vvEPA
           United States
           Environmental Protection
           Agency
               Region 10
               1200 Sixth Avenue
               Seattle WA 98101
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
                                               EPA 910/9-87-172
           Water Division
               June, 1988
                                         EPA 10-Af Chuitna-NPDES-88
Diamond  Chuitna
Coal  Project

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
                    U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
     os                             REGION 10
         $>                       1200 SIXTH AVENUE
|*  f*  *i                  SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98101
   REPLY TO
   AT™ OF,     WD-136
   To All  Interested Government Agencies, Public Officials,
   Public  Groups, and Citizens
        Pursuant  to Section 102(2)(c) of the National  Environmental  Policy Act of
   1969  and  implementing Federal Regulations, the U.S. Environmental  Protection
   Agency  (EPA) is forwarding for your review and comment this Draft
   Environmental  Impact Statement (DEIS) for the proposed Diamond Chuitna Coal
   Project.  The  project sponsor, Diamond Alaska Coal  Company, proposes to
   develop a twelve million ton per year coal mine in  the Beluga region of upper
   Cook  Inlet, approximately 45 miles west of Anchorage,  Alaska.  The project
   would consist  of an open pit mine and associated coal  transportation and port
   facilities, service facilities, and housing accommodations.

       Diamond Alaska Coal Company, in association with  Granite Point Coal  Port,
   Inc. and Tidewater Services Company has applied to  EPA for National  Pollutant
   Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits to discharge pollutants from the
   mine, port, coal loading, and housing facilities to navigable waters pursuant
   to the Clean Water Act.   These facilities have been determined to  be New
   Sources under Section 306 of the Clean Water Act and,  according to  Section
   511(c)(l) of the Clean Water Act, are subject to the provisions of the
   National Environmental  Policy Act.  The draft NPDES permits have been  released
   for public review concurrent with this DEIS (Appendix  D).

       The U.S.  Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers  (Corps),  and  the
   State of Alaska Department of Natural  Resources (DNR)  are  cooperating  agencies
   for the environmental  impact statement.   The Corps, under  the authority  of
  Section 10 of the River  and Harbor Act of 1899 and  Section  404  of the  Clean
  Water Act, will evaluate proposed project-related activities  in waters of the
  United States.  Appendix  C of this DEIS contains a complete  description of the
  proposed activities requiring the Corps  authorization.  The  DNR is authorized
  to review, pursuant to the  Alaska Surface Coal  Mining  Control  and Reclamation
  Act (AS27.21 ,  11  AAC Ch. 90), Diamond  Alaska  Coal Company's  detailed
  application  for a  permit to conduct  surface  mining.  This application  is the
  subject of a  separate  review process.

       Comments  are  invited on the  DEIS,  Draft  NPDES  permits, and the Corps
  authorization.   These comments will  be considered in the preparation of the
  Final  Environmental  Impact  Statement and  the  applicable permits.

-------
      Combined  public hearings on the DEIS, Draft NPDES permits, and the Corps
authorization  are scheduled for the following locations and times.

      Anchorage                          Tyonek

      August 17, 1988                    August 18, 1988
      7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.            7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.
      Federal Building                   Tyonek Community Center
      Conference Room (1st Floor)        Tyonek, Alaska
      701 "C" Street
      Anchorage, Alaska

      EPA will announce the availability of this document in the Federal
Register on July 15, 1988, initiating a 60-day review and comment period.
Written comments pertaining to the DEIS should be submitted by September 13,
1988, to:

      Rick Seaborne
      EIS Project Officer
      Environmental Evaluation Branch, M/S WD-136
      Environmental Protection Agency
      1200 6th Avenue
     Seattle, Washington  98101

     Telephone:  (206)442-8510
                 FTS 399-8510

     Addresses for submittal  of comments pertaining  to  the NPDES  permit  or
State Certification  are ircdicated  in the public notice  included with the draft
NPDES permits in Appendix D of this  document.

-------
                 DRAFT

    ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

     DIAMOND CHUITNA COAL PROJECT




              Prepared by
 U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
               REGION  10
         Cooperating Agencies

      U.S.  Department of  the  Army
          Corps of Engineers

Alaska Department of Natural  Resources
    With Technical  Assistance From

             Dames  & Moore
                         RESPONSIBLE QF-FICIAL:
                        Robie (a. Russell
                        Regional Administrator
                        Environmental  Protection Agency
                        Region 10
                        Date:
                                 ?  '  '/  -  2"

-------
                           COVER  SHEET
         DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT  STATEMENT  (DEIS)
                DIAMOND CHUITNA  COAL PROJECT
                     SOQTHCENTRAL  ALASKA

 Lead Agency            U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency
                        (EPA)

 Responsible Official:   Robie G. Russell
                        Regional Administrator
                        Environmental Protection  Agency
                        1200 Sixth Avenue
                        Seattle, Washington  98101

 Cooperating Agencies;   U.S. Army  Corps of  Engineers,(Corps)
                        Alaska District, Regulatory Branch
                        Alaska Department of Natural  Resources
                        (DNR)

 Abstract  of DEIS

      The  actions to  be  considered are the approvals  of permits
 for  the proposed Diamond Chuitna Coal  Project located on the
 west  side of Cook Inlet  in  southcentral  Alaska.  The project
 would consist of a  surface coal mine, haul  road,  a method of
 transporting  coal to   a  port   facility  on .Cook  Inlet,  dock
 facilities,  and  other  ancillary   facilities.   Three  action
 alternatives  and  a  No  Action  Alternative  are discussed in
 detail.   Rationale  for eliminating  various  options  is given.
 The preferred alternative would include construction of a port
 site  at Ladd,  an eastern transportation corridor,  development
 of  a housing  facility  at Lone Creek,  and a  conveyor system
 which  would parallel the haul road  and  transport  coal to the
 port  site.  The impacts of the proposed project are considered
 in  terms   of  vegetation,  fish,   wildlife,  wetlands,  water
 quality and hydrology  (both surface and subsurface), physical
 and  chemical  oceanography, air  quality,  visual  resources,
 cultural  resources,  subsistence,  socioeconomics,  recreation,
 technical feasibility, and future  uses of facilities.

 Public  DEIS Review and CommentProcess

     This DEIS is offered for review and comment to members of
the  public,  special  interest  groups,   and  public  agencies.
Public  hearings will be held to solicit  comments on  the DEISf
draft  EPA  National  Pollutant  Discharge  Elimination  System
 (NPDES)  permits,   and   the  Corps  authorized  activities  (see
attached  notice   regarding  hearing  locations,   dates,   and
times).  Comments received on the  DEIS will be addressed in the
Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) .

-------
 Location  o£_DEIS_or^Technical  andReference  Reports  and Appendicj

      Copies  of this  DEIS and/or the major reports relating  to  •
 the  Diamond Chuitna  Coal  EIS  are  available at the following
 locations:
 Seattle

 EPA  Region  10  Headquarters
 1200  Sixth  Avenue
 Seattle, WA 98101
Anchorage

Dames & Moore
5761 Silverado Way, Bldg. P
Anchorage, AK  99518-1657
Kenai Peninsula Borough

Kenai Peninsula Borough*
Resource Development Dept
147 N, Binkley
Soldotna, AK

Kenai Community Library**
163 Main Street Loop
Kenai, AK

Tyonek Community Center**
Tyonek, AK
Division of Mining
Dept. of Natural Resources
Eighth Floor
3601  'C1 Street  (Frontier Bldg.)
Anchorage, AK

Dimond Alaska Coal Company
550 West 7th Avenue, Suite 1900
Anchorage, AK

Z.J. Loussac Library
3600 Denali Street
Anchorage, AK  99503

Deadline for Comments:  September 13, 1988

Address all Comments to:

     Rick Seaborne
     EIS Project Officer
     Environmental Evaluation Branch (W/D 136)
     Environmental Protection Agency
     1200 Sixth Avenue
     Seattle,  WA  98101
     (206)  442-8510

 *27 volume permit application only
**All reports  except permit  application

-------
Table of Contents

-------
                                TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                                           Paqe
 SUMMARY                                                                   S-l

 1.0          OF AND      FOR ACTION	  1-1

 1.1  INTRODUCTION	  1-1

      1.1.1  The EIS Process 	i	  1-1
      1.1.2  EIS Document Structure		  1-2

 1.2  DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS	  1-4
 1.3  PROJECT LOCATION, HISTORY, AND STATUS 	  1-4
 1.4  SCOPING ISSUES	  1-6
 1.5  STATUS OF PERMITS AND APPROVALS	  1-9

 2.0  THE PROPOSED PROJECT 	 2-1
                                                   *
 2.1  INTRODUCTION 	I	 2-1
 2.2  PROJECT OVERVIEW AND COMPONENTS 	 2-2

      2.2.1  Introduction			 2-2
      2.2.2  Project Overview 	 2-2
      2.2.3  Project Components and Options 	 2-4

 2.3       AREA FACILITIES 	 2-4

      2.3.1  Location and Size	 2-4
      2.3.2  Mining  Sequence and Methods 	 2-6
      2.3.3  Water Control and  Treatment 	 2-8

           2.3.3.1   Runoff from Areas  Outside the Active Mine Pit  	 2-8
           2.3.3.2   Active Mine Pit Water			 2-9

      2.3.4  Overburden Stockpile	  2-12
      2.3.5  Mine Service Area	  2-12

 2.4   TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM	  2-14

      2.4.1  Conveyor	  2-14
      2.4.2  Access/Haul  Road 	  2-20

 2.5   PORT  FACILITIES	!	  2-20

      2.5.1   Onshore Port Facilities	  2-20
      2.5.2   Offshore Port Facilities	  2-24

 2.6  HOUSING AND AIRPORT FACILITIES 	 2-25

     2.6.1   Housing	 2-25
     2.6.2  Airstrip 	 2-29

2.7  POWER GENERATION	 2-29
2.8  RECLAMATION PLAN	 2-29

-------
                                      OF
                                   (continued)

                                                                           Page

      2.8.1  Mine Pit 	  2-29

          2.8.1.1  Backfilling and Grading  	  2-30
          2.8.1.2  Topsoil  Handling Plan	  2-31
          2.8.1.3  Revegetation	  2-32

      2.8.2  Overburden Stockpile	  2-32
      2.8.3  Mine Service Area	  2-33
      2.8.4  Transportation  Corridor		......  2-33
      2.8.5  Port Site	  2-33
      2.8.6  Housing Area and Airstrip	  2-34

2.9   FISH MITIGATION PLAN	  2-34
2.10  CONSTRUCTION	  2-34   j
                     «                                                            i
      2.10.1  Schedule and Sequence	  2-34

          2.10.1.1   First Year	  2-3-'i   |
          2.10.1.2   Second  Year	  2-3,
          2.10.1.3   Third Year		  2-37
                                                                                 f
      2.10.2  Construction Employment  	  2-37   1
      2.10.3  Construction Methods  	  2-39
                                                                                 i
          2.10.3.1   Facilities Sites	  2-39   j
          2.10.3.2   Conveyor and Access/Haul Road 	  2-41

2.11 OPERATION	 2-43   j
                                                                                 l
      2.11.1  Coal Production and Shipping Schedules 	 2-43
      2.11.2  Job Skills and Shift Schedules 	 2-44   |
     2.11.3  Fuel Handling  	 2-44   j
      2.11.4  Air Quality Considerations 	 2-45
     2.11.5  Environmental Training Program 	 2-46   (
     2.11.6  Environmental Coordinator	 2-47   ;

3.0  ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION		   3-1

3.1  INTRODUCTION	   3-1    '
3.2  ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE TO THE APPLICANT	   3-1

     3.2.1  Options Initially Considered 	   3-1    j

          3.2.1.1  Overburden Stockpile Location 	   3-3
          3.2.1.2  Transportation Corridor/Port Location 	   3-3    |
          3.2.1.3  Transportation Mode	   3-6    <
          3.2.1.4  Loading Facility Type	   3-7
          3.2.1.5  Loading Facility Length	   3-7
          3.2.1.6  Housing Location		   3-7    |
          3.2.1.7  Housing Type	   3-8

-------
                                TABLE OF
                                    (continued)
           3.2.1.8  Airstrip	  3-9
           3.2.1.9  Water Supply	  3-9

      3.2.2  Options Screening Process	  3-9

           3.2.2.1  Initial Options Evaluation	  3-9
           3.2.2.2  Remaining Options Evaluation 	  3-12

      3.2.3  Identification and Description of Action Alternatives  	  3-24

           3.2.3.1  Southern/Granite Point Alternative	  3-26
           3.2.3.2  Northern/Ladd Alternative	  3-26
           3.2.3.3  Eastern/Ladd Alternative 	  3-26
           3,2.3.4  Housing/Airstrip Options	  3-26

      3.2.4  Comparison of Action Alternatives	  3-26
      3.2.5  Identification of Preferred Alternative	  3-33
      3.2.6  Ccraparison of Housing/Airstrip Options	  3-35

 3.3  ALTERATIVES AVAILABLE TO THE AGENCIES 	  3-39
 3.4  NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 		  3-39

 4. U  AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 	  4-1

 4.1  INTRODUCTION		  4-1
 4.2  REGIONAL HISTORY  AND LAND STATUS  	  4-1
 4.3  TERRESTRIAL  ENVIRONMENT .....		  4-3

      4.3.1  Physiography,  Geology,  and Soils	  4-3

           4.3.1.1   Physiography  	•	  4-3
           4.3.1.2   Geology	  4-4
           4.3.1.3   Seismology	  4-5
           4.3.1.4   Soils  	  4-5

      4.3.2 Vegetation  	  4-7

           4.3.2.1   Plant Ccnmunities	  4-7
           4.3.2.2  Threatened and Endangered Plant Species  	  4-10
           4.3.2.3  Wetlands			  4-10

     4.3.3  Wildlife 	  4-14

          4.3.3.1  Birds 	  4-14
          4.3.3.2  Mammals 	  4-16
          4.3.3.3  Threatened and Endangered Species	  4-20

     4.3.4  Habitat Value and Sensitivity	  4-20

4.4  FRESHWATER ENVIRONMENT			  4-23

-------
                                TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                   (continued)
      4.4.1   Ground-water Hydrology 	 4-23
      4.4.2   Surface Water Hydrology 	 4-25

          4.4.2.1  Seasonal  Flow Characteristics of Affected Streams  .... 4-27
          4.4.2.2  Origin of Water in Surface Streams  	 4-27
          4.4.2.3  Runoff Characteristics of Affected  Streams  	 4-29
          4.4.2.4  Flooding  Characteristics  	 4-29
          4.4.2.5  Channel Characteristics  	 4-29

      4.4.3  Water Quality 	 4-33

          4.4.3.1  Ground-water  Quality  	 4-33
          4.4.3.2  Surface Water Quality 	 4-36

      4.4.4  Biology 	 4-37

          4.4.4.1  Aquatic Ecology 	 4-37
          4.4.4.2  Fish  	 4-38
          4.4.4.3  Stream Habitat  Evaluation 	 4-45

4.5  MARINE ENVIRONMENT  	 4-47

     4.5.1  Physical and Chemical  Oceanography 	 4-47

          4.5.1.1  Currents/Circulation 	 4-47
          4.5.1.2  Bathymetry	 4-48
          4.5.1.3 Wind and Wave Climate 	 4-48
          4.5.1.4  Marine Water Quality 	 4-49
          4.5.1.5   Ice Conditions  	 4-50
          4.5.1.6   Other Marine Conditions 	 4-50

     4.5.2  Biology  	 4-51

          4.5.2.1  Lower Trophic Levels 	 4-51
          4.5.2.2  Fish 	 4-51
          4.5.2.3  Birds and Manuals 	 4-53
          4.5.2.4  Threatened or Endangered Species 	 4-54

     4.5.3  Cotmercial Fisheries 	 4-54

4.6  METEOROLOGICAL, AIR QUALITY, AND NOISE 	 4-56

     4.6.1  Meteorology 	 4-56
     4.6.2  Air Quality 	 4-61
     4.6.3  Sound Climate 	 4-64

4.7  SOCIOECONOMIC ASPECTS 	 4-64

     4.7.1  Anchorage and Kenai Peninsula  	 4-64

-------
                                TABES OF CONTEMN
                                   (continued)
           4.7.1.1   Population	4-64
           4.7.1.2   Economy	.,	  4-65
           4.7.1.3   Comunity Facilities and  Services  	  4-68
           4.7.1.4   Local and Regional Governance  	  4-69

      4.7.2 Tyonek	  4-70

           4.7.2.1   Demography	  4-70
           4.7.2.2   Economy	  4-72
           4.7.2.3   Conmunity Facilities and Services  	  4-75
           4.7.2.4   Local Government	  4-76
           4.7.2.5   Ccranunity Attitudes Toward the Diamond Chuitna
                    Coal Project	  4-77

4 .8  SUBSISTENCE 	  4-79
4.9  VISUAL RESOURCES  	  4-86
4.10 RECREATION	  4-88

     4.10.1  Sport Fishing	  4-88
     4.10.2  Hunting 	  4-88
     4.10.3  Other  	  4-89

4.11 CULTURAL	  4-89

5.0  EWnRONMEMftL CONSEQUENCES	  5-1

5.1  IOTRODUCTION	  5-1
5.2  THE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE	 5-2
5.3  IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES - MINE
          AND MINE FACILITIES 	 5-3

     5.3.1  Irnpacts  to Terrestrial Environment	 5-3

          5.3.1.1   Physiography and Geology	,	 5-3
          5.3.1.2  Soils 	 5-4
          5.3.1.3  Vegetation	 5-4
          5.3.1.4  Wetlands	 5-8
          5.3.1.5  Wildlife		5-11

     5.3.2   Inpacts  to  Freshwater  Environments  	 5-13

         5.3.2.1  Ground-water Hydrology and Water Quality  	 5-13
         5.3.2.2  Surface  Water Hydrology	 5-19
         5.3.2.3  Surface  Water Quality	 5-28
         5.3.2.4  Biology  	  5-37

     5.3.3  Inpacts  to the Marine Environment 	 5-45
     5.3.4  Air Quality Inpacts	 5-45

         5.3.4.1  Emissions	 5-45
         5.3.4.2  Air Dispersion Modeling Results 	 5-53

-------
                                TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                   (continued)
           5.3.4.3  Visibility  	 5-55
           5.3.4.4  Sunmary  	 5-58

     5.3.5 Noise Impacts  	 5-58
     5.3.6 Socioeconomic Impacts  	 5-60

           5.3.6.1  Anchorage and Central Kenai Peninsula  	 5-60
           5.3.6.2  Tyonek  	 5-63

     5.3.7  Effect on Subsistence Resource Harvest  	 5-69

           5.3.7.1  Effects on Access to and Use of Customary
                    Use Areas  	 5-69
           5.3.7.2  Effects of Changes in Fish and Wildlife
                    Abundance	1	 5-69

     5.3.8  Impacts to Visual Resources 	 5-70
     5.3.9  Impacts to Recreational Resources 	 5-71
     5.3.10 Impacts to Cultural Resources	 5-71
     5.3.11 Regional Use 	 5-72
     5.3.12 Technical Feasibility 	 5-72

5.4  APPLICANT'S PROPOSED PROJECT 	  5-72

     5.4.1  Southern Transportation Corridor; Granite Point
               Port Site 	  5-72

          5.4.1.1  Impacts to Terrestrial Environment 	  5-72
          5.4.1.2  Impacts to Freshwater Environment 	  5-80
          5.4.1.3  Impacts to the Marine Environment 	  5-87
          5.4.1.4  Air Quality Impacts 	  5-92
          5.4.1.5  Noise Impacts 	  5-92
          5.4.1.6  Socioeconornic Impacts 	  5-92
          5.4.1.7  Effects on Harvest of Subsistence Resources 	  5-93
          5.4.1.8  Impacts to Visual Resources 	  5-94
          5.4.1.9  Impacts to Recreational Resources 	  5-94
          5.4.1.10 Impacts to Cultural Resources  	  5-95
          5.4.1.11 Regional Use 	  5-95
          5.4.1.12 Technical Feasibility 	  5-96

     5.4.2  Northern  Transportation Corridor  and  Ladd Port Site 	  5-96

          5.4.2.1  Impacts  to Terrestrial  Environment 	 5-96
          5.4.2.2  Impacts  to Freshwater Environment 	 5-99
          5.4.2.3  Impacts  to Marine Environment  	 5-101
          5.4.2.4  Air Quality Impacts  	 5-102
          5.4.2.5  Noise Impacts 	 5-103
          5.4.2.6  Socioeconomic Impacts  	 5-103
          5.4.2.7 Effects  on Subsistence  Resource Harvest 	 5-104
          5.4.2.8  Impacts  to Visual Resources  	 5-104

-------
                                TABLE OF
                                   (continued)
           5.4.2,9  Impacts to Recreational  Resources	5-104
           5.4.2.10 Impacts to Cultural Resources  	  5-105
           5.4.2.11 Regional Use 	  5-105
           5.4.2.12 Technical Feasibility	,	  5-106

 5.5  EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR		5-106

      5.5.1  Impacts to Terrestrial  Environment  	  5-106

           5.5.1.1  Geology,  Physiography, and Soils 	  5-106
           5.5.1.2  Vegetation		....  5-106
           5.5.1.3  Wetlands  	  5-107
           5.5.1.4  Wildlife  	'	  5-107

      5.5.2 Impacts to Freshwater Environment 	  5-108

           5.5.2.1  Hydrology			  5-108
           5.5.2.2  Water Quality 	  5-108
           5.5.2.3  Biology  	  5-109

      5.5.3 Impacts to Marine Environment	  5-109
      5.5.4 Air Quality Impacts	  5-109
      5.5.5 Noise Impacts  	  5-109
      5.5.6 Socioeconomic Impacts	  5-109
      5.5.7 Effects on Subsistence Resource Harvest 	  5-110
      5.5.8 Impacts to Visual Resources  	  5-110
      5.5.9 Impacts to Recreational Resources 	  5-110
      5.5.10 Impacts to Cultural Resources 	  5-111
      5.5.11 Regional Use 	  5-111
      5.5.12 Technical Feasibility	  5-111

5 .6  HOUSING ALTERNATIVES	  5-111

     5.6.1  Lone Creek Housing Site Alternative  	  5-111

          5.6.1.1  Impacts to Terrestrial Environments 	 5-111
          5.6.1.2  Impacts to Freshwater Environments  	 5-113
          5.6.1.3  Impacts to Iferine Environment	 5-115
          5.6.1.4  Air Quality Impacts 	 5-115
          5.6.1.5  Noise Impacts	 5-116
          5.6.1.6   Socioeconomic Impacts 	 5-116
          5.6.1.7   Effect on Subsistence Resource  Harvest  	 5-116
          5.6.1.8   Impacts  to Visual Resources	 5-117
          5.6.1.9   Impacts  to Recreation Resources  	 5-117
          5.6.1.10 Impacts  to Cultural  Resources	 5-117
          5.6.1.11 Regional  Use	 5-117
          5.6.1.12 Technical  Feasibility 	 5-118

     5.6.2  Congahbuna Housing Site Alternative	 5-118

-------
                                TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                   (continued)
           5.6.2.1  Impacts to Terrestrial Environments  	 5-118
           5.6.2.2  Impacts to Freshwater Environments  	 5-119
           5.6.2.3  Impacts to Marine Environment  	 5-120
           5.6.2.4  Air  Quality Inpacts  	 5-120
           5.6.2.5  Noise Impacts  	 5-120
           5.6.2.6  Socioeconomic  Impacts 	 5-120
           5.6.2.7  Effect on  Subsistence Resource Harvest  	 5-120
           5.6.2.8  Impacts to Visual Resources  	 5-121
           5.6.2.9  Impacts to Recreation Resources  	 5-121
           5.6.2.10  Impacts to Cultural Resources  	 5-121
           5.6.2.11  Regional Use	 5-122
           5.6.2.12  Technical  Feasibility 	 5-122

     5.6.3  Threemile Housing Site  	 5-122
                                        i
           5.6.3.1  Inpacts to Terrestrial Environments  	 5-122
           5.6.3.2  Impacts to Freshwater Environments 	 5-123
           5.6.3.3  Impacts to Marine Environment 	 5-124
           5.6.3.4  Air  Quality Impacts 	 5-124
           5.6.3.5  Noise Impacts  	 5-124
           5.6.3.6  Socioeconomic  Impacts 	 5-124
           5.6.3.7  Effect on  Subsistence Resource Harvest 	 5-124
           5.6.3.8  Impacts to Visual Resources  	 5-124
          5.6.3.9  Impacts to Recreation Resources  	 5-125
           5.6.3.10  Impacts to Cultural Resources 	 5-125
          5.6.3.11  Regional Use 	 5-125
          5.6.3.12  Technical  Feasibility 	 5-125

5.7  CUMULATIVE IMPACTS  	 5-125
5.8  UNAVOIDABLE  ADVERSE  IMPACTS  	 5-127
5.9  SHORT-TERM USES VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY  	 5-128
5.10 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES 	 5-129

6.0  MITIGATION,  RECLAMATION, AND MONITORING 	 6-1

6.1  INTRODUCTION	 6-1
6.2  MITIGATION CONCEPTS  	 6-2
6.3  PROJECT-SPECIFIC MITIGATION/RECLAMATION OPTIONS 	 6-3

     6.3.1  Terrestrial Environment 	 6-3

          6.3.1.1  Soils  	 6-3
          6.3.1.2  Vegetation  	 6-5
          6.3.1.3  Wildlife 	 6-6

     6.3.2  Freshwater Environment 	 6-8

          6.3.2.1  Hydrology  	 6-8
          6.3.2.2  Surface and Ground-water  Quality  	 6-9
          6.3.2.3  Biology 	 6-10

-------
                                TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                    (continued)
      6.3.3  Marine Environment  	 6-13
      6.3.4  Socioeconomic Aspects  	 6-13
      6.3.5  Cultural Resources  	 6-13

 6 .4  MONITORING  	 6-13

      6.4.1  Terrestrial Environment 	 6-14

           6.4.1.1  Soils 	 6-14
           6.4.1.2  Vegetation 	 6-14
           6.4.1.3  Wildlife 	 6-14

      6.4.2  Freshwater Environment 	 6-14

           6.4.2.1  Hydrology 	 6-14
           6.4.2.2  Water Quality 	 6-15
           6.4.2.3  Biology 	 6-15

      6.4.3  Marine Environment 	 6-16
      6.4.4  Air Quality 	 6-16
      6.4.5  Socioeconomic Aspects 	 6-16
      6.4.6  Subsistence and Recreation 	 6-16

 7.0   CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 	 7-1
 7.1   INTRODUCTION		 7-1
 7.2   SCOPING 	 7-1
 7.3   AGENCY  INVOLVEMENT 	 7-2
 7.4   PUBLIC  INVOLVEMENT 	 7-6
 7.5   PROJECT INFORMATION CENTERS 	 7-7
 7.6   AGENCY  CONTACTS  	  7-7

 8.0   LIST  OF PREPARERS  	  8-1

 9.0   EIS DISTRIBUTION LIST  	  9-1
 9.1   FEDERAL AGENCIES  	  9-1
 9.2   JOINT FEDERAL/STATE  	  9-2
 9.3   STATE AGENCIES 	  9-2
 9.4   LOCAL AGENCIES 	  9-3
 9.5  MEDIA 	  9-4
 9.6   INTERESTED GROUPS AND BUSINESSES  	  9-4
 9.7   INTERESTED CITIZENS  	  9-6

 10.0 PUBLIC RESPONSE TO DEIS 	 10-1

 11.0 REFERENCES	 11-1

12.0 GLOSSARY OF TECHNICAL TERMS, ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS AND
          MEASUREMENT EQUIVALENTS 	 12-1

12.1 DEFINITION OF TERMS 	 12-1

-------
                               TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                   (continued)

                                                                          Page

12.2 AGENCY ACRONYMS  AND ABBREVIATIONS	 12-6

12. 3 METRIC/ENGLISH MEASUREMENT, ABBREVIATIONS AND EQUIVALENTS	 12-7

12.4 OTHER MEASUREMENTS AND ABBREVIATIONS	 12-8

13.0 INDEX 	 13-1

APPENDIX A - TERRESTRIAL HABITAT EVALUATION
APPENDIX B - U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE MITIGATION STATEMENT
APPENDIX C - DEPARTMENT OF ARMY PUBLIC NOTICE AND SECTION 404(b)(l)
               EVALUATION
APPENDIX D - DRAFT NPDES PERMITS
APPENDIX E - AIR QUALITY EMISSIONS

-------
                       LIST OF TABLES
Table                     "                                Paqe
 1-i   STATUS OF MAJOR PERMITS AND APPROVALS	  1-11

 2-1   MAJOR PROPOSED FISH MITIGATION MEASURES
         AND MONITORING PROGRAMS DURING FIRST
         TEN YEARS OF PROJECT	  2-35

 2-2   APPROXIMATE SHIPPING CHARACTERISTICS AT
         FULL PRODUCTION FOR TWO SIZES OF COAL
         SHIPS	  2-44

 2-3   NEW PERMANENT PROJECT EMPLOYEES
         (EXCLUDING CONSTRUCTION PERSONNEL)	  2-45

 3-1   COMPONENT OPTIONS IDENTIFIED DURING THE
         SCOPING PROCESS	  3-2 '

 3-2   MAJOR REASONS FOR ELIMINATION OF INDIVIDUAL
         OPTIONS DURING INITIAL OPTIONS EVALUATION	  3-10

 3-3   OPTIONS ELIMINATED OR RETAINED FOR FURTHER
         ANALYSIS DURING INITIAL OPTIONS EVALUATION	  3-11

 3-4   TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR/PORT LOCATION
         INDIVIDUAL DISCIPLINE  OPTIONS SCREENING
         CRITERIA	  3-14

 3-5   COMPARATIVE  RESOURCE DISCIPLINE ANALYSIS OF
         RELATIVE POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS FOR THE
         NORTHERN/LADD AND  EASTERN/LADD TRANSPORTA-
         TION  CORRIDOR/PORT SITE  LOCATION  OPTIONS	 3-15

 3-6   RESOURCE  DISCIPLINE  ANALYSES OF THE RELATIVE
         POTENTIAL  ADVERSE  IMPACTS  OF TRANSPORTATION
         MODE  OPTIONS	 3-18

 3-7    OPTIONS USED TO FORM ALTERNATIVES		 3-25

 3-8    DIAMOND CHUITNA PROJECT  ACTION ALTERNATIVES	 3-27

 3-9    EVALUATION CRITERIA  MATRIX SHOWING  RELATIVE
        TOTAL IMPACT  VALUES ASSIGNED  TO THE THREE
        ACTION  ALTERNATIVES	  3-29

 3-10   EVALUATION  CRITERIA MATRIX  SHOWING RELATIVE
        TOTAL IMPACT  VALUES ASSIGNED TO THE THREE
        HOUSING OPTIONS....	. ...  3-36

-------
                      LIST OF  TABLES
                        (continued)
                                                         Page
 4-1     STATISTICAL  ANALYSIS  OF  PHYSIOCHEMICAL
         CHARACTERISTICS  ACROSS  NINETEEN DRILL
         HOLES  IN  THE  DIAMOND CHUITNA MINE AREA	  4-6

 4-2     MAJOR VEGETATION  UNITS AND  COMMUNITY  TYPES
         AND ASSOCIATED SOIL  SERIES OF THE DIAMOND
         CHUITNA PROJECT  AREA	  4-8

 4-3   CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MAJOR SOIL UNITS OF
         THE DIAMOND CHUITNA  PROJECT AREA	  4-9

 4-4   WETLAND  CHARACTERISTICS IN THE MINE LEASE
         AREA,  SOUTHERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR,
         AND PORT  AREA	  4-12

 4-5   AQUIFER  CHARACTERISTICS	  4-25

 4-6   AFFECTED STREAMS	  4-28

 4-7   SOURCES  OF  SURFACE WATER  IN  CHUITNA
         RIVER  BASIN	  4-30

 4-8   ESTIMATED RUNOFF FACTORS  FOR  CHUITNA
         RIVER  BASIN	  4-30

 4-9   ESTIMATED PEAK FLOWS AND  RUNOFF  VOLUMES
         FOR STORMS OF DIFFERENT RECURRENCE
         INTERVALS	  4-31

 4-10  STREAM CROSSING CHANNEL CHARACTERISTICS
         LADD ROAD/NORTH  ROAD  AREA	  4-32

 4-11  GROUND-WATER QUALITY	  4-35

 4-12  SALMON ESCAPEMENT  TO THE CHUITNA RIVER AND
         PROJECT AREA TRIBUTARIES	  4-43

 4-13  HABITAT AND BIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF
         POTENTIALLY AFFECTED REACHES OF MINE
        AREA STREAMS	  4-46

4-14  FISH SPECIES KNOWN TO OCCUR IN UPPER COOK
         INLET	  4-52

4-15  UPPER COOK INLET SALMON CATCH SUMMARY
        1966-1984	  4-55

-------
                      LIST OF TABLES
                         {continued)
                                                          Paqe
 4-16  MONTHLY TEMPERATURE (°C) AND PRECIPITATION
         (cm) SUMMARY FOR PROJECT REGION.	  4-62

 4-17  REGIONAL MEASURED AIR QUALITY DATA. .'	  4-63

 4-18  POPULATION TRENDS IN ALASKA, ANCHORAGE,
         AND THE KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH	  4-66

 4-19  POPULATION OF TYONEK,  ALASKA, 1880-1984	  4-70

 4-20  TOTAL VILLAGE INCOME AND EMPLOYMENT, BY
         INDUSTRY VILLAGE OF  TYONEK, ALASKA,  1983	  4-73

 4-21  TYONEK "S ECONOMIC BASE,  1983...	  4-75

 4-22  SCENIC QUALITY RATING  FOR THE PROJECT  AREA	  4-87

 5-1    AREA (HA[AC])  OF VEGETATION DISTURBED  BY VARIOUS
         MINE COMPONENTS .	  5-6

 5-2    HECTARES  (ACRES)  OF  WETLAND HABITATS LOST
         AS A RESULT  OF MINE  DEVELOPMENT BY PROJECT
         COMPONENT		  5-9

 5-3    DIRECT LOSS OP WILDLIFE  AND SUITABILITY OF
         HABITATS  IN  HECTARES (ACRES) FROM MINE
         DEVELOPMENT  BY PROJECT COMPONENT	  5-14

 5-4    COMPARISON  OF  PREMINING  AND POSTMINING
         HABITAT VALUES  FOR EVALUATION SPECIES
         (10  YR MINING  AREA ONLY)	  5-15

 5-5    ESTIMATED PIT  INFLOW RATES	 5-18

 5-6    WATERSHEDS  OCCUPIED BY THE  MINE AND MINE
         FACILITIES	 5-21

 5-7    ESTIMATED  MONTHLY MINIMUM  STREAM  FLOWS	 5-23

 5-8   ESTIMATED SEDIMENT POND EFFLUENT WATER
        QUALITY (AFTER SEDIMENT AND FLOCCULATION
        TREATMENT)	 5-31

5-9   PIT DRAINAGE EFFLUENT WATER QUALITY
        PROTECTION (AFTER TREATMENT)	 .  5-34

-------
                      LIST OF TABLES
                        (continued)
                                                          Page


 5-10   AQUATIC HABITAT EVALUATION OF POTENTIALLY
         AFFECTED REACHES OF MINE AREA STREAMS
         (YEAR 10 )	  5-38

 5-11   AQUATIC HABITAT EVALUATION OF POTENTIALLY
         AFFECTED REACHES OF MINE AREA STREAMS
         (YEAR 30)	  5-39

 5-12   WEIGHTED MAXIMUM POTENTIAL HABITAT LOSS
         (HA)  BY LOCALLY ASSIGNED CATEGORY,
         DRAINAGE AND SPECIES (YEAR 10)	  5-46

 5-13   WEIGHTED MAXIMUM POTENTIAL HABITAT LOSS
         (HA)  BY LOCALLY ASSIGNED CATEGORY,
         DRAINAGE AND SPECIES (YEAR 30)	."	  5-47

 5-14   PRODUCTION-PHASE ANNUAL PARTICULATE EMISSIONS....  5-49

 5-15   GASEOUS  AND  PARTICULATE ANNUAL COMBUSTION
       EMISSIONS	  5-50

 5-16   FULL PRODUCTION SHORT-TERM PARTICULATE
         EMISSIONS	  5-51

 5-17   PRODUCTION YEAR 3  SHORT-TERM PARTICULATE
       EMISSIONS	  5-52

 5-18   CONSTRUCTION  AND TEMPORARY EMISSIONS	  5-54

 5-19   POTENTIAL  TURBINE  EMISSIONS  ASSOCIATED WITH
       POWER GENERATION  FOR THE  DIAMOND  CHUITAN
       PROJECT	 5-54

 5-20   AIR QUALITY MODELING  ANALYSIS  TOTAL  SUSPENDED
       PARTICULATE  (TSP) CONCENTRATIONS	 5-56

 5-21   AIR QUALITY MODELING  ANALYSIS  SULFUR DIOXIDE
       CONCENTRATIONS	 5-57

 5-22   ESTIMATED  SOUND  LEVELS  GENERATED BY  MINE AREA
       EQUIPMENT AND  FACILITIES	 5-59

5-23   MINING PHASE  EMPLOYMENT BY OCCUPATIONAL  GROUP.... 5-65

5-24  DIRECT LOSS OF WILDLIFE HABITAT AND  SUITABILITY
        OF HABITATS IN HECTARES  FROM MINE  DEVELOPMENT
        BY PROJECT  COMPONENT	 5-79

-------
                     LIST OF TABLES
                        {continued)
                                                         Paqe
5-25  EFFLUENT WATER QUALITY FROM COAL LEACBATES	  5-81

5-26  WATERSHEDS OCCUPIED BY SOUTHERN TRANSPORTATION
        CORRIDOR	  5-83

5-2?  IMPACT OF DOMESTIC WASTE DISCHARGE ON CHUITNA
        RIVER	  5-115
7-1   MATRIX OF COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM SCOPING
        MEETINGS AND WRITTEN RESPONSES.	 7-3

-------
                        LIST  OF  FIGURES
Figure                                                    Page


 1-1   DIAMOND CHUITNA PROJECT  LOCATION	  1-5

 1-2   DIAMOND CHUITNA PROJECT  AREA	  1-7

 2-1   FINAL PROJECT OPTIONS LOCATIONS	  2-3

 2-2   FINAL MINE AREA OPTIONS  LOCATIONS	  2-5

 2-3   ARTIST'S ILLUSTRATION -  MINING AND
         RECLAMATION SEQUENCE	  2-7

 2-4   MINE AREA DRAINAGE CONTROL AND TREATMENT
         FACILITIES	'.	  2-10

 2-5   ARTIST'S ILLUSTRATION -  TYPICAL SEDIMENT
         POND	  2-11

 2-6   ARTIST'S ILLUSTRATION -  MINE SERVICE AREA	  2-13

 2-7   SOUTHERN CORRIDOR CONVEYOR AND HAUL ROAD
         LOCATIONS	  2-15

 2-8  EASTERN AND NORTHERN CONVERYOR AND ACCESS/HAUL
       ROAD LOCATIONS	  2-16

 2-9   TYPICAL CONVEYOR MODULE  AND CROSS SECTION	  2-17

 2-10  ARTIST'S ILLUSTRATION-CONVEYOR SYSTEM
         DESIGN	  2-18

 2-11  TYPICAL HAUL ROAD AND BRIDGE DESIGN	  2-21

 2-12  ARTIST'S ILLUSTRATION -  PORT SITE
         FACILITIES	  2-22

 2-13  TRESTLE AND PIER DESIGN	  2-26

 2-14  ARTIST'S ILLUSTRATION - HOUSING AND AIRSTRIP
         FACILITIES	  2-28

 2-15  NUMBER OF  WORKERS EMPLOYED, BY MONTH,
         DURING PROJECT CONSTRUCTION	  2-38

 2-16  GRAVEL SOURCE LOCATIONS,  SOUTHERN CORRIDOR	  2-40


 3-1   INITIAL MINE AREA OPTIONS LOCATIONS	  3-4

-------
 3-2  INITIAL TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR, HOUSING AND
       AIRSTRIP OPTIONS LOCATIONS	 3-5

 4-1   BELUGA REGION LAND (SURFACE) OWNERSHIP
         STATUS	 4-2

 4-2   BALD EAGL1 AND TRUMPETER SWAN NEST SITES	 4-15

 4-3   MOOSE RUTTING CONCENTRATIONS (Oct.'83)
         AND WINTERING AREAS (Feb.'84)	 4-18

 4-4   MINE AREA BEAVER COLONIES (October 1983)
         AND SWAN AND EAGLE  NEST SITES	 4-21

 4-5   WATERBODISS OF THE DIAMOND CHUITNA MINE
         STUDY  AREA	 4-26

 4-6   WATER QUALITY SAMPLE  STATIONS	 4-34

 4-7   UPPERMOST EXTENT OF DOCUMENTED  USE BY REARING
        JUVENILE SALMONIDS	 4-39

 4-8   UPPERMOST EXTENT OF DOCUMENTED  USE BY SPAWNING
         ANADROMOUS FISH	 4-40

 4-9   TIMING OF LIFE HISTORY PHASES FOR  ANADROMOUS
         SALMONIDS IN THE  CHUITNA RIVER DRAINAGE	 4-42

 4-10    WIND FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION, GRANITE POINT
         PORT SITE	 4-57

 4-11    WIND FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION, MINE SITE	 4-58
4-12  WIND FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION, ANCHORAGE	  4-59

4-13  WIND FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION, KENAI	  4-60

4-14  POPULATION PROFILE BY AGE AND SEX, TYONEK,
       FEBRUARY, 1984		  4-71

4-15  COMPOSITE MAP OF ALL RESOURCE USE AREAS,
        TYONEK, ALASKA 1978-84	  4-81

4-16  USE AREAS FOR MOOSE, SMALL GAME, BEAR
        AND WATERFOWL TYONEK,  ALASKA	  4-83

4-17  PERCENTAGE OF TYONEK HOUSEHOLDS ATTEMPTING
        TO HARVEST RESOURCES BY RESOURCE CATEGORY,
        FEBRUARY 1983-JANUARY  1984	  4-85

5-1   HYDROLOGIC CROSS SECTION A-A'	  5-17

-------
Summary

-------
                           SUMMARY
 Purpose ofand Need for Action

      Diamond Alaska Coal Company (Diamond Alaska) proposes
 to develop a coal mine in the Beluga region of upper Cook
 Inlet, Alaska.  The project would consist of a surface mine
 and associated transportation, shipping, and housing facili-
 ties.  Diamond Alaska is proceeding with applications for
 the various permits and approvals needed for such a develop-
 ment .

      The U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the
 responsibility for issuing New Sourca National Pollutant
 Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)  Permits for wastewater
 discharges from the proposed Diamond Chuitna Coal project.
 EPA's NPDES regulations [40 CFR 122.29(c)(2)I require that
 the Environmental Impact Statement  (EIS) include a recommen-
 dation' on whether the NPDES Permit  should  be issued or
 denied.   They  also require that such action shall occur only
 after a  complete evaluation of the  projected impacts and
 recommendations contained in the final EIS  (FEIS) [40 CFR
 122.29(c)(3)J.

      In  addition, the U.S.  Department of the Army Corps of
 Engineers  (Corps),  Alaska District,  has  jurisdiction over
 this action under Section 10 of the  River and Harbor Act of
 1899 which provides for control over  structures  or work in
 or  affecting navigable waters  of the  U.S.;  and under Section
 404 of the Clean Water Act  which provides for regulation of
 the discharge  of dredged or fill material into U.S.  waters,
 including  wetlands.   The Corps  intends to adopt  this EIS to
 fulfill  its National  Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)  obliga-
 tions  if  its concerns  are satisfied  in the  document.

      Pursuant  to NEPA  and implementing regulations issued by
 the Council on  Environmental Quality  (CEQ),  EPA,  and the
 Corps, this EIS  has been  prepared to  evaluate the potential
 impacts of  the  proposed  actions  on the environment and  to
 fulfill the permitting  requirements of EPA  and the Corps.
 EPA has the lead  responsibility  for preparing  this  document
 and the Corps is  a  cooperating  agency.   The  Alaska
 Department  of Natural  Resources  (DNR)  is also a cooperating
 agency because of its  role  in implementing  the federal
 Surface Mining Control and  Reclamation Act  (SMCRA)  through
 the Alaska  Surface Coal Mining Program.

 Project Description

     Full development of the Diamond Chuitna coal project
would involve a 10.9 million Mt  (12 million short ton) per
year surface coal mine in the Beluga area approximately 72
                            S-l

-------
 Jem  (45  mi)  west  of  Anchorage.   The  coal  is  sub-bituminous,
 low  sulphur,  low ash,  high  moisture steam coal  with  an
 average of  4,250 kilocalories  per kilogram  (7650  BTU per
 Ib).  The actual area  to  be mined during the projected
 34-year life  of  the project would be approximately 2,029  ha
 (5,014  ac)  with  a maximum of 182 ha (450 ac) of pit  being
 open  at any one  time.

      Mining methods would employ shovels, draglines,
 hydraulic backhoes, front-end  loaders, and  haul trucks.
 Coal  would  be initially crushed at  the mine and carried to a
 22 ha (55 ac)  mine  service  area by  conveyor for further
 crushing and  weighing.  It  would then be transported
 approximately 17.6  km  (11 mi)  by a  single-span, 1.2  m (48
 in) wide conventional  conveyor to a port site on  Cook Inlet
 either  at Granite Point south  of the mine or at Ladd  east of
 the mine.

      The entire  conveyor  structure  would be supported by  a
 horizontal  steel  pipe  elevated about 0.6 m  (2 ft) above the
 ground  and  would  be about 2.9 m (9.6 ft) high overall.  It
 would be enclosed on the  top and one side except  at  stream
 crossings where  the underside would also be enclosed.  At
 appropriate locations, the  conveyor would be raised or
 buried  to permit  human and  large mammal passage across the
 corridor.   The conveyor would be paralleled by a  light duty
 maintenance road  and an all-weather gravel/access haul road.

      The onshore  port  facilities would occupy approximately
 121 ha  (300 ac)  on  the bluff above Cook Inlet at  either
 Granite Point or  Ladd.  No  one would be housed there.  Up to
 1.1 million Mt (1.2  million  short tons)  of  coal would be
 stockpiled  at the port for  shipment.  At full production,
 the offshore  port facility  would consist of an elevated
 trestle up  to 3,810  m  (12,500 ft)  long,  depending upon the
 port  site,  and would support twin conveyors for loading coal
 ships.  At  maximum  length,  the trestle would have a berthing
 depth of between  15.2 and 18.2 m (50 and 60 ft)  and could
 service ships up  to  108,864 Mt (120,000  dwt) .

      The workforce would be housed in permanent single-
 status housing and  community facilities  on an 8  ha (20 ac)
 site  north  of the Chuitna River near the mine (Lone Creek
 site), south of the Chuitna River  midway between the  mine
and Granite Point (Congahbuna site), or  northeast  of  the
mine  site (Threemile Creek site).   The  facilities  would
accommodate a total of 540 people  at full production.  A
 new gravel airstrip with a main runway  of 1,524  m  (5,000
 ft)  would be constructed adjacent  to the housing site.

     Average-load electrical power  demands  would be approxi-
mately 35 Mw with a maximum of  50  Mw.   Power would be pur-
chased from the existing Chugach Electric Association
natural  gas  generating station  at  Beluga.   Water for  all
facilities would be supplied by wells.
                            S-2

-------
      Construction employment would peak at approximately
 1,300 and the permanent work force would total about 848
 workers.  Half of that total (424) would be at the project
 site at any one time working two 11-hour shifts per day.
 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.

      Construction would take approximately three years.
 Production would begin at a level of about 1.8 million Mt (2
 million short tons) and increase to full production capacity
 as economics permit.  The minimum time to full production
 would be four years from construction completion.

 Existing Environment

      The project area is largely undeveloped except for a
 system of primitive roadways that remain as a result of past
 oil,  logging, and coal exploration activities.  Most of the
 project area, including all the  Diamond Chuitna coal lease
 a*rea,  is state land as is the Trading Bay State Game Refuge
 to the south.  Most of the land  east of the project area is
 owned  or selected by the Tyonek  Native Corporation, while
 Cook  Inlet Region,  Inc.  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 land at or near both potential  port sites.

     Most of  the project  area  consists of a broad,  gently
 sloping  plateau  characterized  by irregular  ridges  and
 depressions.   The southern edge  of  the plateau terminates at
 a  coastal bluff  rising from the  gravelly beaches of Cook
 Inlet.   Much  of  the area  is poorly  drained  with bogs and
 ponds.   Vegetation  on the  area consists  primarily  of spruce-
 birch  forest  intermixed with open,  muskeg  terrain.

     A major  portion  of  the area  provides moderate  to high
 quality  habitat  for moose,  brown  bear, and  black bear.   A
 portion  of  a  moose  rutting  concentration  area  is located
 within the  northern half of  the mine  site?  moose winter  in a
 narrow zone along the  coast.  Birds occupying  the project
 area include  bald eagles, as well as  small  numbers  of trum-
 peter swans and  sandhill cranes.

     The  Chuitna River, which originates in the Alaska Range
 and enters Cook  Inlet  north of the village of Tyonek,
 bisects  the project area and is the major drainage  system
 within the project area.  Several major tributaries to the
 Chuitna River are within or adjacent to the proposed mine
 area.  Ground water originating within shallow aquifers in
 the mine area contributes significantly to the flow of the
 area streams.  Tyonek and Old Tyonek Creeks are separate
 systems that drain the southern portion of the project area.
Water resources are unpolluted and water quality is high.
                            S-3

-------
     Important fish resources in the Chuitna River include
rainbow trout, chinook, coho, pink, and chum salmon.  The
river supports a small but high quality sport fishery and
contributes salmon to commercial and subsistence fisheries
within Cook Inlet.

     Cook Inlet adjacent to the project area is charac-
terized by high tides, strong currents, and high turbidity.
Important marine life occupying the coastal area includes
belukha whales and all 5 species of eastern Pacific salmon.

     Air quality is high within the project area; noise
pollution is low.

     The closest development to the project area is the
village of Tyonek, about 11 miles southeast of the mine
area.  About 95 percent of the approximately 270 residents
of Tyonek are Alaska Natives.  The village is accessible
only by air or sea as there are no road connections to the
more populated areas of southcentral Alaska.  Subsistence
hunting and fishing are important to the economic, cultural,
social, and nutritional well-being of most of the permanent
residents within the area.
     The EIS scoping process identified the following 10
issues of concern for the project:

       o  Maintain the integrity of the Chuitna River
          watershed by minimizing impacts to water quality
          and maintaining proper flows

       o  Maintain the quality of fish habitats in,the
          Chuitna River system and minimize impacts to resi-
          dent and anadromous fish

       °  Minimize disruption of wildlife and wildlife habi-
          tats, including important seasonal use areas and
          migration routes

       °  Assure successful reclamation of project com-
          ponents

       °  Minimize impacts to the commercial set net
          fishery and marine life movements near the port
          trestle

       °  Minimize impacts to subsistence resources,
          including access to those resources,  as tradi-
          tionally used by local residents

       0  Minimize the social,  cultural,  and economic
          impacts on local residents
                            S-4

-------
        0  Maintain a regional perspective to minimize the
           cumulative impacts of this and other potential
           development projects

        0  Minimize chances of system failure by incor-
           porating technically feasible component siting,
           design, and mitigation features

        0  Component siting, design,  and mitigation features
           should be cost effective

 Options	Screening Process

      To address the 10 issues,  the  scoping process iden-
 tified 31 options for the 12 project components.   A two-step
 options screening process was conducted to determine reason-
 able options.   In the first step, all  options  were reviewed
 to eliminate from further consideration those  which were
 clearly unreasonable or  infeasible primarily for  environmen-
 tal or technical reasons.   Nine options were eliminated.

      In the  second step,  the remaining  options were
 individually evaluated.   Since  all the  options in the
 applicant's  Proposed Projects were environmentally and  tech-
 nically reasonable and feasible, all of those  options were
 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 choices
 remained,  options were individually  evaluated  from the
 perspective  of  each resource or  technical  discipline (e.g.,
 water quality,  subsistence,  technical feasibility).  If  it
 was  determined  that one of  the  other options was  as  good  as,
 or  better  than,  an 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
 option, that option was retained for the analysis  of alter-
 natives process.

      Following the options screening process,  the  best
 options for all  but  two of the project  components  were rela-
 tively easy to identify.  However, two  components  (trans-
 portation  corridor/port site  location and housing  site
 location)  had three  options each that adequately addressed
 one  or more of the  10  issues.  These options were  therefore
 retained and, with  the other nine options, were used to form
 the  alternatives  (Table 1).

 Identification and  Description of Alternatives

     The identification of action alternatives  process was
relatively straightforward as only three alternatives
 (combinations of options)  were necessary to address the
issues raised by the two  components  with more than one
option remaining  (transportation/port site location and
                            5-5

-------
                            Table 1
              OPTIONS USED TO FORM ALTERNATIVES
Component
Option(s)
Mine Location

Overburden Stockpile Location

Mine Service Area

Transportation System

     o  Corridor Location^)

  4

     o  Mode

Loading Facility

Housing

     o  Location(2)



     o  Type

Airstrip

Water Supply

Power
Fixed

Southeast

Fixed
Southern/Granite Point
Northern/Ladd
Eastern/Ladd

Conveyor

Elevated Trestle
Lone Creek
Congahbuna
Threemile Creek
            /
Single Status

New

Wells

Purchase
(1) One of original 12 components was dropped during option
    screening process.

(2) Component with more than one option remaining.

-------
 housing  site  location).    Since  the  applicant  wishes  to
 retain   two   transportation   corridor/port   site   options
 (southern/Granite Point and northern/Ladd), two alternatives
 using  three  options  were  identified  as  the  applicant's
 Proposed Project.   A third alternative,  using the  eastern/
 Ladd option, was  also identified.   The three action alter-
 natives  and  the  No  Action   Alternative  for  the  Diamond
 Chuitna coal project are described below.

      Southern/Granite Point Alternative

      In addition  to  the  fixed mine  and  mine  service  area
 locations,  this alternative would site the overburden stock-
 pile southeast of the mining  limit.   It includes  a  conveyor
 system within  the southern  transportation  corridor to  the
 port site  at  Granite Point.   The coal-loading facility  at
 the port  would  be  an  elevated  trestle.   A  single-status
 housing  facility  with  associated   new   airstrip  would  be
 located at the Lone Creek  site.   Water  would  be supplied  to
 all facilities by wells,  and  power would be  purchased  from
 the Chugach Electric  Association natural gas  power  station
 at  Beluga.

     Northern/Ladd Alternative

    This alternative is the  same as the southern/Granite  Point
 alternative except the  northern transportation corridor  to a
 port site at Ladd  would  be  used (Fig.  2-1).

     Eastern/Ladd  Alternative

    This alternative would  be  the  same as the  northern/Ladd
 alternative except that the eastern transportation corridor to a
 port site at Ladd  would  be  used  (Fig.  2-1).

     No Action  Alternative

     The No Action Alternative means  that  development of the
 Diamond Chuitna project  would  not occur.  This would result
 from denial of  one or more  of  the federal or state permits
 necessary for project  development or from a decision by the
 applicant not to undertake  the project.

 Comparison  of Alternatives

     The  impacts  of each  of the  three  action alternatives
were  compared  against  the 10   issue   criteria  identified
during  the  scoping process.  Then the impacts of each alter-
native  relative  to one another  (Table  2)  were compared for
identification of the preferred alternative.   The Congahbuna
and  Threemile  housing/airstrip  options  were  then  compared
with  the  Lone  Creek  option  to  determine  whether  either
option  provided a  significant  advantage  over the Lone Creek
site such that it could substitute for the Lone Creek option
in one  or more of the alternatives.

-------
                                    TABLE	2

                EVALUATION CRITERIA MATRIX  SHOWING RELATIVE TOTAL  IMPACT
                   VALUES ASSIGNED TO THE  THREE ACTION ALTERNATIVES
        Evaluation
         Criteria
                                 Southern/
                                 Granite Pt.
               Northern/
                 Ladd
                  Eastern/
                    ladd
I.   Minimize risk of water
     quality degradation and
     alteration to flows

2.   Minimize impacts to
     fish and fish habitat

3.   Minimize impacts to
     wildlife and wildlife
     habitats

4.   Minimize potential
     reclamation problems

5.   Minimize impacts to set
     net fishery

6.   Minimize impacts to
     traditional subsistence
     harvest activities

7.   Minimize social, cultural,
     and economic impact upon
     local residents
     Minimize cumulative
     regional use impacts

     Minimize technical
     complexity
8.


9.


10.  Minimize cost
Moderate


Moderate



Moderate


     Low


Moderate



    High



Moderate


     Low


     Low

 No Data
Moderate


Moderate



    High


     Low


    High



     Low



 Moderate


Moderate


     Low

 No Data
     Low


     Low



     Lew


     Low


    High



     Low



     Low


Moderate


     Low

 No Data

-------
 identificationof Preferred Alternative

      The  eastern/Ladd  alternative,   using  the  Lone  Creek
 housing site,  clearly had the least  overall  relative total
 impact  value  and was identified  as  the primary  preferred
 alternative.  Whether the applicant could develop an eastern
 corridor,  however,  is not certain since  the  corridor would
 cross private  land  owned by Tyonek Native  Corporation.   To
 date, the  applicant has been unable to negotiate a right-of-
 way  across  that land.   Thus, since  there  is  no  assurance
 that  an eastern  corridor  could  be  developed even  though
 identified  as  the   preferred  alternative,   the   southern
 Granite Point  alternative was  identified as  the  secondary
 preferred  alternative.

 Environmental  Consequences of thePreferred  Alternative

      Overall  environmental   consequences  would  be  similar
 regardless  of  whether  the  primary or  secondary  preferred
 alternative  were developed.   At  maximum  mine extent,  project
 components would disturb about 2,029  ha  (5,014  ac)  of vege-
 tated terrain.  However, because  of the  ongoing reclamation
 of mined out  areas,  the actual  unvegetated surface  area  at
 any one time  in  the mine life would  be  substantially less.
 About 24 percent of  the area to be disturbed  is  classified
 as wetland.

      Wildlife  impacts would  include  loss of habitat  during
 the mine  life  and for  a period  thereafter.   Moose,  brown
 bear, and  black  bear would  be  affected, as  well  as  small
 mammals  and  birds.   Loss  of  moose winter range at the pro-
 posed port  site and  a portion of a rutting area in the mine
 vicinity  would  be   among   the   more  important   impacts.
 Movement of  large mammals would be partially impeded  by the
 conveyor system,  although the presence of wildlife crossing
 areas would  assure  access  across  the  transportation  corri-
 dor ,   Reclamation of  disturbed terrain would return wildlife
 values  in the  long term  to near the premining condition.

      Water  quality  and  hydrology  of  Chuitna  River  tribu-
 taries  within  and adjacent  to the mine  site  would be sig-
 nificantly   altered  during  mine  operation,   for   a   period
 thereafter,  and possibly  over the  long  term  depending  on
 postmining hydrological  characteristics  and on  the success
 of  stream   reclamation.    Impacts  would  include  increased
 suspended  solids   concentrations,   higher  turbidity,  and
 reduced  flow in some stream segments.  A substantial portion
 of one tributary would be mined through causing direct habi-
 tat loss.

      Loss  of fish productivity,  including such  key species
as  chinook and  coho  salmon, would  occur  during mine opera-
tion  and  for   a  period  thereafter.    It is  questionable
whether mined-through streams could be  returned to premining
productivity; therefore,  fish productivity loss could be  a

-------
long  term impact.  Loss  in  productivity  would  have a small
adverse impact on the Chuitna River sport fishery and a very
small effect  on  commercial  and subsistence fisheries in the
marine environment.

     Air  quality would  be  degraded  only  locally  with  no
significant impact to populated areas.

     Socioeconomic  impacts  to   the   Anchorage  and  Kenai
Peninsula  population  centers would  be minor or  insignifi-
cant.   Tyonek residents  would receive both  beneficial  and
adverse  impacts  from the  project.   Increased  employment
opportunities and village income would be potential benefits
while the increased development and human intrusion into the
area  would likely  cause disruption  to  traditional  Native
lifestyles  and  loss   of subsistence  hunting  and  fishing
opportunities.

-------
	Chapter 1,0
Purpose of and Need for Action

-------
             1.0   PURPOSE  OF  AND  NEED FOR ACTION
 1.1  INTRODUCTION

 1.1.1  The EIS Process

      The  National  Environmental  Policy  Act  CNEPA)  of  1969
 requires the preparation of an  Environmental Impact  State-
 ment  (EIS)  whenever  a  proposed major federal  action could
 significantly  affect the quality  of  the human environment.
 Large development projects, such as the Diamond Chuitna  Coal
 Project, normally require permits from  one  or  more federal
 agencies.   The issuance  of  these permits can be considered a
 major federal  action if the range of anticipated impacts is
 of  sufficient  magnitude  to potentially  create  significant
 effects.  The agency or agencies involved make a determina-
 tion  regarding significant  impacts and can elect to prepare
 an  EIS  if needed.  The  agency can either  prepare  the EIS
 itself  or  contract  the  preparation of  all  or part  of the
 document (under  the  agency's supervision).

      The  NEPA  regulations  which  outline  the   purpose,
 requirements,  and  procedures   for  the  EIS  process may be
 found in  the  Code of Federal  Regulations  at 40  CFR Parts
 1500  to 1508.   NEPA regulations also require that  the EIS
 address,   to the fullest extent  possible,  state  and  local
 planning requirements in addition  to the federal permitting
 actions.   An EIS provides an  information base which assists
 state and  local agencies in addressing their permitting and
 other regulatory  actions.

      The primary  purpose of  the  EIS  process  is  to  ensure
 that  environmental information  is  available  to  public offi-
 cials  and  citizens  before  permit decisions  are  made  and
 before  actions are taken.  The process  must encourage  and
 facilitate public  involvement in the decisions affecting the
 quality  of the human environment.

      "Scoping"  is the first step  of  the EIS process.   The
 purpose  of the scoping  process  is  to  provide an  opportunity
 for members of the public,  interest  groups,  and  agencies to
 assist   in  defining  the significant  environmental  issues
 related  to the proposed  project.  Once these  specific  issues
 are identified,  they  are described  in  a  document called  the
 Responsiveness Summary that  is  distributed to all interested
 agencies and parties.   These  issues form the primary  basis
 for determining  the  range of alternatives considered  in  the
 EIS.

     Following  scoping,  the lead  agency or agencies  must
 ensure   that   sufficient   environmental   information   is
available   to  adequately  address   the  significant   issues
                            1-1

-------
 raised  during  the  scoping  process.   Alternative  means of
 achieving  the  proposed  project's objectives  are developed
 and  the  environmental  impacts  are  studied  and compared.
 Finally, the  EIS  document  is  prepared and distributed to the
 public  in  draft  form (DEIS)  for  a  minimum of  45  days for
 formal  review.    During  this  period,  public  hearings  or
 meetings are  held  to discuss the DEIS  and  to receive com-
 ments.  Submission  of written  comments is also encouraged.

     Comments  are evaluated following  public review and the
 DEIS is changed accordingly.  All written comments received
 during the  review period are either  reproduced in the final
 EIS  (FEIS)  or  summarized  (depending  on  the number  of  com-
 ments) and  the points raised  are  individually addressed in
 that document.   The  FEIS  is  then distributed  for  another
 public review period  of at least 30 days before any deci-
 sions  about  the  project  can  be  implemented.    This is  to
 allow for additional  public comments on the FEIS.

     Once a permit  decision has been made,  a  formal public
 record of  decision  is prepared by each  permitting  federal
 agency.  The Record of Decision (ROD)  states  what major per-
mit  decision   was  made,   identifies  all alternatives  con-
 sidered   (including    those   considered   environmentally
preferable) , and  may  discuss  preferences among alternatives
 based  on   factors  such as economic,  technical,  national
policy and  agency, mission  considerations.    The ROD  also
 states what means  to* avoid or minimize  environmental  harm
were adopted and the  rationale.

 1.1.2  EIS  Document Structure

     The  basic  format for  an EIS is prescribed  by  the  NEP&
regulations.   Each  section has  a  specific  purpose and often
is required to include certain kinds of  information.   Fol-
lowing  is a brief description  of  the major sections  of  this
EIS.

       °   Summary - A summary  of the EIS  stressing major
          conclusions, areas of controversy, and  the  issues
          to be resolved is presented  in  this section.

       °   Purpose of i and  Need for _Action  -  This  chapter
          (1.0}specifiestheunaerTyihg	  purpose  of   the
         action for which  the EIS is being written and  why
         the  action is needed.

       0  The   Proposed ^Project -  This  chapter  (2.0) des-
         cribes the individual components of the  project as
         proposed by the applicant and the specific options
         being considered  for  each component.  It tells  how
         the  project will  be developed.

       0  Alternatives  Including   the__ Proposed  Action
         Chapter  3.0  is  the heart of the EIS.  It describes
                            1-2

-------
 all  the initial  options  that were considered  for
 the  project,  why  many  of  them were  eliminated,  and
 how  the  final options  and  alternatives  (set of
 options  comprising  a total  project) were selected.
 Then,  based  on the information and analyses  pre-
 sented   in   the   chapters   that   follow   (Affected
 Environment  and  Environmental  Consequences),  the
 chapter  presents  the environmental impacts of  the
 proposed project  alternatives in  comparative  form,
 sharply  defining  the issues and  providing a  clear
 basis  for choice by the decision-makers  and  the
 public.   It  also  identifies  and   describes  the
 preferred alternative.

 Affected Environment  -  Chapter   4."0  succinctly
 describestheexisting  environment  of  the   area
 which would  be affected by  development of the pro-
 ject.  It explains  the environment  as it currently
 exists before project development begins.

 Environmental  Consequences   - This  chapter   (5.0)
 forms  the scientific  and analytic basis  for  the
 comparison  of alternatives  in Chapter  3.0.   It
 details  the  potential  environmental impacts  which
 could be expected for each alternative considering
 the  mitigation, monitoring,  and reclamation proce-
 dures  which  would  be  used.    In addition,  .it
 describes unavoidable impacts, discusses any  irre-
 versible or   irretrievable  commitments   of   re-
 sources,  and  describes  the  relationship  between
 short- and long-term productivity.

 Mitigation,  Reclamation  and  Monitoring  - Chapter
 6.0outlinespotential mitigationand reclamation
 measures  planned  relative  to  each environmental
 component and describes  the proposed  program to
 monitor  the effectiveness of those measures.

 Consultation and  Coordination - This chapter  (7.0)
 describestheprocessforSoliciting  input  from
 agencies  and  the public  and how the  process is
 coordinated  with   the  agencies'  permitting  pro-
 cesses .

 Public Response   to  the  DEIS -  Chapter 10.0 in-
 eludesaresponseEocomments received  during the
 DEIS review,  both at public hearings  and  as  writ-
 ten  comments.   Responses indicate  how the  final
 document was changed or why  no changes were made.

Appendices -  These  sections incorporate  important
supplementary material  prepared  in connection  with
 the  EIS  which is  more  appropriately  presented
 separately from the  body of  the  document.
                  1-3

-------
 1.2  DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS

      This  section  describes  the proposed  federal  admini-
 strative actions that have created the need  for this  EIS.

      Diamond Alaska  Coal  Company (Diamond Alaska) proposes
 to develop  a  10.9 million  Mt  (12  million  short tons)  per
 year  coal  mine  in the  Beluga  region  of  upper Cook  Inlet,
 Alaska.    The  project would  consist of a  surface mine  and
 associated transportation, shipping,  and housing  facilities.
 Diamond  Alaska has  initiated  the process of applying  for  the
 various  permits  and approvals needed for such a development.

      The U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency (EPA) has been
 considering the  issuance  of  New  Source  National Pollutant
 Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permits for  wastewater
 discharges from  the  proposed Diamond Chuitna Coal Project.
 In addition, the U.S. Department of the Army Corps of  Engi-
 neers  (Corps),  Alaska  District,  has jurisdiction over this
 action under Section  10 of the River and Harbor Act  of 1899
 which  provides   for control  over  structures  or work in  or
 affecting navigable waters of the  U.S.;  and  under  Section
 404 of the Clean Water Act which provides  for  regulation of
 the discharge of dredged or fill material  into U.S.  waters,
 including wetlands.   Action  by  the Corps could  result  in
 denial of the permit,  issuance of the permit, or issuance of
 the permit with  stipulations.   The Corps intends to adopt
 this EIS  to  fulfill its NEPA  obligations if its concerns are
 satisfied in the document.

     EPA's  NPDES  regulations   [40  CFR  122.29(c)(2)]  require
 that  the EIS include a recommendation  on  whether  the NPDES
 Permit should be issued or denied.   They  also  require that
 such action  shall  occur only  after a complete evaluation  of
 the projected  impacts and recommendations contained  in the
 final EIS  (FEISH40 CFR 122 . 29 (c) ( 3)  ] .

     Pursuant to NEPA and  implementing regulations issued  by
 the Council on  Environmental Quality  (CEQ),  EPA, and  the
 Corps, this  EIS  has been  prepared to evaluate  the potential
 impacts  of the  proposed actions  on  the environment  and  to
 fulfill  the permitting requirements  of EPA  and  the  Corps.
 EPA has  the  lead  responsibility  for  preparing  this document
 and the  Corps  is a cooperating  agency.  The Alaska  Depart-
 ment  of   Natural  Resources  is  also a  cooperating  agency
 because  of  its  role  in   implementing  the federal  Surface
 Mining  Control   and  Reclamation  Act  through   the  Alaska
 Surface Coal Mining Program (see  Section 1.5).

 1.3  PROJECT LOCATION, HISTORY, AND STATUS

     The   proposed project  would  be located on the  northwest
side of  upper Cook  Inlet,  approximately 72 km  (45 mi)  west
of Anchorage and  12.8  km (8 mi) west  of the Native  community
of Tyonek (Fig.  1-1).   The area  is  bounded  by the  Beluga
                            1-4

-------
1
U1
             BELUGA LAKE
                                                                  SUSITNA RIVER
                                             BELUGA RIVER
                   DIAMOND CHUITNA
                   COAL LEASE AREA
                                                                            mmf ANCHORAGE
                            CHUITNA RIVER
                                         NORTH POftELAND
            TRADING BAY REFUGE
MC ARTHER
  RIVER ,
                                                                                REGIONAL
                                                                                LOCATION
         DRIFT RIVER

         OIL PIPELINE
        DIAMOND CHUITNA PROJECT LOCATION
                                             Diamond Chuitna Environmental
                                                  Impact Statement
                                                                    FIGURE 1-1

-------
 River  on the north, the Alaska Range on the west, the  flats
 of  Trading Bay State Game Refuge on the southwest, and Cook
 Inlet  on the south  and  east.

     The mine would be  situated  north  of  the Chuitna  River
 at  an  elevation  of  approximately  229 m  (750 ft) and would be
 19.2 km (12 mi)  from tidewater at Granite Point  (Fig.  1-2).
 Topography of  the project area consists of gently undulating
 hills  and ridges at  the mine site  interspersed  with  small
 streams,  ponds,  and muskegs, becoming  flatter  south  of the
 Chuitna  River as elevation  slowly  decreases  toward Granite
 Point.   Mixed  coniferous and deciduous forests and woodlands
 extend  over  most of the  project area.

     The  presence  of  coal outcrops  in  the  Beluga region of
 upper  Cook Inlet has  been  known  for decades.   The area con-
 taining  these  outcrops  was  selected soon after statehood by
 the  State of  Alaska  under the  federal  government's  mental
 health   land   grant  entitlement.    The  five  coal  leases
 affected by  the proposed project were issued by the State to
 the  Bass,  Hunt,  Wilson  Group  between  1972 and 1978.   Coal
 leases in  the  area have also been issued to other companies.

     Throughout  the  1970s,  further  exploration occurred  on
 the leases,  including core  drilling to  define the reserves.
 In  1981,  the  Diamond  Shamrock  Chuitna  Coal  Joint  Venture
was formed to  develop the project.  The  venture partners are
Maxus Energy Corporation, a large integrated natural resour-
ces company, and the Lone Creek Coal Company.   The operating
arm of  the joint venture is Diamond Alaska Coal  Company  of
Anchorage,  a subsidiary of  Maxus Energy Corporation.   The
 joint venture  holds  sublease agreements to the five  leases
 (ADL  nos.  36911,   36913,  36914,  37002,  and  59502)   which
constitute the entire lease area.

     Diamond  Alaska has  overseen  an  intensified  drilling
program  and  the  completion  of  many  engineering  and economic
studies, which included  a  detailed  Preliminary  Design Phase
Study.    Environmental baseline  studies  were  begun in  1982
and  largely  completed   in  1984.   Limited preconstruction
monitoring has also begun.

     The coal  is sub-bituminous,  low sulphur, low ash,  high
moisture  steam coal with an  average of 4,250  kilocalories
per kilogram (7,650 BTU  per pound).   Diamond Alaska has  been
marketing  the  coal  to  electric  utilities,   cement,  and
industrial users in the  Pacific  states of the United  States
and to  Pacific rim  countries,  primarily Japan, Taiwan, and
Korea.

1.4  SCOPING ISSUES

     During  the  scoping process,  which involved the  full
participation of  Diamond Alaska,  members  of the  public,  spe-
cial interest  groups, and agencies  involved in the EIS  pro-
                            1-6

-------
                                                       i  Susltna Flats
                                                        Wildlife Refuge
                 Felt Lakeffefp
                     Denslow Lake
                                                    Chugach Elecjric
                                                   Beluga Power Station
                                           ::;:iL.ake
                                          Hi  %/Ladd
                        !?yonek Native. Corporation:::?
Congahbuna
   Lake
                   Granite Point
                                                                A,
                                          •:$:$:/Tyonek


                                                 Foreland
                                                        o
                                                        SCALE
                                                      1   2   3
                                                       •sesas^
                                                        IN MILES
         DIAMOND CHUITNA PROJECT AREA
  Diamond Chuitna Environmental Impact Statement
FIGURE  1-2
                               1-7

-------
 cess,  the following  10  issues were  identified  as being of
 major  concern  if  the  project  is developed:

 Issue  1:   Maintainthe  integrityof  theChuitna  River
           watershed by  minimizing impactstowater quality
           and  maintaining proper  flows

     The  proposed project  has the  potential to  alter the
 characteristics  of  the Chuitna River watershed  in a number
 of ways:

        0   Direct  disturbance  of  stream  courses   in  mined
           areas

        0   Interruption or diversion  of  ground water regimes
           which could alter input to surface drainages

        0   Diversion of  surface water flow from one subbasin
           to another

        0   Degradation of water quality  as a result of sedi-
           ment load from disturbed  areas, chemical leaching
           from coal  or overburden,  or  pollution  from sani-
           tary facilities

 Issue  2:   Maintain  the  qualityof   fishhabitats  in  the
           Chuitna River system and^ minimize impactsto resi-
           dent and anadromgus  fish

     Fish  habitats  could  be affected by  direct  disturbance
of stream  courses, reduced  flows, or water quality degrada-
tion.

Issue  3;   tMinimize  disruption of wildlife  and  wildlife
           habitats,  including  importantseasonal  use and
           migrationareas

     The  proposed project   has the  potential  to  alter  the
nature and productivity  of  wildlife habitats and  to  impede
the movements of wildlife.

Issue4:   Assure  successful  reclamationof  projectcom-
           ponents

     The surface  mine  and  other  components of the proposed
project would temporarily disturb substantial areas of  vege-
tated  terrain and existing  stream courses.   Returning  these
disturbed  areas to a  biologically productive  condition  is  a
significant concern.

Issue 5;  Minimizeimpacts  to  the  commercial set_net fishery
          human user  and marine life  movements  near the  port
          trestle
                            1-8

-------
      The existence of port facilities would  have  the  poten-
 tial . to  impede  various  coastal  activities engaged  in  by
 humans  and  to alter  the movement  of  fish  and  marine  mammals.

 Issue6:Minimizeimpacts  to   subsistence  resources,
          includingaccess  to  thoseresources,  as  tradi-
          tionally used by  local  residents

      Hunting,  fishing, and trapping  activities required  by
 local  residents for  their  subsistence  could  be affected  by
 either  reduced numbers of fish and wildlife  in existing  use
 areas or  by restricted access to  traditional  use areas.

 I_ssue 7;  Minimize  the   social,  cultural,   and   economic
          impacts  on local  residents

      Development  of  the  proposed mine and  its housing  and
 transportation infrastructure  could  affect  the  lifestyles
 and  livelihoods of  local  residents,  particularly residents
 of Tyonek.

 Issue 8;  Maintain a  regional  perspective to  minimize  the
          cumulative  img_a_cts  of  this  and  other  potential
          development  projects

     Facilities  developed  for  the  proposed project  could
 influence the  future development  of  the area and  the  extent
 of  cumulative  impacts.   Therefore,  a  regional perspective
 for  facility  planning  should be  employed to  minimize  the
 range of cumulative  impacts that could occur.

 Iss_ue	9 ;  Minimize	enhancesof _ _ system  failure   by   incor-
          poratingtechnically feasible   component  siting,
          design,  and mitigationfeatures                ,

     If  components or mitigation and  reclamation measures
 become  too  complex or  utilize uncertain technology,  then  an
 increased risk of  failure could result.
            /

 Is_sue_10; Component  siting, _design,  and mitigation features
          should be cost effective

     If project costs  exceed  reasonable or practical  limits
 then economic  feasibility could become an issue.

 1.5  STATUS OF PERMITS AND APPROVALS

     One of the purposes  of  the  EIS process is  to  address
 the environmental  and  other concerns  of federal,  state, and
 local agencies  responsible  for  the various regulatory  func-
 tions associated with  ultimate  approval of a project.  The
EIS  process  recognizes  the  informational needs  of  these
agencies as  they proceed  through  their  permitting  processes
and  seeks  to   incorporate  relevant   information   to  assist
those agencies in  their  permitting  decisions.   The  public
                            1-9

-------
 hearings, which  are  an  integral  part  of  the EIS process and
 cover all concerns  pertinent to the  project,  also  serve as
 public participation forums for state and federal permitting
 processes.

      The reader  should  take note, however,  that concurrent
 with  the EIS  process,  the Alaska   Department  of  Natural
 Resources (DNR)  has  conducted  a thorough review of  Diamond
 Alaska's 27-volume application for a  permit to conduct sur-
 face mining.  This permit process,  conducted pursuant to the
 Alaska  Surface  Coal Mining  Control  and  Reclamation  Act
 (AS27.21,11AAC Chapt. 90),  entailed a  much more thorough and
 detailed  analysis  of  Diamond  Alaska's proposed   10-year
 mining  plan  than  this  EIS  can  .reasonably   accommodate.
 Through delegated authority, compliance with the state sur-
 face mining  laws assures  compliance  with the  federal  laws
 governing surface  mining under  the  Surface Mining  Control
 and Reclamation Act.  The  EIS serves  as  an  overall  planning
 tool that addresses-component siting and  operations  over the
 34-year  life  of  the project  and beyond.    While   certain
 important aspects of  the  10-year mining  plan  are discussed
 and analyzed in the  EIS, the reader is encouraged to  contact
 the DNR  at  the  address  shown  on page  7-8  for  information
 related to the  surface mining permits.

      Diamond Alaska  is pursuing the full  range  of other  per-
 mits and  approvals  required  for  their  proposed project.
 Table 1-1 lists the major permits required and  their  current
 status.   Superimposed on  the individual  permit  application
 procedures  are two  more or  less separate but  interrelated
 environmental   review  processes.    The  first  is the   NEPA
 review process  of which  this EIS  is a  part.  As discussed in
 Section  1.2, this EIS provides  the background  and documen-
 tation  necessary for processing  the major federal permits.
 In  addition,  the  State of AlasKa, through a centralized  per-
 mit  review process  administered by the Office of Management
 and  Budget  (OMB), reviews  all  the  state  permits with indi-
 vidual regulatory agencies.  Although each agency issues its
 own  permits, permit decisions are coordinated through OMB on
..any  ^projects which  affect  the  State's  coastal  zone.   OMB
 makes the final determination of  consistency with the Alaska
 Coastal Management Program.
                            1-10

-------
                                                                            table 1-1
                                                              S1ATU5 nr MAJOR PERMITS AND APPROVALS
Project Component        Lease/Permit/Approval

Prior to Alaska Coasts!  Manageoent Proqran (ACMP)

T ranaportation
                       Right-of-way Pernit and Easement, ADl 200680
                         (to Granite Point) - joint application with
                         Beluga Coal Coapany

                       Land Lease, ADL  66114  (Granite Paint uplands)
                         - joint application with Beluga Coal Company
Port
Port                    Tide  and  Submerged Lande  Lease,  ADL
                          (Granite  Point)  - joint application xith
                          Beluga  Coal  Company

A looks Coaatal Manageannt Progra* (ACHP)  - Phaae  I

                        AKa60218-26A (Mine)
                        AK86021B-27A (Irans/Houaing)
                        AKB60218-28A (Port)
 Mine


 Port

 Housing

 Mine

 Housing

 Housing

 T ransportation


 Mine
  Mine
  Mine
                        Permit to conduct aurfaca alining.
                          No. 01-85-796

                        Hater Rights, LAS No. 5558 (Granite Point)

                        Water Rights, LAS No. 5556

                        Water Rights, LAS No. 555?

                        Land Lease, ADL 221186 (includea solid water site)

                        Solid Waste Disposal Permit, No. 8625-BAQQJ

                        Ansdrotaoua Fish Protection Permit, Title 16
                           (Granite Point, housing, landing atrip)

                        Lend  Lease,  AOL 222752 (Permanent Solid Waste
                           Diaposal Site)

                        Solid Haste  Disposal Permit, No. 862)-BA002
                           (Permanent  Site)

                        Land Lease,  ADL  22275J  (Temporary Solid Waste
                           Disposal Site)

                         Solid Huste  Disposal Perait, No. 8625-BA001
                           (Temporary Site)
                                                                              Regulatory  Agency
                                                                              ADNR (slate)
                                                                               ADNR  (state)
                                                                               ADNR  (slate)
                                                                                                     Application
                                                                                                     SutMtittal  Dote
July 12, 197B
  Amended April 15, 1982
October 24, 1974
  Amended November 25, 1981

October 24, 1974
  Amended November 25, 1981
                                                                                                                                      Status
In adjudication
                                                                                                                                      In adjudication
                                                                                                                                      In adjudication
                                                                               Deternined Consietent with the ACMP  August  21,  1987
                                                                               AONR/OOH
 January  15,  1985
August 21, 1987, Positive
  Decision
WMR/1XWM
AONR/TXWM
ADNR/DLWM
ADNR/DLMH
»EC
AOFiG
ADNR/OLWI
ADEC
AONR/DtWM
ADEC
Fetiruary 7,
February 7,
February 7,
1986
1986
1986
Nay 16, 19B5
February 7,
February 7,
February 14
February 7,
February 14
February 7,
19B6
1986
, 1986
1986
, 1986
1986
Review in Progress
Review in Progress
Review in Progress
In adjudication
Review in Progress
Review in Progress
In adjudication
Review in Progress
In adjudication
Review in Progress

-------
                                                                             Table  1-1

                                                              STATUS Of MAJOR  PERMITS  AND  APPROVALS
                                                                            (continued)
Project Component       Lease/Permit/Approval
                                                                               Regulatory Agency
                                                                                                      Application
                                                                                                      Subnittal Date
                                                                                                                                      Statua
T ransportation/
  Houalng

Mine
Mine

Transportation
Land Lease, ADL 221187 (Landing Strip)
Rights-of-Wsy (5 separata approvals Tor
  vegetation analysis plots)

Anadronous Fish Protection Permit, Title 16

Material Sites, AOL 221188 through 221190
  (3 eitesKGranite Point)
ADNR/DLWH


ADNR/DLWH


ADF4G

ADNR/DLWH
Hay 16, 1985


Hsy 16, 1905


February 7, 1986

Hay 16, 1985
 Alaska Coaatal  Management  Program  (ACM1)  - Phase  II includes NCPA Proceaa,  federal  approvals end state permits for Ladd

                                                                                Begins  with  distribution of DEIS

                                                                                U.S. EPA
 Hine
                         National Pollutant Discharge  Elimination Syste
                           (NPDESH19 discharges)
 Port (Granite Point)    National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systc
                           (NPDESH2 discharges)
 Housing
 Port  (Lsdd)
 Mine,  Housing,
    T ranaportaton
    and  both  Porta
 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Syateo
   (NPOCSHJ discharges)
                         National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
                           (NPDCS)d discharge)
                                                                                U.S. EPA
                                                                                U.S. EPA
                                                                                U.S. EPA
 Department of the Army Permit (Sections 10 & 404)      COE
                                                                              July 26, 1983
                                                                                Amend
                                                                               July  26,  1983
                                                                                 Amend
                        July  26,  1983
                          Amend
                                                                                                       January 1987
                        June 5, 1987
                          Revised
In adjudication


Review in Progress


Review in Progress

Review in Progress
                                 Under  review  -  pending
                                    completion  of the  NEPA
                                    process

                                 Under  review  -  pending
                                    completion  of the  NEPA
                                    process

                                 Under  review  -  pending
                                    completion  of the NEPA
                                    process

                                  Under  review - pending
                                    completion of the NEPA
                                    process

                                  Under review - pending
                                    completion of the NEPA
                                    process
  Hine,  Housing,           Certificate  of  Reasonable Assurance (Water
    and  both Port Sitea     Quality  Certification)
  Transportation
  Port
  Right-of-way  Permit and Easement,
    ADL  223706  (Lsdd)
                                                                                 ADEC
                                                                                 WNR/DLWH
                          Tide and Submerged Lands Lease,  ADL  22)707  (Ladd)      AONH/DLWH
                        Review of NPDES
                          Applications

                        June 5, 1987


                        June b, 1987
                                                                                                                Review in Progress
                                   In adjudication
                                                                                                                In adjudication

-------
                                                                            Table 1-1

                                                               STATUS  or HAJOB PERMITS AND APPROVALS
                                                                            (continued)
Project Component       Lease/Pnrait/Approval
                                                      Regulatory Agency
                                                                                                      Application
                                                                                                      Subnittal Dote
                                                                                                                                      Status
Port                    Water Rights,  LAS No. to be assigned (Ladd)

Transportation          Material Sites, ADL 22370B through 223717
                          (10 sitesHLadd)
                                                      WNR/DLWH

                                                      SONR/DLVW
                      June 5, 1987

                      June 5, 19B7
Transportation          Anadronoua fish protection Permit, Title 16 (Ladd)     K>fIf,                  June S,  1987

Port                    Maatewater Disposal Perslt (Ladd)                      WEC                   June 5,  1987

Other Permits and Appmv*!* (ACNP - Phaea III For Final Deaign and Construction) applied for aa needed
                                Review in Progress

                                Review in Progress


                                Review in Progress

                                Review in Progress
 Transportation
Right-of-May Easenent
 Nine,  Port  &  Housing    Plan  review for sewerage  syatena of  water  and
                          wastewater  treatment  works

 Nine,  Transportation,   Plan  approval  drainage/erosion
   Port & Housing
KPB

ADEC


KPB
April 24, 1987
In adjudication

To be submitted


To be submitted
 Hine, Houning,
   T raneportatiori
   and Port
Air Quality Control Permit  to Operate
                                                                                WEC
                       Dececber 1986
                         Aaended
                                 Review in Progress
 Nina
                         Miscellaneous Burning Peraits
                                                                                WEC
                                                                                                                                        To be  aubnitted

-------
	Chapter 2.0
The Proposed Project

-------
                   2.0  THE PROPOSED PROJECT
2.1   INTRODUCTION

      This chapter describes the Diamond Chuitna coal project
—  what  the various parts  (components)  of  the project are,
where they  would be  located,  and how they  would function.
The applicant's plans for construction and operation of each
component  (e.g.,  power  source,  worker  housing,  etc.)  are
described.    For  some  components  (e.g.,  location  of  the
transportation corridor), the EIS scoping process, the third
party EIS  team,  a federal or state agency  or  the applicant
itself  have  identified  more  than  one  option.   In  these
cases, each of the other options is described in addition to
the applicant's proposed option.

      The applicant has proposed mitigation measures for each
component  to reduce  adverse  impacts.   These  measures  are
described in this chapter.  The discussions of environmental
consequences  (Chapter 5.0)  assume these  mitigation measures
will  be  in  place  if  the  project is  constructed.  Mitigation
measures  other  than  (or  in addition  to)  those  which  have
been  proposed by the applicant are described in Chapter 6.0.
These  other mitigation measures  could  be  required of  the
applicant as  stipulations  to  permits issued by federal  and
state agencies.

      The  applicant's  proposed  mitigation  measures for  the
mine  itself are only for the first ten years of the project.
A new mitigation plan, based upon experience, would be  deve-
loped  toward  the  end of  that  period  to be applied to  the
next mining increment.

     The Alaska Surface Coal Mining  Control and Reclamation
Act (AS 27.21) and pertinent regulations  (11 AAC Chapter  90)
require very  detailed information about several  aspects  of
an  applicant's  proposed   plan  of  operation   (e.g.,   water
drainage control and treatment,  reclamation).  The volume of
this  information makes it impractical to  incorporate it into
this EIS.  Therefore, this chapter only summarizes the  major
aspects of the proposed project.  However, references  to  the
location of this detailed information in  Diamond Alaska Coal
Company's 27-volume  Permit Application  to Conduct  Surface
Coal  Mining  (1985) are given for  readers  who wish to pursue
more  specific details (see  Section 7.7 for  locations of  the
permit application).
                            2-1

-------
 2.2  PROJECT OVERVIEW AND COMPONENTS

 2.2.1  Introduction

      Since  the  applicant  has  not  yet  concluded  a   final
 contract for sale of coal, the length of time it would  take
 to  develop  the  project  to its  full  production  capacity of
 10.9  million Mt  (12  million  short  tons)  is  unknown, but
 would occur  in  stages  depending  upon economics.   As  coal
 production  increased,  staged  development  of  the   mine,
 housing   site,  overland  coal  transportation system,   port
 site, and loading  trestle would  occur  commensurate with  pro-
 duction  requirements.   Under  optimal  conditions, full  pro-
 duction   capacity   could  be  reached  after  four years of
 operation.  However,  it  is  likely  that full production  would
 take  longer  than  four years  to reach and,  thus,  the  full
 impacts  of the completed project would not occur until  some
 undetermined time  in  the  future.

      The project overview below  generally describes the  pro-
 ject  at  full production.   Most  mine  development  impacts
 would be  of  lower  magnitude  before  full  production is
 reached.   The exceptions  would be  short-term activities  such
 as  hauling coal  by truck.  This  would occur only during the
 early years  of  the  project and may  cause  greater  impacts
 than  transporting coal by conveyor.

 2.2.2 Project Overview

      Development   of   the  Diamond  Chuitna  project  would
 involve  a  surface  coal  mine  located  approximately  72 km
 (45 mi)  west of  Anchorage (Fig. 1-1).   The coal would be
 strip mined by  large shovels and draglines  and  hauled by
 trucks  to a  nearby mine area conveyotr  for  transport  to  a
 mine  service area  for crushing.   The crushed coal initially
 would be hauled in  trucks  from  the mine service area  to  a
 port  on  Cook Inlet.   After two years of mine operation, coal
 would be moved  from the  mine service area to the  port  on  a
 conveyor.   At  lower production  levels,  the  coal would be
 loaded  from a  short trestle  at the  port  onto   barges  for
 transport  to market.    At higher  production levels,  coal
 would be loaded from a long trestle onto ships.

      Under  the  optimal,   four-year full  production  develop-
 ment  schedule,  production in the  first year  of  mine opera-
 tion  would be approximately  1.8  million  Mt  (2 million  short
 tons).  Production would  increase to about 3.6 Mt (4  million
 short tons)  in the  second year.   In  the  third year,  produc-
 tion  would increase  to approximately  5.4  million Mt  (6  mil-
 lion  short tons), reaching 10.9 million Mt (12 million  short
 tons)  per year by the fourth year of mine operation.

     Figure 2-1 shows the locations of  the project component
options  used to  formulate  the  action  alternatives.    The
mine,  overburden stockpile, and  mine service  area all  would
be located on land owned  by the State of  Alaska  (Fig.  4-1).
                            2-2

-------
  4-
       LEGEND

     AIRSTRIP
                                                            Susitna Flats
                                                           Wildlife Refuge
     TYONiK NATIVE CORP. BOUNDARY


     HOUSING


•SS&i;: PORT SITE
                        Denslow Lake
                                                      Chugach Elec|-ric
                                                      Beluga Power Station
                                                      Beluga
                                                      Airstrip
                                                        p. EXISTING CHUGACH
                                                           POWER LINE
   Congahbuoa
      Lake
--, Trading Bay
    Refuge
  T
       Nikolai Ck;
     !   Airstrip^
                      Granite Point
                                              North Foreland   ,L»
                                                           o
                                                       ^o
     IN MILES
                                      SOURCE: DIAMOND ALASKA COAL COMPANY
           FINAL PROJECT OPTIONS LOCATIONS
    Diamond Chuitna Environmental Impact Statement
                                                       FIGURE 2-1
                                  2-3

-------
      There  are   three   transportation  corridor   options:
 northern/Ladd,   eastern/Ladd,   and  southern/Granite   Point
 (Fig.  2-1).   The  northern  corridor  would run east  from  the
 mine   service  area  across  state  land  toward  the  Beluga
 airstrip,  then  turn  south  southeast  across  land  owned by
 Cook  Inlet Region Native Corporation to a port site at Ladd
 on  land owned  by the  Kenai Peninsula Borough  (KPB).   The
 eastern  corridor  would  run  in a  straight  line  southeast from
 the  mine  service  area  across  state land  and land owned by
 the Tyonek Native Corporation (TNC)  to  the same port site at
 Ladd.   The  southern  corridor  would run  in  a straight line
 south  from the mine service area  across  state and KPB land
 to  a  port site  on state land  at  Granite Point.   The Lone
 Creek  and  Threemile housing  sites  are located  on state land,
 while  the  Congahbuna  housing site and  airstrip are located
 on KPB land.

 2.2.3  ProjectComponents and Options

      In  reviewing this  document,  it is  important  that  the
 reader   understand   the  relationship   among   the   terms
 "component",  "option",  and  "alternative."   The project  has
 several  components, each one a  necessary  part of an  entire
 viable   mining   project  (e.g.,   the  mine,    transportation
 system,  port  site, housing  site, etc.).  For  each component
 there  may  be  one or  more   options  (e.g.,  a  southern or a
 southeastern  transportation corridor location  option).   An
 alternative  is  a combination of options  (one for each com-
 ponent)  that consititutes an entire  functioning project.

     For most  components the EIS  scoping process initially
 identified at  least two options.  .The  process by which this
 large number of options was  screened to reduce the number to
 a manageable level and how the ultimate project alternatives
 were  selected  is  described  in  detail  in Chapter  3.0.   The
 descriptions  below for  each project  component,  therefore,
 address  only  those component options  which  were ultimately
 retained and which are  specifically addressed  in  at  least
 one of  the action alternatives  for each scenario.   For each
 component  where   more  than   one  option  remains,  the  appli-
 cant's preferred  option is described first.

 2.3  MINE  AREA FACILITIES

 2.3.1  Locat ion and Size

     The  mine  would   be located  entirely  within  logical
mining unit  no.   1  (LMU-1),  one of  three units within the
 lease area and the only one  involved in the proposed 34-year
project  (Fig.  2-2).    LMU-1 covers  approximately 4,047  ha
 (10,000  ac)  and  contains a  minimum  of 299  million  Mt (330
million short tons) of coal.

     The sizes and locations of the coal  seams,  the nature
of  the  overburden*  and interburden*,  and  the  economics
                            2-4

-------
                                        NORTH PIT
                                                MINING LIMIT
   LEASE AREA
   BOUNDERV
                                                      SOUTH PIT
                                                   OV1ERBURD
                                                      OCKPILE
                                       ORTHERN/
                                       ONVEYCXR
                                                      HAUL ROAD
                        MINE
                       SERVICE
                        AREA
                                    AIRSIRIP
                                                     EASTERN
                                                     CONVEYOR
                                            LON
                                           CREEK
                                           HOUSING
                                            AREA
                           SOUTHERN
                           CONVEYOR
     SCALE IN MILES

01/21         2
                                        HAUL ROAD
SOURCE; DIAMOND ALASKA COAL COMPANY
        FINAL  MINE AREA OPTIONS LOCATIONS
   Diamond Chuitna Environmental impact Statement
                                                  FIGURE 2-2
                              2-5

-------
 involved  in  mining  the  coal  are  such  that  only surface
 mining  would be  feasible.    The  coal is  contained in five
 major seams,  each varying in  thickness between  1.8  and 6.1 m
 (6-20 ft), with a cumulative  stripping ratio of 3.9:1  (i.e.,
 3.9  m^  of  overburden to 1 Mt of recoverable coal [4.6:1, or
 4.6  yd 3  per short  ton]).    The  actual  area  to  be  mined
 (mining limit) would  be approximately 2,029 ha  (5,014 ac) in
 size  and  would be  divided  into north and south  pits (Fig.
 2-2)  which  would  be mined  simultaneously but  in  separate
 operations during the life of the project.  These pits would
 begin on  the northeast  edge  of  the mining limit and proceed
 generally  west  and  southwest, respectively, during the life
 of the project.

     A  maximum  of 182 ha (450  ac)  of pit  would  be open at
 any  one time.    An additional  maximum  of  61  ha  (150  ac)
 around  the  pit  would   be  disturbed  at  any  one  time  in
 clearing   and  grubbing  vegetation   in   preparation  for
 stripping  overburden,  or  recontouring  in preparation  for
 revegetation.   A  total of approximately  63  ha  (155 ac)  per
 year  would  be  cleared  for   mining  in   two  periods -  most
 likely  spring and  fall.   Maximum  depth  of  the pit  would
 range from 6.1 m  (20 ft) during the first year of production
 to approximately  122 m  (400  ft)  in the  final  years  of  the
 project.  Average pit depth would be about 61 m (200 ft).

 2.3.2  Mining Sequence and Methods

     Mining  activities  would  begin  with  the  clearing  and
 grubbing of  all trees,  brush, stumps, and other vegetation.
 This slash material  would  be burned,  if  conditions  allowed,
 or buried  n n<^ or ai^orrnat-o cnn i 1  in  t- ho m i no  nit-  if hnrninrr

 separate pile for use during revegetation.   Then,  approxi-
         d  under adequate  spoil  in  the mine  pit  if burning
were not possible.  Topsoil would be removed and stored in a
separate pile  for  use during revegetation.   Then,  approxi-
mately  16.8  million  m3   (22  million   yd3)   of  overburden,
excluding  topsoil,  initially would  be excavated  (the  "box
cut"*)  and permanently  placed  in  an   overburden  stockpile
(Fig. 2-2). After completion  of  the  box cut,  as new topsoil
and overburden  are  excavated from the  pit's  advancing  face
to  expose  the  coal,  the overburden would  be  put  onto the
trailing edge of the pit  from  which   the  coal would  have
already  been  removed  (Fig. 2-3).   This area  would  then  be
reclaimed by  regrading  it  to its approximate  premining  con-
tours, including stream locations and drainages, covering  it
with  topsoil,  and  then  revegetating   it.    Because  of  an
approximate  18  percent  swell  factor   associated  with  the
reclaimed overburden,  the original surface contours  could  be
approximated  without  use of  the material in  the  permanent
     During  the  first  year  of  production,  mining  methods
would employ shovels  (15-19  m3  [20-25  yd^] capacity),  over-
burden  haul  trucks  (136-154 Mt  [150-170 short  ton]  pay-
loads), and coal haul trucks  (91-136 Mt [100-150 short ton])
for stripping and coal recovery.  A 44  m^ (57 yd 3)  dragline
                            2-6

-------
NJ
I
             ARTIST'S ILLUSTRATION -

       MINING AND RECLAMATION SEQUENCE
Diamond Chuitna Environmental
    Impact Statement
     FIGURE 2-3

-------
 would be added  later with  a  smaller  27  m^ (35 yd^) dragline
 added when  full  production was  resumed.   At full production
 capacity,  the  draglines would  be used  for  overburden  and
 interburden removal while  the  shovels  and haul trucks would
 be used for prestripping of overburden.

      Coal  would  be  loaded  onto  trucks  directly  from  the
 seams by hydraulic  backhoes,  shovels,  or front end loaders.
 Because of  the  unconsolidated  nature of  both the overburden
 and interburden  and the  tendency  of  the  coal to crumble, no
 major blasting  is anticipated.   Some infrequent secondary
 blasting would  be  required,  primarily  to move large glacial
 erratic boulders which are scattered  throughout the overbur-
 den.  Such blasting would occur an average of once per week.

      Run-of-the-mine coal would be hauled by truck to a pri-
 mary crusher  located  in  front of the  advancing  mine  face
 between the  north and south  pits (Fig.  2-3).   The primary
 crusher would be moved every  three to  five  years.  The coal
 would be  crushed  to  a maximum  size of  15  cm   (6  in)  and
 carried about 3,962 m  (13,000  ft) by a 1.4  m (54 in),  two-
 span  partially   enclosed  mine  area   conveyor  system  to  a
 secondary crusher  (located in  the mine  service area outside
 the mining  limit)  where it  would be  crushed to  a maximum
 size of 5  cm  (2 in) and then weighed.   The  mine area  con-
 veyor would be  elevated  in at least four locations so  that
 the bottom  of the horizontal steel support  pipe  would  be a
 minimum  of  2.4  m  (8  ft)  above ground   level  to  permit
 crossing by moose and bears.

 2.3.3  Water Control andTreatment

      The discussion  below  summarizes the  major  aspects  of
 the proposed water drainage  control  and treatment  system.
 More detailed information  may be found  in  Vol.  XVII,  Sec.
 4.12,  of the state  surface mine permit application (Diamond
 Alaska  Coal Company 1985).   The two  water control processes
 needed  in  the mine  area  to handle surface  and ground-water
 flows   both within and  around   the  active  mine  pit  are
 described  below.  During the  initial 10  years of  operation,
 portions of streams 200304 and 200305  would  be mined and a
 sediment pond would  be located in stream 200305 .   A  major
 portion  of  stream 2003 (Fig.  2-2) would  be  displaced during
 the later years  of the  project.

      2.3.3.1  Runoff  from  Areas Outside  the Active Mine  Pit

      The area  to be mined  during  initial 10  years of  opera-
. tion  is   topographically   situated   such  that   it  would
 receive  little  natural  runoff  from surrounding  undisturbed
 areas.   Thus, little runoff would  have to be diverted around
 the mining  area  for  discharge into existing  drainages.

     The primary collection  ditch and  sediment pond  system
 for runoff   from  within the area  to  be mined would be con-

-------
 structed  prior  to  mining  and  would  be  maintained  until
 completion  of  reclamation  (Fig.  2-4).  Note that this system
 covers  only the first  10  years  of  operation  (7  years of
 mining).    The collection  ditches  would carry  runoff   from
 disturbed and  undisturbed  areas  within the area to be mined,
 the  overburden stockpile,  and mine service area to sediment
 ponds.  These  ponds  would  function  by retaining the water to
 allow  suspended solids  to  settle  out  prior to discharge to
 existing drainages.  Depending upon the location, amount and
 quality of  the collected water,  it might also be handled or
 controlled  by  various  other   methods  including  sediment
 treatment   structures,   dugout   pond/filter  dams,  sediment
 filter fabrics,  gravel pads, and vegetation barriers.

     All  discharges  would  meet  applicable  water  quality
 standards.     Where  other  treatment  was  necessary  before
 discharge,  e.g.,  flocculation,  additional treatment facili-
 ties would  be  built in conjunction with the sediment ponds.
 Figure  2-5  shows  a  typical two-structure  sediment   pond
 system with flocculant building.  The collection ditch/sedi-
 ment pond  system would  be  redesigned  and rebuilt at inter-
 vals  to  accommodate '  drainage   needs  using  the  experience
 gained during  the  first  10  years of operation.

     On the northwestern and western sides of the mine area,
 space is available for location of adequately sized sediment
 ponds to handle sediment loads  with little or no additional
 treatment.   However, on the  northeastern  and eastern sides
 of  the  mine area,  space would  be  limited  between  the  mine
 pit  and  Lone  Creek.   In  these  areas,  sediment  ponds  with
 additional  sediment  treatment structures  would be necessary
 during periods of high  runoff.    These  treatment structures
 would  consist  of  a series  of  excavations and  embankments
 using baffles  and selective routing to  control,  treat,  and
 allow  monitoring  of runoff  prior to  discharge into  Lone
 Creek..

     Once the  water is  treated,  it would be  released  from
 the ponds  into natural drainages at the  18 points  shown in
 Figure 2-4.   Outflow from  sediment pond  concrete spillways
 would be controlled  by a riprap  energy  dissipator  to mini-
 mize potential erosion.

     The sediment  ponds  would be  dredged  periodically  with
 the dredged material put into the mine pit and covered by at
 least 1.2 m (4 ft) of nontoxic spoil material.

     2.3.3.2   Active Mine Pit Water

     Control of  surface runoff  from  rainfall and  snowmelt
within the active mine pit and ground  water that  would drain
 into the pit during  the mining  process would be  handled in
 the same manner.  Water  would be collected  in sumps*  with  a
 reserve storage  capacity to allow initial settling of  sus-
pended  solids  and any additional  treatment which might  be
                            2-9

-------
                                                      LEGEND
                                                    SEDIMENT POND WITH
                                                    TREATMENT FACILITY


                                                    SEDIMENT POND WITHOUT
                                                    TREATMENT FACILITY
                                                          DISCHARGE POINTS

                                                     DIVERSION DITCHES
   <   ,
JNDARY
                                     Si 'NT '---
                 MINE AREA DRAINAGE CONTROL AND TREATMENT FACILITIES
                  Diamond Chuitna Environmental Impact Statement
FIGURE 2-4

-------

ARTIST'S ILLUST|RATiON -

TYPICAL SEDihdNT POND
Diamond Chuitna Environmental
    Impact Statement
      FIGURE 2-5

-------
 necessary (e.g.,  buffering,  flocculation).   The water would
 then  be pumped from the active mining areas to the adjacent
 larger  sediment control ponds  for treatment, monitoring, and
 discharge into  drainages of  Lone  Creek  and  stream 2003.
 During  a given year  (within the first  10  years)f  approxi-
 mately  50 percent of  the  water  pumped from the active mine
 pit  ultimately  would  be discharged  into  the Lone Creek
 drainage.    ht any  time,  however,  discharges  into  either
 creek,  or both  simultaneously,  could occur  depending  upon
 the active mining  pit  location.

 2.3.4   Overburden  Stockpile

     At the  start of operations, approximately 16.8  million
 m3  (22  million yd^)  of overburden from the box cut (exclud-
 ing topsoil) would be  excavated and  permanently placed in an
 overburden stockpile  (Fig. 2-2).   Because of an approximate
 18 percent  swell  factor associated with the reclaimed over-
 burden,  the original  surface contours  could  be duplicated
 without use  of   the  material  in  the  permanent  overburden
 stockpile.   This  stockpile would be approximately  61 m (200
 ft) high, 1,280 m (4,200  ft) long  and 670  m (2,200  ft)  wide
 and would cover  about 81  ha  (200 ac) .   No further  material
 would be added.    The  stockpile  would be stabilized,  graded
 and then revegetated  to  prevent  erosion.   Runoff  from the
 stockpile would  be handled  in the  same  manner  as  described
 above for the  mine area using a treatment system consisting
 of collection  ditches  and three sediment ponds  (Fig. 2-4).
 Topsoil  from the  box cut  would be  stockpiled  in a  separate
 area.

 2.3.5   Mine  Service firea

     The permanent mine service area would be located on the
 southern  edge  of  the mining  limit  (Fig.  2-2).   The  approxi-
 mately  22 ha (55 ac) area  would include the main administra-
 tion  building, a service building  housing  the  principal
 maintenance,  warehouse  and  service  facilities;  equipment
 ready  lines?  water,   diesel  fuel,  gasoline  and  lubricant
 storage;  electrical substation;  ambulance  and  fire  station;
 water and sewage   treatment  plants;  emergency  power system;
 explosives  magazine;   heliport;  and  emergency  and  safety
 facilities  (Fig.  2-6).  The  area  would  not be fenced.   No
 one would be housed at the mine service area.

     Coal from the primary crusher  at the  mine  would enter
 the  mine  service  area  by   conveyor  and  pass  through  a
 splitter-hopper* which would feed coal to either the second-
 ary crusher  (and   thence  by  conveyor  to the  port)  or  to  a
 surge pile or an emergency storage pile in  the  service area.
 The coal  would not be  washed or otherwise processed.   The
 two coal  piles would  have a combined capacity of  approxi-
 mately 45,360 Mt (50,000 short tons)  and would  serve to  off-
 set differences  in conveyor  capacities  and compensate  for
downtime in mining operations.
                            2-12

-------
 4  '"^5^.
 •14.^6^.  >afc- ^X
?floor
43.000 T
       ARTJST'S ILLUSTRATION
          MINE SERVICE! AREA
Diamond Chuitna Environmental
    Impact Statement
     FIGURE 2-6

-------
     Runoff  from  the  mine facilities area itself, including
any water used for dust control spraying, would be collected
by a ditch  system and sent  to two sediment ponds (Fig. 2-4)
for settling  and  treatment to meet  water  quality standards
before being released into* the stream 2003 drainage.

     Sanitary waste water generated at the facility would be
treated in a packaged treatment plant at primary and second-
ary levels.   Effluent would  be carried in a pipeline buried
next to the road  to the housing area where it would join the
treated  effluent   pipeline  from  the  housing  site  and  be
discharged  into  the  Chuitna  River directly  south of  the
housing site.

     Nonorganic solid wastes  would  be deposited  in  fenced
and enclosed dumpsters located throughout  the service area
and collected  on  a regular  basis.   A temporary fenced land-
fill near the mine site would be used for solid waste dispo-
sal  only during   construction,  and would  then  be  closed.
After  that,  these wastes would be  trucked  to a large, per-
manent,  fenced  disposal  site  in  the vicinity  of  the  mine.
Solid  wastes would  not  be  put  into  the  mine  pit  itself.
Organic  wastes  would  be deposited  in  separate  fenced  and
enclosed dumpsters within the service area and hauled to the
housing  area organic waste  incinerator.    Hazardous  wastes
would  be handled  completely  separately and would be removed
from the project  area entirely for disposal at an authorized
hazardous waste site.

2.4  TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM

2.4.1  Conveyor

     If either the southern or eastern transportation corri-
dor is  selected,  an  approximatley  17.6  km {11  mi)  single-
span conventional continuous  belt conveyor would transport
coal from  the mine  service  area  to a  port  on  Cook  Inlet
(Pigs.  2-7 and 2-8).  The northern corridor would require an
approximately 22  km  (13.8 mi)  two-span  conveyor (Fig.  2-9).
The southern corridor would  have  six minor stream crossings
(two unnamed tributaries to stream 2003 north  of the Chuitna
River,  Tyonek Creek,  Old  Tyonek Creek,  and two unnamed tri-
butaries to Old Tyonek  Creek)  and  one  major stream crossing
(Chuitna River).   The northern corridor would  also cross  six
small streams including two tributaries to stream 2003, Lone
Creek,  two tributaries to Threemile Creek,  and the Threemile
Creek  mairtstem.     The   eastern  corridor  would  cross  3-4
streams  including two tributaries  to  stream  2003 and Lone
Creek.

     The entire conveyor  structure  would be supported by  a
horizontal steel  pipe typically elevated about  0.6 m  (2  ft)
above  the ground   surface on  pedestal  support  piers  spaced
approximately 6.1  m (20 ft)  apart  (Figs.  2-9 and 2-10).  The
entire  structure  typically would be  2.9 m  (9.6  ft)  tall  and
                            2-14

-------
                                  Mine Conveyor
                   Mine
                 Service
                   Area
           Lease Area
              Overland
              Conveyor
              Cungabuna
                 Lake
Granite Point
  Port Site
  ^ Buried Moose
    Crossing

  A Raised Road
  V Crossing

 1|  Raised Drainage
"t|  Crossing S 2.4m (8ft)

 SS: Gravel Source
    SOUTHERN CORRJDOR CONVEYOR AND HAUL ROAD LOCATIONS
    Diamond Chuitna Environmental Impact Statement
                  FIGURE 2-7
                                2-15

-------
 MINE
SERVICE
 AREA
                                                             Northern
                                                             Conveyor

                                                                              Ladd
                                                                             Port Site
     LEGEND
 G Gravel Sources
   (locations
    estimated)
       EASTERN  AND NORTHERN CONVEYOR AND

            ACCESS/HAUL ROAD LOCATIONS
Diamond Chuitna Environmental
     Impact Statement
                                                                  FIGURE 2-8

-------
     soi T&O w&4 ruae HOOD

      (TOP flUO fMG S/OL- OM-Y
to
I
   SOURCE: Diamond Alaska Coal Company
             TYPICAL CONVEYOR MODULE

                  AND CROSS SECTION
Diamond Chuitna Environmental
     Impact Statement
      FIGURE 2-9

-------
to
I
I--
00
                    fr-sa,TEiy
                    / / we£>fn&*
                    /: I HOOD
             ARTIST'S ILLUSTRATION -

            CONVEYOR SYSTEM DESIGN
Diamond Chuitna Environmental
    Impact Statement
      FIGURE 2-10

-------
 2.2 m  (7.3 ft)  wide.   The  coal-carrying  belt would  be a
 minimum of  1.7  m (5.5  ft)  above  the ground and would be sup-
 ported  by heavy  duty  pipe yokes attached to the horizontal
 steel  pipe  at  2 m  (6.5  ft)  intervals.  The  conveyor belt
 would  be 1.2  ra  (48  in)  wide  and capable of  moving about
 1,633  Mt (1,800 short tons) of coal per hour.   The conveyor
 belt  would  be  enclosed  on  top  and  one  side  with  a
 weatherhood to  protect the coal from moisture and to reduce
 coal dust emissions from  wind.   The  open side would permit
 access  to  the  rollers for maintenance  purposes.   Wherever
 the conveyor crosses  streams,  it would be partially enclosed
 on  the  underside (underpanning)  to prevent coal or dust from
 entering the stream.   If  a  conveyor were  built  across the
 Chuitna  River   (southern  corridor),   it would  be  totally
 enclosed and suspended about  52 m (170  ft)  above the river
 by  cables (Fig,  2-9).

     To permit  moose, bears,  and  people to cross  the con-
 veyor,  at  appropriate  locations  it  would  be buried  for a
 minimum of  61 m (200 ft) in large diameter culverts or arch
 spans   (Fig.  2-10).    At  other  locations,  e.g.,  stream
 crossings,  the  conveyor would be elevated a minimum of 2.4 m
 (8  ft)  above ground level.  There would also be places where
 the conveyor would  be raised  to  permit existing  roads  to
 pass underneath  (Fig.  2-7).  The conveyor would be gradually
 elevated  to a  clearance  of  9.4  m  (30  ft)  at  these  road
 crossings,  taking about 61 m  (200 ft)  on each side  of the
 road to rise to  that height  from  its normal  elevation.   In
 combination  along any corridor, the maximum distance between
 crossings  (underpass  or  overpass) would be  approximately
 2,000 m   (2,187 yd),  with  an   average   center-to-center
 distance  between  crossings of approximately 880 m (962 yd).

     While  the specific locations for the conveyor crossings
 have been identified for the  southern  corridor  (Fig.  2-7),
 data are not available  to permit  such  specificity  for the
 northern  and eastern  corridors.    Such  crossings would  be
 identified,  as   data  become  available,  within the  maximum
 distance  criteria set out above.

     A light duty, minimally improved 3.7 m (12 ft)  service/
 access  road  suitable  for  four-wheel drive vehicles  would  be
 built  immediately adjacent to the  conveyor  for  maintenance
 purposes.    It  would  be  separated  from the  substantially
 improved  access  haul  road  primarily  for  safety reasons (to
 reduce risk of vehicle/conveyor collisions)-.   The  separation
would also provide a greenbelt between the more heavily tra-
veled access/haul  road and the  conveyor  to  increase  ease  of
big  game  movements across  the corridor.   Drainage  and sedi-
ment control measures  for  the  conveyor  would be the  same  as
those described  below  for  the  main access/haul  road.   Brush
within  the  conveyor  right-of-way  would  be   mechanically
controlledj  no herbicides would be used.
                            2-19

-------
 2.4.2   Access/Haul Road

     A  private, all-weather  access/haul  road would be  con-
 structed   that  would   generally   parallel   the   conveyor
 (Figs.  2-7  and  2-8).   The  road would  be gravel  surfaced,
 crowned to  promote drainage,  and  would  have two 10.7 m  (35
 ft)  wide  traffic  lanes   with 3.7  m  (12 ft)  wide gravel
 shoulders on each side (Fig.  2-11).   Grades would  be main-
 tained  at a  maximum of 6 percent.

     Over most of  its  length, the  road  would be  separated
 from the  conveyor  by  approximately 61 m (200 ft).   At river
 crossings or other natural features, the  road would have an
 independent  alignment to maintain grade.

     Drainage  and  sediment control  measures  would  include:
 (1) construction of ditches to divert runoff from undisturbed
 areas around operational  areas;  (2) construction of collec-
 tion ditches;   (3)  installation  of culverts  under  roads to
 collect and  control  runoff from road surfaces, embankments,
 and adjacent areas; (4) surfacing of main  roads and  facility
 areas with  gravel  material;   (5) revegetation of  road cuts,
 embankments  and other disturbed  areas as  soon  as  possible
 after construction; and  (6)  use of specific  localized sedi-
 ment  control  measures  in  sensitive  areas.    In   sensitive
 areas such  as  those adjacent  to  stream  channels,   localized
 sediment  control measures would  include  ditches  with  rock
 filter  dams,  gradient  terraces with  dugout  filter ponds,
 rock drainage-ways, placement  of sediment  filter fabric, and
 use of  straw or vegetative sediment filters.

 2.5  PORT FACILITIES

 2.5.1  Onshore Port Facilities

     The onshore port  facilities at either Ladd  or Granite
 Point would  ultimately be capable of accommodating an annual
 capacity of  10.9 million Mt  (12  million  short tons) of  coal
 (Fig.  2-1).   Either onshore  site would occupy approximately
 121 ha  (300  ac) on the  bluff above  Cook  Inlet.    The  site
would  be connected  to  a supply   barge   staging  area  at
 tidewater about 30  m (100  ft)  below the bluff by a 7.3 m (24
 ft) wide  beach  access  road.    Figure 2-12  is an  artist's
 illustration  of the  port  facilities  if  built  at  Granite
Point.   A facility at  Ladd  would be similar.

     Major facilities  at  the  onshore  site would  include  a
 large  service  building,   coal transfer  station,   sampling
building  (to  sample  coal  heating  value,   moisture,  ash  and
 sulphur  content), main electrical and control  building,  fire
and ambulance building,  electrical  substation, water storage
and treatment plant,  sewage treatment plant, diesel fuel  and
gasoline storage and distribution area, and a heliport.   The
 site would be  fenced  to minimize  human/wildlife  encounters.
No  one  would  be  housed  at   the  port site  during  project
operations.
                            2-20

-------
            1 t/2l_
  GEOTECHNICAL  1
  FABRIC -
  IF NECESSARY
                                        EXISTING
                                         GRADE
     24" CLASSIFIED
           FILL
                         CUT SECTION
  GEOTECHNICAL
  FABRIC -
  IF NECESSARY
                                            24"CLASSIFIED FILL
                                         	g.X'STING GRADE
           REMOVE ORGANIC MATERIAL
 COMPACTED SELECT
    MATERIAL
                        FILL SECTION
                                             ROAD SURFACE
  ORIGINAL GROUND
                   STEEL PLATE GIRDER   .,'Q.
                                   MIN
                        	I .,
        CHUITNA RIVER CHANNEL


SOURCE: DIAMOND ALASKA COAL CO.
U>
I <— WING WALL

*- ABUTMENT
      TYPICAL  HAUL  ROAD AND BRIDGE DESIGN
   Diamond Chuitna Environmental Impact Statement
       FIGURE  2-11
                             2-21

-------

2-22

-------
      Coal  would  enter  the  onshore  port  facility  on  the
 overland conveyor  and  be  transferred to one of the  two 1.8 m
 (72  in) yard conveyors.   It  would  then  be sent directly to
 the  shiploader on  the approach trestle if a  barge or  ship
 were  being loaded.   If  loading were  not  in  progress,  coal
 would be stored in  two large parallel stockpiles on either
 side  of the conveyor (Fig,  2-12).  The amount of coal stored
 at  the port site  would vary  depending upon shipping sched-
 ules,   marine  weather  conditions,  and  downtime  in  mining
 operations.   At full  production, up to  1.1 million Mt  (1,2
 million short  tons) of coal  could  be  stored,  but a minimum
 of  90,720  Mt  (100,000 short  tons)  always would  be stock-
 piled.   A  30  to  45 day  turnover of coal  in  the stockpiles
 would  be anticipated.  Tests  on  the  spontaneous combustion
 potential  of  the coal  indicated no susceptibility to firing
 while  exposed  to  the  atmosphere.   The coal piles  would be
 unlined and would  sit upon a  gravel fill  pad.   Alignment of
 the  piles  would  be  approximately  north-south  at Granite
 Point   to   minimize  contact   with  the  prevailing  winds.
 Alignment  at Ladd  has not yet been determined.  The maximum
 dimensions of  these stockpiles would  be approximately 945 m
 (3,100  ft)  by  61 m  (200  ft)  by 15 m  (50  ft)  high.  During
 barge-  or  shiploading,  coal would be taken from these stock-
 piles and  placed on  the conveyors to the approach trestle.

      Coal  would  be  transferred  from  the  conveyor  to  the
 stockpiles, or taken from the stockpiles and placed onto the
 conveyor,  by  two  large railmounted  stacker-reclaimer units
 which  would move   parallel  to  the conveyor   (Fig.  2-11).
 These machines would have a bucketwheel  at the end of their
 booms which would be able to break through a frozen crust of
 coal  up to  0.6 m  (2  ft)  thick when  reclaiming  coal  for
 shiploading.

     A  packaged  commercial sewage treatment plant  would be
 used  to treat  all  sewage  generated at the port  facility.
 Following  treatment  to  meet applicable standards, the efflu-
 ent would  be carried by pipeline  along the elevated trestle
 and  discharged into Cook  Inlet  at Granite  Point  or  dis-
 charged  into an onsite  leach field at Ladd.

     Nonorganic  solid wastes would  be deposited  in  fenced
 and enclosed dumpsters located throughout  the  port facility
 and collected  on  a  regular basis.   Initially,  these wastes
 would be hauled to a temporary fenced landfill  near the mine
 site which would be  closed following completion of construc-
 tion.  For the first five to ten years  of project operation,
 these wastes would be  buried in a fenced  landfill  near  the
 port  facility.   After  that,  the  wastes would be  hauled to
 the large  permanent landfill  in  the  vicinity  of  the mine.
 Solid wastes  would  not  be put  into  the  mine pit  itself.
 Organic  wastes  would  be  deposited in  separate fenced  and
 enclosed dumpsters  within the  port  facility  and hauled to
 the  housing  area  organic waste  incinerator.    Hazardous
wastes would be  handled completely separately  and  would be
                            2-23

-------
removed  from the project  area  entirely for  disposal  at an
authorized hazardous waste site.

     Drainage  and  sediment control would be accomplished by
drainage ditches which would collect all surface runoff from
the disturbed  area of the port site and divert it into sedi-
ment  ponds.    This  would  include storm  runoff and  water
sprayed  on  coal  stockpiles  for  dust  control.    Treatment
methods  would  vary depending upon  the  water  quality of the
runoff.   Following  treatment,  the water would be carried by
pipeline on  the approach trestle for discharge directly into
Cook  Inlet.    All  discharges would meet state  and federal
water  quality  standards  (see  the  draft  NPDES  permit  -
Appendix D).   The  drainage and  treatment  system  would  be
designed  to  accommodate  volumes  from  the  10-year,  24-hour
precipitation  event.   Likewise, all  culverts and diversion
ditches  would  be designed  to  contain the peak  flow from a
10-year, 24-hour event.

2.5.2  Offshore Port Facilities

     If  full  production  is  anticipated,  a  port could  be
developed at either Granite  Point  or  Ladd.   At either loca-
tion, a  trestle could be  built  to  the deep  water needed for
accommodation  of large coal  ships.  For less  than full pro-
duction,  coal  would  be   loaded   onto  ocean-going  barges.
Barges  can  operate  in  shallower  waters  than can  the coal
ships.    Appropriate  depths  can  be  reached  substantially
closer to shore at Ladd than at Granite Point? therefore,  if
bargeloading only is  required,  a  port would  be developed at
Ladd.

     Offshore facilities for either port location would con-
sist of  an approach  trestle  with  ship breasting  and mooring
dolphins  (Fig. 2-12).   The trestle length at  Granite  Point
would  be either 2,277 m  (7,470 ft) or  3,810  ra  (12,500 ft)
depending on the size of the ships which would be used.

     Approximately 287 m (940 ft)  of either  trestle would be
upland of the  mean high tide line, thus reducing the length
of the trestle extending  into the  inlet.  The trestle would
be 7.9 m (26 ft)  wide,  9.1 m (30  ft)  high  and supported by
single piles  up  to 3.7 m (12 ft)  in  diameter.   The  piles
would be approximately 122 m (400  ft)  apart  and  the trestle
would  be a minimum  of  6.1 m  (20  ft) vertically above  the
water at mean higher high  water  (MHHW).   The structure would
be designed  to withstand  the greater  than   9.1  m   (30  ft)
tides, 3.6 m/s (7 knot)  currents and 1.1 in (42 in)  thick ice
floes  of upper Cook  Inlet.   One  of  the mooring  dolphins
would support a helipad.

     At  Granite  Point,   smaller   "Panamax   class"   vessels
(54,432 to 72,576 Mt  [60,000 to 80,000  dwt])  with drafts  of
11.9 m  (39 ft)  capable of passing  through the Panama  Canal
could be loaded at the shorter trestle with  a  berthing  depth
                            2-24

-------
 of1 14 m  (45 ft)  at  mean lower  low water  (MLLW).   Larger
 vessels  up  to  108,864 Mt  (120,000  dwt)  would  require the
 longer  trestle  with  a berthing  depth  of between  15.2 and
 18.2  m  (50  and  60  ft).

      At  Ladd,  to  accommodate lower  production  levels, the
 9,072  to  13,609  Mt  (10,000  to  15,000  dwt) barges   would
 require  a  trestle of approximately 168 m  {550 ft) in length
 to  reach a  berthing  depth  of  1.2 m (4 ft)  at  MLLW.   This
 would require tidally controlled berthing  where barges  would
 be  moved into the dock,  loaded and  then  moved away to take
 advantage  of water depths at higher tide levels.   At full
 production,  the   trestle would  be  approximately  3,505 m
 (11,500  ft)  long to  load  large ships at a berthing depth up
 to  18.2  m  (60  ft).  The trestle specifications would be the
 same as described  above for  Granite Point.

     Coal  would be transported from the  onshore port  to a
 linear  shiploader  facility  at  the  end of  the  approach
 trestle  on two  covered  conveyors each  1.8  m (72  in)  wide
 (Fig. 2-13).   At full production, the shiploader would have
 an  effective loading  rate  of 3,629  to 4,536 Mt  (4,000  to
 5,000 short tons)  per hour.   It would have a boom capable of
 swinging to  reach  all compartments  of a coal barge or  ship,
 with  the spout being  lowered into the hold  to  reduce dust
 generation.  The trestle  conveyors  would be  paralleled by a
 1.5 m (5 ft) wide walkway  that would  be  used to transport
 operating  and  maintenance   personnel  and equipment.  Coal
 could  be  loaded  24   hours   per  day  throughout  the   year,
 affected only by weather  and  ice conditions in Cook Inlet.

     The trestle would not  be used  for  receiving  supplies
 for the  project.   Freight,  bulk materials, small quantities
 of* certain  fuels and other  supplies  would be  brought  in  by
 barge, unloaded  at the  barge staging  area on the beach, and
 trucked up  the  beach  access  road  (Fig.  2-12)  to  the onshore
 port  facility,  housing site  or the  mine  area as  required.
 Major quantities of diesel fuel and gasoline  would arrive by
 tanker  and  be  pumped through a  pipeline supported by the
 elevated trestle  to  the onshore port facility.   Fuel  would
 be  stored  in tanks  at the  onshore  port  site  (which  would
 hold a four-month  supply) and be  trucked by  tractor/trailer
 units to the housing site  or  mine  area  as  required  (see
 Sect.   2.10.3).     When  ice   conditions  prohibited  use  of
 barges,  food and miscellaneous supplies would be transported
 to the project area by aircraft.

 2.6  HOUSING AND AIRPORT FACILITIES

 2.6.1  Housing

     The workforce would be  housed  in   permanent  single-
status housing  and community facilities on an 8  ha  (20 ac)
site.   The  entire housing area would be  fenced  to  minimize
human/animal  contacts.    Full  production  facilities  would
                            2-25

-------
                                     2"*
I
Ni
ON
                                     6'Q - 12'0

                                     PILE
                  FRONT VIEW
RIGHT VIEW
    SOURCE: Diamond Alaska Coal Company
                TRESTLE  AND PIER DESIGN
 Diamond Chultna Environmental
      Impact Statement
                                                                 FIGURE 2-13

-------
 consist  of four buildings with  102  units and two buildings
 with  66  units  connected  by  all-weather  corridors.   Other
 facilities  would   include   a   dining   hall/administration
 building,  recreation  center,  laundry, medical  facilities,
 security   and   fire  services,  and  a  maintenance  building
 (Pig,  2-14).    The  facilities  would  be  operated   on  the
 "motel" concept with employees checking into available rooms
 for their  four-day  stay  at the project site.  There would be
 no  town  at  the  housing  site.    The  facilities  would  be
 designed  for  the actual  number  of employees on  site (424)
 with  a  27 percent  contingency for weather  conditions for a
 total  of   540 beds.   No employee-owned firearms  or  alcohol
 would be allowed at  the  housing facilities.

     Water would  be obtained from a  series  of  ground-water
 wells  with a  storage  capacity  of approximately  302,800  1
 (80,000  gal)  at  the  site.    A  packaged  commercial  sewage
 treatment  plant with a  capacity of  approximately  189,270 1
 (50,000  gal)   per   day  would  handle  sanitary  and  other
 drainage  from the  housing complex.   Treatment would  be at
 primary and  secondary  levels.   Effluent  from the Lone Creek
 housing area  would  be carried in  a  pipeline and discharged
 into  the  Chuitna  River  directly south of the housing site.
 Effluent discharge  from  the Threemile and Congahbuna housing
 sites has  not been designed but would conform  to  state and
 federal  regulations.   The  sludge  effluent  generated  from
 treatment  plants  at any  housing  site would be hauled to the
 mine pit for burial.

     Disposal  of all  wastes  would  be  in  approved  sites.
 Nonorganic solid  wastes  would be deposited in fenced  and
 enclosed  dumpsters  located throughout the  housing  area and
 collected  on a  regular basis.  Initially,  these wastes would
 be hauled  to  a  temporary fenced  landfill  near the mine site
 which would be  closed  following  completion of construction.
 For the first  five  to  ten years  of project operation, these
 wastes would be buried in a fenced landfill near the housing
 area.   After  that,  the wastes would be hauled  to  the large
 permanent  landfill   in  the  vicinity of  the mine.    Solid
 wastes would  not  be put into the mine pit  itself.   Organic
 wastes would  be deposited  in separate fenced  and  enclosed
 dumpsters  within  the  housing  area and burned  in a  nearby
 incinerator.   Hazardous  wastes would be  handled  completely
 separately  and  would  be  removed  from  the  project  area
 entirely for disposal at an authorized hazardous waste site.

     Drainage and  sediment control  would be  handled by  a
 ditch collecting  system which would surround the  facility
 and  collect  surface  runoff  and  carry it  to two  sediment
 ponds  for  treatment  and release  to  existing  drainages.
 Treatment  methods would  be the same  as for  the  mine  service
area and  port  site  facilities, and water  quality  standards
would be met before discharge.
                            2-27

-------

     ARTIST'S ILLUSTRATION -
HOUSING AND AIRSTRIP FACILITIES
Diamond Chuitna Environmental
     Impact Statement
     FIGURE 2-14

-------
 2.6.2   Airstrip

     A private gravel landing strip would  be located close
 to  the housing facility (Fig. 2-2).   The main runway, 1,524
 ra (5,000 ft)  long and 30 m (100  ft)  wide, would be oriented
 in  a north-south direction with a smaller  914 m (3,000 ft)
 east-west  runway.    The  airstrip  would  have  navigation
 lights,   but  would  not  be capable  of  handling  instrument
 approaches  in bad weather.  A small  terminal building and a
 maintenance building would be located  at the  site.   Water
 requirements  would be small and water would be hauled to the
 terminal building by truck.   Chemical  toilets would be used
 with sewage being hauled and dumped into the housing facili-
 ties'  treatment  plant.   Gray water  from the terminal would
 be  treated  to meet water quality standards and then released
 into the airstrip's drainage system which would discharge to
 existing drainages.    There  would  be  no  sediment  ponds.
 Solid  wastes  would be kept in an  enclosed,  fenced dumpster
 which would be regularly emptied and disposed of in the same
 manner as that for the housing area.

 2.7  POWER  GENERATION

     Estimated average-load electrical power demands for the
 project  at  full operation would be approximately 35 Mw, with
 a maximum demand of  50  Mw.   Power would be  purchased from
 the existing  Chugach  Electric Association natural gas power
 station  at  Beluga (Fig.  2-1)  and transported to the project
 site by  a 69  kv  line on  wooden poles.   If the Granite Point
 port  site  were   selected,  the  powerline  would  follow  the
 existing powerline right-of-way running from the power plant
 to  the  oil  tank  farm about 2.4 km  (1.5  mi)  west of the pro-
 posed  Granite Point  port  site  (Fig.  2-15.    This  existing
 right-of-way  would not  have  to be  widened and would connect
 with a  wooden pole transmission  line within the transporta-
 tion corridor  between the port site and the mine.

     If   the  Ladd port  site  were  selected,   the  powerline
 would  follow  the  existing  right-of-way  until it intersected
 the transportation corridor where  it would  split to provide
 power to  both  the port site and the mine.

 2.8  RECLAMATION  PLAN

     The  discussion  below summarizes  the major  aspects  of
 the proposed  reclamation plan.   References  are given  to the
 location  of more  detailed  information  in the  state surface
mine permit application (Diamond  Alaska Coal Company 1985).

 2.8.1  Mine Pit

     The  reclamation plan  for  the  mine area  would  have
short-term  as  well as long-term  goals.   The  short-term goal
would be  the  immediate  stabilization of the  disturbed  site
through control of erosion  and sedimentation.   The long-term
                            2-29

-------
 goals would be  to:  1)  establish  wildlife  habitat  that  would
 be at least as  useful  and  productive  as  the  premining  envi-
 ronment; and 2)  create an aesthetically acceptable site that
 blends with the  surrounding  terrain and vegetation.   These
 goals would be met using the  methods described below.

      During the initial  10 years of operation,  a  total area
 of  approximately   583   ha   (1,440   ac)  would   be  mined.
 Reclamation of disturbed sites  would begin  during  the second
 year  of mining  (year  five  of the permit) and  would  follow,
 but  not  interrupt,  mining  annually  until   all   acreage
 disturbed  by mining and  associated  activities  is  reclaimed.
 No disturbed acreage would  be unclaimed.

      During the  first  year  of reclamation,  1  ha (3 ac)  would
 be reclaimed.    During  the  next five years,  51  ha (125 ac),
 56 ha (139 ac),  143 ha   (354  ac), 61 ha  (151 ac)  and  75  ha
 (186  ac)  would  be  reclaimed, respectively,  for a total  of
 387 ha (958 ac)  reclaimed after  six  years  of mining.   More
 detailed information may be found in Vol. XVI,  Sec. 4.08,  of
 the permit  application.

      2.8.1.1   Backfilling and Grading

      After  the  initial  box  cuts have opened  the pits for
 mining  operations,  the  overburden and interburden material
 from  the active  mine areas  would be backfilled  by draglines
 and truck   and  shovel  operations into the mined  out  areas
 (Fig.  2-3).  Grading and  stabilization then would  be done  by
 bulldozers  and graders.   The final  topography would  match
 the premining  contours  as closely as possible and  would not
 exceed  original  slope  grades.  'Slopes  would  be designed  to
 minimize erosion and maintain adequate  water retention for
 vegetative  growth.   Gradient  terraces  would  be used   to
 control  sheet runoff.

      Postmining  surface  drainage channels would be  located
 to  minimize  erosion  and slumping. ^Major reconstructed  sur-
 face  drainage  channels  would  be lined with riprap* material
 as  necessary to limit bank erosion and scour.   The  drainages
 would  be reconstructed with  gradients,  meanders,  and habi-
 tats  similar to  premining drainages to  provide habitat for
 anadromous fish species.

     No  exposed  coal seams would be left on  the  reclaimed
 surfaces.  A minimum of 1.2 m (4 ft)  of nontoxic and noncom-
 bustible spoil material  would be used  to cover any  exposed
 seams  that  remained  after mining.  Any  soil  which does not
meet  the applicant's standards for  revegetation also would
 be  covered  with  a minimum of 1.2 m  (4 ft)  of  nontoxic and
noncombustible  spoil material.   No  known  acid-forming  or
toxin-forming spoil  materials  are present  at  the  mine  site
and,  therefore,  no  special   handling  techniques  for these
types  of materials are  anticipated.
                            2-30

-------
      2.8.1.2   Topsoil Handling Plan

      Suitable  topsoil material would be recovered from areas
 to  be  affected  by mining  and  related operations  prior to
 disturbance.   The recovered topsoil would  be either stock-
 piled for  later  use or redistributed directly on backfilled
 and graded  areas.  When possible, the topsoil would be imme-
 diately redistributed in preference to stockpiling.  Topsoil
 removal, stockpiling,  and  replacement  would be scheduled to
 coincide with  the  overall mining sequence.

      Stockpiles would be designed to minimize wind and water
 erosion,  and  topsoil  would not  be disturbed  or  rehandled
 after stabilization unless  the soil were to be redistributed
 on a  graded surface.   Unnecessary compaction and contamina-
 tion  of stockpiles  would   be eliminated  and they  would be
 protected from waste  disposal,  construction, and other such
 disturbances to maintain integrity.  All stockpiles would be
 located within the mining  limit and would be as  small as
 possible.

      Planting  specifications to  control stockpile  erosion
 would  differ  depending  on  the  life  of  the  stockpile.
 Stockpiles  remaining  in  place less than  30 days  during the
 growing season would not be revegetated but would be left in
 roughened condition to retard erosion.   Stockpiles remaining
 in place longer  than  30  days during the growing season, but
 less  than one  calendar year,  would  be  seeded with an annual
 seed  mixture.    Stockpiles to  remain  in   place  over  one
 growing  season  and  into  or  through  additional  growing
 seasons  would  be seeded  with a  permanent grass mixture and
 mulched.

      Topsoil would be  redistributed in  a  manner and at such
 time  that:   (1) achieves an  average soil thickness of 15.2 cm
 (6 in)  consistent with the  revegetation goals, contours, and
 surface drainage systems; (2) minimizes compaction, contami-
 nation,  and erosion?  (33  conserves soil moisture  and pro-
 motes  revegetation?  and  (4) minimizes deterioration  of the
 biological, chemical, and physical properties of the soil.

      Following replacement  and final grading of topsoil, but
 before  seeding,  a  sampling  plan  would  be  implemented  to
 evaluate the preparation of backfill and  seedbed  materials.
 This  plan would  include analysis of samples by a  designated
 analytical  laboratory.

      Peat would be salvaged in  advance  of mining  operations
 for  recreating  peat-filled wetland  habitats  on  regraded
 soils.  To the extent possible,  stockpiling  of peat would be
 avoided and no long-term  (greater  than 30  days)  stockpiles
would  be  established.    Temporary  peat  stockpiles  would
remain  isolated  from topsoil  stockpiles  and  would not  be
 sited  in drainage  ways.   More  detailed information may  be
 found on Vol.  XVI,  Sec.  4.10, of the permit  application.
                            2-31

-------
      2.8.1.3  Revegetation

      To  determine  which  plant species  would  be used  for
 revegetation,  certain criteria were established:

        0  Native species would be  used wherever possible.

        0  Seed  mixtures  and  planting rates  would  reflect
           consideration  of  the  relationship  between  her-
           baceous species and  woody species  in terms  of com-
           petition    for   soil  moisture,   nutrients,   and
           sunlight.    For example,  heavy seeding rates  of
           vigorous,  introduced grass species were  considered
           inadvisable  because  of   undesirable competition
           with wood  species.

        0  Wildlife  value would  be  a prime consideration  in
           the  selection of plant species and  development  of
           .seeding and planting rates.

      With the  above  goals in mind,  preliminary seed mixtures
 and  stocking  selections  were  developed  based  on   species
 characteristics,  potential success,  commercial availability,
 and availability of  seed or  cuttings  stock on or near  the
 permit  area.

      As   soon  as  practicable  after  a  disturbed area   is
 returned to the proper  contour  and grade,  topsoil would  be
 spread  and the site  would be stabilized.   Erosion and  sedi-
 mentation would  be  minimized  by  construction  of sediment
 control  and retention  structures,   proper  seedbed prepara-
 tion,  fertilization, and planting   of  rapidly  establishing
 species.   The "longer-term goals of establishing  productive
 wildlife habitat would  be accomplished  through  additional
 planting  of  seedlings and cuttings of woody species.

      Sediment  ponds  and  associated  diversion  ditches would
 be • removed at  the  completion  of  mining  when" the' upstream
 drainage  areas  are  stabilized,  revegetation  standards met,
 and  acceptable  water  quality  attained.  Prior  to  regrading,
 ponds would be  dewatered and  the  sediment  material  tested
 for  toxicity.    If  unsuitable  for  use in the revegetation
 program,  the material  would be removed and  buried  under 1.2
 m  (4 ft) of nontoxic  fill.   Sediments should  be  stable in
 the  landfill.    No additional  undue  leaching  should  occur.
 Remaining  ponds  and  associated drainage ditches would then
 be  backfilled,  graded,  and   revegetated.     More  detailed
 information may  be found  in Vol. XVI,  Sec.  4.11 of the per-
 mit application.

 2.8.2  OverburdenStockpile

     The  size, shape, and slope of  the overburden  stockpile
would be  such  that  stability  would  be  assured once  vegeta-
 tion  had been  established.   Though  the  topography   of  the

-------
 stockpile would differ from the surface of the mined areas,
 slope angles  would permit  the  use of agricultural equipment.
 Thus,  the techniques  described above for the mine area would
 also  be used on the  stockpile.  Once  a portion of the sur-
 face  is no longer  disturbed  by stockpiling activities, reve-
 getation would be completed during the next planting season
 using  the same procedures  described in  Section  2.8.1.3.

 2.8.3   Mine ServiceArea

      All steel and fabricated buildings would  be dismantled
 and  removed  for  salvage.    Structures  and equipment  of  no
 salvage value would be buried  in the  mine  pit.  Other com-
 ponents, including  concrete  footings, slabs, and foundations
 would  be removed at ground level before being buried in the
 pit.   Gravel pad  and  road surfacing materials  and all coal
 debris   would  also  be   disposed  of   in   the  mine  pit.
 Sedimentation ponds and associated drainage ditches would be
 reclaimed as  described for the mine pit area.

      Once cleared, all  excavations  at the  site  would  be
 filled  and the  site graded to  the approved postmining topog-
 raphy.    Areas  exhibiting  compaction  detrimental  to  plant
 establishment would be ripped.  Revegetation would be done
 in the  same manner  as described for the mine pit area.

 2.8.4   Transportation Corridor

     Any transportation  facilities which  could  not be bene-
 ficially used  for  other purposes would  be  dismantled  and
 salvaged.   Any facilities  not  salvaged  would  be  removed,
 foundation structures broken  up,  and   the  resulting  rubble
 buried  in  an approved landfill.   Disturbance  to  the  land
 under  the conveyor would  be  limited  to  a denuding  of  the
 ground  surface  where poles  and conveyor  braces  had  been
 located.   These disturbed areas would  be  revegetated where
 more  than 50  percent  of the predisturbance vegetative cover
 is eliminated.

     If  the main haul  road  were not left  intact  for other
 users,  road surfacing and culvert materials would be removed
 and buried in an approved landfill.   The road  bed  would  be
 ripped  to relieve  compaction  and the  roadbed  and embank-
 ments  would  be  graded  to  blend  with   adjacent undisturbed
 terrain.    Temporary  drainage  features would  be   built  to
 control  runoff  and erosion  until  revegetation  of  regraded
areas occurs.

 2.8.5  Port Site

     Structures which would  serve a useful  purpose  for  con-
tinued activities would be left in  place.   The trestle might
serve  future  coal  mining  or  other   mineral   or   natural
resource development operations in the  region.   The facili-
ties might also provide a source of  revenue  for  other  future.
                            2-33

-------
 businesses.  In any event, all facilities  which would  not  be
 retained for  other beneficial  uses  would be  appropriately
 reclaimed and  the disturbed  areas  revegetated in the  same
 manner as described above  for  the mine  service area facili-
 ties.   Instead of using the mine pit, any burial  would  take
 place  in approved landfills.

 2.8.6   Housing Area and Airstrip

     All improvements  would  be dismantled  and removed for
 salvage value.   Foundations,  roads, gravel pads, etc., would
 be  appropriately  reclaimed and the  disturbed  area revege-
 tated  as described above  for  the  mine service area facili-
 ties.    If  the  State  did  not  want   the airstrip  to  remain
 usable,  it  would  be reclaimed  and revegetated also.

 2.9  FISH MITIGATION PLAN

     The applicant has proposed several mitigation measures
 for  the protection of fish resources during development and
 operation of the  mine itself.  These include construction
 and  operational   procedures,   monitoring   studies,  and  a
 restoration  plan.   Table  2-1  outlines  the  major proposed
 fish mitigation measures and associated monitoring programs.
 More  detailed  information may  be  found  in Vol.  XV, Sec.
 4.07.1  of the permit application.

 2.10   CONSTRUCTION

 2.10.1   Schedule and Sequence

     Once project  construction  is   begun,   it would  take
 approximately  three years  to  complete.    Most  construction
 would  take"  place  each  year during  the  May  through October
 period.

     2.10.1.1  First Year

     The  first  step  would  be establishment  of  a  barge
 staging  area  at the base  of  the bluff below the  port site
 (Fig. 2-12)  and  construction  of a road up the  bluff  to the
 onshore  port  facilities site.    The onshore  port site  would
 serve  as the  main construction  camp  and would  have housing
and  dining   facilities,  construction  offices,  fuel  tanks,
 sewage  treatment  plant,  and  temporary  equipment  service,
 repair and  warehousing  facilities.   Vegetation  clearing and
grubbing  would begin at the port site in preparation for the
major civil work to be completed in  the second year.

     Because of  its importance  in  development  of  the pro-
 ject, construction  of  the  mine access/haul road would  begin
as soon  as  the initial  facilities  were established at  the
port site.  Regardless  of  which port  site  were  chosen, road
construction equipment would be landed at  the existing Ladd
                            2-34

-------
                                                                     TftBIJB 2-1
                         MUOR PROPOSED FISH MITIGATION MEASURES AND mNITORINS PBOQ»«S DURING FIRCT TEN YEARS OF PROJECT
                     IMPSCT
                                                                    MTriGKFICW
                                                                                                                   KWHORING
         1)
Increased sedimentation
due to mining
         2)
Habitat loss due to mining
in streams
NJ
 1
OJ
         4)
              Habitat loss due to altered
              flows in streams
 Increased sedimentation
 and habitat alteration
 due bo conveyor  system
 and road crossing water-
 shed  2003
A  -  Construct settling ponds designed to
      catch mine dewatering until sediment
      settles out.

B  -  Wienever possible, minimize use of
      construction and mining in streams
      other than those designated for
      mining.

C  —  Prior to the construction of settling
      ponds, no mining in streams would occur
      during spawning periods of salmon species
      potentially using the mainstan section of
      watershed 2003.

ft  -  Rebuild sections of tributaries 200304
      and 200305 to approximate premining
      conditions as much as possible.
                                      B  -  Revegetate mined areas to minimize
                                            increased  erosion  rates and  loss of
                                            overhanging vegetation in vicinity
                                            of  streams.

                                      ft  -  Return water  form  sediment ponds into
                                            lower sections of  tributary  200305 and
                                            200304 and mainstem portions of water-
                                            sheds 2003 and 2002.
                                                    A  -  Staging areas for stream crossings
                                                          would be located outside of  riparian
                                                          zone to minimize amount of sediment
                                                          entering stream and reduce disturbance
                                                          to riparian vegetation and aquatic
                                                          habitats.

                                                    B  -  h maximum HOW of JO m {100 ft)  would
                                                          be used at the stream crossing  to reduce
                                                          di sturbance.
                                                                                                            NPDES permit compliance.
                                                                                                             Brwiroiinental coordinator would
                                                                                                             periodically check construction
                                                                                                             and mining areas  for  compliance.
                                                                                                             Environmental coordinator would
                                                                                                             monitor  construction activities
                                                                                                             to ensure compliance.
Conduct fish habitat characteriza-
tion studies once after restoration
in order to determine value of
streams in terms of potential fish
use.

Environmental coordinator would
monitor revegetation efforts to
determine program effectiveness.
                                                         Conduct an  instream flow survey
                                                         at  stream location(s) exhibiting
                                                         potential significant losses of
                                                         salmon habitat.  Survey would be
                                                         conducted once after mined stream
                                                         segments  were restored.

                                                         Bivirontnental coordinator would
                                                         inspect stream crossing activity
                                                         for compliance.
                                                                                               environmental coordinator would
                                                                                               inspect design plans and construc-
                                                                                               tion activities.

-------
PBOPQSH) FISH
                                                                      TABLE 2-1
                                                         (ASSURES AND nwnoRiNGi PROGRAMS OURINS FIRST TEN YEARS OF PROJSCT
                                                                     (ccntinued)
                                                                     MITIGATION
                                                                                                                   MWITQRING
K)
 I
U)
           S)   Alter water quality
               due to mine dewatering
               and relase of water
               from settling ponds.

           6)   Fuel or lubricant spills
                                                    C  -  Construction methods would employ  latest
                                                          state-of-the-rart techniques.   (Examples
                                                          of bank and stream bottom protection
                                                          measures would include riprapping,
                                                          upland storage of excavated riverbed
                                                          materials, importing clean backfill,
                                                          backfilling with previously excavated
                                                          riverbed materials, and revegetation.
                                                    D  -  Poad crossing would be constructed and
                                                          maintained to prevent obstructions to
                                                          movements of adult and juvenile salmon.
                    S   - Construction activities would be scheduled
                          to avoid spawning periods of salmon if
                          possible.

                    A   - WDffi permit compliance.
                     A  -  Fueling and  lubrication of equipment would
                           not occur within approximately 201 a {660 ft)
                           of streams.   Equipment would be properly
                           maintained and checked for leaks periodically.
                           Spills would be reported immediately to the
                           environmental coordinator.
Environmental coordinator would
review proposed construction methods
and make suggestions on bank and
stream bottom protection measures at
each crossing.  After construction,
the coordinator would inspect con-
dition of stream bank and bottcm
substrate and other fish habitat
characteristics at an inmediately
downstream of the proposed crossing.

Bwironmental coordinator would
inspect construction activities and
irake observations during different
flow regimes.

Environmental coordinator would
review construction timing plans and
inspect construction activities.

WOES permit exupliance.
Environmental  coordinator would
approve  fueling locations and routi-
nely check  for compliance.  Affected
streams  would  be inmediately sur-
veyed  for fish kills  following a
spill.

-------
beach  barge  site and transported over the existing Ladd road
to  the mine area  so  road construction could  be simultane-
ously  carried  out from  both  ends.   Completion  of  the road
would  take about 18 months.

     Clearing,  grubbing,  site grading, and  electrical dis-
tribution networking would be completed at the housing faci-
lities  site,  and  the  dining hall,  recreation  center  and
about  one-fourth of  the housing  units  would be constructed.
The airstrip would also be constructed and made operational.

     2.10.1.2  Second Year

     The major civil and building construction work would be
completed  at  the  onshore  port  site.    Pilings  for  the
offshore elevated  trestle  would  be driven and the conveyors
at  the onshore port site  would  be built.   The  mine  access
haul road  would be completed and  additional housing  units,
the  boiler  plant  and  communication  facilities  would  be
constructed at the housing area.

     At the mine service area, most civil work would be done
and  the  electrical  system   completed.    Limited  building
construction would be  initiated.   Construction of the water
control  and  treatment  facilities  for  the  whole mine  area
would also begin.

     2.10.1.3  Third Year

     The offshore  trestle  would  be  assembled on the pilings
and the  shiploader erected.   The stacker-reclaimer  would be
erected  at  the onshore port  site  and  the remainder  of  the
housing units would be completed.
                                          t

     At the mine service area, facilities construction would
be completed.  Clearing and grubbing would begin at  the mine
site with initial  stripping  of overburden beginning late in
the third year or early in the fourth.

2.10.2  Construction Employment

     The estimated number  of  workers to  be  employed  during
construction is shown  in  Figure  2-15.  Construction employ-
ment would  gradually  increase to  approximately 430  at  the
end of the first year,  then rise quickly  to  a  peak  of about
1,300 workers  in  October and November of the  second year.
Employment would then decrease quickly to approximately  750
between March and July of the third year.  By the end  of  the
third year,  construction employment would drop to well below
100 when production would begin.
                            2-37

-------
ro
I
u>
CO
a
Hi
>
O
_i
CL
2
in
CL
LJJ
m
5
                   FIRST YEAR

              JlFlMlAlMlJlJlAlSlOlNlD
                                           JiFlMlAlMlJlJiA SONID
jlFMAMTJ J AISON D
   NUMBER OF WORKERS EMPLOYED, BY MONTH,
          DURING PROJECT CONSTRUCTION
                                                 Diamond Chuitna Environmental
                                                      Impact Statement
                                                             FIGURE 2-15

-------
 2.10.3  Construction  Methods

      2.10,3.1   Facilities  Sites

      Construction  methods  for  the  three  major  facilities
 sites (the  mine  service  area, onshore  port site,  and the
 housing  area  and airstrip)  would  be  similar.    Prior  to
 actual construction,  access roads to each facility would be
 installed.   In  general,  fabrication of most facilities would
 be  completed at  factory  locations  with  the modules being
 shipped  by  barge to the port for offloading, transportation
 to  the site, assembling, and erection.

      Site  work would  begin at each  facility with clearing
 and grubbing of all trees  and brush.  This material would be
 put  into windrows  for  burning,  if  conditions  allowed,  or
 buried under an adequate  depth of spoil  in  the mine pit if
 burning  were   not  possible.    Areas  with  peat  or  muskeg
 deposits would  be drained by ditches to facilitate removal.
 The  peat would be  hauled  to  a  nearby disposal  site which
 would be   revegetated  after  it   had served   its  purpose.
 Diversion  ditches and  sediment  ponds would  be constructed
 around the  perimeter  of the facilities  to control and treat
 water  runoff.  Ditch  sizes and sedimentation control methods
 would be similar to those  described below for the haul road.
 After  the   facility sites  were "final" graded,  the modules
 would  be trucked to the  sites and actual construction of the
 buildings and other facilities would begin.

      All subgrade and final grade gravel material, including
 that  used   for  construction of  the conveyor and  haul road,
 would  come  from  the  areas shown  in Figure  2-16,  if  the
 southern corridor  is  utilized.   Probable  gravel sites along
 the northern  corridor are  Indicated  in Figure  2-8.   Gravel
 sites  for   use  along  the  eastern  corridor  have  not  been
 investigated.    Approximately  3.82  million  m3  (5  million
 yd3) of  borrow* material would be used for all project faci-
 lities.   Of this  total,  approximately 458,760 nH  (600,000
 yd3)  would  be  gravel  and  3,058 m3  (4,000 yd)  would  be
 riprap or  armor rock.   The remainder would  be  any suitable
 fill material.

     The material  sources would  be accessed  by  two-lane
 gravel roads  suitable for  heavy  equipment.   They  would  be
 located  to  maximize  use  of  the   existing  logging and  oil
 exploration road systems  in the project area.   Prior  to any
 activity at the material sites,  small diversion  ditches, and
 berms  would be constructed around  the  perimeter to  divert
 surface  runoff  away  from  the area.   Vegetation  within  the
material pit boundaries  would be  cleared  and  disposed of  in
 the same manner as  described above for the  facility  sites.
All surface material would then be removed and stockpiled  in
a  suitable  nearby  location.    Erosion  control  measures,
including temporary seeding, would be used as  appropriate  to
stabilize the stockpiles.
                            2-39

-------
                                        Felt Lake
                                             Denslow Lake
                     MINE
                   SERVICE
                     AREA
                   Congahbuna
                      Lake
     Existing

—— Haul Road

     Material Access Road

S$E£fj$ Gravel Source

V
     Tyonek Native Corp. Area
PORT
SITE
SOURCE:
Diamond Alaska Coal Company,
            Granite Point
       GRAVEL SOURCE LOCATIONS, SOUTHERN CORRIDOR
   Diamond Chuitna Environmental Impact Statement
                     FIGURE 2-16
                                2-40

-------
      In wet areas,  sumps  would  be  constructed  at  a  low point
 on  the  pit  bottom  to  collect   water.    Some  small-scale
 blasting may be required to establish these drainage sumps.
 Small submersible pumps  would  be used  to  remove the water
 for   discharge  to  the surface  drainage system.    Sediment
 fences, fabric filters,  and straw bale  dikes would be used
 as needed to remove  sediment  from the pumped water as well
 as to control  sediment in and around  the pit.

      A tracked-dozer  would  be used  to  rip  material  and a
 front-end loader would feed it  into  a crusher hopper.   The
 crushed material would be screened and stockpiled by size  in
 the  pit area prior to being hauled by scrapers or  rear-dump
 trucks to  use  areas.   During  construction  of  the project
 facilities,  the crushing and  screening operation  would  be
 continuous.    Following  construction,  the  operation  would
 occur on an  intermittent  basis.

      When a material  source is  exhausted  or when  operation
 is impractical due  to low  demand or haulage distance,   an
 area  would be reclaimed to a condition compatible with, and
 similar  to,  the surrounding  terrain.   The  pit  would   be
 backsloped either  through placement of the stockpiled over-
 burden material  or through ripping and  dozing to provide a
 stable slope  to  minimize erosion and blend with  surrounding
 terrain.   Suitable surface material  would  be replaced  in a
 uniform  thickness  over  the  disturbed  area  and  erosion
 control  measures would be taken including contour furrowing,
 terracing, and construction.of rock drains.  The  entire area
 would  then be revegetated using a  suitable seed mix  of indi-
 genous and introduced  species.

      No  dredging or  filling  would be necessary  for either
 the  trestle  or  berthing  offshor'e port facilities.   Each
 monopile  would be  driven with  hammers  to  a predetermined
 depth   in  the  inlet  floor  for  support   of  the   approach
 trestle,  shiploader and berthing dolphins.  Structural steel
 trusses  would  then be placed  on  top of  the monopiles  with
 barge-mounted cranes to serve as the platform to  support the
 conveyors  and shiploading equipment.

      2.10.3.2  Conveyor and Access/Haul Road

      Conveyor  construction  would  occur  in  two phases.    In
 the first  phase, clearing and grubbing work would remove all
 vegetation  from  the  approximately 10.7  m  (35  ft) right-of-
 way  for windrowing and burning  under permits from DNR  and
 DEC.   Then, only limited cut  and fill  operations  would  be
 necessary  since generally both the conveyor and its adjacent
 service road would follow the natural terrain.  The rigidity
 of  the conveyor structure  and  the  inherent  design flexi-
 bility  would  allow localized  topographic  features  such  as
 small  drainage  channels  to  be  effectively  bridged.   Upon
completion  of  site preparation  work, the  conveyor support
piers  would  be  placed.   In  phase two,  mobile  cranes would
                            2-41

-------
 lift prefabricated  conveyor framework  sections  into  place
 for attachment to the support piers.

      Construction of the access/haul  road would require some
 cut  and  fill  operations  which  would  occur  simultaneously
 with placement  of  culverts.  Where  the  road would cross  a
 surface drainage channel,  culverts  designed  to pass  the peak
 discharge from a 10-year, 24-hour  precipitation  event,  with
 no ponding on the upstream end,  would be  used. All  culverts
 would be placed on suitable  bedding material and  appropriate
 riprap  material  would  be  incorporated  at   the  inlet  and
 outlet  to minimize  erosion.   "Trash  rack"  structures  would
 be installed  at  culvert inlets  to prevent  clogging due  to
 debris.

      In areas  where adverse  surface conditions  exist  for
 building  roads (e.g., muskegs),  a special  construction  tech-
 nique would  be used  which  would  effectively  "float"  the  road
 on the  less competent underlying material.   In this method,
 a   flotation  material,   typically  wood  chips  or  logs,  is
 placed  directly on top of  the undisturbed surface vegetative
 mat.   A layer  of minimally  compacted fill material is  then
 laid  down  followed by a  geotechnical  fabric which would  pro-
 vide  lateral  stability,  distribute  bearing  loads over a
 large  area,   and allow  drainage  through  the   road  base.
 Normal  construction  methods would  then  follow  until   the
 designed grade was achieved.

      Permanent  bridges   would   be   of   truss  and  girder
 construction   supported   by   concrete  piers  (Fig.  2-11).
 Construction   would   be   timed   to   minimize  impacts   upon
 spawning  salmon or other  fish movements  and temporary  pon-
 toon  bridges or stream fords would be used to  provide equip-
 ment  access.

      During construction of  the  facility sites, conveyor and
 road, both temporary and  permanent diversion ditches  would
 be  constructed   to  divert  runoff  • from  undisturbed  areas
 either  around  the  construction  sites  or through  culverts
 installed  under the  road.   These would  be maintained  until
 disturbed  areas  were  effectively  controlled.   Additional
 drainage  and  sediment control  measures  would include   sur-
 facing  of  main  roads  and facility areas with gravel,  and
 revegetation of road cuts,  embankments and  other disturbed
areas as  soon  as possible  after construction to  minimize
erosion.    In   sensitive  areas,  e.g.,  adjacent  to  stream
channels, localized sediment  control measures would  be  used,
 including  rock filter dams,  gradient terraces with  filter
ponds, rock drainageways, placement  of sediment filter  ponds
and  use  of   straw  or  vegetation  sediment   filters.    All
disturbed  areas  would   be   revegetated   and mulched,  if
necessary, as soon as possible after completion of construc-
tion activities/

     The access/haul road  would  be  maintained on a  regular
basis.   Maintenance  would include  grading,  bridge,  culvert
                            2-42

-------
 and  drainage ditch inspection, repair of any localized ero-
 sion 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.

 2.11 OPERATION

 2.11.1  Coal Productionand 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 opera-
 tion, 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,  45.4 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  pro-
duction.

     At lower production levels not  requiring  ships,  barges
would be berthed at the Ladd  trestle for up to approximately
 200 days per year.
                            2-43

-------
                          Table 2-2

   APPROXIMATE SHIPPING CHARACTERISTICS  AT FULL PRODUCTION
                 FOR TWO SIZES  OF COAL SHIPS
     Characteristics                 100,000  dwt     60,000 dwt

   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


 2.11.2   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.

     Of  these  848  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.

 2.11.3   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 would be prepared for
 each facility.  Copies of that  plan would be kept on file  at
 each facility.   Each  plan would  specify 'the' methods which
would be used  to prevent  and control  spills  which  might
occur during  transportation,  unloading, storage,  or  use  of
                            2-44

-------
 petroleum products.  All personnel at each facility would be
 trained in spill prevention and appropriate personnel would
 be  trained in the execution  of  the  SPCC plan  in  case of a
 spill.   Each facility would  have  adequate  equipment  avail-
 able  to  complete  cleanup  operations.   During construction
 each  contractor  would  also  be  instructed  in   SPCC plan
 compliance and cleanup methods.

                         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
     Runoff  water from  the  equipment washdown  areas would
contain  oils,   grease,   solvents,   and   other  hydrocarbon
materials.   The runoff  pond  receiving  this water  would be
equipped with a  skimming device to separate these materials
and route them to storage areas.

     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  waste  materials   (e.g.,  paint,  solvents)
would be handled  and  stored separately and  shipped from the
project area for disposal in approved waste disposal sites.

2.11.4  Air Quality Considerations

     Burning of  slash material  from clearing and  grubbing
operations would  occur only under  favorable weather condi-
tions and when permitted by DEC.   Otherwise,  slash  would be
buried under an adequate depth of spoil  in  the mine pit.
                            2-45

-------
      At  all  facilities,  operations  would  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  would  be  oriented  to
 minimize  contact  with  the prevailing  north-south   winds.
 Usually,  no  water  would  be sprayed   onto  the  stockpiles
 because of the normal water content of  the  coal  and  because
 the coal would be  regularly stacked and recovered  and would
 not remain in  the  stockpile for long  periods.   If coal did
 remain in a stockpile for an extended length  of  time,  peri-
 odic applications  of water  or  water  with  a chemical dust
 retardant would  be  used.   Tests on the spontaneous  combus-
 tion potential of  the  coal indicated  no susceptibility  to
 firing while  exposed to  the  atmosphere.

      The coal  stacking  and   recovery  units  would use  water
 sprays  to control  dust  during those  operations.   All con-
 veyor systems  would be  designed to minimize wind effects.
 Both the mine  conveyors  and  the  main overland  conveyor  would
 be  partially enclosed.  The transfer  points, including the
 second  crusher in the mine  service area, would 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 would be  put back onto
 the coal conveyors.   The  first crusher,  in the mine  area,
 would  not have a  negative pressure  system since  it would  be
 open at  the top to  permit  the trucks to  dump coal into  it.

      Once  the  coal  reached the  shiploader,  it  would   be
 discharged  into  the barge  or  ship holds  through a  fixed
 downspout.   Coal would  not  be subjected  to wind since the
 downspout would extend into  the ship's hold, keeping most  of
 the dust within the  hold.

     Fugitive   dust  would  be minimized  in  several  ways.
 Ground disturbance would be  kept to a minimum with disturbed
 areas  being  revegetated  as soon  as  possible.  Exposed areas
 which would be  continuously  used, e.g.,  roads, pads, laydown
 areas-, would  be surfaced with aggregate material.  When dry
 or  windy conditions occur,  these surfaces would  be watered
 to  keep dust  down, and truck  speeds   would be  reduced   to
 lower  fugitive  dust emissions.    During the early  years  of
 operations when coal would  be hauled  to the port site  by
 trucks,  road  watering and use of  a chemical  dust  suppres-
 sant,  if  required,  would keep fugitive  dust emissions to  a
 minimum.    Trucks  would  be  properly  loaded  to  prevent
 spillage when  turning  or braking.   Spillage  which did occur
would be cleaned  up  to minimize  coal fines on  the road sur-
face .

 2.11.5  Environmental TrainingProgram

     An environmental  training program  designed  to promote
environmental awareness  and  highlight  environmental protec-
tion and mitigation measures  would be developed for  contrac-
                            2-4'6

-------
tors and employees.  The program would include a description
of   existing   environmental  resources,   identification  of
potential  environmental impacts  related to  project opera-
tions,  and  a  discussion   of  environmental  protection  and
mitigation measures with emphasis on employee involvement.

2.11.6  Environmental Coordinator

     An  environmental  coordinator  would   be  located  in
Anchorage  during  the  construction phase.    Through onsite
monitoring, the coordinator would assure adherence  to pro-
ject stipulations.   During  the operational  phase,  the coor-
dinator would  continue to  ensure  that  environmental permit
stipulations  were  met,  direct  the  worker  environmental
training   program,  investigate   human/wildlife   contacts
(including road collisions), oversee the various environmen-
tal mitigation  and monitoring  programs,  and serve  as agency
contact for  project  status reports  and site  inspections.
The  environmental  coordinator  would 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.
                            2-47

-------
	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  alterna-
 tives); and 3)  the  No Action  Alternative.

      A description  of the process  of  identifying and compar-
 ing  the  action  alternatives  and selecting  the  preferred
 alternatives constitutes  the  bulk  of  this  chapter.   The pro-
 cess   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  and 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  pre-
 ferred 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  pro-
 cess 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 asso-
 ciated  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 Association
                            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 14.4 km (9 mi)
 east from  the mine service area toward the Beluga airstrip,
 then turn  south southeast  for  approximately 8 km  (5 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 18.4  km  (11.5
 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
   LEASE AREA
    BOUNDERY
                                                     EASTERN
                                                     CONVEYOR
                                       SOU! HEASTEN
                                        AN ) HAUL ROAD
SOUTHERN
CONVEYOR
     SCALE IN MILES

    1/2   t         2
                                        HAUL ROAD
SOURCE: DIAMOND ALASKA COAL COMPANY
        INITIAL MINE AREA OPTIONS LOCATIONS
                       FIGURE 3-1
   Diamond Chuitna Environmental Impact Statement
                              3-4

-------
  -I-
     LEGEND

   AIRSTRIP
                                                            Susitna Flats
                                                           Wildlife Refuge
      TYONEK NATIVE CORP. BOUNDARY


      HOUSING


      PORT SITE

      HAUL ROAD

      CONVEYO*           iDenslow Lake
                                                      Chugach Elecjfic
                                                     Beluga Power Station
                                                       F EXISTING CHUGACH
                                                           POWER LINE
Congahbuna
   Lake
                                                 Tyonek


                                              North Foreland
        QNIKOLAI
--,  Trading Bay
    Refuge
     Nikolai Ck<
      Airstrip*
                    Granite Point
  IN MILES
                                         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  trans-
 porting  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  pro-
 pelled 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-WaterSlurry

      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  (CC>2)  and  transported
 via pipeline  to  the  port.  At  the port, the  C02  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 CC>2 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 con-
 tinue  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 stock-
 piled until a ship arrived.

     Railroad

     Crushed  coal would  be loaded at  the  mine for transport
by .rail  to the  port.  Approximately 3.3 round trips  per  day
would be made   using  100-car  trains  over 1.6  km  (1 mi)  in
                            3-6

-------
 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 a
 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 struc-
 tures as well as  a road for operations and maintenance per-
 sonnel.   The  causeway would be used for unloading barges and
 other fuel and  supply ships.

      ElevatedTrestle

      An  elevated,  pile-supported approach trestle would sup-
 port the conveyor  and shiploader as well as a narrow  roadway
 for  operations  and  maintenance   personnel  and  equipment.
 While  it would not serve  supply  barges  (there would  be a
 separate  barge  staging  area on the beach),  it would  support
 a  pipeline to  move fuel  from tankers or barges  to  storage
 tanks at  the  onshore port area.

   '  3.2.1.5  Loading Facility Length

     Both short and long loading facilities for full  produc-
 tion  were considered  for  each  port location.  The options
 represent  the  facility   lengths  necessary  to reach water
 depths that  would allow use by either  smaller  (60,000 dwt)
 or larger  (up to  120,000  dwt)  vessels.   The smaller  vessels
 would require a berthing depth of about 14 m (46 ft) at mean
 lower  low  water   (MLLW)   while  the  larger  vessels  would
 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  were
 identified (Fig. 2-1).

     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
                            3-7

-------
 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  individ-
 ual houses and  apartments  for  workers  and their families.
 Additional   community   facilities  would   include   schools,
 hospital,  recreation   center,    eligi'ous   facilities,   town
 administration  offices,  police  and fire  stations, super-
 market,  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 housir.   facilities  would  provide  indi-
 vidual  rooms for  workers  '. n  a  camp-type  housing  complex
which  would  include a  din..ag  hall/administration building,
 recreation center, laundry, medical  facilities, and security
and  fire services.    Minimal  emphasis would be placed  on
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.
                            3-8

-------
      3.2.1.8   Airstrip

      Two  options  for  location  of an  airstrip  were identi-
 fied:  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 environ-
 mental,  technical, or other  reasons.   In the  second step,
 all  remaining options not  eliminated  in  step one were eva-
 luated  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  was environmen-
 tally   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  elimi-
 nated.    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  Foreland
 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,
as well as tidal currents and ice conditions, was conducted
 by the  applicant  (Soros  Associates  1986) to determine  the
 feasibility of using the North Foreland  site.   That  study,
as  reviewed  by  Dames &  iMoore,  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  pro-
duction  levels early in  the  project, serious  difficulties
and vessel  delay could  be expected during full  coal produc-
tion  levels  of  10.9 million Mt  (12  million short  tons).
                            3-9

-------
                                      Table 3-2

                 MAJOR REASONS FOR ELIMINATION OF INDIVIDUAL OPTIONS
                          DUMPS INITIAL OPTIONS EVALUATION
 Component             OptionEliminated

 Overburden Stockpile  Center


                       Northeast
 Transportation
 Corridor/Port
 Location
 Southeastern/
 North Foreland
 Transporation Mode    Pneumo-train
                       Coarse coal-
                       water slurry
                       Coal-carbon
                       dioxide slurry
Loading Facility
Filled causeway
Housing Type
Townsite
Water Supply
Surface
impoundments
    Major Reasons for Elimination

 o  Inside mining limit (stockpiled
    material would have to be rehandled
    to mine under stockpile)
 o  Would require a bridge across Lone
    Creek
 o  Visual impacts
 o  Port site tidal currents and ice con-
    ditions prevent ship berthing/loading
    to full project production capacity
 o  Demonstration plant technology only
 o  Moderate product degradation (10%
    BTU loss from water)
 o  Unproven Arctic technology
 o  Spill hazard

 o  Pilot plant technology only
 o  Spill hazard
 o  Final product not presently market-
    able
 o  Large quantities  of fill and armor
    rock required
 o  Constant protection from tidal  and
    ice scour required
 o  Interference  with anadromous fish
    movements and local set  net fishery
 o  Substantially greater  infrastructure
    required (water,  sewer,  housing,
    etc.)
 o  Adverse  to local  autonomy
 o  Less  adaptable to traditional
    regional  lifestyles
 o  Competition with  subsistence activ-
    ities
 o  Greater  land  area impact
 o  Greater  impacts on  fish  and wildlife
    (increased hunting  & fishing;
   human/wildlife contacts; en.:.1.)

 o  Block free-flowing  streams
 o  Interference with fish movements
o  High dams to store water in winter
                                    3-10

-------
                                 Table 3-3

              OPTIONS ELIMINATED OR REIMNED FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS
                       DURING INITIAL OPTIONS EVALUATION
 Component
 Options Retained
Options Eliminated
 iMine Location         Fixedl

 Overburden  Stockpile   North
 Location               Southeast

 Mine Service  Area      Fixedl

 Transporation System
  o  Corridor/Port
     Location
  o  Mode



Loading Facility

  0

  o  Length


Housing

  o  Location
  o  Type

Airstrip


Water Supply

Power Generation
Northern/Ladd
Eastern/Ladd
Southern/Granite Point

Road
Railroad
Conveyor
Elevated Trestlel

Short
Long
Nikolai
Congahbuna
Lone Creek
Threemile Creek

Single Statusl

Existing
New

Wellsl

Purchasel
                             Center
                             Northeast
Southeastern/North Foreland
Pneumo-Train
Coarse Coal-Water Slurry
Coal-Carbon Dioxide Slurry
Filled Causeway
Townsite
Surface Impoundments
1 Sole option remaining for this component
                                    3-11

-------
 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  inade-
 quate 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   .nd
 feasible,  each of those  options  was  retained  so  that the
 applicant's Proposed Projects  would constitute  formal  alter-
 natives 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 con-
 sideration.    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 south-
 east  (Fig. 3-1), would  have similar impacts  on water quality
 and  vegetation, but the  north   site would be  closer  to fish
 spawning habitat  and would be   in the southern  portion of  a
 fall moose rutting* area.  Also, use of  the  north site  would
 subject drainage 2004 to project-related  disturbance immedi-
ately rather than  22 years into the project.  The north site
would  have  poorer foundation  conditions  and  would  cause
greater  negative visual impacts than the  southeast.  On  the
basis of this analysis, and  since  it did  not  address any of
the 10 scoping  issues more favorably than the  southeast site
 (the applicant's proposed option),  the north site was elimi-
                            3-12

-------
 nated,  leaving the southeast  site  as  the single option for
 location  of  the  overburden  stockpile.

      Transportation Corridor/Port Location

      Initial analysis of the  three  options  showed that all
 were  environmentally  and technically  reasonable and feasi-
 ble.   Because of the- complicated nature of a discipline-by-
 discipline comparison among all three options, and since the
 northern/Ladd  option  and the' eastern/Ladd option shared the
 same  port site,  it was  logical to do a comparative analysis
 between  these two options  to  determine  if one option could
 be  eliminated.

      To  compare  these  options,  a specific  set  of "options
 screening criteria"  was  developed to   evaluate  potential
 impacts  (Table 3-4).    Table  3-5  summarizes  the comparative
 resource  discipline  analyses  for the  northern/Ladd  and the
 aastern/Ladd transportation corridor/port site options based
 upon  the  options screening  criteria in Table 3-4.   For each
 of  the 10  disciplines, the  potential adverse  impacts  for
 each  option  are  shown relative  to  those  for  the  other
 option.   Generally,  only those screening  criteria having a
 reasonable difference in adverse impacts between options are
 discussed.

      Analysis  of relative  potential for  adverse  impact to
 water  quality  showed  that since  the  eastern/Ladd  option
 would  be shorter  and  make  fewer  stream  crossings,  it  was
 considered  to have a  relatively low  potential  for  adverse
 impact from  sediment  production during construction, opera-
 tion,  and reclamation.   The no'rthern/Ladd option was judged
 to  have a relatively moderate  potential for adverse impact.

      From a  vegetation  standpoint,  the longer northern/Ladd
 option  would  directly   affect a  larger  acreage  of  vege-
 tation  and  44  percent  more  wetlands.    Indirectly,  the
 northern/Ladd option would potentially impact a greater area
 of  vegetation due to traffic-generated dust.  Therefore, the
 northern/Ladd  option   was   judged   to  have  a  relatively
 moderate  potential for  impact  while the eastern/Ladd option
 was judged to have a relatively low potential.

     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  five to
 eight stream  crossings  with at least two crossings being in
areas of  high fish value.  Thus, the overall relative poten-
 tial  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  more  wetlands and  riparian  habitats
                            3-13

-------
                                 Table 3-4

               TRANSPORTATION ODKRIDOR/POKT LOCATION INDIVIDUAL
                   DISCIPLINE OPTIONS SCREENING CRITERIA
 Disciplinel
 Options Screening Criteria
 Water Quality
 Vegetation
 Fish
Wildlife
Socioeconcmics
Subsistence
Recreation

Regional Use
Technical
 Feasibility
Reclamation
 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
Availability of adequate construction technology
Relative complexity of design, construction and operation

Reclamation difficulty
  Includes only disciplines having a reasonable difference in impacts among
  the options
                                    3-14

-------
                               Table 3-5

                  COMPARATIVE RESOURCE DISCIPLINE ANALYSIS OF
         RELATIVE POTENTIAL         IMPACTS FOR THE NORTHERN/LADD AND
        EASTERN/IADD TRANSPORATION CORRIDOR/PORT SITE LOCATION OPTIONS


                             Northern/Ladd        _ Eastern/Ladd _
Discipline1               LOW  Moderate  High     Low      Moderate      High

Water Quality                     M                L

Vegetation                        M                L

Fish                              M                L

Wildlife                                  H                   M

Socioeconcmics                    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 inpacts
  between the options.
                                    3-15

-------
 important  to  waterfowl and  bears,  respectively.   Indirect
 habitat loss  for  swan  nesting and  rearing  would be equally
 high  for  both options, but  the northern/Ladd  option  would
 pass within 457 m  (500 yd)  of an eagle nest.   Effects upon
 animal  movements  for  both   options   would  be  similarly
 moderate.   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 06
 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  poten-
 tial .

      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  con-
 sidered 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
 chan did  the  eastern/Ladd option,   including  three or  four
 crossings   of  Threemile Creek.   The   northern/Ladd option
 wo  .d also  pass  very  close  to Viapan  and  Tukallah Lakes.
 Thus,  the   northern/Ladd option was  judged  to  have a  rela-
 tively   moderate  potential  for  adverse  impact while  the
 eastern/Ladd  option  was  judged  to  have  a  relatively  low
 potential .

      From  a regional  use perspective,  there was  no signifi-
 cant  difference  between  the  options   relating   to  size  or
 ability  to expand  to  accommodate other  users, nor was  there
 a  difference  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 economi-
 cally  feasible by having  a road and conveyor right  on the
 lease.   This was not  judged,  however,  to be  a   significant
 difference  considering  the relatively   small  advantage  this
would  provide  to  the  lease   holder.  Thus,   on   an  overall
 regional use basis,  both  options were  considered  to  have
moderate potential for adverse  impact.
                            3-16

-------
      Analysis   of  technical  feasibility   showed   adequate
 construction  technology  exists  for  both   options,   with
 neither  having significant  complexity  of design,  construc-
 tion,  or operation.  Thus, both options were  judged  to  have
 a  relatively low  potential  for adverse  impacts.

      From   a  reclamation  perspective,  the   northern/Ladd
 option,  with its  greater length and acreage of  wetlands and
 higher number  of  stream crossings, was  considered to  be  more
 difficult  to  reclaim.    Thus,  the  eastern/Ladd option  was
 judged  to   have  a  relatively  low  potential  for  adverse
 impacts  while the  northern/Ladd option was  judged  to  have
 a  moderate  potential.

      Overall analysis of  the  10  resource disciplines  for the
 two  transportation  corridor/port site options showed (Table
 3-5)   that   the   eastern/Ladd  option  clearly  had  a lower
 overall   potential  for   adverse    impacts   than  did   the
 northern/Ladd  option.   The  eastern/Ladd option was  judged to
 have  a low  potential for  adverse impacts for eight  of the 10
 disciplines  with  none   rated  as  having  a  high  potential,
 while  the  northern/Ladd option was judged  to  have a  low
 potential  for  impacts  for only two disciplines  and rated as
 having a high  potential  for one.

      In  final  analysis,  the  eastern/Ladd  option was  judged
 superior to the  northern/Ladd option.  However,  despite its
 inferior rating,  the  northern/Ladd option could  not  be  eli-
 minated  at  this   early  option  screening  stage because it is
 one   of  the  applicant's   alternatives.    Therefore,   both
 options were retained and specifically addressed in the  com-
 parison of  action alternatives process.

     Transportation Mode

     Table  3-6 summarizes  the resource  discipline analysis
 of the three remaining  transportation modes for  moving  coal
 from the mine  to  the port;  road, railroad, and conveyor  (the
 applicant's  proposed option).

     For each  discipline,  the potential adverse  impacts  for
 each option  are shown  relative to  the potential  impacts  for
 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 there
 whether  or   not   another  coal   transportation  mode   was
 constructed.   Therefore,  cumulative  adverse   impacts   were
 considered  for construction  of   the  other  transportation
modes.   For example,  the  road  would  have  a  lower  adverse
 impact than  the  railroad or conveyor on  vegetation  because
 their  construction  would  destroy  additional   vegetation,
while  use   of  the  existing  road  to  haul  the  coal would
                            3-17

-------
                               Tabla  3-6
RESOURCE DISCIPLINE
POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS
ANALYSES OF THE RELATIVE
OF TRANSPORTATION MODE OPTIONS

Mode
Road
Discipline* Low Moderate High
Water Quality H
Air Quality H
Vegetation L
Fish M
Wildlife H
Subsistence M
Visual H
Noise . H
Recreation H
Economics M
Reclamation L
Regional Use M
Railroad Conveyor
Low Moderate High Low Moderate
L L
M L
H
L L
M L
H
M M
M L
M L
H L
H M
L M

High

H


H






                                                       »
Includes only disciplines having  a  reasonable  difference  in adverse
impacts among the options.

-------
 cause  no  additional  vegetation destruction  (assuming ade-
 quate  dust  control  measures).    The  following  discussion
 addresses  only resource discipline  analyses  which  showed a
 reasonable difference  in adverse impacts among the options.

     Because of the high level of truck traffic necessary to
 transport  the  coal by  road at full production (approximately
 331  round  trips  per day),  erosion problems, hence potential
 adverse  water quality  impacts,   would  be  significantly
 greater  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 for
 potential  adverse  air quality  impacts.  The railroad, which
 would generate a diesel smoke plume  and some dust, was rated
 as moderate.   The conveyor option was rated as low.

     From  a  vegetation  perspective, the  road  option rated
 relatively low since  the road would already  exist  and only
 moderate additional vegetation destruction would occur if it
 continued  to be used  to haul coal throughout the life of the
 project.   Potential  adverse railroad  impacts were  rated as
 relatively high due to the  necessity  to  clear  and maintain
 another  right-of-way.   Although  the conveyor  itself would
 sit  on  elevated supports,  it would need an adjacent service
 road throughout its length which would also require clearing
 and  maintenance  of  another  right-of-way.    The  conveyor
 option was also rated as having a  relatively high potential
 for adverse impacts to vegetation.

     The  greater   potential  adverse  water quality  impacts
 identified for the road option, discussed above, resulted in
 a  relatively  moderate  rating  for  potential adverse  fish
 impacts while  the  railroad and conveyor  options  were rated
 as relatively  low for this discipline.

     From  a wildlife  perspective,  the road option possesses
 a  relatively   high  level  of potential  for adverse  impacts
 because  of disturbance from  noise  and   vehicle  movements
associated with the  331 round trips per  day  (an  average of
one  truck  with two trailers  passing a given point  every 2
minutes, 22 hours  per day, 362 days per  year).   Also, deep
snow in winter would  cause  moose to  use the cleared road to
move about, resulting  in  more  frequent vehicle/moose colli-
sions.   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 colli-
sions  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.
                            3-19

-------
      The  road  and  railroad would  potentially hava  direct
 adverse impacts upon subsistence resources.   The moose popu-
 lation,  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 tra-
 vel 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  sub-
 sistence 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 con-
 veyor  was  determined  to  have  a  relatively  low potential
 impact.

     From  a recreation  perspective,  noise  and visual con-
 siderations  (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.
 The  conveyor,  with  its stationary  nature  and  lower  noise
 level,  was judged to  have  a relatively low  level of poten-
 tial impact.

     On  the basis of  initial capital  as well  as operation
 and  maintenance  costs, the  road option  was  judged to  be of
 moderate  overall  economic   impact  while  the  railroad  was
 determined as  having a relatively high economic impact.  The
 conveyor was  judged to have  an  overall relatively low eco-
 nomic impact.

     From  a reclamation perspective,  the road,  which  would
exist in any event,  was  considered to  have  a relatively low
potential  for adverse  impacts.   The railroad was  judged to
have  a  relatively  high  potential   impact   because  of  the
                            3-20

-------
 necessity  to  reclaim the greater cuts and fills  necessary to
 maintain  grade and  to remove  the large 'bridge across the
 Chuitna River if  the southern corridor option were  selected.
 The  conveyor,  which   would  largely  be  elevated  above the
 ground  on  pilings,  was  considered  to  have  a relatively
 moderate potential for adverse  impacts from reclamation.

     The railroad seemed  to possess some possible  advantage
 over  the other two options when considering future regional
 uses.  The  road option would exist  for other potential  users
 regardless  of  which  other  coal   transportation  mode was
 built.  The conveyor system would  be sized for  the  output of
 the Diamond Chuitna  project only.   If another  coal develop-
 ment  commenced operations  during   the  life  of  the Diamond
 Chuitna  project  or  if another large  development  occurred
 after  the   coal   mine  was  terminated,  the  conveyor  system
 would  not   have  the  capacity  or  geographic  flexibility to
 handle additional coal.   The railroad  option could provide
 some   advantage   for   another   coal   development   project
 favorably   located  with   respect  to   the   right-of-way.
 However,  another  project  of  similar size  to  the Diamond
 Chuitna project would  probably  have to substantially upgrade
 the size of any existing  railroad  system to meet its needs.
 Thus, both  the road  and  the conveyor options were  judged to
 have a relatively high potential for adverse impacts from a
 regional perspective  (i.e., both  would  have no  significant
 positive effect  on promoting  a regional coal transportation
 system), while the railroad was judged to have  a relatively
 moderate level of  adverse impacts.

     Overall   analysis  of  the  three options   (Table   3-65
 clearly  showed  that   the  conveyor  option  had  the  lowest
 levels of  relative adverse  impacts for the twelve  discipli-
 nes considered.   The  conveyor option showed relatively  high
 potential  for adverse impacts  for only, three   disciplines:
 vegetation, subsistence and regional perspective.   The  rela-
 tive  differences  among  the   three  options  for   potential
 impacts  to vegetation were not  judged  to  be   significant.
 The relatively high  adverse impact 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.
                            3-21

-------
              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 flexi-
 bility  for  other potential  users.   None of  these  three  dif-
 ferences 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.

     Hous i ng__Loca t i on

     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   transpor-
 tation   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
 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 corri-
 dor.   This was predicated on  the  assumption that the option
 was  the  best  one  for  that corridor and that it addressed at
 least one scoping  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
many  similarities.  Because  the two sites  are so similar, it
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  resource


                            3-22

-------
 discipline impacts,  the Nikolai site was considered  to  have
 more potential for adverse impacts upon both fish  and wild-
 life because it  is  closer  to Nikolai Creek and Trading  Bay
 Refuge.   Also, Nikolai would have a greater adverse visual
 impact  because it would  be  located apart from the conveyor
 and  the  haul road whereas Congahbuna would be in the trans-
 portation  corridor immediately adjacent to the conveyor  and
 haul road.   The  Nikolai  site,  being  further  from the  mine
 site, would  also  increase the daily cost of transporting the
 majority  of  workers to their work stations.   From the  sub-
 sistence  perspective,  however,  there does  not  appear to  be
 much use  of  the  Nikolai  site  by  local residents  while  the
 area in  the  vicinity  of  Congahbuna  Lake  receives  some  use
 for  hunting,  picnicking,  and  berry  picking.    Taking  all
 potential  impacts into account, the Congahbuna site  collec-
 tively  was  judged to  be more  favorable than  the  Nikolai
 site.

     A   further   analysis   between  the   Lone   Creek   and
 Congahbuna  housing site options showed that  the Congahbuna
 option  addressed  at  least   two scoping  issues   (fish   and
 socioeconomics)   in  a   significantly  more  favorable  manner
 than did  the Lone Creek  option.  Therefore,  the Congahbuna
 option was retained for alternatives analysis.

     Analysis  of  the   Threemile  housing  site showed   this
 option addressed  at least one scoping  issue  (regional  use)
 in a more favorable manner  than did  the Lone Creek  option.
 Therefore, the Threemile  option was retained for the alter-
 native analysis process.

     Airstrip  Location

     Two  options  were  identified  for  locating  the airstrip
 to be  used to shuttle  workers "between  the  project area  and
 their homes  in Anchorage and  on  the Kenai Peninsula:  use  of
 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 appli-
 cant's preferred  option.

     Using an  existing airstrip would  offer  the  advantages
 of lower capital  costs for construction and less environmen-
 tal  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,
                            3-23

-------
 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  limita-
 tions   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 imme-
 diately 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  dis-
 cussed above,  it was judged that use of an  existing airstrip
 in  the vicinity of  the project area, as opposed to construc-
 tion of a  new airstrip  immediately  adjacent  to the housing
 site,  would  not  address   any of the  10  issues in  a signifi-
 cantly 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 Descriptionof ActionAlternatives

     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.
Since  the  applicant  wishes  to  retain  two  transportation
corridor/port  site  options   (southern/Granite  Point  and
northern/Ladd), two alternatives   using  these options  were
identified as  the applicant's proposed projects.    A  third
                            3-24

-------
                         Table 3-7

             OPTIONS USED TO FORM ALTERNATIVES
Component                          Option(s)
MineLocation                      Fixed

Overburden Stockpile Location      Southeast

Mine Service Area                  Fixed

Transportation System

     o  Corridor Location          Southern/Granite Point
                                   Northern/ladd
                                   Eastern/Ladd


     o  Mode                       Conveyor

Load ing Facility                   Elevated Trestle

Hous i ng

     o  Location                   LoneCreek
                                   Congahbuna
                                   Threemi1e Creek

     oType                       SingleStatus

Airstrip                           New

Water  Supply   *                    Wei 1s

Power  Generation                   Purchase

-------
 alternative,   using   the   eastern/Ladd   option,   is   also
 discussed.  Finally, two housing/airstrip options other than
 the  applicant's  r-"oposed  option  at  Lone  Creek were  iden-
 tified.   The  following  sections describe  the  action  alter-
 natives  that  have  been selected for  detailed  consideration
 in this EIS.  Table 3-8 presents a  matrix showing which com-
 ponents are included in each alternative.

      3.2.3.1  Southern/Granite Point Alternative

      In  addition  to the  fixed mine  and mine  service  area
 locations, this alternative would site the overburden  stock-
 pile southeast of  the mining  limit.   It  includes  a  conveyor
 system within  the  southern  transportation corridor to  the
 site at  Granite  Point  (Figs.  2-1 and 3-1).  The  port  coal-
 loading  facility would  be an  elevated  trestle.  A single-
 status housing facility  with associated new airstrip  would
 be located at the  Lone Creek  site.  Water  would be  supplied
 by  wells and  power  would  be  purchased  from  the Chugach
 Electric  Association  natural gas power station  at Beluga.

      3.2.3.2  Northern/Ladd Alternative

      This alternative  is  the  same  as the  southern/Granite
 Point alternative except the  northern transportation corri-
 dor  to a  port  site  at Ladd would be  used  (Fig.  2-1).

      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 (Pig.  2-13.

      3.2.3,4  Housing/Airstrip Options

      Congahbuna Housing/Airstrip Option

      This option would  be  substituted  for the Lone  Creek
 housing/airstrip  site in  the  southern/Granite  Point alter-
.native  with  the housing area and the airstrip being located
 at the  Congahbuna site  (Fig.  2-1).

      Threemile Housing/AirstripOption

      This option  would  be  substituted  for the  Lone  Creek
 housing/airstrip  site in  the northern/Ladd alternative with
 the  housing  area  and  the  airstrip  being  located at  the
 Threemile site  (Fig.  2-1).

 3.2.4   Comparison of  Action Alternatives

      The  three action alternatives  were  compared to deter-
mine   the  preferred  alternative.     The   Congahbuna   and
Threemile  housing/airstrip options  were  then  compared  with
the  Lone   Creek  option  to  determine whether  either option
                            3-26

-------
                                Table 3-8
DIAMOND CHUITNA
Project Components and Options
Mine Location* - Fixed
Overburden Stockpile Location* -
Southeast
Mine Service Area* - South of
Mini ng Limi t
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
PROJECT ACTION
ALTERNATIVES

Action Alternatives
Southern/
Granite Pt
X
X
X
X
X
X

.. X
X
X
X
X
Northern/
Ladd
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
Eastern/
Ladd
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
Components with only one option.

-------
 provided a  significant advantage  over  the Lone  Creek  site
 such that it  could substitute for the Lone Creek option in
 one or  more  of  the alternatives.  The analytical basis  for
 the comparisons in  this section  is provided  in the detailed
 impact discussions in Chapter 5.0.  The  reader is encouraged
 to consult  Chapter 5.0 for more extensive examination of  the
 major issues .

      Evaluation  criteria based on  the ten  issues identified
 during scoping  (Section 1.4)  were developed  bo  compare  the
 three action alternatives  and the housing options.  The  cri-
 teria are shown in the first column of Table  3-9.   For  each
 scenario, the  evaluation criteria were applied separately to
 each alternative  to determine the  relative  values  for  the
 total potential  impacts for  that  alternative.   It is impor-
 tant to note bhat  the "relative total  impact value" assigned
 to a given alternative for a specific criterion  was  derived
 only by evaluation of that alternative relative to the other
 alternatives  for  that  scenario.    The  relative  values used
 were low, moderate,  and high.

      For  example,  using the third evaluation criterion (Table
 3-9),   i.e.,   "Minimize impacts  to  wildlife   and  wildlife
 habitats," each  alternative was analyzed  from  the standpoint
 of  its  total potential for impacts to wildlife and wildlife
 habitat and  a  relative  value  (compared  to  the other   two
 alternatives)  was  assigned.   Only  significant  differences  in
 potential    impacts    were    considered.        Thus    the
 southern/Granite Point  alternative  had a  relatively moderate
 value   for  total  potential  wildlife  and  wildlife  habitat
 impacts  compared   to   the  northern/Ladd   and  eastern/Ladd
 alternatives  which  had relative  values   of  high  and low,
 respectively.    Table  3-9  summarizes  the relative total
 impact  values  for  each evaluation criterion.   This allows a
 consistent comparison of alternatives to be made.

      It must be emphasized that while a  particular  alter-
 native  might  be  assigned a high relative  total impact value
 when  compared  with  the  other  alternatives,   it  does  not
 necessarily mean that the alternative would have a high abso-
 lute  impact.   In this chapter, therefore, alternatives were
 assigned a total  impact  value relative  to one another while the
 actual  significance of the alternatives'  impacts are described
 in Chapter 5.0.

     Analysis showed that,  because of the  specific  nature of
 the project and the make-up of  the action alternatives, most of
 the significant potential impacts were associated directly with
activities at  the  mine and  that  there were  relatively  few
 significant differences in potential impacts among  the other
project components .  Since all  impacts associated directly with
the mine and its attendant operations were common to all alter-
natives, the  comparison  of alternatives process addresses only
potential impacts associated with the components of the project
other than the mine.   The locations  of  the  transportation
                            3-28

-------
                                 Table 3-9
EVALUATION CRITERIA MATRIX
VALUES ASSIGNED TO THE

1.
2.
3.
4,
5.
6.
Evaluation
Criteria
Minimize risk of water
quality degradation and
alteration to flows
Minimize impacts to
fi sh and fish habitat
Minimize impacts to
wi Idl i fe and wi 1 dl i fe
habitats
Minimize potential
reclamation problems
Minimize impacts to set
net fishery
Minimize impacts to
Southern/
Granite Pt
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Moderate

SHOWING RELATIVE TOTAL
THREE ACTION ALTERNATI
Northern/
Ladd
Moderate
Moderate
High
Low
High

IMPACT
VES
Eastern/
Ladd
Low
Low
Low
Low
High

     traditional subsistence
     harvest activities               High            Low             Low

7.   Minimize social, cultural,
     and economic impact upon
     local  residents              Moderate        Moderate            Low

8.   Minimize cumulative
     regional use impacts              Low       Moderate        Moderate

9.   Minimize technical
     complexity                        Low            Low             Low

10.  Minimize cost                 No Data        No Data         No  Data
                                    3-29

-------
 corridor, port site, and the housing and airstrip sites were
 the only components creating significant differences in poten-
 tial impacts among alternatives.

      Water Quality

      Potential  water  quality  impacts  were  evaluated  pri-
 marily on the basis of  the  risk of  petroleum product spills
 and  sediment  production  from  road  surfaces,  pads,  cuts,
 fills, and stream crossings.   No significant differences  in
 potential  impacts  were identified  between  the  southern/
 Granite Point and northern/Ladd  alternatives.   The  eastern/
 Ladd alternative would have  fewer potential  impacts  since  it
 would be  shorter and cross  no  major  streams  as would  the
 southern/Granite Point  alternative.   It would also  cross
 flatter terrain  than  either  of the others.  Therefore,  the
 southern/Granite Point  and  northern/Ladd alternatives  were
 assigned moderate  relative  total impacts  values for  water
 quality while  the  eastern/Ladd  alternative  was assigned  a
 low value.

      Fish

      Potential  impacts to fish and  fish  habitat  were evalu-
 ated primarily on  the basis of  the presence or absence  of
 fish,  the  number  of  stream  crossings, and the  value  of
 potentially  affected  streams  for fish spawning, rearing  or
 migration.

      No  significant differences  in potential  impacts  were
 identified  between  the southern/Granite Point and northern/
 Ladd alternatives.   The eastern/Ladd alternative would  have
 fewer  potential  impacts since  it would cross fewer  streams
 than the n'orthern/Ladd alternative and would cross no major
 streams  as' would  the southern/Granite  Point alternative.   It
 would  also  impact  fewer  lakes  than   either  of  the other
 alternatives.    Therefore,  the  southern/Granite  Point  and
 northern/Ladd  alternatives  were  assigned moderate relative
 total  impact  values for fish  while  the eastern/Ladd alter-
 native was assigned a  lower value.

     Wildlife

     Potential  impacts  upon  wildlife  were   evaluated  pri-
marily  on the  basis  of direct  and indirect  habitat loss
since potential impacts  arising from interference with move-
ments  across  the  corridors  could  be   largely  mitigated by
proper   design,   construction,   and   operation   of   animal
crossings .

     The  northern/Ladd alternative  was considered  to  have
greater  potential impacts than  either  of the others because
it  is  longer  and would  cross  riparian  habitat  important to
brown bears feeding upon salmon.  The southern/Granite Point
and northern/Ladd alternatives would have similar impacts to
                            3-30

-------
 wetlands  important to wildlife, but the eastern/Ladd alter-
 native  would cross fewer  important  wetlands  than either of
 them.   The  eastern/Ladd alternative,  unlike  the other  two
 alternatives,  would  also  avoid  eagle  nests.    Thus,   the
 eastern/Ladd alternative was assigned a  low relative total
 impact  value while the southern/Granite Point and northern/
 Ladd alternatives  were assigned values of moderate and high,
 respectively.

     Reclamation

     Essentially all  of  the major reclamation concerns iden-
 tified  during  the scoping process  were  focused on the mine
 and  its surrounding  area.  Technology for successful recla-
 mation  of the other  project  components  exists  and has been
 demonstrated to  be   effective  for  other  Alaska projects.
 Since  reclamation  procedures  that  would  be used at the mine
 and  its surrounding area  would be common to all three alter-
 natives,  no significant  differences were  identified among
 the  three  alternatives   for  this  criterion  and all  were
 assigned  a low relative  total impact value.

     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 threstle, 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, tradi-
 tional  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  sub-
sistence since the lower  corridor  and port  site would be in
areas  traditionally  used  for subsistence  by   residents  of
                            3-31

-------
 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
 sastern/Ladd alternatives  were judged to have low values.

      Socioeconomics

      No significant  differences in socioeconoroic  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 con-
 nected 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 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  alter-
 native were  selected, however,  it could give  Tyonek a  signi-
 ficantly  greater degree  of  control  over  the  project and
 would   increase   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 pri-
 marily on  the basis  of  consolidation  with  existing  facili-
 ties,  potential for other  regional uses, and  component  size,
 location, and adequacy for  expansion.

     The southern/Granite  Point  alternative would be  closer
 than  the  other two  alternatives to areas most  likely to be
 developed in  the  future (e.g., the  Placer U.S.  Center  Ridge
 coal  deposit  west  of   the Diamond  Chuitna  project   area).
 This  could  have  a positive effect  upon the  feasibility  of
 some  potential developments since  a crossing of  the Chuitna
 River  would not be required to reach  the port site as would
 be  necessary  with  either  the  northern/Ladd or  eastern/Ladd
 alternative.

     The southern/Granite  Point  alternative would also con-
 solidate with the existing road system and facilities in the
Granite Point  area  while  the  other alternatives  would not
consolidate  with  existing  facilities to  the same  extent.
This, however, was not  judged to be significant.
                            3-32

-------
      The  southern/Granite   Point  alternative   would   be
 constructed  entirely on public land and the port  site  would
 have ample room for  expansion, thus  likely making  the corri-
 dor  and port site available  to  other  potential users.   The
 northern and eastern  corridors,  however, would  cross  some
 private lands which may  not  be available  to  future users.
 Also,  while  the port site  at  Ladd  is public land,  the amount
 of public  land  is  not  as large as  at Granite Point,  possibly
 precluding  expansion  to  accommodate  other   users   and
 requiring  development  of another port.

      In the final  analysis,  the  southern/Granite   Point
 alternative  was judged to have a  low  relative total impact
 value  while  the northern/Ladd and eastern/Ladd alternatives
 were judged  to  have  moderate  values.

     Techn ical  Complexi,ty

     Potential  technical   complexity impacts  were evaluated
 primarily  on the basis of  the availability of adequate  tech-
 nology 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 con-
 sidered  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 alter-
 natives  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 alter-
natives, it  received  a low  rating.   Only  for the  set net
fishery criterion did  it receive  a high rating.
                            3-33

-------
      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 tradi-
  tional uses  could  likely avoid serious impacts.

      On the  basis  of  its having  the  least overall  relative
  total  impact  value  and   the capability of  substantially
  reducing or eliminating significant impacts to the lone cri-
  terion  (set  net   fishery)  for  which  it  received a  high
  rating,  the  eastern/Ladd  alternative  was  identified  as the
 preferred alternative.

      Whether the  applicant  could develop  an  eastern  corri-
 dor, however, is not certain.   The corridor would cross pri-
 vate land  owned by TNC and to date,   the  applicant and TNC
 have  been unable  to  negotiate  a right-of-way  agreement.
 Since there  is  no  assurance that  an  eastern  corridor  could
 be developed even  though  identified as the preferred  alter-
 native,  the  southern/Granite  Point  and northern/Ladd  alter-
 natives  were further  analyzed to  determine  the  secondary
 preferred alternative.

      The   southern/Granite   Point  'and  northern/Ladd  alter-
 natives  showed significant  differences in potential impacts
 for four  criteria: wildlife,  set net  fishery,  subsistence,
 and regional  use  (Table  3-9).   The  potential  exists  for
 significantly greater impacts  to  the set net fishery for the
 northern/Ladd  alternative  as   discussed  above   for   the
 eastern/Ladd  alternative.   Proper scheduling and  operational
 management,  however,  would  substantially reduce or eliminate
.such impacts.

     The  differences  for  the  wildlife criterion  were  con-
 sidered  significant.   The  northern/Ladd alternative would
 have greater  adverse  quantitative  and qualitative habitat
 impacts  that  could not be mitigated to eliminate those  dif-
 ferences .

     For   the subsistence  criterion,   the  southern/Granite
 Point  alternative  would have  significantly greater adverse
 impacts  that  could not be mitigated  to  eliminate  the  dif-
 ferences.   The  northern/Ladd  alternative would  have  very
 limited  impact  on  subsistence -values while  the southern/
 Granite Point alternative  would be built  through a  signifi-
 cant traditional use  area.
                             3-34

-------
      From  the regional  use perspective, the  low potential
 for  adverse  impacts  for the  southern/Granite  Point alter-
 native  was considered a  significant  benefit.   The  size of
 the  area  available  for  the port  site at Granite  Point as
 well  as   its  geographic location  with  respect  to  likely
 future  developments  and the  southern  corridor's  location
 entirely on public land were considered to be significantly
 better  than for  the  northern/Ladd alternative.

      Thus  the lower potential for  adverse  impacts  from the
 southern/Granite Point  alternative  for the set net fishery,
 wildlife  and  regional  use criteria  were countered  by the
 higher  potential for impacts for the subsistence criterion.
 Therefore,  on an  overall basis the  southern/Granite Point
 alternative was  judged to have a lower potential for adverse
 impacts  than  did  the northern/Ladd  alternative.   Although
 the preponderance  of  higher potential for adverse impacts to
 the evaluation criteria  from this comparison were attributed
 to the  northern/Ladd  alternative, the potential effects upon
 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 com-
 ponents.   Two other options were  identified  for  those com-
 ponents  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 pro-
 vided 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.
                            3-35

-------
Table 3-10
EVALUATION CRITERIA MATRIX SHOWING RELATIVE
VALUES ASSIGNED TO THE THREE

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Evaluation
Criteria
H20 Quality
Fish
Wildlife
Reclamation
Set Net
Subsistence
Socioecononu'c
Regional Use
Technical Conplexity
Cost
Lone Creek
Low
Moderate
Low
Lew
Lew
Moderate
Low
Lew
Lew
No Data
TOTAL IMPACT
HOUSING OPTIONS
Congahbuna
Low
Low
Moderate
Lew
Low
High
Lew
Low
Lew
No Data
Threemile
Low
High
Moderate
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
No Data

-------
      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.

      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 migra-
 tion.   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 pro-
 jects.    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 signifi-
 cantly  greater  impacts  to subsistence  than   the  Lone  Creek
 site  as it  would be  located in an area of  traditional sub-
 sistence  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.

     S q c i g e c o n om i c s

     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
                            3-37

-------
 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  pro-
 ject 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, however,
 shows that its  distance  from potential  developments is great
 enough that  the  site  would  not  likely  be used  by 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  Comp1ex it y

      Adequate   technology   presently   exists   to  design,
 construct,  and operate  all three options.   Therefore,  all
 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 rela-
 tive  total impact values  have been assigned for this  cri-
 terion .

      Identification ofPreferred Housing/Airstrip Option

      The   results  of  the  comparison  of  housing/airstrip
 options described above are shown in Table 3-10.  There were
 few  significant differences  among  the  three options.   For
 six  of  the nine criteria  for which data were available,  all
 three  options  showed  uniformly  low  relative  total  impact
 values.  For  the three criteria  for which  significant dif-
 ferences existed {fish, wildlife, and subsistence), both the
 Congahbuna and Threemile options received alternately higher
 and  lower   values   than  the  Lone  Creek option  such  that
 neither emerged as  having an  overall  significantly  lower
 potential  for  adverse impacts  than  the Lone Creek  option.
 For example, the Congahbuna option was  judged to have  values
 of low and  high,  respectively,  for  the  fish and subsistence
 criteria while  the  Threemile  option  received values  of  high
 and  low,   respectively,  for  the  same   criteria.   The  Lone
 Creek option received moderate values for both criteria.

     In final  analysis,  therefore,  there  was  no  basis  for
 substituting  either   the  Congahbuna or  Threemile  housing/
airstrip options  for  the  applicant's  preferred option  at
Lone Creek  in any of the  three alternatives.
                            3-38

-------
3.3  ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE TO THE AGENCIES

     There  are  three  alternatives  available  to EPA,  the
Corps,  DNR,  and  other state and local agencies through each
agency's  permitting responsibilities.   They can:  1)  issue
permits as  proposed with standard stipulations, 2)  deny the
permits,  or  3)  issue the permits with stipulations tailored
to this project  which address specific impacts.  Generally,
the  third alternative  is  preferable because  it  allows  the
project to  proceed  while minimizing  the unavoidable adverse
impacts.

     Although  it is not  the  purpose of this  EIS to decide
what stipulations  the agencies should  impose,  it is appro-
priate  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.
                           3-39

-------
	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 descrip-
 tions  stress  the elements  of the natural and human environ-
 ments  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  base-
 line  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;  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  villa'ge of  Tyonek.   In  1934,  the Moquawkie
Indian  Reservation  was established  for  the benefit  of the
Natives  living   in  the  Tyonek  area.   In  the  early  1970s,
reservation  status  ended   and  the  Natives chose  to  par-
ticipate  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
with the first leases issued in the late  1960s.  A number of
coal leases exist in the region today (Fig.  4-1),
                            4-1

-------
BELUGA REGION LAND (SURFACE)
      OWNERSHIP STATUS
Diamond Chuitna Environmental
    Impact Statement
                                              FIGURE 4-1

-------
      In  the  mid-1970s,  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 opera-
tion  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 pri-
mary  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 private-
ly 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  charac-
terized by irregular ridges and depressions (ERT 1985d).

     The project area  is  flanked  on  the  northwest  by higher
portions of the  plateau and adjoining foothills which  rise
                            4-3

-------
 westward  toward the Alaska Range  and,  to the southwest, by
 estuarine*   and  alluvial*   lowlands  of  the  Chakachatna-
 McArthur  embayment.   South of  the proposed mining area are
 lowlands  covered by extensive bogs and raarsnes with numerous
 ponds  and   lakes.    Areas  near  the  larger  streams  are
 generally well-drained.   The Beluga  region  is  drained pri-
 marily  by  the Beluga  and  Chakachatna  rivers,  which  are
 glacier-fed, and the Chuitna River which heads on the Beluga
 Plateau.  In addition, several other streams, such as Tyonek
 Creek, Old  Tyonek  Creek,  and Nikolai Creek,  drain directly
 into Cook Inlet (ERT 1985d).

      4.3.1.2   Geology

      The primary regional geologic features  in  the area are
 plutonic* and  volcanic* rocks and  ash deposits,  sedimentary
 rocks, and glacial deposits.   Mount Spurr, an active volcano
 of the Alaska-Aleutian batholith*,  lies  about 48  km (30 mi)
 west of the site and has been active since at least Tertiary
 times.  Extensive  ash deposition occurred from about  3,000
 to 6,000 years  ago.   South and  west  of  the site,  extrusive*
 and  intrusive*  igneous*  rocks   consisting  primarily  of
 andesites*,   granodiorites*,  and   volcanic  breccias*   of
 Jurassic and Tertiary ages,  and pyroclastics*, are exposed
 over extensive  areas (ERT  1985d).

      The  central  portion  of the  Beluga Plateau,  including
 the project area,   is  characterized  by a  sedimentary plateau
 mantled by  Quaternary glacial  deposits.   The sedimentary
 rocks  consist   of   the  Tertiary  West   Foreland   Formation
 (noncoal-bearing)  and the overlying Kenai  Group.   The  Kenai
 Group   consists   of   interbedded   claystone,    siltstone,
 sandstone, and   conglomerate with numerous  coal  beds.   Coal
 is also  known   to  occur  in the  overlying Beluga  Formation
 (ERT 1985d).

      The coal-bearing sedimentary  rocks in  the  lease  area
 are  part  of the   Tertiary  Tyonek   Formation  of  the  Kenai
 Group.   The  Tyonek Formation  is a  sequence of fluvial*  and
.deltaic* clays, silts, and sands with  occasional gravel  beds
 and coal seams.   It  is  characterized by its extreme varia-
 bility   both  laterally  and  vertically,  with  facies*  and
 thickness  changes   over  very  short  distar..:es.   Although at
 least 18  coal   ^aams  (including stringers*)  are  known to
 occur within the lease area,  only four are thought to be of
 adequate  areal   extent  and  thickness  to  be significant  for
 mining.   The coals are  of sub-bituminous* C  rank, and  are
 v-'.*y  low in sulfur content,  ranging  from 0.05  to  0.45 per-
 cent  sulfur  (ERT 1985d).

      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
                            4-4

-------
 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  physiochemical  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 con-
 sist  of alluvium,  peat,  and  glacial deposits (non-homogene-
 ous  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 con-
 sists  of  poorly-sorted  cobbly sand to  well-sorted  sand and
 silt.  Alluvial deposits are generally 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
                            4-5

-------
                                                                   TABLE 4-1

                                         STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF PHYSIOCHEHICAL CHARACTERISTICS ACROSS
                                             NINETEEN BRILL HOLES IN THE DIAMOND CHUIINA MINE AREA
Statistic
c
o
, 
"4 "4
** m
>, u
a. a:

0.01 0.03
0.005 0.005
0.05 0.19
06 86

Ma K
meghOOg
2.79 2.30
0.17 0.08
12.40 11.80
64 64

NH4
+ Total
Se Hg Zn fe Mn Cu Cd Pb Ni Cr Be P N05 N
ppm %

Mean 0.01 0.10 10.76 119.03 20.28 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 O.B4 0.22 0.22 0.05 0.12 0.05 0.00 0.30 4.30 0.01
Maxinim 0.01 0.67 312.00 1760.00 101.00 21.50 2.47 10.70 83.00 1.50 0.03 12.50 60.30 0.91
Observations 196 197 229 229 229 229 229 229 229 229 229 191 63 62
Source:  ERI 1985C

-------
 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  pro-
 ject  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  con-
 sists   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  pro-
 ject  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 charac-
 terized 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 1973).  A complex of forest,  woodland,
 and  shrub  communities  has been identified  within  these
 broader life-form  types  by  an  interagency vegetation inven-
 tory  (U.S.  Forest Service  - U.S.  Soil Conservation Service
 1982) and by a  baseline investigation specific  to  the  pro-
 posed Diamond Chuitna mine lease and transportation corridor
 (ERT 1984gj.

     Table  4-2 lists the major vegetation units for the pro-
 ject area.   Forests  are formed  by both open  (25 to  75 per-
cent  tree  cover)  and  closed  (more  than  75  percent  tree
cover) deciduous stands, or a mixture of  deciduous  and coni-
ferous species.  (Scientific names of dominant plant species
as determined  by mean foliar cover  percentage are  listed in
Table 4-2.) Open broadleaf  balsam poplar  forests occur pri-
marily on alluvium of stream channels. White spruce usually
occurs as young  trees or seedlings in the understory of this
                            4-7

-------
                                                     Table A-2

                    MAJOR VEGETATION uMITS AND COMMUNITY TYPES AND ASSOCIATED SOIL SERIES
                                         OT THE DIAMOND-CHUITNft PROJECT AREA
     Major Vegetation Units^

 Forest
   Closed Paper Birch 8roadieaf
     To rest
    jen Balsam Poplar Broadls
     Forest
   Open  Mixed  Birch-Spruce forest
 Woodland
   Mixed  Spruce-Birch Maodland
  Needleleaf  Black  Spruce
    >toodland
Shrubland
  Closed Tall Alder  5hrt±>  Scrii
  Open !all Willow Shrub Scrub
  Open Low Sweetgale Shrub Scrub/
    Grass Fen

Herbaceous
  !*3ic Craninoid Bluejoint
    Hecbaceo-us
      Characteristic Coiwiu." it
 Betuia papyrifera/Oplopanax horridus/
   Cyatopteris spp.
 Paper Dirch/devil's club/bladder-fern

 Popuius balsamifera/Alnus tenuif o 1 ia-
   v iburnum edule/Calamaqroatis  canadenais-
   Polypodium  sp.
 Balsam poplar/thinleaf alder-highbLsh
   cranberry/blue joint  feedgr ass- polypody
   fern

 OB tula papyri fera-P icea giauca/Menziesia
   Ferruginea/Polypodium sp.
 Paper  birch-white spruce/rusty  menziesia/
   polypody fern
3etula papyri fera-Pj._cea qlauca/Alnus
  sinuata-Salix novae-angliae/Calaniagroatia
  canadensis
Paper birch-white spruce/Sitka alder-tall
  blueberry willow/bluejoint reedgraaa

Picea mariana/Vaceiniutn uliqinosunv-EmpBtrurn
  nigrum/Rubua pedatya-Eoyisetun arvenae
Slack s price/bog blueberry-black crowberry/
  five-leaf branble-field horsetail
      tenuifolia-A. s in uat a/C alamagrost is
  canadensis-Polypodium sp,
Thinieaf aider-Sitka alder/bluejoint
  reedgrass-palypody fern

Sa_j_i_x nova-anqliae-5.  glanifoiia/C alama-
  grost is canadensia-Rubus arcticus
Tall blueberry nil low-diamonaleaf w
  oluejoint reedgrass-nangoonberry

Hyrica qale/Ca_rex aquat il is-E leocharis
  palustria
Swee to ale/ water sedge- spikerush
                                                 Associated Soil Series
                                               Hjtnala (Typic Cryorthods)2
                                               Killey (Typic Cryaquents)
              canadensia-E pilobium
  anqustifoliure-Equiaetuin arvense
81 us joint reedgraaa-willow weed- field
  horsetail
                                               f4itnala ( Typxc Cryorthods) '_
                                               Spenard (Sideric Cryaquads)^
                                               Jacobsen (Histic Cryaquepts)
                                               f-titnala (Typic Cryorthods)'
                                               Talkeetna (Huraic Cryorthods)
                                               Spenard {Sideric Cryaquads)^
                                               Jacobsen (Histic Cryaquepts)
                                               Starichkof (Fluvaquentic
                                                 Borochemist s)
                                               Kliston (fypic  Cryaquods)*
                                               Talkcetna (Humic  Cryortnods)
                                               Kliston (Typic  Crgaquods)
                                               Talkeetna (Humic  Gryort-Tids)
                                               Starichkof (Fluvaquentic
                                                 Borosaprists)


                                               Mutnala (Typic Cryorthods)^
                                               Talkeetna (Humic Crjorthods)
                                               Killey 4 Msose River (Typic
                                                 Cryaquents}
Vollows Viereck et al.  (1982).
'These soil types were not mapped within the lease area.

Source:  ERF 1984g.
                                                        4-8

-------
                                   TABLE 4-3

                 CHAmCTERISTICS OF THE MAJOR SOIL UNITS OP THE
                          DIAMOND CHUITNA PROJECT AREA
Soil. Unit

Talkeetna
Variant
Killey  Series
Moose  River
Series
Jacobsen
Series
Chichantna
Series
Star-ichkof
Taxadjunct
Cryaquents-
Histosols
Complex
Major  Profile Characteristics       Drainage         pH

Deep (to 1.5 m  [60  in])  sandy       Well           4.2-4.6
loams  with volcanic ash  over-
lying  gravelly  glacial till
on morainic uplands

Silt loam in alluvial sedi-         Poor           Acidic
ments  overlying gravelly
substrata, 76-102 cm (30-40 in}

Stratified coarse alluvium over     Poor           Acidic
sandy  -  gravelly substrata
(102 on  [40 in])

Deep (86 on [34 in]) fine to        Poor           3.8-4.7
coarse sand over glacial till
mixed  with volcanic ash; very
acidic

Deep (66 cm [26 in]) peat w/        Poor to        5.3-4.7
coarser  peat volcanic ash           very.poor
inclusions, interbedded  coarse
sand at  depth

Moderately decomposed coarse        Very poor      5.1-3.9
and  fine peat with  interbedded
volcanic ash
                                             t
Cryaquents-stratified sand,         Poor to
sandy  loams and silt loams over-    very poor
lying  coarse sand and gravel
alluvium

Histosols-deep  peat, mucky peat     Very poor     Acidic
and muck with some stratified
mineral  inclusions

-------
 community (ERT 1984g).   A similarly stru -ured community is
 formed by paper  birch on upland slopes  and  knolls.   Again,
 white spruce is apparent in the understory.   A more advanced
 stage in the paper birch to spruce succession is represented
 by  a  mixed  white  spruce-black  spruce  and  paper  birch
 woodland comm    -.y.   This  type is  associated with  upland
 knolls and  s    s and  is abundant  throughout the  project
 area.

      Woodlands  (less  than  25  percent tree cover)  are  found
 near black  spruce on the perimeter  of fens and sphagnum bogs
 on poorly  drained soils.   A  mixture of white spruce  and
 paper  birch forms   a  second  woodland  community,  but  on
 uplands and slopes that  have been  disturbed  (e.g.,  burned).
 This community  is especially prominent north  of the  Chuitna
 River.

      Alder  thickets  and  willow  stands are a conspicuous com-
 ponent  of the vegetation in the project  area.   Thinleaf  and
 Sitka alders form a  dense  tall shrub  community  on upland
 knolls  and  steep slopes,  especially above  200 m  (656  ft)
 e  -.-•ation.   A second tall shrub community is  formed  by tall
  : .: cherry willow  and  diamondleaf   willow along  the  major
   .earn  course-•  of  the area.

      Low  shruo-grass  fen vegetation of sweetgale and sedges
 occurs  -s part of the muskeg-bog  complex on  poorly  drained
 soils.   This vegetation  is scattered  throughout the  project
 area  but  is  especially prominent south of the  Chuitna River.
 A  bluejoint  grassland community is associated with openings
 in  the white  spruce-paper birch  forest  that  has  resulted
 from  logging and  beetle kill  of  trees  (ERT  1984g).   This
 community is considered  early  successional  and  is rich  in
 herbaceous  flora  (Table  4-2).    Logging  activity  has   been
 especially  prominent  south of  the  Chuitna  River,  although
 recent  harvesting  has also occurred north of the river  (ERT
 1984g) .

      4.3.2.2 Threatened and Endangered Plant Species

      No threatened or endangered plant species are known to
occur  in  the vicinity of the  Diamond-Chuitna project  area
 (U.S.   Fish  and  Wildlife  Service  1984).   Furthermore, no
candidate threatened,  endangered,  or  rare plant species is
known to occur in this area (Murray 1980).

      4.3.2.3 Wetlands

      It has been nationally recognized that wetland habitats
are  a  particular  :.y  valuable   ecological resource  and  an
integral  part c:  'egional hydrological regimes.   Because of
these  special   . ..ues  and vulnerability  to development ac-
tivity, 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
                            4-10

-------
 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 dura-
      tion  sufficient to support and that  under normal
      circumstances  do support a prevalence of vegeta-
      tion  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 transpor-
 tation  corridor,  Granite Point port  site,  and 10-year mine
 permit area are also  available.  ERT  (1984g) identified nine
 wetland  types  within the  above area  (Table 4-4).   The per-
 centage  of total  surface area covered by wetland communities
 within the study  area has  not been precisely determined, but
 is  probably  in  the range of 20 to  30  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 20  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.

     Based on  federal regulations  (40  CFR  230) and  scien-
 tific  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 pro-
vide  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  biologi-
cal systems  (Darnell  et al. 1976).   However, the  isolated
                            4-11

-------
                                        Table 4-ft
WETLAND CHARACTERISTICS IN THE HOC LEASE AREA, SOUTHERN TRANSPORATION CORRIDOR, AND TORI
  FW5
gymbo.1.1

PF04/1
 PFQ4
            Class
              Subclass2
                                    Dominant Vegetation^
                                                                  Water Regime
PS51/EMS
R30WH
LIQHH
          -alustrine
            Forested
              Mixed needle- leaved
              evergreen/ broad-
              leaved deciduous

          ?alustrine
            Forested
              Nfeedle-lea/ed
              evergreen

          Palustrine
            Scrub/Shrub
              Broad- leaved
              dec id in us

          Palustrine
            Scrub/ Shrub
              Broad- leaved
              dec id ID us
            Em erg an I
              Use row- leaved
              Persistent

          Palustrine
            Emergent
              Narrow-leaved
              Persistent

          Riverine
            Upper perennial
              Ope n wa • ••; •

          Lacustrine
            Limnetic
              Open Mater

          Lacustrine
            Littoral
              Aquatic Bed
              Float ing- leaved
           Open water
                                    Ct>en Mixed Forest/Spruce
                                    BirchjMixed Wbodland/Spruce
                                    *edle-leaf Wood land/ Black
                                    Spruce
                                    Open Tall  Shrub  Scrub/Willow;
                                    Closed  Tall  Shrub  Scrub/Alder
                                    Qpen Low Shrub  Scrub/Sweet-
                                    gal e-Gr ass  Fen
 sa'/jrated to semi-permanentl y
 f  joed
 saturated  to  semi-peniianently
 flooded
saturated  to  semi-permanently
 Flooded
saturated  to  semi-pennanently
flooded
                                    Mesic  Craminoid Herbaceous/
                                    BluEjoint-Herb
                                   ytricularia spp.,
                                   spp., iNuphar spp.
                                   spp.,
                                   Utrlcularia spp,,  Sphagnum
                                   spa.t Nuphar spp., Nymphaea
                                   -pp., Potamageton  spp.
saturated to semi-permanentl y
fl ooded
                                                                  permanent
                                                                  permanent
permanent
                                                                 permanent
      .  conform to those used in National Wetlands Inventory (U.S.  Fish and Wildlife Service 1981)
      in et al, 1979
      d  from ERT 19Wg
                                             4-12

-------
 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 contri-
 bute  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 ani-
 mals  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 com-
 munities, 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 com-
 munities at the  edges of the bogs provide  a specific food
 source  for  red squirrels (Tamiasciurus 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  (A Ices 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.

     Hydrology and Water  Quality

     Wetlands  within  the study area  play  an  important role
 in the  storage of  water  and  the recharge  of  shallow ground-
water 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.
Chemical  reactions that   occur  during the  process  of  decay
within  organic matter underlying  wetlands cause  nutrients
such as nitrogen  and  phosphorous to  be  released  into  the
water.    Surface  drainage  distributes these nutrients  to
aquatic  habitats.  Wetlands  also serve to purify  waters  of
some trace  elements  and  organic compounds by  accumulation
within the organic matter.
                            4-13

-------
      Recreational Use

      Recreational use of wetlands within the Diamond Chuitna
 project area is  low and incidental to  a-  a-wide  activities
 such as moose  hunting.   Coastal wetlar    .outh of  the  pro-
 ject area in Trading Bay State  Game R       receive  some use
 by waterfowl hunters.   The  limited  a-.-.as and  subsistence
 orientation  of  local residents  precludes  heavy  recreational
 use.

 4.3.3     Wildlife

      4.3.3.1 Birds

      Three groups of birds  are  of particular interest  in the
 project area:   waterfowl, shorebirds, and raptors.

      Waterfowl

      Although it  is flanked by  important waterfowl  breeding
 and  migration  areas on the  south (Trading Bay  State  Game
 Refuge)  and  the east (Susitna Flats State Game Refuge),  the
 project area itself contains relatively  poor  breeding  and
 staging habitat  for ducks  and  geese.    Only  a  small  area
 northeast  of Congahbuna Lake  and the bog  area  west of  the
 Beluga   Power  Station  provide  significant   habitat   for
 breeding  ducks  (ERT  1983).   During spring  and  fall migra-
 tion, waterfowl (mainly  mallards,  greenwinged teal,  and  pin-
 tails)  occur in  fair numbers at the  mouth of  the Chuitna
 River and  on mudflats east  of the Beluga airstrip.   However,
 neither  area appears  to be  significant compared  to other
 areas  utilized  by  migrating  waterfowl  in  Cook  Inlet  (ERT
 1986).

     The  project  area  is  of  minor importance  to migrating
 trumpeter  swans  (Olor  buccinator),  but  it is  bordered by
 important  resting and feeding areas used during migration.
 The mine permit area and  the upper portions of  all trans-
 portation  corridor  options are  seldom   frequented  by trum-
 pe±er • swans,  but  one active  nest site  was found  in  1983
 adjacent  to   the   Chuitna   River  crossing  in  the  proposed
 southern  transportation corridor  (Fig.    4-4).    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  bet-.er swan  nesting
habitat  and  greater  swan  use occurs nortn of the  Chuitna
River rather  than  along the  river itself (ERT 1986).

     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  CGrus
canadensis) .   The area  north of Granite Point may  support
                            4-14

-------
                                                           Chugach ElecJ-ric
                                                           Beluga Power Station

                                                                 1  '
                                                       Tyonek



                                                    North Foreland
     Trading Bay Refuge

    LEGEND

o Bald Eagle Nest Sites

* Trumpeter Swan Nest Sites


SOURCE:ERT 1984, 1986
                                  Granite Point
        BALD EAGLE AND

TRUMPETER SWAN NEST  SITES
                                                            Diamond Chuitna Environmental
                                                                 Impact Statement
                                                                  FIGURE 4- 2

-------
two  or three  breeding  pairs (ERT I984f).   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 wateroirds, 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).

     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 1984f) .

     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 pro-
ject area itself  (Fig.  4-4)(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  spe-
cies  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 (AIces  aIces),  brown  bear  (Ursus
arctos) ,   black  bear (Ursus americanus),  and beaver  (Castor
canadensis).
                            4-16

-------
      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  rut*  (October/November), moose  concentrate
 in small groups at higher elevations in the study area.  One
 such  rutting area  is located  south of  Lone  Ridge  in  the
 vicinity of  Denslow  Lake and  the  northern portion  of  the
 mine  permit  area  (Fig. 4-3)  (Faro 1985a).

      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  2003.   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  esti-
mated 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£) .
                            4-17

-------
                                                            Susitna Flats
                                                            Wildlife Refuge
                       lenslow Lake
                                                     Chugach Elec
                                                    Beluga Power/staii
                            o            \®
                              	_.
                                Tyonek Native
                                         RIVER
                                         "X


                                  Corporation
  Congahbuna
     Lake
  Trading Bay
    Refufla
              North Foreland
                     Granite Point
                                   LEGEND

                                 Rutting Concentrations
           Miles

SOURCE: Faro  1984
//  Wintering Areas
/s
           MOOSE RUTTING CONCENTRATIONS  (OCT/83)
                  AND WINTERING AREAS (FEB/84)
   Diamond Chuitna Environmental Impact Statement
                                   4-18
                        FIGURE 4-3

-------
      Food  availability  significantly influences  brown  bear
 distribution  in  the  study area.  Emerging  grasses  and  her-
 baceous 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 more  open mid-level
 sections of these creeks while  in the lower,  more brushy  and
 timbered portions, black bears  appear  to  be more  common.
 However, both species   feed upon   salmon  in  both  areas.
 Seasonally, bears seerti to be dispersed along the meandering,
 mid-elevation  sections  of  the  three  creeks with  no par-
 ticular concentration areas  identified (ERT  1984f).

      In late July, berries  become available and  may  consti-
 tute the bulk  of the diet,  particularly  in years of heavy
 crops.    Ripe   berries   can  often attract  bears  away from
 accessible  and abundant  supplies of  salmon  (Erickson  1965).

      Brown  bears  enter  their dens   in  October  or November
 depending   upon  the  onset  of   winter.    Dens  are  usually
 located at   higher  elevations and bears remain  there until
 late April  or  May.  No  specific information is available  on
 den  site distribution nor does  any  accurate estimate exist
 for  the size of the brown  bear population in the  study area.
 The  brown  bear population  appears to be  typical for rela-
 tively  undisturbed coastal areas  in southcentral  Alaska.

      Black  Bear

      Black  bears  may  be  found  throughout  the study area  at
 any  time of  year,  but they  seem   to  prefer  open,  mixed
 hardwood/spruce forests  at the lower  elevations between Cook
 Inlet and tiraberline.  They are commonly seen along streams
 and  in  and  around bogs  and  clearings.  Black bears  do not
 appear  to   spend  much time  above  timberline  in  the study
 area.

     They generally  eat  the same spring  and early  summer
 herbaceous  plant  species as  described above for  brown bear,
 but  they use a greater diversity of  species.  In early May,
 black  bears feed  on  the emerging  green vegetation  found
 around  water  seeps at the base of  the  bluff on  the north
 side  of the canyon on   the  main  stem of the  Chuitna River
 (ERT 1984f).  Also, black bears may be significant predators
 on moose calves in late  spring (Miller and McAllister 1982).

     Major  factors affecting summer  and  fall   black  bear
distribution are  the  abundance and distribution  of  berries
and.salmon.   Since much  of  the  salmon spawning  takes place
                            4-19

-------
 at lower elevations within their home ranges,  black bears in
 the  study area  probably  travel  shorter  distances  to  the
 streams than  do  brown bears  (ERT  1984f).   Black  bears  are
 found at  lower elevations  in  the fall  than are  brown bears;
 denning probably  also  occurs  at  lower elevations  in  the
 mixed spruce/hardwood forests.  No  accurate estimate exists
 for the size of the black bear population in the study area,
 but it is  probably relatively high.

      Beaver

      Beaver are widely distributed  in  the   study area,  from
 lowlands near Cook Inlet  to the upland  tundra/shrub communi-
 ties at 503  m (1,650 ft)  on top of Lone  Ridge.  They  are
 nost common along  the major tributaries of  the Chuitna  River
 that have  a  low  gradient  (Lone Creek  and   streams 2003  and
 2004)  and  in  sloughs  and  backwater areas along the  main stem
 of the Chuicna (Fig.  4-4),   Beaver dams are a  very impor-
 tant 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  transporta-
 ti'- i  corridor  option and  two more  colonies  exist  on  the
 large  lake 1.6  km (1.0  mi)  southeast   of  Congahbuna  Lake.
 There  are   o 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).

      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 spe-
 cies which  may be  found  in the area is  a subspecies  of the
 pe; -grine  falcon   (Falco  peregrinus  anaturn).    The project
 area  is at the  extreme  southern end of the  range of  this
 species  and no suitable  habitat nor  any  individuals  have
 oeen located by surveys (ERT 1984f).

 4.3.4  Habitat Valueand  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  com-
paring pre- and postproject habitat values.   Specific  evalu-
                            4-20

-------
 LEASE AREA
  BOUNDERY
                                           NORTHERN
                                           CONVEYOR
                                                      EASTERN
                                                     COMVEYOR
       KEY

  •  BEAVER COLONY
                                          LON
                                         CREEK
                                        •iOUSING
                                          AREA
                          SOUTHERN
                          CONVEYOR
 SCALE IN MILES

1/2    1
SOURCE; ERT  1984!
       MINE AREA BEAVER COLONIES (OCTOBER 19835
                                                  FIGURE 4-4
Diamond Chuitna Environmental Impact Statement
                              4-21

-------
 ation  species were  selected  that  have high public  interest
 or  serve as  indicator  species  for habitats having  signifi-
 cant 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 con-
 centrations 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 habi-
 tat 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  ele-
 vations .

     From  the standpoint   of  sensitivity  to  impacts  from
development,   high  quality  habitats that   exist  in  limited
                            4-22

-------
quantity would generally be considered most vulnerable since
disturbance  of  a  relatively  small   area  could  affect  a
substantial  percentage  of the  available habitat.   On this
basis,  trumpeter  swan nesting lakes and moose  winter range
would  probably  be considered  the most sensitive  habitat
types  relative  to  the  evaluation  species  considered  in
Appendix A.   Additionally, nesting swans  are exceptionally
sensitive  to  human disturbance  and habitat  value is readily
lost if humans are present (Timm 1981).

4.4  FRESHWATER ENVIRONMENT

4.4.1 Ground-water Hydrology

     Detailed  information  on  the ground-water  hydrology  of
the  area  can  be  found  in  the baseline  study  report  (ERT
1984c).  The  following  discussion  summarizes  the results  of
that study.

     Ground water  within  the  Diamond Chuitna  project permit
area can be categorized in seven hydrogeologic units.  These
units are  distinct but  interrelated.   Ground  water within
the units  is  either confined* or unconfined.   Starting with
those closest to  the surface  the units  are  described  as
follows;

       0  Recent Alluvium - Consists of  the  sands  and  gra-
          vels  within the  present stream channels.   The
          sands and gravels  usually  have high  permeability
          and ground water is  in an unconfined aquifer.

       0  Overburden - Consists of coal  seams,  clays,  sandy
          silts, and silty sands of the Tyonek Formation and
          unconsolidated  surface deposits  predominantly  of
          glacial origin.  The Tyonek Formation  is separated
          from  the   surface   deposits  by   an   erosional
          unconformity*.    Ground  water  within the  Tyonek
          Formation is  confined while ground water in the
          surface  deposits  is  generally unconfined.   The
          overburden unit  is  generally unsaturated  beneath
          the ridge areas of  the  site.   The depth to the
          water table  varies from 0 in  low-lying areas  to  91
          m (300 ft)  or  more  in the northwest  portion  (ERT
          1984c).

       0  Blue Coal -  Mineable coal seam  which is  discon-
          tinuous   throughout   the   area   due   to   erosion.
         Ground water in this  unit is  confined.

       0 Red  3 Seam  -  A mineable coal  seam,  also  discon-
          tinuous  throughout the permit area due to  erosion.
         This  layer  is  saturated with  water  and exists
         under  confined  conditions.

       0  Red  2 Seam  -  Mineable coal  seam  which underlies
         most of  the  site, except  a few areas where  removed
         by.erosion.  Ground water in  the unit  is confined.

                           4-23

-------
        0  Red 1  Seam - A  mineable coal seam which  is con-
           tinuous throughout the  permit  area.   The layer is
           saturated and exists  under confined conditions.

        0  Sub "  --d 1  Sand  - A thick; sandstone unit  which is
           overl-i: n by the  Red 1  Underclay.   The  unit is con-
           tinuous  throughout   the  permit   area  and   is
           saturated  under  confined conditions.

       -3  layers  between   the  coal  seams  and  the  Red  1
 Underc_ay act as  confining tiers  between  the hydrogeologic
 units.   The confining properties  c the  layers  are  variable
 due  to  sandy  zones  within the uni,3  and to the  ability of
 water  to move between  units  due  tc the  presence  of  erosion
 channels.

     Transmissivity,  i.e.,  the   rate  at which  water  flows
 through  an .-.:•--  ~er,  and the  thickness of each hydrogeologic
 unit are li~ .     :i 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.

     Ground-water  flow  is  controlled  by  both  the   local
 topography  and  by the  region's  structural  geology.    The
 irregular  topograohy  -rovides for surface-water  collection
 and for  ground-v   5r  'recharge*  into the  underlying alluvium
 or  overburden  un^t.   Ground-water discharge  to the stream
 channels  occurs  where the  channel has cut  below  the  local
 ground-water  piezometric*   surfaces.    Faulting  within  the
 Tyonek Formation (Chuit  Fault in  the  northwest  part of  the
 permit area  and  the  South-Pit Fault in the southern part  of
 the  permit  area)  act  as  barriers  to   ground-water   flow .•
 however,  evidence  suggests  that  leakage   occurs across  these
 barriers  (ERT  1984c).   Folding  in  the Tyonek Formation com-
 bined  with the  erosional  unconformity  at  its  surface  has
 resulted  in  the  formation  of  several discharge and recharge
 boundaries,  e.g.,  folding  or erosional  breaks  permit water
 exchange  with  the  surface  or   the  overburden   unit  (ERT
 1984-c).

     Ground-water  flow in  the surficial  overburden unit and
 recent alluvial  units is  predominantly   from  higher eleva-
 tions :o lower elevations in the stream valleys where ground
water  is discharged.   Ground-water  flow in  the  remaining
 hydrogeologic units is predominantly  from west to  east with
 the Hue  Coal  and Red 3 Seam discharging some  flow to sur-
 facewater chan~2ls.  The remaining  (deeper)  hydr/i-ogic units
do  not   currently  contribute  to   surface water  within  the
 study area.
                            4-24

-------
                            Table  4-5
                     AQUIFER  CHARACTERISTICS
HYDROGEOLOGIC
UNIT
Recent Alluvium
Overburden
Blue Coal
Red 3 Seam
Red 2 Seam
Red 1 Seam
Sub Red 1 Sand
•"•Estimated .
^Average thickness.
^Reported in English
TRANSMISSIVITY
(gpd/ft
3,000
155
102
96
58
29
86


units
to
to
to
to
to
to
to


to
)3
5Q,OQQl
250,000
667
624
815
300
1,850


correspond

0
0
4
4
4
4
9



THICKNESS
OF UNIT
m(
- 12
-152
.58(
.58(
.58(
.58(
.15(


with
ft)
.2
.5
15)
15)
15)
15)
30)




(
(
2
2
2
2





0- 40)
0-500)








hydrological convention.
     Source: ERT 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
to streamflow  within  the mine area.   Muskegs are important
to  ground-water  recharge  and  storage  within  the  shallow
aquifers.  The stored water  recharges  rapidly causing flow
of water  in  surface deposits  that  are ultimately drained by
streams at the valley bottoms.  These shallow systems on the
terraced  sideslopes of  the project area  drainages  provide
the majority of base flow to streams (ERT 1984c).

4.4.2     Surface Water Hydrology

     The area  of  possible hydrologic  impacts related to the
project extends  from  the  headwaters of the Chuitna River on
the  northwest  to  Cook  Inlet  on  the  southeast  and  to
Threemile Creek  on  the northeast  (Fig.  4-5).   Upstream of
the project boundary,  the Chuitna   River is  joined by  Chuit
Creek,  Wolverine Creek, and a  number of smaller unnamed tri-
butaries.   These streams will not  be affected  by  the  pro-
posed development.

     The Chuitna River flows along  the southwest side of the
project area  and drains a glacier-free area of about 388 km2
(150  mi2)  over a total flow distance of  about 27 km  (17 mi)
                            4-25

-------
                                         UPPER
                                         MIDDLE
                                                 NORTH FORELAND





                                                \NLfEt
                            GRANITE PT.
WATERBODIES OF THE DIAMOND CHUITNA MINE STUDY AREA
  Diamond Churtna Environmental Impact Statement
                           4-26
FIGURE 4-5

-------
 from the  northwest to southeast.  Ground  elevations  in the
 basin  range  from  sea level to  approximately  549 m  (1,800
 ft). A short  distance  upstream  of   the  project area,  the
 streams are  incised  in a  broad piedmont  lowland  that  is
 covered with a  thin  mantle  of  poorly  drained  tundra  vegeta-
 tion.

      North of the  Chuitna  River, the terrain  is  relatively
 flat with numerous  ponds  and  small  lakes.   Larger  lakes
 include Chuitbuna  Lake,  Viapan Lake and Tukallah  Lake.   The
 surface drainage in  this area  is  poor;  surface water  runoff
 is generally  to the  east  and  south.   Since  the soils  are
 nearly   saturated,  streams  and  ponds  fill  quickly  during
 heavy rains (Riverside Technology, Inc.  1986).

      The surface water  bodies  that could be affected  by the
 proposed development  include the  Chuitna River and its  tri-
 butaries in the vicinity of the mine  area, Tyonek Creek and
 Old Tyonek Creek and  their  tributaries,  and Threemile  Creek.
 The drainage areas and  estimated  mean, minimum, and maximum
 flows of the  potentially affected streams are shown in Table
 4-6.  Numerous  lakes  and ponds  are also  present in the study
 area  including  Congahbuna and Vicky lakes  near the proposed
 southern corridor.

      The average annual  precipitation in  the  basin  during
 the monitoring  period  1982-83  has been  estimated to  be  122
 cm (48  in) with  evapotranspiration losses  of  23  cm (9  in).
 Mean  monthly  temperatures   range  from  a  minimum of  -17°C
 (1.5°F)  in January  to a maximum of 18°C (64°F)  in July.  In
 February 1983, the  snow-course  depth in the area varied  from
 58  cm  (23  in)  near  Congahbuna  Lake   to 152  cm  (60  in) on
 Chuitna  Plateau, 162  cm (64 in)   on Lone Ridge,  and  229 cm
 (90 in)  on Capps  Plateau.

      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 pro-
 ject.   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  rain-
                            4-27

-------
 I
NJ
oo


Table 4-
6


AFKECTCD STiiEAMS
Estimated Flows m/sec (cfs)

1,
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Stream
Oiuitna Hiver (Sta. CQ45)»
Chuitna River (Sta. C120}«
Chuitna River (Sta. C23'Q)«
Lone Creek (Sta. C220)»
Unnaned Tributary 2005
(Sta. C180)
Unnaned Tributary 2004
(Sta. C110)
Tyonek Creek
Old Tyonek Creek
Unnamed tributary of
Old Tyonek Creek
Unnaned Creek south of
Cong alii in a Lake
Locat ion
Southwest of mine area
Near conveyor crosuiixj
Downstream of affected mine area
Above confluence with Oiuitna River
Above confluence with Oiuitna River,
J.22 km (2 mi) east of conveyor aid
4.8) km (3 mi) south of mine area
Drainage Area
kn>2 (au2)
183. 81 ( 71). 97)
1>0.12( 88.05)
342.48(132,23)
49.78( 19.22)
39.8K. 15.37)
Above confluence with Oiuitna Hiver, 46.08( 17.79)
2.4 km (1.5 mi) southwest of mine area
(a) fit conveyor crossing
(b) At mouth of Cook inlet
(a) At conveyor crossing
(b) At mouth of Cook Inlet
(a) At conveyor crossing
(b) At mouth
(a) At conveyor crossing
(b) At mouth of Cook Inlet
3.89C 1.5)
44.03( 17.0)
2.5B( U.92)
60.87( 23.5)
5.44( 2.1)
8.81( 3.4)
1U.1U( 3.9)
12.95( 5.0)
Inatartlurnsous : Mean
tiinuriLin Annual
0.75(26.61) 5.70(203.68)
O.U4(29.93) 7.79(278.28)
1.77(63.36) 10.26(366. 30)
0.13( 4.73) 1.36( 48.40)
0.02( 0.81) 0.71( 25.37)
0.09( 3.33) U.99( 35.43)
U.UB( 3)"'
Q.95( 34)»*
O.U5( 1.B)«»
1.32( 47)»»
0.12( 4.2)
0.19( 6.8)*»
0.22( 7.8)*»
0.28( 10)
Instantaneous
Max inun
118.72(4240. 16)
156.a)(560U.13)
189.82(6779.11)
25.46( 908.80)
12.65( 451.63)
36. 76(1312.70)
—
—
—
—
         »  Based  on observations from July, 1982 to Autjust , 19H3.

        "«  Data not available.  Cat waled at 0.056 mVsec (2 cfs) pur square mile.
        Source:  EKf 19fJ4a

-------
 fall,  snowmelt,  and  ground  water.    Using the  continuous
 streamflow  data  for  Station  C045 and  C230 on the  Chuitna
 River for the period August 1982 to August 1983, rough esti-
 mates of  the contributions of  each  source have  been made.
 These estimates are based on the assumption that streamflows
 in  September-October  are  contributed  mainly  by  rainfall,
 those in  November  through  March by  base flows*, those  in
 April-May  by  snowmelt,  and  those  in  June-July-August  by
 snowmelt and rain.  The  resulting  values  are shown in Table
 4-7..   ...                    	 -      	

      In  the absence of detailed information on  the hydrology
 of  Tyonek  Creek,  Old Tyonek  Creek, Threemile Creek,  and
 other streams  in the  area,  it  is assumed  that  contributions
 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, high
 runoff   potential.     The  Soil  Conservation Service Curve
 Number  (CN3  for these soils is estimated  to be  61  for ante-
 cedent moisture condition*  - II  (AMC-II) and 78  for AMC-III.
 AMC-II  represents the  average  soil moisture condition that
 precedes  the annual  flood;  AMC-III  represents saturated soil
 conditions  caused by  heavy rainfall  or  light  rainfall and
 low  temperatures  during  the  5  days   previous  to  the given
 storm.   The  minimum  infiltration  rate  for  AMC-III  conditions
 for  these soils is  estimated  to be 0.2  cm/hr  (0.08  in/hr).
 Estimated  runoff  factors  for  the Chuitna River  basin   at
 Station  C230, downstream  of the affected area,  are shown  in
 Table 4-8.

      4.4.2.4  Flooding  Characteristics

     The  maximum  recorded  flood on the Chuitna River near
 Tyonek occurred on September 20,  1976 and was  estimated  to
 be 124 m3/sec (4,380 cfs)  (USGS  1979).  The drainage area  of
 the  river  at this station  is  339 km2 (131  mi2).   No other
 data  are  available   on  the  flooding  characteristics   of
 streams  likely  to be  affected  by the project.   Therefore,
 the  2-year,  5-year,  10-year, 25-year,  50-year,  and 100-year
 flood peaks  of the  streams in  the project area  have been
 estimated  using  synthetic  methods.    The  peak  flows  and
 runoff volumes  resulting  from  24-hour storms  of  different
 recurrence intervals are shown in Table 4-9.

     4.4.2.5  Channel Characteristics

     Channel  characteristics were observed  for streams north
of the Chuitna River near the existing Ladd Road.  These  are
summarized on Table 4-10.   Generally, the  stream channels
are  10 to 20 ft  (3  to 6.1 m)  wide with  2 to  3 ft  (0.6  to
                            4-29

-------
                                Table 4-7

              SOURCES OF SURFACE WATER IN CHUITNA RIVER BASH
    Station
   Source
      Approximate percentage of annual runoff*
1.





C045, Chuitna
River southwest
of mine area
(Drainage area
183.81 km2
[70.97 mi2])
Rainfall
Basef low
Snowmel t
Snowmelt & rain


26
5

24


to 40
to 26
22
to 34


    C230,  Chuitna
    River  downstream
    of affected area
    (Drainage area
    342,48 km2
    [132.23 mi2])
  Rainfall
  Baseflow
  Snowmelt
Snowrnelt &
rain
25 to 42
 5 to 26
20 to 34
16 to 34
 *Ranges  are  based  on  observed  mean  daily minimum flow and mean daily maximum
 f1ows.
 Source:   ERT  1984e
                                 Table 4-8

             ESTIMATED RUNOFF FACTORS FOR CHUITNA RIVER BASIN
                  (Drainage  area  342 km2 [132.23 mi?])
         Storm Designation
                            Estimated Runoff Factor
Return Period
(years)
2
5
10
25
50
100
Duration
(hours)
24
24
24
24
24
24
Depth
(cm[in])
7.59(2.99)
9.45(3.72)
12.04(4,74)
13.72(5.40)
14.38(5.66)
15.09(5.94)


0.32
0.40
0.48
0.52
0.'54
0.55
Source:  ERT 1984e
                                    4-30

-------
                                                                          Table 4-9

                                        ESMMAItU PtAK FLOWS AND HUNOFF VQHWES FOK SFOKMS Of OlFFEKtNT  KLCUKiiENCE  INTERVALS1
                                                       2-year           5-year          10-year          25-year          50-year         lUU-year
                                                   24-hour storm    24-hour storm    24-hour storm    24-hourstorm    24-haur storm    24-hour storm
                                       Drianaye    Peak   Runoff    Peak   ftjnoff    Peak   Runoff    Peak   fiinoff    Peak   (tjnoff:    rt:ak   Kunoff
                                         Area      Flow   Volune    Flow   Vblune    Flow   Volume    Flow   tolune    Flow   Vblune    Flow   Vulune
                 aation                (sq miles)  (cfs) (acre-ft)  (cfs) (acre-ft)  (cfs) (acre-ft)  (cfa)  (acre-ft)   (cfa)  (acre-ft)  (cfs) (acre-ft)
       1,   thuitna River southwest       70,97     3,838   3.7V2     5,69}   5,792    8,452   8,86*    10,204 10,951     11,032 11,812    11,H12 12,715
             of mine  area      CQ45

       2.   tnuitna River near            88,85     3,966   4,711     5,918   7,175    8,059  10,977    10,854 13,504    11,642 14,624    12,525 15,795
             conveyor crossing C12Q

       5,   Chuitna River downstream     132,23     4,209   6,825     6,398   10,471    9,704  16,050    11,952 19,879    12,852 21,419'    13,8>0 25,095
**           of affected area  C230
to                                                                                                                                  '
t-1     4.   Lone  Creek  above confluence    19.22        905   1.U97     1,456   1,660    2,162   2,525    2,635   3,111    2,828   3,i5>    3,U>U    3,611)
             with Chuitna River  C220                                                                                                 \

       5.   Unnaned  Tributary  1,  2 miles   15,37        988      BBU     1,438   1,341)      2,113  2,040    2,556   2,511    2,737   2,7ut»:    2,'//5    2,909
             east of  conveyor  and 3
             miles south of mine area
                                C180

        6.   Unnaned  Tributary  2,  1.5       14.79     1,126      «55     1,619   1,290    2,347   1,964    2,022   2,417    i,U16   2,604     3,215    2,01)0
             miles southwest of  mine
             area               C110

        7.   Lone  Creek east of mine         7.15        562      429       UUQ      647    1,167      9U1     1,40}   1,21)7    1,490   1.2VU     1, 5yV    1,3%
             area               C200

        B.    Tributary of Chuil Creek        2.37        218      142        30U    214       440      J25       526     4UU       561      43U       597      463
             west of mine  area   C020

        9,.  Tributary of Chuitna River     6.51        511      591       706      5U9     1,128      tW>     1,554   1,099    1,444   1,102     1,559    1,271
             just south of mine  area,
             0.7 miles east of conveyor
                                 C140

        10.  Tributary of Uiuitna River     9.42        780      566     1,115      052     1,605    1,292     1,925   1,590    2,053   1,710     2,191)    1,059
             south of mine area, 1.4
             miles weut of conveyor
                                 COW)


          Reported in Uujlisli tnits  U> corretiixmJ wi Lh hydrolujicail cuiivunl ion,

        Sfiiiruc:  MU  19H4c

-------
                                                                                   Tublts 4-III
UJ
SIRCAH CRQSS1NG CHANNEL CHARAL!'"t«;tICS (1)
1 ADO ROAD/NORTH KOAD All.
ELECTRICAL TRANSMISSION ROW
Stream
Crossing
2003
200301
Lone Creek (2002)
15
Bank Valley
Mean Full Mean Maximua floor
Width Width Depth Depth Width
(feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet;
16 32 2.0 5.0 130
1U 22 1.0 3.5 70
22 41 1.5 4.0 175
8 12 1,0 3.0 N/A
Roughness
•ncterislictf
Course Gravel/Cobble
Silts/Cobble
Silts/Cobble/Boulder
Silt/Tine Sands
Overbank \Uytitalion
Mixed Woodland, Shrubs, & Grasses
Willows, Alders, & Grasses
WillOHS, Alders, & Graaaes
Dense Riparian, Muskeg 4 Grasses
LAW) ROW
Stream
Crossing
2003
200301
Lone Creek (2002)
15
10
Bank Valley
Mean Full Mean Maximum Floor
Width Width Depth Depth Width
(feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet)
16 32 2.0 5,0 60
10 22 1.0 3,5 70
22 41 1.5 4.0 1BO
7 10 0.6 3.5 N/A
5 8 0.5 2.5 N/A
Roughness
Characteristics
Coarse Gravel/Cobble
Silts/Cobble
Silts/Cobble/Boulder
Silt/Gravel
Ssnd/Gravel
Overbank Vegetation
Mixed Woodland, Shrubs, 4 Grasses
Willows, Alders, 1 Grasses
Willons, Alders, & Grasses
Dense Riparian, Muskeg 1 Grasses
Dense Riparian, Huskeg & Grasses
                          (1) Values  ,«; composite of Bulitple surveys conducted during
                              crossings.
studies and are representative of the selected stream

-------
 0.9 m)  vertical banks.   They  are well-developed,  incised and
 y-shaped.    Dense  riparian vegetation and woodland  comprise
 overbank vegetation.   In  the Chuitna River basin,  channels
 appear  to  be  dynamic  and have potential  for  bank  collapse
 and migration  due  to  extreme  runoff  events.    For  flood
 events,  less  than  bankfull, very  little  bank  alteration
 would  likely occur  since  they are  held together by a  heavy
 vegetative  mat  in  most  cases.  Large  streambed materials and
 low natural sediment content of the water minimize  aggrada-
 tion and degradation (Riverside Technology,  Inc.  1986).

 4.4.3     Water  Quality

     4.4.3.1 Ground-water  Quality

     Two wells drilled in the project  area (Fig. 4-6) pro-
'vide information about  ground-water  quality outside of the
 lease  boundary.  The well  southwest  of Congahbuna  Lake had
 good quality soft  water that  was a mixture of calcium bicar-
 bonate and  sodium  bicarbonate types (DOWL 1981).   Water con-
 tained  low  mineralization, trace element concentrations were
 low, and the water  easily met drinking  water standards  < ADEC
 1982).   Water in a  well  near the  Chuitna River was calcium
 bicarbonate type (Scully et al.  19815.  Other than  iron, no
 physical constituents  or  properties  were in excess of the
 EPA (1976)  or  ADEC  (1982)  drinking water standards.

     Ground-water  quality  in the  lease area,  summarized in
 Table  4-11,  was  characterized  by  sampling numerous  test
 wells.   This water  exhibits significant variation  with depth
 or  stratigraphic position  of each hydrogeologic  unit (ERT
 1984a) .   The water  quality of springs  is similar to stream
 water  quality and  meets  all  of  the  primary drinking water
 standards.    Mineralization  (measured  by   total  dissolved
 solids and  conductivity),  hardness,  pH, and alkalinity tend
 to  increase with the older and deeper  units.   Ground water
 from all units, except springs, exceeds  the drinking water
 criteria  for  iron  and manganese  and  the  total dissolved
 solids  criterion is  exceeded in  the Sub Red 1  Sand  (ADEC
 1982).   Iron  concentrations  in  all  units,  except  springs,
 also  exceed  the  level critical  for  the   preservation  of
 freshwater  aquatic  life,  which  is  1.0  mg/1   (EPA 1976).
 Isolated  ground-water  samples also  equalled  or   slightly
 exceeded aquatic life  criteria for  zinc and ammonia.  Trace
 elements  other  than iron  and manganese  exhibit low  con-
 centrations, as  do  the  EPA priority pollutants.

     The  water  quality of  the  upper  part of   Lone  Creek
 appears  to  be slightly  affected by discharge of ground water
 originating  from the deeper aquifers.   Ground-water  input to
 other streams  is primarily from  shallow aquifers with water
 quality  similar  to  surface   water   and,  therefore,  water
 quality differences  cannot be detected  (ERT 1984c).
                            4-33

-------
                                                                Susitna Flats

                                                                Wildlife Refuge
     Congahbuna
        Lake
  Trading
""""  Refuge
                                                      Tyonek
                                                 North Foreland
                        Granite Point
        Well Locations
        Stations sampled by Maurer and Totand (1d84)


        TS8 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
                                    4-34

-------
                                   Table 4-11
                              GROUND-WATER QUALITY
                                        Over-   Blue   Red  3   Red 2  Red 1  Sub
Characteristic         Spring   Aluvium burden  Coal   ...Coal   jgcal   Coal    1  Sa

Conductivity,
 micronhos/an 6  25°C     44        180       250     280     400     590    580      910

Hardness, mg/L
 as CaCO3

Doninant Cation

Doninant Anion

Sulfate, mg/L

Iron, mg/L

Manganese, mg/L

Zinc, mg/L

Trace Elements (other
 than Fe, Mn, &  Zn)      Low       Low      Low    Low    Low     Low     Low     Low

Total Aromatic
 Hydrocarbons            Low       Low      Low    Low    Low     Low     Low     Low

Acid Extractables        Low       Low      Low    Low    Low     Low     Low     Lew

Base/Neutral
 Extractables            Low       Low      Low    Low    Low     Low     Low     Low


Note:  Values are averages for  each unit.
       Iron, manganese,  and  zinc concentrations are total recoverable  levels.

Source:  ERT 1984c.
8.9
Ca/Na
BC03
1.9
<0.02
<0.005
0.045
66
Ca
BCG3
5.0
3.5
0.19
0.24
100
Ca
HC03
5.8
5.1
0.39
0.23
94
Ca
HC03
21.2
2.1
0.29
0.41
75
Na
HC03
2.5
2.1
0.08
0.22
102
Na
HC03
38.9
12.1
0.16
2.24
104
Na
HC03
39.7
39.7
0.72
2.51
134
Na
C03
5.9
3.7
0.15
3.39
                                    4-35

-------
      4.4.3.2 Surface Water Quality

      Data reported by Scully et al. (1981), ERT (1984e),  and
 Maurer and Toland  (1984)  indicate  that  the water  quality of
 streams in the Chuitna River basin (Fig. 4-5)  is consistent-
 ly high  throughout the year,  which  is  typical in  pristine
 areas of Alaska.  The stream flow is  typically highly oxyge-
 nated with 90 to  100  percent  saturation of dissolved oxygen
 and  has  little  or no oxygen  demand.    The water  displays
 neutral pH levels  but low concentrations of alkalinity indi-
 cate  the streams are poorly buffered.  Mineralization is  low
 as indicated by relatively  low conductivity levels,  ranging
 up to  120 micromhos  per centimeter  at 25°C  (77°F).   The
 dilute surface waters  are a calcium bicarbonate  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
 (72.5°F)  (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 ir  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.
 ',981) .

      Although iron  and  manganese concentrations  exceed  their
 respective  drink ng water  criteria  (EPA   1976; 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 aquatic  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  e  . aeding 1.0
 irq/l--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).
                            4-36

-------
      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 measure-
 ments in Old Tyonek Creek  ranged from 2.1 to 19.0 mg/1  (DOWL
 19815,  indicating  a relatively low  sediment load  in this
 creek.   U.S.   Geologic  Survey data  (USGS  1981;  USGS  1983?
 Still et al. 1984)  indicate all three creeks display relati-
 vely  low conductivity  levels.  Hence, mineralization is low.
 Water temperature  ranges  from  0 to  at least 20°e (32°  to
 68°F), dissolved  oxygen  levels  are moderately high to  high,
 and pH values are typically neutral.  Bicarbonate alkalinity
 concentrations  are relatively  low  which  means   there  is
 little buffering  capacity  in these creeks.   Color levels in
 Tyonek and Old  Tyonek  Creeks  are high.

 4.4.4    Biology

      4.4.4.1 Aquatic Ecology

      There are  four relatively distinct  freshwater habitat
 types in the project area:  the Chuitna River, the three tri-
 butaries to the Chuitna, Threemile Creek, and numerous  ponds
 and  small  lakes  (Fig,  4-5).   Most  of these habitats are
 relatively productive, supporting a diverse array of primary
 and  secondary   producers  (algae  and invertebrates).   Where
 access has been available  since the  last  ice age,  resident
 fish  have  colonized many  of  these waters.  Where access  is
 currently  possible, anadromous* fish  dominate the aquatic
 communities.

      For its lower  10  km (6 mi),  the Chuitna  River meanders
 over  the relatively flat  coastal plain that  extends  north-
ward  past the Susitna Flats.  At a point about 1  km (0.6 mi)
downstream of  the  mouth of Lone  Creek, the  river  leaves  a
 steep-walled valley and  the  sinuosity  is  somewhat  reduced.
Overall, the stream  is characterized by long riffle sections
 interspersed with scattered deep pools.   The entire mainstem
 through and  above  the project  area  is accessible  to  adult
anadromous  fish  and  is  also  utilized  by  juveniles  for
rearing (ERT 1984a) .  Substrate ranges from  coarse sand  to
cobble and boulder  with  bedrock  outcrops,  often  in  the form
of coal seams.   Water is  typically  clear  (non-glacial) and
slightly stained  with organics.   Benthic  productivity,  as
evidenced by  standing  crop,  tended  to  be less than  in the
mine  area tributaries.   Mean  annual  flow  has  been estimated
at  5.70  to  10.26  mVsec  (203.68  to  366.30 cfs)  with  a
 recorded extreme range of  flow of  2.41  to  112.00  m^/sec (86
 to 4,000 cfs)(ERT 1984e).

     Three  significant Chuitna River  tributaries  drain por-
tions  of  the  mine  area.    These  tributaries,  2002  (Lone
                            4-37

-------
 Creek), 2003,  and 2004, contribute  15,  7,  and  10  percent,
 respectively,   of   Chuitna  flow   below   the   Lone   Creek
 confluence (ERT 1985c5.  In  addition,  Tyonek  and Old  Tyonek
 creeks  would  b*  crossed  by the  southern  corridor.    The
 northern corric    crosses  Lone Crj--ek and crosses  Threemile
 Creek twice.    1    eastern  corridor crosses Lone Creek.   In
 general, these  steams  can be characterized  as  clear-water
 streams with  moderate to high organic staining,  stable chan-
 nels  and  flows,  good  benthic  productivity,  and  good  to
 excellent  fish habitat.  The benthic  community  is  dominated
 by immature  stages  of chironomids  (mosquitoes and  midges),
 simuli'is  (black  lies), mayflies,  caddis flies, and  stone-
 flies   . th 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 abun-
 dant  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
 ars  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  (Salrno  gairdneri)  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
 speci-es  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 pre-
 vented development of  such a fishery to date.  Juvenile rain-
 bow  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;
                            4-38

-------
                                      o»
    LEGEND

A CHINOOK
• COHO
O RAINBOW
D DOLLY VARDEN
-- MINING LIMIT
SOURCE: ERT 1984a, b.
                                                        North
                                                       Foreland
        UPPERMOST EXTENT OF DOCUMENTED USE BY
                REARING JUVENILE SALMONIDS
   Diamond Chuitna Environmental Impact Statement
                             4-39
    FIGURE 4-7

-------
                                               LEGEND

                                               * CHINOOK
                                               •COHO
                                               DRINKS
                                               -MINING LIMIT
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
                              4-40

-------
 ERT  1984c).   Juveniles were taken at virtually every stream
 location  sampled that had any fish, including the uppermost
 reaches  of tributaries to streams 2002, 2003, and 2004  (ERT
 1984a, Dames  &  Moore  1980).

      Other resident fish  that have been taken in the Chuitna
 system  include  Pacific lamprey  (Lampetra tridentatus), arc-
 tic  lamprey  (L. japonica),  slimy sculpin (Cottus cognatus),
 coastrange sculpin (C. aleuticus),  and threespine stickle-
 back  (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  (Oncorhynchus
 tshawytscha and _0,   kisutch) .   Pink  salmon  (CL  gorbuscha)
 are  also  abundant in  the system along with a  few  chum and
 red  (sockeye)  salmon   (_0.  keta and  £.  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 chi-
 nook  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 migra-
 tion.  Estimated escapements  in  the three  years of baseline
 data ranged from 3,537 to 6rOOO.   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 streams  2002, 2003, 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
                            4-41

-------
                                          AGE  0* - 3+  OUTMIGRATE  AFTER 3-4 YEARS
     DOLLY
                        rrrnnnnr~m
     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'J'A'S'O'N'DI
                    trim n ••  ••  w\
     CHUM
     SALMON
                                                           •On SPAWNING

                                                           (IZKI) INTRAGRAVEL DEVELOPMENT

                                                           &?m FRY EMERGENCE

                                                           oooooo OUTMIGRATION TO SEA
                    111 •• •• •• ••!
     PINK

     SALMON
                                         AGE o*
                                   n
                                                AGE I*
                                                  —c

                                                  -*
     CHINOOK
SALMON '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 It
                                                                            AGE 2 +
                                          AGE
                                                           -ooooo-
                       [11 •• •• •• ill
COHO
SALMON
IJ'F'M'
                                                                            ''''''''
IM J J'A'S'O'N OIJ

IBROOD STOCK YEARJ
                             M'J'J'A
                             YEAR o
                                                       M'J'J'A'S'O'NDJFMAMJJASOND
                                                       YEAR i         |        YEAR 2        j
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

CHINOOK
UPS WEAH
SIRCAH 1C«H IIH1!
CHUtrw SJSrtH 198Z tu nouthof 2011
21) (Hil.erini? fork)
I9B5 to 4 mi. above
mouth of 2011
1984 to «outh of Z011
(Nolverine fork)
.£>.
1
OJ
KM CKLEK 1VU? Lo 0,5 at. xliuvi.-
ZOM ZDIJ2UI
IVIli In U.B mi , utiuvn
nimilli
1V04 to U.8 III. lllluvc
Blmjt ft
MAICKSI1D uu; to near muun
2UOJ of 200SU2
19H3 to near woutli
of 2D051J2
I9S& tu 1,0 «i. aliuve
of *ioi£ h
«*»>««» «'« - '-"-I- *-~"
1WI> lo Junl tletnt.
I')IK. Ill 0.1 «l. «l,,~i:
•jAijiim L:><:AIIMK LIMH WHBEH SYS1EM VEAR IIMII MMIKH SK tEH YEAR L1H1I ^aHttt:ll STSIEM
Ji!7 lo 100 1982 ml doeuteiited 108S In 100 1980 to 2 «t. Belon N.E, N.E, 1982 not . 1UU 198! «B»e noijth of JJZflt- lutt
WHO miih of 2011 1BOB 201NI Molverine Creek
J900 100 19tKi not duci»enteiJ 1900 to 100 19BJ lonoulhof 71 >U 1UU WW> not docutented N.E.
2SOO 2004
19B4 to mouth of 9775 untoiotn
2004 iminalm
cmly
a«J. i - 6 1VU2 lo ^i~« 112 17 - 19 1VU2 lu U.> mi. iiliuvu N.L. N.L.
.n.;::l 2UU2M
tit 7 1M» lu jiist Ijiilo* an* IB - 2J I9B3 lo O.B «i . auiivc 'ff> J
211112(11; U. 5 ini. BOutn
inlu 2002UZ
19114 to U.U si. aliovy B4 S
POiAh
508 12 - 11 IVltf >wt .Icicunenloa ?u» 5-6 1VUO to just belo» W«U? N.E,
month of 20U)U6
J2i 6-7 IMIi lu jmil U)UVB 111 a - 9 19U2 not docunenteO N.t". N.E.
41 1 !!»1» lo moutu of 5-7 19B) tu tl.B »i. »l»o»c 
-------
 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  tribu-
 taries  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
 spawners  have been noted as far upstream as  5.6 km  (3.5 mi 5
 above the  mouth of Wolverine Creek  in the mainstem  and  some
 11  km (7 mi)  up Chuit Creek (ERT 1984a).   Coho spawners  also
 were documented as  far upstream  as  17,6,  11.5,  and 9.6 km
 (11, 7.2,  and 6 mi) above  the mouths of  streams 2002, 2003,
 and 2004,  respectively,  in at  least one  of the three base-
 line survey  years  (Fig. 4-8).    Maximum  percentage of the
 documented  coho escapement  for  the Chuitna system  spawning
 in  each creek  has  been 23, 9,  and 9 percent  respectively.
 Upstream  migration distance  and  escapement  to each stream
 do  not seem  to be as  dependent  on  the  location  of beaver
 dams as for Chinook and  pink salmon.

      Coho  spawn in the  study  area from la ~.e August through
 October  (Fig.  4-9).   Preferred spawning haoitat is  a gravel
 or  gravel/cobble stream  bed in  27  to 30 cm  (10.6 to  11.8 in)
 of  water  with  a  velocity of 0.34 to  0.43 m/s  (1.1 to 1.4
 ft/s)  (ERT 1985c).   Emergence reportedly  occurs  from late
 April  through  June.    Fry  spend  one or  two years  in  the
 stream  residing  mainly  in  pools  and  slower 'reaches  of
 accessible   tributaries.   They    feed  on   a   mixture   of
 terrestrial adult insects that  fall  into  the water and imma-
 ture aquatic  insects (Scott and Grossman  1973, Dames & Moore
 1976).   Outmigration probably  occurs primarily during  the
 spring  but may extend  throughout- much  of the year  (Fig.
 4-9).   As  with  chinook salmon,  late fall  migrations  and
 overwintering distributions are not well understood.

     Maturing adult pink salmon enter the Chuitna River from
mid-July through  early  August on  their  spawning  migration.
 Estimated escapements in  the  three years  of baseline ranged
 from 7,150 to over 20,400, with greater numbers during even-
numbered years.  Spawners were noted only as far upstream as
the  mouth  of  Stream  2004  in the  mainstem.   Pink spawners
were documented as  far  upstream as  4.7 and 1.3 km (2.9  and
0.8  mi) above the mouths of streams  2002  and 2003,  respec-
tively, in at least one of the  three  baseline survey  years
 (Table  4-12),   Maximum percentage  of  the documented  pink
escapement for the Chuitna system spawning in each  creek has
been  3,  4, and 0  percent,  respectively.   However, in  an
earlier  survey, during  the  exceptionally good   1980  pink
year, pink spawners were far more  abundant  (Table 4-115  in
streams 2002  and  2003  than  during  the  baseline  study  years
 (Dames & Moore  1980).    Spawning  activity was noted as  far
upstream as   11.4  kin  (7.2  mi)   above  the  mouth   of  Stream
2003.  In Lone Creek (2002), pinks  were seen as high as  14.6
km (9.1 mi 5  above  the  mouth  (at the confluence of 200202)  in
                            4-44

-------
 1980  (Dames  &  Moore  1980).   As with Chinook, upstream migra-
 tion  distance, and  very likely escapement  numbers  to each
 stream   as  well,  is  very  dependent  on  the  location  of
 impassible beaver  dams;  a trend of increasing  exclusion from
 upper  reaches of  mine area  tributaries  has occurred since
 1980.

     Pink  salmon  spawn in  the study  area from late July to
 early September  (Fig.  4-9).   Preferred spawning habitat is a
 gravel  or  gravel/cobble stream bed with  depths  of 12 to 46
 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.

     The fish  resources of  independent drainages that would
 be  crossed  by alternative transportation corridors have not
 been studied  in  great detail. However, 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.   Threemile
 Creek has  a  run  of several  thousand  red salmon and may also
 have  some  coho (Hepler  1985).   Nikolai  Creek 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).

     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 addi-
 tion  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.
 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 QSFWS applications),  the  physical and biological
                            4-45

-------
                                      Table  4-13
HABHAI AND BIOlOCiCAl CtlARACIERISHCS Of
DRAINAGE
IHlUulAltV
MACH
REACH LENGIH
(meters)
MEAN N101H
(•cters)
REACH ARtA (n2)
POOl/RIffLE
(ares ratio)
SLOPE IS)
S1NUDSIIV
RlfflE VCL. (major
and percent Kb)
BEAVER DAKS
DISCHARGE
( annual range m3/»)
MAXIMUM MEASRCD
SPAMNMC DCN5IIY
(no./ta)
- CHINOOK
rwAlMUH W.SMIKED
REARING DENSITY
- CHINOOK
- COHD
- RAINBOW/
DOlir VMDCN
20
CHUI1NA B.
HAINSIEM
UCIOW 2003
17910
22,6
404766
0.4-0.85
Q.5-KO
HICH
B. 31-0. 76
M
HONE
2.4-113*
85

a.64 (d)
0.5S (d)
0.47 (d)
ASSIGNtD PROJCCT
AflCA HABHAI VALUE
- CHINOOK VI Rt HICH
- com HIGH
- FINK HICII
- RA1MK1K/
ODLLV VARDOi HICH
(a) Soumi 1ST |19B4a. 19Mb. 1
2002
LONC CD.
HA1NSIEH
UPPER
3670
2.4
8808.
0,4-1.7
1.0-5,0
ION
0.31-0.76
90
ret*
0.01-2.9
20

0.11
0.75
0.64
MEOIUH
HIGH
MEDIUM
HIGH
LM&c) snoot
20(12
LONE CR.
HAINSIEM
H10DLE
111*0
5.7
41958
0.8-J.4
1.0-1.5
HIGH
O.J1-0.74
HAW
0.08-17.2
(J)
20-35
M)U(k)

0.43
J.OJ
0,1
HIGH
VERY HIGH
HICH
MEDIUM
aa noted.
2002
I.IINE CD.
MAINSIEH
LOMCR
6390
6.7
42B13
1.2-4.3
1.0-1,5
MOOCRA1C
O.M-D.76
rc»
0.2J-1».4
200
HO
190

0.32
0.2
VERV HICH
HIGH
HIGH
HE01UH
2003
HAINSItH
UPPER
4610
1.0
8298
0.73-12.0
0.5-3.0
LOM
0.16-0.30
68
NONE

(ji

0.0 (e) <0.04 (f)
I.W {•) 0.13 (h)
O.J4 («) |.4« (h)
lOH HCD1UM
HIGH HIGH
LOW LOM
MCOIIM HICH
20U4 2fl04 2004
HAINSiEAM HAINSIEH 2110403
MIDDLE 1 (MR UPPER 360 m
48M )U20 360
3.3 3.9 1 (i)
15939 1177U J6O
1.36-4.32 2.39
0.5 2.5
HIGH U1W
0.31-B.!6 O.M-0.76
61 75
flW HANV
a.08-1J.I 0.11-24
45 -
(J) (j)

<0.0« (f) 0.23 (f) - (g)
2.98 (h) O.J4 (h) 1.»2 (B)
0.39 (h) 0.77(h) 0,34 (•>
HIGH VEHV HIGH MTOIIIH
VI KY HIGH HIGH HIGH
I.UN LOH [OH
HCOHJN HIGH MEDIUM
(b> Parcent of tot»l  riffl*  mrom  with  vnlcKitifl* in Mjctr
(c> Actual derail y Bho**n  i*  hlgheat  doc***ol»d in «n^ IsAae
(d) Scaled from maximum density in  lower ZOO 5  and 2003 (av
    of 198? MtrmcM tritp catch per unit  of effort CCPUC);
(c) Based on average  af ? 001 01 aod  -u,OD^ values.
(f) Scaled frtn  lower 20TI> density  usiog ratine of 1983
    froa) afjfj lie stole reaches,
in* atudy year.
rage*]), based oo ratios
     jia to ahereltneo on
     rup mean CPUf "S
                                                                                      raactiea.
 g   o  aea  ar sxrspQeon o   ensy vaues.
(ri) Scaled (ton hiyhool 1983 or 1?S4 darraUie* on 2M2 and 2002
    uaing 19B2 »in»w*» trap mean PCUC'5 fro«
(i) CntiMated value.
(j) S|>«!cies Is preaent; no cJenaHy eatinate
(k) Source:  O^nes i Moore 19BO.
{1} loiver porlion only.

-------
 data available,  and the assumption  that  access  is  unhindered
 to reaches currently blocked  by  beaver  dams.  This  assump-
 tion is based on  the  trends observed between 1980  (Dames  &
 Moore 1980) and 1984  (ERT  1985c)  which  indicate  a  progres-
 sive  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 2002  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.    Opper  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  sec-
 tors  by the East and West Forelands.  The  Beluga region is
 in  the   north  sector of  Cook  Inlet which  has  implications
 relative to circulation, water quality, and ice conditions.

      4.5.1.1 Currents/Circulation

      Tidal  influences dominate currents and circulation pat-
 terns in  Cook  Inlet.  Models  of Cook  Inlet tidal processes
 have  been  constructed  (Carlson and  Behlke  1972;  Mungall and
 Matthews 1970)  but do not offer sufficient resolution at the
 three possible port  sites for  impact  assessment.  Cook Inlet
 tides are mixed diurnal, exhibiting two unequal  high  and low
 tides in a period of about 25 hours;  amplitudes  range from 3
m  (10 feet) at  the mouth to  9 m (30  feet) at the head.
                            4-47

-------
      Tides were measured  at  the  Granite Point port site for
 a  few  days during  the feasibility  investigations (Bechtel
 1983; Nortec  1982)  and these results indicate a tidal range
 on  the  order  of  4  m  (13 to  14  feet). Comparison  of these
 data with  predicted  tides  from other  parts  of  Cook Inlet
 suggests some differences  at the Diamond Alaska  site rela-
 tive to expected  (adjusted predictions)  tidal datum,  levels
 and times.   This affects site bathymetric survey data.

      Currents,  being   tidally   driven,   reverse   direction
 approximately  every 6 hours.  With the great  tidal  range,  the
 velocities  and turbulence of  currents in Cook  Inlet  can  be
 dramatic.   The National Ocean Survey (NOS) conducted current
 monitoring  in Cook  Inlet during  the mid-1970s.  Their  sta-
 tions 55,  57,  and  58 are in the  Granite Point/North Forelvad
 vicinity.   Data from  the  NOS tidal  current tables  indicate
 higher  flows  approaching 5 knots.   Because  of the irregular
 seafloor and coastline, the ebb  and  flood  current  directions
 also vary from being exactly  opposite in direction reversal;
 this is  important  in  selecting  dock  location  and  orien-
 tation.

      The highest currents measured  at Granite Point  during
 the  brief  feasibility investigation  were  on ebb,  which
 peaked  at  2.8  knots;  flood  tide reached 2.6 knots  during
 this same short period.  A  statistical  analysis (Nortec 1982)
 concluded that extreme tidal  range at the site would  be 5.8
 m  (17.8  feet)  and  extreme tidal  current would be  6.2  knots.
 Net circulation  direction across  this  site is probably to
 the southwest.

      4.5.1.2 Bathymetry

      Detailed  bathymetric data  are  not available  for  the
 area between Trading Bay and  the Beluga River  except  i-n the
 immediate vicini-y of  the  proposed Granite Point and Ladd
 port sites  (Nortec 1982).  Navigation charts  show that, in
 general,  the   sea  bottom is  gently  sloping  with  a shallow
 ~helf less  than  18  m (60 ft)  deep extending  into Cook Inlet
  >r  a distance of  2100  m  (7000  ft)  to  3600 m (12,000 ft).
 Tne  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
                            4-48

-------
 intensities   up  to  66  Knots.    Because  Cook  Inlet  is
 paralleled by  mountain  ranges, winds perpendicular  to the
 channel  seldom exceed  35 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  80 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  charac-
 teristic 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  fr,om
 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
 patterns in Cook Inlet  result in much  of  this  fine sediment
 being transported down the west side  of  the  inlet,  across
 the site (Gatto 1976).   Surface suspended  sediment near the
 site will  be  generally greater  than 100 mg/1  (Sharma  et al.
 1973).

     Cook Inlet is a tidal estuary and its  salinity may  vary
widely in areal distribution and by season.  A  mean salinity
 value  at  the  site  would  be  about  15   parts-per-thousand
 (Nortec  1982).  During  May  through September,  river  dis-
 charges   decrease  the   salinity   of  the   upper   inlet.
Wintertime salinities  rise  due  to  greater dominance  of  the
 ocean water inputs from the  south.   The  water on the  west
 side of  Cook   inlet tends to be  fresher  than  on the  east
 (Sharma  et al. 1974; Burbank 1974).
                            4-49

-------
      Variations in  surface  salinities and  temperatures  are
 also a  function  of  tide stage (Gatto 1976).   The  gradients
 will be stronger on the flood tide and  less  on the  ebb,  due
 to greater mixing.

      The  waters  of  western  Cook   Inlet  are  essentially
 unpolluted  (except   for  natural  sediment).    Some   local
 sources of pollution exist in the Anchorage  and Kenai  areas
 and  in   association   with   offshore  drilling  platforms.
 However, the  flushing  rate  is so high  that pollutants  are
 quickly diluted.

      4.5.1.5  Ice Conditions

      Ice conditions  are more  extreme  in  the  northern half of
 Cook Inlet than  the southern.   The  ice  derives from four
 sources:  sea  ice,  beach  ice,  stamukhas*,  and fresh   water
 (river/esturary)  ice.    Ice  floes commonly  reach up to one
 mile across and 3-4 feet  thick  in Cook  Inlet.   Thicker ice
 also occurs from stamukhas and so tends  to  be  softer.   The
 greatest  ice   development  is  in  December,   January,  and
 February.  Ice  floes tend  to concentrate  along the western
 shoreline  during ebb tides,  passing  through  the site  vici-
 nity .

      Ice movement is primarily influenced  by  Cook Inlet cir-
 culation patterns, although this  can  be enhanced or retarded
 by  winds.   Cross-inlet  ice  movement  due  to  wind forces  is
 considered  uncommon.

      Local  ice  conditions  may  affect   shipping  and  port
 design.   There  is  some  indication   from  satellite  imagery
 that  the Granite  Point  port  site  is  somewhat protected from
 the  dominant out-flowing  ice  due  to  the  presence of Granite
 Point.

      4.5.1.6 Other Marine Conditions

     Corridors  containing  buried  oil  and  gas  pipelines
 extend  eastward  from Granite  Point to offshore oil  produc-
 tion  platforms  and across  the inlet  to Nixiski.  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  regu-
 lar  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.
                            4-50

-------
 4.5.2      Biology

      4.5.2.1 Lower Trophic  Levels

      The  estuarine  habitat  of upper Cook  Inlet is charac-
 terized  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 anadro-
 mous  fish such as Pacific salmon and eulachon  (Thaleichthys
 pacificus),  and the  belukha whales   (Delphinapteras 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 uni-
 dentified polychaetes (DOWL  1981).

      4.5.2.2  Fish

      In addition  to  serving as a  transport pathway bringing
 large  quantities  of  organic  detritus to  the  highly produc-
 tive  waters  of  lower Cook Inlet,  the upper  Inlet -is  also a
 migratory  pathway for  anadromous  fish  including all  five
 eastern-Pacific  species  of  salmon   as  well  as  eulachon,
 smelts (Osmeridae) and   Bering  cisco  (Coregonus  laurettae).
A number  of  species  of  marine fish  have been  taken in upper
Cook  Inlet (Table  4-14)  although their significance does not
 compare  with  that  in   the  lower  Inlet  (Blackburn  1978).
 Limited late-summer  beach seine sampling  in  the North Fore-
 land area captured 10 species of fish, including pink,  chum,
and coho  salmon as  well as Dolly Varden  (age  unspecified,
ERT 1984a).  A more intensive spring sampling regime in Knik
Arm (Dames & Moore 1983) collected 18 species including five
not previously  reported from the  upper Inlet  which must  be
                            4-51

-------
                                                    Table 4-14

                                     FISH SPECIES KNOWN TO OCCUR IN UPPER COOK INLET
  Scientific Name
                                    on Name
                            Spacing  Period''
                          Time Spent  in
                          Marine Environment
 Fish
   Salmon id ae
     Dncorhynchua ggrbyacha
     0. keta
     0. kisutch
     0. nerka
     0. tahaxytscha
     Salroo gairdneri

     Salvelinus maim a

     Coregonus laurettae

   Osneridae
     Hypomesua pretiosua
     Sperinchus thaleichthys
     Thaleichthy3 pacificus
   Clupeidae
     Clupea harengus paiiasi

   Gadidae
     Gadu3  microeephal ua
     Theraqra  ehalcogramma
     Elqinu3 gracilia

   Gasterosteidae
     Gasterosteus aeuleatua
    Pyngitius pungitius
   Liparidae
    Liparis rutteri
  Cottidae
    Leptocottua armatua
  Pleuroneetidae
    Platichthya stellatus
    Hippoglossoides eleasodon
    Hippoglossua stenolepis
    Limanda aspera
 Trout, salmon, whits fish
  Pink (humpback)  salmon
  Dion (dog)  salmon
  Coha (silver) salmon
  Sockexe (red) salmon
  Chinook (king)  salmon
  Steel he ad (rainbow)
   trout 2
  CLUy Varden

  Bering  ciaco

 Snelts
  Surf aieit
  Long fin smelt
  Eulachon
 Pacific herring

Cddfiahes
 Pacific cod
 Walleya pollock
 Saffron cod

Sticklebacks
 Threespine stickleback
 Ninespine stickleiaack


Snail fish
 Ringtail snail fish

Sculpina
 Pacific ataghorn
  aculpin

Fl cinders
 Starry fiotnder
 Flathead sole
 Pacific halibut
 Yellowfin sole
 mic iuly - early Sept.
 ear.y Aug. - early Oct.
 eariy Aug. - Feb.
 early- Aug. - Nov.
 mid- June - mid-Aug.

 fall - spring
 fall

 faU(?)
 Merch to  May
 Oct.  to Dec.
 mid-  to late May
 spring
 usually Jan. & Feb.
 winter
                                                          Jyne to July
Hay to July
                                                          Oat. to  March
March to April
March to lata  April
winter
 1+ year
 2-4 years
 1 -3 year
 1 - 4 years
 1-6 years

 2 wo. - 4 years
 several weeks
  to 6-7 months
 2-3 months  per  year
 entire life  cycle
 1-2  years
 entire life  cycle
  except about  2  weeks
 entire  life cycle
entire life cycle
entire life cycle
entire life cycle
variable, but anadromous
  fowts spend up to 1 year
  in  fresh water before
 moving to sea
variable, always spawn
in fresh water
                         entire life  cycle
                         entire  life cjcle
entire life cycle
entire life cycla
entire life cycle
entire life cycle
Sourcea:  ERT 19B4a, Dames 4 Hsore 1983,  Scott and Grossman  1973.
 ' No anadrewoua rainbows are knowi from rivers north of east and west  fore-
  landsi however, Dames 4 Moore (1983)  captured a single sexually mature
  rainbow (195 mm [7.7 in]) in uper Cook Inlet in May 1983,
                                                    4-52

-------
 assumed  to also  occur  seasonally in  the  study area  (Table
 4-14).    More  importantly,  the  Knik Arm  study proved  that
 fish  do  more  than  just  migrate  through the  upper  Inlet;
 many,  including  juvenile  salmon,  feed  on  the abundant  epi-
 fauna  in the area, while  others,  such as smelt and  Pacific
 herring  (Clupea  harengus)  may  spawn on the  beaches of  the
 upper  Inlet.

     Use  of the  study area beaches and nearshore waters  for
 these  functions  is unknown;  however, given the considerable
 human  activity in  the area,  significant beach spawning would
 not  likely have  gone unnoticed.   Beaches  in  the study  area
 do not  appear  unique  in, any way  and  the  Knik Arm study  did
 not  detect any  particlar  preferences of  fish  for  specific
 beach  types.   Certainly,  there is  considerable  feeding by
 juvenile  anadromous  fish  in the  area, particularly on  the
 broad  flats and  tidal channels of  Trading Bay and around  the
 mouth  of  the Chuitna  River.  Adult  salmon  returning along
 the  shoreline  to  their  natal  streams probably do  not  feed
 extensively  in  the upper  Inlet.   For  them,  the  study  area
 shoreline  likely  is an extremely important migratory  pathway
 providing  access  to  the  numerous  rivers   to the north.
 Commercial  fisheries  in the area are  discussed  in  Section
 4.5.3.

     4.5.2.3 Birds and Mammals

     Most  beaches, mud  flats,  and nearshore waters of upper
 Cook Inlet  are not heavily utilized by waterfowl and marine
 birds  (Dames  &  Moore  1983).    Small  numbers  of  gulls
 (Laridae)  and  sea ducks  rest  on  the  water  surface   but
 foraging  opportunities  are  limited  by the high  turbidity.
 Scarcity  of infauna  likewise  may discourage use  by shore-
 birds, except  in small bays and at  the mouth of  creeks  and
 rivers.   An exception  to  this  generally  low  use  by birds
 occurs in  the large saltmarsh  and mud flat areas  of Trading
 Bay to the south and the Susitna Flats to the north, as well
 as the  much smaller  flats around the mouth  of the Chuitna
 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).   In addi-
 tion,  a  small  (estimated  30  nesting  pairs)  colony  of
 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 leucas}  and har-
 bor  seal   (Phoca  yitLulina)  (Calkins  1981).    In the study
 area, both  species are common  primarily  in  the spring  and
 summer when they  feed on anadromous  fish  near the  mouths of
 rivers.   The area  from Trading  Bay  to  the  Susitna  River
appears  to  be   especially   important   for   belukhas  with
 numerous sightings near the mouth of the Beluga River during
                            4-53

-------
 July  of  1982 and 1983  by baseline study  team  members  (ERT
 1984a).  The  area between the  Beluga  and Susitna rivers may
 also  be  a  significant  calving  and/or  nursery  area  for
 belukhas (Calkins 1981).

      Information  on  the  life   history   of  harbor  seals  in
 upper Cook Inlet  is  incomplete?  however, they  are  common  at
 times in certain  areas  (ERT 1984a) .   Harbor seals  are  pre-
 sent from May to September.  During the  winter  months,  they
 most  likely  move to Lower  Cook in...et.   Like  the  belukha,
 they appear  to  feed  on  anadromous fish,  following  them to,
 and into, the mouths  of  the Inlet's tributary r_ ers.

      4.5.2.4  Threatened  or Endangered  Species

      None of  the  marine biota  known  to  frequent the  study
 ar-a are considered endangered  or threatened.

 4.5.3     Commercial  Fisheries

      The only significant  commercial  fishery in' upper  Cook
 Inlet is  that for  the five species  of  Pacific salmon.  Above
 the  East and  West  Forelands,  all  commercial  fishing  is by
 set  net  (fixed gill  net).   Tyonek residents held 26 set net
 permits  in 1983.   The -area  from Chuit  flats  to Threemile
 Creek is fished intensively; set  net  sites are nearly  con-
 tinuous.  Commercial  fishing is  somewhat  less intensive  from
 Chult Flats to Granite Point.  Permits in this area are  held
 almost exclusively by Tyonek residents.   From Granite Point
 west  to  within  1.6  km  (1  mi)  of Nikolai  Creek,  there are
 some  14  permits  held  and fished by local  residents or lease
 holders  (individuals  leasing fishing camp sites).

      The  combined  total  catch  of all  species of  salmon in
 ADF&G statistical areas  247-10  (West- Foreland  to  Granite
 Point) and  247-20 (Granite  Point to  Threemile  Creek)   have
 averaged  4  percent of the total  upper Inlet catch  over the
 last  19  years  (Table  4-15).  While  numbers of fish taken in
 these  two reporting   subareas have  increased in  the  last  5
 years, the  percentage contribution  to  the total upper Inlet
 fishery  has  declined to  2.9  percent  (based on  1980-1984
 averages; Table  4-15),  probably due to increased  effort in
 other  portions  of  the  upper   Inlet.   The  two  commercial
 fishery subareas on either side of Granite Point contribute
 the  highest  percentage  of pink  and coho salmon  (6  and  7.3
 percent,  respectively,   using  1980-1984   averages)  and  the
 lowest  percentage of chum  and  sockeye  (0.7 percent  each
 using 1980-1984  averages).   This harvest  distribution  coin-
 cides to a degree with the relative importance of these spe-
 cies  in  the  Chuitna  River, although what proportion of  the
catch is  actually contributed by the Chuitna System  has  not
been determined.
                            4-54

-------
                                                                                 Table 4-15
                                                                UPPER COOK INLET SALMON CATCH SUMMAIIV 1966-19U4
 1
ui
        LOCATION1
                                                                                                                EVEN  YEAH
         CHINOOK                               SOCKEYE                           CUHO                               PINK
     1966-84         1900-84           1966-84           19110-84           1966-04          19BU-U4            1966-84           19tiU-b4
  AVE     S2      AVE     %       AVE       %      AVE        %      AVE       S      AVE       £       AVE       8,       AVE       S
        UPPER COOK INLET     11956.9  10U.O  15262.0  100.0  1569B08.0  100.0  2658000.0  100.0  2B5337.U  10U.O  5018U1.0.  1UU.O  1236872.U  1UU.U  1U&6529.U  1UO.U
        (No. of Anchor PI .)

        NOR TIE UN DISTRICT     15B3.Q   13.2   1250.0    8.2   105224.Q    6.?   173707.0    6.5   61154.0   21.4   94799.0   1B.9   2541BU.U   1B.9   217245.U   211.4
        (No. of forelands)

        GENERAL SUBOISTRICT  1006.0     8.4   1U01.0    6.6    61218.0    3.9   105884.0    4.0   50025.0   17.5   77U90.0   15.5   2U9V6J.U   17.0   19Ulyu.U   10.6
        (West side of Inlet)
        AREA 247-10
        (W. Foreland
        Granite Pt .)
 425.0
           3.6     317.0    2.1     11463.0     0.7     15874.0     0.6    14184.0     5.0   18231.0    3.6    56940.0      4.6    43375.0    4.1
        A«EA 247-20            222,0    1.9    1B3.0    1.2    13421.0    0.9    21785.0    O.B   12910.0    4.5   1B753.0    3.7   465B4.Q     3.8    33032.D    3.1
        (Rranite Pt . to
        Threemile Creek)
        LOCATION1
          ODD  YEAR
            PINK                                  CHUH                            ALL SPECIES
     1966-B4          1980-84           1966-84           1980-84            1966-84           198U-84
 AVE       %       AVE      S       AVE        S      AVE       S       AVE        %       AVE       %
              COOK INLET     176448.0  100.0  90748.0  100.0  703945,0  100.0  U91441.0  1QO.O  3305607,0  10U.O  4773UOQ.Q  10U.O
        (No. of Anchor PI.}

        NORTHERN DISTRICT     52283.0   29.6  37465,0   37.9   31522.0    4.5   42222.0    4.7   34750U.O   1U.5   457291.0    9.6
        (No. of Forelands)

        GCNCKAL SUBOlSntlCT  46671.0    26.5   3335U.O  33.8   28853.0    4.1   36284.0    4.1   273717.0    U. 3   353317.0    7.4
        (West side of  Inlet)
        AREA  247-10
        (W. ForelstKl
        Granite Pt.)
11450.0
            6.5    4960.0    5.0     4323.0    U.6    4140.0    0.5    65791.0    2.0     66671. U     1.4
        AREA  247-20           U81B.O     7.8   11725.0  11.9    0533.0    1.2    8262.0    0.9    66150.0    2.0    75492.U    1.5
        (f.ranite  Pt . to
        Ihreemile Creek)
         1  Diila  frtm K.  Inrbox, Afif&n Ciimmcrical Fish Division, Solclotna;  1904 data are preliminary;
           Upper  Inlet  includes all gear types; uther sihareas ure only  fislied by set nut.
         2  All percent.!!  sire given  au a |»;rcenta«je nf Lhe total upper  Inlet harvest.

-------
 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  con-
 ducted  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 faci-
 lities.    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  north-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 relative-
 ly  light,  averaging 3.1 m/sec  (6.9 mph)  and  2.4  m/sec  (5.4
 mph)  for  the monitored  year at the port and coal mine sites,
 respectively.

      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  com-
parable  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-
                            4-56

-------
         NNW
         1,80
     NW
     1.SO
WNW
 1.30
 W
1.10
WSW
1.00
     SW
     1.90
NNE
2.60
      NE
      2.60
                             Summer
         NNW
         2.10
    NW
    1.90
            WNW
             1.50
             W
            1.70
            WSW
             1.60
                 SW
                 3.00
                                               SSW
                                               6.10
                                  ESE
                                 1.70
                                             Fall
     NW
    1.80
WNW
1.10
WSW
 1.60
     SW
    2.40
         NNW
         2.00
                      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
ESE
1.60
                                           Spring
     NUMBERS INDICATE SECTOR MEAN WIND SPEED (METERS/SEC.)
     SOURCE: SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INC., 1984
                    WIND FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
                       GRANITE POINT PORT SITE
      Diamond Chuitna Environmental Impact Statement
                                FIGURE 4-10
                                     4-57

-------
         NNW
         1.80
     NW
    1.TO
WNW
1,80
WSW
 1.60
    SW
    2.00
         ESE
         1.80
                         SSE
                         2.00
                             Summer
                     NNW
                     2.70
            WNW
            2.00
                              ESE
                             1.80
                                            Fa!!
         NNW
         2,80
     NW
     1.70
WNW
 1.90
 W
1.60
WSW
 1.30
     SW
     2.20
NNE
2.20
      NE
     1.80
     NNW
     2,20
NNE
2.20
NW
1.70
     NE
     1.70
            WNW
            1.80
         ESE
        0.90
                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
                                    4-58

-------
          NNW
     NW
    5.00
                    NE
                    3.10
WNW
 5.40
 W
5.20
WSW
 4,90
                        ENE
                       4.30
     sw
    5.50
          SSW
          6.90
                                Summer
                                      NNW
                                      e,6o
                                                             N
                                                             7.20
                           NNE
                           B.ao
     NW
    0.30
WNW
 fi,00
                                                                               NE
                            wsw
                             4,10
                                 sw
                                8,00
                                                               Fall
          NNW
          7.SO
                    N
                    7,60
              NNE
              7.70
     NW
    5.60
                    NE
                    6.30
WNW
 5.10
 W
4.60
WSW
  4.30
                           NNE
                           S.20
     NW
    8,30
NE
8.SO
                            WNW
                              5,30
                             W
                            8.90
                                                                               NE
                                      ESE
     SW
     5.30
                                 SW
                                5.70
                                                                     SSE
                                                                     a. 70
                                 Winter
                                                              Spring
KIND SPEED (WSE

D 0-3

B 4-6

m 7-10
                 NUMBERS INDICATE SECTOR MEAN WIND SPEED (KNOTS)
li-16

17-21
                     WIND FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION

                                 ANCHORAGE
       Diamond Chuitna Environmental Impact Statement
                                                  FIGURE  4-12
                                       4-59

-------
     NW
    5.50
WNW
 s.oo
 W
6,30
wsw
 7.10
     sw
    7.30
          NNW
          7.30
          ssw
          e.90
                    N
                    7.90
              NNE
              7.70
                        ESE
                                    4.60
                    SE
                    5.00
                                Summer
          NNW
          B.BO
                    N
                    1,29
                                 NW
                                8.60
wsw
 6.70
     SW
    8.00
                                     SSW
                                     11.20
NNE
a.so
                          SSE
                          B.OO
                                                              Fall
          ssw
          9.30
                                                   NNW
                                                   7,80
                                                             N
                                                             8.20
                                              NW
                                             5.90
                                         WNW
                                          6.70
                                         W
                                         7.00
                                         WSW
                                          7, BO
                                             SW
                                             7.BO
                                Winter
                                                       NNE
                                                       9.30
                                                            NE
                                                            6.70
                                                                 SE
                                                            Spring
 •Him SPEED BAN6E



 D 0 -3


 • 4 - 6


 m 7-10
    NUMBERS INDICATE SECTOR MEAN WIND SPEED (KNOTS)
11-16

17-21


 >22
                     WIND FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION

                                    KENAI
       Diamond Cnu'rtna Environmental Impact Statement
                                                 FIGURE 4-13
                                      4-60

-------
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,  par-
ticularly  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  precipita-
tion 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:

       0  Monitoring site operated for Tesoro Petroleum near
          Kenai during  June  1981 through May 1982  (All major
          criteria pollutants were measured except lead)

       0  ADEC Total Suspended  Particulate  monitor  located
          on  the Beluga Power  station  during  April  1978
          through May 1979

       °  ADEC S02 monitoring site located near Kenai  at Wik
          Lake for November  1982 through May 1983.

     Maximum  measured  concentrations  from  the  Tesoro  and
Beluga monitoring sites are  compared to  ambient air  quality
standards in Table  4-17.  These  data indicate  that  measured
ambient  background  levels   of  all  major  pollutants  were
significantly  less  than  applicable  standards.     Sulphur
dioxide (S02)  data  measured  at  the  Wik  Lake  monitor  during
the available  data  period  were  nearly always  0 ppb  (1-hour
measurement) with an occasional  5 ppb reading which  may  have
been due to instrument  zero drift.

     Since the project site  is considerably  more remote  than
the Tesoro  monitoring site,  air  quality is expected to  be
better than that presented in Table 4-17.
                            4-61

-------
                               Table  4-16
                MONTHLY
              TEMPERATURE (
                SUMMARY FOR
       °C) AND PRECIPITATION (cm)
        PROJECT REGION
Month
Monthly Average
 Temperature
  Average Dai ly
Max. Temperature
 Average Daily
Min. Temperature
  Monthly!
Precipi tation

JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC
YEAR
Port
-4
-5
3
3
8
12
13
13
8
3
1
-4
4
Mine
-5
-6
2
2
7
12
13
12
6
0
0
-4
3
Kenai
-12
-8
-3
0
5
10
12
11
9
3
-4
-8
1
Port
_2
-2
5
5
11
15
15
15
11
5
2
-1
7
Mi ne
-3
-3
4
4
10
15
16
15
9
3
2
-2
6
Port
-7
-7
1
1
5
9
11
10
5
0
-1
-6
2
Mine
-8
-8
0
0
4
8
9
9
3
-1
-1
-5
1
Kenai
0.
2.
2.
0.
1.
2.
5.
4.
6.
12.
4.
1.
39.
•"• given as liquid water equivalent

Source:  Science Applications, Inc.  1984;  Radian Corp.  1982
                                    4-62

-------
                             Table 4-17

                 REGIONAL MEASURED AIR QUALITY DATA
                       (micrograms/cubic meter)
^ifp/Pnl Infant 	
1-hour
FEDERAL AND ALASKA
AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
N02 - a
SQ2
CO 40000
03 235
PM
TESORO PETROLEUM
N02
S02
CO 2560
U3 96
PM
BELUGA
PM

3-hour 8-hour 24-hour Annual


100
1300 - 365 80
10000
150 60

6.3
70 - 9 0.3
1660
60 9

78 - 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.

° Mo annual average PM concentration was calculated  for Beluga  due to the
  large amount of missing data.


Source:  Chappie 1985; Radian Corp. 1982
                                    4-63

-------
 4.6.3 Sound Climate

      The project area  in the vicinity of  the  proposed  mine
 and transportation corridor  is  expected  to experience sound
 levels typical of remote locations unaffected by human acti-
 vities.   Typical natural sound levels are  approximately  45
 db(A)  with higher levels of  natural sound  of  about  65 db(A)
 associated with  storms  and  wildlife.    Sources of  natural
 noise include winds,  rain,  and wildlife vocalizations.

      The project  area  in  the.  vicinity  of  the Cook  Inlet
 coast experiences  higher  background   noise levels.    Cook
 Inlet  contributes  higher noise levels because of  breaking
 waves  and winter ice  movements.   Human activities  are  also
 more   frequent  near  the coast.    Some examples  of  human-
 generated noise  include  vessels  (such   as diesel-powered
 boats  on Cook Inlet),  aircraft  (a landing  strip is  located
 approximately 2  miles  from  the  proposed  Granite Point  port
 site),  and other  mobile vehicles  such as  snowmobiles and
 all-terrain vehicles.   Typical  noise levels  for  vehicles and
 aircraft are  80  to  95  db(A)   at  a  distance   of  50 feet.
 Commercial   and  noncommercial   aircraft   on   route   from
 Anchorage to  southwestern Alaska locations  fly over  the  pro-
 ject  area routinely at  varying altitudes.


 4.7   SOCIOECONOMIC  ASPECTS

     The project  site is located about 75 air miles west of
 Anchorage in  the Kenai  Peninsula Borough and about ten miles
 west of  the Native village of Tyonek.   Socioeconomic  impacts
 would  likely  derive from increased income and employment of
 residents of  both Anchorage and  the Kenai Peninsula  Borough,
 particularly  the  City  of Kenai  and the Village of Tyonek.
 The City of 'Kenai  is  the Borough seat  of  government and its
 most  populous city; Tyonek is  the  nearest  community to the
 project  site.   The  following description  of the socioecono-
 mic environment focuses  on conditions in the Kenai Peninsula
 Borough,  the  Municipality of Anchorage, and  the  community of
 Tyonek.

 4.7.1     Anchorageand  Kenai Peninsula

     4.7.1.1  Population

     The  population of  Anchorage and  the  Kenai  Peninsula
Borough  grew  rapidly between  1970  and 1984,  exceeding  the
substantial statewide growth  of 77.8  percent.    Anchorage
grew  from 126,385  persons  in  1970 to 244,030 in  1984-an
increase of 93.1 percent.  The Kenai Peninsula Borough popu-
lation increased  by  134.6  percent from  16,586  in  1970  to
38,919 by 1982 (Alaska  Department  of Labor  1984).   The City
of Kenai  grew by  42.8 percent over this period, from 4,324
to 6,176  persons.   The  Central  Kenai   Peninsula, which  in-
cludes the  area within  primary commuting  distance  of  the
                            4-64

-------
 City of Kenai, had a 1984 population of 24,643.  Historical
 population trends  are summarized  in Table  4-18.

      The  State of Alaska  currently has  no official popula-
 tion projections for either  the  Kenai  Peninsula Borough or
 Anchorage (Williams  1985).   Population  forecasts used here
 assume  a  slowdown of growth for the Kenai Peninsula Borough
 from 11.1 percent  annually over the 1980-84 period to  5 per-
 cent per  year  through 1992.   Thus, by 1992. the population of
 the  Kenai Peninsula Borough is expected to be approximately
 57,500.   The  1992 populations of  the City of Kenai and the
 Central Kenai  Peninsula  are projected to be 9,100 and  36,400
 respectively,  based  on a  5 percent average annual increase.
 Preliminary  draft  population  projections for  Anchorage indi-
 cate a  high projection of 314,800 by 1990, a low projection
 of   273,100,  and  a  medium   or  most  likely  population  of
 292,300 (Breedlove 1985).

      4.7.1.2 Economy

      The  following discussions of the economies of the Kenai
 Peninsula Borough  and Anchorage focus on  the cash economy.
 Subsistence  activities,  which  provide  food  and sustenance
 for  many  residents of the Kenai  Peninsula Borough,  are not
 reflected in  the  statistical data  presented.    Therefore,
 comparisons  of  data  for  Anchorage,  in  which  relatively
 little  subsistence activity  occurs,  to  data for  the Kenai
 Peninsula Borough,  where substantial  subsistence activities
 are  conducted,  must  be  made carefully.   A discussion  of
 subsistence  activities  of  the  Tyoneks  is  presented  in
 Section 4,9.

      The   economies   of  the  Kenai  Peninsula  Borough  and
 Anchorage are  distinctly  different.    While employment  in
 Anchorage is relatively  concentrated  in  trade,  service,  and
 federal   government,   employment   in  .the   Kenai  Peninsula
 Borough   is   based   primarily   on   resource   development
 industries and state  and local government.

      Over  time,  employment patterns in  the  Kenai Peninsula
 Borough indicate a  proportional  drop  (but  a small numerical
 increase)   in mining employment (the standard industrial code
 of mining includes oil  and  gas  extraction).   The  loss  of
 federal government  jobs  since 1970  has  been counteracted by
 increases  in state and  local government,  employment,  manu-
 facturing  (including  petrochemical  industry), and  the ser-
 vice  sector  (trade,  services,  and'finance,  insurance,  and
 real  estate).   The sectors  that  bring  new income  into  the
 region  (the  "basic"   or  "export"  sectors)  are  primarily
 federal government, mining,  and manufacturing.    Tourism  is
 also  an   important  basic sector,  but existing  data do  not
 isolate   tourist-serving  employment  and   therefore   the
employment involved is not readily quantifiable.

     The  Anchorage  economy has diversified  since 1970  and
has  become more  service-oriented.    Dependence  on  federal
                            4-65

-------
                                   Table 4-18

                           POPULATION TRENDS IN ALASKA,
                   ANCHORAGE, AND  THE KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH
Population
Jurisdiction 1970(a) 198Q(a) 1982
Alaska Statewide 302,583 401,851 460,837(b)
Anchorage 126,333 174,431 204,216(0
Kenai Pen. Borough 16,586 25,282 5,23l(d)
-Central Kenai Pen. Bor. na 15,672(e) 19,886(f)
1984
538,000(c)
244,030(c)
6,176(0
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.

(e)  Source:  Unavailable from census in geographically-consistent  form.
              Figure is cited from 1978 special  census  conducted  by Kenai
              Peninsula Borough which resulted  in total Borough  population
              estimate very close to the 1980 census  estimate, considered by
              local  planners to be a substantial  undercount  (Mcllhargy  1985).

(f)  Source: Mcllhargy 1985.
                                    4-66

-------
 government  employment  has  declined  and  the  proportion of
 employment  in  all other economic sectors has increased.

      Unemployment rates  in  the Kenai Peninsula Borough have
 historically been substantially higher than those in Anchor-
 age,  as  well  as  more subject  to  seasonal  swings.   Over
 recent  years,  the  average  annual unemployment  rate  in the
 Kenai  Peninsula  Borough has ranged from a  high of 15.9 per-
 cent  in 1982 to  a  low of  10.1 percent in 1977.  The monthly
 unemployment   rate,  however,  has  been nearly  22  percent
 during   winter  months.     Unemployment  in  Anchorage  has
 remained within  a  narrow 7 to 8  percent  range and exhibits
 relatively  modest seasonal  changes.

      Unemployed  workers  in  the Kenai Division  tend  to have
 previous experience  in the  oil  and  gas   and  construction
 industries, compared to the statewide average.  Of the 2,165
 unemployment  claims  filed  with   the  Kenai  office- of  the
 Alaska  Department of  Employment Security  in 1982,  16.6 per-
 cent, or about 360,  listed  oil and gas  as  the last industry
 of  employment   and  24.8   percent,  or  about  540,  listed
 construction.    The  corresponding  Anchorage  local  office
 figures   indicate   that   22  percent  of   the  unemployment
 insurance applications  listed construction  as  last industry
 of  employment.   Oil and gas was listed by  6.4  percent.   In
 terms of skills, structural work  was the  occupation listed
 by  most applicants  in  either  office (40.9  percent  for Kenai
 and 28.7 percent for  Anchorage)  (Alaska Department of Labor
 1984) .   It should  be noted  that  there are probably  fewer
 individuals represented  by  the  above data which  was  taken
 from  the number  of  applications,  since  some applicants pro-
 bably applied  twice or more during  the course  of  the year.
 However,  since  only  the last industry of employment  and
 occupation  are  listed  on  unemployment insurance  applica-
 tions,  the figures  above  probably  understate  the  actual
 experience of applicants over their careers.

     The  Borough-wide  employment-to-population .ratio  was 36
 percent  in 1984.   Since labor force participation rates will
 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 24,643  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  per-
 cent 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  popula-
 tion 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 3,700  by  1992.

     Per  capita  personal   income  in the  Kenai-Cook  Inlet
Division was 513,394  in  1982.  This was somewhat  below  the
                            4-67

-------
 statewide  average  of  $16,598  and  the  Anchorage  Division
 figure  of  518,429  (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 esti-
 mated 2,446 housing  units  in 1984  [Kenai Peninsula  Borough
 1984J)  serving  3,500 people and under  100 commercial  connec-
 tions.    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 199"  •   Solid waste is disposed  of at a landfill
 operated  by  th,  
-------
      Emergency medical care in  Kenai  is  provided by the Fire
 Department.    Patients are  usually  brought  to  the Central
 Peninsula General Hospital  (CPGH) in Soldotna; more serious
 cases are  treated  at Anchorage  hospitals  (Winston  1985).
 CPGH, the primary health  care center  on  the  Kenai  Peninsula,
 provides 24-hour emergency  service, four-bed intensive care
 unit, and  an obstetrics  unit.    The  staff  consists  of  18
 MD's, 20  RN's,  and  13,  LPN's.   During  summer  1985,   the
 emergency room and obstetrics unit was  expanded,  another MD
 was hired, and  a 16-bed  chemical dependency  unit was con-
 structed .

      CPGH's   45  beds  have an  average  capacity utilization
 rate  of  35  percent and peak use  of 100 percent.  Utilization
 has leveled off  in  the past year due to increased emphasis
 on  outpatient rather  than inpatient  care.   Demand for beds
 is  somewhat below the national  average  of  about 3 beds  per
 1000  population,  due primarily  to  the young  age of the popu-
 lation in  the CPGH service area  (Nichols 1985).

      Education is provided by  the Kenai  Peninsula Borough
 School District,  which operates a high  school,  junior high
 school,  and  two  elementary schools  in  the  City  of Kenai.
 Total enrollment has increased  from  1,252  students  in
 October  1980  (Kenai  Peninsula Borough 1984)  to 1,878 in May
 1985  (Overman 1985).   The District  employs  124 teachers  at
 its  Kenai  schools,  for   a relatively  low  student-teacher
 ratio of 15:1  (Jewell  1985).  Subject to bond issue approval
 by  voters,  a  construction  program would increase  the capa-
 city  of  Kenai's  schools  from  2,250  to 2,750,  adequate  to
 handle  enrollment  growth  until  about  1990,  if  7  percent
 average  annual  enrollment  growth  occurs.    In the Kenai-
 Nikiski-Soldotna-Sterling  area, planned  construction  would
 increase   total   capacity  to   9,475   (subject   to  voter
 approval).  This  increase  would be sufficient to accommodate
 projected enrollment  until the 1992-1993 school year.

      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 provi-
 sion  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, per-
mitting  authority,  and power  to  levy  taxes  on   resource
developments.
                            4-69

-------
 4.7.2     Tyonek

      4.7.2.1  Demography

      Tyonek1s 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  fluc-
 tuated  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 epi-
 demic.   Since  1920,  the population has gradually increased
 with  only a  slight decline between the  1940  and 1950 cen-
 suses.   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 oppor-
 tunities and  subsistence  resources  were  in  short  supply
 throughout  the 1970s.  The population has grown by approxi-
 mately 3.5 percent  annually between 1980 and 1984.

      As  presented  in Figure 4-14,  78 percent of the  popula-
 tion  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.

                        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
                            4-70

-------
O
Gtf
a
                                                  Female
                                                    4S.2%
                                          1 (.4%)
                                          1 (.4%)
                                            3(1.1%)
              (.7%) 2 Hi 0

           (1.9%)  5
                                (-4%) 1 W\ 2 (J%)
                          (2,2%) 6        0
                           (1.9%) 5
                                  9 (3.4%)
(4.1%) 11
                                                7 (2.6%)
(5.6%) 15
                (5.6%)  15
                                     12  (4.5%)
                                                         16 (6.0%)
                                                   10 (3.7%)
                  (5.2%) 14
                        (2.9%)  8

                    (4.5%)  12
                                                = 80
                                               22  (8.2%)
                                            19  (7.1%)
                                           18  (6.7%)
               25   20   15   10   5    0    5   10   15   20   25
                        NUMBER   OF   PEOPLE
 SOURCE: FALL, FOSTER, STANEK, ADF&G, DIVISION OF SUBSISTENCE TECHNICAL REPORT *105.
       ANCHORAGE, ALASKA, 1984.

   POPULATION PROFILE BY AGE AND SEX, TYONEK, FEBRUARY, 1984
     Diamond Chuitna Environmental Impact Statement
                                  4-71
                                       FIGURE 4-14

-------
      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 vil-
lagers  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 simi-
lar to  those described above  were encountered and KLM even-
tually 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 30 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).
Darbyshire (1984a)  estimated that an additional 63 part-time
and   seasonal   jobs   existed.    Hence,   104   people-  were
unemployed  or  underemployed  in Tyonek  in  1983,  inoluding
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  in-
cluded: 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 construc-
tion,   transportation,  utilities,   and  through   state and
federally  funded  programs.   Changes  in  employment  oppor-
tunities  after  1983  include  creation  of  approximately two
positions   in coal  exploration,  six   carpentry  positions for
                            4-72

-------
                                  Table 4-20

                TOTAL VILLAGE  INCOME AND EMPLOYMENT, BY INDUSTRY
                       VILLAGE OF TYONEK, ALASKA, 19831

Industry
Commercial Fishing
Construction
Cottage Industry
Transportation
Conwunications/Uti 1 i ties
Trade/Private Services
Real Estate
Vi 1 lage Government
Borough School
State & Federal Agencies/Services
Total Employment in Tyonek
Outside Employment2
Transfer Payments

Ful 1-time
0
1
0
1
2
6
0
19
5
3
37
4

Seasonal/
Part-time
51
1
2
0
0
2
0
1
6
0
63
0

Annual
Income
$ 142,500
15,000
1,500
14,600
30,600
132,825
33,400
282,325
89,455
82,000
$ 824,205
73,700
258,837
TOTAL VILLAGE
EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME                 41             63      $1,156,742


•"• Does not include Tyonek Native Corporation jobs filled by
   non-villagers.

  Residents who leave Tyonek periodically to work outside the
   community,
                                          t
Source;   Derbyshire and Associates (1984a)
                                    4-73

-------
 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  earn-
 ings  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  con-
 sidered   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 elabora-
 tion.  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 Reservation.
 TMC invested  money  both locally  and  outside  the  community.
 In 1983,   rental properties in Tyonek generated  $33,400, pri-
 marily through houses  leased   to  teachers  (Darbyshire and
 Associates 1984a).   However, rental receipts from commercial
 properties located  primarily in  Anchorage essentially sup-
 ported NVT and its  activities.   Thus, 30 percent of the eco-
 nomic  base   of  the  community  was  derived  from  TMC  rent
 receipts   (Table  4-21)  .   Private  industries (including com-
mercial fishing, construction and  merchandise) accounted for
 24  percent of the  economic  base  and public  sector  funding
 represented  46 percent  of Tyonek's  economic base.   Although
 the reliance  on the public sector  is substantial,  especially
 in terms  of  direct  transfer  payments, Tyonek's dependence on
state  and federal  programs is   far  less   than most  rural
Alaskan villages (Darbyshire and Associates 1984a).
                            4-74

-------
                         Table  4-21
                TYONEK'S  ECONOMIC  BASE,  1983
      Basic Industries                   Percent

      Private  Activities                    24
      TMC Rent Receipts                     30
      Kenai Borough  School  Funding          10
      State and Federal Services  Funding     9
      State and Federal Transfer  Payments   _21

                                           100
 Source:  Darbyshire and Associates  (1984a)

      4.7.2,3  Community Facilities and Services

      Due in large part to oil and gas  lease  income in the
 1960s,   Tyonek  has  been   able  to  continually develop  and
 upgrade  community  facilities  and services to meet the needs
 of  the  community.    The  oil and  gas  royalties  supported
 construction  of new  village  housing  in the  mid-1960s  and
 contributed  to  construction  of  the school.    Investment
 income  from the royalties has allowed continued infrastruc-
 ture  development  to  meet  the changing  needs of  the com-
 munity.

      Housing needs are  filled by approximately 60 prefabri-
 cated  homes that  Tyonek  built  in  1965  and 27  houses that
 were  built  in  1978-79 with  funds  from Housing and Urban
 Development  (HUD)  and Cook Inlet  Native Association  (CINA)
 (Darbyshire  and , Associates   1981b).     Public   utilities
 available  to Tyonek  residents  include  water  (treated with
 chlorine and flourine), telephone service, and electric ser-
 vice.  In  the late 1960s, Tyonek sold an electric generating
 unit  to  Chugach  Electric  Association  in  trade  for  an
 electricity  allotment.    In  1982,  Tyonek1s  consumption  was
 4.7   million  kilowatt-hours;   by   mid-1983,  11.9   million
 kilowatt-hours remained in Tyonek1s allotment (Vecera 1985).
 Chugach  Electric Association  officials  estimated  that,  at
 current  rates of consumption,  Tyonek would  begin  paying  for
 electricity by 1986.

     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  1976  by
 KPB,  offers education for  grades K-12.  The school,  which is
 operated  by KPB,  includes a library,  full kitchen,  gym-
 nasium,  and  multipurpose   room,  as  well as classrooms  and
 offices .
                            4-75

-------
      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  represen-
 tative.     In   addition,  personnel  from  the  Public  Health
 Service and the  Alaska  Native Service  visit Tyonek periodi-
 cally  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 ser-
 vice programs   as well as  a large public  hall  that will  be
 used for village  gatherings.  Finally, other community ser-
 vice 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.

     4.7.2.4   Local Government
                                                    t
     The   Tyonek  village  council,  under  the  name  Native
Village  of Tyonek  (NVT),  is  a  federally  chartered Indian
Reorganization  Act  (IRA)  council that  is  recognized as the
 local governing body for the village.   The council has been
active in  the  development of  the community  and its facili-
ties  for many  years.   Its  responsibilities  cover  Tyonek1s
public affairs, public utilities, and management of village-
owned  lands and  buildings.   The  Kenai  Peninsula Borough
administers  the school and  is responsible  for  operation  of
the  landfill, though this function has been subcontracted to
the  village.

     When  the  Alaska  Native Claims  Settlement Act (ANCSA)
passed  in   1971,  Tyonek  chose to  participate  in  the  Act
rather than receive title  to  the  former Moquawkie  Indian
Reservation.   In  doing  so,  surface  title to the  10,893  ha
(26,917  ac)  reservation was  transferred  to Tyonek  Native
Corporation  (TNC),  a profit village corporation  created  by
ANCSA, as  part of its 46,621  ha  (115,200 ac)  entitlement.
The  subsurface  estate  of these  lands  was conveyed  to  Cook
                            4-76

-------
 Inlet Region,  Incorporated  (CIRI), one of 13 regional Native
 corporations  created by ANCSA.  Although the Native Village
 of  Tyonek can  retain  ownership of up to 518  ha (1,280 ac)
 for  municipal  expansion  (under  Section  14(c)(3) of ANCSA),
 these lands have  yet  to be conveyed  (McCord  1985).   Thus,
 NVT  lost control  over  both surface and  subsurface uses on
 the  former  reservation lands to TNC and CIRI through ANCSA.
 Because  both  TNC  and  CIRI  are motivated  in part by profits
 from  their   land   and   investments,  there  are  occasional
 conflicts of  interest between  these profit corporations and
 the  people of  Tyonek (Braund and Behnke 1980).

      The  State of  Alaska and KPB are also major land owners
 in  the area.   Although  the State does  not take  an active
 role  in  Tyonek's   local  government,  state  land  policies
 nonetheless affect the nature  and extent of development and
 land use  near Tyonek (for example, through  issuance of coal
 leases).    Similarly,  KPB' controls  surface   uses  in  the
 Congahbuna  and Viapan Lake areas.   Both  of these locations
 have been identified  as possible  settlement  sites  in  the
 Susitna  Area   Plan  (Alaska  Department of Natural  Resources
 1984).  Both  the State and  KPB must be considered key poli-
 tical  players  in the area.

      4.7.2.5   Community Attitudes Toward the Diamond Chuitna
                 Coal Project

      Previous   research  efforts  have  produced  conflicting
 reports on  Tyonek  residents'  attitudes toward coal develop-
 ment  in  their  area.    Whereas  Darbyshire and Associates
 (1981a)  found  that  only  20  percent of   Tyonek  residents
 opposed development  of the  Beluga coal fields, other studies
 (Braund  and Behnke  1980;  Pacific Northwest  Laboratory  and
 Battelle  Human  Affairs  Research  Center 1979?  DOWL  1981)
 indicated  general  disapproval  for  such development.    As
 reported  by  these  studies, Tyonek  residents'  concerns cen-
 tered  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  enthu-
 siastic support.    Individuals  strongly  supportive of  coal
development invariably cited the expected increases in local
 employment opportunities  as the  major  benefit   to  the  com-
munity.   Opposition to  the project was  based  on  the  per-
ceived sociocultural  impacts,  changes  in  local  resource  use
patterns,   and   effects   to the  surrounding   environment.
Specifically,  these  concerns included:
                            4-77

-------
        0  Effects  of  pollutants  (especially  coal  dust,  aci-
           dic runoff, and sewage) on fish, plants, and water
           quality

        a  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

        0   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.
                                                             t
     According  to  the  interviews,  the  Tyonek residents who
had reservations  about  development of the coal fields due to
possible   adverse  social  and  environmental  consequences
realized that such  development  presents  them with a dilemma.
On  one hand, they desire economic  opportunities  that will
generate  local  jobs; on the  other hand,  they perceive  the
associated  costs   to  their  culture  and   lifestyle  to  be
substantial.   one Tyonek resident commented.   "The problem
is  that everyone  wants  a  job  real  bad,  but  I am  kind of
scared  of what it will do to  life  here."

     Some  villagers  voiced   a  need  for  a viable  economic
strategy,  either based  on  continuation of subsistence  ac-
tivities  (a  strategy  that  many  view as  incompatible  with
coal development)  or dominated  by wage employment.   These
people  see coal development as inevitable and  want assurance
that the transition  into an economy dominated  by coal mining
is conducted  in  a way that allows Tyonek  to  participate in
the development rather than be left behind and ignored.  One
Tyonek  resident commented, "Our life is going  to be changed.
At least give us a chance to change with it."
                            4-78

-------
      Villagers  who were  interviewed  considered the Diamond
 Chuitna  Coal  Project as  one  step  in  an on-going process of
 development  on the  west  side of  Cook  Inlet  that may even-
 tually result  in  a dilution of Tyonek's culture.  One Tyonek
 resident  commented,  "I'm most worried  about  the future and
 the  kids  and  what they can expect.  Before long, there will
 be  800  men in  the Diamond camp and  then Placer-Anvex (sic)
 will  come in.   Pretty soon  they  will connect  the road to
 Anchorage  and  this will be another Kenai."  Another villager
 said,  "The biggest  fear  is  that we are  going  to be pushed
 out  of  this  area altogether.   We will  be pushed  into the
 Inlet and  nobody  will care."

      Throughout  the field  interviews,  parallels  were  fre-
 quently  drawn between  Diamond  Chuitna Coal  Company's  pro-
 posal  and the  performance of  the Kodiak Lumber  Mill  that
 operated  at  North Foreland in the  late 1970s.  According to
 the  Tyonek interviews,  agreements between  KLM  and Tyonek
 regarding  worker  conduct, preferential local  hiring,  and a
 no guns/no hunting policy were apparently violated, ignored,
 and  subverted.   For  example,   villagers indicated  the  no
 hunting  policy worked  until  moose season opened?  by 1979,
 few  villagers  worked for  KLM; Tyonek  Creek was blocked with
 sawdust and debris;  the frequency  of  trespass increased; an
 ancestral  cemetery was  disturbed;  and cables  and trash were
 discarded on the  beach and remain to this day.  Tyonek resi-
 dents use  this recent experience  as  the  standard for eval-
 uating the merits of proposals  to  develop the coal deposits
 and the performance of developers in the area.

     In  summary,  despite  the advantage  of   enhanced  local
 employment opportunities,  many  Tyonek  res dents  were skep-
 tical about the Diamond Chuitna Coal Project and 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 impor-
tant to Tyonek  residents  for  three reasons.   First, locally
available wild  resources  are  less expensive  than,  and often
nutritionally superior, to store-bought goods.  Second, sub-
sistence resources  can be a supplement or partial  replace-
ment 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
                            4-79

-------
 distribution of these resources is integrally tied to Tyonek
 villagers'   social  and  cultural  value system  (Pall 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).   Tyonek1s subsistence  harvesters use a
 1942.5  km^  (750 mi.2)  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  determing Tyonek1 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 impor-
 tant  in  terms of  nutritional  contribution to  their  diet
 (Fall et  al.   1984).   In  1983,  of  a mean  subsistence harvest
 of 359.6  Kg  (964 Ib) 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
 (Srethi zon  dorsatum),   berries,  razor clams  (Siligua  sq.),
 waterfowl  (especially  mallards [Anas  platyrhynchos 3,  pin-
 tails [A .  acuta ],  and green-winged teal [ A._  crecca]) , smelt
 (eulachon),  rainbow trout, Dolly Varden, belukha whale,  har-
 bor seal, beaver, spruce  grouse (Canachites canadensis),  and
 ptarmigan (Lagopus sp.).  A variety of furbearers,  including
 red fox  (Vulpes 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 har-
vest areas include the floodplains  of the McArthur, Middle,
and  Chakachatna  rivers;   Nikolai   Creek?  and  portions   of
                            4-80

-------
                                                    «
                                                  <•—• >> : >£• \ "  „   sfl^x. / *• ?x v«i*, •
                                                  ,i; > \'tL'f*te .* • /-^r^X; ^N/ a-.C^°\ <
                                              rf^^'- '-*t&^-"('i^V«»^Cf1^7iv^'V-  '-fr.
                                              ; A^V/W>.il'i%^ny*^V^^V5<-t'S«f. f". xC* " '
, ^ ^ Jin^ -: \
       NOTE:  This map was co^lled during 1982 with
       a sample of 39 Tyon*k households, and updated
       in 1983-84,  It represents areas u&td during
       1978-1984.  This «wp may be a partial repre-
       sentation of use areas by the cownunity.  Use
       areas change through time and are not fixed
       entities.
SOURCE:  Fall, Foster, Stanek.
ADF4G, Division of Subsistence
Technical Report 4 105. Anchor-
age. Alaska, 1984.
                     SCALE
   LEGEND COMPOSITE MAP OF ALL RESOURCE USE AREAS
                                                                        10
          COMPOSITE MAP OF ALL RESOURCE USE AREAS,
                      TYONEK, ALASKA, 1978-1984.
   Diamond Chuitna Environmental Impact Statement
                   FIGURE 4-15
                                         4-81

-------
 smaller  creeks  in the area such as Old Tyonek Creek, Tyonek
 Creek, and Threemile  Creek.  These areas receive more inten-
 sive  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 harves'ts.  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 regula-
 tions, a proportion of  the catch is usually removed and used
 for subsistence purposes.   As  the  salmon runs decline,  har-
 vest  efforts are  transferred  to  moose,  waterfowl, and  a
 variety  of other resources.

     Moose   hunting   occurs   during  the   general   hunting
 seasons.    Until  1976,  ADF&G  regulations  allowed  moose
 hunting  during  two seasons:   August/September and November.
 The November  season  was eliminated  in 1976  due to excessive
 hunting  pressure.  In 1983,  moose  populations had rebounded
 and a special November season was  opened.   Currently,  ADF&G
 regulations   allow  openings  for  moose   hunting  in   Game
 Management Unit  16B by local residents only between November
 1 and January 31.  According  to ADF&G personnel,  the winter
 moose season  is  opened when the snow is sufficiently deep to
 force the moose  into more accessible lowland  areas  (Foster
 1984) .   Tyonek  residents  stressed  the importance  of  the
winter moose  season.    During  this  time of year, moose  are
generally closer  to   the  village,  meat  supplies from  fall
 hunts have  diminished, and  competition  is reduced  because
 hunting is open  only  to area residents.

     Figure 4-16  shows the  area used for moose  hunting  be-
 tween 1978 and  1984.  Only portions  of this  area,  however,
are used in   a  given  hunting season.   Yearly variation  in
                            4-82

-------
     NOTE:  This map was compiled during 1982 with a
     sample of 39 Tyonek households, and updated in
     1983-84,  It represents areas used during 1978-
     84. This map nay be a partial representation of
     use areas by the count unity. Use areas change
     through time and are not fixed entites.
     SOURCE: FALL *t *!. (11*4: FIGURE 41}
           SCALE •—>-
                      .  . ?
                                 10
                      miles
Q

Ul

LU
RESOURCE
Small Game


Moose


Bear


Waterfowl
                                                                   .SYKJBOL
        USE AREAS FOR MOOSE, SMALL GAME, BEAR,
            AND WATERFOWL, TYONEK, ALASKA
Diamond Chultna Environmental Impact Statement
    FIGURE 4-16
                                 4-83

-------
moose  hunting  areas is determined by snow conditions, moose
movements, and presence of other hunters in the area.

     Fall  moose  hunting  occurs  primarily  in  the Mc&rthur
River  Flats area  and along the road network.  Because dories
are used to access  the McArthur River, this area is not used
during the  winter.   Winter  harvest  effort  occurs primarily
between  the  village and the  Chakachatna  River  (Fig.  4-14).
Trucks are  used  to   travel  throughout  the  road network;
roadless  areas   are   accessed  by  foot,  snowmachine,  or
threewheeler.  Although villagers indicated they once hunted
moose  frequently north of the Chuitna River as  far  as the
Beluga River,  this  area  is  currently  used less  than  pre-
viously  due   to   increasing  competition   from  permanent
non-Native residents, especially in Beluga.  Instead, winter
hunting generally takes place to the southwest and northwest
of Tyonek as far  as the Chakachatna River.

     Hunting   for  other  species,   including   porcupines,
grouse,  and  ptarmigan  usually  occurs  incidentally  while
moose  hunting.    These species are  also  sought  during  the
remainder of the  year  in  combination with other subsistence
pursuits  such   as   ice   fishing,   trapping,   and  firewood
cutting.   Tyonek  hunters  indicated  that  the  abundance  of
small  game,  especially porcupines, spruce grouse,  and  fur-
bearers, decreased  in the  late 1970s  and attributed  this
decline to logging activities of KLM.

     Areas used  for trapping by Tyonek residents  currently
include  the  Nikolai Creek  drainage,  areas  along  the  road
between  the  town and Granite Point  including Old  Tyonek
Creek, and  in  the area north of the  Chuitna River and  east
of Lone  Creek.   In addition, a trapper who does  not  reside
in Tyonek traps throughout a  broad area north  of the Chuitna
River  from the western boundary of the Diamond Chuitna lease
area,  north to Beluga Lake and east to the Susitna River.

     Eighty-two  percent  of  the  households  in  Tyonek  har-
vested 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  sub-
sistence resources are  important  cohesive  elements  in  Tyonek
culture  (Fall  et al.  1984).   The  opportunity  to hunt and
                            4-84

-------
     100
   w
  TJ
  CD
  w
  D
  O
  X
  c
  0)
  o
  Q.
                                                                           N-72
      25-
                                     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

-------
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 struc-
ture  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 eleva-
tions  ranging  from  sea  level  at the  proposed  alternative
port sites  to  about  275 m  (900  feet) at the  mine site  and
415 m  (1,360 feet) in the  northwest  portion of  the Diamond
Alaska lease area.  Vegetation is generally of moderate den-
sity, 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  com-
munities  which may reach  6m  (20  ft)  in height.   Numerous
drainages and  depressions  exist on the  site,  which in com-
bination  with  vegetation   provide  good,  but not  complete
potential for  screening  of project facilities from view of
the occasional visitors  to the area.

     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
1978b).    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


                            4-86

-------
 rating  is in Class  A (of  classes  A,  B, and  C) ,  which in-
 cludes  ratings  between 19 and 33.  According to the BLM cri-
 teria  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 scar-
 city  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
Category
Landf orm
Vegetation
Water
Color
Influence
Scarci ty
Cultural Modification
Score
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
Total 19
Possible
Range
1-5 •
1-5
0-5
1-5
0-5
1-6
_4_2
0-33
     The  area's  remoteness  from large communities or activ-
ity  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  sub-
sistence  use,  for which lack  of  man-made  visual intrusions'
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
quality  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 metho-
dology .
                            4-87

-------
 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    Sport Fishing

      The project  area,  particularly the  Chuitna  River,  pro-
 vides excellent  coho  and  king salmon fishing.   The  Chuitna
 is open for  coho salmon fishing  in its  entirety and,  since
 1983, 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.   Howeve', good  rainbow  fishing  is
 available  on the lower  Chuitna   arly  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
 Creek, then  picked  up  at day's end.  One  operator has devel-
 oped a trail network  along  the river  banks  and  has  built 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 resi-
 dents for  kings and red  salmon.

      In  1983, between  4,000 and15,000  man-days  of   fishing
 effort  are  estimated  to  have b'een  spent in Western  Cook
 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.
                            4-88

-------
 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 facili-
 ties 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.

 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  water-
 fowl   hunting  by  either  Natives  or  non-Natives  is una-
 vailable,  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
 Beluga  Point site, on the north shore of  Turnagain Arm, pro-
 duced  core and blade materials  in an undated context?  simi-
 lar materials  from sites elsewhere have been assigned  to  the
 American  Paleoarctic Tradition  of  about 10,000  years  ago
 (Reger  1977,  1981).   The  next  known  occupation  of  the
 region,  also  represented  at  the  Beluga  Point  site,  is
 characterized  by material dating to about  3,000  years ago,
 which  apparently  does  not  have  obvious relationships  to
 cultural remains elsewhere in Alaska.

     Two  cultural  manifestations at  the  Beluga  Point site
 date  between  3,000  and  1,500 years ago.   The  earliest pro-
 bably  is  related to  the Norton culture and thus may  be con-
 nected  with  an  intrusion  of  Eskimo  peoples  or  cultural
 traits  into the area.  Other  sites from the same time period
 and possessing similar  collections  of  cultural  material are
 known from the general area,  particularly  to the north.  The
 later complex  is not well  represented  but may  be  similar  to
a cultural manifestation  known  from Bristol Bay  and dating
to about 500 B.C. (Ross  1971).
                            4-89

-------
     The late period of prehistory  is represented by several
sites  in  the general  project area,  including Beluga Point
where  the  uppermost  level dates  to  around  600  years ago.
Historic sites,  occupied  first  by the  Russians,  later the
Americans  and,   throughout   the  period,  by  the  Tanaina
Athapaskans  (the  Native  people inhabiting the region at the
time of contact)  are common  in  the region,  though few have
been extensively excavated.

     Only one archaeological  site is  known to be present in
the Diamond Chuitna project area  (Gerlach and  Lobdell 1983).
The site is  located on the elevated  bluff  above Cook Inlet
in  the  Granite  Point area within  the confines  of  the coal
storage area  proposed by  Diamond Alaska at  the  port  site.
Shallow depressions,  probably  representing  salmon  storage
pits, were reported at  the site  (TYQ-064).   Further testing
might  disclose  evidence of  habitation   features  or  debris.
Archaeological survey did  not disclose  any  other materials
attributable  to   past  human  use of  the  immediate  project
area.   The  remains of historic  cabins  are  located adjacent
to  the  Ladd  port  site  (TYO-033).    The cabins, which  are
greatly deteriorated,  are frame  and log  structures.    No
archaeological investigations  have  been  carried  out  in the
Northern transportation  corridor.   However,   the  nature  of
the terrain and the extensive vegetative cover suggests the
possibility that other archaeological sites may exist.
                            4-90

-------
         	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  implemen-
 tation .

      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 configurations.

     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 notice-
able or  measurable  in the  vicinity of  the  impact  but would
not be noticeable on a  regional basis.  Regionally signifi-
cant  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  cho^e  not to undertake  the  pro-
 ject.    No  Action  would mean  that none  of  the  activities
 described in Chapter 2.0 would occur.   In  addition,  ongoing
 exploration activities  -. ould 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  develop-
 ment  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  con-
 ditions 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 socioeco-
 nomic  i npacts  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 develop-
ment of other  coal fields as well as providing the economic
 base  for  support  industries  (see  Section 5.7).    The  No
Action  alternative would prevent  or delay industrial devel-
opment  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

 ^•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  gra-
 vel mining  sites.   These  sites would  provide  a maximum  of
 4.3 million  m^  (5.6  million yd-*)  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 m^ (4000 yd-*)  riprap,  459,000  m-*
 (600,000  yd-*)   gravel  or   road  surface   material  and   2.3
 million m^ to 3.8 million m-*  (3  to 5 million yd-*)  unclassi-
 fied  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
 m^  (22  million  yd-*)  overburden  stockpile  would be  created
 from  overburden  and  interburden from the initial box  cut  for
 the mine. Approximately 81  ha (200  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 pre-
 mining  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 face
 would be continually advancing as  new overburden is removed.
 The trailing  edge  of  the pit would also advance as overbur-
 den is  dumped  onto  mined-out  areas.   In  effect,  a  182  ha
 (450 ac)  hole in the  ground would  move  across the landscape
 over  a  30-year period.  The reclaimed area behind the mine
 pit would  be  regraded to  its approximate  premining topo-
 graphy 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

-------
      5.3.1.2  Soils

      Clearing and grubbing operations  for  the mine and mine
 service facilities would  directly disturb over the  life  of
 the mine about  2,050  ha  (5,066  ac)  of  mainly organic soils,
 including  1,127 ha (2,785  ac)  of  Mut^ala-Chichantna, 548  ha
 (1,354  ac)  Mutnala,   and   284  ha   (7  I  ac)  Starichkof  soil
 types (see Tables  4-1 and 4-2 for  characterizing features  of
 the affected soils)(Bechtel 1982).

      The 10-year  mine area consists of  1,436  ha  (3,546 ac)
 of  which  1,047 ha  (2,585 ac)  or  73  percent  consists  of
 Strandline soils that have a  sandy loam texture (ERT  1984d).
 Because of  their  mineral  nature,  these  soils  are valuable
 for revegetation.   Peaty  Starichkof - Chichantna soils  occur
 on 366 ha  (905 ac) of the  10-year  mine area.   The  remaining
 23 ha (56  ac)  consists of  Jacobsen sand and Killey  -  Moose
 River silt loams.

      Because of  the long  period  required  for  soil formation,
 soils in the  Diamond Chuitna mine  area  are highly  suscep-
 tible  to   irreversible,   disruptive  impacts  from  surface
 mining.  A major long-term disturbance  would  result from the
 removal  of soils  sd  overburden  to reach  the  coal seams.

      The initial construction  impact to soils would be  even-
 tually  mitigated  by  implementation of  the reclamation  plan
 and successful revegetation.   The  revegetation  medium  would
 be provided  by  backfilled  overburden  with  a minimum 6-inch
 layer  of  redistributed  topsoil.    The  development  of  a
 favorable  growth medium would be  facilitated by addition of
 fertilizer and control of accelerated  erosion.  Development
 of a biologic  (i.e.,  biologically mature) dynamic soil  pro-
 file  from  overburden  equivalent   to  that  which  currently
 exists would require  a long time period  (hundreds of years)
 in this  subarctic  climate  (Douglas and Tedrow 1959;  Heilman
 1966;  Brady  1974).   The  addition  of a  topsoil layer   con-
 taining  biologic  components  as   currently  planned   would
 greatly  accelerate the  process  of  soil  evolution.    Thus,
 construction,  operation, and reclamation  impacts of the  pro-
 ject  on  existing soils would  be a long-term, but partially
 reversible commitment  of  the resource.   It shouli  be  noted
 that a successful  revegetation program, including  ttainment
 of  a diverse  and  productive community,  is  not   cessarily
 dependent upon the development of a mature soil p  file.

     5.3.1.3   Vegetation

     Commun i ty Compos i t i on

     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,  364 ha   (899 ac)  of open low shrub
scrub/sweetgale-grass   fen,  and  182 ha  (450  ac) of  closed
                            5-4

-------
 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  wood-
 land and mesic  graminoid  herbaceous/blue joint herb  vegeta-
 tion 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   com-
 munity,  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.

      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.

      As  might  be expected, the use of topsoil as a  revegeta-
 tion  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 suc-
 cessional species (e.g., grasses) will readily grow on typi-
 cal  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  con-
 ditions  (or a  successional stage  leading to such) requires
 extrapolation  of data  from  similar areas and project devel-
 opment circumstances.   Because no data  are  directly trans-
 ferable   to   the  Diamond  Chuitna   Project,   conservative
 estimates of  time  required for soils and vegetation regen-
 eration  have  been  obtained by a  review  of  literature docu-
menting 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 20 to 40 years.   This  estimate is based
on regeneration data, including studies  on  secondary succes-
sion  and  revegetation  after   complete  soil  disturbance.
                            5-5

-------
                                    Table  5-1

                     AREA (ha Cacj)  OF  VEGETATION DISTURBED
                           BY VARIOUS MINE COMPONENTS
Project Component
T   T
                                    Vegetation
T
                  Total
                  Area (HaCac])
Mine and Mine
Faci1ities
  Mine

  Mine Service Area
Housing Facilities
and Airstrip
(Lone Creek)

           TOTA_
            20   1356
            (49)  (3351!
                   14
                   (35]
                  (62;
                   25
        6   20   1395
     ;14.8)  (49)  (3447!
182   364   101
(450)  (899) (250)
        8     -
       (20)
         (4.9;
           2
      (2.5;
        1
[2.5;
  1
                             2029
                             (5014)
                              22
                              (54)
(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

-------
 Natural  regeneration after logging to an early successional
 Canada  bluejoint grass  community  occurs  relatively quickly
 in  the project  area  (ERT 1984g).   However, vegetation regen-
 eration   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 eco-
 system in Canada (61 degrees latitude).  Unassisted revege-
 tation  (20   percent  cover)  was attained  in the  same  time
 frame in  the Yukon Territory (64 degrees latitude) on pipe-
 line  overburden  (Younkin and  Martens 1985).    Willow  and
 alder with  an  herbaceous understory have established within
 20  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
 (Howe 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-perpetuat-
 ing  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  20 to  30  years.
 Reestablishment 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 short-
 en  the time  needed  to obtain a self-perpetuating plant com-
 munity .

     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 andEndangered Species

     No threatened, endangered, or special status plant  spe-
cies are known  to occur within the mine area.
                            5-7

-------
      5.3.1.4  Wetlands

      Of the total area directly  altered  by  clearing for and
 construction of  the  mine  and mine facilities,  443  ha (1094
 ac)  or 22 percent is classified as wetlands  according to the
 criteria presented in Section 4.3.2.3 (Table 5-2).   In addi-
 tion to direct adverse impacts,  wetland  structure  and func-
 tion  would  be  altered adjacent to  project  facilities  by
 blockage of  natural  drainage  patterns  and disturbance  of
 wetland inhabitants.

      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  reclama-
 tion  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  off-
 set  this  loss  of peatlands, Diamond Alaska plans to  include
 establishment of  2 to  5 acre  peat-filled  depressions  as  part
 of their  reclamation plan.   In addition, reclaimed  sedimen-
 tation basins would be selectively  revegetated to accelerate
 the  buildup  of  organic  components.    These   experimental
 measures  would  alleviate  wetland impacts  to some extent but
 would  cover  a  small  surface area  compared  to  the  area or
 existing wetlands.

     Wetland-related  impacts  to vegetation  and  wildlife for
 each 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 area are
not  especially  productive  and  the  net primary  productivity
of  replacement  communities  would  probably  be  as   high  or
higher  than  the  communities  which now  exist.    Therefore,
adverse impacts resulting  from  overall loss  of  primary pro-
ductivity would probably  not be  significant on  a  regional
scale.  Food webs would be interrupted locally (in the imme-
diate vicinity of the disturbed  wetland),  but such interrup-
tion would probably  not  be significant on a regional basis
because of  the  isolated  nature  of most  area wetlands  and
the presence of  similar wetlands outside  the  project area.
                            5-8

-------
                                                                                                    Table S-2
                                                              WCIAHCS (ACRES) Of WEHANO IOSI AS A flESUi! »" MINE DEVllOPMtNl OY PKOJIXI COMPGNCN1
Ul
VO
                                                                                                  Met land Type1
pro!
Ff»
rrm
PSSl
EMS pt
H5 COT 101*1.
 Mine Components
    30 year mine  limit''-          2.4he(6ac)
    Nine Service  Area            0,4h«(lec)

 I reimportation torridora
    Southern Corridor haul
    roa
-------
      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  asso-
 ciated with the  interspersed wetlands  contributes  signifi-
 cantly to the overall moderate  to  high  value  of the area to
 wildlife, especially moose and bears.   Postreclamation habi-
 tat value for moose  and  black bear could be  . ass  than pre-
 mining  (Section  5.3.1.5  and  Appendix  A.)  part_y because of
 loss  of habitat  diversity now contributed  by wetlands.

      Significant  impacts  to  local hydrological regimes would
 occur as  a  result  of eliminating,  reducing,  and  altering
  etlands in  the mine  area (Section  5.3.2.1).   Wetland areas
 .ffect the hydrological characteristics of  their  watersheds
 ^n  a  variety of  ways  depending on  wetland  characteristics.
 Wetlands in  the  mine  area store  large quantities  of  water
 and play an important role  in surface water  -  ground  water
 interactions  (ERT 1984c).  The baseline investigations  indi-
 cated that  the  deep  organic  layer underlying the  muskeg
 areas on the  sides  of  the  stream  valleys  forms a  shallow
 ground-water  system  that  contributes  the  majority of  base
 flow   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  percola-
 t'lon;  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 altera-
 tion  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,   post-
 reclamation  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, post-
 mining  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
                            5-10

-------
 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  from regional and local  standpoints.

      Direct habitat  loss from construction  and operation  of
 the mine itself,  the mine  service area,  overburden  stock-
 pile, and associated roads  would  be approximately 2,051  ha
 (5,068 ac)  during the 34-year life of  the project.    In  the
 long  term,   this  loss  would be  largely  mitigated  or  elimi-
 nated for  most species  by reclamation of  the entire  area  to
 reestablish wildlife habitat at  least as  useful and  produc-
 tive  as 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
 small mammal species on  a  local basis  only.  Approximately
 eight existing beaver  colonies  {Fig. 4-4}  would  be  elimi-
 nated during the  life  of the  mine.  This,  and  the  adverse
 impacts on  other  furbearers, would  be significant on  a local
 basis only.

      For  bald  eagles,  the  loss  of  salmon spawning  habitat
 with   its   associated  eagle  feeding activities,  could   be
 significant  on a  local  basis, but  would not be significant
 on  a  regional  basis.   Direct  habitat  loss  for  trumpeter
 swans, sandhill cranes,  and waterfowl would not be signifi-
 cant .

      Direct  habitat  loss  would  be  significant  on  a local
 basis, and  possibly  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 area  for rutting are  unknown.
 Lone  Ridge  is an important rutting area on a regional basis.
 Stress  from  disturbance  or   displacement  could   affect
 breeding success  or  chronology and  could  result  in   reduced
 natality*  and  survival.    For  brown and  black 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
                            5-11

-------
 Beaver, could  be  significant  on a local basis.   These  spe-
 cies,  however,  would  likely adapt  (to varying degrees)  to
 the  presence  of  the  facilities  and  associated  activities
 (Univ. Maine 1983).  Indirect  habitat  loss  would  be  insigni-
 ficant  for  waterfowl,  shorebirds, swans,  and cranes  since
 appropriate habitat is  lacking.   For  bald eagles,  indirect
 habitat loss could  be  significant on  a local  basis,  unless
 they adapt to mining activities  over time.

      For moose and  black  bears,  indirect  habitat loss  ini-
 tially could be locally  significant, but these species would
 likely adapt  to  some  extent  with time to  the presence  of
 noise and activities,  and the degree of initial disturbance
 would probably decrease.  Brown  bears  and marten,  however,
 would likely experience  significant  local  indirect habitat
 loss because  of  their  generally  strong aversion  to human
 activity.   This loss would not be significant  on a  regional
 basis.

      Movements  of  birds and most  mammal  species  with small
 home ranges  adjacent to  the mine area would be  largely unaf-
 fected  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
 • "ihabit 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 (Section  6.3.1.3).

     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.
                            5-12

-------
      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 pre-
 mining 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  indi-
 cated in Table 5-4,  the postreclamation habitat value would
 be  significantly  less  for black bear  and moose  (summer/fall/
 spring). The 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 habi-
 tat  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  com-
 munities 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 post-
 mining   plant  community  and  its  wildlife  habitat  value
 several  hundred  years  after  restoration  cannot be predicted
 with  accuracy,  but it is likely that it would  approach  the
 premining condition.

 5.3.2  Impactsto 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
                            5-13

-------
                                                                             Table 5-3
                                             DIRECT LOSS  OF WILDLIFE HABIIAT AND SUITABILIIY OF HABITAIS IN HECTARES (ACRES)

                                                           FROM HItC DEVELOPMENT BY PROJECT COHPONENT
01
 I
10 Year
- , Mine Limit
Spec lea

Suitable
Sandhill
Crane
X
X
Mine Service
Area
0
	
— .*
Unaultable 2Z(:»5)

Irun pater
Swan


Black Bear



Browi Bear



Maoaa
Spring/ Summer/
Fall

Mooaa
Winter

High
ted
LOM
NU2
High
ted
LON
NU
High
Mad
LOM
NU
High
ted
LOM
NU
High
Had
Low
NU
0
0
0
22(55)
22(55)
0
0
0
22(55)
0
0
0
14(35)
8(20)
0
0
0
0
0
22(55)
Pit
Area
0
0
0
564(1411)
0
0
0
575(1438)
564(1411)
0
0
11(27)
564(1411)
0
0
11(27)
380(950)
85(212)
160(449)
0
0
0
0
575(1438)
Stockpile Roada and
Areas Settling Panda
0
0
0
80(200)
»««.
.._
.»,.
80(200)
80(200)
0
0
0
79(198)
0
0
1(2«)
47(117)
33(83)
0
0
0
0
0
80(200)
0
___
~_«
68(169)
— ...
	
	 .„
68(169)
64(158)
0
0
4(10)
64(158)
___
_._
4(10)
47(117)
21(52)
0
0
0
0
0
68(169)
30 Year
Mine Limit
Pit
Area
0
0
0
2029(5012)
0
0
0
2029(5012)
1982(4955)
0
0
23(57)
1982(4955)
0
0
23(57)
1356(3349)
653(1612)
20(49)
0
0
0
0
2029(5012)
                                Total
22(55)
575(1438)
80(200)
68(169)
2029(5012)
                                1   Exact sighting  not  finalized.


                                2   Nat utilized.

-------
                                   Table 5-4

           COMPARISON OF PREMINING AND POSTMINING HABITAT VALUES FOR
                  EVALUATION SPECIES  (10 YR MINING AREA ONLY)

Eva! uation
Species
Black Bear


Srown Bear


Moose
Summer/Fall


Habitat
Value
High
Medium
Low
High
Medi um
Low
High
Medi um
Low
Premining
Habitat
(Hectares [acres])
660 (1639)
0
0
660 (1639)
0
0
398 (984)
257 (637)
0
Postmining*
Habitat
(Hectares [acres])
0
660 (1639)
0
660 (1639)
0
0
71 (178)
485 (1202)
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

-------
ground water and  can be  considered  important aquifers  in the
local  hydrological  regime (Figure  5-1).   The  mining  opera-
tions  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
northwest beyond  the  mine permit area,  while  the  coal zone
cone of depression is  expected to extend to the mine  permit
boundary (Diamond Alaska 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:   With
          time  and  continued  mining,  this  impact  would
          increase  in  magnitude.    Impacts  of  interrupted
          base flow (ground-water input)  to surface draina-
          ges  would  be  complex.  These  significant impacts
          are  discussed  for  each  affected  stream in Section
          5.3.2.2.

          It   is   anticipated   that    mining  operations
          (dewatering and lowering of  the water table)  would
          affect the  ground-water  regime throughout the mine
          permit  area.   However, these impacts would pro-
          bably  be limited  to  that area due to the  struc-
          tural   faulting  which  borders the  northwest  and
          south  sides  of the  permit  area and due to the pre-
          sence  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.

       °   Disruption  of  the  natural recharge due to mining
          operations:   Natural  recharge to the aquifers is
          predominantly    the   result   of    surface-water
          infiltration  from  both  incident precipitation . d
          snowmelt.   Surface disturbance during mining a,id
          construction   of  support  facilities  and  access
          roads   would   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.
                            5-16

-------
NORTH
  A   1501.2
14D1.2
23B1,2
                            STREAM 2003
                                                  25G
 STREAM 200304
25H1       25E
SOUTH
  A'
CO
2
ui
UJ
LL
UJ
-J
Ul
   - SOURCE: DIAMOND ALASKA COAL COMPANY. 1985
    OVERBURDEN TO COAL
   AQUIFER RECHARGE AREA
                                                SURFACE WATER/PRECIPITATION RECHARGE
                                                                        OVERBURDEN TO COAL AQUIFER
                                                                              RECHARGE AREA
                    SURFACE WATER/
                PRECIPITATION RECHARGE
               OVERBURDEN AND COAL
             AQUIFERS DISCHARGE AREA
                                            COAL AQUIFER
                                           RECHARGE AREAS
              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

              PREDOMINANT GROUND WATER
              FLOW DIRECTIONS
                             LOCATION MAP
                                                     SOUTH PIT FAULT
                                                      GROUND-WATER
                                                      FLOW BOUNDARY
                                                                                                      1200
                                                                                                       1100
                                                                                                       1000
                                                                                     900
                                                                                                       800
                                                                                                       700
                                                                                                       600
                                                                                                       500
                                                                                                       400
                                                                                     300
                                                                                     200
                                                                                     100
                                                                     Limit of subsurface data
        HYDROLOGIC CROSS  SECTION  A-A'
                                                       Diamond Chuitna Environmental
                                                              Impact Statement
                                                                                 FIGURE  5-1

-------
                                                                    Table 5-5
ESI1MAIEO PIT INFLOW RAILS1
Vear of
Operation 3
Inflow to Pits from
Overburden Aquifer
d/mintgpm]) 484(128)
Inflow to Pits from
Coal Aquifer and Sub
Red 1 Sand
(l/inin[gpm])
Total Inflow
(l/n>in[gpm]) 484(128)
Total Inflow
(1/dayCgpdJ) 698,851
(184,637)
U1
,L Vear of
00 Operation 3
Inflow to Pits from
Overburden Aquifer
(l/min[gpni]) 484(128)
Inflow to Pits from
Coal Aquifer and Sub
Red 1 Sand
(l/rain[gpsi])
Total Inflow
(l/mln{gpm)) 484(128)
Total Inflow
(l/day[gpd]) 698,851
(184,637)
No Pit Backfill
45 6789
1,67X442) 1,926(509) 3,511(935) 3,852(1,018) 4,203(1,110) 4,508(1,190)
195(51) 310(82) 424(112) 516(136) 589(156)
1,673(442) 2,123(561) 3,841(1,015) 4,276(1,150) 4,719(1,247) 5,097(1,346)
2,410,602 3,052,819 5,523,325 6, 149,610 6,785,712 7,329,594
(636,883) (807,624) (1,451,197) (1,626,883) (1,795,162) (1,939,046)
With Pit Backfill
45 6789
1,673(442) 1,926(509) 3,198(845) 2,017(553) 2,540(671) 2,725(720)
195(51) 155(41) 159(42) 151(40) 140(37)
1,673(442) 2,123(561) 3,354(886) 2,176(575) 2,691(711) 2,865(757)
2,410,602 3,052,819 4,828,835 3,130,437 3,870,225 4,120,393
(636,885) (807,624) (1,275,782) (828,158) (1,023,869) (1,090,051)

10
4,948(1,307)
661(175)
5,609(1,484)
8,066,351
(2,133,950)

10
1,9U7(5U5)
136(36)
2,120(560)
3,050,150
(806,918)
ERT 19855

-------
        «  Diversion of pit  inflow  and  surface water  in  the
           mine  area   to  nearby  sediment  treatment  ponds:
           Since the treatment ponds are  constructed on  gla-
           cial deposits,  some  water would  infiltrate,  but
           most would be released as surface flow  downstream
           of the mine  area.   Increased surface flows,  with
           increased bank storage, could result  in  increased
           erosion and  channelization;  however,  the  storage
           capacity  of  treatment  ponds would  tend to counter-
           act this  effect  by moderating  extreme  flows.

        °  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.

        °  Degradation  of ground-water  quality from  leakage
           emanating from  sewer  lines  and  sewage   treatment
           areas:    These  impacts would  be  insignificant  in
           the overall  context of  the mining operation.

      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.  Postmining aquifer
 properties would also  vary  from premining  conditions;  how-
 ever,  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 ground-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  be-
 tween  the  ground-water  and surface-water  regimes.   If  an
 equilibrium  condition  similar to the existing condition can-
 not be established, then maintenance of the baseflow contri-
 bution  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.

     5.3.2.2  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
                            5-19

-------
 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 sedi-
 ment 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   in])  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  become
 insignificant.   Impact on the  Chuitna  River from the  above
 effects would not  be  significant.

     One of  the most  significant  physical impacts that would
 result from development of the Diamond Chuitna project would
 be alteration of  the hydrology  of the  Chuitna  River tribu-
 taries  in  the immediate mine vicinity  (s'-'-eams 2003,  2004,
 and Lone Creek).   In  general, the  proposec .nining plan calls
 for mining  to progress from the  northeastern corner  of the
property in  the area of Lone Creek to  the  south  and south-
west.  The mining will with time progress through a substan-
tial portion of Stream  2003 and into several minor left bank
tributaries to Stream 2004.
                            5-20

-------
                                             Table 5-6
                        WATERSHEDS OCCUPIED BY THE MINE AND  MINE  FACILITIES
Stream
1.  Unnamed tributary
    of Chuitna 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)
AtMouth

39.80 km2
(15.37 mi2)
(Station
   C180)

46.98 km2
(17.79 mi2)
(Station
   C110)

49.78 km2
(19.22 mi2)
(Station
   C220)
Drainage
Area within
Mine Limit

14.89 km2
(5.75 mi2)
5.18 kn/
(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.
Watershed
at Mouth

 37.455
   21.25
 11.25!
   14. OS
  5.2S
                                            5-21

-------
      Because  of  important  implications  to fish  resources,
 the chronology  of  changes  that would  occur  within each  of
 these  streams  is  described  in  the  following  paragraphs.
 Emphasis is on potential alteration of  minimum flows because
 such  flows  are most  often limiting  to fish.   Aspects  of
 ground-water  and surface-water  hydrology are  integrated  to
 provide an  overall  view  of  impacts.    In the  absence  of
 detailed information  regarding  the progression of  the  mine
 pit and pit  backfilling,  schedule  of  transferring  treated
 pit water  to  the adjacent streams,  and hydrologic  charac-
 teristics  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 30 years of mining to  be
 those  shown  in Taole  5-6, rough estimates  of the  reduced
 streamflows  after 10 years and 30 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.   Minimum
 flows reflect  primarily base flow  contributions.

     The methodology used  to  generate  the  figures  in Table
 5-7  is   described  below.   The  preminirg 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 incre-
 ments with   minor  adjustments made  by  judgment.    The   same
 heuristic* methodology  has  been used to estimate the reduced
 stream ;lows  after  30  years of  mining.    The   ratio  of  the
 reduct.on  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
 reductions 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
                            5-22

-------
                                                                            Table 5-7
U1
tSIIHAICO MONTHLY HINIMUH









2)











4)







Drainage Area
Stream km2 (mi 2)

Station C2DO, Strenn 20U2 (7.15 ml 2)


(b) After 10 years of mining^


Lona Creek above confluence *Hh 49.78 ka2
Chuilna River, Station C220, (19.22 «i2)
Strew 2002




Strean 2003, jusl downstream of (6.51 ni2)
nine area, Station C140
(a) Presiding
(t>) After 10 years of mining
(c) After 30 years of mining
Unnamed tributary of Chuitna 39.81 k»2
Hi.er, Strem 2005 at mouth, (15.5? •12)
Station C180
(u) Premlnlny
(&) After 10 yeere of mining
(c) After 30 »e«r« of mining



AtltlltUt


U.I
(3.48)
0.09
(3.55)
0.06
(2.20)



I), if,
(9.17)
(9.05)
(B. 25)


0.05
(1.92)
0.05
(1.81)
0
(0)



0.15
(4.66)
0.12
(4.54)
0.05
(1.09)


'j«[ttt;mti(ir


U.M)

0.29
UO.iJ)
0.24
(9.36)



U.6K
(24,77)
(24.65)
<23.83)


0,22
0.21
(7.70)
0.12
(4. 27)



0.49
(17.50)
0.48
(17.27)
0.39
(15.95)
Cat in

ficlolier


D. IB

0.37
0.54
(12.15)



0.71
(25.47)
(25.32)
(24, 4J)


0.22
(7.82)
0.21
(7.61)
0.12
(4.17)



(1B.42)
0,51
(18.21)
0,42
(14.85)
atEd HintaUB

November


0.22
(7.85)
0.22
(7.75)
a.n
(6.57)



a.tt
(17.12)
(17.05)
(16. 2JJ


0.11
(J.8D)
0.10
(5.68)
0.004
(0.15)



0.28
(10.02)
0.27
(9.8?)
0.18
(6.45)
SfRtAMfiOHS







flew m5/»ec (cfs)

December


0.20
(7.51)
0.20
(7.09)
0.17
(4.05)



0.46
(16,57)

(15.0)


0.06
0.05
(2.02)
0
(B)



0.25
(8. 25)
0.22
(7.92)
0.15
(4.60)

Juituury


0.15
(5.18)
0.14
(4.94)
0.11
(5.90)



O.JU
(15.58)
(15.41)
(12.64)


o.aa
(2.72)
0.0?
0
(0)



0.17
(6.11)
0.16
(5.77)
0,07
(2.54)

f L-brusry


0.14
(5.14)
0.14
(4.92)
0.11
(5.88)



0,»2

(11.18)
(10.45)


0.06
(2.10)
0.05
(1,82)
0
(D)



0.14
(4.94)
• 0.15
(4.68)
0.04
(1-57)

Hitrcli


0.1)
(4.62)
0.12
(4.41)
0.09
(5.J4)



0.26
(9.19)
D.2J
(9.01)
0.23
(8.25)


0.05
(l.M)
0.05
(1.72)
0
(0)



0.15
(4.75)
0.12
(4.28)
0.03
(1.18)

April


0.11
(4.68)
0.13
(4,52)
0.09
(3.40)



U.27
(9.82)
0.21
0.25
(8.8B)


n.o?
(2.39)
0.06
0
(0)



0.14
(5.08)
0.14
(4.98)
0.04
(1.51)

Hay


U.BU
O1.60)
o.aa
(31.J6)
0.85
(M.J2)



1.60
(56.68)
1.60
(56.44)
1.58
(55.74)


B-34
(12.04)
0.35
(11.80)
0.24
(8.41)



0.66
(2J.4J)
0.65
(23.12)
0.56
(19.86)

.lllllU


(1.29
(10.4?)
a. 29
(10.50)
0,26
(9.19)



U.4U
(14.51)
0,39
(14.16)
O.J8
(15.57)


o.na
(J.02)
0.08
(2.80)
0
(D)



0.19
(6 .98)
0.19
(6.76)
0.10
(3.41)

July


11.16
(5.56)
0.15
(5.48)
0.12
(4.28)



0.22
(7.B4)
0.22
(7.75)
0.20
(6.90)


0.04
(1.55)
0.04
(1.44)
0
(0)



0.12
(4.13)
9.12
(4.21)
0.02
(0.76)

-------
                                                                                                Table 5-7
ui
NJ
CSIIMAICO MOHIHHf H1NIMHM
(cont'd)
Drainage Area
Strean Io2 (mi 2)
5) fJuiitna Hiver dotmatrean of 542.48 k»2
affected area, Station C2JO (1)2.2) «i2)
(•) Pretkining
(b) After 10 ycera of «ifiing
(c) After 50 years of mining
6) Unruoed tributary of Cnuitna 17.7V
River, Stream 2004, Station CUD,
at Mouth
(a) Pretaining
(b) After 10 years of mining
(c) After 50 years of Mining
7) Unnawtf tributary of OKI Una River, 9.42
Strea* 2004, Station 0)80, About
one mile upstrean of twuth
(B) Premiiung
(b) After 10 years of mining
(c) After }Q years of Mining



1.6D
(60. 17)
1.68
(59.97)
1.41

1.95
1.75
(61.1)

1.0J
(56.4)
0.81



5.98
(215.50)
(212,89)
5.74
(205.10)

4.89
(173,8)
(155.4)

2.5»
(91.5)
2.04
O2 ,08)
Cat imi
October

6.82
(245.72)
6.81
(24). 26)
6.61
(25J.52)

5.01
(m.o>
4.45
(157.2)

2.65
(93.64)
2.09
(75.65)
SIKAHTLUWS







lied Htniatd f Io» »*/aec it. fa)
November

(125.52)
J.S1
(125,28)
5.26
(115.)2)

5.18
(112.4)
•ICAN1 IWACt-
2.82
(99.6)

1.68
(59.56)
rlCAN! I«>ACI-
t.)2
(06.64)


}.oe
(110.14)
5,07
(109.56)
2.8)
(99.94)

1.22
(45.1)
1.08
O8.2)

0.65
(22.97)
0.51
(18.02)


2.80
(102.92)
2.86
(102.54)
2.62
(92.72)

0.74
(26.1)
0.66
(25.3)

0.59
(D.78)
0.51
(10.95)


2.22
(79.27)
2.21
(78.76)
1.95
(69.07)

0.61
(21.4)
0.44
(1».1)

0,12
(11. >1)
0.25
(8.1))


1.66
(59.56)
1.65
(58.96)
1.59
(49.16)

0.24
(8.5)
0.21
(7.4)

0.1J
(4.59)
0.10
(5.55)
April

1.88
(67. )0)
1.87
(66.87)
1.62
(57.10)

J.91
(1)8.2)
5.47
(12Z.6)

2,07
(75.14)
1.6)
(57.4D)
Hay

15.64
(558.61)
15.42
(557.88)
15,52
(54R.41)

8.55
(302.1)
7.59
(268.2)

4.5)
(160.07)
5.57
(126.15)


4.87
(114,04)
4.87
(175.85)
4.64
(165.84)

2.81
(99. J)
2.49
(as.o)

1.49
(52.65)
1.17
(41.54)
July

1.56
(55.76)
1.56
(55.60)
1.29
(45,56)

2.52
(82.0)
2,06
(72.8)

1.25
(4).46)
0.97
(54.28)
           Source:  1.  CRI 1984e,  1985c
                   2.  Oavsa 4 Moore catculatlona

-------
 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 simu-
 lated data.

      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 por-
 tion 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   flov;   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 25 percent.
      Another calculation method using a percent  of  the  pre-
 dicted 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  10
 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 alle-
 viation  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 back-
 filling 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 win-
 ter)  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 tem-
 porarily.  The  up  to  25 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.
                            5-25

-------
      Stream 2003

      Greatest  impact  would  occur  to  Stream  2003  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 2003  and  moving downstream.   Thus,  impact would  be
 cumulative  over  the 30-year  mine  life with maximum  impact
 occurring when the  mine  reached  its maximum extent.   At  30
 years, about 14,200 m (46,570 ft)  of stream channel  would be
 removed along with  14.9 km^ (5.75  mi^)  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 2003  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
 (Ta  le  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 preminin  conditions.   Therefore,  the impacts
on streamflows shown i  Table 5-7  would be expected  to con-
 tinue 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 re^  t
in the  loss  of the  shallow ground-water  system within tae
organic layer  that  currently provides much of the input to
Stream  2003.   Thus, even  after reclamation,  the  postmining
                            5-26

-------
 monthly  minimum streamflows  of  the  affected  streams  would  be
 expected to  be  somewhat  lower  than  the  premining  values
 shown  in Table  5-7.

     The present course of  Stream  2003 and its  tributaries
 within the  mine area  would become extinct due  to  pit excava-
 tion.    It  is  the  applicant's  intent  to  restore permanent
 stable channels  along  the approximate  original  cours'es  of
 these  streams  after  reclamation  using  established  engi-
 neering  techniques.   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  degra-
 dation  until  geomorphologic  equilibrium  were  attained.
 Remedial stabilization  measures would  probably be  required
 during the  early years of restoration.  Furthermore,  there
 would  be no guarantee that the post-reclamation water table
 would  coincide  with the elevations  of  the recreated  stream
 channels.   Therefore, while  it  would be possible to  recon-
 struct stream channels having physical  characteristics simi-
 lar  to  the existing stream  channels,  there  is  no way  to
 predict  whether the new channels would have sufficient  base
 flow  through the  upper  reaches to  provide  year-round  flow
 similar  to  that which now exists.

     Stream 2004

     Toward the  end  of  the 30-year  mine  period,   several
 minor  left  bank  tributaries  of Stream 2004 would  be  mined
 out.   The impacts of mining  through these tributaries  would
 be similar  to those described for Lone  Creek.  These  impacts
 would  include a reduction  in both  surface flow and  the  base
 flow  contribution to  the  stream.   Based on  drainage  area
 considerations  and the  topographic relief  to west  of the
 stream course,  the percentage reduction in flow is estimated
 to be  about  21  percent  of the  normal  flow at the  time  of
 maximum  mine extent.

     Possible alterations  to minimum  flows  as a  result  of
 mining are  presented  in Table  5-7.   Impacts to Stream  2004
 would  be of shorter  duration  than  for the  other  mine  area
 streams  since the stream would not be affected until late  in
 the mine  life.  After backfilling and ground-water recharge,
 base  flows   would be  restored  and  long-term  impact would
 probably  be insignificant.

     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
                            5-27

-------
 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 per-
 cent 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  reducad.   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  20  percent  range  and
 would gradually decrease to near  0 over a  period  of up  to 10
 years  until  recharge  is   completed.   Hydrological  char-:c-
 teristics  of  the   Chuitna  River   after   reclamation  cind
 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 s-:ondary treatment.
 Most  other  water  discharges  from  the  project  would   be
 treated in  upgraded sediment  pond  treatmf  c  systems  prior  to
 discharge.     EPA  criteria  would   require  sediment  pond
 discharge to meet  the following  minimum  requirements (EPA
 1982) :

        0   pH  in the range of  6 to  9

        0   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  less  than
          0.5 ml/1

        °  During   non-thaw   or   non-storm  periods:  30-day
          av rage  of  35 mg/1 and  3.0 mg/1  suspended solids
          ana total iron  re  >ectively;  maximum day value of
          70 mg/1 and  6 mg/i  suspended  solids and total iron
          respectively

        0  During  10-year,  2  -hour  or greater  storm events,
          on^. /  the  pH level requirement of  6 to 9 is appli-
          cable

     In  addition  to  the  EPA pH,  iron, and  sediment stan-
dards,  state standards would apply to protect the current
and possible  beneficial  uses  of the  water.   Generally, the
ADEC receiving water standards would require (ADNR 1984):
                            5-28

-------
        °   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 receiv-
ing  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  Faci1ities

       -   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 drain-
ages  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
construction of long-term sediment ponds.  Eighteen sediment
pond  systems  are  planned  for  the mine and  mine  area  faci-
lity.  Drainage slopes  and most side slopes would generally
be limited to 5 percent  to limit runoff velocities,  although
some  areas would have  slopes up to  12  percent.    On  steep
slopes, alternative sediment control measures include filter
dams,  sediment  filter   fabric  installations,  gravel  pads,
chemical  mulches, and  matting as necessary  (Diamond  Alaska
Coal   Company 1985,  Vol.  XXI).   Sediment  ponds would be uti-
lized until well after the entire reclaimed  drainage is sta-
                            5-29

-------
 bilized and  runoff  naturally meets  background  quality (ERT
 1985c) .

      During  sediment  pond construction,  temporary sediment
 control measures  would   be  employed  to  limit  impacts  to
 streams.  These measures could include  filter  fabric sedi-
 ment  fences,  specific   construction  scheduling,  immediate
 matting and revegetation or other approved techniques.

      The  erosion  precautions  noted  would  be  designed  to
 control major  suspended  solids  discharges  (ERT  1985c).
 However, test  data  illustrates that without  further  treat-
 ment,   sediment discharges  and  corresponding   turbidities
 would   exceed proposed  standards  under  various  conditions
 (Diamond Alaska Coal Company  1985,  Vol.  XXI).  Without floc-
 culation treatment  in the sediment  pond  systems,  effluent
 turbidities   could  range  from  30  to more  than  14,000  MTU
 during major flow  events  {lQ-year/24-hour).   The  high range
 turbidity  would be  in excess of  allowable  discharge  limita-
 tions.   Therefore, additional treatment  using polymer floc-
 culation to increase settling effectiveness  is  necessary  to
 provide compliance.

     Recent  laboratory bench scale and modeling tests  h  /e
 indicated  that  with  a  polymer  flocculation-sedimentat-on
 system,  effluent turbidities  may  be reduced to between 5   nd
 37  NTU* during major flow  (10-year/24-hour) events  (Diar.  nd
 Alaska  Coal  Company 1985,  Vol.  XXI).  Based upon  turbid;-y
 and  suspended  solids  correlations,  Diamond and  the  st-te
 have  estimated turbidities  in  receiving  waters  at various
 flood  flows.    Turbidity  in receiving water  is  expected  to
 range  from  1,500 and 2,000 NTU for a 10-year, 24-hour  flood
 event   (Diamond  Alaska   Coal   Company   1985,  Vol.   XXI).
 Therefore, all  turbidity  criteria would  likely be met  during
 major  storm  events.   Compliance  is  further  projected for
 2-year,  24-hour storm  conditions.

     During  winter  baseflow  conditions,  stream turbidities
 are very low.  Compliance of  discharge at low baseflow con-
 ditions  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  limi-
 tations  on discharge rates, proposed double stage floccula-
 tion for problem sediment pond  systems,  and possible use of
 controll I  discharge versus  stream baseflow  suggests that
 there  is  nough  flexibility built into the system such that
 complianc  can be achieved.

     No  specific   testing  has  been conducted to  determine
what potential  pollutants  may leach from disturbed overbur-
den 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
                            5-30

-------
                                                    Table  5-8
       ESTIMATED SEDMIENT POND EFFLUENT WATER QUALITY1  (AFTER SEDIMENTATION AND FLOCCULATION TREATMENT)
Parameter 	 _^_
Alkalinity as CaCQ3
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 CaCOj (mg/1)
Chloride (mg/1)
Chromium, dissolved (mg/1)
Conductivity ( utnhos/cm 9 25DC)
Copper, dissolved (mg/1)
Fluoride (mg/1)
Hardness as CaCOj (rag/1)
Iron, dissolved (mg/1)
Lead, dissolved (mg/1)
Magnesium, dissolved (mg/1)
Manganese, dissolved (mg/1)
Mercury, dissolved (mg/1)
Molybdenum, dissolved (mg/1)
Nickel, dissolved (mg/1)
Nitrogen, ammonia (mg/1)
Nitrogen,- nitrate/nitrite (uig/1)
Organic carbon, dissolved (mg/1)
pH (units)
Potassium, dissolved (mg/1)
Selenium, dissolved (mg/1)
Sodium, dissolved (mg/1)
Solids, dissolved (mg/1)
Sulfate (mg/1)
Suspended Solids (mg/1)
Zinc, dissolved mg/1)
Projected Sediment
Pond Effluent
Water Quality
(Range)3
5,5
1.4
0.06
11
<0.02
0.01 -

0.2
<0.02
0.1
<0.02
<0.001 -

<0.02 -
<0.01
<0.05 -

5,9
0.25 -
nd
0.4
2
0.27 -
5
<0 . 02 -
43
0,4 (total)
<.Q05
<52
0,52
COOS
10
0
13
<.02
300
0.12 (total)
0.3
<45
3.4 (total)
0.03
4.4
0.2
0.001 (total)
<.02
0.05 (total)
1.5
1.5
<35
7.8
3

35
2QO
20
20*
.08
Anticipated
Receiving Water Receiving
Quality Water Quality
(Ranqe)2 Standard3
5.5
<0 . 1
nd
nd
nd
1.4
nd
0.06
nd
11
<0.02 -
0.01
nd
0.2
<0.02 -
0.1
<0.02
<0.001 -
nd
<0.02
<0.01
<0.05
nd
5.9
0.25 -
nd
0.4
2
0.27
<1
<0.02
43 20 or more
0.4 (total) 	
0.05
0.1 0.043*+
0.004
9.3
4.4 200
0.05
121
0.09 (total)
0.09

3.4 (total)
0.03
2.5
0.2
0.001 (total)

0.05 (total)
1.5
1.5

7.8
2.0

6.0
104
4.5
60
0.04
	
1.0
2.4
	
0.3*+
0.03*
—
0.05*
0.0002
0.07
0.025*+
0.020*+
10
—
6.5 - 9.0
	
0.010
250
500
200
35 mg/l+
0.030*+
nd s no data
*Parameters with potential to equal or exceed standards.
+The receiving water at times equals or exceeds some of these standards now under natural conditions.
NOTES:

  Water quality estimates are based upon an analysis of baseline  data.   No  actual sediment pond  related  tests
  were performed.  This estimate of quality is not statistically  significant and represents possible  ranges
  only,
n
  Range from an analysis of surface water quality.  Does  not  include peak discharge  quality  measurements  (ERT
  1985a).
  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.

* From Diamond Alaska Coal Company  1985,  Vol.  XXI.  Note  - low flow conditions critical and  require additional
  operational modifications for  compliance with turbidity regulations.

  Range from an analysis of surface runoff quality (ERT 1985a) and leach data (Bookcliffs  1985).
                                                 5-31

-------
 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  rond
 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
 sampj,as.   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.    If  required,   aluminum sulfate  (alum),
 ferric chloride, or lime could  be employed for metals preci-
 pitation.   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 depen-
 dent.   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  whicn  would
 occur during dry periods when high runoff exemptions are not
 applicable may be the worst case  condition but are not pro-
 jected 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.
                            5-32

-------
           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.   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  con-
 ditions  for  pit  water quality.   When runoff predominates,
 sediment  levels  after  treatment  may  reach  in  excess   of
 20 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,  pro-
 jected suspended  solids levels would be lower.  It  is signi-
 ficant 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 com-
 mitted   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 sedi-
 ment  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  signifi-
 cant 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
                            5-33

-------
                                                   Table 5-9

        PIT DRAINAGE EFFLUENT WATER QUALITY PROJECTION  (AFTER SEDIMENTATION AND FLOCCULATION TREATMENT)
Projected In-Pit Water Quality
Parameter
Alkalinity as CaCOj
Aluminum, dissolved (mg/1)
Arsenic, dissolved (mg/1)
Bicarbonate as CaC03 (mg/1)
Boron, dissolved (mg/1)
Cadmium, dissolved (mg/1)
Calcium, dissolved (mg/1)
Carbonate as CaCOj (mg/1)
Chloride (rag/1)
Chromium, dissolved (mg/1)
Conductivity (umhos/ctn 9 25 °C)
Copper, dissolved (mg/1)
Fluoride (mg/1)
Hardness as CaCOj (mg/1)
Iron, dissolved (mg/1)
Lead, dissolved (mg/1)
Magnesium, dissolved (mg/1)
Manganese, dissolved (mg/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 mg/1)
Sodium, dissolved (mg/1)
Solids, dissolved (tng/1)
Sulfate (mg/1)
Suspended Solids (mg/1)
Zinc, dissolved mg/1)
Rainfall
Predominated^-
(Range)
5.5
nd
nd
nd
1.4
nd
0.06 -
nd
11
<0.
0.

0.
<0,
0.
<0.
<0.

<0.
<0.
<0.

5.
0.

0.
2
0.
5
<0.
02 -
01
nd
2
02 -
1
02 -
D01 -
nd
02 -
01 -
05 -
nd
9
25 -
nd
4
43
0.4 (total)
0.1
9.3
4.4
121
0.
0.

3.
0.
2.
0.
0.

0.
1.
1,

7.
2.

6.
09 (total)
09

4 (total)
03
5
2
001 (total)

05 (total)
5
5

8
0

0
Seepage Anticipated
Predominated2 Receiving Water Quality
(Range) Standard3
98
<0.01
99
<0.01
17
0
1,6

-------
 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 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  nor-
 mal  sediment levels  and turbidity and possibly  in  boron,
 nickel,  iron, manganese,  ammonia  nitrogen,  and  zinc  con-
 centrations.   The proposed  treatment methods  using   floc-
 culants 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 quality standards without
 the proposed  operational modifications.  Treatment and  remo-
 val  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 quality.   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.
                            5-35

-------
      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  dome, tic   waste  discharges  on the  Chuitna
 River are discussed in detail  in  the Housing Facilities  sec-
 tion 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
 t ^-chniques  also disturb  watersheds,  causing  effects on water
 quality.

      Petroleum  product  spills  into  water  bodies  would  ad-
 versely  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 per-
 cent  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 land-
 filled  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  solid  waste  disposal  sites would  require  fencing
 and periodic covering of deposited wastes to control blowing
 debris and  limit animal problems.   Burnables we:.j-d be inci   -
 erated  prior  to landfill.    Sludges  would  be  stabilized   s
 required  by state  law using  one or  more  of  the approved
 methods prior to inclusion in the landfill.

     Reclamation of  landfill  sites would include covering,
 contouring  for  proper drainage,  and revegetation.   Impacts
would  be limited  to  visual,   noise,  and site  disturbances
                            5-36

-------
 during use.  Upon closure, the reclaimed site would be moni-
 tored 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 com-
 position  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 dif-
 ferent 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
 more  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  sedi-
 ments.   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  hydro-
 logy  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 cause changes in  asso-
 ciated  biota  that would  range  from extreme  and highly pre-
 dictable (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  30-year impact scenarios have been con-
 sidered  (Tables 5-10 and  5-11).

     At the 10-year point in mine development,  4.3 km  (2.67
mi) of smaller  tributaries to Stream  2003  would  be  mined
                            5-37

-------
                                                                                                                       Table 5-10
U)
00
AOUAHC „»««„, ,,*,«MON or r.uN,»u. «r.c,co *««. «
ORAiNAGI 70 2002 2M2 2002 7001 200) 200) 2001
CHUIINA R. 1 <**£ CH, 1 nuC CR. i 1WE CR.
IHIWIUPtY MAIMSIIM IUIK5IIH KMNSIfM MMKMIH KAlNbllN HA1N51CN WINSUH HAllfcJIH
•EACH BflO* 200) UPPtH HIGOU I0«t« UPTt* MIOMC HlOOlt 10*R
Arrtcico u*ci» 13910 >6Ht man 6Si*o 46io 3215 56*5 0020
*€AN WIDW (weterai 22.6 2.4 J.J 6.7 1.8 4 A a, 6
HO* AJTCCIEO HJ/flO* wqmCW MQ/riUM WQ/filW MU/FLOW WO/riUM WU/niM MU/riUM

HU. i HAKIM 1 2 :il ill 5 25 20 15 IK
KOUCIION (M
HAX. PtRCtNlACC
or MOM Nice
SVSICM ISCAPtlCNI
USIW WACX  )
NUIMM
- CH1MMX )7.2 0 0 21 0 0 69. 1 !?.«
- COW 15 ' »« >.2S <.,25 11.5 8.625 «
-PI* J2« 0 10J.5 51.25 51,25 I2J 92.J5 »15
SPAMNIMi PLNSIIr (no./k.)
- CHINOOK ISO 111 100 ««> 10 «UO 100 l»
- cow 10 m 50 ieo jo 50 50 50
- PI* 1500 200 600 900 200 600 600 600
HAJrtMW 1 OSS
Or POIINItAL SP/WWRS <"".)
- CHINOOK 5). 7) >.)4 111.4 61 V 11,52 64.) 6H.&7 60.)
- COM 7.164 14.68 56.1 57.51 M.5> 12.5 41. » 70.1
- PIMt 517,1 IW.9 HO lit 1)2 Hi XM 241
PD1CXIIA1
flEAHtNG OCNSlfV !n«./«?)
~ tMIWOK n.7 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.7 0.7 2.25
- MHO. O.S 2 !.1 1.2 22 2 1
» HAIWON/ 0.5 0.9 0.15 0.) 1 U.15 U.15 1
WHII VAKUln
HAJUHUH LOSS OT POICNIIM.
RLAfllNt SAlHmiOS (no,)
- OUNBOK 5«M.H« 880.J 2'»7, »»». 10)7. 1800. 1}JO, 0160,
- ma un.m m>. iiox. 25u. «i«9 51*4 «n« »».
- *MIW»/ MX2.M 15>5, (29.) >42,1 13! t. 58J.S 5U.O »«*.
ooitr YAMXK
-« »,.S,«4«, (««,««.>
2b!iJ IDitI 2UU]
ifltUXW 2UIH1> JDOMWi
ENHHt, CNtIRE INI1RC
2H^ HSd !100
1.2 1.2 3.a
MINLD HjNiP AAEA
DESfliNtUMC,-
U 500 59





U 0 0
0 I 0
o a Q

ti OS
o no
0 00

10 lil 10
Z8 IU 20
tOO 100 100


Z1*l> H,^ IU.>
42.3 29 21
211.5 14$ 105


U.V 0,S U,i
2 J 3
0.4 U.* 0.4



126V U^U 1260
VQ16 '/IIS SOSS
IQli. 813 tOOfl


2tX5*
MAINS ft 1
UTCH
44 JU
2. a
Mil

3





Q
2,6
0

0
Q
0

M}
H)
0


Q
0
0


0.*
2
t.r



n
u
3


20UA 20O«
4 MAfMSIEH H*[MSI(M
HID(Xt LOKH
SSKJ JKJ20
,.5
Nti NU

0 0





4.6 1.4
!.7 J.I
0 0

0 0
0 »
0 0

MJ tun
50 5@
o a


0 11
0 0
o a


0.7 U.7
! 1,2
0.5 1



U U
0 0
o a


2004
MUM)
UPPER 160 »
«
1 (i)
Nil

V





0 60
0 34
0 100

U !65. )
0 116.625
0 609.75

1U
20
0


0 5U5.12
0 157. 51«
0 »IO


0.5
2
0.5



0 2*751, 2S
U 5J20«.»
0 16*t5.4t

                                         t cm II»M«, i9**t>, in») rox j!MM< EXMACICKISIICSI set IHH.C «-iii  raumiM. ri$H mc«a is
                                   CSIIH4ICCI UilNC MtSUM KASODCHtNIS ( IAB1.I  «-ll) MO 1IK  USUMPHON IHAI  ACa» ntmHEHS CM* I to Sr
                                   BCWM ACIIVIH UK MHOVtO.
.  R10DC1ECIN  IN IIA0IM! fOft OONNStKEAM %ACmS
 no pumas M UK « i&n or rnucci UISIUB
                                 )  RCOUCIIOK ASSIMD IQ Hi  10m fUH SIRrAW 10 m  N1MW IMHOi
                                    HABIIA1 BUJOCIIOB llNtS POICN1IAL  SPAIMlNi: WNSIH 1!«S KltH  «IA tlHt?H>,

(g) BASIU  IM XMIMM MAMIWn HARINC HNSItt (lull  4.11)  IN IMIS W CM'«l«Ht  « W, MSIMS RtHIVIU
    8T  «1 UANNHRS 10 1F5IR1AN NIC8AI ION,
                                                      ! pfiumin y  wtxtww x  HAOHAI HIPICIION nn s INJMNIIAI  HI A
                                                                                                                  ; EMN-.MV  ims w sin

-------
                                                                                              Table  5-11


















CJ!
i
OJ















DfiAIHACC
RCACH
Aft ECHO ICNCEM
MEAN MJOIH (met eta}
AFFECICD AREA [«2J
HE)H AffterCQ
WAX. t H*8I1A1
KM, PIRttHlAK
DT DOCOHCNIED
SISTEH CS£AP£HO*t
USIW. REACH (c)
- CHINOOK
- COHO
- nm
mXlHUH LOSS OF
OOCUCNFC0 SPAMNlftS
- CHI NOW
- COHO
- PINK
POTLN1IAI
&PAWIHC BINSltt (fx
- CHINOOK
- COHO
- Ht*
MAXIMUM lifts
Of PGICNUAl a**.WNtl
- D11WHK
- CBMO
- PINK
KU&1N& KNSUT loo
- CHINOOK
- CSHD
- RilWQW/
OOLLV VAU8CN

20
DAM IMA H.
etlBW 2QGJ
1WO
22,6
40*766
«/nni
s




Ji
HI
60

(»».) 
l?.*1
iHj.n
./»2)
0.7
0.6
0,>

AOiiAitt H*»ii*i t*«u*iiow i¥ »-aiCNn«.iv Arreeicp ICAO^S of MIMI wa* s
20U2 2M2 2802 2HQ! ?1M3I 200 S 2001 2005
1 flN£ CK . 1 ()NC CK . 1 IWf CM .
MAINS IE M HAtNSlCH MA1KSICH MAlWjItM HRlN^UM KAINSUM HMNSltH KNIJOA
UPPER Hiildt IQWK uftP£3 HiODlt M«10l£ LOwCS CMURt
tu£f>er} (to*eri
J6 JD It HO 6 l**U <*fi1ft 321^ i6Ai 4020 2B20
2. S J,7 A./ t.B 4 4 4.6 1.2
884)8 4 mB 429 1 > ttHS UHfefl 2258U 16491 )>S4
k^/riOX hfl/HCft* WQ/lLUW HINCD HfHCO MQ/FLOW MJ/ftOW MlHED
40 JO HI 1UO 1UG K3 2J 10O




0 D ? U 0 ?-> &.) 0
l.fl 1.2 ?-4 1 2-> 2.5 2-* 0
D * 1 1 > 9 9 0


0 0 «2 0 G M9.6 28J.S O
14 16 18. > 2> 3?.) 46 45 0
0 IQ> 102 . i 20) 6t> 49t HI .t 0


10 30Q Sift IU 100 100 IK! 10
20 MJ ISO «3 iO >0 Ml 20
2(M» ' MM "(10 200 600 £00 600 100


14. iB 226.8 127. B *(.-1 )2t.i 4*1,6 »«,J 28.2
SE9.WS 113. a ItS.O U8.5 IdO.? 22$, 8 150.? H.*
29>,6 1H1 256 9Zt 192* I?IO 16B!» 28Z

0-> 0,3 U.? 0,4 0,7 0,7 2.1* 0->
2 >.J 1.2 22 2 1 2
0.7 Q.I* 0.) 1 U.llr 0.14 1 B.*

>lm AHS (T4AN Ht3U)

ZUUJ 2(X]} 2flO& 2UG4 IU04 20CM
jnUH)1* iftmhlb KAINSItH KAINSriH HAlHSIlM 200*0)
CNllftC CtllfU IffPtR
Utt) 2100 4610
1.2 2.4 ?,a
U*U 1>QAO 1HI2
NlNtP MJ*u Mq/TL^«
100 )OH 13




oo a
t 0 2.6
00 0


50 0
24 0 6.)
00 0


10 iq >o
20 20 JO
tOO 10Q 0


1».> 21 2>.1i
29 42 11.89
1*^ 210 0

0.4 0.4 (KS
52 2
0.4 0,4 1.7


[DIALS
HfDOtC tmCfi UPPCfl >60 *
aflMJ J02Q J*0
>.K >.9 1 fi)
1^9)9 nnu J60
yQ/fLOM MQ/FlOM HfHCE)
20 IS 1CKJ




4.6 3.4 0
>.? 2,7 0
000


«,2 50.6 0
1B.* 10.12 0
0 0 0


60 100 10
50 M 20
000


*?.% 4>.) 1.6
48. i 2Z.&5 7-2
000

0.7 0.? O.S
S 1.2 2
O.S 1 O.S

7&01D

tuyy^fl
.
-




*u
&4
130


833.9
S64.A2S
29ES.35







tV6«,?65
1t?0.?J
1I26»





KftXlMUN LOSS QT PflTENIIAl
WAJUHC SAtNONIOS (no. J



- CHINOOK
- COHQ
- RAINBOW/
t4U4.«I
U 142. 98
10119. 1>
U6 3 . W« . 299&. 6 td9 9002 ' 126«* 3120^ 1692
7046. 2601 J MJJ. t6!96 Z>?20 M126 13B69 6?6a
J17D m9. 1J&4. 8198 1929 2709. 13069 ir-K
87G 2520 ^Si.6
4220 lOOBO 2122.
«?D 701& 1889.
2251, 12)6. 180
9«), 2120. 72D
159J. 1?&*. 180
91036.24
17954?, 7
!>zioe
C«) SOUflCEi  fRI  (198fl*.  !98*b,  19B»  FOR SIRCAH CHARACIEHISTlCSi S££ IKBlE  4-11;  PDIENI1AL flSH USCAQC IS
    CSllWUe y^lHC BASfl.lrf  HTASUftEHtHlS (IAHLC «-11> AND lift  «S$MMPlfON  IHA1 JCCCSS PKHM-tXS. OttAICO flt
    GEAVER ACHVI1T HK  MHDVtD.

(b) DEDitCHON ASSUfCD 10 61  10Q&  FOH  SiR£*«S  10 Bi MlNfG IMHOUCH. WCMfCMOM IN HA9if*I fOfi EXMrSISCAM IS ACHE 5
    MCHt  ASS I CM 0 BASiO  (M COMBIKO EfHCIS UF  MllK OUAltIV AM* HOK CMAfCi S »(  I)i£ HtlCMt OF PTOJtCI DISTM-
    &*NCi FQH 1HAT ttACH.

Cc) SEC IAB.C 4-10.   OMIIINA  PCRCtNlACtS liASiO  ON tftl SMi CMIdU J b-9); OflBK PiRaNlAGLS PeOPflfinQNtD ON
    IHL 6A5is or  MHOS  or RIWH  AM* wprcito  to iai& *KIA or mi K:A:H ran MUCH S^AMNIHC OAI*. is AVAR-
    ABtt.  KHUNfAC£ tOR  Pit*  &UHON JS 2002 AM) IOOJ AW IK D 10 bJ 10 6ASCO ON  LAftGt Nt»eC)iS Pf^SCNI IN 19H),

(d) HAXtHJM PtRCtNIAtC USING  IKC  KACH IIMLS  fNC HAXtHM PlKClNI ItABtfAl HtOltCflUN  fiHtS MKINUH OOCUHTNUD
U) BASED OH MAXIMUM 06Si«vUJ  S^AMs£R UCNSITICS IN IHt HCAOf IN QUKSMON OR A CGMFAfUfiU R£*£M IN AN AOJ*CC**I
                           OF  S!8£«* N1OIAIJOW SAfidlCSS AMD VflMUN OOTAtt 5Ufi*!¥*i,
it)
            Of  MMIHUM » HABItAf
)  BAStD ON  HAK1NUH M Ab«HE0
  DT  «t  B*RS!t»S 10 U^SIRCA
                                          flHES NJJCNItW. SPANNING DOtSm IINCS «*£« *SJ* (UNCIH).

                                     IKNSIIY d»m( 1-111  (14 IHJS  OR CnMPANARtC f&ATH;  ASSMMC 5 RCHClV
                                    !ilW.

                                     uoN nxs pytcNiiM MARINC  w.*sm  UMIS m*o< ARIA c*2>.

-------
 through,  in  various  stages  of  preparation  for mining,  or
 occupied by  sediment  ponds  (Table 5-10).   Full development
 of the  30-year mine pit would  result  in  the direct destruc-
 tion 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  quality 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  sedi-
 ments 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  30   N.T.U.)  greatly
 reduces   feeding   efficiency    (Berg  and  Northcote  1985).
 Reduced  light  penetratiota  of turbid water, if prolonged, may
 decrease  growth of periphyton*  on  which some  fish food orga-
 nisms  suosist.   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 asso-
 ciation  with  periods  of high runoff when stream velocities
 and turbulance are great enough  to prevent significant depo-
 sition.  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.

     The  planned  erosion  and water  quality  control program
 for  construction  and  operations  should  reduce   sediment
 introduction  during  critical   low  flow  periods.    Erosion
                            5-40

-------
 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 reten-
 tion  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 2003) 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  harm-
 ful.   If water quality standards are met during mine opera-
 tion, 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 pre-
 dictably)  temperature  (EPA 1972j Hodson and Sprague 1975).
 Acute toxicity generally  increases with decreasing pH (below
 7,0) as  a result (in  part at least)  of  the increased  mobi-
 lity  and  bioavailability of  metals  (EPA  1976).   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/1  (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, accli-
 mation  temperature,  exposure  temperature,  and metals  con-
 centration  (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  popu-
 lations in contaminated reaches of the Campbell River system
 (British  Columbia),   concluded  that  metallothionein   con-
centration 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  cri-
                            5-41

-------
 terion  for  zinc  (0.047  mg/1).    These  levels are  all  well
 below the maximum level  of 0.534 rag/1  shown  by  Holcombe et
 al. (1979) to have  no  effect  on survival,  growth,  or repro-
 duction 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  rag/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  elimina-
 tion of headwaters  could  alter water  chemistry  to a  suf-
 ficient  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 opera-
 tion would result in changes  in stream habitat for  anadro-
 mous 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
 an   instream  flow  incremental   methodology  (IFIM)   on  Lone
 Creek  and  Stream  2003  for  the  first 10  years of mine  life
 using  the  me-.hodology  developed  by   the  U.S.  Fish  and
 Wildlife Servi ;e  (Bovee 1982).   Their results  indicate  that
 for  "normal"  water  years,  slightly  decreased flows  (0.028
 m-Vsec  [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  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 downstream  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
                            5-42

-------
 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  19853.
 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  summer-
 time  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  like-
 lihood  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.

     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  relation-
 ship  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  example, a few days of  lowered
 flows  during  the  summer  might  reduce  fish growth   rates
 somewhat  but would  be  unlikely  to cause  significant  mor-
 talities.    This  application  is  therefore  conservative and
 represents a worst-case scenario.

    Because  access  to many areas  of the three mine  area  tri-
 butaries  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 maxi-
mum  documented  spawner  densities,  and  2)   using  estimated
potential maximum  densities  of   both  spawners and rearing
fish.  Calculations  using  potential maximum densities  indi-
                            5-43

-------
 cate that at year 10, habitat for 505 chinook, 360 echo,  and
 3,320  pink adults might be lost, assuming a maximum escape-
 ment 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  11,300  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 per-
 cent, respectively,  of the maximum  estimated  system escape-
 ments 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-to-adult  survival.   At the 30-year  point  in  mine
 life  (Table 5-11), habitat  losses  could  affect 91,000  chi-
 nook, 179,300  coho,  and  52,300  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 maxi-
mum  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
                            5-44

-------
 or   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 habi-
 tat 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 1.01  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 quality  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 10 and 30 years, respectively) would  be lost
 from the  mainstream  of  Lone  Creek  and  2003  where heavy
 spawning  was  noted in  1980,

 5.3.3   Impacts  tothe Marine Environment

     There  would be  no   impacts  to  the marine environment
 associated with the mine  and mine  facilities,

 5.3.4   Air QualityImpacts

     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  pollu-
 tants including nitrogen  oxides  (NOX)/ sulfur dioxide  (S02)>
carbon monoxide  (CO),  hydrocarbons (HO, particulate  matter
                            5-45

-------
                                          Table 5-12

           WEIGHTED MAXIMUM POTENTIAL HABITAT LOSS (HA) BY LOCALLY ASSIGNED CATEGORY,
                                DRAINAGE AND SPECIES (YEAR 1U)
Habitat Value
Vtry High



High



Medium



Low



System
- Chuitna
- 2002
- 2003
- 2004
- Chuitna
- 2002
- 2003
- 2004
- Chuitna
- 2002
- 2003
- 2004
- Chuitna
- 2002
- 2003
- 2004
Chinook
0.81
0.21
0.18
0
a
0.42
0.60
0
0
0.18
0,42
0
Q
0
0.46
0
Evaluation
Coho
0
0.42
0.60
0
0.81
0.39
1,07
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 .
0
0
Species
Pink
Q
0
0
0
0.81
0.63
1.00
0
0
0.18
0
0
0
0
0.68
0
Rainbow/Dolly Varden
0
0
0
0
0.81
o.ia
0.39
0
Q
0.63
1.28
0
0
0
0
0
Total Potential Losa
                   - Very  High
                   - High
                   - Medium
                   - Low
1.21
1.02
0.60
0.46
1.02
2.27
0
0
0
2.43
0.1B
0.68
0
1.38
1.91
0
 This 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.
                                            5-46

-------
                                          Table 5-13

          WEIGHTED HAXIMUM POTENTIAL HABITAT  LOSS (HA) BY  LOCALLY  ASSIGNED  CATEGORY,
                                DRAINAGE AND  SPECIES  (YEAR 30)
Habitat Value
Very High



High



Medium



Low



System
- Chuitna
- 2002
- 2003
- 2004
- Chuitna
- 2Q02
- 2003
- 2004
- Chuitna
- ZOO 2
- 2003
- 2004
- Chuitna
- 2002
- 2003
- 2004
Chinook
2.02
0.43
1.39
0.18
Q
0.84
3.09
0,32
0
0.35
0.51
0.15
0
Q
1.33
0
Evaluation
Coho
0
0.84
3.09
0.04
2.02
0.78
3.23
0,32
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Species
Pink
0
0
0
0
2.02
1.27
5.31
0
0
0.35
0
0
0
Q
1.02
0.64
Rainbow/Dolly Varden
0
0
0
0
2.02
0.35
2.22
0.39
0
1.27
4.11
0.35
0
0
0
0
Total Potential Loss
                   - Very  High
                   - High
                   - Medium
                   - Low
4,02
4.25
1,01
1.33
3,97
6.36
D
0
0
8.60
0,35
1.66
0
4.88
5.73
0
 This area is  the  sum of  the  products of aret and maximum habitat reduction (Table 5-12)
 for  each reach  with the  habitat value in question.
                                            5-47

-------
 (PM),  and  lead  (Pb).   Any project,  before it can  be per-
 mitted,  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  SC>2  and  PM  (stationary
 sources only).

      Due to the large amount of particulates associated with
 mining projects,  particulate  emissions are of special con-
 cern.   Air  quality  impact  analyses  have' been performed  to
 quantify the PM  and  SC>2  impacts  associated  with the  project
 (TRC Environmental Consultants 1986,  1987a,  1987b).  An ana-
 lysis 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.

      Production  phase   emissions   sources   would   include
 those which  produce particulate  matter only and those  which
 produce gaseous  pollutants   (NOX,  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 ma~ter
 are  shown in Table  5-14.   The  estimates  are  called int  r-
 mediate  production  and full production, corresponding to   :e
 *:hird 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 pre-
 sented  in Tables  5-16 and 5-17,  respectively.  Calculations
 of all  emissions  plus discussions of potential but insigni-
 ficant  air emissions  sources are  given  in Appendix  E.  Where
 feasible, emissions  were assigned to one  of the  four  func-
 tional  areas  of  the  project:  the mine area,  the  mine ser-
 vices  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 per-
mit.   It, was  the  applicant's initial  plan  to bury the slash
material in  the  backfill areas of the  pit.   However, other
mi t.
                            5-48

-------
                                  Table  5-14
PRODUCTION-PHASE ANNUM, PARTICULATE
Source
Mine Area:
Land clearing/reclamation
Overburden removal - truck shovel
Overburden removal - dragline
Overburden hauling
Overburden dunping
Coal removal
Coal hauling
Ccal duirping
Coal primary crushing
Wind erosion
Haul road itaintenance/graders
Mine area combustion sources (a)
Mine Area Subtotal:
Mine Service Areas
Secondary coal crushing
Coal screening
Coal handling
Coal stockpile
Wind erosion
Mine Service Area Subtotal:
Port Area:
Coal handling
Ccal stockpile
Wind erosion
Port area combustion sources
Port Area Subtotal:
Housing Area:
Housing area ccrobustion sources (a!
Housing Area Subtotal:
General Project Area:
Overland conveyor
Miscellaneous vehicle traffic
General Project Area Subtotal:
TOTAL
Intermediate
Production
Emissions
(ton/yr)

55.5
0.1
165.0
225.6
0.1
6.3
43.6
0.0
0.6
38.0
15.6
35.0
585.4

1.8
3.0
0.0
20.5
10.0
35.3

0.0
218.1
11.9
6.6
236.6

7.7
7.7

8.4
9.1
17.5
882.5
EMISSIONS
Full
Production
Emissions
(ton/yr)

55.5
0.1
221.4
62.9
0.1
12.6
87.3
0.0
1.2
35.9
15.6
30.4
523.0

3.6
8.0
0.0
20.5
10.0
40,1

0.0
218.1
11.9
6.6
236.6

7.7
7.7

8.4
9.1
17.5
824.9
Note: Bnission rates listed as 0.0 are less than 0.05 tons  per year.
(a)Further delineated in Table 5-15.
                                        5-49

-------
                                   Table 5-15

               GASEOUS MID PARTICUIATE ANNUAL COMBUSTION EMISSIONS

£- rce N
Annual
Ox S02
Emissions I
03
;tons per year)
voc
FM
 Mine Area

   Slash burning            4,8          0.0       167.9        28.9        20.4
   Haul  tracks           96.3(172.8)b  10.5(19.1)  27.0(48.1) 4.3(8.0)    5.9(10.5
   Dozers                  92.8          7.8        40.0         4.3         3.7
   Graders                  4,3          0.5-         0.9         0.2         0.4
   Fuel  Storage             —     ___JZ__      —          3.0	—

   Mine  Area  Subtotal  198.2(274.7)   18.8(27.4) 235.8(256.9) 40.7(44.4) JO.4(35.0)

 Port  Area

   Ships                   15.0          95.1         2.1         0.2         6.6
   Fuel  Storage             —           —          —         11.1

 Housing Facility

   Incinerator               3.3          2.7        11.0         3.3         7.7

 General Project Area

  Miscellaneous
    vehicles                Q.1          0.0         0/7         0.1         0. 0

Total                    216.6        216.6       249.6        55.4        44.7
                        (293.3)      (225.2)     (270.7)      (59.1)      (49.3)
                                                                   1

a Haul  truck emissions include overburden and coal handling.

b Numbers in parentheses reflect emissions for production year 3 where these
  differ  from  full production emissions.
                                    5-50

-------
                                   Table 5-16
                FULL PRODUCTION SHQRT-TEBM PfSSZOJlfSE EMISSIONS
               Source
 Mine Area:

   Land clearing/reclamation
   Overburden removal - truck shovel
   Overburden rasoval - dragline
   Overburden hauling
   Overburden dunping
   Coal removal
   Ccal hauling
   Coal dunping
   Ccal primary crushing
   Wind erosion
   Haul road naintenance/gradera
   Mine area combustion sources

 Mine Area Subtotals

 nine Service Area:

   Secondary coal crushing
   Coal screening
   Coal handling
   Coal stockpile
   Wind erosion

 Mine Service Area Subtotal:

 Port Area:

   Coal handling
   Coal stockpile
   Wind erosion
   Port area combustion  sources

 Port Area Subtotals

 Housing Area:

   Housing area combustion sources

 Housing Area Subtotal:

 General Project Area:

   Overland  conveyor
   Miscellaneous  vehicle traffic

 General Preject  Area Subtotal:

 TOTAL
 Pull
 Production
 Bnissions
 Clb/hr)
  13.7
   0.0
  50.6
  14.4
   0.0
   2.9
  19.9
-------
                                   Table 5-17
               PRODUCTION 1£ERR 3 SHOOT-TERM PAKTteUMTE EMISSIONS
               Source
Production
Year 3
Emissions
(Ib/hr)
 Mine Area:

   land clearing/reclamation
   Overburden  -asoval - truck shovel
   Overburden .anoval - dragline
   Overburden hauling
   Overburden dunping
   Coal rarcval
   Coal hauling
   Coal dunping
   Coal primary crushing
   Wind erosion
   Haul road neintenance/graders
   Mine area combustion sources

 Mine Area Subtotal:

 Mine Service Area:

   Secondary coal  crushing
   Coal screening
   Coal handling
   Coal stockpile
   Hind erosion

 Mine Service Area Subtotal:

 Port Area:

   Coal handling
   Coal stockpile
   Wind erosion
   Port area combustion sources

 Port Area Subtotal:

 Housing Areas

   Housing area combustion sources

 Housing Area Subtotal:

 General Project Area:

   Overland  conveyor
  Miscellaneous vehicle traffic

 General Project Area Subtotal:

TOTAL
  13.7  Based on 333 days per year versus 365 days per year.


-------
 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  pro-
 ject,   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  par-
 ticulates.    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  accom-
 modate  the  Diamond Chuitna  project.   Diamond Chuitna's needs
 for  this  project  would be  approximately  33 megawatts on 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  30  MW  turbine   for
 average demand and two 30 MW turbines operating to  meet  peak
 demand.

     The major  air  emission control  measures currently  pro-
 posed 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  stock-
 piles,  and  compaction  of the unused  portions  of the  stock-
 piles.   Air  emission  controls  for  specific activities   are
given in more detail in Appendix E.

     5.3.4.2  Air Dispersion Modeling Results

     Air dispersion  modeling  (TRC Environmental Consultants
1986, 1987a,  198?b, 1988)  was performed  to  determine   the
short-term  and long-term impacts  of production  phase par-
ticulate 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:
                            5-53

-------
                    Table  5-18

      CONSTRUCTION  AND  TEMPORARY EMISSIONS
Annual Emissions (tons per year)
Source
Construction
Land Clearing
-Fugitive Dust
-Tai Ipipe Exhaust
Slash Burning
Total Construction
Temporary
Overland Truck Coal Haul
-Fugitive Dust
-Tai Ipipe Exhaust
Total Temporary
NO*

103.0
4.8
107.8


220.3
220.3
S02

8.6
0.0
8.6


24.0
24.0
CO

44.3
167.6
211.9


61.6
61.6
VOC
4.7
28.8
33.5


10.0
10.0
PM
61.6
4.1
20.4
86.1


343.0
13.6
356.6
                   Table 5-19

   POTENTIAL TURBINE EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH
POWER GENERATION FOR THE DIAMOND CHUITNA PROJECT
Pol lutant
NOX
S02
PM
voc
CO
Gas
Peak Hourly
(Ib/hr)
165.1
negl igible
5.7
1.7
11.1 .
Firing
Annual Average
(tpy)
723 .
negl igible
25.0
7.6
48.6
                     5-54

-------
        0   pit  sources:  those located  in  the  area where the
           mining   and  overburden  removal  operations  are
           ongoing
        a   mine  area haul  roads:  including the haul trucks,
           other vehicles,  and graders
        °   mine  facilities  area:  including  crushers,  con-
           veyors,  and the  mine stockpile
        °   overland conveyor
        0   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 PM}_o ambient  stan-
dards,  as  well as  the PSD  increments for TSP and  the project
is in conformance  with the Alaska State Implementation  Plan.

     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 construc-
tion  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 per  cubic
meter  TSP  and  the new  PM]_Q  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" opera-
tions in  port.   Table 5-21 shows the SC>2 impacts associated
with coal  ship  operations•at the port.  Peak predicted con-
centrations  for  3-hour and  24-hour averaging  periods  were
122 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  nq/m^ 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.
                            5-55

-------
                                  Table  5-20
                         AIR QUALITY MODELING ANALYSIS
                TOTAL  SUSPF1DED PARTICUIATE  (TSP) CONCENTRATIONS
                               Background       Total       PMlO(a)    TSP(b)
  Production     Modeled TSP      TSP            TSP       Ambient     PSD
Phase/Averaging Concentration Concentration Concentration Standard  Increment
    Period	(ug/m^)	(ug/m^)	(ug/rn^)	(ug/m^)


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)       36.8        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 PM10 concentrations will always be less than or equal to the
     TSP concentrations.

(b)  The modeled TSP concentrations should be compared with the PSD increments.

(c)  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).

(d)  Average TSP concentration observed at Tesoro Petroleum Corporation air
     monitoring station 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.
                                  5-56

-------
                                  Table 5-21
                         AIR QUALITY MODELING ANALYSIS
                         SULFUR DIOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS
Averaging Period
3-hour
24-hour
Annual
Peak Project
Concentration
(ug/rn3)
122
21
NA(a)
Background
Concentration
(ug/m3)
35.0(b)
7.0(b)
0.3(b)
Total
Concentration
(ug/rn3)
157.0
28.0
ND(d)
Ambient
Standard
(ug/m3)
1300
365
30
(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 June
     1,  1981, to  May 31, 1982,  (Radian 1982).

(d)   Not determined.
                                     5-57

-------
      5.3.4.4  Summary

      In summary, during project  construction,  operation  and
 reclamation, maximum pr  icted  short- and  long-term  con-
 centrations of  particule    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 appli-
 cation for a  permit to operate from the Alaska  Department  of
 Environmental Conservation.

 5.3.5  No i s e  Impa c t s

      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 infre-
quently.   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 occa-
sional  blasting)  would  be   audible   to  Tyonek  residents.
Noise-related impacts to wildlife are discussed  in Section
5.3.1.5.
                            5-58

-------
                                  Table 5-22

                      ESTIMATED SOUND LEVELS GENERATED BY
                      MINE AREA EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES
Sound Source                               Sound  Pressure Level 1
                                                  dB(A)
Blasting                                   170 @ 91  m (300 ft)

Bulldozers                                  87 @ 15  m (50 ft)

Front-end Loaders                           90 (P 15  m (50 ft)

Haul  Trucks                                 90 (P 15  m (50 ft)

Primary/Secondary Crushers                  95 @ 15  m (50 ft)

Utility Vehicles                            80 i 15  m (50 ft)

Aircraft Operations                         95 @ 15  m (50 ft)

Conveyor                                    78 @ 10 m (33 ft)

For Compar1 son:

OSHA Regulation
   (15 min. exposure)                      115 (max. allowable)

Jackharnmer             '                     95 @ 15 m (50 ft)

OSHA Regulation
   (8 hr. exposure)                         90 @ ear

Automobile
   (100 km/hr [62 mi/hr])                   71 § 15  m (50 ft)

Typical Outdoor Noise
   (wind, rain, birds)                      40 @ 15  m (50 ft)

Soft Whisper                                35 @ 2 m (6 ft)


 1   The sound pressure level in decibels (Db) corresponding to a sound pres-
     sure (P) is compared to a reference level of 20 micropascals.   Sound
     pressures for various frequencies of noise are  weighted by factors (A
     weights) which account for the response of the  human ear.   The sound
     pressure level is dB(A) = 20 LoglO (P/20).
                                     5-59

-------
 5.3.6  Socigeccnomic 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
 of  full-scale  operation.   Air   transportation  to  the  site
 would be provided by the applicant from Anchorage  and Kenai.

      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 alter-
 natives 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 esti-
mated direct  increase  of approximately 650 jobs during the
 construction  period  and  424  jobs  during  full-scale  mine
                            5-60

-------
 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

      The effect  of the 650 construction  and 424 mine opera-
 tion  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.

      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,  par-
 ticularly   if  state-wide  efforts  to discourage  potential
 migrants without  jobs from moving to the state are  success-
 ful.

     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 640  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 popu-
lation  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
                            5-61

-------
 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  immigrating  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 the City of  Kenai).  The  proportional  increase
 would decline over time as  the  local socioeconomy  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  improve-
 ment  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 300
 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 pro-
 ject  could be accommodated.

      The population increase attributable to the project (up
 to  1,600 persons) would also increase demand for health ser-
 vices.    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 ade-
 quate  to  service  demand  well  into  the  1990s.    If water
 demand  growth is equal  to annual  projected without-project
 population  growth  of 5  percent,  peak dail  demand  in 1992
 will  be  1.7 million  gallons  per day  (mgd).   If  the current
 per  capita  peak  daily demand of  343  gallons  >er 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  pro-


                            5-62

-------
 ject.   The population  increase  attributable to mine  opera-
 tion   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  19-85
 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  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  com-
 munities  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.

     MineConstruction

     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 inmigra-
 tion  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 contri-
                            5-63

-------
 bute 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 resi-
 dents frequently  falls  short of expectations.   Low employ-
 ment levels of Tyonek residents at the KLM timber harvesting
 operation and chip mill  in the late  1970s  provide an illus-
 tration 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  oppor-
 tunities  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 associ-
 ated with the Diamond  Chuitna Coal Project.  These employ-
 ment 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
 administrati. 2 positions (Table 5-23).   Table 5-23  also pre-
 sents the  skills  present in  Tyonek1s  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  facili-
 ties.   Hence, the  coal project has  the potential  to  alle-
 viate 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 residents' 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 Populationand Infrastructure

     Because  Diamond  Alaska  plans  to   house workers  in  a
 "single  status"   housing  facility,   short-*: 2rm  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 pro-
vided by  the  applicant  at  the housing facility.   Impacts on
community  population  and infrastructure for  other  communi-
ties, such as Kenai and Anchorage,  were discussed earlier.
                            5-64

-------
                                Table 5-23

               MINING PHASE EMPLOYMENT BY OCCUPATIONAL GROUP
         Occupational Group
   Mine
Employeesl
 Number in
 Tyonek2
         Heavy Equipment
           Operators

         Light Equipment and
           Truck Operators

         Mechanics and Skilled
           Maintenance

         Life Support Personnel
           (e.g., cooks, house-
            keepers, etc.)
         Administrative
                              Total
   218


   125


   289



   110

   106

   848
    12


    25


    13



undetermined

    13
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.
                                  5-65

-------