.1
Temporary
Overland Truck Coal Haul
-Fugitive Dust
-Tailpipe Exhaust
220.3
24.0
61.6
10.0
343.0
13.6
Total Temporary
220.3
24.0
61.6
10.0
356.6
5-58
-------
an annual average basis, while peak demand would be up to 55
megawatts. Table 5-19 shows typical peak hourly and annual
average air emissions associated with this demand. These
emissions are calculated assuming one 3 0 MW turbine for
average demand and two 3 0 MW turbines operating to meet peak
demand.
The major air emission control measures currently
proposed for the project include the application of water and
dust control chemicals to the haul roads, installing baghouse
devices on the crushers, hooding of the overland conveyor,
application of water, as needed, to the stockpiles, and
compaction of the unused portions of the stockpiles.
5.3.4.2 Air Dispersion Modeling Results
Air dispersion modeling (TRC Environmental Consultants
1986, 1987a, 1987b, 1988) was performed to determine the
short-term and long-term impacts of production phase
particulate emissions on ambient air quality. The Industrial
Source Complex (ISC) model was used for this analysis. It is
an EPA-approved air quality dispersion model. The emission
sources were grouped according to location as follows:
pit sources: those located in the area where the
mining and overburden removal operations are ongoing
mine area haul roads: including the haul trucks, other
vehicles, and graders
mine facilities area: including crushers, conveyors,
and the mine stockpile
overland conveyor
port area: including the port conveyor operations, the
port stockpile, and the ships
Table 5-20 shows the modeled particulate matter impacts
for the intermediate and full production years. Based on air
dispersion modeling results, the project is in compliance with
the previous TSP and new PMig amb^en',:: standards, as well as
the PSD increments for TSP and the project is in conformance
with the Alaska State Implementation Plan. Factors used in
modelling and calculation of individual component source
emissions are found in Appendix E.
The ISC model was also used to determine the impact of
overland truck haul emissions on ambient air quality. Peak
24-hour average concentrations for these temporary
construction emissions were approximately 57 micrograms per
cubic meter. This concentration, even if added to a
conservative background concentration of 50 micrograms per
cubic meter, is still well below the previous 150 microgram
5-59
-------
Table 5-19
POTENTIAL TURBINE EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH
POWER GENERATION FOR THE DIAMOND CHUITNA PROJECT
Gas Firing
Peak Hourly Annual Average
Pollutant (lb/hr) (tpy)
N0X
165.1
723
S02
negligible
negligible
PM
5.7
25.0
VOC
1.7
7.6
CO
11.1
48.6
5-60
-------
Table 5-20
AIR QUALITY MODELING ANALYSIS
TOTAL SUSPENDED PARTICULATE (TSP) CONCENTRATIONS
Background Total PMlO(a) TSP(b)
Production Modeled TSP TSP TSP Ambient PSD
Phase/Averaging Concentration Concentration Concentration Standard Increment
Period (ug/frt3) (ug/m3) (uq/to3) (ixr/m3) (lag An3)
Intermediate Production
24-hour 34.5 50.0(c) 84.5 150 37
Annual 3.5(e) 9.0(d) 12.5 50 19
Full Production
24-hour 36.8 50.0(c) 86.8 150 37
Annual 3.5(e) 9.0(d) 12.5 50 19
The total concentration should be compared with the ambient standards for
PM10, since FM10 concentrations will always be less than or equal to the
TSP concentrations.
(b) The modeled TSP concentrations should be compared with the PSD incraients
(c) Second highest value observed at Tesoro Petroleum Corporation air moni-
toring station near Kenai, Alaska fran June 1, 1981 to May 31, 1982
(Radian 1982).
(d) Average TSP concentration observed at Tesoro Petroleum Corporation air
monitoring statical near Kenai, Alaska from June 1, 1981 to May 31, 1982
(e) Annual impacts based on air quality impact analysis prepared by TRC
Environmental Consultants, December 11, 1986 and submitted to the Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation. These correspond to particulate
matter emissions of 527.8 tons per year at the mine and mine services
area and 87.3 tons per year at the port area.
5-61
-------
per cubic meter TSP and the new PM-- ambient standards. As
the overland truck haul emissions are a temporary source, PSD
increments would not apply.
The only other pollutant of significant concern for this
project is sulfur dioxide (S02) which is emitted from oil
combustion in the ship boilers during "hoteling" operations
in port. Table 5-21 shows the S02 impacts associated with
coal ship operations at the port. Peak predicted
concentrations for 3-hour and 24-hour averaging periods were
12 2 ug/m3 and 21 ug/m3, respectively. The values are well
below the applicable 3-hour and 24-hour sulfur dioxide PSD
increments of 512 ug/m3 and 91 ug/m3, respectively. Carbon
monoxide and nitrogen oxides were not modeled to determine air
quality impacts.
The impacts of the nearby power plant expansion would be
addressed in a separate air permit application. It is not
expected that there would be a significant cumulative air
quality impact from these two projects.
5.3.4.3 Visibility
A level 1 visibility screening analysis (see Appendix E)
showed that there will be no visibility impacts from the
project on any Class I area.
5.3.4.4 Summary
In summary, during project construction, operation and
reclamation, maximum predicted short- and long-term
concentrations of particulate matter and sulfur dioxide, when
added to background levels or compared to PSD increments,
would not exceed any state or federal ambient air quality
standards in the Kenai, Anchorage, or Tyonek areas or within
the undeveloped area outside of Diamond Chuitna Project lease
areas. Based on the modeled emissions, it is not anticipated
that any short- or long-term ozone, carbon monoxide, or
nitrogen oxide ambient air quality standards would be exceeded
as a result of this project.
It should be noted that this analysis has addressed major
air quality issues and concerns. Particulate matter
dispersion modeling and air emissions control technology
aspects and concerns will be further addressed in an
application for a permit to operate from the Alaska Department
of Environmental Conservation.
5-62
-------
Table 5-21
AIR QUALITY MODELING ANALYSIS
SULFUR DIOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS
Averaging Period
Peak Project
Concentration
(ug/m3)
Background
Concentration
(ug/m3)
Total
Concentration
(ug/m3)
Ambient
Standard
(ug/m3)
3-hour
122
35.0(b)
157.0
1300
24-hour
21
7.0(b)
28.0
365
Annual
NA( a)
0.3(b)
ND(d)
80
(a) Not available.
(b) Second highest value observed at Tesoro Petroleum Corporation air moni-
toring station near Kenai, Alaska from June 1, 1981, to May 31, 1982
(Radian 1982).
(c) Annual average geometric mean concentration recorded at the Tesoro
Petroleum Corporation air monitoring station near Kenai, Alaska from inn*
1, 1981, to May 31, 1982, (Radian 1982). oune
(d) Not determined.
5-63
-------
5.3.5 Noise Impacts
The Diamond Chuitna Coal Project would be located in a
relatively isolated area. Typical natural noise levels in
areas similar to the Beluga region range from 15 to 45 dB(A),
which is considered quiet. Natural noise levels up to 65
dB(A) may be associated with storms and wildlife activities.
Coastal areas would have higher noise levels due to strong
winds and wave and ice movements.
The mine site would be one of the two areas with the
highest noise levels during project operations. Major noise
sources in the mine area would include infrequent blasting,
bulldozers, front-end loaders, draglines, haul trucks, and
crushing equipment. Table 5-22 shows typical noise levels
associated with mining equipment. Blasting sound pressure
levels are normally thought of as relatively loud noises.
However, blasting noise propagates in lower frequencies
somewhat like a thunderclap. Low frequency sound of this type
would usually be tolerable since it would occur infrequently.
The other mine site sound sources would probably combine to
a sound level of 100 dB(A) at 15 m (50 ft).
Human receptors in the project vicinity would include
project workers and occasional recreational or subsistence
hunters and fishermen. The village of Tyonek would be a
minimum of 14.4 km (9 mi) from the mine site and it is -
unlikely that project-generated noise (except possibly
occasional blasting) would be audible to Tyonek residents.
Noise-related impacts to wildlife are discussed in Section
5.3.1.5.
5.3.6 Socioeconomic Impacts
5.3.6.1 Anchorage and Central Kenai Peninsula
Socioeconomic impacts in Anchorage and the Central Kenai
peninsula would arise due to employment and income generated
by the project. The project development schedule calls for
a three-year construction period. Construction would begin
in the spring with the workforce expected to peak at 1,300
workers by approximately October of the second year (Fig. 2-
15) . Once the peak of construction is past, employment at the
site would decline for the remaining year of construction,
then climb during mine operation over a four-year period from
about 514 to 848 during the first year cf full-scale
operation. Air transportation to the site would be provided
by the applicant from Anchorage and Kenai.
5-64
-------
Table 5-22
Sound Source
ESTIMATED SOUND LEVELS GENERATED BY
MINE AREA EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES
Sound Pressure Levell
dB(A)
Blasting
BuiIdozers
Front-end Loaders
Haul Trucks
Primary/Secondary Crushers
Utility Vehicles
Aircraft Operations
Conveyor
For Comparison:
OSHA Regulation
(15 min. exposure)
Jackhammer
OSHA Regulation
(8 hr. exposure)
Automobile
(100 km/hr [62 mi/hr])
Typical Outdoor Noise
(wind, rain, birds)
Soft Whisper
170 0 91 m (300 ft)
87 0 15 m (50 ft)
90 0 15 m (50 ft)
90 § 15 m (50 ft)
95 § 15 m (50 ft)
80 9 15 m (50 ft)
95 @ 15 m (50 ft)
78 9 10 m (33 ft)
115 (max. allowable)
95 @ 15 m (50 ft)
90 @ ear
71 @ 15 m (50 ft)
40 @ 15 m (50 ft)
35 @ 2m (6 ft)
in Hpribels (Db) corresponding to a sound pres
1
SE3 the human ear'The 50Und
5-65
-------
The primary skills required during construction would be
equipment operators, laborers, and various structural
construction trades. Mine operation would require primarily
equipment operators, mechanics, electricians, plumbers,
administrative personnel, and service workers for the worker
housing facilities. These skills are in plentiful supply in
the available labor force in Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula
Borough. The applicant plans to hire as much of the
construction and operation labor force locally as possible,
with the possible exception of several specialized equipment
operators since persons with these skills are rare in Alaska.
At full production, all of the project alternatives would
employ the same number of people. Therefore, socioeconomic
impacts in Anchorage and the Central Kenai Peninsula,
described below, apply to all action alternatives under the
full production scenario.
A recent Kenai Peninsula Borough survey indicated that
about 80 percent of the oil and gas employees working the
Upper Cook Inlet fields live in the Kenai Peninsula Borough
and the remainder live in Anchorage (Mcllhargy 1985).
However, company-sponsored transportation of these workers to
Cook Inlet work sites, is provided only from Kenai. The
applicant's local hire policy and probable provision of
transportation from both Anchorage and Kenai would likely
result in a higher proportion of worker residence in
Anchorage. A 50-50 distribution of worker residence between
Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula Borough during both mine
construction and operation is assumed for purposes of this
analysis.
Impacts on Anchorage
Relative to Anchorage's 116,442 jobs in 1984, the
estimated direct increase of approximately 650 jobs during
the construction period and 424 jobs during full-scale mine
operation would cause proportionally small but beneficial
impacts to Anchorage's socioeconomy. Impacts on Anchorage's
population would be correspondingly beneficial, but not
noticeable given the level of baseline socioeconomic activity
in Anchorage.
Impacts on the Central Kenai Peninsula
Tl*e effect of the 650 construction and 424 mine operation
jobs would be more noticeable in the Central Kenai Peninsula
(CKP) than in Anchorage. The most noticeable impacts would
be those occurring due to mine operation. Operation-phase
impacts are discussed below followed by a summary of
construction impacts.
5-66
-------
Mine Operation
Although the project's entire operation work force
requirement would be directly filled by the locally available
labor supply, indirect impacts could occur. a common
experience in Alaska, as in other areas where substantial new
employment has been created, is an influx of persons seeking
work. If this occurs, the impact of the project could be to
substantially increase employment in the CKP, but not to
noticeably change unemployment rates. To place a reasonable
maximum limit on population growth due to the project, the
following analysis assumes that immigration would occur in
proportion to the employment increase. The actual impact of
the project would probably be lower, particularly if state-
wide efforts to discourage potential migrants without jobs
from moving to the state are successful.
As the mine's employees spend their paychecks on local
goods and services, employment in the service sectors of the
CKP economy would increase. Thus, the ultimate increase in
employment would be a multiple of the direct increase of 424
operation-phase jobs for local workers generated at the mine
itself. Based on analysis of the Soldotna and Kenai Census
Areas' place-of-work employment distribution by economic
sector (Miller 1985), there are approximately 0.5 service-
sector jobs for every job that brings income into the region.
Therefore, the 424 jobs taken at the mine by CKP residents can
be expected to produce a total increment of about 64 0 jobs.
Most of the 216 service-sector jobs would be located in the
City of Kenai, the area's main center of employment.
The spread of knowledge of substantial new employment in
the Borough could attract job-seekers, some of whom may
compete with Borough residents for jobs both at the mine and
at other CKP businesses. If this occurs, a high-side
population increase attributable to the project, including
the effects of the employment multiplier, can be estimated as
equiproportional to the increase in employment, or about 4
percent in the CKP and up to 17 percent in Kenai if all
service-sector jobs and immigrants locate in the City (and
bring families approximately equal in size to the area's
existing families).
Because any inmigrating job-seekers could be expected to
live in both Kenai and the surrounding area and some of the
215 new jobs would also be located outside of Kenai, a more
reasonable estimated increase to the City's population would
be approximately 10 percent by full mine operation. Thus, the
maximum population increase to the City of Kenai is estimated
at 900 persons. For the CKP, the corresponding population
increase would be 1,600 (including the 900-person increase to
5-67
-------
the City of Kenai). The proportional increase would decline
over time as the local socioeconoxny grows due to other
economic developments.
The population increases described above could have some
impact on city planning but should not unduly strain public
services and facilities available in the City of Kenai. The
City has adequate excess capacity in its public facilities and
services to accommodate a current increase in demand of 10
percent. Given the minimum of two years required after the
start of construction before appreciable population increases
are likely to be felt and the gradual increase in mine
operations scale thereafter, there would be adequate time for
the City to plan for any service improvement programs that may
be required.
If a student-to-population ratio of one-third (the
approximate 1985 local average) applies to the 900 persons
expected to move to Kenai due to mine operation up to 3 00
students would be added to the Kenai schools. Several new
schools are being completed in the Kenai area and it is
expected that an increase in students due to the mine project
could be accommodated.
The population increase attributable to the project (up
to 1,600 persons) would also increase demand for health
services. If a requirement of 5 beds per 1000 population
(Nichols 1985) applies, 8 new beds would be required at
Central Peninsula General Hospital in Soldotna.
The existing capacity of Kenai's water system is adequate
to service demand well into the 1990s. If water demand growth
is equal to annual projected without-project population growth
of 5 percent, peak daily demand in 1992 will be 1.7 million
gallons per day (mgd). If the current per capita peak daily
demand of 343 gallons per day applies to the 900-person
population impact of mine operation on Kenai, the peak water
demand increase would be about 310,000 gallons per day. The
total peak demand of 2.0 mgd would be well below the system's
current pumping capacity of 2.9 mgd.
Kenai's sewage treatment system, however, will require
capacity improvements by the early 1990s without the project.
The population increase attributable to mine operation will
require system improvement about two years earlier.
Kenai's police and fire protection services may also
require improvement due to mine operation. At the 1985
population-to-officer ratio of 475:1, the population increase
of 900 would require two new positions in the police
department. Fire protection capacity may also require
5-68
-------
upgrading to serve the 20 percent project-related population
increase. The type of capacity improvement would depend upon
the location of the increased population and the type of
housing and commercial facilities built in response to the
increased population.
The maximum population increases to the remaining
communities in the CKP would average under 3 percent by full
production and would also be gradual over the operations
phase-in period. The small population increase occurring over
time would not be expected to strain public facilities and
services in this larger area.
Mine Construction
Project construction would cause short-term increases
similar to, but probably of much lower magnitude than, those
described above for mine operation. Although the direct
increase to the employed work force in the CKP would be higher
(at about 650) than during operation, the short peak
construction period would likely limit induced service-sector
employment to a negligible level. Furthermore, the short peak
period would probably lower the level of inmigration by
persons who may move to the area to attempt to obtain
construction jobs.
5.3.6.2 Tyonek
For purposes of analysis, the potential socioeconomic
effects on the village of Tyonek are classified into three
categories: 1) effects on local employment, 2) effects on
community population and infrastructure including cumulative
socioeconomic effects, and 3) social and cultural effects.
Effect on Local Employment
Unemployment and underemployment are chronic problems
for residents of rural Alaskan villages and Tyonek is no
exception. A lack of a basic year-round industry is the most
pervasive reason for this economic problem. This absence of
a solid economic foundation is often compounded by other
problems when jobs do become available. For example,
unskilled local labor, work schedules incompatible with
subsistence and other traditional activities, lack of
effective training programs, and cultural differences between
Native workers and (usually) white employers contribute to the
low levels of local employment in many Alaskan villages. Even
in rural areas where industrial or natural resource
development has occurred, employment of local residents
frequently falls short of expectations. Low employment levels
of Tyonek residents at the KLM timber harvesting operation and
5-69
-------
chip mill in the late 1970s provide an illustration of this
problem. This case example is used to show that large-scale
resource development projects are not necessarily a panacea
to local unemployment problems and that the barriers
preventing expanded employment opportunities for rural
residents are substantial and must be approached with creative
planning and implementation measures by all parties.
Table 2-3 presented projected employment levels
associated with the Diamond Chuitna Coal Project. These
employment figures refer to mining-phase employment only and
do not include employment levels for project construction.
Of the projected 848 permanent employees, approximately 218
would be heavy equipment operators, 125 would be light
equipment and truck operators, 289 would be mechanics and
skilled maintenance personnel, 110 would be involved in life
support services (such as cooks) , and 106 would be in
administrative positions (Table 5-23). Table 5-23 also
presents the skills present in Tyonek's current labor force.
These skills match, to a considerable degree, the skills
required by Diamond Alaska for operation of the coal mine.
The potential will therefore exist for Diamond Alaska to use
workers from Tyonek in a variety of capacities in both
construction and operation of the mine and related facilities.
Hence, the coal project has the potential to alleviate
Tyonek's local unemployment problem.
In summary, the Diamond Alaska Coal Project would boost
local employment opportunities but in the long term would not
necessarily solve the unemployment problem in Tyonek. The
success of the effort to maintain a high level of local
employment would depend on the effectiveness of job training
programs, the individual performance of Tyonek workers, Tyonek
residents1 adaptation to coal mining jobs, successful
integration of mine employment with subsistence activities
and agreements between Diamond Alaska and the village of
Tyonek.
Effects on Community Population and Infrastructure
Because Diamond Alaska plans to house workers in a
"single status" housing facility, short-term impacts on
Tyonek's population level, infrastructure, and community
services would be minimized. Worker needs, such as food,
waste disposal, indoor recreation, and others would be
provided by the applicant at the housing facility. Impacts
on community population and infrastructure for other
communities, such as Kenai and Anchorage, were discussed
earlier.
5-70
-------
Table 5-23
MINING PHASE EMPLOYMENT BY OCCUPATIONAL GROUP
Occupational Group
Mine
Employeesi
Number in
Tyonek2
Heavy Equipment
Operators
218
12
Light Equipment and
Truck Operators
125
25
Mechanics and Skilled
Maintenance
289
13
Life Support Personnel
(e.g., cooks, house-
keepers, etc.)
110
undetermi ned
Admi ni strative
106
13
Total 848
1 Diamond Alaska Coal Company
^ Based on a 1983 survey by Darbyshire and Associates
(1984) that identified a total Tyonek work force of 145
people. These figures include the number of people
indicating skill in each general occupational group.
5-71
-------
Tyonek's population remained relatively stable throughout
the 1970s due, in part, to migration out of the village (see
Section 4.7.2.1). One reason for this trend is the lack of
local employment opportunities. If the coal project employs
a high number of Tyonek residents, then villagers may be less
likely to leave the community to seek work. In addition,
former Tyonek residents may return to the village to take
advantage of increased employment opportunities. Although the
population increase due to decreased outmigration or past
residents returning to the village would place additional
demands on local infrastructure and services (i.e., the
school, medical services, and other community facilities),
these people would be absorbed relatively easily by the
community and assimilated into the social fabric because of
familiarity and strong kinship ties with Tyonek. This would
not be the case, however, if there were an influx of people
unfamiliar with the village, its residents, and the local
culture.
Even though the proposed project has been designed to
minimize the number of permanent residents and demand for
community services on the west side of Cook Inlet, long-term
population growth in the area seems inevitable. Although the
proposed coal project would not be the sole cause of such
growth, it would likely be a major contributing factor (i.e.,
1,300 workers in the area by year two of the project would be
a major source of demographic change). Additional permanent
residents could come from two sources. First, the stimulation
of the local economy would provide opportunities for secondary
economic expansion and entrepreneurial activity and would make
the area more attractive to potential residents. This trend
is already occurring at Beluga where a grocery has opened to
meet the needs of a growing community and at Granite Point
where a local business provides lodging accommodations and a
restaurant.
Second, mine workers facing a long-term employment future
could decide to purchase private land in Beluga or at Granite
point and move their families to the area. Lands designated
for settlement near Congahbuna and Viapan lakes have been
identified in the Susitna Area Plan (ADNR 1984). If demand
for homesites in the area increases, these lands could be made
available for settlement.
The impacts of long-term regional population growth could
include increased demand for community services, including
pressure to enroll children in the KPB school in Tyonek,
increased pressure for a year-round road connection to
Anchorage, and erosion of the "quality of life" in Tyonek and
gradual dilution of Tanaina culture as more and more non-
Tyoneks reside in the area.
5-72
-------
Social and Cultural Effects
Sociocultural^impacts^are d^fi^u^^to^accurately^predict
project in its entirety,' including cumulative effects, rather
ttan by discrete components. Hence causal relationships
t » aiven project and a resulting social or cultural
are extremely difficult to identify. Second, social
and cultural impacts are determined as much by the values and
attitudes of the affected population as by design of the
nroiect The response capacity or adaptive ability
of small,rura^ communities is typically low because of the
magnitude of resource development projects relative to the
sile of the community, the lack of an effective voice in
decisions regarding development of nearby lands, and the rapid
«te of change that these communities are already
experiencing.
The social and cultural effects of the proposed project
would "largely depend upon the question of whether the changes
Sni allow greatlr opportunities to realize . . values and
T= whether thev will constrain and restrict the
9°ai?»*?ion of these" values and goals (Braund and Behnke
1980The cultural impacts would also depend on the ability
of TyoneK residents to effectively adapt to changing
socioeconomic conditions.
Four major issues or current concerns emerged during
7™in Tvonek. These issues can be viewed as
articulations or Relevant aspects of Tyonek's value system
and include:
A need for expanded local employment opportunities
increased voice in, and control over, decisions that
affect the^ quality of life in the village and the
lands and resources used by village residents
Maintenance of the rural village quality of life
traditionally important to local residents
Ma i nt-pnance of a subsistence-based livelihood and
orotection of the wildlife and environment that
provide for these subsistence pursuits
These four issues and their relationship to the proposed
project are discussed below.
The project has the potential to provide considerable
ine p* jI unities for Tyonek residents and hence
alleviate a mljor problem in the community. The project may
5-73
-------
also have positive social effects stimulated by the higher
incomes that could accompany coal development. Social
benefits could include a reduction in poverty-related stress
as well as the symptoms that accompany this stress, i.e.,
boredom, depression, and alcohol abuse. The degree to which
these positive benefits occur depend entirely on how
successful the applicant and the residents of Tyonek are in
maintaining a high level of local employment.
The proposed project would have little effect on
governing control over land that is currently owned or
governed by TNC or the Native Village of Tyonek (i.e., they
already can legally control access onto their land, if
necessary). These lands, however, make up relatively little
of Tyonek residents' customary use area which includes lands
owned by the State, CIRI, KPB, and private individuals in
addition to TNC lands. Tyonek's voice in decisions related
to the use of lands outside of their legal control would
diminish as more and more outsiders work, recreate, and
potentially choose to reside in the area. These activities
would become a source of increasing conflict and local
concern. For the first time in their long history, Tyonek
residents would be a minority in their own region.
The Diamond Chuitna Coal Project has incorporated
features that would tend to reduce adverse social and cultural
disruption to Tyonek. Most importantly, the housing facility
has been designed to accommodate only single workers rather
than providing for permanent settlement by workers and their
families and development of the infrastructure and services
to support a self-contained town. In addition, the proposed
transportation corridors and port sites are not located on
Tyonek's land (though the southern corridor is in an area used
frequently for subsistence harvests by Tyonek residents) and
they are far enough away from the village to provide a "land
buffer".
However, even though Tyonek can protect itself from
physical intrusion of outsiders onto TNC or NVT controlled
lands, protection of village culture or lifestyle is more
difficult- Increased stress and social conflict would occur
as a result of interaction between villagers and workers with
vastly differing attitudes and values, resentment of the
presence of coal mining activity by some villagers, conflicts
between village subsistence hunters and fishermen and non-
Native sportsmen, potential erosion of Tyonek's subsistence
resource base, and potentially low long-term employment of
Tyonek residents at the mine.
5-74
-------
Finally, subsistence is perhaps the strongest and most
important element of Tyonek's social and cultural value
system. Maintenance of a subsistence-based livelihood is
essential to prevent erosion of this value system. The
effects of the proposed coal mining project on subsistence
resource use is considered in Section 5.3.7.
5.3.7 Effect on Subsistence Resource Harvest
Potential effects of mine construction and operation on
subsistence resource availability and harvest considered in
this section are: effects on access to, and use of, customary
use areas and changes in fish and wildlife abundance.
5.3.7.1 Effects on Access to and Use of
Customary Use Areas
Tyonek residents currently use a 1,942 km2 (750 mi2) area
between the Chuitna River to the north and the McArthur River
to the south and approximately 216 km (13 5 mi) of coastline
from the mouth of the Susitna River to Tuxedni Bay (Fall et
al. 1984). The proposed mine and lease area are currently
used relatively little by Tyonek residents. Although
residents have historically used this area, its current use
is limited to occasional trapping and moose hunting during
hunting seasons when snow depths are insufficient to force
moose to lower elevations (Foster 1985; Fall et al. 1984).
5.3.7.2 Effects of Changes in Fish and Wildlife
Abundance
Subsistence resource harvest would also be affected by
changes in fish and wildlife populations. Population changes
would occur if there were changes in the amount of limiting
habitat for important subsistence species. Habitat changes
could be due to direct habitat loss (for example, by removal
of vegetation) or due to indirect habitat loss (such as
displacement of game by noise and general activity). in
addition, there could be gains in total habitat following
reclamation depending on plant species used for revegetation
and success of reclamation.
From the best information available, it seems that there
would be some direct moose habitat loss, at least until
reclamation efforts are successful. Moose adapt well to human
activity and disturbance. Hence, indirect habitat loss due
to noise and disturbance is not expected to seriously affect
moose populations or distribution. Adverse impacts to
subsistence hunting would be directly related to the effect
of the project on moose abundance. Therefore, a monitoring
program has been established by ADF&G to assess moose
5-75
-------
population trends. This will allow moose management plans to
be adjusted as needed to protect subsistence resources (ASMCRA
permit stipulation 10).
A net loss of salmon spawning and rearing habitat in the
Chuitna River drainage would occur as a result of the Diamond
Chuitna project. Late in the mine life, during the years of
maximum impact, chinook salmon escapement (the primary
subsistence species) could be reduced by up to 30 percent per
year (Table 5-11). Since salmon comprise 71 percent of the
edible weight of subsistence resources harvested and
approximately 17 percent of total village employment income
(Section 4.7.2.2), a decline in salmon returns could cause a
significant adverse impact to Tyonek's subsistence and
commercial fisheries. The proportion of salmon caught in the
marine subsistence fishery that originate in the Chuitna River
cannot be determined on the basis of existing data. The
location of the fishery suggests that Chuitna River fish would
be caught in substantial numbers; however, maximum escapement
to the Chuitna is a small fraction (less than 5 percent) of
the Susitna River runs which undoubtedly contribute the
majority of the Tyonek harvest. Reduction in available fish
as a result of mine impacts would be expected to have a small,
adverse impact on the fishery that would be difficult to
detect within the context of natural variation of fish
numbers.
5.3.8 Impacts to Visual Resources
In general, visual resource impacts would be limited by
the low use level of the area within the viewshed of the
project components. The project components most visible to
viewing populations from the ground or water would be the port
and conveyor system. All facilities would be readily visible
from the air. In addition, the increased level of activity,
including air and ship traffic at the site would affect visual
resources.
Current use of the project area is limited to subsistence
and recreational use by Tyonek residents and fishing and
hunting by non-Natives. Based on reported moose and bear
harvest locations (ERT 1984f), hunting is common to the east,
northeast, and south of the project area but is rare within
the project area itself. Fishing is focused on the Chuitna
River and Lone Creek to the east of the project area and
Nikolai Creek to the south. As noted in Section 4.10, up to
5,000 man-days are spent in the local sport fishery, not
including subsistence. This level of effort would probably
grow substantially over the next decade without the project
since local guides plan to expand their services. Visual
impacts on hunters and fishermen may therefore be important
in terms of viewer attitude, but visibility of the project
from primary hunting and fishing areas would be very limited.
5-76
-------
Except for the overburden stockpile and offshore port
facilities, project facilities would not be visible from most
ground-level vantage points over 1.6 km (l mi) away due to
visual screening offered by vegetation and topography and the
low heights of structures. The overall visual impact of the
proposed project is assessed as low to moderate due to: l) the
low use of the area for purposes other than hunting and
fishing (primarily recreation use by Tyonek residents and
commercial fishing and oil and gas extraction in the Cook
Inlet in the port vicinity) ; 2) low visibility of the project
from ground-based locations; and 3) the project area's medium-
high scenic guality rating (Section 4.8).
5.3.9 Impacts to Recreational Resources
Direct adverse impacts to hunting arising from the
approximately 2,051 ha (5,068 ac) of land disturbed by the
mine and mine service area would be minor due to the low level
of use of the project area by hunters. Effects on hunting
east and south of the project area would likely be minimal.
Most mine facilities would be located upstream from portions
of the Chuitna drainage that are used by sport fishermen.
Therefore, direct physical disruption of popularly fished
stream reaches within the project area by construction and
operation of project facilities would be minor.
Reductions in some fish populations would be expected.
The worst case analysis described in Section 5.1.3.2 suggests
that populations of popular sport species (chinook and coho
salmon) could be substantially reduced in the Chuitna River
during the years of maximum impact late in mine life. This
loss would reduce harvest rates and thereby lower the quality
of the project area for sport fishing during the years of
impact.
High turbidity resulting from construction or mine
operation could have an adverse effect on the aesthetic and
recreational enjoyment of streams. Salmon or trout fishing,
especially fly fishing, is not feasible in waters where
turbidity exceeds 20 to 25 NTU. Any increased duration of
turbid conditions in the Chuitna River downstream of Lone
Creek might temporarily reduce the effectiveness of sport
fishing efforts in the area.
Indirect impacts would arise due to this alternative's
effects on visual resources. The visual presence of the
project would reduce the quality of the "wilderness
experience" for hunters and fishermen who view project
facilities during flights into the area and from the ground.
Noise impacts would similarly reduce the quality of the
recreational experience. These latter impacts would probably
be significant given the high quality experience that the area
now provides.
5-77
-------
5.3.10 Impacts to Cultural Resources
The impacts of the mine and mine service area on cultural
resources in the project area would be minimal. The baseline
cultural resource site survey (Gerlach and Lobdell 1983)
disclosed no archaeological sites in the area of the mine and
mine facilities. The possibility of disturbing cultural
resources outside the construction zone as a result of
increased human presence in the region is expected to be
slight given the topography, vegetation, and small number of
known sites.
5.3.11 Regional Use
Most of the areas in the Beluga Region which are likely
to be developed in the future for coal, timber, hard rock
minerals, or hydropower are located to the west of the
proposed mine site. It is unlikely that the mine itself and
the mine service facilities would be easily used by or benefit
regional development.
5.3.12 Technical Feasibility
Adequate technology exists to develop the mine and mine
service area as proposed.
5.4 APPLICANT'S PROPOSED PROJECT
As described in Chapter 2.0, the applicant's proposed
project consists of two possible transportation corridor/ port
site options: a southern transportation corridor leading to
a Granite Point port site or a northern transportation
corridor leading to a Ladd port site (Fig. 2-1) . Project
alternatives incorporating either of these options could be
selected by the applicant depending on economic and other
factors.
5.4.1 Southern Transportation Corridor: Granite Point
Port Site
5.4.1.1 Impacts to Terrestrial Environment
Physiography. Geology, and Soils
The major construction and operation impacts of the
southern/Granite Point alternative related to physiography,
geology, and soils would result from gravel extraction and
placement. Gravel placement and extraction would occur during
construction and maintenance of the road, drainage structures,
and facilities. The coal transportation system and roadway
component consists of the main haul road, overland conveyor,
5-78
-------
the conveyor access/service road, and transfer facilities at
each end of the overland conveyor. Approximately 1.9 million
T <2.5 million yd3) of material would be required for
construction of this component.
The port facilities component consists of onshore and
facilities. The onshore facilities would be located
on an elevated pad consisting of approximately 2.0 million m
(2.6 million yd3) of material.
construction of the coal transportation system and
haul road would disturb about 33 ha (82 ac) of
strandline sandy loam soils on a 35 m (116 ft) width
S the ?i|ht-o?-iay although 16 ha (40 ac) of Starichkof-
Chichantna peats and 10 ac (25 ac) of Stanchkof peats would
alio be disturbed. Onshore port facilities at Granite Point
would require approximately 97 ha (242 .4 ac) of primarily
Starichkof peat soils.
t ona-term disturbance of soils is expected to occur as
a result of construction of the coal transportation system
J +St Hani road Blading for the roadway and for the
footings of the conveyor system would irreversibly disturb
footings . ible disturbance is construed as one having
no forse^able restoration within 100 years. The longevity of
the restoration is dictated by the soil-forming rate which in
the regional climate is extremely slow (Douglas and Tedrow
1959; Brady 1974).
vegetation
A road approximately 18.5 to (11.6 mi) long and 35 m (116
ft) wide would be cleared for the coal transportation system.
Also an 2 4 m (8 ft) wide conveyor with a 4.6 m (15 ft) wide
adiacent access road would be constructed. This would mean
adjacent aou primarily mixed spruce-birch
elimination of 46haf(115hac)38 J? of and 1£j ha (4Q ac)
of°sphagnum-shrub bog would also be eliminated by construction
clearing in this corridor.
construction of onshore.facilitiesatthe Granite Point
¦ wniiid disturb or eliminate a total of 95.1 ha (237.7
Scf of orimar?ly open low shrub scrub/sweetgale-grass fen.
5 ifi a ha (42.1 ac) of open mixed spruce, birch
An additional . needleleaf woodland/black
forest and 7.8 ha (is.& >he lost during construction.
Approximately 1.2 ha (3 ac) of open water habitat would also
be eliminated.
5-79
-------
In addition to direct disturbance from clearing
activities, the potential also exists for vegetation to be
indirectly affected during operation. An increase in foot
traffic, off-road vehicle use, vehicle road dust, and coal
dust emissions would be expected during mining and coal
transportation. Studies of gravel roads on Alaska's north
slope suggest that dust is deposited in a "shadow" tens or
hundreds of meters from roads depending on wind conditions
(Everett 1979). Roadway and coal dust could reduce plant
growth rates near the mine, mine service area, and
transportation corridors by physically impeding leaf gas
exchange or by bioaccumulation of materials in leaf tissue
(Olson 1982; Smith 1981). Lichens would be especially
sensitive to such accumulation (Hale 1981), but conifers could
also be affected if concentrations are great enough (Treshow
1970). Also, such fallout can cause reduction in soil acidity
which may alter plant composition in the vicinity of roads.
Acid-loving plants such as mosses could become less abundant
over the long-term and grasses and sedges more abundant. The
effects would be noticeable only adjacent to roadways within
the dust shadow and would not be significant on a regional
basis. Dust control measures would minimize adverse impacts.
Coal dust would be deposited on vegetation within very limited
areas immediately below the conveyor and adjacent to transfer
facilities. Transfer facilities would be covered and the
conveyor would be protected on one side by a windshield, thus
adverse impacts to vegetation are expected to be
insignificant.
Damage to vegetation could also occur from fuel and
chemical spills. The degree of impact would depend on the
amount of the spill, the time of the year, type of community,
and type of action required for the cleanup (Brown and Berg
1980). Spills in communities with wet, organic soils during
the growing season are considered to be more damaging than
those occurring in mineral soils or those occurring in winter.
Spill contingency plans would help to prevent or minimize
damage.
Long-term adverse impacts on vegetation would occur in
areas that are cleared and used continuously during mining.
Reclamation operations could not be implemented until the
conveyor and transportation corridor and port loading
facilities were dismantled. Reestablishment of vegetation
would not occur until 10 to 15 years after project completion.
However, because the plant communities affected by construc-
tion of these facilities are well represented in the area,
impacts to the vegetative resource are not expected to be
significant.
5-80
-------
- Threatened and Endangered Species
No threatened, endangered, or special status plant
species are known to occur within the southern transportation
corridor or the Granite Point port site.
Wetlands
Approximately 9 ha (22 ac) of wetlands would be directly
disturbed by the southern transportation corridor. The
majority, i.e., 43 ha (10.8 ac) , would be classified as
palustrine - scrub/shrub broad-leaved deciduous/emergent
narrow-leaved persistent. Material sites would disturb 4 ha
(10 ac) of wetlands and the Granite Point port facility would
adversely affect 79.5 ha (198.8 ac) of wetlands (Table 5-2).
Table 5-2 shows the types of wetlands disturbed for each
facility and compares the alternative corridors. The surface
area of wetland affected by the southern/Granite Point
alternative is greater than the eastern/Ladd alternative and
the northern/Ladd alternative because of the substantial
wetland affected by the Granite Point port site.
In addition to direct adverse impacts, wetland structure
and function would be altered adjacent to project facilities.
Indirect impacts would include blockage of natural drainage
patterns and disturbance of wetland inhabitants. Wetland
values are discussed further in Section 4.3.2.3.
Wildlife
Impacts to wildlife include direct habitat loss, indirect
habitat loss (inability to use a habitat), effects on animal
movements, and construction impacts.
Southern Transportation Corridor
Construction of the southern corridor, including the
conveyor and access/haul road, would cause a direct habitat
loss of approximately 69 ha (171 ac) . This loss would be
significant only on a local basis for song bird, waterfowl
shorebird, small mammal, and furbearer populations and would
not be significant even on a local basis for other bird and
mammal species.
Indirect habitat loss for song bird, shorebird
waterfowl, small mammal, and most smaller furbearer
populations, including beaver, could be significant on a local
basis, but these species would likely adapt (to varyincr
degrees) to the presence of the conveyor and access/haul road
(Univ. Maine 1983).
The lone bald eagle nest tree within the southern
5-81
-------
corridor (Fig. 4-4) is located between the conveyor and the
haul road. These facilities were aligned specifically to
avoid the nest tree and it would be at least 4 57 m (1,500 ft)
from both rights-of-way. No direct project-related activities
would occur within that distance. Normal project activities
would likely not cause disturbance which would affect breeding
success of eagles using this site during the operational phase
of the project, including the two-year initial coal trucking
period (Hodges 1985).
Two trumpeter swan nest sites are located close to the
proposed conveyor alignment. The site in the bottom of the
Chuitna River canyon (Fig. 4-4) would be located about 305 m
(1,000 ft) east and 52 m (170 ft) vertically below the
conveyor as it crosses the river by suspension cables and
would be about 543 m (1,781 ft) northwest of the access/haul
road at its closest approach. No direct project-related
activities would occur within that distance. In Alaska,
however, swans very seldom nest within viewing distance of
roads (King 1985). This site would be screened from much of
the access/haul road by vegetation, but the road would be
visible on the north side of the canyon. Historical evidence
tends to indicate this nest site has not been regularly and
successfully used (ERT 1984f) . Swans are very aware of
objects above them (King 1985) and would, therefore, be aware
of the suspended conveyor. The limited historical use of the
site, coupled with the presence of the road and suspended
conveyor, would likely prevent use of the site for nesting
during the life of the project.
The second swan nest site is located approximately 381
m (1,2 50 ft) west of the conveyor alignment in the vicinity
of Congahbuna Lake (Fig. 4-2). The conveyor and access/haul
road alignment would be further away from the site than the
existing network of logging roads. Therefore, negative
impacts from the project would probably add very little to
those that exist at present.
Although no specific sandhill crane breeding has been
reported within the southern transportation corridor, breeding
and foraging habitat may exist in the southern portion of the
corridor just north of the Granite Point port site. Cranes
have been frequently sighted in the vicinity of the southern
portion of the corridor. Operation of a conveyor and
access/haul road through this area would likely discourage use
of the area for nesting and possibly for foraging.
Moose and black bears would likely avoid the corridor
during operation to some degree until they adapted to activ-
ities within it. This avoidance would be significant only on
a local basis and long-term indirect habitat loss for these
5-82
-------
species would be minimal. Brown bears would likely avoid
activities in the corridor to a much greater degree, perhaps
causing a regional impact if such avoidance significantly
interfered with movements across the corridor.
Assuming proper use of snow blowers to prevent high snow
berms, the access/haul road would not pose a physical barrier
to most animals wanting to move across it. During the first
two years of operation, however, noise and other disturbance
associated with truck traffic hauling coal from the mine to
the port would discourage some animals from crossing or at
least substantially reduce or delay normal movements across
the corridor. Some moose may be lost due to collisions with
vehicles.
Since the conveyor would be elevated a minimum of 0.6 m
(2 ft) above ground level, neither the mine area conveyor nor
the main overland conveyor should pose a physical barrier to
birds and smaller mammals crossing the corridor. Crossings
capable of passing large mammals would exist in at least four
locations along the mine area conveyor and in at least twenty
locations along the overland conveyor (Fig. 2-7). At these
points, the conveyor would be either buried or elevated a
minimum of 2.4 m (8 ft) above ground level.
Moose crossing studies of the trans-Alaska pipeline
system show that moose can cross under the pipeline at heights
of 1.5 m (5 ft) or greater in winter (Eide and Miller 1979;
Sopuck and Vernam 1984; Van Ballenberghe 1978). Eide and
Miller (1979) found no correlation between pipe heights over
1.5 m (5 ft) selected by moose and snow depths under or near
the pipe at depths up to 66 cm (26 in). Snow depths in the
vicinity of the mine service area can reach 102 cm (40 in) or
greater. Such depths could affect moose selection of conveyor
crossing heights; however, the minimum 2.4 m (8 ft) heights
at the crossings should provide adequate opportunity to pass
moose even in deep snow.
When first encountering the conveyor, large mammals would
have to move parallel to it until reaching a crossing. For
the mine area conveyor, the average center-to-center distance
between crossings would be approximately 849 m (928 yd), with
a maximum distance between crossings of 960 m (1,050 yd). For
the main overland conveyor, the respective values would be 880
m (962 yd) and 2,006 m (2,193 yd).
The conveyor would emit more or less continuous noise
with levels probably in the range of 75 to 79 dba at 10 meters
(3 3 ft) . This noise level would be similar to the level
associated with vehicle traffic on a public highway, but more
constant. Noise levels would be substantially lower at buried
5-83
-------
wildlife crossings. It is anticipated that moose and black
bear, when first encountering the conveyor, might shy away but
that animals inhabiting the area would readily adapt to the
constant noise. Noise would probably not prevent moose and
black bears from crossing the conveyor at crossing areas. As
mentioned above, brown bears are more sensitive to noise and
activity as a whole and might be discouraged from approaching
and crossing the conveyor.
To summarize, the movements of moose and black bears
would be locally altered by the presence of impassible
portions of the conveyor system, but it is expected that
regional movements would not be significantly affected because
of the availability of crossing areas. Brown bear movements
and access to traditional habitats would likely be adversely
affected with possible regional significance.
Noise and disturbance associated with construction of
the access/haul road and conveyor would have relatively little
impact upon song bird, shorebird, and small mammal
populations. Waterfowl and raptor nests near the alignments,
however, might be abandoned if construction activities
occurred nearby during the critical period from mating through
the first few weeks after hatching. Bald eagles using the
nest on the north side of the Chuitna River (Fig. 4-4) would
be susceptible to disturbance if construction activities
occurred within 100 m (110 yd) or if blasting occurred within
805 m (880 yd) between March 1 and July 1.
Excavation of gravel and other fill materials for use in
project construction would cause an estimated maximum direct
habitat loss of approximately 202 ha (500 ac) (Fig. 2-16) .
This would be significant only on a local basis for songbirds
and small mammals, and possibly for waterfowl and shorebirds
at site 8. These local adverse impacts would be temporary
because the gravel pits would be rehabilitated when they were
no longer needed. Indirect habitat loss and effects on
movements for most species would be locally significant only
during construction periods when animals would avoid the areas
because of human activities.
Port site
Direct habitat loss from construction of the onshore port
facility at Granite Point would be approximately 80 ha (198
ac) . For song bird, shorebird, cranes, waterfowl (including
swans), and small mammal populations, this loss would be
significant on only a local basis. For other species,
including moose, this loss would not be significant, even on
a local basis. Since the port site would be located within
poor to moderate value winter range and moderately important
5-84
-------
spring, summer, and fall moose range, direct habitat loss for
moose would not be significant.
Tn^rpct habitat loss would not be significant except
1 black bear as most species would adapt to the
for moose "niv. Maine 1983). For .noose and
blac^ear direct habitat loss initially could be locally
black bear, in species would likely acclimate to some
significant, but tnesehsp^_se ^ activitieSi Brown bears
wSu?S noWt be significantly affected since they are very seldom
found in this area.
The onshore port facility itself would not have a
• effect on animal movements, but it would
contribute to some movement interference because of its
contribute t i.hern terminus of the conveyor. Animals
lK? T, to «e "rou™ the facility by crossing the
conveyor at designated animal crossings including one
immediately north of the port site (Fig. 7).
construction activities at the port, aside from direct
habitat loss, would have relatively little impact upon birds
habitat loss, However, construction would displace moose
and Tlack b™rS to a gr«t4r degree than during operation of
the facility and might be of local significance.
Habitat Evaluation
The results of the habitat evaluation study performed
The ,,__endix A) are summarized for the various
for this EIS ( PP in Table 5-24. The southern
ancillary fac id d Granite Point port site would
transportation corria q£ suitable sandhill
directly afec suitable trumpeter swan habitat, 149 ha
crane habitat no ^^®blaclcp bear habitat, and 147 ha
(369 ac) of high alit brown bear habitat. Spring/
summer/fall moose habitats disturbed would be primarily low
and medium quality.
The southern/Granite Point alternative -r.
alternatives? but significantly less medium quality moose
winter range.
5.4.1.2 Impacts to Freshwater Environment
r-T-nnnd-water HYrfrQloqV and Water 9Ualli^
Southern Transportation Corridor
Tracts to the ground-water system due to construction
f the transportation corridor would be minimal
compared to those resulting from the actual mining operations.
5-85
-------
labia S-24
DIRECT LOSS OF WILDLIFE HABITM AND SUITABILITY OF HABITATS IN HECTARES (ACRES) FROM H1NE DEVELOPMENT BY PROJECT COMPONENT
Port Sites Housing Facilitiea and Airport
Granite Transportation Corrldora Lone Three- Congahbuna Material Sltea1
Species Point Ladd Southern Eaatem Northern Creek Hiie Lttke^ #5 17 #8
Sandhill Suitable 64(158) 6(16) 16(40) 14(35) 23(56) 0 0 6(15) 0 0 15(37)
Crane X 000 00000 000
X 000 00000 000
Unsuitable 16(41) 113(277) 53(131) 40(99) 50(124) 29(72) 29(72) 23(57) 106(262) 119(294) 119(294)
High 0 9(23) 0 2(6) 1(3) 0 0 2(5) 0 0 0
Truapeter Medio* 000 00000 000
Swan Lon 000 00000 000
NU2 80(198) 110(271) 69(171) 52(128) 72(177) 29(72) 29(72) 27(67) 106(262) 119(294) 134(331)
High 80(198) 116(287) 69(171) 54(134) 73(180) 29(72) 29(72) 29(72) 106(262) 119(294) 134(331)
Slack Sear Kediua 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Low 000 00000 000
NU 0 3(7) 0 00000 000
High 80(198) 116(287) 67(166) 54(134) 73(180) 29(72) 29(72) 29(72) 106(262) 119(294) 134(331)
8 town Bear Mediua O 0 2(5) 00000 000
Loh 000 00000 000
NU 0 3(7) 0 00000 000
High 0 0 22(54) 4(10) 5(12) 25(62) 0 10(25) 85(210) 119(294) 91(224)
Moose Mediua 74(183) 116(287) 46(114) 50(124) 68(168) 4(10) 29(72) 19(47) 21(52) 0 45(111)
Spring/Sunaer/ Low 6(15) 0 1(3) 00000 000
Fall NU 0 3(7) 0 00000 000
High 0 0 1(2 ) 0.5(2) 2(4) 0 0 10(25 ) 0 119(294 ) 0
Moose Mediua 16(41) 110(271) 3(8) 29(73) 32(79) 0 29(72) 2(5) 0 0 0
Winter Low 64(157) 6(16) 38(93) 14(34) 22(53) 0 0 3(6) 0 0 0
NU 0 3(7) 28(68) 19(47) 18(45) 29(72) 0 14(36) 106(262) 0 134(331)
Total 80(198) 119(293) 69(171) 54(134) 73(180) 29(72) 29(72) 29(72) 106(262) 119(294) 134(331)
^Exact sighting not finalized.
^Not utilized.
-------
Disruption of recharge or discharge areas would be a permanent
impact; however, the area disturbed would be small compared
to the total recharge/discharge area. Substantial impacts
might occur due to fuel or chemical spills during construction
and operation of the conveyor and haul road. These impacts
could be reduced in magnitude if spill control and prevention
measures are followed. Road construction gravel pits could
also cause local disturbances to hydrological regimes. if
such impacts occurred, they would likely be minor.
Granite Point Port Site
Potential ground-water impacts during construction and
use of the port site would include ground-water quality
degradation as a result of chemical or fuel spills from
storage and transfer areas. A Spill Prevention, Control, and
Countermeasure (SPCC) plan would be prepared and implemented
for this facility. Although contamination as a result of
spills presents a significant risk to surface water and
localized ground-water regimes, prompt and proper use of the
SPCC plan would minimize the magnitude of any impacts.
Adverse impacts to ground-water quality could occur from
water percolating through the coal stockpile and into ground
water. These effects are anticipated to be insignificant.
Column and drip leachate tests on Beluga coal (Table 5-25)
indicate that drinking water standards would not be exceeded.
Although freshwater aquatic life criteria for boron, iron*
ammonia-nitrogen, manganese, and zinc could be exceeded
periodically, these criteria are for the protection of aquatic
life in surface water, not ground water. Water quality
characteristics in ground water commonly exceed the criteria
for aquatic life (e.g., zero dissolved oxygen, low pH, high
metals concentrations). When, and if, the water that
percolates through the coal piles resurfaces in a stream or
lake, surface water will rapidly dilute the ground water
thereby reducing the concentrations of these parameters to
levels acceptable to aquatic life. Furthermore, existing
water quality for these parameters is periodically above
standards. Therefore, no significant cumulative water quality
impact is anticipated.
Leakage from sewer lines and the sewage treatment plant
would also result in potential degradation of ground-water
quality. This potential is considered small.
Ground-water pumpage for potable use would result only
in localized impacts. y
5-87
-------
Table 5-2S
EFFLUENT HATER QUALITY FROM COAL LEACHATES
Parameter
Column (1)
Leachate
Drip (1)
Leachate
Standard (2)
Alkalinity as CaC03
Aluminum, dissolved (mg/1)
Arsenic i dissolved (mg/1)
Bicarbonate as CaCOo (mg/1)
Boron, dissolved (mg/1)
Cadmium, dissolved (mg/1)
Calcium, dissolved (mg/1)
Carbonate as CaC03 (mg/1)
Chloride imj/l)
Chromium, dissolved (mg/1)
Conductivity (umhos/cm 9 25">C)
Copper, dissolved (mg/1)
Pluoride (mg/1)
Hardness as CaCOj (ma/1)
Iron, dissolved (mg/1)
Lead, dissolved (mg/1)
Magnesium, dissolved (mg/1)
Manganese, dissolved (mq/1)
Mercury, dissolved (mg/1)
Molybdenum, dissolved (mg/1)
Nickel, dissolved (mg/1)
Nitrogen, ammonia (mg/1)
Nitrogen, nitrate/nitrite (mg/1)
Organic carbon, dissolved (mg/1)
pH (units)
Potassium, dissolved (mg/1)
Selenium, dissolved (ma/1)
Sodium, dissolved (mg/1)
Solids, dissolved (mg/1)
Sulfate (mg/1)
Zinc, dissolved mg/1)
52
52
20 or more
0.2
<0.2
0.005
0.003
0.35
52
52
0.41
0.52
0.043*
<0.005
<0.005
0.004*
8.3
9.8
0
0
7
13
200
<0.02
<0.02
0.05
260
290
——
0.12
0.10
1.0
0.30
0.24
2.4
36
43
0.31
0.02
0.3*
<0.02
<0.02
0.03
3.8
4.4
<0.02
<0.02
0.05
<0.0005
<0.0005
0.0002
<0.2
<0.2
0.07
<0.2
<0.2
0.025
0.40
0.28
0.020*
0.22
0.08
10
35
80
4 - 7.8
7.3 - 7.7
6.5 - 8.5
3.0
1.9
<0.002
<0.002
C. 010
22.6
32.1
250.,
500 ^
130
165
12
17
200
0.34
0.083
0.030*
~Parameters with potential to equal or exceed receiving water standards before dilution in a mixing
zone.
No standard known.
NOTESi
(1) Bookcliffs 1985.
(2) standard listed is the most stringent for the various protected water uses in Alaska.
Sources: EPA 1976; McNeely et al. 19791 Sittig 1981; AOEC 1982) ADEC 1984.
!3) The standard total dissolved solids is 500 mg/1 or no greater than 1/3 higher than natural
conditions, whichever iB less.
5-88
-------
Surface Water Hydrology
- Southern Transportation Corridor
The coal transportation system and haul road includes
the main haul road, overland conveyor, and related support
facilities. The transportation corridor would occupy an area
of approximately 69 ha (171 ac) distributed over six
watersheds as shown in Table 5-2 6.
The area directly disturbed for the construction of the
haul road would be about one-third of those shown in Table 5-
26. The area directly disturbed for the conveyor system would
also be a small portion (one-third to one-half) of the areas
shown in Table 5-26. Therefore, hydrologic impacts related
directly to construction of the transportation corridor would
be insignificant.
A system of 32 culverts would be provided along the
transportation corridor including crossings of the five
streams listed in Table 5-26. These culverts would be
designed to pass runoff from a 10-year, 24-hour storm with no
damming of water on the upstream side. To facilitate
drainage, ditches would parallel the road on either side.
Thus, there would be no obstruction to the existing drainage
pathways for surface runoff up to the 10-year, 24-hour storm.
During storms more severe than this, short—term ponding of
water may be expected on the upstream (western) side of the
transportation corridor. This would have the beneficial
impact of reducing the flood peaks on the downstream (eastern)
side of the corridor but could cause erosion of the roadway.
Care will be taken to avoid unnecessary flooding or
draining of wetlands located adjacent to the right-of-way.
However, some effect on adjacent wetlands could result; thus
the area of impact would be somewhat greater than the 9.l ha
(22ac) shown in Table 5-2. Nonetheless, the total (direct
plus indirect) effects of the road and conveyor will still
affect a relatively minor fraction of the watersheds crossed.
Roadway construction in southcentral Alaska often causes
icing or glaciation adjacent to roads by blocking sheet flow
and/or interfering with subtle drainage patterns. Some
increase in icing would be anticipated as a result of the
transportation corridor. Icing of culverts caused by improper
derign Oj. maintenance could cause ponding during breakup,
blockage of downstream flow, and possible roadway erosion.
Blockage of culverts by beavers would also have the potential
of creating temporary hydrological changes and possible
roadway erosion adjacent to the corridor.
5-89
-------
Table 5-26
WATERSHEDS OCCUPIED BY SOUTHERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR
Stream
Drainage area
near conveyor
crossing
Drainage area
within the
oorridor
Percent of
watershed covered
by the corridor
1.
Chuitna River
230.1 km2
(88.85 mi2)
53.1 ha
(131 ac)
0.23%
2.
•tyonek Creek
3.89 km2
(1.5 mi2)
16.2 ha
(40 ac)
4.2%
3.
Old Tyonek Creek
29.79 km2
(11.5. mi2)
35.24 ha
(87 ac)
1.2%
4.
Unnanved tributary of
Old Tyonek Creek
5.44 km2
(2.1. mi2)
22.28 ha
(55 ac)
4.1%
5.
Unnamed tributary
south of Congahbuna
Lake
10.1 km2
(3.9 mi2)
14.58 ha
(36 ac)
1.4%
6.
Area draining
directly to
Cook Inlet
N/A
20.65 ha
(51 ac)
N/A
N/A 83 Not applicable
5-90
-------
During the operation phase, the runoff generated by the
51 ha (12 5 ac) of road surface would be about 3 to 4 times
that generated at present. However, road surface area in each
watershed would be a very small fraction of the areas shown
in Table 5-26. Therefore, the net impact on the streamflows
and water levels of streams would be negligible.
In the postoperation phase, all facilities, which can
not be beneficially utilized for other purposes, would be
removed and the area graded to restore the premining drainage
patterns as far as possible. Thus, the postoperation
hydrologic impacts of the project would be insignificant.
Granite Point Port Facilities
Construction of sediment ponds at the port facility would
require approximately 4.05 ha (10 ac) . Diversion ditches and
sediment ponds would be built before any other construction
activity begins. The surface runoff from disturbed areas
would be routed through this system. The combined storage
capacity of the three sediment ponds would be 38.5 ac-ft and
the net evaporation in the area would be small. Therefore, the
runoff volume which would not reach Cook Inlet would be
extremely small and the hydrologic impacts of the construction
of the port facilities would be insignificant.
During the operation phase, contaminated runoff from the
coal stockpiles and equipment washdown areas would be routed
to the sediment ponds and treated before being discharged into
Cook Inlet. The runoff generated by the built-up areas would
be 3 to 4 times that at present. Water storage in sediment
ponds would partially attenuate this increased runoff. The
net effect on the inflows to Cook Inlet would be negligible.
In the postoperation phase, all facilities which could
not be beneficially used, would be removed and the area graded
to establish drainage patterns which would carry all surface
runoff to Cook Inlet with minimal soil erosion. Thus, the
resulting impact on Cook Inlet would be negligible.
Surface Water Quality
Southern Transportation Corridor
Erosion could occur during construction of the road and
conveyor systems and associated support facilities and would
continue until all disturbed areas were stabilized. Road and
conveyor system construction would include seven stream
crossings and construction near two lakes located downslope
from the road. In addition, there would be about 4.8 km (3
mi) of construction across muskeg or peat areas. The conveyor
5-91
-------
would span all streams and would not create undue amounts of
erosion. Road construction would entail cut and fill
operations and bank disturbances at stream crossings.
Increased turbidity and suspended solids levels resulting from
watershed disturbances would be proportional to the area
disturbed, site gradient, the distance from the disturbance
to a stream, and erosion control techniques applied.
Drainage and sediment control measures would be
implemented prior to the commencement of facility construction
and would be maintained until disturbed areas were stabilized
(ACZ Inc. 1985a). Drainage and sediment control measures
include: 1) construction of collection ditches and
installation of culverts under roads to collect and control
runoff from road surfaces, embankments, and adjacent areas;
2) surfacing of main roads and facility areas with gravel
material; 3) revegetation of road cuts, embankments, and other
disturbed areas as soon as possible after construction to
minimize erosion; and 4) utilization of specific localized
sediment control measures in sensitive areas such as adjacent
to stream channels. In these sensitive areas, applicable
control measures would be highly site specific but would
include one or more of the following:
Collection/diversion ditches with rock filter dams
Gradient terraces with dugout filter ponds
Rock drainageways
Placement of sediment filter fabric
Use of straw or vegetative sediment filters
In addition to the planned drainage and sediment control
measures described, regular inspection and immediate repair
of surface erosion in facility areas would limit potential
impacts to water quality.
Streams in the project area would receive inflow from
the transportation system drainage containing higher total
suspended solids concentrations than in the streams. The
impact of this situation would mainly be dependent on the
relative volume of flow from the disturbed sites and the
receiving streams and on mixing. The degree of effect would
diminish as stream flow increased and would be least when flow
was high. Each stream has an inherent capacity to recover
from damage caused by siltation. Much accumulated sediment
would be flushed from water bodies annually during spring
breakup and would be moved downstream. It is anticipated that
the transportation system sediment sources would increase
annual stream sediment load by no more than 7 percent, most
of which would occur during high stream flow periods.
5-92
-------
No petroleum products would be stored in the vicinity of
the transportation corridor; therefore, the potential for
spills into water bodies would be limited to vehicle
accidents. Crankcase leaks and overturned vehicles could
result in petroleum product spills, but quantities would be
small. Appropriate maintenance and quick response to spills
would reduce the probability of petroleum products reaching
water bodies and adversely affecting water quality.
Coal and soil dust generated during operation would not
adversely affect water quality. Dust control measures would
be employed using limited applications of water sufficient to
control dust but not result in runoff. The conveyor would be
covered on the top and one side along its length and
provisions would be added to catch coal particles that fall
from the bottom where the conveyor crosses the Chuitna River
and small streams.
- Granite Point Port Facilities
Site preparation at the port facility would be initiated
with construction of drainage ditches and three settling ponds
to minimize the effects of construction disturbances on
receiving water quality. These sediment control structures
would collect all surface runoff from the port facilities
area, including the coal stockpile and fuel storage area (ACZ
Inc. 1985b) . Discharge from the ponds would be to Cook Inlet.
Equipment washdown wastewater would be generated during
operation by washing coal dust from coal handling equipment
and from the repair and maintenance shop. An oil trap would
be installed to remove oil and grease. The wastewater would
then flow into coal pile runoff ponds for settling and
treatment. These ponds would also receive storm water
collected from the coal storage areas, parking lots, and
surrounding areas. This water would be treated by
sedimentation and possibly chemical addition in the ponds to
suitable levels and could be used as make-up water for coal
pile dust suppression sprays if sufficient low-cost suitable
water is not available from other sources. Only the excess
storm water would be discharged. The runoff ponds would be
equipped with a skimming device, if necessary, to separate
oils, grease, solvents, and other hydrocarbons and route them
to a storage area. Waste oil and other used hydrocarbon
materials would be collected, stored, and removed from the
project area for recycling or for disposal in approved waste
disposal sites. Other hazardous materials (e.g., paint,
solvents) would be handled and stored separately and shipped
from the project area for disposal in approved waste disposal
sites.
5-93
-------
During operations, adequately-treated surface water
runoff from the port site would not adversely affect surface
water quality. Domestic sewage at the port site would receive
secondary treatment. The maximum number of people at the site
during operation would be approximately 55 (ACZ 1985c). They
would use about 8,517 1 (2,250 gal) of water (per the NPDES
permit application) and generate about 4.3 kg (9.4 lbs) of 5-
day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) per day. Secondary
treatment would reduce this to less than 0.45 kg (1 lb) of
BOD, which would be discharged to Cook Inlet via a pipeline
along the trestle. Water quality in Cook Inlet would be
unaffected by the treated domestic waste discharge.
Effects of petroleum spills would be the same as
described above for the mine and mine service area.
Biology
Southern Transportation Corridor
The applicant's proposed transportation corridor crosses
the upper reaches of two tributaries of Stream 2003 (2 003 02
and 200303) and two tributaries of Old Tyonek Creek, as well
as Tyonek Creek, Old Tyonek Creek, and the Chuitna River. All
of these areas have documented rearing use by juvenile
anadromous, and probably resident, salmonids (ERT 1984a).
Coho and chinook salmon spawning may also occur in the
vicinity of the crossings of the three larger streams.
Construction of the stream crossings would result in temporary
bed disturbance and downstream siltation. In addition, runoff
from disturbed areas and work pads in the respective drainages
may also contribute to increased suspended sediments in the
streams. Effects of this increased sediment load would be
similar to those described above for mine area streams but
would not be expected to last more than a year from completion
of construction.
Ponding or dewatering of areas due to access corridor
construction would alter the nature of wetland flora in
localized areas adjacent to wetlands crossed. Changes would
be more or less balanced between wetter and drier conditions.
These changes in wetland vegetation would in turn influence
the nature of associated fauna. In most cases, the effects
on fauna would be slight because most larger species have the
ability to move more or less freely between areas and
selectively utilize those most favorable to them. Since some
areas would be changed to favor those preferring drier areas
and those preferring wetter habitats, little net impact is
anticipated.
5-94
-------
Stream crossing structures would be placed in a manner
that would not interfere with passage of juvenile or adult
fish so no adverse impacts are anticipated to result from the
presence of culverts, bridges or other crossing structures
(Section 6.2.2.1). Because the road would not parallel any
stream for an extended distance (e.g., greater than 0.5 mi)
amounts of calcium or magnesium chloride dust suppressants
entering the streams would not be biologically significant.
Port Area
No significant impacts to freshwater fish populations
are expected at the Granite Point port site due to
construction, operation or reclamation. Several small ponds
that may be filled may have isolated fish populations (e.g.
three-spined sticklebacks). However, if present, these wouid
be of little local or regional importance.
5.4.1.3 Impacts to the Marine Environment
Oceanography and Marine Geology
Physical Oceanography and Ice
The presence of the trestle piers, designed with a wide
(122 m [400 ft]) spacing to minimize ice forces on the
structure, would cause an insignificant change to the current
and ice regimes. The increased turbulence caused by the piers
would be very localized, extending perhaps 10-15 m (33-49 ft)
in the downstream direction; this would be super-imposed on
an already very turbulent background. Overall
alongshore/offshore circulation would not be altered in
orientation or in magnitude.
Ice passage would be locally affected where it impinged
on the piers, and especially at the berthing facility. This
would be manifested in breaking of larger ice floes and
generation of a downstream wake of broken sea ice. ice
jamming and stacking is unlikely due to the wide pier/ dolphin
spacings and deep water; in any case, tidal flow reversal
would tend to start clearing any such ice formation within 6
hours.
Marine Water Quality
Marine construction activities would generate localized
turbidity, which would be negligible compared to the high
concentration of suspended solids in Cook Inlet waters. nq
dredging would be required for this planned construction.
5-95
-------
Planned wastewater discharges into Cook Inlet marine
waters during operation would derive from the sediment ponds
and sanitary wastes. The former would include both natural
sediments and runoff from the coal stockpiles, fuel storage,
and maintenance yard areas. The latter would only be wastes
generated at the port facility handled through the sewage
treatment plant. The sediment pond wastewater would also be
treated if necessary prior to release into Cook Inlet. Both
of these effluents would be discharged offshore from an
outfall on the trestle and they would be controlled by an
NPDES permit (see Appendix D) . Monitoring of the water
quality would be required to assure that the effluents meet
the required standards before discharge into the marine
environment.
Cook Inlet is an essentially unpolluted water body, high
in sediment, having point sources only at widely spaced
locations, including Anchorage, Kenai, the offshore oil and
gas platforms, and other scattered sites. Mixing and oxygen
content are very high causing rapid dilution of pollutants
and oxidation of organics. The high suspended solids in Cook
Inlet waters may contribute to settling and deposition of some
types of pollutants. The permitted discharge quantities from
this project, coupled with an increased sediment load in the
Chuitna River, are anticipated to be essentially undetectable
beyond the immediate area of the facility.
Suspended sediment concentrations in Cook Inlet vary from
2000 mg/1 near Anchorage to 1.0 mg/1 near the east side of the
Inlet mouth. The Matanuska River, one of several sediment
sources in the Inlet, has suspended sediment levels that
approximate 3800 mg/1. The suspended load is mostly of
glacial origin and maximum values occur at depths of
approximately 10 m (3.1 m) near the Inlet head.
Concentrations increase with depth south of the Forelands,
and concentrations in the lower Inlet generally vary between
1 and 100 mg/1 (Peterson et al. 1985).
Unplanned discharges into the marine waters from spills
could include diesel, gasoline, lubricants, and/or antifreeze.
Such hydrocarbons are refined and potentially toxic; however,
they also tend to degrade quickly in the marine environment.
Large spills of crude oil resulting from rupture of one of the
undersea production pipelines in the area would also be a very
remote possibility (see discussion below under Marine
Navigation) . Spilled materials would be rapidly diluted under
Cook Inlet conditions with strong lateral and vertical mixing.
Local spill trajectory would be dependent on tide stage as
well as wind and wave direction. However, the residence time
would be relatively short; net flow is expected to be
southwestward from the site, out of Cook Inlet. Risk of
5-96
-------
significant spill impacts would be reduced by incorporation
of an SPCC plan into the port operations. This would include
specialized training for the personnel, plus mechanical
Safeguards such as quick-closing valves in case of unexpected
disconnections. Such risks would be further reduced by
avoiding fuel offloading operations in adverse weather.
Accidental spills of coal could also occur during
shiploading. Such spills would be unlikely and would probably
fnvolve small quantities. Coal would not be a significant
Coai debris is found naturally in Cook Inlet as
a result of erosion of marine outcroppmgs.
Coastal and Marine Geologic Processes
Shoreline, or seafloor, erosion or deposition impacts
from the proposed construction would be localized and
nSliaible. Scour depressions could occur around the trestle
piers although some scour protection might be installed. The
piers, d-L y far-iiitv on the beach would be oriented
thJ shoreline, would not extend onto the tidal
flat" and would be generally above high water. Therefore,
local changes to the shoreline would be minimal.
The wide pier spacing would not cause significant
shoaling or shoreline deposition. No "sand bar" development
at the offshore site would be expected.
Marine Navigation
The routine operations of vessels using the Granite Point
coal port should not affect the nearby offshore oil platform
activities. These facilities may influence navigation under
some sea and weather conditions, but may be considered
navigation aids as well. Oil and gas pipelines buried under
the seafloor occasionally become exposed in places because of
erosion of bottom materials and thus become vulnerable to
being snagged by anchors dragged across them. There would be
£ small risk of rupturing one of the pipelines extending
Eastward from Granite Point either while anchoring
construction barges for trestle construction or in an
emergency situation if a drifting coal vessel were to drag an
anchor across an exposed portion of a pipeline. The former
nnssibilitv would be preventable by careful construction
management^ A ruptured oil pipeline would result in a
substantial oil spill.
The increase in marine traffic in Cook Inlet due to this
facility would be notable; 150 to 250 vessel transits
throughout the year would be added. This would roughly double
the regional traffic of larger vessels; however, it should not
5-97
-------
represent a significant increase in congestion because of the
distribution of marine traffic and the location of this site.
The main year-round marine activity in the vicinity is the
offshore platform operations which involve only a few vessels
with very experienced crews. Most traffic is headed to other
destinations in Cook Inlet, such as Drift River, Anchorage,
and Nikiski. The main impact of this traffic increase would
be in pilotage and regulatory clearance activities, normally
conducted out of Homer. Fishing vessel activities range
across the potential routes for the coal vessels; however,
traffic density is very low and no significant adverse impacts
would be anticipated.
Biology
Construction of the offshore port facilities would have
little direct adverse impact on marine biota in the area.
Placement of piles for pier and dolphin construction would
disturb a small area of bottom; however, benthic biota are
generally sparse or lacking altogether in the area. Driving
steel or wood piles during port construction would have the
potential for disruption of migration patterns of juvenile
and adult anadromous salmonids due to noise. Juveniles can
be presumed to be moving largely at the mercy of strong tidal
currents and are therefore unlikely to be greatly influenced.
Although there is little information regarding the reactions
of adult salmon or marine mammals to bursts of waterborne
noise such as would accompany pile driving, it is possible
that some or many fish and/or marine mammals (e.g., belukhas)
moving northward and eastward along the shore might alter
their movements to avoid the area during construction. It is
not likely that such a deviation in migratory pathway would
reduce the number of fish escaping to nearby rivers.
Because of the natural high turbidity in the area, any
increases from construction activities would be negligible
and, therefore, adverse impacts to marine organisms should
also be insignificant.
Normal operation of the coal port facility would have
little direct impact on marine biota. The caissons and piles
would provide a stable hard substrate that is largely free
from burial by moving sediments. However, annual abrasion by
ice would prevent establishment of more than an annual
epikiotic* community. Turbulent wakes forming behind the
c&issons or piles would generate some waterborne noise;
however, this would differ little from that which is naturally
produced by currents passing the large boulders which are
common in the shallow nearshore waters of Cook Inlet. Areas
of lower velocity behind the piles might be used by some
marine animals seeking refuge from the current.
5-98
-------
There is little information about the reactions of
mere h nn4C low noise levels likely to be
beiukhas o ^ during ship loading. Belukhas do not
generated £ be disturbed by docks and ships and have
notSbeen observed to avoid the oil and gas platforms in Cook
. _ lOOKA
I ^ ^ • •
Inlet (Calkins 1985).
o-f fna the trestle and any elevated wires
During periodsoffog, the t>re^ £ ^ However,
on it might ^ a significant problem because of
th^minimal ETSf. the area by birds and because of the low
likelihood of collision.
instruction and operation of the facility would not
ss-sr- —because
x unlikely event of a rupture of a diesel or
In the unlike y or of a spin of any petroleum
gasoline line on the wharf, the areas most
hydrocarbon from a vessel^tied^p ^ ^ mudf lats
likely to be advejrs y P port. Extremely dynamic
t0 ^^d lack of significant biota would render effects
conditions and lack. g beaches aroUnd Granite Point
°n the sand and J* products most likely to be spilled
negligible. The rer weather quickly under most
m such an accjf the rate of transport of spilled
conditions. Howev , aoid and the toxicity of refined
hydrocarbons would hPa spill coincided with an extreme
products is high. *iti the sait marshes fringing Trading
high tide or wind condition, the ^ may be adV(?rsely
Bay, Beshta ^y, . such conditions could seriously
affected. Oiling on an(J Kiu largs numbers of salt-
damage saltmarsh g imarily insects. Serious oiling of
marsh SuCh a spill occurred during the spring
birds could occur staging periods for waterfowl. During
or fall ml9raV,°^ncJ of these marshes would similarly damage
breeding ^birds In* " than ^
already°presentS in the area from existing offshore oil and gas
production and handling activities.
rnnrmerc-iFisheries
. ^ noise generated during construction causes
11 hnrt deflection of the alongshore migration of adult
any offs*?rebe a reduction in the harvest success of
salmon th®re could be 4 jea^.^ vicinity. Conversely,
set net flshe™eI\ \h offshore extremity of the structure
might cause fSh to concentrate closer to shore, increasing
5-99
-------
the harvest success of fishermen. However, there is little
basis for determining the impact of such activities on fishing
success. Certainly, construction activities over a period of
2 years would preclude access to some localized areas at some
times for fishing and for navigation. This may affect access
to some set net sites depending on the exact location of
construction activities.
Once in place, the trestle should not directly interfere
with fishing or navigation of vessels because of the
negligible impact of the structure on fish movements and
because the pile spacing and clearance above the water would
allow free passage of most vessels used in the area. Activ-
ities associated with the barge landing facility, however,
could cause significant impacts during fishing periods if not
properly coordinated.
5.4.1.4 Air Quality Impacts
As discussed in Section 5.3.4, the proposed project area
is designated as a clean air (attainment) area by EPA for
sulfur dioxide (S02) , nitrogen oxides (NOJ ; carbon monoxide
(CO) , particulate matter (PM) , ozone (03) , and lead (Pb) .
During project operation, air emissions would emanate from
coal handling and transportation and port site activities.
Fugitive dust would occur primarily as a result of port
facilities construction and along the haul road during
operations, whereas stationary PM emissions would result from
the port and the conveyor. Specifically, fugitive dust
emission sources during operations would be:
loading of coal onto the overland conveyor system
handling of coal at the port facility, including
transfer points of the conveyor system and ship
loading
storage of coal at the port area (potential wind
erosion losses)
Stationary PM emissions sources would be the conveyor and ship
exhaust at the port (Tables 5-14 and 5-15) . Considerable
quantities of criteria pollutants (SO,, N0X, CO and THC) would
also result from shipping operations.
Results of air dispersion modeling are discussed in
Section 5.3.4. Basically, it appears that maximum predicted
short- and long-term concentrations, when added to background
levels, would not exceed NAAQS in Kenai, Anchorage and Tyonek.
Any effects will primarily occur in the immediate vicinity of
the development.
5-100
-------
5•4•1•5 Noise Impacts
The port site would be one of the two areas (the mine is
the other area) with the highest noise levels during project
operations. Human receptors in the project vicinity would
include project workers and occasional hunters and fishermen.
Table 5-2 2 shows estimated sound levels generated by equipment
and facilities.
5.4.1.6 Socioeconomic Impacts
Anchorage and Kenai Peninsula
Socioeconomic impacts to Anchorage and the Kenai
Peninsula would be identical regardless of the mine facilities
configuration (see Section 5.3.6.1). Consequently, impacts
from the southern/Granite Point alternative would be the same
as those from the other corridor/port site alternatives.
Tvonek
General socioeconomic impacts from a mine development
have been described in Section 5.3.6.2. Impacts specifically
deriving from the southern/Granite Point alternative would be
similar to impacts from other corridor/port site alternatives.
The Granite Point port site would be 12.9 km (8 mi) from
Tyonek and thus would be well removed from most Tyonek
community activities. Housing facilities, haul road, and
conveyor also would be a substantial distance from Tyonek and
no facilities would be on land controlled by TNC. On the
other hand, an existing road provides easy access between
Tyonek and the port site/haul road vicinity assuring some
level of interaction between mine workers and the Tyonek
community.
5.4.1.7 Effects on Harvest of Subsistence Resources
The proposed southern transportation corridor bisects
Tyonek's primary subsistence use area. In fact, the majority
of Tyonek's hunting occurs to the west of this proposed
corridor alternative. In 1981, 87 percent of the moose
harvested by Tyonek residents was taken west of the corridor
location (Fall et al. 1984). This area is currently accessed
in three ways. First, Tyonek residents travel to the McArthur
River area by boat, primarily for moose hunting in the fall.
In addition, areas to the west of the village are reached
using the road network that was developed to facilitate
logging and oil and gas exploration; this is the most
important and heavily used route to the terrestrial hunting
areas. Finally, off-road areas are traversed on foot as well
as with snowmachines or all-terrain vehicles.
5-101
-------
If the project were built, access across the
transportation corridor would be provided for in three ways
(Fig. 2-7). First, the KPB has required that road crossings
be provided in three locations south of the Chuitna River to
allow passage across the conveyor. In addition, the conveyor
would be buried in ten locations to allow for wildlife
crossings. These crossings could also accommodate off-road
vehicle access to hunting areas. Finally, there would be at
least seven places where the terrain dips at least 2.4m
(8 ft) to allow passage on foot or with an off-road vehicle
beneath the conveyor. The largest of these underpasses would
be at the Chuitna River, but there could be others as well.
Access to hunting areas on the existing road network should
remain unhindered if underpasses are located at existing road
crossings.
Coastal travel should not be directly affected by the
offshore approach trestle if boats are allowed to travel
beneath the trestle. The trestle would be supported by single
pilings every 122 m (400 ft) , allowing ample room for safe
travel between piles. In the event that secondary effects,
such as changes in underwater topography, occur, there may be
restrictions on travel in some conditions. For example,
according to Tyonek fishermen, the pier at the North Foreland
created a sandbar that hinders local travel, especially during
rough weather. This latter possibility would be highly
unlikely given the design of the trestle and the depth at the
dockhead.
Some Tyonek residents also use the Chuitna River, Tyonek
Creek, and Old Tyonek Creek for drinking water. If water
quality in these streams is degraded due to erosion or other
pollution from the roads, mine, or housing facility, use of
these streams for drinking would be adversely impacted.
Actions that affect life cycles or movements of fish and
game may also cause impacts to the harvest of subsistence
resources. Again, moose and salmon are the two resources of
primary concern. Restrictions in moose movements by the
transportation corridor could cause changes in moose hunting
success if moose were excluded from customary hunting areas;
on the other hand, hunting pressure on local populations could
be increased if moose are concentrated at crossing areas.
This could result in population decreases and more restrictive
hunting regulations in the future. If salmon detour around
the port facility and trestle, either due to noise and general
activity or due to the physical presence of the trestle, then
commercial and subsistence harvests may decline near the port
facility. Alteration of salmon movements would be unlikely
during project operation but could occur during trestle
construction. Interference with subsistence fish harvest
would not be a long-term impact.
5-102
-------
5.4.1.8 Impacts to Visual Resources
Visual resource impacts would be limited by the low use
level of the area within the viewshed of the project
components. The transportation corridor and port would be
visible from the air. From the ground, the port and the
conveyor system would be the most visible components.
Increased ship traffic would affect visual resources to a
certain extent. The overall visual impact is considered to
be low to moderate.
5.4.1.9 Impacts to Recreation Resources
This area is not heavily used by sport hunters, sport
fishermen, or other recreation users. Disruption of
recreation is expected to be minor. Only limited disturbance
is expected to moose and black bear movement patterns and
habitat since the conveyor system would be designed for
minimum interference. The visual presence of the project and
noise generated may adversely impact the quality of the
"wilderness experience." Since the wilderness aspect of the
area is high at present, this impact would be considered
significant.
5.4.1.10 Impacts to Cultural Resources
One archaeological site (TYO-064) is located in the
vicinity of the proposed port facility. The archaeological
investigators (Gerlach and Lobdell 1983) suggested that
avoidance is the most acceptable mitigation strategy, assuming
that the port facility engineering design can accommodate this
measure. If the site were clearly marked and
construction/operations personnel were informed of their
obligation to ensure its integrity, no adverse impact should
result.
Two other possible adverse impacts on cultural resource
sites should be considered. The remote possibility of
offshore cultural resource sites (such as shipwrecks) in the
port site area remains to be addressed. If such sites exist,
construction of an approach trestle conceivably could cause
direct or indirect adverse impacts. The possibility of
secondary impacts to cultural resource sites outside the
construction areas as a result of increased human presence in
the region would be slight given the topography, vegetative
cover, and the paucity of known sites.
5-103
-------
5.4.1.11 Regional Use
Most of the areas in the Beluga region which are likely
to be developed in the future for coal, timber, hard rock
minerals, or hydropower are located to the west of the
proposed project. Construction of the southern transportation
corridor, and particularly the Granite Point port site, would
provide some infrastructure which could serve future
developments (e.g., the Placer U.S. Center Ridge coal deposit
which is located approximately 9.6 km (6 mi) west of this
project's mine service area). Both the transportation
corridor and port site would have the flexibility to serve
other regional users. Adequate land coupled with a public
land ownership pattern would permit expansion and would not
preclude other uses. Further, the port site would be
consolidated with the existing road system and developments
including the Granite Point oil pump station, Nikolai Creek
airstrip and the small group of homes and fishing cabins near
Granite Point, allowing for more clustered or "nodal"
development as opposed to scattered developments in the
region.
5.4.1.12 Technical Feasibility
Adequate technology exists to develop the Granite Point
port site, the haul road and the conveyor system as proposed.
A shoal exists offshore of the Granite Point port site. It
would be approximately 2,427 m (2,654 yd) from the end of the
elevated trestle and would need to be considered in navigating
coal ships during operations.
5.4.2 Northern Transportation Corridor and Ladd Port Site
5.4.2.1 Impacts to Terrestrial Environment
Geology. Physiography and Soils
Construction and operation of the northern/Ladd
alternative would result in impacts to the physiography and
geology primarily related to gravel extraction and placement
similar to those described in Section 5.4.1.1 for the
southern/Granite alternative. No figures are available for
the estimated amounts of material needed for the northern/
Ladd alternative, but the amount needed would probably be
less than the 1.9 million m3 (2.5 million yd3) needed for the
southern/Granite option due to the narrower road width.
Development of a coal transportation-road system within
the northern corridor and the facilities at Ladd port site
would disturb about 154.5 ha (380 ac) of soils. Approximately
5-104
-------
77 percent (119 ha [293 ac]) of the disturbed area would be
associated with port site construction. The rest (35.5 ha
[89 ac]) would be disturbed by road construction activities.
Soil types affected would primarily include the Talkeetna
Sandy Loam and Starichkof-Chichantna peats as well as
Starichkof peats that are associated with wet areas.
Construction of transportation and port site facilities
would result in long-term impacts to the soils that are
disturbed during clearing and those that are covered by road
bed materials and permanent facilities. Blading of the
roadway and area for footings of port site structures and the
conveyor systems is considered an irreversible impact,
indicating incomplete restoration within 100 years (see
Section 5.3.1.2).
Vegetation
The clearing of the right-of-way for the access road and
the coal transportation system (2.4 m [8 ft] for the conveyor
and 4.6 [15 ft] for the access road would eliminate the native
vegetation in a corridor approximately 21.4 km (13.4 mi) long
and 35 m (116 ft) wide. The major vegetation type eliminated
would be 20 ha (50 ac) of mixed spruce, birch woodland. An
additional total of 0.2 ha (0.4 ac) of closed alder tall shrub
scrub and 0.4 ha (1 ac) of mesic graminoid herbaceous/
bluejoint-herb would also be eliminated by construction
clearing.
Construction of onshore facilities at the Ladd port site
would disturb or eliminate a total of 119 ha (293 ac) of
primarily open mixed spruce, birch forest. An additional 6 ha
(16 ac) of the open low shrub scrub/sweetgale-grass fen type
will also be lost during construction. Approximately 3 ha
(7 ac) of open water habitat would be eliminated. Because of
the longer road length, the northern corridor would disturb
somewhat more vegetated terrain than the southern corridor.
Wetlands
Approximately 16 ha (39 ac) of wetlands would be directly
disturbed by the northern transportation corridor, would be
classified as palustrine - scrub shrub/forested broad leaved
deciduous. An additional 13 ha (33 ac) of wetland would be
disturbed by the Ladd port site. A portion of the northern
transportation corridor intersects the southern end of a large
wetland complex that extends from Threemile Creek to the
Beluga River.
5-105
-------
Table 5-2 shows the types of wetlands disturbed for each
facility and compares the alternative corridors and port
sites. The total surface area of wetlands affected by the
northern/Ladd alternative is approximately one half that of
the southern/Granite Point alternative because the Ladd port
site contains relatively little wetlands even though the
northern transportation corridor contains more wetlands than
the southern corridor. The northern corridor contains
substantially more wetlands than the eastern corridor.
Wetlands values are discussed more fully in Section
4.3.2.3.
Wildlife
Northern Transportation Corridor
Adverse impacts from direct habitat loss would be the
same as for the southern/Granite Point alternative except that
approximately 26 ha (64 ac) of habitat would be lost.
Qualitatively, this alternative would impact habitat of
greater importance to wildlife because of the increased loss
of wetlands.
Potential indirect habitat loss would be greater than
the southern/Granite Point alternative to migrating waterfowl
(including swans), nesting waterfowl, and shorebirds because
the corridor would cross the large wetlands area west of the
Beluga power plant., Potential indirect impacts to eagle
nesting would be less than the southern/Granite Point
alternative which has an eagle nest within 457 m (500 yd) of
the access/haul road or conveyor vs 704 m (770 yd) from the
northern corridor. Adverse impacts on swan nesting from this
alternative would also be similar. While the one nest site
indirectly impacted by the northern corridor would be
significantly further from the access/haul road and conveyor
than the two sites in the southern/Granite Point alternative
(approximately 917 m [1,003 yd] versus 3 05 m [333 yd] and
543 m [594 yd]), this site has consistently supported a
successful nesting pair of swans whereas the other two sites
have not.
Indirect impacts to sandhill cranes from this alternative
would be less than that for the southern/Granite Point
alternative since there is very little use of the northern
corridor by cranes.
Activity associated with operation of this corridor would
likely cause significantly greater indirect habitat loss for
brown bears than would the southern/Granite Point alternative.
5-106
-------
The northern corridor would cross Lone Creek through
riparian habitat important to brown bears for salmon feeding.
Adverse impacts to animal movements from this alternative
would likely be greater than those for the southern/ Granite
Point alternative because of the increased length of the
conveyor and the right angle bend to the south at the eastern
end of the northern corridor. This alignment would likely
cause more moose and bear interactions with the conveyor • The
northern corridor is also more at right angles to major large
mammal movements than is the southern corridor. For the main
overland conveyor, the planned average frequency of one
wildlife crossing every 880 m (962 yd) should minimize impacts
to large animal movements.
Noise and disturbance associated with construction of
the access/haul road and conveyor would be similar to that
for the southern/Granite Point alternative. Bald eagles using
the nest on the eastern shore of Tukallah Lake (Fig. 4-4)
would be susceptible to disturbance if construction activities
occurred within 110 m (110 yd) or if blasting occurred within
805 m (880 yd) between March 1 and July 1.
Ladd Port Site
Adverse impacts from direct and indirect habitat loss
and construction activities would be approximately the same
as for the southern/Granite Point alternative, except that
there would be significantly less direct and indirect habitat
loss for swans and cranes at the Ladd port site.
Habitat Evaluation
The results of the habitat evaluation study performed
for this EIS (Appendix A) are summarized for the various
ancillary facilities in Table 5-24. The northern
transportation corridor and Ladd port site would directly
affect habitats similar in suitability to the southern/Granite
Point alternative. Northern/Ladd would affect less high
quality moose winter habitat and more medium quality moose
spring/summer/fall habitat than would southern/Granite Point.
5.4.2.2 Impacts to Freshwater Environment
Hydrology
Northern Transportation Corridor
Impacts to ground-water hydrology would be similar to
those described in Section 5.4.1.2 for the southern
transportation corridor.
5-107
-------
The northern corridor would cross 5 streams (5 to 8 total
crossings, depending on route), including 2 crossings of
Threemile Creek, and 3 sizeable wetland areas. It would skirt
both Tukallah and Viapan lakes. There is no site specific
information regarding the watershed sizes, expected maximum
and minimum flows, or other stream characteristics. However,
road and conveyor construction would be similar to that
described for the southern transportation corridor (Section
5.4.1.2). Although minor drainage structures may be required
at some river crossings, no major bridges, such as anticipated
for the Chuitna River in the southern corridor, are planned.
Indirect effects of the transportation corridor on water
movement in wetlands are expected to be simular to those
described for the southern corridor.
Ladd Port Site
The Ladd port facility would incorporate sediment ponds,
ditches, and other drainage structures similar to those
described for Granite Point. The port site is located in an
area of wetlands (including one small lake). There is no site
specific information regarding the number and location of
sediment ponds and diversion ditches or the location of the
coal stockpile. Generally, it is anticipated that runoff
would be 3 to 4 times that at present. Overall surface water
impacts would be similar to those described for the Granite
Point site.
Surface Water Quality
The kinds of impacts that could occur are the same as
described in Section 5.4.1.2 for the southern corridor.
Erosion could occur during construction and operation of the
road and conveyor systems. Road and conveyor systems would
be approximately 21.7 km (13.5 mi) long and would cross 5
streams and 3 significant wetland or muskeg areas. Wetlands
water quality may be influenced for approximately 6.4 to 8 km
(4 to 5 mi) of the route. Stream crossings would be generally
low level minor structures. However, abutments at two streams
(Lone Creek and upper Threemile Creek) would be in wetlands
or transition wetland-upland areas. The stream crossing at
an unnamed creek near the middle of the route would be near
the confluence of two tributary portions of the creek. One
tributary would parallel the corridor for over 0.5 km (0.3 mi)
making roads and crossings more difficult to construct and
limit erosion impacts. The route would also pass near two
lakes and three smaller ponds.
5-108
-------
It was estimated that the transportation system sediment
sources would increase annual stream sediment loads in the
southern corridor by no more than 7 percent. It is likely
that sediment percentage increases in the northern corridor
would be higher since streams are smaller and in more stable
streambank conditions where background levels may be
inherently lower.
Although the northern corridor is longer and crosses more
wetland terrain than the southern corridor, the northern
corridor crosses fewer ma]]or streams. Impacts to surface
water quality would be similar for the two corridors.
However, water quality impacts would probably be insignificant
along any corridor because of the ability to effectively
mitigate these kinds of effects with well-designed and
installed drainage structures.
Biology
Northern Transportation Corridor
The northern transportation corridor to the Ladd port
site would have up to 7 crossings affecting at least 5 known
or suspected areas of use by juvenile salmonids. Streams 2002
and 2003 are important rearing and spawning areas for three
species of salmon and also have documented use by resident
salmonids (section 4.5.2.2) . Tributary 200301 has limited use
by juvenile Chinook and coho as well as Dolly Varden. Two
small tributaries of Lone Creek (200205 and 200206) that would
be crossed by the route have not been surveyed in any of the
studies to date. Because of their small size, fish use is
probably minimal in the area of the crossings but downstream
effects of siltation could occur in areas of use by coho and
Dolly Varden.
The lower crossing of the mainstem of Threemile Creek
and the crossing of its largest tributary also occur in areas
of considerable juvenile salmonid habitat and useage by
several species of salmonids is high (ERT 1987) . Spawning and
overwintering is probable near these areas. No fish were
taken at the upstream crossing of Threemile Creek in sampling
in August 1987 (ERT 1987), but overwintering and rearing of
juvenile coho would appear likely in the pool/pond habitat
described. Construction of crossings through this type of
habitat could result in disruption of wetlands.
Construction of the stream crossings would result in
temporary bed disturbance and downstream siltation. in
addition, runoff from disturbed areas and work pads in the
respective drainages may also contribute to increased
suspended sediments in the streams. Effects of this increased
5-109
-------
sediment load would be similar to those described above for
mine area streams but would not be expected to last more than
a year from completion of construction.
Stream crossing structures would be placed in a manner
that would not interfere with passage of juvenile or adult
fish so no adverse impacts are anticipated to result from the
presence of culverts, bridges or other crossing structures.
Passage of the access route within 0.4 km (0.25 mi) of
Tukallah and Viapan Lakes would improve access to these water
bodies. Increased fishing pressure could affect the existing
rainbow trout fishery in these lakes. Road construction and
traffic dust during operation should have only minimal impact
on lake water quality and biota.
Impacts to fish resources would probably be similar when
comparing the northern and southern corridors. The northern
corridor could potentially affect several valuable small
streams while the southern corridor crosses the Chuitna River.
Effects of this transportation corridor on water movement and
biota in wetlands are expected to be similar to those
discribed for the southern corridor.
Ladd Port Site
No significant impacts to freshwater fish populations
due to construction, operation, or reclamation are expected
at the Ladd port site. Several small ponds that may be
affected may have isolated fish populations (e.g., three-
spined sticklebacks) . However, if present, these would be of
little local or regional importance.
5.4.2.3 Impacts to Marine Environment
Oceanography. Marine Geology, and Water Quality
It is anticipated that the effect of the Ladd port
trestle and other facilities would be similar to those
described for Granite Point. Oceanographic conditions are
similar and facilities would be essentially identical except
that trestle length at the Ladd port would be about 3 05 m
(1000 ft) shorter than at Granite Point (assuming an 18 m
[60 ft] depth as required for large coal ships). Offshore
drilling platforms are not present near Ladd; consequently,
hazards and navigation concerns associated with these
platforms at Granite Point would not be a concern at Ladd.
5-110
-------
Biology
As with the Granite Point facility, construction of the
oort facilities should have little direct adverse
offshore por ^ the area. One potentially
significant mdifference between the alternate port sites
concerns ^ie vulnerability cf biological resources in the
concerns " f , or other hazardous substance.
™SnT.^ nortllll would be located adjacent to the Chuit
the mouth of the chuitna River. An oil spill
Iflelting the intertidal zone of the Chuit Flats could harn
invertebrates, water birds, and juvenile salmon that inhabit
J^^rla in addition, the broad Susitna Flats is located in
direct aiignment with the Ladd port site. This very valuable
waterfowl area could be severely affected if a large spill
cSnclSed with high tide condiitions
^•i- riaic from soills are greater at Ladd than at Granite romt.
It should be pointed out, however, that the likelihood of a
large spill is low.
Commercial Fisheries
The kinds of impacts that could occur to commercial
fishina from a port facility at Ladd would be similar to
>that mioht occur at Granite Point. However, the
impacts effort between Chuit Flats and Threemile
Creefc17^"^ greater than in the Granite Point vicinity with
Setrlv continuous set net sites in the proposed port area.
?hl individual sites are also significantly more productive
those at Granite Point. Fishermen have expressed concern
regard* ng the proposed port facilities at Ladd partly because
of their experience with present use of the existing barge
?Lnfna facility and the proposed increase in use during
oroiect construction and operation. Activities associated
P*S5 facility could cause significant impacts during
with this f Y properly coordinated. At lower
fishing Perl ls the coal barge loading trestle would be
Production levels, the coal ^ ^
°nlYni?ted°activities would be close to the beach and would
HITre£ire°Coordination during _ fishing periods At full
2 however the coal loading facilities at Ladd would
be°3U505 m'(ll 500 ft) offshore in deep water, well out of the
nLr'shore fishing zone. Therefore, impacts, if present,
likelywould be greater at Ladd than at Granite Point.
5.4.2.4 Air Quality Impacts
The air quality impacts for the northern transportation
nrtrridor would be similar to those for the southern
transportation corridor during the operational phase of the
project. However, because the access/haul road is longer,
5-111
-------
the construction phase impacts would be greater. The northern
transportation corridor haul road distance would be about
21.7 km (13.5 mi) as opposed to 18.2 km (11.3 mi) for the
southern route. This approximately 16 percent increase in
haul road distance would result in a greater fugitive dust air
quality impact for the 24-hour and annual average total
suspended particulate (TSP) standards. As mentioned
previously, the 24-hour averaging period is of most concern
regarding TSP air quality impacts. The peak 24-hour TSP
concentration for the northern route would be 58 ug/m3.
Approximately 57 ug/m3 would be generated by the southern
route. When added to a background TSP concentration of 50
ug/m3, the total impact would be 118 ug/m3. This is well below
the 24-hour TSP standard of 150 ug/m3; therefore, the
construction phase impacts for the northern route would not
violate the applicable ambient air quality standard for TSP.
The port activities for this corridor route would be in
closer proximity to the Tyonek area than a port at Granite
Point. However, it is not anticipated that any ambient air
quality standards or PSD increments would be violated during
construction and operating activities associated with the
northern corridor or Ladd port site.
5.4.2.5 Noise Impacts
The noise impacts for the northern/Ladd alternative would
be similar to those described for the southern/Granite Point
alternative. The Ladd port site would be 7.2 km (4.5 mi)
closer to Tyonek than the Granite Point site; however, a
buffer of 5.6 km (3.5 mi) would still exist between Tyonek and
the port site and it is not anticipated that there would be
significant noise impacts to Tyonek residents associated with
construction or operation activities for this alternative.
5.4.2.6 Socioeconomic Impacts
Anchorage and Kenai Peninsula
Socioeconomic impacts to Anchorage and the Kenai
Peninsula would be identical regardless of the mine facilities
configuration. Consequently, impacts from the northern
corridor/Ladd port site alternative would be the same as
described for the southern corridor alternative.
TyoneK
Socioeconomic impacts to Tyonek and the surrounding area
with a northern corridor/Ladd port site alternative would be
nearly the same as described for the southern corridor/Granite
point alternative. A port site at Ladd would be substantially
5-112
-------
closer to Tyonek (5.6 km [3.5 mi] as compared to 12.9 km
[8 mi]). However, there is currently no bridge across the
Chuitna River, making access to the Ladd port site from Tyonek
difficult at some times of the year (an ice road provides
access in the winter). Although Granite Point is farther from
Tyonek, an existing road provides easy access. The distance
and access factors probably act to offset each other; the
potential for interaction between mine workers and the Tyonek
community are likely similar for the Granite Point and Ladd
alternatives. If a bridge and improved road were constructed
between Tyonek and Ladd at some time in the future,
alternatives utilizing the Ladd port site would probably
create significantly more intrusion by outsiders into areas
traditionally used or occupied by Tyonek villagers. The kinds
of impacts that might occur as a result of increased
interaction are described in Section 5.3.6.2.
5.4.2.7 Effects on Subsistence Resource Harvest
Tyonek residents make relatively little use of the area
north of the northern corridor? consequently, hindered access
across this corridor would not affect many Tyonek residents.
Use of the area by residents of the Beluga area is essentially
unknown but is likely to be light because of the small
population and lack of road access.
The northern corridor is likely to have somewhat greater
effect on the movements of large mammals (moose and bear) than
the southern corridor. This could impact the number of
animals available in areas south of the Chuitna River used for
subsistence hunting by Tyonek residents. The impact could be
either positive or negative depending on whether animals were
excluded from the area or kept inside it.
The northern corridor would not directly affect the
Chuitna River or enhance access to the river such as might
occur with the southern corridor; consequently, corridor-
induced impacts to fish resources used for subsistence
purposes would probably be somewhat less for the northern
corridor than the southern corridor.
When all factors are taken into consideration, the
northern corridor would probably have somewhat less impact on
subsistence resources and their use than would the southern
corridor.
5.4.2.8 Impacts to Visual Resources
As with the southern/Granite Point alternative, the road,
conveyor, and port would be visible from the air; the port
will be visible to ship traffic on the west side of Cook
5-113
-------
Inlet. The port will also be highly visible from the ground.
None of the facilities will be visible from the Village of
Tyonek or from Anchorage or Kenai. The magnitude of visual
impacts would be essentially the same for a northern/Ladd
alternative as for a southern/Granite Point alternative.
5.4.2.9 Impacts to Recreational Resources
The presence of the Ladd port could significantly affect
existing recreation use and quality of current sport fishing
at the mouth of the Chuitna River. At present, two sport fish
guides take clients to the mouth of the Chuitna and areas
further upstream for day fishing trips. The proximity of the
port would increase competition for the resource by bringing
more people to the area and would also decrease the quality
of the experience by decreasing the wilderness aspects of the
site. Sport hunting along the coast for waterfowl also could
be expected to be affected by the influx of people into the
area. The Ladd port site is not only close to the Chuitna
River mouth but is much closer to the Beluga River Flats than
is the Granite Point site.
The road and conveyor system would cross Threemile Creek
three times, increasing access to this system at every
crossing point. It also skirts both Tukallah and Viapan
lakes. Tukallah Lake contains rainbow trout, Dolly Varden
and 5 species of Pacific salmon; Threemile Creek flows through
the lake. Viapan Lake contains rainbow trout. Both of these
areas could be expected to experience greatly increased
recreation use.
The road and conveyor are much closer to the Beluga River
than any of the other alternatives. This area is currently
used by sport hunters for both moose and black bear. A road
parallel to the hunting area could be expected to introduce
more hunters into the vicinity. The presence of all of the
facilities would decrease the wilderness quality of this area.
The northern/Ladd alternative would probably have
significantly greater impact on recreation use and quality
than would the southern/Granite Point alternative.
5.4.2.10 Impacts to Cultural Resources
Reconnaissance surveys conducted in 1983 and 198 6
(Lobdell and Gerlach 1983; Lobdell 1986) concentrated on the
area from Granite Point to just north of Chuitbuna Lake; no
surveys have been done along the proposed northern
transportation corridor. Most sites identified in the surveys
have been clustered along the coast and none have been found
in the vicinity of the proposed Ladd port site. It is likely
5-114
-------
. survev along the northern corridor route would not
that a surv y archaeological or historical sites, if care
r^f \ake? to iLastiqate ^archaeological values prior to
conltructTon and to protect any which might be discovered,
then impacts would not be expected.
5.4.2.11 Regional Use
wnrthern Transportation Corridor
This alternative would not be located as favorably as
i j the southern corridor with respect to most manor
oo?intial developments within the Beluga region (e.g., the
??acSr u's S?er Ridge coal deposit) It would however
Si «nr-P favorably located for the smaller Placer U.S. coal
lease 8 km (5 mi) west of the Beluga power plant (Fig. 4-1) .
The northern corridor would cross between 1.6 km and
2 4 a 0 to" 5 mi) Of private land which might restrict
other potential uses in the future. The southern corridor
would cross no private land.
j.aHH Port Site
while the Ladd port site would be on public (Kenai
Peninsula Borough) land, its location with respect to private
lands in the area as well as its position between the mouth
the Shuitna River and Viapan Lake would probably make it
able to expand to accommodate other major potential users
thin trauld a at Granite Point. Although the Ladd port
site Sould not be consolidated with as many existing
facilities as would the Granite Point port site, it would make
use of the existing Ladd barge landing site and road system
in the area.
5.4.2.12 Technical Feasibility
Adequate technology exists to build both the
Aaequ corridor and the port site for this
alternative A shoal exists offshore of the Ladd port site
w^ich would'be approximately 1,810 m (1,980 yd) from the end
of the elevated trestle. It would need to be considered xn
navigating coal ships during operations.
5-115
-------
5.5 EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR
5.5.1 Impacts to Terrestrial Environment
5.5.1.1 Geology, Physiography, and Soils
Development of a transportation system within the eastern
corridor would disturb about 74 ha (183 ac) of soils. Of
this, about 24 ha (59 ac) consist of organic soils associated
with wetlands, sphagnum and sphagnum-shrub bogs, and black
spruce woodland and forest. Starichkof-Chichantna peats and
Starichkof peats are associated with these areas and are well
represented in the corridor. Talkeetna Sandy Loam soils are
associated with upland sites.
The amount of soils that would be disturbed by con-
struction of the Ladd port facilities would be the same as
that described for the northern/Ladd alternative.
Construction of a transportation system in the eastern
corridor would cause fewer impacts to soils than would the
northern corridor because less area would be disturbed (74 ha
[183 ac] versus 98 ha [242 ac]). The nature of the impacts
would be similar, consisting of soil destruction by
construction activities that are required for a road or
conveyor system.
5.5.1.2 Vegetation
In order to construct the coal transportation system
along this route, a prism approximately 12 m (40 ft) wide for
the access/haul road and a prism approximately 7 m (23 ft)
wide for the conveyor and its access road would be cleared for
15.9 km (9.9 mi) . This would result in the elimination of
36 ha (88 ac) of open mixed spruce/birch woodland, 4 ha (9 ac)
of closed alder/tall shrub scrub, 15 ha (34 ac) of low shrub
scrub/sweetgale-grass fens due to construction clearing.
Impacts at the port site would be the same as described for
the northern/Ladd alternative.
This alternative would have impacts similar to the
southern/Granite Point alternative but less than the
northern/Ladd alternative because the eastern corridor is
substantially shorter than the northern corridor.
5.5.1.3 Wetlands
Approximately 2.0 ha (5 ac) of wetlands would be directly
disturbed by the eastern transportation corridor, most of
which would be classified as palustrine - scrub shrub broad-
leaved deciduous/emergent narrow-leaved persistent. An
additional 13 ha (33 ac) of wetlands would be affected by the
Ladd port facilities.
5-116
-------
Table 5-2 shows the types of wetlands disturbed and
rrvmnares the alternative corridors and port sites. The
surface area of wetlands affected by this alternative is less
S oitherthe northern corridor/Ladd port site alternative
southern corridor/Granite Point alternative. Neither
the transportation corridor nor the port site interfere with
large wetland complexes.
Wetland values are discussed more fully in Section
4.3.2.3.
5.5.1.4 Wildlife
Adverse impacts to wildlife, due to construction,
ooeration and reclamation of this alternative would be the
same as for the northern/Ladd alternative except as described
below.
Transportation Corridor
habitat loss and wetlands loss would be less than
f.r ttffotttem/Ladd alternative. The quality of lost
habitat for this alternative would be less than for
the northern/Ladd alternative primarily due to the avoidance
of the bog wist of the Beluga power plant. This alternative
adversely impact Lone Creek riparian habitat which
is less important for brown bears feeding upon salmon than
that affected by the northern/Ladd alternative.
mdirect habitat loss from this alternative would be less
,han for the northern/Ladd alternative since the latter would
oasS within 4?7 m <500 yd) of an eagle nest on the eastern
Ihore of Tukallah Lake and would also pass through more
important riparian habitat on Lone Creek for brown bears
feeding on salmon.
Effects on animal movements would be similar except that
the longer northern corridor would likely result in more moose
interactions with the conveyor. If adequately
designed and spaced large animal crossings were built,
however, this difference should not be significant.
Noise and disturbance associated with construction of
the access/haul road for this alternative would be similar to
that for the northern/Ladd alternative, except that this
alternative would not entail timing restrictions for
al-ernatj.ve ,ctivities since it would not have to consider
curtailing blasting to protect the Tukallah Lake eagle nest
as would the northern corridor.
5-117
-------
Port Site
The impacts from this alternative would be the same since
the Ladd port site would be used for both the northern and
eastern corridors.
5.5.2 Impacts to Freshwater Environment
5.5.2.1 Hydrology
The eastern transportation corridor to the Ladd port site
(Figure 2-8) would have at least 4 stream crossings (Streams
2003, 200301, 2002, and 200205). Crossings of 2003 and 2002
would have impacts similar to those described for the
northern/Ladd alternative. Remaining tributaries are small
(200205) or crossed relatively high up in the drainage
(200301). Impacts of construction of the access road would
be similar to but of less magnitude and extent than for the
northern route, since no crossing of Threemile Creek would be
necessary. A loop of the major tributary to Threemile Creek
enters the corridor but could be avoided by the final
alignment. This alternative would likely pass more than
0.8 km (0.5 mi) from both Tukallah and Viapan Lake. However,
it would likely pass within 0.4 km (0.25 mi) of Chuitbuna
Lake.
Impacts within the eastern corridor would be similar to
those of the northern corridor alternative. One less stream
would be crossed, similar wetlands areas would be influenced,
and the same number of lakes would be near the route.
However, Threemile Creek would not be influenced nor would
the wetlands north of Tukallah Lake. The eastern corridor
would cross fewer creeks than the southern corridor and all
creek crossings would be minor structures. Indirect effects
of the transportation corridor on water movements are expected
to be similar to those described for the southern corridor.
5.5.2.2 Water Quality
Oil and hazardous substance spill potential would be
similar to other alternatives except that the terrain is more
uniform and fewer major streams would be near the road
suggesting that spill risk to water bodies would be less with
the eastern corridor.
Overall water qvality impacts are projected to be lowest
on the eastern corridor route because fewer streams and
wetlands would be crossed and no major streams or stream
crossings would be involved.
5-118
-------
5.5.2.3 Biology
The eastern corridor crosses Lone Creek near the mine
site. Fish resources would be as described in Section 4.4.4.
Few other waterbodies would be affected by the access/haul
road and conveyor within this corridor.
Impacts to Tukallah Lake would be as described for
Tukallah and Viapan lakes under the northern alternative
(Section 5.4.2.2), possibly including increased fishing
pressure and minor water quality effects during construction
and operation. Effects of the corridor on water movement and
biota in wetlands would be simular to those described for the
southern corridor.
It is anticipated that the eastern alternative would have
significantly less impact on freshwater biological resources
than would the southern or northern alternatives.
5.5.3 Impacts to Marine Environment
The impacts would be the same as those described in
Section 5.4.2.3 for the northern/Ladd alternative.
5.5.4 Air Quality Impacts
The air quality impact for the eastern transportation
corridor would be similar to that described for the southern
corridor route. The haul road lengths for these two routes
would be about the same (about 17 km [11 mi]). The eastern
corridor would be shorter in haul road length than the
northern corridor route; hence, the haul road air quality
impacts would be somewhat less for this route.
It is not anticipated that ambient air quality standards
or PSD increments would be violated for this scenario and its
associated construction or operational activities.
5.5.5" Noise Impacts
The noise impacts for the eastern transportation corridor
would be similar to those described for the southern corridor
and the northern corridor.
5.5.6 Socioeconomic Impacts
Anchorage and Kenai Peninsula
Socioeconomic impacts on Anchorage and the Kenai
Peninsula from the eastern/Ladd alternative would be identical
to the other alternatives.
5-119
-------
Tvonek
Impacts to Tyonek from an eastern corridor alternative
would be similar to other alternatives with one important
exception. A portion of the transportation corridor would be
on land owned by TNC and, thus, the corporation (and the
community) would receive base revenues and maintain some
degree of control over the transport operation. The ability
to retain a voice in activities that affect the quality of
life in the village is perceived by village residents as
desirable. The eastern corridor alternative would probably
have the least adverse impact on the Tyonek community because
of this control factor.
5.5.7 Effects on Subsistence Resource Harvest
Tyonek residents make little use of the area north of
the Chuitna River; consequently, an eastern corridor
alternative would have minimal impact on access to subsistence
hunting and fishing areas from Tyonek. The extent of use by
residents of the Beluga area is poorly known but probably
light due to lack of access. This alternative would have the
same potential for affecting animal movements as would the
northern/Ladd alternative.
The eastern corridor would have the least potential for
impact to fish resources relative to the other corridors.
Taking all factors into consideration, the eastern
corridor probably has somewhat less potential for impact on
subsistence hunting and fishing than the northern corridor
and substantially less than the southern corridor.
5.5.8 Impacts to Visual Resources
The effect of this alternative on visual resources would
be similar to that described in Section 5.4.2.7 for the
northern/Ladd alternative. Both alternatives encompass the
Ladd port site and both include a road and conveyor system in
a similar geographic location.
5.5.9 Impacts to Recreation Resources
The impact of this alternative on recreation resources
would be similar to, but somewhat less than, the effects of
the northern/Ladd alternative. Both alternatives include the
Ladd port site; impacts of this component are described in
Section 5.4.2.8. The eastern road and conveyor location does
not cross Threemile Creek; however, it does cross Lone Creek
which is used to some extent by sport fishermen and a local
5-120
-------
fishing guide. Fewer total drainages are crossed compared to
the northern corridor, which decreases the total impact to
sport fish use and resources. This alternative is not located
as close to Tukallah Lake or Beluga River which would lessen
the impact somewhat.
5.5.10 Impacts to Cultural Resources
No archaeological surveys have been conducted along the
eastern corridor; however, impacts are expected to be similar
to those described for the northern/Ladd alternative.
5.5.11 Regional Use
The impacts of this alternative would be similar to those
for the northern/Ladd alternative except that the eastern
corridor would not cross the southern extreme of the Placer
U.S. coal lease, thus making development of that lease
somewhat less economically feasible. This was judged
however, not to be a significant difference considering the
relatively small advantage it would provide to the leasee.
5.5.12 Technical Feasibility
Adequate technology exists to build the eastern
transportation corridor and Ladd port site.
5.6 HOUSING ALTERNATIVES
5.6.1 Lone Creek Housing Site Alternative
5.6.1.1 Impacts to Terrestrial Environments
Physiography and Geology
Gravel extraction and placement for the housing facility
and airstrip would have minimal effect on the physiography of
the area. The housing facilities would be built on generally
free-draining glacial material. Foundations and access roads
for the housing facility would require approximately 30,500
m3 (40,000 yd3) of material; the airstrip and access road would
require approximately 84,000 m3 (110,000 yd3) of material.
Soils
Clearing and grubbing operations related to construction
of the housing and airstrip facilities would disturb
approximately 29 ha (72 ac) of soil, primarily Strandline
variant sandy loam. This is considered a major long-term
disturbance due to the permanency of the facilities.
5-121
-------
Vegetation
Community Composition
Construction of the airstrip, housing units, and
associated roads would eliminate 29 ha (72 ac) of mainly mixed
spruce-birch woodland vegetation (Table 5-1). Damage to
vegetation could also result from fuel and chemical spills
depending on the type and amount of spill, time of year, type
of vegetative community, and actions required for clean-up
(Brown and Berg 1980) . Spills in communities with wet,
organic soils during the growing season are considered to be
more damaging than those occurring in mineral soils or during
winter. Spill contingency plans would help to prevent or
minimize damage.
Reclamation could not occur until the housing and
airstrip facilities were dismantled. Reestablishment of
vegetation would not occur until 10 to 15 years after project
completion. However, the plant communities affected by
construction of these facilities are well represented in the
area so impacts due to clearing are not considered to be a
significant commitment of the vegetation resource.
Threatened and Endangered Species
No threatened, endangered, or special status plant
species are known to occur within the housing and airstrip
area.
Wetlands
Only 2 ha (6 ac) of wetlands are expected to be disturbed
by construction of the airstrip and housing area. The type
of wetlands disturbed would be scrub shrub broad-leaved
deciduous/emergent narrow-leaved persistent (Table 5-2) . This
loss of wetland is considered to be insignificant.
Wildlife
Direct habitat loss from construction of the housing
facilities and airstrip would be approximately 29 ha (72 ac).
This would be significant on a local basis for song birds and
small mammals, but would not be significant for other animals.
Indirect habitat loss for most species would be small
and only locally significant as they would likely adapt to
the presence of the facilities. However, some displacement
0f large mammals would occur, especially from human/animal
interactions in the vicinity of the facilities. Brown bears
would likely avoid the area entirely unless attracted by
5-122
-------
feeding or 4^4) would be approximately ?§2
HI ITU^ southl" the airstrip. This diKance should be
ademate to prevent long-term abandonment of the nest site due
lo fixed-Wing aircraft activities, even during the nesting
period.
Animal movements would not be significantly affected by
oresence of the housing and airstrip facilities especially
if snot blowers were operated such that high snow berms did
not build up on the airstrip.
construction activities at the housing site and airstrip,
aside fron^direct habitat loss, would have relatively little
imact upon bird and small mammal species. However,
r-oncitruction would displace moose and bears to a greater
degree^than during operation of the facilities and might be
of local significance.
Animal/human interactions could be expected to occur
rfnrina both construction and operations phases of the project.
during bo rot facilitieSr animals would tend to avoid
^nnfacts with humans unless attracted by improperly handled
alrbwe disposal or outright feeding by workers If this
occurred, animals, especially bears, attracted to project
?^iliti4s would likely become nuisances, cause lost work
time damage buildings or equipment, or become dangerous and
have'to be killed (Section 6.3.1.3).
Animals in winter, especially moose, would tend to use
cleared roads, pads, and the airstrip to avoid moving through
snow. As evidenced on the Glenn Highway in Anchorage,
this would significantly increase the chances for
antmal/vehicle collisions unless specific operational
provisions were made to prevent such occurrences (Section
6.3.1.3) .
The habitat evaluation (Table 5-24) indicates that the
t nnp creek site occupies high quality bear and spring/
summer/fall moose habitat but is above the elevation of winter
moose habitat.
5 6.1.2 Impacts to Freshwater Environments
Hydrology
There would be no significant impact to the ground-water
arHnu* as a result of construction and use of the Lone Creek
regime as a r ^ airstrip. Potential ground-water
housing faci and chemical spiiis. Impacts to
thHoSiRecharge/discharge relationships would be small.
5-123
-------
Before construction of housing facilities begins, a
series of diversion ditches and a sediment pond would be
constructed which would attenuate the flood peaks and
intercept the sediment generated by the disturbed area. Since
the disturbed area would be less than 10 ha (25 ac) or 0.04
percent of the drainage area of the Chuitna River, the impacts
to surface water hydrology during construction would be
negligible.
During the operation phase, the runoff generated by the
less than 10 ha (25 ac) of impervious surfaces of the roads,
residences, parking lots, and landing strip would be about 3
to 4 times that at present. However, some attenuation would
be provided by the sediment ponds. The net impact on the
flows and water levels of the Chuitna River would be
insignificant.
These facilities would be dismantled, the area regraded
and revegetated during reclamation to provide drainage
patterns similar to the premining conditions. Therefore, the
resulting hydrologic impacts would be minimal.
Surface Water Quality
Runoff from the housing facility construction and
operation would be handled using ditches, revegetation, and
sediment ponds in the same manner as other site facilities.
No adverse effects on water quality are anticipated from the
housing project runoff.
Water quality would not be adversely affected by water
use or the disposal of treated domestic wastes from the
housing facility. The total number of people at the various
mine facilities would be 424 during maximum coal production
(ACZ 1985c). All personnel would sleep at the housing area,
but would work in different locations as follows: 272 at the
mine and mine service area, 42 along the transportation
corridor, 55 at the port site, and 55 at the housing
facilities and airstrip. Since the domestic sewage discharge
from the treatment plant at the mine site and the discharge
from the housing facility would be at the same location in the
Chuitna River and because the port site would have a separate
treatment plant discharging to either Cook Inlet or on-site
leach field, the effective population discharging to the
Chuitna River would be approximately 3 69. Diamond Alaska
indicates in its NPDES permit application that about 94,635 1
(25,000 gal) would be discharged to the Chuitna River per day.
Historical records of similar facilities suggest that effluent
volume might be somewhat greater than indicated in the permit
application. About 2.9 kg (6.3 lbs) BOD, 3.6 kg (7.4 lbs)
total suspended solids, 0.6 kg (1.3 lbs) nitrogen, and 0.1 kg
5-124
-------
(0.3 lbs) phosphorus would be contained within the daily
effluent. This discharge could easily be assimilated by the
Chuitna River with no adverse impact on water quality (Table
5-27). Stabilized sludge generated by the treatment process
would be hauled to the mine area for disposal in an approved
landfill located in the mine pit.
Table 5-27
IMPACT OF DOMESTIC WASTE DISCHARGE ON CHUITNA RIVER
Chuitna River Chuitna River
Parameter Discharge before mixing after mixingC1)
Flow, cfs ~ 0706 30 W 30.06(3)
BOD, mg/1 19 es^* 2 ^n*n^(3)
TSS mq/1 22 <1—60 <1—60.04
Nitrogln, mg/1 3.9 0.08-0.25 0.088-0.258 3
Phosphorus, mg/1 0.9 0.01-0.02 0.012-0.022<3>
^ ^ Increases would all be projected to be less than 10% of
background. Mixed flow would meet water quality
standards. Use of the minimum instantaneous flow is
conservative because the ADEC will allow a mixing zone
based on a higher flow, such as the 7-day, 10-year low
flow.
(2) .
v ' Minimum instantaneous.
(3)
v ' Maximum concentration during minimum flow.
Biology
Residents of the Lone Creek housing area on the bluffs
above the Chuitna River would be likely to sport fish during
spare time. If open to fishing, the greatly increased fishing
pressure in the 1 to 2 km (.6 to 1.2 mi) of river near the
housing site could significantly impact the numbers of coho
and Chinook salmon reaching their spawning grounds and could
significantly reduce rainbow and Dolly Varden populations in
that reach which is seldom fished at present. The Chuitna
River is currently closed to Chinook salmon fisMng above the
mouth of Lone Creek. If this regulation remains in effect,
potential impact on this species would be alleviated.
5-125
-------
5.6.1.3 Impacts to Marine Environment
There would be no impacts to the marine environment
associated with the Lone Creek housing area and airstrip.
5.6.1.4 Air Quality Impacts
Fugitive dust would be generated during construction of
the housing area and the airstrip. During operations, dust
would be generated by vehicle traffic. This would be at a
lower rate than during construction and could be controlled.
Some burning would occur during site clearing, but should be
minimal. Air pollution associated with the housing site and
airstrip would likely be insignificant.
5.6.1.5 Noise Impacts
The housing site and airstrip would be relatively low
generators of noise. Noise would be highest during
construction due to heavy equipment, but levels would be lower
than the mine or port facility. Tyonek residents should not
be disturbed by noise emanating from either the housing
facility or the airstrip.
5.6.1.6 Socioeconomic Impacts
Construction and operation of the housing area and
airstrip would provide employment for a limited number of
people. The primary socioeconomic impacts would result from
the mine itself; see Section 5.4.1.6 for a discussion of the
expected effects of the project on Anchorage, Kenai, and
Tyonek.
5.6.1.7 Effect on Subsistence Resource Harvest
Potential effects of the housing and airstrip component
on subsistence resource availability and harvest would be
increased nonresident harvest of subsistence resources,
including competition for fish and game with mine employees;
and the possibility of increasingly restrictive harvest
regulations.
Competition for Fish and Game with Mine Employees
Diamond \laska has indicated the housing facility would
be weaponless and that hunting by workers would be prohibited.
Tyonek residents expressed skepticism that this policy would
be effective in eliminating hunting by mine workers because
of violations of a similar policy at the Kodiak Lumbermill
(KLM) in the late 1970s. Nonetheless, assuming that the no
5-126
-------
hunting policy is effective while workers are on the job,
there would likely be an increase in nonresident harvest of
moose caused by workers and their friends returning to hunt
on their days off. The Lone Creek housing site is less than
0.8 km (0.5 mi) from the Chuitna River; therefore, mine
workers would be very likely to sportfish in the Chuitna River
if it were open for fishing, especially for king and coho
salmon. Increased fishing pressure on these stocks could lead
to allocation conflicts. Conflicts between village
subsistence hunters and fishermen and non-local hunters and
fishermen would increase, especially if the resource base
declines.
Effects of Change in Harvest Regulations
Finally, increased harvests of moose or salmon could
eventually lead to increasingly restrictive harvest
regulations should populations of moose or salmon fall below
acceptable levels. This potential effect could be caused by
a number of factors, some of which would not be attributable
to the Diamond Chuitna Coal Project. However, the cumulative
effect of decreased habitat and increased harvest by
nonresidents along with external factors such as loss of
habitat to other development and increased recreational use
of the area by urban residents, could eventually force the
Boards of Fish and Game to further restrict Tyonek's harvest
of moose and salmon.
5.6.1.8 Impacts to Visual Resources
Impacts to visual resources are expected to be minor when
compared to the impact of the mine and mine facilities. The
greatest effect would be from the air. This region is
considered of moderate visual quality.
5.6.1.9 Impacts to Recreation Resources
A major impact of this alternative upon recreational
resources would be fishing by workers in the Chuitna River
near the Lone Creek housing site. 9v®r the .lon
-------
possibility of secondary impacts to cultural resource sites
outside the construction areas as a result of increased human
presence is expected to be slight.
5.6.1.11 Regional use
The Lone Creek housing site is well located with respect
to all three logical mining units within the Diamond Chuitna
lease area. Thus, it would probably be used during
development and operation of the entire lease area,
encompassing a period of several decades. Future major
developments within the Beluga region are likely to take place
to the north or west of the Diamond Chuitna project area.
These developments would likely be at sufficient distances
from the Lone Creek site to make its use impractical if it
were to remain simply as a worker camp.
5.6.1.12 Technical Feasibility
Adeguate technology exists to build both the housing area
and airstrip at this location.
5.6.2 Congahbuna Housing Site Alternative
5.6.2.1 Impacts to the Terrestrial Environment
Physiography. Geology, and Soils
Since the design and areal extent of the Congahbuna
housing site and airstrip facilities would be similar to the
Lone Creek housing site and airstrip, overall impacts in terms
of physical site alteration and gravel reguirements would be
similar.
From the agronomic standpoint, the alternative would
primarily involve soils of the Talkeetna Series which closely
approximate the soils mapped for the Lone Creek housing
facility site. The predictable impacts would, therefore, be
similar to those that would result from the Lone Creek site;
approximately 29 ha (72 ac) would be disturbed.
Vegetation
Approximately 29 ha (72 ac) of vegetation would be elim-
inated by clearing for construction of the Congahbuna housing
site and airstrip. Although no specific site has been
designated, the vegetation of the general location consists
primarily of mesic bluejoint graminoid vegetation. No
threatened or endangered plant species are known to occur in
this area. The loss of this vegetation would not be
considered significant.
5-128
-------
Wetlands
Direct wetland impacts from construction of the
Congahbuna housing site would be nearly identical to the
impacts described for the Lone Creek, site. The surface area
of wetland affected by the Congahbuna housing site would
likely be similar to the area that would be affected by the
Lone Creek site (Table 5-2). However, the Congahbuna site
would be immediately adjacent to wetland areas that receive
significant use by waterfowl. Therefore, secondary impacts
to wetland values would be significantly greater with this
alternative than with the Lone Creek site.
Wildlife
Wildlife impacts due to construction, operation, and
reclamation of this option would be the same as those for the
Lone Creek site, except that direct habitat loss would occur
to wetlands supporting higher levels of waterfowl and
shorebird nesting. Unlike the Lone Creek site, however, there
would not be an eagle nest within 723 m (2,400 ft) of the
airstrip. Considering all factors, the Congahbuna option
would probably have greater impacts.
Based on the habitat evaluation analysis (Table 5-24),
habitat impacts to the evaluation species for the Congahbuna
housing site option would be similar to the Lone Creek option.
The Congahbuna housing area could, however, affect one high
quality trumpeter swan nesting lake that would not be
disturbed with the Lone Creek housing option and moose
wintering activity in mild winters.
5.6.2.2 Impacts to Freshwater Environments
Hydrology
Impacts to ground- and surface water hydrology resulting
from construction, operation and reclamation of the Congahbuna
housing site alternative are expected to be minor. Some
reduction of inflow to Old Tyonek Creek or Congahbuna Lake may
be expected depending on to which water body surface runoff
is directed. This reduction would not be significant.
Snr-face Watpr Quality
Water quality impacts due to construction, operation,
and reclamation of the Congahbuna housing site alternative
would be similar to those of the Lone Creek site. However,
runoff and discharges from the Congahbuna site would not
impact the Chuitna River since it would be routed to either
Congahbuna Lake or Old Tyonek creek.
5-129
-------
Site runoff impacts would not be significant. However,
discharge of treated domestic sewage from the Congahbuna
housing site would have more significant impact than would
discharge from the Lone Creek site since the much smaller Old
Tyonek Creek would be the likely receiving water. During low
flows in Old Tyonek Creek, treated sewage could provide small
but measurable increases in BOD, nitrogen, and phosphorus
levels although the treated sewage flow would likely be less
than 2 percent of the creek flow.
Biology
Construction and operation of the Congahbuna housing site
alternative would have somewhat less potential for fishing
pressure impacts on the Chuitna River as described in Section
5.6.1.4 for the applicant's preferred housing location at Lone
Creek. Limited angling pressure might occur on Congahbuna
Lake itself depending on the facility's proximity to the lake;
however, unless boat access could be gained, there would be
little impact on the lake's fish populations. Impacts on fish
populations in other streams would not differ from those
produced by the applicant's Proposed Project.
5.6.2.3 Impacts to the Marine Environment
There would be no difference in impacts to the marine
environment if the Congahbuna housing site alternative were
used as opposed to the Lone Creek site.
5.6.2.4 Air Quality Impacts
Air quality impacts resulting from construction and
operation of the Congahbuna housing site alternative would be
essentially identical to impacts from the other housing
options.
5.6.2.5 Noise Impacts
Noise characteristics and sound levels associated with
operation of the Congahbuna housing site alternative would be
identical to those associated with the Lone Creek site,
impacts to human and wildlife receptors would also be very
similar except that the project housing area would be located
further from the mine area and residents of the housing
facilities would be less likely to be disturbed by noise
generated at the mine site.
5-130
-------
5.6.2.6 Socioeconomic Impacts
Socioeconomic effects on Anchorage and Kenai from
construction and operation of the Congahbuna Lake housing
a1ternative would be the same as those produced by the Lone
Creek alternative.
This alternative would lessen the potential for workers
from the Lone Creek housing site in the applicant's Proposed
proiect to adversely impact fish populations in the Chuitna
River A serious impact to those populations could affect
sport' fishing guides from Tyonek and possibly commercial
fishermen.
5 6.2.7 Effects on Subsistence Resource Harvest
Although construction and operation of any housing site
would remove approximately equal amounts of terrestrial
«nS would likely have similar effects on game animals,
the'co^gaSbunT site^s Yin an area that is used extensively by
£vonek residents for subsistence activities Hence, the
effects of habitat loss at the Congahbuna site would cause
Z1Z LLts on Tvonek's subsistence hunting than would
llllltl tTe Lone Creek site. In addition the road
?hattraverses the Congahbuna site is one of two major
norland access routes used by Tyonek residents to reach
hunting areas to the west. The design of a housing facility
at this site should incorporate provisions for continued use
of thil road to avoid impacts to subsistence use of the area
to the west.
a cositive aspect of the Congahbuna housing site
alternative would be that the potential for disruption of
salmon populations and rearing habitats is far less than at
Tnirreek site. However, Chuitna River Chinook salmon
stocks oompSe a relatively small proportion of the Chinook
stocks compr Tvonek beaches each year. For example,
Shiitna River Chinook salmon escapements represented less than
Chuitna ki enumerated Susitna drainage king salmon
Lcapements between W76 and 1984 (Delaney and Hepler 1984)
escapements River is only a minor producer of Tyonek
sSS"kSce chiSok^armon. overall, the Lone Creek housing
site would cause fewer impacts to Tyonek's subsistence use of
the area than the Congahbuna housing site.
5.6.2.8 Impacts to Visual Resources
construction, operation, and reclamation of this
alternative would have impacts on visual resources similar to
liltlof the Lone Creek alternative. Visual screening
potential at both sites is comparable. Although no estimates
5-131
-------
of use levels are available, the two sites are near reasonably
popular recreation sites (Congahbuna Lake and the Lone
Creek/Chuitna River fishery). Therefore, visual exposure and
user attitudes would be similar.
5.6.2.9 Impacts to Recreational Resources
Construction and operation of this alternative would
likely have more negative impacts upon existing sport hunting
than would the Lone Creek alternative, but the difference
would not be significant because of the relatively limited
amount of sport hunting which presently occurs in the vicinity
of Granite Poirit. since little sport fishing presently occurs
in the Congahbuna Lake area, this alternative would cause few
negative impacts to existing uses. Further, this alternative
would not have as great a potential for adversely affecting
sport fishing on the Chuitna River as would the Lone Creek
alternative.
Overall, this alternative would have significantly fewer
negative impacts to recreational resources than would the Lone
Creek alternative.
5.6.2.10 Impacts to Cultural Resources
Aerial and ground archaeological surveys in the
Congahbuna area did not locate any cultural resources (Gerlach
and Lobdell 1983). As long as construction/operations
personnel are informed of the possibility of encountering an
archaeological site and the procedures to be followed should
they do so, no adverse impacts to cultural resource sites
should occur if this alternative were chosen.
5.6.2.11 Regional Use
The impacts of this option would be the same as for the
Lone Creek option except that this site would be further from
the center of the three logical mining units within the
Diamond Alaska lease area, requiring greater transportation
costs and job commuting time for workers.
5.6.2.12 Technical Feasibility
Adequate construction technology presently exists to
build this alternative.
5-132
-------
5.6.3 Threemile Housing Site
5.6.3.1 Impacts to the Terrestrial Environment
Geology, Physiography and Soils
Overall impacts to geology and physiography would be
similar to those described for the Lone Creek and Congahbuna
sites (Sections 5.7.1.1 and 5.7.2.1). The type of soils
likely to be disturbed is unknown.
Vegetation
Detailed vegetation mapping has not been completed for
the Threemile housing site. The proposed site is located on
upland terrain and dominant vegetation type is probably mixed
spruce-birch woodland. Disturbed surface area would be the
same as for the other sites.
Threatened and Endangered Species
No threatened, endangered, or special status plant
species are known to occur within this area.
Wetlands
No wetland habitats would be affected by development of
the Threemile Housing site; consequently, the northern
corridor/Ladd port site alternative with the Threemile housing
site would have somewhat less wetland impact than would the
same corridor alternative with the Lone Creek housing site.
However, it is doubtful whether this difference in wetland
impact is significant since the Lone Creek site would affect
only 2 ha (6 ac) of wetlands.
Wildlife
Adverse impacts from construction, operation and
reclamation of this option would be the same as those for the
Lone Creek option, except that human activity could cause
greater impacts to swans because of the location within a
general area frequented by swans during the summer. Unlike
the Lone Creek option, however, there would not be an eagle
nest within 723 m (2,400 ft) of the airstrip.
The habitat evaluation (Table 5-2 4) indicates that the
Threemile site would affect lower quality moose spring/
summer/fall habitat than would the other housing site options;
however, the Threemile site would occupy high quality moose
winter range.
5-133
-------
5.6.3.2 Impacts to the Freshwater Environment
Hydrology
Construction and operation of a housing facility at the
Threemile site is expected to have minimal effects on the
ground-water regime. Potential degradation of ground-water
quality could occur as a result of fuel and chemical spills
and leaks from sewage treatment facilities. Impacts to the
local recharge/discharge relationships would be small. There
would be no significant difference in impacts between the
Threemile and Lone Creek housing sites.
It is assumed that, as with the proposed Lone Creek
housing site, diversion ditches and sediment ponds would be
built before actual construction begins at the Threemile site.
This site is located away from any rivers, streams, lakes, or
ponds. It borders a small wetland (Section 5.6.3.1). Surface
water hydrologic impacts resulting from construction of the
Threemile housing site would be minimal and not significantly
different from the Lone Creek site.
Surface Water Quality
Runoff from the'housing facility would be handled using
ditches, revegetation, and sediment ponds. No adverse effects
on water quality are expected from the housing area runoff.
Domestic wastes would be treated using secondary
treatment. Where this treated effluent would be discharged
is unknown at this time. Sludge effluent would be hauled to
the mine area for disposal in the ongoing pit reclamation
process. Impacts to surface water quality from a housing site
at Threemile would not be significantly different from a site
at Lone Creek.
pjQlogy
The Threemile housing site is not located within easy
walking distance of any streams or rivers. Camp residents
would be able, however, to access Threemile Creek, Lone Creek,
and Tukallah Lake, among others, by road. Therefore,
populations of salmon, rainbow trout, and Dolly Varden in
these water bodies could be subjected to heavier fishing
pressure. Impacts to aquatic resources would likely be less
with housing at Threemile than at Lone Creek.
5-134
-------
5.6.3.3 Impacts to the Marine Environment
There would be no impacts to the marine environment
associated with construction and use of the Threemile housing
site.
5.6.3.4 Air Quality Impacts
Air pollution associated with the housing site and
airstrip is expected to be insignificant and no different from
housing sites at other locations.
5.6.3.5 Noise Impacts
Noise characteristics and sound levels associated with
operation of the Threemile housing site would be identical to
those associated with the Lone Creek site. Impacts to human
and wildlife receptors would also be very similar except that
the project housing area would be located further from the
mine area and residents of the housing facilities would be
less likely to be disturbed by noise generated at the mine
site.
5.6.3.6 Socioeconomic Impacts
Socioeconomic effects on Anchorage and Kenai from
construction and operation of the Threemile housing
alternative would be the same as those produced by the Lone
Creek alternative.
This alternative would lessen the potential for workers
from the Lone Creek housing site to adversely impact fish
populations in the Chuitna River. A serious impact to those
populations could affect sport fishing guides from Tyonek and
possible commercial fishermen.
5.6.3.7 Effect on Subsistence Resource Harvest
The Threemile housing site is in an area that is seldom
used for subsistence activities and significant impacts on
fish and wildlife resources from the site itself would be
unlikely. Of the housing alternatives, the Threemile site
has the least potential for adverse impact on subsistence
activities.
5.6.3.8 Impacts to Visual Resources
The presence of the Threemile housing facilities is
expected to have minor effects on visual resources. The site
would be visible mainly from the air, it would not be visible
from the coast. This area is currently considered to be of
moderate visual quality and visual impacts would be similar
to those from a Lone Creek housing site.
5-135
-------
5.6.3.9 Impacts to Recreation Resources
Workers housed at this site would most likely sport fish
on the water bodies crossed by, or near, the northern
transportation corridor (Section 5.6.3.2) and pressure on
recreational resources in the Threemile Creek/Viapan Lake area
could increase. However, the Threemile housing site would be
expected to have less impact on recreation than the Lone Creek
site because of the latter"s proximity to the Chuitna River.
5.6.3.10 Impacts to Cultural Resources
No archaeological surveys have been conducted in the
vicinity of the Threemile housing site. The likelihood of
cultural resources being found in the area is low.
5.6.3.11 Regional Use
The impacts of this option would be the same as for the
Lone Creek option except that this site would be further from
the center of the three logical mining units within the
Diamond Chuitna lease area, requiring greater transportation
costs and job commuting time for workers. It would, however,
be located adjacent to the Placer U.S. coal lease (Fig. 4-1)
and thus in a very suitable location for use if that lease
were developed.
5.6.3.12 Technical Feasibility
The technology exists to build the housing facility as
shown.
5 . 7 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The Diamond Chuitna Coal Project would not be built in
a pristine area, but one in which resource development and
some human settlement has already taken place. Oil and gas
exploration and development occurred in the region over twenty
years ago, resulting in construction of the Beluga power
station, an oil pump station at Granite Point with a
pipeline south to the Drift River, and a rudimentary road
system north of the Chuitna River along Cook Inlet. in the
1970s, as a result of a state timber sale, a small port was
developed at North Foreland as was a road system south and
vest of the Chuitna River. Several airstrips primarily
related to oil and gas development are scattered throughout
the region. In addition to the Native village of Tyonek,
private land received under federal and state land disposal
programs supports several families in the Granite Point and
5-136
-------
na1ima areas This project, in providing additional trans-
portionfacilities5 and a residential work camp, would
t£erlfo?e continue the historical process of resource
development and introduction of additional people into the
region.
successful operation of the Diamond Chuitna Project would
likely mike development of other coal and natural resource
oroiects more economically viable because of the increased
infrastructure particularly the port site, it would
A workinq project would also show other potential
coal buyers that Beluga region coal can be successfully mined
and development of other coal leases such as Center Ridge or
Capps would likely be accelerated. These developments would
cause significant additional impacts of a nature similar to
nroiect including additional large mined areas, more
rSals and'airstrips? increased capacity of existing port sites
or itabl^shment of new ones, and more people living either
in single-status work camps or townsites.
Cumulative impacts to regional hydrology and water
auali?r especially in the Chuitna River drainage, and
resultant impacts to fish populations could be significant.
Tf a worst case scenario is assumed wherein coal mines
If a wors proposed project are operated
comparable 1 ^ ^ available leases (Figure 4-1) in
simultaneously din ^ remainder of the Diamond Chuitna
Xase) thin nearly all of the productive northern tributaries
SiJ. Chuitna River would be affected to some degree,
to the Chu Chuit Creek would likely be altered
substantially. Development of the lease area south of the
Snns Glacier would primarily affect the less sensitive Beluga
River drainage but could also impact the extreme headwaters
S chuitna River. Development of the easternmost lease
^LrrFiaure 4-1) would affect the headwaters of the two major
tributaries to Threemile Creek. In total, these potential
£ ^Alterations would probably have a significant adverse
impact on regional fish populations. Rearing habitat tor coho
and Chinook salmon in the Chuitna River drainage could be
reduced by 40 to 80 percent depending on mining plans and the
success of stream reclamation. Spawning habitat for coho,
success or s salmon would likewise be reduced, but to a
Chinook, and p greater use of the mainstem by
lesser extent because^or ^ r|aring fish. At least some Qf
spawning fis ^pacts would be long-term because of the
these cumulative impa ^ri seVerely altered stream
courlef^ a P^SctKe condition in mined out areas.
Under the same worst case scenario, significant adverse
unaet u would also occur. Multiple mines and
transportation systems^ and extensive human activity would
5-137
-------
affect the movement of large mammals and would exclude them
from substantial areas. After reclamation, habitat value
would be less than that which now exists for a substantial
period of time. However, in the very long-term, wildlife
habitats could be restored more readily than could fish
habitats.
Further development in the region, including that from
this project, would increase pressures for availability of
private land for families that wish to live near their jobs
rather than commute from Anchorage and Kenai. A higher
population would increase pressure for a permanent road
connecting with the State's main highway system. This, in
turn, would increase ease of access to the Beluga region,
further increasing population.
An increase in the permanent population of the region
would require additional services from the Kenai Peninsula
Borough, especially schools and roads. More people would
result in greater losses of wildlife habitat and increased
pressures on fish and wildlife populations and recreational
uses of the region. Perhaps the most negative cumulative
impacts would be sustained by the villagers of Tyonek who
would likely experience significant changes to their
traditional social, cultural, and subsistence lifestyles.
Such changes could be caused by loss of local governing
control, increased drug and alcohol traffic, increased
competition for traditional subsistence resources, and loss
of Tanaina culture and rural way of life.
On a more specific cumulative impact basis, while the
project would meet required air quality standards, it would
incrementally contribute to the degradation of Cook Inlet air
quality. For example, the increase in marine traffic would
roughly double the annual number of larger ships in Cook
inlet.
The project would also provide positive cumulative
impacts. Present local residents, particularly those in
Tyonek, would have an opportunity to seek year-round
employment, thereby providing a stable economic basis for the
village. If other developments were spurred by the project,
additional employment opportunities would be available. In
addition, as regional population growth occurred, the service
sector of the economy would provide still other sources of
employment and would increase services available to local
residents.
5-138
-------
5.8 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS
Reduction in fish productivity, especially salmon, in
the Chuitna River system due to direct habitat loss during
mining would be unavoidable during the mine life, for a period
thereafter (greater than 10 years) , and possibly indefinitely.
Complete restoration of streams would not be guaranteed.
Terrestrial wildlife species would also be adversely affected
by habitat removal during mining but to a less significant
extent. Regional movements of large mammals, especially moose
and bears, would be partially impeded by the presence of the
conveyor system and movement patterns would be locally
altered.
Greatly increased human activity in the Beluga region
would increase contacts both voluntary and involuntary between
residents and nonresidents of Tyonek. Impacts resulting from
this could be either adverse or beneficial, although at least
a portion of the Tyonek population would be likely to view
such impacts as adverse.
5.9 SHORT-TERM USES VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
In this section, the short-term uses of resources are
related to the long-term effects of the project on
productivity of those same resources. The purpose is to weigh
the project's net benefits to residents of the project area,
the region, and society as a whole. In general, short-term
uses would be those which would occur during the lifetime of
the project. Long-term productivity would generally refer to
the time beyond the life of the project.
The estimated mine life for the proposed project is 34
years. Additional probable coal reserves exist within the
Diamond Chuitna lease area and within other leases nearby.
There is a reasonable probability that these reserves will be
developed subsequent to completion of mining within the limits
of the Proposed Project if market conditions are favorable.
Therefore, the short-term exploitation of coal resources may
well lead to longer term coal productivity.
Many of the impacts discussed earlier in this chapter
would be considered short-term, with many of the greatest
impacts occurring during the initial construction and early
operational phases of the project. If these impacts were
properly mitigated as discussed, adverse impacts on produc-
tivity would be primarily short-term. The goal of postmining
reclamation would be to return the area to a level of
productivity for wildlife and fish which is at least as great
as that which existed prior to mining. In view of the
analysis presented in Sections 5.3.2.2 and 5.3.2.4, it would
5-139
-------
appear unlikely that fish productivity in streams directly
disturbed by mining could be restored to premining
productivity levels. Restoration of wildlife productivity
would likely occur over the very long-term; however, such
restoration could require up to 40 years postmining.
The increase in economic activity, influx of new
residents from outside the region, and other pressures
associated with increased human populations in the short term
could have a significant long-term impact upon existing
regional social and cultural traditions and values. For
example, the short-term benefits of project employment might
have long-term indirect impacts upon traditional subsistence
lifestyles. Increasing dependence upon the cash economy
caused by project employment could lead to a lessening of
participation in the subsistence lifestyle. While this would
not necessarily be bad, at completion of the project, families
may have become so dependent upon the cash economy that they
would be unable to fully readapt to the subsistence lifestyle
if other types of employment were not available.
5.10 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES
A decision to permit the Diamond Chuitna Coal Project
and its subsequent construction and operation would
irreversibly and irretrievably commit several resources.
At least 330 million short tons of coal would be removed
and ultimately consumed as fuel for various needs over the
life of the mine. Gravel resources would be mined and used
for various project facilities. While the gravel would remain
in the vicinity, it would not be practical in most cases to
recover it for other future uses or return it to its sources.
The extraction, transportation, and processing of the
coal would require a large commitment of energy resources
(diesel oil, gasoline, natural gas, etc.) which would be
irretrievably consumed. However, the energy gained from the
coal would greatly exceed the energy consumed in acquiring
the coal.
The soil lithology and geological structure beneath the
mine area would be irreversibly altered. Postreclamation
topography, while similar to the premining condition, would
also be altered. Vegetation, wildlife habitats, and fish
habitats would be different from the original condition but
not necessarily less valuable or productive, depending on the
success of reclamation. The analysis in Section 5.3.1.2
suggests that fish habitat could be irretrievably lost.
5-140
-------
Production of fish would be reduced in the Chuitna River
drainage during mine operation and for a period thereafter
and would constitute an irretrievable loss as described in
Section 5.3.1.2.
Some hunting, fishing, and other recreational and
subsistence opportunities would be irretrievably lost for the
life of the mine and probably for a substantial period
thereafter.
5-141
-------
Chapter 6.0
Mitigation, Reclamation, and Monitoring
-------
6.0 MITIGATION, RECLAMATION, AND MONITORING
6.1 INTRODUCTION
The term "mitigation" can have several meanings in an
EIS process:
(a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a
certain action or parts of an action.
(b) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or
magnitude of the action and its implementation.
(c) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabili-
tating, or restoring the affected environment.
(d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by
preservation and maintenance operations during the
life of the action.
(e) Compensating for the impact by replacing or
providing substitute resources or environments or
by enhancing the value of an existing environment.
Mitigation by avoiding impacts altogether, as in (a)
above, was incorporated extensively throughout the EIS
process through elimination or alteration of options or
designs to avoid significant effects (Chapter 3.0).
Minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts through repair, and
eliminating impacts over time, are the forms of mitigation
employed by Diamond Alaska in its planning for the Proposed
Project.
From the standpoint of environmental regulatory
processes, the Diamond Chuitna Coal Project has a number of
features that are somewhat different from other large
projects that have been reviewed in Alaska. Because of the
duration of the project, impacts would be distributed over a
substantial period. This contrasts with other kinds of
projects (e.g., petroleum development) where impacts are
normally greatest during the construction phase and decrease
thereafter. The prolonged impact period requires special
attention from the permitting agencies especially in
planning and administering mitigation programs. In
addition, the existence or severity of many of the impacts
cannot be accurately predicted in advance. Therefore,
extensive monitoring programs have been built into some
permits (i.e., ASMCRA) to obtain information to be used in
designing new mitigation strategies.
6-1
-------
The mitigation plan included in the project proposal,
consisting of mitigation measures committed to by the
applicant for all project components, is described in
Chapter 2.0. The discussion of environmental consequences
(Chapter 5.0) has taken these mitigation measures into
account. This chapter summarizes the detailed mitigation,
reclamation, and monitoring requirements imposed by the
State of Alaska through the Alaska Surface Coal Mining
program and other state permitting programs; requirements of
federal and local permitting programs; and other measures
which could be considered by the permitting agencies. It is
therefore necessary to review both chapters 2.0 and and 6.0
in order to ascertain all mitigation measures associated
with this project which have been committed to by the
applicant, required by the agencies, or which could be
considered in permitting programs.
6.2 MITIGATION CONTAINED IN THE ALASKA SURFACE COAL MINING
PERMIT AND OTHER STATE PERMITS
Concurrent with the development of the EIS, Diamond
Alaska pursued a surface coal mining permit and other
permits from the State of Alaska. The Alaska Surface Coal
Mining Control and Reclamation Act (ASMCRA) requires that
application be made to the Alaska Department of Natural
Resources for a permit to conduct surface coal mining. The
state program is overseen by the federal Office of Surface
Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE). The state
regulations under ASMCRA must be as effective as the federal
OSMRE regulations.
Diamond Alaska applied to the State in January 1985 for
a Permit To Conduct Surface Coal Mining. This triggered an
intensive state review process which was completed in August
1987 with the issuance of the Commissioner's decision to
approve the permit with stipulations. Subsequently, the
decision was subjected to an extensive administrative
hearing process which resulted in June 1988 in a
reaffirmation of the original decision with only minor
modifications to two stipulations and extension of the
permit term to 10 years.
It is a somewhat unique situation to have a major state
permitting action completed before issuance of an EIS for
the same project. Because this is the case with the Diamond
Alaska project, much of the content of the EIS, particularly
those sections relating to the mine area itself, has been
determined by the State's ASMCRA permit conditions. These
conditions have been reflected throughout this document and
are discussed specifically in this chapter.
6-2
-------
In addition, the project was reviewed for consistency
under the Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP). A
conclusive consistency decision was issued on June 29, 1988;
several stipulations were attached to the decision. Other
state permits have been issued including permits from ADF&G
and ADEC. The stipulations attached to the ASMCRA permit,
the consistency determination, and the other state permits
constitute mitigation measures which are required of the
applicant.
Two important points should be made regarding the state
permitting effort for this project. First, the existing
ASMCRA permit was limited to the 10 year mine and mine
facilities area; the permit did not cover the haul road,
conveyor, housing facilities, airstrip, or port. Further,
the permit for this area is valid for 10 years and, by state
law, can be renewed every 5 years for the remainder of the
mine's 34 year life. Expansion of the mine beyond the 10
year mining area will require a new ASMCRA permit. The
ASMCRA decision was made with the realization that
predictions of the long term impacts of the mine and the
effectiveness of mitigation measures could probably not be
made for the entire life of the project. Therefore,
monitoring programs and other reviews required during the
first 10 years would enable more specific and informed
decision making for the remainder of the project.
Secondly, the consistency determination and other state
permits were not limited to the mine area; all components of
the project were considered. The State divided its review
of the Diamond Chuitna project into 3 phases. The June 1988
consistency determination applies to the permits reviewed
under Phase 1 which includes the majority of state permits
and authorizations for the mine, transportation and housing
and port components of the project. In Phase 2, the DEIS
and FEIS, EPA and COE permits, and 401 certifications will
be reviewed. Plan approvals and air quality permits from
ADEC and approvals for detailed facility design such as oil
spill contingency plans will be reviewed in Phase 3.
Mitigation measures required by the State of Alaska
(ASMCRA and other state permits) are discussed below by
project component. Each component is further subdivided
into the first ten years and the remainder of the project.
This is in keeping with the ASMCRA permit. During the first
ten years, construction of the various components and
initial operation will take place. Tne remainder of the
project, approximately 24 years, will consist of continued
operations and project termination. Commitments contained
in the ASMCRA permit application are considered to be permit
requirements; permit stipulations comprise the remaining
permit requirements.
6-3
-------
6.2.1 Mine and Mine Area
6.2.1.1 First Ten Years
ASMCRA Permit Application and Permit Stipulations
The ASMCRA permit application (June 1987 rev.) states
that the "mining objectives of the planned Diamond Chuitna
Mine are to maximize coal recovery, minimize environmental
disturbances, and to restore the mine area to land use
capabilities that are similar to conditions existing prior
to mining." To this end, the applicant has committed to
many mitigation measures in the placement of facilities and
operation of the mine.
Construction will take place during the first three
years of the permit period. The general activities which
will occur are: 1) construction of drainage and sediment
control structures, 2) removal of topsoil from construction
areas, 3) construction of roads and support facilities, and
4) equipment erection. These have previously been described
in Chapter 2.0 of this document.
The following discussion summarizes the content of the
ASMCRA permit.
Drainage and Sediment Control
The drainage and sediment control systems have been
clgsigned to assure that sediment—laden drainage is not
discharged from construction sites. A system of sediment
ponds will be built and maintained within the permit area.
Diversion ditches will also be located, built, and
maintained to avoxd erosion, minimize contributions of
sediment to runoff, and serve as primary flow interceptors.
Other sediment control measures will include use of sediment
filter fabric, and sediment traps. Drainage and sediment
control structures will be built before the surrounding
drainage area is disturbed. Groundwater from the mine pit
will be pumped into the sediment pond system and from there
will flow back into the streams. Sediment-related parame-
which will be monitored include total suspended solids,
settleable solids and turbidity. Detailed descriptions of
the drainage and sediment control systems may be found in
Section 4.12, Vol. XVII, of the ASMCRA application (June
1987 rev.).
Potential adverse impacts from domestic sewage will be
mitigated by installing secondary waste treatment package
plants at the mine, housing, and port areas and by providing
trained sewage treatment operators as described in the
ASMCRA application.
6-4
-------
ASMCRA permit stipulations 1 through 6 require
additional drainage and sediment control measures.
Stipulation 1 requires that single stage flocculation
equipment be installed on sediment ponds 1-6, 8-12, 15, and
16. The location of the equipment installation is specified
for each pond.
Stipulation 2 pertains specifically to Sediment pond 14
and requires the applicant to prepare revised design
information prior to construction. The plans are to
demonstrate that the pond has been designed to handle a
"worst case" condition throughout its operational life. In
Stipulation 3, several conditions are placed on ponds 7, 11,
13, and 15/16 which will receive winter baseflow.
A construction schedule for sediment pond 2A is called
for in Stipulation 4. The plan is to be submitted within
one year following permit issuance and the pond is to be
constructed as quickly as possible. Stipulation 5 calls for
plans for sediment pond spillways and outlet channels to be
submitted to ADNR prior to construction in order to assure
that the spillways and channels can withstand the spillway
design flood. Specifications for riprap are established as
well as criteria for filter fabric to be used below a riprap
layer. It must be demonstrated that a failure of the outlet
channel will not impact the integrity of the spillway.
Stipulation 6 requires preparation of a water quality
contingency plan to be approved by ADNR and ADEC. The plan
is to specifically identify and prioritize treatment
measures which would be implemented in the field should the
sediment pond discharges fail to meet state water quality
standards. A number of options which should be included in
the plan are specified, e.g., addition of floating baffles,
increasing mixing at flocculation addition stations,
addition of flocculant at the in-pit sumps or pump discharge
lines, and filtration of drainage at low flows through
a porous medium.
Stipulation 15 requires that the applicant inspect all
diversion ditches in late summer or after major runoff
events and perform any necessary maintenance. Maintenance
will include removal of vegetation which is higher than the
design flow depth for the ditch and removal of any litter or
debris.
Final engineering of sediment pond embankments is
treated in Stipulation 19. An engineering report must be
submitted to ADNR which includes a complete description of
the fill material to be used for the embankment,
site-specific descriptions of the physical and engineering
properties of the foundation materials, and a demonstration
of the stability of each embankment.
6-5
-------
Topsoil Handling and Overburden Stockpiles
Following construction of the drainage and sediment
*o ow i.nncr)il will be removed from the
control struc j'ni»a areas Topsoil handling plans are
construction and mining • application. Section 4.10,
SSF'm All topsoil removed will be stockpiled for later
Vol. xvi lon and reclamation. Soil removal and
replacement within the area to be mined will be a phased
replacement wi*-h the overall mining schedule.
beLsalvaged and reapplied to disturbed areas with
ISo exceptions. Soil overlying light-use roads which are
or contaminated will not be salvaged Also,
soils coring topsoil stockpile sites will not be salvaged.
ToDsoil will be stockpiled initially in association
with early mining stages. Stockpiles will be designed to
• wind and water erosion. Unnecessary compaction of
tie sofl "ill bed avowed and stockpiles will be sited away
the son wix H itv to avoid contamination. Soil will
b»^ appropriate . soil thickness for
be reoiacriuu ^rainaae is achieved; compaction,
revegetation erosion is avoided; soil moisture is
conserved^ revegetation is promoted; and deterioration of
?he Physical, biological, and chemical properties of the
soil is minimized.
in addition to topsoil handling procedures in the
in aaaicion stipUiation 7 of the ASMCRA permit
ASMCRA f-ppl Shaii be replaced on all reclaimed areas
^Utfof^'inch^s1. in Stipulation 20, the applicant
is required to salvage topsoils and underlying soils to a
minima depth of six inches in all disturbed areas with
mineral soils.
Minina will proceed from the east to the west in the
kin the first ten years of the project and a
Plt overburden " stockpile will be created. The
permanent „w,,r(4pn stockpile will consist of overburden
an™3interburden mater^al £rom the initial box cuts in the
ana lncetouiu . ¦ areas. This material will not be
needed 3for Reclamation at the end of mine Ufa- Section
XX) of the ASMCRA permit application describes
the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the
overburden stockpile.
overburden and interburden will be required following
• inn t-o restore approximate original contours. Material
mining to r diluted with suitable material
which is unsuitabl^jiii within the shovel buckets at
during p Additional mixing will occur in the truck
The result will be vertical and horizontal mixing of
J rials Selected chemical and physical properties of
materials. interburden will be monitored after the
Jpoils^rS regraded but prior to the application of topsoil.
6-6
-------
The overburden stockpile will be constructed with side
slopes which will minimize erosion and will be located on an
essentially flat part of the permit area. The stockpile
will be inspected periodically by a registered professional
engineer and in accordance with a plan approved by ADNR
under Stipulation 8 of the ASMCRA permit. This stipulation
requires that the permanent overburden stockpile be
inspected at least quarterly and detailed mapping provided
for each lift of the stockpile. Strength tests as well as
ground-water tests are to be conducted on any areas of
fine-grained material.
Backfilling operations will begin as soon as mineable
coal is removed from a given pit area. Dragline spoils will
be graded to establish drainage. Final graded slopes will
undulate to minimize erosion and will approximate pre-mining
contours. Depressions approximately 5 ft. deep will be left
in the graded spoil to mitigate for loss of wetland
habitats. Diamond Alaska will replace a 4 ft zone of
non-toxic material over the surface of the mined area.
Topsoil will be spread over this layer. The surface will be
scarified and the site revegetated.
Revegetation
The details of the revegetation and reclamation plan
are discussed in Section 4.08, Vol. XVI (June 1987 rev.) of
the ASMCRA permit application. The short-term goal of the
reclamation plan is the immediate stabilization of the
disturbed sites including erosion and sedimentation control.
Diamond Alaska plans to achieve this goal through controlled
mining practices, construction of sediment control and
retention structures, revegetation with rapidly growing
plant species, proper seedbed preparation, and application
of mulch.
The long-term goals of reclamation are to establish
productive wildlife habitat and create an aesthetically
acceptable site which blends with the surrounding terrain
and vegetation. The revegetation plan is set forth in
Section 4.11, Vol. XVI (June 1987 rev.) of the ASMCRA permit
application. Annual monitoring of revegetation will be done
to determine success and identify positive and negative
factors. ASMCRA permit stipulation 11 requires a minimum
density of 500 woody plants per acre be planted in mixed
woodland, spruce woodland, and birch woodland areas. At
least 100 trees of any combination of spruce, birch, or
poplar may be include. Stipulation 16 also establishes
requirements for species diversity in woodland communities.
Section 4.11.9, Vol. XVI (June 1987 rev.) of the ASMCRA
permit application details the wetland revegetation plan.
This wetland restoration program will be conducted on a
trial basis and will be monitored to determine its success.
Depressions 1 to 2.5 acres in size will be created in the
6-7
-------
graded spoil. These depressions, which will be
approximately 5 ft. deep, will be revegetated with peat from
existing bogs within the permit area. Side slopes will be
revegetated with herbaceous and woody plant species.
In addition, sediment ponds 7, 17, and 18 will be
converted to wildlife habitat revegetation with peat, woody
shrubs and other appropriate species. Aquatic insects will
be transferred to the ponds from adjacent open water areas;
transferal of bottom muck should ensure establishment of
macroinvertebrate communities.
- Fish and Wildlife
ASMCRA stipulations 10, 12, 13 and 14 apply to fish and
wildlife within the permit area. A complete description of
the applicant's fish and wildlife protection plan is found
in Section 4.07, Vol. XV (June 1987 rev.) of the ASMCRA
permit application. ASMCRA permit stipulation 10 requires
that the applicant conduct a three year telemetry program
focusing on the moose using the Lone Ridge rutting area.
The study will include radio-collaring of adult moose and
aerial surveys. The results of the study will be reported
to ADNR and ADF&G on a yearly basis. In addition, beginning
in permit year 7, ground surveys to determine moose use of
revegetated areas is required. Moose/vehicle collision data
is to be collected throughout the permit period and
submitted to the agencies annually. A monitoring program
for the first three years of the project must be formulated
and submitted for approval to ADNR to aid in determination
of future mitigation requirements.
Stipulation 12 requires verification of flood impact on
fish habitat during 1987 spring floods using in-stream flow
methodology. The requirement for a fish monitoring program
is set out in Stipulation 13. The applicant's proposed
program is summarized on Table 6-1 and presented in more
detail in Vol. XV, Section 4.07 of the ASMCRA permit
application. The ASMCRA permit requires that the program be
expanded to include annual adult salmon spawner surveys in
drainages 2002, 2003, and 2004. The surveys are to be
conducted from mid-July until freeze-up. ADNR and ADF&G
will review the survey program at the end of the third year
to determine if changes are warranted. Also in the third
year juvenile salmon population estimates are to be made in
drainages 2002, 2003, and 2004. These surveys are to be
conducted every other year in August. A detailed monitoring
plan including the above requirements must be submitted to
ADNR shortly after issuance of the mining permit.
Continuous monitoring of stream and gravel temperatures is
required for three locations in Lone Creek and stream 2003
per Vol. XVII of the ASMCRA permit application. ADNR
reserves the opportunity to require additional mitigation
for fish resources if necessary.
6-8
-------
Stipulation 14 deals with fish habitat mitigation. The
applicant is required to construct replacement fish habitat
to mitigate for the unavoidable loss of two miles of
anadromous fish habitat in tributaries 200305, 200304, and
20030502. The mitigation is to include construction and
maintenance of at least four 1/2 acre coho salmon rearing
ponds adjacent to coho salmon spawning habitat in tributary
2003 . Plans for the construction must be submitted to and
approved by ADNR and ADF&G. Monitoring to determine the
success of the ponds will show whether or not alternative
mitigation will be necessary.
Hydrologic Monitoring
A major goal of the reclamation plan is to restore
hydrologic balance and integrity of streams affected by the
project as quickly as possible after mining. One of the
keys to successfully restoring the hydrologic balance is to
restore ground-water equilibrium within the mined-out area
as quickly as possible so that the affected streams would
again receive a full baseflow. The applicant has proposed
to do this by altering the temporary drainage control system
at the end of its useful life in order to create permanent
depressions in the gradient terraces. These depression
would enable water to pond and infiltrate to the ground
water. In addition, the applicant expects that natural
differential settling in the regraded areas will provide
numerous small depressions which will enhance infiltration
of precipitation. The wetland restoration program will also
aid in ground-water infiltration and baseflow restoration in
streams. These mitigation measures, coupled with the
restoration of premining slope grades and vegetation, should
provide an effective means to enhance the re-establishment
of the ground-water equilibrium.
Restoration of mined-out streams to conditions similar
to premining is a stated goal of the applicant. If
successful, net loss in fish habitat would be minimized
(ASMCRA permit application Vol. XVII, section 4.12.3.2).
The applicant's proposed plan to hydraulically assess and
review the premining stream conditions should provide them
with the appropriate baseline information to accomplish this
task. Their plan to include the appropriate agencies
including hydrologists and fish habitat specialists in the
reclamation design phase should enable them to satisfy
necessary requirements including reclamation and development
of riparian habitat.
The hydrologic monitoring program is detailed in Vol.
XVII, section 4.12.9 of the ASMCRA application. ASMCRA
permit stipulation 17 requires a quality assurance/quality
control program and monitoring reports. Hydrologic
monitoring reports are to be submitted quarterly; a summary
and analysis report is to be done annually. The purpose of
the hydrologic monitoring and reporting program is to
6-9
-------
• p results airs consistent with predictions
anderthate state and federal water quality requirements are
being met.
Continuous flow monitoring at seven surface water
statiCons will ^in ?o7~?L %
rteS"ine The monitoring locations include two on the
Chuitna River, three on LoneCreek¦ <2002, an, .wo on stream
?00 3 One of the stations on Lone Creek is required Dy
Stipulation 18 which calls for establishment of a continuous
Stipuiario above all mining disturbances. Gauging
g^?inns are also required on reclaimed permanent drainages
S and P? These stations are to be located below the
reconstructed stream channels immediately downstream from
the mine area. Water samples are to be taken quarterly.
In addition to the continuous monitoring stations, the
aDDlicant will maintain five limited monthly stations
located on streams 2002 and 2003. The continuous stations
located on 4_ * r-iin~*nc2 rpcordinq stream gauges and
Wili*ntaneous flow will be measured monthly. At the limited
instantaneou measurements will be made monthly.
Water°nquality parameters (TSS and turbidity) will be
measured at selected stations.
mh* flnnlicant will include an extensive ground-water
The aPPl including 55 wells, located up-gradient,
monitoring p g within the mining permit area. Selected
wells'3wTll be used "to^mSnitor wate? levels, water quality,
and spoil resaturation.
The surface water and ground water monitoring network
¦n I J for the examination of the impact of the mining
will allow t , ti and absolute differences between
operations o ground water contributions to the stream
surface water areas during the life of the mine. The
d^rwillbe collected, analyzed, and evaluated on an annual
Sjsis and will include a determination of the consistency
between predicted and actual changes.
Bonding
volume XXII of the AMSCRA application contains detailed
Volume bondinq requirements including projected
i" trof'^bo?, equipment, and supplies. Bonds are required
costs of lapor, v v Increment A bond covers the
in-tfaIeconst"ctTonS-and st^rt-up phase (years 1-3, and must
I hiiHad before any work in the ASMCRA permit area may
be ?nubml"®^R°e£p°erremit stipulation 9 requires establishment
begin. ASMCP begins in mining increments B and
C. ^Bonding "fo/Tncremen't B must be approved before the mine
begins operation in year 4.
6-10
-------
Coastal Consistency Determination and Other State Permits
State and federal permits for activities within the
Alaska coastal zone must be reviewed for consistency with
the Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP). The state
conclusive coastal consistency determination of June 29,
1988 was issued for the state permits issued in Phase 1 of
the state review. The permits (other than the ASMCRA per-
mit) which have been issued to date for the mine component
include ADF&G Title 16 permits, ADEC solid waste disposal
permits, ADNR water rights permits, ADNR material site
sales, rights-of-way, and other land leases. Each of these
authorizations are conditioned; many of the stipulations are
necessary to bring the project into compliance with the
coastal management program.
Alaska Department of Natural Resources
ADNR has major authority over surface coal mining in the
State as discussed earlier in this section as well as water
rights, rights-of-way over state land, land leases and use
permits and material sales. To date, ADNR has issued water
rights, material sales contracts, and land leases for the
mine and mine area.
ADNR Water Rights, LAS No. 5557
Water rights are granted to develop a drilled well for
the mine component. The applicant is required to ensure
that wastewater discharges comply with the Alaska Wastewater
Disposal Regulations. A metering system must be established
and records submitted to ADNR on a quarterly basis.
ADNR, Material Sale Contracts (Chuitna River Site, Old
Tyonek Creek Site and Nikolai Creek Site
The sales agreement requires the contract holder to
formulate a material site development and operation plan to
be approved by ADNR. The contract holder will be
responsible for all aspects of site preparation, material
extraction, and site restoration. A performance bond is
required.
ADNR, Leases for Permanent and Temporary Solid Waste
Disposal
The lessor is required to construct and operate the
site in accordance with ADEC solid waste disposal permits.
A performance bond is required.
6-11
-------
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
ADF&G is responsible for permitting work within
x streams of the state and for stream
anadromous fish streams Bridges, culverts, fords,
Cr?S?iilS sites within floodplains, and water intakes are
of the activities which fall under ADF&G' s authority.
,1m provides input to ADNR on right-of-way leases, to
corps of Engineers on 404 and Section permits through the
F?sh and Wildlife Coordination Act, and to Division of
Governmental Coordination on ACMP consistency
determinations.
anvsr,. Title 16 permit, Instream Work in Anadromous
Waters
ADF&G has issued four permits for streams within the
. > Middle Creek Tributary (200304) sediment
mine (200305, instream
mining 3) Middle Creek Tributary (200305) sediment pond no.
12? and 4) Middle Creek Tributary (200304) instream mining.
The conditions on each of these permits are the same.
rrh* nTrmits require that the applicant mitigate for
loss of fish habitat by construction of
unavoidable Mitigation will consist of four 1/2
replacement h 'salmon rearing to be located adjacent to
acre ponds f.tributary 2003. Plans and
coho salmon sp ^ submitted to ADF&G for approval
pr ior to commencement of construction. Maintenance of the
rearing ponds is also required.
An additional four permits have been issued for culvert
. ^ V7 in 1-hP mine road within the mine area: 1)
installation .. . (200 305 ) mine road culvert C-6, 2)
CrJJk (200 3) mine road culvert C-8, 3) Middle Creek
Middle Cyee„nn.06) mine road culvert C-9, and 4) Middle
tributary (200 306, (mine^ ^ ^ culvert C.1Q _ The
Creek tribut y as those placed on culvert
installation in the haul road which are discussed below
(6.2.2.1) .
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
Solid waste disposal permits, wastewater disposal
n,rmis burning permits, and air quality control permits to
P ^t-^'fall under the purview of ADEC. It should be noted
that although ADEC will issue the appropriate air quality
that, air. i y ^ review and approve the implementation
permits, E .ssue & gtate water quality
plans. Corps of Engineers and EPA actions to
certificate for the (.o p^ q{ ^ state oomply ^
assure that Quality standards. The water quality
Alaska Sta £or mixing zones, establishment of which
standards pr project to meet receiving water standards.
6-12
-------
ADEC, Solid Waste Disposal Facility (construction
waste)
This permit allows the development and operation of a
construction debris waste disposal landfill facility. The
site must be fenced and properly signed. Ditches must be
constructed to divert runoff. Extensive stipulations govern
the access to the dumping site, burning, hazardous waste,
litter, salvage, animal control, monitoring, site closure,
and records and reporting.
ADEC, Solid waste Disposal Facility (commercial
waste)
This permit covers the development and operation of a
sanitary landfill for incinerated commercial waste within
the mine site. The stipulations are essentially identical
to those listed for the construction waste site above.
6.2.1.2 Remainder of the Project Life
The remainder of the project life includes the period
from year 10 through year 34 (project termination). It is
anticipated that operations will continue as described above
and in Chapter 2.0 of this document. Volumes XI and XVI of
the ASMCRA permit application contain further details of
project termination. However, the ASMCRA permit does not
extend beyond 10 years; therefore, no mitigation in the form
of permit stipulations has yet been formulated for the
remainder of the project. Future permits will be based on
the mitigation and monitoring programs that have occurred in
the first ten years. Many of the permits discussed above
are for activities which will occur during construction or
are for specific permit terms; none extend beyond the SMCRA
period.
6.2.2 Transportation Corridor
The transportation corridor, which includes the haul
road and conveyor systems, is described in Chapter 2.0 of
this document. Only those portions of the transportation
system which exist within the mining area are included in
the ASMCRA application and permit.
6.2.2.1 First Ten Years
ADNR Water Rights, LAS No. 5556
ADNR has issued water rights for development of a
water source for both the transportation corridor and the
housing area. The rights are for a 25,000 gallon/day
drilled well. Wastewater discharges must comply with
disposal regulations promulgated by ADEC. The system must
be metered in a manner acceptable to ADNR and daily water
use records must be submitted to the agency on monthly basis.
6-13
-------
ADF&G, Title 16 permit, Instream Work in
Anadromous Waters
ADF&G has issued six permits for culvert installation
in the southern transportation corridor: 1) Middle Creek
tributary (200302) haul road culvert no. 2, 2) Middle Creek
tributary haul road culvert no. 6, 3) Tyonek Creek haul road
culvert no. 16, 4) Old Tyonek Creek haul road culvert no.
23, 5) Old Tyonek Creek tributary haul road culvert no. 28,
and 6) Old Tyonek Creek tributary no. 30.
The stipulations for each permit are similar. The
permittee must schedule a preconstruction meeting with ADF&G
and submit full plans and specifications, a description of
culvert installation methods, and a revegetation plan. The
culvert locations must be staked by surveyors and inspected
by ADF&G prior to culvert installation. The average cross-
sectional water velocity at the culvert outlet cannot exceed
1.8 fps except for a period not to exceed 48 hours during
the mean annual flood. At least 1/5 of the diameter of
round culverts must be set below the stream bed at both the
inlet and the outlet and culverts must be placed in and
aligned with the natural stream. Finally, all cut banks,
slopes and fills must be stabilized to prevent erosion.
Each of the transportation corridors under consideration for
this project would be subject to the above stipulation
requirements.
6.2.2.2 Remainder of the Project
To date, no state permits have been issued beyond the
first ten years. Permits will be applied for as part of the
5 year renewals.
6.2.3 Port Area
The state permits which have been issued are for the
Granite Point site; no permits have been issued for the Ladd
site.
6.2.3.1 First Ten Years
ADNR Water Rights, LAS 5558
Water rights have been granted to develop a 2,000
gallon/day drilled well at the proposed Granite Point port
site. The permittee is required to establish an acceptable
metering system and submit daily water use records to ADNR
on a monthly basis. Wastewater discharges are to comply
with ADEC regulation.
6-14
-------
6.2.3.2 Remainder of the Project Life
No state permits have been issued for port areas for
the remainder of the project.
6.2.4 Housing and Airstrip
6.2.4.1 First Ten Years
ADF&G, Title 16 permit, Instream work in
Anadromous Waters
ADF&G has issued a permit for culvert installation in
Middle Creek tributary (200302) for the proposed airstrip.
The conditions are similar to those described above for haul
road culvert installation (Section 6.2.2.1).
ADEC, Solid Waste Disposal Permit
This permit was issued to allow development and
operation of a sanitary landfill for incinerated waste from
a 500 person camp. Stipulations are similar to those
described for landfills in the mine area (Section 6.2.1.1).
6.2.4.2 Remainder of Project Life
No state permits have been issued for the housing area
and airstrip for the remainder of project life.
6.3 FEDERAL AND LOCAL PERMITTING AUTHORITIES
6.3.1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
6.3.1.1 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES)
The mine, housing area, and port (either Granite Point
or Ladd) will require NPDES permits for discharge of
pollutants to waters of the United States. Draft NPDES
permits are found in Appendix D of this document. Four
NPDES permits are proposed covering the Granite Point port
site, the mine site (sediment pond discharges), the housing
area and Ladd coal loading facility. The stipulations
proposed for these permits are extensive and include such
things as watershed monitoring programs, limitations on
chemical composition of effluents, sampling and reporting
requirements and development of best management plans.
These permits will be issued in conjunction with the EPA
Record of Decision on this EIS.
6-15
-------
6.3.2 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
The Corps of Engineers must issue permits under Section
40 4 of the Clean Water Act and under Section 10 of the
Rivers and Harbors Act. The public notice and 404(b)(1)
evaluation for this project is found in Appendix C of this
document. The permits will be issued in conjunction with
the Corps of Engineers Record of Decision for the EIS. No
permit stipulations have yet been formulated.
6.3.3 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
The USFWS has no permit authority over the Diamond
Chuitna Coal Project. However, the agency has prepared a
mitigation policy statement which appears in Appendix B of
this document. In addition, USFWS reviews COE and other
permit actions under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act.
6.3.4 Local Permits
6.3.4.1 Kenai Peninsula Borough
Currently, the mine and mine area fall outside the
proposed Kenai Peninsula Borough coastal zone; no permits
are required under this authority. The Borough does not
require building permits and there is no zoning in this
area. Therefore, no local permits will be required for the
coal project. Rights-of-way over KPB land may need to be
obtained depending upon the route chosen for the
transportation corridor.
6.4 OTHER POTENTIAL MITIGATION STRATEGIES
This section addresses alternative mitigation
strsts^ les and additional potential mitigation measures
which may be considered by the permitting agencies. This
includes additional mitigation beyond that already committed
to in the project mitigation plan (Chapter 2.0) or already
required under existing permit approvals (Sections 6.2 and
6.3). It is important to note that the mitigation plan
included in the project proposal which consists of
mitigation measures committed to by DACC for all project
components is not repeated here. The reader is encouraged
to refer to Chapter 2.0 which describes those mitigation
measures incorporated by the applicant into the project
proposal.
The ASMCRA permit review process undertaken by the
State of Alaska and DACC was lengthy and exhaustive.
Measures which augment those contained in the ASMCRA permit
are discussed below. This in no way reflects negatively on
the ASMCRA process, but rather shows where mitigation
presented in that program might be further addressed within
the total ASMCRA mine permit area or applied to project
components outside the mine area.
6-16
-------
6.4.1 Terrestrial Environment
6.4.1.1 Vegetation
The revegetation program for the mine permit area as
reflected in the ASMCRA permit is ambitious and involves a
variety of techniques. However, the following items are
offered for consideration. Previous experience on other
projects within Alaska (e.g., trans-Alaska oil pipeline)
suggests that replacement of woody plant species using
nursery stock could have inconsistent and unpredictable
results (Hilliker 1985). Also, revegetation may be
facilitated by the inclusion of native species in the
program as much as possible. Use of such species (e.g.,
Norcoast Bering Hairgrass) would help speed the transition
from revegetation communities to natural communities.
Moreover, the feasibility of using islands of natural
vegetation should be tested as soon as possible as this
method would supply seed and propagule source from which
naturally-occuring species could reinvade reclaimed areas.
Nursery stock, when used, should be from ecotypes that are
adapted to the area.
In areas outside the mine permit area, revegetation and
monitoring as applied within the ASMCRA area should be
required for all disturbed sites which will not be used
beyond the life of the mine. Revegetation for erosion
control and reclamation should be done throughout the mine
life using the same principles discussed for the mine area
above.
6.4.1.2 Wildlife
Many of the same types of revegation, drainage, and
reclamation measures described in the ASMCRA permit for the
mine and mine facilities would provide for habitat
reclamation and enhancement and mitigation of impacts to
aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources along the
alternative coal transportation corridors and port sites.
The location and design of individual mitigation features
should be refined and modified according to information
provided by ongoing wildlife monitoring programs.
Right-of-way leases for the coal transportation system
should include provisions for siting large animal crossings
at locations most likely to be used by wildlife. The
minimum average frequency, should be as proposed by the
applicant in Chapter 2.0, i.e., at least one wildlife
crossing each 962 yds. Detailed wildlife utilization
patterns should be confirmed by the wildlife monitoring
program during the first two years of road operation.
6-17
-------
A prohibition of animal feeding should be strictly
enforced. The ADF&G regulation prohibiting such feeding (5
AAC 81.218) could be posted conspicuously throughout the
camp. All workers should receive environmental orientation
which should stress the importance of not feeding wildlife,
the usual consequences to the animals themselves, and the
potential danger to humans.
Drivers should be made aware of the potential for
collisions between moose and vehicles along the haul road.
Before construction begins, measures could be developed to
minimized the possibility of collisions. The applicant
plans to clear vegetation for a distance of between 7.9 m
and 15.2 m (25 and 50 ft) from the edges of road surfaces to
discourage feeding and increase visibility. In moose
concentration areas (e.g., at conveyor crossings), reduced
speed limits could be used at dusk and dawn. Additional
precautions might include continual clearing of snow from
all road surfaces for a sufficient width to permit moose to
use the road shoulders rather than compete with vehicles for
the road surface itself. Snowblowers could be used to
eliminate deep roadside snow berms. On steep or blind
curves, lighting could be installed. In the event of
collisions, procedures for reporting to ADF&G and salvaging
the meat should be established.
Before construction begins, plans could also be
developed for dealing with nuisance animals. Measures for
handling all situations from removing animals which have
wandered into a work area to dealing with dangerous animals
could be included in the plan. Trained personnel with
proper equipment for animal removal could be available at
all times. ADF&G should be apprised of any situations
involving animals which may arise during construction or
mine operation as required by regulation.
To minimize disturbance of eagle nest trees,
construction of roads or other facilities could be avoided
within 100 m (110 yd) of the trees between March 1 and July
1. This standard buffer is used by USFS and USFWS in
southeast Alaska. If eagles have not nested and laid eggs
at the site by May 15, construction could begin. A 457 m
(1,500 ft) vertical and horizontal exclusion zone for
helicopters could be established around the eagle trees from
March 1 through May 15. If nesting did occur, the exclusion
zone could continue until September 1.
6-18
-------
6.4.2 Freshwater Environment
6.4.2.1 Hydrology
Maintaining the hydrological integrity of the Chuitna
River was one of the primary issues identified during the
scoping process. As described in Chapter 5.0, significant
short- and long-term alterations to hydrological charac-
teristics would result from the proposed project. Two
general goals of mitigation would be: 1) to assure adequate
flow in the affected Chuitna River tributaries during the
period of disruption and 2) to restore hydrologic balance
and stream integrity as quickly as possible after mining.
Mine operation would involve development of a complex
system of drainage control including peripheral drainage
ditches, sediment ponds, and mine pit dewatering. The
surface and ground water captured by the mine drainage would
represent a loss to the annual flow of several streams. To
accomplish the first goal described above, it would be
necessary to continuously return the water accumulated by
the mine drainage to the affected streams in approximately
the same proportions as it was removed. Under current
project plans, water releases would necessarily be tied to
the settling pond systems and discharge would normally be to
the most easily accessible drainages. Allocation of return
flows to optimize downstream flow conditions is, therefore,
proposed as an optional mitigation measure for consideration
by the permitting agencies. Such allocations would be
complex, especially in the later years of mining when three
streams would be affected. Decisions regarding allocation
of return water to the various streams would involve impact
trade-offs and should consider the protection and/or
optimization of fish habitat.
There is no assurance that sufficient unfrozen water
would be available in the winter in the mine pit to
supplement stream flows; consequently, some form of water
storage might be needed to meet target flows in the winter.
The system would need to be continually modified to
accommodate mine expansion; this would add considerable
cost.
Monitoring of winter flows to assure integrity of fish
habitat is also suggested. The hydrology of areas affected
by the transportation corridor can generally be maintained
by installation of properly designed and installed drainage
structures. There are no streams which would be directly
affected by the housing area, airstrip, or port sites.
6-19
-------
6 4.2.2 Surface and. Ground-water Quality
roncern was expressed during scoping regarding the
mialitv of water running off or leaching through coal
Snriae oiles Leaching tests (Bookcliffs 1985) indicate
tha^^ water quality would be relatively high and,
consequently, Diamond Alaska does not plan to install an
impermeable liner under the coal stockpiles at the mine
service area or port site. Installation of such liners is
suggested as an optional mitigation measure to prevent the
remote possibility of ground-water contamination and as a
contingency against the possibility that coal from untested
options of the mine could contaminate water to a greater
dearee than the existing tests indicate. An impermeable
liner could have the potential detrimental effect of
increasing the amount of contaminated surface runoff
collected by perimeter drainage systems. This situation
Sould require additional treatment measures before the water
was ultimately discharged to surface waters. The use of
ImpermeabTe liners iSg technically feasible but would
represent a substantial expense.
6.4.2.3 Aquatic Biology
Physical changes to the Chuitna River drainage and
resulting adverse impacts to fish resources represent one of
the major issues identified during the scoping process.
Adverse impacts to fish, especially salmon, have been
identified in Chapter 5.0 as one of the more significant
potential project effects. Impacts would include temporary
loss of rearing and spawning habitat for coho and chinook
salmon because of direct impacts during mine development
?*able 5-14) and perhaps a net loss of these habitats in
the long-term because of difficulty in restoring streams
that have been mined. Because of the significance of these
and the interest expressed by regulatory agency
representatives, a workshop was held on August 20, 1985, to
SScu.. impacts to aquatic^ -o-es, Ration options,
SI monitoring approkches discussed in th.«1^1°, toe
hpan included by the applicant in the ASMCRA permit
application or have been adopted as stipulations on the
aSMCRA permit (Section 6.2.1.1). These documents put in
pface commitments to protect fish habitats, assure adequate
restoration and minimize impacts in those areas where some
impact is unavoidable during the first 10 years of mining.
The ranqe of measures included in the ASMCRA permit is
considered adequate within the context of the relatively
minor impacts that would occur during the early years of
mining * However, the following additional suggestions are
made:
6-20
-------
1. Emphasis in the monitoring program should be placed
on quantitative, rather than qualitative measures of fish
useage. Where qualitative electroshocking is required, as
per Stipulation 13, little additional effort would be
required in streams the size of 2002, 2003 , and 2004 to
conduct 2- or 3-pass quantitative removal estimates. The
increased information content in the results would allow
much improved assessment of project impacts and the success
of mitigation efforts. Quantitative surveys should also be
required to evaluate the success of ponds constructed for
coho rearing.
2. Performance standards, by which to judge the
effectiveness of mitigation or the need for compensatory
mitigation, are essential elements of the mitigation
strategy. To achieve a goal of no net loss of habitat or
fish production, a combination of the following standards
might be used to recognize when and where an impact is
occurring, to quantify its influence, and to mitigate
accordingly:
° Instream flow relationships and requirements among
various evaluation species (Chinook, coho and pink
salmon, and rainbow trout; planned for year 7).
0 Numbers of fish normally produced by the affected
stream system (statistical comparison of spawner
counts and juvenile fish density with pre-project
data).
0 EPA and/or State of Alaska water quality standards
(assessments of likely risk due to any changes in
water quality documented during monitoring).
0 Correlation of fish abundance trends with any
changes in stream hydrology.
0 Reclamation of mined out streams outside the 10 year
ASMCRA boundary and within the 30 year boundary.
3. During times when construction is undertaken
coincident with critical periods of fish spawning and egg
incubation, there should be a full-time, on-site
environmental monitor, preferably a fisheries biologist,
with authority to stop work that may cause major stream
disturbances. Such disturbances might include flow
interruptions or surges, effects resulting from failure of
sediment control structures, and severe water quality
effects outside of areas affected by sediment control
structures (e.g., along the transportation corridor). This
individual should have direct access to and the backing of
construction management.
4. The study of the "instream flow needs for spawning,
incubation, rearing and migration life stages of anadromous
6-21
-------
fi*h« referred to in Stipulation 13 should consist of
construction of habitat time series plots showing actual
habitat available for each life history stage through the
.SnrnSriate times of the year under prepro^ect flows and for
vear 7 and year 10 flows (assuming sufficiently accurate
model calibrations were achieved in the initial IFIM
modeling and assuming that no major changes have occurred in
channel morphology). This would allow direct comparison of
T effects of any project-altered flow regimes on fish
habitat of concert a'nd ' should aid in interpretation of
results of monitoring adult and juvenile fish densities.
Many complex decisions possibly involving impact
trade-offs would be required over the mine life. Successful
implementation of mitigation and restoration measures would
require a concerted effort by well-informed persons. A
mitigation option is the formation of an aquatic habitat
advisory comuttee consisting of agency and industry
personnel which could provide recommendations to project
management. Committee members could be selected on the
btsis of professional qualifications as well as long-term
commitment to the project to assure consistency of input.
Operation procedures and channels of communication would
need to be well defined to avoid unnecessary delays and to
allow timely resolution of key issues. Such a committee
would tend to minimize impacts by providing the best
professional advice on how to maximize the effectiveness of
the mitigation opportunities available.
m the initial years of mine operation, a considerable
information base will be developed on the actual impacts of
mining operations, the success of mitigation measures taken,
the success of reclamation of mined-through streams.
?£is knowledge „ill be invaluable in planning and
7 ? mi 1-iaation for the greater impacts to surface
waters6 including two anadromous fish streams (2003 and
2004) Streams to be mined through will require additional
mitigation measures beyond those described in detail in the
ASMCRA permit application for the initial stages of mining
through year 10.
x. ffl;HMfion measures and their feasibility
Compensatory were discussed at the aquatic
in the project options was developed which
habitat workshop. jnrina the initial years of mining,
should be *tUaily implemented in the first years so
that^ the most attractive options can be put into service on
an appropriate timetable. Options include:
o creation of stream access to existing ponds or
?akes- this could be combined with deliberate
introduction of fish (e.g., sockeye salmon) or
without fish introduction.
6-22
-------
0 Creation of additional new rearing ponds within
mined or unmined areas.
° Additional instream habitat improvements similar to,
or modified from those planned in the initial mining
period.
0 Incubation of eggs in incubation boxes within
selected portions of the Chuitna River drainage.
° Creation of spawning and incubation channels through
enhancement of existing Chuitna River side
channels.
Beaver control and/or dam removal; this may have
marginal value as a permanent mitigation measure
because of habitat trade-offs.
0 Annual removal of stream blockages (including beaver
dams) as directed on an as-needed basis by a
professional fishery biologist.
0 Installation of fish ladders to increase range of
fish movements in the Chuitna drainage (workshop
participants were not aware of any obvious potential
for fish ladder use).
° Optimization of stream habitat via flow allocation;
technical and economic feasibility may be limited.
All of the above mitigation options would require
detailed site-specific evaluations to determine optimum
locations for mitigation sites. A study of compensatory
mitigation opportunities in the Chuitna River watershed
should be conducted during the first two years of mine site
preparation to allow the development of a detailed
mitigation plan prior to the time when habitat losses might
occur. Such an approach would be consistent with the
statutory responsibilities of ADF&G relative to the issuance
of Fish Habitat Permits per Alaska Statute 16.05 as well as
the goals of Appendix B. Detailed mitigation planning could
be phased to correspond with the permit terms dictated by
the ASMCRA permit. The aquatic habitat committee described
in the previous section should continue to function as
described for the remainder of the project life and through
completion of the reclamation phase.
6.4.3 Marine Environment
Pile driving and other highly disruptive in-water
activities that might be required for trestle construction
could be discontinued during the peak periods for chinook
and sockeye salmon migration to minimize adverse impact on
set net fisheries and on the fish themselves.
6-23
-------
Commercial fishing success near the port area could be
monitored in cooperation with ADF&G after trestle
construction. Monitoring could be continued for at least 3
years to detect whether the port facilities affect fishing
success.
6.4.4 Air Quality
The generation and transport of dust and other
particulate emissions created by various project activities
should be monitored with emphasis on potential impacts to
centers of human habitation. Primary emphasis should be
placed on fine particulate matter (PM-10) and visibility
impacts on the Tuxedni National Wildlife Refuge (Class I
airshed).
6.4.5 socioeconomic Aspects
The scoping response indicated considerable concern on
the part of Tyonek residents that they have the opportunity
to reap some benefit from the project to offset some of the
adverse impacts that might occur to Native lifestyles and
traditional subsistence resources. Programs by the applicant
to promote employment of Tyonek residents, to enhance the
quality of life in other ways, and to generally establish
good relations between the mine development organization and
the village of Tyonek might be appropriate and desirable.
6.4.6 Cultural Resources
Baseline studies did not examine all project facility
sites in detail for antiquities and historic resources
because not all facilities locations were clearly identified
at the time of the studies. Therefore, additional surveys
could be conducted prior to construction. When project
siting is definitely within areas proposed for development,
the location could be adjusted to avoid the site or the site
could be examined and cleared using a methodology approved
by the State Historic Preservation Officer.
6.4.7 Subsistence and Recreation
Periodic monitoring of postproject subsistence and
recreation use patterns and success rates could detect
project-induced changes. Monitoring efforts should be
coordinated with ADF&G subsistence monitoring programs.
6-24
-------
Chapter 7.0
Consultation and Coordination
-------
7.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
7.1 INTRODUCTION
A designated purpose of an EIS is to actively involve
regulatory agencies and the public in the decision making
process. EPA conducted a broad public and interagency con-
sultation and coordination program throughout development of
this EIS. Input was solicited from the beginning of the
project and this input has been incorporated into the docu-
ment. Specific public and agency involvement is described
below.
7.2 SCOPING
The scoping process conducted by EPA provided an oppor-
tunity for members of the public, special interest groups,
and agencies involved in the EIS process to assist in
defining significant environmental issues. Main objectives
of these scoping meetings were to:
° present an overview of the proposed Diamond
Chuitna Coal Project;
° identify the major environmental issues to be
addressed in the EIS;
° identify areas where additional information was
needed;
° receive comments and questions regarding environ-
mental impact concerns; and
° incorporate those comments and questions into the
EIS planning process.
The formal scoping meetings and the approximate number
of persons in attendance were as follows:
In addition to the formal scoping meetings, the
following prescoping meetings were held to provide infor-
mation about the project and solicit questions and comments:
Date
Location Attendance Participants
Jan. 8, 1985 Anchorage
Jan. 8, 1985 Anchorage
Jan. 9, 1985 Soldotna
Jan. 10, 1985 Tyonek
17
80
20
27
State & federal agencies
Public meeting
Public meeting
Public meeting
7-1
-------
Date
T.ocation Attendance _ Participants
Dec IX, 1984 Anchorage 16 State & federal agencies
Dec 12, 1984 Anchorage 2 Alaska Center for the
Dec. Environment; Trustees
for Alaska
The oral and written comments and questions received
riurina and following the scoping meetings were documented in
a Responsiveness Summary (EPA 1985). Its purpose was to
Srovide a public record of the issues and concerns raised,
?n orovide a response to those issues and concerns, and to
serve as a blueprint for the EIS process to follow A sum-
marv of the comments received at the scoping meetings and
from written responses is shown in Table 7-1.
7.3
agency involvement
<-he Size and nature of the project, several
Because of the s aaencies have been involved in
federal, state, and mu Pentities and their major respon-
the EIS process. Tne:se
sibilities are listed below:
Federal Agencies
.. - B..,^«nmpnfal Drn^ntion Agency: The EPA is
0 U-Ji .,fajor3i—aaencv for the Diamond Chuitna
?"l ^oieot "nd has responsibility for prepara-
Coal that meets National Environmental
tL?n °(NEPM requirements. Additionally, EPA
u° ricnnnsibility for issuing National Pollutant
D i s c h a r g e E1 i m i n a t i o n System (NPDES) permits for
Discharge h rae EPA must also concur on
wastewater Section 40 4 permit (see U.S. Army
issuance of a
Corps of Engineers below).
. , rnTr rnrnS of Engineers: The Corps is a
° forthi EIS and has respon-
cooperating agency sectlon 404 wetlands and
Section 10 navigable waters dredge and hll per-
mi ts.
v* _ —.*3 wildlife Service: The USFWS has
° threatened and
responsibi Y and has advised and consulted
with0other federal and state agencies on fish and
wildlife issues.
in? Fisheries Service: The NMFS has
° - n^biTItv for certain threatened and
endangered species and has advised and consulted
»i?h other federal and state agencies on anadro-
lous, marine, and intertidal fish and marine mam-
mal issues•
7-2
-------
TABLE 7-1
MATRIX OF COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM SCOPING MEETINGS AND WRITTEN RESPONSES
Comment Sources
Meetings
Written Comments
Summary
0)
CO
o
•
o
•H
CO
u
CJ
a
>
0)
CO
•
a
U
u
a.
CO
3
a)
0)
a.
CO
c
CO
o
CO
o
u
0
0
0
o
bi
•H
•
o
•
E
CJ
CJ
o
D*
0)
>
0)
5
•H
U_
U
CO
c
a>
CJ
•
CO
.0
o
•H
a>
•H
•H
OS
c
J*
3
-O
IS
a
H
CO
X
o*
•s
o
CO
Q.
3
H
4J
a.
•o
c
u
CO
to
a
-O
c
3
*
•
u
•
j:
•H
3
0
O
•H
u
c
-J
0)
>
<
CO
ai
a
a.
u
CO
3
<*.
CO
•H
c
4)
to
c
w
Q.
O
o
z
u.
LkJ
"O
•H
U4
jj
o
o
u
c
0
o
O
0)
¦H
u
u
i-H
CO
•
t
•
o
c
s.
c
9>
£
w
•
a
4->
4->
4J
e
0)
o
0
-Q
>
•C
to
<
•U
>
u
a
a
a
3
oi
c
o
>>
3
c
4-1
•H
CL
CO
¦O
o
0)
0)
0)
•H
<
<
CO
~—
a.
Id
a
L.
Ui
z
<
u
o
a
Q
o
1
2
8
8
1
4
2
3
4
1
1
2
1
3
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
8
1
3
1
1
3
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
5
4
4
11
2
2
1
1
1
5
2
1
1
1
7
1
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
2
1
1
2
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
Number
Comments Sources
A. Physical Environment
1. Water
Quality
Quantity
Surface hydrology
Groundwater hydrology
Marine hydrology
2. Air quality
3. Biological Environment
1. Wetlands
2. Fre8hwat"er fish
3.
4.
Marine Biology
Wildlife
C. Hunan Environment
1. Employment
2. Subsistence
3. Lifestyle
4. Commercial fishing
5. Increased access
6. Population increase
7. Socioeconomics
8. Land use
9. Wilderness
0. Project Design and
Construction
1.
2.
4.
5.
6.
Facilities siting
Mine area
Strip mining
Overburden stockpile
Topsoil storage
Coal stockpiles
Coal processing
Transportation
Corridor location
Conveyor system
Road system
Port site
Trestle
Vessel traffic
Housing/airstrip
Power generation
29
4
9
8
1
14
4
9
7
24
5
10
10
8
8
3
4
1
2
3
a
3
4
6
4
12
3
8
3
2
7
3
5
4
4
6
3
4
1
2
2
5
2
4
4
3
a
2
5
3
1
6
7-3
-------
TABLE 7-1
(continued)
MATRIX OF COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM SCOPING MEETINGS AND WRITTEN RESPONSES
Comment Sources
Meetings
Written Comments
Summary
Number
Comments Sources
7. Drainage control and
wastwater treatment
8. Sewage & solid waste
disposal
9. Soil erosion/
stabilization
10. Blasting
11. Fuel/reagent spills
12. Herbicides
13. Borrow sources
14. Duat control
15. Noise
16. Economics
17. Technical feasibility
18. Reclamation
19. Mitigation
20. Monitoring
E. EIS PROCESSES
1. Generally applicable
comments
2. Baseline data
presentation
3. Cumulative impacts
4. Tiered EIS
5. Alternate energy
sources analyses
6. Regional perspective
19
6
3
4
1
2
9
3
5
1
19
10
8
13
6
6
1
4
3
7-4
-------
State Agencies
0 Department of Natural Resources; The DNR has
responsibility for issuing the Surface Mining
Permit under authority of the Alaska Surface Coal
Mining Control and Reclamation Act. In addition,
DNR has responsibility for issuing right-of-way
permits across state land, tidelands permits and
leases, water rights permits, gravel source per-
mits, permits to construct and modify a dam, and
burning permits.
° Department of Fish and Game; The ADF&G has
responsibility for issuing Title 16 permits for
any actions in anadromous fish streams or which
might obstruct fish passage.
° Department of Environmental Conservation; The DEC
has responsibility for issuing a Certificate of
Reasonable Assurance that states the proposed pro-
ject would meet state water quality standards. It
must also authorize plans, specifications, and
proposed methods of operation to assess air
quality emission standards and to assure proper
disposal of solid wastes. The agency also reviews
oil spill contingency plans.
° State Historic Preservation Office; The SHPO has
responsibility for issuing a clearance for
construction following adequate archaeological
surveys.
° Governor's Office of Management and Budget: OMB
must concur with the applicant's coastal zone
management consistency determination that, to the
extent practicable, the project would be con-
sistent with the approved state coastal zone man-
agement plan.
Local Government
0 Kenai Peninsula Borough; The Borough has local
government responsibilities for planning, zoning,
and solid waste disposal permitting and, as a lan-
downer, must issue a right-of-way for the trans-
portation corridor across borough lands.
The first formal meeting with the agenc.-.es was held on
December 11, 1984 in Anchorage. Since then, agency involve-
ment has continued via: 1) formal review of the Responsive-
ness Summary and issue identification process; 2) field
visits to the Diamond Chuitna project site; 3) review of a
preliminary draft of the DEIS; 4) a July 25, 1985, meeting
to discuss the preliminary draft; and 5) informal phone
calls among EPA, EIS team members, and agency personnel.
7-5
-------
In addition, the Corps and DNR are formal cooperating
agencies for the EIS, as provided for in the Council on
Environmental Quality Regulations governing preparation of
an EIS. As such, the Corps and DNR throughout the EIS pro-
cess provided technical assistance in their areas of exper-
tise and in matters relating to permits within their
jurisdictions.
7.4 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
public meetings were held January 8-10, 1985 as part of
the scoping process^ In addition, acting ^as "J*
^rtndenwraitten0co™ent3 from the general public and these
groups were documented and addressed in the Responsiveness
Summary (Table 7-1).
j._i rrrnnn^ in Anchoira^s ^reviewed. a prelimi
Environment g^ Pmeeting with those groups was
nary draft of the DEIS an^ fche draft_ The ^ative
^ of Tvonek (NVT) and the Tyonek Native Corporation
T^C)9 renewed a preliminary draft of the DEIS. A meeting
wis held wTth representatives of the two organizations m
Anchorage on July 26, 1985.
The public may informal^ddi-
tion,"publicparticipation opportunities include:
o the formal 60-day period for public review and
written comment following publication of the
draft EIS.
o oublic hearings during the draft EIS review period
?o discuss updated project status, answer
mixtions, and receive comments on the draft EIS.
a?1 wri?t4n comments received during the draft EIS
reiiew period will be indivi dually addressed m
the EIS.
o formal review comment period following
publication of the final EIS.
u on the draft EIS were held during
tUb1988 in Anchorage, Tyonek, and Soldotna. Chapter
lX!o describes the public comments and responses to the
DEIS.
7.5 PROJECT INFORMATION CENTERS
proiect information and related documents, including
u Studies, Responsiveness Summary, Table of
the baseline detailed Permit Application to Conduct
Contents for draft EIS, are available for review
durin^normal business hours at the following locations:
7-6
-------
Z.J. Loussac Library Kenai Community Library
3600 Denali Street 163 Main Street Loop
Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Kenai, Alaska 99611
Tyonek Village Community Center
Tyonek, Alaska 99682
Sets of the detailed 27-volume Permit Application to
Conduct Surface Coal Mining are at the following locations:
Soldotna, AK 99669
7 . 6 AGENCY CONTACTS
For additonal information or submittal of questions and
concerns relating to the proposed Diamond Chuitna Coal
project or the EPA's EIS, please contact:
EPA EIS Consultant
Rick Seaborne James E. Hemming
EIS Project Officer Assistant Project Manager
Environmental Evaluation Dames & Moore
Branch (WD-136) 5761 Silverado Way, Bldg. P
Environmental Protection Agency Anchorage, AK 99518-1657
1200 Sixth Avenue Telephone: (907)562-3366
Seattle, Washington 98101
Telephone: (206)442-8510
Division of Mining
Dept. of Natural Resources
Eighth Floor
3601 C Street (Frontier Bldg)
Anchorage, AK 99503
Diamond Alaska Coal Company
1227 W. 9th Avenue, Ste. 201
Anchorage, AK 99501
Resource Development Dept.
Kenai Peninsula Borough
147 N. Binkley
Dames & Moore
5761 Silverado Way, Bldg. P
Anchorage, AK 99518-1657
7-7
-------
Chapter 8.0
List of Preparers
-------
8.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Rick Seaborne and William Riley
Diamond Alaska Coal EIS Project Officers
DAMES & MOORE (Third Party EIS Consultant)
Name
James E. Hemming, M.S.
J.W. Morsell, M.S.
Michael C.T. Smith, Ph.D.
(Terra Nord)
David E. Erikson, M.S.
J. Michael Stanley
Douglas Brewer
Gene R. Andrews, M.S.
L.A. Peterson, M.S.
(L.A. Peterson &
Associates, Inc.)
Jonathan P. Houghton, Ph.D.
Jerry C. Wilson, M.S., Ph.D.
David C. Clark, M.A., M.En.
(Economic Planning
Resources)
Loren Hettinger, M.S., Ph.D.
Stephen R. Braund, M.A.
(Stephen R. Braund &
Associates)
Nancy Hemming
(Falls Creek Environmental)
Responsibility/Discipline
Project Manager
Wetlands
Assistant Project Manager
and Wildlife
Habitat Evaluation
Geology
Air Quality
Water Quality
Water Quality
Freshwater and Marine Biology
Oceanography
Visual Resources and Cultural
Resources
Vegetation, Soils
Subsistence & Socioeconomics
Report Coordinator,
Technical Editor
8-1
-------
Chapter 9.0
EIS Distribution List
-------
9.0 EIS DISTRIBUTION LIST
9.1 FEDERAL AGENCIES
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Federal Activities, Washington, D.C.
Region VIII, Denver, CO
Alaska Operations Office, Anchorage, AK
Air and Energy Research Laboratory, Research
Triangle Park, NC
U.S. Department of the Interior
Office of Environmental Project Review,
Washington, D.C.
Regional Environmental Officer, Anchorage, AK
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
State Director's Office, Anchorage, AK
Alaska Regional Office, Anchorage, AK
Western Alaska Ecological Services, Anchorage,AK
U.S. Geological Survey, Anchorage, AK
Bureau of Mines, Juneau, AK and Anchorage, AK
National Park Service
Regional Director's Office, Anchorage, AK
Lake Clark National Park, Kenai, AK
Alaska Resources Library, Anchorage, AK
Bureau of Land Management
State Director's Office, Anchorage, AK
U.S. Department of Commerce
National Marine Fisheries Service, Anchorage, AK
Director's Office, Juneau, AK
Office of Surface Mining, Washington, D.C. and
Denver, CO
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
Juneau, AK
9-1
-------
U.S. Department of Agriculture
U.S. Forest Service, Juneau, AK
Director's Office
Tongass National Forest, Sitka, AK
Soil Conservation Service, Anchorage, AK
State Conservationist
U.S. Department of Defense
Department of the Army, Alaska District,
Corps of Engineers, Anchorage, AK
District Engineer
U.S. Congress
Honorable Ted Stevens, U.S. Senator
Honorable Frank Murkowski, U.S. Senator
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation,
Washington, D.C.
Indian Health Service, Anchorage, AK
9.2 JOINT FEDERAL/STATE
Alaska Land Use Council
Federal Co-Chairman, Anchorage, AK
State Co-Chairman, Anchorage, AK
9.3 STATE AGENCIES
Office of the Governor
Honorable Steve Cowper, Governor
Division of Governmental Coordination,
Anchorage, AK
Alaska House of Representatives
Honorable F. Kay Wallis
Department of Environmental Conservation
Commissioner's Office, Juneau, AK
Southcentral Regional Office, Anchorage, AK
Division of Environmental Quality Management,
Juneau, AK
9-2
-------
Department of Fish and Game
Office of the Commissioner, Juneau, AK
Habitat Division, Anchorage, AK
Game Division, Soldotna, AK and Anchorage, AK
Sport Fish Division, Anchorage, AK
Department of Natural Resources
Commissioner's Office, Juneau, AK
Div. of Land and Water Management, Anchorage, AK
State Historic Preservation Office, Anchorage, AK
Division of Agriculture, Palmer, AK
Division of Geological and Geophysical Survey,
Eagle River, AK
Division of Forestry, Anchorage, AK
Division of Mining, Anchorage, AK
Northcentral District Office, Fairbanks, AK
Coastal Coordinator's Office, Juneau, AK
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
Commissioner's Office, Juneau, AK
Department of Community and Regional Affairs
Division of Community Planning, Anchorage, AK
and Juneau, AK
Department of Commerce and Economic Development
Office of the Commissioner, Juneau, AK and
Fairbanks, AK
Department of Labor
Commissioner's Office, Juneau, AK
Department of Law
Office of the Attorney General, Juneau, AK
9.4 LOCAL AGENCIES
Tyonek Native Corporation, Anchorage, AK
City of Seward, Seward, AK
City of Kenai, Kenai, AK
City of Soldotna, Soldotna, AK
Kachemak City, Homer, AK
City of Seldovia, Seldovia, AK
City of Homer, Homer, AK
9-3
-------
Kenai Peninsula Borough, Soldotna, AK
Arctic Slope Regional Corp., Barrow, AK
Native Village of Tyonek, Tyonek, AK
9.5 MEDIA
Homer Weekly News, Homer, AK
Seward Phoenix Log, Seward, AK
Peninsula Clarion, Kenai, AK
Anchorage Times, Anchorage, AK
Anchorage Daily News, Anchorage, AK
KRXA Radio, Seward, AK
KGTL/KCNL, Homer, AK
KBBI, Homer, AK
KIMO TV, Anchorage, AK
KSKA, Anchorage, AK
9.6 INTERESTED GROUPS AND BUSINESSES
AEIDC, University of Alaska, Anchorage, AK
College of Environmental Sciences, U of A,
Fairbanks, AK
School of Mineral Engineering, U of A, Fairbanks, AK
Resource Development Council, Anchorage, AK
Alaska Geological Society, Anchorage, AK
Western Mining Council, Kenai Chapter, Seward, AK
National Audubon Society, Anchorage, AK
Placer U.S. Inc., San Francisco, CA
ENSR, Fort Collins, CO and Anchorage, AK
Kenai Community Library, Kenai, AK
Joyce C. Carver Memorial Library, Soldotna, AK
Yukon Pacific Corp., Anchorage, AK
Coffman Engineers, Anchorage, AK
Exploration Supply & Equipment Inc., Anchorage, AK
Anderson Tug and Barge Co., Seward, AK
U.S. Borax and Chemical Corp., Ketchikan, AK,
San Francisco, CA, and Los Angeles, CA
OMD, Fairbanks, AK
Riverside Technology, Inc., Ft. Collins, CO
HWW Consultant, Anchorage, AK
Ott Water Engineers, Inc. Bellevue, WA
Ott Water Engineers, Inc., Anchorage, AK
Alaska Miners Association, Anchorage, AK
Institute of Water Resources, U of A, Fairbanks, AK
Sierra Club, Juneau, AK and Anchorage, AK
Alaska Center for the Environment, Anchorage, AK
Dames & Moore, Seattle, WA
Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, Juneau, AK
and Washington, D.C.
9-4
-------
National Wildlife Federation, Washington, D.C.
Seattle City Light, Seattle, WA
Elmer E. Rasmusson Library, Fairbanks, AK
Stone & Webster, Denver, CO
Northwest Mining Assoc., Spokane, WA
Colorado St. Univ. Libraries, Fort Collins, CO
AMAX Exploration Inc., Golden, CO
Z.J. Loussac Library, Anchorage, AK
Alaska Geological Survey, Fairbanks, AK
R.A. Kreig and Associates, Inc., Anchorage, AK
Natural Resources Defense Council, Washington, D.C.
Chugach Alaska Corp., Anchorage, AK
Piledrivers and Divers Local Union 2520,
Anchorage, AK
Kiewit Mining and Engineering, Sheridan, WY
Terra Nord, Anchorage, AK
Pacific Coast Coal Co., Black Diamond, WA
Trustees for Alaska, Anchorage, AK
Kerr McGee Coal Corp., Oklahoma City, OK
Chugach Electric Assoc., Anchorage, AK
Union Pacific Minerals, Westminister, CO
Specialty consultants Group, Redmond, WA
Resource Economics, Anchorage AK
Fluor Daniel Alaska, Inc., Anchorage, AK
Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Anchorage, AK
RDC, Anchorage, AK
Riverside Technology Inc., Ft. Collins, CO
Pacific Coast Coal Co., Black Diamond, WA
ERT, Inc., Anchorage, AK
HWW consultants, Anchorage, AK
9.7 INTERESTED CITIZENS
Pat Chuitt, Tyonek, AK
Wayne McCord, Tyonek, AK
Robert Freeman, Beluga River, AK
Seraphim Stephan, Sr., Tyonek, AK
Mr. Kroto, Tyonek, AK
Peter Merryman, Tyonek, AK
Willard McCord, Jr., Tyonek, AK
Don Standifer, Tyonek, AK
Ken McCord, Tyonek, AK
Dave Haugen, Anchorage, AK
Bruce Roberts, Chugiak, AK
Ron Wild, Chugiak, AK
Lee M. Carlson, Anchorage, AK
Robert Britch, Anchorage, AK
W.M. George, Anchorage, AK
Kathleen Hayes, Girdwood, AK
Sharon Wild, Chugiak, AK
9-5
-------
Anne Leggett, Anchorage, AK
Rod Chervas, Anchorage, AK
Ginger Steffy, Soldotna, AK
Cynthia L. McCord, Tyonek, AK
Michael Miller, Anchorage, AK
Thomas Brown, St. Louis, MO
Mira Starkloff, Tyonek, AK
Becky Gay, Anchorage, AK
Gloria Gill, Anchorage, AK
Roy Whitten, Anchorage, AK
Chuck Morris, Anchorage, AK
Jerry Booth, Anchorage, AK
N. Peratrovich, Juneau, AK
Robert N. Alder, Anchorage, AK
F.H. Grant, Anchorage, AK
E.V. Varela, Denver, CO
Larry Peterson, Fairbanks, AK
Stephen R. Braund, Anchorage, AK
Donald F. Lynch, Fairbanks, AK
Ike Waits, Anchorage, AK
Fred Pomeroy, Soldotna, AK
Willard E. Dunham, Seward, AK
David Ramseur, Washington, D.C.
P.D. Rao, Fairbanks, AK
Ronald A. Garzini, Seward, AK
Jess L. Hall, Kenai, AK
Floyd Heimbuch, Soldotna, AK
Arthur Cruz, Sr., Raton, NM
Gary Lawley, Anchorage, AK
Howard Gray, Anchorage, AK
Becky Gay, Anchorage, AK
Thomas Brown, St. Louis, MO
Michael Miller, Anchorage, AK
9-6
-------
Chapter 10.0
Public Response to DEIS
-------
10.0 PUBLIC RESPONSE TO DEIS
10.1 Introduction
Public hearings on the Diamond Chuitna Coal Project draft DEIS
were conducted by EPA in Alaska during August 1988. Specific
dates and locations were: Anchorage (August 17, 1988), Tyonek
(August 18, 1988), and Soldotna (August 19, 1988). Testimony
was presented at the Anchorage and Tyonek hearings; no testimony
was presented at the Soldotna hearing.
The hearing officer for all three hearings was Mr. Rich
Sumner of EPA Region 10. Each hearing was opened by Mr.
Sumner, who explained the NEPA and EIS process. Mr. Rick
Seaborne, the Diamond Chuitna EIS project officer for EPA,
then described the proposed project and the DEIS. Following
these introductions, public testimony was taken. Transcripts of
each hearing were kept and are available from:
Mr. Rick Seaborne
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Evaluation Branch, M/S WD-13 6
1200 6th Ave.
Seattle, Washington 98101
Testimony presented at the public hearings included
support for the project by both the Municipality of Anchorage
and the Archdiocese of Anchorage, a request to include a
recent Kenai Peninsula Borough planning document in the EIS,
concern by Tyonek residents that the existing dock at the
North Forelands be considered for coal transportation, and
concerns regarding the effects of offshore facilities on
commercial fishing, and the effects of the project on area
residents.
Written comments were received from seven individuals and
organizations:
1. U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Environmental
Project Review (Department of the Interior
Agencies)
2. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District
3. State of Alaska, Division of Governmental Coordination
(State of Alaska Agencies)
4 . Beluga Coal Company
10-1
-------
5. Tyonek Native Corporation
6. Trustees for Alaska
7. Ms. Tamara Smid
The following is a list of the primary concerns raised at
The to, . written comments received
the DEDfhp" DCEIs public review period. Each comment and
su^ariJfin Section 10.2. Section 10.3 contains
copies of written comments.
Detailed information on the Ladd port site, eastern and
northern transportation corridors is lacking.
The North Forelands port site should not be eliminated.
Mitigation chapter needs revision.
Air quality analysis is not adequate. Special attention
should be given to use of dust suppressant chemicals,
fugitive dust from truck hauling, and enclosure of the
conveyor.
The water quality discussions need attention, especially
iaiina with location of sewage outfalls and
bu?i£ of S mixing zones, and the draft NPDES
permits. The information contained in the EIS should be
SpJStld per current Alaska water quality standards.
Concern still exists regarding the effect of the project
on subsistence resources.
information in the EXS needs to be updated per the Alaska
surface coal mining permit, especially sections dealing
with revegetation, reclamation, soil, and topsoil.
10.2 Response to Public Comments
This chapter summarizes the comments received durina the* nuki •
comment period for the DEIS. These include both written anH?
comments. Responses to each comment are provided aft-* °f
respective comment summary. In some cases, the 5he
resulted in a change to the text. The locations of these eh*»
are indicated in the appropriate comment response. Plea*® Ss
that the comment summaries reference page numbers from thJ n??o
not the FEIS. une UEIS,
10-2
-------
Paul D. Gates Office of Environmental Projects Review
(DO I)
rnmment
1. EIS should have specific ground-water monitoring plans.
ppsponse
Applicant initiated baseline ground-water monitoring in 1982
which has continued to the present. These plans are
referenced in Chapter 6.0 of the FEIS. ASMCRA Volume XVII,
pages 4-232 through 4-237 discusses pre-operational and
operational ground-water monitoring. Pre-operational
monitoring will be implemented upon the commencement of
construction and will phase into operational monitoring.
Monitoring well locations appear in Map 4.12-31 (ASMCRA permit
application). All wells will be monitored semi-annually for
water quality. These wells are in alluvium, at springs, in
the overburden, Blue Coal, Red 3 Coal, Red 2 Coal, Sub-R2
Sand, Red 1 Coal, and Sub Red 1 Sand formations. Water
quality parameters include:
Total Dissolved Solids
P«
Conduct iv ity
Temperature
Total Suspended Solids
Turbidity
Total Hardness
Calcium
Magnesium
Sodium
Potassium
Ammonia-N
Total Alkalinity
Bicarbonate
Carbonate
Hydroxide
Chloride
Fluoride
Kjeldahl-N
Nitrate + Nitrite-N
Sulfate
Ortho-phosphate-P
Total Phosphorus-P
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silica
Silver
Titanium
Zinc
Phenol
Total Organic Carbon
10-3
-------
Comment.
9 Map faults that affect ground-water flow and discuss effect
on aquifers.
Rp.snonse
Faults added to Figure
aquifers is discussed in
the FEIS.
comment
3. Ladd Port site is not
Granite Point. Must be
other).
Response
The configuration *£"
and their layout, would be 2_12 and 2_13 are
the Granite P either port site. Additional baseline
environmental information for the Ladd port site has been
added to Chapter 4.0 of the FEIS.
Comment
• ~ mi'firtstion clan for each alternative.
4. No comprehensive mitigation p-lcui
Response
-mitiaation plan included in the project proposal
resisting of mitigation measures committed to by the
consisting or project components, is discussed m
2 0 The discussion of environmental consequences
5 *0) has taken these mitigation measures into
(Chapter 5. ) 6>0( which has been substantially
account. C P the detailed mitigation, reclamation,
an^ monitoring requirements imposed by the State of Alaska
and monitor y h Surface Coal Mining Program and other
permitting^ programs; ^r^uireInents of federal and local
permitting P^ogram^ and^he^ mea.ures^wh.ch could^e
considered y ^ construction or construction of the
PSrtatites are applicable to any route or location chosen.
Illy site-specific details will be handled m individual
agency permits.
2-4 in the FEIS. Effects on
Section 4.4.1 and 5.3.2.1 of
described in as much detail as
studied and quantified (HEP or
10-4
-------
Larry Reader U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Anchorage)
Comment
1. Mitigation must be treated more fully. Mitigative measures
in the text must be listed separately (reducing, avoiding,
minimizing). Also, list mitigative requirements from the
Division of Mining permit stipulations.
pesponse
See response to DOI comment #4, above. Also, Chapters 2.0 and
3.0 discuss mitigative measures which avoid, reduce, or
minimize potential adverse impacts which might occur as a
result of this project.
romment
2. The detail of Ladd corridor development is not on the same
level as the others.
pp.sponse
Additional information on the Northern/Ladd corridor is
included in this document, e.g., baseline environmental
studies (Chapter 4.0) and preliminary engineering (Chapter 2.0
and 5.0) for the road.
comment
3. Draft 404 (b) (1) evaluation developed by Dames & Moore left
out of Appendix C.
pasponse
Draft 404 (b) (1) evaluation has been included in FEIS.
a Patty Bielawski Division of Governmental Coordination, State
of Alaska
rmnnient
1. DEIS team should review the technical evaluation done by State
of Alaska during Phase I permitting and incorporate the
monitoring and mitigation developed for the mine component's
first 10 years.
pasoonse
Chapter 6.0 of the FEIS has been substantially rewritten and
includes State of Alaska permitting, monitoring, and
mitigation.
10-5
-------
Comment
2. Not enough information regarding mixing zone in receiving
water.
Response
See added paragraph in Section 2.3.3.1 of the FEIS. Mixing
zones for turbidity are referenced in the proposed final NPDES
permit or the mine area included in Appendix D of this FEIS
subject to 401 certification by ADEC. '
Comment
3. Mitigation to be adopted by applicant and supported by EPA is
unclear.
Response
See Chapter 2.0 and revised FEIS Chapter 6.0. See also
responses to DOI comment #4 and ACE comment #i above
Mitigation measures are required in the state mining permit"
other state permits, EPA, and COE permits. '
Comment
4. Mitigation should be formulated by a federal/state/ applicant
forum.
Response
A federal/state/applicant meeting was held 11/1/88 to discuss
mitigation. The agencies subsequently reviewed the revised
Chapter 6.0 (Mitigation, Reclamation, and Monitoring) and the
preliminary FEIS.
Comment
Page S-2
5. Conveyor should be covered on all sides; not just at stream
crossings.
Response
The conveyor is covered by a dome-shaped top and on th
windward side to prevent wind dispersion of coal and fi
from the belt. One side is left open below the belt"?3
allow visual inspection and maintenance access to the roll
and the belt. Coal and fines cannot pass through thS
belt to fall under the conveyor. However, as an add
level of safety, "pans" are put under the conveyor at
10-6
-------
stream crossings. At an unusually sensitive area such as the
Chuitna River crossing, the conveyor is completely enclosed
for maximum safety.
Comment
Page 2-9
6. FEIS should address the necessity of a mixing zone to meet
Alaska Water Quality Standards.
Response
Paragraph added to Section 2.3.3.1 discusses the
applicability of mixing zones. Mixing zones for turbiditiy
are referenced in the permit for the mine area which is
included in Appendix D of this FEIS subject to 4 01
certification by ADEC.
Comment
Page 2-14, Fig. 2-4
7. Figure and statements regarding treatment systems for sediment
ponds should be revised per state's stipulations.
Response
Figure 2-4 of the FEIS has been revised. Wording added to
Section 2.3.5 of the FEIS per ASMCRA stipulations.
comment
Page 2-15
8. Figure 2-7 and Figure 2-10 do not agree regarding buried moose
crossings on bluffs at Chuitna River crossing.
Response
The crossing shown on Fig. 2-7 (DEIS and FEIS) is just outside
the area shown in Fig. 2-10. The map scales of the map and
the artist's conception differ from one another.
Comment
Page 2-16, Fig. 2-8
9. Gravel sources must be more clearly delineated and
explanation provided regarding why they are the best
locations.
10-7
-------
Response
colpcted on the basis of the gravel
Material sites have been where gravel is needed.
available and provided in the state lease
process pr'ior^to gravel extraction.
rrnnment
10. "partially -close... conveyor needs further explanation.
Response
See response to cogent 5 pertaining to page S-».
£SfflSSDfi ¦ it„i, established for southern corridor
n. Distance or transferred to other corridors.
(S?atedn?oeburiedyan»al crossings)
ppsponse southern corridor are
The criteria for °f°s*gtablished for crossing designed
consistent with crU:er Ballenberghe 1977? Eide and
elsewhere in Alaska (se criteria can be applied to the
Miner 1979). Therefore the c«ueU_ The Diamond Chuitna
northern or eastern corr ^ a £requency of about 1.7
project would provide cross; g[ Moose crossing structures
gr'mile Pi™ ^Vra^of one^fmile on the trans-Alaska oil
were set at an avf ^ °rated that moose passage was achieved,
pipeline; it was dem°nstrf specific crossings to coincide with
Adjusting the location o P and conveyor alternatives
existing moose trai.Is accommodation of seasonal moose
would provide fven faetter utilization patterns will be
movements. monitoring program during th. first
twofyea^s of operation.
r-omment
Page 2-25/ 2-44 rence fuel handling standards, i.e., 100%
12. Document should re^ an(J 12„ o£ £reeboard.
of capacity or ^
10-8
-------
Response
The Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure (SPCC)
plan will be written to incorporate federal and state fuel
handling standards. New wording added to Section 2.10.3
of the FEIS.
Comment
Page 2-27
13. Burial of sludge requires coordination with ADEC regulations
regarding stabilization.
Response
Noted.
Comment
Page 2-30
14. Paragraph 6, statement regarding covering unsuitable soil
should be removed, (per DACC agreement with state)
Response
Wording removed from Section 2.8.1.1 of the FEIS.
comment
Page 2-34
15. Why is the fish mitigation plan and not the wildlife plan
discussed here?
Response
Mitigation measures pertaining to wildlife are found
throughout Chapter 2.0, but appear primarily in the
discussions of revegetation, reclamation, and the
transportation system. Chapter 6.0 also discuss
mitigation measures for wildlife. Mitigation measures
for fish are listed separately in Chapter 2.0 because it
was more convenient to present the information in a tabular
form in one place in the chapter.
Comment
Page 2-39, 2-41
16. Cleared trees must be peeled and stacked for the first 2 years
to prevent beetle infestation before burning in the mine pit
can commence.
10-9
-------
Response
Trees susceptible to spruce bark beetles will be limbed and
left in non-shady locations for no more than 1 year before
being buried or burned.
Comment
Page 2-41
17. Mitigation and erosion control after clearing conveyor
corridor must be discussed.
Response
Additional wording has been added to Section 2.9.3.2 to
indicate that ground cover will be left in place 'where
feasible to provide erosion protection. Revegetation is
discussed in Section 2.8 and 2.9.3.2.
Comment
page 2-46 ical dust suppressants must be identified as
18 • ^Iflfent'irorlental considerations.
to be used will be magnesium
chemical dust suppnBSsan\sde It is anticipated that they
or calcium chlorl.de* n nr application of water is
Sill be used only ^en "inQnce or twice a year. Effects on
insufficient, Y resources are expected to be
aquatic and terrestrial
negligible*
i-mrnnent
Paae 3-6 , arr,inst long term truck hauling of coal
"• rtSc'
-------
This option, which would include 311 round trips per day by
haul trucks at full production, was eliminated from further
consideration as discussed in Chapter 3.0 and is not proposed
nor considered as an alternative in the DEIS.
The proposed project, as analyzed in Chapter 5.0 entails
construction of a coal conveyor which would be used to
transport the coal to the port site. The DEIS analyzes the
air quality impacts associated with 99 round trips by haul
trucks (to and from the port site) per day. This is the
maximum number of trips predicted during the period the
conveyor is being constructed (at a production of 4 million
tons per year). The conveyor would subsequently be used to
transport coal to the port up to the maximum production level
of 12 million tons per year.
As stated on page 5-53 of the DEIS, construction and
temporary emissions must comply with the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards but are exempt from the Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) increments. These would
include fugitive dust emissions from the haul road during this
period the conveyor is being constructed.
comment
Page 3-13
20. Weighing wildlife impacts on basis of acreage removed is
simplistic: Attention should be paid to location and
orientation of migration pathways, critical habitat, etc. to
conveyor and roads.
Response
Wildlife impacts were weighed on the basis of several factors
including direct habitat removal, quality of habitat, indirect
habitat loss, and effect on animal movements as stated in
Section 5.3.1.5 and Appendix A.
romment
Page 3-16
21. No data to support conclusion that effect of Northern/Ladd
option on animal movements would be moderate.
Response
The effects of both the Northern/Ladd and Eastern/Ladd
option were judged to be moderate because both routes are
generally at right angles to major large animal movements
at lower elevations. Right angle crossings are generally
considered to be less disruptive than routes which
10-11
-------
oarallel animal migrations. The planned frequency of special
wildlife crossings (nearly 2 per mile) is greater than applied
on the trans-Alaska oil pipeline. Impacts to wildlife
a result of TAPS was minimal. Bear and moose are
Ukely to encounter the Northern/Ladd and Eastern/Ladd routes
often than they would the southern/Granite Point route.
However with adequately designed and spaced large nanmal
crossings, the differences between these options would be
minimal.
mmment
hasn't committed to building moose crossings along
22 • thl convenor roSST to Ladd. Must reference this as
mitigation.
Response
The appU=ant hf
SonveyorCr system for the southern, extern and northern
corridors. See Section 2.4.2 of the FEIS.
ronvment
23.
FEIS must explain what applicant will do if NEPA preferred
alternative and ROD differ from applicant's proposal regarding
the conveyor/transportation route.
T?Psponse
n-orna^ive transportation routes, including
Ml three alteriwti^ „eastern/Ladd", and "southern/
the ,,north®Tn/^tes were compared in Chapter 3.0 of
Granite PointT. e deferred alternative", as designated m
the DEIS. The pre incorporates the eastern/Ladd
the DEIS and FEIS, the applicant has been
transportation rout . iqht_of_way agreement for this
unable to "^otiate remaining alternative corridors
route the ^ southern/Granite Point) were directly
(northern/Ladd, which of these two routes were
compared to._det 5fstern/Ladd were not developable. To
preferable if infusion over the use of the term
eliminate P®®®^ecl alternative" (pages S-9 and 3-34 of
"secondary pr
-------
EPA and the Corps will issue separate Records of Decision
(RODs) subsequent to issuance of the FEIS. A brief
description of factors considered in RODs is provided on
page 1-2 of the DEIS. Alternative permitting decisions
available to the agencies are described on page 3-39 of the
DEIS. The final EPA and Corps permit decisions will
be made after the FEIS is issued and will be reflected in
the respective RODs. The RODs will discuss the
alternatives analyzed in the EIS and will designate an
"environmentally preferred alternative".
With respect to the Diamond Chuitna project alternatives,
EPA's ROD will indicate EPA's final NPDES permit action
with respect to the two alternative port sites (Granite
Point and Ladd). EPA's permit action could entail either
the granting of an NPDES permit (for either port) or
denial of the permit. The Corps' Section 10/404
permitting authority extends to both the ports and the
transportation corridors. The Corps' permitting decisions
respective to these project components will be reflected in
the Corps ROD.
The environmentally preferred alternative, as designated
in the agency RODs, may or may not be the alternative for
which permits are granted. The RODs will include a
discussion of any factors that were considered in making
the permit decisions, taking into account the agency's
statutory missions, economics, and feasibility questions.
The RODs will also state what means to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts were adopted through the permit
actions, and the rationale.
romment
Page 4-1
24. Paragraph 3: Moquawkie Indian Reservation was established in
1915, not 1934.
Response
Text has been corrected on p. 4-1 of the FEIS.
comment
Page 4-17
25. Paragraph 2: Statement in first sentence must be expanded
to explain that the Lone Ridge moose population is not
small. Rut concentration has not been adequately
explained. Also, reference fact that very little
information regarding Lone Ridge rut concentration exists.
10-13
-------
Response
See revised paragraph in Section 4.3.3.2 of the FEIS.
Comment
Page 4-29
26. Explain how floods of Oct.'86 compare to maximum recorded
flood in Sept.'76.
Response
Section 4.4.2.4 of the FEIS has been revised to reflect this
new data.
Comment
Page 4-65
27. Paragraph 3: KPB is classified as "non-rural" indicating that
subsistence is not a major part of economy. Subsistence is
only important in certain areas, not whole KPB.
Response
Wording changed to clarify paragraph in Section 4.7.1.2 of the
FEIS.
Comment
Page 4-89
28. Paragraph 2: Winter moose hunt was subsistence and
recreational from 1983 to 1985; it is now subsistence only
Response
Wording added to paragraph in Section 4.10.2 of the FEls
Comment
Page 5-11
29. Direct loss of moose can occur from moose/vehicl
collisions.
Response
Section 5.3.1.5 addresses onlythe mine and mine faciii+--
most moose/vehicle collisions would occur in ®s;
transportation corridors.
10-14
-------
Comment
Page 5-19
30. If proper construction and materials are used, ground water
should not be degraded by leakage from sewer lines and sewage
treatment plant. "Somewhat poorer" water guality resulting
from mining should be more fully explained, ref. ASMCRA permit
application Vol. XVII.
Response
Reference deleted from Section 5.3.2.1 of the FEIS.
Wording added to Sections 5.3.2.1 and 5.6.1.2 of the FEIS per
ASMCRA.
Comment
31. Mention possibility that natural stream temperatures and icing
conditions could be modified by mine development.
Response
See response to Smid comment #7. Temperature changes are
expected to be less than 1° C from normal in the winter.
Icing changes with this small temperature change are expected
to be minimal.
comment
Page 5-20
32. Surface water runoff in developed areas must meet Alaska Water
Quality Standards; how will this be accomplished in areas
outside the ASMCRA permit area?
Response
Proposed treatment of surface runoff outside ASMCRA area is
reflected in the draft NPDES permits for the port alternatives
and housing area (Appendix D) . At the port sites and the
housing facilities, runoff water will be collected in sediment
ponds. The discharge from these ponds must meet state
requirements. In areas of road construction, runoff will be
controlled by: a) good construction practices, b) good erosion
control practices, (e.g., sediment fences, revegetation,
etc.), and c) minimization of surface disturbance as described
in Sections 2.4, 2.5, and 2.6 of the FEIS.
10-15
-------
Comment
Page 5-25, 5-35
33. Discussion concerning water quality standards must be
expanded.
Response
Discussion has been expanded; see section 5.3.2.3.
Comment
Page 5-28
34. The most stringent water quality standards apply. oil and
grease must be addressed here.
Response
This section is a discussion of EPA criteria for discharges
from sediment ponds (i.e., federal effluent limitations as
opposed to State of Alaska receiving stream criteria) . The
NPDES effluent limitation for pH is 6.0 to 9.0 (Appendix D)
as stated in Section 5.3.2.3. Oil and grease limitations have
been added to Section 5.3.2.3.
Comment
Page 5-30
35. Mixing zones must be addressed as well as water qualitv
contingency plan required by state. *
Response
Wording added to Section 5.3.2.3 (General Criteria) of th
FEIS regarding mixing zones and compliance. The state wat &
quality contingency plan is an ASMCRA requirement and ^
discussed in Section 6.2.1.1 of the FEIS. S
Comment
Page 5-31, 5-34, 5-81
36. Discrepancy between table 5-8, 5-9, and 5-25 and th
standards. Also levels of hydrocarbons, oil and areas
turbidity and settleable solids are not included. '
10-16
-------
Response
The commentor cites information from EPA's Quality Criteria
for Water 1986 (Gold Book) regarding chronic "criteria" for
arsenic and copper. The concentrations cited are from a table
entitled, "Water Quality Criteria Summary." However, the
concentrations cited (as noted in this table) are "lowest
observed effect level" (LOEL) values. LOEL values are not
necessarily the criteria because these values are species
specific. Furthermore, states are allowed to interpret
information in EPA publications to derive specific criteria.
In this case, the values cited by the commentor are not the
Alaska criteria. This becomes apparent if one reads the text
of the Gold Book rather than relying on the Water Quality
Criteria Summary table. Using arsenic, for example, the
commentor states that fresh water and marine water chronic
criteria for arsenic are 48 and 5 ug/1, respectively. The
commentor fails to note these values are only for arsenic (V) .
Regarding fresh water, the Gold Book states, "Not enough data
are available to allow derivation of numerical national water
quality criteria for freshwater aquatic life for inorganic
arsenic (V)... Arsenic (V) affected freshwater aquatic plants
at concentrations as low as 48 ug/1."
Also, corrections have been made on Tables 5-8, 5-9, and
5-25 in the FEIS. The parameters listed in Tables 5-8,
5-9, and 5-2 5 are based on all the available information at
the time the DEIS was written. At that time, it was
anticipated that coal leachate presented the highest potential
for degrading receiving stream water quality. Therefore,
these tables include all the parameters analyzed in Diamond
Alaska Coal Company Column and Drip Leach Study performed by
Bookcliffs (1985). Although turbidity and settleable solids
were not measured in this study, total suspended solids were
and appear in the tables. Hydrocarbons and oil and grease
were also not measured in the Bookcliffs study. It should be
noted that the EPA criteria for oil and grease have been added
to Section 5.3.2.3 Surface Water Quality, General Criteria.
Comment
Page 5-32
37. DEIS does not specify if, how and what flocculants will be
used.
10-17
-------
>nse
1-0 section 5.3.2.3 of the FEIS, "Mine Site
Additions made *° . „ # several flocculants have been
Runoff" af"Ps10tilDsraf?of the mine site. The flocculants
tested using so*f® ferric chloride and ammonium
(polyethylene oxid^ ^ certain conditions. The
sulfate) all perf-arm depends on the nature of
choice of which will ^ vary in different areas and
suspended soiids. ^ choice of an individual flocculent
wi?fdepend onPactual field data obtained during construction
and operation.
PnmmP.nt
38
rvt
PsiGfi 5-33
qejs should reference applicant's commitment to pump only from
in-pit sumps when discharge can meet Alaska Water Quality
^ J c
J-4 * £
Standards.
ppsponse
t o t "Pit Drainage" of the FEIS.
Addition made to Section
mminent
?a<3® 5-69 all potential effects of subsistence in
39. paragraph i.
one section.
Ee§J3om& ^ effects of each project
The document is •_ discussed separately. Therefore,
component on subsistence is discus ^ ^ CQnsolidated under
the entire snhs.xs*e^*ls only with the mine and mine area,
section 5.3 w5^0^ing sections have been inserted in Section
References to following
c i nf the FEIS.
ACJ.U4,w... .
5.3 of the FEIS.
Comment
p-ae 5-69 ^ri.ion of no drastic decline in moose
paragraph 4: ^Instantiated. Reference state monitoring
abundance is unt»u
40 .
program
Response
Section 5.3.7.2 of the FEIS has been reworded.
10-18
-------
Comment
Page 5-80
41. State standards do not allow ground-water mixing; this section
should be rewritten.
Response
See additional wording in Section 5.4.1.2 of the FEIS.
Also, the commentor is correct regarding the use of
ground-water dilution to achieve water quality standards.
The intent of this narrative was to explain that some
parameters may periodically exceed their criteria for the
protection of aquatic life as the water infiltrates toward
the ground-water table. Even if this water resurfaces
before reaching the ground-water table, the volume of
seepage into a stream or lake would be low, resulting in
no adverse impacts to aquatic life.
Comment
Page 5-85
42. Effect of sediment loading on Cook Inlet due to this project
must be addressed.
Response
This comment was directed to Section 5.4.1.2 but should
have been directed to Section 5.4.1.3, Marine Water
Quality. See additional wording in Section 5.4.1.3 of t h e
FEIS.
Comment
Page 5-86
43. Use and disposal of solvents in repair and maintenance shops
is not addressed.
Response
See additional wording in Section 5.4.1.2 of the FEIS. oil
and grease traps at the mining facilities are designed to
handle the full anticipated output with a large safety factor
added. In addition, oil skimmers at the ponds would be used
if the traps malfunctioned.
comment
44. Removal of oil and grease from sediments if trap fails or
inadequate operation is not addressed pounds.
10-19
-------
pp.fioonse
i TT^r-^irin in Section 5.4.1.2 of "the FEIS
regard'ing^'installation ot skivers and disposal of oily waste.
nt
45. Further^rev iew of ground-water effects is needed for housing
leach field.
pp.spons.e
This subject will be addressed in the ADEC permitting process.
nt
ZlVl-27 omits important water quality parameters.
46.
ppsponse
nse , ,
^ * in the FEIS. In addition, the
Table 5-27 has been ££]£ed_27 did not include TSS, dissolved
commentor notes that TatOes ^ chlorlne. The proposed final
oxygen (DO) , fecal has limits on BOD, TSS, and pH.
NPDES perm^ J^have been added to the table; pH is included
Uetofp«po"d tlnal NPDES Permlt"
- in the effluent will not be low enough to
DO concentrations in tne e Chuitna River. Assuming
cause an adverse there could easily
the discharge is at room ^(£luent. Furthermore, the BOD
be 8 to 9 mg/1 DO m tne create a large enough oxygen
concentration of 19 'g/l loantly reduce ambient DO levels
demand in the rlv®J *f, tlat BOD is exerted over 5 days at
in the river.¦ *»<=*£ t^se conditions will not exist m the
optimum conditions
river.
x. ,QriS levels in domestic waste discharges
Fecal coliform bact®"aaaequacy of disinfection techniques.
are a function of the a qu disinfection. A chlorine
Chlorine is commonlyx maintained, secondary waste
residual of 0.1 ants and a trained operator will result
treatment packag Pcoliform colonies per milliliter (the
in less than 200 fpcal being discharged. The expected
EPA limit for domestic wa ^ e££luent will be approximately
chlorine concentrati
1 M/f / 1
o.l mg/1.
10-20
-------
Comment
47. Data and justification for mixing zone is not provided.
Response
See response for comment 82 below.
Comment
Page 5-116
48. Move subsistence discussion to 5-69.
Response
See response for comment 39 above.
Comment
Page 5-117
49. Agree that restrictive harvest regulations could affect
Tyonek's subsistence opportunities.
Response
Noted.
Comment
Page 5-123
50. Paragraph 2: In mild winters, moose also use habitat near
Congahbuna Lake.
Response
Noted in Section 5.6.2.1 of the FEIS; Section 5.6.3.1 refers
to Threemile housing site, not Congahbuna.
Comment
Page 5-125
51. Include all subsistence discussion in one section.
Response
See response for comment 39 above.
10-21
-------
Comment
Chapter 6.0
52. Further definitions of "increased" and "decreased emphasis"
regarding mitigation are required.
Response
Reference to "increased" and "decreased emphasis" have been
removed from Chapter 6.0. .
Comment
Page 6-4
53. Citation should be changed to 11 AAC 90.311 (e) .
Response
Chapter 6.0 of the FEIS has been substantially rewritten*
to reflect the final ASMCRA permit requirements. '
Comment
Page 6-3/4
54. DEIS does not reflect final surface mining permit stipulations
regarding soils.
Response
Chapter 6.0 of the FEIS has been revised to reflect the fin i
ASMRCA permit requirements regarding soils.
Comment
Page 6-5
55. Revegetation discussion should be revised to reflect plan •
the Permit Application (Vol. XVI). in
Response
Chapter 6.0 of the FEIS has been revised to reflect fin i
ASMCRA permit requirements regarding revegetation.
Comment
Page 6-6
56. Incorporate wildlife mitigation plan from surface mi •
permit. ning
10-22
-------
Response
Wildlife plan from ASMCRA permit is discussed in revised
Chapter 6.0 of the FEIS.
Comment
57. Paragraph 2: Performance standards for reclamation
success have been established in the surface mining
permit.
Response
ASMCRA permit has been referenced in revised Chapter 6.0 of
the FEIS.
Comment
Page 6-7
58. Paragraph 2: FEIS should specify standards for habitat
enhancement.
Response
The FEIS (Section 6.4.1.2) recommends that habitat
enhancement measures similar to that within the ASMCRA
area be employed for areas outside the boundary. The
reader is referred to Chapters 2.0 and 6.0 for further
discussions of specific measures outside the ASMRCA permit
area.
Comment
59. Paragraphs 3, 4, & 5: Conveyor access road should be
regularly cleared of snow to encourage moose to use it rather
than haul road.
Response
The conveyor access road will be continually cleared of snow
since there must be a visual inspection of the conveyor every
shift (3 to 4 times daily).
comment
60. Paragraph 6: Include documentation regarding plastic balls
on cables and other methods of keeping birds from striking
cables and wires.
10-23
-------
Response
Reference to plastic balls has been removed from Chapter 6 0
of the FEIS.
Comment
Page 6-8
61. Paragraph 4: Proposal that return flows to streams be manaqed
to optimize down stream flow conditions was rejected in
surface mining permit.
Response
Chapter 6.0 of the FEIS has been revised to reflect ASMCRA
permit.
Comment
Page 6-9
62. Paragraph 2: A wetland restoration plan was required unde
the surface mining permit. r
Response
Chapter 6.0 of the FEIS has been revised to reflect the fin i
ASMCRA permit requirements.
Comment
63. Paragraph 3: Reference commitments regarding restoration
mined out stream systems in Permit Application (Vol. XVI i)
Response
Chapter 6.0 of the FEIS has been revised to reflect the f
ASMCRA permit requirements. inal
Comment
64. FEIS should recommend reclamation of mined out streams
mitigation for loss of fish habitat in areas to be mined
years 11 through 3 0 of the operation. ln
Response
Section 6.4.2.3 of the FEIS makes this recommendation.
10-24
-------
Comment
65. Detailed engineering designs for stream reclamation should be
distributed to interagency forum as soon as available.
Response
Noted. This will be handled through state agency permitting
process.
Comment
Page 6-10
66. Paragraph 2: Mitigation plans for sediment ponds are found
in surface mining permit.
Response
Chapter 6.0 of the FEIS has been revised to reflect the final
ASMCRA permit requirements.
comment
Page 6-11
67. Paragraph 3: A mitigation program to compensate for
unavoidable loss of fish productivity is required by surface
mining permit (Stip. 14).
Response
Chapter 6.0 of the FEIS has been revised to reflect the final
ASMCRA permit requirements.
Comment
Page 6-14
68. Paragraph 1: See Vol XVI for soil monitoring plan.
Response
Chapter 6.0 of the FEIS has been revised to reflect the final
ASMCRA permit requirements.
Comment
Page 6-14
69. Paragraph 2: Annual revegetation monitoring required under
surface mining permit.
10-25
-------
Response
Chapter 6.0 of the FEIS has been revised to reflect the final
ASMCRA permit requirements.
Comment
70. Paragraph 3: Additional monitoring recommended to determine
success of habitat enhancement, crossings of conveyor, effects
on Beluga moose population.
Response
ADF&G will conduct a 3 year telemetry study beginning 2 years
prior to mine construction, supplemented by aerial population
surveys. Fall trend counts will help evaluate the success of
moose crossings, moose rutting activity, and habitat use.
Comment
71. Paragraph 4: Surface mining permit requires continuous flow
monitoring at 7 locations (Stip. 18).
Response
Chapter 6.0 of the FEIS has been revised to reflect the fin l
ASMCRA permit requirements.
Comment
Page 6-15
72. Paragraph 1: ASMCRA permit (Stip. 17) requires ann
evaluation of ground- and surface water monitoring programs
Response
Chapter 6.0 of the FEIS has been revised to reflect the f
ASMCRA permit requirements. iinal
Comment
73. Paragraph 2: ASMCRA permit requires extensive ground v
monitoring program. ater
Response
Chapter 6.0 of the FEIS has been revised to reflect the
ASMCRA permit requirements. final
10-26
-------
Comment
74. Paragraph 3: SMP requires extensive monitoring of water
quality of effluents from mine drainage system and receiving
streams (Permit Application Vol. XVII).
Response
Chapter 6.0 of the FEIS has been revised to reflect the final
ASMCRA permit requirements.
Comment
Page 6-16
75. Paragraph 4: ASMCRA permit addresses all the points raised
in the DEIS.
Response
FEIS has been revised to reflect ASMCRA permit. ASMCRA covers
only mine area; EIS has wider geographic coverage.
Comment
76. Clarification of socioeconomic coordination is required.
Response
Section 6.4.5 of the FEIS has been revised.
Comment
Page 7-7
77. Correct DACC address.
Response
Corrected in Section 7.5 of the FEIS.
Comment
Page 11-8
78. Correct Fall, Foster, Stanek reference title.
Response
Corrected in Chapter 11.0 of the FEIS.
10-27
-------
Comment
Appendix C
79. Mixing zone must be discussed as well as contingency plan for
sediment pond discharges.
Response
The Corps of Engineers public notice would include mixinq
zones only if they pertain to the discharge of fill material
Sediment pond discharges would not be covered by the COE
permit.
Comment
Appendix D
80. Mixing zone must be discussed as well as contingency plan for
sediment pond discharges.
Response
Mixing zones have been discussed in Section 2.3.3.1 of th
FEIS. The applicable mixing zone for turbidity have been
approved by ADEC and are addressed in the proposed final NPDES
permit for the mine area (Appendix D) . A conceptual water
quality contingency plan has also been approved by ADEC. The
final plan will be approved per ASMCRA permit requirements
The proposed final NPDES permits are subject to 401
certification and coastal consistency review by the State f
Alaska. See response for DGC comment #86 below.
Comment
Appendix D
81. A hydrocarbon limit is appropriate if oil and grease ievol
are 10-15 rag/1. «veis
Response
A total hydrocarbon limit of 0.15 mg/1 has been substitut
for the oil and grease limit for those discharges wh h
contain runoff from equipment washdown or maintenance are*
These discharges are: as*
Ladd Port Site (AK-004685-0), outfall 001
Granite Port Site (AK-004331-1), outfall 002
Mine Site (AK-004357-5), outfalls 017 and 018
10-28
-------
The total hydrocarbon limit is based on the Alaska Water
Quality Standards, 18 AAC 70.020. The method for analysis
(Standard Method 5038) has also been specified.
Comment
82. Limitations on flow, fecal coliform and chlorine should be set
for all sanitary waste discharges.
Response
NPDES permits for the Granite Point Coal Port (AK-004331-1)
outfall 001, and the Housing Facilities (AK-004356-7) outfall
001 authorize the discharges of sanitary waste. These permits
now include maximum flow limitations based on the capacity of
the treatment plant. For the port site, the treatment plant's
average monthly flow limitation is 2,000 gallons per day
(gpd). For the housing site, the treated sanitary waste from
the mine site (previously identified as outfall 019 in the
mine permit) and the Lone Creek housing site will be combined
before discharge. This combined flow is 50,000 gpd.
Fecal coliform standards have been established in the state's
water quality standard regulations (18 AAC 70) . Discharges
of sanitary waste authorized by the Housing Facilities permit
is to the Chuitna River, which is protected for all fresh
water uses. The most stringent fecal coliform criteria is 20
fecal coliforms (FC) per 100 milliliters (ml) based upon 5
samples taken in a 30 day period, and not more than 10 percent
of the total samples shall exceed 40 FC/100 ml.
The port site discharge is to Cook Inlet, which is protected
for all marine water uses. The most stringent fecal coliform
criteria for marine water uses is calculated by using the most
probable numbers (MPN) procedure for measuring fecal coliform.
The median MPN shall not exceed 14 FC/100 ml, and not more
than 10 percent of the samples shall exceed a FC MPN of 43
FC/100 ml.
Both the fresh water and marine water FC criteria must be met
at the edge of the mixing zone. ADEC will, through the Clean
Water Act 401 certification procedures, establish "end of the
pipe" fecal coliform and chloride limitations.
Comment
83. References to "trace amounts" of floating solids, visible foam
and oil and grease should be removed.
10-29
-------
Response
Changes have been made in all NPDES permits.
mmment
84 Regulation of chemicals and detergents used to wash equipment
must be addressed.
Rpsponse
n r, ^ rranite Coal Port and Mine NPDES permits
The Ladd Coal Port'^ Permittee to submit to EPA and ADEC a
will now require the> p t and solvents/degreasers
list of those ^nlca4S'hdedtoewrng equipment or used in the
that are used to> sedimentation ponds through
maintenance shops and enter deterge„ts, solvents or
degreaser app/oved by EPA and ADEC will be allowed.
Comment
85. "cessation of the precipitation event" should be defined.
Bpsponse
..cessation of the precipitation event" is now defined in the
following permits:
. _ .i.a i mc—004685 — 0) i Part I. A. 2. c.
«aniterport Site (AK-004331-1), Part I.A.2.b. (3)
Mine Site (AK-004357-5), Part I.A.2.C.
. - nrecipitation event for the NPDES permits is
Cessation of the pre p volume (flow rate) of
when the d"cJlar9Dere^ded the precipitation event. The
discharge that Prburden to prove when the discharge (or
permittee has th resulted from a precipitation event,
increase in aisuwi-y i
Both of these conditions have been added to the permits.
mmment
should include references to the application
86. TheNP°iE„S(,P®™es to establish effluent limitations based on
Alaska water Quality standards.
10-30
-------
Response
The state water quality standards do not have any specific
numerical standards for total suspended solids (TSS) or
settleable solids (SS). Discharge of solids are controlled
through turbidity and the "zones of deposit" (18 AAC 70.033)
standards. Therefore, water quality based effluent
limitations cannot be established for TSS or SS. The
permittee has requested and received approval from ADEC for
a mixing zone to meet the state's turbidity water quality
standard. The mine permit (AK-004357-5, Part I.B.6 included
in Appendix D) now includes a reference to the applicable
mixing zone.
The permittee has not requested a mixing zone for iron or pH.
Therefore, the more stringent water quality based limitations
for iron and pH have been included in the permit. The
limitations are based on the Alaska Water Quality Standards.
1.0 mg/1 for iron and 6.5 to 8.5 for pH.
Comment
87. Daily monitoring of settling pond effluent is expensive and
logistically difficult; recommend weekly monitoring.
Response
Flow monitoring has been reduced to weekly for the following
permits:
Mine Site (AK-004357-5), outfalls 001-018
Granite Port Site (AK-004331-1), outfall 002
Ladd Port Site )AK-004685-0), outfall 001
Comment
88. ADEC must make sure domestic discharges will meet state
standards before 401 certificate can be issued.
Response
ADEC has conceptually approved the wastewater treatment system
plans. Final approval by ADEC of the detailed construction
plan is required prior to construction.
comment
89. Plans for sediment ponds outside the ASMCRA area have not been
submitted to ADEC.
10-31
-------
Response
DACC has submitted plans on location of sediment ponds in
areas outside the mining permit area to ADEC.
Comment
90 AK-004357-5: sampling of TSS, oil and grease should be
maintained as proposed in draft permits.
Response
The previous (preliminary) draft permit required daily
monitorina for TSS, oil and grease, and iron. These sampling
?™i«ments hive' been added but at a weekly sampling
??e£uency and at least once during the period when the
alternate effluent limitations apply. The oil and grease
limitations and monitoring requirements have been deleted.
Total hydrocarbon limitations and monitoring requirements have
been added. See response to comment 81 above.
comment
q 1 ak-004356-7: If the housing area is designed properly, there
should be no need for sediment ponds.
Response
at the housing site will collect and
The sediment P°^= ^J^rConstruction activities. There
be a need for sediment ponds after construction
will s^lll b ® in„ area is designed properly. Runoff is
eVeLr1»d to occur• The permittee should however, through Best
Management Practices, control, reduce and/or eliminate the
amount of pollutants carried in the runoff.
Comment
92. Comparing housing sediment ponds with ore or placer mind
ponds is not appropriate. 9
Response
In establishing technology-based limits where no effM
guidelines exist, as is the case for establishinq effnent
limits for runoff from the housing site, perf ormano ent
various treatment systems and characteristics of* °f
wastewater to be treated were evaluated. r
situation, runoff from the disturbed areas near the h tl?is
10-32
-------
site is similar to runoff from an active mining site. Effluent
guidelines for an active mining site established a monthly average
TSS limits at 2 0 mg/1 (30 mg/1 for a daily maximum) . This is based
on the treatment capabilities for the sediment pond receiving
runoff from an active mining site. Based upon this evaluation, the
effluent limits set for the housing site runoff were equal to the
TSS limits from an active mining site.
Kevin Fenner (Anchorage DEIS public hearing 8/17/88) Kenai
Peninsula Borough
Comment
1. Document fails to point out that KPB is the local government
entity responsible for local permits, services, etc.
Response
See revised Section 6.3 of the FEIS.
Comment
2. DEIS should incorporate KPB's Chuitna area resource
development plan.
Response
Plan has been reviewed and incorporated into the FEIS where
appropriate.
# Larry Dinneen (Anchorage DEIS public hearing 8/17/88) Port
Commission of Anchorage (M.O.A.)
comment
1. Municipality of Anchorage supports the project and port
facilities on the west side of Cook Inlet.
Response
Noted.
10-33
-------
Noel W. Kirshenbaum Beluga Coal Company
Comment
Page 3-9/12
1. Tyonek pier at North Foreland location can handle 40,000
DWT vessels; a proposed 1000 ft. extension would allow it
to handle PANAMAX class vessels. Beluga Coal Company has
done studies between 1986-1988 on aspects of the dock.
Shipping both Beluga Co. and Diamond Co. coal would
not be possible with the currently anticipated design
capacity.
Response
Noted.
John Evans Tyonek Native Corporation
Comment
1. Were all three proposed port locations evaluated?
Response
All three port locations were evaluated fully; the
evaluations process is described in Chapter 3.0. The
North Forelands site was eliminated during the initial
options evaluation due to technical feasibility problems
(see Section 3.2.2.1). The remaining port options
(Granite Point and Ladd) were subjected to complete
evaluations based on all scoping issues (Chapters 2.0 and
5.0). Baseline information collected at both sites aided
this evaluation (Chapter 4.0).
Comment
2. TNC has tried to interest Diamond in using the North
Foreland Site. It would be less environmentally damaging than
developing a new site.
Response
Conformation of offshore area and currents at North
Forelands and currents are not conducive to development
of a coal port large enough for the Diamond Chuitn
Project. a
Comment
3. Modifications could be made to North Forelands site.
10-34
-------
Response
See previous response for Evans, comment #2 above.
Don Standifer (Tyonek DEIS public hearing 8/18/88) Tyonek
Native Corporation
Comment
1. Tyonek dock is underrated in comparison to the other dock
sites, especially regarding tides and icing conditions.
Response
Refer to response to Evans, #2, above.
Comment
2. Concerned about the economic impact on Tyonek village of
locating a dock north or south of existing dock.
Response
The broader issues of impacts of the project on Tyonek were
discussed in Chapter 4.0 and Section 5.3.6.2. Specific
impacts of locating the port at Ladd or Granite Point were not
addressed.
comment
3. TNC has acquired another airstrip that could be used by
project.
Response
The planned airstrip has been designed to meet the needs of
the project. If other airstrips are available which meet the
project needs at time of construction, they will be
considered.
Michael Meehan (Anchorage DEIS public hearing 8/07/88)
Archdiocese of Anchorage
Comment
1. Archdiocese property is strategically located to Ladd
facility.
10-35
-------
Response
Noted.
Comment
2. Archdiocese is interested in well planned development in
Chuitna area.
Response
Noted.
Patti J. Saunders ana Cliff names Trustees for Alaska/Alaska
center for the Environment
comment
page 3-1 . "fixed" but can be adjusted within the
1. Mine site is niamond to avoid environmental
coal leases held by Ridge moose rutting area and
problems such as the Lone Kiuy
Chuitna watershed.
Response
The coal Cook"'inlet"^the^nli
the Beluga area, c.°nJ_ |ide of the Cook Inlet. However,
Peninsula on the ea q^ certain relatively
of these large deP°^ . x ± e sites due to geological,
small areas are POtmtija »™nsiderations. For sample,
engineering, or . ,h Kenai Peninsula will likely
the deposits very deep. Some of the coal
never be mined "nee they are very p ^
underlying the Diamond leases win
same reason.
^ ^ntna mine site shown in Figure 2-2 was
The Diamond Chuitna min holes were drilled
selected after more than 500^co^ ^ determine ^
throughout and of coal seams. While the lease
location and havina the best mining conditions in
area was selected as havingi ^ within the leases yhich
the Beluga area, there are iarg^ ^ Qr cQal which .g
will not be mined qreater thickness and shallower
too deep. Because .ofthe pi?0p0Sed mine site, this site will
depth of. coal.??®gS total environmental disturbance; that is,
create smallest tota^e^^ surface area and the shallowest
the mine will aveth ^ involve larger surface areas,
depth. Other site overburden stockpiles, more manpower,
Srfandlarger iSW etc., in short, larger mmes.
10-36
-------
In order to determine if mining will have an impact on moose
rutting activities, the ASMCRA mining permit Stipulation 10
requires a 3 year aerial moose telemetry program focusing ont
he Lone Ridge rutting area. The results of the survey will
be reported to DNR and ADF&G by May 31 of each of the three
years. At the third year, a revised plan of study will be
submitted for the remainder of the permit term. In addition,
starting with year 7, ground surveys of moose usage of
revegetated areas will begin. From the data gathered,
"...mitigation may be required as necessary to avoid or
minimize any impacts to moose as identified by the monitoring
program," (ASMCRA permit, Stipulation 10).
The potential effects of mining on the Chuitna watershed are
extensively addressed throughout the FEIS as well as being a
major topic in the ASMCRA permit and administrative hearing.
Programs to address these potential impacts include an
extensive system of sedimentation ponds, some with
flocculation, and a program to pump pit water back into
streams via the sediment ponds. Stipulation 6 of the ASMCRA
Permit requires a water contingency plan. A comprehensive
hydrologic monitoring system is required throughout the life
of the mine including 55 wells for groundwater monitoring.
A separate surface water quality monitoring system is also
required. In addition, Stipulation 14 of the ASMCRA permit
requires construction of at least one-half acre coho rearing
ponds to mitigate for the unavoidable loss of some stream
habitat in the mining area.
comment
2. Timing of activities has not been considered.
Response
Timing of activities is based on numerous factors and has been
reviewed by both EPA and the State of Alaska to assure
minimization of negative aspects.
comment
Page 2-20
3. Haul road is too wide; gravel sources would be wasted,
reclamation more difficult.
10-37
-------
response
^ern/iadd and eastern/Ladd haul road would be
S?rnatelv 12 3 m (40 ft) wide to accomodate two 3.6 m (12
approximately 1 • K 3 5 m (12 ft) breakdown lane, and road
fS)»lders1C Because of the offshore characteristics of the
? ^site the initial project, i.e., pre-oonveyor
Ladd port si ,' , small. Smaller haul vehicles can be
used6 on °Uie access/haul road ^nd barges can be used at the
port site rather than ships.
-r* rranite Point site is used, the project would not
* i J? filler start-up project. Full production build-up
include a sma th ad from the onset. This design
loads would be hauled onthe roa ( es -n the e_
utilizes ^"f^y^tlaes These vehicles, up to 24 ft in
conveyor Pr?d f30 ft* lanes. Therefore, two traffic
lanes', "^breakdown lane and road Riders would result in
a road width of approximately 35 uv (116 ft).
the other potential user(s) of the
Irini-hprn/Granite Point (Section 5.4.1.11) have also indicated
a preference for the large "off the road" trucks requiring the
a preference j. desiqn. There has been no similar
preference stated for the northern/Ladd road (Section
. M 1 ^ \
5.4.2.11)
Comment
Page 2-14
Page 2-14
The conveyor and road corridor is too wide.
ppsponse
The corridor is ^foa""nTJ^r
turned' oveT T& ^ jurisdiction for use while the
conveyor is still being used.
mmment
5. installation of a second road along the conveyor is
unnecessary.
10-38
-------
Response
The second road is a service road for the conveyor. Alignment
is somewhat different from the haul road which does not follow
the conveyor exactly. The haul road is designed to handle
large trucks; the service road will accommodate light trucks
only and can therefore be designed to different standards.
Comment
Page 2-19/Chapter 5.0
6. Fugitive dust emissions from the conveyor are inadequately
addressed.
Response
The conveyor source dust emission factor was explained on page
E-19 of the DEIS. This emission factor was previously
reviewed by EPA and considered appropriate. This conveyor,
due to being hooded and covered on one side, will effectively
reduce fugitive dust emissions by 90 percent. This degree of
control greatly reduces the emissions from this source.
The coal stockpile fugitive dust emissions were also
generated using an accepted emission factor and a 50
percent control using water sprays. The conveyor and coal
stock are two dissimilar sources of air emissions and
would not be expected to have equivalent fugitive dust
emissions. The exposed area of the conveyor only amounts
to about 2.5 acres (2 feet wide by 55,800 feet long),
while the coal stockpile at the port is about 25 acres.
Also, the conveyor emissions are controlled by 90 percent,
whereas the coal stockpile is controlled by 50 percent.
Comment
Chapter 5.0/Appendix E
7. Temporary overland truck coal haul fugitive dust emission
calculations appear to be incorrect. (99 trips/day vs 331
trips/day)
Response
The correct figure is 311 trips per day. This has been
corrected in the FEIS. This number of trips is associated
with a hypothetical project option based on transporting coal
to the port via truck during full production (12 million tons
per year). This is only a transportation option and not the
project as proposed by the applicant described and analyzed
in Chapter 5.0, Environmental Consequences.
10-39
-------
The 99 truck trips per day, associated with the proposed
project, is the number of trips necessary to transport coal
to the port during construction of the conveyor. Coal
production would be about 4 million tons/yr.
The air quality impact assessment does not focus on
construction emissions, but rather emissions during proiect
operations. As stated on page 5-53, these temporary
construction emissions must comply with the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards but are exempt from the prevention of
significant deterioration (PSD) increments.
The emission factor utilized to calculate fugitive dust coal
haul emissions is an industry and agency-recognized and
accepted factor. The state of Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation and the U.S. EPA recognize and
utilize this emission factor. This emission factor, and the
associated variables, were developed based on extensive field
programs and actual measured data.
Comment
8. Exhaust emissions from temporary truck coal travel appear to
be calculated incorrectly.
Response
The temporary truck coal haul exhaust emissions are
calculated correctly. There is no utilization of truck
fuel consumption in the air emission calculation. Ther-
is a utilization of truck horsepower and an EPA-recognized
emission factor expressed in grams (of pollutant) r>e
horsepower-hour (g/hp-hr). p r
The number of truck trips is correct as discussed in
previous comment. a
Comment
9. Wind speed given in different units for differ
locations. enr
Response
Wind speed units have been standardized in the FEIS.
Comment
10. Wind speeds used for calculations appear low. Conv
emissions appear low. eyor
10-40
-------
Response
Emissions for this project were calculated on an annual
average and hourly basis. The annual average emissions
utilized the annual average wind speed data. The hourly
emissions were calculated by taking the annual average
emission rate and accounting for the number of hours of
operation per year.
The conveyor will be hooded and covered on one side to
minimize fugitive dust emissions. Also, loose dust will not
remain on the bottom of the conveyor on the return portion of
the conveyor trip; thus, there will be no emissions from this
portion of the conveyor.
Comment
Appendix E
11. Tuxedni National Wildlife Refuge is not closest to site; Kenai
National Wildlife Refuge is closest. State game refuges at
Beluga Flats and at Tyonek are very close.
Response
This comment refers to the visibility analysis performed in
Appendix E, page E-22. This visibility analysis is required
by the EPA PSD air quality regulations and is pertinent only
to designated Class I areas. The Kenai National Wildlife
Refuge, the Beluga Flats Game Refuge and the Tyonek Game
Refuge are not Class I areas and thus no visibility analysis
is required for these areas.
Comment
Page 2-45/Fig. 2-4
12. DEIS states that drainage from shops, washdown areas, etc.
will be routed to sediment ponds with treatment facilities.
Fig. 2-4 shows sediment ponds closest to mine facilities area
to be without treatment facilities.
Response
Figure 2-4 of the FEIS has been modified to enable readers to
know that booms and/or skimmers will be installed in Ponds 17
and 18.
Sediment pond systems 17 and 18 are located adjacent to
the mine facilities area as shown in Figure 2-4. All
runoff from areas affected by the mine facility would be
collected by diversion ditches and routed to the sediment
pond systems prior to discharge. According to ASMCRA
10-41
-------
, ¦ 4-^r, Table 38 (page K-124) in Revised Appendix K,
application, Ta Control Design, pond systems 17 and
Drainage_and S*d™*nttotCa? suspended solids and turbidity
18 would meet the total £4_hour and 10-year, 24-hour
standards duiring tlocculants and without receiving
storm events "Sllv Volune XVII, pages 4-39 and
water d"utl°n-*d^se sediment pond' systems would
4-40 indicate that these ^ necessary> to prevent
contain booms an / and grease into undisturbed
any discharge of 'em di;charges would be periodically
areas. AH P°nd Vu comply with the oil and grease
monitored , ished bY the approved NPDES permit. All
limitations est* arease storage facilities would be
°il'+- ^rted to prevent possible leaks and spills. Spill
constructed to p Driate clean-up measures will be
prevention an PP prevention, Control, and
addressed m on file at the Diamond
Countermeasure Plan to ce * y
chuitna Mine.
comment
¦ ^ * j,,e+- cmmression chemicals will be used? How
13" much? HOW often? What will effects be on fish, wildlife,
ground water, streams, etc.?
•Response
* +-on+-ial dust problems are minimized by the greater than 40
Potential dusrp the area< when rainfall is
•nCnffic°iint water will be used. Once or twice a year a
SSiliTSSSt,-PPressant -y be needed^^Magnes^um chloride
£ "^aquatic C^nd terrestrial resources are expected to be
negligible-
Comment
14. Forested buffers should be maintained around stockpiles.
Response
o-f timber will be done only when required for mining
Clearing Existing timber around coal stockpile areas
SlfS ^^-nSS, tTthe extent allowed by construction
of roads and other facilities.
comment
are stockpiles to be protected against fires?
15. How
10-42
-------
Response
Stockpiles will be protected against fire by "good
housekeeping" procedures. Extensive experience in managing
stockpiles in Alaska is available from the Sunnel Alaska Co.
facility at Seward. In general, the conical piles resulting
from conveyors and stacker reclaimers must be truncated and
the coal compacted. Any hot spots which develop must be dug
out so that they can cool before being compacted again.
Comment
16. Why is sewage sludge being buried in mine pit rather than
incinerated?
Response
Burying sewage sludge in the mine pit is environmentally
acceptable, especially for the small amounts which will be
generated. It is common to place stabilized sludge in
approved landfills unless land area is a problem, such as on
Alaska's North Slope. In these cases, sludge is often
incinerated. Environmentally, the trade-off is using land
area with the potential for surface and ground-water pollution
versus potential air pollution. Since land area is sufficient
at this site, burying the sewage sludge is economically
preferable. ADEC has provided a solid waste disposal permit,
#8623BA002 for a sanitary landfill for the burial of
commercial waste. This landfill will be located in the mine
pit.
comment
17. No discussion of effects of coal spillage from trestle and
barges on marine environment.
Response
See revised Section 5.4.1.3 of the FEIS, "Impacts to Marine
Environment".
comment
18. DEIS fails to consider applicability of Clean Water Act's
antidegradation requirement.
10-43
-------
Response
See response to Trustees for Alaska/ACE comment #26,
below.
rmrvment
19 Sill 2i" inconsistent with draft Alaska permit regarding
location of sewage outfalls.
Bp.sponse
The DEXS (^on
(Revised 5/87). area where it would join the treated
effluent from the housing site and be discharged into the
Chuitna River.
,, j... jr-ft NPDES permits currently contain sanitary
TWO of the ^aft outfall 019 in permit AK 004357-5 for the
^nfis^a sanitary waste discharge and outfall 001 in permit
Sni?4-7 for the housing facilities is also a sanitary
AK-004356 7 for ^ there is Qnly Qne sanitary waste
S!Icharge fcombined) , EPA will amend these NPDES permits by
deleting outfall 019.
comment
,n DElI^fcoAclusions about compliance with Alaska water quality
standards are based on inaccurate assumptions.
Response.
„ _ c Q 5-25 (DEIS pages 5-31, 5-34, and 5-81,
Tables 5-8, 5-9, modified by correcting the pH
respectively) fche standard for total dissolved
range and n g greater than one-third higher
?Slld%inr-ar conditions, whichever is less. A note is
added explaining that information in these tables does
f added explaining ^ & 2one> Therefore,
not mclud these tables demonstrates neither
compliance11 nor non-compliance with Alaska's water quality
standards.
10-44
-------
Comment
21. DEIS does not discuss excessive destruction of wetlands.
Response
EIS covers wetland impacts in Chapter 5.0. Wording added to
sections 5.4.1.2, 5.4.2.1, 5.4.2.2, 5.5.1.3, 5.5.2.1, 5.5.2.3
to clarify wetland impacts associated with the alternative
transportation corridors.
comment
Appendix D
22. None of the draft NPDES permits include provisions for a Best
Management Plan (BMP) as required by Clean Water Act.
Response
The proposed final NPDES permits now require the development
of a BMP plan. The plan must be submitted to EPA for review
and approval.
comment
23. (1) Water quality-based limits are not included in the
permit.
(2) Fecal coliform and chlorine limits for sanitary waste
discharges are not included in the permits.
(3) Pollutants of concern listed in Tables 5-7 and 5-9 of the
DEIS are not included in the permits.
(4) Also, the pollutants of concern should be included in the
permits under technology-based consideration. Effluent
limitations for toxic pollutants (such as metals) must be set
using best professional judgement of BAT.
(5) In accordance with 18 AAC 70.020, the following
parameters must be added to the permit: fecal coliform,
dissolved oxygen, pH between 6.0 and 8.5, turbidity,
temperature, total dissolved solids, sediment, toxic and other
deleterious organic and inorganic substances,- oil and grease
(to all outfalls), radioactivity, total residual chlorine, and
color.
10-45
-------
(6) The 85% removal of B0D5 and TSS do not appear in
conformance with the state standards.
Response
(1) See response to comment 86, Alaska DGC letter, above.
(2) See response to comment 86, Alaska DGC letter above.
(3) comment referred to Figures 5-7 and 5-9. However, the
correct reference is to Tables 5-8 and 5 9.
FTS states (p. 5-33, DEIS) that the parameters that may
or exceed water quality standards are boron, iron,
^nanaanese ammonia (nitrogen) and zinc. However, no
n:!- water cruality impacts are anticipated. Monitoring
l^these plramlt^rs will be included in the permit If
results violate the water quality standards (after
?SSto?iM in the applicable mixing zone) the permit will be
modified to incorporate water quality-based limits.
rpA has established national effluent guidelines that
^ u.Tfations that represent BAT. In establishing these
BAT effluent limitations EPA determined that the "effluent
^Linsd ven low concentrations of toxic and nonconventional
^u££n?s Sfter application of settling." (EPA, Final
S Document for coal Mining, EPA 440/1-82/057,- p.6).
S^DE^SL shot"that a few of the parameters have the
to eoual or exceed the water quality standards. EPA
potential t qji premature to establish water quality
blled limitations for these parameters. Instead, monitoring
of these parameters will be required.
,e> t?pR's NPDES regulations require that permits contain
effluent limitations that are necessary to insure adequate
treatment before discharge. Some of the parameters that
the coventor has suggested for inclusion have not been
Enti tled as a pollutant of concern. These parameters
identifi inciuded in the permit as limitations or
monitoring conditions. Those parameters that are of
concern have been added to the permit to be monitored.
fThe 85% removal requirement for B0D5 is a technology
based requirement. The EIS concluded that the input from
the sewage treatment plants will meet the state water
SaUtv standards. . Additional water quality based
limitations are not required.
10-46
-------
Comment
24. Permits must be revised to include provisions for
compliance with zones of deposit requirements of 18 AAC
70.033.
Response
18 AAC 70.033 allows ADEC, in its discretion, to "certify
a permit that allows deposit of substances on the bottom
of marine waters within limits set by the ADEC" (emphasis
added). The only two discharges that are to marine waters
are at the port site alternatives: Ladd Coal Loading
Facility or the Granite Point Coal Port. Mixing of solids
discharged from the sedimentation ponds will be rapidly
dispersed in Cook Inlet. The allowable amount of solids
discharged are anticipated to be essentially undetectable
beyond the immediate area of the discharge point.
Therefore, the establishment of a zone of deposition for
either of these two permits is not necessary.
Comment
25. EPA must set maximum flow limits for sanitary waste
discharges.
Response
Maximum flow limits have been included in the permits. See
response to comment 82, Alaska DGC letter above.
comment
26. EPA's failure to apply the antidegradation requirements of the
Clean Water Act to this virtually pristine water system
violates the Clean Water Act.
Response
The state's antidegradation standards are in 18 AAC 70.010.
Water quality will be lowered due to the discharges from the
entire operations. However, the degree of change will be
minimal. All water quality standards will be met at the end
of the pipe except for turbidity. The permittee has been
requested a mixing zone for turbidity downstream of the
sediment pond outfalls related to the mine. ADEC has approved
the mixing zones for turbidity.
10-47
-------
The discharge will not violate the state's water quality
criteria or harm present or potential uses of the water. ADEC
will be asked to certify that this is the case through the CWA
401 certification process. Only after the completion of the
certification process can the NPDES permits be issued. It is
through the certification process that the antidegradation
requirements will be met.
mmment
27 .
It is not clear as to why outfall 019 is necessary if the DEIS
is correct in stating that the mine site and housing site
treated sewage will be mixed and discharge together.
ppgponse
Outfall 019 has been deleted from the mine permit (AK-004357-
5) . See response to Trustees for Alaska/ACE comment #19
above.
mmment
Appendix C
Diamond's facilities are not well designed to minimize
' /-in wetlands.
2 8 • UXaXUV44W —
incursion on wetlands.
Response
X V
aPpn„nt the presence of wetlands which
DACC has taken int The proposea northern
could be affected by^ the P^ecx. ^ wetlands for two
transportation cor environmental impact and to minimize
reasons. to mini Qf building across open water
construction considerably higher than building on
or boggy ^vtfore, the road alignment follows the highest
uplands. Thereto ^ ^ine and the Ladd port Slte>
the port
isErvs'Si £iiis in order to avoid
cutting off flow to wetland areas.
¦ Reke Mishakoff (Tyonek DEIS public hearing 8/18/88)
mmment
Concerned about the effects of the project on commercial
fishing and subsistence.
10-48
-------
Response
Effects on commercial fishing and subsistence have been
discussed in Chapter 5.0 of the FEIS.
Tamara Smid (Beluga resident)
Comment
Page 2-3, 2-14
1. Northern/Ladd transportation route crosses Threemile Creek (a
fish stream) twice. Also crosses Lone Creek, another fish
stream.
Response
These and other crossings are discussed throughout the FEIS.
Comment
2. Eastern/Ladd route crosses Lone Creek near Viapan Lake,
through wetland used by birds.
Response
These and other crossings are discussed throughout the FEIS.
Comment
3. Southern/Granite Point route crosses Chuit and Old Tyonek
Creek and wetland areas.
Response
These and other crossings are discussed throughout the
FEIS.
Comment
Page 2-4, 2-6
4. If coal is present in entire Western Cook Inlet, should whole
area be mined? What are other less environmentally damaging
energy sources which could be used?
10-49
-------
Response
At this time only Diamond Alaska has applied to mine coal in
the area. Existing laws allow individual applications to be
evaluated and approved or disapproved based on individual
merits or impacts. Under NEPA regulations, cumulative impacts
are addressed to the extent feasible.
Comment
5. Wetlands cannot be revegetated and remain as wetlands.
Response
Wetlands contain vegetation ranging from peat moss to black
spruce. It is possible to revegetate disturbed wetlands with
wetland plants or to create wetland conditions, and that is
what is meant by revegetating wetlands. The ASMCRA
application now contains a "Wetland Revegetation Plan" which
has been accepted by the ADNR Division of Mining.
Comment
Page 2-14
6. Mine runoff would pollute lower elevations.
Response
The drainage and sediment control plan strategically locates
ditches and sediment ponds to intercept all runoff from
disturbed areas. This system will not allow "polluted runoff"
to flow to "lower elevations" as the commentor states. Runoff
water entering the ditch and pond system will be treated prior
to discharge to area streams.
Comment
7. Treatment of runoff will not clean the water.
PASDonse
The commentor states that the "Caving water tern era
density will change regardless of treatment. The
and density * f streams receiving discharges from
temperature regim discussed in Volume XVII, pages 4-261
sediment ponds ASMCRA application. This discussion
through 42eih ^ temperature regimes of receiving
s?reams could potentially be altered by solar heating or
10-50
-------
ambient cooling, no significant changes to natural stream
temperatures would occur as a result of mine operation.
Calculations were performed to determine temperature changes
in receiving streams due to inflow of colder sediment pond
water (winter) and warmer sediment pond water (late spring,
summer, and early fall). Results of these calculations
indicate a maximum change in downstream temperature of -0.3l°c
for winter months when average stream temperatures are above
0°C.
Calculations for the summer months are based on two
situations. The first situation assumes that sediment pond
water temperature would be the maximum value of ambient air
temperature. This is not possible, but is a worst-case
situation for predicting a maximum impact from warming. Under
this situation, the maximum downstream temperature change is
0.25oC. The second situation assumes that sediment pond water
temperature is the minimum value of ground water. This is
also not possible, but a worst-case situation for predicting
a maximum impact from cooling. Under this situation, the
maximum downstream temperature change is -0.81°C. Since
records indicate that diurnal temperature fluctuations average
40 C during the summer months, the predicted downstream
temperature change of 0.25 to -0.81°C is much less than the
average diurnal change of 4°C for natural stream temperatures
during the summer months. These small temperature changes in
the winter and summer will not cause measurable changes in
density.
The commentor notes that treatment will not "clean the water"
because the sediment ponds would be dredged periodically. The
ponds need to be dredged because they, in fact, "clean the
water". The purpose of the sediment ponds is to provide a
quiescent area which allows the sediment to settle out of the
water. The sediment that settles from the water accumulates
on the pond bottom. The volume of settled sediment will
increase over time to the point where there will not be
sufficient space in the pond to store the settled sediment.
If this situation is allowed to occur, sediment will be
carried through the pond and to the receiving streams.
Therefore, it is necessary to periodically remove these
sediments by dredging. According to ASMCRA application Revised
Appendix K, Drainage and Sediment Control Design, page K-118,
the sediment ponds have been designed to contain 1 or 3 years
of sediment volume depending on active pit location and mining
progress.
10-51
-------
Comment
Figure"2-12 shows Granite Point port facilities - need same
kind of detail for other port options.
Rpsponse
The same type of facilities shown for Granite Point would be
built at the Ladd port site. As Figure 2-12 was simply an
artistic conception, it was not necessary to duplicate it for
Ladd.
comment
q Th^ statement that all stockpiles would be within mining
limits is incorrect; KPB lease options indicate coal to be
stockpiled around Viapan Lake and Ladd port site.
Response
There aDoears to be some confusion between coal stockpiles
and topsoil stockpiles. Section 2.8 1.2 (DEIS page 2-31)
discusses only topsoil stockpiles, all of which would be
located within the mining limit. Coal stockpiles would be
located within the port areas; no coal or topsoil stockpiles
would be located at Viapan Lake.
comment
Psgs 2-35/36 ,
io Mining would occur in major fish streams despite DACC's
statement that they will minimize construction and mining in
streams.
ppsponse
Minina Plans were designed to minimize impacts on all
wildlife- however, unavoidably some smaller streams would be
disrupted The State of Alaska and DACC have agreed on
replacement of this habitat through the mitigation plan
included in the ASMCRA permit.
Comment
Page 2-43
11. Ladd port option not thoroughly analyzed.
10-52
-------
Response
The Ladd port option has been thoroughly analyzed by DACC
including preliminary engineering, environmental aspects, and
offshore port design. The FEIS analysis of the Ladd port
alternative is commensurate with that of the Granite Point
port alternative.
rramment
Page 2-45
12. Air quality in Anchorage and the atmosphere will be degraded
by slash burning.
pasponse
The Diamond Chuitna Coal Project would be almost 45 miles west
of the Anchorage area. The magnitude of slash burning
emissions and the distance from Anchorage make it very
unlikely that Anchorage would be affected by air emissions
from these activities. Slash burning emissions are temporary
in nature and the predominant winds in the project area are
from north and south, thus, not in the direction of Anchorage.
The applicant must obtain permits from ADEC before burning
slash.
r*r»mment
Page 2-47
12- Environmental coordinator should be on site, not in Anchorage.
£gsponse
During operations, the environmental coordinator will spend
time both on site and in Anchorage.
Page 3-6
14. No discussion of predicted impacts of each coal transportation
option.
po»sponse
Detailed discussions of the impacts of all potential options
listed in the DEIS were not undertaken because several were
eliminated early in the impact analysis (Chapter 3.0) due to
technical, economic, or environmental considerations.
10-53
-------
Comment
15. Coal slurry is most environmentally sound option and it is
dismissed.
Response
The coal slurry option was not chosen due to technological and
economic considerations. It would have a similar
environmental impact to the covered conveyor system.
Comment
Page 3-10
16. The environmental hazards of "Option 6" are not shown on Table
3-2 .
Responses
Commentor's reference to "option 6" is unclear. This table
shows major reasons why certain options were eliminated early
in the evaluation process. Any options which were retained
were evaluated in more detail in the EIS.
Comment
17. North Foreland option shown as eliminated.
Response
See response to Smid comment #16 above.
Comment
18. Blasting in August and September 1988 shows northern route is
now the only option which remains.
Response
DACC is unaware of any blasting studies by Northern
Geophysical.
Comment
Page ?-18
19. DACC has stated that a road would be used to transport coal
for sometime despite Table 3-6 showing a high adverse impact
from roads.
10-54
-------
pesponse
The road will be used for coal hauling only until construction
of the coal conveyor system is complete. Tonnages to be
transported during this period will be low. See also response
to DCG comment #19.
rromment
Page 3-29
20. This table shows Eastern/Ladd corridor as being
environmentally better, but blasting by Northern
Geophysical has shown that the Northern/Ladd route is
better.
Response
See response to Smid comment #18 above.
r-nmment
Page 3-35
21. Paragraph 2, last sentence is a value judgement not based on
fact, i.e., Northern/Ladd vs Southern/Granite Point
comparison.
pfisoonse
The judgement was necessarily based on best professional
knowledge following the logic of that section.
rnmment
Page 4-38
22- Paragraph 4, first sentence: Fish which spawn in area streams
are caught in other areas.
pasponse
The sentence refers only to resident fish, not anadromous fish
such as salmon. Also, the sentence says that resident species
are not significantly exploited in area streams, i.e., they
are not fished heavily.
Comment
Page 4-38/41
23. Fish data from ADF&G in 1983 and 1984 were not typical of the
area.
10-55
-------
Response
Data referenced are not from ADFSG. Catches of various
specie^ in these two^year^ i" ^V^riod^is "lately
rep?esekatTveg of the long-term trends (see the mean figures
for 1966 through 1984 on Table 4-15 of the FEIS) i.e.,
Chinook: 1983 = 1.7 x average, 1984 = .75 x
average
Coho: 1983 = 1.8 x average, 1984 = 1.6 x
average
Chum: 1983 = 1.6 x average, 1984 = .97 x
average
Pinks (even) 1984 = .50 x average
Pinks (odd) 1983 = .40 x average
Comment
^ Ii?emality studies cited were done in areas already polluted
and not in the mining and transportation areas.
T?p.sponse
The EIS uses existing, representative air quality data to
assess^ existing condition. See Section ^ for a detailed
analysis of air quality impacts of the proposed project.
Comment
Aria residents were not surveyed to determine their attitudes
the otoieot. Tyonek residents are most concerned about
destruction^^ fish aid wildlife. Beluga residents and land
owners were not mentioned m EIS.
Response
^ f nr-mal "survey" of Tyonek was not done,
^»™?ews were c^nductSd with 32 Tyonek residents. The
results were summarized and included in Section 4.7 of
^ nJrq and FEIS. Concern of Tyonek residents regarding
the DEIS £n included in the report and the EIS.
taM^ collection and analysis process reflects an
10-56
-------
"ethnographic key informant" approach, a standard
socioeconomic study technique. Surveys are designed to
quantify responses to project issues rather than to
identify new issues. Beluga residents were not
specifically included because the field work was done
prior to the identification of the Ladd port site as
an alternative.
romment
Page 5-11
26. Value judgments were made regarding importance of lost
wildlife habitat.
response
NEPA guidelines require the use of best professional judgment
when quantitative data is not available to the EIS preparer.
romment
Page 5-12
27. Paragraph 5, last sentence: this may be construed as defense
of killing moose and bear for sport and meat.
pesponse
State law allows killing of wildlife in defense of life and
property. However, an animal which is killed must immediately
be reported to ADF&G. Moose meat must be immediately turned
over to the state. The same is true for a bear skin and
skull. A report must be prepared immediately. The laws are
designed to discourage unlawful harvest.
romment
Page 5-45
28. If stream and ground water is polluted, the marine environment
will be affected. Also, marine environment will be affected
by the water and air cycles.
pp.sponse
It is recognized that minor changes in surface and ground-
water quality will occur in the project area resulting
from construction and operation. These changes may
increase dissolved and suspended solids concentrations
in the Chuitna River causing a slight increase of these
materials entering Cook Inlet. Water affected by the
10-57
-------
nroiect is an extremely small proportion of the total
P 2 rnnic inlet in this area and, consequently,
changes in marine water quality due to the project will
£e undetectable. Furthermore, Cook Inlet is a dynamic,
? ochtarv havinq a tremendous natural sediment load,
f huge veolumer^f water, and strong tidal currents which
assure that a change in marine water quality will not
occur.
comment
29. £1" the' state petitioned
standards to allow permitting of this project.
Response
The AlasKa Stfng
regulations to maKe them consistent with the minimum EPA
refinements. The effect of this revision would be to exclude
$^rHtive emissions from the determination of permit
fugitive Mission* SQUrce categories. Under these
revised1"rules the Diamond Chuitna Coal Project would still
be required to' obtain a "permit to construct and operate" from
aofc and must still comply with ADEC's requirements for the
^prevention of significant deterioration" (PSD) because
JnilsiSis from sources other than the mine exceed the PSD
annlinability level. The Diamond Chuitna Coal Project could
obtain exemption from the PSD requirements by reducing
particulate emissions from sources other than the mine.
Reaardless of the ADEC permitting requirements the air
aualitv impact analysis done for the draft environmental
Snait statement demonstrates that the Diamond Chuitna Coal
Project will comply with ambient air quality standards and PSD
increments.
Myra Starkloff (Tyonek DEIS public hearing 8/18/88)
Comment
1. DEIS needs to be redone because it takes too lightly the
concerns of the residents.
Response
Public comment has been solicited throughout the EIS process
Refer to chapter 7.0 (Consultation and Coordination).
10-58
-------
10.3 Public Comment Letters
10-59
-------
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT REVIEW
ltt» C STREET. ROOM 119
ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 9K01 SUt $£p 0 6 1988
ER 88/437 RECEIVED
SEP 8 1968
EEB EPA/
REGION 10
OFFICE OF
regional administrator
September I, 1988
Mr. Robie G. Russell, Regional Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 96101
Dear Mr. Russells
We have reviewed the Draft Env'ronmental Impact Statement (EIS) far the Diamond
Chuitna Coal Project, and offer the following comments for your consideration.
We believe the EIS should include specific ground-water monitoring plans, which would j
include recording possible water-level changes and water-quality changes in the various
aquifers involved.
Known faults that affect ground-water flow should be shown on appropriate maps and
sections. Faults that are barriers to ground-water may affect flow direction or water
levels, possibly Increasing drawdown. These faults should be considered in evaluating Z
aquifer characteristics and possible water-level changes. Additionally, water-quality
effects should be assessed relative to the removal of impermeable faults that currently
separate water of poor quality from better quality ground-water.
In general, we believe the document adequately describes the fish and wildlife resources
in the project area, particularly with respect to the Granite Point alternative. However,
we also believe the document needs additional Information and analysis In its description j
and assessment of Impacts that would occur with development of either the northern or
eastern access routes associated with the Lodd part site alternative. We are also
concerned with the lock of a comprehensive mitigation plan for each alternative
described.
Earlier planning efforts and environmental studies placed heavy emphasis an Granite
Point as the preferred alternative for port development. Valuable resource data were
obtained with respect to development of this route; however, much of this information
may not be transferable to the two alternate Lodd port site routes, neither of which has
been adequately studied or evaluated with respect to fish and wildlife impacts.
Therefore, it is difficult to determine on what basis the eastern Lodd route has
supplanted the Granite Point route as the route with the least environmental effects.
Also, this lock of information hinders our ability to formulate specific mitigation
recommendations. We feel that appropriate studies must be conducted on the two
alternative Ladd routes to equitably compare these options. We strongly urge that
habitat-based assessment techniques be utilized to quantify both adverse and beneficial
Impacts. This could entail use of the Fish and Wildlife Service's Habitat Evaluation
Procedures or a comparable methodology.
Once this Information has been generated, a comprehensive, detailed mitigation plan
should be developed for each alternative. This plan should include specific mitigation
measures. Implementation schedules, and appropriate funding mechanisms' for all
identified adverse Impacts. In this regard, we recommend the consideration of an
Interagency team to oversee all mitigation aid monitoring activities (terrestrial and
aquatic), assess mitigation and monitoring results, and Identify any additional mitigation
that may be justified by those results. Funding for these efforts should be included as
part of project costs.
The mitigation approach and planning documentation by the Alaska Power Authority for
the Susitna and Bradley Lake hydroelectric projects may provide helpful technical
assistance to planners as they proceed with a formal mitigation plan for the Diamond
Chuitna Coal Project.
In summtry, we believe the EIS needs additional information concerning ground-water in
the project area and the effects associated with the Ladd site access routes, and
mitigation needs and measures. It is also important that sufficient data be available for
the determination of mitigation needs for the timely processing of future project related
permit applications.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this draft.
Sincerely,
Regional Environmental Officer
cc: Rick Seaborne, EPA
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
UJ» ARMY rNOINKCR OMTHICT, ALASKA
pjo.bqx an
ANCHORAOC. ALASKA W0< 0<»
Regu 1 dtSFfWaKth
Special Actions Section
SEP 13 1988
RECEIVED
SEP 18 1968
EEBEPA/
REGION 10
Rick Seaborne
Environmental Protection Agency, HO-136
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Dear Nr. Seaborne:
This letter provides comments In regard to the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) on the Diamond Alaska Coal Project. The Corps of
Engineers (Corps) reference nunbers for this project are 2-850259 (Cook
Inlet 330), 2-850260 (Cook Inlet 331), and 2-850261 (Cook Inlet 332).
The Corps appreciates the opportunity to conment on this document and
to be designated a cooperating agency for this EIS. The major concerns
which still need to be resolved include mitigation concerns and the
relationship of the surface mining permit and its stipulations to the EIS
process. In addition, the draft 404(b)(1) evaluation which was prepared 3
by Oames and Moore mis left out of Appendix C.
In regard to mitigation, the treatment of various mitigatlve options
in the DEIS are not sufficiently Identified and developed in order for a
comprehensive mitigation package to be put together. In order for the
Corps to use this EIS process for our review and decision making, the DEIS
should be detailed enough to provide a comprehensive evaluation and
recommendation of mitigatlve features which would allow the project to be
consistent with the 404(b)(1) guidelines and the public interest review.
Many mitigatlve features have already been Incorporated into the project
by the applicant and as a result of the NEPA process to date. These Items
should more clearly be listed in order for the reviewer to determine the j
extent of mitigation which has already been made part of the project.
(These are primarily reducing, avoiding and minimizing measures.)
Also related to the mitigation concerns and impact assessment is the
Division of Mining Surface Mining Permit which has already been Issued.
This permit has many mitigatlve requirements for the mine pit trtiich have
already been agreed to by the applicant and which are not specified in the
DEIS. A detailed review of those requirements in the EIS would help
reviewers and the applicant by ensuring that duplicating or conflicting
stipulations are not put on permits. A preliminary review of the Surface
Mine permit stipulations indicates that there may already be sufficient
mitigatlve and monitoring efforts built into the Surface Mine permit to
satisfy many of the resource agency concerns for the mine area. If this
is the case, it would greatly simplify the subsequent review for the
remainder of the project features.
-2-
The development of the Ladd corridor alternative Is not comensurate
with the development of other alternative measures and not sufficient for
a detailed review. The applicant should more fully develop this
alternative, particularly since it seems to be a preference of the
applicant.
Should you require additional information on this subject, please
contact Ms. Carol Gorbics of my staff at (907) 753-2724.
Sincerely,
larryH.. Reeder
Chief, Special Actions Section
Regulatory Branch
-------
OFFICE OF TUB GOVERNOR
DIVISION OF GOV£BNMENTAL COORDINATION
S7M COWHK GOVSMNOM
CENTRA!. OFFCg
P.a BOX AW
JUNEAU. ALASKA 999f1-0l6S
PHONE: (907) 4&JS&
SOUTHEAST BCOlONAL OFFICE
431 NORTH FRANKUN
p.o. box aw. suns 101
JUtCAU. ALASKA 9MU-01SS
PHONE: (907) 46*4062
REGISTERED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT
REQUESTED
SOUTXCEWmAL R6GI0MAL omce
MOODENAU STREET
suite too
ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 99S034799
PHONE: (907) 274-JSS1
September 22, 1988
MQHTHEBN REOONAt OFFICE
*79 SEVENTH AVENUE
STATION H
FAIRBANKS. ALASKA 99701-4599
PHONE: <907)49*30*
RECEIVED
<7. S. environmental protection
Agency
Attni Mr. Rick Seaborne
WD-136
Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle HA 98101
SEP 28 1968
EES EPA/
REGION 10
Dear Ms. Seabornet
SUBJECT: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
DIAMOND CHUITNA COAL PROJECT
PHASE 2 - STATE I.D. HO. AX880705-02A
The Division of Governmental Coordination (DGC) has completed
coordinating the state's review of the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS) on the Diamond Chuitna Coal Project. The DSI8
was circulated by the D. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
for review and comment pursuant to the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA).
Diamond Alaska Coal Company (DACC) proposes to develop a twelve
million ton per year coal mine in the Chuitna region of upper
Cook Inlet, approximately 45 miles west of Anchorage. The
project would consist of an open pit mine and associated coal
transportation and port facilities, service facilities, and
housing accommodations. The project requires National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permits from EPA for
discharge of pollutants from the mine, port, coal loading, and
housing facilities to navigable waters. Additionally, various
project activities require permits from the 0. 8. Any Corps of
Engineers (COE). Pursuant to NEPA, the Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) process wks Initiated in response to DACC's
application for these permits.
The review of the draft and final BIS documents and the
associated federal permits constitutes Phase 2 of the state's
permitting process for the Diamond Chuitna Project. Ne are
0! A351H
AttnI Kr. Rick Seaborne 2 September 22, 1988
DEIS - Diamond Chuitna Coal Project
Phase 2 - State I.D. No. AK8S0705-02A
providing comments on the DEIS to be either addressed or
included, as noted, in the Final Environmental Impact Statement
(FEIS). The state will complete our Phase 2 review and our
Coastal Management Program consistency finding between the
issuance of the FEIS and preparation of the Record of Decision.
DGC received comments on the DEIS from the state Departments of
Environmental Conservation (DEC), rish and Game (DPG), Natural
Resources (DNR), and Transportation and Public Facilities as well
as from the State Historic Preservation office and the Kenai
Peninsula Borough. Reviewers noted that in comparison to the
Preliminary DEIS, the DEIS is much improved and the state
acknowledges the considerable effort of the EPA and document
preparers in producing this comprehensive planning document.
The state's comments on the DEIS are separated into general
comments, page-specific comments, and comments on the NPDES and
COE permits. For purposes of clarification of our comments and
to provide specific intonation to EPA on ths technical review
previously'completed by the state, we have included a discussion
of our Phase 1 permitting for the project within the general
comments.
GENERAL COMMENTS
EIS Process and State Phase 1 Permitting
Prior to issuance of the DEIS, the state completed initial
permitting for the port, transportation, housing and mine
components of the project. Through this Phase 1 permitting
process the initial ten year project, affected resources, and
associated impacts were reviewed and, for the nine component,
detailed monitoring programs and specific mitigation measures
developed. The state Surface Mining Permit application required
pursuant to the Alaska Surface Coal Mining Control and
Reclamation Act (ASMCRA) was the impetus for this detailed review
and the development of the monitoring and mitigation for the mine
permit area. Through ASMCRA, the state has primacy over
permitting for coal mining in Alaska. The federal Office of
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) oversees the
state program. The state ASMCRA regulations for coal nine
development must be at least as effective as the federal OSMRE
regulations.
From January 1985 to June 1988 the state conducted completeness
and technical adequacy reviews of the Phase 1 permit applications
for the project. This included a 27 volume application for a
Surface Mining Permit required under ASMCRA.
co7/75
-------
Attn; Mr. Rick Seaborne 3 September 22, 1988
DEIS - Diamond Chuitna Coal Project
Phase 2 - State I.D. Mo. AK880705-02A
The states nearly 3 1/2-year process included the following
steps:
A 13 month Completeness Review, which generated 33
pages of agency comments; 11 separate reports to the
state by 3 contractors totalling 237 pagesi 56 pages of
Finding* by the DNR; and one major revision of the
Permit Application by the applicant.
A 13 month Technical Adequacy Review, which generated
144 pages of agency comments; 10 separate reports to
the state by 5 contractors totalling 626 pages; 469
pages of public comments and transcribed testimony; 358
pages of Findings by the DNR; and two major revisions
of the Permit Application by the applicant. This
process culminated. in a decision by the state on
Harch 5, 1987 to require modifications to two major
aspects of the permit application, plus an additional
23 permit stipulations.
A S-month review of a fourth major revision of the
Permit Application submitted by the applicant in
response to the state's initial (March 3, 1987) permit
decision, which generated 36 pages of agency comments;
32 pages of public comments; an additional contractor
report totalling 39 pages; and 47 pages of Findings by
the DNR. This process culminated in a decision by the
state on August 21, 1987, to approve the permit with 19
stipulations.
A 10 month Administrative Hearing process which
considered over 25 separate appeal issues raised by the
applicant and by Trustees for Alaska. Over twenty full
or partial days of oral testimony by 16 witnesses was
heard. The hearing generated 1,339 pages of briefs,
motions and other documents, and culminated in a
decision upholding the state's permit approval and
stipulations on all but two minor points. This
decision was adopted by the state on June 28, 1988.
A subsequent appeal of the state's permit decision was
filed in Alaska Superior Court on July 28, 1988, and is
currently in progress.
The Phase 1 review was completed by technical staff of the state
resource agencies as well as private technical consultants under
contract to the state. The revisions to the ASMCRA application
and the development of project monitoring and mitigation
stipulations were based on the technical review by these parties
at veil at on ditcuttions with and review by DACC and their
Attn; Mr. Rick Seaborne 4
DEIS - Diamond Chuitna Coal Project
Phase 2 - State I.D. Ho. AK880705-02A
September 22, 1988
Because of this, the state strongly recommends the DEIS authors
review the technical evaluation completed by the state during the
Phase 1 permitting. Me recommend that the FEIS reflect, as the
preferred alternative for the mine component, the monitoring and
mitigation developed as a result of this extensive process Tor
the mine's initial 10 years as permitted by the state through
ASMCRA.
The state has previously provided EPA with our ASMCRA Surface
Mining Permit decision and our finding of consistency of the
Phase 1 project with the ACMP. During the course of the DEIS
review we have discussed with the COB and EPA the benefits of a
detailed review of the ASMCRA application and our decision
documents. State staff are available to assist the federal
agencies as well as the DEIS preparers with this review.
The ASMCRA decision applies only to the geographic area covered
by the Surface Mining Permit and the monitoring and mitigation
apply only to the initial 10 year permit term. The state
recognizes that the DEIS and FEIS have a much broader scope and
term. We agree with the DEIS authors that special problems exist
in predicting the extent, magnitude, and duration of potential
impacts as mining progresses over a period of 30 years. However,
because of the strenuous requirements of the ASMCRA regulations,
the state believes that the decisions made pursuant to these
regulations should be mirrored in the FEIS discussions of the
mine area, project impacts, monitoring and mitigation for the
initial 10 years. This comment is referenced repeatedly in our
page-specific comments.
Where possible we have separated our comments on the remaining
20 years covered by the EIS from the initial 10 years. Because
the detailed monitoring and mitigation have not been developed
for project components outside the ASMCRA permit boundary, we
also distinguish between the ASMCRA permit area and the other
project areas (i.e., road, transportation, housing, conveyor and
port) .
Mixing tone and State Water Quality Standards
Although the DEIS provides a discussion of application of the
state receiving water standards, eg. the Alaska Water Quality
Standards, too little information is provided concerning the
applicability of a mixing zone. While both the EPA and state
standards can or do apply at the point of discharge, the state
standards may by applied to the receiving water when a mixing
zone is designated. The state's ASMCRA review Identified that
discharges from the sediment ponds serving the active mine site
are likely to require a mixing zone to comply with the state
receiving water standards. If the discharge site meets specific
-------
Attnj Mr. Rick Seaborne 5 September 22, 1988
DEIS - Diamond Chuitna Coal Project
Phase 2 - State Z.D. No. AX880705-02A
to achieve this receiving water standards at the boundary of the
zone. Although the mixing zone concept is mentioned in the DEIS,
neither the DEIS, nor the draft NPDES permit address the
application of a mixing zone.
The DEIS identifies that under winter lowflow/baseflow
conditions, compliance with the Alaska Hater Quality Standards is
not projected by recent studies and modelling. The state's
ASMCRA review reached the same conclusion. Based on such
uncertainties and to assure that state standards will be met, the
state is requiring that the applicant develop a water quality
contingency plan. The contingency plan provides for
implementation of a variety of measures to ensure the active mine
discharge achieves compliance with the Alaska Nater Quality
Standards. The contingency plan is required and described in
stipulation S of the Surface Mining Permit and is also a
condition of the Phase 1 project's consistency with the ACMP.
This contingency plan must be reviewed and approved prior to
issuance of the 401 Certification from the DEC for the EPA NPDES
permits and the COE Section 404 permits.
Therefore, the operator's reliance on the mixing zone to meet
state water quality standards along with the contingency plan
stipulation should be described in the PEIS and the NPDES permit.
Development of Mitigation Measures
The state acknowledges that special problems exist in attempting
to assess project impacts over the 30 year term covered by the
DEIS. As the DEIS suggests, this will require a flexible
approach that is responsive not only to the results of acquired
nonitoring data, but to potential advances in mitigative
techniques• We support this approach to ensure that appropriate
mitigation is consistently applied throughout the tenure of the
project.
In reviewing the ASMCRA permit application for the mine, the
state utilized an integrated process to define whether specific
impacts can be avoided, minimized, rectified or reduced. If not,
then mitigation for unavoidable Impacts was required in concert
with monitoring to quantify the effects of mitigative efforts
while identifying additional impact trends.
As described above, the process for review and approval of the
ASMCRA Surface Mining Permit was extensive. This process
considered virtually all of the mitigation options proposed by
EPA in the DEIS. Many of these were developed into detailed
requirements, several other options were rejected (See
page-specific comments for further detail). The process involved
all the state resource agencies and the mitigation and monitorlna
plans developed received extensive public review and input.
co7/75
Attm Mr. Rick Seaborne 6 September 22, 1988
DEIS - Diamond Chuitna Coal Project
Phase 2 - State I.D. No. AK880705-02A
The DEIS presents project mitigation in the form of various
options that regulatory agencies may adopt during permitting.
This approach does not take advantage of the mitigation
information available as a result of the extensive state effort
for the mine permit area for the 10 year permit term.
Additionally, this approach renders the DEIS ambiguous regarding
appropriate mitigation both within and outside of the mine permit
area. Finally, because the DEIS fails to specify a preferred
mitigation plan with justifying rationale, it does not illustrate
what EPA supports and why.
The state has several recommendations to correct these
deficiencies in the FEIS. First, as stated above, the state
strongly recommends that the FBIS reflect the mitigation measures
developed via the ASMCRA process for the mine permit area for the
initial 10 year term. Secondly, the state recommends that, for
the project components outside the mine area, the EPA evaluate
whether impacts can be avoided, minimized, rectified or reduced
prior to defining compensation as the initial mitigation
approach. Finally, the state recommends that the appropriate
mitigation beyond the initial 10 year term for the mine permit
area and for the other project areas be identified prior to
issuance of an FEIS via a federal/state/applicant workshop forum.
The appropriate feasible mitigation/monitoring identified would
then be reflected in the FEIS. The suggested approach is to
review the specific impacts associated with or anticipated froo
various project components and then if these impacts cannot be
avoided, to assess the ways they may be minimized, rectified or
reduced.
The preparers of the DEIS held such a workshop on the project
fisheries mitigation plan in August 1985. He believe reconvening
this forum would allow development of a greater degree of
specificity in the FEIS and would greatly reduce the potential
for conflicting or changing mitigation requirements, which would
be unworkable for the applicant, from various permitting
agencies. The suggested approach would also allow the FEIS to
reflect the project specific expertise of state and federal
resource agency staff many of whom have worked extensively on the
DACC proposal over the past several years.
The interagency/applicant workshop approach has been implemented
successfully on other large scale developments in Alaska. In
some cases the working forum continues to meet bimonthly to
review necessary proposed project modifications and/or monitoring
results.
The DEIS references an aquatic habitat committee as a mechanism
to assure implementation of mitigation measures. The Interagency
group suggested by the state is recommended as a "technical
review* rather than "enforcement" forum and is not intended to
co7/75
-------
Attni Mr. Rick Seaborne 7
DEIS - Diamond Chuitna Coal Project
Phase 2 - State I.D. No. AK880705-02A
September 22, 1988
"assure implementation* of altijation measures. Although on
other projects the interagency working forum has not been
formally designated as a committee it has been effective in
reviewing both terrestrial and aquatic project impacts,
mitigation, and monitoring. Ha suggest the PEIS preparers
contact the state for for assistance coordinating this forua.
Further we suggest that the FEIS describe this
interagency/applicant group rather than an aquatic habitat
committee.
PAGE-SPECIFIC COMMENTS
Page S-2. The conveyor structure is described as being enclosed
on top and one side except at stream crossings where the
underside would also be enclosed. No discussion is provided
regarding the loss of coal particulates along the conveyor
in areas other than stream crossings. The state recommends
that the entire conveyor be covered on the underside in
conformance with the applicant's original design unless EPA
identifies where and when this design is not appropriate.
If EPA identifies portions of the conveyor for which this
design is not appropriate the FEIS should address how, in
these portions, accumulation of coal fines and runoff below
the conveyor would be addressed.
Page 2-9. It is stated that all of the sediment pond discharges
from the nine area will meet applicable standards. However,
concerning documentation submitted in conjunction with the
state Surface Mine Permit, it is apparent that the applicant
can't meet the Alaska Hater Quality Standards without the
use of a mixing zone. As stated in our general comments,
the FEIS should address in some detail the necessity of a
mixing zone.
Page 2-14 and Figure 2-4. It is noted that runoff from the mine
facilities area isto be processed by two sediment ponds for
settling and treatment prior to discharge to stream 2003.
However, according to Figure 2-4, the ponds discharging to
stream 2003 do not include treatment works. According to
the ASMCRA Permit application approved by the state, all of
the sediment ponds are designed to accommodate treatment
works (in most cases a two stage flocculation system). The
legend to Figure 2-4 should be revised such that it does not
identify some ponds as not having treatment works. Instead,
the legend could differentiate between those 13 pond systems
where the state has required that at least a single stage
flocculation system be fully functional prior to the ponds
being operated as opposed to the remaining 5 pond systems
where Installation of flocculation equipment will depend on
result* actually achieved in the field. See Stipulation 1
^ \ V^\\. "W y \S\\ v x
Attni Mr. Rick Seaborne 8
DEIS - Diamond Chuitna Coal Project
Phase 2 - State I.D. No. AK880705-02A
September 22, 1988
Page 2-15, Southern Corridor Conveyor. The map of this corridor
shows buried moose crossings In the vicinity of the Chuitna
River that are deaigned to occur on the immediate bluff area
overlooking the river. However, these same crossings are a
noticeably absent from the artist's illustration on page "
2-18. The bluff area above the Chuitna River is a critical
migration route, and it is essential that the conveyor
provide moose passage in this area. Therefore, the FEIS
should clarify that the conveyor will, in fact, be buried in
this location.
Page 2-16, Figure 2-8. Potential gravel sources need to be
depicted more clearly, and an explanation provided as to why Cj
the general areas identified are believed to represent the
best locations.
Page 2-19. Apparently the conveyor belt is to be "partially
enclosed on the underside" where the belt crosses a stream. |0
'Partially enclosed* needs further clarification, as the
diagrams provided are not adequately detailed.
Page 2-19. paragraph 3. The process that led to the
development of wildlife crossings on the southern corridor
route was site specific, and based on known moose movements H
in that area. The document should not assume that distance
or design criteria established for that route apply to
either of the other two route alternatives.
Pages 2-25 and 2-44. Although the SPCC Plan for oil spill
contingency and planning is discussed, no mention is made of
siting controls for the oil and fuel storage area. With a
four month supply on hand, it is likely that the operator
will need a lined area with a contained berm to control
potential spills. The FEIS should reference this require-
ment and note that the contained area is required to hold
100% of the capacity of the largest tank, while maintaining
12 inches of freeboard.
Page 2-27. The method of sludge disposal will be hauling it to
the mine pit for burial. The FEIS should note that this
proposal will require coordination with the state DEC to i'j
assure compliance with the Solid Haste Regulations,
18 AAC 60, eg. stabilization of the sludge prior to
disposal.
Page 2-30. The statement that "Any soil which does not meet the
applicant's standards for revegetation also would be covered
with a minimum of 1.2 ¦ (4 ft.) of nontoxic and noncombusti-
ble spoil material," is no longer correct. The applicant
removed thia commitment from the final revision of the
V&OX IUU,
-------
Attn: Nr. Rick Seaborne 9 September 22, 1918
DEIS - Diamond Chaitna Coal Project
Phase 2 - State I.D. Ho. AX880705-02A
Page 2-34. Flah Mitigation Plan. It Is unclear why the
applicant's flah mitigation plan Is described In this |5
section, and the wildlife mitigation plan is not.
Pages 2-39 and 2-
-------
Attn: Mr. Rick Seaborne 11 September 22, 1988
DEIS - Dluond Chuitna Coal Project
Phase 2 - State I.D. No. AK880705-02A
that the total number of moose in the Lone Ridge concen-
tration is snail. In addition, the document should include
a store detailed discussion of the rut concentration itself,
since it's characteristics and uss by noose for breeding and
pre-winter feeding have not been adequately addressed.
Recent results of the state's Kenai Moose Research Center
suggest that disruption of post-rut/early winter feeding nay
be as dangerous to noose populations as disruptions to
successful breeding. Consequently, we suggest that the FBIS
devote further attention to this possibility, and note the
fact that very little information exists to predict the
response of the Lone Ridge rut concentration to coal devel-
opment .
Page 4-29. Flooding Characteristics. The FEIS should discuss how
the flooding which occurred in October of 1986 coopares to
the naxiaum recorded flood on September 20, 1976.
Page 4-65. paragraph 3. The DEIS makes the statenent that
"substantial subsistence activities are conducted" in the
Kenai Peninsula Borough. This is true for portions of the
borough, such as Tyonek, English Bay and Port Graham, but
generally not the case for the road-connected areas of the
borough. Except for the three places named above, Seldovia,
and the west side of Cook Inlet, the borough has been
classified es being non-rural by the Joint Board of
Fisheries and Game, meaning that subsistence uses are not a
principal characteristic of the economy.
Page 4-89. paragraph 2. The document should clarify that
the winter moose hunt was a subsistence and recreational
hunt only from 1983 to 1985. It is now a subsistence only
hunt.
Page 5-11, Wildlife. An additional adverse impact that should be
considered isdirect mortality from moose/vehicle
collisions. The state is concerned that haul road
mortalities may have a significant impact on moose and other
wildlife.
Page 5-19, Groundwater Quality. In several places, degradation
of ground water quality from leakage emanating from sewer
lines and sewage treatment areas is identified. Assuming
proper construction materials and techniques are utilized,
leakage should not pose a threat to the environment. It is
also stated that "somewhat poorer* water quality will result
from the mining. The resulting water quality should be
further described in this discussion, with appropriate
references to Hater Ouallty Impact Analyses presented in the
ASMCRA permit application Vol. XVII, Section 4.12.12.7.
Attn: Mr. Rick Seaborne 12
DEIS - Diamond Chuitna Coal Project
Phase 2 - State I.D. No. AK380705-02A
September 22, 1988
Page 5-19. Surface Water Hydrology. This section should mention
the possibility that naturalstream temperatures and icing
conditions could be modified by mine development. The
applicant predicted changes in downstream temperatures of
-0.31*C (maximum) during the winter, and -0.81*C (maximum)
during the summer. (See ASMCRA Permit Application Vol.
XVII, pp. 4-261 through 4-261h). DNR's March 5, 1987
Findings concluded that these changes would have only a
minimal effect on fish but also concluded that the magnitude
of any temperature change could not be entirely predicted at
this time. Therefore, a stipulation requiring continuous
temperature monitoring was included in the decision (See
Section II of the March Decision, p. 39-41). This
monitoring program was subsequently incorporated into the
permit application (Vol. XVII, p. 4-232).
Page 5-20. Surface Water Runoff. Surface water runoff from
compacted gravel areas such as roads and staging areas is
subject to state water quality standards. Treatment of
runoff froa these areas within the ASMCRA permit area has
been addressed. For these areas outside the mine permit
boundary, the document should discuss how runoff will be
treated in order to meet state standards.
Pages 5-25 and 5-35. The discussion concerning water quality
requirements,'including state receiving water standards
should be expanded. Although the EPA standards provide for
waiving of certain EPA effluent criteria during storm
events, the state water quality standards still apply,
subject to accounting for variations in natural streamflow
conditions. The problems occur when the post storm event,
stream hydrograph and natural conditions have returned to
normal, whereas continued pumping of the in-pit sumps would
result in a continued elevated discharge. The document
should note that the applicant has made a commitment not to
pump out of the in-pit sumps unless both state and EPA water
quality standards can be met and that the operator will have
to work with the state in controlling the discharge to
ensure compliance with state standards.
Page 5-28. As the most stringent standards apply, per the
Alaska Water Quality Standards, the pH range specified
should be 6.5-8.5 pB units. Because oil and grease have
been identified to be present in the waste water, they
should also be addressed in this section.
Paqe 5-30. The discussion indicates that discharge compliance
with the Alaska Water Ouality Standards during winter
lowflow/baseflow conditions is not projected by recent
studies and modelling. DACC does however project that
*UY to att« application of a mixing
-------
Attn: Mr. Rick Seaborne 13 September 22, 1988
DEIS - Diamond Chuitna Coal Project
Phase 2 - State I.D. Ho. AK880705-02A
zone. See Vol. XXI, Table 40 of the ASMCKA application. As
stated previously, details of proposed mixing cones have not
been provided, causing the technical justification which is
the focus of this review, to be incomplete. Further
discussion should be added to the FBIS.
There is considerable uncertainty relative to predicting
effluent discharges from this project, particularly under
winter conditions. The discussion in the DEIS speculates
that due to a variety of circumstances, presumably in favor
of the operator, the operator will be able to meet the
Alaska Hater Quality Standards. It would b« more relevant
for the FEIS to reference the requirements of Stipulation 3
of the state's Augus': 21, 1987, Decision relating to
treatment of winter baseflow. In addition, this section
should address mixing zones as well as the Hater Quality
Contingency Plan required by the state.
Pages 5-31, 5-34. and 5-81. There is soat discrepancy between
this table and the applicable standards. Please note that
the Alaska Water Quality Standards reference EPA's Quality
Criteria for Hater when specific limitations are not
provided. In some cases these levels are lower than the
Alaska Drinking Hater Regulations. For example, the fresh
water and marine water chronic criteria for arsenic are
48 and 5 ug/1 respectively. The fresh water chronic
criteria for copper is 12 ug/1. As the most stringent
standards apply, the criteria in Tables 5-8, 5-9, and 5-25
need to be reassessed to reflect the applicable standards.
Also, the levels of hydrocarbons, oil and grease, turbidity
and sediment (settleable solids) are not reflected in these
tables.
Page 5-32. The use of flocculants is Indicated in several places
in this document, yet the DEIS does not specify if, how and
what flocculants will be applied. The state ASMCRA review
addressed the requirements for flocculant stations in the
sediment and drainage control plan for the Surface Mine
Permit area. The FEIS should reflect the information in the
Surface Mining Permit application and state decision. See
Stipulation 1 of the August 21, 1987, Decision. Further,
additional specifics on the requirement for use of
flocculants outside the mine permit area should be provided.
Paqe 5-33. This discussion addresses elevated levels of
suspended solids in the in-pit sumps/in-plt settling areas
during high rainfall, storm run-off events. However, there
is no recognition of problems with continuing to discharge
post-storm event, turbid run-off from the in-pit sumps. The
document should reference the applicant's commitment to only
pump from the in-put sumps when the discharge can meet the
co7/75
Attm Mr. Rick Seaborne 14 September 22, 1988
DEIS - Diamond Chuitna Coal Project
Phase 2 - State I.D. No. AK880705-02A
state water quality standards. Additionally, this section
should include reference to the Hater Quality Contingency
Plan and contingency measures to be developed to assure
compliance with the standards.
Page 5-69. paragraph 1. The first paragraph identified five
potential effects of the project on subsistence uses, but
the DEIS discusses only two of them in the sections that
directly follow. Furthermore, there is no reference in the
document as to where these other potential effects might be
located. He agree that all five are potential issues, and
suggest that they all be discussed in one section, or at
least referenced elsewhere.
Page 5-69. paragraph 4. This paragraph states that "moose
abundance is notexpected to decline drastically because of
the project . . .." The state has identified numerous
project impacts that could contribute to a decline of
unknown magnitude in moose abundance. Potential impacts
include disturbance to the Lone Ridge rut concentration and
loss of rutting habitat, potential vehicle/moose collisions
on the haul road, and potential animal displacements and/or
blockage of movements due to conveyor routing and port site
development. Therefore, the DEIS prediction of no drastic
decline is unsubstantiated.
The state has developed a moose monitoring program to define
moose abundance so that declines may be promptly identified
and steps to mitigate the decline be implemented.
Page 5-80. The possible impacts to ground water quality are
briefly mentioned and reference is made to the further
dilution of the leachate as it percolates and moves into
surface water. However, state water quality standards do
not allow for mixing zones in ground water, which
invalidates the assumptions made in this section. This
section should be rewritten such that compliance with state
standards is achieved utilizing methods other than ground
water dilution. It is likely that ground water monitoring
wells will be required.
Paqe 5-85. Reference is made to the increase in sediment load
due to this project. A detailed discussion is not provided
regarding the impact of this additional loading on Cook
Inlet. While it is understood that Cook Inlet is naturally
silty, the issue still warrants review. The discussion
would be improved by including information on the ambient
load in Cook Inlet.
Paqe 5-86. The discussion regarding the repair and maintenance
shop does not address the use and disposal of solvents.
co7/75
-------
Attni nr. Rick Seaborne 15 September 22, I 911
DEIS - Diamond Chultn* Coal Project
Phaae 2 - Stat* I.D. No. ARIS070S-02*
Additionally, there la no mention of how oil aivd greaae will
be removed froa the ^ediaent ponda If either the oil and
grease trap (alia, or It Inadequately rtaovta the
pollutant*.
Page 5-11*. Given the alia of tha potential on-slta laach field
for the housing and transportation facllltlaa, further
review of ground water impacts la needed. For lnetance, a
review of tolla data aey be required to determine the
potential for ground water contamination. Ae mentioned In
our comenti that follow on the NPDBf penilta, thla laach
field will require a Plan Review and Approval by the atate.
Page S-115. Table 5-27 doea not Include total suspended eollde,
dissolved oxygen, fecal collfora, or chlorine (If ueed>
concentration*. Again, although the uaa of a mixing tone la
presented, the justification and supporting data are not
presented.
Page S-116. Effect* on Subsistence Reeource Barveat. Conaletent
with our earlier comment, thla diacuaalon ahould be aoved to
page 5-69.
Page 5-117. Effect* of Change In Harvest Raqulatlone. The atate
agrees that Increasingly restrictive harveat regulatlona
could have significant effects on local subsistence
harvests. In addition, It la worth noting that If lncreeees
In the huaan population on the weat side of Cook Inlet occur
(ss predicted) and a road connection is established with the
Parks Highway, tha economy of the area could change to auch
an extent that the Joint Board of Fish and Gaae alght wish
to reclassify this area as "non-rural,* siallar to, for
exaaple, the Matanuaka Valley or the Mlllow/Talkeetna area.
This would in turn ellalnete all aubaiateoce fisheries and
subsistence hunts which presently exist in this area,
aaverely restricting Tyonek's opportunities to engage In
traditional actlvltlea. Although tha Board of fieherlea
could subsequently establish personsl use flatteries, these
generally have auch reduced bag llalta, and have no
preference over (port or cr—stclal fisheries.
¦ \n, T>»t»qr»^h 1. In kAditlon to tha ThtM Mile
iltt/ It should be noted thftt in mild vlnttc* *oo»* also
utlUxt bhbltftt n«ir Conqthtubi UU.
frag* ^-13S, Cu»u\itlv Upict>. Kqiin, tht portion ot this
MCt\on on subsistence would t« nor* itt« It It ««t«
inclu&ad *i part ot * ¦•clion A\tcu««ln<) all Impacts
C»f\ V St *TtC« „
Attni Nr. Sick Seaborne It
D1IS - blaaond Chuitna Coal Project
Phaae 2 - State I.D. Ho. AKIS0705-02A
Septeabar 22, 19(1
Chapter 6.0 Mitigation Reclamation and Monitoring. Our coeaenta
regarding the mitigation and aonitoring chaper of tha DEIS
ware Included la our General Cements. The atate reiterates
the recoaaaendetlon that the PUS reflect the altigatlon and
aonitoring developed previously for the aine coaponant Via
the ASMCDA process. Thla approach lends continuity to the
etete and federel permitting proeaaaea while allowing the
FE1S to build upon the stats's previoua efforts.
Toward thla and, th* following coment* are provided on the
specific aitlgstion options dlscuaied In chapter (.0. Each
comment detaila how tha atate addraaaad the topic during the
ASMCRA proceas and permit dec la Ion. The referenced
document* are available to the PEIS preparere for review.
Hany of our comaents presenting detailed altigatlon apply
only to the mine permit area. Th* atate contlnuea to
recoaaend development of appropriate mitigation for tha
non-mine permit area through tha 1nteragency/applleant qroup
described in our Cenaral Comment*.
Me note that if tha FZIS contain* the terms 'Increased
eaphaals* end 'decreased eaphasl*' whan dlscusslnq
altigatlon options, further definition of these term* 1*
required.
Peg* t-4. The excerpt from Alaaka Surface Coal Mining Program
regulatlona quoted on paqe 6-4 i* incorrectly identified ae
11 AAC 90.313. The correct citation la 11 AAC 90.311(e).
Peqe <-3 end 6-4, Soil a. The Surfece Mining Permit require* that
Strandlina topsoil* and underlying toll materials be
salvaged fro® all disturbed irta* to a minimum depth of six
Inch**, and that aoil* be replaced during reclamation to at
lmaat a six Inch depth. See Stipulation 20, June 1998
DeclaIoni Stipulation 7, Xuguat 21, 1987 Decision, and
Permit application Vol. XVI, Section 4.10. The DEIS doe*
not reflect the final permit etipulatione, and thua la out
of date.
Page 6-S, Vegetation. The EPX apparently haa 'minor concern"
over particular aspects of the applicant*) revegetation
plan. The ieeuea identified include the unpredictability of
using nureery stock lor replacement of woody plant specie*,
•nd the possibility that post-mining eoil moisture levela
may not correspond with the requlre«*nte of proposed plant
coMunitU*. Because of thie, tha DEIS suqqeete that it may
nors sppv °P*: • *- ° *ncouia«)a natural plant succession
thtn th« atiurtuiad 1 «t.dsc spt i»«| • tKat Is
|>\sr»r»sA. bt.lt talis to •valualt
ur%v« •di«.* a*'\e « Uik.\«iI»iKs asi«xiiiaA
MiMiy stos atsa W>
-------
Attnt Mr. Rick Seaborne 17
DEIS - Diamond Chuitna Coal Project
Phase 2 - Stat* I.D. No. XK8I070S-02A
September 22, 1988
planting* will occur, and it ia unclear bow natural plant
succession will banaflt any Bora than landscaped plantings
if aoil moisture lavala deviate much from conditions that
exist today.
The revegetation plan currently contained in the Permit
Application (Volume XVI, Section 4.11) reflects atate agency
consents and concerns, and addresaes all of the suggestions
presented in the DEIS. It would be inappropriate to require
further changea in the revegetation plan at this time. Any
further revisions should be deferred until the sine is in
operation and experience has been gained with actual
reclamation results in the field. Specific points reised by
EPA were addressed during the ASMCRA review as followsi
* Fertilisation. See Penslt Application Vol. XVI, page
4-ttt:
• Creation of lelande of natural Vegetation. These are
planned la two of tbe seven postmlning vegetation
types. Mote that success of this technique cannot be
predicted at this tiae. "Increased emphasis* is not
warranted until auccess can be tested in the field.
• Estsbllshment of Willows. Willows will be planted in
five of the seven postalnlng vegetation types. See
alao Stipulation 11, August 21, 1117 Decision.
* Use of Mon-Mative Speclea. All of tbe proposed
reclamation seed sUtaras presently contain
predominantly native species. Based on test plot
results, DNR may in the future be recommending the
eubstitutlon of Porcoest Bering lalrgraas (native) for
Meadow Foxtail (introduced), but no change is
considered appropriate at this time.
• Creation of Topographic Dlverelty snd Ponds. A
wetland restoration program was required in the Surface
Mining Permit, for the lnltlel ten years of operation.
See Permit Application Vol. XVI, Section 4.It. Alao
aee Auguet 21, 1987 Declaion, pp 18-19.
* Flexibility in Locating Poatmlnlng Vegetation Typea.
The Permit Application specifies that actual locations
of postmining vegetation typea will be baaed on elope
and soil moisture coneideretlons. See Permit
Application Vol. XVI, p. 4-159b. See also March S,
1917 Decision, Section IV, p. 22.
co7/74
Attni Mr. Rick Seaborne It
DEIS - Diamond Chuitna Coal Project
Phaae 2 - State I.D. No. AK880705-02A
September 22, 1981
Page 6-6, Wll'dllfe. Aa with the list on the preceding page,
these suggested revlilons to the reclamation plan have
already been considered and incorporated into the Surface
Mining Permit to the extant deemed appropriate. The
apeciflc pointa listed have been addressed ss followsi
• Creation of Wat Depressions. (see discussion under
Page 6-5) .
• Ecological Criteria for Locating Postmining
Vegetation Types. (see discussion under Page <-51.
• Establishment of Berry-Producing Shrubs. All of the
Hated species are planned to be establlahed by sprig
broadcasting. See Permit Application Vol. XVI, Table
4.11-12.
• Seeding of Additional Native Specie*. The alpine
bluegrass snd slough graas racoanended In the DEIS ara
recent (1986) releases by the Alaaka Plant Materials
Center. Although these species may rapreaent
worthwhile additions to the seed mix In the future,
neither graas is praaently commercially aveliable
(commercial aeed aourcea are in the proceae of being
developed). During the review of the Surface Mining
Permit, both the state and the applicant recognised the
deelrablllty of continuing to aveluate advancea in
revegetation technology throughout the life of the
operation, with changae incorporated into the
reclamation plan aa appropriete. See Permit
Application Vol. XVI, pp. 4-174 through 4-174a.
Requiring the addition of the two grassea at thla time,
however, would be premature.
With respect to the recommended addition of yarrow to
the seed mix, we are unaware of any commercial source
of hardy Alaakan seed for this species, either existing
or under development.
• Establishing Shrubs by Sprigging. This technlqua haa
not pravloualy been employed in Alaska, but is planned
for two of the seven poetmlnlnq vsgetstlon types.
'Increased emphaala" Is not wsrranted until success can
be teated In the field.
• Popeat Fertllliatlone. Number and timing of repeat
fertllliatlona will ba determined In the field, based
on the reaulta of the annual revegetation monitoring
program. Sae Farmit Application Vol. XVI, p. 4-199b.
Co7/75
-------
Attn: Mr. Kick Seaborn* 19 September 22, 1988
DEIS - Diamond Chuitna Coal Project
Phase 2 - State I.D. No. AKB80705-02A
* Development of "Edge" Habitat*. Edge habitat will be
increased by creating irregularcommunity boundaries
and by overlapping plantings. See Permit Application
Vol. XVI, p. 4-159b.
Page 6-6. paragraph 2. Performance standards for reclamation
success have been established through the Surface Mining
Permit, and are intended to insure that postmining land use
goals of wildlife habitat restoration are achieved. See
Permit Application Vol. XVI, Section 4.11.8.
Page 6-7. paragraph 2. Kith regard to the areas not
previously addressed through the ASMCRA process, the state
supports habitat enhancement as a form of mitigation to
compensate for irreversible or long term commitments of
valuable wildlife habitats. However, we believe the FEIS
should specify standards based upon the information that is
currently available.
Page 6-7. paragraphs 3, 4 and 5. We suggest that
the conveyor access road,adjacent to the conveyor and main
haul road, be regularly cleared of snow to encourage moose
use and minimize the possibility that animals will
congregate on the main haul road.
Page 6-7, paragraph 6. The FBIS should include documentation
that birds associate large plastic balls with suspended
wires and cables, or that other mitigative options are less
effective in preventing bird strikes.
Page 6-8. paragraph 4. The proposal in the DEIS, that return
flows to streams be managed to optimize downstream flow
conditions, was considered during the Surface Mining Permit
process and was rejected as logistically complex and
technically suspect. Pumping of water to sediment ponds,
and resulting discharges, will need to be managed
extensively to meet state water quality standards.
Imposition of minimum return flow requirements would defeat
this water quality management strategy, and could result in
water quality degradation.
Page 6-9. paragraph 2. A wetland restoration program was
required under the Surface Mining Permit for the initial
ten-year mine area. One of the purposes of thia program is
to promote ground water recharge. See Permit Application
Vol. XVI, Section 4.11.9. In addition, the applicant
proposes to speed ground water recharge by creating small
depressions within the regraded areas, thus promoting
additional ponding and Infiltration of runoff. See Permit
m\v v ,
Attn: Mr. Rick Seaborne 20
DEIS - Diamond Chuitna Coal Project
Phase 2 - State I.D. Mo. AKB80705-02A
September 22, 1988
Page 6-9. paragraph 3. Throughout the Surface Mining Permit
review, considerable attention has been devoted to the
restoration of mined-out stream systems, and particularly to.
insuring that the final design reflects "an integrated
effort of hydrologists and fish habitat specialists." The
applicant has made numerous commitments describing how the
reclaimed streams would be designed and has further agreed
that specific engineering and design details, including pier,
maps and drawnings, will be submitted to the state through
the ASMCRA permit for review and approval prior to £,3
construction. See Permit Application Vol. XVII, pp. 4-217
through 4-218a, and Vol. XV, Section 4.07.1.4.
For areas outside the ASMCRA permit area (to be mined during ^
years 11-30 of the operation), the FEIS should recommend
reclamation of mined-out stream systems as a mitigation
option for loss of fish habitat. For the entire project
life, the stats recommends the detailed engineering designs fr5
for stream reclamation be distributed to the interagency
forum for technical review and comment as these become
available.
Page 6-10. paragraph 2. Extensive mitigation and monitoring
programs are presented throughout the Surface Mining Permit
to prevent sediment or metals contamination of adjacent
streams resulting from the initial ten years of mine ,^
operations. Designs are state-of-the-art, and have been ^
subjected to comprehensive engineering reviews by the state
(see final engineering report in the state's August 21, 1987
Decision). In addition, the August 21, 1987 Decision,
Stipulation 6, requires a Hater Quality Contingency Plan, in
the event that designs do not function as predicted. Beyond
the ten year mine area, the applicant has tentatively
selected sediment pond locations for the life of the mine.
See Permit Application Vol. XIV, Map 4.01-27.
Page 6-11. paragraph 3. A mitigation program, to compensate for
the unavoidable loss of fish productivity resulting from the faq
initial ten years of mine operations, has been required
under the Surface Mining Permit. See Stipulation 14, August
21, 1987 Decision.
Page 6-14, paragraph 1. Soils. The Surface Mining Permit
specifies that selected chemical and physical properties of
the overburden and interburden will be monitored after the fc,?
spoils are regraded, but prior to the application of
topsoll• Applied topsoil will be separately monitored. See
Permit Application, Vol. XVI, Section 4.10.5.
€-!<> q&I&qtaph 2, Vegetation. Annual monitoring of
-------
Attm Mr. Rick Seaborne 21
DEIS - Diamond Chuitna Coal Project
Phase 2 - State I.D. Ho. AX880705-02A
September 22, 1988
Permit, to determine the level of success achieved, and to
identify factors responsible for positive or negative
revegetation trends. Additional comprehensive sampling will
be required for bond release. See Permit Application Tol.
XVI, Section 4.11.8.2 and 4.11.8.4.
Page 6-14. paragraph 3, Wildlife. Monitoring requirements are
already in place through the Surface Mining Permit which
will satisfy three of the four listed monitoring objectives.
Stipulation 10 of the August 21, 1987 Decision requires a
moose monitoring program which will assess the effects of
mining activities on the Lone Ridge rutting area. The
stipulation also requires annual monitoring of wildlife use
of reclaimed areas, and reporting of all moose/vehicle
collisions. See also Permit Application Vol. XV, pp. 4-115f
through 4-115p.
For the areas not covered by the Surface Mining Permit, we
recommend additional monitoring programs to determine the
success of habitat enhancement efforts and wildlife
crossings of the conveyor. In addition, the total
monitoring package will require evaluation to determine
whether the monitoring is sufficient to evaluate the ongoing
status of the Beluga area moose population.
Page 6-14. paragraph 4. Hydrology. The Surface Mining Permit
requires continuous flow monitoring at seven locations on
Lone Creek, Stream 2003 and the Chuitna River. See Permit
application Vol. XVII, pp. 4-232 through 4-232e. See also
Stipulation 18, August 21, 1987 Decision.
Page 6-15. paragraph 1, Hydrology. The Surface Mining Permit
requires an annual evaluation of data collected through the
surface and ground water monitoring programs, to determine
whether any observed changes are consistent with predictions
of probable hydrologic consequences of the operation (which
would Include impacts on stream baseflow). See Stipulation
17, August 21, 1987 Decision.
Page 6-15. paragraph 2. Hydrology. The Surface Mining Permit
includes an extensive ground water monitoring- program, to
assess ground water impacts associated with the first 10
years of mining. Hater levels, water quality, and spoil
resaturation will be monitored in a total of 55 wells. See
Permit Application Vol. XVII, pp. 4-233 through 4-235a.
Page 6-15. paragraph 3, Water Quality. The Surface Mining Permit
requires extensive monitoring of the water quality of
effluents from the mine drainage system, as well as
monitoring of the receiving streams. This program is in
many respects more comprehensive then the requirements of
co7/75
Attn: Mr. Rick Seaborne 22
DEIS - Diamond Chuitna Coal Project
Phase 2 - State I.D. No. AK880705-02A
September 22, 1988
the draft NPDES permit. See Permit Application Vol XVII,
pp. 4-232 through 4-237.
Page 6-15. paragraph 4. Biology. For the initial ten years of
the mine operations, essentially all of the monitoring '
programs recommended in this section are required under the
Surface Mining Permit. The following addresses each of the
points raised in the DBlSi
• Measurements of Downstream Water Quality.
Sediment-related parameters which will be monitored in
the receiving streams include total suspended solids,
settleable solids, and turbidity. Proposals to require
monitoring of bedload and/or sediment accumulation in
stream gravels were considered during the Surface
Mining Permit review, but were rejected for various
technical reasons. See Permit Application Vol. XVII,
pp. 4-233 and 4-236.
• Rerunning Instream Flow Models. Additional instream
flow modeling has been required in permit years 7 and
10. See Stipulation 13, August 21, 1987 Decision.
• Collection of Hydrologic Data on Unaffected Stream
Reaches. Stipulation 18 of the August 21, 1987
Decision requires the lnstsllation of an additional
continuous gauging station on Lone Creek, upstream of
mine disturbances.
• Fish Evaluations. The required fish monitoring
program for permit years one through ten Includes adult
salmon spawner surveys, juvenile salmonid distribution
studies, and juvenile salmonid population estimates.
See Stipulation 13, August 21, 1987 Decision, See also
Permit Application Vol. XV, pp. 4-85 through 4-85a.
• Photographic documentation of Aufels Formation, etc.
This recommendation was discussed during review of the
Surface Mining Permit, but was not included as a
monitoring requirement. Instead, continuous monitoring
of stream and gravel temperatures has been required at
three locations in Lone Creek and Stream 2003. See
Perait Application Vol. XVII, p. 4-232.
• Monitoring of Fish Utilization of Created Habitats.
This monitoring has been required as part of the fish
habitat mitigation program. See Stipulation 14, August
21, 1987 Decision.
Page 6-16. We request clarification of item 6.4.5 (Socioeconomic
Aspects)i what kind of coordination is envisioned, and why
coins
-------
Attm Hr. Rick Seaborne 23
DEIS - Diamond Chuitna Coal Project
Phase 2 - State I.D. Ho. AK880705-02A
September 22, I960
will It ba restricted to community official*? Wa believe it
It Inappropriate to assume that village officials will be
attuned to all local concerns, and that information will
always be passed on fron officials to community residents.
Ne alio request that it en 6.4.6 (Subsistence and Recreation)
be revised to reflect coordination with and support of DFG
monitoring programs.
Page 7-7. The address given for DACC on this page (and also on
tKe cover sheet) is out of date and should be corrected.
Page 11-8. second reference. The correct title of this
publication is: The Use of Fish and Wildlife Resources in
Tyonek, Alaska.
COMMENTS ON SECT I OH 404 and DRAFT HPDES PERMITS
As stated in our general comments, no mention is made in either
the 404 or the NPDES permits of the need for a mixing zone in
conjunction with discharges from sediment ponds serving the
active mine site. Both the applicant's Intent to use a mixing
zone and the contingency plan which must be submitted by the
applicant should be described in these permits, reflecting the
certification requirements of the State of Alaska to assure
compliance with the Alaska Hater Quality Standards. Additional
comments on the draft NPDES permita follow. Dnless noted, the
comments apply to all four of the draft HPDES permits.
1. The proposed levels oi oil and grease appear high given the
source is incidental oil from the operation of heavy
equipment. If the levels are expected to be a 10-15 mg/1
oil and grease, a hydrocarbon limit would be more
appropriate.
2. Limitations for flow, fecal coliform and chlorine (if
appropriate) should be set for all sanitary waste
discharges.
3. References to "trace amounts" of floating solids, visible
foam and oil ( grease should be removed. In accordance with
Alaska Mater Quality Standards the stateswnt should read,
"There shall be no discharge of floating solids, visible
foam or oil t grease which causes a sheen on the surface of
the receiving water."
4. Chemicals and detergents are frequently used by equipment
operators to wash down equipment. Additionally,
solvents/degreasers are frequently used in maintenance
shops. The regulation of use of such chemicals should be
Attni Mr. Rick Seaborne 24
DEIS - Diamond Chultna Coal Project
Phase 2 - State I.D. No. AK880705-02A
September 22, 19(1
addressed in the permits by requiring review and approval of
the specific chemicals by EPA and DEC.
5. "Cessation of the precipitation event* should be defined
6. The limitations in the permits for iron, TSS, pH, and
¦ettleable solids are in accordance with EPA's Final
Effluent Limitation Guidelines for the Coal Mining Point
Source Category (40 CFR 434.45 and 434.63). However, the
Alaska Water Quality Standards (18 AAC 70) which include the
Quality Criteria for Water (EPA 440/5-86-001) are still
applicable and in some cases are more stringent than 40 CFR
434. Additionally the state standards apply under all
conditions including baseflow and all precipitation events
as referenced in the permits. Therefore, the permits should
include references to application of mixing zones for these
parameters, as well as turbidity, in order to meet state
standards.
7. The draft permits specify a required monitoring program for
sampling settling pond effluent during baseflow conditions.
The permits require weekly sampling for most of the listed
parameters. However, monitoring of effluent flow is
required on a daily basis. This is a change from the
previous draft permits which specified weekly flow
measuremente. In developing required monitoring via the
ASMCRA review the state found that daily flow monitoring is
logistically difficult, expensive and, because the other
water quality parameters are only sampled weekly, provides
no additional assurance that effluent limits are being met.
The state Surface Mining Permit reflects our finding that
weekly monitoring of flow is sufficient and we recommend
that EPA revise the NPDES permits to reflect weekly
monitoring.
8. Each of the four NPDES permits includes authorizations for
discharge of both domestic and nondomestic wastewater.
State regulations require approval of domestic wastewater
systems to ensure discharges from these systems will meet
state water quality standards. The mechanism for this
approval is the applicant's submittal of engineering plans
for DEC technical evaluation and approval. Prior to
receipt, review, and approval of these plans, DEC cannot be
certain that the domestic discharges will meet state water
quality standards. Therefore, DEC cannot issue the required
401 Certificate for the NPDES permits until the system plans
have been approved.
Additionally, state regulations require DEC plan approval of
nondomestic wastewater systems (I.e. sediment ponds).
VtaVlllWl toe CVQCUlQtMttlC within the mine
-------
Attns Mr. Rick Seaborne 25 September 22, 1988
DEIS - Diamond Chuitna Coal Project
Phase 2 - State I.D. No. AK880705-02A
permit area were submitted via the ASMCRA permit
application. However, plane for the sediment ponda outside
the ASMCRA permit area have not yet been submitted to DEC.
Again, prior to DEC plan approval, the DEC 401 Certificate
cannot be issued.
Throughout the Phase 1 permitting DEC has notified DACC of
this requirement. DACC has recently contacted DEC regarding
this. With prompt submittal of the required plans, DEC plan
approval and preparation of the 401 Certificates could be
accomplished such that a delay in issuance of the NPDES
permits is not necessary.
The following comments are specific to the two permits listeds
AK-004357-5 - Coal Mine
Part I. A.2.a. * b. Sampling of TSS, oil and grease
(hydrocarbons), and iron should be maintained aa proposed
previously in draft permits.
AK-004356-7 - Bousing
Part I.B. If the housing area is designed properly, there
should be no need for sediment ponds. This needs to be
addressed before permit issuance.
Part I.B. TSS limits differ from the other permits. If
sediment ponds serve only housing areas, (storm water)
comparing it with Alaskan ore mining, or placer mining is
inappropriate.
CONCLUSION
This concludes the state's comments on the DEIS. He look forward
to working with EPA and the COB on resolution and refinement of
the issues identified and review of an FEIS and NPDES and COE
permits which reflect this effort. As we discussed, DGC is
available to EPA and the document preparers to provide any
further information on these comments and to intitiate
coordinated resolution of the mitigation program..
He appreciate the opportunity to comment on the DEIS and to work
with EPA toward consistency between the federal and state
permitting processes and decisions for the Diamond Chuitna
Project.
Sincerely,
PaVty Blelawski
Project Review Coordinator
col/15
Attns Mr. Rick Seaborne 26
DEIS - Diamond Chuitna Coal Project
Phase 2 - State I.D. NO. AK880705-02A
September 22, 1988
cci Dan Barlow
Diamond Alaska Coal Company
Carol Gorbics
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Bill Lamoreaux
Department of Environmental Conservation
Dm Hilkerson
Department of Environmental Conservation
Julie Howe
Department of Environmental Conservation
Sam Dunaway
Department of Natural Resources
Carol Pahlke
Department of Natural Resources
Judith Bittner
Department of Natural Resources, SHPO
Lance Trasky
Department of Fish and Game
Mark Kuwada
Department of Fish and Game
-------
Beluga coal company
Septeaber 8, 1988
RECEIVED
Hr. Rick Seaborne
EIS Project Officer c_ ,« imj
Environmental Protection Agency, HO-136
1200 Stxth Avenue cfrEPA/
Seattle, UA 98101 REGION 10
Re: Diamond Chuitna Coal Project
The following contents address statements made In Section 3.2.2.1
(pages 3-9 and 3-12) of the Draft EIS of the Diamond Chuitna Coal Project.
Specific attention is directed to consents therein regarding North Foreland
as a possible site for the coal port considered in this project.
The North Foreland location has an existing pier (now known as the
Tyonek Pier) which was used from 1975 to 1983 to load wood chips on ocean-
going vessels as large as 40,000 DWT. This pier has been determined to be
in good condition by consultants employed by Tyonek Native Corporation and
Beluga Coal Company.
Subsequent to the 1986 analysis of the Tyonek Pier by Soros
Associates, the Beluga Coal Coapany engaged various urine and engineering
consultants who have provided our company with nore recent technical
information on the tidal currents and Ice conditions at the North Foreland
site. In addition, preliminary design for a 1,000 foot pier extension has
been made which will accomodate PANAMA* size vessels requiring a draft of
50 feet of water.
With the anticipated construction of this pier extension, 1t Is
evident that the limitations of the existing pier are academic. Inasmuch as
fender systems, structural adequacies for a travelling shlploader, and any
other requirement for loading of large vessels will be included in the new
facility. The Increased depth of water at the end of the pier extension will
resolve concern about of sedimentation at the berth. The pier extension and
new berthing wharf will be properly positioned to achieve the optimum
alignment for the dominant direction of ebb and flood currents.
The work performed for the Beluga Coal Company between 1986 and
1988 on pier extension, tidal current and ice forces, and on materials
handling requirements, confirm that the new North Foreland'facility, having
a total length of 2,440 feet and a 750 foot berthing wharf, will have a
capacity to load 12,480,000 metric tons per year with a 57% time utilization
of the berth. In the marine bulk terminal industry, this percentage
utilization is considered a conservative operating factor when measured
against normal berth availability; optimal design for bulk terminal berth
availability is approximately 68%.
Mr. Rick Seaborne
September 8,. 1988
Page Two
The Beluga Coal Company anticipates shipments over this new
facility of up to 5,000,000 metric tons annually. However, the combined
volumes of both Beluga and Diamond Chuitna's additional projected 10,900',000
metric tons per year would exceed the currently anticipated design capacity
of the extended Tyonek pier.
^¦STnfcerely yours,
Noel W. Klrshenb^
NWK:ea
-------
TYONEK NATIVE CORPORATION
4433 Lake Otis Parkway
Anchorage. Alaska BBS07
(907) 563-0707
September 8, 1988
Mr. Kick Seaborne
Environmental Protection Agency, UD-136
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Re: Dleaoud Chultna Coal Project, Draft Environmental lapact Stateaent
Dear Hr. Seaborne:
Tyonek Native Corpocatloa ("THC") ovna a port alta end dock ac North foreland,
near Tyonek, Alaaka. TNC baa triad to encourage potential uaara to conaldar
thla facility for their needa. One of the possible uses of thla port alte would
be ahlpaent of coal froa the Diamond Chultna Coal Project. IMC bea dlacuaaed
thla poeaiblllty with Dlaaood Alaaka Coal Coapaay, but haa been unaucceeaful la
attracting Oluoad'a lntereac In North foreland.
There waa aoae discussion of the North Forelaod alte In the Dlemond Chultna Coal
Project Draft Environmental lapact Stateaent. Ue would like to coaaent on thla.
According to the Draft E1S, three port elte optlona were considered. Including
TNC'a North Foreland. Ue would like to know whether or not all threa port eltea
were uniformly evaluated, using Che eaae eveluatlon aethode and atandarda.
The pier et North Forelend waa conatructed for ahlpaent of wood chlpa and, aa It
la presently configured, would obvlouely be Inappropriate for a large voliae
coal project. Ladd and Granite Point neither have port facllltlee, and
therefore both altaa would require conatructlon of new facllltlee froa acratch
before coal could be ablpped froa either alta. Hie North Foreland alte, with
lta existing facllltlee alreedy In place, would elaply require aodlflcatlon to
theae exlatlng facllltlee la order to ship coal.
The uae of exlatlng facllltlee (roada, dock, houalng, etc.) at North Foreland
would therefore appear to be cheeper end lees envlronaentally daaaglng than new
construction et Granite Point or Laid. It la unfortunate that the anmlyala
neglected to aeutlou that aodlflcatlooe could be aade to the North Forelend
feclllty, enabling the pier and elte to handle large volumee of coal. Ue
believe that the North Foreland elte ehould be cooeldered a viable tranapor~
tatlon alternative for the Dleaond Coal Project.
Sincerely,
TTONU NATIVE CORPORATION
~oho kvana
Executive Director
Jni:aa/crr.i2
RECEIVED
9 1368
¦SSSft,
Trustees for ALASKA
September 14, 1988
Rick Seaborna
EIS Project Officer
Environmental Evaluation Branch, M/S WD-136
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle. WA 98101
Re: Diamond Chultna Coal Project EIS, Draft NPDES Permits
and 404 Pernit
Dear Hr. Seaborne:
Enclosed are the comments of Trustees for Alaska and the
Alaska Center for the Environment on the Diamond Chuitna coal
Project EZS, NPDES peraits and 404 pernit. Ue thank you for
granting us a two day extension of the August 13, 1988 deadline.
Ue would appreciate hearing your response to our comments.
Very truly yours.
^OuUULdAAx)
RECEIVED
Patti J. Saunders
Staff Attorney
Trustees for Alaska
ti^SUTKuJ/^
ClitI Eames
Issues Director
Alaska Center for the Environaent
SEP J » 1368
EEBEPA/
REGION 10
cc: Julie Howe
%
725 Christens**) Drive. Suit* 4 Anchorage. Alaska 99501 (907) 276-4244
-------
TRUSTEES FOR ALASKA AND ALASKA CENTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT'S
COMMENTS ON THE DIAMOND CHUITNA COAL PROJECT
I. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement
The National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") require*'that
an environmental impact statement ("EIS") evaluate the potential
environmental effects of federal actions and identify alterna-
tives to the proposal. The Draft EIS for the Diamond Chuitna
Coal Project does not satisfy NEPA's requirements, since its
analysis is not thorough and is replete with factual inac-
curacies. miscalculations, and unjustified assumptions. Follow-
ing are some of the more glaring problems we have identified.
A. Alternatives
The discussion of alternatives is inadequate. For starters,
the DEIS makes assumptions like "(there is] only one option [for
the mine] since the coal deposit, and therefore the mine loca-
tion. was fixed " DEIS p. 3-1. The DEIS completely ignores the
possibility that the nine site could indeed be adjusted. Ob-
viously. a coal mine will be located only where there are coal
reserves, but the coal leases held by Diamond extend far beyond
the areas planned for mining. Thus, it would be not at all
impossible to revise the boundaries of the mine. And if doing so
would avoid or mitigate environmental effects, the DEIS's failure
to consider these alternatives is a serious flaw in the NEPA
process.
Two examples ol the potential importance of alternate boun-
major rutting area for the Lone Ridge moose herd and quality and
quantity impacts on the Chuitna watershed. It is possible that
either or both of these could be avoided or mitigated by adjust-
ing the mine's boundaries.
A second major failure in this regard is the DEIS's failure
to consider timing changes as an alternative. Diamond plans to
open large pits and cuts and keep them open as necessary in
relation to market demands. The DEIS should have considered
whether a less grandiose mining scheme (or a more vigorous and
timely reclamation plan) that would disturb less land over a
given period of time and reclaim it more quickly would avoid or
mitigate impacts.
Essentially, the DEIS is limited to consideration of the
mine plan as proposed by the applicant, rather than on the
searching and thorough analysis envisioned by NEPA.
B. The haul road seems to be unnecessarily wide. Why are
35 foot wide lanes and 12 foot wide shoulders required? The
total width of the road including lanes, shoulders, embankments,
and ditches appears to be about 110 feet — more than enough for
a four lane divided highway! The plan appears to be unnecessari-
ly wasteful of gravel resources, and will result in the clearing
of much more land than necessary, and increasing the magnitude of
the difficult task of reclamation.
-------
C. The conveyor and road corridor saeas unnecessarily wida.
A 200 toot wida "greenbelt" ia apparently planned between the
road and the conveyor. Diamond apparantly plans to claar this
200 foot wida atrip of tiabar for tba 11-13 ail* length of tba
corridor. Tba total width of tha claarad strip containing tha
roads and tba convayor is almost 400 faat. Thara is no apparent
justification for this wastaful usa of resourcas and unnacassary
negative impact on tha anvironaent.
D. Tha installation of a second road alongside tha convayor
in addition to tha superhighway 200 faat away doaa not appaar to
ba justified. Diaaond indicatea that the convayor access road is
needed to allow aaintenance of the conveyor so aa not to inter-
fere with haul road operationa and vice versa. When the conveyor
is in operation, there should be no need for uat of the haul
road. This inconsistency Bust ba resolved.
E. Fugitive dust aaissions froa tha convayor do not appaar
to have been properly addressed. Total annual aaissions froa
this source are estiaated at 8.4 tons per year, while total
annual aaissions for tha coal stockpile to which this bait deli-
vers were estiaated at 218.1 tons per year, or 26 tiaes aore at
the stockpile. He believe that the conveyor eaiaaiona will ba
at least as high as the stockpile and probably higher Moreover
this calculation is based on 99 trips per day even though Diamond
4
is planning on 311 tripa per day.1 This calculation muat be
reworked based on the mine plan's projections, rather than as-
sumptions unrelated to reality.
Moreover, tha DEIS, in addition to the miacalculation of
fugitive emissions, makes the unwarranted conclusion that par-
tially enclosed conveyors will "minimize" dust eaissions (DEIS
p.2-46). Unless the conveyors are totally enclosed, which we
heartily endorse, eaissions will not be minimized, only somewhat
lessened.
F. Temporary overland truck coal haul fugitive dust emis-
sion calculations appear to be incorrect. The calculation n-
auaptions do not consider the aize and peripheral velocity of
the wheels. This calculation is grossly in error and will be
much greater than what is claiaed. This calculation is also
improperly based on 99 trips a day, even though Diamond is plann-
ing on 311 trips per day.
G. Exhaust emissions froa temporary truck coal haul appear
to be calculated incorrectly. The gallons per hour fuel consump-
tion number is incorrect. The number of trips per day is incor-
rect .
¦Actually, it is not clear whether the actual figure is 311
or 331. Cf. DEIS p. 3-6 and 3-19. However, it is certainly not
99.
5
-------
H. There are a number of other errors and inconsistencies
in the segment of the DEIS on dust emissions. The wind speed
data for different sites is presented with different units:
Granite Point and the mine site's wind speeds are displayed in
meters per second, while the Anchorage and Kenai data are dis-
played in knots. This makes comparison difficult.
The validity of the emissions calculations based on nominal
wind speeds of four to six miles per hour is doubtful. Examina-
tion of the Granite Point data shows that, during the winter,
winds from the north and NNE average 4.1 meters per second (13.1
feet per second, or 12.8 MPH) for 58% of the winter season. The
conveyor from Granite Point will return directly against the
wind, thus adding its 5.08 meter velocity (14.7 MPH) to the wind
velocity, for a combined relative velocity of 27.5 MPH.
Under these conditions the conveyor will be returning empty
with loose dust on the conveyor, which will not be covered under-
neath. Prevailing winds in the fall, winter and spring are from
the N-NE approximately 70% of the time at Granite Point and about
65% of the time at the mine site. Thus, the calculations of dust
emissions have been seriously underestimated and the environmen-
tal impacts concomitantly discounted.
This is a serious flaw. It must be rectified in order to
comply with NEPA.
I. The DEIS states that the Tuxedni National Wildlife
Refuge is the game refuge closest to the mine site. This is
Vv
incorrect. The Kenai National Wildlife Refuge is closer. Addi-
tionally, two State Game Refuges at Beluga Plats and at Tyonek
are within 15 miles of the proposed mine site and within 5 miles
of the proposed conveyor route.
J. The DEIS repeatedly states (e.g.. p. 2-45) that drainage
from shops, vehicle washdown areas, etc., will be routed to
sediment ponds with treatment facilities. However, according to
Figure 2-4, the sediment pond closest to the mine service area
and vehicle parking/storage area will not have a treatment
facility. This appears to be a significant discrepancy of serious
concern, given the number of trucks and other vehicles to be used
at this site.
K. Dust suppression chemicals are mentioned at several
points without ever defining exactly what these chemicals are.
What are they? What will be their effect on the environment?
How much and how often will the chemicals be used? What will be
the effect of these chemicals on local groundwater? On local
streams? On wildlife? On fish?
L. Forested buffers should be maintained around coal stock-
piles to minimize as much as possible the effects of winds.
M. How are coal stockpiles to be protected from forest
fires?
A
-------
N. Why ia sewage sludge bains buriad in the aine pit rathar
than being incinerated?
O. Tha DEIS aaaaa to lack any diacuaaion of tha potential
water quality iapacts of coal spillage from tha trastla and barga
loading araa into tha porta, which ia Inevitable, given that tha
facility will not (in its praiant fora) ba totally ancloaad. Tha
DEIS*a failura to conaidar this and require aitigation ia a
aarioua flaw, ainca spillaga of avan a very saall percentage of
twalva aillion tona of coal a yaar could heve vary aignificant
iapacta on watar quality and aquatic lifa.
P. The DEIS'a failure to conaidar the applicability of the
Clean Hater Act's antideg.adation raquireaent to thia project ia
a significant flaw in the analysis.
Q. On p. 2-14, the DEIS states that the aewage generated at
the aina facility will be treated and then piped over to the
housing caap, where it will be discharged along with the sewage
froa the caap. Why then is Outfall 019 for aewage froa the aine
sita (Draft Perait AK 004357-5)?
R. The DEIS's conclusions about coapliance with Alaska
water quality standards are baaed on inaccurate aaauaptions and
must be rethought. For instance, Alaska's standard for pH is
between 6.5 and 8.5, with a aaxiaua change of 0.5 froa natural
conditions, not 6.5 to 9.0, as atated in Figure 5-7. Alao, whila
Figure 5-7 aasuaea the standard for dissolved solids is 500, 18
AAC Chapter 70 clearly stataa that the atandard is a naxiaua of
1500 ag/1 including natural aaounts, but in no event greater than
1/3 higher than natural conditions. These are only tha aoat
glaring errors. Tha entire figure should be carefully and ac-
curately redone.
Even as it standa, however. Figure 5-7 ahows that Alaska's
watar quality standards will ba violated. For exaaple, it is
estiaated that dissolved solids in the effluent will be aa high
aa 200 ag/1, while the aaxiaua receiving water quality ia 104
ag/1. Thus, the discharge will far exceed the 1/3 allowable
increase on soae undefined frequency. And this is one of tha
paraaeters the DEIS does not project for exceedances, while there
are at least several others that are. The DEIS doas not aven
atteapt to reconcile this prediction of potential violationa of
water quality standarda with the favorable evaluation given to
this project. Beyond this failure of the DEIS, it ia, of course
unlawful for EPA to issue NPDES permits that will violate water
quality standards.
The aaae sort of analysis done here for surface water also
applies to the DEIS's poorly analyzed groundwater section.
S. The DEIS is conpletely silent about tha excessive de-
struction of wetlands associated with this project. Many of the
9
-------
facilities associated with this project could ba, and therefore
nust be, redesigned to minimize their impact on the wetlands in
the area. For instance, the housing layout proposed is very
inefficient and wasteful of resources. The footprint of this
facility can be decreased by 50%, thereby ainiaizing the wetlands
acreage that will be destroyed. The DEIS'a failure to consider
these impacts and to require their aitigation is a serious flaw
that must be rectified if this project is to coaply with NEPA.
XI. Draft NPDES permits AK-004357-5. AK-004356-7. AK-OOT331-1.
and, AK-004685-0
A. None of the draft permits include provisions for a Best
Management Plan, as required by the Clean Hater Act.
B. Effluent Limits
1. The permits do not include water quality based limits,
as is required by Section 402 of the Clean Hater Act. This is a
serious omission that must be corrected before permits can be
issued. Specifically, we are concerned about the failure to
include limits for fecal coliform and chlorine residual for the
sanitary waste discharges, and the pollutants of concern listed
in the DEIS in Figures 5-7 and 5-9. In addition, some of these
parameters ought to be included in the permit under technology-
based considerations since they are found in the discharge. EPA
has completely ignored the requirement of the Clean Water Act to
set effluent limits tor the toxic pollutants in these discharges
(such as, for instance, the metals). If they are not included in
EPA's effluent guidelines, then limits Bust be set using best
professional judgment of best available technology.
In accordance with 18 AAC 70.020, the following parameters
must be added to those listed in the draft permits:
1. Fecal Coliform
2. Dissolved oxygen (greater than 7 mg/1 for an anadramous
stream)
3. pH range between 6.0 and 8.5 (not 9.0), with a maximum
change of 0.5 from natural conditions
4. Turbidity
5. Temperature
6. Total Dissolved Solids
7. Sediment
8. Toxic and Other Deleterious Organic and Inorganic
Substances
9. Oil and Grease to all outfalls
10. Radioactivity (Radium 232 is a common constituent of
coal).
11. Total Residual Chlorine (2 ug/1 in salmonid waters)
12. Color
13. The stipulations specifying 85% removal of B0D5 and
TSS do not appear to be in conformance with Alaska Water Quality
Standards.
-------
B. Tha parnits must be reviled to include proviaiona for
compliance with tba zonaa of deposit requirements of 18 AAC
70.033.
C. It ia unreasonable of EPA not to aat maximum flow limits
for tha sanitary wast* discharges, based on tba capacity of the
treatment facilities. Thus, for tha housing camp discharge, the
flow limit should be 30,000 gpd, which is the capacity of the
package plant Diamond inrends to install. Failure to do-this
opens the possibility of overloading the system and resultant
violationa of other limits.
D. EPA's failure to apply the antidegradation requirement
of the Clean Hater Act to this virtually pristine water system
violates the Clean Hater Act.
E. It is not at all clear why Outfall 019 is necessary if
the DEIS is correct in stating that the sewage from the mine site
will be piped over to the housing camp to be mixed with the camp
sewage and discharged there.
III. 404 Permit
Diamond's proposed facilities are not well designed to
minimize the incursion or. wetlands. Given the size of this
project and the amount of wetlands to be filled, such considera-
12
tions must- be incorporated into the project. We realize that
some wetlands will, of necessity, be destroyed if this project is
to go forward, but there is no justification for permitting the
destruction of more wetlands than necessary. Diamond must be
required to redesign these facilities to minimize wetlands de-
struction.
13
-------
DECEIVED
SEP 16 1988
BEGtano
Box 5
Beluga, Ak.. 99*95
September 8, 1998
Rick Seaborne
BIS Project Officer
Environmental Evaluation Branch, m/S WD-136
EPA
1200 6th Ave.
Seattle, Washington
Dear Nr.. Seaborn*1
Enclosed please find some consents of the Draft Environmental Impact
Stateaent for Dlaaond Chultna Coal Project. These consents ars general •
concerning the project In broad tens - and specific - referring to par-
ticular pages or section numbers in the EIS.
Thank you,
enc.
cci Trustees for Alaska
Kenal Peninsula Borough Assembly members
DIAMOND CHUITNA COAL PROJECT
EIS CGHHENTS
Chapter Two (Proect Overview)
Proposed Transportation Optional
1. Northern/Ladd route contains two crossing of Three Mile Creek (The
only Sockeye Salmon spawning grounds In the area at Three Mile Lake). This
stream Is spawning ground* for Sockeye, Silver, Chum and Pink salmon a* well
as hone for trout and other fishes, waterfowl, Including loons and swans,
this route also crosses Lone Creek (spawning grounds for rainbow and Dolly
Varden trout and various species of Salaon).
2. Eastern/Ladd rout* crosses Lone Creek, goes near Vlapan Lake and through
the surrounding wetlands (nesting area for swans, terns, cranss, loons and
other waterfowl).
3- Southern/Cranlte Point route erosees Chult and old Tyonek Creek
(major spawning grounds for salaon) and wetland areas.
Location and Slse of Mining Areai
The entire west sld* of Cook Inl*t bas the soft, lowgrad* coal to b*
mined by Dlaaond Chultna. Does this mean that the entire west side should
be mined? Other sources of cheap, more envlronaentally-sound energy supplies
are available without destroying virgin tlmb*r(for the moat part), wetlands,
salaon spawning streams, large game habitat, to say nothing of the destruction
to our atmosphere when this energy source 1* used..
Revegetatloni
Wetlands can not be revegetated as wetlands.
Run-off!
EIS statements on runoff are accurate 1 the mine area would not receive
runoff but would cause polluted runoff to lower Elevations..
2-9 "treated water] would be released from the ponds Into natural drainages"
to go into streams changing water temperature and density, regardless of treat-
ment. Note this which admits that treatment will not clean the wateri "the
sediment ponds would be dredged periodically..."
2-19 drawing and details of port facllltlee show only tQe Granite Point op-
tion.. Details should be shown for all options.
-------
paga two
2-31 (etockpllea) "All etockpllea would fce located within th* »lnlm Halt..."
Thla Is untrue according to lease option* froa Canal Peninsula Borough.. Coil
would be atockpllsd around Ylapan Laka and Ladd landing.* Ro 113 on thla haa
been dor*.
libit 2-1 Dluond Chultna would "alnlalie oo2of construction and alnlng In
etreaaa othar than thoaa dealgnated for alnlng." Thoaa designated for alnlng
lncluda aajor trout and ailaon rearing grounds.
2..11.1 "At lower production lavala not requiring ahipa, bargea would b*
barthad at tba Ladd traatla for up to approximately two bundrad da/a par /•ar."
Ladd option la atatad only aa an option without coaplata BIS for various en-
vironmentally aa pacta. Alao not* that two hundred da/a la alaost 2/3 of en*
year.
2.II.1* (Slash burning) Anchorage area suffers enough froa air pollution
already without alaah burning of this aagnltude with or without favorabla
weather conditions.. The ataosphera as a whole would suffer.
2.11.6 (environaental coordinator) It aeena reasonable (aaae) to have thla
person stationed on-site to coordinated environaental safety, not in Anchorage
to ensure the paperwork gate done expeditiously.
3.2.1.3 (transportation) Six options were Hated but there la no BI3 on each
with proa and coas and the aost envlronaantally aound option (piped slurry)
is auaaarlly dlsalssad at that point.
3.2..1.4 This dlscuesea the loading fa clllty as If transpo&tlon option 06
- the conveyor- were the only option.
Table 3.2 llata possible environaental hacards to options not chosen but
does not llet the envitonaental hacarda of option 6. Thla table alao ahowa
that Korth Foreland port location waa elealnated.. Actual blaatlng by
Northern Geophyalcal (August 30 — Septeaber 9, 1986) shows that only the
northern transportation route Is now an option.
Table 3.6 haa a cursory look at aoae transportation aodas and atatas that
a road would have high adverse lapact. Coal coapany officials hava stated
In public aeatlng that a xoad will be usad for coal tranaporAatlon foe aoae
tlaa.
Table 3-9 haa aatrlx listing lapact of three tranaportalon corridors.On
this table the Eastem/Lsdd is shown to have the Isast negative lapact. If
However, blaatlng ty Northern Ceophyalcal for Dlaaond Chultna has shown that
the Northern/Ladd route Is ths preferred option at this point
"While the overall potential for advsiaa la pacts waa judged higher for
the northern/Ladd alternative, it was not a clear cut difference." (3-35)
This Is a value Judgeaent not baaed on fact.
page three
4.U.4.2 (flah) "At preaent resida t species are not significantly exploited
In the project area." fish (trout and salaon) that are fished elsewhere
use that alnlng area at aoae tlae In their live* aa a pawning or rearing areaa.
4-38 to 4-41 Docuaentarlea of aalaon In 1983 and 1984 by Alaska Departaent
of Flah and Case did not typify aubeequent years of aalaon returna.. Thla
undereatlaatea the proliferation of fish.
4.6.2 Air quality studies were don* In already polluted areas and not In
alnlng and tranaportation areaa.
4.7.2.5 (Coaaunlty attitudes toward Dlaaond Chultna) No survey of local
residents and land owners was dona. Value Judgeaent! were aaae. Thus, I
will Bake anotheri Tyonek residents' priae concern Is the destructlo n
of aoose and fish populatlona and habitat. Beluga area land owners and
residents were not aentloned In the BIS.
5.3.1.5 (wildlife) HaMtat loss- a value judgeaents was Bade as to the
relative laport of the lose,
5-12 (wildlife) "In unusual cases, they Bay ba killed," (6.31.3) This can
be constued as a way to defend killing of aoose and bear for sport and Beat.
5.3.2 (water quality) Dlaaond Chultna officials have stated that water
quality will suffer
5-3.3 (Marine Envlronaent-i) "There would be no lapacts to ths aarlne en-
vlronaent associated with the sine and alne facilities." As alnlng affacts
strsaaa and surfsea and ground water, It would affect aarlne envlronaents.
The water cycle and air currents would ensure that aarlne and all other
envlronaents would be affected.
5.3..4.1 (ealsslons) The state has petltlonsd to change its aaisslons
standards. Could that have been to allow thla alnlng to go on?
-------
Chapter 11.0
References
-------
11.0 REFERENCES
ACZ, Inc. 1985a. Engineering report transportation corridor
Diamond Chuitna Project. Prepared for Diamond Alaska
Coal Company. Anchorage, AK.
. 1985b. Engineering report Granite Point coal port
Diamond Chuitna Project. Prepared for Diamond Alaska
Coal Company. Anchorage, AK.
. 1985c. Engineering report housing facilities Diamond
Chuitna Project. Prepared for Diamond Alaska Coal
Company. Anchorage, AK.
Alaback, P.B. 1982. Forest community structural changes
during secondary succession in southeast Alaska.
Symposium on Forest Succession and Stand Development
Research in the Northwest. Oregon State University,
Corvallis, OR.
Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation. 1982. Drinking
water standards. Juneau, AK.
• 1984. Water quality standards. Juneau, AK.
• 1987. Water quality standard regulations 18AAC 70.
ADEC. Juneau, Ak.
Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game. 1976. A fish and wildlife
resource inventory of the Cook Inlet-Kodiak areas.
Anchorage, AK.
. 1983. Statewide harvest survey, 1982 data. Vol. 24.
Federal aid in fish restoration and anadromous fish
studies. Juneau, AK.
. 1984a. Fish and wildlife resources element for the
Susitna area planning study and resource atlas.
Anchorage, AK.
. 1984b. Statewide harvest survey, 1983 data. Vol.
25. Federal aid in fish restoration F-9-16.
Alaska Dept. of Labor, Research and Analysis Section. 1984.
Annual planning information. Juneau, AK.
11-1
-------
Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources. 1984. Susitna area plan.
Public review draft-summary. Anchorage, AK.
. 1987. Conditions of decision and findings of
compliance for Diamond Shamrock Chuitna Coal Joint
Venture, Diamond Chuitna Mine. Surface mining permit
application #01-85-796.
Bakus, G., M. Orys, and J. Hendrick. 1979. The marine
biology and oceanography of the Anchorage region, upper
Cook Inlet, AK. Astarte 12 (l):13-20.
Bambard, S. 1985. Kenai Peninsula Borough Public Works
Dept., Kenai, AK. Personal communication to D. Clark,
Economic Planning Resources, Seattle, WA.
Banko, W. 19 60. The trumpeter swan. North American Fauna
No. 63.
Bechtel Civil and Minerals, Inc. 1983. Preliminary design
phase final report Vol. VI. Port area offshore facili-
ties prepared for Diamond Shamrock Chuitna Coal joint
venture. Anchorage, AK.
Berg, L. and T.G. Northcote. 1985. Changes in territorial,
gill-flaring, and feeding behavior in juvenile coho
salmon (Oncorhvnchus kisutch) following short-term
pulses of suspended sediment. Can. J. Fish. Aquat.
Sci. 42:1410-1417.
Berns, V.D. and R.J. Hensel. 1972. Radio tracking brown
bears on Kodiak Islands. Internat. conf. on bear
research and management, Union for the Conserv. of
Nature and Nat. Resources. Series No. 23.
Blackburn, J. 1978. Pelagic and demersal fish assessment in
the lower Cook Inlet estuary system, final report.
Alaska Dept. of Fish & Game, Kodiak, AK.
Boise, C.M. 1977. Breeding biology of the lesser sandhill
crane f.Grus canadensis canadensis) on the Yukon-
Kuskokwim Delta, AK. M.S. Thesis, Univ. of AK,
Fairbanks, AK.
Bonta, J.V. and W.R. Hunon. 1980. Preliminary evaluation
of a sediment pond draining a surface mined watershed.
Symposium on surface mining hydrology, sedimentology,
and reclamation. December 1 5, 1980. Univ. of
Kentucky, Lexington, KY.
11-2
-------
Bookcliffs Commercial Laboratory. 1985. Diamond Alaska Coal
Company column and drip leach study. Prepared for
Diamond Alaska Coal Company. Anchorage, AK.
Bovee, K.D. 1982. A guide to stream habitat analysis using
the instream flow incremental methodology. Instream
flow information paper 12. USDI Fish and Wildlife
Service, Office of Biological Services. FWS/OBS-82/26,
Washington, D.C.
Brady, N.C. 1974. The nature and properties of soils.
Eighth Ed., Macmillan Publ. Co., Inc.
Braund, S.R. and S.R. Behnke. 1980. Lower Cook Inlet petro-
leum development scenarios socio-cultural systems ana-
lysis. AK-OCS Socioeconomic Studies Program. Tech.
Rept. No. 47. prep-for BLM, AK-OCS office. Anchorage,
AK.
Breedlove, M. 1985. Municipality of Anchorage Community
Planning Dept. Anchorage, AK. Personal communication
to D. Clark, Economic Planning Resources, Seattle, WA.
Brown, G.W. Jr. 1976. Effect of polluting substances on
enzymes of aguatic organisms. Journ. Fish Res. Bd.
Canada. 33:2018-2022.
Brown, J. and R. Berg (eds.). 1980. Environmental engineer-
ing and ecological baseline investigations along the
Yukon River-Prudhoe Bay haul road. CRREL Report No.
80-19.
Bucek, M.F. 1981. Sedimentation ponds and their impact on
water quality. Sumposium on surface mining hydrology,
sedimentology and reclamation December 1-5, 1980.
Univ. of Kentucky, Lexington, KY.
Burbank, D.C. 1974. Suspended sediment transport and
deposi-tion in Alaskan coastal waters. Univ. of
Alaska, Institute of Marine Science, Fairbanks, AK.
Cairns, J. Jr., A.G. Heath, and B.C. Parker. 1975. The
effects of temperature upon the toxicity of chemicals
to aquatic organisms. Hydrobiologia 47(1):135-171.
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 1983. Draft report
to the California legislature on air pollutant
emissions from marine vessels. Vol.1., June 1983.
11-3
-------
. 1986. Methodology to caluclate emissions factors
for on-road motor vehicles. California Air Resources
Board, Nov. 1986.
Calkins, D.G. 1981. Marine mammals of lower Cook Inlet and
the potential for impact from outer continental shelf
oil and gas exploration, development, and transports.
Alaska Dept. of Fish & Game, Anchorage, AK.
. 1985. Personal communication to M.C.T. Smith,
Terra Nord, Anchorage, AK.
Carlson, R.F. and C.E. Behlke. 1972. A computer model of
the tidal phenomena in Cook Inlet, Alaska. Institute
of Water Resources Report IWR-17. Univ. of Alaska,
Fairbanks, AK.
Carsola, A.J. 1975. Oceanographic and meteorological study
of the Lower Cook Inlet Alaska. Prepared for Shell oil
Company. Anchorage, AK.
Carter, V. , M.S. Bedinger, R.P. Novitzki and W.O. Wilen.
1978. Water resources and wetlands. Nat. Symp. on
Wetlands: Wetland functions and values - the state of
our understanding. Nov. 7-10, 1978. Lake Buena Vista,
FL.
Cervantes, S. 1984. Kenai Peninsula Borough. Personal
communication to D. Clark, Economic Planning Resources.
Seattle, WA.
Chapman, G.A. 1978. Effects of continuous zinc exposure on
sockeye salmon during adult-to-smolt freshwater resi-
dency. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 107(6):828-836.
Chappie, T. 1985. AK Dept. of Environmental Conservation
1985. Personal communication to D. Brewer, Dames and
Moore. Santa Barbara, CA.
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission. 1984. Unpublished
data.
Cordone, A.J. and D.W. Kelly. 1981. The influences of
inorganic sediment on the aquatic life of streams.
California Fish and Game 47(2).
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. Laroe. 1979.
Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of
the United States. USFWS, USDI, FWS/OBS_79/31,
Washington, D.C.
11-4
-------
Crocker, R.L. and J. Major. 1955. Soil development in rela-
tion to vegetation and surface age at Glacier Bay,
Alaska. Journ. Ecol. 43:427-448.
Dalton, M. 1987. Alaska Research Associates, Anchorage, AK.
Personal communication to M.C.T. Smith, Terra Nord,
Anchorage, AK.
Dames and Moore. 1976. Environmental studies report
January-December 1975, Skagit Nuclear Power Project
northwest Washington. Annual report prepared for Puget
Sound Power and Light Company. Seattle, WA.
. 1980. Site visit to Bass-Hunt-Wilson Coal leases,
August 1980. Final report to Cyprus Coal Company.
Englewood, CO.
. 1983. Knik Arm Crossing, technical memorandum No.
15: Marine biological studies. U.S. Dept. of
Transportation Federal Highway Administration and
Alaska Dept. of Transportation and Public Facilities.
Anchorage, AK.
Darbyshire and Associates. 1981a. Socioeconomic impact
study of resource development in the Tyonek/Beluga coal
area. Prepared for the AK Dept. of Community and
Regional Affairs. Anchorage, AK.
• 1981b. Tyonek community profile. Prepared for the
AK Dept. of Community and Regional Affairs. Anchorage,
AK.
. 1984a. Economic development strategies for the
Village of Tyonek. Prepared for the AK Dept. of
Community and Regional Affairs. Anchorage, AK.
. 1984b. Update of the 1981 socioeconomic impact study
of resource development for the Tyonek/Beluga coal
area. Prepared for the AK Dept. of Community and
Regional Affairs. Anchorage, AK.
Darnell, R.M., W.E. Peguengnat, B.J. James, F.J. Benson and
R.A. Defenbaugh. 1976. Impacts of construction acti-
vities in wetlands of the United States. US EPA, EPA-
600/3-76-045, Corvallis, OR.
Delaney, K. 1985. AK Dept. of Fish and Game, Anchorage, AK.
Personal communication to D. Clark, Economic Planning
Resources. Seattle, WA.
11-5
-------
Delaney, K. and K. Hepler. 1984. Northern Cook Inlet Chi-
nook salmon sport fishing. Report to the Alaska Board
of Fisheries by ADF&G, Sport Fish Div., Anchorage, AK.
Diamond Alaska Coal Company. 1985. Diamond Chuitna Mine
permit application to conduct surface coal mining.
Vol. I-XXIII. Anchorage, AK.
Douglas, L. and J.C. Tedrow. 1959. Organic matter decompo-
sition rates in arctic soils. Soil Sci. 88: 305-312.
DOWL. 1981. Coal to methanol feasibility study, Beluga
methanol project. Vol. IV-Environmental. Prepared for
Cook Inlet Region, Inc. and Placer Amex, Inc. DOE
grant DE-FG01-80RA-50299. Anchorage, AK.
Eboch, E. 1985. AK Dept. of Labor, Research and Analysis
Section, Juneau, AK. Personal communication to D.
Clark, Economic Planning Resources. Seattle, WA.
Eide, S. and S. Miller. 1979. Effects of the trans-Alaska
pipeline on moose movements. AK Dept. of Fish and
Game, final rept., Fed. Aid in Wildlife Restor., Proj.
W-17-10, Anchorage, AK.
EIFAC. 1965. Water quality criteria for European freshwater
fish. International Journal of Air and Water
Pollution, Vol. 9.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1972. Water quality cri-
teria, 1972. Ecological Research Series: EPA-R3-73-
033. Washington, D.C.
. 1976. Quality criteria for water. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washingtion, D.C.
.. 1978. "Survey of fugitive dust from coal mines," by
Pedco Environmental, Inc., February.
. 1980. Workbook for estimating visibility impairment.
EPA-4 50/4-80-031.
.. 1982. Coal mining point source category, BPT, BAT,
BCT limitations and new source performance standards,
40 CFR, part 434. Federal Register 47:198. Washington
D.C.
.. 1983. Water quality standards handbook. U.S. EPA,
Office of Water Regulations and Standards. Washington,
D.C.
11-6
-------
. 1985a. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission
Factors. Document AP-42. 4th Ed. Volume I: stationary
point and area sources and Vol. II: mobile sources.
United States Environmental Protection Agency.
September, 1985.
. 1985b. Responsiveness summary for scoping. Meetings
(January 8 through 10, 1985) on the Diamond Chuitna
Coal Project Environmental Impact Statement. Seattle,
WA.
Environmental Research and Technology, Inc. (ERT) 1983.
Diamond Chuitna Project preliminary terrestrial
wildlife baseline report, Vol. I and II. Prepared for
Diamond Shamrock-Chuitna Coal Joint Venture.
Anchorage, AK.
. 1984a. Diamond Chuitna Project. Aquatic biology
baseline studies project, Vol. I. Prepared for Diamond
Shamrock-Chuitna Coal Joint Venture, Anchorage, AK.
. 1984b. Diamond Chuitna Project. Aquatic biology.
1984 baseline studies supplement report. Prepared for
Diamond Shamrock-Chuitna Coal Joint Venture, Anchorage,
AK.
. 1984c. Diamond Chuitna Project. Groundwater hydro-
logy baseline studies report Vol. I-Text. Prepared
for Diamond Shamrock-Chuitna Coal Joint Venture,
Anchorage, AK.
. 1984d. Diamond Chuitna Project. Soils baseline stu-
dies report prepared for Diamond Shamrock-Chuitna Coal
Joint Venture, Anchorage, AK.
. 1984e. Diamond Chuitna Project. Surface hydrology
and water quality baseline studies report Vol. I-Text.
Prepared for Diamond Shamrock-Chuitna Coal Joint
Venture, Anchorage, AK.
. 1984f. Diamond Chuitna Project. Terrestrial
wildlife baseline report, Vol. I and II. Prepared for
Diamond Shamrock-Chuitna Coal Joint Venture, Anchorage,
AK.
. 1984g. Diamond Chuitna Project. Vegetation baseline
studies report. Prepared for Diamond Shamrock-Chuitna
Coal Joint Venture, Anchorage, AK.
11-7
-------
. 1985a. Diamond Chuitna housing. NPDES application.
Prepared for Tide-Water Services Co., Anchorage, AK.
. 1985b. Diamond Chuitna mine. NPDES application.
Prepared for Diamond Alaska Coal Co., Anchorage, AK.
. 1985c. Diamond Chuitna Mine Permit Application to
conduct surface coal mining. Vol. I-XXIII. Anchorage,
AK.
. 1985d. Diamond Chuitna Project. Geology and
overburden/interburden assessments baseline studies
report. Diamond Shamrock-Chuitna Coal Joint Venture,
Anchorage, AK.
. 1985e. Diamond Chuitna Project. Mine component
vegetation baseline report. Prepared for Diamond
Shamrock-Chuitna Coal Joint Venture, Anchorage, AK.
. 1985f. Granite Point coal port NPDES application.
Prepared for Granite Point Coal Port, Inc. Anchorage,
AK.
. 1986. Ladd Road/North Road baseline studies report,
D836. Prepared for Diamond Alaska Coal Company.
. 1987. Diamond Chuitna project North Road baseline
studies report. Prepared for Diamond Alaska Coal
Company. Anchorage, AK.
Erickson, A.W. 1965. The brown grizzly bear in Alaska: its
ecology and management. Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game.
Juneau, AK.
Everett, K.R. 1979. Distribution and properties of road
dust generated from the Yukon River-Prudhoe Bay haul
road north of the Brooks Range. CRREL Int. Rep. 609,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, CRREL. Hanover, NH.
Fall, J.A., D.J. Foster and R.T. Stanek. 1984.
The use of fish and wildlife resources in Tyonek,
Alaska. AK Dept. of Fish and Game Technical Report No.
105.
Fame, G.W. 1974. Black bear predation on salmon at Olsen
Creek, Alnska. 22 Fierspsychol. 35:23-38.
Faro, J. 1985a. Moose studies for the proposed Diamond
Chuitna coal mine. AK Dept. of Fish and Game internal
report. Anchorage, AK.
11-8
-------
• 1985b. Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game, Anchorage, AK.
Personal communication to D. Clark, Economic Planning
Resources. Seattle, WA.
Foree, E.G. and J.S. Tapp. 1979. Design of chemical treat-
ment system for removal of suspended solids from sur-
face mining runoff from a 1000-Acre watershed.
Sumposium on surface mining hydrology, sedimentology
and reclamation. December 4-7, 1979. University of
Kentucky, Lexington, KY.
Foster, D. 1985. AK Dept. of Fish and Game, Div. of Sub-
sistence. Personal communication to S. Braund, S.
Braund and Associates, Anchorage, AK.
Gary, M., M. McAfee, Jr., and C.L. Wolf (Editors). 1972.
Glossary of Geology. American Geol. Inst., Washington,
D.C.
Gatto, L.W. 1976. Baseline data on the oceanography of Cook
Inlet, Alaska. Report prepared by U.S. Army Cold
Regions Research and Engineering laboratory for NASA.
CRREL report 76-25.
Gerlach, S.C. and J.E. Lobdell. 1983. Diamond Chuitna
Project: archaeological and historical baseline study.
Report prepared for Environmental Research and
Technology, Inc. and Diamond Shamrock-Chuitna Coal
Joint Venture, Anchorage, AK.
Good, R.E., R.L. Simpson and C.G. Jackson. 1978. Freshwater
wetlands: ecological processes and management poten-
tial. Academic Press, N.Y.
Hale, M.E., Jr. 1981. Lichens as bioindicators and monitors
of air pollution. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Washington, D.C.
Hansen, H.P., J. Shepard, J. King and W. Troyer. 1971. The
trumpeter swan in Alaska. Wildl. Monog. 2C.
Harris, W. 1985. Nikiski Fire Service District, Nikiski,
Alaska. Personal communication to D. Clark, Economic
Planning Resources. Seattle, WA.
Hawley, J.R. 1977. The use characteristics and toxicity of
mine-mill reagents in the province of Ontario. Ontario
Ministry of the Environment. Toronto, Ontario.
11-9
-------
Heilman, P.E. 1966. Change in distribution and availability
of nitrogen with forest succession on north slopes in
interior Alaska. Ecol. 49: 331-336.
Hepler, K. 1985. Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game. Personal
communication to J. Houghton, Dames & Moore, Seattle,
WA and M.C.T. Smith, Terra Nord, Anchorage, AK.
Hettinger, L.R. and A.J. Janz, 1974. Vegetation and soils
of northeastern Alaska. Arctic Gas Biol. Rpt. Series,
Vol. 21. Arctic Gas Study Project. Anchorage, Alaska
and Calgary, Alberta.
Hilliker, B. 1985. Alyeska Pipeline Service Co., Anchorage,
AK. Personal Communication to J.W. Morsel!, Dames &
Moore, Anchorage, AK.
Hodges, J. 1985. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Juneau,
AK. Personal communication to M.C.T. Smith, Terra
Nord, Anchorage, AK.
Hodson, P.V. and J.B. Sprague. 1975. Temperature induced
changes in acute toxicity of zinc to Atlantic salmon
fSalmo salar)~ Journ. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada 32:1-
10.
Holcombe, G.W., D.A. Benoit, and E.N. Leonard. 1979. Long-
term effects of zinc exposures on brook trout
fSalvelinus fontinalis). Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc.
108:76-87.
International Conference of Building Officials. 1982.
Uniform building code. Whittier, CA.
Jewell, B. 1985. Kenai Peninsula Borough School District,
Kenai, AK. Personal communication to D. Clark,
Economic Planning Resources. Seattle, WA.
Joint Federal State Land Use Planning Commission for Alaska.
1973. Major ecosystems of Alaska (map). Office of the
Governor, Juneau, AK.
Kenai Peninsula Borough, Resource Information Office. 1984.
Situation and prospects. Kenai, AK.
. 1988. Chuitna area resource development plan.
Soldotna, AK.
King, J.G. 1968. Trumpeter swan survey, Alaska. USDI, Bur.
Sport Fish and Wildlife, Juneau, AK.
11-10
-------
. 1985. Personal communication to M.C.T. Smith, Terra
Nord, Anchorage, AK.
Lashot, J. 1985. City of Kenai, Kenai Alaska. Personal
communication to D. Clark, Economic Planning Resources,
Seattle, WA.
Lentfer, J.W. 1972. Remarks on denning habitats of Alaskan
brown bears. Int. Conf. on bear research and manage-
ment, Union for the Conserv. of Nature and Natural
Resources, Series No. 23.
LeResche, R., R. Bishop and J.W. Coady. 1974. Distribution
and habitats of moose in Alaska. Naturaliste Can.
101:143-178.
Lobdell, J.E. 198 6. Diamond Chuitna Project: Archaeological
and Historical Resources Study. Prepared for Diamond
Shamrock Chuitna Coal Joint Venture.
Lutz, H.J. 1956. Ecological effects on forest fires in the
interior of Alaska. U.S. Dept. Agric. Tech. Bull. No.
1133, U.S.D.A., Washington, D.C.
Mason, J.c. 1969. Hypoxial stress prior to emergence and
competition among coho salmon fry. Journal of
Fisheries Resource Board Canada 26: 63-91.
Maurer, M.A. and D.C. Toland. 1984. Report of investigation
84-27 water-quality data from the Beluga coal-field
area, Alaska June 1982 through March 1983. Alaska
Dept. of Natural Resources, Division of Geologic and
Geophysical Surveys, Anchorage, AK.
McCord, B. 1985. Village of Tyonek. Personal communication
to S. Braund and R. Hagenstein, S. Braund and
Associates, Anchorage, AK.
McGinnies, W.J. and P.J. Nicholas. 1980. Effects of topsoil
thickness and nitrogen fertilizer on the revegetation
of coal mine spoils. J. Environ. Qual. 9(4):681-685.
Mcllhargy, F. 1985. Kenai Peninsula Borough, Kenai, Alaska.
Personal communication to D. Clark, Economic Planning
Resources:. Seattle, WA.
Mcllroy, C.W. 1970. Aspects of the ecology of hunter har-
vest of the black bear in Prince William Sound. M.S.
thesis, Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK.
11-11
-------
McNeely, R.N., V.P. Neimanis and L. Dwyer. 1979. Water
quality source book a guide to water quality parame-
ters. Environment Canada, Inland waters directorate,
water quality branch, Ottawa, Canada.
Miller, C. 1985. Alaska Dept. of Labor, Research and
Analysis section, Juneau, Alaska. Personal com-
munication to D. Clark, Economic Planning Resources,
Seattle, WA.
Miller, S.D. and D.C. McAllister. 1982. Big Game Studies
Vol. VI. Black bear and brown bear. Environmental
Studies Phase I Final Report. Alaska Power Authority,
Susitna Hydroelectric Project. Anchorage, AK.
Mungall, J.C. and J.B. Matthews. 197 0. A variable-boundary
nubmerical tidal model. Institute of Marine Science
Report R70-4. University of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK.
Murray, D.F. 1980. Threatened and endangered plants of
Alaska. Coop, public. U.S. Forest Service and U.S
Bureau of Land Management. Anchorage, AK.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1982.
Local climatological data for Anchorage, Alaska.
Asheville, NC.
Nichols, R. 1985. Central Peninsula General Hospital,
Soldotna, AK. Personal communication to D. Clark,
Economic Planning Resources, Seattle, WA.
Nortec, Inc. 1982. Marine geophysical and current measure-
ment survey Granite Point, Cook Inlet, Alaska.
Prepared for Diamond Chuitna Project. Anchorage, AK.
Olson, J.E. 1982. The effects of air pollution and acid
rain on fish, wildlife, and their habitats. Report 8 -
arctic tundra and alpine meadows. FWS/OBS 80/40.8.
U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Washington, D.C.
Overman, T. 1985. Kenai Peninsula School District,
Soldotna, AK. Personal communication to D. Clark,
Economic Planning Resources, Seattle, WA.
Pacific Northwest Laboratory and Battelle Human Affairs
Research Centers. 1979. Beluga coal field develop-
ment: Social effects and management alternatives.
Report to the Alaska Division of Energy and Power
Development and the U.S. Department of Energy.
11-12
-------
Pacific Working Group. 1977. In: Burk (editor). The black
bear in modern North America. Proc. workshop on the
manager, biol. of No. Amer. black bear, Kalispell, MT.
PEDCo. 1976. Evaluation of fugitive dust from mining, Task
1 Report: Identification of fugitive dust sources
associated with mining. Prepared for USEPA.
Peterson, L.A., G.E. Nichols, N.B. Hemming, and J.A.
Glaspell. 1985. Alaska particulates critera review.
Prepared for Alaska Dept. of Environmental
Conservation, Fairbanks, AK.
Phillips, R.w., R.L. Lantz, E.W. Claire and J.R. Moring.
1975. Some effects of gravel mixtures on emergence of
coho salmon and steelhead trout fry. Transaction
American Fisheries Society 104(3):461-466.
Radian Corporation. 1982. Final air monitoring report for
Tesoro Petroleum Corporation, June 1981 - May 1982.
Austin, TX.
Radian Corporation. 1982. Final air monitoring report for
Tesoro Petroleum Corporation, June 1981 - May 1982.
Austin, TX.
Reger, D. 1977. Prehistory in the upper Cook Inlet, Alaska.
In: Prehistory of the North American sub-arctic, the
Athapaskan question, Proc. Ninth Ann. Conf., the
Archaeological Assoc. of Univ. of Calgary, Calgary,
Alberta.
. 1981. A model for culture history in upper Cook
Inlet, Alaska. Unpub. Ph.D. dissertation, Wash. St.
Univ., Pullman, WA.
Riverside Technology, Inc. 1986. Diamond Chuitna project
surface hydrology transportation corridor baseline
report (Ladd Road and North Road alternatives).
Prepared for Diamond Alaska Coal Company.
Roch, M., J.A. McCarter, A.T. Matheson, M.J.R. Clark, and
R.W. Olafson. 1982. Hepatic metallothionein in rainbow
trout (Salmo aairdneri) as an indicator of metal pollu-
tion in the Campbell River system. Can. J. Fish.
Aquat. Sci. 39:1596-1601.
Ross, R. 1971. The cultural sequence at Chagvan Bay,
Alaska: a matrix analysis Unpub. Ph.D. dissertation,
Wash. St. Univ., Pullman, WA.
11-13
-------
Rowe, J.S. and G.W. Scotter. 1973. Fire in the Boreal
Forest. Quat. Res. 3.
Schmoll, H.R, L.A. Yehle, C.A. Gardner and J.K. Odum. 1984.
Guide to surficial geology and glacial stratigraphy in
the upper Cook Inlet basin. AK Geol. Soc., Anchorage,
AK.
Schwartz, C.C. and A.W. Franzman. 1980. Population ecology
of the Kenai Peninsula black bear. AK Dept. of Fish
and Game. Fed. aid in wildlife restor., proj. prog,
rept. W-17-11, Juneau, AK.
Science Applications, Inc. 1984. Diamond Chuitna project
meteorological monitoring program - annual data report.
Vol. I: discussion and data summary. Vol. II: port area
site hourly data, Vo. Ill: mine area site hourly data.
La Jolla, CA.
Scott, W.B. and E.J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater fishes of
Canada. Fisheries Research and Board of Canada Bull.
174.
Scully, D.R., A.P. Krumhardt and D.R. Kernodle. 1981.
Hydrologic reconnaissance of the Beluga, Peters Creek
and Healy coal areas, Alaska. U.S. Geological Survey
Water Resources Investigations 81-56, Anchorage, AK.
Sharma, G.D., F.F. Wright and J.J. Burns. 1973. Sea-ice and
surface water circulation, Alaskan continental shelf.
Second semi-annual report for ERIS Project 110-H.
University of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK.
. 1974. Sea surface circulation, sediment transport,
and marine mammal distribution, Alaska continental
shelf. Final report for ERIS Project 110-H.
University of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK.
Sittig, M. 1981. Handbook of toxic and hazardous chemicals.
Noyes Publications, Park Ridge, NJ.
Smith, W.H. 1981. Air pollution and forests. Springer-
Verlag, New York, NY.
Soil Conservation Service. 1960. Soil classification; a
comprehensive system. Seventh approximation. USDA,
Soil Conservation Service. Washington, D.C.
11-14
-------
.. 198 0. Soil survey of the Beluga-Chuitna Region,
Alaska- USDA, Soil Conservation Service, Anchorage,
AK.
Sommerville, R. 1965. An evaluation of the 1961-1963 Alaska
brown bear and grizzly management program. M.S.
Thesis, Univ. of Montana, Missoula, MT.
Sopuck, L.G. and D.J. Vernam. 1984. Late winter distribu-
tion and movements of moose in relation to the trans-
Alaska pipeline in interior Alaska. Prepared for
Alyeska Pipeline Service Company, Anchorage, AK.
Soros Associates. 1986. Diamond Chuitna Project investi-
gation: Tyonek Native Corporation pier at Tyonek, Cook
Inlet, Alaska. Prepared for Diamond Alaska Coal Co.,
Anchorage, AK.
Stanek, R.T. and D. Foster. 1980. Tyonek king salmon sub-
sistence fishery: 1980 activities. Alaska Dept. of
Fish and Game Technical Report No. 33. Anchorage, AK.
Still, P.J., R.D. Lamke, J.E. Vaill, B.B. Bigelow and J.L.
VanMaanen. 1984. Water resources data Alaska water
year 1983. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data Report
AK-83-1, Anchorage, AK.
Tarbox, K. 1985. Unpublished data on commercial fisheries.
AK Dept. of Fish and Game, Soldotna, AK.
Timm, D.E. 1981. Relationship between trumpeter swan dis-
tribution and cabins in the Susitna basin. Proc. Sixth
Trumpeter Swan Society Conference.
TRC Environmental Consultants. 1986. Diamond Chuitna pro-
ject air quality impact analysis. December 11, 1986.
. 1987a. Responses to comments by the Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation regarding the
Diamond Chuitna Project Air Quality Impact Analysis.
April 20, 1987.
.1987b. Additional responses to comments by the Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation regarding the
Diamond Chuitna project air quality impact analysis.
. 1988. Responses to comments by the Environmental
Protection Agency regarding the Diamond Chuitna project
air quality impact analysis.
11-15
-------
Treshow, M. 1970. Environment and plant response.
McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, NY.
U.S. Dept. of Commerce. 1984a. Personal income by major
sources, Kenai-Cook Inlet Division and Alaska Statewide
Bureau of Economic Analysis. Washington, D.C.
. 1984b. Employment by type and Broad Industrial
Sources, Kenai-Cook Inlet Division and Alaska Statewide
Bureau of Economic Analysis. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.
1978a. Upland Visual Resource Inventory and
Evaluation. Subject 8411.
. 1978b. Environmental Assessment. Subject 8440.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1980. Terrestrial habitat
evaluation criteria handbook - Alaska Ecol. Serv.,
Anchorage, AK.
. 1981. National Wetlands inventory. Washington, D.C.
. 1984. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants.
Title 50, Parts 17.11 and 17.12, Code of Federal
Regulations. Office of Endangered Species, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Soil Conservation Service.
1982. Land cover classification system and map legend
for the Susitna River basin cooperative vegetation
inventory. Unpub. Rpt. Anchorage, AK.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1979. Flood characteristics
of Alaskan streams, water resources investigations, 78-
129. Anchorage, AK.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1979. Flood characteristics
of Alaskan streams, water resources investigations, 78-
129. Anchorage, AK.
. 1981. Water resources data for Alaska water year
1980. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data Report AK-80-
1, Anchorage, AK.
. 1983. Water resources data Alaska water year 1982.
U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data Report AK-82-1,
Anchorage, AK.
. 1988. Floods of October 1986 in southcentral Alaska.
USGS Open File Report 87-391, Anchorage, AK.
11-16
-------
University of Maine. 1983- Wildlife populations utilizing
right-of-way habitats along Interstate 95 in northern
Maine - Final report, TP83-5, prepared for U.S. Dept.
of Transportation. Washington, D.C.
Van Ballenberghe, V. 1977. Migratory behavior of moose in
south central Alaska. XIII Congress of Game Biolgists.
Atlanta, GA.
Van Patten, J. 1985. Alaska Dept. of Labor, Research and
Analysis Section, Juneau, Alaska. Personal com-
munication to D. Clark, Economic Planning Resources.
Seattle, WA.
Vecera, R. 1985. Chugach Electric Association. Personal
communication to R. Hagenstein, S. Braund and
Associates, Anchorage, AK.
Verry, E.S. and D.H. Boelter. 1978. Peatland hydrology.
Nat. Symp. on Wetlands: wetland functions and values:
the state of our understanding. Nov. 7-10, 1978. Lake
Buena Vista, FL.
Viereck, L.A. 1982. Effects of firelines on active layer
thickness and soil temperatures in interior Alaska.
Proc. Fourth Canadian Permafrost Conf., Calgary,
Alberta. National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa,
Ontario.
Viereck, L.A., C.T. Dyrness and A.R. Batten. 1982. 1982
revision of preliminary classification for vegetation
of Alaska. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range
Experiment Sta., Portland, OR.
Viereck, L.A. and E.L. Little, Jr. 1972. Alaska trees and
shrubs. U.S. Dept. of Agric., Agriculture Handbook
410. Portland, OR.
Walkinshaw, L.H. 1949. The sandhill cranes. Cranbook Inst.
Sci. Bull. No. 29.
Williams, G. 1985. Alaska Dept. of Labor, Juneau, AK.
Personal communication to D. Clark, Economic Planning
Resources, Seattle, WA.
Wilson, B.W. and A. Torum. 1968. The tsunami of the Alaskan
earthquake, 1964: engineering evaluation. U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research
Center. Technical Memorandum No. 25.
11-17
-------
Winston, W. 1985. Kenai Fire Dept., Kenai, Alaska.
Personal communication to D. Clark, Economic Planning
Resources, Seattle, WA.
Younkin, W.E. arid H. Martens. 1985. Evaluation of selected
reclamation studies in northern Canada. Dept. Indian
and Northern Affairs, No. Environ. Protection Branch,
Ottawa, Ontario. DSS File: 19 SV.A7135-4-0027.
11-18
-------
Chapter 12.0
Glossary of Technical Terms, Acronyms,
Abbreviations, and Measurement Equivalents
-------
12.0 GLOSSARY OF TECHNICAL TERMS, ACRONYMS,
ABBREVIATIONS AND MEASUREMENT EQUIVALENTS
12.1
DEFINITION OF TERMS
Note: The terms defined here
asterisk (*) throughout the text.
have been marked with an
Term
Alluvium
Alevin
Anadromous
Andesite
Definition
Clay, silt, sand, gravel, and
similar unconsolidated detrital
material deposited recently (in
geologic time) by a stream or
other body of running water in the
bed of the stream or on its flood
plain or delta, or as a cone or
fan at the base of a mountain
slope.
A newly hatched salmon
attached to the yolk sac.
still
Fish (like salmon) which hatch and
often rear for varying periods in
freshwater, migrate to the sea for
one or more years of accelerated
growth, and return to freshwater
to spawn.
A dark-colored, fine-grained ex-
trusive rock.
Antecedent Moisture
Condition
Anticline
Aufeis
The amount of moisture present in
the soil at the beginning of a
runoff period.
Layered rock strata that have been
folded into an arch-shaped struc-
ture in which the layers incline
away from a central axis. (oppo-
site of syncline).
Massive surface ice formed by suc-
cessive freezing sheets of water
seeping onto ice cover from stream
banks, under the ice or from sur-
face runoff.
Base Flow
Sustained or fair-weather flow of
a stream.
12-1
-------
Term
Batholith
Benthic
Borrow
Box Cut
Breccia
Cache
Confined Ground Water
Deltaic Deposits
Detritivore
Embayment Deposits
Definition
A generally discordant, plutonic
mass that has more than 100 square
kilometers (40 square miles) in
surface exposure and is composed
predominately of medium to coarse
rocks of granodiorite and quartz
monzonite composition.
Pertaining to that which occurs at
the bottom of water bodies; espe-
cially applies to organisms living
on or in bottom sediments.
Construction materials such as
sand and gravel.
Initial excavation for mine
development.
Coarse-grained clastic rock com-
posed of large (greater than sand
size), angular, and broken rock
fragments that are cemented
together in a fine-grained matrix.
Food storage pile.
An aquifer in which the water is
under pressure between two
impermeable layers of subsurface
material such as rock or clay.
Sedimentary deposits laid down in
a delta, characterized by well-
developed local cross-bedding and
by a mixture of sand, clay, and
the remains of brackish water
organisms and organic matter.
Animals which feed on decaying
material, especially at the bottom
of water bodies.
Materials deposited in a deep
recess or indentation in a shore-
line; generally fine-grained
materials such as clay, silt, and
sand.
12-2
-------
Term
Definition
Epibenthic
Epibiotic
Escapement
Estuarine Deposits
Extrusive Rocks
Facies
Fluvial Deposits
Granodiorite
Heuristic
Igneous
That which occurs on the surface
of sediments at the bottom of
water bodies.
Pertaining to organisms living on
the surface of bottom sediments.
The number of anadromous fish
which return to freshwater streams
and successfully spawn.
A sedimentary deposit laid down in
the brackish water of an estuary,
characterized by fine-grained
sediments (chiefly clay and silt)
of marine and fluvial origin mixed
with a high portion of decomposed
terrestrial organic matter.
Rocks that have been ejected onto
the surface of the earth; e.g.,
lava flows, volcanic ash.
Any observable attribute or attri-
butes (e.g., overall appearance,
composition, or conditions of for-
mation) of one part of a rock as
contrasted with another or several
other parts of the same rock.
Sedimentary deposits consisting of
material transported by, suspended
in, or laid down by a river or
stream.
Coarse-grained plutonic rocks con-
taining quartz, plagioclase, and
potassium feldspar, with biotite,
hornblende, or, more rarely,
pyroxene.
Providing aid or direction in the
solution of a problem but other-
wise unjustified or incapable of
justification.
Rock which has solidified from
molten lava.
12-3
-------
Term
Definition
Infauna
Interburden
Intrusive Rocks
Loess
Moraine
Natality
Orographic
Overburden
Palustrine
Periphyton
Piezometric Surface
Community of organisms which live
within sediments at the bottom of
water bodies.
Soil or other material lying be-
tween coal seams.
Rocks emplaced by the intrusion of
lava into pre-existing rocks.
An unconsolidated, homogeneous
blanket deposit of fine-grained
materials, predominately composed
of silt.
A mound, ridge, or other distinct
accumulation of unsorted unstrati-
fied glacial drift, predominately
till, deposited chiefly by direct
action of glacial ice.
Birthrate.
Associated with or induced by the
presence of mountains.
Soil, rock, or other material
overlying the upper most coal
seam.
Pertaining to materials deposited
in marshes.
Organisms, including algae, which
live attached to underwater sur-
faces.
An imaginary surface representing
the static head of ground water
and defined by the level to which
water will rise in a well. a
water table is a particular piezo-
metric surface.
12-4
-------
Term
Definition
Plutonic Rocks
Primary Productivity
Pyroclastic Rocks
Recharge
Redd
Richter Magnitude
Riparian
Riprap
Rut
Seismic Risk Zone
Series
Splitter-Hopper
Rocks formed at a considerable
depth by crystallization of magma
or by chemical alternation;
characteristically medium- to
coarse-grained and of granitoid
texture.
Pertaining to organisms such as
green plants which have the abil-
ity to use light and nutrient
energy to manufacture food.
Rocks that are composed of mate-
rials fragmented by volcanic
explosion; characterized by a lack
of sorting and variability in the
size of individual pyroclasts.
Absorption and addition of water
to the zone of saturation.
A gravel spawning nest constructed
by salmon.
The range of numerical values of
earthquake magnitude.
Located on the bank of a water
body.
A layer of large, broken rock
placed together irregularly to
prevent erosion of embankments,
causeways, or other surfaces.
Mating season, especially for big
game animals such as moose.
One of the zones identified in the
Uniform Building Code which is
used to determine building
construction requirements.
Composed of soils having similar
arrangements of horizons and
having, within certain limits,
similar physical and chemical pro-
perties .
A hopper facility capable of
directing coal to more than one
destination.
12-5
-------
Term
Stamukhas
Stringer
Sub-bituminous
Succession
Sump
Syncline
Unconformity
Volcanic Rocks
Definition
Sea-ice that has been built up
(thickened) by addition of layers
of sea-ice being deposited during
higher tides over sea-ice layers
that have frozen to a tidal flat
during earlier lower tides.
A very thin, filamentous vein of
ore.
A black coal intermediate in rank
between lignite and bituminous
coals; higher carbon and lower
moisture content than lignite.
Changes in the plant communities
composing an ecosystem as the eco-
system evolves from one type to
another, e.g. wetlands becoming
grassy meadows.
A pit which collects water to be
pumped at the bottom of the mine.
Layered rock strata that have been
folded into a trough-shaped struc-
ture in which the layers incline
towards a central axis; opposite
of an anticline.
A substantial break or gap in the
geological record where a rock
unit is overlain by another unit
that is not next in stratigraphic
succession.
Generally finely crystalline or
glassy igneous rock resulting from
volcanic action at or near the
Earth's surface, either ejected
explosively or extruded as lava.
12.2 AGENCY ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Feaeral Agencies
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Bureau of Land Management
Council on Environmental Quality
Army Corps of Engineers
Department of the Army
Department of the Interior
AC HP
BLM
CEQ
Corps
DA
DO I
12-6
-------
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FWS Fish and Wildlife Service
MSHA Mining Safety and Health Administration
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
NOAA National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Admini-
stration
NPS National Park Service
NWS National Weather Service
USGS United States Geological Survey
State of Alaska Agencies
ADF&G Alaska Department of Fish and Game
AEIDC University of Alaska, Arctic Environmental
Information & Data Center
DEC Department of Environmental Conservation
DGGS Division of Geological and Geophysical Survey
DNR Department of Natural Resources
DOT/PF Department of Transportation & Public Facilities
SHPO State Historic Preservation Office
Other
ANCSA Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971
ANILCA Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act
of 1980
ASMCRA Alaska Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act
BACT Best Available Control Technology
CINA Cook Inlet Native Association
CIRI Cook Inlet Region, Inc.
KLM Kodiak Lumber Mill
KPB Kenai Peninsula Borough
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NSPS New Source Performance Standards
NVT Native Village of Tyonek
ORV Off-road Vehicles
PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration
ROD Record of Decision
SPCC Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure
Plan
TNC Tyonek Native Corporation
VQO Visual Quality Objective
VRM Visual Resources Management
12-7
-------
12.3 METRIC/ENGLISH MEASUREMENT, ABBREVIATIONS AND
EQUIVALENTS
Metric Unit
(Abbrev.)
Equivalent
centimeter (cm)
2.54 cm
1
in
meter (m)
0.3048 m
=
1
ft
kilometer (km)
1.60 93 km
=
1
mi
hectare (ha)
0.4047 ha
=
1
ac
square kilometer (km2)
2.590 km2
=
1
mi 2
liter (1)
3.78541
—
1
gal
cubic meter (m3)
0.0283 m3
=
1
ft 3
cubic meter (m3)
0.7646 m3
=
1
yd 3
cubic dekameter (dam3)
1.2335 dam3
=
1
ac-ft
cubic meter
f t3/s
per second (m^/s)
0.0283 m3/s
=
1
kilogram (kg)
0.4536 kg
=
1
lb
metric ton (Mt)
0.9072 Mg
=
1
ton
meter per second (m/s)
0.5144 m/s
1
knots
meter per second (m/s)
0 .30 48 m/s
—
1
ft/s
miligram per liter
1.0 mg/1
=
1
ppm
(mg/1)
degrees Celsius (°C)
(1.8x°C)+ 32
=
°F
English Unit
(Abbrev) .
inch (in)
foot (ft)
mile (mi )
acre (ac)
square mile
(mi 2)
gallon (gal)
cubic feet
( f 13 )
cubic yard
(yd 3 )
acre-foot
(ac-ft)
cubic feet
per second
(ft3/s)
pound (lb)
short ton
(2,000 lb)
knot (knot)
feet per
second
(ft/s)
part per
million
(ppm)
degrees
Fahren-
heit ( °f )
12 .4
OTHER MEASUREMENTS AND ABBREVIATIONS
acre-feet (ac-ft)
barrels (bbls)
Before Present (B.P.)
decibel level A (dbA)
dead weight ton (dwt)
megawatt (MW)
Kilovolt (KV)
parts per billion (ppb)
parts per million (ppm)
gallons per day (gpd)
milliequivalents per liter (meq/1)
nannometric turbidity unit (NTU)
12-8
-------